asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Fiji.

I expressed our deep concern about the military coup in Fiji on 14 May, calling for a return to parliamentary democracy. The governor-general has assumed sole executive authority in Fiji. We have maintained normal contact with him through our high commissioner in Suva. Our normal commercial and trading relations continue, as does our aid programme.

A legitimately elected Commonwealth Government have been overthrown by a military coup and the Government have given no continuing views of their disapproval of that coup. Why have the Government not been firmer in their expressions of disapproval, and what instructions have been given to our high commission staff in Fiji, first, relating to the new Administration and, secondly. in their relations with members of the ousted Government?

We have made our view about the coup, as I have just explained, very clear on a number of occasions. For example, some short time afterwards I met the Indian Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Natwar Singh. We both explained that we looked for the swift restoration of parliamentary democracy on the basis of the 1970 constitution for an outcome that preserved the stability of Fiji and harmony among the different communities. It is that that the governor-general is seeking to promote, having declared the office of Prime Minister and other Government positions vacant, and it is that that obviously our high commissioner is now operating in relation to the Government and to the governor-general.

Will not our own democratic credentials be questioned when the people of Fiji and Vanuatu learn that the driver of the high commissioner's car, registration number CDUK 1, was instructed by the high commissioner to circulate throughout the islands arid deliver Conservative party abusive propaganda against the Labour party to British residents of those islands, and also to seek money to finance the Conservative party campaign at the last election in the form of a letter signed by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)'? It was circulated by a British civil servant. Why is this practice not condemned? Should it not be against the law, and when will some action be taken about this abuse by civil servants?

The question has nothing to do with Fiji. It appears to relate to an excellent document making a very powerful case. The point made by the hon. Gentleman is the subject of a question that he has tabled for answer much later on the Order Paper——

Five of them.

Five? That is characteristic of the hon. Gentleman's extravagance. They will he answered in due course.

Reverting to the original question, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to keep in touch with other countries in the area, such as Australia and New Zealand, which have also taken a sensible line on this issue? Will he give a clear message of support to the governor-general, who has been dealing with great competence with an extremely difficult matter? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that same governor-general has a good record of fighting terrorism in Malaya?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are keeping in touch with the Governments in the region to whom he referred. I entirely endorse what he said about the importance and difficulty of the task being undertaken by the governor-general and the extent to which he has our admiration. He has now assumed sole executive authority and is seeking to promote elections which will lead to the restoration of a democratic regime in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on cultural diplomacy.

Cultural diplomacy is a valuable part of our continuing promotion of British interests and values worldwide. Our policy was set out in some detail in a memorandum to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

I thank my hon. Friend. Does he agree that our language and culture should be encouraged overseas for their own sake? As the Select Committee report recommends, does he agree that an enhanced cultural diplomacy budget should specifically be set aside, especially for the BBC external services and the British Council?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the promotion of our culture plays an important part in our general diplomatic effort overseas. I prefer not to be drawn into commenting at this stage on the Select Committee report. We shall study and respond to it in the normal course of events.

Has the Minister studied the speech made by Sir John Burgh, the retiring director general of the British Council, who said that the Conservative Government had completely let down British culture by making a 21 per cent. cut in the budget of the British Council? Why have the Government betrayed British culture abroad, and what do they intend to do about it?

I was present when Sir John Burgh was making that lecture, and I am sure that he will not thank the hon. Gentleman for that crude caricature of what was an interesting speech.

Does my hon. Friend recall the wide support in the previous Parliament for the proposal for a British world television news service? Is he in a position to state the Government's view on the matter?

We are aware of the opportunities that are offered by satellite television broadcasting, and British television enterprises are actively involved in this. I think especially of the ITN service. My right hon. Friend's question raises several fundamental issues which we are continuing to study carefully.

Does the Minister agree that international sporting links should be an integral part of the Government's policy on cultural diplomacy? Bearing in mind the Government's attempted boycott of the Moscow Olympics, why is there a deafening silence on the need to find an alternative venue for the next Olympics, since the puppet regime in South Korea has one of the worst records in the world on the deprivation of human rights?

The hon. Gentleman has the most extraordinary set of priorities. I should have thought that he would welcome the movement towards democracy that has been promised by the President of Korea.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the BBC external service is often the only source of truth and hope in many countries where people have been deprived of their liberties? Will he do all that he can to thwart attempts by the Treasury to impose financial restraints?

The BBC external service has done very well in recent years. Since 1979–80 there has been a real increase of more than 50 per cent. in grant in aid.

Will the Minister stop blustering about the remarks made by Sir John Burgh, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) repeated? Will he confirm that the budget of the British Council has been reduced by 21 per cent. in real terms since the Conservatives took office? Will he also confirm that Sir John Burgh said that that may mean, if it continues, that the British Council will have to pull out of nine countries by 1991 unless the cuts are reversed? What will the Minister do to reverse that trend and support the work of the British Council overseas?

Again I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am sorry that he was not present when Sir John Burgh made his interesting speech.—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman's points are different from those made in Sir John Burgh's speech. The British Council's requirements are considered along with other requirements in the context of the annual public expenditure survey. We cannot prejudge the outcome of that survey.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to Iran's failure to respect diplomatic immunity.

As I told the House on 26 June, our firm response to Iran's failure to respect Mr. Chaplin's full diplomatic immunity was designed to bring home to the Iranians the seriousness with which we, and indeed the whole international community, viewed their action. Regrettably, the Iranians responded in a severe and unjustified manner.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in Britain and throughout the world will feel safer as a result of the resolute stand that he has taken against terrorism and against the maltreatment of diplomats whose sole duty, does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree, is to serve their country and nothing else?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I remind him that the purpose of diplomatic immunity is not to protect diplomats, but to protect their work on behalf of the people of this country.

In the light of the mounting evidence that Iran is not merely failing to respect diplomatic immunity, but is orchestrating the kidnapping of innocent hostages, is it not slightly illogical that nominally we still have diplomatic relations with Iran, but do not have such relations with Syria, which to some extent has sought to put its house in order on such matters? If the Foreign Secretary believes that maintaining the vestige of diplomatic relations may help to deal with the problems that we face with Iran, would that not also be more helpful in a situation where the Syrian Government have at last taken steps to make changes in those matters that greatly concern us?

Each of those cases must be considered separately on the facts and evidence available. There was no doubt that the conduct that led to the rupture of relations with Syria was wholly justified, and no one dissented then. It is true that there is some evidence that the Syrians are making some changes in Syria at the moment. However, they do not go far enough by any means to satisfy our requests for the abandonment of support for terrorism. With regard to Iran, the evidence is different. The conduct that led to the present state of affairs, although outrageous and unacceptable, was not in the same category as that which led to the breaking of relations with Syria. That is why we must distinguish between the two cases.

What is the Government's policy towards the supply of arms to Islamic fundamentalist groups?

That situation is not very frequently likely to arise. However, the supply of arms in all circumstances is subject to the comprehensive control by means of licensing and approval in the ordinary way.

While I understand the actions that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken in virtually breaking off diplomatic relations with Iran, what arrangements will be made for those people trying to leave Iran to come to this country, for example for medical treatment, who may have relatives in this country and who are at present finding great difficulty leaving that country?

The rundown in the scale of our presence in Iran must lead to the virtual suspension of the availability of visas. The position was such that the Iranian authorities were seeking to reduce our representation to nothing more than a visa-issuing factory, with the removal of reality from the relationship. Arrangements are made for visas to be available from other posts and special attention will be given, so far as possible, to cases on compassionate grounds or those of real urgency.

Why did we allow ourselves to be messed around, with the humiliation that was imposed by the Iranians on us and our diplomats? Why did we not immediately close down the Iranians' arms sales office at 4 Victoria street? Is this country so pathetically desperate for any trade with Iran that those people just across the road from this building can continue to buy and sell vast amounts of armaments for the war between Iran and Iraq, while our diplomatic personnel are beaten up and thrown out of Iran?

The hon. Gentleman has approached this matter in a characteristically exaggerated and distorted fashion. The Iranian military purchasing offices are conducting purely commercial operations, which must operate within the confines of British law. This dispute was confined to a consular and diplomatic matter, and it would be wrong, for the sake of British industry and jobs, to disregard the fact that in other respects we still have a substantial export trade with Iran, which is conducted entirely within the law.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the North Atlantic Council meeting at Reykjavik on 11 June.

As I told the House on 26 June, the conclusions that were reached at the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Reykjavik were a notable fulfilment of our efforts to promote a real improvement in East-West relations. The United Kingdom was one of the main architects of the agreement that was reached at Reykjavik on the double zero option on intermediate nuclear forces. We have also played a central role in preparations within the Alliance for negotiations on achieving a better conventional balance. The Reykjavik communiqué confirmed the Alliance's arms control policies that were set out last December. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Library of the House.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether any consideration was given to the control of chemical weapons, in which, I believe, the Soviet Union has a marked superiority over the West?

Yes, that was identified, as it had been in the earlier NATO communiqué, as one of the high priorities for progress. We wish to achieve a worldwide ban on chemical weapons. Last year, encouraging progress was made under the United Kingdom chairmanship of the negotiations. As my hon. Friend points out, this is an important matter, because the Soviet Union retains large stocks of chemical weapons, together with comprehensively trained and equipped forces.

As the North Atlantic Council has endorsed the dual zero negotiations on intermediate nuclear weapons, why should that process not be extended to the most dangerous class of nuclear weapons, the battlefield systems? Why do the Government not endorse the concept of NATO and the Warsaw pact negotiating mutual and balanced reductions in the substantial numbers of these weapons that are now deployed in central Europe?

We are seeking to achieve progress on conventional arms control, and that was one of the four priorities that were identified in the communiqué. However, battlefield nuclear weapons form no part of the conventional armoury and there is no question of contemplating reductions in the United States and Soviet land-based nuclear missiles with a range of under 500 km, except in conjunction with the establishment of a conventional balance and the global elimination of chemical weapons.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most serious aspects of any double zero option is the verification after the agreement? Therefore, does he agree that the expertise of the seven nations group of the Western European Union on verification of armaments, which was formed after the last world war, should be used to its full?

I have no doubt that that capacity should be used as far as it can be. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that a rigorous and effective system of verification is essential. That remains an important part of the negotiations, which still have to be resolved.

Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that his Government will not seek — [HON. MEMBERS: "Back again?"] May I allay the alarm on the Government Benches—[Interruption.]

Order. It is a great pleasure to see the right hon. Gentleman.

I simply want to assure the House that I have returned to the Opposition Front Bench not in response to overwhelming public demand or in order to receive more premature obituaries, but because I have another week to go.

The agreement, as sought and so far presented, has not been extended to cover P1A weapons in Germany. It is intended to cover United States and Soviet systems only.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position on arms control negotiations.

There has been significant progress in recent weeks in the United States/Soviet negotiations on intermediate range nuclear missiles. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend has just given about developments at Reykjavik.

I welcome the progress in the INF negotiations, but can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government's view is that agreement should be concluded if possible by the end of this year? In the interests of meeting such a timetable, do the Government believe that it would be unwise to attach too many conditions to the free standing and balanced INF agreement by attaching conditions to conventional or chemical weaponry, important though it is to make progress on those issues separately?

Plainly, it is important that a proper balanced view be taken on all these matters. I hope, as the whole House will hope, that proper speed is made in all these negotiations, but in no sense do I think that we should be tied to any arbitrary timetable.

Why are the Government continuing to support P1A in West Germany when it is both militarily useless and politically obstructive to a historic breakthrough in arms control agreements?

The hon. Lady speaks with great assertion on matters on which one suspects she is not as expert as she claims. The reality—[Interruption.]

Order.

It is interesting that—[interruption]

Order. This is supposed to be about diplomatic exchanges.

It is interesting that the hon. Lady chooses to seize upon indications that the Soviet Union introduced into the discussions very late on; indeed, only a few months ago. Before that it had been accepted that the arrangements whereby the West Germans have this rocketry and the Alliance fits the warheads stood outside these negotiations. The hon. Lady would play the British card better if she recognised that this was a spurious negotiating gambit by the Soviets and did not leap in as voice and echo to everything that Mr. Gorbachev said.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, as there is not one shred of evidence of any change in Russian expansionist foreign policy, he should go extremely carefully in the arms control talks?

That is unquestionably right.

Why did the Foreign Secretary try to intervene in New Zealand's arms control policy at his press conference there in May, and what is felt to have been the outcome of that?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman should direct that question specifically to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his new appointment. As an early priority, will he read the excellent article by General Bernard Rogers in Monday's international Herald Tribune, which rightly points out that our spectrum of deterrence — our graduation of deterrence — will be diminished by the elimination of intermediate nuclear force systems? Will my hon. and learned Friend always bear in mind that arms control negotiations are not an end in themselves, but that their purpose is to enchance security?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's last point. I would add that for some time past what General Rogers has been saying has been worthy of the most serious consideration, and certainly it will always get that consideration from me.

It would be normal to welcome a new Minister to the Dispatch Box, but this new Minister has managed in a few seconds to make us instantly and amazingly nostalgic for his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who preceded him. He at least had some expertise in these matters and would never have stooped to this sort of cheap jibe.

It is good to feel at home, being savaged by a dead haggis. The British Government's position on this, as on all other aspects of disarmament and defence, commands a great deal more support, both at home and abroad, than is suggested by Opposition Members, who, after their third successive election defeat, should learn a little humility on these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position in the Iran-Iraq war.

As I told the House on 26 June, we are most concerned that this tragic conflict continues after almost seven years. We are continuing to play a constructive role in discussions in New York aimed at finding a negotiated settlement.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity to put the mind of the House at rest on two points? First, will he assure us that every possible action is being taken to ensure that British shipping in the Gulf is being adequately protected; and secondly, that under no circumstances are arms being sold to either of the combatants?

Our policy on the sale of arms is well known. We refuse to sell to either side defence equipment which would significantly enhance its capability to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. That policy has brought us no thanks from either side, but we believe that it is appreciated by the wider international community. To protect our shipping, we maintain the Armilla patrol in the area to offer reassurance and help British ships in an emergency. We keep the operations of that patrol under constant review in the light of changing circumstances. Since January about 120 merchant ships in transit through the Straits of Hormuz have been covered by ships of the Armilla patrol.

That being so, may I ask the Foreign Secretary why, in answer to question 3, he sought to boast at the Dispatch Box about the number of British jobs protected by the immorality of allowing the office at 4 Victoria street to continue? How can he make that boast, but at the same time say that the Government are not doing anything to prolong the war? Either we are selling a lot of arms to protect a lot of jobs by maintaining that office in Victoria street, or we are not.

The hon. Gentleman's question is naive, even for him— [Interruption.] Let me make the position clear. There is a total ban on arms sales along the lines that I have described. That has been firmly maintained for a number of years. However, there is still ample scope for commercial trade unrelated to arms. That commercial trade sustains a large number of jobs in British industry and is of great importance. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not care about that.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that within the Iranian consulate in Manchester there were those who were IRA sympathisers and who joined in IRA marches in London and Dublin? Is it not possible that if we had not closed that consulate in Manchester we would have found that some of the weapons that were being used——

Order. This is a mile wide of the conflict.

I am now saying: is it not possible that some of the weapons that are being used in the Iran-Iraq war could find their way into Northern Ireland?

I suppose that all things are possible, but it is a rather remote question from the one before the House.

Bearing in mind the disastrous history of the multi-national force in Lebanon and the stupefying confusion of recent American policy towards Iran, can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Royal Navy will not be ordered or allowed to join in the provocative American actions in the Gulf and that Her Majesty's Government will instead seek, through the United Nations, international protection for shipping in the international waters of the Gulf under the aegis of the Security Council?

I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman in the terms in which he opened his question. He knows perfectly well that it is our intention to see that all people concerned exercise the utmost restraint in this area and refrain from any action that might lead to a further escalation and a widening of the dispute. Our Navy and the French Navy are present for the purposes that I have described. They keep in close touch with each other and with the United States Navy. However, there is no question or intention of formal integration. We shall continue to promote the action that I described in the original answer at the United Nations and elsewhere to try to bring the conflict to a close.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning Her Majesty's Government's latest information on human rights violations in the Soviet Union.

We have welcomed the release of dissidents earlier this year and the recent increase in the rate of Jewish emigration. We hope that the amnesty announced on 18 June will lead to further releases. We remain concerned, however, about the many still unjustly detained in prisons and psychiatric hospitals and the thousands who are being denied the right to leave their county. We shall continue to press the Soviet authorities on these matters, both in bilateral contacts and at the conference on security co-operation in Europe Vienna meeting.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Can he confirm that the practical, beneficial effect of the much-proclaimed policy of glasnost has led to more Soviet Jews who wish to do so being able to leave the Soviet Union? Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the many individuals and organisations in this country who are trying to make personal contact with people in the Soviet Union who are denied basic human rights. in an attempt to keep their hopes high and to bring to the attention of a wider public the human tragedy involved in such policy within the Soviet Union?

I had the opportunity of saying almost precisely that to the chairman of the British Council for Soviet Jewry at our meeting yesterday. I look forward to giving a similar commendation on the efforts of so many, including many Members of this House, at a conference on this topic next week.

While it is of course right that we make representations on human rights violations whenever they occur, is it not high time that the Government recognised that there is a new mood of reform in the Soviet Union? May we ask the Government to act entirely out of character and respond to that mood of reform positively and sympathetically?

Of course we respond, but the best form of response is not just to roll over and forget about all the difficulties that we know exist and will continue to exist. Naivety has no part in these matters.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the increase in the number of people leaving the Soviet Union is as nothing compared with the 400,000 who are in receipt of invitations to do so?

I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has been a very distinguished Member of the European Parliament for some time, on his election to the House. I also congratulate him on asking a question that hits the centre of the target of our concerns. It is certainly true that there has been an increase in the number of exits permitted this year to those established refusniks, but there remains a much larger group of people who have been invited to come here and who are now subject to the restrictions imposed by the Soviet Union in January—restrictions of a new and fresh kind. If those restrictions are rigorously imposed and result in the refusal of a substantial number of those people to leave, that will pose a major obstacle to proceedings between our two countries.

Would it not be possible to take the Government's posturing on human rights in the Soviet Union more seriously if they were willing to extend an amnesty to the six innocent men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, who have now been in prison in this country for 14 years?

Although I know, from my previous incarnation, of the hon. Gentleman's interest in that case, his is not a worthy question. He knows full well that the case is now subject to reconsideration by the Court of Appeal, and that no such liability to reconsideration exists in the Soviet Union for any of the people with whom we are concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's commitment to the protection of its national shipping in the Gulf; and what information he has about the equivalent commitment of other nations in the Gulf.

As reiterated most recently at Venice, we are firmly committed to the principle of freedom of navigation in the Gulf.

Has not the President of the United States drawn attention to the fact that the contribution of the Royal Navy is proportionally greater than that of any other power? Does not the Royal Navy deserve the thanks of the House for the job that it is doing, entirely without fuss?

I associate myself entirely with every particular of what my hon. Friend has said, and I hope that the whole House will do so.

While recognising the role played by the Royal Navy, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the American attempt to exclude the Soviet Union from the Gulf—that is certainly how matters appear—is very dangerous? Will he urge the United States to work in co-operation with the Soviet Navy in that area? This is not merely a matter of American self-interest; it is in the interest of the whole world.

There is no doubt that major extensions of superpower rivalry would be troubling. The Government are very well aware of that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the South African Government regarding the release of political detainees.

We have repeatedly made clear to the South African Government our deep concern at the continuing detentions without charge. We have done so both bilaterally and together with our European partners.

While accepting what the Minister has said, may I ask how the British Government intend to make the South African Government realise that we want to see positive steps towards ending the policy of apartheid in that country? One of the important prerequisites of that is the release of all political detainees. How will the Government spell out the message so that the South African Government understand and act on it?

We have made repeated representations to the South African Government, not only about detainees, but about all the other issues that have arisen in recent months and years. We shall continue to impress upon the South African Government the need to bring people together around the conference table so that together they can work out a future constitution. There is no way in which we can bring about change from outside. The changes that are needed in South Africa to abandon apartheid totally have to come from within, and we shall use all our diplomatic efforts, with the Twelve and with the Commonwealth, to bring that about.

In the light of what my right hon. Friend has said, will she please explain her apparent reluctance to enter into a dialogue with the leaders of the black homelands in South Africa, who represent moderation in that country? If she is not reluctant, will she please refute that allegation?

I think my hon. Friend knows very well that the so-called independent homelands in South Africa are a key element in what is known as grand apartheid. They are bitterly resented by most black South Africans. Neither we nor any other state have recognised the so-called independent homelands. We believe that no British interests would be served by recognising any of them. The historical background does not alter the present facts. Even fellow Tswanas in Botswana do not recognise Bophuthatswana. It is simply not possible for us to have the sort of official dealings that my hon. Friend would like, without the risk of appearing to recognise such a homeland as an independent state. It would do nothing to bring about the end of apartheid. If I thought that it would do so, we might change our ideas.

In the light of the post-election message of congratulation from President Botha, did the Prime Minister mention detainees in her reply?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received a large number of letters from Heads of State as a result of the election. There was nothing out of the ordinary either in the letter that was sent or in the reply, a copy of which I do not have to hand.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that internal security matters in South Africa are for the South African Government, not for our Government? Will she also accept that while certain political detainees are detained, and while the state of emergency exists, peace has returned to the black townships and that people can go about their lives normally, apart from the murderous intent of the African National Congress and others who are bent on disruption?

Internal matters are for the South African Government, but I think my hon. Friend knows well enough that the concern of the House and of thousands of people outside it about those who are detained without charge is very real. It is something that we have never espoused in this country, nor do we think that it should happen in other countries. We regret the renewed state of emergency in South Africa, because it is no answer to South Africa's problems. The South African Government need to engage in a dialogue with free and freely chosen representatives of black opinion. That is the first necessary step on the path to a peaceful solution that we all wish to see. Nothing is gained by throwing brickbats in the way that some would have us do.

Although repression in South Africa is censored and does not appear on our television screens, does the Minister agree that, as was confirmed recently by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, repression there is at an unprecedented level and that it includes the detention and torture of children? In the light of that, why do the Government continue to give aid and support in the United Nations to the apartheid régime, and why do they protect South Africa in the Security Council by the continued use of their veto?

There is no protection of the South African Government in the United Nations by this country. We are deeply concerned about the allegations in the recent report "Children under Apartheid". Although the South African police have denied those allegations, I understand that the South African Deputy Minister for Law and Order has said that such allegations, if true, are horrendous. No doubt, over time we shall hear more about them. The allegations refer to a time past. We hope that if any children are still retained in detention they will be freed by the South African Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent British objectives were achieved at the Venice summit in June.

We sought a continuing commitment by all summit countries to the collective pursuit of economic policies designed to produce sustained non-inflationary growth in the world economy. We also sought renewed commitments to the liberalisation of trade and resistance to protectionism, the reform of agricultural policies, and the economic progress of developing countries, including special help for Africa. We endorsed summit statements on terrorism, East-West relations and the Iran-Iraq war. Our objectives for Venice were met in full.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what progress was made in discussions relating to food surpluses?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to that matter. There has been sustained and encouraging progress in the past year. The communiqués of the Tokyo summit, as well as the meetings held at Punta del Este and the OECD in Paris this summer, preceded the strong requirements of the communiqués from Venice. Moreover, we are seeing worthwhile progress in the European Community in price reductions. For example, there was a 10 per cent. reduction in grain prices last night. The next step will be taken at the GATT, where we shall table comprehensive proposals for the dismantling of agricultural protection. The tide is running for reform. That tide is being sustained by the imperatives of budgetary discipline. We have to keep it moving.

Will the Secretary of State elaborate on the endorsement of the campaign against terrorism, especially as we have yet to have delivered extradition proceedings from the Republic of Ireland—allegedly because of the miscarriage of justice in English courts—and British subjects continue to be murdered in Northern Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that the campaign against terrorism has to be sustained in every quarter in which it is a scourge of the community, as it certainly is in Northern Ireland. He will no doubt welcome the fact that the Prime Minister met the Taoiseach yesterday in Brussels. They agreed on the great importance of continued co-operation in the campaign against terrorism.

Bearing in mind the genuine concern about the problems of the poorest countries, particularly the debt problems of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and bearing in mind that such matters were discussed by Heads of Government at the recent Venice summit, will my right hon. and learned Friend say a little more about initiatives that are about to be taken or are being taken?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the matter. The summit recognised in particular the debt problems of the poorest countries, particularly in Africa, where they were identified as uniquely difficult and calling for special treatment. We were encouraged by the support given at the summit for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's three-point plan for special assistance for certain countries.

Was the Secretary of State able to make reference at the summit to the British objectives in relation to the situation in the Korean peninsula? Was he able to remind our allies that we have been in a state of armistice there for almost 35 years? Was he able to recall that we have to maintain a garrison in South Korea to uphold what is clearly a subversive and decadent regime?

The hon. Gentleman has linked a number of topics. The House will welcome the announcement that was made in recent days of the changes that are in prospect in the Republic of Korea. He is right to say that there is a small, token detachment of British troops in the Republic of Korea whose function, among other things, is to commemmorate the great heroism of British troops, including in particular the Gloucester Regiment, in the Korean war some years ago. There was some discussion at Venice of the problems of Korea, when we reaffirmed our desire to see progress in the sporadic attempts to achieve some kind of reconciliation between the two countries on the peninsula.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States Government about the level of their support for the Contra forces in Nicaragua.

We regularly discuss important issues, including the situation in Central America, with the United States Administration, and they are fully aware of our views.

May I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 9, which points out that on 27 June 1986 the world court found that the United States Government were guilty, on no fewer than eight counts, of offending international law in respect of supplying arms to the Contras and their actions on Nicaragua? What will the Government do, in terms of the much-vaunted special relationship that appears, or is said, to exist between this country and the United States, to ask the United States Government when they will conform with the rulings of the international court? When will this country stop indirectly supplying arms to the Contra forces, as the Minister knows we are doing?

There is no truth in the hon. Gentleman's wild allegations. I wish that he would withdraw such assertions, which he insists on making across the Floor of the House and for which he has no evidence whatsoever.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the only way to solve the problems of Central America is by political initiatives and not by armed force, and that the best way forward must still lie in the Contadora peace process?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The way to solve the problems in Central America is by working through the Contadora process rather than through military solutions.

How can the Minister state so categorically that the Blowpipe missiles that are now impounded in Panama in the ship Per Evesta were not destined for the Contras, in spite of the evidence of the Tower commission? As there is now evidence of Blowpipe missiles being supplied to the Afghan rebels also, why is Shorts, which is owned and controlled by the Government, allowed to continue to supply Blowpipe missiles behind a wall of silence?

I might have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have had more chance to come to terms with the reality of the situation. We are not supplying arms to the Contra rebels. We have said that quite clearly. The hon. Gentleman has had four weeks off and should not give rein to his fantasies in such a manner.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the newly-appointed ambassador from the Republic of South Africa; and what was discussed.

My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet had any formal discussions with the new South African ambassador since his appointment, but he expects to do so soon. I met the ambassador on 22 April last.

When my right hon. Friend meets the new ambassador formally, will she put on the agenda the independence of Namibia? Does she agree that the start of negotiations for the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola would be a significant step towards the implementation of Security Council resolution 435?

I can assure my hon. Friend that when my right hon. and learned Friend meets the South African ambassador he will consider Namibian independence. We remain committed to the United Nations Security Council resolution 435. It is the only internationally acceptable basis for a Namibian settlement. We have recently reminded the South African Government of the need for its early implementation. However, we have not set preconditions for the implementation of resolution 435, nor has the United Nations. We recognise that withdrawal of all foreign troops from Angola and Namibia would create the best possible conditions for a lasting settlement. We welcome the prospect of renewed United States-Angolan negotiations and will discuss that with Dr. Crocker later today.

When the Minister's right hon. and learned Friend takes part in such a meeting, will he express the distaste of the people of this country for South Africa's undermining and destabilising of the front-line states, most noticeably and most recently in Mozambique and Botswana?

The hon. Gentleman already knows that no violence across borders, by whomsoever it is committed, is likely to solve the grave problems of southern Africa. Indeed, whenever there is an incursion into another country, it is deprecated.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to maintain stability in Hong Kong; and what is his policy on discussing any proposed constitutional changes in the colony with the Government of the People's Republic of China.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards democratic reform in Hong Kong.

Both we and the Chinese Government have undertaken clear commitments to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. The excellent progress made by Hong Kong since the signature of the joint declaration on its future is evidence that those commitments have been upheld. We naturally maintain contact with the Chinese Government over a wide range of issues concerning the future of Hong Kong.

As, for nearly 150 years, the Hong Kong constitutional position has been dominated by the proximity of China, and as the British and Chinese Governments—as my right hon. and learned Friend said—are committed to the maintenance of stability, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that change without the overt consent of the Government in Beijing to the constitutional position in Hong Kong could be dangerous folly? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that the interests of the people of Hong Kong relate far more to the substance of stability than to the shadow of experimentation?

It is important that there should be convergence between any changes made now and the system that will be in place after 1997. None of the options set out in the Green Paper is inconsistent with that approach. Her Majesty's Government, the Hong Kong Government and the Chinese are engaged in listening to the views of the people of Hong Kong on future constitutional arrangements.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in 1997 China will take over the system of government in Hong Kong that will be operating at the time? Does he agree that a referendum would be the best means of determining the views of the Hong Kong people towards the options in the Green Paper?

Plainly, there will have to he continuity between the system of government that is in operation in 1997 and that which takes over immediately thereafter. Obviously, with regard to matters set out in the Green Paper, we are listening to all the representations made to us. It would be wrong of me to anticipate the outcome of that public consultation.