To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his Iraqi counterpart on the use of chemical weapons against its Kurdish population.

We have repeatedly condemned Iraq for its use of chemical weapons. I made that absolutely clear to the Iraqi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 21 September, as did my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the highest level in Baghdad earlier this month. We noted with concern last week's television documentary containing further reports of Iraqi CW use in August. It underlines the importance of the international conference to be held in Paris in January to reaffirm the authority of the 1925 Geneva protocol banning CW use.

As it is now clear that Iraq has perpetrated the most appalling atrocities on its Kurdish population by using poisonous gas, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that to seek better relations with Iraq at this time is to send a mixed message, namely, that Iraq can get away with genocide in violation of the Geneva protocol to which it is a party? Will my right hon. and learned Friend raise the matter with our European colleagues at the forthcoming Rhodes conference?

We have certainly been appalled by the suffering inflicted as a result of the large-scale displacement of Kurds from their homes in Iraq. We have proclaimed the evidence of CW use as compelling but not conclusive. It is clear that Iraq has a case to answer, and we have been in the forefront of pressing that case in respect of those barbaric weapons. We want a total ban—that is the importance of the Paris conference.

Why does the Foreign Secretary not follow the lead of the United States Congress, which, when it reconvenes in January, will impose economic sanctions against Iraq? Why will the British Government not do the same? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not see any inconsistency between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office condemning violations of human rights in Iraq, and the Department of Trade and Industry stitching up massive trade agreements with that country without once mentioning the subject of human rights?

In the last part of her question the hon. Lady misses the central point of my main answer. During the course of my right hon. Friend's visit to Baghdad he took the opportunity to emphasise how strongly we feel about the use of chemical weapons and the importance that we attach to the matter. The hon. Lady is wrong to believe that the United States Congress has passed sanctions legislation. It has not done so. The American Administration are opposed to sanctions, and we believe that that is entirely consistent. It is not likely that any effective consequence will follow from the unilateral imposition of economic sanctions in this case. It would not prevent the use of chemical weapons by Iraq. We shall continue pressing the case as vigorously and energetically as we have done already, being in the forefront of those pressing it, we shall continue in that fashion.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, apart from a stop to this hideous practice, what the Kurdish people need most is humanitarian aid from the world community? Will he make a commitment on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that that will be forthcoming as a matter of urgency?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The exodus that has taken place has created a major humanitarian problem. We have already contributed some £250,000 for humanitarian assistance, and we have told the Turkish authorities that we are prepared to consider applications for an extension of that in the ordinary way.

The Foreign Secretary says that evidence of Iraq's use of chemical weapons is "compelling but not conclusive"—a grand new phrase to hide the Government's increasingly fudging position. Did he see the programme on Channel 4 last Wednesday night, which brought forward conclusive proof both of the slaughter of the Kurds in northern Iraq and of the use of deadly poisons in those attacks?

I entirely understand the deep concern of the House at the allegations of the use of chemical weapons, but I deny absolutely any impression that the United Kingdom has not been in the van of those pressing this case. In fact, we have been simultaneously denounced by many people in the Arab world for being so far in the forefront of the attack. We have sustained our position. It was we who took the matter up in the United Nations and pressed for an authoritative independent investigation, and we should still like such an investigationas c to take place, but we have received insufficient support from our colleagues in the United Nations. We were ready to welcome Iraq's undertaking not to use chemical weapons either inside or outside the country, given as a result of our representations, and we shall continue to press the case. But it would be wholly foolish, when the rest of the world is continuing to maintain trading relations with a large and important country, for us single-handed and unilaterally to make such a protest.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects were discussed at recent meetings between Her Majesty's ambassador at the United Nations and the new President of the General Assembly.

No such meeting has yet taken place. However, Dr. Caputo, in his capacity as Chairman of the United Nations General Assembly, has asked to see our permanent representative to the United Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell. The invitation has been accepted, but no date has yet been fixed.

Are we warming to the Argentines?

We have been pressing on the Argentines initiative after initiative for movements towards the re-establishment of more normal relations. As I have said many times, the table of my opposite number is groaning with the weight of fresh proposals. For example, as long ago as 1982 we removed all financial and trading discrimination, but the Argentines' response has been disappointing. They are continuing to discriminate against British goods and firms despite all that we have tried to do to press them in the opposite direction.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to the President of the General Assembly and to the United States Administration the dismay of many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are well disposed towards the United Nations at the refusal of a visa to Mr. Yasser Arafat? The Palestine National Council in Algiers went a long way towards accepting the existence of the state of Israel and United Nations resolutions 242 and 338, and this decision is likely to make the task of the moderates in the PLO more difficult.

My right hon. Friend has made an important point very clearly and effectively. We took the opportunity during yesterday's debate to make entirely clear our view that Mr. Arafat should have been allowed to address the General Assembly, and that that was the legal obligation of the United States under the headquarters agreement. We should have liked to hear him confirm there the very point made by my right hon. Friend—that the PLO supports an international conference on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and rejects terrorism.

Surely the Secretary of State accepts that intemperate action is worse in foreign affairs than intemperate language. That is what we have seen by the United States in its refusal of the visa. Those of us who have had contact with the PLO over the years have urged the recognition of United Nation resolutions such as No. 242. Now that that recognition is forthcoming, it is lamentable that the visa has been refused. The British ambassador should be given more robust instructions than simply to abstain from voting.

I have made absolutely clear the extent to which we regret the refusal of the visa, and so did our spokesman in New York yesterday in concert with the representatives of the other member states. Mr. Arafat should have been allowed to address the General Assembly, but the question is how we can best move forward in the future. I am prepared to assure the House that the United Kingdom's credit with our friends in the Arab world and in the United States is substantial enough and strong enough for it to be understood when we say that Mr. Arafat should have been heard, and we say it in language that is more likely to produce a positive response from the United States.

Is it not patently obvious that if Mr. Arafat and the PLO were serious about peace with Israel they would explicitly recognise the existence of the state of Israel, rather than just hint at it, that they would explicitly renounce violence—which they do not even hint at—and that they would not explicitly demand that the capital of the Palestinian state should be Jerusalem?

My hon. and learned Friend is right to remind the House of the familiar conditions for the debate to go forward, but it is also right to acknowledge, as we have, that the statements that have emerged from the Palestine National Council meeting in Algiers are important moves in a positive direction and should be acknowledged as such. It is for that reason that we left the United Nations in no doubt, and now leave the House in no doubt, that we think that Mr. Arafat should have been heard. It would have been an opportunity for him to make clear to the United Nations the PLO's explicit acceptance of my hon. and learned Friend's points. We want progress to be made in that direction and we should like action to be taken by both sides. We think that yesterday the United Nations reached the right judgment on the substance but that the language used was not best calculated to produce the change of heart in the United States that we want. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) interrupts. We proposed a series of alternative wordings that we think would have been more likely to allow the United States to reach the right conclusion. However, the House should be in no doubt that the case to be made by Mr. Arafat on behalf of the PLO ought to have been heard, because the concessions and the movements that have been made in Algiers are important.

What a wriggling, snivelling response we have had from the Foreign Secretary. How can he offer any justification for the pusillanimous abstention by Britain yesterday in the Legal Committee when 129 nations voted in favour of a modest, sensible resolution which simply asked the United States to reconsider what it had done? Would it not have been a good idea to give Mr. Arafat the opportunity to state before the General Assembly what was implicit and clear in the Algiers declaration—that the PLO recognises resolutions 242 and 338—and also what Mr. Faisal Awaida of the PLO said explicitly in London yesterday—that the PLO is ready to recognise the state of Israel? Is it not an abuse by the United States of its position as host to the United Nations that it should decide on domestic grounds who should be allowed to address the General Assembly of the United Nations? If indeed a past association with terrorism is a disqualification from being allowed into the United States, how did Mr. Shamir—an acknowledged former terrorist—ever get in?

The right hon. Gentleman must come back to the point that I have made repeatedly this afternoon. What the representative of Her Majesty's Government said in the United Nations yesterday is precisely as follows:

"I wish to make clear that in the view of the British Government Mr. Yasser Arafat, chairman of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, should have been allowed to come to the United Nations headquarters in New York. This is the legal obligation of the United States. My delegation endorses the opinion given on this matter by the United Nations legal council"—[Hon. Members: But—]"but just as we believe that the United States should show respect for the United Nations, so we believe that the United Nations should show respect for the United States. This mutual respect should have been reflected in the language of the resolution."

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited states in the Caribbean region.

My right hon. and learned Friend was last in the Caribbean in January 1987, when he visited Barbados for discussions with the then Prime Minister and members of his Government. I will be attending the Miami conference later this week and also visiting Jamaica, Anguilla and Montserrat.

What progress, if any, has been made in co-ordinating efforts to combat the appalling problem of drug trafficking in the region? Will my hon. Friend make representations on that subject during his forthcoming visit?

My hon. Friend is right. There is a significant problem both of domestic drug growing and of trafficking, the latter being from South America through to the United States and Europe. With the United States, we initiated a joint survey of the problem. We have made a number of recommendations to Caribbean Governments. They have been followed through with a meeting in Barbados. I shall have discussions with Prime Ministers and others in the next few days about increasing co-operation even further.

During his visit, will the Minister consider visiting the Atlantic city of Bluefields, which has been completely destroyed by hurricane Joe? The world service recently reported that there was a major ecological disaster there. Will the Minister consider giving Bluefields aid, through the agency of the garrison at Belize, on the same scale as that provided for Jamaica?

As the hon. Lady is aware, the Government have made well over £250,000 available to Nicaragua to assist with emergency relief. A great deal of that money has gone to the Bluefields area.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to assist a smooth transition to democracy in Chile.

Both we and our partners in the Twelve fully support the transition to democracy in Chile. We will continue to encourage an orderly and peaceful restoration of democracy in that country.

I welcome the Minister's expression of support—however subdued—for the plebiscite in Chile. He must be aware that Amnesty International has reported several trangressions of human rights in Chile since the plebiscite. That makes it clear that all Governments must give their full support to the progress of democracy in Chile. What practical steps is the Minister taking, independently of the EEC, to achieve such progress?

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we welcomed the result of the plebiscite in unequivocal terms, and we welcome the measures that have been taken to return to democracy in Chile. We welcome in particular the responsible attitude taken by the democratic Opposition during the run-up to the plebiscite and subsequent to it. The hon. Gentleman referred to human rights in Chile. We have urged privately and publicly for the Chilean Government to respect human rights. I did so most recently when I met the Chilean Foreign Minister in Quito in August. Our ambassador in Chile does so as well and I welcome in particular the Chilean Government's decision to ratify important international agreements, which they did on 15 September.

Does the Minister accept that the excellent plebiscite result was just a first step towards democracy? Will he confirm that when he met Ricardo Lagos, the leader of the Partido por la Democracia yesterday, he was urged that the British Government should join other European Governments, particularly at the Rhodes summit, to support further the process of the restoration of democracy and to prepare actively for co-operation with the new democratic Government in Chile? Will the Minister answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and say what practical steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take over the next 12 months to support the new democracy in Chile, because it is vitally important that Britain is seen as the friend of the new democracy in Chile and not as an ally of the old, discredited dictatorship?

It must be up to the Chileans to decide how they wish to return to democracy. That was the message that Mr. Lagos gave to me yesterday and which other democratic opposition leaders have given. We shall continue, as we have in the past, to do everything that we can to assist the return to democracy in Chile, but the primary responsibility must continue to lie with the Chilean people.

Is it not noteworthy that the plebiscite was conducted fairly and that the Chilean Government intend to implement in full the provisions of the 1980 constitution, leading to elections for the national assembly and the presidency in December this year and for the transfer of power in March next year? Is the situation in Chile not markedly different from that in Peru, where there is widespread guerrilla warfare and chaos, in Brazil and Argentina, where there is hyper-inflation, and in Columbia, where the drug barons rule?

My hon. Friend is right. Every undertaking in the 1980 constitution has been carried out to the letter by the Chilean Government and it is right that the House should recognise that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Palestine National Council's recent declaration in Algiers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been his response to the recent Palestine National Council declaration.

We do not believe that the declaration of a Palestinian state helps to carry matters forward. But the other decisions taken by the Palestine National Council represent a positive and potentially important step towards a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is gratitude and good will from the middle east for Her Majesty's Government's balanced and positive attitude on the question—unlike that of some others that I could mention—and will he pledge that the Government will continue to pursue this matter on its merits, irrespective of external threats and blackmail, and of internal political lobbying?

My hon. Friend accurately sums up the position of Her Majesty's Government. We certainly seek to maintain a balanced, energetic and effective approach. We shall continue to press the case for progress on the peace process at every possible opportunity.

While supporting totally my right hon. and learned Friend in his answer to Qn 2, at this important time when results are important and rhetoric is not, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend will help to bring about those results by seeking to encourage still further the courageous initiative by the moderate Palestinians in the face of extreme Israeli provocation by seeking out an early meeting with Palestinian representatives at the highest level?

I am sure the House will wish to record the important conclusion of my hon. Friend on results and rhetoric—that is certainly our preference. He knows that we engage in regular dialogue at official levels with the PLO. It is important for the PLO to continue to clarify its position if further and wider contact is to be possible. That is one reason why we would have welcomed an opportunity for Mr. Arafat to be able to address the United Nations General Assembly.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the purpose of our policy in the middle east must be to encourage the promotion of peace, and that, if there is to be peace, the involvement of both sides is required? Does he further agree that if Her Majesty's Government are regarded as being entirely on one side their prospects of being of assistance in the peace process are gravely reduced? Whatever Government may result from Israel's recent turbulent election, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that neither major party there is prepared to deal with the PLO unless and until it renounces terrorism now?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, progress in the central Arab-Israeli problem depends on the response from both sides. That is why unhelpful unilateral actions by either side do not carry the matter forward. That relates to a number of actions that have been taken unilaterally by the Israeli Government. If action is to be taken by both sides, I urge the Israeli Government to echo the view of the entire House and respond positively to the steps taken by the Palestine National Council. We now look to Israel to make a parallel commitment to the peace process to match the forward movement made by the PNC in Algiers.

Surely the Foreign Secretary cannot ignore the fact that the conditions for Britain moving forward in our relationship with the PLO were laid down by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she said that the PLO would have to renounce terrorism and accept resolutions 242 and 338. The Palestinians have now done that and, we understand, have done so democratically, with the minority who lost the vote accepting it publicly and completely—with no abstentions. In an earlier reply the Foreign Secretary said that the Arab world well understands our position, but our position will not be well understood if we now start to move the goal posts. The Foreign Secretary must do something now to respond to the initiative taken by the Palestinians in Algiers.

The position is entirely clear. For a long time we and many other people have been pressing the PLO to forward movement on the points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We have secured an explicit rejection of terrorism—that is important. We have secured acceptance of resolutions 242 and 338 as the basis for an international conference—that is important. However, there is not yet an explicit recognition of Israel, nor is there yet a renunciation of violence in Israel and the occupied territories. We want to see those ambiguities cleared up if further progress is to be made. In response to the progress that has already been made, and which I have described as positive, we are entitled to look—and we do look—to the Government of Israel for a matching and positive response.

If the representative of the PLO has continued difficulties in presenting his case to the United Nations, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is a most admirable building across the river that would provide excellent headquarters for the General Assembly, if only for a temporary session?

The suggestion has not so far been made by anybody else, but it is certainly right that Mr. Arafat should have the opportunity to be heard. The suggestion has been canvassed of a General Assembly meeting perhaps in Geneva, and depending on the resolution there for discussion we shall determine our position. As I say, Mr. Arafat should be given the opportunity to be heard on behalf of the PLO, if only to resolve the remaining ambiguities in PLO policy.

Am I right in saying that the Secretary of State said earlier that the dialogue will continue with the PLO at official level? Given the implications of the acceptance in the Algerian declaration, why does the Secretary of State not personally meet Yasser Arafat now?

The qualifications that are relevant in that have been clear for a long time. They include recognition of Israel's right to a secure existence and a renunciation of violence in Israel, in the occupied territories. As I have said, significant progress was made in the discussions in Algiers, but ambiguities remain, so the same considerations have to be taken into account.

No. 6.

Really. This is disgraceful. Two major questions.

Order. This is disgraceful behaviour.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agreement reached in Geneva on a timetable for Cuban troops' withdrawal from Angola.

We have lent our full support to the United States-led negotiations. We warmly welcome the recent agreement on a timetable for Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola. We urge the parties to move forward to implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this agreement and the reprieve of the Sharpeville Six show that talking forcefully to the South African Government is rather more effective than sanctions or boycotts? Could she tell the House the Government's view about the possibility of a pre-independence conference about Namibia?

We have always advocated that dialogue and negotiations will produce the best outcomes. The tenacious advocacy of Dr. Chester Crocker and his leadership of the quadripartite talks have brought us to this successful position in respect of the Angola agreement between South Africa, Angola and Cuba. We warmly welcome the news that the Sharpeville Six have been reprieved. Hon. Members will know that we have made repeated representations on behalf of the Six, including the Prime Minister's own appeal. On the question of the future of Namibia, it is right that we should proceed on the United Nations plan, which has been agreed by all, and which will be impartially monitored by the United Nations. There is nothing to be gained and much might be lost if we were now to reopen the principles of the Security Council resolution 435. We welcome the recent direct contacts between SWAPO and leading Namibians.

Mr. Hughes, on a point of order.

I could hardly hear the Minister's answer.

Does the hon. Member wish to ask a question?

Yes.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman's head is all right following the earlier incident.

Is it not surprising that, in these welcome results from the Geneva talks, no mention was made of Jonas Savimbi and UNITA, which is an important force in Angola? Will my right hon. Friend accept that, unless there is reconciliation between UNITA and the MPLA, there will be no lasting peace and stability in Southern Africa? If reconciliation can be achieved in that country, elections in Namibia can be free and fair, and following elections there, further progress and accommodation can be achieved in the Republic of South Africa.

Of course I believe that all parties must come together, and as one African leader said to me earlier this month, it would be difficult to negotiate with a body without a head. Therefore, it seems sensible that the process of creating international peace will require all parties to come together.

Naturally, like the Minister, we warmly welcome the signs of movement in southern Africa, but should not the South African moves be seen in the context of the South Africans' economic difficulties? Is not their current diplomatic offensive essentially to buy time and divert opinion from their internal problems? Therefore, will the right hon. Lady assure the House that the Foreign Office will try to restrain the Prime Minister from visiting South Africa and giving a royal blessing on that country until there are real signs of movement on apartheid?

We are absolutely at one in wishing to see the agreements over Angola and Namibia concluded successfully and peacefully, and the progression towards achieving internal peace in Angola. As I said to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), there are compelling reasons, which should not be underestimated because they happen to be economic and political. We must judge the South African Government by their deeds. As to the speculation about the travels of my right hon. Friend, they remain that—just speculation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next attend a meeting of the European Community Council of Ministers; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

The next Foreign Affairs Council will be held on 19 and 20 December. Subjects currently on the agenda are GATT, New Zealand butter and sheepmeat, hormones, Community and EFTA relations and steel tariffs.

Given that today is St. Andrew's day, if not every Andrew's day, can the Foreign Secretary tell us on how many occasions he has been accompanied to the Council of Ministers by the Secretary of State for Scotland?

I have not had the pleasure of that experience. At meetings of the Council, representatives of the United Kingdom speak for the United Kingdom as a whole and the policies of Her Majesty's Government make sure that the interests of every part of the kingdom are taken into account.

In the course of those busy meetings, will my right hon. and learned Friend see whether he can raise with our partners in the EEC the pressing difficulties relating to European air traffic control? Is he aware of the tremendous inconvenience to which enormous numbers of people were put last summer? Will he do his best to try to put the matter at the top of the agenda?

As my hon. Friend and I share the privilege of being neighbours of Gatwick airport, I share his concern about the point that he has raised. There was an effective meeting of Euro control last week at which those issues were advanced. We shall continue to press the case that he has put forward.

When the Foreign Secretary speaks to his fellow Ministers, will he underline the perhaps naive view of people in Northern Ireland that Governments are there to protect law-abiding people and to punish evildoers? Will he therefore support his right hon. Friend's comment that high-sounding declarations are not sufficient when dealing with terrorists, unless they are backed by deeds?

I shall certainly emphasise the point made by the hon. Gentleman. It is of the utmost importance that, when correct legal procedures are followed, extradition requests are prepared in consultation with another Government and no grounds are given for believing that they are incomplete or insufficient, the necessary will should be forthcoming to ensure that people who should be brought to trial do face trial.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity on St. Andrew's day, which also happens to be the 114th anniversary of the birth of Winston Churchill, to remind the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that, if her dream of secession of North Britain from Great Britain is achieved, she will also have achieved the secession of North Britain from Europe and that it will require to get over the veto of Great Britain to get back in there?

No one could put the point as effectively as my hon. and learned Friend.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there is concern among many hon. Members about the failure to extradite Mr. Ryan? When he raises the matter with the Belgian and Irish Governments, will he also bear in mind that this does at least present us now with the opportunity to press for European Community-wide legislation to combat terrorism? Does he agree that, in accord with the concept of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, it would be far better to underpin our joint determination to fight terrorism if that legislation were jointly enacted by the House and the Dail?

I can understand the force of the general case made by the hon. Gentleman, but no part of the law has so far been more carefully preserved for national enactment and consideration than the criminal codes. There are wide variations between the countries of the Community in respect of criminal law, so it is all the more important for us to secure effective, sustained and workable co-operation in arrangements for extradition and matters of that kind. It is important that both partners to the Anglo-Irish Agreement should recognise that we have a joint, sustained and important interest in achieving effective action in the courts against terrorism.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Council of Ministers if it could forcefully instruct the Commission against interfering in petty and stupid details? Is he aware, for instance, that English sterling silver, which is unequalled throughout the world, has recently had its hallmark stopped by some faceless EEC bureaucrat and an EEC number substituted?

It is our constant purpose to diminish the number of regulations applying throughout Europe. It is for that reason that we recognise the case, in certain examples, for having a single common European standard rather than 12 diverse different ones. I shall consider the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Is not the main obstacle in persuading other European Governments to help us with effective extradition the widespread belief' that an Irish person charged with a terrorist offence cannot hope to receive a fair trial in this country? Is that not boosted by the conviction of the six innocent people for the Birmingham pub bombing and the 11 innocent people held in connection with the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings? If we wish to occupy the moral high ground and to work out effective extradition procedures, would it not be best to face the fact that, in those cases, we have made a terrible mistake?

It cannot be stated too clearly and too often that all sides and all nations that are concerned with the intensely difficult struggle against well-organised terrorism have an equally important interest in the effectiveness of action to bring terrorists to trial, and in the justice of the trial proceedings when they take place. There is no doubt about that. One of the purposes of the exchanges that we have throughout Europe and through the Anglo-Irish Agreement is to promote progress on both those fronts. The patterns for scrutiny of decisions of the courts in this country, subject as they are, in due course, to the European Commission on Human Rights, will stand comparison with those anywhere in the world. If we are seeking to enhance confidence in the British system of justice, the hon. Gentleman should think twice before advancing some of the allegations that he has put forward this afternoon.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in matters concerning the European Community, as in other matters of foreign policy, he enjoys a degree of admiration and support that extends well beyond Conservative Benches? Does he agree that there is no need to set up another body to give my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the sort of foreign policy advice that Sir Horace Wilson gave to Neville Chamberlain?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I do not think that any such body is in contemplation.

The Foreign Secretary will know that there has been speculation that the EEC might take an initiative to back a two-stage solution in the middle east. What is the Government's view about that? There is a real chance now of peace between the Palestinians and Israel, but his remarks earlier this afternoon were incredibly biased. The degree of terror that Israel is using in the Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza should be denounced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, just as he has denounced the acts in which Palestinian individuals have engaged. There is a chance for peace. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take a lead? Will Europe take a lead?

The hon. Lady should recall that last week in Brussels, at the end of a long discussion on the subject by the Foreign Ministers of the Community, not only yesterday in New York, we all recorded our unanimous view that what has happened in Algiers represents a positive step forward, to which there should be an Israeli response. We recorded our continuing concern, which we have expressed many times, at the implications of the violence that is committed by the Israeli Government and Israeli forces in the occupied territories. We deplore violence of whatever sort that is committed by either side. We look for a positive response from both sides to get a conference working through which it will be possible to arrive at a solution.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited the United States of America; and what matters were discussed.

I last visited the United States to attend the United Nations General Assembly in September. A range of issues were discussed with those I saw there.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is enormously important, at the start of a new presidency, that relations between western Europe and the United States should be as warm as possible? If it is true that there is a 1:3 imbalance between the conventional forces of the Warsaw pact and those of NATO, should not the contributions of the Americans to NATO be recognised? Should not that prove something of a spur to western European countries to make greater contributions themselves?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that, in the context of our continued maintenance of the Atlantic Alliance for our effective defence, burden-sharing is the most important item on the agenda. I have no doubt that the new President of the United States will address himself to the American aspect of that. It is important that the European partners should be ready to play their full part to sustain the strength of the Alliance.

Does the Foreign Secretary share my relief at the fact that the deeply embarrassing client relationship between the Prime Minister and President Reagan is coming to an end? Does he share my hope that under the new President—I hope that he will use his influence to ensure this—we shall start again to pursue an independent foreign policy of our own and cease to be a satellite state of the United States?

The hon. Gentleman lives in a land of illusion. One of the most important features of British foreign policy in the past decade has been the growing influence of Her Majesty's Government under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the United States as well as in the European Community. I hope very much that that effective relationship will continue with the new President.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the prospects for peace in the Persian Gulf area.

We welcome the continuation of the ceasefire and of talks between Iran and Iraq under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, who enjoys our full support. Our objective remains a just and comprehensive settlement through full implementation of Security Council resolution 598.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in spite of the major difficulties that we have had with both the countries involved it is important that Britain should try to maintain a balanced relationship with Iraq and Iran?

My hon. Friend is right. Neither country conducts its affairs in ways that would meet with the approval of this House, but both are important regional powers and we cannot ignore their existence or their importance in their regions.

Will the Minister investigate the claim that Iran has started a new wave of killings of political prisoners in Kerman prison and others? It is reported that 50 leading members of the Tudeh party and a total of 5,000 political prisoners have been killed recently. Will he investigate that matter urgently?

I have seen the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers. There are serious human rights problems in Iran still. We have our own problems as Mr. Cooper and Mr. Nichola are prisoners there who should be released or brought to trial. They should be released.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit South Africa.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to do so.

When the Minister visits South Africa, she will have a chance to enter our embassy in either Cape Town or Pretoria. When she visits it, she will be able to come and go in peace, in stark contrast to South Africa House, where diplomats and visitors are verbally abused, jostled and harassed by hooligans with loudhailers. Surely it is time to remove the picket. Will she have urgent discussions with the Home Secretary about that?

I regret all demonstrations that disrupt law and order on our streets. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue of demonstrators outside embassies is a matter for the Metropolitan police and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I will bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

When the Minister goes to South Africa again, will she raise the issue of the number of black people who are jostled and harassed in South Africa by the Botha Government and by the incoming Tory Government in South Africa? Will she mention the number of people still being hanged every morning in South Africa? Will she raise all the issues which a whole number of people on the Government Benches who travel to South Africa, paid for by the South African Government, never raise at all and clearly agree with?

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to realise that I will take every opportunity provided to me to raise those cases which we believe, and have consistently believed, should be raised with the South African Government. In fact, I did that during a private weekend visit when I spent most of that weekend in the three townships of Soweto, Mamelodi and Alexandra, when I saw the conditions for myself. I also saw the help that the British Government are giving to black people in South Africa in health, education, housing and training. Where cases involve internal matters in South Africa, we can raise those with Ministers, but we cannot direct them in what to do. The people have elected that Government, even though it is a minority white Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress of, and the present position on, the Vienna review conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

Provisional agreement has been reached on a large number of issues at the Vienna CSCE meeting, including useful new commitments in human rights. We hope that it can be concluded soon, but we continue to believe that the right result is more important than an early result.

In welcoming the further progress that has been made, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that there are still some basic human rights issues outstanding and that until the Warsaw pact countries unambiguously accept some of those basic human rights, not least the freedoms of religion, travel and visiting, no meaningful purpose can be served by starting the conventional stability talks? Does he agree that there is an opportunity to make that point precisely within the next fortnight during the very welcome visit by President Gorbachev to this country?

My hon. Friend is quite right. My right hon. Friend will be making those points when President Gorbachev visits Britain. There has been progress in the Soviet Union, but there is still much more to be made. As my hon. Friend knows, in other Warsaw pact countries, such as Romania, no progress is being made—as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have written to me to emphasise—and there have been important steps backwards in human rights.

Are the Government maintaining their determination not to agree to a third meeting of the committee on human relations, which is proposed to be held in Moscow? Are we maintaining resistance to that on the grounds that, although in eastern Europe they are extending human rights quite a lot, and certainly will have done so by 1991, we in Britain are moving in the opposite direction?

The hon. Gentleman is free to experiment in Romania if he considers that is preferable. We have the greatest scepticism about the Moscow human rights conference. Many groups of people concerned with human rights on both sides of the Iron Curtain have written to us to urge caution. On the other hand, as Mr. Sakharov said, if it is accompanied by the right conditions it might well be an opportunity for further progress. We shall look at the conditions on offer, and we shall make up our minds then. Until the last minute before that conference takes place, if things go backwards we shall reserve the right to withdraw from it.