asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Economic Community Council will next discuss measures against South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of European Economic Community measures in relation to the ending of apartheid in South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Economic Community under his Presidency will next consider the effectiveness of the measurs it has taken against South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he intends to take as President of the European Economic Community Council to seek to end apartheid in South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further European Economic Community measures have been taken against South Africa since the Commonwealth Ministers' meeting in August.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Economic Community Council will next discuss measures to end apartheid in South Africa.

Foreign Ministers of the Twelve discussed South Africa on 15 and 16 September and again on 27 October. They will continue to do so regularly. They agreed on 16 September a package of further measures designed to send a strong signal to the South African Government on the urgent need for fundamental change.

Will the Foreign Secretary take a firmer and more insistent position, .not least in regard to the effective exclusion of Namibia and several significant products from the sanctions arrangements? Does not the present situation suggest that the sanctions policies pursued by Britain and western Europe will appear to be merely a rhetorical exercise which, without strict monitoring, could bring the worst possible consequences?

The measures adopted on 16 September do not apply to Namibia, because all but one member of the Twelve consider Namibia raises a separate problem which requires a different approach. The measures were agreed after a great deal of discussion among members of the Twelve and represent a considered arid concerted package designed to achieve the results intended.

Reflecting on the Foreign Office's disappointment at the reaction of the EEC Ministers on the issue of Syria, is it not understandable that the EEC Ministers are disappointed with the representations made by Her Majesty's Government on the question of South Africa? Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the overwhelming feeling of the people of Britain, who are absolutely opposed to apartheid in South Africa?

I am totally aware of the overwhelming opinion of the people of Britain and of the European Community, condemning apartheid and requiring it to be replaced as soon as possible. On that point there is no difference in any part of the House. On the matter of representations by the United Kingdom, I think that my colleagues in the European Community felt that the mission that we undertook towards southern Africa in July represented a very effective presentation of the case upon which the people of Europe are agreed.

Does the Foreign Secretary recognize that an increasingly serious situation is developing in southern Africa, involving increasing degrees of disorder, with the tragic death of Samora Machel? Does he not feel that he should now respond to the call made recently by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth for an international brigade to defend the front-line states against intrusion from South Africa? Whey does he not give a lead of that kind in the European Community?

I should like to differentiate between the one bad point and the other good points made by the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it would be sensible or fruitful for the European Community or anyone else to begin thinking about mobilising an international brigade in these circumstances.

When my right hon. and learned Friend next has discussions with his Community colleagues, will he stress to them how utterly counterproductive sanctions and the threat of sanctions are to the reform process in South Africa? Furthermore, will he explain to them that constructive discussions between the leaders of all groups to reach an acceptable settlement are far more likely to succeed in the context of an expanding economy than in one in which blacks and Cape coloureds are being thrown out of work?

We have often made plain our view that general economic sanctions should not be seen as an end in themselves and that we do not regard them as an effective way of bringing an end to apartheid. On the other hand, we equally join our Community partners in underlining the imperative importance of discussions, such as my hon. Friend urges, between the South African Government, the leaders of the black Africans in South Africa set free from imprisonment, and the political parties set free from bans which prevent them from operating. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that there is no sense in punishing ordinary people here and in South Africa by the imposition of general economic sanctions.

When discussing South Africa with his colleagues, will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss the question of Bophuthatswana and suggest that its position be reconsidered, as it is a multi-racial state which has had a large measure of independence for some 10 years? If the independence of Bophuthatswana is not to be considered, will he consider with his colleagues additional help and aid to that country to improve education and similar facilities within its boundaries?

I know that my hon. Friend has recently visited Bophuthatswana, but I must tell him and other hon. Friends who visited it that, with the best will in the world, it is not possible to regard Bophuthatswana or any of the other so-called independent homelands as having the features of independent states. Our position on Bophuthatswana, as on the other so-called independent homelands, is quite clear.

Why does the Foreign Secretary not discuus with EEC Ministers new measures which would give a clearer signal to South Africa, such as ban on direct air flights from Europe to South Africa, which could help the front-line states if they then took the traffic?

Because we do not take the same view about the effectiveness of that measure as the hon. Gentleman and because Community Foreign Ministers have spent many hours of many days of many months arriving at the agreement of September 15 and 16. I have an obligation, as President of the Council of Ministers, to seek a further agreement on the outstanding measure. I have sought consensus on that without success. That is as far as the matter can go.

Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as Britain was responsible for dividing the land of the Tswana people into two at the turn of the century we have a moral obligation to assist its reunification? Does he agree that recognition of the state of Bophuthatswana would be a logical first step towards that very laudable aim?

I understand the legitimate interest that my hon. Friend takes in Bophuthatswana and recognise that there are certain features of it which he and other hon. Friends find it possible to commend. If I remember correctly, however, Bophuthatswana is divided between seven widely scattered chunks—

Now only six.

So be it — six. It represents a widely scattered fragmentation of the jigsaw board across what we all used to know as South Africa. It is for that reason, among others, that it has not been recognised as an independent homeland, whatever the efforts made by my hon. Friend.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that, in a recent exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), he was asked why Namibia was excluded from the EEC policy decision in respect of South Africa? The Foreign Secretary gave no answer. Can he correct the omission today?

I answered the question a moment ago. With one exception, our European Community partners do not regard Namibia as appropriate for inclusion in the same treatment as South Africa.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most damaging things that has happened recently to the ending of apartheid, and sympathy for that end, was the International Red Cross decision to throw South Africa out of an organisation which is meant to be about healing world wide, whether enemy or ally? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make his views clear and say that that is a most reprehensible action from what used to be a wonderful organisation?

I do not know what effect that decision will have on the prospects for securing an end to apartheid in South Africa, but it must be a matter for regret that the normal pattern of universality of the International Red Cross should have been varied in that way. It is equally a matter of regret that it should have led to the response that it received. One of the outstanding features of the International Red Cross for a long time has been its capacity to maintain its presence everywhere, regardless of politics and local circumstances.

If it is argued that sanctions are unacceptable and ineffective against South Africa, why should they have been deemed necessary against Argentina and now against Syria?

There are three different situations there and I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, with his perceptiveness, does not acknowledge that. With Argentina there was armed conflict, at the conclusion of which we withdrew the sanctions that we had in place. Argentina has still not withdrawn the sanctions that she has had in place. As for Syria, there has been state abuse of diplomatic immunity and there has been state direction of terrorism. The entire House supported the measures that we took in that respect on Friday. As for South Africa, the problem is one of immense complexity and long standing. It is a matter on which the Government have agreed with our European and Commonwealth partners on taking certain measures designed to give a clear signal to South Africa. The three situations are quite different and I have no doubt about the rightness of our position on each of them.

My right hon. and learned Friend spoke of a clear signal, but does not all this signalling to South Africa lack precision? South Africans, and some hon. Members, would like to know what exactly the South African Government are expected to do before these measures are withdrawn. What stage of the reform process is supposed to be reached? Will my right hon. and learned Friend define the purpose of his diplomacy a little more precisley?

The position has been made clear beyond any possible doubt, both in the mission that I undertook and in the mission that the Eminent Persons Group undertook. In each case we were pressing the South African Government to be ready to commence a dialogue with leaders of all groups in South Africa, and to create the climate for that to be possible to release unconditionally Nelson Mandela and the other political prisoners, to unban the African National Congress and the other political parties, and to create the circumstances in which all the people of South Africa can make their consent available to constitutional measures acceptable to them all.

Now that the United States, in pursuit of the same objectives as the Foreign Secretary has just described, has decided to impose wide-ranging sanctions against South Africa, which go far beyond the shamefully trivial measures agreed by the Community in September, and especially in the light of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have rightly accepted the principal of punitive sanctions by the measures that they announced against Syria yesterday, will the Foreign Secretary, as President of the Foreign Affairs Council, seek to bring the Community into line with the rest of the civilised world by adopting the same measures as the United States has adopted? Moreover, will he go to the Security Council to seek to make those measures mandatory sanctions under the United Nations?

I have done that which the President of the Council was required to do in seeking, in two meetings in the past two or three weeks, to promote consensus on the measures agreed on 15 and 16 September. It has not been possible to take consensus further than the measures then agreed, but the Community Foreign Ministers taken as a whole do not see the case for going down the path advocated by the right hon. Gentleman. However, I am sure that the whole House will be glad to welcome this one occasion when the right hon. Gentleman is keen to encourage us to follow the example of the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Gibraltar for discussions with the Chief Minister and Members of the House of Assembly.

I have no plans to visit Gibraltar in the near future, but I naturally consult the Chief Minister and his colleagues at regular intervals.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply and I am well aware that he has discussions with the Chief Minister in London. I am sorry that he cannot find time to go to Gibraltar to have similar discussions not only with the Chief Minister but with Members of the House of Assembly. May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the recent reported remarks by the Prime Minister of Spain, Senor Felipe Gonzalez, that he wants a solution to the Gibraltar problem to be reached within four years, and that if that does not happen there will be serious repercussions for the people of Gibraltar? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear to the Spanish Government that the sovereignty of the people of Gibraltar is not for trading, and that the preamble to the constitution of Gibraltar will remain so long as the people of Gibraltar wish to remain British?

On the central point of my hon. Friend's question, I am not sure that the reports that we have seen of the remarks by the Spanish Prime Minister are necessarily complete, but the substance of his point is contained in those reports. It is right to say that this is not the first occasion on which Spain has mentioned time scales in that context. Our position is quite clear. Our commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar remains unchanged. The discussions that are taking place must take place in the context of that commitment. They are not susceptible to handling by the imposition of time scales, nor can their outcome be predetennined, but it is right to say that those discussions are taking place under the Brussels agreement of November 1984 in a friendly and constructive spirit, as is appropriate between two European allies and partners.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the concerns that are being expressed by and on behalf of the small community of workers of Indian origin living in Gibraltar who feel angry that their wives are not being allowed to join them, or are being expelled from the territory or, on some occasions, if their wives are pregnant, are being asked to leave on the ground of some form of immigration control? As we have a responsibility for the territory, what does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to do about that?

I propose to look into the facts of the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the point that he did not mention in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), which is that the British Government are negotiating firmly on the basis of the Gibraltar constitution which this House approved?

I thought that I had made it absolutely plain that our commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, which is set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar constitution, remains unchanged. It is most important to understand that the discussions are taking place on that basis.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to meet representatives of the Government of South Africa.

As part of my European Presidency mission, I had discussions with South African Ministers in Pretoria in July. I have no present plans for further meetings with representatives of the South African Government although normal Government-to-Government contacts continue.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that his hand was weakened with representatives of the South African Government because of our Government's reluctant support for sanctions and acquiescence in the imposition of sanctions when some were belatedly imposed? Does he not agree with the findings of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, which said that the deferment of sanctions was one of the reasons why the apartheid system would not be changed?

I do not agree with that judgment of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, because our view on sanctions is not precisely the same as that of members of that group. I do not think that my hand in presenting to the South African Government the case on which we all agree was weakened. I went there with the backing of a united European Community, the backing of a united Commonwealth, and the backing of the United States Government, on the substance of remedies. One should be dismayed about the fact that, notwithstanding that universal backing and the extent to which it might be thought that I went with some sympathetic understanding of South Africa's problems, the advice that I had to offer was rejected. That is a matter for great regret.

While my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to seek the withdrawal of South Africa from Namibia and the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola, would it not be wrong to make the one conditional on the other? Will he take this opportunity to make it perfectly clear that he believes that any such linkage is a setback to international diplomacy?

The position has been the same for a number of years. We have joined Commonwealth partners and others in rejecting any formal linkage. However, it is not to be excluded that the two questions might be more readily resolved together rather than separately.

Will the Secretary of State condemn continued reporting restrictions in South Africa, which suppress so much of the horror that is going on in that country? Will he support the NUJ's appeal to set up an independent news agency in that country?

We have joined our international partners in deploring the curtailment of press freedom in South Africa. It must be seen as a consequence of the general state of events in that country. We deplore such press restrictions in every part of the world.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend not seriously disturbed by the ominous stories coming out, with a news blackout, which may be expanded rumours, suggesting that over 20,000 pople have been detained in South Africa, that many have been brutally beaten up in gaol, and that probably well over 1,000 pople have been killed since the reinforced emergency by the security forces began? I appreciate the difficulties, but will my right hon. and learned Friend consider summoning the ambassador to express our grave concern and anxiety about those trends and ominous rumours coming out, and asking him to give us a factual and logical report of the picture in those disturbed circumstances?

The whole House, together with the international community, has condemned many times the continuance of the state of emergency in South Africa arid some actions and measures taken under it. We have taken a number of opportunities to bring that home to the South African Government. It is one of the features that I brought home very clearly during my visit to South Africa.

Bearing in mind what the United States Government have decided to do, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) pointed out, does the Foreign Secretary have any conception of how humiliating it is for Britain to endorse and see in action what he is doing in relation to South Africa? Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that one has to take sides? One is on the side either of the South African authorities, or of those who fight to liberate the country from the tyranny of apartheid.

I think that most hon. Members have a different view from that of the hon. Gentleman about relative standards of humiliation. The fact is—I cannot underline this too strongly — that there is no dissent whatsoever between the Government and the Opposition about the unwisdom and evil of apartheid and the need for it to be replaced as quickly as possible. The problem is to find the best way of securing its removal. It is the firmly held view, not just of Her Majesty's Government but of many people in this country and elsewhere, that to go down the road of imposing sanction after sanction is to make the prospects of change less likely. The hon. Gentleman should accept that point without qualification.

When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets representatives of the South African Government, will he make it crystal clear to them at what stage sanctions will be withdrawn if the reform programme continues? Will he make it clear that the British Government do not demand that there should be a one-man one-vote in a unitary state?

It is not the business of the British Government, or that of any Government, to promote precise prescriptions for the replacement of apartheid in South Africa. We wish to see a non-racial representative Government brought about with the consent of the peoples of South Africa, after a dialogue between Government and representatives of the black people, along the lines I have described so many times.

In his dealings with the South African Government, has the Foreign Secretary forgotten about Namibia? Now that the Crocker initiative has effectively been abandoned by the United States of America, does the Western contact group exist in anything but name? When did that group last meet for any substantive discussion? Are the Government prepared to allow the Namibian question to drift, or will the Foreign Secretary take a new initiative and ask for sanctions against South Africa? Surely the case for sanctions in relation to Namibia is even stronger than that concerning the internal position in South Africa.

Our position on Namibia is the same as it has been for some time. We wish, just as the rest of the internal community does, to see a solution of the Namibian question along the lines of resolution 235. It is in that context, as in any other, that we do not believe that sanctions will be an effective way of securing implementation of the resolution. We believe that negotiation still offers the best way of achieving an internationally acceptable solution on the basis agreed by the South African Government. The United Kingdom has maitained a common position of contact with partners in abstaining from recent resolutions calling for sanctions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Committee for a Free Nicaragua; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

In view of the Government's strong antiterrorist position, will the Minister display consistency by making a statement dissociating himself from any person, party or country supporting the Contra terrorists active in Nicaragua?

With regard to the organisation to which the substantive question referred, it is fundamental to any democratic society that individuals and groups should be allowed to lobby freely on behalf of their political and other aims, provided that their activities remain within the law.

Will my hon. Friend condemn the censorship which exists in that country? The fact is that civil rights are badly affected in that country, martial law has been imposed and there is a singular lack of freedom. Does my hon. Friend agree that that aspect must be considered?

I agree with my hon. Friend. After all, certain civil rights were suspended in Nicaragua last October. It is of considerable concern that recently the Opposition Newspaper La Prensa was closed and two bishops were expelled.

Has not Nicaragua been in a state of war since the revolution of 1979 due to United States' aggression, and have not thousands of innocent people been murdered by Contra forces financed by the United States? Is not the least that the Minister could do the taking of action to prevent organisations working for the Contra recruiting people from this country to go to Central America to destroy a democratic Government and murder innocent people?

It is a pity that, after the long recess, the hon. Gentleman remains as clouded by prejudice as usual.

Is it not a matter of concern that the Nicaraguan regime should have been persecuting the Mesquito Indian minority? Will my hon. Friend on behalf of Her Majesty's Government condemn that persecution?

Of course Her Majesty's Government condemn all human rights abuses.

Is the Minister not taking prevarication to a fine art with the answers that he has given to Labour Members? If the Government are opposed to terrorism, torture, rape and mass murder of innocent peasants, no matter where they are, can he not give a positive answer to the questions that he has been asked? Should not the Government be registering the protest of what is probably the majority of the British people against the mass murders being perpetrated by those being trained by our allies, the United States?

Her Majesty's Government condemn human rights abuses, wherever they may occur. However, the hon. Gentleman should be prepared to condemn publicly the abuses of civil rights that have happened inside Nicaragua.

Let us return to the question. Is the Minister aware that the inaptly named Committee for a Free Nicaragua, which is organising mercenaries to fight alongside the Contra terrorists, is run by an officer of the Federation of Conservative Students, who has privileged access to the House as the research assistant of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle)? Why is it that the chairman of the Tory party is able to discipline a Tory student officer who merely upsets Lord Stockton, but refuses to take any action to stop this Tory support for state-sponsored terrorism? Will the Minister now restore some little respect to the Conservative party by dissociating himself and the Government from the actions of the Committee for a Free Nicaragua?

It is a pity that the hon. Member did not listen to the answer that I gave to the first supplementary question. As he did not, perhaps I should repeat it. It is fundamental to any democratic society that individuals and groups should be allowed to lobby freely on behalf of their political and other aims, provided that the activities remain within the law. I should have thought that Labour Members, above all, would be aware of that. After all, that is what the Knowsley, North Labour party has been doing over the past few days.

Is it not a travesty to suggest that the people of Nicaragua could be freed by gangsterism and banditry supported by the Government of the United States? Should not those with influence in the United States persuade that country to end its support for this activity, and should not those who have influence in Nicaragua be speaking up for human rights in that country?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course there is a role for the United Kingdom, and we are playing it very actively—together with our European partners—in promoting a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Central America. We are working through the Contadora process.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met a representative of the Government of Turkey to discuss the situaton in northern Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend met the Turkish Foreign Minister during the European Community Turkey Association Council meeting in September. He made clear the Twelve's well-known position of support for Senor Perez de Cuellar's efforts to reach a settlement on Cyprus. We continue actively to support the United Nations Secretary-General's initiative there.

As Britain's ties with Cyprus go back to 1878, and as it is a fellow member of both the Council of Europe and the Commonwealth, will the Government take a lead in the international community in trying to restore the peaceful and sovereign state of Cyprus?

We do, of course, work very closely with the Secretary-General and we support his initiative. He is determined to carry on with his peace efforts and has repeatedly told us how much he values our assistance.

Will the Minister remind the Turkish Government that they are part of NATO, which is supposed to defend democracy and freedom? Is it not time that they were reminded that they used NATO forces and troops to occupy an area that was not theirs? Is it not also time that our Government got off the fence and told the Turkish Government to get out of Cyprus at the earliest possible moment?

We obviously are determined to assist the Secretary-General in his efforts to achieve a peaceful solution within Cyprus — [Interruption.] I wish that Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), would not take such a simplistic approach to what are basically complicated questions.

When will my hon. Friend the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State decide that it is time to stop reciting the formula that the Government support the good efforts of the Secretary-General, because his good offices have failed? The British Government must decide what to do about that. The fact is that the Secretary-General's mission has failed due to the intransigence of Mr. Papandreos and the Greek Government.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary-General met President Kyprianou and Mr. Denktas in New York last month to discuss the initiative. We are hopeful that progress can be made and shall continue to do all that we can to support the Secretary-General. My hon. Friend may not be aware that it was recently announced that the United Nations Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Goulding, would be visiting Cyprus soon.

Is the Minister aware that the treatment of Cyprus is unprecedented? That country, which is a member of the Commonwealth and of the Council of Europe, and whose representative sits on the Council of Ministers, is occupied by a foreign power. Even though it is allied to us through NATO, we contemplate no action to get rid of the Turkish army. That makes agreement in the Community impossible.

I must make it quite clear once again that we are working hard to ensure a peace settlement in Cyprus. We are working to support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General, and that must be the best way to proceed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that as a guarantor power in 1974 we had a duty to intervene in that conflict? Do not the guilty men sit on the Labour Benches, because they refused to take any action then which would have prevented a division of the island?

I take careful note of my hon. Friend's point.

Is not the sticking point in an undoubtedly complicated situation regarding the peace settlement the refusal to accept the early removal of a foreign army from Cyprus? Until it is accepted that that foreign occupying army should be removed at a very early stage in the process, there will be no settlement. What is the Government's position on the removal of a foreign army—the only one in western Europe to be occupying the territory of another country?

The two sides to the dispute obviously hold different views about the position of troops on the island of Cyprus. Part of the difficulty that the United Nations Secretary-General faces in bringing about a peaceful solution is that he has to reach an agreement on the future of the Turkish and other troops on the island.

Despite what the Minister has said, we have to redouble our efforts to resolve this problem. Will he bear in mind that there is no question of Turkey entering the Community until this problem is solved? It would help very much if the Minister made representations to the Americans about their aid to Turkey, which really means that they are supporting foreign troops in Cyprus.

No application has yet been made by Turkey to join the European Community. The priority for Turkey, the United Kingdom and the Community is that the association agreement should be made to work properly.

The Minister can see that there is genuine concern in the House about this issue. He says that no formal application for membership of the European Community has been made by Turkey, but reports in today's newspapers suggest that a formal application to join the European Community will be made by Turkey next month. Surely there can be no question of the British Government supporting that application or acquiescing to it so long as foreign troops remain in occupation of the northern part of Cyprus?

No such application has yet been made. If and when an application is made, these matters will have to be considered, together with many others.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the past three months towards the normalisation of relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina.

asked the Secretaryof State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.

We have repeatedly demonstrated our desire for more normal relations with Argentina. Regrettably, the Argentine Government still show no willingness to respond to the many initiatives we have taken since 1982.

That is a very sad reply. It is vital that some encouragement should be given to this new, democratic Government in Argentina. If we can maintain diplomatic relations with Spain, which has a claim on Gibraltar, there should be no difficulty, now that there is a democratic Government in Argentina, about restoring diplomatic relations with that country. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will have another think about that vital question.

The fact remains that although Argentina now has a democratic Government, about which we have expressed congratulations many times, and a long time ago, the President of Argentina and the Argentine Government have shown no willingness to recognise the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands to have their wishes respected. All the initiatives that we have taken towards restoring normal relations have been rebutted by the Argentine Government. We abolished financial restrictions. The have done so only to a limited extent. We have proposed the resumption of air links but have received no response. We have lifted trading restrictions but have received no formal response. We allow Argentine vessels into British ports. They ban British vessels from Argentine ports. We have offered to return Argentine dead to their native land but the Argentines insist that they remain on the Falklands to support their claim to sovereignty over the islands. Spain and the United Kingdom are members of the European Community and the North Atlantic Alliance, but in terms of Britain and the Argentine we are the country against whom Argentina launched an armed assault four years ago.

Following the Gimenez visit, would it not at least be constructive to contact the International Red Cross with a view to visits to the Falklands by Argentine families?

I think that I heard the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question correctly. We have made a number of suggestions through the Red Cross about our willingness to accept next of kin visits to the Falkland Islands, but we have had no response from the Argentine Government.

As someone who recently spent nearly two weeks in Buenos Aires, I can tell my right hon. and learned Friend that public opinion there is not in any way anti-British. There is strong feeling about just one item, the sovereignty of the Falklands, and it seems to be held largely by Members of Congress and by Ministries and is not in the minds of the general public. Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear that in mind, because underneath Government opinion in the Argentine there is a feeling that they want to re-establish good relations with Britain?

I understand the point made by my hon. Friend. The House will welcome his insight and that of this colleagues following the visit of the IPU delegation to Argentina. There is a great deal in the point that he makes. The United Kingdom has been trying to respond to the feeling he mentions by the suggestions that I have spoken about. We have suggested measure after measure to enable us to begin normalising relations with Argentina. The Argentina Government have repeatedly made it clear that the only matter on which they wish to commence discussions is that of sovereignty. That is at the top of the agenda, but it is the most difficult question and one on which we have made our position clear. That is why it is proving so difficult to bring about what my hon. Friend would like.

During their discussions with representatives from the Falkland Islands, did Ministers not realise that if the financial terms were right the people of the Falkland Islands would accept resettlement? If they would not accept resettlement, they would certainly accept a change in sovereignty. In so far as some calculations put expenditure on the Falkands in excess of £1,000 million a year, would it not be far more cost-effective to spend money on compensation rather than to squander taxpayers' money in the way that the Government are doing?

The House will have been somewhat astonished by the grisly spectacle of the hon. Gentleman speaking with such contempt about a matter of this kind. All we are seeking to do is to uphold the wishes of the people in the Falkland Islands. They are representatives of a community that lived undisturbed in those islands for more than 150 years until their life was brutally disturbed by the Argentine invasion only four years ago.

Does the Foreign Secretary not accept that, as it is now more than four years since the end of the Falklands war, it is regrettable that we do not have direct diplomatic relations with a basically friendly country, as Conservative Members have said? Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of a new Brazilian ambassador coming to London to examine again the possibility of reopening direct diplomatic relations wth Argentina?

The longer the hon. Gentleman addresses himself to this question, the more he understands its difficulties. It is quite right to say that we would like to see the establishment of more normal relations with Argentina, without embarking on negotiations about sovereignty. It is in pursuit of precisely such relations that we have removed the restrictions I have listed. We have removed trade restrictions and have offered to remove all aeronautical restrictions. We have also removed financial restrictions, but to all those measures we have received no response, or less than a complete response from Argentina. The Argentina Government have not indicated their willingness to take the necessary steps down the road that the hon. Gentleman wishes them to take.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus to discuss the continued division of that island.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to do so. We are in regular contact with the Cyprus Government at the highest level. As I have already made clear, we take every opportunity to urge all the parties to co-operate with the United Nations Secretary-General in the continuing search for a settlement in Cyprus.

Does the Minister agree that the attitude of the Turkish Government to the efforts of the United Nations has been unhelpful to say the least, especially when, earlier this year, a delegation of leading Turkish politicians and others paid a provocative visit to the Turkish-occupied part of northern Cyprus?

It is obviously important that all sides and parties to the dispute within Cyprus understand the problems that the other sides face at all times. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows well—I know his long interest in the affairs of Cyprus—it is a highly complex situation and it does nobody any credit to simplify it.

Will the British Government emphasise to the Turkish Government that the situation in Cyprus is no barrier to the entry of Turkey into the EEC and that the EEC is open to all democratic states in Europe?

As I have already made clear twice, Turkey has not yet applied for membership of the EC and therefore those considerations have not come into effect.

The Minister has so far evaded the question of the Turkish troops in Cyprus. Does not that evasion show that the Government have no views on whether the troops should he removed?

No. Clearly, the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Republic of Cyprus must form part or a comprehensive settlement.

Have further steps been taken to protect the lives of British service men and their families in the sovereign bases following the attack upon Akrotiri by the Abu Nidal terrorists?

It is by no means clear where that attack came from or which organisation was behind it, but following it the authorities within the sovereign base have taken precautions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he plans to pay an official visit to Australia and New Zealand.

My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to do so during the course of next year. The dates have yet to be agreed.

Will the Minister take this opportunity of defending and applauding the robustly independent attitude of the New Zealand Government in respect of nuclear weapons, and will he at the same time deplore the attempts of the American Government to whip New Zealand into the nuclear line?

As my right hon. Friend the noble Baroness Young said in another place on 19 March, the New Zealand legislation will be a matter of great regret. Defence co-operation is an important part of our bilateral relationship and Royal Navy visits have traditionally formed an integral part of that. If they cannot be resumed, the relationship will he diminished.

As a result of the New Zealand Government's repudiation of the nuclear defence assumptions of its defence pact with the United States, it has, in effect, been kicked out of that pact and no longer enjoys the protection of the United States. Does that not have a moral for those parties in Britain who wish us to repudiate the nuclear deterrence basis on which NATO is founded?

As usual, my right hon. Friend is right and makes his point well.

Will the Minister take the opportunity when it arises to commend the Australian Government on their robust attitude to sanctions against South Africa and explain why it is that Her Majesty's Government impose visa restrictions on people who wish to come here from parts of the Commonwealth and none whatever on people who wish to come here from South Africa.

I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman's latter point is relevant to the question on the Order Paper. It is not for us to comment on the attitude that the Australian authorities and Government may take to relations with South Africa.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us with fairly long memories remember with glory the exploits of the New Zealand Division in north Africa during the last war, and are deeply sad that that country has separated itself from the Western alliance? We very much hope that it will soon come back.

I am sure that the New Zealand people and Government will pay particular attention to my hon. Friend's comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if European Economic Community discussions about joint action against South Africa take place within the framework of political co-operation; and if he will make a statement.

The Foreign Ministers of the Twelve discussed South Africa in Political Co-operation on 15 and 16 September and again on 27 October. They will continue to pay close attention to the issue.

Does not the situation in the Community over South Africa illustrate the confusion that exists in institutional arrangements, which is now being sanctified by the Single European Act? Political co-operation is supposed to be separate from the rest of the EEC's activities, yet the absurd and limited sanctions against South Africa have had to be imposed by Trade Ministers. Does that not illustrate the confusion underlying the Government's approach on this issue?

I am afraid that it illustrates no such thing, save the hon. Gentleman's ignorance of the facts. The decisions on the measures against South Africa were taken by Community Ministers meeting in political co-operation, but the implementation of the measures was agreed at meetings of the Council on Monday, because the trade measures had to be taken by a regulation at that Council. Those measures were agreed not by Trade Ministers but by Foreign Ministers meeting in the General Affairs Council. The purpose and effect of the Single European Act is to bring closer together the working of those various institutions.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now answer the question that I put to him yesterday? Is it the Government's view that it is the responsibility of the Community as such to ensure compliance with the decisions of the European Council on sanctions against South Africa?

The question depends on the precise instrument under which the particular sanctions are imposed—

Answer the question.

I will do so if the right hon. Gentleman gives me a chance. For example, action on coins has been taken under a regulation agreed on Monday, in line with decisions already taken and announced in the House by this Government. The decision on a ban on investment was taken by representatives of member states meeting on Monday, and will be enforced by member states according to their specific requirements.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to do with questions. I do not wish to raise either the fact that no Opposition Member was called who supports the Turkish-Cypriot case or that no hon. Member was called who argues that Argentina's claim to sovereignty over the Falklands is valid. What I want to raise is whether it is not ridiculous that we have an hour of Foreign Affairs questions in which not a single reference to the breaking of diplomatic relations with Syria can be made. Is it not necessary that the relevant authorities should examine the advisability of leaving a five-minute gap in the hour for Foreign Affairs questions so that emergency, last-minute questions could be put in? We could then have an opportunity to discuss the fact that the breaking of relations with Syria was not done on the judgment of the Foreign Office but on the diktat of No. 10.

Order. That would be an interesting suggestion to put to the Procedure Committee. However, I was glad that I was able to call the hon. Gentleman on question No. 1.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), as you will recall that yesterday you cut short a statement by the Foreign Secretary—

Order. I do not cut short statements.

You said so.

I did not. I said that today I would bear in mind those who were not called yesterday. That is exactly what I have done.

No, you did not, Sir.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point, and I said that he should put his interesting suggestion to the Procedure Committee.