As the next three Bills have blocking motions, I shall put them together.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on further progress in the intergovernmental conference in the European Community on economic unity.

The United Kingdom continues to play a positive part in the European monetary union intergovernmental conference. The most recent discussions were in ECOFIN—the Economic and Finance Council—on 11 May 1991, attended by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Bearing in mind the huge changes that the negotiations and discussions would mean for the United Kingdom and the fact that, according to opinion polls, two thirds of the British people think that we will be at stage 3 with a single currency by the year 2000 and more than half of them think that that is a good thing, does my right hon. Friend accept that the correct role of United Kingdom Ministers is to defend United Kingdom interests in all the negotiations, but as a part of, and at the heart of, a Europe that continues to be strong, democratic and free?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The negotiations at both conferences—the one in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes part and the one in which I take part—have their occasional difficulties, as my hon. Friend knows, but they are being held in a good atmosphere and if everyone acts in the spirit that my hon. Friend suggested, the prospects will be good.

Does the Foreign Secretary think that the good atmosphere to which he referred has been improved by the early-day motion on the Order Paper?

I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt very adeptly with that matter yesterday. I have nothing to add to the comments that he made.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great confidence among Conservative Members in his ability to stand up for British interests in the negotiations and that there is no general willingness to tie his hands by imposing conditions on which concessions he may wish to offer to secure still more vital British objectives?

The stance that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I are taking in the two sets of discussions has been fully discussed in the House and in the country. I hope that, as my hon. Friend says, it commands general consent.

The right hon. Gentleman must not be quite so coy about the early-day motion and he must come clean on where he stands on it. Is the Government's policy the one that we know that the right hon. Gentleman favours, signing up for EMU and the single currency; or is it the policy of Sir Leon Brittan, which would side-track us on a double-track approach; or is it the policy of the early-day motion, which everyone knows that Downing street has stirred up and is the Prime Minister's position? Which of the three policies—[Interruption.] It is the tendency of Conservative Members to heckle on all their splits so they now heckle a lot. Which of the three is the Government's policy, or are they dithering among the three?

In following the right hon. Gentleman over many years, I have noticed that when he says that a certain thing is something that everybody knows, it is usually open to question, and that is exactly the position with his remarks today. The early-day motion to which he has again drawn attention refers to a text which the Luxembourg presidency put forward in an attempt to reach a compromise. There are various points in the text and some, although not all, are set out in the early-day motion and will need substantial change if they are to have our support.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international measures are being taken to tackle the drugs trade in the Caribbean.

The drugs trade poses a serious threat to the Caribbean. We are actively helping regional and international efforts aimed at interdicting drug smuggling, pursuing drug traffickers and confiscating their assets.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government pay great attention, applying considerable detail, to drug trafficking in the dependent territories and that they are taking a series of measures in co-operation with independent countries in the Caribbean which is to be welcomed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. Much of the United Kingdom's drug-related assistance goes to the region, especially to the dependent territories. That assistance amounted to more than £4 million last year. We are in contact with the independent countries and encourage them to enact suitable legislation and sign agreements with us. Recently, I signed an agreement with Barbados on confiscation of drug-related assets.

Although I welcome the position on the Caribbean, the Minister will be aware that some people there forecast that the movement will spread to Europe. Is he satisfied that drug smuggling into Europe will be met with the same international co-operation to destroy trafficking and protect our people?

Yes, it is particularly because of the movement of drugs from the Caribbean to Europe that we take such an interest. Naturally, we are also concerned for the interests of that region, but there is a community of interest between us because the drugs ultimately come here.

When considering international measures, will m y hon. Friend bear in mind the potential of the banking operations on many of the Caribbean islands to launder money on behalf of the drugs trade?

Yes, we are conscious of the need for arrangements to counter money laundering. Part of our activities is to advise on how to counter money laundering in that region.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is on the agenda of the European Council of 28 and 29 June; and if he will make a statement.

I expect discussion to cover the two intergovernmental conferences, progress in the single market programme and major international issues. The Luxembourg presidency has not yet announced the formal agenda.

Will the Heads of Government discuss why the United Kingdom is the only country in the European Community ever to have the Commissioner block regional development grant due to the misappropriation—if that is the proper word—of the Treasury in terms of the European Parliament? Will the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary raise the matter of fines that the United Kingdom Government wish to impose on European Governments for not carrying out Community law for the Treasury in that matter?

I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's question. If he wishes to write to me, the Treasury or the Department of Trade and Industry about his complaint, I shall look into it.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, on the early-day motion that has been mentioned today, has gone down extremely well with a very high proportion of Conservative Members? I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers on their efforts to ensure that the British line stands firm on those vital matters. I totally repudiate the remarks by the shadow Foreign Secretary suggesting that the motion was inspired at No. 10 Downing street. It came from the Conservative Back Benches.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend is delighted. I gracefully accept his congratulations.

Were the right hon. Gentleman a Back Bencher, would he have signed that early-day motion?

I would have had a long talk with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) first.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the role of political leadership to explain to the country and to the House the issues of principle and detail? Is not there a grave danger that the House and the country will be left without leadership on the vital issue of economic and monetary union?

I know of few political subjects that have been so thoroughly discussed and debated in the past months as that one was. Of course, my hon. Friend is right—there will need to be a constant process of debate and coming and going. As I understand it, the House will have an opportunity between now and the summit to go over those issues again.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent meeting with other Foreign Ministers from other EC member states on progress towards establishment of the single market.

Single market questions were not discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 13 and 14 May. Single market business is normally conducted at the Internal Market Council, where Department of Trade and Industry Ministers represent the United Kingdom. The Internal Market Council next meets on 18 June.

Will the Minister insist that the United Kingdom has the right to ban the importation of dangerous dogs, illegal drugs and illegal arms at the frontiers of this country, irrespective of the single market? If those overpaid, arrogant, appointed Commissioners try to interfere, will he muzzle them or will he be the lapdog of the Common Market, as the Government have been for the past 12 years when they have capitulated to every demand made by the Common Market?

The hon. Gentleman was once an overpaid Member of the European Parliament and I dare say that, given the marginality of his seat, he may soon be looking for another European seat.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the intergovernmental conference which is under way is about something completely different from the single market? The draft treaty from the Luxembourg presidency is about who controls economic, foreign and immigration policies and much else. Does it strike my hon. Friend as extraordinary that the newly pin-striped socialist nellies have no policy on that whatsoever?

My hon. Friend is right to say that intergovernmental conferences range over wide issues. They discuss the future of the European Community and European union and, as my hon. Friend said, the Government are at the centre of that debate. We intend to ensure that the next steps that the Community and the European union take will have the fingerprints of Britain all over them and that our influence is well brought to bear. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Labour party has spent a generation campaigning for withdrawal from the Community and now does not exactly know which way to move. One part of the party is manned by Europhobes, another part by Europhiles and it is led by Europhoneys.

Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Order. There seems to be a bit of a holiday atmosphere—will hon. Members please settle down.

I was tempted to ask whether, if the Minister had still been the deputy Chief Whip, there would have been any early-day motion for us to discuss. Instead, I shall point out the dramatic contrast between the words of the Secretary of State for Employment which appeared in the Financial Times last Monday, which suggested that the British Government's stance on the social charter had softened, and the hard-line approach taken on the same day in the Foreign Affairs Council by the Foreign Secretary, who said that the British Government opposed the social charter. If majority voting on social affairs is proposed, will the British Government use their veto at the intergovernmental conference?

I am able to give a simple answer on both the hon. Gentleman's points. I shall deal first with the social action programme within the Community and the general action taken by the Community on social issues. The hon. Gentleman will know—I wish that he would also make it known to his hon. Friends—that the United Kingdom is the only member state so far to have implemented all 18 of the directives due for implementation. We have an excellent record on social issues, for which I make no apologies.

Whatever the merits of the issue, did we give the European institutions, within the single market, the right to decide about tobacco advertising? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is one thing for the House to surrender powers to the European Community but that those powers should not be acquired by stealth.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that Britain's support for the single market and Britain's decision to achieve it by qualified majority voting was a wise decision and that the implementation of the single market is the driving force behind the Community. As regards the proposed directive on tobacco advertising, it is only a proposal. It raises a substantial number of difficulties, not merely for Britain but for many other member states.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inadequate answer from the Minister, who is a servile Euro-fanatic, I ask leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Order. Let me clear up this matter. It is certainly legitimate to ask to raise matters on the Adjournment, but not by making a speech and giving a foretaste of what the hon. Gentleman may say if he gets that Adjournment debate.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sri Lanka.

We support the Sri Lankan Government in their efforts to overcome the terrorist challenge that they face, but at the same time we have made very clear our concerns that all parties must fully respect human rights.

In pressing the Sri Lankan Government to pursue a political solution to the conflict between the Sinhala and the Tamils, can the Minister assure me that our Government will support the Australian initiative for mediation by the Commonwealth?

We have always made it clear that if there is any helpful part that we can play through mediation at the request of the Sri Lankan Government, we shall do so.

Has my hon. Friend seen the same reports that I have received on the local elections in Sri Lanka, saying that they were free and fair and that Tamils stood and were elected? Is it significant now that, in response to the tragedy in India, the voice of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was heard from that organisation's European headquarters in London? Is not it time that the Foreign Office and the Home Office got together to deal with those people who are essentially here on bogus visas?

I can confirm that it is our judgment that the elections were free and fair. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), to whom I have spoken, were observers at those elections, and I am happy to say that they endorse that judgment, as does the high commissioner in Sri Lanka.

Has the Minister any information about whether Tamil Tigers were involved in the cruel assassination of Rajiv Gandhi? What communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Indian Government about Mr. Gandhi's assassination?

No evidence of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman has come to our knowledge. Let us hope that evidence is soon available about the identity of the perpetrators of that dreadful crime. Her Majesty's Government and, indeed, Her Majesty the Queen, have sent messages to Mr. Gandhi's family and to the Indian Government about that terrible incident.

Does the Minister agree that the elections in Sri Lanka—which everyone concurred were free and fair—open up a period of political stability in that country? Does he agree that that, along with the exceptional talents of its people, will ensure that Sri Lanka plays a great and dominant role in the future?

I very much hope that my hon. Friend is right. We welcome the elections as having been free and fair. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that Sri Lanka has other problems to attend to before can move swiftly forward on a path of prosperity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any recent discussions with the Government of Yugoslavia.

I visited Yugoslavia from 25 to 28 February and met representatives of the Federal and Republican Governments. The Yugoslav Prime Minister, Mr. Markovic, called on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 April. I saw the deputy Foreign Minister on the same day. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in touch with the Foreign Minister.

When the Minister contacts the Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia, will he tell him, first, that in the view of all democratic opinion in Europe no military solution to Yugoslavia's regional and national problems would be acceptable and, secondly, that the British Government would be willing to argue in the European Community in favour of the EC's taking on a role of mediation and perhaps even providing a peace-keeping force?

On the role of the Yugoslav army, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be a disaster if it were used in the way that he described. It should be used only as a genuine peace-keeping force within Yugoslavia.

Have not the Government shown a complacent attitude to Yugoslavia? Do not the ethnic troubles in Yugoslavia threaten to overflow into other parts of Europe? As Europeans in one European home, we now have a responsibility. Should not the Government make a positive attempt to bring the European Community into discussions with the Federal Government of Yugoslavia and recognise that Federal Government as a proper member of the Council of Europe?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework. We have not been complacent. Indeed, our intervention in early January was given credit by the Croatian people for having prevented an invasion of Croatia by the Yugoslav army at that time. I do not believe that the European Community has a role to play. I have said that the CSCE might have a role to play if we could persuade all the parties to agree to use their good offices.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress to date in resolving the Arab-Israel dispute.

We welcome continuing American efforts to restart the middle east peace process, as I emphasised to Mr. Baker in Washington on Monday. With our EC partners, we have given them our full support. There has been some progress towards acceptance of the idea of a peace conference. Important differences remain, but there is enough encouragement to wear down those differences in order to get a conference under way.

Has the Foreign Secretary read the remarks attributed to Mr. David Gore-Booth, an Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office? Do those remarks assist the Government's endeavours with the peace process, and are senior civil servants at the Foreign Office entitled to make such speeches under the cloak of a personal capacity? Will the right hon. Gentleman please clarify the position on that?

After speaking on 20 March to a meeting of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, on lines which set out Government policy, Mr. Gore-Booth answered questions. A report on this appeared just the other day. Some of his answers gave personal views, not Government policy, as he made clear at the time. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] Mr. Gore-Booth is a talented and experienced public servant. I intend to take no further action.

Despite the recent tendentious press attacks aimed at undermining Britain's role in the middle east, which have just been aired again, does not my right hon. Friend agree that Britain and Europe have an important part to play, either in supporting Secretary Baker's initiative or in replacing it if it is blocked because of Israeli intransigence, as, regrettably, now seems likely?

I agree about supporting it. I do not believe that a European initiative could replace the active and energetic efforts of the United States. That is the view of the Twelve. We have deliberately stepped back from putting our own ideas and initiatives directly so as to give Mr. Baker's efforts a fair wind. I still think that that is the right policy.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there will be no permanent peace in the middle east until there is a Palestinian state? A clear statement on those lines by the British Government and other Governments would accelerate a long drawn out peace process that has no prospect of success while the Americans accept that there is an Israeli veto on the proposition.

We believe in the right of the Palestinians to exercise self-determination. The outcome of that is not for us to decide. To get this process under way, a conference must be held, which must include both tracks of negotiation—between Israel and the Arab states, which are still in a state of war or a state of belligerency with her, and between Israel and representative Palestinians. That, in essence, is the Baker plan, and we believe that it is the only sensible way to proceed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if progress is to be made there must be confidence-building measures on both sides? One important confidence-building measure, if the United Nations is represented at the conference, would be the rescinding of the "Zionism is racism" resolution.

I think that that would be difficult to achieve, but my hon. Friend is right about confidence-building measures. An important confidence-building measure would be a stop to new settlements on the west bank. If that were forthcoming, it would be reasonable to ask Arab states to look at the operation of the boycott. It is possible to imagine, on both sides, confidence-building measures that would help the parties to get to grips with the essential central matters of substance.

We pay tribute to the tireless efforts of Mr. Baker in seeking to find an acceptable peace formula for the middle east. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether, plausibly, there is any life left in those peace efforts, as Syria appears to have been written out of the script and the Israeli Prime Minister has said in terms that there will be no trading of land for peace?

Following my talk with Mr. Baker on Monday, I believe that there is enough encouragement —though not a breakthrough—for him to persevere. That is also his view. The issues that have not yet been successfully tackled are the exact role of the United Nations in the process and whether the conference would be a once-for-all conference which would launch the discussions on the two tracks that I have described or whether it would be resumed from time to time.

Does my right hon. Friend really believe that Mr. Gore-Booth's not-so-youthful indiscretions really helped Britain in its role as an honest broker in the middle east? Does he agree that any Minister who was as indiscreet as that mandarin would have been asked for his or her resignation? Should not Mr. Gore-Booth be treated similarly?

I have said what I have to say on that matter. When people go to meetings which they believe to be private and answer questions in an expressly personal capacity, the House must show some understanding of their position. I have confidence in Mr. Gore-Booth, with whom I have worked for a long time and, as I have said, I intend to take no further action in the matter. As my hon. Friend knows, we have close dialogue with the Government of Israel—perhaps closer and more intimate than for some years. I welcome that and intend to maintain it, and I see no difficulty in doing so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet representatives of political groups within Iraq.

I met representatives of political groups from Iraq on 7 and 12 March and on 22 April. I have no date set for another meeting. However, representatives are in regular contact with Foreign Office officials.

May we have an assurance that every possible pressure will be kept on Saddam Hussein during the period of the discussions in Baghdad between the Kurdish leaders and the Iraqi Government? If the Iraqi Government in any way delay finalising those talks, can it be made very clear to them that they invite external intervention in the internal affairs of Iraq?

We certainly think it desirable that the Iraqis should enter into an agreement with the Kurdish representatives with a view to establishing an autonomous region within Iraq. There are various points at which, under the Security Council resolutions, we can exercise pressure on the Iraqi Government. To the extent that that is proper, we shall do so.

Is it not incomprehensible to many people that a beast like Saddam Hussein, against whom the world took up arms, should be able to bring to trial and sentence a British subject?

I agree with my hon. Friend that that was a deplorable event. It was also in clear breach of a number of Security Council resolutions which required the release of third country nationals then held in Iraq. There are various types of pressure that we can put on Iraq. We have already made it plain that we shall be remarkably unsympathetic to any attempt to relax sanctions. Furthermore, we have made it plain that the attempt by the Iraqi Government to persuade us to unfreeze assets held within United Kingdom jurisdiction is likely to fail.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support those Cypriot politicians who are working for a peaceful solution to the problem of partition in Cyprus.

I recognise the hon. Member's close interest in this subject and, indeed, his wide knowledge of Greek culture. I am sure, therefore, that he will be pleased to know that Her Majesty's Government are giving full support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to secure a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus dispute.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the beautiful island of Cyprus has seen far too much human misery and experienced far too much drag on its economy as a result of 17 years of partition? Does he agree that, for historical reasons, Her Majesty's Government have a particular obligation to use their good offices to solve the problem? Does he agree that there has never been a better time for progress, with Turgut Ouzel increasingly recognising that the Cyprus problem is a major block to his ambitions for good relations with the west? The Gulf war has drawn attention to other United Nations resolutions, which have not been so enthusiastically pursued. There is increasing recognition by politicians on both sides of the divide in Cyprus that there must be a peaceful solution. Will the Minister therefore send the Government's congratulations to President Georghios Vassiliou who, in this weekend' elections [Interruption]—

Order. This is a rather long question.

I am asking the Government to send congratulations to President Vassiliou because in the elections at the weekend two thirds of the Greek electorate of Cyprus voted for his policies for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal republic of Cyprus.

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's question. He will be aware that the "noises off" were raised not so much in disagreement, but because his question was a tiny bit prolix. The Government strongly support the efforts made by the United Nations and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the stature and importance of the United Nations in world affairs has increased substantially in the past few months. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter with the United Nations Secretary-General on 20 May. We shall continue to support the Secretary-General in his efforts.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that the United Nations should now make a stronger effort as there is a better atmosphere with the Turks in that part of the world? Surely the United Nations can now take firmer action.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the United Nations Secretary-General's representative is pursuing separate discussions with the parties to the dispute with a view to the resumption of inter-communal dialogue. He proposes to report to the Security Council in July and we very much hope that his report will be encouraging.

Is the Minister aware that hon. Members who take an ongoing interest in Cyprus argue for a united Cyprus in which the rights of both communities, Greek and Turkish, are honoured? Is he also aware that one of the great stumbling blocks is the attitude that Mr. Denktash repeatedly takes when Turkish Cypriots wish to meet Greek Cypriots to discuss how they want to see their island developed? Mr. Denktash always refuses to allow Turkish Cypriots to leave the north to meet Greek Cypriots. Will the Minister make those views known to Mr. Denktash and tell him that he is in no way building goodwill or confidence by that attitude?

As the hon. Gentleman will know as he takes a close interest in these matters, Greek Cypriots attach fundamental importance to territory, rights of return, settlement and property, while on the other hand, for the Turkish Cypriots, security and political equality are the key concerns. What we wish to see, what the hon.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in the dialogue between the European Community and Latin America.

This dialogue has been strengthened by the ministerial level discussions that the European Community held with the countries of central America in Managua on 18 and 19 March and with the Rio group in Luxembourg on 26 and 27 April.

So that we get the British sales teams cracking in Latin America, will my hon. Friend outline to the House some of the commercial opportunities available to British sales forces?

The prospects for British exporters in the Latin American continent are very great—the more so now that countries there are fully open to democracy and are pursuing proper market policies. Latin America is a very promising market with 422 million people and a gross domestic product in 1989 of $840 billion. It offers substantial opportunities for British exporters who, in 1990, increased their penetration there by 16 per cent.

Does the Minister agree that the self-sufficiency, indeed the very nature of much of the farming in South America, is being destroyed by the lure of easy loot from the common agricultural policy to provide feedstocks for the beef and butter mountains in Europe and that it is causing a dramatic and detrimental change to much local agriculture in South America?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the most crucial issues facing Latin America at the moment is a successful outcome to the Uruguay round—an outcome which opens up European markets to the agricultural products of Latin America. That is an outcome for which Britain is pressing very strongly indeed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in talks on the future development of the port and airport in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

Talks with the Chinese Government on the Hong Kong airport project resumed on 18 May. We and the Chinese Government agree that Hong Kong needs a new airport, and we are making intensive efforts to secure Chinese support for the project.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that recent conversations with the Chinese Government and with the Hong Kong Government suggest that there is widespread support in principle for the early implementation of the project? Does he accept also that there is genuine cause for unease on the part of the Chinese Government over the long-term financial implications of the project? Will he keep an open mind on structures that would allow both governmental and commercial linkage to look at some way in which the financial aspects of the project can be monitored without interfering with the administration of the project?

My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the points that we have been discussing with the Chinese for some time now and we are still discussing it today. We are seeking means of reassuring them on that point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.

While the Government of Hong Kong must remain with and be seen to remain with the United Kingdom until 1997, is it not desirable in present circumstances that there should be many more exchanges of visits and much more dialogue between officials in Hong Kong and officials in China, in the interests of improving mutual understanding?

I am certainly in favour of that. I believe that there should be—and, under the joint declaration, would be—gradually increasing co-operation and exchanges of visits on such matters. My right hon. Friend will also agree that everyone needs to be clear that the Hong Kong Government retain the ability to administer Hong Kong effectively between now and 1997.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other Governments and the United Nations to review the mechanisms and structures of the United Nations.

We play a leading part in efforts by members states to bring about effective structures and efficient methods at the United Nations.

Am I correct in saying that under the provisions of article 96 of the United Nations charter, taking account of the major organs of the United Nations and the specialist agencies, only the secretariat headed by the Secretary-General does not have power to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice? Would not it help the peaceful solution of disputes if he were given such a power?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that supplementary question, which would have been difficult to answer in other circumstances. With all due deference and gratitude for that, however, I cannot be too enthusiastic in my reply. The position is broadly as the hon. Gentleman has described it. However, the United Nations bodies that need legal advice are those bodies which make the decisions—the General Assembly, the Security Council, and other bodies composed of member states. Those are the bodies that need advice from the International Court of Justice. Although we very much welcome all the hard work of the Secretary-General and the success that he has had, it would not be appropriate to press in the direction that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Will my hon. Friend note that the Prime Minister's excellent recent initiative in obtaining a common European policy on matters due to be discussed at the United Nations is a significant development and an important one within the European Community? Would not it also have the advantage of avoiding further discussion about whether Germany should become a member of the Security Council because it is most effectively influenced through Britain and France and the European Community common position?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, where there is a common European Community position, permanent members of the Security Council that are also members of the European Community, such as Britain, are more than happy to take account of it. We also make every effort to keep the rest of the Community involved in its activities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Foreign Secretary of Israel to discuss the future of the occupied territories.

My right hon. Friend has no plans for a further meeting with Mr. Levy at the moment, but he remains in regular contact with him, particularly on the peace process and the situation in the occupied territories. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), met Mr. Levy at the EC-Israel Co-operation Council in Brussels on 14 May.

Will the Minister confirm that the continued Israeli occupation of Arab lands in the west bank and Gaza is just as unacceptable and wrong in principle as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? Will he take every opportunity to make that simple fact clear and plain to the Israeli Government, whenever he meets them?

What I shall do, whenever I have the opportunity, is to impress on everybody—the Palestinians, the Arab states, and the Israelis—the importance of starting a peace negotiation. It is that which they must do.

Does my hon. and learned Friend recall that, when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, one of the first people to back Iraq was Yasser Arafat of the Palestine Liberation Organisation? Bearing that fact in mind, is it not unrealistic and unacceptable to pressurise the Israeli Government now into sitting down and negotiating with the PLO and others who seek Israel's destruction?

The PLO certainly discredited itself by its conduct during the Gulf war. We are not pressurising the Israelis to sit down at the same table with the PLO, but we do say that it is extremely important that the Palestinians who are at the table are able to speak with authority and carry conviction among the people whom they purport to represent.

Before there are any further meetings with the Foreign Secretary of Israel, whether concerning the occupied territories or any other matter, would it not be a good idea for at least one Minister to dissociate the Government from the statements made by Mr. Gore-Booth, especially as they were made at a so-called private meeting reportedly attended by more than 100 people? Perhaps it would be better to move Mr. Gore-Booth so that he could represent Her Majesty's Government in Syria, Iraq or some other enlightened regime elsewhere in the world.

I have to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that when he gets to his feet I smell the strong smell of humbug.

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 Lebanon.

We congratulate President Hrawi and his Government on Lebanon's continuing progress towards peace and reconciliation. Their efforts enjoy our full support. I hope to visit Beirut soon.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome for his forthcoming visit, notwithstanding the fact that Israeli tanks are yet again massing on the Lebanese border? Will he confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the Ta'if agreement and also the implementation of United Nations resolution 245, which calls on the Israelis to withdraw from the part of Lebanon that they are currently occupying?

I am very much looking forward to going to Beirut. We welcome the fact that the Lebanese Government are reasserting control over that country. We think that the Ta'if agreement is an important element in that process. We look to an early withdrawal from the Lebanon of all foreign forces.

As the problem of the British hostages in Lebanon is indirectly linked with the Muslim hostages who went missing in the Christian enclave north of Beirut, and in view of the improved circumstances in the Lebanon, have the Government made any progress in identifying the location of the missing Muslim hostages?

I will do all that I can when I am in the Lebanon to carry forward our policy of securing the release of hostages. There is no more important issue on our agenda on the Lebanon and Iran.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the current Government in the republic of Burma.

My right hon. Friend wrote to General Saw Maung, chairman of the ruling military council in Burma, on 6 July last year welcoming the democratic election in May and urging respect for human rights and for the wishes of the people expressed in that election. We have since reinforced that message several times.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while Burma may have moved away from the world headlines, Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and is banned from leading her party and taking part—[Interruption.]

Order. Come on. Mr. Mitchell.

Some 25 Opposition Members of Parliament in Burma have been sentenced to long periods in prison, 3,000 people are political prisoners imprisoned without trial and 15,000 people have fled the country to escape arrest and intimidation. Will my hon. Friend ensure that that outrage is kept before the world's attention and that Her Majesty's Government make strong representations themselves and through the European Economic Community about this outrageous state of affairs?

I am happy to support the condemnation that my hon. Friend expressed. We condemn the failure of the Burmese military authorities to give power to the people who have been democratically elected. We condemn their outrages in terms of human rights and their imprisonment of political opponents—including, of course, the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi.