To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on international efforts to eradicate drug trafficking in central and Latin America.

There is close co-operation between central and Latin American countries and the rest of the international community to combat drug trafficking. The United Kingdom is contributing to these efforts both bilaterally and through the United Nations.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the extremely good work being done by the Bahamas Government in co-operation with the United States coastguard and the drug enforcement agency to combat drug trafficking from Colombia in particular to Florida? Will the Government consider any form of assistance for the Bahamas defence force in this good work?

I recognise the degree of co-operation between the Bahamas Government and the United States Government-and, indeed, our own authorities, both in the dependent territories and in the United Kingdom. I shall shortly visit the Bahamas, where I shall have discussions on drug matters with the Bahamas Government.

Does the Minister agree that although good work is being done there is a tendency to be complacent and that, if the success being achieved continues, the scene of drug trafficking could move to Europe, particularly to Spain and Portugal? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that, and what steps have been taken in co-operation with others to deal with it?

The hon. Gentleman is right. There is, unfortunately, a considerable amount of evidence that the drugs cartels have targeted the whole of Europe for an increase in the export of cocaine, especially from Latin America. Also, because of the difference between the wholesale price of cocaine in London and in the United States there is an increasing trend towards exporting refined cocaine directly from the United States to the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe. We face a considerable threat and, together with other European countries and other countries throughout the world, we are doing what we can to combat it.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the unfortunate fact that for large areas of Bolivia at present the cultivation of coca is the only economic way of life? Does he agree that we should be putting a considerable amount of assistance into developing alternative crops, in the form of technical and marketing assistance for the people of those areas?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The return to the peasant farmers of Bolivia at some times of the year is considerably greater from the cultivation of cocaine and the coca crop than it would be from any alternative crop. That is why we have a large aid programme—well in excess of £2 million—in what we call the crop substitution area of Bolivia. I pay tribute to the Bolivian Government for their determination to end drug trafficking in their country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to seek to pay an official visit to Afghanistan.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to visit Afghanistan.

I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will find an opportunity to do so when Afghanistan is free and independent. In the meantime, will my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend press the Soviet Union to ensure that it lives up to its promise to be out of Afghanistan by 15 February? Will my hon. Friend urge upon the Soviets that their good faith depends on this? We do not want to hear any more nonsense about partitioning Afghanistan or about insisting that the Communists take part in Afghan government in the future, given that the people there have rejected that?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Soviet Union must honour the Geneva commitment to withdraw all its forces by 15 February. If Russian troops were to stay, not only would that be a breach of the agreement, but it would prolong a senseless war. The: present regime in Kabul is doomed.

Does my hon. Friend recall that negotiations between the European Community and Comecon were suspended in 1980 as a result of the invasion of Afghanistan? Those negotiations have now resumed. Will they be suspended if the Soviets do not leave Afghanistan as promised?

I have to say to my hon. Friend that we must work on the present assumption that the Soviets will withdraw by 15 February.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on progress towards a middle east peace settlement.

Mr. Arafat's recent statements, which we welcome, have pointed the way to the PLO's eventual participation in peace negotiations. The world now looks to Israel for a positive response. All of us, meanwhile, should work to see that present opportunity for real progress is not wasted.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Israeli oppression and repression on the west bank continues unabated? Can any steps be taken to assist the Palestinian population? Is he further aware that it is the declared intention of the Israeli Government to sabotage the talks between the United States and the PLO? Can we do anything to prevent this happening and to prevent the wrecking of a very hopeful initiative and of progress toward a peaceful settlement?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are still grounds for very grave concern about many of the things that are happening in the occupied territories, whether in terms of recent deportations and detentions or in connection with many other aspects of Israeli conduct in those occupied territories, which have to be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. The occupation is illegal and does not contribute at all to the prospects for peace. We shall go on making as plain as possible to the Israeli Government our recognition of the right of Israel to a secure existence behind secure borders and our clear view that that right is jeopardised by continuing conduct of that kind. As I have said on many occasions, it is for Israel to respond to the opportunity for peace that is now open.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the use of heavily armed Israeli troops to shoot down Palestinian children armed only with stones does not help to produce the sort of atmosphere that is necessary for a reasonable settlement? Will he continue to take every opportunity to press the need for sensible policies by the Israeli Government in the occupied territories?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We are seriously concerned at continuing unrest of all kinds. We regret deaths and injuries of all kinds, particularly of innocent civilians. It is worth noting that more than 330 Palestinians have been killed while the number of Israelis killed is 11. We regret all deaths, but that balance shows how important it is for the people and Government of Israel to recognise that violence and repression offer no solution, and that it is for them to join the rest of us in seeking a peaceful solution.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the work that he has done in trying to bring true peace to the middle east. I am sure that the whole House will wish the Minister of State well on his visit to Tunis tomorrow to meet both Yasser Arafat and senior members of the PLO. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Mr. Shamir is not leading Israel down the path of true peace with, for example, his attitude to the President of the European Parliament during a visit this week? However, the indication from Mr. Shamir that the United Nations can somehow be involved is encouraging. The death toll among Palestinians to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred is an unacceptable statistic. There is a large national constituency in Israel yearing for true dialogue, true negotiations and real peace. Mr. Shamir must accept that.

I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's points. He is right to remind the House that the Israeli Government were only quite recently elected and have promised a new initiative in this respect. The Prime Minister of Israel has referred to the possible role of the United Nations, and I can certainly assure the Israeli Government that we shall be ready to look at any initiative that they offer on its merits. We certainly want to see early action on their part and I hope that we can have early discussions with the Israeli Government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited Mr. Shamir, the Prime Minister of Israel, to come to the United Kingdom and I look forward to the opportunity of early contact with Israel's Foreign Minister.

Surely the Foreign Secretary agrees that recent American activity in the Mediterranean is likely to damage the whole peace process in the middle east. We agree that Colonel Gaddafi is, and has been for a long time, both an unstable menace and a friend to terrorists and that the construction of chemical weapons plants, whether in Iraq, Libya or elsewhere, should be of acute concern to the world, but the Foreign Secretary will surely also recognise that by manufacturing tension and brinkmanship the United States is dicing with death in the middle east. Why, therefore, do the British Government still insist on their lonely encouragement of American action, including the veiled threats to bomb the poison gas plant near Tripoli, especially when all our European allies have counselled a sober and safe course of action?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who normally has a balanced approach to these questions, should have been distracted by the opportunity of denouncing the United States without any justification whatsoever. In the course of my recent contacts with five Governments in the Arabian peninsula, although the matter of the shooting down of the Libyan aircraft was raised—I made it plain that it was done in self-defence—it was not seen as standing in the way of sensible discussion of the main problem of the Arab-Israel peace process, nor should it be allowed to do so. The hon. Gentleman is being distracted by something that is less than worthy of him.

On reflection, does my right hon. and learned Friend not feel that Britain's three abstentions in the United Nations Security Council in respect of the middle east were unworthy and gave us little credit in the international community? Should not Britain be playing a greater part in the European Community to make sure that Europe takes the lead in trying to get both sides in the middle east together?

I know my hon. Friend's particular interest in this subject, but I must tell him that his question could not be more misconceived. In all my discussions in the past 10 days, Britain's role and responsibility has been clearly recognised and welcomed. We abstained on those three resolutions because we took the view, for example; that the refusal of the visa was wrong and that the language being used to condemn it was also intemperate. Our abstension was entirely respected and we were regarded as having played an effective and valuable part in building the bridge to the talks that will now take place between the United States and the PLO. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, but I can assure him that it is totally without foundation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met a representative of the Iranian Government; and what subjects were discussed.

My right hon. and learned Friend met the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Velayati, in New York on 30 September last year. I met him on 9 January this year. We discussed progress in the resumption of full diplomatic representation in London and Tehran. I raised the imprisonment of the Briton, Roger Cooper, in Iran. and the British hostages in the Lebanon.

Does the Minister agree that, quite apart from the holding of hostages by the terrorist regime in Iran, British diplomatic recognition of that regime can be forthcoming only when it stops violating the human rights of its own people? There have been reports of up to 12,000 people being executed since the end of the Gulf war by what can only be described as the butchers in Tehran. Are we so keen to have trade relations with that country that we are willing to forget about human rights? Does the Minister agree that this is another Government who are doomed, or should be?

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that we never broke diplomatic relations with Iran. Iran is an important country in the region and it is right that we should have diplomatic relations with her. When I met the Foreign Minister, I thought that my principal duty was to seek the release of the British citizen held in Iran and to seek Iran's help, which we believe it could give, in the release of the hostages in Lebanon. We have made it perfectly clear on a number of occasions that the human rights abuses to hich the hon. Gentleman referred in Iran are unacceptable to us, as are those elsewhere.

My hon. Friend referred to certain meetings of a diplomatic nature. Was reference made at these to the disgust and horror of the British Parliament and people at the continued execution of political prisoners in Iran? That subject must be dealt with before any high level exchange of the kind which may have been suggested at those meetings takes place.

I think that the Iranian Government and Dr. Velayati are in no doubt about the feelings in this House and elsewhere about those matters. I regarded it as my principal duty in the meeting the day before yesterday to seek Dr. Velayati's urgent help in the case of Mr. Cooper and over the hostages in the Lebanon because we believe that the House and the British people will not allow us to relax in our relations with Iran while they believe that more can be done from the Iranian side.

Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it was also his duty to raise the matter of the executions? The matter is important. Even if 12,000 is an exaggeration, the figure is still appallingly large. I hope that the Government will not react by increasing export credits as they did when Iraq used chemical weapons.

I repeat what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braille). I regarded my duty to this House as being to put help for the hostages and our own citizens at the top of my agenda. Of course we make repeated representations on the wider human rights context as well.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, concerning the ever-continuing detention of Roger Cooper, who has been detained now for three years in the Evin prison in Iran, it is exclusively within the power of the Iranian Government to provide his release? Does my hon. Friend further agree and accept that in addition to other matters that have validly been raised, full resumption of diplomatic relations must depend on the release of Roger Cooper in the first place and on the Government's satisfaction that the Islamic Government of Iran are doing all that they can to deliver the freedom of British hostages held in the Lebanon?

My hon. Friend puts it most accurately. We should also recognise that a welcome step was made with the freeing of Mr. Nicola. We welcome that unreservedly and hope that it is a sign that the kind of improvement in relations with Iran that my hon. Friend wants, and which we all want, will be possible if Iran responds to the concerns of this House.

The Minister was absolutely right to give priority to making representations about British citizens who are being held completely unjustly as hostages. However, does he not recognise that the Government have a responsibility to express the feeling of revulsion and horror in this House and in many parts of the country at the way in which the regime is carrying out executions of political prisoners on an almost daily basis? If it were a Communist regime, the Tories would be in uproar and rightly so. Why is there not the same reaction to the bloodstained regime in Iran?

The hon. Gentleman started well, but then characteristically fell off the rails. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) raised the same matters with perhaps more dignity. However, I take the point.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is public recognition that it was correct to restore our diplomatic mission in Tehran, but since then there has been increasing impatience over the delay in the release of Roger Cooper and the role that the Iranian authorities can play in helping to secure the release of the hostages in Beirut? Will he take on board the growing impatience of the British people about those specific points?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's impatience and I sympathise even more with the impatience of Mr. Cooper's family. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the welcome release of Mr. Nicola shows that the careful and limited steps that we have been taking have paid off. We hope that there will be further steps in the same direction before too long.

We could have made representations to the Iranian Government on the appalling mass executions as, of course we did properly about Mr. Cooper and the hostages, because we maintained a residual diplomatic link with Iran. On the other country in the region which the Minister mentioned as that important country of Syria, we cannot make direct representations about the British hostages in the middle east or generally about the middle east peace process. Have the Government now come to the point where they are reconsidering diplomatic relations with Syria?

No. There is no change in the situation in relation to Syria. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we find it impossible to have relations with a regime, senior officials of which took steps which might have led to a catastrophe in the centre of London as bad or worse than that which we recently saw in Lockerbie.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to pay an official visit to Fiji.

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

Can the Minister confirm that the constitution of Fiji published last autumn by the military-installed Government is not democratic and does not allow the people of Fiji to participate in periodic and genuine elections by universal and equal suffrage? Will he do what he can to persuade the rulers of Fiji to accept a constitution under which they could, without any trouble, become signatories to the United Nations declaration on human rights? Can he also tell the House what success he has had in that respect by giving aid in the drafting of the constitution to the present Fijian Government?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have consistently urged the Fijian Government to return to parliamentary democracy. They are currently looking for a constitution that will be acceptable to all communities within Fiji. The hon. Gentleman, from his experience of Fiji, will be aware that that is not an easy task. We have undertaken to recruit an expert to draft the new constitution, but that expert will be working for the Fijian Government and not for the British Government.

Will my hon. Friend clarify the position of Fijian nationals resident in the United Kingdom and of other Anglo-Fijian ties in the light of Fiji's inevitable but regrettable self-inflicted withdrawal from the Commonwealth—or has that made no difference at all?

It is difficult to make a blanket comment without knowing the position of the individuals to whom my hon. Friend refers. If he will contact me about them, I shall of course comment.

Can the Minister throw any light on information that he may have received concerning the circumstances of the overthrown Bavandra Government in 1987? Many people are suspicious that a Government committed to a non-nuclear and non-aligned foreign policy should be destabilised and overthrown. Does the Minister agree that an investigation is necessary into the circumstances surrounding that destabilisation, bearing in mind other destabilisations that have been effected in the Pacific area wherever countries have followed a non-nuclear, non-aligned foreign policy?

Not to mention Harold Wilson.

Obviously the hon. Gentleman has been refuelling his supply of conspiracy theories over the Christmas period. I am surprised at the nature of his question. Is he suggesting that the British Government should enter an independent country and conduct an inquiry?

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

We hope that the Vienna meeting will conclude shortly with the adoption of a substantial and balanced document. That should represent a major step forward on previous CSCE commitments—for example, on religious freedom, freedom to emigrate, and freer flow of information.

I commend my hon. Friend and his western colleagues on their refusal to conclude the Helsinki review conference until substantial progress on implementation can be agreed. Will he accept that, far from a few dozen religious and political prisoners being left in the gulag—as was suggested following Chancellor Kohl's visit last October, when he announced that all prisoners would be released—there remain several hundred prisoners, the names of whom I have given to my hon. Friend? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no human rights conference in Moscow until further real, substantial and irreversible progress is made on human rights in the Soviet Union?

As we have said, the United Kingdom's attendance at the Moscow conference depends on the Soviet Union's making further specific human rights improvements between now and 1991. I shall arrange for a copy of the Foreign Office statement on the matter to be placed in the Library of the House.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the parliamentary exchanges through the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which are part of the CSCE process. Will he take this opportunity, in a week when the leader of the German IPU delegation is visiting the House, to reaffirm his understanding of the position whereby both British and German parliamentarians have refused to meet in Romania in May to discuss CSCE progress? Does he understand that position and support it?

It is no news to the House that Her Majesty's Government regard the human rights position in Romania as very unsatisfactory and getting worse. There are problems now between Romania and its allies, who, I think, are almost as fed up with it as we are.

Is the Minister looking forward to the talks about conventional weapon reductions in Europe which should flow from any agreement in Vienna? Will we be making a positive, progressive proposal there, rather than taking the negative attitude that we have taken to the proposals of President Gorbachev?

The hon. Gentleman rightly emphasises the next great step forward available to us, which should result—as he says—from agreement in Vienna. The principle of reducing the disequilibrium in conventional forces to which President Gorbachev has committed himself is very welcome, and there will certainly be a practical response from the western side.

Given the importance that the Foreign Secretary attaches to the rights of individuals who have emigrated from the Soviet Union to Israel to be reunited with their families there, does the same principle apply to people from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh who have waited for up to a decade for their families to join them in this country?

That is quite a creative development of a question about the Vienna CSCE. The hon. Gentleman knows what the regulations are, and he knows that there are queues.

I hope that I shall not embarrass my hon. Friend, but what on earth happened to the Government's commitment of only 11 days ago not to support a human rights conference in Moscow until the Soviets had improved their performance on human rights more than they have so far managed to?

It would be impossible for my hon. and learned Friend to embarrass me on this or any other matter, and I am sure that that is not his intention.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and India.

Relations between the United Kingdom and India are close. We continue, with the Indian Government, to look for ways to improve the relationship still further.

Is the Minister aware that when I visited India during the Christmas recess I was pleased to find that relations between Britain and India were very much better than they have been in recent years? Will he please pay a tribute to the British high commissioner in Delhi and his staff for the patient work that they are doing, and will he continue to be aware that a number of very fragile issues need watching if the position is to continue and indeed. improve further?

I am very pleased indeed to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and I shall of course ensure that his comments are passed on to our high commissioner in Delhi. I should also like to pay tribute to the work of the present Indian high commissioner here in London—the deputy high commissioner who took responsibility when Dr. Alexander returned home after a distinguished period as Indian high commissioner in London.

Are not the relations between Britain and India of great importance as the Commonwealth link, in that the traditional ties of history, language and law can act as a bridge between Europe and Asia? Does my hon. Friend accept that a modern India wants close relations with Britain as a whole and with the Conservative Government and that any idea of a special link with the Labour party is 40 years out of date?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the close ties between the two countries. I would not want to create any kind of a divide across the Chamber on the importance of the relationship between India and the United Kingdom, under whatever Government.

Does the Minister understand that the introduction of DNA testing as a formal part of entry clearance procedures in India or elsewhere on the Indian sub-continent, whereby the applicant would be charged several hundred pounds, is wholly unacceptable? Will he look at the terms of early-day motion 249 where he will see the expressions of concern about such a procedure, and will he undertake urgent discussions with Home Office colleagues to ensure that their secret plan is scrapped and that there is no introduction of charges to applicants or sponsors for DNA testing?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that DNA testing applies mainly to people from Bangladesh and Pakistan and, to a lesser extent, to people who wish to come to this country from India, because of the difference in the period of time that has elapsed since the main amount of immigration from India compared with the other two countries in the sub-continent. I shall of course have discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office about DNA testing. The hon. Gentleman well knows that the matter is under consideration.

Have the British Government made any representations to this evil Indian Government about their persecution of the Sikhs in the Punjab? If not, why not?

For my hon. Friend to put the question in that way is extremely unhelpful and it is inappropriate in the House. My hon. Friend is well aware of the Government's position on this matter. It was fully explained to him in an Adjournment debate before Christmas.

Will the Minister have early discussions with the Indian Government about a time scale for the withdrawal of the Indian peace-keeping force from Sri Lanka? In view of the Indian Government's close interest in the island of Sri Lanka, will the Minister also ask the Indian Government when they feel that conditions in Sri Lanka will return to normal so that business people and tourists can go there and peacefully carry out their activities, with this Government no longer carrying the odium of threatening to send refugees back to that country—including sending Viraj Mendis, the refugee, back to his death?

The hon. Gentleman should remember that Indian troops are in Sri Lanka at the request of the Sri Lankan Government. The newly elected President of Sri Lanka has recently asked for a reduction in the number of troops from India, and I understand that that is happening.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plan to meet the secretary-general of NATO to discuss North Atlantic foreign policy co-operation.

I expect to meet the secretary-general of NATO at the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council scheduled to take place on 8 to 9 June in London.

When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the secretary-general of NATO, will he explain that, while we welcome the progress that the Soviet Union is making towards cutting the numbers of nuclear weapons, we are nevertheless witnessing an increase in their quality? While the numbers may go down, the quality goes up. Does that not make it even more important that NATO should have its own modernisation programme?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The Soviet Union's modernisation programme is continuing at full speed with, for example, more accurate SS2 1 s replacing FROGS, without any diminution in numbers, despite the massive 14:1 Soviet superiority in SNF missile launchers, the continuing build-up of Backfire and Fencer aircraft, nuclear-capable artillery being modernised and SSM21 sea-launched cruise missiles recently deployed. Hon. Members must understand that whereas NATO is considering modernisation options, the Soviet Union is going full speed ahead with a whole panoply of programmes.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that when the NATO Foreign Ministers meet they will discuss a statement by Secretary Shultz that has not received much publicity? Mr. Shultz said that there is a grotesque spectre of the proliferation of biological weapons. He alleged that nations were stockpiling and producing different and more virulent strains of bacterial weapons, in direct contravention of the 1972 biological weapons treaty. That is a very serious allegation. It is the first time that it has been made in such strong and trenchant terms. Will the Secretary of State ask NATO Foreign Ministers to name the countries that are breaching the treaty and take co-ordinated action to bring them to book?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the matter. As he knows, we have been pressing for a long time for a world-wide, effective comprehensive ban on chemical weapons, and the case against biological weapons is just as strong.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend reject the views of the West German Admiral Schmähling who is talking about the reunification of Germany and the withdrawal of all American forces?

The views expressed by that gentleman have not been described as the views of the West German Government, who understand, as was made clear in their commitment to the NATO summit communiqué last spring, the importance of the continuing presence of United States troops in Europe.

Will the Foreign Secretary comment on reports that the Americans have decided not to develop an air-launched stand-off missile and that they are increasingly reluctant to consider any replacement for the Lance missile system? Will he comment on what that will do for the present NATO posture, especially the Government's enthusiasm for modernisation? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the meeting on 9 and 10 June will be a Foreign Ministers meeting, or will it be upgraded to a meeting of Heads of Government?

The matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned at the start of his question are only some of the aspects affecting the modernisation of NATO forces under consideration by the United States and the Alliance. No decision has yet been taken about the possibility of a summit this year. At present, the June meeting is foreseen as being at Foreign Minister level.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take time with the secretary-general to consider the awesome deployment of advance battle divisions by the Soviet army in East Germany? Will he make it plain that for the British Government improving relations with the Soviet Union will depend upon progress being made in the talks on the elimination of chemical weapons and the reduction of conventional weapons in Europe by the Soviets?

My hon. Friend is right. We attach the highest importance to continued progress in the discussions, not only on the chemical weapons worldwide ban to which I have already referred, but in the shortly to be commenced discussions on conventional weapons in Europe, where Soviet predominance is still massive.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with the Governor of Hong Kong on the plight of the Vietnamese refugees.

We are in close and frequent contact with the Government of Hong Kong on all aspects of the problem of Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. My noble Friend the Minister of State is at present paying a visit to Hong Kong.

Is the figure of 1,000 refugees, recently announced by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), based on two or three years? What is the criterion for selection and why, given the ungenerous nature of this announcement, is the Foreign Secretary insisting that it must be conditional on the reaction of other countries?

The length of time over which the 1,000 Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong may be able to come to this country has not yet been specified. It will be over two or three years and, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that statement is made with the proviso that others are prepared to contribute commensurately. That is an important and valuable qualification because we greatly value the willingness of other countries to match Britain's commitment to accept an additional intake of refugees. It is important to ensure that our offer of a further intake secures the same sort of response from the other countries whose generosity we appreciate.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend pay tribute to the responsible way in which the Government and people of Hong Kong have handled the burdensome matter of the Vietnamese boat people who have reached Hong Kong? Does he also accept that the Government's announcement about accepting into this country 1,000 more refugees, and the proviso that was added to it, will be welcomed in the House? Have any other countries such as Australia expressed their willingness to accept more refugees from Hong Kong?

My right hon. Friend is entirely right to emphasise the debt that we owe to the Government and people of Hong Kong for their willingness to provide accommodation for large numbers of people, not least the 15,000 who arrived there during 1988. We have not yet had any fresh commitments as a result of the statement to the House before Christmas, but of course it is early days.

Would not the best way to reduce the flow of refugees be to end the trade and aid embargo against Vietnam and to stop supporting the Khmer Rouge?

That is not our view. We have made it plain that we are prepared to give financial assistance to the boat people who return to Vietnam, but the economic condition in Vietnam depends on substantial changes in the economic policy of that country. There are some signs that the Vietnamese are beginning to recognise the need for those changes.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the problem of the Vietnamese boat people has been burdensome for the Government and the people of Hong Kong? In discussions with other countries that might accept a larger number of refugees, will he undertake to draw attention to the British Government's offer to accept a bigger intake into this country?

Yes, certainly. That is one of the main consequences of our offer to accept a further 1,000 refugees into this country. We also owe a great debt of gratitude to the Hong Kong Government and people and to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees whose help and advice we have greatly valued. In September we announced a contribution of £1 million towards his work and I can now confirm that we shall be contributing another £1 million towards the UNHCR in 1989.

For once it is a great pleasure for me to welcome the direction in which Government policy is moving. Will the Secretary of State supply a little more detail about how he will translate the principle into practice? Will he provide some indication of the timetable of discussions with other countries, as the Canadians have already made an unconditional announcement that they will take more refugees? Will he make it clear that he does not need the total agreement of all possible countries before putting together a package to deal with the problem?

Despite the rather sharp phrase with which the hon. Gentleman closed his question, I am glad to welcome his support for Government policy. Of course it is our firm intention to ensure that the problem of Vietnamese refugees and boat people should be resolved well before 1997. It has been important to establish the various components now in place, including the screening process to distinguish genuine refugees from the rest. It is important for us to get ahead as fast as we can in finding homes for those refugees. We shall have to judge the scale and nature of the response of other Governments as we receive responses to the approaches we are making and have been making for some time. We welcome the offer which was made by Canada before my latest announcements.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects that President Gorbachev will next visit the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gorbachev's planned visit to the United Kingdom last month had to be postponed due to the tragic earthquake in Armenia. We hope that it will be possible to agree new dates for the visit in the near future.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when that date is announced—and we look forward to the visit with great anticipation—it would be good for President Gorbachev to have an understanding of the work done by many thousands of people in this country to seek the release of Russian refuseniks? In particular, will he bring to the attention of President Gorbachev the work done by people such as the group from Pinner synagogue in seeking to bring forward the release of Ilya Resnikov and his family who are being held unreasonably in the Soviet Union?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important on this occasion—as on every other occasion when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have met Mr. Gorbachev or my opposite number—to draw attention to the importance of human rights matters. The Russians have responded positively on previous occasions and we shall hope for the same response this time. The case of Ilya Resnikov will be among the refusenik cases that will be raised during Mr. Gorbachev's visit.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one reason why poll after poll in the west shows President Gorbachev to be one of the most admired leaders in the world is that he has shown such vision in trying to end the arms race? Does the Foreign Secretary share my pessimism that there does not seem to be any sign that any western statesman has similar vision?

I do not want to diminish the extent to which we welcome the decisions and statements of Mr. Gorbachev on those matters in recent times, but it is crucial to emphasise that they are responses to long-standing western positions, sustained by the united determination of the western Alliance. We have had on the table for years plans for the massive reduction of conventional weapons in Europe. We have been pressing for years for a worldwide ban on chemical weapons. It is against that background that we should welcome the announcements made by Mr. Gorbachev.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend note the latest information that the Soviet economy is worsening rather than improving? Will he consider, when Mr. Gorbachev visits this country, trying to come forward with an initiative to provide specific assistance to the Soviet Union, such as help with the framing of their joint ventures for Western companies in that country, given the tremendous expertise we have in such matters?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the continuing poor condition of the Soviet economy, in which a great deal remains to be done. That is now being seen as an additional reason for reducing the huge burden of defence expenditure, which still runs at about 15 per cent. of Soviet GNP. We also recognise that there is a useful part to be played along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. We have been suggesting a number of joint venture opportunities, such as management consultancy and exchanges of students, and we shall continue to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of China on the subject of Tibet.

The subject of Tibet was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend with the then Chinese Foreign Minister, when he visited the United Kingdom in March 1988.

Although we all welcome the continuing and improving relationship between this country and China, will the Minister take the earliest opportunity to make the strongest representations to the Chinese Government about the recent killing of peaceful protesters by the Chinese army in Tibet and the continuing violations of civil liberties in Tibet?

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have already made clear our concern about human rights abuses in Tibet. On appropriate occasions, we shall, of course, continue to do so.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that those of us who are well disposed towards the Government of the People's Republic are, nevertheless, concerned and uneasy about some of the reports emanating from Tibet? Will he also bear in mind that there is quite a well-maintained campaigning organisation on behalf of Tibet, which is itself hardly well disposed towards the People's Republic?

I have taken careful note of what my hon. Friend has said and, of course, the House is saddened to hear that there has been further violence and loss of life recently in Tibet.

Does the Foreign Office now regret not agreeing to meet the Dalai Lama?

The Dalai Lama is, of course, welcome to visit this country, but he is regarded by some as the leader of a Tibetan Government in exile, which is recognised neither by Her Majesty's Government nor by any other Government. A meeting with Ministers would, therefore, be open to misconstruction.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Nicaragua.

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

Is it not a fact that the Minister has a great predeliction for gallivanting around the world, saying nasty and offensive things about Nicaragua? I understand that he will be in that area during 1989, but why does he steadfastly refuse to visit Nicaragua? Is it because he is worried about upsetting his masters in the United States or because he does not want to find that the facts conflict with his prejudices?

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not use General Noriega's aeroplane to get around central America. The hon. Gentleman is, however, quite right—I shall represent the Government at the conference in San Pedro Sula in February. I do not by any means rule out the possibility of a visit to Nicaragua at some stage in the future but unfortunately, other commitments will not make a visit possible in February.

In view of my hon. Friend's responsibility towards this House, will he consult—I am not sure whether it is a psychologist or a psychiatrist—to ask why the Opposition have such an obsession with Nicaragua, a country for which we have no responsibility and in which we have even less interest?

I would very much like to hear the result of a similar inquiry addressed by my hon. Friend to a psychiatrist. [Interruption.]

Order. I also will read Hansard carefully!

If the Minister is seriously thinking of going to Nicaragua, may I urge him to go as soon as possible, bearing in mind the fact that hon. Members and Ministers visit a large number of countries in which we have no direct responsibility? If the Minister went and saw the results of the hurricane, the economic embargo, horrific inflation and the Contra fighting, and saw the Government's efforts to make a success of the economy, he might come back and persuade the Minister for Overseas Development to give more humanitarian aid, in particular, to the people of Nicaragua.

I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that the Government made more than £400,000 available for relief assistance following the recent hurricane. I know that she is also aware that Nicaragua is the largest recipient of European Community aid to central America, so the Government's contribution to assistance for Nicaragua is already considerable.

Is it not important to ensure that massive Soviet and Cuban military aid to Nicaragua is reduced? Does my hon. Friend accept that that aid is quite disproportionate to the country's needs?

I agree that a considerable amount of Soviet Union and Cuban assistance goes to Nicaragua. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that recent actions by the Sandanista Government continue to be contrary both to the letter and to the spirit of their Esquipulas obligations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the last six months towards negotiating a treaty on chemical weapons.

Negotiations aimed at achieving a comprehensive global ban on chemical weapons continue at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. Progress has been made, but complex issues remain to be resolved, particularly concerning verification. The Paris conference, at which I represented Her Majesty's Government, should give welcome impetus to this progress.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that that impetus is much needed in view of Iraq's use of chemical weapons and the frightening possibility of Libya acquiring a chemical weapons capability. Neither Iraq nor Libya could go ahead with chemical weapons without expertise and materials from elsewhere and there have been rumours of such sources in West Germany. Have the Minister or the Foreign Secretary had discussions with their European Community counterparts on this issue? Is the Minister in any position to dispel rumours of West German involvement?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The use of such weapons in the Gulf war was the immediate cause of the conference in Paris. I believe that the West German Government are taking seriously the reports to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and that they are taking action on them.

In negotiations on chemical weaponry, is similar attention being given to the dangers of biotechnology and the sort of genetic defects that could result if viruses of the kind that can be developed were used on an international scale?

There is already in place a convention that bans biological warfare, but we have fears, to which the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) referred earlier, that these bans are not being respected. It would be all too possible to imagine a catastrophe of the kind that my hon. Friend mentions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of questions.

I shall listen with great interest after the statement.