To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items he expects to be discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 17 July.

Discussion is expected on follow-up to the European Council and on relations with the United States, eastern Europe, Gulf states and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she confirm that the Foreign Affairs Council collectively will leave China in no doubt as to Europe's total abhorrence of recent events in that country? Will it clearly signal that any help in relation to China's future economic performance will depend upon its demonstrating a preparedness to behave towards the people of Hong Kong in a manner that commands the support of the European Community? Is not the best guarantee for the people of Hong Kong the preparedness of Europe and the civilised world in general to act together in their relations with China?

China should be in no doubt about our view. In Madrid on 27 June, the member states agreed on four actions: the suspension of military co-operation; an embargo on trade in arms with China; the suspension of ministerial and other high-level contacts; and the postponement of all new co-operation projects.

When Ministers are considering Hong Kong, will they also examine the position of Portuguese citizens in Macau who will be given the right to live in any European Community country after Macau returns to China? Does the right hon. Lady accept that it will create a difficulty—indeed, a major discrepancy—if Hong Kong citizens are not treated in the same way?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall be meeting my Portuguese opposite number next week and we shall discuss these matters.

During that meeting will my right hon. Friend raise the increasingly important questions of the enlargement of the Community and what constitutes Europe? Will she bear in mind her distinguished school days at Roedean when, I hope, she was taught that Turkey was not part of Europe? Does she agree that the sooner that that is made clear to everyone, including Turkey, the better off we will all be?

Turkey's application to the Community, which is currently with the Commission, will produce an opinion by the end of the year. Whatever the aspirations of Turkey and many other countries, I remind my hon. Friend that the Community is united in the belief that its top priority is to complete the single market. Enlargement is a matter very much for the future.

Should not the next Foreign Affairs Council consider the whole question of economic help for eastern European countries that are struggling towards more democratic systems? Has not the West's response so far been feeble, half-hearted and lamentably inadequate, given the economic plight facing the democratic reformist forces in Poland and Hungary?

That matter was discussed thoroughly yesterday under the heading of European co-operation. The Community is in the process of negotiating an economic and commercial agreement with Poland, and the position in respect of other countries will be investigated in detail when the opportunity arises. We have no doubt whatsoever that those countries should be assisted to make their own moves towards real democracy and to the modernisation that they need.

When my right hon. Friend meets her colleagues, will she raise the worrying problems arising in southern Asia, particularly in Sri Lanka? It appears that unless the Indian presence leaves Sri Lanka by 29 July there will be a mass exodus to Europe.

That matter is not on next week's agenda, but we shall see whether it can be raised during the discussion that we shall have at lunchtime.

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 he expects to discuss.

I expect to meet President Delors at the economic summit in Paris from 14 to 16 July, where a range of international economic issues will be discussed.

When the Foreign Secretary meets the president, will he discuss the social charter? Will he also withdraw his recent offensive remarks about the charter and recognise that it means a great deal to working people throughout the Community? Why is Britain alone in opposing it?

I do not feel the need to withdraw any offensive remark. I made it very plain that we attach great importance to the social dimension of improving economic co-operation in Europe. We do not believe that a Communitywide charter imposing obligations across the board is the best way of achieving that. To impose a whole range of legislation of a uniform kind on different societies would not be in the best interests of any of them, and would be inimical to our successful fight against unemployment. The best test of a social charter is the way that the United Kingdom has succeeded better than any other European country in bringing down unemployment.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is high time that the European Community built on the Venice declaration? Following the Likud block vote on the peace process in the middle east, is it not time to look again at Israel's privileged commercial position in relation to the Community?

My hon. Friend may not have noticed that at the conclusion of the European Council meeting in Madrid last week we issued a long declaration on the middle east which built, as he wants, on the Venice declaration. It made a number of significant additions and drew attention to the continuing deterioration of the situation in the occupied territories and to the action that should be taken. Yesterday, European Foreign Ministers agreed that the question of giving economic help to the occupied territories should be examined.

Will the Secretary of State press for the European Community's ambassadors' report on human rights abuses against the Kurds in Iraq to be made public? Will he also condemn, and ask the Community to condemn, the mass deportation of the Kurds from northern to southern Iraq which is a disgraceful abuse of human rights? Will he press for journalists and other observers to be allowed into the Kurdistan section of Iraq as soon as possible?

The hon. Lady's points coincide with the views of the Government. I shall seek an opportunity to bring them to the attention of the Community's Foreign Ministers.

To revert to the supplementary question of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), will my right hon. and learned Friend remind Mr. Delors when he next meets him that he purloined the term European social charter; that it was drafted in the Council of Europe and ratified by our country very soon afterwards; and that we were in the forefront of the countries that put it into practice?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the parallel between the documents, although "purloin" overstates the case slightly. At the Rhodes European Council it was concluded that a study should be made of the existing provisions of the Council of Europe social charter. There is a sharp distinction between that and the present draft of the European Community social charter: the latter would impose obligations across a wide spectrum, in contrast to the former. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that we are among the countries that have ratified the charter; I think that I am right in saying that three Community countries have not yet done so.

Following the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls that, when he last answered questions and I asked him what was Marxist about the social charter, he cited the placing of workers on the boards of companies? Will he therefore—drawing on his knowledge of the work of Karl Marx—provide marked copies of the passages that prescribe that workers should be placed on the boards of companies, and draw them to the attention of Chancellor Kohl of the Federal Republic of Germany, where it is Government policy to place workers on boards? I am sure that Chancellor Kohl will be dismayed to learn that he has been pursuing Marxist policies.

The distinction that we wish to draw is between an approach that depends on dividing industry into two sides and our own approach, which has been exemplified by the massive extension of employee share ownership. At the time of my first Budget about half a dozen schemes were in existence; about 1,600 are available now. We do not consider it helpful, when Britain has been making such massive progress in that respect, to begin creating a new system founded on the division of industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the outcome of the Ministers European political co-operation meeting of 11 July.

I attended the meeting in Paris. Developments in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe were the main subjects. We discussed Mr. Gorbachev's visits to Paris and Strasbourg. Our agenda also covered the middle east, southern Africa, the Horn of Africa, Cambodia and China. I stressed the importance to Hong Kong of international support. We agreed statements on Cambodia and the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

Was my right hon. and learned Friend able to discuss with his Community colleagues President Gorbachev's latest plans for the architecture of the common European home? Did they note President Gorbachev's warning that the superior western European economic system should not try to tempt the eastern bloc countries away from their Socialist principles? Does that not mean that the eastern European countries are free to live in their own rooms in the common European home, as long as they employ Soviet interior decorators?

We did not discuss the matter in such meticulous architectural detail as my hon. Friend suggests, but we agreed that Mr. Gorbachev's speech called for no direct response from us. The Twelve will continue to make their best contribution to the development of East-West co-operation by underlining, above all, the attractiveness of the western model. We emphasised the fact that the common European home is based on European Community designs on western European foundations, and we hope that countries in the rest of Europe will be free to follow that example.

In pursuing the idea that Community countries should co-operate over their attitude to China, does the Foreign Secretary believe that his position is somewhat clouded by the fact that the British Government, through the Department of Trade and Industry, are still actively sponsoring trade missions to China? Does that not undermine what he is trying to achieve?

The hon. Gentleman will find that those matters are being considered separately and very carefully, case by case. For example, the proposed Sino-British Trade Council exhibition which was to have taken place in Peking next November has been postponed, and other matters are being treated in a similar way. However, there is no intention—nor should there be—of imposing an economic embargo or economic sanctions on China. None of our European Community partners has adopted that view; nor has the United States or Japan.

Was my right hon. and learned Friend able to pursue the goal of closer European economic co-operation by reminding the Council of Ministers of the admirable speech of Karl Otto pöhl in Munich on 22 June in which the president of the Bundesbank said that he saw no great purpose in forming either a common European currency or a European central bank? Would it not be better to pursue the policy of the president of the Bundesbank—of a step-by-step development—than to go forward in rash philosophical leaps, which seems to be the metier of Mr. Delors?

I share my hon. Friend's admiration of the speech by Karl Otto Pohl. It was very forcibly drawn to the attention of the European Council at the meeting in Madrid, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself. It was also no doubt in the minds of the Finance Ministers who met on Monday this week to discuss the matter. It was they who discussed it, not we the Foreign Ministers. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly underlined the very important point that has been made by my hon. Friend: that we must address the matter stage by stage, according to the principles that he has outlined.

In the light of the great concern that is being expressed by the people of Hong Kong about their future and of the fact that in his first reply the Foreign Secretary said that these matters were raised at the meeting, what is the position of the various Foreign Ministers? Is there an understanding that the problem cannot necessarily be resolved within the United Kingdom? Do people accept that there must be some form of international settlement?

The primacy of the United Kingdom's position is accepted on all sides. The Foreign Ministers at their meeting this week recognised—as on previous occasions when they have discussed it—the importance of bringing home to the People's Republic of China our shock at what has happened there. That was why we agreed yesterday that the Community ambassadors in Peking would make specific representations about the need for observers at trials and in relation to imprisonment. We also sustained the decisions already taken in relation to economic, political and military matters and agreed that those principles would be followed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on progress towards peace in the middle east.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process.

In a major statement in Madrid last month the European Council appealed to the parties to seize the present opportunity to achieve peace. The Twelve made it clear that the election proposals put forward by Mr. Shamir could contribute to the peace process but that the PLO must participate in negotiations. We fear that the Likud decisions last week, if translated into Israeli Government policy, will make progress much more difficult.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Shamir offer to hold free elections on the West Bank has now been exposed for the fraud that it always was? He was saying privately weeks ago that it was merely a device to buy time. Now he has had to come out publicly. What do we intend to do now to get the peace process moving in a serious manner?

We intend to deal with the Israeli Government, not with internal party factions. We shall urge the Israeli Government that the peace proposal that they made had the germ of an idea in it, that it should be developed and that it should not be limited in the way that the Likud motions seek to limit it. We shall urge the other side—the Palestinians and the PLO—not yet to despair of developing those election proposals.

Does my hon. Friend think that any international measures could be taken to ensure free and fair elections in the occupied territories? Is my hon. Friend pressing on Israel and the United States the need to have an international peace conference before there is further and much more serious loss of life?

Yes, and the Twelve reinforced that commitment to a peace conference. Our sense of urgency is increasing day by day with every new tragedy, including the terrible killing of 14 people in a bus on the way to Jerusalem. Every one of those tragedies, on either side, shows how little time there is left.

The Minister cannot separate the identity of the leader of the Likud from the identity of Prime Minister Shamir, when they are the same person. Does he think that the recent statements from Mr. Shamir go back on the undertakings that he gave to Her Majesty's Government, the Twelve and the United States Government? Will he therefore take a more vigorous stance on the matter?

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. It would be unwise for me to predict the final outcome of the Israeli Government's position. As we know, there may be changes in the coalition. We stand by our view that that proposal for an election seemed to offer the hope of progress, and the last thing that anyone should be seeking now is to abort it before it is properly born.

The Minister must realise that Mr. Shamir's statement last Wednesday, as Prime Minister of Israel and as the leader of the Likud party, had two clauses. The first sought to ensure that there should be no negotiations with the PLO, no Palestinian state in any part of the Eretz Israel and no sovereignty over any part of the Eretz Israel. Clause 2, which is far more important, sought to make all those decisions binding, in the Cabinet and in the Knesset, on all Likud members. How can we expect the Palestinians or anyone else to accept that any Israeli peace plan remains?

I feel no more optimism than the hon. Gentleman does after the events of that Likud meeting. However, I am well aware, as is the hon. Gentleman, that some members of Likud, such as Mr. Ezer Weizman, take a very different line. Before we despair of the Israeli Government's position, let us finally see what it is.

Does my hon. Friend really think that the peace process in the middle east will be helped if we refuse to sell gas masks to Israel at the same time as we contemplate selling military aircraft to Iraq, a country which has used poison gas against its own citizens?

The latter decision has not yet been taken. I hope that the House will recognise the difficulty of the former very emotive decision. Equipping the armed forces of a state for fighting with chemical weapons is dangerous and difficult. We, as the principal sponsor of efforts to achieve a worldwide ban on chemical weapons, must be very careful about that. The application that was informally submitted was not simply for children. If such an application was clearly only for civilian and defensive use, we would consider it very carefully. The House would be the first to criticise us if we were seen to be equipping armed forces for chemical warfare.

Will the Minister of State join me and my hon. Friends in sending sympathy to the relatives of all who were killed in the bus outrage last week and to the relatives of the Palestinians who are being killed every day in the occupied territories? Does he agree that those sterile, pointless and tragic deaths will continue as long as there is no settlement in the middle east and that instead of putting pressure on the Israeli Labour party to remain members of a Government who are going back on what he agrees was a minimal but perhaps helpful commitment, the United States Secretary of State should be putting pressure on the Likud to go to the conference table? It is unacceptable that one bigoted faction should stand in the way of ending this terrible confrontation.

I gladly associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman said, as I am sure do my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have been trying not yet to despair of the Israeli Government's position as I hope that there are people in Likud who will take a wiser view and prevent the Israeli Government from drawing back from an already minimalist position.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the application of European Economic Community directives to Gibraltar.

All European Community directives apply to Gibraltar except those in areas from which Gibraltar was excluded in the arrangements for United Kingdom accession; those from which Gibraltar is specifically excluded; and those whose subject matter is clearly of no relevance to Gibraltar.

Because of the heavy impact of European Community decisions and laws on the people of Gibraltar, no territory would have had a better turn-out in the recent elections to the European Parliament had those people been entitled to vote. The six Members of the European Parliament from Luxembourg represent, on average, 35,000 voters. Does my right hon. Friend agree that on that basis, Gibraltar could have one MEP in the European Parliament?

Another Labour Member.

Perhaps, but so what? Will my right hon. Friend use her best endeavours to secure for the people of Gibraltar the representation in the European Parliament that they deserve and require?

There is no comparison between Luxembourg, which is an independent state, and Gibraltar, which is not. The interests of the people of Gibraltar have been well represented in the Community by Her Majesty's Government and in the European Parliament by the group of United Kingdom MEPs known as the Gibraltar and Europe representation group. They have served the interests of Gibraltar well, and I know that they will go on doing so. I refer my hon. Friend to the observations on this matter that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made on 20 June 1984. They still stand.

Have British Ministers any reason to disbelieve the claim by the Spanish authorities that the IRA team had six members, not three as claimed? This is the same question that I put yesterday to the Ministry of Defence.

I do not believe that there is any validity in what the hon. Gentleman has said.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the Greek Government following that country's general election results.

We wish the new Greek Government well and look forward to working with them both in the Community and in the Alliance.

I endorse what my right hon. Friend has said. Does she recall that it was the former Greek Government who introduced the social charter into the cauldron of European politics? Will she encourage the new Greek Government to adopt a slightly less abrasive approach?

I am well aware that my hon. Friend shares my view about the proposals that may have been drawn up by the Greek commissioner. The proposals that came forward for the social charter were agreed by a majority of commissioners and are Commission proposals. Discussion on this matter is taking place in Brussels. However attractive the idea may seem, the change of Government in Greece does not affect the position of the commissioner responsible.

There is a certain amount of puzzlement in Athens because, when it comes to social charter provisions, the differences between countries and traditions are too great to make any similarity possible whereas in respect of the internal market, for economic and financial reasons, it is possible for us to achieve total harmony within a few years. Why is there a difference in the British Government's attitude to those two aspects?

As my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier, the difference is that we believe that the social dimension should help to improve economic performance across Europe. It is clear that the Council of Europe social charter, which provided a framework, was a very good text, but it did not extend to deciding at European level those matters that we properly believe should be decided by each nation state. We know that liberalisation and deregulation are the only way to achieve economic growth and a reduction in unemployment. We believe that we should be entitled, in accordance with the Commission's principle of subsidiarity, to decide which way the country goes.

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

We have no substantive dealings with the Kabul regime, which has been rejected by a majority of the Afghan people. We look forward to the day when the regime is replaced by a truly representative Government with whom we could have normal relations.

Surely the Secretary of State has to come to terms with the fact, however unpalatable, that Dr. Najibullah's Government have survived, strengthened their position and defeated the forces of reaction militarily. Even Conservative Members have to come to terms with that. It is suggested by many, and even by moderate rebel leaders, that there should be some understanding and means of negotiation so that this so-called Afghan problem can be resolved. Will the Secretary of State take the initiative and arrange a conference so that the various warring parties can come round the table and reach a settlement which will mean peace in Afghanistan, which is so important to everyone?

The force that destroyed peace in Afghanistan 10 years ago was the invading Soviet army. The Najibullah regime was installed and armed by the Russians and was upheld against the wishes of the majority of the Afghan people. It controls less than one fifth of the country and its so-called reconciliation policy has failed. I prefer to accept the judgment of the 5 million Afghan refugees who have still fled the country and decline to return there to that of the hon. Gentleman.

Did my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity recently of thanking Mrs. Bhutto and her country for all the help and support they have given to the people of Afghanistan over the past 10 years? Those people are still suffering the backlash of Soviet occupation.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I took that opportunity. The people and Government of Pakistan have borne a heavy load throughout that time and are much to be thanked by the world community and the people of Afghanistan.

Is not the reality that the heady forecasts of a quick victory for the mujaheddin of perhaps six months or so ago are no longer valid and there is no realistic chance of a military solution to the internal conflict? The reported decision of the United States Administration to finance one more fighting season is wrong. It will increase the fatalities in that war-ravaged area. Will the Government, therefore, have the courage to say to the United States that the decision to finance one more fighting season is wrong and will they urge negotiations as the only basis for future stability in that country?

The wish on which everyone is united is the emergence of a Government representative of the people of Afghanistan as a whole and that means a Government to whom the 5 million refugees can safely return, not the Government being sustained by the support of Soviet arms. The hon. Gentleman must recall that before the Russian withdrawal, massive quantities of Soviet arms were entrusted to the Najibullah regime and those supplies have continued in large quantities until today.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Hungarian Government; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and learned Friend met Hungarian State Minister Imre Pozsgay on 25 April. I have just returned from a three-day visit to Hungary where I met Prime Minister Nemeth, Mr. Pozsgay and a wide range of Government, party and Opposition leaders. I also laid a wreath at the grave of Imry Nagy and placed flowers at the memorial to Raoul Wallenberg. I expressed the strong support of the Government, and I believe the House, for the process of reform taking place in Hungary.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I had the honour to teach many children driven from Hungary at the time of the invasion by Russian tanks? They were very fine children and their parents came with them. Many others were driven out by the murderous regime of Jánós Kádar. My right hon. and learned Friend has the support of all parties in welcoming the improvements in Hungary. However, will he assure the House that the developments in Hungary will be to the advancement of the people of that nation in a truly democratic form and to the elimination of the past wickednesses they have suffered?

Progress is very marked, and there is free and open discussion of all the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned, including the past and the rehabilitation of Imre Nagy. The reburial on 16 June was truly a watershed. I do not think, however, that any hon. Member should underestimate the deep suspicion with which people in the opposition groups in Hungary view even the most liberal members of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' party which was responsible for those previous regimes.

Is the Minister aware that those Opposition Members who stood four square behind the people of Hungary during the revolution in support of attempts to create a society which was genuinely democratic very much welcome what has been happening in Hungary recently? Is he also aware, however, that some of us feel even today how regrettable it was that we in this country could not give our full attention and support to the people of Hungary because the Government of the time were involved in a silly business—Suez.

I am not sure that I can reopen the question of Suez. I am sure that there will be quite a lot of agreement on both sides of the House about that. Having said that, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's powerful support for what is happening in Hungary and above all for the openness with which the truth is being told about 1956 and the years after 1956. The memorial to Imre Nagy is not the only moving sight in that graveyard. One also sees monuments to unknown people, many of whom were executed up to five years later, and the truth is at last being told about that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the ministerial contacts that he described, which I greatly welcome, opportunities are, increasingly presenting themselves for British and Hungarian industries to get together to consider opportunities for inward investment in Hungary as a way of assisting the growth of its economy? Is that a task in which the Government could take an interest and involve themselves?

We have an investment protection agreement with Hungary, which is very welcome. I am glad to see the United States catching up with Britain in some respects, and we welcome what the President has announced, although I am happy to say that some of the arrangements were already in place. Hungary has never rescheduled her debts and deserves a proper response from Western investment now that she is welcoming it, although we believe that there is still a long way to go in opening up a market economy, as one would expect after 40 years of Communist nightmare.

Does the Minister agree that Hungary is as much a country of central Europe as Austria is? Will the Government take steps to ensure that the European Community regards Hungary in much the same light as Austria, though needing very much more help to assist it towards economic and democratic success?

I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has considerable knowledge of these matters, welcomes the fact that the European Community has a very good agreement with Hungary, and I am glad that the Government played some part in carrying that through. It is true that Hungary is a European country and part of European culture, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said resoundingly in her speech at Bruges.

As one who stood alongside Imre Nagy in 1956 when he proclaimed a new deal for Hungary, and who ended up a prisoner of the Red army for my pains, let me ask my hon. Friend whether he regards the rehabilitation of Imre Nagy and the movement of Hungary back towards freedom as one of the remarkable historical changes that we have witnessed in recent years? Is it not true, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlisle) suggested, that we should now be trying to open the door for Hungary to become associated in some way with such western organisations as the Council of Europe and, eventually, the EEC?

Hungary does have guest membership—observer status—at the Council of Europe, and that is a good thing. I support what my hon. Friend says. I hope that it means exactly what it says. In his speech to the Council of Europe Mr. Gorbachev said that countries were allowed to choose their own paths. If Hungary is allowed to choose its own path, we know which it will be.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has been making to the Government of China on the subject of human rights.

We and our European Community partners have firmly condemned the brutal actions of the Chinese Government. I made this plain to the Chinese chargé d'affaires on 5 June. On 27 June the European Council adopted a declaration on China, which reiterated our condemnation and called on the Chinese authorities to respect human rights. In accordance with this declaration, ambassadors representing the Twelve have been instructed to seek the admission of independent observers to attend trials and visit prisons.

In the light of other countries restricting their trade with China, will the Foreign Secretary say whether the 48 group, which includes BOC, Plessey and Pilkington, is still going ahead with its massive trade mission in November? Are the Government giving that trade mission their blessing? If they are, how can they justify the use of Department of Trade and Industry funds to subsidise it, only a month after the Tiananmen square massacre, and when executions are still taking place and human rights are being abused? Are the Government adopting a mercenary manner by ignoring those horrendous happenings and saying that business will go ahead as usual?

As I have told the hon. Gentleman, the Government, in common with all Governments of the world, have in no uncertain fashion expressed their horror at what has taken place. Equally, Her Majesty's Government, in common with all Governments of the Economic Community and of the economic seven—not least that of Hong Kong, strongly urged by the people of Hong Kong—do not believe that it would be right to impose economic sanctions in our relationships with China. I have no doubt about that. Every other Government take the same view. Of course we have postponed consideration of concessional financing for new projects, and of course we are looking carefully at any particular case involving DTI support for trade missions. It is for that reason that the Sino-British trade council announced on 7 July its postponement of the all-British exhibition scheduled for November. The DTI is still in consultation with the 48 group to which the hon. Gentleman referred about its plans to mount a mission to China in the autumn.

Is it not in the interests of China to take early steps to restore the people of Hong Kong's confidence in the future of their rights, for example by agreeing that the People's Liberation Army will not be stationed in Hong Kong after 1997 and that the right of interpretation of the Basic Law shall rest unambiguously in Hong Kong?

My right hon. Friend has drawn attention to two articles of the draft Basic Law which were most frequently pressed upon me on my recent visit to Hong Kong. On each of those matters I have already expressed a view which my right hon. Friend has just now expressed.

May I say how much many Opposition Members welcome the Government's rediscovery of human rights in China and hope that they will now extend to Tibet? Who knows, when the Dalai Lama of Tibet next comes to London, perhaps the Foreign Secretary will find time to meet him.

The scale of events in Tibet and of those in Peking recently were completely different. In any event, at the time of the last tragedies in Tibet, Her Majesty's Government made clear their deep concern about what was happening there. As the hon. Member knows, the Dalai Lama did, indeed, come to London.

As one of the purposes of maintaining diplomatic relations is to pass to Governments messages that sometimes have to be passed, however unpleasant they may be, will my right hon. Friend, through whatever channel is open to him, convey a message to the Chinese Government, advising them against seeking to influence opinion in western Europe with a propaganda booklet entitled "The June Turbulence in Beijing"? That booklet is unlikely to win them friends, change any minds in the West, or to gain them any respect.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the book, which I have not yet studied. I shall certainly do so in the light of his advice. He is no doubt well placed to convey similar advice to the Chinese Government.

Does the information that the Foreign Secretary gets from missions in China confirm the information that I received today that the purge and repression is much worse than is reported in the western media, and that in the past few weeks, thousands of students have been rounded up in Szechwan province?

Nobody doubts the importance of the moral message that the hon. Gentleman is uttering. The entire collection of western Governments has expressed that very strongly. The fact must be faced that Hong Kong, for which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) claims some responsibility, is intimately dependent, economically and politically, upon what takes place in China. The advice of people in Hong Kong, which is upheld by Governments around the world, is that it would not be helpful to the advancement of the cause of respect for human rights in China to rupture economic links with them.

Shoddy.

It may be shoddy in the right hon. Gentleman's judgment, but it is the universal judgment of all the countries with whom we have been in consultation.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it a fascinating contradiction that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) did not take the same view about the Falklands? Does he agree that we have to face the fact that Hong Kong exists, that we have responsibilities, that we have a very short period in which to ensure the survival of the way of life of Hong Kong, and that that can be achieved only by working with and talking to the Chinese?

Our responsibility to the people of Hong Kong can and should be achieved by making it absolutely plain to the Government of China how shocked we and the rest of the world were by what took place in Peking six weeks ago, and by seeking at the same time a change, including the method of change. We also seek the continuity of economic relations between Hong Kong and China. That is the view not just of this Government, but of all the Governments of the European Community and of all the substantial trading partners.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to encourage the transition to democracy in Hong Kong.

As I told the House on 5 July, we shall be re-examining current plans for the development of representative government in Hong Kong. As the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs pointed out in its report published on 30 June, the wishes of the Hong Kong people themselves must be crucial to our approach to this question.

In the light of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on Hong Kong and of the official opposition view that, by 1991, 50 per cent. of the Legislative Council should be elected and that by 1995, 100 per cent. should be elected, what is the view of the Government on these proposals and, more particularly, will they implement them so that, before the handover date of 1997, full democracy is operating in Hong Kong?

We shall, as I have made clear already, review the rate of progress toward representative government in Hong Kong in the light, above all, of evolving opinion in the territory. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs pointed out—I have already made this point—that the wishes of the Hong Kong people must be crucial to our approach to this question. The last considered opinion expressed in Hong Kong was that expressed unanimously by the Office of the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils of Hong Kong on 24 May. It is now reconsidering the matter. It is already clear, as I have made plain, that plans for 1991 will certainly need to be looked at again. We shall consider what needs to be done before 1997 once those views have been expressed clearly within Hong Kong.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he is absolutely correct that it is the wishes of Hong Kong about the pace of democracy which must prevail, although, as he rightly says, there are signs of increasing strength of feeling about the need to have democracy well entrenched by 1997? Will he try to explain to Opposition Members and to those outside this House, when they talk of economic sanctions and other attempts to break links with China, that 40 per cent. of Hong Kong's manufacturing industry is physically placed up the Pearl river in China? The ideas of Opposition Members would put a dagger at the heart of Hong Kong.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for both his comments. It cannot be stated too often that China is the largest commercial and financial partner of Hong Kong and that Hong Kong is the largest commercial and financial partner of China. It would be absolutely catastrophic to begin to approach this matter by deliberately savaging those crucial and important economic links.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there is a job to be done by a directly-elected democratic executive and legislature in Hong Kong in securing rights of refuge and settlement of abode—or however he cares to describe it—for larger numbers of people in the world than the Foreign Secretary or any British Government would have the moral authority to secure? Has he therefore made arrangements to receive advice individually from members of LegCo and ExCo, and not solely through the Government?

The members of LegCo and of OmelCo—the Office of the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils of Hong Kong—are well placed to extend their advice individually as well as collectively. I had the opportunity of meeting them together when I was there and each expressed strong views. I have no doubt that we shall subsequently hear from them individually as well as collectively.

Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that the people of Hong Kong will be allowed to draft and approve a Bill of Rights and when that has been achieved, will he persuade his Cabinet colleagues to provide a similar Bill of Rights for the people of Northern Ireland?

I would not seek to match my hon. Friend in his willingness to seek to address the questions and aspirations of the people of Northern Ireland. However, he can be sure that we intend to introduce a Bill of Rights at an early stage in Hong Kong. Indeed, the Governor will be making an announcement about that in October.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what training in the technical processes of democracy Britain can offer to countries emerging from totalitarian regimes.

We offer training in the technical processes of democracy through a wide range of visits, seminars, legal exchanges, and media and management training courses.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cause of democracy is now advancing widely throughout the world, especially in eastern Europe? While I pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for his offer to Poland—and, I believe, to Hungary—of support of that kind, does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely appropriate that the Government should add a measure of cash and training resources to complement our skills, strengths of tradition and knowledge in the processes of democracy?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his recognition of the £5 million know-how fund for Poland. In addition, the Great Britain-Eastern Europe Centre is planning a series of seminars on democracy. We also receive and respond to a wide variety of requests for help in this area from emergent democracies throughout the world.

Can we take it from the Minister's reply that the large majority of the people in South Africa, and people in Chile, Guatemala and other Right-wing dictatorships will also receive all the kinds of assistance that the Minister has just explained, as they move, we hope, from dictatorships to democracy?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that as part of a long-standing policy, supported by Governments of both parties, we have brought over many of the democratic opposition candidates and that we have assisted with visits by parliamentarians, especially to Chile. That will continue. There is a good case for examining whether there is any more that we can do in that area, right across the board.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made on negotiated reciprocal arrangements with other European Community members to combat drugs.

On 26 June my right hon. and learned Friend signed a bilateral agreement with Spain to trace, freeze and confiscate the assets of drug traffickers and combat the misuse of drugs. We are currently in active discussion with four other European Community countries with a view to signing similar agreements.

In congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friends on the recent agreement that has been signed with Spain, and in view of the fact that this is only the first agreement with one of our partners since the introduction of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, may I ask whether he is convinced that our European partners recognise the urgency of the escalating problem now facing us and that they are ensuring that Latin-American drug traffickers are not using Europe as a distribution centre and as the front door to the United Kingdom?

We must accept the fact that Europe as a whole is being targeted by the cocaine barons and, as part of Europe, we face a considerable threat both from crack and from cocaine. I have no doubt about our Community partners' commitment to fighting the menace from drugs. It is, however, a difficult technical matter to reach agreement with countries that have a different kind of legal system to ours. We are working hard at it, and I am hopeful that we will soon be able to sign further agreements.

Is it true that the number of seizures of drugs at United Kingdom borders by Customs officers exceeds the number of seizures by every other EEC state? If so, will the Minister assure the House that borders will not be dismantled after 1992, but that we will still maintain scrutiny, against, for example, drug merchants and terrorists, to ensure that traffickers are stopped? Otherwise, the Minister could be accused of subordinating the interests of United Kingdom citizens to the interests of the multinationals.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. It is, of course, essential that we maintain the ability to impose frontier controls after 1992 for the reason that he has given and for other reasons too.