asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the European Economic Community Council to instruct the European Economic Community Trade Ministers to consider effective trade measures against South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Economic Community Council will next discuss the situation in South Africa and action by European Economic Community member states.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to how many European Economic Community member states support Her Majesty's Government in their opposition to economic measures against South Africa.

The Twelve are united in a common policy towards South Africa designed to hasten the process of peaceful reform and to encourage the South African Government to begin a dialogue with genuine representatives of the black population. The European Council recently entrusted my right hon. and learned Friend with a mission to southern Africa, the aim of which is to try to help establish the conditions in which the necessary negotiations can commence. He is currently visiting Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique in pursuit of this objective, and plans to travel to South Africa towards the end of the month.

Does the Minister agree that it would be sensible and sane for her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to call off this useless charade, especially now that it has been condemned as a fudge by President Kaunda? The ANC will not meet him, the Church leaders do not want to see him, and even his friend, President Botha, is keeping him waiting. Would it not be more sensible for him to stop making a spectacle of himself, call off this farce and return home and try to persuade the Prime Minister to listen to the views of the black population, who want meaningful economic sanctions.

The hon. Gentleman is very wrong. The Heads of Government of the Twelve agreed on an urgent need for genuine dialogue on the future of South Africa. They wish a further effort to be made to seek to establish conditions in which dialogue can commence. This is not a lost cause. We are trying again the road to persuasion. As the Prime Minister said in The Guardian this morning:

"We can still help to get negotiations started."

In order to obtain a realistic record, will the Minister of State tell the House which Governments of the member states of the EEC are willing to apply sanctions and which are opposed to sanctions?

There is not a complete list. A number of countries believe that pressure should be applied, but many countries and many people who have called for sanctions believe that effective measures may not necessarily be general economic sanctions, to which Britain is opposed. It is through the consultations that my right hon. and learned Friend and others are undertaking that, if necessary, we will find what effective measures may have to be considered by the European Council and at the Commonwealth review meeting.

Is it not a fact that the EEC countries have allowed themselves to be bullied and manoeuvred by the Prime Minister? Because of the need to have a unified policy, they have had to give way to the attacks being made by the Prime Minister upon the idea of economic sanctions. Can the Minister of State name just one country in the EEC that is doing less than Britain to bring pressure to bear upon South Africa?

The hon. Gentleman is sadly wrong. Other countries in the EEC are taking a variety of measures, and we are certainly taking as many as any of them.

In view of the petty party point-scoring by Opposition Members, would it not be as well for the House to remember that it was a Conservative Government who secured a solution to the problem of Rhodesia after years of abject failure by a Labour Government?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I seem to remember a previous Prime Minister thinking that he could effect a quick answer in about 1965, but it took another 14 years. It was a Conservative Government who brought to an end the tragedies in Zimbabwe. I hope that all the efforts, not only of this Government, but of my right hon. and learned Friend on behalf of the European Community, will lead to a framework for dialogue within which we can bring an end to the awful violence which is taking place on all sides in South Africa.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is no option now, whatever our individual views may be, but to support my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in his enterprise and efforts in southern Africa? Will she emphasise that he goes there on behalf of all EEC countries with strong United States links and that, therefore, he represents overwhelmingly the majority of South Africa's major trading partners? Will my hon. Friend also emphasise to South Africa that, if it does not have the sense to listen to my right hon. and learned Friend, it may not get another chance?

I endorse wholeheartedly what my hon. Friend has said about the significance of this mission. It offers an important opportunity to break the cycle of violence in South Africa and to promote the very necessary dialogue and negotiation that we all want to see. My right hon. and learned Friend's mission deserves the support of the entire international community. Those Opposition Members or others who seek to talk it down for narrow partisan reasons should ask themselves seriously whether they are doing the cause any good at all. I remind the House that five of South Africa's major trading partners are united behind my right hon. and learned Friend's mission to find a peaceful solution to the terrible problems of apartheid.

Does my hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members, who have a genuine concern for the rights of black people in South Africa believe that dialogue is better than monologue and find faintly nauseating the antics of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in constantly trying to make partisan points which do no good whatsoever for the aspirations of black people in South Africa? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we support what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is doing, but, if he is unsuccessful, we expect the Government to align themselves with our friends in the Community and in the Commonwealth and take whatever action is considered to be appropriate?

The dialogue upon which my right hon. and learned Friend has embarked is the last chance perhaps to get a successful dialogue going. It is wrong to assume that this mission will fail. I have seen all sorts of headlines and comments by right hon. and hon. Members. What is going on is a gradual, steady effort to make sure that everybody who can be involved is involved in the dialogue, which must surely come. I sincerely hope that all right hon. and hon. Members and the media will see that what is really going on is a positive effort to start the dialogue for negotiations between all peoples in South Africa.

Does the hon. Lady understand, from what the Prime Minister said on the radio this morning, that there are no economic measures that the Government would contemplate using if the Foreign Secretary's visit does not achieve the results that were set out for it? If that is so, how will that help the Foreign Secretary in his task?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said nothing different this morning from what she has said before. This morning on the radio programme "Today" she said:

"I am and remain against punitive economic sanctions—general economic sanctions."

"show what they call signals or gestures of disapproval of South African policy of apartheid … and we agree with those and operate them, as a gesture, a signal to South Africa that the world thoroughly disapproves of the system of apartheid and wants it to end."

Does my hon. Friend accept that the economic sanctions that have been taken by this Government and others against South Africa have already resulted in starvation, lengthening dole queues and a lot of misery to black South Africans? Will she take this opportunity to clear her own position: that she shares the view of her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that economic sanctions are not the answer? Will she get a message through to her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that he must not ask of the South African Government anything that they cannot possibly deliver in these circumstances?

The hon. Gentleman gets paid for saying that. [Interruption.]

Withdraw.

Order. There is so much noise that I do not know what was said. What word should be withdrawn?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) alleged that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was paid to put his question.

Order. If that is so, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) must withdraw the allegation.

I do not wish to take time out of Question Time. May I deal with the matter at the end of Question Time?

No.

Order. Let us set off in a good way. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw that remark? He is an hon. Member, like everybody else.

I have the greatest respect for you, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced in my mind that what I said was absolutely correct.

Order. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may be convinced about in his own mind, in this Chamber he must withdraw that comment.

I shall do so only because of your ruling, and for no other reason, because I have not changed my mind one tiny bit. However, if you tell me to do so, in your capacity as Speaker, although what I believe is true, I have no alternative but to withdraw. Only in those circumstances do I withdraw.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I am not taking any more points of order. The hon. Gentleman has had his say.

The matter of South Africa is terribly serious, and it behoves the House not to catcall in one way or another. We want to see a speedy end to the awful regime of apartheid. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) says that general economic sanctions will have, and have had, damaging consequences before. I must point out that it is the potentially very serious effects on South Africa's neighbours, as well as on black people in South Africa, if general economic sanctions were to be applied, that makes us consult so widely and seriously about the best way to bring about an effective change in South Africa. That is what my right hon and learned Friend will do throughout his mission and thereafter.

Does the Minister believe that the Foreign Secretary's chances of success in his mission have been improved by the fusillade of interviews given by the Prime Minister since he left London? In the course of those interviews the Prime Minister said that she was sorry that South Africa was not in the Commonwealth, she severely criticised the Governments of Zambia and Zimbabwe, she said that she was against economic sanctions in general, that she would support signs and gestures but did not believe that they would have any effect, and, finally, she said that she hoped the Commonwealth summit would take no action on South Africa. Has the Prime Minister not cut the ground from under the Foreign Secretary's feet and made his mission impossible?

If anyone has made my right hon. and learned Friend's position impossible, and sought to persuade persons, as I understand it, not even to meet him, it is the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).

That is absolutely untrue.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister understands very well the anger, despair and hopelessness of many people in South Africa and southern Africa. She fully supports the mission undertaken on behalf of the European Community by my right hon. and learned Friend, and she is seeking in every way possible to make sure that we view the possibilities ahead in a realistic way that will help to bring about that necessary pressure on the South African Government.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to give the Minister a chance to withdraw the disgraceful statement that I sought to persuade African leaders not to see the Foreign Secretary. I ask her to consult the high commissioner in Lusaka, with whom I stayed, who will tell her that I spent the whole visit trying to persuade President Kaunda to see the Foreign Secretary and to withdraw his threat to leave the Commonwealth.

I would like the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have frequently had good and thoughtful discussions on this subject, to assert in the House this afternoon that he fully supports my right hon. and learned Friend's intention and wish to meet the ANC and all other groups with which we seek to promote dialogue in an effort to bring an end to apartheid. I said to the right hon. Gentleman that I had understood that that had happened. If that is not the case—the right hon. Gentleman knows me well enough; he knows I will withdraw—I ask him to assert here this afternoon that he is fully in favour of my right hon. and learned Friend meeting all the political groups and all the people whom he seeks to meet in an effort to bring about the dialogue that we all urgently want.

rose—

Order. I will call the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on the next question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent actions have been taken by Her Majesty's Government against the present Government of South Africa.

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

The Government have implemented a wide range of measures against South Africa, including the United Nations arms embargo, the Gleneagles agreement and those agreed with our Commonwealth partners at Nassau and our European partners in Luxembourg in 1985. We have also made representations to the South African Government on a number of issues, most recently the restrictions imposed under the state of emergency and the detention without charge of a large number of people. Our objectives remain an end to apartheid, a solution to the South African problem by negotiation and a suspension of violence on all sides. We shall continue with all our partners to do everything we can to help achieve those goals.

Does the Minister accept that many hon. Members who dislike any form of extremism clearly believe that what has been done has not been enough? If we are to show our intense dislike of the fundamental philosophies of the South African Government, clearly much stronger measures will have to be taken than those that the Minister has just announced. That view is shared by many people, not least by the Church of Scotland, which has considerable experience of African questions.

I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Obviously the measures that we, together with other countries, have sought to take have not been enough, because they have not yet brought an end to apartheid. However, we should remember that considerable steps have begun to be taken in South Africa. They are not sufficient and, indeed, they must be followed by further steps to end apartheid as speedily as possible. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, as a result of the European Council meeting the Community will look at other measures that might be needed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing but bloodshed will be achieved unless the South African Government and all sections of the community there can be induced to speak, and that no amount of pressure on one section of the community or another which drives sections of the community into a bunker will help anybody? What measures does my hon. Friend envisage will achieve proper talks for the whole community?

It would be presumptious of me to say what further measures might bring about the much sought after peace that we all wish to see. It is right, during this period leading up to the Commonwealth review and further European meetings, that we should continue to discuss with our partners the real effects of each measure which has been discussed, because it is only when we measure how many people might be put out of work in southern Africa and how many might be brought to much greater hardship than they already suffer in South Africa and in the front-line states that we can judge the best way ahead.

One of the arguments which the Prime Minister repeatedly uses against economic sanctions against South Africa is the damage that she believes they will do to the economies of front-line states and to the African people in South Africa. What rights does the Prime Minister believe she has to speak on behalf of African people in the front-line states or South Africa?

It is not just my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who believes that general economic sanctions would not bring about an end to apartheid. On 2 July, in The Times, Mrs. Helen Suzman said:

"What they would do, in fact, is to lay off workers as the economy wound down— a sombre prospect in a country with no social security safety net, no dole and no food stamps."

"Effective sanctions would wreck the economy and destroy the inheritance that blacks will undoubtedly share in the not-too-distant future."

Does my hon. Friend agree that many of those of us who wish to see genuine fundamental change in South Africa and who supported my hon. Friend in her decision to see Mr. Oliver Tambo regret bitterly the attitude of the ANC and Bishop Tutu in not being willing to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary? Does she also agree that it would help if the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) would use his considerable influence to encourage such meetings rather than to undermine my right hon. and learned Friend?

rose—

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that it is my turn.

I thank the Minister for withdrawing her earlier imputation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, she did not"] Yes, she did. The Minister will be aware that I met Mr. Oliver Tambo before I left for South Africa and strongly encouraged him to meet the hon. Lady. He was minded not to do so, as I am sure she knows—[Interruption.] Yes, that is the case. When I was in' Lusaka I suggested that the Foreign Secretary's visit would give the ANC an opportunity of pursuing discussions and, in fact, I invited the Foreign Secretary in this House on Monday of this week to seek to meet the ANC on his visit. But the hon. Lady must accept that the depth of feeling against the British Prime Minister among the Governments of the front-line states and among many Commonwealth and European countries, as illustrated by the withdrawal of Nigeria from the Commonwealth Games today, is something about which the Prime Minister should be a great deal more sensitive than she showed herself to be in the bizarre series of inteviews to which I referred.

I note that the right hon. Gentleman has not asserted what I asked him to assert.

I have.

There needs to be not just an emotional response to the many emotional comments being made on this issue, but a realistic assessment of what the possibilities and effective measures might be. It is positive measures as well as restrictive measures that are most likely to be effective in promoting change in South Africa. If every hon. Member will consider the consequences of each and every point that is being discussed, we might come up with a far better solution than the ones that are being shouted and barracked about by Opposition Members.

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

AngloPortuguese relations are excellent. This year we are celebrating the 600th anniversary of the treaty of Windsor. This historical alliance is complemented by our joint membership of NATO and the European Community. Bilateral trade and tourism continue to flourish.

As there have been repeated calls for the release of Nelson Mandela, will the Government continue with their principled position by approaching the Portuguese Government and suggesting that it would be appropriate now to release Otelo Carualho, the leader of the 1974 revolution against Fascism? Is that not appropriate?

It would not be appropriate for us to interfere in what is an internal judicial matter affecting Portugal.

Will my hon. Friend and the rest of the Foreign Office team use their best influences to grant a favourable response to the application for membership of the Western European Union which was lodged by the Portuguese Government some time ago and has since then languished upon the table?

I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind. I know that there are other right hon. and hon. Members who feel similarly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on the Government's response to the report of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group.

We are considering very carefully what response we should make to the report by the Eminent Persons Group and look forward to a full discussion of the way ahead with Commonwealth leaders at the review meeting in August. We believe that the group's objective of promoting dialogue in the context of a suspension of violence remains valid.

Bearing in mind that black people in South Africa and in the front-line states, the Eminent Persons Group and decent people in Western democracies want sanctions because they believe that liberty, freedom and democracy are more important than short-term material comforts, who does the Minister support—the civilised people of the world, or her shrivelled Prime Minister with her Judas mentality?

I did not think that the hon. Gentleman would sink so low. I have to remind him and many other hon. Members that the measures already in place are being lost sight of. We have been taking measures, positive as well as negative, for years. Prior to the agreement last year with our European partners, Britain had a policy of not trading with South Africa in arms or paramilitary equipment. not co-operating with them in military and nuclear spheres, not selling oils to South Africa, not selling computer equipment to the South African police or armed forces and discouraging sporting contacts. We made further agreements with our European partners at Luxembourg last year and, following the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit at Nassau last October, we ended Government-to-Government loans, ceased funding trading missions and agreed to ban the import of gold coins. Those measures are already in place. What we are discussing with our European partners, the Heads of the economic Seven and the Heads of the Commonwealth is what could be effective in making South Africa bring about a real end to apartheid. We shall go on doing that. It is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is working for, as well as the rest of the Government and Conservative Members.

To what extent, if at all, is British foreign affairs policy still based upon the principle that we should not interfere in the internal affairs of other states and on the basis that we should not enter into discussion with terrorist organisations or organisations that have not repudiated terrorism?

I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxieties. I have to say that in South Africa, which is no longer a member of the Commonwealth, there are many British passport holders and many British people. There are also long links with South Africa. I do not think that in the efforts we are making we are in any way telling South Africa how the non-racial democracy that the whole world has been calling for should be brought about. That is for South Africa to agree with all its people.

Does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister's interview on Canadian television last night did the greatest disservice to the report of the Eminent Persons Group? Does she accept that that was quite unconvincing — [Interruption.] There are those who might seek to thwart free speech in South Africa, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that you will not allow that to happen in the House. The Prime Minister said that she could not carry other countries with her on sanctions. Is that not unacceptable, given that she has introduced a veto in the Security Council?

The hon. Gentleman surely knows that the reason why we have not been able to accept chapter 7 mandatory economic sanctions is the very fact that we believe that they would have a very deleterious effect and would not bring about the result which I believe the hon. Gentleman genuinely seeks in South Africa, which is an end to apartheid, the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and other detainees, the removal of the ban on the African National Congress and other political parties and a start to dialogue and negotiation. If one considers that, and considers in full what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said rather than taking up partial comments, which is all that I have heard in the House today, one realises that one has to work as hard as one can for dialogue and an end to violence. That is exactly what we are doing.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, like the more responsible members of the Eminent Persons Group, that great British leader, Sir Winston Churchill, believed fervently in "jaw jaw" rather than "war war", whether it be about military or trade sanctions? Only the Soviet Union could benefit from trade sanctions. Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that while our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is in southern Africa, he will see Bishop Makoena of Soweto, who represents 4·5 million black Christians and Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, who represents 6 million black Africans? Both those distinguished leaders of black South Africans believe that sanctions will be damaging and do not wish the British Government to support sanctions against their country.

My hon. Friend and I. as well as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, are united in believing that general economic sanctions would not be in the best interests of the black people in southern Africa. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will do his best to meet as many people like the gentlemen whom my hon. Friend suggested, and many others. It will be a question of time, and of what can be fitted in, but we are willing to listen to representations from all such people.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's ambassador in South Africa on the situation in the townships since the imposition of the state of emergency.

Her Majesty's embassy continues to keep us fully informed on all aspects of the situation in South Africa, including reports on visits by the ambassador and his staff to the townships.

Given the intolerable censorship imposed by the South African regime, how far do our diplomats have to conform to that censorship? Is it not important that the Government should be able to assist in the dissemination of genuine information from within South Africa, and how far would the hon. Lady assist that process?

As far as I am aware, Her Majesty's ambassador and his staff have not been stopped from going about their lawful business of travelling within normal restrictions in southern Africa. They have certainly reported on what they have found, on a confidential basis. Whether all that information could be verified at present it is impossible to know, because of the state of emergency. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that that state of emergency is brought to a speedy end at the earliest possible time so that free reporting may start again in South Africa.

My hon. Friend will know of the magnificent work that is being done by the Urban Foundation in the townships. Is there any reason why Her Majesty's Government should not make a direct grant to the Urban Foundation for the work that it is doing in improving the lot and conditions of the people who live in the black townships?

I have been informed that the Urban Foundation was getting a great deal of finance from business in South Africa, which is absolutely right. We ourselves have added a further £15 million of new assistance over five years for southern Africa, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 1 July. That is in addition to some £22 million already committed, much of it going to South Africa and the neighbouring states for the very reasons that my hon. Friend would wish. I do not know whether it is feasible to fund the Urban Foundation in the way that my hon. Friend says, but I know that all the resources that are being used for helping black people in southern Africa are there to help their education and training, and the re-establishment of homes and schools. I believe that all offers will be welcome wherever they may come from—Government or the private sector.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to attend the next conference concerning the Helsinki accords and conference in Vienna in November.

Participants in the conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe have not yet decided at what level to hold the opening session of the Vienna meeting. If it is at Foreign Minister level, my right hon. and learned Friend plans to attend.

Do the Government not find it odd that a conference on human rights is to be held in a country which has just elected Kurt Waldheim as President? When do the Government expect to conclude their investigations into the interrogation — and subsequent deaths — of British prisoners of war by German army group E — Waldheim's group? Will that be before the conference? Is there any hope of the Government achieving anything other than a cover-up if they will not even ask for access to the relevant documents from the files of the United Nations and the Federal Republic of Germany?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the Madrid CSCE meeting, which concluded in 1983, provided for the next follow-up meeting to be held in Vienna from 4 November 1986. That is what will happen. As for the hon. and learned Gentleman's question about Dr. Waldheim, I mentioned to him when replying to the foreign affairs debate some weeks ago that the Ministry of Defence was still searching into its records with regard to the evidence and the details that the hon. and learned Gentleman sent to the Ministry. I understand that the search is not yet complete, but when it is, the Minister will get in touch with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Will my hon. Friend expedite those inquiries? Will he look into the case of Sergeant John Dryden, who fell into the hands of unit E, was interrogated and sent for special treatment under Waldheim?

The MOD is searching carefully into the evidence that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has sent. We cannot prejudge the results of that search, but the Ministry will be in touch with the hon. and learned Gentleman as soon as the search is completed.

Will whoever represents us at the conference draw to the attention of one signatory of the Helsinki Final Act—Turkey—the fact that we object strongly to its troops occupying the sovereign territory of another signatory to the Helsinki Final Act—Cyprus—refusing to withdraw troops, bringing settlers to northern Cyprus, trying to establish for all time that it has a right to be there, and refusing to co-operate in tracing the many hundreds of Greek Cypriots who disappeared during the invasion 12 years ago? Could not that matter be raised under the Helsinki Final Act?

The Vienna conference will deal with three broad matters following the Helsinki Final Act —security, economic and humanitarian matters. In the humanitarian part of the conference, the question of human rights in eastern Europe will be followed up actively, not least by members of our delegation.

When the Foreign Secretary goes to Vienna, will he be very positive and ask at the conference whether it would be possible to arrange for the Eminent Persons Group to visit the Soviet Union on a fact-finding tour, as there are millions of innocent people imprisoned and persecuted in the Soviet Union? What is good for the blacks is also right for whites.

I understand my hon. Friend's point. The recent Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Moscow, led by that eminent person my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, handed over a list of human rights cases that it wished the Soviets to look into. The Soviet failure so far to implement the Helsinki Final Act, especially in relation to human rights, is a matter of great concern to us and one that will be taken up regularly at the Vienna meeting.

Before anyone goes to Vienna in the autumn, would it not be worth while for the British Government to speak out against the United States veto of the agreement almost reached at Berne in the same forthright terms as the President of the Federal Republic of Germany did last Wednesday in the Royal Gallery? Does the Minister agree that progress in freeing people from the artificial and wholly indefensible restrictions on their ability to travel will come about only when the United States starts to listen to its European allies?

The hon. Gentleman refers to the United States' refusal to agree to the summary document after the Berne meeting on human contacts. The United States delegation took the view that the document was in some ways a backward step from agreements that had been reached and announced publicly. That is why the United States delegation did not support the document. We took the view that, although we should have liked to support it, the Americans had a perfectly understandable point of view of their own on that issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what position Her Majesty's Government are taking towards adopting economic measures against the South African regime.

We receive a large volume of correspondence both for and against the imposition of economic sanctions against South Africa. Together with our European and Commonwealth partners, we have already adopted a number of restrictive measures towards South Africa designed to send a strong political signal of the need for fundamental reform, but it remains our view that general economic and trade sanctions would hinder rather than accelerate the process of peaceful change in South Africa, to which we are fully committed.

Is the Minister of State aware that anyone who has the slightest doubt about the Prime Minister's true views on South Africa and the measures required need only read today's interview in The Guardian, in which she expresses the most craven and disgraceful appeasement of apartheid? No doubt the Prime Minister's comments will be noted by Commonwealth leaders. As the Minister of State has expressed quite different views both in the House and on television, is she proud to be arguing such a shoddy case at the Dispatch Box today?

I have not expressed different views. As an individual I may use different words, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said on Monday, we are seeking exactly the same end and in the same way. If the hon. Gentleman continues to take such a partial view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's total opposition to apartheid and her repetition of the way in which economic sanctions would harm the black people of South Africa and the front-line states, he is taking a very one-sided and blinkered view of the reality of modern trade and the effect that economic sanctions would have on black people. I ask him to look again at the full facts of the situation.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's aim to take all measures necessary to bring pressure to bear on the South African Government to hurry up the process of reform and to carry through extensive reform so that, one hopes, there can still be evolutionary rather than revolutionary reform in that country?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 1 July, we are considering certain contingency plans outlined in the June communique following the European Council summit at The Hague. We are looking at positive as well as restrictive measures to bring about the change so urgently needed in South Africa. My hon. Friend has our assurance that that is being fully done.

The Minister asked us earlier to make a realistic assessment of the situation. Is not a realistic assessment that the South African Government are not willing to negotiate, which is why there is a state of emergency and why the whole of the leadership and the trade union leadership are in prison? The South African people are willing to fight and die for their freedom. That is their only route to success, as it was for the people of Zimbabwe. The question is: which side are we on? If we say in advance of any talks that we are not willing to take either general economic sanctions or even punitive economic sanctions — the whole point of which is to punish and pressurise—does it not mean that we are not on the side of the fight for freedom by the black people of South Africa? That is what the whole world knows, to our shame.

The Government are doing, and will continue to do, all those things that are necessary to bring about peaceful change. I warn the hon. Lady that it is all too easy to talk about blanket general economic sanctions without realising their exact effect. It is obvious that many people, such as Chief Buthelezi, but also many others who represent the black communities, are gravely concerned about the effect of sanctions. I know from my discussions with many people, including Mr. Oliver Tambo, that they have no wish to inherit an economic desert, which would be the result of general economic sanctions.

Did my hon. Friend happen to see a very interesting programme on BBC television on Monday evening—one of its very rare moments of objectivity — called "The Other Side of the Sanctions Equation", which showed quite convincingly that the death rate of young African children in one of the homelands has doubled because of the economic measures already taken? Is that really what Opposition Members want to happen again and again?

My right hon. Friend draws our attention to a programme which, sadly, I did not see, but to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred during questions yesterday. Of course we wish to take no measures that will inflict upon black people in South Africa and the other front-line states the sort of future that some unthinking Opposition Members seem to think should happen, without any care for those people —a care which this Government really have.

If the hon. Lady is genuine in her desire to protect the peoples of black South Africa, will she today come to the Dispatch Box and say, quite simply, that when economic sanctions are imposed this country will give positive economic and political aid to those most in need in the front-line states?

It would be presumptuous of me to say today what will be in place, whether or not the South African Government take more rapid steps towards the ending of apartheid in the coming weeks. I have already said this afternoon, as the hon. Lady would know if she had been listening, that a further £15 million will be spent over five years—not only £12 million to help non-white South Africans, but £3 million for transport projects in the front-line states. We are giving that aid in addition to another £22 million already announced. The hon. Lady should possess herself in patience for the outcome of the discussions to bring an end to apartheid, through my right hon. and learned Friend's mission.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek an opportunity of raising the plight of religious minorities in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in his discussions with the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union during Mr. Shevadnadze's visit to London on 14 and 15 July; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend and I expect to discuss with Mr. Shevadnadze the full range of issues in East-West relations, including arms control, regional questions and human rights. We shall bring to his attention the need for better implementation of commitments under the Helsinki and Madrid CSCE documents, in particular as regards the treatment of their citizens, including religious minorities.

While the Soviet Union understandably resents interference in its domestic policy, does my hon. Friend agree that human rights know no frontiers and that we need to encourage the Soviet Union to recognise the freedom of the individual and freedom from religious persecution as of paramount importance? When my hon. Friend sees the Foreign Minister, will he ask him to release Mr. Alexei Magarik, a Hebrew teacher recently sentenced to three years' hard labour for his teachings?

I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said. It is absolutely right that, despite the commitments of the Soviet Union under both United Nations and CSCE documents that it has signed, it does not yet give freedom to religious minorities from persecution or allow them to leave the country if they wish. That is one of the commitments in those documents. I shall look into the case that my hon. Friend has referred to. We shall see whether it would be appropriate to include that among the matters that will be discussed with Mr. Shevadnadze.

While continuing to press the cases of those Jewish families seeking to emigrate, and continuing to press cases such as that of Irina Ratsushinskaya and other Christians imprisoned in the Soviet Union, will the hon. Gentleman press upon the Soviet Foreign Minister that nothing could do more to enhance the reputation of the Soviet Union in the West than a far more civilised attitude to such matters?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am aware of the sad case of Irina Ratsushinskaya, about which many hon. Members have written to me. I raised the case with the new Soviet ambassador when he called on me some weeks ago. We shall consider including that case among those to be discussed with Mr. Shevadnadze.

Is not the best test of a free society how it treats its religious minorities? By that test, does not the Soviet Union stand condemned? When my hon. Friend meets the Soviet Foreign Minister, will he make it clear that we seek nothing less than a full implementation of the Helsinki agreement?

That is the attitude that we have taken on many occasions with Soviet Union Ministers. It is a point that we shall make again during Mr. Shevadnadze's visit next week.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will continue the dialogue started by his predecessor as President of the Council of European Community Ministers, Mr. Hans Jan der Brock, with the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Yasser Arafat.

We shall continue to maintain contact with the PLO, but at present we have no plans for further ministerial meetings.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the predecessor of the Foreign Secretary ended the contact between the PLO and the European Community? Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be useful to promote some initiative that would follow on from the Venice declaration?

Our views on contacts with the PLO are well established. There are often contacts at official levels, but meetings at higher levels remain difficult while the PLO's policies reamin, to say the least, ambiguous on Israel's right to secure and recognised borders and on the use of violence.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm that the Palestinians, like any other people, should have the right to exercise their right of self-determination and also to choose their own leadership?

Yes. The principle of the right to self-determination is spelt out in the Venice declaration. It is a principle to which we subscribe. We agree strongly that Palestinians must choose their own representatives, including their leadership. Those people must be willing to take some risks to obtain peace in the middle east.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the more the British Government tag along with the ignorant attitudes of the American Administration, the less likely is the advance of the Palestinian cause or peace in the middle east?

It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman, who has a considerable knowledge of the middle east, overstates his case so dramatically and thus ruins a solid basis to some of his arguments.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend, in consideration of the Palestinian issue, would like to discuss with the Israeli Government their connivance at the cover-up of the murder of two unarmed Palestinian prisoners? Perhaps he would like to take with him the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who seems deeply concerned about the behaviour of international statesmen.

I note what my hon. Friend has said. He will fully agree that the matter, about which we have all read a great deal, is obviously one to be pursued by the Israeli authorities. I have no doubt that they will do so with great care.

Will the Minister observe that my hon. Friend's question, unlike his supplementary question, referred to a dialogue with Yasser Arafat? Before considering having any such dialogue, will the Minister consult the Governments of Syria and Jordan to see whether they are prepared to have a dialogue with Yasser Arafat, otherwise the truth will become apparent—that this man does not represent the Palestinian people, who are entitled to their rights, but not via the PLO?

I have read the same newspaper report as the hon. and learned Member, but it is clearly up to the PLO to decide who its leader should be.

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

The statement issued by European Community Heads of Government following the European Council meeting on the 26 and 27 of June at The Hague, called on the South African Government to release unconditionally Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners. This was immediately communicated to the South African Government.

What is the Foreign Secretary planning to do if, when he meets the South African authorities, they refuse his request that Mr. Mandela be released?

Should that unfortunately be the outcome of my right hon. and learned Friend's discussions with the South African Government, I am sure that, when the matter is considered with the Heads of the Commonwealth, our European Community partners and the seven industrial nations, they will jointly decide on further action. We believe that the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and other detainees, but especially Nelson Mandela, is a key to bringing about the end to violence and to getting dialogue moving in South Africa for a peaceful, evolutionary solution to the problem.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Nelson Mandela's release should not be unconditional but that it should be conditional upon his renouncing the use of violence, as has always been the principle behind the British Government's policy?

My hon. Friend will be aware that when I met the acting President of the African National Congress I spent a good deal of the time trying to persuade Mr. Oliver Tambo and his colleagues that there was no way out of this problem by violence—that it had to be by negotiations. The unconditional release of Nelson Mandela represents one of the best hopes of controlling the violent elements that exist among black people and of bringing about some common sense in the great battle for a dialogue leading towards negotiation and an end to the violence.

Mr. Mikardo — and a very happy birthday.

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.

May I join you, Mr. Speaker, in wishing the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday.