If he will make a statement on restarting the middle east peace process. [141960]

At Nice, European Foreign Ministers met for two hours to review the distressing situation in the middle east. We expressed our concern at the violence in the occupied territories and at the impact of the tension on the wider region. I regret to inform the House that over the weekend there was more violence, as a result of which 10 Palestinians and three Israelis were killed.

I welcome the declaration on the middle east made by the European Council at Nice. Among other issues, the declaration flagged up the settlements. Israel has promised to face that question before, but clearly has not done so. Is my right hon. Friend surprised that that part of the declaration has caused so much reaction among Israeli diplomats and the Israeli press, to the extent that they are suggesting that it is a Palestinian incitement to violence?

It was a common theme of the discussion that the settlements were part of the problem. Anybody who has been to the middle east knows that settlements are one of the issues that have caused great tension and resentment in the Palestinian community. Since Oslo, during the many long years of engagement in the peace process, there has been a constant and substantial increase in the population of settlements—an increase that may be inconsistent with the final agreement. I regret that the statement was condemned in Israel as unbalanced because of that. I think that it is a carefully crafted and well-balanced statement that calls on both sides to fulfil their commitments to Sharm el-Sheikh and to cease violence. We will not get out of the spiral of violence if only one side acts; both sides must do so.

Accepting the careful words of the Foreign Secretary, is not it none the less a sad fact that the Palestinian leadership is encouraging the escalation of violence? That was demonstrated last Friday, the day of rage, during which 10 people were killed. I echo the right hon. Gentleman's view that the two sides should sit down. That message that must go to the Palestinian leadership, especially during the next two months. Will he applaud Prime Minister Barak's decision to bring forward the Israeli general election by two months? That will help to create the correct conditions for more talks.

The hon. Gentleman began by congratulating me on my careful words, but finished by inviting me to step into a deep pit. If he will forgive me, I shall not comment on the Israeli general election, which is a matter for the Israeli people.

Should not the Israelis, of all people, understand the anger and injustice felt by almost all Palestinians in the occupied territories? Should not those of us who have always taken the view that Israel has a right to exist—that has been my position since 1948, when it came into existence—tell the Israelis bluntly that the line that they have pursued, especially since 1967, will never lead to peace? The Israelis should understand that. In my view, it is our responsibility to tell them so as clearly and as sharply as possible.

My hon. Friend speaks with particular authority because he has long been a friend of Israel. I hope that the Government and people of Israel are aware of the deep concerns about the present situation among all those who are their friends in the outside world. It is also true that nobody else stands to gain as much from a peace settlement as the Israeli people themselves. Indeed, whenever they are given the chance, they consistently vote for peace. I desperately want a few days free from any funerals, so that we can get back to pursuing the peace settlement.

Is it not a matter of some dismay for those of us who wish the Israelis and Palestinians to reach a lasting and just settlement that ceasefires come and go with almost depressing frequency? In view of the antipathy of the Israelis to any monitoring force drawn from the United Nations, will the Foreign Secretary consider the possibility of such a force being drawn from the European Union or from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, so that the next time a ceasefire is declared it will have some chance of succeeding?

I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about the failure of ceasefires to stay in being and I am particularly appalled and distressed at the level of last weekend's violence.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that for us to achieve a period that is free from violence and to create the prospect of returning to the negotiating table and the peace process, it is up to leaders on all sides to urge an end to violence? Is it not therefore time that the Palestinian leadership stopped its official media whipping up and orchestrating violence on the streets in the Palestinian Authority? The Palestinian leadership has control over that. Will my right hon. Friend stop the Palestinians from using the media in that way?

I fully endorse my hon. Friend's appeal to the Palestinian leadership not to say or do anything involving incitement. At the same time, we in this House are committed to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and we cannot prevent the Palestinian media from reporting views that are widely expressed in Palestine. I agree that there is a special responsibility on leadership figures, but both sides have to refrain from violence if we are to get a ceasefire lasting more than a day or two. I particularly regret the fact that last weekend 10 Palestinians were killed out of a total of 13 deaths. Both sides must back off from violence if we are to have an end to violence.

If the Palestinian people are to be convinced that there is an alternative to violence in their efforts to meet their legitimate aspirations to peace and freedom, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the international community must display its willingness to put effective pressure on the Israeli Government to end their illegal occupation? In that context, what discussions did he have with colleagues at the Nice summit about the economic measures that might be taken against Israel if progress towards peace is not achieved in the near future?

I say to the hon. Gentleman in all candour—I appreciate the sincerity and good will behind his question—that our present objective is to try to encourage both sides to come back to the negotiating table and to ensure that they understand that Europe, the United States, the United Nations and Kofi Annan are willing to mediate and help. It does not currently assist in that objective to drive Israel increasingly into retreat and to make it feel under pressure from those who may be seen to be undermining its economy. Moreover, it is impossible to take economic measures against Israel without also damaging Palestine. One should remember that the Palestinians require Israel, more than any other country, to secure the opportunity for economic progress.

When he last raised the case of the Iranian Jews imprisoned for espionage with the Iranian ambassador. [141961]

We and our European Union partners have taken every appropriate opportunity to raise our concerns about the unsatisfactory nature of the case, which I last raised with the Iranian ambassador when I met him on 19 October. While noting the reductions in sentence of between two and six years on appeal, we hope that the Iranian judiciary will now show clemency.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply and for his hard work on this issue. Does he recall that those people have been in prison since March last year on what most, if not all, independent observers recognise were trumped-up charges, and that the only reason for their imprisonment is that they are Jewish? Does he also recall the series of assurances we had from representatives of the Iranian authorities, who said that there would be a fair and open trail? In fact, there was little more than a show trial. Will he continue to press directly and through our allies for the sentences to be commuted and for the early release of those innocent people?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in this case. That is right and proper, because it has caused widespread distress among his constituents and throughout Britain. This case does Iran no credit. The sooner the judiciary is able to review the situation and move towards clemency, the better for everyone concerned. The persecution of Jews in Iran, of which this case is an example—although some Muslims were also prosecuted—is something that Iran must put behind it as it moves into the international family of nations.

What intelligence can the Minister offer the House about the treatment of those prisoners while they are incarcerated? Does he accept that in calling for justice and clemency, he is much strengthened by the knowledge that public opinion in Iran strongly favours reform of that country's political system?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's point, because it highlights one of the central problems for progress on this matter. The Government have sought to engage constructively with the Government of President Khatami, who are reforming Iran with the mass support of the people. The Iranian Government are facing resistance not least among the judiciary, which is under the control of reactionary forces. These persecuted Jewish residents of Iran have found themselves stuck in the middle. That has prevented a satisfactory resolution to the problem, but we are still hopeful that the Iranian Government will understand international concern and act accordingly.

It is extremely helpful to have a clear statement from the Minister, and we welcome his constant support. Does he accept that only pressure will make it clear to the Iranian authorities that if they want to be accepted internationally, this is not the way to go, and that the sooner these people are either tried honestly and openly or released the better it will be for the Iranian people?

I hope that the Iranian ambassador, with whom I have discussed this case recently, listens to my hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has consistently raised the issue at the highest level, as I have. It is in Iran's interest, and certainly in the Iranian Government's interest, for clemency to be shown in this case, which is an appalling stain on Iran's recent record at a time when much progress is being made that we should support.

If he will make a statement about the discussions he has had with European Union Ministers about the RAXEN programme. [141962]

RAXEN, the European racism and xenophobia information network, is an information-sharing network established by the European Union's monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia. European Union Ministers agreed the programme in 1997. The Government are committed to combating racism and promoting diversity in Britain and across Europe. We will continue to support RAXEN and the European monitoring centre in any way that we can.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that the whole House shares the Government's desire to stamp out racism and xenophobia, but is not that organisation trying to stamp out the undesirable emotions that the European Union itself is creating? The creation of a European army and other moves that take us towards a European superstate, such as economic and monetary union, are likely to foster xenophobia and racism. Is not the real way to combat those undesirable emotions to allow each independent nation state to remain exactly that, independent?

I know that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Freedom Association, but I thought that his views might have matured since he joined the House of Commons. RAXEN and the monitoring centre do excellent work. He may have prepared his supplementary question before he realised that this was not a question about the rapid reaction force. It is about an effective organisation that is doing very good work. It is right that we should celebrate the diversity of cultures in the European Union. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members do not support that work. I suggest that he uses one of his visits as a Member of Parliament to go to Austria and see those people, and then he will know what excellent work they do.

If he will make a statement on the recent EU summit in Nice. [141963]

If he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Council meeting in Nice. [141966]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement to the House yesterday on the Nice European Council.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent success in Nice. Does he recall who said this?

Considerable progress has been made … and qualified majority voting has enabled us to get some liberalising measures through against protectionist resistance by some of our partners.—[Official Report, 11 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 103.]

I really think that that is a question for the Opposition, not the Government.

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success at Nice.

I am sorry that the Opposition find such a good outcome for Britain a subject for mirth.

The Prime Minister told us yesterday that he had—as indeed he has—increased the United Kingdom's voting share in the Council of Ministers; but will the Foreign Secretary now tell us exactly what the percentage increase is? According to figures that I have been given, it has risen from 11.49 per cent. to 12.4 per cent. Is that the greatest diplomatic triumph since the treaty of Berlin?

Yes—it is much better than anything we got under 18 years of Conservative government. As a matter of fact, our share steadily shrank: with every additional enlargement, the British share of the vote went down. We have now secured a significant increase, which will see us through the joining of the first six countries. During that time, we shall see no net reduction of any significance in the current British share.

Will the Foreign Secretary tell us in how many areas it was agreed that the national veto should be given up? Was it 23, as the Commission has said, or 39, as the right hon. Gentleman's own officials have apparently said? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with us that the mainstream majority of the public here want to see a real process of decentralisation in the European Union, not this relentless march towards political union? That would make enlargement easier to accomplish, not more difficult.

I am not quite sure to what extent the Opposition have been observing what happened at Nice. For four hours over Sunday night and Monday, we argued with one particular country. That is not evidence of a superstate; that is evidence of substantial—[Interruption.] I am answering the question. It is evidence of the way in which the European Union pays respect to the views of one country.

How many?

If the hon. Gentleman is quiet, I will answer the question. How can I answer it if I am constantly interrupted?

I will give the answer now—we would ratify tomorrow a treaty that was genuinely about enlargement. We would agree tomorrow the matters in the treaty that were genuinely about enlargement, reweighting of votes and the size of the Commission. We will not agree to ratify the relentless march towards full political union to which the Foreign Secretary has agreed.

the Military Committee of the European Union

the Military Staff of the European Union … ?

At Nice, we approved eight separate documents. They set out in great detail how, at every stage of any European security initiative, it will be firmly anchored in joint decision-making with NATO. Moreover, any decision by us to take part will be a sovereign national decision.

That's not European control.

I regard us as being a European country.

The doors of the EU institutions are open.

Will the Foreign Secretary answer the question that he has been asked? Does he believe that Secretary Cohen is fundamentally dishonest, to use his casual phrase? Secretary Cohen said that the arrangements should be put together, so that there was no separate operational planning, and that:

The European Union will erode NATO and US security ties with Europe if it insists on separate operational planning for its new rapid reaction force.

There is no operational planning capacity in the proposals for European security. What the documents say is that we have a guaranteed permanent access to NATO's operational planning capacity. It is that which we will use in any exercise.

Read the document.

I have indeed read all the documents. That is why I know that there is no provision for an operational planning capacity. The day after the speech from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, Secretary Cohen said that he was in complete agreement with the British position.

What recent contacts he has had with his opposite numbers in Eastern Europe on the subject of EU enlargement. [141964]

Last Thursday, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers from all the candidate countries for European Union membership at the meeting of the European conference in Nice. I have met all the applicants Ministers for Europe in the past 12 Months. As my hon. Friend will know and as the Foreign Secretary has just said, the Government are a champion of enlargement.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What discussions is he having with other Ministers on protecting national interests and dealing with some of the problems of enlargement, particularly the financial costs of extending regional and agricultural aid programmes to new members?

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that negotiations are going well. The first six countries that applied to join the European Union have completed negotiations and, on average, have closed 29 chapters of the 31 chapters of the acquis. The so-called Helsinki six have opened on average a total of between 9 and 13 chapters. The negotiations are going very well, and, as the Foreign Secretary has just said, they will be improved enormously by the spirit for enlargement demonstrated at the Nice summit. We shall continue to work with all the applicant countries to achieve that.

Given the crucial importance of enlargement, what arrangements does the hon. Gentleman envisage for reform of the common agricultural policy—without which the process cannot enduringly take place? When will that reform be made?

As the House will know, the Government are highly committed to reform of the common agricultural policy. That point has been made consistently.

Not at Nice.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, because he signed the Maastricht treaty, it was not on the agenda at Nice because we do not need a treaty change to reform the CAP. He will know that that was not one of the points that needed to be put on the agenda. We shall continue to push forward to ensure that there is CAP reform, and we shall do so with the same spirit of encouragement and enthusiasm that we have always shown.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister, when he next meets the ambassadors of the Czech, Slovak and Polish Governments, say that if they read the comments of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) in Hansard, they may be reassured that the spirit of Neville Chamberlain—who spoke of a far-away country of which we know little—is alive. In contrast, the Government recognise our moral obligation to allow expansion of the European Union to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. That obligation was won by brave pilots who fought above this place in 1940, and whom Winston Churchill referred to as "the few". Therefore, although enlargement is an economic, commercial and political issue, above all else it is a moral issue, and it needs to be addressed.

I am sure that the whole House will have been moved by my hon. Friend's Churchillian tones. He is absolutely right—not only will I remind the ambassadors for those three applicant countries, but I will remind the ambassadors for all applicant countries. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his frequent visits to the applicant countries. This kind of bilateral relationship is extremely important because the applicant countries know, as the Foreign Secretary has just said, who is the friend of enlargement. They also know that the Conservative party would block enlargement.

When he next plans to meet the French President to discuss the work of the EU presidency; and if he will make a statement. [141965]

When he next plans to meet the President of France to discuss the work of the EU presidency on enlargement; and if he will make a statement. [141967]

We agreed at Nice, under President Chirac's chairmanship, on arrangements that will open the door to the enlargement of the European Union. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary next expect to meet President Chirac during the UK-French summit planned for 9 February next year. France will cease to hold the EU presidency in 19 days, when it will be passed to Sweden.

When the Foreign Secretary meets President Chirac, will he discuss with him the relationship between the European declaration on human rights and the European convention on human rights? At present, legislation passing through the House has to comply with the European convention on human rights. It is suggested that the European Commission believes that it can direct this House to amend legislation to comply with the fundamental declaration. If that is so, what will happen if the two are in conflict? Which will prevail—the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights?

I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman legal advice on these matters. As a former vice-chairman of the Back-Bench committee on foreign affairs, he is very knowledgeable about European issues. He will know that Commission proposals are always welcome.

My hon. Friend was chairman.

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—he was chairman of the Back-Bench committee, which means that he should be even more knowledgeable on these issues and not require advice from me.

The entire tone of the post-Nice statements, including during Question Time today, has been one of swaggering boastfulness about how successful it was. However, two big things are missing from what the Government have been saying about Nice. The first is any kind of discussion of the reform of the common agricultural policy, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). Perhaps because of that, something else that is very important is missing from Nice—any setting of, or promise to set, a firm date for enlargement. When will enlargement of the European Union take place?

The hon. Gentleman will know the statements that we have already made on the subject. Nice cleared the way for enlargement. I am not surprised that Conservative Members are depressed and sad about Nice, because they know what a success it was. That was demonstrated by the way in which, once and for all, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the Leader of the Opposition on this subject yesterday.

Will the Minister for Europe confirm that it is now possible for a rational party to oppose the treaty of Nice and that it is possible for it to support enlargement, but that it is no longer possible for a rational party, or any rational individual, to try to support both at once?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course there is no rational argument from the Conservative party on such matters. A party that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, is prepared to hold a referendum on the pension rights of the Court of Auditors, but not on the Maastricht treaty, which was signed by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), shows that it has no policy whatever on Europe.

Is not the most significant development in the European Union, underlined at Nice, that we are increasingly moving from a Europe led by the Franco-German axis to a multi-faceted Europe, where Britain increasingly plays the leading role? Is not that light years away from the notion of a European superstate, about which the Conservative party consistently and misleadingly tries to frighten people in this country?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the work that he does in the European movement. He is right because this country wants to see a Europe of nation states. At Nice, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary established that principle more clearly than ever before. No motor or axis runs Europe; it is a continent and the EU is an organisation of first-class nation states, all of which are equally treated. That is why we are delighted that the provisions on enhanced co-operation agreed at Nice will not create a two-speed Europe.

When the Minister is swapping stories with President Chirac about his triumphs at Nice, will he take the opportunity to ask for clearer and more timely information about exactly what he and the Prime Minister have signed up to at Nice, so that he has a clear idea of the areas where he has surrendered our vetoes? Yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to qualified majority voting on the pensions of court auditors—which is reported at column 355 of Hansard—and the Minister has just referred to the pensions of the Court of Auditors. Will the Minister apologise to the House and confirm that, in fact, no provision on that issue was agreed to at Nice? That is not surprising, as the institutional provisions on the pensions of the Court of Auditors were introduced under article 247 of the Maastricht treaty and are already decided by QMV. Of course, the Prime Minister and the Minister may have been tired and failed to understand the detail, but is not it about time that they made accurate statements when they are signing away this country's powers?

The hon. Lady is getting too excited—she should have one of these biscuits. I refer her to article 247 of the treaty, and if she has problems understanding what we have done at Nice, she should go to the Foreign Office website. We have just set up an interactive line. She can communicate with me and ask any question that she wants. She cannot appreciate, and will not accept, the fact that a British Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Order. We cannot have this shouting across the Chamber.

I do not mind, Mr. Speaker, because the shouting betrays the vacuum that currently exists in Conservative party policy. Conservative Members cannot stomach the fact that a British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary can go to a European Council, such as Nice, and come back with every single one of the British Government's objectives maintained. We will take no lectures on QMV from the hon. Lady, who is sitting next to St. Francis of Maastricht—the person who negotiated 30 different changes to QMV.

What steps he is taking to support and encourage progress on stability and reconstruction in Somaliland. [141968]

We welcome the establishment of a transitional National Assembly in Mogadishu, but have made it clear that it must not undermine the peace and stability achieved by the regions of Somaliland and Puntland.

I am grateful for the personal interest that my hon. Friend the Minister takes in Somaliland, in particular the north of Somalia, from where so many British Somalis come. They have made a considerable contribution to organisations such as the British Army and the Merchant Navy over the years. Does he agree that it is remarkable, given the unsettled state of most of Somalia, that Somaliland has become well ordered, that it has governance if not a Government, and that it has democratic institutions and is working towards an election? Does he also agree that the British Government, and we as parliamentarians, should do everything possible to encourage the continuation of that stability and the development of those institutions and of law and order in Somaliland?

I very much welcome the points made by my right hon. Friend, and acknowledge his long-standing expertise and interest in the future of the Somali people, some of whom reside in his constituency. We are very proud to have them in Wales.

While the Minister is considering the promotion of democracy in Somaliland, will he widen his view to take in the whole of the African continent? Will he tell the House, in the light of the present circumstances in Ghana, what additional assistance the Government will give to ensure that the elections there—

Order. The question is not about Ghana. Let us move on to the next question.

When he will next review the level of salaries available to his Department's staff serving overseas; and if he will make a statement. [141969]

Salaries of all United Kingdom-based Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff, whether serving at home or overseas, are reviewed annually. There is a common settlement date for all staff of 1 April.

The Minister will know that Members of Parliament, when travelling overseas, receive very good support from staff of all grades at missions and embassies throughout the world. Some lower administrative grades have to be filled by United Kingdom nationals because they involve sensitive work such as translating messages, telexes and telegrams. However, is the Minister aware that those grades attract salaries that leave the postholder entitled to the working families tax credit and other social security benefits? Surely, if those UK nationals are being asked to do such sensitive work in such important positions overseas, they should not have to rely on the social security system for top-ups to their wages.

We are well aware of the problem of low-paid staff in the Foreign Office—a problem that we inherited from the Tory Government. [Interruption.] I will come to the hon. Gentleman's specific point. Our awareness of the problem explains why the Foreign Secretary authorised a pay settlement in agreement with the Treasury that was particularly beneficial to the lowest-paid staff, who received up to 9 to 10 per cent. compared with an average of 4.5 per cent. this year. I think that about six members of the Foreign Office staff would be entitled to receive the working families tax credit, and receive ex gratia payments by agreement with the Inland Revenue because they cannot attract the credit under the rules. We do not want that situation to be perpetuated and we are keeping it under review. I join the hon. Gentleman in acknowledging and paying tribute to the service that our overseas staff, both locally engaged staff and British nationals, provide.

Could we not link the pay of overseas staff to their efforts in promoting British products overseas? Does the Minister agree that it is wrong, for example, that the consul-general in Sydney has equipped his offices there with crockery not from Australia, not from Taiwan, not even from Japan, but all the way from Italy? This matter could be linked with the next question. Does the Minister agree that the Italian embassy in Canberra is probably equipped with Italian crockery, rather than British crockery? Should not the crockery and glasses in British embassies overseas be home-grown products?

I am tempted to think that that question comes from an old crock, but that would be very unfair.

If he will make a statement about the recent state visit to Italy. [141970]

The Queen, accompanied by Prince Philip, paid a state visit in October to Italy, during which Her Majesty and Prince Philip also visited Pope John Paul II at the Vatican. The visit was a recognition of our extremely close relationship with the Government and people of Italy. The Queen received an enthusiastic welcome, and the Italian press gave the visit extensive and wholly positive coverage.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain and Italy are working together successfully on a growing number of issues to shape the European and international agenda, not least on defence issues, such as the formulation of a headline goal for European defence capabilities, but also on immigration and asylum issues as well as taking a lead on the cancellation of poor-country debt? Will he join me in thanking my colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group, and the head of our secretariat, Michael Nathanson, for helping to cement bilateral parliamentary links, which further advance the new impetus that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have given to bilateral relations at every level?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that parliamentary links are an important part of bringing our countries together, and I congratulate him on his work as the chairman of the British-Italian parliamentary group. We have a close relationship with Italy on defence co-operation. Indeed, while on the state visit, the Duke of Edinburgh visited Agusta Westland, which is the second-largest producer of helicopters in the world. In addition, a Tornado that was part of the fly-past for the Queen was jointly piloted by an Italian and British crew. We also work together very closely in Kosovo, where there is an Italian commander of the Kosovo force.

What assessment he has made of the Indian Government's ceasefire in Kashmir. [141974]

While visiting India, I welcomed the Indian Government's ceasefire in Kashmir during Ramadan and called on militants and those supporting them to respond positively. I have also welcomed Pakistan's subsequent announcement that its forces at the line of control will observe maximum restraint. We hope that those recent developments will create a climate that encourages dialogue between the Indian and Pakistani Governments.

I welcome my hon. Friend's positive and helpful comments about the situation in Kashmir. Can he say more about the proposed investigation by the Indian authorities into the massacre at Chattisinghpura of 36 male villagers who were executed on the eve of President Clinton's visit on 20 March this year? He will be aware that the limited inquiry by Mr. Justice Pandian revealed that the original suggestion that the atrocity was the responsibility of Kashmiri militants is now subject to considerable doubt. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the true facts are known and that those responsible are brought to justice if we are to continue to reduce tension in the region?

I agree with my hon. Friend that that appalling massacre of 36 Sikhs in March has not done Kashmiris or, indeed, India any credit. That is why I very much welcome the decision of the Indian Government to conduct a special inquiry into the massacre and to publish two reports. That is a good sign of transparency and will act as a check against human rights abuses, which are happening almost every day in Kashmir.

I note the Minister's welcome for Pakistan's announcement of maximum military restraint on the conflict line, but does that announcement extend to its ceasing to be a state sponsor of terrorism in Kashmir?

No. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point because there is still far too much evidence—certainly over the past year to 18 months since the Cargil incident, which was inspired by Pakistan—that cross-border terrorism is actively encouraged and, indeed, at times sponsored by agencies and elements closely aligned with the Pakistani authorities. It is very important that that stops. Then, we shall have a climate in which serious negotiations and dialogue can create a more hopeful situation.

If he will conduct an environmental and ecological assessment in those areas of the Chagos archipelago and Diego Garcia which have been uninhabited for 30 years, before considering facilitating the return of Ilois people to the land of their ancestral graves. [141975]

I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that we have already completed the first phase of a study into the possibility of settlement on the outer islands of the Chagos archipelago. The study identified the significant difficulties in establishing a resident community after three decades in which the islands have been uninhabited. We are now preparing the second and third phases of the feasibility study. They will include an assessment of how best we protect the rich ecology on islands that have long been left undisturbed.

In light of the document of 13 November 1970, which was recently released under the 30-year rule and which I have given my right hon. Friend, do not the Ilois and, indeed, my right hon. Friend and I, who asked questions, and the House of Commons as a whole, have a right to feel aggrieved and deceived at the cynical attitude of the Foreign Office of those days? In the light of the documents revealed in the Public Record Office, do not we owe it to the Ilois to make it up to them?

I would have to agree wholly with my hon. Friend's comments on the document, which I have read. The only accurate sentence that I can find in it is the one that says:

Mr Dalyell is not, however, giving up.

What recent discussions he has held with his French, German and Italian counterparts about reinforced co-operation between member states of the EU. [141977]

Several.

In his statement yesterday, the Prime Minister took pride in the fact that there are issues on which some EU member states can move ahead faster than others. At the same time, however, that process will be subject to the national veto. How are those positions compatible, particularly since any grouping of member states comprising more than 38 per cent. of the population of the EU can, in effect, go ahead and do what it wants?

Not on defence.

What discussions he has had with his counterpart in Cyprus regarding inter-community relations; and if he will make a statement. [141978]

During his most recent meeting with the Cyprus Foreign Minister on 3 October, the Foreign Secretary welcomed the progress made so far in the on-going United Nations-Cyprus proximity talks. The discussions also covered the necessity for both sides to remain fully engaged in the UN proximity talks, aimed at securing a just and sustainable settlement in Cyprus, which will benefit both its communities. The United Kingdom remains strongly supportive of the UN process and is working hard to ensure that all involved continue to co-operate fully with the UN Secretary-General's efforts to achieve a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus.

My hon. Friend will be aware that Mr. Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, has indicated that he will not take part in further proximity talks. What efforts are the Government making to ensure the continuation of dialogue between the two communities in Cyprus, and what pressures are they bringing to bear to ensure meaningful dialogue leading to a resolution of the conflict on the island?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he has done on this issue and on the number of times that he has raised it in the House. It is vital that dialogue continues between the communities, and we have every confidence in the abilities of our special representative, Sir David Hannay. My hon. Friend will know from his meetings with Sir David and others involved in this sensitive process that we want all groups to participate. As the Prime Minister said on 23 December 1998, we want to see a just and lasting settlement for Cyprus.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

After the statement, sir.