To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any recent representations about human rights abuses in Commonwealth member states; and whether he plans to raise the question of human rights at the forthcoming Commonwealth conference in Malaysia.

We receive representations about human rights in many countries, including some Commonwealth members. Discussions between Commonwealth Heads of Government are confidential and wide-ranging. It is too early to say what issues my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will address in her interventions.

In view of the representations received over the years, can my hon. Friend confirm that basic human rights continue to be denied in at least one quarter to one third of Commonwealth member states, including Malaysia, where to convert from Islam to Christianity is punishable and may render the individual open to persecution? At the forthcoming conference in Malaysia, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary submit proposals for the establishment of a Commonwealth human rights commission along the lines of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights and the Helsinki process?

My hon. Friend's reference to the state of affairs in Malaysia relates to the laws of the states rather than to federal laws. Within the Commonwealth secretariat there is already a special unit, established in early 1985, to deal with human rights issues. We believe that human rights are universal. Instead of creating another forum for debating them we should concentrate on strengthening the existing United Nations human rights bodies and mechanisms.

Is the Minister aware that three out of five Tamil refugees who were forcibly returned to Colombo in February 1988 have been tortured? What do the Government intend to do about that?

I am sure that if the hon. Lady can substantiate her assertion we will draw it to the attention of the Sri Lankan Government.

My hon. Friend the Minister has rightly said that human rights are universal, and we all accept that. Against that background, will he comment on the persecution, on a major scale, of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria? What representations—

Order. Bulgaria is not in the Commonwealth.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, my hon. hon. Friend's reply opened up the discussion by saying that human rights are universal. My question simply followed on from my hon. Friend's answer.

The Government issued a statement this morning on the subject that my hon. Friend raised.

Will the Government be trying to dissuade other Commonwealth premiers from raising the question of human rights in South Africa at the conference? The Government might be less en the defensive if we had joined the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers group and taken a high profile on human rights in South Africa. Will the Government raise the matter of the proposed judicial execution of the Upington 14 next week when the Prime Minister welcomes Mr. F. W. de Klerk to this country?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that South Africa is no longer a member of the Commonwealth. I imagine that issues of that kind concerning South Africa will be raised at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference, and certainly we shall do nothing to stop that. As to the Upington 14, it would be inappropriate to make any representations at this stage, when the normal legal processes can still be used.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards a uniform electoral system for the European elections.

There are no current proposals for a uniform electoral procedure for European parliamentary elections.

Does the Minister agree that at the forthcoming European elections Britain will be seen as the odd man out in not having a fair voting system?

No, and the hon. Gentleman ought to know that the right of initiative for a uniform voting procedure lies with the European Parliament and not with individual member Governments or with the Council of Ministers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her answer is widely welcomed by Conservative Members and that nothing could be more absurd than trying to dive into a universal system of proportional representation throughout the European Community? Will my right hon. Friend look into the unsatisfactory system of having a separate election day in June so that in future British European elections can be held on the same day as local elections in May?

Counting of votes in this country for European elections cannot begin until the close of polls in other European countries. It would be inappropriate to have a gap from May to June, which is when the European elections are always likely to be held, before the votes cast in May can be counted.

Does the Minister not realise that it makes no difference which electoral procedure is in force tomorrow because Labour will sweep to victory and the population of this country, not least in the marginal seat of Leicestershire, will show the Thatcher Government just what it thinks of them, which is very little indeed?

I have always had faith in democracy, even when, occasionally, as in 1974, it elects a Government of the wrong colour. We must ensure that democracy prevails in many more countries.

Did my right hon. Friend regard it as even remotely fair when the small minority of Liberals in the German Government decided to abandon the Socialists and turn to the Christian Democrats and thus bring about a change of Government without reference to the German electorate?

My hon. Friend has explained what can happen in some countries as a result of the list system, which gives central control to the parties and allows a change of policy without further reference to the electorate. While it may be liked by some, a list system would not give the current leader of the British Labour group in Strasbourg the chance to be re-elected.

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

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

I next expect to meet the President of the Commission on 26 and 27 June at the meeting of the European Council when discussion will extend to the entire range of business before the Council.

When the Foreign Secretary meets the President at the European Council meeting, how will he justify the Government's decision this week to veto the EC directive to provide more child care, parental leave and flexible working arrangements for working parents in this country? Does he accept that those improvements are needed now, and by 1992 they will be essential, or will he follow the Government's usual policy of assuming that if they are in a minority of one they must be right?

This is one of many issues in which progress can be, should be and has been achieved on the basis of national responsibilities. We must think carefully before we seek to transfer responsibility to the European Community. That is the fulfilment of a principle that the President of the European Community will recognise—the principle of subsidiarity, which leaves it to the nation states to do those things which are best done by them.

When the Foreign Secretary meets his fellow Ministers, will he support the Chancellor's view of our joining the European monetary system or the Prime Minister's view?

I will support the view expressed by both of them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at a press conference on Monday:

"It is not a question of whether we join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS, it is a question of when."

"The policy is exactly the same as it was. We shall join when the time is right."

When my right hon. and learned Friend sees the president of the Commission, will he confirm that he disagrees with Dr. Barry Seal's view that Britain should leave the Community?

I do not know for whom Dr. Seal speaks—he certainly does not speak for the British Government or the British people.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be entirely wrong for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or for him to discuss the outcome of the Delors report on European monetary union unless a debate had been held in the House before the Prime Minister's attendance at the European Council and her meeting with the Commission?

There will be a number of opportunities for debate on those matters in the House and in the European Council. It will be for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to work out how they can best be reconciled.

Would the Foreign Secretary support a move towards greater uniformity in voting practices in Europe? Would it not now be appropriate for him to talk to the Prime Minister and for the Prime Minister to talk to the Leader of the Opposition with a view, for example, to convening a Speakers' Conference to consider proportional representation and fixed-term Parliaments? I think that it is time that we thought about that.

That is not a matter for a multinational Speakers' Conference. It has been considered by the European Parliament, and its report has been rejected; that is where the matter now rests.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend point out to the President of the European Commission that Britain is already showing the way to a real social dimension by generating jobs in their hundreds of thousands through policies of enterprise and growth?

I have pointed that out to the President and, with my hon. Friends, will continue to do so on every possible occasion. Unemployment in Britain has fallen for 33 consecutive months, and the number of jobs created between June 1983 and June 1987—the last period for which records are available—is larger than that in the whole of the rest of the Community put together, for exactly the reasons that my hon. Friend has given.

When the Foreign Secretary meets the President of the Commission, will he specify the items in the proposed social charter that have led the Prime Minister to describe it as "Marxist"?

The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that many provisions in that document provide for substantial increases in the representation of organised trade unions on the boards of companies—an object that the Labour Government were trying to escape 20 years ago. In the past 20 years we have managed to shuffle off many problems and thus enhance the success of our economy. It would be entirely foolish for us to accept such prescriptions and to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the opposite direction.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Soviet involvement in the middle east peace process.

We welcome all efforts, including those of the Soviet Union, to build confidence between the parties to the Arab-Israel dispute and to prepare the way for negotiations. Improved Soviet-Israel relations can contribute to this.

As Syria is clearly a major obstacle to the peace process in the middle east, and since no country in the region can bring any influence to bear on it—as the recent Arab League summit in Morocco clearly showed —does my hon. Friend think that the Soviets might have some influence, and might he able to exert some pressure on Syria?

My hon. Friend is right. The issue was discussed when my right hon. and learned Friend met Mr. Shevardnadze recently. Soviet influence on Syria should not be exaggerated, but certainly the Soviet contribution must rest on urging Syria to come to the peace table with the other Arab states.

We would all welcome the involvement of the Soviet Union in any peace process in the middle east, but is it not a fact that in the past 20-odd years the Soviets have had very little influence in the middle east? What does the Minister believe that they can provide by way of positive input into the peace process?

I make two points. First, there is the influence over Syria to which my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) referred. Secondly, by re-establishing full diplomatic relations with Israel I think that the Soviets would go a long way towards building the confidence in Israel which I consider a necessary part of encouraging Israel to negotiate.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Soviets have shown considerable interest in Mr. Shamir's proposal for elections on the West Bank and Gaza? Has he discussed those proposals with Soviet diplomats and are they doing what they can to progress this idea further in discussions with the Palestine Liberation Organisation?

We believe that one of the influences that has helped to lead the PLO into more moderate paths has been advice from the Soviet Union, because a good many of the groups within the PLO have close relations with Moscow. Certainly our officials have discussed this in Moscow. We hope that the more moderate and pragmatic line will be continued by the Soviet Union.

Will the Minister discuss with the Soviet Union how to do something about the intransigence of Israel and its absolute breach of international law and of the Geneva convention in the occupied territories? Has not the time now come when the international community ought to exert pressure on Israel so that it will be willing to make peace instead of demanding to hang on to the occupied territories in breach of international law and trying to break the Palestinian people in the process? is it not time for action and for pressure to be put on Israel to come to the negotiating table?

Her Majesty's Government, the Governments of the Twelve, and now the Governmenr, of the United States in an excellent speech by Mr. Baker to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee—in the United States—have made it very clear that we all believe that Israeli policy is leading to a dead end. The most eloquent statement of that position that I have ever read is the extract from Mr. Amos Oz's speech reproduced in The Daily Telegraph today.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that over the past eight months the PLO, by a series of statements and declarations, has given every possible indication of its desire to make progress towards peace? The Israeli response has been wholly negative. What steps is my hon. Friend considering, with our European partners and the United States, to change the obdurate attitude of Israel?

We welcomed the element in Mr. Shamir's proposals which related to elections. We did not believe the proposals as they stood were acceptable to the Palestinians, but they represented a small step forward. We have been urging both sides to take that proposal and to develop it into something which could lead to a full process towards peace. I would not say that there has been no movement on the Israeli side, but I would say that the proposal for elections needs further development, if it is to be acceptable.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the question of European monetary union with M. Jacques Delors.

European monetary co-operation was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 12–13 June, which M. Delors attended, in the context of preparations for the European Council at Madrid on 26–27 June.

Will the Foreign Secretary take it from me that we missed his presence at the Hawick common riding on Friday? I hope that he enjoyed his visit to the Borders, where I can tell him that the Delors report and the details thereof were on everyone's lips. The Government's endless procrastination is not good enough as it is prejudicing London as a financial centre in the longer term. More immediately and urgently, it is prejudicing the interests of millions of young home buyers who are making high mortgage repayments because of high interest rates. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if there is continuing uncertainty about the currency, whatever the exchange rate, interest rates will always rise and that the only way to end that uncertainty is to join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for my visitation to his constituency, where I was delighted to find a growing fund of wisdom determined to return to the European Parliament the excellent Conservative representative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him!"] His name is Alasdair Hutton. If I am allowed to do so, I should like to advertise it even more plainly. All prudent voters in the hon. Gentleman's constituency should take the opportunity to vote tomorrow for Alasdair Hutton. I should also add, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, that our reaction to the Delors report on economic and monetary union makes a sharp distinction between what is there spelt out for stages 2 and 3 of the process towards economic and monetary union, which involves very far-reaching changes indeed which cannot be contemplated in the foreseeable future. In relation to the first stage, we have already taken many practical steps in that direction. We will need to see how much further we can go. There is a distinction to be drawn, and we strongly support what can be done under stage 1.

Are not the economies of the member states still too different? They have different growth rates, employment patterns, unemployment rates, economic histories and patterns of economic development. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that entry into something as rigid and controlled as European monetary union should be a consequence of future closer co-operation between the economies which will come after 1992—and, I hope, before—and not a precursor of it?

My hon. Friend is right in focusing on one aspect of the many features that are necessary before stages 2 and 3 of EMU can be contemplated. She has drawn attention to the economic factors. Powerful changes in institutional and constitutional arrangements will also have to be made, including transfers of sovereignty to Europe-wide institutions in relation to economic and monetary policy. I am sure that those changes go well beyond those contemplated by the overwhelming majority of hon. Members.

When the Foreign Secretary next meets Mr. Delors and talks about economic and monetary union, will he assure him that the signature of the Governor of the Bank of England on the Delors report was to show assent to the feasibility of the changes, not their merits or desirability? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the particular method used by the Community which may cause misunderstandings about what the signature represents?

The hon. Gentleman, with his customary insight, has easily overcome any risk of misunderstanding. It has been well known throughout that the Governor participated in that report in a personal capacity, and the report represents the conclusions of a group of experts and others constituted in that way. It is important to recognise that, even in respect of feasibility, the report emphasised the immense sequence of changes that would have to be made over a long period and expressly excluded any commitment to a timetable of any kind—so to that extent as well, it was wise. The least percipient section of the report was paragraph 39, which argued that by taking the first step one was committed to the last. Nothing should be further from the truth.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the United Nations Secretary-General to discuss the United Nations initiative for solving the Cyprus problem; and what matters were discussed.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last discussed the Cyprus problem with the United Nations Secretary-General in Tokyo on 25 February, when they reviewed progress in the intercom-munal talks. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also discussed the Cyprus problem with the Secretary-General on 18 April and met him again earlier today.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that successful reunification of Cyprus depends upon an improved atmosphere of trust between the two communities, which will be promoted by the kind of intercommunal conference organised under parliamentary auspices in Nicosia this weekend? Given the previous reluctance of the Turkish Cypriot leadership to allow political leaders to attend such conferences, will my right hon. Friend make what representations she can to persuade the leaders that their attendance at these conferences is not an act of political subversion but a constructive commitment to the kind of improvement in relations that will lead to a successful relocation of the army?

The whole House will accept that the more the two communities and their two leaders—the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the leader from the north—come together, the more likely it is that the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General will be successful in bringing about a resolution of the problem. That would be further underpinned by a meeting of people from both the communities. As my hon. Friend recognises, that is not being encouraged from the north. One can only hope that by further discussion we will get on top of the problems and that the United Nations Secretary-General's plan will be put into operation.

Arising from the re-equipment and modernisation of the Greek Cypriot guard by French companies during the past year, including the provision of new tanks and missiles, does the Minister think that this militarisation will give an assurance to the Turkish Cypriots about their safety in a united Cyprus? Does she think that it will encourage the Turkish army to reduce its numbers in Cyprus? Does she think that this is helpful to the intercommunal talks with which the Secretary-General is trying to proceed?

Any increase in tension between the communities, however it may be caused, would be unhelpful. The United Nations force, UNFICYP, has sought to keep the balance between the two communities and it has done a magnificent job, not least Britain's 741 men who form the largest contingent. Both sides need major constraint and a great deal of patience. I am confident that the Secretary-General is prepared to see it through patiently and consistently. We will give whatever help we can to a resolution under his auspices.

Would it help to speed a solution to the Cyprus problem if the Government followed their more normal pattern of even-handedness and did not give the impression that they were on the side of the Greeks?

We are.

We have supported the United Nations Secretary-General at every turn. We have always tried to be what my hon. and learned Friend described as even-handed. His reference was, perhaps, to our difficulties because the declaration of independence by Rauf Denktas in 1983 was illegal, and nothing can change that. It is crucial to get the timing of further talks right. I sincerely hope that by the end of this month further progress will have been made. We shall continue to be even-handed, as we have been all along.

Everyone welcomes the fact that the Government are trying to be even-handed, but the Minister was right to point out that it was illegal action by the Turks, especially the invasion by Turkish soliders, that led to the division of Cyprus. Should we not be bringing pressure to bear on the Turks? After all, Turkey is a member of NATO. If Britain believes in defending democracy and freedom, should it not tell Turkey that if it wishes to remain a member it should withdraw its troops, thus laying a better basis to bring together the two peoples of Cyprus?

Britain is absolutely right to continue to support the initiative of the United Nations' Secretary-General. There is no question of trying to resolve such a difficult matter in any other way. However difficult the problem may sometimes appear to be to the President of Cyprus and to Mr. Denktas, it can be resolved only through discussions. It would be to good effect if influence could be brought to bear either by the Turkish or Greek Governments, or by a resolution in line with the Secretary-General's plan.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current British/Chinese relations.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement in the House on 6 June, when I said that under present circumstances there could be no question of continuing normal business with the Chinese authorities.

Will the Foreign Secretary again tell the Chinese authorities, if he has not already done so, of the widespread feeling of revulsion in Britain at the continuing intimidation, brutality and terror tactics that the Chinese authorities are using against anyone considered to be a dissident or a subversive? If they continue their present policy of terror, is there not bound to be a growing feeling among democracies—not just Britain—that effective steps should be taken against that dictatorship?

The first point expressed by the hon. Gentleman was exactly the one expressed it the meeting of European Foreign Ministers on Monday, which I attended. We joined in expressing the clear view that continued repression, such as that being enforced by the authorities in China, following the savagery and brutality of the previous week, is likely to lead to a progressive decline in China's status in the eyes of the rest of the world. We are trying to get that message through as clearly and as plainly as possible. As to Chinese students in Britain and other Community countries, a clear view was expressed that applications to extend their right to stay in their respective host countries should be sympathetically considered in the light of the facts that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with hon. Members who recently visited Hong Kong that the most honourable approach to the predicament of its people is the most realistic? Does my right hon. and learned Friend further agree that it would be wrong to jettison the Sino-British agreement; that it would be wrong to encourage mass emigration, which would undermine the stability of the colony; and that it would be wrong to encourage the illusion that the swifter introduction of democracy would be any bulwark against a regime that has manifestly taken leave of its senses? Does he agree that there are circumstances in which prudence can be a potent substitute for power?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for summarising the chunks of wisdom that we have been able to read in newspaper articles that he has written recently. He is right to urge, above all, a sense of balance and realism. Plainly, as I said in the House last week, if it is possible to make headway by enhancing and consolidating democratic structures within the territory of Hong Kong, it should be considered in the light of the views being expressed there. It would be wrong to do or say anything that would encourage a flood of emigration. Above all, my hon. Friend rightly emphasised the importance of retaining the foundation for the future—the joint declaration. One must ask whether the future would be better or worse in the absence of it. It is clear that a future built on the continuation of the declaration will be far stronger. Our task must be to do all that we can to make the Chinese Government give the declaration the support that their international obligations require.

Having read the press release from the Monday Club last week, which said:

"We should not become the dustbin of Europe"—

Paraphrase, please.

The press release states that the people of Hong Kong are not British but Chinese and that this country should not become the dustbin of Europe. Further to the reply that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the position of mainland Chinese students in Britain, will he say what provision the Foreign Office is making to provide some means of funding for them, because they are funded on a monthly bursary basis by the Chinese Government? How will they survive in Britain if they have a well-founded fear of persecution should they return home?

It is not possible to address oneself to all the possible implications of what has happened recently in China, save step by step. Our present concern, which was expressed by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), is to secure a minimum assurance about the response that will be given to applications made by Chinese students to extend their stay in Britain. Some of them are here on scholarships financed in this country and some on scholarships financed by their home Government. We shall have to see how the arrangements can best be made. It is most important that the world secures, as soon as it can be achieved, a return to a more reasonable and more restrained style of Government in Peking.

I endorse the view put quietly but essentially by my right hon. and learned Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the only beneficiaries from the present position are those who, for some time, have been trying to sow mistrust between Britain and China to undermine the joint agreement? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that to bring succour to the suffering people of China in their hour of turmoil, and to restore confidence to the people of Hong Kong, it is necessary, however distasteful, to continue to do business with those who are currently in charge of affairs in China?

I must say to my hon. Friend that it is very difficult, even with the most far-ranging eye, to detect anyone who can be classified as a beneficiary of the tragic brutality of the past few weeks in Beijing. It is certainly right for us to do everything we can to bring about a reversal of those trends. We have moved in that direction by making it plain that neither normal high-level contact nor the continuation of arms contracts can be contemplated in the present circumstances. We have equally made it plain that it is important to retain such contacts as can be built on continuing commercial or personal relationships, for example. Sooner rather than later we must try to achieve a means of getting through to those in authority in Beijing just how deeply the rest of the world mourns what has happened to the progress that has taken place in the past 10 years and how strongly we urge a return of common sense and sanity to that country.

Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that what he said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was a clear condemnation of the purge now under way in China? As well as giving sympathetic consideration to applications from Chinese students in the United Kingdom, will he give sympathetic consideration to applications for refugee status from any Chinese democracy activists who feel that they may be in danger in the present purge and who seek refuge in the British embassy in China?

I have already made it very clear that the purge was condemned not only by Her Majesty's Government, but by the other Governments of the European Community last week and again at our meeting this week. I have also explained the extent to which we clearly need to respond sympathetically where possible to the applications about which we have been talking. On Hong Kong, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the answer is by no means as simple as he thinks. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) put a more cautious view of it. It has been discussed at some length in the evidence given by the Governor of Hong Kong to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on Monday this week. Obviously, it is prudent to see what more can be done, as I said last week, to advance and consolidate the democratic process as a bulwark for the future of Hong Kong and to do so in the light of the views more recently expressed in Hong Kong. It would not be right to jump to premature, absolutist conclusions.

I have recently been in China and Hong Kong but I hesitate to pontificate on the subject. However, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while on one hand we must adopt a very strong attitude to the Chinese Government about their wrongs and our rights, on the other hand it would be wrong to the people of England and Hong Kong to allow the idea to get abroad that we shall be far easier in allowing millions of Chinese to come here from Hong Kong?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the matter. It was emphasised by a number of hon. Members last week that it would be wrong to give the impression that the House was ready to contemplate offering such an open-ended commitment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has reconsidered the suggestion that the Council of Europe's concern for a wide range of environmental matters should be transferred to the European Community; and what assessment he has made of whether the 11 member states not part of the Community will endorse that view.

I am not aware of any suggestion that the Council of Europe's concern for a wide range of environmental matters should be transferred to the European Community. The Council of Europe is already doing good work on nature conservations. In deciding what new work it should take on, the Council will wish to avoid duplicating work better done elsewhere.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will the Minister confirm that the environmental role of the Council of Europe should he broad and continuing, not least because it represents a far greater geographical area than the Community and because it embodies, therefore, the genuine interests of the 11 non-member states, as well as the organisation closely involved with local authorities in Europe? Will she make it clear that any suggestion that its interests should be restricted to nature conservation would be absurd and dangerous? Does she agree with the more considered and acceptable view expressed by the Norwegian chairman in office during the assembly last month?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the valued work done by the Council of Europe in many environmental areas is something that we hope will continue and perhaps not only among the 23 existing member states. Perhaps it may have influence further afield because so many of these issues know no national boundaries and no Council of Europe boundaries.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the duplication that she rightly wishes to avoid comes from the European Parliament, not from the Council of Europe? Does she recognise that the Council of Europe does an immense amount of good work on environmental matters and at a far lower cost to the citizens of Europe?

I well understand what my hon. Friend is saying. There is no doubt that the Council of Europe was the initiator of many excellent environmental reforms, but we must be careful not to exclude the need for members of the European Community, working together in the creation of the single market, to take the back-up measures that are definitely necessary in matters of trade. I caution against saying that one institution rather than another should be responsible in any specific area and say, as I have said to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), that where advances can be made to improve the environment, they should be undertaken without duplication by all the bodies involved.

May I thank the Minister for her attitude to this matter, especially in respect of the way in which the Council of Europe goes about its activities? I hope that she will agree on the need to ensure that the Council of Europe does not become demoralised over its excellent work on environmental matters.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention and no plan that the Members of the Assembly of the Council of Europe should become demoralised in any way by the actions of others, who want to copy many of the things that they have done. The Council should regard that as a compliment. However, there is no doubt also that there is room for the involvement of more than one forum. Such involvement can be achieved without duplication, and I sincerely hope that it will be.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he last had discussions with President Bush; and what matters were discussed.

Together with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I last had discussions with President Bush, and Secretary Baker, on 1 June, during their visit to this country. We discussed East-West relations, the middle east and other regional issues and trade matters.

Did my right hon. and learned Friend have a chance to review the highly successful outcome of the NATO summit with President Bush when he was in London and did President Bush reiterate the position taken by both Governments about the dangers of a denuclearised Europe?

Yes, that was one of the topics that naturally assumed an important part in our discussions because President Bush's visit to London followed immediately on the successful NATO summit when we agreed on the essential features, not least the circumstances in which negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons should be contemplated.

When the Foreign Secretary next meets President Bush, will he raise with him the denial of fundamental human rights in the apartheid system in South Africa? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that would be an appropriate time for both sides to look afresh at the possibility of sanctions?

The Government and the new American Administration have already expressed their common view of their total condemnation of apartheid and the denial of human rights that that involves. However, we do not draw from that proposition the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman. We believe that it is most important in the months ahead to keep on course the prospect of the independence of Namibia, in accordance with resolution 435, and to look forward to circumstances in which the South African Government, which will be elected after 7 September, are ready to take the fundamental steps to dismantle apartheid. We do not think that that process would be helped or hastened by any further moves on sanctions.

There are now more than 43,000 Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. They are arriving at a rate which necessitates the building of two new camps each week to hold them. Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to President Bush that there are many people in this country who find it impossible to understand how the American Administration can justify its argument at Geneva that there should not be a policy of compulsory repatriation of economic migrants to Vietnam, with appropriate guarantees from the Government of Vietnam, when it is the policy of the United States for economic migrants from Haiti who arrive in Florida, to be sent back compulsorily and for the same to be done for economic migrants who arrive from Mexico across the American border?

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Indeed, the Prime Minister and I impressed on President Bush and Secretary of State Baker the extreme gravity of the situation facing Hong Kong as a result of the continuing inflow of Vietnamese boat people. I had the opportunity to raise the issue of Indo-Chinese refugees again yesterday at the Geneva conference, and I put to the representative of the United States the same arguments as my right hon. Friend has now put to me. It is of crucial importance that, aside from any arrangements to handle those classified as refugees—that is something on which some progress may be made at the Geneva conference—there is a recognition of the need to secure a return flow from Hong Kong to Vietnam of those who are not classified as refugees. I had the opportunity of discussing that also in Geneva with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, and discussions on that topic will be continuing.

When the Foreign Secretary next meets President Bush, will he discuss with him the very positive response by President Gorbachev to President Bush's own historic offer on conventional disarmament? Will he discuss, too, with President Bush the historic agreement reached this week in Bonn between the Soviet Union and the Federal Republic of Germany and the statement by the Soviet Foreign Ministry spokesman that an agreement with France is next on the cards—that Paris is the next stop? However, that same Soviet spokesman did not think that an agreement with Britain was possible or that Britain was a willing partner. Why is it that, while the United States, France, West Germany and other western allies speak positively and constructively in discussions with the Soviet Union, this country, and especially this Prime Minister, simply whips up the cold war?

The right hon. Gentleman can be relied on to have an insight that is fundamentally mistaken. The series of successful visits by President Gorbachev to western European countries commenced with his visit to this country. Our Government—and nobody more than the Prime Minister—have emphasised the extent to which we welcome President Gorbachev's progress on perestroika. We regard the outcome of his visit to the Federal Republic of Germany in the same light. It is not our practice to issue comprehensive joint declarations of the kind recorded in the Federal Republic this week, but a large number of the matters dealt with in that joint declaration have already been the subject of similar agreements between ourselves and the Soviet Union. The right hon. Gentleman need have no fear. The United Kingdom is not lagging in the prudent promotion of better East-West relations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were raised at the most recent summit meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The OECD Ministerial Council covered a wide range of subjects, including macroeconomic developments and policies, structural reform, trade and debt. Environmental issues also featured prominently.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is helping Third world countries not only through the quality of its aid programme, but by direct investment in Third world countries and through attempts to open European Community markets to them?

Indeed I can. Britain has led the way, with the initiative by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on sub-Saharan debt. We have been cancelling aid debt for the poorest countries—almost £1 billion world-wide. We have led the way in converting loans into grants. We have targeted our aid much better than every before. That is an important help for the developing nations.

Can the Minister assure us that urgent consideration will be given to the need for aid for Namibia following independence, especially recognising the debt that it will inherit, which was incurred by the present non-representative Government?

We are well aware that Namibia will need support and aid further to that which we already give it. We are working hard to ensure, through our representatives with the United Nations force, that the peace plan stays on course, so that free and fair elections will give independence to Namibia in November and we shall be able to work on a further aid programme thereafter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports has he received on the process towards internal reconciliation in Angola.

We welcome the security conference of Angola's neighbours in Luanda on 16 May and President Dos Santos' announcement of a peace plan for Angola, including a zone of peace along the line of the Benguela railway. We shall continue to encourage African countries in their mediation efforts.

In addition to that answer, does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Nations agreement of last year is most important? Does she not think that we should ensure that the United Nations increases the number of observers in Angola, to make sure that the withdrawal of Cuban troops materialises?

The Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola is going ahead in accordance with the Geneva protocol. The net withdrawal of 6,885 troops was completed by the end of April. My hon. Friend will probably know that the United Nations has doubled up the monitoring force, because it is by monitoring what is going on that we can assist. I have every confidence that the actions taken by UNAVEM—the United Nations force—will bring about the clear recognition that the plan has been fully executed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Panama.

Relations would be improved if General Noriega were to stand down and open the way to democratic government.

Does my hon. Friend feel that Latin America has made considerable progress towards representative democracy in almost all countries? Do not the actions of General Noriega, this ninth-rate villain, do much to tarnish that reputation? Should not our relationship and that of the European countries towards Panama be modified accordingly, until such time as Panama chucks this viper from its nest?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend in welcoming the movement towards democracy in Latin America. If, as we all hope, Chile moves to democracy at the end of this year, that will leave only Nicaragua and Panama as non-democratic states.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met either of Britain's Commissioners in the European Community; and what was discussed.

Following official calls paid on him by the British members of the Commission in December 1988, my right hon. and learned Friend and I have been in contact with them and other members of the Commission on a range of Community issues, and look forward to continuing such contacts.

When the Minister discusses with the Commissioners the business that is before them, could she read to them part of Herr Genscher's speech to the 40th anniversary meeting of the Deutsch-Englische Gesellschaft in Dusseldorf last week? He said:

"The Community must be a community for all citizens; it therefore needs a social dimension so that it can evolve into a community of social progress."

Of course there is a social dimension to what we do in the Community. Nobody has ever denied that, and that social dimension is the key to improving living standards and working conditions. Getting non-inflationary growth is the way to do that. We shall not achieve that if many of the aspects of the so-called social charter are carried through. We must do everything that we can to continue the fall in unemployment that we have had in this country and throughout the Community. That will be done by deregulation. It is not done by heaping on to business restrictions that are not necessary to improve our economic life.