asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government's ambassador with responsibility for Nicaragua last visited Managua.

Her Majesty's ambassador, who resides in San José but is also accredited to Nicaragua, is in Managua. He last visited Managua from 17 to 19 December 1985.

We are glad to hear that the diplomat is in Managua. Does the Secretary of State accept that the efforts of the United States to isolate Nicaragua are self-fulfilling? Do the Government support those efforts? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that to promote the Contadora process for peace necessitates regular communications in Managua by our representative? What progress is being made towards that end?

We support the Contadora process and have our own policy in that respect, in line with that of our European partners. On 20 January the Foreign Affairs Council gave a public welcome to the fresh impetus given to the Contadora process in Caraballeda in Venezuela, and we issued a statement urging that concrete steps be taken to facilitate the Contadora process. We obviously take steps to ensure that the United States is aware of our views. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of representation in Managua. It was for that reason that I decided that the post should be reopened in May 1984, and its manning is kept under constant review.

What the Secretary of State has just said is welcome, but is he aware that last week the Minister of State, his hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), said:

"Terrorism is terrorism from whomsoever it comes … wherever terrorism occurs it must be condemned"?—[Official Report, 30 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 1109.]

We have made it plain that we do not believe that the problems of Central America, any more than of any other region, can be solved by armed force. We have urged the need for restraint on all sides, and we have taken note of and welcomed the statement by President Reagan some time ago that he is not seeking the military overthrow of the Sandinista Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the means by which his Department secures its objectives of promoting and protecting British interests overseas; how he is monitoring their implementation; and if he will make a statement.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office departments and posts work to agreed objectives and their performance is subject to regular assessment and review. This permits flexibility in our response to changing circumstances, such as the steadily increasing demand for commercial activities.

What detailed assessment is my hon. Friend making to show how the Department is doing its job?

I am delighted to say that we have recently instituted a diplomatic wing top management system which requires posts, departments and under-secretaries to examine their objectives and performance in time for each annual expenditure survey. This is a major new management tool, which supplements the existing arrangements.

How were British interests protected in Iran in 1980 when the British ambassador evicted five American citizens from the residential compound of the British embassy? Is the Minister aware that that decision was seen as an affront to American public opinion? Is he further aware that there has been a row in North America in the media about what happened four years ago over the hostages crisis? Do the British Government intend to apologise to the American Government for their disgraceful actions?

At that time, and subsequently, we worked extremely closely with the Americans. Those events took place six years ago.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of securing British interests overseas is through the effective use of the British Council? Will he assure the House that he will fight for every resource that the British Council needs to advance our interests?

The council performs a valuable role, but that role and its funding must be seen in the context of the FCO's overall resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate discussions with European colleagues to counteract the threat made by Colonel Gaddafi on 16 January to train, arm and finance terrorists.

We have always played a leading part in discussions with European colleagues about terrorist activities and threats from Libya and elsewhere, and we shall continue to do so. On 27 January European Community Foreign Ministers made clear their determination to strengthen co-operation to deal with all forms of terrorism and established a new group, within political co-operation, to ensure effective follow-up action.

When will Her Majesty's Government take action against those countries which harbour and train people for terrorism? Why does the Secretary of State not call in the ambassadors of those countries and let them know, in no uncertain terms, how Britain feels about countries training terrorists to carry out acts in other countries?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that wherever there is evidence of support for terrorism by foreign Governments we do not hesitate to make clear our condemnation and to take the necessary steps to deter and, if possible, to stop such support. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is unacceptable for other countries to export violence to the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although Libya has a gangster regime, that does not justify yesterday's air piracy by Israel? Does he also agree that fighting terror with terror will only escalate lawlessness and encourage the extremists on both sides?

I have issued a statement today condemning that action. There was no evidence of terrorists on board the aircraft or of any threat to Israel's security. In our view, the interception was without justification. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a dangerous precedent, which appears to have been in contravention of international law. Such acts can only endanger the lives of innocent people.

As the Government have condemned that act of piracy, will the Secretary of State also condemn America's war fleet manoeuvres along the Libyan coast?

That has nothing to do with terrorism.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that a Libyan freighter, which has been on fire, is in Portland harbour in my constituency? With their usual hospitality, the people of Weymouth have been harbouring the crew of that freighter. Will he point out to Colonel Gaddafi and his representatives that they would do well to acknowledge that hospitable treatment, and that the Libyan Government would do well to act in concert with the hospitality that has been received?

I readily agree with my hon. Friend that the people of Libya, and of many other countries, would do well to follow the example of his constituents in respect of hospitality and courtesy, and no doubt in many other respects.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his comments about the forcing down of a Libyan aircraft by Israeli planes are in strong contrast with the support of Her Majesty's Government for the American action over the Egyptian airliner? Does he agree that if international law and the freedom of the airways are to be upheld, it is not for member states to determine whether aircraft have terrorists on board, and that there must be no intervention? The Foreign Secretary would do well to apply even-handedly his view on upholding international law.

I always appreciate advice from the right hon. Gentleman, but I must tell him that there is a distinction between the two cases to which he referred. In relation to the action against the Egyptian jet, it was relevant to take account of the international conventions on hijacking and hostage-taking, which make it clear that people of the sort involved should be brought to face justice by trial, prosecution or extradition. There is a difference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's current relations with Australia.

Our relations with Australia are excellent. As I said on 3 February on Second Reading of the Australia Bill, they are of the greatest importance to us.

Following the visit of Senator Evans, will the Government confirm that they will take an active equal part in the technical assessment group which is examining the problems associated with the nuclear debris in Maralinga?

During Senator Evans' visit agreement was reached in principle on two major points. We accepted his invitation to participate in the technical assessment group, and we are represented on the consultative group.

Does my hon. Friend accept that we all appreciate our wonderful relationship with Australia, and that that is especially identified with the number of Australian visitors to Britain during the past few years? Last year there were more than 500,000 such visitors. Does he accept that they were most welcome in my constituency, which is where Captain Cook was born and raised?

I echo my hon. Friend's sentiments and hope that tourism in his constituency is suitably increased as a result of his remarks.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, following the visit of the Israeli Premier, Shimon Peres, there has been any improvement in Anglo-Israeli relations; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Israeli relations following the visit of Mr. Shimon Peres.

The visit of the Israeli Prime Minister last month as the guest of the Government demonstrated the close links between the United Kingdom and Israel. Out talks with him were friendly and constructive. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted an invitation to visit Israel later this year.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to do everything that he can to encourage the efforts of the responsible elements on each side in the middle east? Does he agree that Israel could do more to help the peace-making process by refraining from forcing down airliners and by abandoning its policy of establishing settlements in Arab-dominated areas on the West Bank?

I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. It is essential that both sides should refrain from acts of violence or making threats of violence. We have repeatedly made it clear to Israel that its settlement policy is illegal and is an obstacle to peace. To freeze settlements would increase confidence in Israeli intentions, and that was one matter discussed with the Israeli Prime Minister.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that everyone who met Mr. Peres and listened to him during his visit was deeply impressed by his manifestly passionate desire to further the peace process, at whatever cost, including stopping the establishment of settlements on the West Bank? Will the Government exercise whatever influence they can, limited though it unhappily is, to help him in that objective?

Of course. It was clear from our discussions with the Israeli Prime Minister that he is anxious to promote the peace process, and for that reason we value the discussions that we had with him. To carry that peace process forward will require a willingness to make concessions on both sides, after we have completed the difficult task of establishing who should be the representative spokesmen for both sides.

On the question of concessions, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Mr. Peres is ready to treat with a Palestinian-Jordanian delegation that could include PLO members, provided that they are not connected with terrorism?

That is not yet the position, although it was with the intention of establishing some such way forward that we extended an invitation last September to the joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation to visit Britain. We must continue the search for every possible way of building that bridge between the two sides.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his condemnation of Israeli action against the Libyan aircraft yesterday will be widely welcomed? Does not the failure of Israeli intelligence involved in yesterday's escapade cast grave doubt on the justification for previous Israeli strikes against alleged terrorist targets in Lebanon, Tunisia and elsewhere, which were based on similar Israeli intelligence?

It is not possible to comment on another country's intelligence, least of all in respect of a series of other unidentified incidents. The whole episode underlines the importance of restraint and determination when dealing with terrorists and terrorism, to ensure that only those who are identifiably guilty are the recipients of any recriminations.

Israel has a truly deplorable record of international terrorism and air piracy. I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend has issued a statement. Will he continue to emphasise to the Israeli Government that such violations of international law are damaging to peace and that it is no good talking about peace unless one acts accordingly?

I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has put his question, in the light of recent incidents. When handling all such matters, it is important to remain evenhanded and firm in one's condemnation of every kind of illegality.

I unreservedly welcome the Government's decision to stop the practice of the authentification of Arab boycott documents. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman repeat his condemnation of the boycott as a completely unacceptable interference with freedom of trade?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, we have always condemned the boycott. I am glad to have been able to take a practical step which indicates our views.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he advised the Israeli Prime Minister that no meaningful progress can be made in the middle east until the American and Israeli Governments acknowledge the fact that the Palestinians can be represented only by the Palestine Liberation Organisation in any future negotiations, as the Arab world has collectively agreed and repeatedly stated?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's presentation of the Arab world's view. We do not accept that the PLO is the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. We have no doubt that the PLO should be associated with negotiations, provided that it renounces violence and is committed to a peaceful settlement along familiar lines.

Leaving aside the formula of the sole, legitimate representative, the Foreign Secretary will recall that in the Venice declaration of June 1980 we agreed that the PLO must have a role in peace negotiations. No conditions were applied at that time. Does that remain our policy, and, if so, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us the nature of the message that Prime Minister Peres wished him to convey to King Hussein about the PLO's role in peace negotiations?

It would not be appropriate for me to give details of the messages being passed in such circumstances. I can confirm that the Israeli Prime Minister and His Majesty King Hussein are seeking to find a way to carry forward the peace process, based on the initiative taken by King Hussein last year. In that context, we have made it clear, as we did in the Venice declaration, that the PLO must be associated with the negotiations.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in Strasbourg last week, when speaking to the representatives of 21 European countries, President Mubarak, who is, after all, a founder member of the peace process in the middle east, said that negotiations which did not include PLO representatives had no hope of success?

I am not aware of that statement by President Mubarak. I shall study the speech to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. I join him in paying tribute to the part played in those negotiations by President Mubarak.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiative he plans to take to help end the Iran-Iraq war.

We will fully support any realistic initiatives aimed at bringing an end to this tragic and wasteful conflict, especially through the good offices of the United Nations Secretary General and his special representative, Olof Palme.

What weapons are the Government supplying to Iraq and Iran? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that when he next meets his European counterparts he will go all out for a complete arms embargo to both sides in this dreadful conflict, so that we can at least say that we are not keeping this awful war going?

I share the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of this pointless, prolonged and bloody conflict. The Government's policy is, and has been for some time, not to sell defence-related equipment to either side which would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. All applications for the export of defence equipment are scrutinised rigorously to exclude such items. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and he should commend that policy more widely.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is important to ensure that Iraq comes out of this struggle with every honour and assistance from the Government? Will he approach Iran and see what steps can be taken to protect British merchant shipping, which has been subjected to attack and boarding by Iranian troops in the Gulf quite recently? Can we not provide some protection for British merchant vessels?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to impress on both sides the need to enter into negotiations. I have taken note of the willingness of the Iraqi Government to do so. I hope that that view will be taken on both sides. We deplore the attacks on innocent merchant vessels and have taken action to prevent interference with shipping, consistent with article 51 of the United Nations charter.

What initiatives have the Government taken to obtain the support of the United Nations to stop the flow of arms to both sides in this war, especially in view of the escalation in the use of chemical weapons, which represent a tragedy and a bigger barrier to a solution?

I share the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of the use or potential use of chemical weapons in this or any other conflict. That is why we took the lead in the European Community, and thereafter in the United Nations, in getting a ban imposed on the export of chemicals capable of use in composing chemical weapons. We have supported resolutions to that effect in the United Nations as well.

As hundreds of thousands of people have already been killed in this war, which has gone on for years, what are the five permanent members of the Security Council doing to stop it? Why do they not try to work in concert on the matter?

This is one of the relatively few matters on which the five permanent members of the Security Council take a similar view. It is raised in consultations that I have with any of them. The task that has been attempted by almost every conceivable mediator recently, of bringing both sides to a peaceful conclusion of the conflict, has so far eluded all of those efforts, but I shall keep my hon. Friend's advice in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by the Council of Ministers to the United States of America on its policy in Central America.

None, Sir. However, the United States Government are aware of the Twelve's views on Central America. The Twelve support a comprehensive negotiated settlement in Central America, based on the Contadora objectives. This was made clear in the communiqués issued after the Luxembourg conference, and more recently in the statement issued on 20 January welcoming the impetus given to the Contadora process by the Caraballeda declaration.

What is the response of the Government and the Council of Ministers to President Reagan's recent description of the Contras in Nicaragua as freedom fighters? Does the Minister share the view of many British people that the Contras are nothing more than terrorists, and that the only effect of their actions in Nicaragua is to undermine the democratically elected Government's efforts to improve the living conditions of ordinary people?

The Government believe that the region's problems cannot be solved by armed force. We constantly urge restraint on all sides. We welcome President Reagan's written assurance to a United States Congressman last year that he is not seeking the military overthrow of the Sandinista Government.

As President Reagan, in the State of the Union message, referred to those people as freedom fighters, and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said — and we all agree — that we should not be selective in the use of such phrases, will my hon. Friend ensure that a message is sent to President Reagan telling him that many people in western Europe feel that if the phrase "freedom fighters" applies to those people, it should also apply to the ANC, the UDF and the Palestinians?

We are convinced that the problems of the region cannot be resolved by armed force. We regularly and constantly discuss important issues about Central America with the United States Administration, who are well aware of our views.

Does the Minister not accept that there is something inconsistent about British policy towards Central America, in that the Government reduced and then removed all aid to Nicaragua, but increased it to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala? Are the Government prepared to support repressive and not especially democratic Governments, while being critical of the Government of Nicaragua? Should not the Government come clean and, if they do support the Contadora process, say that they condemn the human rights violations in the other countries? Will the Government immediately resume aid to the people of Nicaragua?

There is nothing inconsistent in our policies. We have not stopped aid to Nicaragua.

If, indeed—as we all hope—President Reagan is not aiming at the overthrow of the Nicaraguan Government, is it not the most cynical and brutal irresponsibility for him to ask for arms, organisation and money for a most brutal group of terrorists who are seeking to overthrow the Nicaraguan Government?

The right hon. Gentleman simply could not have been listening to the replies given by my right hon. and learned Friend and myself. A clear statement was issued on 20 January in support of the Caraballeda process.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations are being made to the South African authorities regarding the remaining four defendants in the United Democratic Front treason trial.

We voted for Security Council resolution 560 calling for the dropping of charges against leaders of the United Democratic Front. We have also repeatedly called, independently and with our European and Commonwealth partners, for the release of all political prisoners. That remains our position.

Although I welcome the fact that 12 people have been released, I must ask whether the Government are prepared to take a further initiative on behalf of the four trade unionists still charged with high treason.

We have already made the South African Government well aware of our attitude towards the trial of all the UDF leaders. Certainly the prosecution of the UDF is inconsistent with the South African Government's announced desire for dialogue with non-violent representatives of other communities. We shall make such representations as we can.

Although I welcome my hon. Friend's reference to the farce of all those trials and her call on behalf of the Government for them to be dropped, may I ask whether she agrees that the UDF, the ANC and other representatives of the black majority are gaining increasing support? Does she further agree that middle-class blacks are becoming increasingly radical and revolutionary because of the absurd oduracy of the South African Government?

I shall repeat what I said in the House last week — that we are positively working against apartheid. We have made our views quite clear to the South African Government. The speech of the President of South Africa last week was only part of the process of reform. While it contained statements of principle as well as outlining positive steps to be taken in this Parliamentary Session, there is much more to be done. Steps must be taken on the road to reform, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend. Those steps must not only be legislated upon this Session, but must be put into effect as fully and as speedily as possible.

Does not the continuation of the trial against the four trade unionists, and the separate trial against 22 UDF activists, suggest that the real motive of the South African Government is to silence democratic opposition within their country? Does that not seriously put in question the professed desire of President Botha for profound change? Does the Minister realise that yesterday another trial began, of seven Namibians at Windhoek? Does the Foreign Office recognise the validity of the legal structures raised by the illegal South African regime in Namibia, and if not, what is it doing about it?

That has nothing to do with the question.

As my hon. Friend says, the question posed by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has nothing to do with the original question. I shall do my best to answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. He knows that we do not have discussions with the Government of Namibia, and therefore we do not recognise them. However, the South Africans have such discussions. We have to avoid hardening attitudes in South Africa, while strengthening the hands of those who argue in favour of internal settlements, whether of trials or any other matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his forthcoming visit to Nepal.

I shall be accompanying Her Majesty the Queen as Minister in Attendance during Her Majesty's state visit from the 17 to 21 of this month.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend had the opportunity to study a report that I sent to him of a fact-finding visit to Nepal last month, which included myself and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)? Does he accept that we found clear evidence of persecutions of Christians in many districts of Nepal? When he meets his counterpart in Nepal, will he suggest that such violations are incompatible with his country's support for the United Nations declarations on human rights?

I have seen the reports of my hon. Friend's visit and his report on the outcome of that visit. I was glad to see that the joint delegation of himself and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) received full and open co-operation from the Nepalese Government. The available evidence suggests that constitutional provisions in Nepal allowing a person to practise and profess his religion are generally respected. However, in appropriate circumstances, we have no hesitation in making known our views on human rights.

Will the Foreign Secretary take advantage of his trip to raise with the Nepalese Government the issue of deforestation in that country, as in other Himalayan regions? That deforestation is increasing the flow in the major rivers of northern India, and thereby reducing food supplies and availability of land for human habitation in both West Bengal in India, and in Bangladesh. Can the Foreign Secretary get something going to reverse that process?

I understand the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point in general terms, although I am not familiar with the detailed implications for that part of the subcontinent. Some of our aid is already directed towards that objective, and I shall study that matter further in the light of the hon. Gentleman's observations.

Given what the Foreign Secretary said in reply to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), is he unaware of the fact that last year over 80 people were arrested for preaching Christianity and that some of them were sent to prison for six years as a result? This is in direct violation of article 18 of the human rights convention, which specifically and expressly allows people to practise their religion in the way that they would wish. How many more violations of human rights and acts of brutality have to occur before Her Majesty's Government make representations to the Government of the kingdom of Nepal?

We must approach these matters with a little more temperance than the hon. Gentleman has done. We must remember that Nepal is an independent nation, with a sovereign right over its constitution. The constitutional provisions are aimed at preventing conversions from Hinduism by inducement or intimidation. We are in regular contact with Nepalese Christian leaders, who have not asked us to intercede. I understand that the Nepalese Foreign Minister is himself a Christian and has undertaken to investigate specific cases that are brought to his attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now ratify the United Nations convention against torture.

We intend to ratify the convention, which we signed on 15 March 1985, as soon as possible. We need to check that our current legislation and other arrangements accord with its provisions. We must also consult the dependent territories, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It is possible that new legislation will be needed.

While those negotiations continue—and everyone hopes that ratification will be completed as soon as possible—will the Government take steps to remedy the position? At present the United Kingdom is one of the few European countries that has not made the unilateral declaration against torture, called for by the United Nations more than eight years ago. Because we have not subscribed to it we appear to condone torture, which is unacceptable to most of our European partners and to countries beyond Europe.

The hon. Gentleman is less than fair to the Government. We wholly condemn torture wherever and whenever it may occur.

Arising from my hon. Friend's reply, is there any evidence that Palestinians have been tortured in gaol, by Israelis?

I am not aware of evidence on that matter, but, if there should be evidence, we deplore all violations of human rights wherever they occur.

While we are waiting for the Government to get round to signing the convention on torture, should we not do more to control the export of implements that can be used in countries where torture continues to be practised? Although the Government have already introduced some legislation in that regard, surely the House deserves more information about the method by which the Government judge the human rights records of some countries to which they allow the export of equipment that is clearly used for repression and torture.

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we were one of the co-sponsors of the convention. We are committed to ratifying it as soon as possible, and we were one of the first countries to sign it. Regarding the specific question about instruments of torture, last year we introduced the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1985, which gives the Government power to restrict the export of instruments of torture. We would not give export licences to any destination or country for leg irons, shackles or gang chains for the restraint of prisoners.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made to the Iranian authorities about the recent boarding of a British ship; and if he will make a statement.

Our policy rests firmly on the general principle of freedom of navigation. The Iranian authorities have been asked for an explanation of the reasons why the British registered Barber Perseus was stopped by the Iranian navy on 12 January.

What damage was done to the British ship, and if damage was done, has the Minister sought compensation for it? What steps is he taking towards creating international co-operation to ensure that such an occurrence does not recur?

I can assure the hon. Lady that no damage was done to the ship. Regarding the international legal position, we uphold strongly the general principle of freedom of navigation on the high seas. Iran may be entitled under article 51 of the United Nations charter to exercise an inherent right of self-defence by stopping and searching foreign merchant ships on the high seas. However, that is an exceptional right, and can be used only if there are reasonable grounds to suspect a vessel of taking arms to the other side for use in a conflict.

What is the difference between one country stopping a ship and boarding it for reasons known to it, and another country doing the same with an aeroplane?

Under article 51 of the United Nations charter there is a specific and inherent right of self-defence by stopping and searching foreign merchant ships on the high seas. The Iranians are using that specific right to stop merchant ships. As my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier, the international convention on hijacking means that terrorists should be brought to trial either by prosecution or extradition.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it would be against our long-term interests to abolish the right of search on the high seas?

Yes, I take my hon. Friend's point. None the less, we are anxious that the Iranians should act extremely cautiously. Our position is based on the general principle of freedom of navigation and the United Nations charter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action is to be taken by the Council of Ministers to seek to secure an end to apartheid in South Africa.

The Council of Ministers agreed in Luxembourg on 10 September last year on a programme of positive and restrictive measures in relation to South Africa. At the meeting between the Twelve and the front-line states on 3 and 4 February, which I attended, these measures were endorsed. The meeting endorsed also the initiative of the Commonwealth eminent persons group.

I welcome yesterday's communiqué by the EEC Foreign Ministers and the front-line states, although I do not think that it goes far enough. I note that the communiqué states—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Of course, I am reading from the communiqué.

Order. The hon. Member must summarise.

The communiqué states that the EEC should consider

"further restrictive measures against Pretoria"

I cannot give — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I give notice that I am not reading, Mr. Speaker. The Commonwealth Heads of Government communiqué issued in Nassau stated that, at the conclusion of a period after the establishment of the eminent persons group, further consideration would be given to the position. A similar statement was made in the Luxembourg statement from the Six, but without any limitation of time. The communiqué issued from Lusaka yesterday adds nothing to those two statements. The position therefore remains open.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the light of the speech at the opening of the South African Parliament by the State President of the Republic of South Africa, the Council of Ministers should now give full encouragement to the South African Government, who are pledged to remove apartheid from their country, especially in view of the reforms announced by the State President with respect to education, influx control and property rights, and the Government's determination to involve all population groups in the Government?

My hon. Friend has drawn attention, as he is entitled to do, to the positive aspects of the President's speech, which we certainly welcome. We noted the commitment in the President's speech and the reference to the goal of parity in the provision of education. The important thing is to ensure that these measures are implemented and carried forward at a pace that carries conviction in South Africa. It is important also that we should do everything that we can to open the way to dialogue between the South African Government and the representatives of the African people in that country. It is in that spirit that we made our comments in yesterday's Lusaka communiqué.

Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said about the Lusaka communiqué—embodied in that is the reference to the genuine representatives of the black people in South Africa—will the right hon. and learned Gentleman prevail on the South African authorities to start negotiations with the ANC?

It is not for us, in respect of South Africa or any other situation, to make the choice as to who are the true representatives of the people concerned. However, it is certainly right that they should take part in the negotiations. We are encouraging the prospect of dialogue between the South African Government and the true representatives of the black people of South Africa. That is one of the objectives of the Commonwealth eminent persons group. It was welcomed by the meeting yesterday in Lusaka. We must hope that it will help to pave the way forward.

Is my right hon and learned Friend convinced of the legitimacy of the basis on which the Council of Ministers seeks to interfere in the internal affairs of another country? When did the South African Government last seek to advise and interfere in the internal affairs of the European Economic Community?

I do not think that the examples are exactly comparable. I have no doubt that on many occasions Governments offer advice to others of such a sort. I do not think that the Community has ever been lacking in advice from other quarters. My hon. Friend must acknowledge the importance to the future peace and stability of the whole of southern Africa that attaches to the progress that can be made in removing apartheid from South Africa. That is a matter on which the Commonwealth and the Community, as well as the overwhelming majority of Members of this place, take a common view.

Will the Foreign Secretary stand by the words of the communiqué rather than distance himself, as the Prime Minister appeared to do when she returned from Nassau, from the possibility of any further restrictive measures being taken? Is it not important to underline to South Africa that such measures might be taken, lest it think that it is safe from any external pressure so long as the present British Government remain in office?

The communiqué issued from Nassau, in language a little more specific than that which came from Luxembourg in the preceding month, makes it plain that at the conclusion of the work of the eminent person's group the countries represented on that group will then consider the position. We are not committed to any further measures after that point, but consideration whether to take them will certainly arise at that stage.

We on the Opposition Benches share the disappointment expressed by the Foreign Secretary in Lusaka at the failure of Mr. Botha in his recent speech to offer any increase in political power to the great black majority in South Africa. Secondly, we welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's decision to allow his officials to contact leaders of the African National Congress in Lusaka. May I take it that he will extend the same right to his officials to contact the ANC in London? Thirdly, will he explain to the House why, as reported, he vetoed any criticism of the United States Administration's red carpet reception for Jonas Savimbi in Washington, when Mr. Savimbi is involved in an armed uprising against a Government with whom we have diplomatic relations and who were represented at the meeting? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Savimbi is using terrorism and hostage-taking as major weapons in his struggle?

I did not veto any comment of the sort to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in the third part of his supplementary question. The issue was not raised in the preparation of the communiqué. It was clear that the Governments assembled took a different view of the matter from the United States Administration, but that was not so stated in the communiqué. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman says about the decision to have contact at official level with the African National Congress. We took the view that it was important at this critical time to get across the case against violence and that for general dialogue. We wanted also to get across the role of the Commonwealth eminent persons group, which was recognised by the representatives of the ANC. Contact with the ANC in London will be decided in the context of the decision that has already been taken.

the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he received from the South African authorities on the representations he made regarding the blockade of Lesotho.

The hon. Member will know that the South African authorities have now lifted the blockade on Lesotho. We understand that traffic is flowing normally between the two countries.

Will the Minister explain why the Government did not respond to the request from the former Prime Minister for assistance when it was received? The request remained on the Prime Minister's desk for seven days. Why did the Government allow the blockade to continue by not supplying the airlift that was requested?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has one or two matters slightly confused. I do not blame him for that, because I can do the same thing myself. We made our concern about the blockade of Lesotho clear to the South Africans from day one. We are pleased that the restrictions have now been lifted. We have been active in Lesotho in trying to assist it and we hope that peace will now return. We shall make whatever representations may be necessary in future.

Has my hon. Friend any reason to believe that the South African regime assisted in engineering the downfall of the Government of Chief Jonathan?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on an effective co-ordinated European response to international terrorism.

We have taken, and will continue to take, whatever steps we can to achieve an effective response to international terrorism. European Community Foreign Ministers made clear their determination on 27 January to strengthen co-operation to deal with all forms of terrorism, including the establishment of a new group, within political co-operation, to ensure effective follow-up action.

Will the Minister tell us whether the Government are urging the European Community to prevail upon the Americans and the Russians to co-operate with it in controlling international terrorism, particularly in view of the fact that the Americans, at the time of the interception of the Egyptian plane, acted unilaterally?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. In fact, our response and our approach to other states are somewhat broader than he outlines. We are seeking bilaterally, and within the European Community, to persuade all other countries to co-operate with us in the fight against terrorism. We have no doubt that international co-operation is an essential means of reducing, and in the end beating, the sort of terrorism of which we see far too much at the moment.

How can the Minister justify his statement about the initiative against terrorism when earlier this afternoon his own Secretary of State condemned the action of Israel in bringing down and searching an aircraft which it had strong grounds to believe was carrying not only terrorists but terrorist leaders from the safe haven of Colonel Gaddafi, who arms, trains and finances terrorism? How can we talk about a concerted effort against terrorism, and at the same time condemn a country that has started to do something about it?

I have to say that I am surprised at my hon. Friend's remarks. As my right hon. and learned Friend made plain earlier, we regard the Israeli action of yesterday as an unjustified and apparently illegal interference with civil aviation. It is a dangerous precedent. If every country were to take its interpretation of international law into its own hands in that manner, we would be reaching an extremely dangerous and worrying international situation.

rose—

While we welcome the Community initiative on international terrorism, may I ask the hon. Member to confirm that the Government continue to stick to their position that they will not take action against other sovereign nation states unless there is rigorous, objective and verifiable evidence to base it on? [Interruption.]

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think that either he or I caused the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) to leave the Chamber. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that our interpretation of the rigorous or clear evidence which he mentioned might be somewhat different. However, in principle I agree with his statement that action should he taken against terrorism only where there is clear evidence to sustain it. That is the most important feature that we must abide by at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Council of Ministers is taking to support the Contadora peace process in Central America.

The agreement reached at Luxembourg on 11 and 12 November 1985 provides a practical demonstration of the Twelve's consistent support for the Contadora process for closer political and economic links with the Central American states. The European Community also agreed to increase substantially its aid to Central America to encourage regional co-operation.

Is it not a fact that in our urgency to placate the United States of America in practically everything, including selling Britain to it, the Contadora peace struggle is being ruined by the United States? Is it not the case that the President tries to get troops to assault a Government who have struggled to break free of United States influence in the interests of democracy, yet pretends that he is advancing the cause of democracy? When will the Government stand up to the United States of America and advise her that it is for her own good openly to support democracy and stop supporting every dictatorship in Latin America?

We have repeatedly said that we have our own policy. We support the comprehensive and verifiable Contadora agreement, which is based upon the 21 Contadora objectives, which include peace, stability, democracy and development. The United States has repeatedly said that it supports the Contadora peace process. It is well aware of our views.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on developments in the middle east peace process since the visit to London by Mr. Shimon Peres.

Moderates on both sides have our full support in their continuing efforts to move towards the peaceful negotiation of a just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the PLO leaders who have been meeting King Hussein in Amman during the last few days have again explicitly refused to recognise resolution 242? Will he confirm that there can be no place for the PLO in negotiations so long as that remains their attitude?

My interpretation of the Amman discussions is not exactly the same as that of my hon. Friend, although I appreciate his close interest in the matter. King Hussein is clearly trying to reach a formula under which it will be possible for moderate Palestinians who abhor violence and who are prepared to say so in public, and who also accept Israel's right to exist within secure borders, to be incorporated in the peace process. Moderates on all sides ought to hope that he will be successful in that aim.

How can the Minister claim that there are Palestinians who are not prepared to work for a peaceful resolution of this problem when they have made it quite clear that they are prepared to accept all and every resolution of both the General Assembly and the Security Council?

I wish that what the hon. Gentleman has just said was correct, but unfortunately it is not.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. arising out of question 13. When the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) sought to put his supplementary question I had some difficulty in following him because he sought to use notes and to read from a communiqué. You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that in this House we practice a form of masochism. Back Benchers are never allowed to use notes at Question Time, although that is the accepted practice for those who sit on the Front Bench—a practice which I would not dispute. Can you let me know, because this is very important, whether the practice that allows the leaders of the parties to use notes extends to the leader of the Liberal party and of the other parties when they sit on the Back Benches? Can you also let me know what standing order, convention or guideline in "Erskine May" prohibits Back Benchers from ever using notes when putting questions?

It has always been perfectly in order for hon. Members to refer to notes, but the convention of the House is that hon. Members should not quote from them.

rose—

rose—

I do not think that it would be helpful to take further points of order. We have a very heavy day ahead of us.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not in order for Back Benchers who want to refer to a specific quotation, as I did this afternoon, to read out the quotation?

The convention that I enunciated to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has always been the practice of this House.

On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Arising out of questions?

Yes. There has been another leak.

Arising out of Foreign Office questions?

I will just explain. There has just been an announcement that there is an emergency at Sellafield—

Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order after the statements.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Arising out of questions?

Yes. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions could be made a little easier to understand. So many of them today have just referred to the views of the Council of Ministers. The correct description is either the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community or the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Because of the question asking for the views of the Council of Ministers, would it not be better if the phrase "Council of Ministers" always referred to either the European Economic Community Council of Ministers or the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe?

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. It is up to hon. Members to decide the form in which they put down their questions. I do not determine that.