asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to support the Government of the Philippines in their attempt to establish lasting peace and democracy.

We continue to offer our strong support to President Aquino and her Government in their efforts to consolidate democracy and to bring about national reconciliation in the Philippines.

In view of the pressure from some quarters to make the Government of the Philippines abandon negotiations and opt for a military solution to their problems, will the Minister say that the Government fully support the process of negotiation? Will he also ask his EEC colleagues to make a European statement of support for that process?

We fully support the process of negotiation in which President Aquino is currently involved. We also fully support her efforts to bring the Philippines back to being a fully democratic state and the process of national reconcilation in which she is engaged. This was very much the spirit behind the statement issued by the Community last November, and we will certainly consult our European Community colleagues if a further statement along the lines suggested by the hon. Lady will be helpful.

In acknowledging the importance of the Philippines in the general region, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that, if possible, Britain should be able to contribute through the Overseas Development Agency to any development projects that may seem to be to our advantage?

Yes. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that since President Aquino's Government came to power we have doubled our bilateral aid to the Philippines to about £425,000 for the current year and are planning to increase it to £545,000 for the year ahead. We are especially looking for projects such as consultancies in agriculture and development through which we can help the Philippines. I am sure that that is exactly in line with what my hon. Friend would like us to do.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the so-called President of the Philippines lost the only election ever held and has not been legitimately elected, and that the best solution to the problems of the Philippines would be a legitimate and proper election?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that his comments are helpful. A plebiscite is to be held on 2 February on the new constitutional developments in the Philippines and at that time the people of the Philippines will have the opportunity to give their verdict on the reforms that President Aquino has introduced.

As opposed to the Marcos tendency on the Government side, may we give our full pledge of support by any means to strengthen democracy in the Philippines? As the Minister is aware that the Government of the Philippines are seeking to diversify their foreign relations because of their very pervasive dependence on the United States of America, will he take further initiatives in the EEC as a partial counterweight to that United States influence? Given the importance of multisectoral organisations in the Philippines and their wide spread, will the Minister try, in our aid policies, to use the non-governmental organisations in the United Kingdom?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has just returned from the Philippines, and I hope that he had a useful and constructive visit. From that recent experience of the Philippines he will be aware of the great and continuing importance of the Americans there. They give large amounts of aid and there is also the militarily important presence of their bases at Clark Field and Subic Bay, particularly as a counter-reaction to the Russian base at Cam Ranh in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has taken any steps to improve relations with the Government of Argentina since the announcement of the Falkland Islands exclusive fishing zone.

While making it plain that sovereignty is not for negotiation, I have repeatedly reaffirmed our willingness to work for a multilateral solution on fisheries and for progress on other practical issues.

Is it not within the great traditions of British diplomacy and foreign policy that if, when faced with a change of Government towards democracy in a country with which we have been in conflict, and with a conciliatory and flexible response such as we had from that Government on 17 November, we should be prepared to make a detailed form of response to that Government to engage in discussions? Should we not contemplate a solution to an intractible problem that is costing the country many millions of pounds each year?

It would be in accordance with the high traditions of diplomacy, to which the hon. Gentleman has kindly referred, and in the tradition of sensible diplomacy, not to embark on any discussions on the basis of any false premise or false expectations, which is why we have always excluded from the agenda negotiation on sovereignty. Beyond that, the tables of my opposite number, Foreign Minister Caputo, and of President Alfonsin, are positively groaning with proposal after proposal for discussion of all the other issues of a wholly constructive kind.

May I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that he should continue to stress the importance of our willingness to re-establish friendly relations with Argentina, notwithstanding our understandable—they should understand this too—feelings that there can be no question of discussion of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands at this stage? But a reiteration of our willingness to re-establish friendly relations with Argentina should continue, and I believe that it could be successful.

I entirely agree with the approach commended by my hon. Friend. Our position has consistently been that the intractible question of sovereignty should not stand in the way of the development of more normal relations in every other respect. Throughout my recent visit to Mexico, Columbia and other countries in the region I emphasised time and time again the approach commended by my hon. Friend. I think that our approach is widely and increasingly understood.

Does the Foreign Secretary know what is going on down there? Is he aware that, unfortunately, I had to make a visit to the Falkland Islands where I met councillors who want to go back to the pre-1982 situation. If that is the case, why are we spending hundreds of millions of pounds down there, but refusing pensioners a free television licence?

It is always encouraging to receive a message from the hon. Gentleman couched in characteristically straightforward terms. The inhabitants of the Falkland Islands recognise that Argentina's actions in 1982 destroyed the foundations of the good relations that previously existed, and they look to Her Majesty's Government to provide defence on the basis on which we are prepared to go on doing so.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend reiterate today that the British Government would not have taken the action that they did in the exclusion zone if the Argentine Government had not steadfastly refused to have a multilateral agreement?

Indeed. My hon. Friend is right. We emphasised over a long period our willingness and desire to establish a multilateral system of conservation. That is why we took the matter to the Food and Agriculture Organisation. We still want to move on from the present position to a more broadly agreed system of fishery conservation.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the American Government are worried about dangers that arise from the Soviet's failure to recognise the unilateral fisheries regime that he has declared? As the Foreign Secretary has reaffirmed that he would prefer a multilateral agreement, why did he rebuff Argentina's approach of 17 November? Why is he not taking up the offer for informal talks in the United States now? Will he talk seriously with Mr. Habib, who, it is reported, will want to discuss the issue? What practical action will he take to obtain some agreement on this which will prevent the possibility of some clash arising with the Soviet vessels in the south Atlantic, which all of us want to avoid?

I am sure that everyone is anxious to avoid any clash arising in relation to fisheries conservation in the south Atlantic. That is why the clash that occurred between Argentine and Taiwanese vessels last year was a matter of such great regret. It is for that reason that we have been in touch with all the nations concerned in the region, including the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has said that it will conduct itself in a fashion not inconsistent with our claims in the area, and a large number of nations, including, for example, Poland, have already, through their firms, applied for and been granted licences.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has given any consideration to a scheme to compensate any Falkland Islanders wishing resettlement following the conclusion of an agreement with Argentina on the future of the Falklands.

No. The Falkland Islanders have consistently made clear through their elected representatives their wish to remain in the Falklands under British sovereignty.

In so far as we shall be spending one third of a million pounds this year for every Falkland Islands citizen, that we shall have spent since 1982 nearly £2 million on every Falkland Island citizen and we simply cannot afford it, is it not now about time that we considered some sort of resettlement grant for people in the Falkland Islands, giving them the option either to stay or to emigrate from those islands under a negotiated settlement with Argentina?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Falkland Islanders wish to remain in the Falklands under British sovereignty. They have always had the option to leave the Falkland Islands and come to this country if they so wished. The fact is that they have not wished, and, indeed, the population in the Falklands has increased, not decreased, since the conflict.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in a world where democracy is in a minority it would be a mistake ever to give up simply because the balance sheet said that we could not afford it? If we could not afford a democracy, we would never have had it. It is not something on a balance sheet.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Could the Foreign Office not take some steps to resettle Sir Rex Hunt in some remote territory, because, despite being deprived of his colonial governor's hat, he seems to be strutting around all over the place making stupid statements and doing his best to torpedo any chance of a reasonable, peaceful negotiated settlement betwen Britain and Argentina on the future of the Falkland Islands?

Sir Rex Hunt gave distinguished service in the Falkland Islands and I am frankly amazed that the hon. Gentleman believes in curtailing the freedom of speech.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the previous question was, typically, most mischievous? [Interruption.] Is there no question of the Falkland Islanders living there if they wish to, or going elsewhere if they wish to? Why such a defeatist question? Whose side is the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on—England's or Argentina's?

It is both mischievous and typical, and the House in its response to my hon. Friend's question has given its answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will recall Her Majesty's ambassador to Chile for consultations on United Kingdom relations with opposition parties there; and if he will make a statement.

No. Our policy is to bring about the early restoration of democracy in Chile; to maintain close contact with opposition leaders; and to encourage Opposition leaders' efforts to open a full dialogue with the Chilean Government.

What is all this about our ambassador interfering in the internal elections of the Chile Christian Democratic party by trying to push the chances of the extreme Right-wing contestant, unsuccessfully as it happened? There are even rumours that the Right-wing party has been obtaining money from the British Tory party. Which side are we on, Pinochet's or Britain's?

The hon. Gentleman has a fertile imagination. We are on the side of improving human rights within Chile. We have consistently backed support for the national opposition parties.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better for our excellent ambassador to remain in place to monitor that Government's decision last week to allow political parties again, after 13 years without them, to monitor a return of exiles to Chile, and to improve our already good relations with that country, which has a serious terrorist threat fomented and actively supported by Cuba and other countries?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The presence of an ambassador in Santiago is the best way available to us of ensuring that pressure for change can be applied at the highest levels. I notice that the views of Labour Members contrast significantly with the way in which they constantly urge us to increase our representation in Managua.

In the light of an earlier supplementary question, will the Minister take this chance to deny categorically that the ambassador was involved in paving the way for the rumoured coup against Pinochet, in which the United States is supposed to have been involved, in order to replace him with a Christian Democrat?

That is a purely hypothetical question. I am not even aware of the reports.

Does the Minister recall that the Prime Minister recently invited released Soviet dissidents to No. 10 Downing street? Will the Minister therefore encourage the Prime Minister to demonstrate her evenhandedness by also inviting to No. 10 Downing street Pedro Fernandez Lembach, who arrived back in the United Kingdom last year after a campaign here to get him released from Pinochet's jail? Now that he is back in the United Kingdom he should also be welcomed to No. 10 Downing street like the Soviet dissidents.

May I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday. I shall not divulge his age to the House. We very much appreciate the role that he, among other hon. Members on both sides of the House, played in urging the Chilean Government to release Pedro Lembach. I have made clear to the Chilean Government our welcome for that release.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made during Britian's presidency of the European Community in promoting the Community's position in international affairs.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European Community partners concerning the development of common European foreign policies.

The Twelve spoke and acted together on a wide range of international issues during the British presidency. Significant achievements during the period included: common action against Syria's involvement in terrorism, which I announced on 10 November; active co-operation on East-West issues, in particular, in achieving the successful outcome of the Stockholm Conference; and a common position on South Africa based on promoting peaceful change through national dialogue. A fuller list of presidency achievements has been placed in the Library of the House.

My right hon. and learned Friend knows well that Conservative Members appreciate the success of the British presidency and, notably, the contribution of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Is he satisfied that the European voice is being heard with sufficient clarity and weight in the great debate about arms control between the United States and the Soviet Union?

The answer to that is yes. The Community voice speaks on defence issues outside its constitution, but it speaks on security questions, including arms control aspects of that through political co-operation and, beyond that, through the participation of 11 of 12 members in the councils of NATO. In all those ways, not least through the contribution made by the United Kingdom, the voice of the Community on these important questions is being heard loud and clear.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that greater co-operation within the Community on foreign affairs remains the Government's principal foreign policy objective?

Yes, I can confirm that. On a large range of issues the position that we wish to make clear and assert is likely to be more effectively asserted and maintained by presenting it in a Community context.

Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what successes the European Community has had in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict?

I do not think that the European Community has been more successful than any of the other parties concerned with that tragic conflict, which has continued for many years. We have certainly been applying our attention to measures that can improve the situation. It was as a result of a British initiative during the British presidency that the Community adopted measures to enhance Community aid and Community trade access for those living in the occupied territories on the West Bank.

Have any of the anodyne statements made by the EEC in recent years under the heading of political co-operation led to the resolution of any international problem?

To take one example to which we have been referring, the position adopted by the Community on the Arab-Israeli dispute, as set out in the Venice declaration, has represented a continuing lodestone of guidance for the many who have tried to advance the position. It has been a significant and sustained contribution.

I recognise the advances on many issues which have taken place during my right hon. and learned Friend's presidency, but the progress in the middle east has been disappointing. Will he take the opportunity of Mr. Peres's visit to reaffirm that British policy and European policy have not changed, that we appreciate that there cannot be a settlement in the middle east without recognising Palestinian rights, and that the continuing Israeli occupation of the West Bank is illegal?

I shall certainly be taking the opportunity of discussing these matters with Foreign Minister Peres during his visit to London, on the basis of the well-established principles of the right of the state of Israel to secure a peaceful existence and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and proper representation in any discussion of the future.

In the right hon. and learned Gentleman's new capacity as a pedler of lodestones of guidance, does he believe that it would be wise for the Community to take a much more public and consistent line on the major issues of arms control that are now under discussion between the United States and the Soviet Union? Can he explain why the Prime Minister did not follow Chancellor Kohl's lead in deploring President Reagan's decision to violate the SALT 2 agreement and welcoming Mr. Gorbachev's decision not to follow President Reagan's lead?

The right hon. Gentleman has resorted—understandably, and I make no criticism—to asking a question about arms control as an earlier question was not asked.

Where was the alliance spokesman when he should have asked his question?

The right hon. Gentleman and I are on common ground.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Soviets in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

We are aware of reports of use of chemical weapons by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. We regret that independent investigation of reports of use of chemical weapons in that country has not proved possible, but we believe that at least some form of incapacitating agent has been used by Soviet forces there. This underlines the importance of early agreement on a comprehensive and global chemical weapons ban, and, of course, the early withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

Bearing in mind the attitude of the Soviet Union towards chemical weapons and the growing concern about their use, especially in the middle east, can any light be shed on some general progress towards the control of those weapons that are especially nasty? Most people certainly believe that it is as important to control chemical weapons as it is to control nuclear weapons.

I agree with my hon. Friend that any report of the use of chemical weapons is very disturbing, especially in the middle east, and their use in the Iran-Iraq war. We are slowly making progress in Geneva towards a comprehensive ban on the production and stocking of chemical weapons. My hon. Friend will be aware that the British Government, at that conference last summer, tabled their own initiative on the crucial question of challenge inspection. There is still a great deal of hard pounding to be done about the detail of our proposals and we shall continue to discuss those matters in the weeks and months ahead in the hope of making further progress.

While Afghanistan has suffered from black propaganda in the past, which has alleged all sorts of atrocities—many people suffer in a civil war—may I ask the Minister at least to welcome Dr. Najib's ceasefire proposals, which would lead to an early withdrawal of Soviet troops? Will he go further and invite the Afghan leaders to London to discuss and encourage that initiative? If the Minister wants peace, why does he not encourage it?

The hon. Gentleman can accuse us of many things, but I do not think that he can accuse us of controlling Jane's Defence Weekly, including the issue of 22 November, which reported the further use of chemical weapons by Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

When my hon. Friend next meets the Soviet ambassador, will he draw to his attention—indeed, I draw this to the attention of Opposition Members—the experience directly related to me last week by an Afghan refugee of the use of chemical weapons by Soviet forces? When my hon. Friend meets the Pakistan ambassador on his arrival in this country in the next few weeks, perhaps he could discuss with him the level of British aid to Afghan refugees, given that they are still arriving to the tune of about 79,000 a month.

I note carefully what my hon. Friend has said. We have contributed many millions of aid to the Afghan refugees over the last six years, and I should like to take the opportunity to express the support that I am sure the whole House feels for the very great effort that Pakistan has made to take Afghan refugees, notably into the North-West Frontier Province, where there are more than 3 million refugees. That is one of the largest settlements of refugees in the world.

As a sponsor of the early-day motion in January 1980 opposing Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan, may I point out to the Minister that I have not changed by view and that I, for one, am very pleased that what the Russians have done in that country has not succeeded? If the new Soviet leadership wants to show good faith, it should withdraw completely from Afghanistan, but does the Minister agree that it is somewhat odd for people who defended and justified the Suez aggression and what the Americans did in Vietnam to be critical of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?

I am pleased to find myself in unusual agreement with the hon. Gentleman on the first part of his question. Perhaps he will make his point of view better known to his hon. Friends further down the Benches so that they, too, may have an unusual alliance. I agree that it is extremely important that the Soviet troops should withdraw totally as part and parcel of the movement towards a genuinely representative Government in Kabul. On the second part of his question, I do not agree with him. I cannot see any analogy in what he says. Let me remind him that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has caused 5 million people to leave that country. There has been no such exodus of refugees elsewhere in recent times. That is one reason why we look very much at the moment for a total withdrawal of the Soviet troops.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on achievements made during Britian's presidency of the European Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on achievements secured during Britain's presidency of the European Community.

A full account of achievements under the United Kingdom presidency has been placed in the Library of the House. Among the most important, I would emphasise the crucial importance of agreement on common agricultural policy reform; the adoption of more internal market measures than in any previous half year; and the adoption of an action programme for employment growth and agreement on measures to help small businesses.

Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the Government side of the House on the very significant achievements made by herself and by the Secretary of State and other Ministers during the extremely important period of our presidency? Will she also accept our congratulations on developing the action programme for small and medium-sized businesses to promote enterprise and employment both in this country and in the Community as a whole? In regard to African affairs, does she agree that the progress on relations with the front-line states has made a significant contribution to stability in that region?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend, myself and other Ministers who have been in the forefront of activity during the last six months of the British presidency. I am particularly glad that the help for small businesses, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General has pushed so hard, has been agreed and that Finance Ministers were able in November to make available new loan facilities worth over £1 billion for small firms to help them get access to the new technology which they so much need. Proposals have also been made for the VAT threshold for small businesses to be increased, making it easier for small firms to establish themselves. The action programme on employment which was adopted in December will also help people starting their businesses and provide assistance with training and counselling for the long-term unemployed.

I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend and her colleagues on their achievements during the British presidency, especially on the 48 achievements which are listed in the document which is to be found in the Library. May I ask where there was any achievement to ease the movement of commercial vehicles across internal frontiers and customs posts in the Community?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Achieving 48 measures concerning the internal market was a record that has never been equalled by any other presidency. [Laughter.] As the aim is to help business and employment throughout the Community, I should have thought that this was a serious matter, not a humourous one. Progress has been made with border facilities, in that we shall reduce the number of documents needed from 17 to 1. We hope that further improvements will be made during the next few months under the Belgian presidency.

Does the Minister agree that the British presidency would have been greatly enhanced if it had been marked by British entry to the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system and by a clear commitment to proportional representation for the next European elections? Has the Minister observed that both those propositions are strongly supported by the President of the European Parliament, Sir Henry Plumb, who I should like to congratulate?

I am sure that the whole House will join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Sir Henry Plumb on his election as President of the European Parliament. [Interruption.] As for the exchange rate mechanism, of course the Government recognise the European and national political and economic advantages of joining it, but the Government have made clear their wish to do so when the balance of the argument is in favour of entry. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that one of the difficulties is that sterling, like the German deutschmark, is a widely traded currency. There is at present only one such currency in the exchange rate mechanism, and the introduction of a second could put it under strain. That would be damaging to the whole of the European Community. That is why we need to be sure that the circumstances are right.

Does the Minister not believe that Britain's reputation in Europe and elsewhere has been seriously damaged by the Foreign Office spending British taxpayers' money on inviting two South African Nationalist Members of Parliament to visit Britain? They represent a country which has detained hundreds of people, including young children, which has a propaganda regime that would be the envy of Dr. Goebbels, and which has launched aggressive acts against neighbouring, independent and sovereign states.

The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that I hold no brief for the South African Government. I have to say, however, that the Central Office of Information has a number of sponsored visits, which are to exchange information. They are made available widely to a large number of people with whom the Government would not necessarily agree. Following the policy that, to extend dialogue and to try to influence cannot be a bad thing, I think that the exchanges which those two people have obviously had with people in the United Kingdom will have been nothing but a force for good to help impress on the South African Government the views of the British Government and people about that Government's actions at present.

Were any steps taken during our presidency to achieve a common European view towards encouraging some sort of compromise between the United States and the Soviet Union over the strategic defence initiative, bearing in mind that, in the end, strategic arms control and disarmament depend on such a compromise?

As my right hon. and learned Friend said this afternoon, this matter does not fall within the competence of European political co-operation or the European Community. Obviously, Ministers have had discussions in Western European Union and other forums. We work closely together on issues of such major importance to every country concerned. We shall continue to do so, but within the European Community this aspect does not arise.

How can the Minister claim that reforms of the common agricultural policy are an achievement when the majority still view the common agricultural policy as a disaster, damaging to the economy, and a lead weight around the neck of the Common Market, dragging it down to bankruptcy? When will the Government take positive steps to reform that policy?

I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been recently, but my right hon. and learned Friend and I and many other Ministers have repeatedly said that reform of the common agricultural policy was not only urgent but vital for the future of the Community. That is why, at the December meeting of Agriculture Ministers, we agreed on an 8·5 per cent. cut in milk quotas over the next 15 months, plus a further 1 per cent. to be taken out of production through the increase in the super levy and the tighter application of quota arrangements. We will make a total cut of 9·5 per cent. in the milk quota.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) had cared to attend the Foreign Affairs Select Committee session this morning he would have heard a fruitful and honest discussion with one of the South African Members of Parliament to whom he referred, which might lead towards a peaceful and amicable solution to the South African problem in due course?

I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend that such a discussion took place during the Foreign Affairs Select Committee meeting this morning. It entirely bears out my answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that discussion should take place and that we can influence matters if we lift our eyes above the low parapet at which he sets his.

Is not the legacy of the British presidency of the European Community a financial shambles, which means that the European Community still has no agreed budget for 1987? A trade war with the United States of America is looming and it threatens to cause long-term damage to European and United States relations. [Interruption.] When Conservative Members do not want to hear certain points, the heckling starts. The superficial deal on agriculture prices has still not spared us the spectacle of huge stocks of cauliflowers being destroyed simply to hoist their price to the consumer. Is that not the real, poor record to set against the 48 propaganda points that have been circulated among Conservative Members?

There is no time when the hon. Gentleman is less convincing than when he tries to pull holes in a real and certain achievement. Indeed, there have been achievements. It is right that there is no Community budget for 1987 at present. The Council of Ministers has refused to agree a budget that exceeds the minimun rate of increase laid down in the budgetary procedure. A budget cannot be adopted in the absence of Council agreement. We can proceed on the basis of one twelfth, which allows the Community at least to get on with some of its business. The Community has taken a firm stand over United States trade relations. The Commission has our full support in the present negotiations. We shall do our level best to reach a negotiated agreement that will make retaliatory measures unnecessary.

Now that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has finished a most distinguished period in the presidency of the Community, will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office apply its mind to the broader Europe of the 21 countries of the Council of Europe, which are very much concerned with the problem of human rights—in fact, much more so than the Community? Will my right hon. and learned Friend persuade his colleagues in the Council of Ministers to be much less stingy with the amount of money that they make available to that important organisation?

We are extremely appreciative of the excellent work that the Council of Europe has done, not only on human rights, but on the drugs issue. I shall carefully bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about human rights in Afghanistan.

Large-scale violations of human rights continue. These are documented in the recent report of the United Nations special rapporteur. A report by Amnesty International includes accounts of the complicity of Soviet personnel in the torture of prisoners. We are deeply concerned at these allegations and have made that concern clear to the Soviet Government.

What representations can my hon. Friend make about the dreadful, shameful plight of the refugees?

We have obviously given considerable assistance to Afghan refugees. There are 5 million refugees outside Afghanistan—more than one third of the population in 1979. We are continuing to assist in meeting their needs. Of course, the answer to the refugees' plight is the withdrawal of the occupying Soviet forces which still remain in Kabul and outside it.

Although I totally accept the idea that we must make it absolutely clear to the Soviet Government that we are in favour of human rights in Afghanistan and elsewhere in eastern Europe, will the Minister assure us that the Government will not adopt a double standard but will be in favour of human rights in places such as Chile, Guatemala and South Africa, and that they will not take a one-sided view of human rights, as Conservative Members often do?

If the Soviet Union and the Kabul regime now wish to permit a genuine settlement to bring peace and freedom to the Afghan people and to enable them to determine their own future, we, of course, would welcome that change of heart, but so far we have little evidence of a determination to bring about a final, peaceful settlement in Afghanistan.

Give us the answer.

With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we condemn human rights violations wherever they may take place.

In relation to the violation of human rights in Afghanistan and the 5 million refugees in Pakistan who are sheltering there and are not able to return to their own country, does my hon. Friend agree that at the Vienna conference the Soviet Union must be reminded time and time again that the 5 million refugees in Pakistan must all be able to return home and that the 5 million people in the Soviet Union who are in slave labour camps and psychiatric hospitals must also be released?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I assure him that at the Vienna CSCE conference our delegation and I—I was there just before Christmas—have taken every possible opportunity to bring the attention of the Soviet authorities to human rights abuses in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Vietnamese refugees there are in Hong Kong; how many landed there in 1986; and how many are in closed camps.

On 1 January 1987 there were 8,039 Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong, of whom 4,527 were in closed camps. There were 2,074 arrivals in 1986, and 3,816 refugees from Hong Kong camps were resettled elsewhere, so that the number in the camps fell by 1,742 in the course of the year.

Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need for further international discussions to get people out of those camps, and that other countries can be expected to accept some refugees only if Britain sets a lead? Will the Minister confirm that there is no intention of repatriating those Vietnamese refugees who are in the camps in Hong Kong, and that there is no intention of ever turning away any further refugees who arrive by boat in Hong Kong?

I should like to stress that Britain has a good record for accepting refugees from Indo-China. We have accepted almost 20,000 refugees, including 12,000 from Hong Kong. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the continuing arrival of refugees in Hong Kong is a matter of great concern to the people and the Government of Hong Kong. Therefore, we are consulting other major resettlement countries and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to see what can further be done at present.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House how many of the refugees in Hong Kong are fleeing from the unemployment and depressed economic conditions in Vietnam and are not, in any way, political refugees? Having made that assessment—I hope that he has made it, and if he has not I hope that he will do so—will he arrange for those people quickly to be returned to Vietnam with guarantees from the Vietnam Government about their human rights? It is clearly wrong for Hong Kong to accept people who are fundamentally seeking economic relief from their conditions, and not political relief.

The situation is not quite as simple as my hon. Friend has set out, although I know of his deep interest in the problem. At present there is no screening of Vietnamese refugees entering Hong Kong. It would be possible to establish those refugees who are economic migrants, to use a jargon phrase, and those who are genuine political refugees only if there was such a process of detailed screening. However, even then it is questionable whether one would necessarily arrive at totally correct answers. That is one of the problems facing all the major resettlement countries. I have already discussed the situation in Vietnam when I answered a previous question, but I am sure that we could be satisfied with the prospect of returning to Vietnam those who were not political refugees only if we were more satisfied than we are now about human rights conditions in Vietnam.

Does the Minister agree that even if he were successful, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) has suggested, in improving the quota of refugees accepted by different countries, including our own, there would still be a number who, because of age, lack of linguistic knowledge or narrow work experience, would find it very difficult to be resettled anywhere? What will happen to those people when the transfer of power takes place?

That is still 10 years away. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a very sensitive question. That is precisely what is worrying Hong Kong, and it is because of that problem that we are currently having further discussions with the major resettlement countries and talking to the UNHCR, which has a new dynamic commissioner, about how we shall deal with those problems in the long term.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a moral obligation on the part of the people of the free world in Asia, as well as in America and Europe, not only towards the Vietnamese refugees, but towards the people and Government of Hong Kong, who have fed and sheltered every refugee who has appeared there and who have not turned a single one away? Is it not now time for a positive initiative to be taken by Her Majesty's Government to get international co-operation to relieve Hong Kong of the unreasonable burden that that country has had to shoulder for far too long?

I accept what my hon. Friend said. However, one should never underestimate what the major resettlement countries have done in recent years in taking refugees out of the Hong Kong camps. For example, there were 24,000 departures in 1979 and 3,800 last year. Every year a great quantity of refugees have been accepted by the major resettlement countries precisely for the reason mentioned by my hon. Friend—a sense of obligation. Obviously, we now have to look at what to do with the 8,000 refugees who remain in the camps. That is a matter of great worry to Hong Kong, as expressed in the recent Legislative Council debate, and that is precisely what we are consulting about at present.

May I advance what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) about the case for seeking to trigger a response from our allies by our own example in relation to the Vietnamese refugees? If, as the Minister says, the long-term key to the problem lies in Hanoi, why have the Government not taken any initiative with our United States allies in seeking to open negotiations with the Vietnamese Government?

I am somewhat surprised by that question from the hon. Gentleman, who knows the situation in south-east Asia well. He knows the position on human rights in Vietnam, and he knows that Vietnam is currently supporting an invasion of Cambodia and that there are more than 100,000 Vietnamese troops in Cambodia. Therefore, it is rather ridiculous to chide us for not yet making direct approaches, with or without other countries, to Hanoi when such an intolerable human rights situation remains in Vietnam. We have to consider with other major resettlement countries whether there is a process of pressure that we can bring to bear on Vietnam under which conditions will so improve in that country, for example, by the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia, that it might be possible to suggest that refugees could go back. If they were sent back at present, I am sure that no one would object more strongly than the hon. Gentleman.