To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in developing relations between the European Community and the ASEAN countries.

Considerable progress has been made in strengthening relations during the United Kingdom's presidency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs personally attended two ministerial meetings with ASEAN in Manila in 1992, the second of which I also attended. The outcome of the EC-ASEAN ministerial meeting last October has increased co-operation in a range of fields, including trade, environmental protection, technical co-operation and human rights.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the meeting of the ASEAN Trade and Industry Ministers in Jakarta in December, to discuss and promote the newly created free trade area? That new area offers important investment and export opportunities to British business. In the light of those developments, will my right hon. Friend comment on the relationship between the EC and the emerging ASEAN free trade area?

Yes. We and our European Community parners welcome the establishment of the ASEAN free trade area, which seeks to achieve a trading regime compatible with the general agreement on tariffs and trade, with progressively lower tariffs. On 11 December, the AFTA council decided on the first tranche of tariff reductions on a wide range of articles from 1 January this year. We hope that that will boost commercial relations between the Community and ASEAN countries, which already run at $50 billion a year in two-way trade. Our trade relations are of great importance. The ASEAN countries are enjoying high growth rates and offer many significant opportunities for British investment and trade.

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 further statement on progress with the middle east peace process.

The eighth round of bilateral negotiations between the Arabs and Israel ended in Washington on 16 December. It is slow progress and the next round is expected next month. Recent events, including the killing of Sergeant Major Toledano and the deportation of 415 Palestinians from the occupied territories, underline the fact that the peace process is the only way to resolve the problem.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable for Saddam Hussein to ignore United Nations resolutions and for Israel to ignore United Nations resolutions over the plight of the 415 Palestinians deported from that country? Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Israeli Government, pointing out the urgency of complying with the United Nations resolution if there is to be any return to peace and any possibility of success with the peace process in the middle east?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's first point. The two cases are, of course, very different. On the second, the Israeli Government know our view—which is the Security Council's view—that the action that they have taken is in violation of their obligations under the fourth Geneva convention, which prohibits deportation from occupied territory regardless of the motive. We believe—we hope—that the Israeli Government will allow those deported to return to their homes.

Do Egypt and Bahrain support military action against Iraq?

The hon. Gentleman must ask them for their views. I am accountable for the policy of this Government. Iraq is defying the United Nations and the international community. It has not complied with representations made to it on the southern no-fly zone and has refused UNSCOM—the United Nations special commission—permission to fly into Iraq. It has violated the border with Kuwait and has moved missiles into northern Iraq.

When my right hon. Friend considers recent events in the middle east, will he bear in mind the fact that Israel has to deal with the Iranian-backed Hamas movement—an organisation which is dedicated not only to the destruction of the state of Israel but to the ending of the whole peace process on which so many hopes and lives ultimately depend?

Certainly Israel has legitimate security interests and we entirely sympathise with its desire to stamp out terrorism. I do not, however, believe that the means that it has used on this occasion—by deporting the people in question—are a sensible way of setting about it.

Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that, deplorable though the murder of the Israeli sergeant-major was, the Israeli Government's response has been completely disproportionate and that that response is not only inhumane—as we have all seen from the television pictures—but extremely stupid, because it plays precisely into the hands of those Palestinian extremists who wish to stop the peace process?

If I commented, I should be repeating what I have already said. We condemned the murder of the Israeli border guard and we entirely understand Israeli preoccupations with Hamas and its negative and destructive policies. We also believe, however, that the peace process—including, in particular, the dialogue with the Palestinians—is crucial. We hope that it will be possible to solve this problem before it gets in the way of the resumption of the talks.

Bearing in mind the tragic plight of the 415 Palestinians, does my right hon. Friend see any great possibility of negotiating more successfully with the present Israeli Government than with the previous one?

Indeed so. There has been a radical and welcome change of policy in Israel as a result of the election. I hope that the present problem can be solved. The Secretary-General's special envoy, Mr. Gharekhan, is reporting on his mission to the region. Discussions are in progress and I very much hope that they will succeed.

Reverting to the first part of the question of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he agrees that the repeated Iraqi violations of the ceasefire resolutions are unacceptable and that Iraqi offers of constructive negotiation are ludicrous in the light of those violations and of Iraq's repeated attacks on the Kurds and Shi'ites? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members will support military action—provided that civilians are protected—to ensure that Iraq obeys the ceasefire resolutions?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and I agree with his analysis. The House will not expect me to say anything further at this point, but, as I said, the House will be kept closely informed.

Given that it is nearly 50 years since the last war ended, should not we now treat Israel in the same way diplomatically as we would treat any other delinquent country? Given that the 400 people were picked up from their only home without trial or charge and deposited on someone else's territory, should not we consider some form of sanction against Israel until it learns how to behave properly?

I do not think that that would be right. We have made clear our view of the Israeli action and what we think should happen—that a way should be found for those deported to be returned home. That way is now being sought and I hope that it can be found.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that we denounce the activities of Saddam Hussein unequivocally and that we support—and have always supported—the enforcement of the air exclusion zones in Iraq to safeguard the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ite Muslims in the south? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, whatever military action may ensue in support of the enforcement of those air exclusion zones, it is covered by the terms of the United Nations resolution 688, under which the air exclusion zones were established in the first place?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to speculate on the possible consequences of Iraq's defiance of the United Nations Security Council. I am grateful for what he said about that. Obviously, any measures that are taken will need to be, and will be, in full compliance with international law.

As Hamas is an Iranian-sponsored organisation, what representations have been made to the Iranian Government with a view to curtailing the activities of Hamas in seeking to disrupt the middle east peace process?

I do not think that such representations are likely to be fruitful, but I will certainly study my hon. Friend's suggestion.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Foreign Secretary's reply, may I give notice that I hope to raise this matter under Standing Order No. 20?

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what current discussions he has had with other Foreign Ministers about the long-term future of the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

European and north American Foreign Ministers met repeatedly in December for discussions on the problems of the former Yugoslavia in a number of fora, including the NATO council, the EC and the steering committee of the international conference in Geneva.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Common Market countries are partly responsible for the problems that exist in the former Yugoslavia? Is not it true that several months ago Germany, after annexing East Germany, decided to recognise Croatia, and that the Government and the rest of the Common Market countries agreed with it? Is not that the same Croatia which supported Hitler in the second world war and was responsible for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Serbs?

I am sorry to have to tell the House that a British soldier was killed in Bosnia this morning. I know that the House will join me in expressing our sorrow and sympathy to his family.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is every bit as important to have peace in the Balkans as it is to have peace in the middle east? Does he further agree that if, as we all devoutly hope, the talks in Geneva result in a proper peace under international auspices, it will be the duty of the international community to guarantee that settlement?

I certainly welcome the extent of progress yesterday in Geneva. My hon. Friend brought the Foreign Minister of Bosnia to see me this morning and I am grateful for that. I found that he, who represented his country at the talks, welcomed the progress, although he was understandably sceptical on the ground that what counts is not what is agreed at Geneva but whether the Bosnian Serbs honour that agreement. Meanwhile, we must keep up the pressure. But my hon. Friend is perfectly right that any eventual agreement achieved in Geneva through the EC-UN process will need to be underwritten by the international community.

First, may I join in expressing the sympathy and deep condolences of the Opposition for the relations of the British soldier who was killed this morning in Bosnia. Our troops, wearing the blue helmet of the United Nations, are involved in the heroic task of getting humanitarian help to thousands of people who would otherwise die in the winter of this horrible civil war. It was never going to be a risk-free operation, but it is still a singular tragedy when even one of our troops is killed for the greater good of the people of that troubled area.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first point. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told the House yesterday, our troops in Bosnia are carrying out a necessary job successfully. So far they have escorted 147 convoys and carried almost 12,000 tonnes of food and humanitarian supplies. That means that lives have been saved in places which until then it was hard to reach. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point. The corralling of heavy weapons was agreed in principle at the London conference in August. It has not happened, partly because the Bosnian Serbs have not agreed to it and partly as a result of the difficulties of arranging it. I am sure that we shall discuss both points this evening with Lord Owen.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have heard from the Bosnian Foreign Minister this morning that he wants the arms embargoes lifted so that Bosnia does not continue to fight with one arm behind its back. He also wants the no-fly zone under Security Council resolution 781 to be enforced. What further steps can be taken on both matters?

On the no-fly zone, there are no combat missions—that is, no Bosnian Serb bombers or fighters are striking at targets in Bosnia—from those airports. There have been helicopter flights, which are certainly in breach of the United Nations resolution, as are some Croation flights. The members of the Security Council are fairly near the end of their consideration of how the Security Council should react to those violations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an official visit to Bosnia to discuss British relations with Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

There are no immediate plans for a further ministerial visit to Bosnia. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I visited Bosnia on 22 December to see British troops deployed in the UNPROFOR peacekeeping operation. Our relations with the Bosnian Government are good. As has been said, my right hon. Friend and I met the Bosnian Foreign Minister this morning. The British Government have played a leading role in the international effort to resolve the Bosnian crisis.

The Foreign Secretary was right to express the wish, which I am sure is reflected in all parts of the House, that our condolences should be sent to the relatives of the British service man who lost his life this morning.

The death of the British soldier is a tragedy. We do not yet know the full circumstances. We shall try to find them out as speedily as possible and we must then determine what lessons are to be learnt. We shall make a report as soon as possible.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that British military involvement in Bosnia is, and continues to be perceived to be, purely for humanitarian purposes? Will he endeavour to preserve that position?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence responded to a similar question yesterday. He confirmed the statement that my hon. Friend has just made and I can confirm it once again.

Does the Minister accept that there is always a danger of the conflict spreading to Kosovo, Macedonia and elsewhere in the region? Military intervention by other powers would turn that risk into an absolute certainty and encourage people in other parts of Yugoslavia who are even more extreme than those who have power. Will he also make it clear to President Tudjman of Croatia that the existence of UNPROFOR in Krajina is essential beyond the end of next February, to ensure that a conflict does not arise there, too?

I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in the latter part of his question. I saw President Tudjman in late December and told him that the presence of United Nations forces in the United Nations protected areas was, to our way of thinking, a matter of cardinal importance. I hope that the mandate will be renewed when it expires in the latter part of February. As regards Kosovo and Macedonia, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. It is partly for that reason that I am glad that there is a CSCE presence in Kosovo and that a reconnaissance party of United Nations troops is already in Macedonia.

While we must all hope that the Vance-Owen plan brings peace to Bosnia, is it not now a matter of urgency for the international community to move to ensure that all heavy weapons in Bosnia come under direct United Nations control? Will my right hon. and learned Friend make that a high priority for Her Majesty's Government?

In a sense, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already responded to my hon. Friend's question. The demilitarisation of Bosnia is a very important part of the agreement to which Dr. Karadzic put his signature yesterday.

With many of my constituents serving with the Royal Irish Regiment in Bosnia, I naturally wish to extend sympathy to the family whose son has been killed today.

I think that the proper way to describe the activities of British soldiers in Bosnia is to say that they have been remarkably successful in performing an immensely important task. They have acted with enormous courage and skill and, as a result of what they have done and are doing, tens of thousands of people are now living who might otherwise be dead.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in the EC since the Edinburgh summit.

There have been two substantial developments in the European Community since the summit in Edinburgh; notably the single market, which came into effect on 1 January, and the agreement of Foreign Ministers on 21 December that negotiations for full membership of the Community with Austria, Finland and Sweden should open at our meeting on 1 and 2 February.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a United Kingdom presidency which was far more successful than the knockers and whingers on the Opposition Benches would have us believe?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The presidency had its roughish moments, but I am glad that it ended with a success and a smile. As my hon. Friend has said, one result of the single market is that the volume of legislation in the EC has already begun to drop markedly. We expect and hope that that trend will continue, partly as a result of subsidiarity as it comes into effect.

Given that one of the important issues discussed during the British presidency was the need for increased powers for the European Parliament, as crystallised at the Edinburgh summit by the agreement to increase the number of seats at that Parliament, is the right hon. Gentleman yet able to advise us how the extra six seats allocated to the United Kingdom will be distributed? Will he tell us whether, in the interests of fairness, proportional representation will come into play?

No. I think that the hon. Lady can take it that we will need to change the boundaries of the European parliamentary seats, and decisions about how to proceed will be taken soon.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the widespread confusion that was created when the leaders of countries such as Spain and Eire went back to their homelands after the Edinburgh summit to report that they had gained billions of pounds while the leaders of countries such as Britain and Germany, which pay the money, said that the extra costs would be minimal? Would it not help to remove that confusion if the Foreign Secretary appealed to the Commission or the Council of Ministers to publish their estimate of who will gain what as a result of Edinburgh and who will pay for it? It will simply undermine confidence if the sums do not add up.

It is not unusual for people who go to a negotiating session to return and say that they are reasonably satisfied with the result, but to no Member of this House is there any mystery about the actual facts and figures or about the way in which the original proposals by President Delors were first whittled down as a result of his own compromise and then further substantially reduced at Edinburgh. The result was modest compared with that of the last review, in 1988, and that will give my hon. Friend substantial satisfaction.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current position in Armenia; and what further measures he intends to take to relieve the situation.

Armenia is experiencing acute hardship as a result of the collapse of the Soviet system, shortage of natural resources and the confrontation with Azerbaijan. We are urging Armenia and Azerbaijan to resolve their differences through the negotiations of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe on Nagorno-Karabakh. The United Kingdom is contributing £450,000 to Nagorno-Karabakh relief programmes of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross and is a contributor to the European Community's 36 million ecu loan to help Armenia to buy food and medicines.

The Foreign Secretary will know that the Lord Byron school in Leninakhan was gifted by the British Government. It is twinned with the Holgate school in Hucknall, Nottinghamshire. The staff, pupils and parents of the latter have collected enormous sums of money and equipment for their friends in Armenia, but the aid is not reaching its destination because lorries are being hijacked. Will the Minister consider ways in which he might complement the excellent work of the people at this school?

All credit to the pupils of the school who have raised this money. I am afraid that I am not aware of the particular problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he would care to discuss it with me in greater detail I shall see what, if anything, we can do to help.

In view of the assistance that the British Government are giving to Armenia, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the continuing six-year war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh is a significant source of instability in the region? Does he agree that an important role in any negotiations to end that dispute must be taken by Turkey, which is giving significant assistance to Turkish people in Azerbaijan?

My hon. Friend is quite right: the fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh is extremely destabilising for that region. The proper way forward is for everybody to recognise that there must be autonomy, within Azerbaijan, for the peoples of Nagorno-Karabakh, that Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be an independent state and cannot be absorbed into Armenia. The proper way forward is through negotiations designed to achieve autonomy status for Nagorno-Karabakh within Azerbaijan.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made to resolve the Arab-Israel dispute.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has already said, the eighth round of bilateral negotiations ended in Washington on 16 December. Slow progress continues, and the next round is expected to take place in February. Recent events, including the killing of Sergeant-Major Toledano and the deportation of 415 Palestinians from the occupied territories, underline the fact that the peace process is the only way to resolve the problems of the region.

As Mr. Rabin has offered to make concessions over the future of the Golan Heights—the first time Israel has made such an offer—will the Government press Syria to respond positively to this genuine move towards peace?

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, the election of Mr. Rabin opens the prospect of really promising negotiations such as we have not seen previously. Prime Minister Rabin's statement on the question of the Golan Heights is important and much to be welcomed. I should like to see the Government of Syria respond by recognising the need for a permanent peace agreement with the state of Israel.

Does the Minister accept that the middle east peace talks will always be vulnerable when the Israeli Government over-react, as they have on this occasion by deporting 415 Palestinians? The peace talks will continue to be vulnerable unless and until the Israeli Government believe that serious international action will be taken against them when they violate international law. The Israeli Government have clearly broken international law and 415 Palestinians are somewhere between Lebanon and Israel, yet Israel is still allowed to participate in international organisations, there is still bilateral trade between ourselves and Israel, and there is still contact between Israel and the EC. Only when Israel believes that serious retaliation will be taken will the middle east peace talks get on stream and be protected.

The British Government have made their position plain on the deportation of the 415 Palestinians. Clearly, it was a serious breach of the fourth Geneva convention and is a serious infringement of human rights. As the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House know, we have condemned it in many ways. We now need to find ways to persuade, induce and cause the Israeli Government to reverse the effect of their decision—a decision which we greatly deplore.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in pursuance of what he has just said, it might be useful carefully to review the access that Israel has been given to the European Community and the help that it receives from the Community?

We must consider how most effectively we can persuade the Israelis to reverse the effect of their decision—a decision which we deeply deplore.

Does not the Minister understand the dynamics that lie behind the process that has led hundreds of thousands of Palestinians under occupation and in exile to look towards the Islamic extremists of Hamas? Do the Government understand that the failure of the secular nationalist leadership of the Palestinian people to obtain any significant concession has led to that radicalisation and Islamicisation of the whole national consciousness in Palestine? Does the Minister realise that, for example, the British Government's refusal to meet leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organisation when they were recently in London strengthens the arm of the extremists in that regard? The alacrity with which they are preparing to pulverise the Iraqis, while allowing the Bosnian Muslims to be massacred in Yugoslavia, does not help either.

The hon. Gentleman is simply not correct to suggest that the Israeli Government have made no movement since the election of Prime Minister Rabin. The change that has taken place with regard to the settlement policy, for instance, is an important step forward, although it may not go far enough. We must push forward on the basis of resolutions 242 and 338, and recognise that the Palestinian people have a right to self determination and to land to make a reality of that self determination. That is our policy and we shall keep with it.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend aceept that the greatest threat to peace in the middle east comes from Saddam Hussein, and any action that is taken against him is in the interests both of the people of Iraq and of peace in that troubled region?

There are a number of threats to peace in the middle east and Saddam Hussein is one of the most prominent. However, it is also important that we do what we can to promote an agreement between the state of Israel, the peoples of the occupied territories and the Arab states.

Does the Minister recognise that we deplore the Israeli Government's actions, which are in clear breach of international law and the fourth Geneva convention? I regret having to say that, as I warmly welcomed the election of a new Labour Government in Israel. Is it not clear that that breach of international law has given Hamas a huge propaganda victory?

I think that I agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman has just said, and I welcome his statement. Yes, the action by the Israeli Government is deeply to be deplored, it is illegal and it is contrary to the fourth Geneva convention. Yes, too, it is a recruiting sergeant for people in the occupied territories to join Hamas. It makes martyrs of them. It is a terrible thing to have done. Yes, I entirely agree that it undermines the peace process. What we must all seriously hope is that it does not destroy the peace process and, in so far as any of us has influence in this matter, we must try to keep the peace process alive.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has rightly called for pressure to be mixed with persuasion in the case of Serbia. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is also appropriate for Israel?

I think that I have said all I can usefully say on this matter. There has been a serious breach of international law by Israel. That breach of international law has been roundly condemned by, for example, the United Nations and by the British Government. What we now need to do is, first, to get the Government of Israel to reverse the effect of their policy, and secondly, to exercise our best efforts to keep the peace process alive.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications for the staff establishments of British overseas posts of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill; and if he will make a statement.

It is too soon to assess the affect of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill on staffing establishments at British posts abroad, but, as the removal of appeal rights does not imply any change in the criteria under which visit visa applications are considered, it is likely to be limited. Staffing establishments are primarily determined by the number of applications for visas.

Does the Minister understand that a growing number of people, including British entry clearance officers, recognise that clause 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill represents a serious denial of natural justice? Does he also accept that if genuine visitors, those who wish to come here to share in joy and grief with their relatives and friends, often in emergencies, are denied those visits, he and other Foreign Office Ministers will be deluged with requests to intervene from hon. Members? I hope very much that he will be prepared to offer us his private telephone number for telephone calls at weekends, over public holidays and during parliamentary recesses, because I suspect that a very large number of such requests will be made if this ridiculous clause becomes law.

No such reservations have been expressed to me or to my colleagues by entry clearance officers. Applicants will he given every opportunity as before to present their case, and applications will not be considered any less thoroughly than at present. There will be no change in the criteria used to assess applications. Entry clearance officers are under a duty to act fairly and will continue to do so.

Is the Minister aware that a number of my constituents, with families in Bangladesh, particularly in Derby, have an interest in this question? Will he consider, if he has any problems with a shortage of trained officers accustomed to dealing with passports, immigration and the like, making far better use of the staff who currently waste travellers' time, particularly on the cross-channel ferries, insisting on seeing all our passports? Surely there must be a better way, if we are serious about chasing illegal immigrants and about helping the small number of genuine asylum-seekers, than having these officers spend hundreds of hours of publicly paid time sitting on their backsides on the cross-channel ferries?

I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in such matters and she has made an interesting suggestion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be attending a meeting of the EC foreign affairs troika to discuss the future of EC common foreign and security policy.

The 12 Foreign Ministers meet Lord Owen in Paris this evening to discuss events in the former Yugoslavia as part of the continuing co-operation beteen Governments on a number of foreign and security issues.

When the Foreign Secretary meets his colleagues will he draw any lessons from the failure of the Western European Union to impose effective sanctions to stop oil reaching Serbia, as it has during recent months? Will he, from that experience, draw lessons about the role of the WEU assembly—the putative defence arm of the European Community? Will he also discuss with his colleagues the contingency plans to be put into operation if military action is taken in the next few weeks? If that happens, the WEU will be evacuating the humanitarian forces who will be the meat in the sandwich—inadequately protected and vulnerable to attacks from Serbs and others as a result of retaliation.

We believe that oil reached Serbia and Montenegro from the Adriatic before the warships on patrol there were given powers by the Security Council to stop and search. We believe that the stop and search resolution has been effective. We must now concentrate on the supplies that are still coming down the Danube, which will certainly be one of our main themes this evening, although pressure there has increased.

What consideration does my right hon. Friend believe the troika will be able to give to the issue of common security and foreign policy in the Community in relation to the work of the proposed Assises—the new Community parliamentary Assembly? What progress has my right hon. Friend to report and what hopes does he hold for the future?

I do not think that that will specifically be a matter for the troika. The CSCE has decided in principle to have a parliamentary Assembly. I have mixed feelings about that prospect, as a large number of parliamentary assemblies are already attached to different organisations, but we must wait to see how we proceed on that issue. I do not think that it is a particularly urgent matter at present.

In view of the murderous treatment of the Bosnian Muslims by the Christian Serbs, would it not be advisable for the right hon. Gentleman to discuss with his fellow Foreign Ministers the dangers and implications of the reactions of the vast Islamic community throughout the whole world?

As the hon. Gentleman says, that reaction is certainly sharp, and we have been in close touch with a number of Governments, particularly the Turkish, Saudi and Egyptian—as the hon. Gentleman knows, a meeting on that theme is being held in Dakar. We are well aware of the reaction.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current developments in the European Community.

I refer my hon. Friend to the pamphlet entitled

"UK Presidency of the European Communities: July-December 1992"

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, with the introduction of the single European market, the European Community has agreed that 24 mecu should be made available to assist customs clearance brokers and freight forwarders—many of whom work and live in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that every effort is being made by the British Government to ensure that the money is made available to businesses in Great Britain for their use and that the form filling—about which many businesses are concerned—is made easier? Will he also ensure that the money is adequately distributed?

My hon. Friend is characteristically assiduous in the defence of his constituents' interests. He asks about the regulation which will enable the Community to assist in areas hardest hit by the regulation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry is co-ordinating that effort. I know that my hon. Friend is in contact with him and is working closely with the east Kent initiative which has been invited to draw up proposals on how to spend that money in Kent for the benefit of my hon. Friend's constituents and the companies that are affected in his constituency.

Since the conclusion of the British presidency, has the Minister or the Foreign Secretary come across any other Foreign Ministers or Government leaders of the other member states who agree with the description given by the Prime Minister when he reported on the Edinburgh summit of the distinction between subsidiarity as it is understood at Community level and devolution as it is understood in the United Kingdom? I cite in particular last year's speech by Chancellor Kohl whose clear view was that subsidiarity meant proper delegation of power, not just to national Parliaments but within the United Kingdom to Scotland, Wales and the regions of England.

If I may say so, it is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of subsidiarity which strikes me and many others in Europe as bizarre. Subsidiarity means distinguishing those areas which are the responsibility of nation states from areas that may be the Commission's responsibility. Once that distinction has been made, subsidiarity means that each member state should decide how those competences should be distributed within it.

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that in future actions and developments, major consideration will be given to finding a solution to the problems of a GATT treaty? Has any thought been given to persuading the new American President to arrange for the fast track to be made available for settling a GATT treaty? The negotiations could fail if we do not do something fairly quickly.

I can certainly give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. As he knows, the British presidency attaches the highest importance to finding a solution to the GATT problems. In spite of the difficulties that have been heralded recently, we hope that by the end of this month agreement can be reached which will enable us to take advantage of the fast track.

Returning to subsidiarity, may I ask whether the Minister has grasped the fact that Britain is not a nation but a union of nations? Does he accept that the most significant happening at the Edinburgh summit was a demonstration by 25,000 Scots on the streets of Edinburgh demanding democracy for Scotland within Britain and within the European Community? When will the Government address the case for democratic accountability for the government of Scotland according to the principle of subsidiarity in Europe?

The Birmingham declaration made perfectly clear the interpretation of subsidiarity and it was agreed by all member states. I am sure that the House agrees that decisions made in the United Kingdom about local government, devolution and other matters should be made by this House and our sovereign Parliament and not by Brussels or anywhere else.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about human rights in Tibet.

We remain very concerned over reports of human rights abuses in Tibet and throughout China, and Ministers have made our concerns clear to the Chinese at a high level both in public and in private on many occasions. My noble and learned Friend Lord Howe of Aberavon who visited China from 1 to 7 December will in due course submit a formal report on his visit to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That report will be placed in the Library.

In view of the appalling human rights record in Tibet, will the Government use their good offices and best endeavours to encourage direct negotiations between the People's Republic of China and the Tibetans on the basis—and this is the heart of the matter—that there be no pre-conditions on either side?

The present position, as we understand it, is that the Chinese have offered to talk to the Dalai Lama about Tibet but have set certain conditions. The Dalai Lama has in the past responded positively to the principle of talks, but was not happy with some of the conditions. Although there have been reports in the media of subsequent talks, we believe that the impasse has still to be resolved. We believe that dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people offers the best hope for a solution to the problem of Tibet. We shall continue to encourage both sides in this process. We are strongly in favour of the principle of talks without preconditions. We have consistently urged the Chinese authorities to get into a real dialogue with the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama. We reminded the Chinese embassy of our position only yesterday.

The continuing Chinese violations of Tibetan human rights are surely made worse by the Chinese Government's policy of moving hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens into the very heart of Tibet. Does the Minister agree that that policy of mass migration has as its objective the systematic destruction of the culture of the Tibetan people? When will the Government stand up to the ancient men in Beijing and tell them to stop these horrible violations of the rights of the peaceable and peaceful people of Tibet?

We are not in a position to confirm the accuracy of the reports alluded to by the hon. Gentleman. We are, however, as I have repeatedly said, deeply concerned about reports of widespread human rights abuses in Tibet and throughout China. We have raised the issue with senior Chinese leaders on several occasions in recent months.