asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth to discuss the human rights situation in member states.

My right hon. and learned Friend has not met the Commonwealth Secretary-General specifically to discuss the human rights situation in member states and has no present plans to do so.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that at least a third of the member states of the Commonwealth do not satisfy the human rights criteria of the United Nations' declaration? If so, will he suggest to Sir Shridath Ramphal that the team of eminent persons currently investigating human rights in South Africa should also investigate and report on the situation in the member states of the Commonwealth?

At Nassau, we and other Governments welcomed the recent establishment of the human rights unit in the Commonwealth secretariat. We believe that this is the best instrument to assist in promoting understanding of and respect for human rights within the Commonwealth. Where specific human rights issues arise and have come to our attention, we have made representations, where appropriate, to the Government concerned.

Does the Government's concern for human rights extend to Pakistan?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Pakistan is not part of the Commonwealth.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 12 months have elapsed since I visited Sri Lanka on behalf of the parliamentary human rights group, together with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk)? Our report on our visit listed a number of ways in which human rights are violated in respect of many members of all the communities in Sri Lanka. As the efforts of the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth and the Prime Minister of India to resolve the problems in Sri Lanka do not seem to have borne fruit, are Her Majesty's Government, who are held in high regard in that country, prepared to offer their services as a mediator?

We see our role as continuing to support efforts by India and others to encourage direct talks between the Sri Lankan Government and Tamil representatives. India's contribution to the peace process is valuable and positive, and we believe that a negotiated settlement is the best route to a lasting peace.

As one who, with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), was not acceptable to the Sri Lankan Government to make such a trip on behalf of the parliamentary human rights group, unlike the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), may I ask the Minister whether, if he is so concerned about the abrogation of human rights in Sri Lanka, he will break off military and police training, economic links and the support that the Government continue to give to a Government who, on any examination of the facts, are clearly guilty of a serious attack on human rights in that country?

As we have repeatedly said, we deplore the continued violence within Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Government have taken steps to prevent undisciplined action by their security forces and have assured us that they continue to further those efforts.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give examples of specific responses made by the South African Government to Britain's diplomatic pressure over the past three years.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's latest representations to the Government of South Africa.

The full details of our representations and of the specific South African responses must naturally remain confidential. However, we believe that the many representations made during the past three years have helped in modifying actions and encouraging reforms. On 25 February Her Majesty's ambassador raised the enlargement and projected "independence" of KwaNdebele homeland; the shootings in Alexandra; the detentions of Venda community leaders and the case of the Sharpeville Six.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the article in The Guardian today which states that the Prime Minister has personally blocked a move by the Bermudan Government to introduce limited sanctions against South Africa, even with respect to the import and sale of krugerrands? At the moment, our Government are considering barring the import and sale of krugerrands. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that that smacks of double standards and is a sop to apartheid?

No. It smacks of precisely the opposite — the perfectly rational conclusion that the Government's decisions on measures taken in relation to South Africa should be uniform not only in the United Kingdom but in colonial territories. That is why the position of krugerrands is under consideration in relation to Bermuda as with the United Kingdom.

Are not the attitude and reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to these questions mere finger wagging at apartheid? In view of the £11 billion of British investment in South Africa, do not the objections of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Prime Minister have more to do with the profits made by British firms because of apartheid than with these latecomers moralising about apartheid? When will Britain take serious economic action against a system that degrades the people over which it rules?

If it were left to the hon. Gentleman to judge these matters, the result would be more likely to promote the destruction of the South African economy and of the British economy, to the disadvantage of all the peoples living in both countries. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the balanced policy adopted by the Government of making it plain that we wish apartheid to be brought to an end quickly and of supporting that aim by policies and representations is far more likely to be effective in pursuit of the objectives shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Is it not clear that many of those who call for a policy of serious economic sanctions have not thought through the implications? For example, would not a policy of compulsory divestment, for which I understand the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is calling, in practice involve the confiscation of part of the property owned by British subjects and its free handover to South Africans?

That would be one of the many perverse effects of the measures advocated by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). I entirely agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made representations against the selective ban on television reporting? Does he accept that many of us find that quite unacceptable?

We have already made representations expressing our regret at the curtailment of the rights of television and other reporters in South Africa. We have welcomed the reaffirmation by the South African Government of their commitment to implement Security Council resolution 435, because we believe that that would offer an opportunity to make early progress on the whole Namibian question and would reduce tension throughout the region. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we do not recognise any formal linkage with any requirement for Cuban withdrawal as part of that settlement. South Africa has made it clear, not only in yesterday's announcement, but many times in the past, that it will not agree to implementation of resolution 435 unless a satisfactory arrangement is found with respect to the Cubans. It is my judgment, having talked about this matter to a large number of people in that part of Africa, that the practical opportunity to implement resolution 435 is most likely to be fulfilled on the basis of United States-led negotiations in the context of the announcement which we now welcome.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend, in his dealings with the South African Government, bear in mind the wisdom of encouraging as well as censuring—using a carrot as well as a stick? To that end, would there not be some value in saying that steps to broaden the base of government in South Africa might be reflected in an early relaxation of some of the provisions of the Gleneagles agreement on boycotting sporting contacts?

I do not immediately see the connection between my hon. Friend's specific point, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and his more general point. However, I agree that we should be ready, not only to criticise where criticism is due, but to offer encouragement where that is due.

Has the Foreign Secretary read the remarks of Chief Johnathan, in which he makes it clear that it was the refusal of the British Government either to offer proper support to the state of Lesotho or to make adequate representations to the South African Government that led to the downfall of an elected Government in that state?

I have seen reports of certain remarks made by the deposed Prime Minister of Lesotho, Chief Johnathan. It is not true that Britain was in any way involved in his overthrow. In response to Chief Johnathan' s request for assistance, we immediately asked the South Africans to lift border restrictions and to talk to Lesotho.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British diplomats attended the funerals in Alexandra today? Will he also say whether diplomats have been similarly instructed to attend the funerals of black policemen murdered by fellow blacks?

I shall bear in mind the points made in the last part of my hon. Friend's question. It is true that our diplomatic post, together with the posts of other Western Governments, was represented at the funerals today.

Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House why Her Majesty's Government have failed to carry out the undertaking they gave nearly five months ago at the Commonwealth summit to ban the import of krugerrands, especially as the United States Administration have found no difficulty with the general agreement on tariffs and trade in banning krugerrands, even before the Commonwealth summit?

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that one of the many reasons why we wish to see an end to apartheid is that that would help us to reduce the adverse impact on human rights in South Africa. The United Kingdom is not the only country that has found it necessary to consider the general agreement on tariffs and trade implications on the proposed ban of krugerrands.

Has it occurred to my right hon. and learned Friend that our relations with South Africa might perhaps have been much better, and certainly the whole beastly business of apartheid, which we all deplore, would perhaps have been avoided, if power had not been handed over to the Afrikaners in 1907 by the Liberal Government?

My hon. Friend has brought his characteristically penetrating rhetorical insight to the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Council of Ministers will next discuss progress in South Africa on ending apartheid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Economic Community Council will next disucuss its policy towards South Africa.

Foreign Ministers of the Twelve have had frequent discussions about South Africa both in the Council of Ministers and in political co-operation. No date has been set for their next discussion.

Will the Minister of State make it clear to the South African authorities that the lifting of the state of emergency will be meaningless if all the detainees are not released and if the restrictions on media coverage and political meetings are not lifted?

The hon. Gentleman heard the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on the subject of the media refusals. He knows full well that we are opposed to detention without trial. We shall remind the South African Government of that when and as it becomes necessary to do so.

In September the Council of Ministers agreed to sanctions on oil exports to South Africa. When will it consider the regulations necessary to impose those sanctions?

The question of oil was considered at a recent meeting. I cannot from memory say whether it was on 27 January or the following week. The United Kingdom has never sold oil to South Africa. Under the 1979 guidelines, the sale of North sea oil is confined to the European Community and certain other countries. The measure does not apply to petroleum products. The guidelines apply to indirect as well as to direct exports, so, in relation to this country and our partners, the hon. Gentleman need have no worries.

Will the Government seek to persuade the Council of Ministers, which has great influence in these matters, to distance itself from the anti-apartheid movement whose regard for the truth is becoming of almost legendary inaccuracy? Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach to apartheid should discriminate and distinguish between those features which are unique to aparthied and those, perhaps of an illiberal regime, which are shared by some 90 other member countries of the United Nations? Is there not a great danger that in relation to South Africa our attitude tends to sweep both aspects together so that we expect to impose standards of achievement in public life which in a sense are almost unattainable, or at least have not been attained, in 90 other countries of the United Nations?

I think that my hon. Friend forgets why we totally oppose apartheid and favour its total elimination in that country. Many people there have no vote, and all black people are unfairly treated. I do not seek to teach my hon. Friend, but our concern about the denial of human rights is clearly shared by every one of the Twelve, and we must stand against that denial. In that situation, there is no way in which we can differentiate, as my hon. Friend seeks.

As a large number of South African citizens have been murdered by the South African police and army and the number of such murders is growing, will my hon. Friend make representations to her colleagues in the Council of Ministers to ensure that the Council repeatedly emphasises to the South African Government the need to discontinue that murderous policy and to release the detainees forthwith?

That has already happened, and. I assume that it will come up again next time we discuss the matter.

On 1 July this country assumes the presidency of the Council of Ministers. Previous Presidents have met the African National Council at ministerial level. Will the Government, consistent with their present policy, continue to refuse to meet the ANC at that level after 1 July?

We expect to maintain contact at official level at all times. We shall have to see what progress has been made before reaching a decision when we assume the presidency of the European Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of South Africa concerning the release of Nelson Mandela.

Our views about the release of Mr. Mandela are well known to the South African Government. I last raised Mr. Mandela's case when I saw the South African ambassador on 13 February.

Will the Foreign Secretary take every opportunity to make it clear to the South African Government that the continued incarceration of Nelson Mandela is an affront to the people of South Africa and that his release is a prerequisite to reconciliation between black and white people there? Will he instruct our ambassador in South Africa to visit Nelson Mandela and to seek an interview to establish the present state of his health and wellbeing?

We have made clear on many occasions our belief that the unconditional release of Mr. Mandela would constitute a major act of reconciliation in South Africa and could provide the impetus for genuine dialogue and a peaceful settlement. We have stressed, and will continue to stress, the importance of that point to the South African Government.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the prerequisite of the South African Government for the release of Nelson Madela, that he should renounce the use of violence, is reasonable? It is in the interests of the ANC that he remains incarcerated while it performs its own acts of violence in South Africa and outside.

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's conclusions about the situation, although I join him—and I am sure the whole House will join him — in condemning violence from any quarter. The ANC is clearly an important focus of black opinion in South Africa. Nevertheless, we thought it right to establish official contact with the ANC specifically to stress our commitment to dialogue and to impress upon it the need to bring an end to all violence in South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current position with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.

We continue to stand by our commitments to the Falkland Islanders. At the same time, we are working for better relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina. The expressed wish of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to meet the Argentine parliamentarians who visited London was only the latest in a series of initiatives which we have taken since 1982. We were disappointed that they did not take up the offer, but we shall continue our efforts to promote better bilateral relations.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is now time to re-establish full diplomatic relations with Argentina and to discuss sovereignty with a view to reaching an honourable settlement? We could then reduce the staggering £654 million which is the average cost of maintaining Fortress Falklands at the moment.

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman offers a misguidedly simple insight into this problem. We want—and I emphasise it yet again—to move towards more normal relations with Argentina. It was for that reason that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State offered to meet the Argentine parliamentarians when they were here. My hon. Friend would have explained to them why we are unprepared to negotiate on sovereignty. My hon. Friend would have been prepared to listen to the Argentinians' position. He would also have made clear our wish to see more normal relations, towards which we have taken step after step, none of which has been met with a parallel response.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the visit by the Argentine parliamentarians should be seen as part of a long, slow and necessarily patient progress towards the gradual normalisation of relations? Does he further accept that neither the expectation of the Argentine visitors nor the intention of Her Majesty's Government was that this visit should be used as an occasion for initiating negotiations of any kind?

I accept precisely the two points made by my hon. Friend. The intention of the meeting offered by my hon. Friend was not to undertake, launch or conduct negotiations, but to explain our position on sovereignty. That has been well and often stated to Argentina. My hon. Friend wished also to impress upon them the sincerity of our wishes in other respects to move towards more normal relations with Argentina. That is and must be a sensible position.

Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us who met the Argentine delegation found them to be a constructive and courageous group of people? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that their unwillingness to have a meeting with Ministers during their visit was quite understandable, considering the view that would have been taken in Argentina of accepting British terms as the basis on which such a meeting would be conducted? Will the Secretary of State recognise that he is dealing with a democracy, not a dictatorship? When the Government were dealing with a dictatorship, they were prepared to give away sovereignty. The Government should at least be prepared to have sovereignty on the agenda and not feel that their ability to negotiate is inhibited by opening the discussions.

The hon. Gentleman has not got it right. There were no strings attached to the offer made by my hon. Friend to meet the Argentine parliamentarians. He was prepared to meet them to explain why we will not negotiate sovereignty and to listen to their statement of their position on that matter.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend be certain to pursue current Government policy with regard to the Falklands and reject the calls made from a sedentary position by Opposition Members to buy out the Falkland Islanders? Will he further ensure that hon. Members know that the major stumbling block in the gradual long-term solution to the problem is that Argentina has forfeited the trust of the Falkland Islanders and has to start building relations with them?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is most important, as a matter of common humanity and democratic principle, that respect be paid to the wishes of the Falkland Islanders by this Parliament and by the democratic Parliament of Argentina.

Does the Secretary of State not understand that all of us who were able to meet the Argentine delegation, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, found them extremely reasonable people and willing to talk positively about the guarantees that their Government will give the islanders about their way of life? In view of the crippling cost of Fortress Falklands and the lost opportunities in trade with the whole of Latin America, surely everything is to be gained and nothing to be lost by entering into direct discussions with the Argentine Government about all aspects of the future of the islands to try to find a solution which is acceptable to Britain and Argentina, and which protects the interests of the islanders?

The hon. Gentleman should not imagine that the fact that there is a difference between us and Argentina is now a significant factor affecting our trade with Latin America, or the rest of our relations. Of course we wish to go further to establish more normal relations with Argentina. We have taken step after step in that direction. It is simply not sensible to deceive ourselves into thinking that the issue of sovereignty can be disposed of as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The Argentine Government's stance was restated only a month or two ago. They reaffirmed their unswerving determination to re-establishing the territorial integrity of the republic. They are determined to do that regardless of the wishes of the people who live in those islands. That is not a basis that can sensibly commend itself to the House.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is very strong support on the Tory Benches for the Government's unwillingness to consider negotiating the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands? Is he further aware that the people of the Falkland Islands pay great regard to their freedom and believe that the British Government will support it? What are the Government doing to normalise relations with Argentina with a view to their taking back their war dead? What discussions have there been with Argentina about that problem?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. We have made clear to the Argentine Government more than once our willingness to accept a suitably prepared visit to the Falkland Islands under International Red Cross auspices by close relatives of Argentine service men who are buried there, and our willingness to consider any other sensible arrangements that might be proposed. It is one of the many human proposals that we have put forward. We are genuinely anxious to move towards the gradual restoration of normal relations between the people of this country and the people of Argentina.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on South Africa following the speech of President Botha to the South African Parliament in January.

We welcome the positive proposals in President Botha's speech and hope that they will be speedily implemented. We now wish to see further movement towards the fundamental elimination of apartheid and the beginning of peaceful dialogue between the South African Government and genuine representatives of the black community.

In that speech, President Botha once again made acceptance of resolution 435 conditional on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. In an earlier reply the Foreign Secretary seemed to acquiesce in that stance. Why? Would it not be in the interests of the Namibian people for the British Government to demand South Africa's unequivocal acceptance of United Nations' resolutions?

I do not think that it would. We must ensure that the United States-led negotiations can continue and that the formal talks that were held earlier this year in Luanda continue. That is why we believe that the South African Government's reaffirmation of their formal commitment to Security Council resolution 435 is right. It could offer the opportunity to make the early progress that we all want. We want a reduction of tension in the region. I sincerely hope that the United States-led negotiations will now be intensified and that all parties will show flexibility and realism.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sporadic violence of the ANC is as nothing compared to the permanent state of attrition practised by the South African Government on the black and non-white population of South Africa? Is she aware that there is, albeit not always vocal, widespread support on the Tory Benches for the Government's determination to establish relations with the ANC? Will she please continue with the policy of "jaw-jaw", in the interests of trying to bring some influence to bear from Europe on the problems in South Africa?

We know, sadly, that violence is not confined to one group. It happens on both sides of the border in Southern Africa and it also happens as a result of some activity by the South African Government. However, wherever violence occurs, whether it be from the ANC, the South African Government or any other body, we deplore it and we shall work to see that those who promote violence are dissuaded from doing so in whatever way we possibly can.

Is it not a fact that where there is no democracy in a country and where the officially enshrined policy of the Government is racialism and apartheid, there is bound to be, at some stage, a fight back from those who are being oppressed? In view of a question asked earlier by a well known racist on the Back Benches of the Tory party—[Interruption.]

Order. First, that is not parliamentary. Secondly, we cannot deal with questions that have been asked earlier.

I am sorry that this Chamber will not allow me to tell the truth but in view of that fact—

Withdraw.

I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced parliamentarian, is withdrawing that allegation.

In view of the fact that I am being forced to withdraw it, in order to continue with the rest of my question, I shall do so. Will the Minister make it clear, as the Foreign Secretary does not, that the policy of brutality against the vast democratic majority of the African people in South Africa is being maintained, and that we, as a Chamber, are totally opposed to the official violence of the South African Government against the vast majority of its people?

The hon. Gentleman does my right hon. and learned Friend a gross disservice. He and this Government have consistently impressed upon South Africa the need fully to respect the independence and the territorial integrity of its neighbours, and we shall continue to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part Her Majesty's Government are playing in international efforts to bring about pacification in the middle east.

We shall continue to support all realistic initiatives for peaceful solutions of the region's conflicts. I discussed the situation in the middle east with my European colleagues on 25 February and with the Syrian Foreign Minister on 3 March.

Did my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with the Syrian Foreign Minister the danger of conflict between Syria and Israel? Did he ask him to use his good offices for the release of British citizens imprisoned in Syria and in Lebanon, where Syria has so much influence?

I certainly impressed upon Mr. Shara the need for both sides, Syria as well as Israel, and the other states in the region, to sustain the search for a basis for long-term peace. I also raised with Mr. Shara, specifically, the case of Mr. Alec Collett, and enlisted his continuing help in trying to secure the release of that British citizen along with other hostages held in that country.

In view of the recent re-invasion of Lebanon by Israel—[Interruption.] It would be a benefit to the House if occasionally questions could be asked without interventions persistently made from a sedentary position.

Order. I am here to look after the hon. Gentleman.

Thank you, Sir. Elder statesmen should be treated with respect.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was able to make himself heard. I do not think that, even at his invitation, it would be right to take that step, but I join him in deploring the continuing residual presence of Israeli defence forces, and the security zone, in Lebanon, which is provocative and without justification. I agree that the recent Israeli incursion into Lebanon will not help to meet the legitimate concern expressed on both sides of the House about border security.

While it is generally agreed that the failure of King Hussein's courageous initiative has been a grave setback to progress towards peace in the middle east, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as the essence of the conflict is about Palestine and Palestinian rights, it would be absurd to try to exclude the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians from any future negotiations?

I join my hon. Friend in regretting the fact that the initiative taken by King Hussein has, so far, led only to the statements that he made about it—quite understandably—in the past week or two. I agree that we must continue to support the Palestinians' right to self-determination. It is not for us to say by whom they should be represented. We do not accept that the Palestine Liberation Organisation is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, but it should play a part in negotiations. It is above all important—this is the point that King Hussein was pressing—that it should make plain its recognition of the importance of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and renounce violence.

In talking to the Syrian Foreign Minister, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman raise with him the murder of the mayor of Nablus, for which credit was claimed by two Syrian-backed terrorist organisations? If so, what response did he receive?

I had already made plain—and I make plain again today—the serious view that we take of the tragic death of the mayor of Nablus, Mr. Zafer alMasri. That brutal murder of a moderate, courageous Palestinian must be seen as a setback to hopes of a just and lasting peace in the middle east. Of course we raised and discussed that matter with Mr. Shara and made plain our abhorrence of that act, which can only damage Palestinian interests. We urged him in that context, and more widely, to end Syrian support to terrorist groups. He made plain his Government's position of opposition to terrorism.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend kindly take note of the historic, forthcoming Israeli visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who will be the first British Prime Minister in office to visit Israel? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the future key to peace in that part of the middle east lies in the full implementation and acceptance of the Camp David agreement?

I am glad to welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the forthcoming visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Israel, which I know will be welcomed there and supported in this country. I do not think that it would be helpful at this point for me to support this, that or the other of the many principled plans put forward for the solution of the main Arab-Israel problem. The problem is not to define or redefine principles, but to find effective representation that will bring both sides together in meaningful negotiations to that end.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it is unrealistic to demand the renunciation of violence prior to any discussions with the PLO, because if they do that, there is not the slightest chance of getting the Israeli Government to pay any attention to the PLO's legitimate demands?

The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to take that view if he wishes. It is certainly necessary to acknowledge that the renunciation of violence in the context of seeking an end to a dispute of this kind cannot be secured easily. It is necessary to go on pressing the case for violence to be renounced and for the parties to come together on the basis of agreed objectives and principles.

In view of the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit to Israel, may I ask what arrangements will be made for her to be brought into contact with Palestinian viewpoints? What plans are there for her to visit the occupied territories? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people regard it as most important that the visit should be seen to be balanced in its approach?

Obviously I cannot comment at this stage on the precise details of the plans for my right hon. Friend's visit. I acknowledge, as does my right hon. Friend, the importance for our interest in the problems of the region to be balanced, not only in regard to the visit, but more widely. I remind my hon. Friend that it is only some six months since my right hon. Friend made a visit to Jordan and there saw another aspect of the same question.

Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of the visit of the Prime Minister to Israel to encourage the Palestinians to believe that Britain wants to play a role by ensuring that the Prime Minister makes it clear that when the Foreign Secretary assumes the presidency of the European Council on 1 July, he will continue the long-standing arrangement, which we broke in 1980, of meeting the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Yasser Arafat?

I think I am right in saying that since 1976 there has been contact at official level with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. As I have already made clear, we recognise that it will have to be associated with any peace negotiations. Of course, the Palestinians and their interests will have to be taken account of at each stage of all our consideration of the question. That will not be absent from the mind of my right hon. Friend when she goes to Israel.

What views did the Syrian Foreign Minister express to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the way forward in resolving the Palestinian problem? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with those views?

I do not think that I am in a position to offer a long exposition of the views of the Syrian Foreign Minister. He gave a long talk yesterday at Chatham House about the matter. The point that I sought to impress upon him is the need on the Arab side to try to secure the involvement of all those countries which in different ways and at different times have expressed an interest in a peaceful solution. That is why we have given encouragement, not merely to the initiative of King Hussein, but to a possible and constructive interest by Israel and have also noted the important initiative by President Mubarak the other day. All the initiatives have to come together and meet a corresponding disposition from the Israeli side. Our effort is to try to promote all those things.

President Assad has recently again called for the tearing up of the Camp David accord and showed himself fundamentally opposed to the Hussein-Mubarak initiative. In view of that, and of the fact that it now seems certain that there will be a change of Prime Minister in Israel, does the Foreign Secretary realistically see any life left in the Hussein initiative? Does he not see the looming confrontation between Syria and Israel on the Golan as the major point of tension in the middle east?

I am not seeking from the Dispatch Box to give the impression that all is, or is about to be, sweetness and light. Of course, the House acknowledges, as does King Hussein himself, that his determined efforts to carry forward the peace process with Arafat and the PLO have received a setback. But he remains determined to continue his search for a peaceful settlement. I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman that some of the observations of President Assad in his recent speech about the need for confrontation and a continued arms struggle are not likely to help that peace process forward. There are plenty of hazards in sight. Without unduly raising expectations, it must be our task to continue to encourage all those who are trying genuinely to advance the peace process.

Did the Foreign Secretary find at his meeting with the Syrian Foreign Minister that the Syrians are keen to see British involvement in the peace process? Is that not a particularly useful context in which to stress again the need for Syria to play an active part in stamping out the terrorism which led to Mr. Zafer al-Masri's death, which was greeted with universal grief in the Palestinian community?

It is absolutely right that we should take this opportunity of stressing to the Syrian Government and the Syrian Foreign Minister not just our abhorrence of that senseless murder but our opposition to terrorism of all kinds from whichever quarter it may come in the Arab-Israeli dispute. We took the opportunity of pressing that point very clearly. The hon. Gentleman, like everyone else concerned, stresses the British role in helping to promote a solution to this problem. I must continually remind people that although we have a real interest, and are willing to play as full a part as we can, it must be essentially for the parties involved in the region to take the crucial steps that are necessary to bring about a solution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he has made for the free passage into the United Kingdom of members of the African National Congress and the South-West Africa Peoples' Organisation conducting their business in the United Kingdom.

Entry clearance visas are issued to representatives of the African National Congress and the South-West Africa Peoples's Organisation in accordance with the terms of the current immigration rules.

Will the Minister undertake to have talks with the Home Secretary to ensure that the Prevention of Terrorism Act is not abused, as it was on 22 September last year when the chief representative of SWAPO sought to enter Britain at Heathrow? Surely we should be supporting the ANC and SWAPO in their struggle against racist domination rather than putting spurious blocks in their way.

I am aware of the difficulties that Mr. Shapua Kaukungua had in September last year, but what happened then was something that could happen under the prevention of terrorism order to anyone passing through that airport—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but on one of my recent visits overseas I had all my baggage opened under the terms of that Act.

If the Government are sincere in their laudable determination to help to prevent terrorism, could they, as part of the five-nation Contact Group, do everything within their power to ensure that there is not free passage of SWAPO guerrillas—trained, supported and supplied by Cubans in Angola— into South-West Africa?

We do our best to bring to bear all those influences that would avoid just the situation described by my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that the long progress of African countries towards freedom from white minority rule has often been impeded by the reluctance of the British Government to encourage representatives of the liberation movements to come here for talks on the diplomatic circuit? Will the Minister ensure that this mistake does not occur again in respect of the last remaining white-dominated countries such as Namibia and South Africa? Indeed, will the Government assist their representatives to come here so that they can make proper contacts to help in the process?

As both my right hon. and learned Friend and I have said, on every occasion when we can promote dialogue we shall do so, but part of that process is the renunciation of violence by whosoever commits it. That is the other part of the balance that we are trying to create. I am quite determined that the dialogue shall continue wherever it can bring about peace.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom delegation to the conference on security and co-operation in Europe meeting in Berne in April will raise the issue of the freedom of individuals to practise their chosen profession without being subjected to religious or racial discrimination.

Although strictly speaking this issue is outside the mandate for the meeting, we are opposed to discrimination on the grounds of religion and race and will continue to raise this issue on all suitable occasions.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply and also for the constant pressure that he and his colleagues in the Foreign Office have put on the Soviet Union, which has indirectly contributed to the release of Mr. Shcharansky. Will he make it clear to Mr. Gorbachev on as many occasions as possible that until the Soviet Union can be seen to be observing its own constitution on non-discrimination, it will be difficult for the West to believe that it will honour the agreements that it must enter into for real détente to come about?

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has just said. Unfortunately, in the case of Mr. Shchransky, one swallow does not make a summer, and there is as yet very little sign that in its treatment of human rights the new Soviet leadership will be very different from the previous one. But we shall certainly continue to raise this issue on every possible occasion, and the Berne meeting gives us another opportunity to do so.

If the Minister believes that our record is clean on this matter, will he raise with the West German Government the long-standing question of the berufsverbot— the law under which civil servants are prevented from holding professional positions because of what are usually Left-wing views—which is in my view a sign of Fascism creeping back into West Germany?

That seems to be above all a matter for the German Government. However, the Berne meeting, to which the question refers, is specifically concerned with human contacts and such matters as family re-unification, about which we shall wish to raise some serious cases.

When my hon. Friend talks about racial and religious matters at the meeting, will he be sure to point out that where there are religious differences and customs, people will be expected to observe the laws of the country in which they reside?

I return to the fact that the Berne meeting, about which the question is concerned, is about such matters as travel, emigration and family re-unification. It does not cover a wide area, but I hope that there will be useful contacts on the issues that are covered by basket 3 of the Helsinki final act.

On the subject of the Berne meeting, may I draw the Minister's attention to the speech made by Mr. Gorbachev in Moscow last week—I had the distinction, and stamina, of listening to all five hours of it — and particularly the part about the interdependence of the world, which abandons the Soviet Government's previous position of irreconcilable camps in the world? Does he agree that that augurs well for continuing dialogue and discussion in the CSCE process? May we have some news about any progress that is being made in those talks?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his patience and ability to listen to all five hours of Mr. Gorbachev's speech at the party congress. There is often a sense of frustration about the CSCE process, but it is worth reminding the House that it is a forum at which the important question of human rights can be discussed. I often think that it is interesting that Labour Members, who are so trusting of the Soviet Government regarding arms control, put down early-day motions about Soviet abuse of human rights, although the same Soviet leaders are involved in both issues.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give an account of the circumstances appertaining to, and the discussion during recent meetings between, the African National Congress and representatives of Her Majesty's Government.

We arranged the meeting in Lusaka on 3 February between a senior official of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and representatives of the African National Congress to reinforce the urgent need for dialogue within South Africa, and the general suspension of violence called for in the Commonwealth accord.

I welcome that statement. I also welcome the hon. Lady's recent speech in which she called for the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and said that that would show to the world that South Africa meant business. Does she not find a twinge of inconsistency in calling for that release, but being unwilling to meet representatives of the African National Congress in London?

There is absolutely no inconsistency. We have always said that we believe that the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela would constitute a major act of national reconciliation in South Africa, and could provide the impetus for genuine dialogue for a peaceful settlement. We have stressed the importance of that move to the South African Government. In the same way, the official level contacts with the ANC are also to promote dialogue and to get it to renounce violence, and so to bring a peaceful end to the present awful position in South Africa.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that meeting ANC representatives in no way condones or supports the techniques of terror that they are prone to use in South Africa? What would be her reaction if a foreign country approached Her Majesty's Government to make representations on the legitimate imprisonment of one of our citizens?

My hon. Friend is right. In no way do we condone violent behaviour. However, I must tell him that when a foreign Government approach us, we consider each approach on the facts as they are known to us. One cannot give a blanket response to cover the wide variety of approaches with which we must deal from many different countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with European Economic Community partners concerning the United Kingdom's attitude to negotiations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

As I explained to the House on 18 December 1985, our EC partners are briefed, as appropriate, on the international aspects of our Falklands policy, bilaterally and within the framework of European political co-operation. We have ensured that they are aware of our commitment to the Falkland Islanders, and of our desire for better relations with Argentina.

Is the Minister aware that one step along the path towards normalising relations with Argentina would be to end the unprincipled and extremely damaging fishing free-for-all in the waters round the Falkland Islands? Is he aware that many hon. Members, the islanders and Argentina want it ended? If he cannot get anywhere at the Food and Agriculture Organisation talks in Rome, will he do something himself quickly?

We share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about fishing off the Falklands. As he knows, we are actively pursuing efforts to achieve agreement on multilateral arrangements for fisheries under the auspices of the FAO. We have urged other Governments to cooperate with the FAO, and we were heartened by the signs that Argentina is ready to support the FAO initiative.