To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of recent events in South Africa, he will consider lifting all existing sanctions.

We shall maintain our policy of encouragement and pressure on the South African Government to bring about an end to apartheid, giving a measured response to progress as it occurs.

Is it Her Majesty's Government policy to offer British taxpayers' money to Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress, as recent reports stated? If that is the case, does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members would find that policy somewhat repugnant, particularly because the ANC is still in favour of the armed struggle and Nelson Mandela still rejects the lifting of sanctions, which would create the conditions whereby peaceful reform could take place?

I told the House last month that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is consulting hon. Members of different parties on whether it would be a good idea to set up a public body outside the Government, which could help and support groups or parties, whether in eastern Europe or southern Africa, as they move towards democracy. That is the state of affairs. Our whole emphasis in South Africa is on peaceful dialogue and helping to get that going.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Government might lift the greatest sanction of all, the non-recognition of Bophuthatswana's independence, in the light of a recent statement by its President welcoming the release of Nelson Mandela and saying that it maintained its independence not because of apartheid, but through its historic identity?

We are prepared to be reasonably unorthodox in these matters, but I do not believe that that particular step would help matters forward.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that after the Dublin summit, his European colleagues tried to keep Britain on board, and that the concept of an official visit to South Africa and of the carrot and stick policy was accepted by them? In the light of that, was it wise for the United Kingdom to break the resolution? As we are encouraging the Soviet Union to release its last political prisoners, should not we do the same in South Africa?

I do not flatter myself that I attended a summit. At Dublin we put forward the compromise proposal that if other partners were prepared to move once the state of emergency was lifted, we would postpone any action on our part. I am sad that that compromise did not find immediate favour. I hope that perhaps as a result of the Troika Mission, or in other ways, all members of the Community will register what many of them feel and have expressed—the need to give practical encouragement to President de Klerk to continue along the road on which he has started.

Will not the Foreign Secretary honestly admit that one of the crosses that he must bear is the perception among our allies and in Africa that the Prime Minister shares the view of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on this issue? With his troubles in Dublin fresh in his memory, will he try to persuade the Prime Minister to give a clear undertaking that we shall not break any more of our legal international obligations in respect of sanctions?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have broken no legal obligations. We believe not only that we have taken the right action but that it would be stupid to do otherwise. We believe that it is wise to take a measured approach of not relaxing all sanctions, but taking limited steps to recognise and encourage what has been done. Others have recognised it in words, but we felt it wise to go further and give some recognition in substance. That is abundantly justified.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be better not to move any further on sanctions or any other policy towards South Africa until he has had an opportunity of speaking to Mr. Nelson Mandela? Will he confirm that he will ask Mr. Mandela to this country for that purpose among others?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already invited Mr. Mandela to discuss the whole situation in South Africa with her. I hope, and am encouraged by some of the answers that he has been giving, that that may be possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made recently to the Government of Romania on the development of democracy in that country.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the Romanian Foreign Minister when he met him in Ottawa on 11 February that the British Government expect to see steady progress towards a pluralist democracy in Romania. Free and fair elections later in the year will be vital. I raised similar points when I visited Romania on 15 and 16 January.

Does the Minister agree that both Government and voluntary aid to Romania has been swiftly provided and that it is of great value? I pay tribute to the people of Newport, who have worked heroically to equip several lorries and dispatch them with medical aid. Is not the paramount need now to ensure that the elections in May are conducted fairly? In the unique situation in Romania where the apparatus of terror is still in place, is not it our right to intervene and use our influence in a thoroughly exceptional way to make sure that democracy is firmly rooted in that still unhappy land?

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman talks a great deal of sense about Romania, which he knows well. He pays tribute to the people of Newport. I join him in that and hope that it will not be misunderstood in any way. I hope that he will forgive me if I also pay tribute to the people of Bristol, because Bristol Mencap, under the leadership of Mrs Hannam, exposed the horrors of mental asylums there. The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the Government's work. We have sent about £6 million of emergency aid, but all the voluntary aid is needed. As I said in my principal answer, it is now essential to ensure that there are free and fair elections, with access to the media for the opposition parties.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his response, welcome as it is in a sense, betrays a fundamental contradiction in British foreign policy? We are giving praise to and pushing Romania towards full democracy, for which we have no constitutional responsibility, yet we deny it to Hong Kong, for which we have constitutional responsibility. Is it not better to pursue those interests for which we have responsibility? Full democracy in Hong Kong may ameliorate some of the difficulties that the Government face in terms of giving passports—

Order. The question is about Romania.

I think that I would get into trouble with you, Mr. Speaker, if I launched into an answer on Hong Kong. It seems a little paradoxical to blame my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who introduced democracy in Hong Kong for doing so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British support for the transition to democracy of Latin American countries.

We warmly welcome the free elections that have taken place in a number of Latin American countries, most recently in Nicaragua. We have made it clear through numerous statements, sometimes with our European partners, that we strongly support the return to democracy of Latin America.

Now that the second last dictatorship in Hispanic Latin America has returned to democracy with the defeat of Daniel Ortega and his Socialists by a woman leader, what are the prospects for the last such dictatorship in Latin America, which is supported by so many Labour Members, that is, that of Fidel Castro in Cuba?

I hope that all parts of the House will join me in hoping that the people of Cuba will be given an early opportunity in free and fair elections to express their judgment of the way that their country has been run.

Does the Minister agree that there has been considerable hypocrisy on the part of the Administration of the United States and the British Government in denying aid or trade to Nicaragua for the past 10 years, supporting a military attack upon that country and then taking pride in the fact that the Government of the Sandinistas called elections and abided by the results? Does he not think that the real problem and issue facing the people of all Latin America is the appalling debt crisis, which can be solved not by debt for equity arrangements, but only by proper commodity prices and a write-off of the debt burden that falls upon the poorest people of that continent?

We applaud the manner in which President Ortega accepted the result of the elections. I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the real problem that faces the people of Nicaragua. It seems to me that they have clearly rejected the Socialist management of their economy that led to a massive drop in living standards and hyper-inflation, which devastated the economy of their country.

Is the Minister aware that the deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who has some Latin blood in him, is currently in the oriental republic of Uruguay? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no one more suitable to represent our Government in that country?

I shall not express a view about whether my hon. Friend is right about the Latin blood, or perhaps the Welsh blood, of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). I am glad that he has already been to Nicaragua and, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government, he warmly congratulated Mrs. Chamorro on her victory and has already discussed with her the help that our Government can give to her Government.

Will the Minister acknowledge the signal contribution of President Ortega and the Sandinistas in moving Nicaragua out of the Somoza dictatorship into a genuine democracy, with free elections, acknowledged as such by outside observers, and a peaceful transfer of power? Will the Government now resume substantial economic, bilateral aid to that country? Will they monitor the progress of the new regime, to ensure that the unrivalled achievements of the Sandinistas in health and education is maintained?

I should have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman heard what I said when I congratulated President Ortega on the manner in which he accepted the result of the elections. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in calling upon the remaining Socialist countries of Central America and the Caribbean, including Cuba, to hold free and fair elections. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the error of the ways of all the Socialist local authorities that gave so much support to the Sandinistas—perhaps they will now return that money to their ratepayers.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina.

I described the successful outcome of the talks in Madrid in a written reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on 16 February.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am pleased that both sides of the House recognise that we have restored diplomatic relations, but is he aware that many families lost loved ones in the fight for freedom and sovereignty? Will he assure the House and British people that sovereignty is not on the political agenda?

I am happy to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our position on sovereignty has not changed, nor will it, and I am glad to say that the Argentines appreciate that. The resumption of relations was made possible only because the Argentine Government agreed to talks about practical measures without prejudice to either side's position on sovereignty.

Is there any sign of certain Falkland islanders trying to sabotage the better relations?

I am not aware of any such signs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international measures are in hand to destroy trade in illegal drugs.

Some 90 states, including us, have now signed the United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. I recently went to the UN special session on drugs in New York, which adopted a political declaration and a global programme of action. We shall host a world ministerial summit in London in April to look at ways of reducing the demand for drugs and combating the cocaine threat. Within Europe, anti-drugs co-operation is steadily increasing.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are many millions of pounds in the international banking system as a result of drug trafficking? Does he further accept that while it can be detected when it first enters the system, once it is in the system it becomes almost impossible to detect? At the forthcoming conference, will he discuss with colleagues from overseas ways in which more reciprocal arrangements can be made between international banks to help detect and confiscate the money?

My hon. Friend is quite right, and that is one of the purposes of the financial action task force that was set up at the Paris summit last year. As my hon. Friend knows, under our 1986 legislation we have strong powers for tracking and investigating laundered money. I agree that it is a matter not just of legal powers, but of co-operation and discussion with the banks, and certainly in this country that has, on the whole, been forthcoming.

Does the Secretary of State accept that commodity prices play a part in the drugs crisis? It is hard to persuade Colombian peasants to stop growing cocaine when the price of coffee has dropped through the floor.

I have heard the argument about that relationship and there may be something in it. It is important when discussing help to Colombia, which we have given promptly and effectively, that we, the Colombian Government and other Governments should take into account what we expect Colombian farmers to grow so that they can have a proper standard of living if they abandon cocaine.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the problems highlighted in the Blom-Cooper report, Turks and Caicos, which is an island group and a British colony, is still a staging post for drugs to the United States? Does he have any plans to allow the United States Drug Enforcement Agency and other American anti-drug agencies right of hot pursuit into Turks and Caicos waters?

Certainly, we have tightened up there and in other dependent territories in the Caribbean, as my hon. Friend knows. I shall study the state of play on his suggestion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had the opportunity to discuss with the Israeli Government the Amnesty report detailing their treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

We have frequently expressed concern to the Israeli Government about abuses of Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories. In particular, we have raised with Israel two of the cases investigated by Amnesty in its recent report.

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the decision made last week by the Israeli authorities to reopen two of the further education colleges in the west bank after a closure of two years? Will he reaffirm the Government's stated position that they wish the other 15 further education colleges and all six universities to be reopened and to stay open? Does he agree that one way to bring pressure towards that end would be to give support to the EC decision to review scientific agreements with Israel?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should all press for the higher education institutions to be reopened. I had the opportunity to put that suggestion strongly to Minister Olmert, who was in this country this week. However, moving towards EC sanctions is not right at this stage. We welcome the steps that have been taken, and reinforce them by saying that the universities should be reopened, as the hon. Gentleman said.

Bearing in mind the fact that all member states of the European Community are co-signatories of the fourth Geneva convention and that the convention is being flouted daily by the Israeli occupying forces in the west bank, although the convention applies to the occupied territories, should not that violation be pursued more vigorously by Her Majesty's Government and the Community?

The Israeli Government are well aware of the vigour with which Her Majesty's Government and other Governments in the Community pursue their protests on these matters. The responses—sometimes of complaint—from the Israeli Government seem to show that our protests carry some weight.

Does the Minister agree that the actions taken by the Israelis on the west bank would be further heightened if the threat by Prime Minister Shamir to resettle Soviet Jews on the west bank were followed through? Does he think that Soviet Jews have the right to emigrate wherever they want, but that the countries to which they want to emigrate can decide whether to accept them? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be far better if we and the Israelis dealt with anti-Semitism wherever it arises in the world instead of using it as an excuse for emigration?

I can only repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said of the Soviet Jews, when addressing the Board of Deputies of British Jews:

"it would be a very ironic and unjust reward for all our efforts, if their freedom were to be at the expense of the rights, the homes and the land of the people of the Occupied Territories."

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to facilitate peaceful and non-threatening German reunification.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with the Federal Republic of Germany.

Our many discussions with members of the Federal German Government are proof of our close relations. I will be having further talks in Bonn next week with Herr Genscher and Chancellor Kohl. As I explained to the House on 22 February, it was agreed at Ottawa last month that Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom, the United States, France and the Soviet Union, and of the two German states, would meet to discuss the external aspects of German reunification.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that German reunification is as desirable as it is inevitable? Now that the Polish frontier issue is out of the way, will he use our membership of the four-plus-two mechanisms to ensure that the case is made positively for all-German membership of NATO as a contribution to the continuing stability of Europe? Finally, will he ensure that Britain plays a full and appropriate part in the rehabilitation of East German's economy and environment?

Now that the framework for discussing external aspects of German unification is coming into place, we can certainly give a confident welcome to the process of German unification, which we have always supported in principle. We are strongly in favour of a united Germany being in NATO and we support what Chancellor Kohl and Herr Genscher have said on that subject. It will inevitably be for the German Government and people to shoulder the main task of restructuring and modernising East Germany, but I hope that British firms and interests will see the opportunities, for example, in the joint ventures, which will undoubtedly exist.

Will my right hon. Friend particularly welcome yesterday's decision by the Federal Republic to negotiate a treaty on the Polish borders? Does he agree that that most happily coincides with a major objective of British Government policy? Does he further agree that the events surrounding the two Germanies further underline the importance of our maintaining an ever closer relationship with the French?

We strongly welcome the outcome of the discussions in Bonn yesterday and the decision of the German Government to accept the need for a treaty with Poland about her frontiers. We have been urging that, as my hon. Friend says, for a long time.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that despite the irresponsible antics of Herr Kohl in recent weeks, compared with the more responsible attitude of Herr Genscher and the SPD, there is a problem with the German ethnic minorities in Silesia and other parts of former German territory now in Poland, and that it behoves any Polish Government to act in accordance with the Helsinki accords on human rights? What initiatives is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that those accords are strengthened, to defuse tensions in those possible future troublespots?

It is, of course, right that those who signed the Helsinki Final Act should respect the human rights obligations that they assumed. It is also correct that throughout many parts of central and eastern Europe there are problems about minorities dating back many centuries. Those are becoming more difficult to handle as countries emerge from the Communist freezer, if I may put it that way. That is one reason why I have suggested that as part of the CSCE machinery there might be a way of conciliating in such matters. It is for sovereign states, for individual countries, to decide how they respect those obligations. It is not a matter of shifting borders in an attempt to solve those problems. That is not the answer.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Opposition also welcome the statement yesterday by Chancellor Kohl on the Oder-Neisse border? We have also welcomed progress towards the unification of the two German states and the freedom that the German people now have to make that decision. We acknowledge the extremely difficult task of the Foreign Secretary in repairing the damage to British-German relations caused by the Prime Minister's crass insensitivity. Will he now ensure that the formal and permanent confirmation of Germany's borders with her neighbours is made an urgent and fundamental objective in the two-plus-four—not four-plus-two—talks which will take place in Europe and in other forums where these matters will be discussed?

I cannot see much point in what the hon. Gentleman says. I am against attempts to divide Foreign Ministers from Heads of Government in Bonn or elsewhere, and I do not think that such attempts are very likely to succeed. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Poles are entitled to a treaty. That is what I have just told the House. The way forward on that is now clear. It is also right that the Poles are entitled to be present when that is discussed. It cannot be dealt with exclusively in the two-plus-four or four-plus-two talks.

Despite the Foreign Secretary's opposition in principle to separating or attempting to separate Foreign Secretaries from Governments, does he accept that many of us were very pleased when he gave overt support to Herr Genscher in the internal argument in the German Administration? Does he agree that those who fear a united Germany would, in practical terms, have their fears reduced if we pressed ahead with the unification of the European Community in which Germany would be one part and in which in due time national borders would become much less significant?

I am all in favour of pushing ahead with fresh impetus inside the European Community, first of all by completing the single market. Where I may differ from the hon. Gentleman and from some people in the Community is that I do not think of that exclusively in terms of institutions.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on securing international agreement that the external aspects of German unification are matters not just for the two Germanys but for other countries as well? Does he recall that only a few weeks ago the British Government were accused of being the only Government out of step on this issue? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that now everybody else is in step with us—except, apparently, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).

It was thought by learned commentators that we were a bit out of step when six or eight weeks ago we emphasised that external matters connected with German unification affected Germany's allies and other European countries. We were criticised for stressing that, but now everybody is placing the same stress and emphasis on these matters.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy following the outcome of the Nicaraguan elections; and if he will make a statement.

The election, which was judged to be free and fair, gave the people of Nicaragua an opportunity to exercise their right to choose their own Government. We warmly welcome this development, which marks a further strengthening of democracy in the region, and look forward to working with the Government of President-elect Violetta Chamorro.

Is the Minister aware that figures in the Financial Times indicate that the cost of the American intervention in the election amounted to £2 per elector, which translated into British terms would represent a total of £86 million—even more than the £14 million that the Conservatives spent at the last election? Will he make representations to the American Government to ensure that they intervene similarly in the eastern Europe democracies so that at least there may be fair play throughout the free world? Will he also ensure that the British Government make a contribution higher than the know-how fund of £50 million rather than tie the eastern European democracies into the international debt system?

I am interested to note that the hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), still wears his Sandino badge with pride. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that of the $9 million allocated by Congress for the Nicaraguan elections the vast majority went to pay for observers and for the supreme electoral council. Only $1·8 million went to UNO.

rose——

Order. I am constantly being urged to speed up Question Time. I ask hon. Members to put one question. If they do that, we shall get through more questions.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me a slightly less fulsome tribute to ex-President Ortega, whose election may have been free on the day but was most certainly not fair, given the widespread intimidation, the manipulation of state media, and the abuse of Government resources by the Sandinista regime, whose support from the eastern bloc far diminished anything from the United States? Will my hon. Friend therefore keep the transitional period under very careful review, because there is much evidence that several of the commandantes of the revolution are less than convinced of the desirability of a return to democracy?

I note what my hon. Friend has said —and, of course, he personally observed the election. I join him in hoping that there will be a peaceful and full transfer on the due date. It is interesting that the United Nations observers—indeed, all observers—commented on the massive abuse by the Sandinistas of state facilities, including, in particular, the premises of the television station and the army. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, they also received very substantial help from overseas.

Will the Minister accept that, as one of the international observers, I can confirm the view of almost all the observers that the elections were conducted fairly, to the great credit of the Sandinista Government? President Ortega has not only gracefully accepted the result [Interruption.] I hope that Conservative Members will do the same at the next election here—[Interruption.] Ortega is co-operating in the orderly transfer of power, which is now jeopardised by the failure of the Contra terrorists to disband. [Interruption.]

Order. This takes a lot of time.

Will the Minister say what the Government are doing to help the Nicaraguan Government by pressing the Contras to lay down their arms immediately?

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, we look for the early disbandment of the Contras and for their reintroduction into Nicaraguan society. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who was himself an observer, that on the day, the election was free and fair, as all the observers have commented. Indeed, it was the presence of the international observers—that very strong presence, and only that—which reassured the people of Nicaragua that they could cast their votes in secrecy and without fear of retribution.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that British military equipment supplied to Jordan is not used by Iraq to its benefit; and if he will make a statement.

Careful control is exercised over our export of defence equipment. Each proposed sale is subject to stringent licensing procedures, including an assessment of foreign policy and regional security implications.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that all weapons sold by Britain to Jordan will be used solely for that country's self-defence capability and that none of the weaponry will be used by a potential aggressor to the state of Israel?

I think that it was no secret that Jordan and Iraq were close allies during the Gulf war. Jordan is fully committed to a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel problem. We intend to continue our support for King Hussain and his regime as they are an important part of the peace process.

In view of the joint training arrangements established by the air forces of Jordan and Iraq, what possible contribution can the supply of equipment make to peace in the middle east?

I know that a story in the Jerusalem Post said that joint Jordanian-Iraq training was taking place, but we believe that story to be exaggerated. It seems unlikely—we have had no such comment from anyone else —that it is threatening to Israel.

My right hon. Friend has said that Jordan is committed to a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel problem. Would that continue if the Israelis settled large numbers of Soviet Jews in the occupied territories? How would that affect the Government's policy on that issue?

I have already quoted the Israeli Prime Minister's clear statement on this. Whether or not he was misinterpreted—I hope that he was—he aroused many anxieties in the middle east by appearing to endorse the process of the settlement of emigrés from Soviet Jewry in the occupied territories. In our view, it would be illegal for such settlements to take place.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission; and what matters he hopes to discuss.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs next expects to meet the President of the Commission at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 2 April, at which a range of EC issues will be discussed.

Will German reunification be on the agenda? Will the Secretary of State tell the President of the Commission that under article 23 of the West German basic law, reunification must be not absorption of East Germany into West Germany but on a basis of equality and partnership leading to a coming together of both Germanys on equal terms?

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said already, the way in which the two Germanies unite is essentially an internal matter for them. We have stressed for some time that there are effects on others outside which the Germanys must take into account. As a result of the initiative that my right hon. Friend took, there is now a framework which will enable proper account to be taken of all these matters.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that an opportunity will be taken to discuss with the President of the Commission the outcome of the Nicaraguan elections, given that the supervision by the United Nations and the role of the Organisation of American States and of observers from both sides of the House—I was lucky enough to be one—suggest that a secret vote has led to an important development for democracy? Will my hon. Friend assure us that Europewide co-operation on further assistance for Nicaragua will be explored urgently?

I am sure that that will be the case. It is just possible that the amount of interest that has been expressed today in the Nicaraguan elections will not spread quite so far across Europe as might be thought. However, it is a matter which will be discussed.

Will the Minister discuss with the President of the European Commission the failure of the Minister's own visit to Hanoi to try to get acceptance from the Vietnamese of the voluntary return, let alone compulsory return, of Vietnamese boat people? As the hon. Gentleman failed absolutely in that endeavour, and as the problem continues to exist, would not it be a good idea to ask our partners to co-operate in seeking an international solution? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that part of that solution is not to offer economic aid as part of a deal, which he tried to do, but to reopen European Community aid, United States aid and United Kingdom bilateral aid as the best way of establishing a secure economy in Vietnam so that the Vietnamese would no longer feel that they had to leave their country to better themselves?

Again, it is just possible that Mr. Delors did not follow my travels to Vietnam with quite the flattering degree of attention that the right hon. Gentleman did. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I achieved some extremely useful results during my visit, including a fivefold increase in the number of Vietnamese boat people who will return to Vietnam under the United Nations voluntary scheme. That has been widely welcomed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Soviet authorities about human rights.

We have a continual dialogue with the Soviet authorities about human rights. We raised both individual cases of concern and the wider need for institutionalised reform during the meeting of the Anglo-Soviet working group on human rights on 9 January. I followed this up when I visited the Soviet Union from 21 to 25 January.

Did my right hon. Friend make any representations to the Soviet authorities about the evil activities of Pamyat and the threatened pogrom of 5 May? Is he aware that 50,000 people with exit visas are awaiting flights to Israel? Will he make representations to the Russian authorities suggesting that they allow direct flights between Moscow and Tel Aviv?

I discussed the first issue with Soviet leaders and with representatives of the Jewish community in Moscow. I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the Soviet Government are in the process of prosecuting Pamyat under their law, which is rather similar to ours, dealing with the stirring up of racial hatred. We should watch that carefully, but we should welcome it as proof that the Soviet authorities are taking the matter seriously. Direct flights are a matter for the two Governments concerned.

Will the Minister accept that there is real anxiety among thousands of Soviet Jews about renewed pogroms and anti-Semitic harassment? Does he accept that a tribute should be paid to Mr. Gorbachev as thousands are now leaving freely to go to live in Israel? As Israel, unlike nearly all its neighbours, labours under the advantage of being a democracy and thus cannot direct its citizens, however new, on where they may or may not live, does the Minister accept that fewer than 0·5 per cent. have settled outside the green line, which nails the propaganda lie that there is a danger of mass settlement—[Interruption.] It is no laughing matter for those whose lives are in the process of being saved.

We certainly pay tribute to the much better regime which Mr. Gorbachev and his colleagues have introduced. One of my hon. Friends recently went to Moscow, at the invitation of the Russians, to discuss the drafting of the law. These are all better steps which we welcome. On the latter point, although what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is true, the concern in the middle east about that arose after some rather unguarded remarks —to put it mildly—from Prime Minister Shamir. To talk as he did seemed liable to lead to exactly the outcome that has resulted, which is that everyone is exceedingly worried.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of his discussions following his recent visit to Hungary.

I visited Hungary from 27 February to I March and had talks with members of the Government and representatives of the opposition. I welcomed the steps which Hungary is taking to full democracy, including free elections on 25 March. I confirmed our support through the know-how fund. The prospects for full and effective use of the fund are good.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his very full answer and the extension of the know-how fund from Poland to Hungary, as well as 40 other projects. Does he agree, however, that the real test of merit for the Soviet Union is the timing of the withdrawal of its troops'' Having so recently visited the area, can he say why there is such a choke point at the border station of Csap, which also involves the withdrawal from Czechoslovakia? Will he, on behalf of the Conservative side of the House, wish the Hungarian people great success in the election and in overthrowing a Communist Government for the first time in 40 years?

My hon. Friend is well informed and quite right. There has been a hiccup in discussions between the Hungarians and the Soviet Government, not on the principle of Soviet withdrawal of troops but on the timing. My hon. Friend may have put his finger on one of the reasons for that—the congestion on the railways which serve for evacuating Russian troops from Czechoslovakia and from Hungary. I join my hon. Friend in hoping that the elections on 25 March are a resounding success and that there is a high turnout.

It would be useful if Conservative Members were committed to free elections everywhere, as Opposition Members are. Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity arising from the question to praise the Soviet leadership not only for bringing about the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, or the beginnings of it, in the Soviet Union but for pursuing a policy in eastern Europe whereby at long last the people in those countries will be able to elect the Governments that they want without any interference from the Soviet Union?

Certainly the Soviet Union is now allowing things to happen in eastern Europe which previously it suppressed, but the main tribute for that is due to the people of Hungary who have insisted on that and have been pioneering and making a success of it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

I saw the Federal Chancellor on 6 February, Mr. Genscher with the Prime Minister on 15 February and repeatedly since, Defence Minister Dr. Stoltenberg on 22 February, and the German Democratic Republic Foreign Minister, Mr. Fischer, on 13 February. We discussed a number of subjects, including the external aspects of German unification.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he has done to establish a proper framework to discuss German unification, particularly the two-plus-four formula, but is he aware that there is widespread concern in Poland, which has sovereignty over the former German territories of Silesia and Pomerania, that it has been insufficiently consulted? Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider making representations to European executive representatives next time to the effect that a two-plus-four-plus-one formula would be in order so as to accommodate Poland's worries?

I discussed that with the Polish Foreign Minister in Ottawa and the Polish Prime Minister discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself here in London. It is accepted, first, that the Poles should have a treaty defining their western border and, secondly and obviously, that when those arrangements are discussed the Poles will have to be there.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be in the interests of European security and East-West relations if a unified Germany were declared a demilitarised zone and the new Germany neither in NATO nor in the Warsaw pact? Would not that be helpful to both sides?

The hon. Member should consult some of his friends in eastern Europe on that as it is a prospect which they are beginning specifically to repudiate. There is a growing consensus, which does not yet include the Soviet Union, that it would be sensible for the stability of Europe if a united Germany were in NATO.

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to discuss the prospective currency reform of the Ostmark with the Governments of East and West Germany? Has my right hon. Friend read the reports that there are apparently 155 billion Ostmarks in savings which will need to be converted, and that there is an international dimension to this because unless the matter is handled sensitively it may well result in a high level of inflation going out of Germany?

That has been touched on from time to time in discussions, but I would not claim to be an expert on it. Expert views on the point that my hon. Friend raises are varied, but I believe that the matter is being handled with caution by the relevant German authorities, bearing in mind the kind of worry that my hon. Friend has expressed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Vietnam and Cambodia with the American Secretary of State.

My right hon. Friend and I discussed Cambodia and the Vietnamese boat people with Secretary Baker on 11 December. The question of the Vietnamese boat people was also discussed on 30 January, during my right hon. Friend's visit to Washington.

Did the Minister put it to the Americans that until they call off their war against Vietnam and end the aid, trade and diplomatic embargo against that country, and withdraw the vetoes in connection with the World Bank, the IMF and various other organisations, there will be no prospect of solving the boat people problem and the flow of refugees will continue indefinitely?

We took the opportunity to explain to the American Secretary of State that Vietnam is a country undergoing a process of reform and is a different regime from what it was. We have also made it clear to the Vietnamese that we would not feel able to resume full bilaterial relations, including the resumption of economic aid to them, unless they felt able to fulfil their full international obligations, including especially their obligations to their own people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most helpful things that could now happen, following the discussions in Jakarta, would be for a United Nations mission to be allowed to go into Cambodia to verify that the Vietnamese have withdrawn and to deal with the question of Vietnamisation, which is constantly heard at every international meeting as a means of preventing further progress towards a settlement?

It is regrettable that there was not a more favourable outcome to the talks in Jakarta. The sort of mission to which my hon. Friend refers could certainly be considered again, but I do not think that it would be sensible to look at the practicalities at this stage until the framework for a comprehensive settlement is fully in place.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to visit Central America; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans at present to visit Central America.

If he does, and if the Government give financial aid to Nicaragua, how much money will be handed over? Will he ensure that any aid given to Nicaragua goes towards genuine demobilisation of the Contras? To use the Foreign Secretary's words, will he ensure that the money is used for tractors and not tanks?

I am glad to confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) has already discussed those matters with President Violetta Chamorro. The sort of aid that we would be considering particularly would be technical co-operation covering matters such as English language teaching and scholarships, rather than the subjects to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Will the Minister try to convince Labour Members that they should abide by the advice on the placard carried by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) outside the American embassy the Sunday before the election and respect the result in Nicaragua?

I am happy to know that the result is being generally respected. As I have said, we hope that there will be a full and peaceful transfer of power in due course and that the result will be accepted by all elements of the previous Sandinista Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Somoza regime was overthrown because Mrs. Chamorro's husband was killed and that the Sandinistas were totally in association with her and others who were then fighting the dictatorship? Will he also bear in mind that in 1984—[Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members should ask just one question.

There was a general election in 1984 which was won by the Sandinistas. They won that election fairly. Now, having lost the latest election, they have handed over power—[interruption.] It is about time that Her Majesty's Government decided to support democracy instead of arguing that it was a Marxist-Leninist Government when part of that Government were members of the Roman Catholic Church.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's verdict on the earlier election. I am happy to confirm, however, that all the observers have pronounced that the election which has just taken place and which resulted in a decisive rejection of the Socialist management of the Sandinistas, was indeed free and fair.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government are making available to the democracies in eastern Europe.

The know-how fund which is already operating in Poland will shortly be extended to Hungary, and in due course to other eastern European countries which show a clear commitment to reform. We are also contributing to multilateral aid efforts, notably the stabilisation fund for Poland, the planned European bank for reconstruction and development and the Community's food and humanitarian help for Poland and Romania.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that assistance is in addition to, and quite separate from, the United Kingdom's overseas aid budget? Will he say a little more about specific help for Poland, particularly in regard to the know-how fund?

I can confirm that the answer to my hon. Friend's first question is yes. We have given a range of help to Poland. There are now more than 40 projects operating. Some of the biggest have been the establishment of capital markets, a programme for privatisation, and assistance with the administration of local and municipal authorities and the establishment of civil law. Those are three examples among many.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with what countries he has had discussions (a) resettlement of the boat people and (b) resurrecting the economy of Vietnam.

I discussed the subject of Vietnamese boat people most recently with European Community and Association of South-East Asian Nations Ministers on 16 and 17 February and with the Vietnamese Government in Hanoi from 19 to 21 February. Arrangements to resettle over a three year period boat people who are refugees were agreed as part of the comprehensive plan of action adopted by the international conference on Indo-Chinese refugees last June in Geneva.

Is not the real stumbling block to the economic regeneration of north Vietnam the American Government's refusal to allow economic regeneration to take place unless they can officially sanction the type of government which operates in Hanoi? In the name of humanity, can we ask the American Government to stop fighting the wars of the past and to help with the regeneration of that area, as that is the solution to the problem?

As I have already said, we have pointed out that reform is taking place in Vietnam so there is no longer quite the same regime as there was. I know that in Vietnam there is a good deal of interest in the resumption of aid from the West, but, as I have made clear, before that can take place we shall want to be satisfied that Vietnam is fully accepting its obligations under international law and particularly the obligation to accept its own people back.