asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards elimination of all strategic nuclear missiles by 1966.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan agreed at their meeting at Camp David on 15 November that NATO's strategy of forward defence and flexible response would continue to require effective nuclear deterrence based on a mix of systems.

It has been widely reported by many, including President Reagan and Secretary Shultz, that at the Reykjavik summit, before it broke down over star wars, President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev had agreed on the elimination of all strategic nuclear missiles by 1996 without condition. If the British Government do not agree with that, on what basis was the United States able to put the proposal on the negotiating table? Why do the Government not agree to that aim and work towards it instead of increasing Britain's nuclear capacity by 800 per cent. with the purchase of Trident and sending silly notes to the Russians which effectively say "Nuclear for ever"?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will look forward to taking part in some future debate on this subject. The three important priorities of British policy and Alliance policy were clearly set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan at Camp David. These were INF, 50 per cent. cuts in strategic weapons and a complete ban on chemical weapons. We should focus our attention on these priorities, and if we manage to realise them it will be an historic achievement.

When my right hon. and learned Friend is considering policy, will he bear in mind that Britain's unilateral action on the production of chemical and biological weapons has had no effect whatsoever on the Warsaw Pact nations? What hope could there be in pursuing a unilateral policy?

My hon. Friend makes precisely the point which was made more than once in our last debate on this subject. The response of the Soviet Union to the prolonged abstention from the production of chemical weapons by the United States and the United Kingdom is a classic condemnation of the folly of unilateral disarmament.

We know that the talks at Reykjavik foundered on the strategic defence initiative. On that important issue, can the Secretary of State say what representations, if any, were made to his United States counterpart on his present interpretation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty as it relates to SDI development? Will he inform the House of his present position on that?

It might be useful to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to one of the few sensible passages in the speech made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, when even he said that Mr. Gorbachev was wrong to link the prospect of all arms control progress with concessions on SDI.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the credibility of the Soviet Union in calling for a nuclear-free world would be greatly enhanced if it ceased its aggression in Afghanistan, which country the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) visited recently without calling for a Russian-free Afghanistan?

My hon. Friend is right. The continued presence of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, with more than 100,000 troops, calls in question to a considerable extent the seriousness of its commitment to progress on this topic.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that two days after President Reagan met the Prime Minister, Secretary Shultz stated, in speech in a Chicago, that it was the firm intention of the United States to seek the abolition of all ballistic missiles within 10 years? Does he really believe that the United States would provide the British Government with ballistic missiles for Trident submarines at the very moment that it was abolishing all its own ballistic missiles? Does he even believe that the United States would provide the British Government with an 800 per cent. increase in the target capability of British nuclear forces at the same time as it was cutting its own nuclear forces by 50 per cent.? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Defence Secretary in his speech this week confirmed the figures which I have just given?

I am aware of the fact that, at Reykjavik itself and immediately thereafter, Mr. Gorbachev affirmed the legitimacy of the presence and modernisation of Britain's nuclear strategic deterrent. Subsequently, at Camp David President Reagan reaffirmed the United States' modernisation policy in the same respect, and specifically did so in relation to Britain. I am aware also of the fact that President Reagan likewise has reaffirmed his commitment to the priorities agreed with the Prime Minister at Camp David.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to seek to pay an official visit to Central America.

My right hon. and learned Friend's next visit to the area will be to Mexico in early January next year.

Before the Foreign Minister goes to Mexico in January next year, will he undertake to talk to his American counterpart and raise with him the democratic principle that a freely elected Government do not attack another freely elected Government or connive to attack such a freely elected Government? Will he make it clear that the mess that the President of America has now got himself into stems from an undemocratic arming of the so-called Contras? They are basically the people who defended the dictator, Somoza. Will he make it clear, publicly and loudly, that we do not agree with the attacks on a democratically elected Government and that that has always been the principle——

Order. It is unfair to go on as long as that.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear, it is not for Ministers at the Dispatch Box to answer for United States policy. We continue to advocate political solutions to problems in Central America on the basis of Contadora objectives rather than military solutions.

Before the Minister goes to Mexico next year, will he consider the problems of El Salvador and the fact that 50,000 illegal killings have taken place in the past seven years, that 1,500 people were killed last year by death squads, and that 234 cases of torture have already been recorded this year by the Committee of the Mothers of the Disappeared? Is it correct that, in those circumstances, with the guilt so much upon the El Salvador army, the British Government should pay for the training of El Salvador army officers in this country, to go back to continue the killing and murdering of the people of El Salvador?

I imagine that the hon. Gentleman referred to the training offered to one El Salvador cadet. Similar assistance has been offered to many developing countries in many parts of the world. That assistance is entirely consistent with our wish to see improvement in the combat behaviour of the El Salvador army. Similar training facilities have been offered by Contadora group countries.

Is the Minister aware that if the Foreign Secretary were to visit Nicaragua he would confirm that many more civilians, including women and children, are being killed by the increasing ferocity of the attacks by the US-funded Contra terrorists? Does he agreee that if the terrorist leader, Arturo Cruz, is allowed to incite support for terrorists at a conference to be held this weekend in the Barbican and organised by the Committee for a Free Nicaragua, under the direction of the research assistant of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), it will make a total farce of the Government's claim to support the Contadora peace process? What action will the Foreign Office take to stop this terrorist leader from speaking in London?

I, too, read the press report that appeared this morning. There is, of course, no official involvement of any kind in the conference to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As the Government have repeatedly made clear, we have advocated a political rather than a military solution to the problem in Nicaragua.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of South Africa regarding the policy of apartheid.

We have repeatedly made known to the South African Government our abhorrence of and opposition to apartheid. Most recently on 14 November, with our European partners, we made representations to express our concern at possible forced removals from Oukasie township.

In view of the Government's declared continued opposition to the policy of apartheid and the phrase in the Queen's Speech referring to the Government's support for the independence of Namibia, what do the Government intend to do to pursue that policy and to ensure that that independence is secured as soon as possible?

We intend to maintain our pressure for the implementation of resolution 435 as part of our overall policy for progress in South Africa.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted the courageous and ingenious solution prepared by the multiracial conference in the town, known as Indaba? Does he share my regret that it has been rejected by President Botha? Will he offer what ecouragement and support he can to the people of the town to hold aloft the beacons of hope and reason in that country?

I have followed the progress of the Natal Indaba with interest. When I was in South Africa in the summer I discussed it with the provincial administrator of Natal, whom I have known for many years since we were at Cambridge together. Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the efforts that have been made to reach agreement between all sections and groups in Natal along the lines projected. I am surprised at the move that appears to have been made towards rejection of those proposals.

Is the Foreign Secretary going to congratulate the anti-apartheid movement on the way in which it has persuaded Barclays bank to withdraw its holdings in South Africa? Is he aware that we hope that this approach will be followed by many other companies? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any comments to make on the brutal killings last night of a couple in South Africa who were noted for their campaigning against apartheid?

I cannot make a specific comment on that tragedy because I am not armed with information about it, beyond what the hon. Gentleman, no doubt, has already seen. One regrets all deaths from violence in this type of situation. It has been our view that decisions of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman refers must be taken on commercial grounds. A continuation of the present policies in South Africa is not likely to discourage such decisions. We do not think that disinvestment for South Africa is likely in the long run to be in the interests of changes away from apartheid.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that before Barclays pulled out of South Africa the social policies that it adopted played no small part in persuading the South African regime to liberalise as much as it has done? What possible incentive could there now be to the South African Government to continue with those liberalising policies when the more they liberalise, the more they are attacked by Labour Members?

I note the premise from which my hon. Friend is arguing, but the failure to move away fast enough from the policy of apartheid, which the whole House deplores, is one reason why this type of difficult commercial decision is forced on companies in this position. Of course, my hon. Friend is right to commend the way in which British companies, while they remain in South Africa, have been trying to lead opinion in the right way.

Has the Foreign Secretary noticed in the past few weeks that the South African Government have shelved amendments to the Group Areas Act, have rejected the Kwazulu-Natal option and have intensified forced removals and the torture of children in detention? In the light of those movements all one way and his snub during his July visit, does he still believe that he can influence the South African Government constructively, or would he rather congratulate the anti-apartheid movement and the National Union of Students on the Barclays withdrawal, follow their course, and say that he can constructively disengage our Government from South Africa?

The hon. Gentleman is making a more than usually convoluted analysis of a situation that is difficult enough anyway. From the view point of both sides of the House, progress towards the removal of apartheid is much slower than we would wish. We make that judgment at the end of a period in which some voluntary disinvestment has taken place and some additional sanctions have been put in place and in which there has been some advocacy of all kinds. None of those had the effect on the scale that we would like. It must be said that some of the recent action by the South African Government, including the deferment of action on the Group Areas Act and the declaration made about the effective organisation status of the United Democratic Front, must be seen as discouraging. We must continue to renew our plea for an unmistakeable commitment to the abolition of apartheid and the commencement of the necessary dialogue.

As the Kwazulu-Natal plan would have brought about universal franchise and a non-racial Executive for an important province of South Africa, is not the present rejection of that plan deeply disappointing? Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that this is because of electoral considerations and a reaction to the anti-apartheid movement and some of its extreme manifestations, and will he convey to the South African Government our feeling that this is a great disappointment and that we feel that this kind of approach should be supported?

I understand precisely the point made by my hon. Friend. I cannot help him with an explanation about the reason underlying the apparent lack of enthusiasm for these proposals. However, it must be said that the party on which the South African Government depend was not taking part in the Indaba discussions. The discussions were not fully representative of all those concerned. I am sure that it is right for the South African Government to take note of the points on this topic expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), sitting as they do beside each other—spiritually as well as physically.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much revenue he anticipates receiving annually from fees charged for entry clearance certificates; and if he will make a statement.

Income from entry clearance fees during the next financial year is estimated at £23 million. This is still well short of the cost of operating the entry clearance service overseas, which is about £35 million.

Is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister should hold tea parties at Downing street to beg Americans to visit Britain and yet impose a £20 visa tax on selected black nation people who wish to visit Britain? Will the Minister investigate claims that officials of the British embassy in Islamabad are accepting visa applications from those at the head of the queue and telling the other people in the queue to come back the next day? Clearly, this allows Ministers to claim that applications are being dealt with on the day that they are lodged, but it is causing considerable inconvenience, especially to elderly people who have to travel hundreds of miles to lodge their applications.

If the hon. Gentleman would like to provide me with details of what he has just said, I shall look into the matter. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman that he does not accept that our posts in the Indian subcontinent did an excellent job during the period when the visa regime was introduced. The vast majority of applicants are processed on the day on which they apply, and any waiting times are extremely short.

Whatever view an accountant might take of this matter, does my hon. Friend agree that the justice of the visa system is widely supported in Britain? Will he also note that the letters that I have sent to him from my constituents represent a range of minority communities which support what we have done?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. The feedback that we have had from the subcontinent and from many hon. Members in all parts of the House has been positive.

If it is shown over a period of time that considerable difficulties are being encountered by those who apply for visas, will the Minister not allow the cost to deter him from taking steps to improve the situation and to reduce the waiting time? Will he make quite sure that those people who have to come in an emergency, for example, are speedily dealt with?

I am personally keeping this under very close review. We have considerably reinforced our posts throughout the subcontinent and I shall continue to keep a close watch on what is happening. In urgent, compassionate cases, of course I am always willing to receive telephone calls in my office to see if I can do anything to expedite the applications.

[Interruption.]—When my hon. Friend makes his statement will he please note that there appears to be very little objection to these proposals from the Asian community? The system seems to be settling down very well.

I am sorry that I threw such confusion into my hon. Friend's throat. I agree with what he says.

Can the Minister tell us whether all high commissions are staffed up to full complement to process visas? Secondly, can he say how many visa applications have been refused in each of the countries where they have recently been introduced?

I am afraid that at the moment I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer to his second question, but I shall willingly write to him with details. The staff has beeen considerably incresed and we are keeping a close watch on it. We expect an increase in applications during the summer months, because that it is traditionally the time of peak travel, and we have plans to reinforce the posts thereafter. It is not only in the area of the visitor that we are increasing staff resources, because we have seen a dramatic improvement in waiting time in Dhaka over the past year. Waiting times have been more than halved for settlement queues for the priority cases.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I was charged £20 for my entry visa to India and that if it had been refused there would have been no right of appeal? Is he further aware that it was limited to the stated purpose for which the journey was made? Does he agree that our system confers greater rights on applicants than so some of those upon which the Labour party lavish such praise?

It is a unique aspect of our visa application system that there is right of appeal. That is not shared by other countries.

Three answers ago the Under-Secretary of State said that he had support for the visa system from both sides of the House. Can he name any hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who support the system?

I have received letters from many hon. Members in which they have made it clear that they are grateful for the way in which we have been able to process applications from their constitueents.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent initiatives he has taken to increase support for the existing United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in the war between Iran and Iraq; and what specific steps he has taken to draw to the attention of the Security Council the use of chemical weapons in that war.

We gave our firm support to Security Council resolutions 582 and 588, both adopted this year, and shall continue to press for their implementation. We have strongly supported successive statements by the President of the Security Council condemning the use of chemical weapons in the conflict, in particular the statement on 21 March, which was subsequently supported by the Twelve.

While friends of the United States of America and Israel will greatly regret the supply of weapons to the brutal and violent regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that our hands are clean? What are the allegedly non-lethal weapons that we are allowed to supply?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requests. The guidelines that we have followed are those that were stated to the House in answer to the leader of the Liberal party on 29 October 1985. Those are the guidelines that we believe to be right and which we have followed.

Are the British Government opposed to the supply of weapons from the United States to Iran, whether or not that is related to attempts to release hostages? If they are, why was that not made clear during the Prime Minister's visit to President Reagan? Why have the British Government been supportive of President Reagan on this issue when senior members of his own Administration have been distancing themselves from him?

Our policy has never been in doubt. Since this matter has come to light the United States Government have said that they will not supply any further arms to Iran, but will make every effort to stop the supply of arms to that country from any source. That is a welcome reaffirmation of the policy that we have followed.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the fact that we are apparently not prepared to sell equipment such as that manufactured in my constituency by Leyland and Birmingham Rubber, which produces defence equipment to protect people from the affects of chemical weapons to which he referred? Surely, in the interest of humanity, let alone the possibility of us selling equipment to either of those countries which would be beneficial to them, we could make a more sensible contribution to our export drive and to humanity as well?

Neither my hon. Friend the Minister of State nor I are aware of any applications for export licences for such products. The guidelines that we apply are those to which I have already referred. We have and will continue to scrutinise rigorously all applications for export licences, applying those standards.

If President Reagan continues to reaffirm his view that it was right to sell arms to Iran so as to establish influence with the regime, does the Foreign Secretary share the Prime Minister's implicit faith in the tactic of establishing relations with the Iranians by drowning them in billions of pounds worth of arms?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has taken his gift for parody even further than usual. There is no question of the United Kingdom supporting such a policy. Our policy is exactly as I have stated. We should, of course, like to bring Iran back into better relations with the West and to see an end to the Iran-Iraq war, but that is no reason for us to depart from the guidelines that I have enunciated again today. We are responsible for the policies of this country, not of the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have received from their allies on the United Kingdom's attitude to arms negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

Since the Reykjavik meeting between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev, the process of close Alliance consultations on arms control has continued both multilaterally and bilaterally. That has included the meeting of the North Atlantic Council on 13 October and the Nuclear Planning Group meeting in Gleneagles on 21–22 October. There have, of course, been several bilateral contacts with the USA and France.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the concerns and attitudes of our European allies, including the Socialist Governments of Spain and France, show that the policies of the Labour party are out of touch with European as well as United States opinion and will undermine rather than assist arms control?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The attitude of Socialist Governments throughout Europe shows how far from reality the Labour party now finds itself.

Have the Government had representations from their allies about their apparent reluctance to endorse the zero-zero option on intermediate-range nuclear weapons? Does the Foreign Secretary accept the repeated statement of the Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Carrington, that zero-zero was implicit in NATO's original twin track decision of December 1979? Are the Government now going back on their oft repeated statements that cruise and Pershing deployment could be halted, reduced or totally eliminated if the Soviet Union was prepared to remove its SS20 missiles?

No. I am only disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, careful student that he is of the observations of the Secretary-General of NATO, had not studied so closely my own observations in the debate on 14 November, when I stated plainly that the Government have no doubt about the legitimacy of going for the zero-zero agreement on the basis discussed at Reykjavik. The hon. Gentleman is right in that that has been the policy of the Alliance at least since 1979 and it has been our consistent objective since then—on the right terms, including dealing with Soviet shorter-range weapons.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that a few minutes ago the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) referred to a speech in which Secretary Shultz declared his determination to secure the abolition of certain categories of nuclear weapons within 10 years? The right hon. Gentleman concluded that that statement threatened the future of our Trident programme, but does my right hon. and learned Friend also recall that in the 1960s both superpowers declared their firm intention to secure general and complete disarmament within 10 years or so?

I recall that. It has been an oft-proclaimed objective not just of both superpowers but of Governments of all parties in this country, but we must proceed in that direction by realistic steps, and they are as defined and agreed by President Reagan and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Camp David.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister is in favour of the zero-zero option only after the next general election and that she went to Camp David to persuade the United States President not to follow up the Reykjavik negotiations before the general election as it would jeopardise her campaign to keep the bomb and Britain's independent nuclear deterrent and prevent the Tories from running a scaremongering campaign against the Labour party on that issue? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Prime Minister is against multilateral as well as unilateral disarmament?

The hon. Gentleman compounds a series of absurd propositions. The Government have been, and are; committed to further progress in the direction of arms control on the basis of the clear priorities set out after the Camp David meeting. In the absence of advance in that direction, it is also Government policy to recognise the necessity for the nuclear deterrent to remain in place as part of the West's defensive policy. That is recognised by virtually every Government and party in the Alliance, save that to which the hon. Gentleman has the misfortune to belong.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is some irony—which compounds the absurd position to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred—in the Leader of the Opposition cavorting around the United States advocating a policy that was denied even by General Secretary Gorbachev when he conceded that we should have the nuclear deterrent? Furthermore, does he agree that the idea of a European ditch has as much chance of success as the Maginot line or Offa's dyke?

Yes, that is one of the most astonishing aspects of the various propositions to which the Leader of the Opposition has been committing himself. The way in which he is arguing in favour of a ban of United States nuclear forces from this country gravely jeopardises the presence of United States conventional forces in defence of NATO, gravely jeopardises the Alliance, and gravely jeopardises the security of this country.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that his unwillingness and inability to answer my earlier question was due to the fact that the Government are so frightened that President Reagan will cancel Trident, as Skybolt was cancelled some years ago, that, according to the Daily Telegraph, they are investigating the possibility of reviewing Britain's deterrent to some sort of cruise programme? Is he aware that the Prime Minister herself, in this week's issue of Janes Defence Weekly, rightly pointed out that a deterrent based on cruise would be much more expensive than Trident and would come into service much too late to be of any value?

It is encouraging to have the confirmation of the right hon. Gentleman, with his distinguished expert knowledge of the matter, of the wisdom of the United Kingdom remaining committed to the Trident programme with the full support of the President of the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the armed forces of (a) Iraq and (b) Iran have received military training in the United Kingdom since 1980.

Some members of the Iraqi armed forces received training at Ministry of Defence establishments in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1981 to 1986. A small number of Iranian military personnel also received training at these establishments in the United Kingdom between 1981 and 1984.

Upon what moral principle has the Government's policy been based? Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that no further military personnel from Iraq or Iran will be trained in this country? Will he investigate the activities of Jackob Nimrodi, who has a flat in London, and who I understand negotiates 80 per cent. of Iran's import of arms procurement from an office in Victoria street? Will he arrange that that office is closed forthwith?

The training of military personnel in this country is done only in line with the defence guidelines to which my right hon. and learned Friend has already referred. Such training is essentially non-combat related.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is in British and Western interests to seek to break down the self-imposed barriers of isolation in Iran?

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. As a long-term objective we will seek to establish a better relationship with the Iranian Government so that once this dreadful war is ended—a war which both sides of the House bitterly regret—we may have a reasonable relationship with a country that will be of extreme importance in the middle east.

What is the difference between America and Israel selling arms to both sides and us training the personnel of both sides? Would it not be better to do something more specific to try to bring peace to that area?

I repeat again that the numbers in training have been extremely limited, and that the training itself is essentially not combat-related. It is carried out only in accordance with the very clear guidelines that were first put into effect in December 1984, which were enunciated to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend in late 1985, and which he has just repeated.

Does my hon. Friend have any evidence that training in the use of very sophisticated weapons is taking place by other European countries, particularly France? Will he tell the House anything he may know about that?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, we are not responsible either for training in other countries or for defence sales from other countries. As part of the campaign in which we have taken part, not least in the United Nations, we urge that all countries that are suppliers of military equipment to either side should exercise guidelines that are as strict as ours. I must stress that such guidelines have lost British manufacturers orders worth many hundreds of millions of pounds in recent years, but none the less we believe that such guidelines are right and are morally defensible.

How can the Minister equate this training programme with his right hon. and learned Friend's enthusiasm, as expressed at the Dispatch Box today, for resolutions 582 and 588 of the Security Council especially when one country is sponsoring terrorism in Nicaragua?

As I have already explained, there has been no military training of Iranians at all in Britain since 1984. The numbers that have subsequently come here from Iraq have been very limited indeed, and their training is essentially non-combat related.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit the Falkland Islands.

I have no plans at present to visit the Falkland islands.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the response of the Argentine Government to the British proposal for an agreed multilateral fisheries conservation regime in the south Atlantic suggests that the Argentine Government are more interested in pursuing propaganda about Falklands sovereignty than in reducing tension in the area?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Argentine response was disappointing, but perhaps inevitable. It was no doubt intended to rally domestic opinion and, perhaps, to mobilise international support. We have made known our willingness to review with them the best way forward on conservation policy and other ways of restoring our relationships to a more normal basis.

Will the Secretary of State press the Falkland Islands Development Corporation to accept the plans of my constituent, Captain E. P. Carlisle, for a ship-based slaughterhouse to slaughter sheep on the Falkland Island as the beginning of a new meat industry?

I am sure that the plans to which the hon. Gentleman has referred deserve study.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend reject absolutely and completely the criticism from Opposition parties and internationally about the imposition of the exclusive fishing zone around the Falklands, as that must make sense for the conservation of these very valuable fish resources?

I shall certainly do that. As I made plain to the House when we announced the decision, the decision was taken because of the urgent need for conservation. We had tried for a long time to achieve a collaborative and co-operative solution. We would have preferred multilateral arrangements under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, without prejudice to the question of sovereignty, and we would still like to put in place a multilateral alternative.

Does not failure to talk play into the hands of the Argentine military, who have not gone away?

No. I am always astonished at those who assert that the posture of the United Kingdom in relation to the Falkland Islands has, or might have, a decisive effect on the future of Argentine democracy. We hope that Argentine democracy is more securely established than that. We hope that it is sufficiently securely established to recognise the right of the Falkland islanders to their own democratic rights.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend also confirm that the institution of a fishing zone around the Falkland Islands is the most obvious way to bring income to the Falkland islanders, thus enabling them to become more independent of support from this country?

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to that additional beneficial possibility as a result of the establishment of the multilateral regime.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he has now received from the Food and Agriculture Organisation a draft proposal for a multilteral fisheries regime in the south Atlantic? In view of the refusal of the Soviet Union to recognise our unilateral regime or to apply for licences, would it not be better to think again and to proceed on a multilateral basis? Finally, will he have a copy of the FAO report placed in the Library, or is he afraid to have it published because it underlines the Government's foolish and dangerous policy on this issue?

We have not received the FAO report, although we have seen a first draft of it. It broadly confirms our assessment of the need for conservation steps to be taken in the south Atlantic.

Multilaterally?

Multilaterally, of course. From the moment that we made the announcement we said that we would prefer a multilateral regime. During the past 18 months we have been striving to establish a multilateral regime. We have failed to obtain a response on that from the Argentine Government. We would still like such a regime. If the hon. Gentleman would like to address his case to the Argentine Government instead of to this one he might be more effective in his advocacy.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that when the fisheries regime was sensibly introduced, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke of dire consequences, of conflict, and even of conflict with the Soviet Union? Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House how the regime is progressing?

There are increasing signs of willingness from all countries involved, especially those involved in fishing, to make applications for licences on the basis of the regime that we have outlined.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs his policy towards the zero-zero option for intermediate nuclear forces.

NATO partners have consistently made it clear that arrangements on INF must include equal and global limits. An agreement for the elimination of longer-range intermediate nuclear forces in Europe would have to include tight constraints on the numbers of SS20s in Soviet Asia, and on Soviet shorter-range intermediate nuclear forces. Effective verification will be essential.

Was not President Reagan's unilateral action in breaking the SALT 2 agreement a retrograde step? Likewise, have not the British Government been equally destructive regarding agreement on a zero-zero option by linking it with conventional reductions? Is it not time for a constructive dialogue on those important issues?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. That is precisely what has been happening in recent weeks, and what we hope will continue to happen in the months ahead. On SALT 2, we have repeatedly made it clear that the SALT agreements should be observed by both sides. We have also made it clear that the Soviet Union has a case to answer as regards possible breaches and that it should respond to legitimate United States anxieties about Soviet compliance. On zero-zero, it is clear that as we move, as I hope we shall, in the months ahead to long-term elimination of long-range weapons and constraints on short-range weapons, the disparities in conventional weapons and conventional manpower, which are much in favour of the Soviets at present, must be confronted at the same time, especially if central Europe is to become a safer place.

Can my hon. Friend think of any conceivable reason why the Warsaw Pact should reduce its INF deployments to zero if the west adopted the policy advocated by the Opposition of reducing ours to zero without any conditionality on the Soviets or any negotiations with them?

That is right, of course. The fact that NATO countries were so firm in deploying cruise and Pershing in western Europe has brought the Soviets back to the negotiating table and will, we hope, lead to an eventual zero-zero intermediate forces agreement.

Are there not great gains for Europe—

Owen's puppets.

—especially in the intermediate nuclear forces zero-zero option? Given that those are not directly linked to SDI, what initiative are the Government making in respect of the Geneva talks to put that question back on to the agenda?

I am sorry, but due to the interruptions of hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

What are the gains for Europe in the zero-zero option on intermediate nuclear forces? What initiatives are the British Government taking?

Of course, there are great dangers to Europe in moving towards the removal of long-range intermediate nuclear forces. Secretary Shultz consulted extensively NATO allies after the Reykjavik talks and the Vienna talks. The Americans have shown considerable willingness to listen to west European NATO allies' points of view on that subject. Most recently, the statement arrived at by President Reagan and the Prime Minister at Camp David was a positive step forward that has been welcomed by our European allies.

As we move towards zero-zero in intermediate weapons, are there any discussions with the Soviets on short-range nuclear weapons—the SS21, 22, 23 and 24—which must be linked with any reductions in intermediate weapons?

My hon. Friend is right. There must be an agreement to limit short-range intermediate nuclear weapons. We would like to have an INF agreement that would incorporate a freeze on Soviet SS22 and SS23 systems. This would circumvent agreement on long-range intermediate nuclear weapons and, at the same time, there would be an agreed right, if necessary, for the United States to match the figures that the Soviets have at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy concerning proposals for a nuclear weapon-free corridor in central Europe.

Proposals for a nuclear weapon-free corridor or zone would not enhance NATO security. Such areas could still be targeted by weapons located outside the zone. Such weapons could also be moved into those areas at short notice, and at a time of crisis. Real progress will be made only through significant, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear armaments.

It is unfortunate that such a negative answer should be given by the Minister. I am sure he will know that the recommendation came from the Olaf Palme commission, which called for, as part of the entire strategy, a 300-mile corridor in Europe. Indeed, that policy has been picked up by the SDP in West Germany, which has come to some arrangement with regard to a 150-mile corridor, if it is in a position to implement it. Although that would be only a small but significant step towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, will the Government rethink their position in a more positive light, not the negative position that has been given from the Dispatch Box?

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Minister of the German Democratic Republic, Mr. Fischer, who was with us last week, did not once mention a nuclear-free corridor. The reason is that such corridors only give the illusion of security. Where the weapons are targeted matters far more than where they are based. The hon. Gentleman represents part of the city of Sheffield, which has declared itself a nuclear weapon-free zone. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, rather than spend £250,000 a year on a peace budget and £500 on a CND balloon on nuclear free-zone day, the hard-pressed residents of Sheffield would prefer a reduction in their rates.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the nuclear issues and emergency planning committee of the city of Bradford metropolitan council is actively promoting its own foreign policy and recently met Herr Schneidratus of the East German embassy, when Councillor Rye and his colleagues on the committee responded enthusiastically to the idea of a nuclear-free corridor in central Europe? Is that not a naive reaction, bearing in mind that the idea of a nuclear-free zone in central Europe is completely discredited and that it would involve the withdrawal of our deterrent from central Europe while the Warsaw Pact retained its intermediate weapons to the east of the Urals, which can hit anywhere in Europe?

I notice, too, that Manchester is promoting a nuclear-free Europe at a cost of at least £500,000. The city's nuclear-free zone is being guarded by five full-time staff at a cost of £95,000 a year. The inhabitants of eastern Europe, notably the German Democratic Republic, would prefer, not a nuclear weapon-free zone or corridor, but the withdrawal of some of the 400,000 Soviet troops who are stationed in that country.

Instead of sneering at genuine efforts to promote peace and understanding in Europe, can the Minister give a more constructive response to a proposal which would help to reduce risks and tension in Europe by increasing the time span for taking decisions on the central front? Is there not something to be said for a policy which unites the SDP of West Germany, the Communist party of East Germany and the leader of the British Social Democratic party, who endorsed it in the Palme commission report?

I wonder whether the policy also has the support of the Liberal party. The hon. Gentleman is far too intelligent not to know that nuclear weapon-free corridors 300 km wide mean absolutely nothing in the event of hostilities being declared. Weapons that have been moved out can be moved back quickly. What matters is where the weapons are targeted, not where they are based. It is significant that the Cristian Democrats in the Federal Republic have not shown any inclination to back those proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the authorities in Iran and Iraq on the use of chemical warfare.

We take every suitable opportunity to express our views on the use of chemical weapons to the Iraqis and Iranians. My right hon. and learned Friend last raised the issue with the Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Tariq Aziz, when he met him at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, on 24 September.

I am grateful for that reply. Is it not time to go beyond the presidential statements and guidelines to which the Foreign Secretary referred in reply to a previous question? Should we not be getting together with our friends and allies to find some way of stopping or reducing the supply from Europe to either or both of those countries of chemical weapons, equipment to make them or equipment to adapt fertiliser factories to make them? Should we not be doing something instead of just talking?

It is a pleasure to find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that at present we impose export controls on 10 chemicals which are capable of being used in the manufacture of lethal chemical agents. A longer warning list has been circulated to the chemical industry and traders, and similar measures have been taken by other industrialised countries. More important, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken the lead at the conference on disarmament in Geneva of seeking a worldwide ban on the production and storing of chemical weapons. In that context we have tabled our initiative about challenge inspection and we look forward to discussing it with other countries in the months ahead. This is an area in which the United Kingdom is in the lead.

Will my hon. Friend press on with the Government's initiative to have a worldwide ban on chemical weapons? In particular, will he make representations to the Soviet Union that it should not assist any country in the middle east to develop its chemical warfare potential?

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that we are already in detailed discussion with the Soviet Union about some of the clauses in the regime for challenge inspection that we have tabled at Geneva. We shall continue to press the Soviets not to do anything to facilitate the export of ingredients which can be used in chemical weapon manufacturing.

If industrial countries are not supplying chemical weapons or the means to make them to Iran or Iraq, does the Minister accept that they are getting the weapons from somewhere? Can we not widen our efforts and ensure that they cannot get those weapons from anywhere? Does he agree that even if we must raise the issue at the United Nations, we should do so?

Yes. The hon. Gentleman judges on a difficult point. The problem is that many chemical ingredients can be used either for genuine ordinary chemical manufacture or for the manufacture of dangerous chemical agents. In producing the warning list that is now circulated to the chemical industry we tried to establish which chemicals were particularly dangerous in this area. We constantly consider the list and we shall do everything we can to make international export controls more effective prior to arranging a worldwide ban on chemical weapon production, which must be verifiable. That is the answer to the problem that the hon. Gentleman identified.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is yet satisfied that sufficient progress has been made by the South African Government towards the dismantling of apartheid to warrant the withdrawal of economic and other sanctions; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. While we do not believe that general economic sanctions would be effective as a means to end apartheid, measures of the kind agreed by the Twelve on 16 September are an important means of signalling to the South African Government the urgent need for change.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it would be better to dismantle the apartheid system at a time of economic prosperity than at a time of unemployment, poverty and financial disaster, which the sanctions policy will bring? Will she reject the Barclays bank way of walking away from the problem and support BP's policy for far greater investment and prosperity for those of all races in South Africa?

The decision by Barclays bank was an entirely commercial decision for it. It is true that any weakening of the economy brings enormous suffering, particularly to the black South Africans. I must say that BP's ideas, and its intention to spend £30 million on community projects, represent a welcome initiative. There should be more. However, it should be realised that the South African Government have fenced themselves into a corner. Although they have changed some of the restrictive laws, they have sought to introduce new restrictions, such as defining the parameters for black settlement in urban areas. Until the apartheid system in South Africa is replaced by a system with which all South Africans can agree, we shall not see, in South Africa, further investment strength or, indeed, the peace for which we all long.