To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the east European route for the supply of drugs has now been closed.

Relatively small, but increasing quantities of illicit drugs continue to reach the United Kingdom via eastern Europe. We are developing our co-operation with the Governments concerned to combat drug trafficking.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that although the situation remains far from satisfactory, efforts are being made to block that route, and the only way that that will be achieved will be by the continuation of intergovernmental co-operation?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There are a number of routes through eastern Europe into western Europe, mainly for drugs originating in Afghanistan or the neighbouring countries. We now have close co-operation with a number of eastern European Governments, particularly the Soviet authorities, as a result of which Operation Diplomat recently led to a large seizure of cannabis.

Have not the east European, Soviet and Afghan authorities done a great deal to clamp down on this evil trade? It must be remembered, as the Minister said, that most of the drugs come from Afghanistan, thus providing additional resources for the Mujaheddin whom, ironically, the Government support.

As usual, the hon. Gentleman has a skewed view. of the world. I have already said that there is close co-operation with the Soviet authorities and with other Governments in the fight against drugs, and that is how it should be. We shall not defeat the threat from drugs unless all Governments combine against it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to Hungary and Czechoslovakia about human rights abuses in those countries.

We have made bilateral representations to the Czechoslovak authorities four times this year about their handling of human rights issues. We have not raised human rights issues with the Hungarian Government recently as Hungary's record on these matters is relatively good.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I agree that the Hungarian Government's record on human rights is better than that of Czechoslovakia, but can my hon. Friend assure the House that those differing standards will be taken into account if either of those countries seeks closer economic co-operation with the west, and particularly with EC countries?

My hon. Friend makes a good point in relation not just to those countries but to others in eastern Europe. The EC has recently halted all negotiations with Romania on the matters to which he refers. It is obviously right that the progress of countries in that respect should be reflected in our relations with them generally.

Is it not the height of political illiteracy for the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who has never worried about such matters in South Africa or Chile, to compare Czechoslovakia, which remains the prison house of Europe, with Hungary where, as the Minister has conceded, there has been remarkable progress? If European Governments are to be represented on 16 June in Budapest, when the remains of Imre Nagy are to be reburied, will the British Government be represented? It should not be forgotten that when the Hungarian uprising was crushed in blood in November 1956 the Tory Government were engaged in criminal action at Suez.

The hon. Gentleman has managed to widen the question to take in Suez and a number of other matters. It is a little unwise of him to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) of illiteracy. My hon Friend was making the perfectly justified point that one of those countries is meeting fits conference on security and co-operation in Europe obligations while the other is not. That is the distinction.

Does my hon. Friend accept that in many respects, not just this one, the Warsaw pact is a case of some animals being more equal than others? In relation, for example, to the relaxation of visa requirements, which I welcome in principle, will he bear in mind the importance of taking matters one step at a time and making them conditional on adequate performance in relation to human rights in individual countries and on the performance of their security services?

All those matters should be taken into account, but none of us should miss the opportunity of recognising that the Hungarians and the Poles, having recognised that Socialism does not work, are steadily moving away from it.

Does the Minister agree that in Czechoslovakia there remains substantial evidence of discrimination, particularly against doctors and teachers, 21 years after they chose to express their opinions freely? Will he make further strong representations to the Czechoslovak Government in that respect?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right. We have recently been protesting about the whole new series of trials that have been held in Czechoslovakia. The most famous is that of Vaclav Havel, but he is not alone. The tragic thing about Czechoslovakia is that it is a country with a tradition of democracy which wants to make real progress but it has a Government who are resisting the clear but carefully expressed will of their people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of negotiations to reduce conventional forces in Europe.

Two negotiations—one on conventional armed forces in Europe and one on confidence and security-building measures—began in Vienna on 6 March. The discussions have got off to a good, businesslike start. I presented radical Western proposals for both sets of talks on 6 March. We now look for a response from the East.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although the Vienna talks have got off to a good and constructive start, they are bound to be long drawn out in view of the many complexities involved and the many different weapons systems in Europe? Given the asymmetry of conventional weapons and arms in Europe, does he agree that we have no choice but to rely on a nuclear deterrent for our total security for what may be a considerable time?

There is no doubt that my hon. Friend is right in the last part of what he says. The central problem is the gross inequality between the conventional forces available to the Warsaw pact and those available to the NATO Alliance. There is progress in the fact that that inequality is now acknowledged by the Warsaw pact and it is recognised that unequal reductions are necessary to achieve an outcome that will be acceptable in the end.

Does the Foreign Secretary think that it helps to advance the possibility of weapons reductions throughout the world when he sits in the Guildhall smiling and nodding while Mr. Gorbachev outlines the Soviet Union's unilateral proposals but then goes around the world slagging off those efforts and doing everything he can to undermine any possibility of confidence-building between our two nations?

The hon. Gentleman, as always, has a wholly inaccurate perception of the facts. The proposals put forward by Mr. Gorbachev at the Guildhall were of a very modest nature. Perhaps the most important and least attractive part of them was his attempt to bring nuclear weapons back into the negotiations and to suggest that there can be no progress on conventional arms reductions so long as there is no progress on nuclear weapons. In doing that, he was going unhelpfully right outside the terms of reference of the talks.

What recent developments have there been in the attitude of the Soviet Union to the key question of verification, which is relevant not only to conventional disarmament but to the possible abolition of chemical weapons? Am I right in thinking that the recent trial inspection of chemical weapons establishments in the Soviet Union was somewhat disappointing? Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to give a lead on this important matter, as he has been doing in recent years?

With regard to the conventional negotiations, the mandate rightly calls for strict and effective verification measures. That is crucial to its success. The Soviet Union has demonstrated its ability to agree on such matters by its acceptance of the necessary measures in the intermediate nuclear forces treaty. My right hon. Friend is, however, entirely right to point out that the Soviet Union's absence of candour and failure to be straightforward about the size of its chemical weapons stocks, and the lack of openness of investigation during the recent visit to Shikhany, illustrate how far there is to go.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent United States State Department report on human rights violations in the territories occupied by Israel; and if he will make a statement.

The State Department's assessment is in line with our own.

Does the Minister agree that the United States State Department report was devastating, showing that thousands of Palestinians had been detained without trial and thousands had been injured by the activities of the Israel Defence Force in the last 17 months of occupation, and that more than 400 had been killed in that period—including, when I was last there two weeks ago, a four-year-old girl? When will pressure be put on the Israeli Government to reduce the carnage?

It is relatively unusual for the hon. Gentleman to endorse what is said by the United States State Department. It emphasises the fact that there is no doubt about the unacceptability of Israeli behaviour in the occupied territories. That is recognised by a wide spectrum of opinion—it would be hard to be find a wider spectrum. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the British Government and other Governments in the European Community have repeatedly made their views clear.

a few moments ago, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), my hon. Friend the Minister said that relations between eastern European countries and the Community would depend on violations of human rights not taking place. In view of the obvious violation of human rights by Israel in the occupied territories, why the double standards?

As my hon. Friend knows, the relationship between Israel and the European Community came into question over the access of goods to the Community from the occupied territories, particularly Gaza. Speeches in the European Parliament and elsewhere had a pronounced effect. In general, however, we believe —I believe that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is with us on this—that it is not sensible to try to change a country such as Israel by means of threats. Israel is a genuine democracy. We must engage her own public opinion, and persuade Israelis who want to make that change freely.

In his talks with Israel, has the Minister entered into any discussion about resolving the difficulties in the Lebanon, which seems to be a key issue in this worrying saga?

It remains one of our principal quarrels with Israel that Israel still has troops in the Lebanon, and we refuse to sell weapons to Israel until she has accepted the relevant Security Council resolution and withdrawn her troops. That is one of the matters that come up regularly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Israel has many friends on both sides of the House, in this country as a whole and in the West, and it is those friends who are the most dismayed by the report and by developments in Israel? Will my hon. Friend convey that very strongly to the Israeli Government?

One of the most impressive recent developments is that genuine friends of Israel on both sides of the House—indeed, all sections of opinion in this country and also in the United States—have begun to make it clear to the Israeli Government and people that they do not consider the policy on which Israel is engaged to be either right or sensible. My hon. Friend's own part in that is important.

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

There have been a number of positive developments—the PLO's renunciation of terrorism, Israel's recognition that the status quo is untenable, the constructive attitude of the Soviet Union, and the determination of the United States to work actively for a settlement.

Bearing in mind the sale of bombers to Libya, the continuing civil conflict in the Lebanon and the tragedy of Lockerbie, is not the caution and scepticism of the Government of Israel at the PLO's renunciation of violence understandable? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that just as he would be cautious if the IRA were to announce tomorrow that it had renounced the bomb and the bullet, Israel has understandable reasons for taking a cautious view of events in the middle east?

I have explained to the House on more than one occasion my understanding of that. The length of time before the PLO made the important concessions to which I referred is certainly a ground for caution on the part of Israel. However, the Israeli people and Government have to understand that although we are committed to Israel's right to a secure existence, we are also committed to the view that Israel's security can be achieved only through peace with all her neighbours. Above all, Israelis cannot deny to the Palestinians the rights that they themselves have earned at such cost. Repression of Palestinians breeds resentment and hatred, which is the exact opposite of security. Fortunately, more and more Israelis understand that fact, as does the overwhelming body of opinion in the House. The search for peace along those lines deserves—and is receiving—the active support of more and more Israelis.

Can the Foreign Secretary tell us of one positive result of the most recent visit by the Israeli Prime Minister to the United States?

The proposals put forward by Mr. Shamir for elections may point in the right direction and are worth exploring in detail without dismissing them out of hand. It is also important to emphasise the statement made by President Bush after his talks with President Mubarak that

"The goals of the peace process should be security for Israel, the end of the occupation and the achievement of Palestinian political rights"

Bearing in mind among other reasons the continuing oppression and violation of human rights by the Israelis on the West Bank and Gaza, is not the hesitancy and slowness of the Bush Administration rather disappointing? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that he is doing everything in his power to put some speed into the Americans by pointing out that the problem has continued for a very long time and that excessive caution is a mistake?

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the United States engagement in the peace process is absolutely vital. That means that the new Administration must take a leading role, and we shall certainly support them in that role. We have already made our position plain. I shall be going to Washington at the weekend to discuss the topic along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the making of peace in the middle east is a very complex matter? Those of us who are desperately anxious that the parties should be brought together in negotiation recognise the sensitivities of both sides, not least the anxiety of all Israelis in their genuine democracy that their country should be safe from attack, their worries about the dangers that a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza would create, and their fears that a terrorist enemy which now says that it has renounced terrorism cannot be trusted with the lives of their people.

I understand fully the point articulated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, namely Israel's anxiety that it should not take steps that might weaken rather than enhance its security, and I understand why that rests against a background of threats to the security of that state. However, it is Israeli opinion that is emphasising that the status quo cannot be maintained and is recognising the need to move forward. Time is not on the side of those who seek a peaceful solution, whether they be in Israel or among the Palestinians. The Israeli leadership and people must recognise, for example, the impact upon the other side of the sheer arithmetic of 420 Palestinians having been killed in the occupied territories compared with only 13 Israelis. That balance of hardship and human suffering cannot be allowed to endure indefinitely. For their own sake, the Israelis must respond to the mounting sense of urgency about the situation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the United States of America; and what matters will be discussed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any present plans to visit the United States of America.

I plan to visit the United States next Sunday and Monday, 16 and 17 April. Following President Gorbachev's visit last week, East-West relations and arms control will be on the agenda. I also expect to discuss regional issues, particularly the middle east and southern Africa.

I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that he will be visiting Washington next week. When he meets President Bush, will he assure him that, despite the warmth of the reception received by President Gorbachev on his recent visit to the United Kingdom, we are not gullible and there is still a constant need to be prepared for all eventualities in relation to countries which still do not appreciate a true democracy? Will he assure him that we still need to maintain a proper role in NATO and that the steadfastness of the United States in this matter is still deeply appreciated?

I shall certainly make the central point of my hon. Friend's question when I meet members of the United States Administration. They, too, will share our feeling that the changes taking place in the foreign policy thinking of the Soviet Administration represent a challenge and an opportunity, as has been pointed out in the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. However, they will also understand the central point made by my hon. Friend that we need to maintain our vigilance and unity in defence of our security because it is that formula which has helped us to move as far as we have in recent years.

During the talks in Washington, will my right hon. and learned Friend thank the United States Administration for their strenuous efforts to inhibit the fund-raising activities of extreme Irish nationalist groups on behalf of the IRA? Will he also make it clear that neither Government will relax their vigilance so long as the terrorist threat remains?

I shall certainly emphasise my hon. Friend's last point. Neither Government should or will relax their vigilance so long as the threat remains in any form. It is also right to say that the United States Government have taken significant steps to inhibit the fund-raising activities of extreme Irish nationalist groups. The House appreciates that, as I shall make clear when I am in Washington.

If during his discussions in Washington the Foreign Secretary is tempted to press for an early commitment to the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe, will he make it clear that he does so without the support of the other European members of NATO?

I shall conduct my discussions on that topic in Washington and elsewhere on the basis of the Brussels communiqué of the North Atlantic Council in February last year—that it is necessary for NATO to continue to modernise its weapons, nuclear and conventional, where necessary.

Will the Foreign Secretary raise the important question of the future of Kampuchea, given that the Vietnamese troops are to be withdrawn completely in September? Will he convey the great concern of many hon. Members that any future political settlements must ensure that there can be no return to power of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Kampuchea?

I shall certainly discuss Cambodia with the United States Government in the light of the prospective withdrawal of Vietnamese troops, just as I did last week with Mr. Shevardnadze and a few weeks ago with the Chinese Foreign Minister. As on both those occasions, I shall make it clear that this House and the overwhelming body of opinion round the world would regard the return of Pol Pot and his cronies as an intolerable prospect.

As the Foreign Secretary will be aware, another terrible atrocity has been committed today by the IRA in Northern Ireland. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the United States, the IRA and its front organisations are consistent in their propaganda campaign in the media? Surely it is time for this Government and the United States Government to counter that campaign, which brings in funds for the IRA.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to underline the importance of putting that message across. It is a message that has been put across in every possible way by our embassy and staff over there, and by a series of visits by, among others, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That message will go on being put across by this Government in every possible way. Alongside that, incidentally, we shall also hammer home our opposition to the so-called MacBride campaign because it is counter-productive to investment and takes no account of our own fair employment proposals, which are more radical and more effective.

Was not the Foreign Secretary's response to the question put by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) a deliberate and disingenuous attempt to dodge the issue on the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons? Is it not a fact that Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Spain have made it clear that they are against forcing an early decision on modernisation, that the Netherlands and the Federal Germans have great misgivings and that the President of France gave the Prime Minister the brush-off by saying that it was a sovereign decision for the Federal German Government? Why is the Prime Minister alone, of all the NATO heads of Government in Europe, impervious to reason on that issue?

The right hon. Gentleman never loses his gift for getting something absolutely wrong. As I told the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), NATO committed itself in principle last year to the modernisation of nuclear and conventional weapons where necessary. It is agreed that short-range nuclear weapons are one type of weapon that needs to be modernised and there is no doubt about that. The only question, about which there are widely varying views, is at what point particular decisions need to be taken in that respect. As it has in the past, NATO will reach an agreed conclusion without any help from the right hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking through its offices in other European Community states to help to prepare for the single market in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

British embassies are fully involved in lobbying and reporting on single market measures. They also provide a range of services to help British exporters make the most of growing opportunities.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that there is a great deal that her Department can do to help British industry—not only manufacturing industry, but service and professional industries such as engineering contracting, consulting and distribution—to prepare for 1992?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know that the agreement that we have reached on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications is an important opportunity for British professionals to ply their trade abroad. Service industries, just as much as manufacturing industries, can contribute greatly and we hope that they will all participate in the setting of European standards because without their help in achieving the right technical standards we shall not be as well prepared as we could be.

Does the Minister recall that there was a hype a few years ago in the City about the big bang that was going to occur and that there was the same kind of co-ordinated propaganda about how well Britain was going to do? In fact the City got nothing out of it and the invisibles have fallen rather than risen. Does the Minister expect the big bang of the single European market to be more or less successful than that in the City?

We make steady, positive and continuing progress towards success in the City. When I see the hon. Gentleman and his big bang, I know that steady, solid progress is much to be preferred. I can say firmly to him that I believe that the United Kingdom's financial sector, which is by far the largest in Europe, is likely to be the most successful. Financial services will stand us in very good stead in Europe.

What work is my right hon. Friend doing in preparing this country to debate the issues that are likely to be in the Delors committee report on central banking and the single European unit of account? How can our country have an opportunity to discuss and understand those issues before there are decisions and discussions at the Europe Council?

I doubt whether any decisions are going to be arrived at the next European Council. It is far too early to say, when the report of the Delors committee will possibly come forward only later this month and will have its first examination in the ECOFIN Council in May. 'We will thoroughly discuss everything in that report and see what progress can be made. We should never underestimate this country's practical commitment, by the introduction of ecu-dominated Treasury bonds. to the development of better monetary co-operation throughout the Community.

Will the Minister confirm that, with the free movement of people, Common Market nationals will have the right to enter the United Kingdom without a visa, bring children up to the age of 21, their parents and their grandparents, be able to undertake employment without a work permit, and establish businesses without any evidence of financial resources? Will she reflect on those matters when she examines the family disunity and separation that is caused to many British citizens who originate from the Indian sub-continent? Because of the Government's unfair yet firm immigration policy, for years they have been separated by thousands of miles from their spouses and families.

The hon. Gentleman knows that European Community nationals have total reciprocity in those mattters. Our immigration policy is based on sensible, longstanding reasons. The one does not affect the other.

Is it true that the momentum towards the Common Market in 1992 is now virtually unstoppable? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it does nobody any good to start casting doubts on it as being some kind of fiasco or disaster? It is a great opportunity, particularly for small firms in this country.

My hon. Friend is right. We are making good progress in dismantling barriers to trade. It is quite wrong for any commentator, whoever he may be, to say that 1992 measures are failing. More than 40 per cent. of the issues that were raised in the 1985 White Paper have been agreed. We have progressed almost daily. I was delighted to see the European Court of Justice's judgment on air fares, which was reported in the press this morning. That judgment represents a significant step towards our aim to liberalise international air transport and bring down the cost of air fares to the ordinary travelling public. The court said that, from now on, airlines should clear their price-fixing controls between Community countries directly with the Commission. That is another great step forward.

Does the Minister agree that, although Britain has not done very well in Europe, Europe has done very well in Britain?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must look at his figures again.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's financial contribution towards the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus (UNFICYP).

Britain's contribution towards the cost of the United Nations force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) in the financial year 1989–90 is estimated at £22·87 million, net of recoveries.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom is the only member of the Security Council that pays its dues in full? What action is being taken by the United Kingdom to press the other countries to make their full payments towards this force?

Indeed we have been paying our full amounts towards this force. The account is in deficit by some $167 million, as my hon. Friend knows, but the United Kingdom is not in deficit. We have absorbed all our own costs since 1964, and we have encouraged all other nations to contribute fully. I hope very much that many other states, including France and the Soviet Union, will stop resisting the change from voluntary contributions to assessed contributions. That would go a long way towards solving the problem.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to the British soldiers who have served with that force over many years? Is it true to say that we carry the bulk of the administrative burden, not only of the United Nations force in Cyprus but of the peacekeeping force in Lebanon? Can he confirm that we supply the biggest element of that force in Cyprus, and, but for its presence, the number of deaths on both sides of the green line might have been considerably greater over the years?

Indeed, I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the whole British contingent —currently 741 officers and men, or about one third of the total force—who have worked extremely hard. They bring a very special balance to a very difficult situation, and they continue to give absolutely first-class assistance in this very difficult area. We only hope that the negotiations towards resolving the problems of Cyprus will soon again proceed smoothly, and we wish both sides well in their efforts to find a solution that is acceptable to all.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Israeli Foreign Minister of State; and what will be discussed.

My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to visit Israel later this year, and looks forward to discussing bilateral and regional issues with Professor Arens then.

When the Foreign Minister meets Professor Arens will he raise the question of the arrest yesterday of two prominent leaders of the Palestinian community on the West Bank—the distinguished Jerusalem journalist Sam'an Khouri, and Adnan Shalalda? Today those men were charged before a military court with being leaders of their own people in the territory in which they live and have always lived. Will the Minister point out the irony of the absurd proposal by the Israeli Administration to hold elections to identify such leaders at a time when any leaders who do emerge are either shot down in the street or clamped in irons for months on end?

I certainly agree with the hon. Member that it is no way to develop a sensible dialogue with the leaders of the Palestinians to treat people in that way. We have made regular representations, and I should think that we shall have an opportunity to make representations on these cases well before my right hon. and learned Friend goes to Israel.

Does my hon. Friend agree that handing back the Taba enclave to Egypt has been very much to Israel's advantage, and will he make that point to the ambassador?

What the Taba incident demonstrates to Israel and to others in the region is that it is possible to resolve disputes by means of law and treaty. In a sense, that is the main significance of Taba, and I should have thought that, small though it is, it reminds people that it is possible to solve disputes in a way other than by force.

Does the Minister agree that the most vital component, or at least one of the most vital components, of the struggle for peace in the middle east is the necessity for Israel to have discussions with the PLO? The PLO is recognised throughout the middle east—by all the Arab nations, as well as by the people of Palestine—as the representative of the Palestinians. Let it be made clear to the Israelis that they took lands away from the Palestinian people by force, and that before there can be a peace settlement in the middle east there must be a conference involving Britain and America, along with the PLO and the Israelis. Will the Minister impress that on the Israelis with all the prestige that Britain commands in this area?

It is certainly our view that the Israelis will not find it possible to conduct negotiations with the Palestinian leaders in the occupied territories without talking to people who identify themselves with the PLO, and they will not find such people. It is the British Government's position that there should be an international conference under the aegis of the five permanent members of the Security Council but, in a sense, that matter is secondary. We want to get the process going and believe that such a conference would ultimately be the best way of establishing a framework for the direct talks which must take place between the Israelis and the other parties to the dispute.

Will my hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that the British Government see no need for elections in the occupied territories to find out who represents the Palestinian people because it is well known that the PLO does? Does my hon. Friend agree that the idea of such an election is merely a means of trying to postpone having a proper international conference, which is obviously the right way forward?

I am not sure that I would put it in quite that way. I would emphasise that the Palestinians would be chary of taking part in any elections that did not lead to a further process that would result ultimately in negotiations about the final status of the territories. From what I have understood of the PLO position and of its reactions to Mr. Shamir's proposals, if it believes that such elections are part of a continuing process, it would consider them seriously, but it does not wish to be caught in a cul de sac of voting only for municipal elections or for something that establishes Israeli hegemony over the territories.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made on human rights violations to the Government of Romania.

I raised Romania's appalling human rights record with the Romanian Foreign Minister in Vienna on 6 March. We deplore the Romanian Government's failure to meet their commitments under the Helsinki agreements and, in particular, their continuing policy of systematisation. We urge them to heed international calls for an end to repression and intimidation.

The Government are to be congratulated on their leadership of the European protest against Ceausescu, a leader who increasingly oppresses his own people with the primitive cruelty and arrogance of a mediaeval tyrant. However, is it not time for the Government to lead a new initiative against the process of systemisation—a process of cultural pogroms—which is sending the process of civilisation into reverse in Romania, and against the most savage breaches of human rights in any country in Europe? Would it not be a start to the new initiative if Britain stripped from Ceausescu the honour that was given to him in 1978 in the same way that we have taken honours from past Members of the House and other citizens of this country when they no longer deserve those honours?

The whole House will have sympathy with the vehemence with which the hon. Gentleman condemns what is happening in Romania. Condemnation is being expressed not only by Western countries because it is notable that even the Soviet Union and other Warsaw pact partners of Romania have failed to support that country in recent proceedings before the European Commission of human rights. Condemnation of that cultural and human savagery is widespread.

In view of the appalling human rights record of Romania under the corrupt and repressive Ceausescu regime, the fact that it has become an acute embarrassment even to its Warsaw pact partners, the creation of a major refugee problem by the enforced devillagisation that is taking place in Transylvania and in view of the fact that our own ambassador has been manhandled by the police in that country, is it not high time to show our disgust and our repugnance with this regime and to withdraw our ambassador?

I understand totally why my right hon. Friend makes that point so strongly. One of the purposes of retaining an ambassador there is to continue to fight against the very conditions that my right hon. Friend describes. He is right that our ambassador and members of his staff were grotesquely ill-treated on an occasion when they were trying to establish contact with the historian, Doina Cornea, who has been outrageously treated. It is also right that more recently our embassy was able to establish contact with her, which has been of value. It confirms that she is continuing to be extremely badly treated, both in encirclement and in being deprived of communication with the outside world. That in itself justifies a continued presence there, although my right hon. Friend's statement of anguish about what is going on in Romania is equally justified.

Can the Secretary of State tell us what representations have been made to the Romanian authorities? Is it not time that words of condemnation were backed by action?

As was conceded by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) in his supplementary question, the United Kingdom has been playing a leading part in mobilising action by the Community in demarche after demarche. We have been making representations with continuous vigour. We have also been able to block progress on the negotiations that were due to take place between the Community and Romania. So we have intervened effectively in the way that was open to us. We shall continue to mobilise as much condemnation as we can of the intolerable conduct of the Romanian Government.

My right hon. and learned Friend's robust denunciation of the despicable regime in Bucharest will be widely welcomed in the House, in the country and across all countries of Europe. My right hon. and learned Friend has said that there is no precedent for stripping the President of the Romanian Republic of honours that have been accorded to him. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there are times when new precedents must be set? This is probably a case where we should begin the process.

I take note of my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps the most important point is the immense strength of feeling expressed on all sides of the House. I am sure that that in itself will underline a crucial message to the Government of Romania. One only hopes that it may make some difference to their conduct.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in implementing United Nations resolution 435 on Namibia.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in Windhoek on 1 April, we are actively supporting the United Nations operation in Namibia. It is vital that the parties abide strictly by their obligations under the United Nations plan for Namibian independence.

In order to counter the feeling among many that South Africa is having far too great an influence on the implementation of independence, can the right hon. Lady tell us whether she supports the call made on 8 and 9 April at the Mount Etjo conference that the full United Nations transition assistance group force should be implemented, and whether she would also endorse the United Nation's view that South Africa should not be allowed to interrogate SWAPO guerillas? Will she recommend that in future SWAPO should be involved in discussions of the implementation of the resolution?

It may interest the hon. Lady to know that the Mount Etjo declaration is being placed in the Library. The full UNTAG troops will get there as soon as possible. I was pleased yesterday to be able to announce that we have given a gift to the United Nations of the use of 55 Land Rovers and 12 four-wheeled trucks to try to help, while other equipment is on the high seas. In talking to those concerned about whether returning SWAPO guerillas to Angola will be interrogated, we have been assured that any information from the SWAPO forces will be sought by UNTAG and it will be solely directed towards the implementation of the Mount Etjo plan.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of resolution 435 is that fair and free elections should be held in Namibia to determine its future? Will my right hon. Friend investigate allegations that British taxpayers' money is going through the European Community to give a preponderant advantage to SWAPO, despite its recent violations of the peace accord? Will she do her utmost to ensure that all parties can participate in those elections on an equal basis?

Of course, there must be free and fair elections and everything must be done through the United Nations, whose responsibility it is, to ensure that that is so. We have no evidence of my hon. Friend's accusation that funds are being given to SWAPO and, in fact, I have written about that only this morning, or last night. In addition, I believe that it is absolutely vital that we do all that we can to support UNTAG in its most difficult task of maintaining the peace and proceeding towards those free and fair elections.

Does the Minister agree that it would be highly damaging to UNTAG, and to the implementation of resolution 435, if elements of the Koevet unit—the notoriously murderous unit of the South African army —were to be in any way engaged in the policing of the withdrawal of SWAPO? Does she further agree that that is likely because that unit now comprises almost half of the South African police force in Namibia?

I am certain from what I have heard this morning that the task of the fully deployed contingents from the United Kingdom and Australia, who will be manning the nine assembly points, accompanied by UNTAG military observers—but, indeed, with the police and the Angolans alongside, as agreed under the Mount Etjo declaration—will be to see that the SWAPO forces return north of the 16th parallel in Angola. It is clear, too, that those members of the South African forces who may be alongside will be under the direction and supervision of the United Nations forces there and, indeed, our own forces.

Was my right hon. Friend able to discuss with the Soviet delegation in London last week the situation in Namibia and Angola, especially as President Gorbachev had recently returned from Cuba, which is well known to be heavily involved in the activities in that area?

My right hon. and learned Friend talked with Mr. Shevardnadze last week. Our efforts, especially those of the Prime Minister and her decisive intervention in Windhoek on 1 April, have been warmly welcomed by the President of the Soviet Union, by the President of Angola and by the Cubans. I regret that Opposition Members should seek to try to bring party politics into such a subject.

Is not the Minister being just a little naive about the cease-fire assembly points? Apart from members of the South African forces who may be present, is it not correct that the South African militia—the South West Africa Territorial Force—is in the majority at those cease-fire assembly points and that a South African spokesman has said that UNTAG would be permitted to be present during interrogations? Who gave the Government those assurances? Will the Government ensure that visiting parliamentarians from western Europe are given visas to be present to monitor the electoral process and that SWAPO is given reasonable facilities for access to the media during the electoral process?

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the British Government are not in charge of what is going on in Namibia, but the United Nations. Many of the questions that he has posed are questions for the United Nations. We are working in support of the United Nations' transition assistance group to get those free and fair elections. That will obviously mean all parties to the election wanting access to put their points over.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's recent contacts with Angola.

There are regular contacts with representatives of the Angolan Government in the normal course of diplomatic relations.

While welcoming the regional peace settlement, the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola and Angola's application to the international monetary fund, which are evidence of more flexibility by Angola in its attitude to the West, does my right hon. Friend agree that Angola is still divided between the Marxist PLA and the equally unattractive Jonas Savimbi who has recently been accused of human rights abuses? What proposals have the Government, either on a regional basis or through the United Nations, to ensure democracy and peace in Angola?

I am pleased to say that the President of Angola has played a constructive role in helping to get the United Nations plan back on the road in Namibia. Having concentrated on doing that, the next step for peace in Namibia is to seek internal reconciliation for peace in Angola. We welcome the proposal for a regional security conference with Angola's neighbours. There is no doubt that we shall not see lasting peace in Angola until the parties come together. I have made it clear that a military solution in Angola is not possible. It needs to proceed towards a peaceful reconciliation between both parties.

Motion under Standing Order No. 20 —Mr. Robert Hughes.

indicated dissent

Presentation of Bill.