To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position on the United Nations-sponsored intercommunal talks on Cyprus.

The intercommunal talks are stalled at the moment. The United Nations Secretary-General recently met the leaders of the two communities and will shortly present to them his views on how the talks can resume. We hope that this happens soon. We shall continue to give Mr. Perez de Cuellar our full support.

While I note that reply, is the Minister aware that President Vassiliou's efforts in seeking to unite the island of Cyprus have sadly come to nothing? As this country is one of the guarantor powers, does the Minister consider that the Government should now start to take a far more involved role and seek to bring together the Governments of Greece and Turkey to work out a settlement that will unite the island of Cyprus once again? How long does he really believe that the United Nations can be expected to carry on alone in this crucial issue?

We take our responsibilities in respect of Cyprus extremely seriously, as the hon. Gentleman suggests that we should and as our contribution to the United Nations peacekeeping force indicates. As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, there can be no solution unless the leaders of the two communities reach agreement with each other. To do that, there must be talks. As I have said, we must give full support to the United Nations Secretary-General in his good offices mission to enable that to happen. We very much hope that it will be successful

My hon. Friend will be aware that the next Inter-Parliamentary Union conference is to take place in Cyprus. Will he take this opportunity to assure the House that he will encourage our diplomatic representatives to facilitate the process of dialogue with all communities in Cyprus, including the freedom of movement which will be necessary in that process?

I say again that we shall do all that we sensibly can to encourage the process of dialogue to renew and to encourage the leaders of both communities to come to those talks in a spirit of good will, determined to reach an agreed settlement.

As Turkish Cypriots fully support the United Nations objective of a bizonal independent arid sovereign Cyprus, will the Government confirm that they will act even-handedly to both the Turkish Cypriots arid the Greek Cypriots? Does the Minister agree that intercommunal talks would be better facilitated if there were less provocation by the Greek Cypriots? For example, I refer to the pending visit to Bulgaria by the President of Greek Cyprus—a most tactless move—and the recent display of armaments on 1 October, including missiles and armed helicopters in southern Cyprus.

It is no secret that we think that it would be better if the President of Cyprus did not visit Bulgaria. It is important that the talks are renewed and that both sides go to them with good will, determined that the talks succeed. Our approach has been scrupulously evenhanded and will continue to be so.

Should not the Commonwealth be very strongly congratulated on its always outstanding statements on Cyprus? Will my hon. Friend continue to set his face like flint, as did his predecessors, against any form of recognition of the unilateral declaration of independence in the north of Cyprus?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his compliments, which I accept on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who conducted the negotiations at the Heads of Government meeting. On recognition of the north of Cyprus, it remains our view that the declaration of independence was an illegal act.

Does the Minister recall the passage in the Commonwealth communiqué which says that dialogue in the UN-sponsored talks—the intercommunal talks—is the only means by which progress can be made to a peaceful solution? Will he confirm that that at least was one area about which the Prime Minister did not dissent or write a separate document? Will he urge the Turks to use whatever leverage they have with the Turkish Cypriots to end any stalemate, urge them to come to the table on the basis of the United Nations talks and impose no preconditions?

The hon. Gentleman's first point is so silly that it does not merit a reply. With regard to his second point, I repeat that we will do what we can to encourage the leaders of both communities to come to the talks in a spirit of good will.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are still totally opposed to the presence of the Turkish army of occupation in northern Cyprus? Will he further confirm that there is no question of Turkey joining the European Community while that army is there?

Certainly those are matters which will have to be discussed. It is essential that the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots have confidence in any settlement that is eventually agreed. That is a precondition for any settlement and the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred will have to be discussed and decided upon.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards those clauses of the European Community's draft social charter which would ensure the participation of the work force in decision-making within companies.

We are fully committed to the principle of employee involvement, but we believe that it would be misguided to harmonise practice throughout Europe. It is for businesses to develop the arrangements that best suit their own circumstances and those of their staff.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate, and possibly sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman, on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new office? Does he agree that there is a public mood that in 1992 with the single market, there will be much more than just a business man's Europe and that employees should be able to participate in some of the objectives including having a better say in the industries in which they work? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm reports that the French Government are proposing a revised draft of the European social charter in some way to trade off employee rights against closer European monetary integration? What is the Government's response to that? Does he accept that both objectives should be pursued with much greater vigour than the Government have shown hitherto?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. That was most kind of him. With regard to the social charter, of course the Government accept that there is a social dimension to the Community. Our concern is that the social charter is the wrong way to achieve the objectives that many people want. With regard to the French attitudes, we all wait to see what President Mitterrand has to say in Strasbourg later today.

Since many clauses in the social charter are modelled on British practices or, if amended, could be made acceptable to British practice, would it not be better for my right hon. Friend to exercise his talent for reconciliation to achieve some agreement rather than appear to reject the whole concept out of hand?

At the moment our concern is that the Commission draft is a confused mixture of general principles and detailed intrusive regulation. We believe that that would have the practical effect of restricting the freedom of workers and employers to negotiate the most suitable arrangements for themselves and their staff. The employers and employees should negotiate those matters and there should be no imposition from above.

Is the Government's position not now clearly established, as it was in Kuala Lumpur, in that they sign an agreement and repudiate it later? The Prime Minister agrees to 1992, but repudiates its implications later. Is that not an example of complete consistency by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary?

No such agreement signed in Kuala Lumpur was repudiated. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will be aware of the many Cabinet decisions to which he subscribed which he apparently subsequently denounced in his memoirs.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our record on social policy is really rather good compared with that of some of our competitors? Does he also agree that in the circumstances the last thing that we need is a social charter imposed by other countries?

I can certainly confirm that. The essence of any social policy is to create employment. We have created far more jobs in the United Kingdom over recent years than any of our European partners. That creation of jobs should be the centre of any social dimension.

May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment and wish him a happy and constructive spell at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? I assure him that he can rely on security of job tenure at the Foreign Office, unless, of couse, he hears Mr. Charles—[Interruption.]

Order. The question is about the EEC.

It is indeed, and I was offering my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman and saying that I hope that his job tenure will be acceptable to him and to Mr. Charles Powell.

Order.

She did so at the EC summit from a position of total isolation by opposing the social charter, at the NATO summit from a position of total isolation by opposing negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons and at the Commonwealth summit from a position of total isolation by repudiating the agreement that the right hon. Gentleman had negotiated.

Order. I ask for brief questions.

My question follows directly on the subject of harmonisation. The Prime Minister repudiated an agreement that the right hon. Gentleman had negotiated to fulfil her role as the enthusiastic accomplice of apartheid in South Africa.

Order. I am reluctant to say this to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but such questions take a long time and that is unfair to the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman stand up against Mr. Powell on such issues in the same way as the Chancellor is standing up against Sir Alan Walters? Is he going to be a Foreign Secretary or is he going to be the man who sweeps up after the Lord Mayor's procession?

First, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. I shall make up my own mind about my responsibilities as Foreign Secretary, as I was appointed to do.

rose——

Order. We are making extremely slow progress. We have dealt with only two questions in about 20 minutes. I ask for brief questions as we shall then receive brief answers.

Unlike the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), may I ask a question about the social charter? Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of my colleagues believe that the social charter has no relevance to the single market? We believe that this sovereign Parliament should decide such matters, not the EC.

I entirely share my hon. Friend's view and that is, of course, what the principle of subsidiarity means.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

I hope to visit Hong Kong early in the new year. Precise dates have not yet been determined.

Is the Foreign Secretary somewhat relieved that after the Commonwealth conference's unanimous agreement to a statement on the position in Hong Kong, no member of the Commonwealth repudiated the statement one hour after making it? As the Foreign Secretary moves more towards the idea of compulsory repatriation, and there is much talk of economic migrants as against refugees, how does the right hon. Gentleman intend to determine between economic migrants and genuine refugees in the case of Hong Kong?

First, on a point of information, the hon. Gentleman may care to know that no communiqué was repudiated—[Interruption.]—by the Government. The communiqué was accepted in its entirety and without demur. However, there were four areas in the communiqué on which I expressly declined to agree with my Commonwealth colleagues and the subsequent press statement set out the British position on those areas. In the case of Hong Kong, the international community has accepted for some time that all those screened out as non-refugees should, in due course, be returned to Vietnam. Ultimately, that is the only possible solution.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on his appointment, but on securing the statement in the communiqué by the Commonwealth Heads of Government to which he has just referred, relating to the return to Vietnam of those boat people who are determined not to be genuine refugees? How far have my right hon. Friend's talks about monitoring such returns proceeded with the Government of Vietnam?

Those talks are continuing. I hope that they will be concluded before too long, but, as yet, they are not wholly finished. We are concerned to ensure that when Vietnamese refugees and non-refugees return to Vietnam they are treated properly and fairly and we shall seek to ensure that monitoring arrangements are made to safeguard them.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does the point of order arise out of the question?

This is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members cannot properly hear what is being said. I do not know whether it has anything to do with the new television cameras, but we cannot hear the questions being put to the Minister, or the replies. Hon. Members sitting over here certainly cannot hear. Will you look into this matter, so that we can at least hear what is being said?

Perhaps I should ask hon. Members to speak up. I had some difficulty in hearing the last question—[Interruption.] Order. I shall have the microphones looked into.

I do not think that my hon. Friend's complaint will apply to me. Will the Secretary of State consider giving some assistance to the Government of Vietnam to help with the refugee settlement programme? Will he also do what he can to ensure proper safeguards and monitoring for the return of refugees? Does he understand that although Opposition Members support encouragement and persuasion to return for those not accepted as refugees, we shall strongly oppose forced repatriation? Will he now rule out force as part of his orderly return programme?

I shall take the hon. Gentleman's final point first. It is becoming increasingly clear that voluntary repatriation cannot provide the comprehensive solution that is necessary. We are seeking to counsel and persuade the Vietnamese boat people to return to Vietnam. We are receiving the full support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in doing so. I invite the hon. Gentleman to recognise that the problem in Hong Kong is now acute. It is getting worse and cannot be borne much longer. It will soon be necessary to tackle the thorny question of involuntary repatriation. I shall do that as and when it is necessary. I shall most certainly be seeking safeguards for those people who return, because I regard that as a most important matter.

Will my right hon. Friend agree, before he approves any agreement with the Vietnamese Government, to consider the concerns of many colleagues in the House about the prospect of 33,000 Vietnamese non-refugees being forcibly returned to Vietnam? Will he also undertake to consider our views that any aid should be directed to their resettlement—difficult enough in many communities in Vietnam—and that the United Nations or the European Community should examine much more carefully the rehabilitation of the whole of Vietnam's infrastructure and development, now that it has changed its policy to one of development and a market economy? Unless we do that, many of us will be deeply worried about reluctant or compulsory repatriation, given that people will be returned to the abject poverty from which they have come.

Vietnam stands a better chance of getting what it wants from the international community if and when it fulfils its international obligations—that point must be understood. The key element is an unequivocal and public commitment by Vietnam to taking back all non-refugees in safety and dignity, and we shall seek that.

Order. May I say to those who are asking questions from a sedentary position that that does not help us to hear?

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

We have consistently supported efforts to replace the present regime in Kabul with a truly representative Government acceptable to the majority of Afghans. That is the necessary preliminary to any lasting settlement and to the voluntary return of Afghan refugees.

It is now nearly six months since the Soviet Union did the right thing and withdrew its troops from Afghanistan. It is perfectly clear that the Government in Kabul is far from being doomed as we were told that it would be, but we do know that the feudal terrorists are pouring rockets into Kabul onto hospitals and buses, and innocent people are being killed. Will the Foreign Secretary assure us that he will use all his energies to ensure that neither the United States nor Pakistan gives succour or arms to these terrorists?

In view of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, he may be both surprised and shocked to know that in the six months since Russian troops left, 4,000 supply flights from Russia have gone to Najibullah.

Does the Minister accept and understand why the regime has not been defeated? It is because the workers, peasants and above all the revolutionary women who support the Government have made it clear that they back enlightened change and reforms. It is about time that this Government understood those things and that one cannot defeat a revolution with popular backing. Despite all the dirty tricks, the regime in Afghanistan will prevail.

I fear that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. So enlightened is the regime to which he refers that 5 million people have fled from it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals consular officials in Spain helped this summer.

Between 1 June and 30 September 1989, British consular posts in Spain received 41,818 visitors and 49,538 telephone inquiries.

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. Does he recognise that the whole House wants to thank consuls, and particularly our honorary consuls in Spain, for the work that they undertake on behalf of British nationals? Given that at least 500,000 British nationals are now permanently resident in Spain, is my hon. Friend confident that the present consular set-up is adequate to deal with their legitimate needs—for example, to deal with their pension and other benefit inquiries?

I thank my hon. Friend, both for his welcome to me and for what he said about the excellent work done by our consular network in Spain. We have a particularly extensive network of consuls—12 consulates and six honorary consuls—and we keep both the size and the location of that network under review in the light of demands on its services and the resources available to us.

Is the Minister aware that the all-party heritage committee received great kindness and efficiency from our consul in Seville? Will the Minister give a mind to the problems likely to arise in July when it is a sweltering 110 deg and there is a huge influx of people for Expo? Has that been considered?

I am glad to hear from the hon. Member that the all-party committee was well received by our consul in Seville. I note what he said about the problems that could arise during Expo—we are considering them—in the light of the temperature and the demands on resources in that area.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Bulgarian Government in connection with their policy of Bulgarianisation of the Turkish minority.

We have always used every opportunity to urge the Bulgarian Government to improve their treatment of their Turkish minority. Most recently, I raised this with the Bulgarian ambassador on 20 September.

Will my hon. Friend use the influence of the Government and the regard with which our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is held in both countries to take forward the process of diplomacy between Bulgaria and Turkey so that they start to talk and stop bouncing people backwards and forwards across the frontier?

We shall certainly do that and, with our European Community partners, we hope that there will be a meeting in Kuwait between the Foreign Ministers of the two countries to discuss this issue. I believe that that would be sensible.

Before any representation is made, will the Minister refer to the resolution emanating from the report of, and the in-depth debate that took place in, the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in September, when blame was laid on both countries for the human tragedy and make every effort to bring about a dialogue between the two countries?

I am well aware of that report, and I think that the hon. Member's advice is wise.

The Bulgarians are treating their Turkish minority population with great brutality. Can my hon. Friend tell the House what replies he got during his recent visit and discussions with the Bulgarian ambassador?

The result was not satisfactory. There has long been a policy of Bulgarianisation—making use of the language impossible, and so on. There are some signs that aspects of that are being abandoned. If so, that is welcome, but the huge scale of the movements across the border when it was open show how much pressure those Turkish people have been under.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will make further representations to the Egyptian Government regarding the failure of the Egyptian authorities to return to Mr. Douglas Forsyth control and possession of his villa in Egypt.

No. Mr. Forsyth's father accepted compensation from funds provided by Egypt under the 1959 agreement for the presence of a sitting tenant when the villa was handed back.

My hon. Friend will understand that that is a very disappointing reply. Is he aware that the compensation paid to the Forsyth family was in respect of capital depreciation and that there is not a scrap of evidence to support the Foreign Office's contention that that was in any way compensation for loss of the control and possession of their villa, to which they are entitled under the Anglo-Egyptian agreement of 1959? As this family has been virtually defrauded by the attitude of the Foreign Office, will the Minister agree to meet me and the family so that we may see justice done and discuss this very legal point?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the energy and diligence with which he has pursued this case over a long period. He knows that the facts go back a long way. I am unhappy to have to say that our interpretations of the legal position do not agree. The advice I have received does not confirm his view that Mr. Forsyth's father did not receive compensation for the loss of vacant possession of his villa. I shall be happy to see my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.

Has the Anglo-Egyptian house compensation system been drawn to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who got kicked out of his house by the Prime Minister, acting like Lady Porter? What sort of a points system is the Government running when they kick out a man with a family and kids and put in a bloke who has no family?

Order. I do not think that it is in Egypt, is it?

The hon. Gentleman raises his point of view with his usual ingenuity and delicacy. However, I fear that I cannot find any particular connection with the villa in Egypt and Mr. Forsyth.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to promote a cessation of the conflict in the Lebanon.

With our European partners we continue to support fully the Arab League committee of three Heads of State in their efforts to bring peace to Lebanon. We welcome the agreement reached at Ta'if by the Lebanese parliamentary deputies.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there will never be peace in the Lebanon while the Syrian occupation troops are there? Does he further agree that there is considerable disquiet that the Arab League agreement, welcome as the efforts have been to reach it, appears to legitimise the position of Syrian troops in the Lebanon? Does he also agree that the Government and people of Britain will never compromise with a regime that has been shown by Amnesty International to be guilty of atrocities and which has been shown by other investigations to be guilty of air terrorism?

Our views about some of the activities of the Syrian Government are well known to the House. We believe that it is right and necessary for the sovereignty of Lebanon for all foreign troops, including the troops of the state of Israel, to leave that country. We also strongly believe that in the tragic situation of that country the agreement gives the best hope of restoring proper sovereignty.

The Minister could acknowledge rather more than he has in his answer the extent to which the fly in the ointment, or rather the dangerous angry hornet in the ointment in the Lebanon, is Syria. The Minister welcomes the Ta'if agreement, but surely an agreement that gives the Syrians two years to withdraw from Beirut and an unlimited time to withdraw from the Lebanon as a whole is rather less than perfect.

I do not think that it is my job to say whether, ideally, a better agreement could have been written. We think that we have here the beginning of a process that could lead to peace in the Lebanon. We see nothing better on offer. There is certainly no hope of the Syrians being driven by force out of the Lebanon. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we are right and the agreement could lead to peace, it will only be if the Syrians withdraw—and the sooner the better.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the record of the Syrians in Lebanon as shown by Amnesty International is one of almost unparalleled brutality? Their record in air terrorism extends from Hindawi to Lockerbie, yet we are endorsing an agreement reached at Ta'if that would leave the Syrian Army controlling almost every polling station in three quarters of Lebanon to elect a Government who are then supposed to discuss with the Syrians the possibility of their withdrawal.

My hon. Friend seems to be endorsing some other solution. We do not see any hope for the Lebanon other than that brought about by the work of the Algerians, the Saudis, the Moroccans and the Arab world as a whole. That is the only hope at present and it is incumbent on all those such as my hon. Friend who wish Lebanon well to do their best to support the agreement.

While I am sure that all reasonable people agree with the Government that we must back the Arab League's efforts, does the Minister agree that there will not be proper long-term peace in Lebanon without a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Is it not over time for the British and American Governments to put more pressure on Israel to have proper negotiations with the Palestinians for a settlement there that will assist the achievement of peace in Lebanon?

I agree with the hon. Lady that the poison in the whole region is the lack of a settlement of the fundamental problem between the Palestinians and the Israelis. None the less, the restoration of peace and a sovereign Lebanon would do a great deal to help bring about peace in that region as well. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently met the Foreign Minister of Israel and once again made our views clear.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last attended the European Council of Ministers; and what subjects were discussed.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 3 October. Issues discussed included the television broadcasting directive, assistance to Poland and Hungary, trade relations with the United States and Japan and renegotiation of the Lomé convention.

Does my hon. Friend agree that enthusiastic British support for rapid progress towards a free market for goods and services inside the Community should be accompanied by robust resistance in the Council of Ministers to some of the bureaucratic lunacies emerging from the Commission?

We shall resist bureaucratic lunacies from whatever source they emanate. We look extremely carefully at every Commission proposal to ensure that it is properly framed within the competence of the Communities and under the proper legal base. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to our enthusiastic support for the completion of the single market, and to our pleasure that this is now broadly following a liberal approach of the sort that we can strongly support.

Following the Government's enlightened decision not to sell the Hawk trainer aircraft to Iraq, have they taken the opportunity to follow this issue up in the European Council, with a view to trying to ensure that the Iraqis do not get the Alpha jet as a substitute?

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that that matter has been pursued in the Foreign Affairs Council, but certainly my right hon. Friend and I will want to reflect on what he said to see whether that is appropriate.

How much satisfaction is given to my hon. Friend by the prospect of one of Her Majesty's Ministers being summoned before the Court of the European Community to answer allegations about the condition of our drinking water?

We have every confidence that the quality and standard of our drinking water are exceptionally good. We strongly regret the action that the European Commission has taken. The Commission accepts that we are doing everything that we can to bring water up to the required standard. No one has suggested, not even the Commission, that any time scale more rapid than that which we propose is possible, and its action in taking infraction proceedings against us, as it has done against many other member states, is irrelevant and harmful.

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box on his first appearance as the Minister with responsibility for Europe. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), was ditched because she showed a slight glimmer of independence of mind. It seems clear from his career that he is in no such danger. Let me bring him back to the subject of the social charter. Why is it, according to today's newspapers, that when even all the other Right-wing champions of the social charter seem willing to accommodate the foot-dragging views of the British Government, we will still not agree to the charter? What sort of Community does the Minister envisage when we stand alone so consistently and regularly against proposals that all our partners believe are essential for the correct working of the single European market?

The hon. Member must not be too fulsome in his compliments. I can tell him what sort of social charter we would find acceptable. It would be a charter that accepted the principle that the Heads of Government enunciated at the Madrid Council with respect to the principle of subsidiarity, which leaves as much as possible to the national practices and voluntary traditions in other countries. The present draft of the social charter does not do that. That is a matter of considerable regret, and we hope that there can be further changes that will make it acceptable.

Can my hon. Friend explain why he did not resist signing the television directive, which surely has nothing whatever to do with the creation of a single market? It was condemned by the United States Government representative, Carla Hills, as being one of the worst examples of protectionism and anti-Americanism and fortress Europeanism, and it makes it mandatory for television companies throughout Europe to carry 50 per cent. of European content. This has nothing to do with the single market.

I can remember discussing this matter with my hon. Friend on another occasion when I was in my previous role. This is an important measure which does have something to do with the single market, because it prevents national Governments from erecting barriers to transfrontier broadcasting. It is quite an important single market measure. My hon. Friend may not have read it as carefully as others have. The formulation in the directive makes it clear that it is not possible for countries, the European Commission or national Governments to insist in all circumstances that over 50 per cent. of the programming is of European content. The United States Government made representations at a late stage in the discussions and the formulation that was arrived at was much more liberal than that which was proposed originally, to the extent that considerable embarrassment was caused to the French Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, and if the social charter was discussed on that occasion.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not yet met the Spanish Prime Minister.

Is the Minister aware of the briefing given by Commissioner Papandreou in London last week, when she emphasised the flexibility of the social charter and spoke of the plurality of cultures that it contains? Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will learn something about consensus and will seek by 1992 to produce a commitment to Europe that at least will provide equality for all the people rather than just for some?

I am aware of the briefing that Commissioner Papandreou gave in London last week. The problem is that it is difficult to recognise the social charter, as it is drafted, from the words that the commissioner used.

Does my hon. Friend agree that he and the Spanish Foreign Secretary should publish explanatory notes for British and Spanish trade unionists and others so that they can be aware that when the directives go through workers who believe that they are not getting union recognition rights, such as those at GCHQ and elsewhere, will be able to go to the European Court instead of this Parliament or their employers, and those who believe that they are not being paid satisfactory wages can go to the European Court instead of this Parliament or their employers? Why do not the Government publish a paper that explains what it is all about so that the British people can know before the directives go through?

We have been at some pains to set out our concerns about the draft social charter as it is now framed. Our concerns include those to which my hon. Friend has referred. The more widely these issues are understood, the better it will be.

Will the Minister take the earliest opportunity to express to Mr. Felipe Gonzalez the great outrage in Britain at Spain's refusal to return 30 children in defiance of court orders awarding custody, and despite the fact that Spain is a signatory to both the international convention and the Hague convention on custody? Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Spanish Government immediately to enact domestic legislation that will give effect to the treaties that they have signed?

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important and serious matter which I would wish to examine closely.

When my hon. Friend met the Spanish Prime Minister, did the issue of minimum wages within the European Community arise? Did he address the issue in terms of the effect that it would have on jobs and investment in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the European Community? Did he make it clear that the consequence of having a national minimum wage would be to create havoc for employment prospects here and elsewhere in the Community?

The burden of my original answer was that my right hon. Friend had not yet met the Spanish Prime Minister. The points that my hon. Friend makes are very much those with which we seek to argue the case against a prescriptive social charter. I was interested to read in today's newspapers that the UNICE, the Europeanwide body of employers, reflects many of the same concerns, especially the disadvantageous effect that a minimum wage provision would have on the poorer parts of the Community.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there are any proposals aimed at extending the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

The non-aligned movement and the Soviet Union have both recently come forward with formal proposals in the United Nations General Assembly for fuller use of the International Court of Justice. The United Kingdom which is one of the minority of United Nations members that accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, is carefully considering those ideas.

Would the British Government support a proposition to extend the jurisdiction of the court so that Fourth world nations such as the Kurds, who have been subject to the most appalling tragedies, could take their state to that court?

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting idea, but one which appears clearly to be outside the terms of reference of the International Court of Justice, which is concerned with disputes between member states. I suspect that there would be no little difficulty in defining which or what organisations or bodies should come under the hon. Gentleman's "Fourth world" definition, and who would be responsible for deciding which should qualify.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the International Court of Justice is entirely unlike the English courts of justice, which have given this country justice for many centuries? Is he further aware that judges at the International Court of Justice are political appointees, who are not always especially distinguished? Would we not do far better to stay with the English courts?

I am sure that there is no stronger defender of our courts than my hon. Friend. However, the point and purpose of the International Court of Justice is to resolve disputes between states. I suspect that even those who are the greatest admirers of the British system of justice would be reluctant to refer such disputes to our domestic courts.

Do the ideas put forward by the United Kingdom include the bringing to justice of war criminals such as Pol Pot, who is responsible for the genocide of up to 1 million people?

I must repeat that the International Court of Justice is concerned with disputes between states, not matters involving individuals.

Will the Government favourably consider an extension of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as part of, perhaps, a constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland?

As I said earlier, as the court is responsible for considering disputes between states, I cannot perceive an immediate application of its power or role in the position suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited central America; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not yet had an opportunity to visit central America. I visited Belize on 5 to 7 October. I hope to visit other countries in the region in due course.

I hope that the Minister has an opportunity to visit Nicaragua. However, in the event that he might not get there, can he say how much financial assistance the Government are prepared to give to the Nicaraguan Government to ensure free and fair elections next year? Will he consider giving some financial assistance for the training of the officers who have to run the elections? Were not those two of the areas that the British observer noted as having a distinct lack of resources?

I am glad to note the hon. Gentleman's concern that there should be free and fair elections in Nicaragua. I hope that that view is shared throughout the House. I hope that the elections will allow equal rights to both the Government and Opposition and a fair opportunity for both of access to the media. These matters are primarily for the Nicaraguan Government, but we have made clear to them our concern that there should be free and fair elections.

When considering the forthcoming elections in Nicaragua, will my hon. Friend exercise extreme caution in the light of the limitations on free speech in that country, its record on giving fair broadcasting time to the various contenders in elections and its disgraceful record on political prisoners?

My hon. Friend voices some of the widely held concerns about the election outlook for Nicaragua. We are sending an official observer—the highly respected Dr. David Browning—and we shall await with considerable interest his views on the conduct of the elections.

Will the Minister report on the outcome of the Prime Minister's meeting with President Cristiani of E1 Salvador in London last month? Will he tell us whether the Prime Minister condemned the increasing violation of human rights in that country where it is estimated that 296 people have either disappeared or been assassinated in the first three months of the ARENA Government? If, as I suspect, the Prime Minister did not voice that condemnation then, will the Minister now do so on behalf of the Prime Minister and her Government?

I have made clear to their Foreign Secretary our anxiety about human rights. We condemn abuses of human rights wherever they occur. I hope that the whole House will join me in deploring the particularly reprehensible recent example when the 23-year-old daughter of the commander of the armed forces' centre of studies was shot in her car going to university. That is a breach of human rights which deserves universal condemnation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the search for peace in the Palestinian/Israeli dispute.

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

We fully support Egyptian efforts to seek clarification of Mr. Shamir's useful elections proposal and to promote talks in Cairo between the Israeli Government and Palestinians from inside and outside the occupied territories. We look to Israel to respond positively.

Is it my hon. Friend's view that if the Palestinian people were granted the right of self-determination, which they certainly should be under the United Nations charter, they would inevitably voice support for an independent Palestinian state? Has not the time come for the British Government to commit themselves to working towards the creation of such a state in the middle east?

We are working towards self-determination. It will then be entirely up to the Palestinians what they choose. The chairman of the PLO has said that they would then seek some form of federation—confederation is probably a better word—with Jordan. Self-determination is the first issue.

Is there not a disturbing credibility gap between the protestations of Mr. Arafat that he has renounced terrorism and seeks peace, and the pronouncements of some of his close associates, including Abu Iyad, that the Palestinian strife must escalate in intensity? How are we to reassure the Israelis, at least until Mr. Arafat has publicly repudiated those sentiments?

I do not know what more the PNC can do to put on record that it now wishes to negotiate a way to peace. It is worth noticing that Mr. Arafat is threatened with death by Mr. George Habash and others who oppose that policy. We have said many times in the House that if Israel does not respond within a reasonable time, there are bound to be people in the broad movement of the Palestinians who return to violence.

Bearing in mind that the Israeli Government have contemptuously dismissed every peace plan proposal put forward and that the United States Administration seem to be moving very slowly in the direction of putting some pressure on the Israeli Government, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of a limited European initiative aimed at least at protecting the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza who continue to be terrorised by the Israeli occupying forces?

Britain and the European Community have increased help for the Palestinians in the occupied territories, and it is right that we should do so. I deplore the increasing economic pressure on Palestinians. It seems wholly self-defeating in terms of finding moderate leaders with whom to negotiate.

I welcome what the Minister said about the Egyptian 10-point plan. Is the Minister aware that the day before yesterday I had the opportunity in Cairo of discussing it with President Mubarak who made it clear that he framed the plan with the maximum effort to make it palatable to the Israelis? Indeed, General Rabin has made it clear that the Israeli Labour party agrees with the plan, and Israeli Labour Ministers tabled it in the Israeli Cabinet, where it was rejected. Is the Minister further aware that on Monday I had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Arafat, who made it clear that he was ready to go along with the Egyptian plan and take part with a mind delegation in discussions with the Israelis?

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I share his understanding and belief that the American and Egyptian Governments—I pay tribute to the skilful diplomacy of the latter in recent months—are trying to build effective and practical bridges over which both sides can advance. If that is to lead anywhere, however, a response from Israel is essential. I do not think that it can possibly be fair for Israel to demand, as its objective, that it be allowed to pick the delegation of Palestinians that would then negotiate in the face-to-face talks that we all hope will begin soon.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I will take it after the statement.