asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay a visit to Brazil.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to pay a further visit to Brazil. However, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will visit Brazil from 19 March to 23 March.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that Brazil has the largest foreign debt in the world—£104 billion—and an internal inflation rate of 450 per cent.? Is he further aware that if Brazil defaults on its payments it will create havoc in the world's banking and trading system? Given that our Chancellor is the hardest of all hawks in relation to Third world countries, what advice or assistance can the Minister give to help Brazil to stabilise its financial and trading affairs with the rest of the world and with this country in particular?

We are, or course, aware of the debt problem that Brazil faces, but we welcome the strenuous efforts that have been made by the Brazilians to meet their repayment obligations. We are entirely convinced that an IMF agreement offers the best route to long-term economic recovery. We are, of course, confident of Brazil's long-term economic potential.

On this crucial matter, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is pointless to ask Brazil to pay a rate of interest higher than 6 per cent. on its debt, because a higher rate would be wholly incompatible with the minimum growth rate required to provide a degree of economic opportunity for its population, without which democracy cannot be sustained?

I recognise my hon. Friend's great knowledge of the problems that Brazil faces. I am not sure that I go all the way with him in his assumptions about the maximum interest rate, but we have, of course, welcomed the accord on official debt that was reached at the Paris Club meeting of Brazil's creditors in January.

Does the Minister agree that Brazil represents a great opportunity for British trade and investment, particularly in view of recent reports that the Arabs are about to pull out? Will he confirm that he has received representations regarding the lack of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover? Have he and his colleagues been able to persuade their colleagues in other Depertments to consider restoring this important element in our trade with Brazil?

I welcome the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to inreasing our trade with Brazil. As I am sure he is aware, Brazil is already our largest market in Latin America, but we need to increase our market share even further. As a result partly of the Paris Club meeting in January and the agreement to which I have referred, we are giving close attention to how that agreement affects our policy on export credits.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the new Governor of Hong Kong to take up his post.

Sir David Wilson will take up his duties as Governor of Hong Kong on 9 April.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure Sir David that when he takes up his duties he will carry with him the good wishes of the many hon. Members who are friends of Hong Kong, particularly at this difficult stage in Hong Kong's history? Will my right hon. and learned Friend also consider easing Sir David's path as he takes up his duties by taking an international initiative to ease the problem of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong, a problem that has existed for many years and is imposing upon the people of Hong Kong a burden of £10 million per year, not to mention the human suffering and misery involved?

I shall be glad to convey to Sir David Wilson the good wishes and support of the whole House as he embarks upon his difficult task. I know that he, together with Her Majesty's Government, will consider the particular problem of the refugee camps that has been raised by my hon. Friend. It is right to say that this longstanding problem, which has given rise to a great deal of difficulty and personal hardship, has been getting better over the years. Even last year, the numbers in the camps dropped by about 1,400 to a figure just in excess of 8,000 — itself much lower than the 12,000 some four years earlier. Nevertheless, we are actively considering what more might be done to help in that respect, and it is certainly a matter that can benefit from international consideration.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that all parties in the House wish Sir David all the very best in his new job, realising that he is just one of a distinguished line of recent governors? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please take very carefully to heart the fact that Britain is in duty and in honour bound to do considerably more than she has been doing to help relieve the difficult and intractable problem of the suffering of the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong?

I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said in the first half of his question, and I take note of the emphasis that he places on the importance of addressing ourselves to the problem under discussion.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, despite recent political changes in China, the policy of the Government of China towards Hong Kong remains the same as it has been—that is, the policy set out in the joint declaration and agreement of two years ago? Will he confirm that he expects that situation to continue and that there is therefore every ground for continued optimism about the future of Hong Kong?

I am glad to be able to respond to my right hon. Friend in the way that he would hope. I think that the whole House will have welcomed the statement of the Chinese Prime Minister, Mr. Zhao Ziyang, that China's internal and external policies will not be affected by recent events. In particular, a number of Chinese Government spokesmen have emphasised that China's policies towards Hong Kong will not be affected.

Sir David will know that he carries with him the good wishes of the whole House. On the question of direct elections, will the Foreign Secretary state what construction he places on the warnings, both by senior officials and in magazines, that direct elections, if implemented, might be halted after 1997? Will he reassure the people of Hong Kong that if the internal consultation process in Hong Kong this year shows a clear majority in favour of an element of direct elections it will indeed come about? Will he also make it crystal clear to Beijing that although we shall, of course, work very closely with the Chinese Government, we in Britain remain in effective control of the territory until 1997?

I understand, of course, the importance that the whole House and, indeed, the Government of the People's Republic of China attach to the maintenance of Britain's responsibility for administration until 1997. As the hon. Gentleman knows, direct elections are one of the issues being considered in the review by the Hong Kong Government of the further development of representative government. It would not be right for me to try to anticipate the outcome. It is a genuine and objective review, in which the views of the Hong Kong people will be taken fully into account. I am equally confident, in this as in other respects, that it is possible for the British and Chinese Governments to take full account of each other's concerns as well as those of the people of Hong Kong.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Poland.

Recent contacts with Poland have included a meeting between my right hon. and learned Friend and the Polish Foreign Minister at the United Nations General Assembly in September, and my visit to Warsaw from 5 February to 8 February. We intend to continue an active dialogue in which human rights and the need for national reconciliation in Poland will play a major part.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he regard today's news that the United States Government are to lift some economic sanctions on Poland as encouraging? What are the prospects of the Polish Government ceasing to jam broadcasts to Poland by the BBC world service?

I raised this matter specifically with Mr. Olechowski the Polish Deputy Foreign Minister, during my visit, and this morning in the course of a discussion with Mr. Urban, the Polish Government press spokesman. It was denied that the Polish Government jammed BBC broadcasts in Polish, but I was assured that it was not the Polish Government's intention to "disturb" BBC broadcasts. I use the word "disturb" deliberately because that is the word that was used. Mr. Urban told me that on his return to Poland he would investigate the sources of any disturbance and would take steps aimed at ending it.

Did the Minister discuss with the Polish representatives the recently revealed shameful policy of successive British Governments since 1948 in failing to pursue Nazi war criminals who carried out terrible acts on Polish territory and the revelations that we assisted the departure of war criminals responsible for such conduct in Poland and other territories to safe haven in the United States? Is that why the Mengele file was not published, for sensitive reasons, a year or so ago?

The hon. Gentleman has made wide-ranging allegations that go far beyond any evidence that has ever been put before this or any other Government. He has raised matters of great seriousness and if he cares to write with full details to me or to other Ministers we shall consider very carefully what he says.

Does my hon. Friend see any prospects for the development of further democracy in Poland and for improvements in human rights? On the latter point, the amnesty on political prisoners last year was very welcome, but a number of opponents of the regime are still held on minor, supposedly criminal, offences. Perhaps the most celebrated case is that of the Krakow leaflet bombers. Does my hon. Friend believe that there is now a more enlightened attitude on human rights issues in Poland?

During my visit to Warsaw I raised specifically the question of the 18 prisoners who are still detained, following the release of substantial numbers of political prisoners last autumn. In the case of those 18, there certainly seems to be evidence of a political nature either in the charges brought against them or in the sentences that they have received. The Polish authorities have promised to send me full information about those 18 cases, which I will examine further when I receive it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the policy implications for the United Kingdom of an early deployment of the strategic defence initiative; and if he will make a statement.

The policy implications of deployment would include those identified in the agreement reached by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan at Camp David in 1984. Meanwhile, the strategic defence initiative remains a research programme. No early deployment of strategic defences appears to be in prospect.

Given that the Foreign Office is reported to have said that the United States is willing to continue consultation with its European allies on arms control issues, including any possible conflict between SDI and the anti-ballistic missile treaty, does the Foreign Secretary of State not think it important that Her Majesty's Government should clarify their position as to the interpretation of that treaty in relation to deployment and to testing and development? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this opportunity to say that the Government support the narrow interpretation of the treaty?

The House will understand the importance which Her Majesty's Government and the Alliance attach to the ABM treaty. The interpretation of it—I emphasise the word "interpretation"—is a matter for the two signatories to the treaty. The way in which it has been applied is a matter of importance, quite apart from whatever the lawyers may say. The House will recollect the statement made by Secretary of State Shultz to the North Atlantic Assembly in October 1985 drawing attention to the distinction between the broad and the narrow interpretation. He then said:

"our SDI research program has been structured and, as the President has reaffirmed last Friday, will continue to be conducted in accordance with a restrictive interpretation of the Treaty's obligations."

"If they change what has hiterto been understood to be the interpretation, yes, we do ask for consultation because that has considerable effect upon the arms control negotiations that are taking place in Geneva".

"our main message to the United States is please consult your other allies in NATO on this matter of vital importance to us all."

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that may of us who support the concept of anti-missile defence and the need for Britain to take part in the research programme have grave reservations about the way in which President Reagan launched this initiative and are extremely cautious about early implementation without the widest possible consultation within the NATO Alliance?

I understand that the programme gives rise to a wide divergence of views on both sides of the House. The one thing about which there is unanimous agreement is the importance of the ABM treaty and of consultation about any change in the way in which it is applied.

Do the Government oppose the early or subsequent deployment of the SDI? If so, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why?

As was agreed between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan at the first Camp David meeting, deployment

"would in view of treaty obligations have to be a matter for negotiations."

Will my right hon. and learned Friend impress upon the American Government the importance of having an agreed interpretation of the treaty? Should we rely upon Mr. Shultz's interpretation, or on that of Mr. Adelman, who is now temporarily in charge?

It has been made clear that because of the importance of the ABM treaty as part of the framework within which arms control negotiations are being conducted there should be agreement about the interpretation or at least the basis on which the treaty is being applied and interpreted.

As the Foreign Secretary knows, the Secretary of State for Defence has already made the Government's position clear. He said:

"we very much welcomed the US commitment to pursue its SDI research programme in accordance with a strict interpretation of the ABM treaty".—[Official Report, 19 February; Vol. 92, c. 336.]

The right hon. Gentleman need not go as far back as 1986 or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to seek affirmation of our endorsement of the President's application of the narrow interpretation. I made the same point in my speech to the International Institute a fortnight ago.

"If they change what has hitherto been understood to he the interpretation, yes, we do ask for consultation because that has considerable effect upon the arms control negotiations that are taking place in Geneva".—[Official Report, 17 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 764.]

A change has been made.

It is wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to assert that a change has been made. Some are arguing for change, but it is clear that no change has been made. It is equally clear that it is important that consultation should take place.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the speech that he made on SDI to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies in 1985, when he raised a number of doubts about SDI and, in particular, about the instability that might result from deployment of a partial defensive system? Has my right hon. and learned Friend had answers to the important questions that he raised in that speech, particularly with regard to the possible vulnerability of our continent of Europe if a defensive system were to be deployed by the United States?

I well remember the important speech that I made—it was rather a good one—and I made another on the same topic two weeks ago. Clearly, those important questions still require consideration as the SDI research programme proceeds on both sides of the iron curtain. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed with President Reagan that SDI-related deployments should be a matter for negotiation because of the importance of the ABM treaty.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Mr. Shultz said that the United States believes that the broad interpretation of the ABM treaty is justified, even though for the time being—he said this some time ago—the United States will, in its conduct, adhere to the strict interpretation? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made any response to the gratuitous insults that were heaped on him by Mr. Perle and Mr. Adelman every time he suggested that the Reagan Administration should stick to the undertakings that they gave the Prime Minister at Camp David? Why has the Prime Minister consistently undermined the right hon. and learned Gentleman's efforts and those of the Secretary of State for Defence to persuade the United States to adhere strictly to the terms of the ABM treaty? The right hon. Lady said yesterday that she had no right to have a view on this because she had not read the negotiating record. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if the United States were to carry out tests in its star wars programme in outer space it would violate the ABM treaty and seriously jeopardise all hopes of disarmament?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House, as I think I did earlier, that the United States—not only Mr. Schultz, but others—has contended that the broader interpretation is one that can be upheld. It also said that it would continue to conduct the SDI research programme within the narrower interpretation — [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) persists, rather uncharacteristically, in interrupting from a sedentary position. I must tell him that the White House spokesman has made it clear, and it has been reaffirmed since, that no decisions have been made on development and deployment. That has been affirmed today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence after his meetings in Washington yesterday. It is a matter of importance about which consultation is clearly necessary and will clearly be forthcoming.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to announce further developments in the Geneva arms control talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest progress in arms control talks.

The current round of the Geneva nuclear and space talks began on 15 January and has several weeks still to run. The negotiations for a comprehensive ban on chemical weapons resumed on 3 February. In December last year we and our NATO allies proposed distinct negotiations on conventional arms control, one on confidence building, the other on conventional stability in Europe.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the closest attention is paid to the inclusion in any agreement arising from these talks of provisions for detailed verification? Will he draw to the attention of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Heeley) Mr. Gorbachev's recent rejection of a policy of one-sided disarmament? Does my hon. Friend agree that if any Government were so misguided as to adopt that policy the continuation of these talks would be unlikely?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proposals on detailed verification are essential to all the arms reduction talks that are currently in train. During the Vienna talks on mutual and balanced force reductions in December 1985 the West made proposals for force reductions, to which were attached detailed proposals for verification by on-site inspection. It is regrettable that so far the Warsaw Pact countries have failed to reply to those proposals.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the cohesion of the Alliance that no new negotiating positions are taken by the Americans without the fullest and frankest discussion with their NATO allies?

In recent months the Americans have consulted widely with their NATO allies about the proposals that they are putting forward in Geneva and in the other forums. There has been a sign of the Americans' willingness — indeed, instinct — to carry their NATO allies with them as we move on in 1987, a year which obviously could be crucial for arms control talks. To make these talks succeed, which is our earnest hope, the United States wants fully to consult its NATO allies.

With regard to the negotiations on the reduction in chemical weapons, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, will he tell us whether the Americans agreed to have on-site inspection of chemical weapons manufacturing plants, including those that are privately owned?

Yes. The Americans have tabled the most comprehensive proposals for challenge inspection, including on-site inspection, of any party to the conference on disarmament and the chemical weapons discussions in Geneva. The British proposal, which we tabled last July, is also a stringent regime on verification. In essence, it modifies some of the American proposals, while insisting on a very stringent verification regime. The Americans, as part and parcel of this regime, have accepted that there should be on-site inspection of the civil chemical industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that an important element in the overall arms control equation is the balance in short-range nuclear delivery systems? Does he agree that the Soviet Union is continuing to deploy an increasing number of SS21s, SS22s and SS23s, which directly threaten the south-eastern corner of this country and much of western continental Europe? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, unless these systems are withdrawn, it should be the policy of the Government with their NATO allies to deploy anti-ballistic missile defences—ATBMs—to counter this growing threat?

As my hon. Friend, who is a considerable expert on these subjects, knows well, obviously this is of great concern to countries in central Europe, such as the Federal Republic of Germany. For that reason, in bringing forward suggestions for an agreement that would essentially remove the long-range intermediate nuclear weapons from Europe—an agreement which we believe could be achieved this year and which is certainly worth going for— we and our NATO allies have insisted that parallel constraints must be negotiated on the short-range weapons.

On the subject of the chemical weapons negotiations, will the Minister confirm that yesterday the Soviet Union accepted much of the British proposal for a chemical weapons treaty at Geneva, especially in regard to on-site inspection, but that so far the United States of America has rejected the British compromise proposal which was tabled last year, as the hon. Gentleman said? Last week, Mr. Richard Perle launched a major attack on the British position following the attack on the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for "his mealy-mouthed evasions". Who precisely is on Britain's side in trying to get an agreement on this vital and critical issue in Geneva?

I have also seen the proposals, or rather the newspaper reports of the proposals, that the Russians tabled yesterday. In terms of inspection of the chemical weapons sites that produce the weapons, those proposals look interesting and worthy of closer examination. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the United States' proposals on challenge inspection, which are at the heart of the verification procedures, are more radical and stringent than those of any other country. The question now is whether the proposals that we have put forward, which will none the less demand a stringent inspection regime, but give the challenge country an opportunity to satisfy the challenger by other quick means, form a basis on which a ban on chemical weapons can be achieved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in any arms control talks the research and development of a new generation of weapons or of anti-weapons systems become an increasingly important element in negotiations? Does he agree that one will not get any give from the other side unless one has tabled something to get it, and that that is one area in which SDI and other developments could become more important as time goes on?

Yes, that is obviously a point for argument. One could follow on from that and say that the NATO countries' decision in 1979 to deploy cruise and Pershing missiles in the western European countries was what had brought the Soviet Union to the negotiating table today.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the current state of the United Kingdom's relations with Italy.

Anglo-Italian relations are excellent. The summit meeting in London on 11 February was constructive and friendly. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on that occasion that President Cossiga has accepted an invitation from Her Majesty The Queen to visit this country from 17 to 20 November 1987.

On that occasion, were there discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the representatives of the Italian Government about the apparent differences in the ways in which Italy and the United Kingdom deal with terrorists? In particular, were there any discussions and, if so, what was their result, about the reported release of a terrorist called Hindawi, who is the brother of the terrorist who is in prison in this country?

There was a re-affirmation of the commitment to the anti-terrorist measures agreed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by Signor Craxi at the summit. There is effective multilateral and bilateral co-operation with Italy on terrorism.

Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is of the highest importance to be on good terms with Italy, it is also necessary to be vigilant about the unfair import penetration from that country, and necessary to stiffen the resolve of the European Commission to police it?

Yes, Sir.

When the Minister meets the Italian representatives he may notice their jauntiness, especially regarding the state of their economy in relation to Britain's. If he asked for a look at the books he would discover that Italy's foreign convertible currency reserves are greater than Britain's after seven years of Thatcherism, and that the lira is stronger than the pound on the forward exchange markets. Does that not say more about Britain's policy, economic and foreign, than almost anything else?

No, it shows the hon. Gentleman's fundamental misunderstanding of economic statistics.

It is all in the Financial Times.

The House will be interested to hear about the wide range of the hon. Gentleman's reading.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement of progress at the current Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe review conference in Vienna.

The Vienna meeting has now moved on from the review of implementation to discussion of new initiatives. On 4 February, together with the other Western countries, our delegation tabled an ambitious three-stage action programme designed to ensure concrete progress on human rights, not only at Vienna, but thereafter.

Although we must all be encouraged by what Mr. Gorbachev has been saying recently, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the true test is the full implementation by the Soviet Union of the Helsinki Final Act, not least its human rights provisions? Will he consider tabling further initiatives at Vienna to allow for the guaranteed protection of Helsinki monitoring groups and for citizens of all the participating states to have the right of individual petition to a human rights commission within the Helsinki process? That would show that Mr. Gorbachev means business.

I welcome and understand my hon. Friend's endorsement of the importance of the Helsinki monitoring groups. Like him, we look for action to deliver the consequences of the words spoken on human rights by the Soviet Union. The proposals that we have tabled at the Vienna conference contain ideas to deal with the problems to which my hon. Friend referred. The first stage would provide arrangements whereby Governments and other interested groups could raise individual grievances along the lines that my hon. Friend has in mind.

Is it not important that there should be a positive response from the West to the limited, but nevertheless very important, actions which have been taken by Mr. Gorbachev in pursuit of his words, if only to make it clear to those who might challenge what he is doing that the achievement of real progress on human rights, while there are still thousands in prisons and psychiatric camps for reasons of conscience, is fundamental to the West's perception of whether we can do business with the Soviet Union?

The whole House will agree with the hon. Gentlman. There has been a widespread welcome for the decisions and actions that have taken place in the direction of improving respect for human rights and setting individual people free on a significant scale, but we must always remember that that is only a small portion of the much larger problem with which we want the Soviet Union and its allies to deal.

Although we all appreciate and welcome the improved intentions on human rights from the Soviet Union, on implementation, is there any evidence that the Soviets are allowing more refuseniks to leave the Soviet Union, that they are releasing prisoners of conscience from imprisonment and that they are allowing greater freedom of religion and religious culture in the Soviet Union?

It is a matter of making a careful judgment. There has been some improvement in respect of the treatment of individual cases. There has been an improvement, for example, although in a differenct area, with the ending of the jamming of the BBC Russian service. But all this takes place from a wretchedly low base. Massive abuses still exist. The January figures for Jewish emigration remained modest. There is vast room for improvement in all these matters, including attitudes towards religious and political dissent, and we await with interest a fulfilment of the promises.

Should we not warmly welcome the progress that has been made during the past few months, with the apparent release of 140 prisoners? One hopes that the Soviet Union will follow this with the release of all those who have been imprisoned because of their political or religious beliefs. Would not the views of Conservative Members be taken more seriously if their anxiety about human rights was not confined to Eastern Europe, but included countries such as Chile?

Having started off not too badly, the hon. Gentleman relapsed to his customary form at the end. Let us draw together both sides of the House on this. Of course we all welcome the fact that individuals are being freed and that there is some movement in the direction of more respect for human rights by the Soviet Union. We do not yet even know that all the 140 people identified to be freed have been freed. Let us welcome what has happened, but let us never cease to remind the Soviet Union that there is a great deal more to be done.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend welcome the announcement last night of the release of Dr. Anatoly Koryagin? Does he agree that the release of a small number of prominent dissidents and political prisoners, and their consequent removal from Western news bulletins, does not of itself denote a real alteration in the stance of the Soviet Union towards dissidents?

It is right to be both welcoming and wary. It is good in human terms that some releases have taken place, and it is good if they foreshadow much bigger change, but the changes have a disproportionately large impact on media reception in the West. Let us welcome what has happened, but let us go on pressing for a great deal more of a much more fundamental kind to happen.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the Government gave to Mr. Madrigal, Foreign Minister of Costa Rica, when he visited London to discuss his proposal for a new initiative iin Central America.

When Senor Madrigal called on my right hon. and learned Friend to explain Costa Rica's position, he reaffirmed our strong and active support for a political solution to the problems of the region.

At the recent Contadora conference only four EC Ministers out of 13 turned up. Does that not show the level of priority that is accorded to peace in Central America, or have we just been told by the United States to keep our nose out?

The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. All the EC countries were represented by senior Ministers. The fact that senior Ministers were prepared to travel to Guatemala from Europe for an important two-day conference shows the tremendous importance that is attached by EC Ministers to the Contadora process.

Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to continue the strong and independent line by the British Government in pursuit of the Contadora process? Does he agree that one of the biggest problems is that the very size of the Nicaraguan army is a cause for fear amongst many neighbouring Latin American countries?

We are deeply concerned about the situation in Central America and we are working constructively for peace, democracy and economic development. But we have to point out—it is regrettable that the Opposition do not join in pointing this out—that the Sandanista military forces are currently around 70,000. They receive considerable support from the Soviet bloc and they have a significant number of Cuban military and security advisers. That is not a way to promote peaceful evolution in the area.

Did the Minister discuss with the Costa Rican Foreign Minister the reasons for the size of the Nicaraguan forces? In particular, did he discuss the pivotal role of the United States in funding the Contras in their campaign of loot, rape and pillage, both against innocent civilians in Nicaragua and the Sandanistas?

The hon. Gentleman is extremely selective in the way in which he refers to the position in Nicaragua. I wish that he and other Opposition Members would share our desire to establish a full pluralist democracy with Nicaragua and would join us in urging a reduction in the massive quantities of Soviet weaponry already supplied, in urging Nicaragua to reduce subversion in neighbouring countries, in urging the Sandanistas to respect fully human rights and in urging them to restore full civil liberties, including a free press, the right to strike, the return of exiled Church leaders and full implementation of a new constitution.

Will my hon. Friend give the result of the recent visit of Baroness Young to Guatemala in progressing the Contadora process, which was under discussion?

The conference served the useful purpose of bringing together all the Central American Foreign Ministers and their European and Contadora colleagues. The joint communiqué, with which my hon. Friend will be familiar, reaffirmed support for a peaceful negotiated settlement on the basis of the Contadora objectives.

Does the Minister accept that, in addition to having a freely elected Government—that is a fact—Nicaragua has a population smaller than that of Yorkshire? The idea that it is a menace or a threat has been thought up by the ailing President Reagan, who is sending armaments on a grand scale. I wish that the Minister would listen to what I am saying and make it clear to the Americans that we have nothing in common with the comments of Mr. Shultz, who said the other day that he thought that eventually America would attack Nicaragua.

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is highly selective in his views of events in Nicaragua. For instance, Nicaragua has adopted a new constitution—that is quite correct — but why, within hours, did it suspend civil rights and guarantees for human freedoms?

Did the Costa Rican Foreign Minister discuss with his British counterpart the oppressive treatment of the Miskito Indians by the Sandanistas? Did the Costa Rican Minister welcome the presence of Her Majesty's forces in Belize and suggest that they remain there notwithstanding the resumption of diplomatic relations between London and Guatemala?

Those matters were not raised on this occasion, but of course they are raised in normal diplomatic discussions.

Will the Minister tell the truth about the position in Central America and admit that the cause of the conflict, the war and the suffering, is the obsession of President Reagan and his Administration to destroy the process of social improvement and social revolution that is occurring in Nicaragua? President Reagan is frightened of the example that that will set to other poor and starving people throughout Latin America. It is time that the British Government came off the fence and properly supported and recognised the democratic Government of Nicaragua.

The hon. Gentleman is displaying the normal blinkered way in which he approaches matters on the international stage. The blinkered look that he has adopted towards Nicaragua is the same as that which he has adopted towards Afghanistan when he has welcomed the so-called regime's peace initiative and condemned the actions of the Afghan resistance—

I did not mention Afghanistan.

—as the hon. Gentleman has done in early-day motions on the Order Paper.

Does the Minister not accept that while this elaborate tangle of talks takes place innocent civilians—women and children—are dying directly as a result of United States-funded terrorism? Will the British Government have some guts for once and use their undoubted influence with the Americans to stop this war, which is increasingly seen as being waged to humour an increasingly dangerous and senile President?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pause and reflect on the terms of that question. It is extremely serious for an Opposition Front Bench spokesman to make an accusation and use such words.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to arrange discussions on disarmament with representatives of the Government of the Soviet Union.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), had extensive discussions on arms control during his visit to the Soviet Union in January. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will also discuss arms control, among other issues, during her forthcoming visit to the Soviet Union. I see no need to arrange further specific talks in the meantime.

In view of the recent statements by representatives from the Soviet Union that they would welcome more constructive bilateral talks with the British Government on disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, will the Secretary of State give more urgent consideration to the distinctive and constructive role that Britain could play, instead of the British Government always seeming to act like a puppet of Ronald Reagan, who does not seem to be all that serious about nuclear disarmament, test-ban treaties or anything else that might help world peace?

I certainly believe that the United Kingdom can and should play a substantial role in advancing the cause of arms control internationally. It is a role that we have been playing consistently under this Government. I have had more than a dozen meetings with my opposite number in the Soviet Union, and when I go with the Prime Minister in a few weeks' time it will be my fourth visit.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that if there are to be important discussions with Mr. Gorbachev and other Soviet Ministers they will be properly prepared, because we do not want any more disasters such as Reykjavik?

I do not think that the performance of Her Majesty's Government, and most of all the agreements reached at Camp David on two successful occasions, suggest that missions undertaken by the Government are anything other than well prepared. I agree with the importance of that.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Government's behaviour after recent discussions with Soviet representatives led the spokesman of the Soviet Foreign Office, Mr. Gerasimov, to complain that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Minister of State had misrepresented those discussions in

"self-advertisement for election purposes"?

Her Majesty's Government and their representatives need to take no special action to advertise the importance and significance of what we are doing in the search for progress on arms control. On the matter of self-advertisement for electoral purposes, we need no lessons in that from the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received recent representation calling for the restoration of diplomatic relations with Albania; and if he will make a statement.

We have not received any representations recently. We offered in 1980 to establish diplomatic relations with Albania unconditionally, and that offer remains open. Unfortunately the Albanians have not so far taken it up.

Is it not time that we had direct links with Albania? Perhaps the sticking point is the returning of Albania's gold, which was seized by the Nazis at the end of the war and ended up in the Bank of England. Surely that should be returned. If there is any dispute about the so-called Corfu incident, that can be sensibly dealt with. An indiscretion by a small country is nothing compared to the activities of Germany, Japan or Italy. Let us make amends and return the gold so that we can have direct links with that small but important country.

The House will wish to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on moving on from Afghanistan to Albania. Afghanistan is perhaps in danger of becoming too revisionist for him. The fact is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that we cannot act unilaterally with regard to the Albanian gold. That can be done only by unanimous agreement of the Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Monetary Gold—[Interruption.] I am not making excuses. We are anxious to resolve all the outstanding problems, but there still remains, for example, the Albanian refusal to settle the Corfu channel claim. That must be dealt with.

Is there any point whatever in having diplomatic relations with these ruffians?

I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend was not speaking about the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). If so, that would be unparliamentary language.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the consequences for United Kingdom-Gambian relations of the proposed confederation between Gambia and Senegal.

The Senegambian confederation was established five years ago, on 1 February 1982. It was created by the decisions of two independent and sovereign states. We enjoy excellent bilateral relations with both states of confederation. The enduring links that we have with the Gambia, a fellow member of the Commonwealth, have not been affected.

I am grateful for that reply. Will the Minister tell the House that in the case of a complete creation of Senegambia she will take the most careful note of the concern of Gambians about the continuation of Commonwealth status?

Yes, of course. As I understand it, there will be no need for such a change. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that any economic assistance that may be agreed with Senegal, which is a high tariff area, will not reflect on the Gambia, which is a low tariff area?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. Obviously this is a matter for further discussion, but in no way would we seek to disadvantage the Gambia if it decides to go forward with confederation.