To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent visit of the President of Nicaragua.

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

President Ortega visited the United Kingdom from 6 to 8 May in the course of an extensive European tour. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met him on 8 May. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I saw Foreign Minister d'Escoto on the same day.

May I through you, Mr. Speaker, thank all hon. Members for the warm and courteous welcome they gave President Ortega on Monday, which was in stark contrast to the ill-advised, offensive, abusive and graceless way in which the Prime Minister treated him? As she always speaks on Nicaragua from a position of profound ignorance, will she be accepting the invitation extended by President Ortega to send a Government delegation to Nicaragua to study the situation there prior to next year's election?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear during the President's visit that our attitude to Nicaragua will continue to be based on our assessment of its moves to genuine democracy, its determination to remove foreign advisers, its determination or otherwise to reduce its armed forces and its determination to stop the destabilisation of neighbouring countries. Those are exactly the four criteria by which we made it clear that we would judge Nicaragua when my right hon. and learned Friend met its vice-president over three years ago.

Instead of using language that has been used by Foreign Office Ministers since time immemorial and criticising its Government without understanding what is going on, why does not the Minister think more positively and send a delegation to Nicaragua to see developments at first hand?

We have an excellent embassy and chargé d'affaires who regularly report what is happening Nicaragua. The hon. Gentleman appears to be unaware that all Nicaraguan opposition parties from the far Left to the far Right have condemned the changes to the electoral law that were introduced by the Sandinistas on 5 May, of which President Ortega appears to be unaware.

As someone who is not profoundly ignorant of Nicaragua and has seen its steady deterioration over the past four years as a result of the nature of its Government, will my hon. Friend welcome steps towards further elections and explain to President Ortega some of the prerequisites for fair and free elections? It is no good having an Sandinistan army or police force, and it is no good local committees run by Sandinistas distributing food to everyone, expecting them to believe that there will be fair and free elections.

I agree with my hon. Friend, who echoes the points made by President Arias of Costa Rica, among others. The present Nicaraguan constitution ensures that the armed forces and apparatus of the state owe allegiance not to the country but to the Sandinista party.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an interesting contrast between the attitude of the Opposition in this House, who seem to regard Nicaragua as a gentle democracy, and the fact that in Nicaragua, the Sandinista Government do not allow the Opposition free and fair access to the media?

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The Sandinista party controls all the television stations.

Why do not the Government for once use their undoubted influence with the United States in a positive way and persuade the United States to use the money that it is planning to give to terrorists to resettle people in Nicaragua for the free and fair elections to be held in February 1990? Why are our Government the only Government in Europe not attending the Stockholm conference on aid to Nicaragua, which is beleaguered by war and the recent hurricane? Why will the Minister not consider visiting Nicaragua to find out the truth about it, instead of hearing the ignorance displayed by the Prime Minister at her meeting with Daniel Ortega?

We are not attending the Stockholm conference because we believe that the economic collapse which is a feature of Nicaragua at present was brought about by the Sandinista regime and we see no reason to provide additional aid. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have provided humanitarian aid to assist with the effects of the hurricane. We support, of course, the new bipartisan policy of the United States.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of his recent meeting with President Bush.

When I met President Bush in Washington on 17 April, we discussed a number of current issues including East-West relations, short-range nuclear forces, the middle east, Lebanon, southern Africa and Latin America.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. In the course of his wide-ranging discussions, did he have an opportunity to discuss the initiative by President Bush in seeking to control narcotics, especially in relation to south American countries, and did he discuss the possibilities of further co-operative action between our two countries on this serious problem?

We certainly welcome the initiative of President Bush to which my hon. Friend refers. As he knows, it is an accepted part of our common policy for co-operation that we are engaged in a partnership in the worldwide war against drugs, with particular reference to Latin America. The first agreement, which I signed myself, for bilateral co-operation for the tracing, freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of drug transactions, was signed with the United States and came into force last night.

During the discussions on short-range and battlefield nuclear weapons, did the Foreign Secretary explain the British Government's policy? Is it the British Government's view that short-range and battlefield nuclear weapons are necessary to counter Soviet conventional superiority and would they still be necessary if there were parity of conventional forces?

It is the view of the whole Alliance that we need to maintain short-range nuclear weapons, among others, in a capable and up-to-date condition. The Alliance agrees in rejecting a third zero and that remains the position in all circumstances.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether President Bush shares the view that there is one question in East-West relations that is even more important than disarmament—whether the Soviet Union has abandoned its desire to expand at the expense of other countries and to dominate them? Does he agree that that has not yet been established?

The President of the United States and his Administration, together with the other members of the NATO Alliance, share the view that it is necessary for the Alliance to maintain a firm and effective defensive capability against the risks of deployment or the threat of the use of military resources, and one cannot regard that threat as having come to an end.

Are we to accept reports that President Bush believes that the cold war is now over? If not, in the light of the Foreign Secretary's meeting with Mr. Bush, will he tell us how he would apportion blame for the continuance of the cold war?

The continuance of the tension, which gives the North Atlantic Alliance its continuing purpose, is due to the overwhelming preponderance of forces, and the capability to threaten the use of those forces, in Europe among other places. The fact that most of the countries of eastern Europe are still host to Soviet occupation forces is only one of many reasons for thinking that there are still powerful reasons for being apprehensive about the security of western Europe.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made on the current position of refuseniks in the Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend has raised the problem of refuseniks with Mr. Shevardnadze on three separate occasions this year, most recently during Mr. Gorbachev's visit. The Soviet authorities have been left in no doubt that the problem of long-term refuseniks will continue to cast a shadow over Anglo-Soviet relations until a satisfactory and lasting solution is reached.

I welcome my hon. Friend's effort in this regard and I acknowledge that he has had many successes. Is it not true, however, that, much as we hope and pray that Mr. Gorbachev will turn out to be a true reformer, the Soviet concept of human rights—the right to believe, to practise one's own religion and even to emigrate—is a different concept from ours in the West? Given the difference, should not we continue to be careful to try to match practice and theory, to hope for the future and to press on with the campaign?

My hon. Friend is right. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the system is being operated more humanely than it was, but it is the system that is wrong. People's rights should not depend upon the intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend, myself or Opposition Members but on an independent judiciary and law in the Soviet Union.

I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and the Government in supporting the refuseniks in the Soviet Union. May I raise with my hon. Friend the case of George Belitsky of Vilnius, who has been waiting for his visa since 1980? His wife and two sons, one of whom I met this afternoon, are now free, but he still waits in vain. Will my hon. Friend see what he can do to help in this case? [Interruption.]

I am sorry that Opposition Members do not seem to be taking the question seriously, as some of them have an honourable record in fighting for individual cases. I shall certainly look into the case that my hon. Friend mentioned. In New York, Mr. Gorbachev said that secrecy would not be used in future to block exit permits, but that is not what is happening in individual cases, I am afraid. It is still being used in far too many cases.

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

I met Miss Bhutto on 27 March in Islamabad. I congratulated her on her election and the restoration of democracy in Pakistan. We discussed a wide range of issues including Anglo-Pakistan relations, Afghanistan and other developments in the region, and the possibility of Pakistan's re-entry to the Commonwealth.

Did my right hon. and learned Friend manage to impress upon the Prime Minister of Pakistan the undesirability of the continuation of the civil war in Afghanistan? The people who are suffering now are the population of that unfortunate and unhappy country. Did my right hon. and learned Friend agree any proposals with the Prime Minister of Pakistan involving our assistance in putting an end to that civil war?

The Prime Minister of Pakistan has good reason to be more aware than almost anyone of the penalties imposed upon her country and on Afghanistan as well as the wider region, by the continuation of the conflict in Afghanistan. She and her Government wish nothing better than to see the establishment of conditions in Afghanistan that enable the millions of refugees to return to their own country. She and her country realise the importance of securing the establishment in Afghanistan of a broad-based Government that is truly representative of the people of Afghanistan. That is the way to bring the conflict to an end.

In the continuing discussions with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, will the Foreign Secretary initiate further discussions about the success of the project in the Dir district in the north-west of Pakistan which is concerned with the reduction of the heroin trade from that area and with rural development and crop substitution? That is the kind of aid that we can give, which we give in too stinting a way at the moment. I am conscious of the success of that project and I am interested to learn whether the Foreign Secretary intends to extend such projects both in Pakistan and India to which I gather the focus of the heroin trade has moved.

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of co-operation against the drugs trade. We sustain that co-operation with the Governments of India and Pakistan. Miss Bhutto herself has made a firm public commitment to continuing a tough stance on narcotics, and has recently appointed a Minister of State to deal with that subject. We help to fund the crop substitution programme at Dir in the north-west frontier province. We would look sympathetically at any further Pakistani request for help of that kind.

Did my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with the Prime Minister of Pakistan the dispute in Kashmir? It would be a development of the utmost gravity for Pakistan if, in addition to extreme instability in Afghanistan, there were to be conflict in Kashmir.

We certainly discussed the importance of improvements in relations between India and Pakistan. There was no need for me to emphasise to Miss Bhutto the need for increased co-operation. I welcomed several positive steps in that direction, including, for example, the agreement not to attack each other's nuclear installations and the successful meeting between the two Prime Ministers in December of last year. In that context, we believe that the same method should be adopted towards the possible resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

Did the Secretary of State discuss the continuing plight of the Kurds within Iraq and the renewed threat forcibly to deport 20,000 of them? If he did not discuss that matter, will he take it up with the Iraqi embassy and with the Government—

Order. that question is somewhat wide of the topic, which is Pakistan.

Answer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the South African Government and the United Nations for the publication of a full electoral roll prior to the forthcoming elections in Namibia.

We have made no specific representations on this subject. The United Nations and the South African Government are both well aware of our concern that the elections in Namibia should be free and fair, as set out in the United Nations plan for Namibian independence.

I am sure that the Foreign Minister will recognise the problems if those elections are carried out on lines identical to those of the 1978 South African-controlled elections in Namibia, which the Government have repeatedly condemned as a sham. Does she recognise that representations must be made by 16 May, to ensure that the credibility of the United Nations is maintained and that the people of Namibia accept that the elections that are to take place are genuine, free and democratic?

I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, the election arrangements are a matter for the United Nations and the South African Administrator General. We have made both of them well aware of our concern that the election should be free and fair, as set out in the United Nations plan. The draft registration of voters proclamation was published on 24 April, and comments and representations on the draft have been invited from the interested parties.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, sadly, it is all too clear that, because of cost, UNTAG was set up with too few soldiers and that one possibility is that, in the long run, the cost will be greater? Will she confirm that she is still prepared to consider increasing the size of that force and that British troops might be used in such an endeavour?

We must take careful note of what members of the United Nations on the ground are saying. Cedric Thornberry made it quite clear that, until the full deployment which is taking place has been made, it is not the time to consider additional personnel. Now that armed incidents are reduced, that may not be necessary. However, as I have said on many occasions, if the United Nations Secretary-General goes to the Security Council to ask for additional personnel, we stand ready to supply them. In fact, we were asked for 10 additions to the signals unit that Britain has already sent, and those 10 will join their fellows, who are already doing excellent work in Namibia.

Does the Minister agree that there is great concern that South Africa is dominating the agenda for the implementation of UN resolution 435? As there have been severe hiccups, which we certainly hope will not be repeated, will the right hon. Lady accept that, in any future discussions about the preparations for the supervision of free and fair elections and law and order, SWAPO should be included as a free and equal partner in any discussions, instead of its views being put secondhand by third parties?

I believe that it is for all parties to resolution 435 to ensure that the December agreements and the United Nations plan are fully implemented. That means dealing carefully with the situation as it occurs, which is what the United Nations special representative on the ground is there to do. Not only do he and the Administrator General have to carry out their commitments under the UN plan, they must proceed with the refugee work. The British Government have given £500,000 to help in the return to Namibia of those Namibian refugees, which, indeed, will need to be handled carefully.

I have listened carefully to the remarks of my right hon. Friend about UNTAG and the necessary reinforcements. Clearly, the role of the police will be critical in reinforcing free and fair elections. Have we had any requests for advice or help in policing, rather than for military help?

We have not had such requests up to now. Should such requests be made by the United Nations, of course we shall consider them sympathetically. However, there is an increase in the observer force, and I am certain that the special representative, if he believes it to be necessary, will make such a request via the secretary-general in New York.

Are the Government now honest enough to accept that they have colluded in a massive underfunding of the United Nations exercise in Namibia? Is it not correct, for example, that the Secretary-General has already asked for an increase in the UN police force above 500? How can an adequate electoral roll be established if the UN High Commissioner for Refugees does not have the funds to organise reception centres for exiles, who should return to Namibia within six weeks from 15 May? Will the Government provide funds to send parliamentary observers and monitors to the election in Namibia, as many of our European partners have done already?

To the best of my knowledge none of our European partners have yet sent observers of any sort. Should that be desirable, of course we will consider it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in the middle east.

We continue to believe that a settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute must be based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and that an international conference, at the right time, will be necessary. We look forward to discussing with Mr. Shamir how his proposal for elections in the occupied territories can contribute to this process when he visits the United Kingdom later this month.

As the PLO appears belatedly to have recognised the existence of the state of Israel, does my hon. Friend agree that it is now not inconceivable that at some appropriate time in the future our Prime Minister might meet Mr. Arafat?

We unequivocally welcome the steps forward that have been taken by the PLO. As my right hon. and learned Friend told my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) on 8 February, we are certainly ready to promote further meetings when they can serve a useful purpose.

Under exactly what conditions would the Prime Minister be prepared to meet Yasser Arafat?

Any upgrading of meetings would undoubtedly involve my right hon. and learned Friend before they would involve the Prime Minister. The principle on which we have taken such steps has been that they should be seen to be carrying the peace process forward. Meetings should not take place just for the sake of having meetings.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the middle east peace process is certainly not helped by extremist exhortations to violence emanating from Tehran? In connection with that, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to prepare an international cohesive response and to prepare the necessary contingency measures?

I have no doubt that the condemnation of the whole House, the European Community and nations throughout the world has been clear. Incidentally, there has been a clear rejection of Mr. Rafsanjani's remarks by Mr. Arafat and by the PLO for, which I thanked Mr. Bassam abu Sharif, Mr. Arafat's representative, when he was in London recently. We are taking steps within the Community, with our allies and with other friendly countries to get the widest and clearest possible rejection of that intolerable threat.

Given that the weekend saw the bloodiest single day's fighting in the 18-month intifada against Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, with four deaths, 343 injuries, including 147 gunshot wounds, the youngest of which was to a seven-month-old baby, has not the time come for the Government to respond as sharply as they have done in the past to Libya and to Iran and to cancel the state visit of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir which is due in 10 days' time?

That would be exactly the wrong step to take. Without in any way disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman that the events in Gaza over the weekend were, as our statement at the time said, deplorable and another step downwards, that would make the whole situation worse. At a time when there is just a glimmer of light and a proposal on the table from Mr. Shamir, it is surely right for us to follow the example of the PLO and to try to make something of that statement and to make progress on the basis of what, I recognise, is a minimal proposal. It would be better to do that than to slam the door and not talk.

As my hon. Friend is aware, I am a strong friend of Israel, but I have been and remain highly critical of certain actions of the Israeli Government, especially the brutal and indefensible response to the intifada. However, that having been said, does my hon. Friend agree that there are now clear signs that the Israeli Government are responding to the criticisms from inside as well as outside Israel and that they are moving towards negotiation? Surely that should be welcomed and encouraged.

Any signs of movement towards negotiation by the Israeli Government will receive not only the support of Her Majesty's Government but, I am sure, that of the whole House. It is to investigate whether there are such signs and to encourage any that exist that it is right for us to welcome Mr. Shamir here.

While I accept the essential need for Israel to recognise the realities and start negotiations with the PLO, should not steps taken by European countries over the latest incitement to mass murder from the Iranian regime be effective, unlike on the previous occasion?

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. We in this country can say to some of our colleagues, friends and allies round the world, "We told you so." After the Salman Rushdie affair we urged people to take seriously the irresponsible threats from Iran—some did and some did not. Those who did not now seem to stand indicted. In the face of this further threat the civilised international community must surely unite in practical condemnation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment about an earlier question in which the Yasser Arafat meeting was mentioned. Will he take on board the fact that when Yasser Arafat was invited to the IPU conference in Budapest in March, it was felt that the exchanges that followed were valuable. When parliamentarians and western journalists considered matters such as the responsibility for the Lockerbie air disaster it resulted in some fruitful discussion.

My hon. Friend is quite right. Such meetings between parliamentarians, journalists and other concerned citizens across the sectarian divide are extremely useful. A useful meeting was held at Ditchley over the weekend.

When Ministers meet Mr. Shamir when he comes to London this month, will they voice the dismay of the House at the daily toll of killings and repression in the Israeli occupied territories? Will they tell him that the House of Commons condemns the Israeli policy that brings about such killings and repression? Will they ask Mr. Shamir why, when the Israeli Government calls for the renunciation by the PLO of its charter and Mr. Arafat then makes a statement of renunciation, instead of welcoming it, the Israeli Government brush it aside, as they do every concession that Mr. Arafat has made? Will they tell Mr. Shamir that his excuses and the patience of the world are running out?

Yes, Sir. When we do so, we shall do so with all the greater strength because of the unity shown by the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria Bophuthatswana would need to satisfy in order to be recognised by Her Majesty's Government as an independent nation state.

The same criteria that have been followed by successive British Governments and which are based on international law. Other factors, including relevant United Nations resolutions, are also taken into account.

Why does my right hon. Friend not agree that, in international law, Bophuthatswana does fulfil the criteria laid down for recognition? It has a definable territory, a permanent population, a Government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Does not my right hon. Friend's policy have the rather ludicrous effect of driving Bophuthatswana to stay inside the sphere of influence of South Africa and thus strengthen apartheid, while the Government's policy is to woo South Africa's neighbours away from South Africa's sphere of influence and weaken apartheid? Cannot my right hon. Friend see the total inconsistency of the Government's policy?

My hon. and learned Friend should remember that Bophuthatswana is a homeland which was set up by the South African Government within South Africa. We bear no ill will to those who live there. We are seeking to get rid of apartheid throughout South Africa. I take up my hon. and learned Friend on what he said about the criteria for recognition. He subtly altered the wording of the third criterion, which involves independence in external relations. That is one of our criteria. These criteria have been used by successive British Governments and are recognised by international law. I know that my hon. and learned Friend has been researching Judge Friedman's views and I understand that, under the terms of the Montevideo convention, they may be different. Our prime cause must be to help South Africa get rid of apartheid throughout the territories, including Bophuthatswana. Until there is a democratic system in South Africa, we cannot consider change.

I share the Minister's aim of getting rid of apartheid from South Africa and express my gratitude to her for having the courage to express it, but is it not hypocritical of the Government to set out the criteria in international law that they deem acceptable for independent sovereign nation-statehood while, at the same time, openly and blatantly to support American intervention in, and infringement of, the independent nation-statehood of sovereign Nicaragua?

I can see no connection between Bophuthatswana and Nicaragua. It is absolutely right that any country that wishes to look after its own affairs must show that it can do so. Bophuthatswana is not an independent country; it remains a homeland of South Africa.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Bophuthatswana is a creation of South Africa for the convenience of South Africa in South Africa and has no right to independence, either de jure or de facto, in international law, and that to try to pretend otherwise is a fraud?

We have been over this ground many times, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. These seven territories are in no way independent of the rest of South Africa. They do not fulfil the criteria for recognition as an independent country and I do not see any likelihood of their doing so. I hope that when there is a democratic system in South Africa as a whole, in which all people can have a say, the situation may be different for the people of Bophuthatswana—but it will not be so earlier.

Will the right hon. Lady confirm that it is not a criterion for recognition as an independent country that it should offer free trips to select groups from this House or any other part of the country, although that is a well-established tradition of the South African Government? The South African ambassador was in Cardiff on Monday trying to bribe Welsh rugby players to go to South Africa. Will she tell the ambassador that, only days after three members of his staff were expelled for good reason from this country for involvement in terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland, it was wholly improper for him to come to Cardiff to a reception at the Holiday Inn, as if it was business as usual with South Africa? It very much is not.

Neither the South African ambassador in London nor the South African Government are in any doubt about what we think about the last issue the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and what matters will be discussed.

I met the secretary-general when he was in London on 24 April. I will see Dr. Woerner again at the end of this month at and for the NATO summit meeting.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that our NATO allies might well agree with the Daily Mirror's editorial this morning, which says that Labour's defence policy is as confusing as it is unbelievable? When the laughter finally subsides, and NATO realises that it is nothing more than a policy for flexible surrender, would not the only honourable course left to a Labour Government—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must try to relate his supplementary question to the original question.

Would not NATO be of the opinion that the only honourable course for a Labour Government would be to withdraw from NATO before they were thrown out?

My hon. Friend draws attention to a sound point, although he takes his fantasy rather far. The fact on which I am sure the NATO Alliance would agree is that the Labour party's new proposals for defence will be as ineffective for the defence of the Alliance as they have been for the uniting of the Labour party.

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a need for NATO to present a united front to the initiatives taken by Mr. Gorbachev? Does he agree that that would be best achieved through a sympathetic understanding of the views of all our allies and is not likely to be achieved by hectoring and browbeating the Federal Republic of Germany over its attitude towards the modernisation of short-range weapons?

The Alliance has responded and will continue to respond effectively and with unity to the prospects for progress on arms control. I was able to announce those proposals when I spoke first to the Alliance at the beginning of the Vienna conference just two months ago. On the last point, the Alliance has agreed that for the foreseeable future there is no alternative to a strategy of deterrence based on an effective mix of nuclear and conventional forces which will be kept up to date where necessary. That mix includes a continuing requirement for land-based, sea-based and air-launched short-range nuclear forces in Europe. A third zero for land-based missiles is therefore not acceptable. Lance will become obsolete in 1995 and a deployment decision on a successor will be needed in 1991–92. In order to keep open the necessary options, support for United States efforts to develop a follow-on to Lance is necessary. We will seek from the NATO summit confirmation of all those points that have already been agreed by the Alliance.

I recognise the importance to NATO doctrine of maintaining and modernising our short-range nuclear forces. None the less does the NATO Alliance not have a clear interest in reaching agreement with the Soviet Union on coming down to a common ceiling? For example, if that were to be set at 100 on either side, we could maintain and modernise our own capability and the Soviets would have to abandon 1,300 of their launchers.

There is bound to be a substantial difficulty about verification of any conclusion of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers, if that were to be reached by agreement. I agree with him absolutely that there is no reason why the Soviet Union should not reduce its weapons of that kind unilaterally to NATO levels. So far it has undertaken to cut only 24 of 1,608 short-range missile systems. It can do a great deal better than that minimal reduction. It could do it unilaterally and at once.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets Manfred Woerner, the secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, will he discuss with him and take into account the statement made by Mr. Woerner last week that he wishes a middle way to be found on the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons at the NATO summit this month? Will he take into account also the statement of the Italian Prime Minister, Mr. de Mita, this week who said:

"Other governments … basically agree, but not Mrs. Thatcher. The obstacle is there."

In his passion to present a totally false picture the right hon. Gentleman seems, unusually for him, to have overlooked completely the position, for example, of the United States. He will find no difference between the case that we are putting forward and that which the United States is putting forward. We shall be ready to go to the NATO summit, as we have done in the past, to secure an outcome consistent with the security of the Alliance in the long and in the short term.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made by the European Commission to detect and deter fraud in the European Community.

At the meeting of Economic and Finance Ministers on 13 March the Commission undertook to propose fresh measures to combat fraud and mismanagement, notably in agricultural export refunds and intervention storage.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps have been taken by the European Commission to follow up the call of the Court of Auditors to bring about better financial control in respect of existing abuses of the common agricultural policy? Do not some estimates indicate that fraud in the European Community is costing up to £6 billion a year? That being the case, is it not right that the Government should continue to take the lead and press for further action on this outrageous scandal?

I, too, have seen the figure of £6 billion as being the cost of fraud to the Community. I understand that it was published in The Independent and is a speculative figure based on surmise, not on fact. But that does not alter the fact that this is a serious problem and that large sums are involved, even if we cannot give precise figures at the moment. That is why the British Government welcomed the Court of Auditors' report and ensured that its reports were discussed regularly in Council. At the 13 March meeting that I mentioned, the Commission promised a number of new and revised proposals, including concrete measures to improve controls over export refunds and intervention storage. The head of the anti-fraud unit is discussing the means of operation this month ready for the June meeting of Ecofin where we shall decide on the actual measures.

If the Common Market is so keen and zealous in tracking down fraud and fraudsters, would it not be likely to have an idea of how much fraud is involved? Has the Minister any information to combat the figure of £6,000 million? As over the past four years membership has cost us £5,000 million and we have a deficit in manufactured goods of £11,000 million, does it not behove any Government to keep open the back door of withdrawal from the Common Market as a useful negotiating posture?

I am not surprised to note that some Opposition Members still favour an out-of-date attitude towards our future. With regard to our deficit on manufactured goods, 75 per cent. of equipment imported is for the re-equipping of factories for their modernisation. Companies are now investing in new plant and equipment in order to become more efficient. If we cannot provide the equipment ourselves, we must import it, and it is better that we import if from the Community which will serve us well. Wherever there is fraud, it must be sought out. However small or large, it must be deterred and detected. We shall put all our energies into doing just that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress there has been in the development of human rights in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.

Performance is varied. Hungary and Poland are continuing to take measures to improve human rights and political freedoms. There has been little or no improvement in Bulgaria or Czecholsovakia or the GDR. Romania is, I am sorry to say, in a class of its own.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Soviet Union's record on human rights is still falling behind its social and economic achievements? Does he also agree that our foreign policy must take into account the individual records of each of the countries of eastern Europe and our assessment of them should be reflected in our general foreign policy decisions?

I agree with both my hon. Friend's points. In particular, on his latter point, it is surely right that we in the United Kingdom and the EC should try to establish trading and other relations with the countries that are making progress and respond to that progress as it develops.

Will the Minister advise the House whether human rghts include the unification and unity of families? A lady in my constituency with a British passport has two children and her Pakistani husband has been denied the right to join her? Is that human rights in the United Kingdom?

Unless the hon. Gentleman is arguing for the abolition of all immigration controls—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has always been the right of any country to maintain immigration controls. The Helsinki final act makes it clear that all signatory countries have the duty to allow people who want to leave a country to do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the repellent and corrupt Ceausescu regime in Romania sticks out like a sore thumb in eastern Europe, that it has the worst human rights record in Europe and that it has caused a major refugee problem for its Warsaw pact neighbours? Does he further agree that this is a case where the West and the Soviet Union are caused common embarrassment? Is it possible to bring extra pressure to bear on that appalling regime?

I agree with every word that my right hon. Friend says. The situation in Romania is tragic and shows no signs of getting better. The regime defends, with a mixture of childish and Stalinist arguments, the most appalling repression which is clearly an embarrassment to its friends. It would be gratifying to see more overt pressure being put on that regime from countries—other than Hungary, which has its own special reasons for being concerned about Romania—on the eastern side of the iron curtain, which we know are very embarrassed indeed.

Will the Minister accept that hon. Members in all parts of the House warmly applaud and welcome the developments which are taking place in Poland and Hungary and feel that the European Community support that has already been offered should be real and appropriate for the circumstances there? Is he equally aware of our concern for the continuing human rights violations in Czechoslovakia? As hon. Members have pointed out, the indecent and unpardonable activities of the Romanian Government deserve and demand wide and vocal condemnation. Will he ensure that the view of the whole House is reflected in urgent Government action in this matter?

Again, I can welcome wholeheartedly the position being taken by the Opposition Front Bench on this issue. There are many violations at present in Czechoslovakia. In particular, it is a scandal that Mr. Havel—perhaps the leading playwright in eastern Europe, some might say in Europe as a whole—is in gaol. We will continue to press very hard indeed on these matters, and we can do so again with redoubled force in view of the support of Opposition Members.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits by Foreign and Commonweatlh Office officials have been made to Bophuthatswana over the last decade.

British embassy officials pay regular visits to all the South African homelands, including Bophuthatswana. The details of individual visits are not recorded.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that because it is politically difficult for Ministers to visit Bophuthatswana, it is even more important for their officials to do so to bear out what hon. Members have been reporting for years, which is that this is a rare example of an African multi-racial democracy—[interruption.]— which is attempting to stand on its own two feet economically, which is more than can be said for the front-line states? It is, therefore, a model of what we would like to see the Republic of South Africa become. [Interruption.]

Order. We often hear things in this House with which we disagree.

We recognise what my hon. Friend says—that it appears that apartheid as practised elsewhere in South Africa is not practised in Bophuthatswana—and in that sense the South African Government have something to learn from Bophuthatswana. That does not alter the fact that the whole creation and existence of that homeland is itself an expression of the apartheid that the South African Government forced on it, and nothing that anybody says, here or in Bophuthatswana, will alter that situation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will initiate discussions with his EEC counterparts concerning recent trends in organised Fascist activity throughout Europe; and whether he will make a statement.

Any trend in the direction of Fascist revival would be deeply disturbing, and I have no doubt the electorates of western Europe would reject it. I see no need to initiate intergovernmental discussion on the subject.

Does the Minister know that this weekend a gathering and camp of neo-Nazis from all over Europe is planned to be held in the east midlands? Does she agree that the bringing to this country of Nazi criminals, many of them with records of violence, for a meeting organised by an evil man named John Peacock, who runs the Nazi British National party in Leicester, should be banned, and that such people should not be allowed into this decent country? In view of the urgency of the matter and of the Home Secretary's failure to reply to my communication about it, will the right hon. Lady undertake to speak to him immediately?

I am aware of The Observer report of 23 April and I am concerned by it. As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, the matter is one for the Home Secretary. We do not have a visa regime for EEC nationals, but I shall certainly draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The way to defeat such occurrences is through debate and elections, not by banning.