asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any recent discussions with the Nepalese Government about matters raised during his visit to Nepal in February; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend has had no recent discussions with the Nepalese Government.

Does my hon. Friend share my dismay over the fact that since our right hon. and learned Friend met his Nepalese counterpart in Nepal in February there have been further reports of the persecution of Christians, including the most humiliating and inhuman treatment of two Catholic nuns? In view of this, will my hon. Friend now warn the Nepalese Government that it cannot be long before public opinion in this country, and in the United States in particular, will be pressing to end all aid to Nepal until such time as the persecution of Christian citizens comes to an end?

We are aware of reports of the incident to which my hon. Friend refers and we are seeking further details. As he is aware, we share his concern about the reports of ill-treatment of Christians in Nepal. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned our concern to the Nepalese Government during this visit in February.

Given that those nuns and priests were dragged through the streets, beaten, and, in the case of the nuns, stripped naked by Nepalese policemen, does the Minister agree that it is about time that Her Majesty's Government stopped turning a blind eye and took up with the Nepalese Government this grave issue of the violation of human rights?

As I have already said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), we are seeking further details of the incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I remind him that Nepal is a sovereign independent country, and we have no locus standi to intervene on behalf of Nepalese citizens.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Foreign Ministers.

I next expect to meet other NATO Foreign Ministers collectively at the North Atlantic Council ministerial meeting in Brussels in December.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the primary interests of the Soviet Union is to invent and exploit potential divisions between members of the Alliance—for example, this country and the United States? Is it not highly irresponsible of the shadow Foreign Secretary, when in Moscow, to lend himself to a conspiracy against the membership and strength of the Western Alliance?

If I had to account for all the activities of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I should spend a great deal of time trying to defend him in vain. I hope that he took the opportunity when he was in Moscow to drive home to the Soviets the need for them to reach out for a balanced agreements on arms control.

Is it the intention of NATO Ministers to send congratulations to the newly elected President of Austria? Can the Foreign Secretary—

Order. What has this matter to do with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

I should like to know from the Foreign Secretary whether the NATO Foreign Ministers believe that it is desirable that someone who, at best, prostituted himself for the Nazi war machine and at worst actually gave orders that led to countless deaths should have been elected as President of Austria. Why did the British Government send congratulations? Does the Foreign Secretary understand the deep concern among many people in Britain over what has happened in Austria?

I admire the hon. Gentleman's capacity to stretch the rules of order to their limit. It is not my intention, speaking on behalf of NATO Foreign Ministers, to answer his question. Each Government have responded to the outcome of the democratic election conducted in Austria on the basis of their judgment of the facts.

What does my right hon. and learned Friend believe would be the reaction of his NATO colleagues if it were to be announced that this country was intending to give up unilaterally its independent strategic nuclear deterrent and to expel American nuclear bases from this country?

I have no doubt at all that my NATO colleagues would react with shock and astonishment at such an announcement, because it would cast away the effective foundation of the defence of this country as well as the effective foundation for our playing a realistic part in the arms control debate.

Is not one of the most damaging influences at play in relation to the success of NATO the American President, who pursues policies that damage the organisation, such as the rejection of SALT 2, the use of British bases for action outside NATO and his general attitude of disregard for European interests?

I certainly cannot join the hon. Gentleman in taking such a view of these matters. It would be welcome if he were to take the same kind of critical attitude of the leadership of the Soviet Union on matters of this kind. In fact, the United States leadership has in the last few years been taking steps to advance the process of arms control, and we have continued to emphasise the importance that we attach to that.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend firmly take on board the fact that it is not just a question of the Soviet Union exploiting divisions? When he meets the Foreign Ministers, will he firmly express the concern on both sides of this House and in the country over the Washington Administration's attitude towards the SALT 2 treaty, and will he firmly register the great concern in western Europe about that fact?

As was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week and in the discussions in Halifax at the North Atlantic Council, the Government, together with the other Governments of western Europe, attach importance to continued compliance with SALT 2 on both sides. It was for that reason that we welcomed the announcement by the President that he was disposing of the submarines in compliance with that treaty and expressed the hope that the Soviet Union would respond as necessary to enable the treaty to continue to he observed and complied with on both sides.

Will the Foreign Secretary inform the United State Secretary of State that the units of the Alliance can be weakened only when the American Administration vetoes an agreement on human contacts which has already been reached by his own officials and by all European members at the Berne conference, and when President Reagan threatens to violate the SALT 2 restrictions on armaments after all his allies explicitly advised him not to when asked for their opinion a few weeks earlier? Does he not agree that the SALT 2 agreement and the abortive agreement on human contacts are precisely the sort of balanced agreements that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) claims to want and which I pressed for when I was in Moscow the other day?

I do not doubt the importance of seeking to achieve agreement, if possible, in the course of meetings such as the Berne meeting on human contacts. It must be a matter of regret that it was not possible to reach agreement along the lines originally foreshadowed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has held discussions recently with Senor Perez de Cuellar concerning United Nations expenditure in 1986; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend raised the question of United Nations finances with the Secretary-General during his official visit to this country from 13 to 15 May. He emphasised the need for a sustained effort to achieve economies and recalled our own record of paying our contributions promptly and in full.

At a time when the United Nations faces its worst financial crisis in its history, how can the continued publication of the controversial PINS — political information news service — report be justified when it costs almost £1 million a year?

I am sure that these and other aspects of information will be examined both by the Secretary-General in his continuing efforts to reduce expenditure within his control and by the Group of 18, which is looking at the longer term implications for United Nations finances.

Does the Minister accept that if the United Nations did not exist it would be necessary to invent it? Does he also accept that such flaws as there may be mirror an imperfect world and that, while we seek to improve it, we ought to condemn irresponsible comments, which do nothing but harm to an outstanding international body?

Her Majesty's Government are, of course, committed to continued membership of and activity in the United Nations both as an ordinary member and as a member of the Security Council.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Nations could increase its reputation and its finances by releasing the records of 40,000 Nazi criminals, which are hidden in its vaults? Does he also agree that it is slow to do that because of the proper implication of an ex-Secretary-General of the United Nations? Is it not time that all these records were revealed so that this evil can be cleared up one way or the other?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 19 May, it would not be appropriate for us to consider seeking from the United Nations copies of documents relating to Dr. Waldheim's wartime activities before the Ministry of Defence search of military records is complete.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to Britain's continued membership of the United Nations, but will he confirm that the Government totally reject all the calls from the Right wing in his party and in some of the media, inspired again by the Heritage Foundation, to follow withdrawal from UNESCO by withdrawal from some of the other agencies of the United Nations? Will the Minister today pay a tribute to the United Nations and its agencies for the excellent work that it has done in its lifetime for peace and development in the world?

Developments within UNESCO over the past few months have served to confirm the wisdom of our decision to withdraw at the end of last year. There has been no evidence recently of movement towards a central reform within UNESCO. In relation to the UN system as a whole, of course we are committed to continued membership.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what action is being taken jointly with the Government of Pakistan to control drug trafficking.

We share with the Government of Pakistan a firm commitment to tackle the problem of drug production, trafficking and abuse. We have close and effective co-operation m many aspects of drug enforcement, through Customs and other channels. Over recent years Pakistan has been the main recipient of our drugs-related assistance worldwide.

Can my hon. Friend confirm the efficacy of the co-operation between the two countries in bringing to book people engaged in this vile trade? Can he tell the House whether there are yet stationed in Pakistan, as in some other countries, representatives of British Customs and Excise? If not, will he work towards that end?

I can indeed assure my hon. and learned Friend of the considerable efforts that the Pakistan Government, from the highest level downwards, are taking to eradicate drug production and trading. Officials from British Customs have been in Pakistan for some considerable time.

Has the Minister seen reports today of a warning by Mr. Colin Hewitt, the co-ordinator of the national drugs intelligence unit, that the drug abuse problem is worsening? Against that background, and given the regrettably leading role which evil men in Pakistan play in the continuation of this vile trade, may we have an assurance that we will redouble our efforts and pressure on the Pakistan Government to shut down the supply routes?

We are deeply concerned about the increasing problems of drug abuse within the United Kingdom, and worldwide. We do not need to put such pressure on Pakistan, because the Pakistan Government, of their own volition and with our assistance, are taking considerable measures throughout the country to assist in cutting down the growth of the heroin trade in particular.

Can my hon. Friend confirm the Government's success in placing Customs officers in India, through which almost all of the Pakistani drugs products are smuggled on their way to this country?

As my right hon. and learned Friend told the Select Committee on Home Affairs on 4 June, following his discussion with Mr. Gandhi, the Government of India have agreed in principle to our proposal to post drugs liaison officers in New Delhi and Bombay. In passing, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in drawing attention to the problems of drug abuse in this country. Administrative arrangements are now in train with a view to early postings of the drugs liaison officers.

Can the Minister say exactly when the two drugs liaison officers for New Delhi and Bombay will be in post? Do the Government accept the view of the Drug Enforcement Agency in the USA that many of the drugs going into Pakistan and out through Bombay come via Afghanistan and refugees who use herion as a currency for arms? If the Government accept that, was that matter raised when the Prime Minister welcomed Mr. Abdul Hag, the Afghani rebel leader, earlier this year?

We are discussing with the Government of India the precise arrangements for the posting of the two drugs liaison officers. We have identified those officers and we hope to have them in post in the near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his visit to the United Nations Special Session on Africa.

I was glad to be able to attend the United Nations Special Session on Africa. Her Majesty's Government greatly welcome its positive outcome. The final resolution, adopted by consesus, represents a commitment by all concerned to work together for sustained economic development based on realistic policies.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that statement. May I offer him the pleasant duty, I hope, of sharing with the House the general satisfaction with the award given yesterday to Mr. Bob Geldof?

I am glad to acknowledge the importance of both the points made by my hon. Friend and to commend the fact that the total British aid going to Africa through bilateral and multilateral channels has increased from £447 million in 1982 to about £570 million in 1985. That is in addition to the substantial measures taken by way of cancellation of aid debts and support for the International Development Agency programme.

What is the Foreign Secretary's response to the comments of Sir Robert Geldof, who described the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech at the United Nations illustrating Britain's position on help for those in need in Africa as a lot of old crap?—[Interruption.]

Order. I know that Mr. Geldof said that, but it is not a very elegant word to use in this Chamber.

I regard the use of such language by Mr. Geldof as unhelpful, just as it is even more unhelpful on the part of the hon. Gentleman. It is only one aspect of the character of Mr. Geldof that has made him widely admired around the world for the part that he has played.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend had contacts with Mr. Bradford Morse, the head of the Special Programme for Africa in the United Nations, or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, about the large influx of refugees into Somalia owing to the intolerable programme by the Ethiopian authorities of corralling people into special villages?

That is one of the matters that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has constantly in mind in the contacts that he has in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Soviet Foreign Minister; and whether he will raise the issue of human contacts in the light of the discussions at the conference on security and co-operation in Europe in Berne.

We hope that Mr. Shevardnadze will be able to visit the United Kingdom in the near future. My right hon. and learned Friend has raised issues of human contacts and human rights with the Soviet Foreign Minister in the past and will continue to do so. These issues were also raised during the recent visit to the USSR of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation led by my noble Friend the Lord President.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Soviet authorities still refuse to allow thousands of Jews who have applied to leave the Soviet Union to join their families to do so? Is he further aware that in the past week yet another Hebrew teacher — Aleksy Magarik — has been sentenced to three years in a labour camp following the finding of 6g of cannabis which was planted in his luggage? Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Soviet authorities think they can blatantly disregard their solemnly entered into international undertakings on human rights and still convince the West that if they enter into solemn and binding undertakings for arms reduction it will believe them, they had better think again?

I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend has said. It is true that the Soviet Union's record on permitting Jewish emigration is unsatisfactory and that there are no signs of it improving this year. At the CSCE in Berne it was quite clear that Soviet Jewry was a great stumbling block, in that the Soviet delegation was anxious to avoid any recommendations that had a direct bearing on Jewish emigration. At the same time, the West made it clear that it would not agree to a final document which excluded Soviet Jews.

Will the Minister follow up the efforts made by the delegation in Moscow to convince the Soviet leadership that concern for civil rights and the rights of religious groups, Christians as well as Jews, is not a propaganda issue so far as the West is concerned, but an issue of real concern to many citizens in the democratic West? Will he take the opportunity to try to convince the Soviet leadership that it would be in its interests to improve its record on that matter?

Yes. We have done so many times, and we shall continue to do so. It is obviously right that the question of human rights is an integral part of implementing the Helsinki final act. It is tragic that I often hear praise from the East for the value of the Helsinki accord, but at the same time we see every chapter being flouted by it.

My hon. Friend and the House are rightly concerned for the human rights of Jews as for everybody else. Will he point out to the Israeli Defence Minister that it would be more helpful to the human rights of Israelis if they were concerned for the democracy of Arabs as well as for Jews?

On many occasions we have made it plain to the Israeli Government that we wish to see a total withdrawal from southern Lebanon, where the rights of a number of Palestinians are being badly thwarted. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when she was in Israel recently, raised strongly with the Israeli Prime Minister the lack of rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

To revert to the original question, may I thank the Government for their steps to keep this matter before the Soviet Government. I thank also the all-party delegation that went to Moscow. Will the Government please continue to press for the release of people such as Ida Nudel, Alexander Vladimar Slepak, Alexander Lerner and other winners of the annual award of the all-party parliamentary committee for the release of Soviet Jewry? Will the Government say how much we care about these people and their right—which has not been granted—to leave the Soviet Union in accordance with the Soviet Union's constitution and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights?

I very much agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's thanks to the parliamentary delegation that recently went to Moscow for the manner in which it raised the subject of human rights with Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Gorbachev. Clearly the delegation took every opportunity to raise the subject of those distressing cases. We shall continue to raise not only the cases mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman but the split family cases, which concern British citizens in this country. As in the past, we shall continue to do that at every possible opportunity.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the Opposition believe as strongly as he does in civil and human rights, whether in Eastern bloc countries or any Western country? Does he agree that the unilateral vetoing by the United States and other member states of the CSCE — the Helsinki group — of an agreement in Berne which would have positively improved the ability of people to leave the Soviet Union does little or nothing to help the cause of those in the Soviet Union or other countries who saw the light at the end of the tunnel being denied by the impromptu action of the United States Government?

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. The United Kingdom delegation was prepared to give its agreement to a document which was, in effect, a compromise reached at the end of the Berne meeting. In fairness, it must be said that the view of the United States delegation was that the recommendations in the compromise document did not go far enough, given the Soviet failure to comply with existing commitments. In some cases the United States delegation thought that the compromise document was a step backwards from the commitments made in the Helsinki final act. On that basis, there was no agreement on the document.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and where Government officials will next meet the African National Congress.

As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 9 April, contacts between officials and the ANC are continuing as appropriate. The central purpose of such contact is to bring home to the ANC the importance of a suspension of violence on all sides in South Africa in order to promote a constructive dialogue.

Now that the Eminent Persons Group has been bombed out of South Africa by the Botha regime's actions a few weeks ago against three Commonwealth countries, why do not the Government, when they sit down at ministerial level with the ANC—as they should do—call for an unconditional amnesty for Mandela and take a lead on economic sanctions against that unhappy country to stop all the bloodshed and suffering?

We have unreservedly condemned the raids on the capitals of the three independent Commonwealth countries, especially at a time when the Eminent Persons Group was making progress. We have called for the consideration of dialogue among all parties. It is not for me this afternoon, before publication of the report of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, to make any comments on it. We shall consider the report with the utmost care.

Apathy.

There is certainly no apathy in the Government's response.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the ANC is the oldest political party in South Africa, that it will play a crucial part in the country's future and that it is important that Britain should be in a better position to influence its thinking?

We have had official-level contacts where appropriate to be in a better position to influence the ANC's thinking. One feature of the ANC is that, although it is made up of people with many different views, if the Communists take it over, Nationalists will be denied the means of political expression. That is why we have called for an end to apartheid. That is why we have supported the work of the Eminent Persons Group, which has gone on so thoroughly over six months.

Does the Minister agree that in order to promote dialogue between members of the ANC and the authorities in Pretoria the Government should contemplate introducing a ban on commercial air flights to South Africa and should co-ordinate action on that front with other members of the Commonwealth and European Community?

In our contacts with the ANC and the South African Government we have always sought to bring home to them the fact that continuation of the policies that deny rights to black South Africans, including the lack of freedom for Nelson Mandela, are to be abhorred. Specific bans, such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, are for consideration in the light of the report of the eminent persons group. We have not committed ourselves and will not do so until the report has been published. It will be published tomorrow and it then needs to be considered, as has been agreed, between the Heads of Government, at the beginning of August.

Is it not a fact that the Eminent Persons Group has come to the conclusion that there is no alternative, in view of what is happening in South Africa, but to apply sanctions? When will the British Government realise that it is not good enough to say that we are against apartheid, and could instead recognise that effective actions must be taken to persuade the South African Government to act in the direction that the majority of hon. Members, including a number of Conservative Members, want? There must be fundamental changes in South Africa, and the longer that is delayed the more bloodshed and tragedy there will be in that country.

As I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have said on many occasions, we have consistently condemned all the things that the hon. Gentleman has condemned. We have also said that we have argued against collective economic boycotts and things of that kind because experience has shown that they do not work. The question whether any further measures can be taken, in addition to those measures that the United Kingdom has already implemented over the years, has to be considered in the light of experience and of the report. We do not yet have the report.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the imposition of sanctions is likely to produce more bloodshed and more anger? In the townships of Uitenhage and New London unemployment is already running at 50 per cent. What possible advantage could accrue to those we wish to help by the imposition of sanctions?

There is no doubt that there are many views on that subject. We certainly know that sanctions as applied in the past have not given a clear outcome. We wanted to ensure, and continue to do so, that the actions we have taken, such as the arms embargo, the Gleneagles agreement, the European Community measures decided at Luxembourg, the Nassau measures and the stepping up of our own policy work. Those things do work and we should consider only measures that will work. Otherwise, as my hon. Friend said, we shall worsen the situation still further.

When we take over the presidency of the EEC Council of Ministers on 1 July, will we still maintain an objection in principle to meeting the ANC at ministerial level, although we have agreed that other Presidents of the EEC Council should meet them? If we do so will not the British public and our allies not conclude that we are prepared only to engage constructively in dialogue with white South Africans and are not prepared constructively to engage in dialogue with black South Africans?

The hon. Gentleman's last remark is absolute nonsense. Of course we are prepared constructively to engage in dialogue with black South Africans. We have been working behind the scenes for a dialogue between all the peoples of South Africa and that is what the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group has worked so hard for. When we take up the presidency of the European Community we shall consider the measures that need to be taken at that time. I am sure that the discussion will go along such lines.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the EPG's failure is partly because the Commonwealth Secretariat and its director general have been hand in hand with the ANC, which has no intention of pursuing peaceful reform in South Africa? Will she accept that the Government have no business discussing such matters with terrorists and that she would be better spending her time talking to moderate black leaders in South Africa, such as Chief Buthelezi?

The earlier part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question was wrong. We shall talk with the full range of black leaders in South Africa, and the best way of doing that must be left to the Government to decide.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions are planned by the European Community Foreign Ministers concerning the situation in Central America; and if he will make a statement.

There is regular discussion of Central America within European political co-operation. The 12 have acted five times this year to support the Contadora peace process, most recently before the Esquipulas summit of the five Central American Presidents on 24–25 May, when the 12 called for prompt signature and implementation of a comprehensive and verifiable agreement. The next meeting of Foreign Ministers is on 16–17 June.

May I urge the Secretary of State to use his forthcoming presidency of the Council to persuade the Community to speak with one voice in seeking the withdrawal of American funding of the Contras? Does he agree that the continued funding of the Contras' regime by the Americans is the greatest single obstacle to the signing of a peace treaty with the Contadoras?

The United States Government have reaffirmed their support for a comprehensive, viable and simultaneous settlement that would answer all the 21 Contadora objectives. They did that on 22 May. We hope very much that Nicaragua will negotiate seriously to reach such an agreement.

Can the Minister tell us one thing that has changed in Central America as a result of co-ordinated action by the member states of the EEC on this issue? Can he say whether, during our presidency, we shall be leading the EEC in opposition to a decision that is likely to be taken this year by the House of Representatives in favour of military aid to the Contras?

The solution to the problems of Central America rest with the Contadora countries and the Latin America support group. Our role within the EEC, as President of the EEC and as the United Kingdom Government, is to support peace processes, and we shall continue to do so.

Will the Minister answer the key question? As the Government are on record as condemning all state-sponsored terrorism, will they condemn the United States Government for their sponsorship — state sponsorship — of the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman goes right over the top. The Government have consistently advocated negotiations rather than violence. We have advocated a balanced approach rather than the one-sided rhetoric that comes from Opposition Members. We believe that there should be a comprehensive solution to comprehensive problems.

If Nicaragua signs the proposals put forward by its neighbours and there is no change in the attitude of the United States, what will European Ministers do?

The United States Government have stated clearly that they support the Contadora process. If Nicaragua signs an agreement, presumably the United States Government will support the agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the prospects for peace in Afghanistan, following the emergence of a new leader of the Communist regime in Kabul.

This change of leadership in Afghanistan does not of itself improve prospects for peace. The only way to make progress is for the Soviet Union to withdraw all its troops, in accordance with successive United Nations resolutions.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the appointment of the former head of the secret police as the leader of Afghanistan—a man who carried out an atrocious campaign of slavish acceptance of the Moscow line — will not be conducive to an acceptance of the present regime? Does he agree that the mere presence of over 100,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan, which has led to tens of thousands of deaths and over 3 million refugees, should be of greater interest to the British Labour party than the anti-Western views that it pursues?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the appointment of a former head of the Afghan secret police who so ruthlessly prosecuted the polices of the regime does nothing whatsoever to help the prospects of peace. He is even less acceptable to the Afghan people than his presecessor. It would be encouraging if the Opposition would devote half as much attention to the withdrawal of 118,000 Soviet troops from Afghanistan as they do to the question of Nicaragua.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that no practical solution to the United Nations peace talks can be achieved without the involvement of the Mujahideen?

It is certainly correct that any conclusion, which must involve the withdrawal of Soviet troops, must be acceptable to the Afghan people.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there has been recent progress at the Geneva disarmament conference in negotiations on chemical weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to discuss the Soviet capability in chemical weapons with a representative of the Soviet Government.

The conference on disarmament has been in recess since 25 April 1986 and resumed on 10 June. Progress so far this year has not been as rapid as we would have wished. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to have a full exchange of views on a range of arms control issues, including chemical weapons, when the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Shevardnadze visits London.

Does my hon. Friend agree that an agreement to ban the production of these weapons without watertight verification would be useless? Will he press the Soviet Union to concede this inspection? Will he further stress that these awful weapons have already been used in the Iran-Iraq war? There is a danger of further proliferation without international agreement outlawing their production and deployment.

Yes, Sir. We hope to achieve a global verifiable ban on the production and stocking of chemical weapons. The question of verification is difficult, but we must try to make progress. The recent use of chemical weapons in Iraq demonstrates the danger of proliferation of these dreadful weapons.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people in this country supported the Government's decision to abandon our chemical warfare capability in the 1950s? Does he accept that there is now mounting anxiety over what we regard as the increasing chemical warfare capability of the Soviet Union? While I appreciate that no firm plans have been made for a meeting with the Soviet Foreign Minister, can outline what other contacts have been made with the Soviets on this important subject?

Yes. The stockpile of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union, estimated at not less than 300,000 tonnes of nerve gas weapons, is a matter of serious concern. For that reason, and while we are awaiting Mr. Shevardnadze's visit, we are pleased that Mr. Issraelyan, the chief Soviet representative at the United Nations conference on disarmament in Geneva, is coming here shortly. We shall specifically discuss with him Soviet ideas about implementing a verifiable ban.

When Mr. Shevardnadze comes to this country, will the Minister arrange for Foreign Office officials, at senior level, to meet Mr. Julian Perry Robinson and his colleagues at Sussex university who are making a special study of these affairs?

I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's request. As Sussex university is on the edge of my constituency, I may have an opportunity to hear Mr. Perry Robinson's views. The hon. Gentleman should take comfort from what I have said. The visit of Ambassador Issraelyan, the chief Soviet representative at Geneva, will give us an opportunity to consider in great detail the degree to which we can move towards a verifiable regime on the key issue of challenge inspection.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister about the banning of chemical weapons. When he gets into negotiations about chemical weapons in Geneva. will he first admit that we have chemical weapons within our shores, although that has been denied ever since I have been here?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his early support, but I totally disagree with his latter statement. Britain gave up the production and stocking of chemical weapons in the late 1950s. There has been a complete ban on their production in the United States ever since the late 1960s, and it is only against that background that NATO has now agreed to new United States production of such weapons at the end of next year if there is not a total ban in force by them. That is the carrot for us all to move towards. We should get a total verifiable ban before the end of next year.

Although I recognise that the Soviet Union alone has a large-scale and modern chemical weapon capability which has given NATO little choice but to establish a new force goal for the development of binary weapons by the United States, will my hon. Friend make it quite clear that we favour a dual-track approach and that we would infinitely prefer an all-out chemical weapons ban, with proper verification provisions, to going ahead. in the last resort, with the force goal?

Yes, Sir. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. NATO has no wish for the renewed production of chemical weapons in the United States if the far better option of a verifiable global ban can be negotiated by that time.

Can the Minister confirm that it is not an agreement by NATO to the deployment of binary chemical weapons, but that NATO has only noted the force goal of the United States? It is important to get that precisely correct, as some NATO countries oppose the force goal. Is it not clear that the Soviet Union genuinely wants an agreement on chemical weapons, as was made clear, it is understood, in a reply from Mr. Gorbachev to the Prime Minister only last week? As it is now willing to consider on-site inspection of destruction of stocks and production facilities, surely Britain could use its forthcoming presidency of the Geneva talks on the subject to talk on behalf of the British people, and not on behalf of the American Administration, in seeking an agreement to ban these terrible and wholly unnecessary weapons.

The hon. Gentleman sees matters in a very topsy-turvy fashion. The United States has had a total ban on the production of these weapons for 17 years. It is against the background of a continuing Soviet stockpile of more than 300,000 tonnes of such weapons that NATO has agreed to the force goal of the United States. As for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Soviet attitude, in their recent offers the Soviets have agreed, for example, to examine some points of detail such as declaring chemical weapon production sites within 30 days and beginning dismantling within one year. We have no news at all from them on the key issue of challenge inspection. That is the issue, among others, which we shall explore when Ambassador Issraelyan comes here shortly and, doubtless, when Foreign Minister Shevardnadze comes here later. That is the key issue to be resolved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that our policy of deterrence and negotiation is far more likely to be successful than the pious and empty hopes of the so-called alliance commission, which announced today, in a press conference taking place now, that it hopes that chemical weapons will be the subject of reduction?

Who said that, though?

Not surprisingly, the press conference is taking place despite the ostentatious boycott of the leader of the Social Democratic party.

Yes, Sir. It is absolutely clear that the dual track position of NATO — [HON. MEMBERS: "Of the alliance."] — over intermediate nuclear weapons was effective in bringing the Soviets back to the negotiating table, leading to a possible ban, on a zero basis, on intermediate nuclear weapons. These days it is hard to understand where the other alliance stands on any defence issues, but out position is quite plain. We, and all other Western countries, will fight for a verifiable global ban on chemical weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the High Commissioner of Sri Lanka; and what subjects he discussed with him.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has met the Sri Lankan high commissioner on a number of occasions, most recently on 18 March when the high commissioner called on him, accompanied by the Sri Lankan Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon. Mr. Hameed.

Does the Minister agree that it is a matter for great sorrow that that Commonwealth country should be ravaged by communal violence? If support is not given to Mr. Rajiv Gandhi's peace initiative, there is a great danger that both communities will be dominated by their own extremists. As the communities in Ceylon inherited that division from the days of British imperialism, could not the British Government play a role in spearheading a Commonwealth initiative to back Rajiv Gandhi in order to bring together those two communities?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he analysed the situation in the first part of his question. We deplore the continuing violence in Sri Lanka. We acknowledge Mr Gandhi's valuable and positive role in encouraging direct talks between the Sri Lankan Government and Tamil representatives. We shall support any efforts that are aimed at furthering the peace process. However, we believe that India has a crucial role in this whole area. We would be prepared to do whatever we can to support that role.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are friends of Sri Lanka and its people and would like to convey to them our distress at the continuing violence and, in particular, our sympathy over the outrage that has been reported today? May I warmly endorse the views expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), and point out that the Indian Government have sought to effect a reconciliation for 12 months, without any success? Both communities hold the United Kingdom in high regard. Is not the time ripe for the British Government to take a positive initiative in effecting a reconciliation?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I shall ensure that his, and those of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), are drawn to the attention of the Sri Lankan high commissioner. We continue to believe that we should assist the Indian Government in any way felt appropriate and should keep in close touch with the Sri Lankan Government.

Does the Minister accept that the origin of many of Sri Lanka's problems lies in the continual exclusion of the Tamil people from Government and other constitutional processes? Does he further accept that his concern to achieve peace in Sri Lanka would be far more credible if the British Government stopped supplying the Sri Lankan Government with arms, which have been used to kill Tamil people, and withdrew any training facilities offered to the Sri Lankan armed forces in this country? That would be one way of showing that he was determined to achieve peace in that country instead of escalating the communal violence.

May I first say how pleased I am to see the hon. Gentleman participating in the democratic process rather than demonstrating on the streets—

Withdraw.

Order. Every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says.

Withdraw.

I have no intention of withdrawing. I do not see that I have anything to withdraw. I welcomed the hon. Gentleman back to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy, as President of the European Economic Community Council, to initiate a review of relations between member states and South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

The Foreign Ministers of the 12 regularly discuss the situation in South Africa at their meetings. The next such meeting will take place on 16 June. Foreign Ministers of the 12 will continue to meet to review policy during the British Presidency.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that he, as the President of the EEC Council, will have enormous influence on the attitude of the other 11 members? As the situation worsens week by week in South Africa, and in view of the comments on the attitude of South Africa by the Eminent Persons Group, what else has to happen in that country before the Government start to give decisive leadership against the actions and attitudes of the South African Government? Are we for ever to be making excuses? Are we for ever to be dragging our feet? When will we give some leadership?

The Government have condemned the apartheid system without reservation and have made it plain that it ought to go and go as quickly as possible. It is to that end that we have supported the work of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, whose report is now in our hands and will be considered. When the EC Foreign Ministers met the front-line states in February this year they made it clear that that group's report deserves consideration by them as well.

As my right hon. and learned Friend's presidency will, as he has just said, coincide with the publication of the Eminent Persons Group's report, will he give himself the priority of doing his best to align the policies of the EEC, the Commonwealth and Her Majesty's Government.

As my hon. Friend will have noticed, the positions adopted by the Community at Luxembourg last September, and subsequently by the Commonwealth in the following month, were closely in line with each other.

Now that the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group has reported that no progress is likely to be made towards a peaceful settlement in South Africa unless the external powers impose new sanctions on the Botha regime, will the Foreign Secretary persuade the Prime Minister to abandon her pig-headed opposition to sanctions, which has identified Britain as the only protector of apartheid in the outside world, has split the European Community and now threatens to break up the Commonwealth?

The right hon. Gentleman's comment is characteristically inaccurate. The European Community's position has been the common position since September last year. The Commonwealth's position has been the common position since last October. It is important that full and careful consideration should now be given to the report of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group. We all share the common aim of bringing about an early end to apartheid in South Africa and, if possible, of achieving that without violence through a process of dialogue.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a week when the luck of the ballot gave Ministers an opportunity to answer questions legitimately put by a Select Committee of the House —the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—is it tactful for the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), to lecture my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on the democratic process?

Order. I have already made a comment about that. It is not a matter for me.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister, when answering a question in the House, to suggest that Members of Parliament who take part in demonstrations outside the House on matters about which they feel strongly are acting in an undemocratic manner? Is it not the case that democracy means that people have a right to speak freely in the House and also a right to speak freely and to demonstrate outside the House on matters about which they feel strongly?

I am not responsible for what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), does outside the House. It is perfectly in order for him to demonstrate if that is what he wishes to do. Every hon. Member takes responsibility for what he says in the House.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Will it help?

Could you confirm to the hon. Gentleman in case he is in any doubt, that although any hon. Member is entitled to demonstrate and speak freely, he is not entitled to break the law?

Order. That goes for all our citizens.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that Question Time had been completed by the time you permitted a point of order to be raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)?

Today Question Time ran slightly over to

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to imply that by taking part in demonstrations my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has been involved in illegal activities? I understand—

Order. I have already dealt with that matter.

rose—

Further interventions do not help. I have given the hon. Gentleman my protection. What else does he want?

I am deeply grateful for your protection of democratic rights inside and outside the House, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you would also like it to be placed correctly on the record—because the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) obviously reads the headlines, not the stories—that I have not been charged with any offence arising from any actions that took place outside the Old Bailey on Monday morning.

Order. Let us get on with something that is my responsibility.