To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Soviet violations of human rights.

There have been some developments in Soviet human rights performance recently, in particular the release of a number of prisoners of conscience and a modest increase in Jewish and other emigration. But there is a long way to go. Individual gestures are no substitute for the abolition of repressive legislation and an end to the use of state power to crush individual rights. We continue to press the Soviet authorities on these matters, both in bilateral contacts and at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe meeting in Vienna.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in my constituency Dr. Dick Rogers is one of the leading campaigners for the freedom of Anna Chertkova, a Soviet dissident who has been imprisoned in a psychiatric hospital for her religious beliefs since 1973? Will he impress on the Russian people, and especially on the Russian Government, that if they want rapprochement with the West and with this country such behaviour towards people who are imprisoned for their religious beliefs must stop?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it is unacceptable to persecute those who seek no more than the freedom to profess their religious faith. The case of Anna Chertkova has, as he will know, been the understandable subject of an extensive campaign throughout the country in which his constituent has taken part. The case has been raised in the House on several occasions and was debated here as recently as 6 November. I hope that that serves to underline the importance attached to that case by all hon. Members.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we would be in a better position to lecture the Soviet Union on human rights if our own gaols did not contain so many innocent prisoners? I refer especially to the 11 innocent people who were convicted in connection with the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings and the six innocent people convicted—

Order. That case is sub judice.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept from me, as the vice-chairman of the all-party committee for Soviet Jewry, that there is widespread support from hon. Members of all parties for the cause of Soviet Jewry? Will he continue his efforts with the full support of the House and rejoice with me that the Kholmiansky family, who are mentioned in question No. 92, have been released during the past 24 hours?

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that good news on one individual case. As he will know, we continue to stress consistently and tenaciously the importance that we attach to a substantial improvement in the freedom of emigration, not just of Jewish citizens, but of others from the Soviet Union. It is true that there has been an improvement in the total number of Jewish people who have left the Soviet Union this year. That number is between 6,000 and 7,000, but it still compares unfavourably with the peak total of 51,000 who left in 1979.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects were discussed at his last meeting with representatives of the Government of the United States of America.

My right hon. and learned Friend held extensive discussions with Mr. Shultz on 20 October in London, and they also met in Brussels on 24 October. A wide range of bilateral and international topics were discussed. We value this regular frank and constructive dialogue.

How does the Minister explain Britain's humiliating defeat yesterday at the United Nations, when the United States and other allies, with more than 100 other countries, supported the rejection of Britain's intransigent stance on the Falklands? As Britain can now muster the support of less than a handful of other countries, is it not time to enter into negotiations with Argentina on the future of the Falklands and to follow America's advice, at least on this issue?

We regret the fact that some countries failed to agree with us on this important issue, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that the fact that the United States takes a different view from us does not mean that we are wrong.

Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that the British Government will press the United States Administration to ensure, in the negotiations with the Soviets, that Soviet officials will limit their verification of nuclear bases in the United Kingdom, as part of an INF deal, to RAF Molesworth and RAF Greenham Common, and that they will not tour the country and visit naval institutions and other Royal Air Force bases?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, details of verification are still being discussed. We are in close consultation with the United States.

Did the Minister discuss with his American counterparts compensation for the Libyan people, remembering that not so long ago that country was bombed thanks to support from the British Government? Is that not an important issue of human rights and basic justice? Did the Secretary of State mention that matter in America?

If the hon. Gentleman chooses to refer to Libya, he should also refer to its appalling conduct in supplying arms to the IRA.

The Minister must accept that if the Americans are free to criticise us about the Falklands, we should be free to criticise them—if we believe that they are wrong—about Central America. Will he give an assurance that the next time Ministers meet the American Administration they will mention the report of the Congress investigation committee into the Iran-Contra affair, which is said to criticise the President for "subverting law" and undermining the constitution of the United States? Will the Government at last use what is called our special relationship with the United States to get the President to stop funding terrorists and to use the money instead for humanitarian and economic aid to Costa Rica and the peoples of the other countries of Central America?

The hon. Gentleman knows that our position on Central America is clear. We advocate a peaceful negotiated solution, not a military solution, to the problems of the region.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Jordan.

During my visit to Jordan from 1 to 3 November I held friendly and detailed discussions on international and bilateral issues with King Hussein and his Ministers. Relations with Jordan are excellent.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that is welcome news? Does he agree that King Hussein's work for a peaceful solution in the middle east has been extremely valuable and an example to other Arab leaders?

I endorse my hon. Friend's tribute to His Majesty King Hussein. His courage and tenacity have been an example, not just in that region, but much more widely. The House will wish to acknowledge his most recent considerable achievement in securing full representation from the Arab states at the recent Arab League summit. The final communique from that summit offered several important contributions to the two key regional issues: the Iran-Iraq war and the Arab-Israel dispute.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, in view of the great success of a move to moderation among the Arab states, it would be a wise time to use what little influence we have on the declining years of the Reagan presidency to get the American Government — the only one in the world who could do it — to pressure Israel into adopting a more realistic attitude towards a settlement of the Palestinian problem?

For once I agree.

Then I must be wrong.

I shall leave the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) to resolve his dispute with his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) privately. I, at least, am prepared to accept the central thrust of the points that he has made. The United Kingdom, and, indeed, all 12 Community members, have come out firmly in favour of an international conference — one of the initiatives being supported by King Hussein. The United States has not done that. We shall certainly continue our efforts to convince the Americans and the Israelis that an international conference is an opportunity, not a trap or a threat. It is clear that the status quo serves no one's interests. There is no viable alternative to the international conference as a way forward.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what steps Western leaders are taking to support King Hussein's heroic efforts?

I think that the visit that I undertook, and the extent to which we have been in close and continual consultation with King Hussein, are intended to underline the support that we give to his efforts.

In view of the success of the Amman summit and the opportunity that it opened up for possible new initiatives for a settlement of the conflict between Israel and her neighbours, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman use all his influence to persuade the United States to put pressure on the Israeli Prime Minister to accept the view of his Foreign Minister that an international conference opens the first possible opportun-ity, under the auspices of the five permanent members of the United Nations, for a long-delayed and wholly desirable settlement to provide security for Israel and self-determination for the Palestinians?

The right hon. Gentleman's question precisely underlines the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). I make no complaint about that. This is a matter on which there is a widespread community of views on both sides of the House. We shall continue tenaciously to press the case for an international conference on the basis of the principles that the right hon. Gentleman has identified, because that is the right way forward.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss European-American relations.

I expect to see Mr. Shultz at the North Atlantic Council meeting planned for 11 and 12 December.

My right hon. and learned Friend will doubtless continue to indicate our support for the INF agreement. However, does he agree that the issues that might divide us are as important as those on which we are agreed? To that end, will he take every opportunity to signal to the Americans our determination to campaign vigorously against any proposed protectionist legislation that would damage the interests of Europe and, indeed, the United States and the whole free world?

There will no doubt be some discussions about both those points. I hope that, by that time, there will have been further — if not final— progress towards the signing of the INF agreement. I shall emphasise the extent to which that has the support of all 16 members of the North Atlantic Alliance and, therefore, deserves the wholehearted support of the United States Congress as well.

Is there any chance of the Foreign Secretary asking the Americans to help us with our special responsibility towards Cyprus by exerting their undoubted pressure on another member of NATO—Turkey—to withdraw its troops, which have been invading the southern territory of a fellow signatory of the Helsinki Final Act?

As the hon. Gentleman says, that is a topic on which Britain has a special position as one of the guarantor powers. It is a topic that we discuss with other friendly nations, including the United States. We seek to impress on all parties to that dispute the need for the withdrawal of foreign troops, including Turkish troops, from the island as part of the settlement that we all want.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he deserves the congratulations of the House on the robust support that he has given consistently to NATO's twin-track policy on intermediate-range nuclear forces, which has led directly to the present prospect of an agreement by both sides to abolish those forces?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that support. We welcome the prospect of signing an INF agreement at the forthcoming summit between the United States and the Soviet Union. We hope that by that time the issues still outstanding, including the crucial one of verification, will have been resolved. My right hon. Friend is right to say that achieving such an agreement will be a success for multilateral, not unilateral, disarmament, which contrasts vividly with the Opposition's policy, which has been described by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) as morally flawed and riddled with inconsistencies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any further plans to relieve Hong Kong of the burden of Vietnamese refugees.

We are pursuing our diplomatic campaign to urge other resettlement countries to do more to help Hong Kong. We are also discussing with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the main resettlement countries durable solutions to the Indo-Chinese refugee problem.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Are there not about 9,000 refugees in the Hong Kong camps, of whom about 2,000 only are likely to be settled this year? Bearing in mind that those who have been settled here have been no trouble and that this must be one of the most appalling tragedies of our time, would it be possible to relax the family relations criteria for settlers here and allow those without families here to come to settle?

The world is suffering from the problem of refugees fleeing from Communist regimes. About 5 million refugees have had to leave, or felt forced to leave, Communist countries. With the specific problem of Hong Kong, the United Kingdom has a good record. We have accepted nearly 20,000 Indo-Chinese refugees since 1975, including about 13,000 Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong. That is the third highest number of refugees accepted from Hong Kong. My hon. Friend knows that we announced in May that we would be prepared to take 468 further refugees from Hong Kong. I do not think that we can announce any further moves at present.

Will the Minister accept that, with a resettlement rate of about 2,400 per annum and an inflow to August this year at a higher figure than that, we shall never get anywhere near a solution to the problem if we continue to approach it in the way in which it has been approached so far? Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that about 1,200 children in Hong Kong have never seen anything but the inside of a camp? Is this not a major disgrace, which the British Government, because of their responsibility for Hong Kong, have a special duty to act upon?

I recognise the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. That is exactly why we are taking an initiative with other countries and urging them to follow our example and be prepared to accept more refugees for resettlement.

Having recently returned from a visit to the Chi Mah Wan camp for refugees in Hong Kong, may I inform my hon. Friend that the authorities charged with looking after the interests of the Vietnamese refugees should be congratulated on the humanity with which they discharge their tasks? It is time that Her Majesty's Government redoubled their efforts to secure the placement of these refugees. Of the 9,000 refugees referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), some 3,000 are in closed camps behind barbed wire, and many of them have been there for five years, with no prospect of being resettled. It is frightful to think that those people are refugees from totalitarian oppression.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments about the way that closed camps are operated and I understand his concern for the refugees. I have already said that we are doing everything that we can to urge other countries to increase the number of refugees whom they are prepared to accept.

Does the Minister accept that there is concern among all hon. Members about the inhumane conditions that people in the camps in Hong Kong are suffering? As we have a special responsibility for Hong Kong and those refugees, we believe that we should be doing more. I agree with the Minister and understand that we need to persuade other countries to do more, but Britain must take a bigger step than it has in the past.

As well as asking other countries to increase the number of refugees whom they are prepared to take, we recognise that resettlement alone is not the answer to the problem. Therefore, we are considering longer-term solutions. In particular, we support the orderly departure programme from Vietnam as a mechanism to reduce pressure for illegal departures. We are doing all that we can to urge Vietnam to accept back people who are prepared to return. Thus far, that idea has not been well received in Vietnam.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the present state of relations between the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia.

Relations with Yugoslavia reflect close ties over the years, and there remain many shared interests. A regrettable problem is the failure of the Yugoslav authorities to settle British claims arising out of the Zagreb air disaster in 1976.

Have the Government had conversations with the Yugoslav Government regarding documents that the British Government have in their possession and are refusing to reveal about the activities of the German Group E— which is alleged to have been involved not only in the mass killings of Yugoslav civilians but in complicity in the deaths of British prisoners of war— particularly regarding the charge laid by the Yugoslavs to the United Nations, which placed in category A of wanted war criminals for murder and putting hostages to death the man who was then Lieutenant Kurt Waldheim?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has pursued this matter with customary perseverence and courtesy. He knows that we are always ready to engage with him on the detail of this matter, which evokes widespread concern and interest among hon. Members. We regard the complaints laid by the Yugoslav authorities in 1947, which were not followed up by them, as a matter for the Yugoslav Government and not for us. A matter that would concern us is any mistreatment of British service men. As a result of the allegations that were made, the Ministry of Defence made a thorough search of the files, and the hon. and learned Gentleman received a detailed letter from my right hon. and learned Friend on that matter. I am ready to reply to any further inquiries, but I know of no document relevant to that matter that has not been properly considered during the investigations about which I have told the House.

Will my hon. and learned Friend give consideration to the release of the retained file on Klaus Barbie? The file has been retained by the Foreign Office.

Order. Does the hon. Gentleman's question have anything to do with Yugoslavia?

The hon. Gentleman is a double agent; let him carry on.

With regard to the many files relating to Yugoslavia and war criminals, particularly Klaus Barbie, will my hon. and learned Friend consider releasing them as soon as possible, because some of those individuals have been convicted?

I was getting the wrong impression from the trainer's hints that I was receiving.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation regarding the future of Namibia.

We remain committed to the independence of Namibia on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolution 435, and without precon-ditions. The United Nations Secretary General and the United States Administration are engaged in continuing efforts to secure its implementation. We support their efforts.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that we are being seen, as others are, to be dragging our feet over Namibia? With no foreign journalists allowed into that country, we had to go to the children's conference in Harare and Zimbabwe to learn of the torture, detention and murder of the children who are caught up in the conflict. When her right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary meets Archbishop Huddleston shortly to discuss the matter, will he bear in mind that the world should be alerted to what is happening in Namibia, with a view to some concerted action being taken at the summit in Copenhagen?

I understand the hon. Lady's anxiety. It is simply not true that nothing has been done. We have made sure that representations about Namibia have been made here and in Pretoria to the South African Government. We continue to he well aware of, and condemn, all abuses of human rights, wherever they may occur and whoever may perpetrate them. Indeed, we shall continue to urge South Africa to withdraw from Namibia. We voted in support of resolution 601, and we shall help the implementation of it wherever we can. As I said earlier, we remain fully in support of the withdrawal of troops, but that is not a precondition for a Namibian settlement, which should be an internationally accepted settlement.

Will my right hon. Friend consider visiting Namibia? She will see for herself the considerable progress that has been made by the transitional Government towards eliminating apartheid and racial discrimination. She will also have the opportunity of meeting the committee of parents whose sons and daughters have been abducted to SWAPO camps, where they have been held against their will, in Zambia and Angola.

I have no plans to visit Namibia at present. We do not and shall not recognise the TGNU or any settlement that is inconsistent with the United Nations plan. We shall not meet members of the TGNU in their official capacity. We shall continue to promote dialogue across the political spectrum with all parties in the Namibian dispute. That is why we have made several representations to South African authorities on behalf of detainees, and we shall continue to do that.

Will the Minister elaborate on what the Government are doing to encourage the implementation of resolution 601? Does she agree that the British Government's treatment of the Namibian delegation to Vancouver was contemptible? Does she agree also that the Prime Minister's craven attitude towards Pretoria at the Commonwealth conference — whatever the Minister's personal good will might be — makes one wonder whether the British Government will do anything to impose a settlement on Namibia that might inconvenience the Prime Minister's friends in Pretoria.

I have already answered the point on resolution 601. We shall help its implementation wherever we can. We wish to see a ceasefire between the South African Government and SWAPO, which will lead to SCR 435. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's other comments, we did not enter into any discussions with Namibia—it was not part of the Commonwealth conference at Vancouver—and there is no reason why we should have done so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a most significant further step towards the democracy that we all wish to see established in Namibia would be taken if the South African Government would agree to the repeal of the Administrator General 8, which presently enshrines ethnic divisions in that country?

Sadly, I see no sign of the withdrawal of AG 8. But my hon. Friend is right; it might help the overall position, which, as I made clear, we wish to assist.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of representations received about South Africans under sentence of death in South Africa; and what response he is making.

We have received various representa-tions about South Africans under sentence of death. We are ready to consider making appeals for clemency in cases where the crime is clearly political and there are extenuating circumstances, or where there are strong humanitarian grounds for doing so.

As this House rejects capital punishment, will the Minister make the strongest representations, because there are still approximately 150 people on Death Row? Will she give an undertaking that, when the United Nations Security Council intervenes, Britain will not vote alone, as it did before, to veto that intervention. leaving us isolated yet again?

We make inquiries into every case that comes up. The case to which the hon. Lady refers is that of Mr. Mulungisi Luphondo. His offence was clearly a criminal act. He and two others were on the run from the police. Their car ran out of petrol and they waved down another car. An argument ensued and the three drew guns. Luphondo shot dead a black female passenger and an accomplice shot dead the black driver of the car. That is in no way a political act; it is clearly a criminal act. Frankly, if we expend credit in making appeals to the South African Government about cases that are clearly criminal cases, we shall devalue our representations and risk the consequences that the South African Government will take less notice of the appeals for clemency that we always make in cases of a political character, such as that of the Sharpeville six.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the crimes committed by the so-called Sharpeville six were horrendous? Those under sentence of death dragged the deputy mayor of Sharpeville out of his house, having stoned and petrol bombed it. They put him in his car, turned it over, poured petrol on him and set light to him, causing his death. Does my right hon. Friend accept that in this case the British Government are in no position to make any comment at all on the just sentence passed upon these evil men?

I understand what my hon. Friend says. In the case of the Sharpeville six, the matter went to appeal. The case was heard on 2 and 3 November, but the court reserved judgment. It would not be appropriate or right for us to make representations until judgment is given. I shall comment no further.

Has the Prime Minister personally ever criticised sentences in cases that are clearly political cases? Has the Prime Minister personally ever criticised the torture of children in South Africa?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly criticised the torture of persons in South Africa, particularly young people. I am not aware of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's other question, but I shall look into the matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that were we to make representations to another country, such as South Africa, about its domestic judicial arrangements, it would be entitled to react in exactly the same way as we would if South Africa made representations to us about our domestic judicial arrangements?

I understand entirely what my hon. Friend says. However, he must realise that there is a difference between cases that are brought to court and the general appalling state of apartheid in South Africa. We believe firmly that we do, indeed, have a right to express our views on apartheid.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what recent discussions he has been engaged with Governments of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning verification procedure relating to arms control.

Verification procedures relating to all aspects of arms control are frequently discussed as part of the continuous dialogue between the United States and British Governments about arms control matters. Verification procedures relating to a chemical weapons ban and nuclear testing are also discussed at the conference on disarmament in Geneva.

As the Government are not directly involved in negotiations with the Soviet Union but are merely in the process of consultation with the United States, will the Minister tell us — in response to an earlier question — what the British Government's minimal line is? For example, will they say that inspection can take place only at Greenham Common and Molesworth, or will they unquestioningly accept what the United States negotiates on our behalf?

The hon. Gentleman is fully entitled to pursue that point. He may be interested to know that I gave as full an explanation as I could in Committee on the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill. The discussions on the treaty have not been concluded. The way in which the arrangements work means that the United States would not put forward any negotiating gambit with the Soviets that had not previously been cleared with us. At the moment negotiations are concerned with disclosed sites, which in this country involve only Greenham Common and Molesworth.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we must not forget that the historic breakthrough in INF arms reduction is the result of multilateral disarmament and this Government's policy of negotiating from a position of strength? Does he also agree that if the Labour party had had its way there would be no chance of ridding Europe of SS20s or cruise missiles?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It was only the decision of the Alliance to deploy a new generation of cruise missiles and Pershing IIs in Europe that compelled the Soviet Union to abandon its stance of boycotting the disarmament talks while it thought that unilateralist Governments would be elected in Europe, to come back to the negotiating table and to negotiate seriously. That could not have been achieved if the Labour party had been in power.

Will the Minister tell his hon. Friends that if he wants to talk across the Dispatch Box he cannot do so from the Strangers' Gallery? The Government are in the Strangers' Gallery at the negotiations and are not part of them. Last weekend the Defence Secretary was telling the media that the Government had serious reservations about the concessions being made by the Americans on an INF treaty. At the same time the Minister was telling the world that the Government were in favour of the INF deal but were enthusiastically in favour of a strategic arms limitation deal as well. Since there is clearly an argument within the Government on the issue, can he tell us who is winning, or has the Prime Minister not yet made up Ministers' minds for them?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. First, while of course the talks are bilateral, because the weapons systems concerned are wholly American, the agreement upon which the talks are predicated was reached by the NATO Alliance. All members of the NATO Alliance subscribe fully to the American negotiating position and any matters relevant to Alliance-basing countries are cleared by the United States with those countries before negotiations proceed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there have been any recent foreign policy initiatives by the Council of Ministers of the European Community.

The 12 have called on Iran and Iraq to implement Security Council resolution 598 forthwith, and have expressed their firm support for the fundamental principle of freedom of navigation. They have also welcomed the recent Central American peace agreement. They are working closely together at the Vienna CSCE follow-up meeting. The 12 have worked hard for the successful outcome of last week's record United Nation's vote on Afghanistan. They continue to intervene together on human rights questions.

I welcome the news that the Council of Ministers meeting on political co-operation was more united on foreign policy. Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to press his colleagues to go further on Afghanistan, and in particular to take further the overwhelming vote on 10 November, to which he referred, urging the removal of foreign troops? Will he stress that the whole European Community is dismayed at the continuing atrocities against people in Afghanistan carried out by the Soviet Union?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I can assure him that the 12 will continue to make plain their view exactly along the lines that he has described. For the eighth successive year, ahead of this year's United Nations debate, we have called for the immediate withdrawal of Soviet troops and for genuine self-determination for the Afghan people. We have made it clear that that is the thing for which the whole world is looking. The Afghan people deserve peace and they must be allowed to decide their own future on that basis.

Does the Council of Ministers intend to follow the example of the Political Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, which, at its last meeting, decided to become involved in the internal political and constitutional affairs of Gibraltar?

No, the Council of Ministers does not intend to do any such thing. It respects the constitutional proprieties of each member state.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend suggest to the Council that one of the main causes of transatlantic trade stress is the huge farm subsidies which the Americans feel obliged to match to protect their own agriculture, thus deepening their deficit, to the disadvantage of us all?

I shall certainly make sure that the European Community joins the United States in making plain the need for the removal of extravagant and grotesque food subsidies throughout the world. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in her speech to the Guildhall on Monday, there are massive food subsidies in the United States, probably about twice as much as in the European Community. if one measures them in terms of dollars per cow per annum. In Japan, the prices being paid to the farming community are in some cases eight times the world price, so it is necessary for all countries to engage in the "disarmament" of agricultural subsidies as quickly as possible.

Has the Council of Ministers addressed itself urgently to the problem of famine, particularly in Ethiopia, or are we to have a repeat of the events of 1984–85 in spite of all the recent warnings by the BBC? Is the Council of Ministers prepared to try to prevent a crisis, instead of merely responding to it?

The hon. Gentleman can be completely assured that this is a matter which my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development keeps well to the forefront of the agenda of Community Council meetings. Yesterday he announced a further extension of Britain's aid to Ethiopia because of the famine there, and he will be certain that this matter remains at the top of the Community's agenda.

In the light of reforms in the United Nations, will my right hon. and learned Friend suggest to his colleagues in Europe, that they take a joint initiative to try to persuade the United States fully to pay its dues this year so that the world body can continue the very valuable work referred to in my right hon. and learned Friend's responses to earlier questions?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that important matter. I have discussed the topic with Secretary of State Shultz on more than one occasion. It is a topic on which the United States Administration are striving to make headway, but on which they have not yet been able to persuade Congress.

Given that five of the seven naval contingents in the Gulf have been sent by Community members, and bearing in mind the recent Iranian attacks upon innocent shipping, and other recent acts of war by Iraq, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, four months after the passage of resolution 598, it is unacceptable that no action has been taken to implement that resolution and that killings and warfare in the Gulf continue? Will he therefore take an initiative, in collaboration with the members of the 12, plus the United States, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, to sponsor a resolution in the United Nations that will contain a package of an immediate arms embargo, coupled with a United Nations command for the naval contingents in the Gulf? I know from my own discussions that that would be acceptable to both Kuwait and Oman.

The right hon. Gentleman is supporting almost all the right propositions in his somewhat lengthy interrogation. It is certainly the case that all 12 European Community members and, more specifically, the seven members of the Western European Union, are actively engaged in maintaining freedom of navigation in the Gulf. Also, we are all equally committed to the implementation of resolution 598. That resolution carries with it two commitments:first, to sustain the work of the Secretary General ; and, secondly, to proceed to measures for its enforcement. The pressure that I, together with all the partners of the European Community, have deployed is to get effective commitment now from the Soviet Union to move on to the enforcement measure that is clearly necessary as part of that process. I believe— this is the one point where I part company from the right hon. Gentleman — that the proposal for a United Nations naval force is not one that we regard as a sensible way forward. The Soviet espousal of that idea has all the hallmarks of a propaganda exercise. The Soviets have not put forward details of the proposal that they support. The Soviet Union should now let its actions live up to the commitment made by Mr. Shevardnadze at the meeting in New York on 25 September.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to pay an official visit to New Zealand.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to visit New Zealand.

Can the Minister tell the House what representations the Government have had from New Zealand concerning the access of New Zealand butter to the United Kingdom, particularly after 1988 when the present agreement runs out and in view of the importance of this matter not only to New Zealand. but, from a different view, to the dairy producers in Britain? In particular, can he tell the House the Government's standpoint on the possibility of making the quota of New Zealand butter that currently comes to the United Kingdom available to the EEC?

The questions that the hon. Gentleman has raised are, of course, a matter for the Community as a whole to answer, but, for our part, we shall continue to support the New Zealand case for access for its butter.

Will my hon. Friend remind his right hon. and learned Friend that he called the New Zealand Government's attention to this country's extreme irritation at their attitude to defence and linked that, at that time, to the import of New Zealand butter?

We were not very happy with the New Zealand anti-nuclear legislation that was enacted last June. There is no way in which Her Majesty's Government can change that legislation ; nor, because of that legislation, is there any way in which we can contemplate sending Royal Navy ships to New Zealand ports, unless New Zealand amends or repeals that Act.

I thank the Minister for the support that he expressed a few moments ago for the continued access of New Zealand butter to the United Kingdom market. Will he confirm that, even if the Community were to change its view on access, that would not make any significant contribution to avoiding the problem of expensive over-production of dairy products within the Community?

As regards over-production, the important thing is the steps that have already been taken within the Community to reduce Community production, but we must take account of New Zealand's ability to undercut production prices within the Community. That is an inevitable factor that will be considered.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the French Foreign Minister; and what subjects were discussed.

My right hon. and learned Friend last met the French Foreign Minister at the Western European Union ministerial meeting on 26–27 October in The Hague. Their most recent bilateral talks were on 9 September in London, when they discussed the Gulf, East-West and Community matters.

Will the Minister convey to the French Minister the support and congratulation of this House on the recent way in which the French customs services and secret services managed to impound a ship carrying IRA weapons? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are people on this side of the English Channel who will continue to co-operate with the French to ensure that terrorists are stopped? Will she also confirm to the French Minister that there are no Conservative Members who, in any way, shape or form, support the murderous IRA terrorists?

I am glad to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the French authorities on their successful seizure of a large shipment of arms from the Eksund. They have undoubtedly saved lives in Northern Ireland and elsewhere by seizing those arms. I assure my hon. Friend that the British and French Governments are united, in co-operation with their partners, against terrorism, and we will co-operate with them in all ways necessary to combat terrorism.

Will the Minister confirm that neither her Department nor any other is discussing Anglo-French arrangements on nuclear weapons and that if, following the agreement between the Soviet Union and America in the INF talks, Britain were left isolated as a nuclear power, it would not reach out and come to any agreement with France on an Anglo-French nuclear bomb?

The United Kingdom and France have had contact on a variety of defence subjects, including nuclear issues, for a long time, and we shall continue to do so. It is natural for two neighbouring European nuclear powers, who are partners and work closely together in all areas to do so on the subjects mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Argentina.

We continue to seek more normal relations with Argentina, while honouring our commitment to the Falkland Islanders. We look to the Argentine Government to respond positively to our efforts.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Great Britain's rejection of the United Nation's resolution last night is far from humiliating and will be widely welcomed at home and in the Falkland Islands? Will he confirm that the question of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is non-negotiable? Does he agree that what is humiliating is the enthusiasm shown by the Opposition to treat with those who invaded the Falkland Islands and cost the lives of British soldiers?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Last night's debate avoided the central issue. The resolution before the United Nations sought to fudge the differences between the British and Argentine Governments. That is not possible when the differences are so fundamental. The difference is that we do not regard the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands as a matter for negotiation.

Does the Minister accept that many people will view that statement as a tragedy because, ultimately, Britain must negotiate a settlement with Argentina on the Falkland Islands? The money that was wasted and the lives that were lost by both sides were a tragedy. Will the Minister think again and assure the House that at some stage negotiations will be held?

The whole country and the House will reject that simplistic and naive assessment. Self-determination is an inalienable right. It is a basic principle within the United Nations charter.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the current situation of the fisheries between the Falkland Islands and the mainland of South America?

I am delighted to tell the House that the last fishing season went extremely well. The revenue raised by the Falkland Islands Government tripled as a result of the fishing conservation zone. Applications have now been received for the 1988 fishing season and the companies involved have recently been informed of new licences that have been awarded.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current establishment of the British mission in Suva.

The current United Kingdom based establishment of the British high Commission in Suva is eight.

Is the Minister aware that there is justifiable concern among Indian citizens about the situation in Fiji? Has the high Commissioner received any representations on behalf of the Indian citizens, who are the majority there? Will he also tell us what representations are being made by those Indian citizens?

Of course, our high Commissioner keeps in close touch with members of the Indian community, as he does with the Fijian community. He reports regularly to us on developments in that country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Secretary-General of the United Nations to discuss the Gulf war.

I value greatly my periodic meetings with the UN Secretary-General. My most recent meeting with him was in New York on 25 September, when we discussed the Gulf conflict. There are no plans for a further meeting in the immediate future, but we remain in close touch through the United Kingdom permanent representative in New York.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets the Secretary-General, will he explain at some length why we are so implacably opposed to a United Nations flag flying over our naval presence in the Gulf, and why Britain seems to be oblivious to the dangers to which our naval ships are put while they sail under one of the eight different flags of the eight different navies that are sailing around in the Gulf? Surely it would be in the interests of the safety of shipping in the Gulf, as well as the safety of our mariners in that area, if we bit the bullet and got down to having a United Nations flag over the naval presence.

The hon. Gentleman presses with astonishing enthusiasm a proposition that does not commend itself anywhere else. There are formidable practical difficulties about that proposal in present circumstances; for example, in obtaining agreement in the Security Council itself, when it is hard enough to get agreement on the support for the arms embargo, agreeing operational instructions and rules of engagement, and seeking agreement on cost burden-sharing. The truth is that there has never been a United Nations naval peace-keeping task force. It would represent a problem of a new order of magnitude. It is the view of those who have naval vessels in the Gulf that in the current situation it is much better for individual national forces to look after their own shipping and to co-ordinate their activities locally. The Opposition would be far better engaged in pressing the Soviet Union to take the simple step of delivering its support for an arms embargo, as Mr. Shevardnadze said he would on 25 September.