To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards recognition of Bophuthatswana.

The creation of Bophuthatswana by the South African Government was a key element in the policy of separate development, to which we are wholly opposed. In common with all other states, except South Africa, we do not recognise Bophuthatswana as independent.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply, but may I remind her of her comments earlier this year after the abortive coup in Bophuthatswana: that the intervention of South African forces proved that Bophuthatswana was not independent? In the light of recent events in Lesotho, is she reconsidering those earlier remarks or are the Government reconsidering their policy towards Lesotho?

I am well aware that the intervention by the South African Government in Bophuthatswana, which is part of the Republic of South Africa, concerned many hon. Members. It is true that Bophuthatswana and Lesotho depend in varying degrees on the South African economy, but Lesotho was never part of the South African union. Unlike Lesotho, Bophuthatswana and the other independent homelands—so called—are effectively dependent on South Africa in foreign policy. They also receive loans and grants from the South African Government, so their position is not the same.

Is there not a democratically elected Government in Bophuthatswana, a multi-cultural society with a Christian ethos and a free enterprise economy? Does the Minister accept that it is striving to be completely free financially from South Africa? What further evidence is required by Her Majesty's Government to grant recognition to Bophuthatswana?

There would be consideration of such a course only if the writ of the Republic of South Africa did not run in Bophuthatswana. It does, and that country is recognised only by the Republic of South Africa. I cannot see, as I know Her Majesty's ambassador to Pretoria told the hon. Gentleman when he met him on 4 October, that such a situation is ever likely to pertain.

Despite my right hon. Friend's answer, is it not essential that the staff of the British embassy in the Republic know what is going on in Bophuthatswana and that they should know the political views of its populace? To that end, will my right hon. Friend tell us how often members of our overseas staff visit Bophuthatswana, and to what kind of persons they talk?

My hon. Friend knows already that everybody in the embassy in South Africa charged with knowing the political circumstances of the whole of the Republic of South Africa visits different parts of that country, which includes Bophuthatswana. Sometimes members of staff may go more frequently than others to forward projects such as those that were described to a number of colleagues when they visited South Africa and Bophuthatswana in October this year. I know that in recent months, because of the number of projects coming forward—of which we hope there will be more—in Kuruman and other places, there have been slightly more visits, but staff go whenever they need, as well as on a regular basis.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on tensions between Hungary and Romania; and what representations he has made about the proposed systemisation of villages in Transylvania.

Tension between Romania and Hungary over the status of Transylvania has been exacerbated by Romania's policy of forced relocation of rural communities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has written to his Romanian counterpart to warn against human rights violations and damage to Europe's common cultural heritage.

I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his present role. I hope that in this regard, as in many others, there will be common ground between both sides of the House.

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman and to say that this issue unites not only Members on both sides of the House, but many people on both sides of the iron curtain. I know that the hon. Gentleman appeared on Hungarian television and discussed this matter. It is an entirely legitimate use of the power of the House to protest and to make the kind of remark that the hon. Gentleman has made, because there is some chance that the people who are running Romania may listen. We should redouble our efforts, as the European Community and many individual countries have done, to emphasise our disgust at what is going on.

Is not what is going on in Transylvania outrageous in terms of both human life and European culture? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to gather the strength of the European Community so that we can speak with a strong voice and monitor the position closely?

I shall certainly do what my hon. Friend urges me to do. The Twelve made a protest to the Romanian Government on 7 September. Like the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), I have been receiving first-hand accounts of what is happening, and the hardship and distress that will be faced there in the winter will be very dire.

Whatever feelings the Minister may have on behalf of Romanians of Hungarian origin, if he pays regard to the reports that he receives from the embassy in Bucharest he must know that the systemisation of villages is not an act of discrimination against Hungarians. I see the Minister nodding. He may dislike the act of the Romanians in modernising their villages— [Interruption.]—systemising their villages if the House prefers it—but I wonder what purpose the Minister has in making a protest about it.

I am willing to confirm that the regime in Romania is equally unpleasant to all its citizens. The Hungarians are one group of sufferers, as are, equally, the people of Romanian origin. If the hon. Gentleman is presenting himself to the House, and perhaps to Western Europe, as the last unreformed Stalinist who wants to defend this policy, I do not think that he will find many of his hon. Friends with him on that matter. Perhaps I misunderstood him. I am sure that he will join us in opposing a policy which is causing widespread anxiety among countries in Eastern as well as Western Europe.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with foreign Governments about the behaviour of Britons travelling abroad.

I have discussed the behaviour of Britons overseas with Government Ministers in Greece and Spain. The small minority of Britons who behave badly damage Britain's reputation and ruin other people's holidays. We have made it clear that we support other Governments who deal firmly with offenders.

When my hon. Friend next meets the Spanish and Greek Governments, will he assure them that the British Government treat such behaviour as seriously as they do soccer hooliganism and that we would support punishment for the offenders as severe as we would for soccer hooligans?

Just as we welcome tougher action against such individuals at home, so we welcome tougher action by Governments overseas. When people go abroad they must recognise that they must obey the laws of the country in which they are based.

As the Heysel stadium people have not been found guilty by anyone, as they were encouraged to be extradited by the Government, and as many who have gone to Belgium are unemployed and without any financial assistance, will the Government now reconsider their attitude towards assisting those who have gone there quite voluntarily when they could have tried to dodge going? I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government's attitude and give financial assistance to those who are now before the courts in Belgium.

Those individuals chose to go to that football match and became involved, or did not become involved—[Interruption.] We cannot prejudge the results of the Belgian court hearing. It has never been the policy of any British Government to provide free board and lodging overseas for people to attend court hearings or to provide for legal assistance.

Will my hon. Friend have discussions with the Spanish Government about the sale of semi-pornographic and obscene T-shirts on the island of Majorca? Is he aware that the wearing of those T-shirts in Majorca causes offence to other holidaymakers and to people in high streets in this country when they are brought back here?

I was not aware of this particular problem. I look forward to having more details from my hon. Friend, but I will ask our consul in Malaga for a report.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed with the Prime Minister of Israel the case for an international conference to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian question.

My right hon. and learned Friend last met Mr. Shamir in September 1986. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) discussed the Arab-Israeli dispute with him in January. The Israeli Government know that we continue to support an international conference.

Does the Minister agree that the most recent statement by Mr. Peres, that an Israeli Labour Government would hold elections on the West Bank and in Gaza so that the Palestinian people could choose their own representatives, and his commitment to an international peace conference offer much more hope than Mr. Yitzhak Shamir, who seems impervious to international criticism and domestic acrimony about the policies that his party is producing in Israeli?

It is true that the policy of the Labour party in Israel is much closer to that of Her Majesty's Government. We welcome that recent statement, but, of course, it would be quite wrong for me to comment on an election in another country.

Has my hon. Friend recently made any representations to the Israeli Government about the brutality and repression in the occupied West Bank? Is he aware that the civilian toll of casualties among Palestinian adults and children is steadily growing? Is this not absolutely intolerable?

I recently protested to the retiring Israeli ambassador, Mr. Avner, about the use of plastic bullets. I think my hon. Friend understands that these are not baton rounds, but plastic bullets fired by high explosive charges. We registered a protest, as did the United States Government, about the casualties caused by those plastic bullets. The Israeli Government know very well that Her Majesty's Government believe that they are sleep walking to disaster by their treatment of the people in the occupied territories.

Does the Minister accept that however much we may fervently hope for the election of one Prime Minister or one party or the other in Israel on 1 November, electors in a democracy, including our own, sometimes make mistakes? It is important to recognise that that is about the only country in the area where free elections are held and that our Government will have to get on and try to make peace with any Government whom the Israeli electors see fit to elect.

Any group or any party in Israel that comes forward with practical plans for peace will get the full support of this Government.

Is it not more urgent and important than an international conference that the Arab states should be able to provide a leader who can guarantee security and peace for Israel in any peace settlement that is negotiated with the Israelis?

I do not know whether waiting for leaders is relevant. What is impressive is the solidarity of the people in the occupied territories, which expresses very clearly their desire for self-determination.

In welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities and hoping that his statement of views on the middle east will not lead to his speedy removal from those responsibilities, may I put it to him that the flexibility now emanating from the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the voices of peace from Arab Governments are being prevented from achieving the possibility of an international conference and real peace by the obduracy of the Likud party in Israel? Will he join the Prime Minister, the United States Administration, President Mubarak and all other sensible people in every part of the world who believe that the only hope of breaking the deadlock and getting peace in the middle east is a Labour victory in Israel on 1 November?

I noted that when addressing the Socialist group of the European Parliament Mr. Arafat said that he hoped for the emergence of an Israeli de Gaulle. I hope that he and everyone else, including the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), will respond to any practical proposals for peace, from whatever political spectrum they come.

Does the Minister agree that a settlement in the occupied territories is very much in Israel's interests because of the increased birth rate among Arabs west of the Jordan, which will lead to the outnumbering of Jews early in the next century?

I think that what my hon. Friend says is right. More profoundly, surely the tragedy for Israel is that those of us, many of whom are in this House, who have protested about the actions of Israel are her friends. The tragedy for Israel is the way in which it is corrupting itself by its treatment of people in the occupied territories.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to have discussions with the Government of the United States of America regarding the recent developments in the Central American peace process.

We have regular discussions with the United States Administration on a wide range of issues, including developments in the Central American peace process.

Does the Minister agree that the will towards peace of all the peoples, Governments and nations of Central America is now greater than it has ever been, as well as the chances and opportunities? Does he realise that the freely elected Government of Nicaragua, no matter what anyone says—this is attested to by people of this country who were in Nicaragua at the time of the election —are being harassed by the Contras? Is he aware of the new development that has resulted in more money being supplied to the Contras in the guise of certain forms of aid? Instead of producing generalised answers, such as his answer to the main question, will he realise that, if we are democratic, the British Government must talk to the American Government and try to persuade them not to send money to those who are led by people of the old Somoza regime? For 30 years that tyrannical group was brutal to the people of Nicaragua.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. However, his analysis is not widely shared, even within Central America. For example, I met President Arias of Costa Rica this morning. He urged that the Nicaraguans should take a stronger line on compliance with the Esquipulas accord. He stressed that, in his view, Nicaragua had failed to honour its commitments to democratise.

Have any representations been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Nicaraguan Government about the plight of the leaders of the Conservative party, the Christian Democrats, the Socialist party and trade unionists, who, having taken part in a peaceful demonstration in the spring, were arrested and placed in gaol, and have remained there ever since?

We were most concerned by that development and by the way in which democratic leaders of the Opposition were arrested. As my hon. Friend has said, some of them are still in gaol. I was amazed when I read a letter that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition wrote to President Ortega, which was published in June, in which he praised President Ortega's commitment and skill. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman was praising President Ortega's commitment to suppressing democratic opposition within Nicaragua and his skill in pulling the wool over the eyes of Opposition Members.

One of these days the Minister might have the courage to visit Nicaragua. In the meantime, how can anyone hold him to be sincere in his view about wanting peace in Central America when the Government allowed Adolfo Calero, a terrorist from the Contras, to enter Britain and attend the Tory party conference? Why was that terrorist allowed into the country? What assistance did the Foreign Office give to him?

The hon. Gentleman has a nerve. He arrived on Noriega's plane from Panama and stayed in Nicaragua for 24 hours before returning to the United Kingdom. That shows a great knowledge of what is going on in Nicaragua, as well as an interesting selection of friends and of ways to spend his holiday. As Mr. Calero went to Managua and had talks with the Sandinista Government, I do not see why he should not come to Britain.

Will the Minister calm down a little and recall the revelations made by the Speaker of the United States Congress, Jim Wright, of the CIA's involvement in destabilising Nicaragua? Will he give an assurance that there was no British complicity in that action? Given the constant repetition by the Government that we seek a peaceful solution to the problems of Central America, will he for once take his courage in his hands and condemn the American Government for unwarranted interference in the affairs of an autonomous country?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we support the Central American peace process. As I have said, President Arias made it clear this morning that he thinks that the Nicaraguan Government should and could do a great deal more to further the process and to move towards democracy within Nicaragua. United States policy is a matter for the United States.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Zimbabwe; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans, at the present time, to visit Zimbabwe.

When my right hon. Friend manages to get to Zimbabwe, will she remind Mr. Mugabe of the Pope's visit to that country, when he called for apartheid to be ended, not by sanctions and boycott, but by constructive discussion and pressures? Will my right hon. Friend also remind Mr. Mugabe of the recent visit to Harare of the South African white and black rugby organisers and express the hope that the conclusions that have come from those discussons are the way forward? Does she agree that Zimbabwe, the Western world and Africa should respond, when such progress is made towards ending apartheid, by welcoming the South Africans back into the international fold?

When I next see President Mugabe I shall most certainly point out the importance of what the Pope said, and far more was said on that issue than was probably published in British newspapers. It is only through constructive discussion that apartheid will be brought to an end and a representative system of non-racial government effected in South Africa.

When my right hon. Friend goes to Zimbabwe, will she ensure that she takes with her—and does not leave any behind—some photographs that she can give to the Zimbabwean Government of notable members of our own political system, so that unfortunate incidents such as the one earlier in the year, when the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition was not known, can be avoided?

I would recommend to the Zimbabweans that they should have an excellent book such as The Times "Guide to the House of Commons", so that they can recognise hon. Members. In case that is not ready in time, I shall see about a scrapbook that features photographs of members of the Opposition Front Bench.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Secretary-General of the United Nations; and what was discussed.

My right hon. and learned Friend met the Secretary-General on 27 September during his visit to the General Assembly. They discussed Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq, Namibia and Cyprus. The following day the Secretary-General was present at a confidential meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

Does the Minister accept that there is some concern that the subject of refugees was not higher on the agenda and that there are serious anxieties in parts of the world where Britain has a historic responsibility? I shall give two examples. What help and hope can the Minister offer to those who have to flee the savage internal war in Somalia? Is he aware that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concern at the false distinction drawn by Britain between political and so-called "economic" refugees? Will the Minister give us a straightforward reassurance that that false distinction will not govern decision-making? Will he ensure that those topics are high on the agenda the next time there is a meeting between British Ministers and the Secretary-General?

There is, of course, a great deal of concern about the position of refugees, not only in the country that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but in a large number of others. We have recently made a major additional contribution to the UNHCR, particularly to assist it with the help it is giving to Hong Kong, and, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there have been recent discussions with the Vietnamese authorities. I can assure him that I, other Ministers and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raise the plight of refugees and general policy towards refugees on appropriate occasions.

Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Secretary-General on the effective reactivation of the Security Council, especially over the Iran-Iraq conflict and Afghanistan? We hope that the strengthening of the Security Council will lead to a settlement in Cyprus., and of other difficult problems. May I congratulate our representative and ambassador in the United Nations on the constructive role that he played in that process? Is my hon. Friend satisfied wth the rate of progress in reforming the administration of the United Nations in line with the effective way in which the Security Council has been reformed?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend. There have been some major developments in the United Nations, especially in the Security Council. I join him in paying tribute to our permanent representative, Sir Crispin Tickell, who had a major role in co-ordinating the five members of the Security Council over Iran-Iraq.

Is the Minister aware that many people will be surprised that apparently there have not been any discussions with the Secretary-General about the immediate and ghastly plight of the Kurdish refugees? Has the Minister raised, for example, the refusal of Turkey and Iraq to allow United Nations' observers to visit the camps of the Kurdish refugees? Has he taken any action following the bombing attacks, allegedly with chemical weapons, on the 11th and 14th of this month?

The hon. Gentleman is right. This is a matter of concern. We have been in touch with the Turkish Government and with other Governments in the region, as well as with United Nations agencies, and those discussions continue.

Were there any discussions with the Secretary-General of the United Nations about the use of chemical weapons against defenceless Kurdish villages by the Iraqi army, and at the same time the continuation of the mass murder of political opponents of the Khomeini regime in Iran, and about whether it is desirable that those atrocities should be reported to the assembly of the United Nations?

I understand my right hon. Friend's concern. We have urged that there should be a United Nations investigation of those serious allegations and incidents, but I regret to say that the Iraqi Government have refused to co-operate.

On the subject of the Iraqi attacks on the Kurdish population, may I commend the Government for their recognition, albeit belated, of the compelling evidence that now exists about those Iraqi attacks? As one who recently visited refugee camps at Diyarbakir and Mardin in Turkey, I can say that the evidence seems overwhelming. It seems remarkable only that the Government took so long to come to that conclusion. I am sure that there is considerable unanimity among hon. Members of all parties that Iraq's conduct is unacceptable and unspeakable, and that simply condemning Iraq is not enough. It is essential to take some action and, like the American Congress, to threaten punitive economic consequences if Iraq does not immediately stop the chemical bombing of its Kurdish population and allow United Nations' observers to ensure that that country returns as quickly as possible to civilised conduct.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I know that he paid that important visit and that he has a great deal of personal knowledge of the circumstances. However, I advise him that we condemned the action as soon as we felt that we had adequate evidence on which to do so. We had to wait for that evidence to accumulate. Further investigations will be extremely difficult to carry out without the full co-operation of the Iraqi Government. We have asked for that co-operation and the United Nations has also asked for it, but unfortunately the Iraqi Government have refused to co-operate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has played a direct or indirect role in recent negotiations to secure a peaceful settlement in Angola; and if he will make a statement.

Though not a direct participant in the negotiations on the withdrawal of foreign troops from Angola and independence for Namibia, we have given them our full support. In particular, we have urged both sides to show flexibility and a sense of urgency.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the positive moves that have been made in the Angolan peace talks. Does she agree that, for a lasting peace to be brought to that troubled country, all 55,000 Cuban troops, along with the South African troops, must be withdrawn urgently from Angola? Does she believe that the British Government should advocate that UNITA should be recognised as having a full and legitimate role to play in the future development of Angola?

I think that we must be careful to separate those two issues slightly. We have done all that we can to assist in the quadripartite talks by our discussions with other leaders of African countries who have more direct influence than we could possibly be expected to have. Of course we hope that there will soon be an acceptance of the proposals under discussion for full Cuban and South African troop withdrawal.

How can we possibly hope to exert any influence over the Cuban presence in Angola after we have expelled the Cuban ambassador from this country, probably on instructions from the United States embassy? Can the Minister tell us what she is now trying to do to restore good relations between the United Kingdom and Cuba?

I am very surprised—but I suppose I should not be—that the hon. Gentleman seeks to raise a question of security and safety that occurred in this country in the context of a very serious matter—the peace that we are seeking in Angola. All I can say to him is that if he is prepared to be a member of a party that would not do exactly the same if guns were toted on London streets, I feel even more strongly that it will never be fit to be in government again.

Is it not the case that South African troops have now actually withdrawn from Angola? If it is not the case, can my right hon. Friend clearly tell the House that? Is it not therefore important that the Cubans now get on with withdrawal at the earliest possible date so that the people of Angola can proceed to self-determination without external interference in their internal affairs?

I believe that the vast majority of South African troops have indeed withdrawn from Angola, but I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on that because we are not there to see. All I would say is that I believe that it is right and proper that, as soon as it is possible, all foreign troops should withdraw from that country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government has made to the Government of the Republic of South Africa; and on what subjects.

We have made representations to the South African Government, both bilaterally and with our European partners, on a wide range of issues.

Will the Minister recognise that in South Africa there is a growing opinion among whites that the ANC must be involved in negotiations about the future of that country? That is evidenced by business and now by sporting contacts. Will she do all in her power to urge the South African Government to accept that, if they want meaningful talks to achieve a just, peaceful and acceptable solution to the problems of apartheid in that country, they must allow the blacks freely to appoint their own representatives to such negotiations and be involved in the formulation of the agenda for such meetings?

It would be most welcome if the Government of South Africa would involve the representatives of all groups of black people in meaningful negotiations in South Africa. Until such time as they do we shall continue to seek to persuade them through dialogue that this is the only way towards a peaceful transition.

May I correct an earlier reply by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) about the South African rugby board—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member should ask a question.

It is leading to a question, Mr. Speaker. May I remind my right hon. Friend that the South African rugby board—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member should ask his right hon. Friend a question.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that some on the Government side will give a cautious welcome to the news that Dr. Daniël Craven and the ANC have come to some arrangements over the future of international rugby? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that many of us on the Government Benches remain deeply suspicious of the motives of the ANC and believe that unless they renounce violence and armed conflict such talks are worthless?

My hon. Friend knows that we have called upon the ANC to renounce violence. We call upon all those who are engaged in violence to cease that violence, because the use of violence is not the way to bring about a peaceful solution in South Africa. I shall look at what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said and what I said to him in reply, but I do not think anything was said that would give my hon. Friend real grounds for correcting me.

Will the Minister be a little warmer than she was this afternoon and a lot warmer than the Minister with responsibility for sport was yesterday in congratulating the ANC and Dr. Craven on getting together, at least to discuss the future of multi-racial rugby? Will she also assert that that would never have happened had it not been for the success of the various sports boycott campaigns over the years and the Gleneagles agreement?

I always welcome it when those who previously had not found it possible to agree come together with the object of agreeing on a matter such as this. If the reports of the discussions between the African National Congress, the South African rugby board and the rugby union are correct, and if they lead to the creation of a single non-racial governing body for rugby in South Africa, that will be an encouraging development.

In the context of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), is my right hon. Friend aware that there are more of us than there are of them?

That all depends on what the dividing line may be.

While supporting the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and notwithstanding the earlier reply by the right hon. Lady, on Angola, may I ask whether it would be correct of her to support me in saying that there is considerable mistrust about the intentions of South Africa in that region, including Angola and other areas? Conservative Members refer to violence by the ANC, by if South Africa wants to establish any basis of credibility in that region ought not the right hon. Lady to put pressure on the South African Government immediately to cease the imminent political hangings in South Africa? If South Africa were to comply it would at least show that there is some degree of credibility in what it is saying rather than in what it is doing.

The hon. Lady knows that we have always been prepared to join appeals for clemency in cases that are clearly political and where there are strong humanitarian grounds for clemency. In respect of the last part of her question, if that should be needed, once the legal process has been concluded—as has been the case with the Sharpeville Six and others—that will be done. As for the earlier part of the question, we shall condemn now, and always, violence, wherever the source of that violence may be. Cross-border violence in southern Africa will do nothing to bring about peace in the region.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the major reasons for the rise of the so-called Conservative party in South Africa has been the important element of dismantling the apartheid system that President Botha has brought about in the last five or six years, and that continuing attempts to isolate insecurity of certain elements among the whites who support the Conservative party and make President Botha's task even more difficult?

We would welcome any moves towards meaningful reform. I fully accept that there have been some such moves, but they are not enough. There is still the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act, and the South African Government have put forward a Bill to promote so-called orderly internal politics. However, none of those can hasten the end of the division of the people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement relating to the overall outcome of meetings of the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community which have occurred since 29 July last.

There has been one Foreign Affairs Council, on 26 September. I represented the United Kingdom, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development. The main issue discussed was the Community's negotiating mandate for Lomé IV. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will circulate a fuller statement in the Official Report.

Will the right hon. Lady tell us something about the Internal Market Council that met on 29 September? Cannot that council create legislation applicable to this country, even if it is against the wishes of the Government and the House, by virtue of qualified majority voting? Has not that highly centralised authority of the emerging European union come about only because in 1986 she, on behalf of the Government, signed the Single European Act, with the active encouragement and endorsement of the Prime Minister?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary attended the Internal Market Council and will report in detail on it. It is fair to say that during the past two years the Community would not have made such progress on the single market without qualified majority voting. That has been in the interests of the people of this country.

Has my right hon. Friend committed to memory the excellent speech of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Bruges? Will she ensure that that speech is the first item on the agenda at the next meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers? Will she arrange for a signed copy to be sent to our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

In the knowledge that we are all fallible and that sometimes we all forget, I took the precaution of ensuring that I have with me a copy of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's speech. I commend it to every hon. Member. Any Prime Minister who speaks so clearly for the needs of this country, by saying that

"our destiny is in Europe as part of the Community,"

Are not the Prime Minister's words at variance with the deeds of the Government? Are not the Government capitulating to every demand of the Common Market, including the payment of £4·7 billion since 1984 and the development of a trade deficit in manufactured goods of £10 billion? Does she think that 1992 and the complete harmonisation of the internal market will help, or hinder, that?

The completion of the internal market will help this country no end. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not learnt sufficient about it to know that already.

In view of her warm endorsement of the Prime Minister's fine speech, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on today's rather puzzling report in the Daily Express? It stated that Mr. Delors' speech to the TUC conference was approved in advance and ticked as innocuous by Foreign Office representatives. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, if there is any showdown between British and German interests at a future Council of Ministers, the Bruges speech will be the text of our foreign policy?

If there is any need to have a discussion with our colleagues at future councils—whatever councils they may be—if we have disagreements, we shall express them most clearly, as we always do. I tell my hon. Friend that when any TUC speaker shows his speech in advance to the Foreign Office, I will really think that he is living in never-never land.

While we are on the subject of speeches, has the Minister noticed yesterday's speech by Dr. Helmut Kohl, the German Conservative Chancellor, who warmly commended European economic and monetary union and spoke of a social Europe? Is it not the case that, despite what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said earlier, the Prime Minister's Bruges approach is a solitary one and is not supported by any other European leader?

I know of Chancellor Kohl's pragmatic approach to the Community, which he expressed quite fully in his speech yesterday. We do not agree with every word that every other European leader says, but we certainly have more in common with our German colleagues in pursuing the right path for Europe and for our respective countries than we shall ever have with the hon. Gentleman's party or the Labour party.

Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the various measures that the Government have already introduced, which are well ahead of those of our European friends in terms of showing our Europeanness? In particular, has she congratulated the Chancellor on introducing ecu-denominated debt in the summer, an issue that was so dramatically successful that other Governments are now thinking of following suit?

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals last year, earlier this year, and again at the meeting in Berlin have been fundamental in persuading a change of mind in some other Governments towards solving the problems of middle income debtors. It is interesting to note that Britain is the first country to contribute in full to the $75 billion of the general capital income increase in resources for lending to middle income debtors. All that has happened thanks to a Conservative Chancellor in Britain.

In her Bruges speech, which the right hon. Lady has commended, the Prime Minister stated her opposition to, the abolition of frontier controls, the creation of the European super-state, the centralisation of power in Brussels, with decisions taken by an appointed bureacracy and the concentration of power at the centre of a European conglomerate, and said that Britain's parliamentary powers must be preserved. As every one of those changes that the Prime Minister opposes is now entrenched in United Kingdom law through the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, which the right hon. Lady forced through the House of Commons on a guillotine, will the right hon. Lady now apologise to the Prime Minister and introduce legislation to repeal the European Communities (Amendment) Act?

No, Sir.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent discussions held with members of the European Free Trade Association on forging closer links with the European Community in the run up to the completion of the internal market in 1992.

We maintain close contacts with our EFTA friends on this important issue. Most recently, I visited Oslo and Helsinki between 4 and 9 October. Like their other EFTA colleagues, the Norwegians and Finns are pressing ahead with measures necessary to ensure that they can respond to the new challenges and opportunities of the single market.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that it is a tribute to the importance of the internal market of 1992 that people within the European free trade area are urging their countries to join the EEC? Is that not a message that every company engaged in industry, commerce and trade in the United Kingdom could take on board?

Indeed. I can tell my hon. Friend that in my discussions during the summer recess with representatives from many of the EFTA countries—indeed wider than EFTA—it was remarkable to discover how much they wish to participate in the policies that we are pursuing of the single market in the European Community and in the policies of sound growth, the creation of jobs and the reduction in unemployment, in which this country has been so successful.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in achieving a declaration from Argentina of a cessation of hostilities and in restoring diplomatic relations.

Argentina still refuses to declare that she regards hostilities as being at an end, has made no response to a series of practical British initiatives to bring about more normal relations and maintains restrictions on United Kingdom exports. It is, therefore, premature to think in terms of restoring diplomatic relations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a declaration of cessation of hostilities is an essential prerequisite to the restoration of diplomatic relations with Argentina?

Very much so, but, as I have already said to my hon. Friend, there are a number of other initiatives that we have taken with regard to Argentina on which we are still awaiting responses.

I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. As I have said previously, many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. Although this is a two-day debate, I hope that we shall have brief speeches today.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that an amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition must be called. However, there is a further amendment on the Order Paper that has much support in the House and in the country as a whole. This support is not confined to the Labour party or any other party. It would seem right that hon. Members who agree with the amendment should be able to vote upon it. This has happened in the past. Amendments that were tabled on prices and incomes policy, for example, were debated and voted upon. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider your decision not to select the amendment in the names of 13 of my hon. Friends and myself. We shall then be able in general terms to support the official Opposition's amendment and vote specincally on an amendment that some of us consider to be of the utmost importance.