To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of the Republic of South Africa for the release of Nelson Mandela.

With the Commonwealth and our European partners, we have long called for the unconditional release of Mr. Mandela and other political prisoners. The issue was most recently raised with the South African Government last month.

As the Minister is aware, Nelson Mandela will be 70 on 18 July. I am sure that there will be a massive show of support in Britain for demands for his release on his 70th birthday. Will the Government give an assurance that they will identify themselves in every possible way with the demands that the South African Government release Mr. Mandela at the earliest possible date?

Our continuing long-standing support for Mr. Mandela's immediate and unconditional release will again be voiced if there is not the most welcome 70th birthday present for Nelson Mandela. We would welcome his release.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on any moves within the EEC to bring pressure on the South African Government to resist the introduction of new restrictions on externally funded aid programmes—

Order. The question is really about Nelson Mandela.

Would not sending birthday greetings to Nelson Mandela show that the Government understand and appreciate that he is the most outstanding South African of his generation? Has he not dedicated his life to fighting racial oppression and tyranny in South Africa? If the Government genuinely believe in human rights, do they not think that those rights should apply in South Africa as well as in the Soviet Union?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is yes. As I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), the Government would very much welcome the immediate release of Mr. Mandela and other political prisoners. We hope that that will happen as soon as possible, perhaps without even waiting for 18 July.

Is not my right hon. Friend just a little unhappy about any suggestion that countries should intervene in the judicial processes of other countries? Is there any end to that? What would be my right hon. Friend's reaction if the South Africans or any other Government approached Her Majesty's Government demanding the release of prisoners in this country?

My hon. Friend has posed that question many times and the answer remains the same. We do not attempt to intervene in any case unless we believe that there are political grounds—indeed, very particular political grounds. We have said that on many occasions. The Government's policy on Nelson Mandela has been consistent and we do not intend to change it.

In response to the Minister's hon. Friend—if she can cal l him that—the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), does she agree that if a 70-year-old man had been in prison in Britain for more than 25 years on trumped-up political charges, it would be perfectly right for other democratic countries to protest?

The right hon. Gentleman knows me better than to put those slightly barbed questions. I believe that it is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, whether the House should send greetings to any individual. However, on the occasion of Mr. Mandela's 70th birthday, I sincerely hope that the request of all EC countries and of Governments throughout the world for his release will be granted. I may add that that is the Government's policy and not just mine as an individual, and the right hon. Gentleman should take care to make that distinction.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy is robust and clear and that it is supported on both sides of the House? Will my right hon. Friend do what she implied in her earlier answer and give publicity to others who are not as well known as Nelson Mandela but who are incarcerated with him or still on Robben island, and consider a further collective EC initiative to publicise that tragic and criminal act of continuing incarceration?

With my right hon. and learned Friend, I shall consider with great care the comments of my hon. Friend. We have always called for the release of all political prisoners and have not restricted that call only to Mr. Nelson Mandela.

Following the previous question, does the Minister agree that Nelson Mandela's 70th birthday provides an opportunity for Her Majesty's Government, as the biggest single contributor to the European Community's programme of support for the victims of apartheid, to protest vigorously against the legislation that is passing through the South African Parliament and which may bring an end to that programme?

We do not have to wait until 18 July for that to occur; we are making that protest continually and repeatedly. We shall go on doing so for as long as may be necessary.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether he intends to take any new initiatives to try to resolve the Israeli-Arab dispute; and if he will make a statement.

We continue to work for the convening of an international conference as a framework for negotiations to resolve the conflict, and we urge all parties to respond positively to Secretary Shultz's continuing initiative.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Palestinian uprising in the occupied territories is now entering its seventh month? Does he agree that during that period the Palestinians have shown commendable restraint? Does that not suggest that the time has come, if we are to make the progress that my right hon. and learned Friend seeks, to speak to and recognise the PLO, which represents the Palestinians in the occupied territories?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the long duration of the patient protest of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories underlines the urgency of the case for action towards the settlement of this long-running dispute. We are in regular dialogue at official level with the organisation to which my hon. Friend refers. The PLO is well aware of those aspects of its policy which make renewed ministerial contact difficult. They are the need to acknowledge without qualification Security Council resolution 242, to recognise Israel's right to exist, and to eschew the use of violence.

Hearing the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and having returned only a day or two ago from the occupied territories, I wonder whether the Government are as aware as they ought to be of just how serious is the reign of terror in which the occupying forces are engaged. Bodies are being carried through the streets to hospitals and clinics. People are being shot, beaten and gassed—including indiscriminate gassing by crop-spraying aeroplanes flying over refugee camps.

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman, in the interests of others, to be brief.

The 63-year-old wife of the gentleman who helped the Minister of State was savagely beaten by Israeli soldiers three days after the Minister left the camp. Four of her ribs and her arm were broken by the Israeli occupying troops.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to remind the House of the unacceptable conduct being sustained in the occupied territories. I have discussed it in the course of the past few days, not only with Secretary of State Shultz but with the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr.Shevardnadze. It is clear that, as Mr. Shultz said on his arrival in Israel:

"The continued occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip and the denial of political rights to the Palestinians is a dead end street … The belief that this can continue is an illusion."

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the activities of the Syrians in Lebanon, particularly in Beirut, are a welcome step in the right direction towards reducing anarchy in that city? Does he not agree that it would be advantageous, if we are to make progress with the peace conference to which he has referred, for diplomatic contact with the Syrians at all levels to be maintained by countries interested in playing a part in the peace process?

The time has not come, nor have the conditions been fulfilled, for us to reconsider any change in our relationships with the Syrian Government. Clearly, however, any action being taken by that Government that can help towards the promotion of peace, unity and independence for Lebanon is certainly to be welcomed.

Will the Foreign Secretary again confirm that the Palestinians are just as entitled to a homeland of their own as is any other nation on the face of the earth, and that there can be no lasting peace in the middle east until that simple fact is accepted by all concerned?

Two propositions stand with equal importance alongside each other: the right of Israel and other states in the area to a secure existence, and the Palestinian right to self-determination. Those are the two bedrock principles on which, sooner rather than later, the parties must begin to negotiate for peace, on the basis of territory.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's Ambassador in Ethiopia on the situation in Eritrea and Tigray and its implications for the United Kingdom's relations with Ethiopia.

Although neither Her Majesty's ambassador in Ethiopia nor his staff are permitted to visit these areas, he reports regularly and fully on the situation in Eritrea and Tigray. Their reports are taken fully into account in framing policy towards Ethiopia.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the number of people at risk from famine in Eritrea and Tigray? Does not the appalling situation in those provinces, and the restrictions applied to aid workers by the Mengistu Government, tell us that there should be a much more liberal and less extreme regime in respect of the northern provinces?

The best estimate that we can make of the number of people at risk from famine is some 7 million;3 million in Eritrea and Tigray. We believe that enough food is available at present; certainly it has been pledged. The difficulty will always be delivering food to war-affected areas, and that is made the more difficult if aid workers in the country cannot help in the process. We have urged the Ethiopian Government to reconsider their decision. Some United Nations personnel have been allowed to return to the north, but there are many other aid agency people in Ethiopia who want to help to prevent famine.

Does my right hon. Friend not accept that that begs the main question? The people of Eritrea were handed over into bondage under the Ethiopians. They were not consulted about it. They were handed over with the then Government of this country playing a major role. Has not the time come for us to accept that they do not wish to be part of a country that is ruled by a corrupt, evil, authoritarian Communist regime, and should be given the right to decide whether they wish to be independent?

The territorial integrity of a country such as Ethiopia is a matter that we look at carefully, as my hon. Friend knows. The situation in Ethiopia is serious and worrying, and we will do our best to help in humanitarian terms. However, I am afraid that it is not for us to comment on the allusion of my hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made any representations to the Government of Chile concerning the conditions under which the impending plebiscite will be held.

Yes Sir. We make frequent representations.

I am relieved to hear that news, because there is widespread anxiety among Opposition Members about the deteriorating situation in Chile, which is shared by Solidarity, the Vicararade and Amnesty International. The persecution of trade union leaders and opposition Members in Chile is running at the rate of 95 a month. Will the Minister double his efforts to protest about the deteriorating human rights situation in Chile?

I recognise the concern in the House about the situation in Chile. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, together with our European partners, we make a number of private and public representations about human rights there. We hope that the plebiscite will be conducted in an appropriate manner, and the co-operation among the opposition parties, in particular, is encouraging.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the plebiscite is a reality in which General Pinochet has chosen to offer himself as the only candidate? Therefore, will my hon. Friend accept that the most practical action that the House can take—in conjunction, one hopes, with Washington and our European allies—is to ensure that during the run-up to the campaign—and not just for the statutory 30 days of the campaign—there is fair access to the media for parties that have only the option of campaigning for a no vote and generally fair treatment during the campaign? Will he exercise pressure on behalf of the Government to that end?

Of course, no announcement has yet been made about whether General Pinochet will be the candidate, although there are a number of rumours to that effect.

I found the answer of the Minister astounding. Surely, there cannot be a freely elected President of Chile as long as the leaders of political parties—such as the leader of the Socialist party—are in prison.Would it not be appropriate for the Minister or, better still, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has recently visited dissidents in the Soviet Union, to ask the Chilean dictator if they could visit Chile to speak to the dissidents, in the hope that there might be some glasnost in Chile next year?

I have already said to the House—I think that it is widely recognised—that we take an active part in promoting the cause of human rights within Chile. We will continue to do so. However, the fact remains that over 5·5 million Chileans have registered for the plebiscite to entitle them to vote. They are registering at the rate of about 400,000 a month. That is to be welcomed. It has been welcomed by the opposition parties. One has to take account of the fact that the opposition parties in Chile are taking part in that plebiscite and are combining for a no vote.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) has cogently pointed out the shortcomings of the plebiscite. Does the Minister agree that if the plebiscite is to have even a semblance of fairness, it is essential that the right of free association is given to the opposition, along with free access to the media at all times, the immediate lifting of the state of emergency and the immediate release of Clodomiro Almeyda, the Socialist leader? Will the British Government join the American Government and our European partners to make it abundantly clear to General Pinochet and the junta that those are the minimum guarantees to ensure any kind of fairness?

I advise the hon. Gentleman that there is a later question on that matter on the Order Paper. The Chilean Government are well aware of our concern about Senor Almeyda. The democratic opposition now have some access to the television—I know that the hon. Gentleman recognises that as a step in the right direction—but we should like to see more access and we have made that absolutely clear. We welcome Admiral Merino's recent commitment to lift the state of emergency 30 days before the plebiscite but we should much prefer that to be done now.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Secretary General of the United Nations; and what subjects he expects to be discussed.

I have no immediate plans to do so. I last met the secretary general of the United Nations on 23 May. We had a useful and wide-ranging discussion.

Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the next time that he has the opportunity to have a discussion with the secretary general he will raise the question of chemical weapons? Has any progress been made at Geneva in the talks on the reduction of chemical weapons? I agree with the statement at the special session of the United Nations on disarmament that the use of chemical weapons is a particularly repulsive form of barbarism. Has any progress been made in on-site inspection and verification, especially in commercial chemical plants?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of that point. When I spoke at the United Nations general assembly yesterday in the presence of the secretary general, I devoted a large part of my speech to the need to make headway in outlawing chemical weapons. I stressed the work that has been going on—in which Britain has been taking a leading part—in the Geneva talks and that is technical, difficult and must be pressed ahead urgently. That is why the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union have opened their chemical weapons defence establishments to inspection by each other as a contribution to openness. I also stressed the need for more urgent action to outlaw the spreading use of chemical weapons in conflicts such as the Gulf war.

When my right hon. and learned Friend has discussed events with the secretary general, has he raised the deteriorating situation in the Sudan, which causes many of us great concern because there is clear evidence of genocide and complete irrationality in the behaviour of the Sudanese Government? When I last spoke to Sadiq al-Mandi, he particularly wanted the secretary general to go to Sudan and to consider the situation in the Horn of Africa. Has that featured in my right hon. and learned Friend's discussions?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. It is not a subject that I discussed with the secretary general when I saw him on 23 May, but I knew that it was on his mind because he was then on his way to the OAU meeting in Addis Ababa. I shall certainly keep it in mind for my next contact with him.

When the Secretary of State meets the secretary general, will he explain why he would be unwilling to meet the PLO until it renounces the use of force and recognises the right of Israel to exist, when he happily meets representatives of the Israeli Government who are engaged in massive and brutally illegal use of force in the occupied territories and give absolutely no undertaking that they recognise the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in their own state, whereas the PLO said that it would embrace all United Nations' resolutions, which includes a willingness to recognise the right of Israel to exist? Why do the British Government have double standards?

We do not have double standards in that respect—[Interruption.] Nor in any other respect; I always address myself to the question.

When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the secretary general of the United Nations will he confirm that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that United Nations resolution 242 is not negotiable and that the Government stand four square upon it? Will he also consider the prospect of helping in the process of restoring diplomatic relations between the state of Israel and Russia?

Our commitment to the importance of resolution 242 goes without saying and it is of the utmost importance. The restoration of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and Israel is clearly worthy of consideration. I know from my recent meetings with the Foreign Ministers of both countries that that is in the minds of both parties.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there was some confusion in our press yesterday as to whether the Prime Minister had received a communication from the secretary general about Cyprus and particularly on the latest initiative of the secretary general in respect of that island. Was that letter received in our capacity as a guarantor power? What response will the Government make? Will we try to persuade the President of Cyprus and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community to meet as foreshadowed in that letter?

The Cyprus question is another important matter that the Prime Minister and I both discussed with the secretary general during his visit here on 23 May. We give strong and continuing support to his efforts to reach a settlement.

On a more domestic vein, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider raising with the secretary general the question of outstanding arrears of subscriptions to the United Nations by various member states?

Yes, I discussed that matter with the secretary general when we met. It is an important matter because, at the beginning of the year, no fewer than half the member states of the United Nations were in arrears with their assessed contributions. We shall continue to press the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he has for reducing delays in entry clearance applications to the United Kingdom from the Indian sub-continent.

More than 90 per cent. of visit-visa applications in the Indian sub-continent are processed within 24 hours. Any delay in remaining visit cases is usually due to the need to produce further documentary evidence.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a sharp increase in the number of settlement applications referred to the United Kingdom for inquiry? Is he aware that that means that many fiances and spouses are having to wait an extra six or 12 months for a decision to be taken on their application, having already waited anything up to 12 months for an initial interview? Will he encourage overseas posts, especially Islamabad, to reduce the number of applications referred to Britain for local inquiries to be made, or press the Home Office to appoint more immigration officers so that the necessary interviews and inquiries can be conducted far more expeditiously than they are now?

At the end of 1979 there were almost 43,000 people awaiting interview in the Indian sub-continent. There are now just over 12,000. The hon. Gentleman will welcome that considerable progress. Only four years ago we had 43 ECOs in the Indian sub-continent and we now have 86. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might occasionally welcome the improvements that have been made.

Is it not time that we considered introducing a language test for those seeking entry clearance to this country'? Where both parties to a marriage have a common language and that language is not English, is it not more sensible, sensitive and humane for them to be settled in the country where that language is spoken?

I am sure that my hon. Friend would receive a full reply to that point from the Home Office.

Does the Minister accept that the delays in obtaining entry clearance documents are not the end of the matter because the delays at Heathrow for people who arrive there remain unworthy, intolerable and among the worst of any airport in the world? Does he propose to attend to that end of the problem and thereby to make life decent and easier for those who visit this country. never mind those who wish to stay?

While all delays at airports are regrettable there has been a dramatic improvement since we introduced the visa regimes in the Indian sub-continent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role his Department is playing in promoting economic and trade relations with the People's Republic of China.

We work closely with the Department of Trade and Industry to help British exporters. British companies have won substantial contracts financed at concessional rates under our bilateral aid programme. The claims agreement signed with China in 1987 has opened access for China to the London capital market.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that British business men are doing enough in this respect and taking advantage of all the opportunities that his Department is opening up? Does he think that if more was done by British business men the economies and jobs of both countries would benefit?

We welcome the considerable commitment that has been made by British business. More than 2,500 British business men visited our posts in China in 1986. There are more than 20 companies with permanent representative offices and we have no fewer than 11 United Kingdom-based commercial staff in Shanghai and Beijing.

Does the Minister have any plans for raising with the Chinese Government the issue of human rights in that country; or ant I being naive?

I would not want to comment on the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but human rights and other issues are discussed when my right hon. and learned Friend meets representatives of the Chinese Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are seeing in China a degree of reform in its economic policies by the concentration of economic growth on a growing number of small business men? Is not that factor very much to the fore in this country and can we not export some of our economic reforms under Thatcherism to China?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a considerable resurgence in economic activity in China and it is largely due to the liberalisation reforms that have been introduced by that Government. The economic policies propounded by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have been followed not only in China, but throughout the world.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and how he intends to make representations to the Government of China in relation to the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

The drafting of the Basic Law is the responsibility of the Chinese Government. If there are points which we consider are inconsistent with the joint declaration, we shall make our views known to the Chinese authorities clearly and firmly.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the rising tide of migration from Hong Kong, particularly among professional people who fear for their future there after it is taken over by China? As a consequence of that, does he propose to suggest any alteration to the draft Basic Law to seek to allay the fears that are giving rise to migration?

I am aware that there has been some increase in the amount of emigration from Hong Kong, not least because of increased opportunities in some of the recipient countries. There are also large numbers of people returning to Hong Kong. That should be regarded as an important factor in maintaining confidence in the territory. It was on that basis that I discussed it yesterday with the Chinese Foreign Minister, when I met him in New York. In the same conversation I made it clear, as he well knows, that it is important for the Basic Law, which is now the subject of consultation for a five-month period, to fulfil precisely the commitments which were so important in the joint declaration signed by both countries. We shall continue to stress its importance in the many opportunities open to us.

While there are probably some parts of the draft Basic Law which need to be changed, which would not be surprising in any first draft, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the wide consultations that the Chinese authorities have arranged regarding the draft Basic Law, both before its publication and since, shows their desire for the final Basic Law to correspond with the joint declaration and to be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong as a whole?

I agree strongly with that point. The Basic Law first draft as published is itself a substantial document with important alternatives on some key points. It is expressly the subject of wide consultation in Hong Kong. When I was there last week, I welcomed the willingness of the Chinese authorities to consult as fully as they are doing. I am sure that will make an important contribution to confidence in Hong Kong.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the draft of the Basic Law departs from the joint declaration in certain important respects, such as the autonomy of the special administrative region and the power of the courts in Hong Kong to determine the legitimacy of legislation, rather than for this to be determined solely by Beijing? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the strength of his position has been undermined by his statement in Hong Kong that full democracy is not for Hong Kong?

It would have been if I had said that. What I said was that at the time of the original commitment in the course of our negotiations on the joint declaration, when we secured a commitment to an elected legislative authority, that did not necessarily imply any particular form of election in any particular volume. That has been the subject of many discussions in the subsequent Green and White Papers, the latest conclusions of which were welcomed by an overwhelming majority of the Legislative Council the other day. The Basic Law itself makes important provisions for the independence of the judiciary, for the continuation of the common law system and for final judgment to be vested in Hong Kong, but I am aware that difficult areas are bound to exist in the distribution of powers of this kind, which are the subject of further consideration in Hong Kong.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on human rights violations in Turkey.

We have received a number of representations. The Turkish Government are well aware of our views about this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that despite numerous requests to the Turkish Government, direct and through the United Nations, there are still 1,619 Greek Cypriot citizens unaccounted for, many of whom were taken to Turkey following the Turkish invasion in 1974? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that any significant progress on the Turkish application for full EC membership will be made conditional upon the rectification of such human rights abuses?

May I comment on the second part of my hon. Friend's question. In accordance with standard procedures, the Turkish application for membership of the Community was referred in April last year to the European Commission for the preparation of an opinion. Any Government would reserve comment on an application until they had studied the Commission's opinion. That is by no means likely to come forward soon. Of course we recognise that any application to join the Community has in it the understanding that the rules of the Community will be abided by; that includes human rights.

Apart from considering the important issue of human rights in Turkey, will the Minister ensure that the veto is used to keep Turkey out of the Common Market until there is some genuine progress in resolving the situation in Cyprus and a move towards the reunification of the island?

The hon. Gentleman raises a matter that is with the Commission and which is not likely to come back to the Council of Ministers for some considerable time. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said in answer to a previous question, resolving the problems of Cyprus is very much a matter of the two communities beginning to talk together. I have every confidence that such talks will take place and that gradually through the umbrella of the United Nations, we shall seek to give whatever help we can to resolve the problem of Cyprus.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government's view that Turkey should not become a member of the European Community as long as it keeps part of its army in Cyprus?

I do not think that we have to address that specific question at this time. As far as one can see the matter is far off. I remind my hon. Friend that any application to become a member of the Community has to have the assent of the European Parliament. It is well known how strongly the European Parliament exercises its views on human rights issues. The Parliament will be looking at the matter as will member Governments of the Community. As I have said, the whole matter is a long way off.

Is the Minister of State aware that in Turkey the use of the Kurdish language is officially banned and that people are imprisoned for using it? Is she also aware that many people have been in prison for the past few years because of their political opinions, that some trials have continued for three or four years and that today in Ankara the trial opened of the general secretaries of the Workers' party and the Communist party of Turkey? Does she not think that it is time for the Government to condemn all abuses of human rights in Turkey and to stop propping up the Turkish Government diplomatically and supplying them with arms?

As usual I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has made one or two assertions which are his views and a long way from the actual situation. The trial of Mr. Kutlu and Mr. Sagin opened today in Turkey. We are well aware of the allegations of torture and expect Turkey to abide by the European and United Nations conventions against torture. We are confident that Mr. Kutlu and Mr. Sagin will receive a fair hearing under Turkish law. It is vital that human rights are respected throughout the world, and that excludes nobody, but nobody.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

I met Mr. Shultz in London last Friday and shall meet him again in Madrid this evening. We regularly discuss a wide range of bilateral and international topics.

When the Foreign Secretary meets Mr. Shultz in Madrid this evening, will he ask him what plans he has to reciprocate the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan? What gestures will be made by the American side? If Mr. Shultz has no concrete suggestions, will the Secretary of State suggest that Mr. Shultz should see his colleagues and friends in Honduras and ask them to disperse the Contra bases that still exist in that country?

I doubt whether I shall be discussing the latter point with Mr. Shultz in Madrid this evening, or in the near future. On the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman, he has a total misunderstanding of the situation. The idea that anyone should take any reciprocal action for the action of the Soviet Union in withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan is wholly without foundation. The world welcomes the decision by the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops and to complete withdrawal this year. We now look forward to an opportunity for the Afghan people to reach a comprehensive peace settlement on the basis of a Government acceptable to them all.

In preparation for his meeting with Mr. Shultz, will my right hon. and learned Friend make it quite clear that, contrary to some newspaper reports, he holds no preference between one American presidential candidate and another in the forthcoming presidential election, that that is a matter for the American people to decide, and that either would do quite nicely?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As I said on the David Frost programme on Sunday—that important organ of public opinion—it is part of the democratic process that one works with the leader who emerges at the end of the day. I and Her Majesty's Government look forward to continuing close and friendly co-operation with whatever Administration emerges.

When the Foreign Secretary meets Mr. Shultz tonight will he discuss with him the failure of his most recent peace initiative in the middle east? Will he try to explain to Mr. Shultz that it is no good making rather bellicose statements in Israel, Egypt or anywhere else in the middle east unless the Americans are prepared to meet the Palestinians, and that means meeting representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation? Would it not help if, when he meets Secretary Shultz tonight, he confirms that he intends to meet the Palestinian representatives?

The hon. Gentleman may not have observed that on his arrival in Israel on this occasion, Mr. Shultz offered to meet Palestinian representatives, but unfortunately they were unwilling to meet him. The important thing to acknowledge about the latest sustained initiative by Secretary Shultz is the tenacity with which he is pursuing it. It is enormously to be welcomed that he is continuing his visits to the region, pressing both sides with the central, inescapable features that the prospects of peace must be founded on the recognition of Israel's right to a secure existence and on the recognition of the Palestinian right to self-determination, and that those parties must get together on that basis. I very much welcome the extent to which Mr. Shultz has been hammering home those essential features and emphasising to all those concerned that the present state of affairs cannot possible continue and they have to get together and look for a better future.

When my right hon. and learned Friend meets Mr. Shultz and discusses with him the problems of the West Bank, will he remind him of the post-Palestinian era and that the Arab legion was the first occupying army on the West Bank? It occupied it in 1948 and was not removed until some time later. That has bedevilled the situation and the attempts that have been made to find peace in that area.

I think that is one of the features which I shall not be drawing to Mr. Shultz's attention, because I do not think that either side is likely to find material for building a better future by digging that deep into the past.

Over brandy this evening in Madrid, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to explain to Mr. Shultz why only seven days after Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan choked off the rhetoric of the cold war, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office chose yesterday to kick-start the engine of confrontation by bleating out the redundant vocabulary about the increasing Soviet threat? Is it not bizarre that the Right-wing President of the United States of America should now be preaching international reconciliation while Ministers in this Government are preaching confrontation and conflict?

I have seldom heard the hon. Gentleman achieve such profound misunderstanding.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) says that if I were here more often I would hear it more often.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend impress on Mr. Shultz the fact that, however great are the improvements in United States-Soviet relations, the Soviet Union retains two important characteristics—it is the most heavily armed nation ever in peace-time and it is a dictatorship? That is a very dangerous combination.

I shall continue to remind Mr. Shultz, although he does not need reminding of it, that there has been no reduction in the Soviet threat to Western Europe. It still retains a massive conventional superiority and an overwhelmingly large chemical weapons capability. Moreover, it still retains almost all of the features of a totalitarian state. Only modest qualifications have been made. Modifications are being made. We shall continue to press for them and to welcome them, but we shall continue to maintain the vigilance that is proper in this matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he intends to make to the Government of Chile in relation to the continued imprisonment of the Socialist Party leader Clodomiro Almeyda.

The Chilean Government have been told on several occasions of our concern, and that of our European Community partners, about Senor Almeyda since his arrest in 1987. We remain in touch with our European Community partners on this issue.

Does the Minister agree that while significant leaders of the Left such as Mr. Almeyda remain in prison on trumped-up charges, there can be no meaningful return to democracy in Chile? Does he further agree that it is an utter deception for him to suggest otherwise, as he did earlier?

I made it clear that we have made representations about the treatment of Senor Almeyda. I said, and I am happy to repeat it, that there have been considerable moves in the right direction in Chile. They have not gone nearly far enough, but we should at least recognise movement when there has been some.

To what extent, if at all, is it a principle of British foreign policy that we do not interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign states?

I did not recognise my hon. Friend criticising the President of the United States for making representations about human rights in the Soviet Union. It is clearly recognised, by the various United Nations and other conventions to which we are party, that we have a right to indicate our views on human rights in other countries.

Is the Minister aware that I agree with what he said to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)? It is important that the British Government are as strong about human rights in Chile as they are about human rights in the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, will the Minister be a bit more vigorous about what is happening in Chile, just as the Government have rightly been vigorous about human rights in the Soviet Union?

When the hon. Gentleman leaps to my defence I get slightly worried, but I must tell him and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that, in regard to human rights, we try to be utterly consistent as between different countries and different regimes. Even if that is not recognised by the hon. Gentleman, it is by the international community and the human rights commission of the United Nations. We have a fine record of being consistent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the frequency with which he makes representations to the Russian Government about their treatment of refuseniks.

We raise human rights questions, including the problem of Jewish emigration, with the Soviet authorities at every suitable opportunity. My right hon. and learned Friend did so in detail during his talks with Mr. Shevardnadze in Moscow in February. He also raised some humanitarian cases in his meeting with Mr. Shevardnadze in New York two days ago. We shall be making further detailed representations during bilateral human rights talks in June.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the number of exit visas granted by the Russians is much smaller and the basic Russian laws much harsher than they were in 1979, long before glasnost? Will he continue to tell the Soviet Union that as long as it cheats on the obligations that it accepted in Helsinki, its signature on all other international documents will be suspect? When he next raises individual cases, will he raise the case of Mr. Oscar Eleyev, who has waited 20 years to receive an exit visa from Russia, and Mr. Vladimir Mishkov, who has waited for eight years? Those delays are quite intolerable.

My hon. Friend knows that we raise such cases. I shall look sympathetically at this suggestion that we raise those two cases and write to him about them. We are looking for an outcome to the Vienna CSCE talks, which will mark a movement forward from Helsinki. We have made it clear to the Soviet Union that we attach importance to it honouring the obligations into which it entered in Helsinki as a sign of its good faith in other agreements. Of course it is important that there should be freedom of movement, but it is also important that some of the pressure in Soviet society from people wanting to leave should be reduced by allowing people religious freedom, so that Jewish people can practise their religion freely in the Soviet Union. That would be a step forward in accordance with the obligations entered into in Helsinki.