To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the enlargement of the European Community.

Good progress has been made in negotiations with the four EFTAn applicants for membership—Norway, Sweden, Austria and Finland. But some difficult issues remain to be settled, particularly in the areas of agriculture and regional policy. Decisive progress is needed in the next few months if we are to meet the target of entry into the Community by those four states by 1 January 1995.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Given the gathering clouds in the east and in Russia, and given the imperative of extending the blessings of liberty, free trade and open markets to as wide a Europe as possible, will my hon. Friend confirm that the British Government are possibly at last succeeding in persuading an increasing number of our European partners of the benefits of an expansion of the European Community?

Yes, I confirm that it has always been a British priority to open our doors to applicants from all European states, provided that they can fulfil the requirements and obligations of membership. That is why we were pleased that recent European Council conclusions have endorsed the possibility of eventual membership by states, including those from central and eastern Europe in due course.

The Minister did not mention Cyprus among the applicants. Cyprus has received initially a favourable response from both the Council and Commission. But, in reverist mode, will the Minister think for one moment of how he will get rid of the Turkish occupying army if Cyprus is accepted into the Community?

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Cypriot application for membership has received favourable consideration, although it is not imminent and is certainly not being considered in the same time scale as the states that I mentioned in my first answer. I should also remind him that the partition of the island is not a prohibition on eventual accession. That matter is to be reconsidered in 1995.

I welcome my hon. Friend's earlier comments about enlargement. Will he give a view about the prospects of success of the application of Malta to become a member of the European Union?

Yes, we welcome the prospect of accession by Malta. Preliminary discussions are already under way. Certain adjustments will be needed in the economy of Malta so that it can take on the responsibilities of membership, but we recognise that there are important historic connections between this country and Malta, and, for that reason as well, we believe that Malta's eventual destiny lies in Europe.

Will the Minister confirm that he sees no conflict between the concepts of widening and deepening in the Community?

Certainly not. We believe that a wider and larger European Community will also be a stronger one.

My hon. Friend will know that there will be a widespread welcome in this country for the remaining Scandinavian countries joining the European Community. Will he do all that he can to encourage the Community in due course to include the former Baltic states of the Soviet Union, particularly Estonia, which I visited a couple of months ago, and which is the most go-ahead of all the countries of the former Soviet Union?

That prospect is somewhat further away. I can confirm, however, that we wish to see a free trade area concluded with the Baltic states, including Estonia. That is part of the negotiations with the Scandinavian EFTA states, which already have substantial free trade with those other countries.

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) about Cyprus's application for membership of the European Community, I understand that on 20 December the Council of Ministers will consider a request from the republic of Cyprus to appoint a European Union monitor to the discussions between Cyprus and the occupied territory of northern Cyprus, which will be held in January under the aegis of the United Nations. Will the Government give a favourable response to that request and, in the Council of Ministers, ensure that a monitor is appointed?

We shall examine that proposal on its merits. The overriding need is to give a fair wind to the confidence-building measures that are being promoted by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Provided that the appointment of an EC observer does not conflict with those aims, we shall give it favourable consideration.

Has my hon. Friend seen the opinion polls in Scandinavian countries, which unfortunately show a decline in the popularity of the view that they should enter the European Community? I hope that I am not being reverist by suggesting—[Interruption.] I hope that I am not talking balderdash or being reverist by suggesting that the European Commission should be working to demonstrate that the European Community—

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Points of order will be taken after questions and the statements. I shall call the hon. Gentleman then.

The European Commission should be working to ensure that people realise that the Community can be to the advantage of the Scandinavian countries.

Each state must comply with and approve the eventual agreement in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. We believe that the kind of European Union that we are building is agreeable and attractive to the Scandinavian states. We hope that they will find a way to accede in the time scale that I have outlined.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with the Chairman of the Palestine National Authority; and if he will make a statement.

I held substantive talks with Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, yesterday and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw him today. Yesterday, we discussed the implementation of the 13 September Israel/PLO agreement, to which we are giving both political and economic support.

Will the Secretary of State accept my —and I believe the whole House's—congratulations on his and the Prime Minister's meetings yesterday and today with the Chairman of the Palestine National Authority and on at long last recognising the leadership of the Palestinian people? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there is a failure, on 22 December, to implement the accord signed in Washington, as there was on 13 December, there is a grave risk of the area disintegrating into even further and greater chaos? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey that fear to the appropriate quarters at this critical juncture?

Yes, it is important that the agreement should be honoured. Yes, we will give what help we can. For example, we have offered to train senior policemen in the new Palestinian force and Chairman Arafat accepted that offer yesterday.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way in which a viable peace will be achieved in the long term is if the two sides reach an accommodation between themselves? Outsiders can be helpful and supportive, but it must be for the Palestinians and Israelis to reach an agreement with which they can both live.

That is exactly right, and that is why it is such a breakthrough that they are discussing those matters face to face, in detail.

May I join in welcoming the visit of Chairman Arafat, whom I shall see later this afternoon with a Jewish delegation? Will the Secretary of State do everything in his power to help the parties to promote the peace process, first, by helping the Palestinians economically and, secondly, by recognising the deep and real sensitivities of the Israeli people for the security of their land?

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for joining me and Chairman Arafat at lunch yesterday, thus lending fresh respectability to the occasion.

Was my right hon. Friend able to raise with Mr. Arafat the question of the Israeli hostages who are being held by terrorist groups? I am thinking in particular of people such as Ron Arad.

We raised that matter in various places and at various times when we thought that it would be helpful to do so. My hon. Friend is right: there is also the matter of the many Palestinians still held in Israel, which is one of the matters that the two sides are discussing. I hope to go to Israel, to the occupied territories and to Jordan during the Christmas recess. I will do so in the spirit that my hon. Friend suggested—trying to be helpful when we can on practical matters of technical assistance and judging for myself how things are going.

The Foreign Secretary's comments are welcome, as was the visit of Mr. Arafat to Britain yesterday and today. In his discussions, Chairman Arafat raised with the right hon. Gentleman, as he did with my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself, the question of an international presence in the West Bank and the Gaza area—the occupied territories—to help the transition. Has the right hon. Gentleman formed a view of that proposal? Does he believe that it could make a positive contribution to the smooth transition?

The right hon. Gentleman's presence at the lunch yesterday put its respectability beyond doubt.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about progress towards democracy in South Africa.

We fully support the transition to non-racial democracy in South Africa, and we keep in close contact with the main political leaders. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held talks with President de Klerk on 8 December, and with Mr. Nelson Mandela on 12 October. My right hon. and noble Friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey visited South Africa last week and met leaders of all the main parties.

Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to congratulate Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk on being presented with the Nobel peace prize at the weekend? Will he further congratulate them on managing to reach an agreement on a constitutional settlement to end apartheid?

The transitional executive council, as the hon. Gentleman certainly will know, held its first meeting in Cape Town on 7 December, and Lady Chalker attended it. That was a big step forward, and the next major step will be the holding of the first democratic elections on 27 April next year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progress towards democracy in South Africa has been much encouraged by sporting contacts between South Africa and ourselves and the rest of the world? In that context, will he send a message of best wishes to the England A cricket eleven, which has had a highly successful tour, despite certain medical problems? It has already played a game in Alexandra, a South African township, and is to play another tomorrow in Port Elizabeth. It is doing a splendid job, and I am sure that it would be grateful if my right hon. Friend sent his encouragement.

The team might be grateful, and I am certainly glad to do so. I went to Alexandra last year with cricket equipment for a local team playing on a ground that it was putting together. I am glad to hear that Alexandra is continuing its devotion to cricket.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Libyan Government directly or indirectly about Libyan citizens held in United Kingdom prisons.

There have been no such discussions.

Does the Minister accept that, in pressing the Libyan Government to hand over people who are accused of atrocities in this country, it is important to show that Libyan nationals have received justice in this country? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the case of Hosni Farhat, who was convicted of attempted murder? Much of the evidence that was given at his trial is now considered to be suspect and, in addition, he received a sentence that reflected the political situation between Britain and Libya at the time, rather than the severity of the offences that he committed. He was denied the opportunity to appear at his appeal or to be legally represented.

I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I should not like to suggest that the offences committed were minor. This character was convicted on four counts of attempted murder and, not surprisingly, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1981. He subsequently appealed, but the Court of Appeal refused him leave to appeal against the conviction.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Libya is one of the most offensive regimes in the world and that it ill behoves hon. Members to cast doubts on the fairness of British justice, which is much greater than that in most countries of the world?

I agree that I certainly would not want to live in Libya.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking through the international community to make the UNITA forces comply with the Angolan peace accords.

We have been active in the Security Council, bilaterally with the Angolan Government and UNITA.

In view of the staggering number of deaths in Angola, estimated by the United Nations at 1,000 a day and by the Angolan Government at approximately 5 per cent. of the total population, will the Foreign Office ensure that our representatives at the United Nations Security Council meeting later today urge on the rest of the United Nations the necessity of the full implementation of the sanctions already in place and of a new package of sanctions? Does the Minister agree that UNITA has played cat and mouse with the United Nations for far too long and that the disaster that it is causing in that country warrants the strongest possible international action?

It is perfectly true that there has been the most appalling suffering in Angola. The sanctions instituted in September have worked to a considerable extent. UNITA is now discussing matters and negotiating seriously. I believe that today's resolution will recognise that and, of course, will leave open the possibility of further sanctions should UNITA ever renege on the current negotiations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of embololalia is talked about Angola, not least by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and that there are faults on both sides?

I suspect that that is always true in great disputes throughout the world.

The Minister did not tell us what the Government will urge at the Security Council. Will they urge the application of full sanctions? Was anything done in the Lusaka talks to invalidate the results of last year's elections? Furthermore, what action are the Government taking to stop the supplies of arms and oil to UNITA by the South Africans and by the people from Zaire?

The Government's position will be to argue that the sanctions introduced in September and the mandate of the United Nations Angola verification mission—UNAVEM—should be continued. We hope that the United Nations special representatives and negotiators will proceed with the negotiation successfully. We understand that some agreement has been reached between the parties, which remains to be implemented, but there will be a statement this afternoon or this evening from the United Nations Secretary-General.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in representations over prisoners of war held in Iraq.

This is an important issue and I have to concede that we have made jolly little progress. We raised the matter at every review of sanctions, most recently on 18 November. It is an important matter and we will continue to press it.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his answer. Will he join me in congratulating our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) on his success in bringing back the detainees from Iraq? Does he accept, however, that this is not the end of the matter? Three and a half years after the Gulf war, prisoners of war are still held in Iraq, including 625 Kuwaitis. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we should not lift sanctions on Iraq until the detainees have been released?

My hon. Friend is quite right to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). What he did was extraordinarily helpful; the families of the prisoners will be extremely grateful to him. My hon. Friend is also entirely right to highlight the plight of the 627 or so Kuwaiti detainees. She can be assured that we will raise their plight with the Iraqis on every possible occasion. It is an important element in our contacts with Iraq that that country should comply in every respect with the mandatory requirements of the Security Council resolutions.

Does the Minister agree that there are other prisoners of war in Iraq, including many Kurds and Shias? Is it not time that we should consider international action to prevent the terrible suffering that is caused by Saddam Hussein's relentless attacks on the Shias in the marshes?

There are a number of prisoners of war—Kurds, certainly; Shia from the marshes; and Iranians. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime do not continue to oppress their people. That is why we have no-fly zones in north and south Iraq. I should have some difficulty in telling the hon. Gentleman that there would be support within the Security Council for any more forward action in south Iraq.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress in the GATT trade negotiations.

I believe that we are nearly there.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that later today we can expect some exceptionally good news, on a day of exceptionally good news? Seldom in the course of human history can so few have lost so much sleep in the interests of so many. Does my right hon. Friend agree also that GATT is likely to bring practical benefits to every household in Britain, with sharp cuts in food prices and upwards of 400,000 new jobs over the next 10 years? When does my right hon. Friend plan to uncork the champagne?

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on that matter tomorrow. I have just returned from Brussels, where I heard Sir Leon Brittan—who handled the negotiations with great skill—report to the European Council. There are bound to be loose ends. As I left, there was still an argument or discussion in progress about Portuguese textiles. We have also been pressing for a better deal for our textiles. Such final pressures are inevitable, but I hope that it will be possible for Mr. Sutherland to announce in Geneva this evening that the Uruguay round has reached a successful conclusion, after seven years in which many successive British Ministers have worked extremely hard—when others had forgotten the issue—to help bring them to a successful conclusion.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that although the Uruguay round and GATT are in the interests of the United States and of the European Community, countries in the southern hemisphere will view the agreement as damaging? It is estimated that Africa will lose $2,600 million by the year 2002. What steps will be taken to assist the poorest countries, which will be damaged by that process?

I do not believe that they will be damaged. I am familiar with the argument, but it is a myth. The winding down of the multi-fibre arrangement over a period of time will benefit new textile producers, and the opening up of the Japanese market after years of total closure will be of huge benefit to rice producers—and so on, across the board. It is not a zero-sum game in which some are bound to gain and some are bound to lose. World trade expands —and under the impetus of such an agreement, it will expand a great deal faster than it otherwise would.

Given that some products may have been taken out of the negotiations, what is the mechanism by which textiles, films or steel, for example, will be further pursued?

A number of matters will be further discussed including elements of financial services and maritime matters, on which agreement was not possible on this occasion. Rather than hold up the total agreement, those issues were taken out for the time being. Some are important to us. I asked Sir Leon Brittan today about civil aircraft, aero engines and financial services. The replies and clarifications that I received were reassuring and confirmed our general belief that, for this country, the agreement will be of substantial benefit.

We understand that one of the cornerstones of the agreement will be a substantial reduction in agricultural subsidies. How long will the agriculture industry, under the terms of the agreement, be given to adjust to the new circumstances arising out of the agreement? Exactly when will we be given details of the agreement, and when will it be deposited in the Library of the House?

I am sure that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter. The Prime Minister will make, I imagine, a fairly full statement tomorrow—that is to say, if the negotiations conclude in the way that we hope. Therefore I shall not answer the hon. Gentleman's question in detail, but I would say that it is common sense that there should be a wind-down in the total of exports of subsidised grain from Europe. It is difficult for farmers in some countries—perhaps in all countries—but I think that most hon. Members in the House believe that that is a movement towards common sense.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards the restoration of peace in the former Yugoslavia as a result of the most recent conference in Geneva; if the issue of the Krajina has been discussed; and if he will make a statement.

At their meeting with the parties in Geneva on 29 September, European Union Foreign Ministers emphasised the importance of a peace settlement. The subsequent peace talks have made some progress in clarifying positions. The European Council on 10 and 11 December agreed to maintain the pressure on the Serbs to make the further territorial concessions on the scale demanded by the Bosnian Government. The parties have discussed the situation in Croatia, where European Union Foreign Ministers have urged them to reach agreement on a ceasefire and confidence-building measures as a preliminary to a final settlement.

Has the Minister noticed early-day motion 119 on the order paper? It is signed by Members on both sides of the House, and it deplores Croatian army atrocities in Croatia against Serb Villagers, and indeed in Bosnia Herzegovina.

I am aware of evidence of serious atrocities committed by the Croat forces, both from within the regular army of Croatia and, indeed, from within the Bosnian Croat forces. We have raised those matters very forcefully with the Croat authorities and Ministers from the Croatian Government and we will continue to do so. I can conceive of circumstances in which the international community might well wish to impose sanctions. I think that if there were an upsurge of fighting in the Krajina as a result of Croatian action that might be a matter of very profound significance in this context. I do, however, think that the hon. Gentleman would wish to keep in mind—it is a point of distinction—that we rely on the Split access for the delivery of humanitarian supplies and the maintenance of UNPROFOR troops.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there are still Serbian forces present in Croatia, and that the prime responsibility for the killing and the carnage rests with Serbia? What will he do to impress upon President Milosevic that the creation of a greater Serbia by brutal aggression will never be recognised by the international community?

My hon. Friend is right when he draws attention to the presence of Serb forces in Croatia. It is extremely important that we establish the basis for settlement within the Krajinas, and one of the things that have been made absolutely plain to President Milosevic is that he cannot expect a relaxation of sanctions until a proper framework for a ceasefire and modus vivendi in the Krajina has been put in place.

Does the Minister affirm that the international community has recognised Serbia as bearing the primary responsibility for the conflict and for the hideous atrocities in the former Yugoslavia? That affirmation has been made. It was made at the Edinburgh summit of the European Community; it has been made in numerous United Nations resolutions. Does he agree, therefore, that as long as Croatia continues to be divided, Bosnia continues to come under attack and Kosovo continues to be repressed, there can be no question of relaxing sanctions against the Serbian Government?

As to responsibility for the outbreak of the war, I certainly agree that the Government of Serbia are primarily responsible. If one were trying to determine who had committed the most atrocities one might have some difficulty. The plain truth is that all sides have committed atrocities and the barbarism has been shocking.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on relations with former Soviet bloc countries.

Our relations with the states are excellent.

Is not my right hon. and learned Friend a little ashamed of the position when, having preached the benefits of free and open markets to those countries for so long, just when they most need our help the European Community is refusing free access for their goods to appease a few cosseted, subsidised and vested interests, such as the European steel industry? Are we not at the same time refusing cheap goods to our consumers and setting a bad example to those countries? Bearing in mind our example, it is not surprising that they are beginning to reject open market democracy.

I entirely agree with the main thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, that free markets and open access to them is of critical importance to underpinning the political reforms in the former Soviet Union and the central and eastern European countries. The British Government have been foremost in arguing the case for liberalising markets. We promoted the association agreements with the Visigrad group of countries and others and we are promoting the concept of free trade between the European Union, Russia and other countries from the former Soviet Union.

The Minister may be aware that significant delegations from the former Warsaw pact states attended the recent assembly of Western European Union and that they were especially concerned to pursue security guarantees. Since their anxieties may well have increased in recent days, what meaningful and justifiable assurances or guarantees can western Europe offer?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those countries are concerned about security questions. We are not in a position to give guarantees of the article 5 type and nor is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or any of the states within it. We are planning to thicken the relationship between NATO and the countries within the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe. In that context, the concept of partnership for peace initiated by the United States is extremely welcome. It will form the basis of the discussions to be held at the NATO summit in January and, broadly speaking, it was welcomed at the North Atlantic Co-operation Council meeting in Brussels about 10 days ago.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to assist in resolving the problems in Kashmir.

We have repeatedly urged India and Pakistan to resolve their dispute through bilateral negotiation. I welcome the recent announcement that talks will be resumed early in the new year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his careful reply and for his excellent speech during an Adjournment debate last week. Will he reconsider the position in Kashmir, where thousands of people have been slaughtered—probably tens of thousands during the past three to four years—as that is poisoning relations between two of our oldest allies, India and Pakistan? In addition, if the pressure for substantive early bilateral talks between those two countries fails, will my hon. Friend refer the matter to the United Nations, which first passed a resolution on the matter in 1947?

The best prospect at the moment is the resumption of talks, as my hon. Friend says. That is the way that we wish to be taken and we hope that there will be some progress. Of course, we have always made clear to the Indian Government our concern about human rights violations in Kashmir. There should be a dialogue and a political process in Kashmir, and an improvement in human rights there.

Does the Minister agree that lasting peace will come to Jammu and Kashmir only if any political settlement is acceptable to the overwhelming majority of the people living in that region? If that is the case, does he agree that representatives of the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be directly involved in any discussions on Kashmir that are convened between the Governments of India and Pakistan?

As I said to the hon. Gentleman during the Adjournment debate the other night, the participants in any discussions must be a matter for the two parties to decide. But certainly we have always urged and continue to urge on the Indian Government the need for a political process in Kashmir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when the two parties—the two Pakistani Foreign Ministers and the Indian Prime Minister—meet in January, they should make progress and that, above all, international observers should be allowed into Kashmir so that the rest of the world can see what is going on there?

My hon. Friend is right that people should go to Kashmir, and I have repeatedly urged that on representatives of the Indian Government. That is what we would certainly like to see.

The Minister is right to welcome the news that India and Pakistan are to begin at Foreign Secretary level in January discussions on mutual problems, including the circumstances in Kashmir. Should not all friends of India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir welcome that small but positive step forward? Was not it good news that the siege and occupation of the Hazratbal mosque in Srinagar ended without bloodshed?

It is precisely because we respect the Indian Government as a democratic Government that we expect the rights of the people of Kashmir to be upheld and we are bringing pressure to bear on the Indian Government to recognise those important facts. I am glad that Amnesty International has recognised that there is positive progress in being able to go to India. I cannot confirm that Amnesty International has been invited to Kashmir, but it thinks that it will be able to visit the Punjab.

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

Our relations with Azerbaijan are in very good order.

What action are Her Majesty's Government taking to bring about the implementation of the four Security Council resolutions relating to the conflict involving Azerbaijan and Armenia? Can we expect an official visit from the President of Azerbaijan, President Aliev, next year? In view of the considerable business prospects for Britain in Azerbaijan—most notably, British Petroleum—and if the president is to visit this country, does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that there would be merit in a trade delegation to Azerbaijan under the Minister's leadership some time in the near future?

I am glad to say that I have been to Azerbaijan twice. As my hon. Friend knows, we have an ambassador in Baku. The trade opportunities in Azerbaijan, especially in the oil sector, are large and important to us. My hon. Friend will know that an agreement has been signed and is currently awaiting the approval of the Parliament and the president.

In the light of recent developments in Russia, and the gains of the Fascist parties in the parliamentary elections, is it not important for the British Government to take immediate and urgent steps to promote full diplomatic representations in the new states of the former Soviet Union, including Azerbaijan? Is it not extraordinary that, several years after the break-up of the Soviet Union, we still do not have full diplomatic representation in many of those states?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my answer. I said that we had an ambassador in Baku. Perhaps he did not realise that Baku was the capital of Azerbaijan.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that when the people of Azerbaijan consider the example of Georgia, where we have seen direct Russian aggression, up to and including military intervention, they will be very careful before accepting any assurances given by the western powers at present?

The present state of Azerbaijan is a cause of considerable anxiety to us all. We judge that there are many Armenian troops there, and it is important that they start the process of withdrawal. The Minsk process offers that prospect through a staged timetable, and I would say to the Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh and from Armenia, and to the Azeri Government, that it is essential that they work by, with and through the Minsk process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards further subsidiarity since the coming into force of the Maastricht treaty.

The Commission presented its subsidiarity report to the European Council on 10 December. We believe that it is a good start to a continuing process. The report calls for the repeal or simplification of some 25 per cent. of EC legislation. It covers 16 of the 24 items on the list that the French and British Governments submitted. Those include revision of the bathing and drinking water directives, the acquired rights directive, and the liability of service suppliers. One further item from the list has already been amended on those grounds, and the Commission is pursuing two others. All legislative proposals put forward by the Commission must now be tested against the requirements of subsidiarity.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that informative reply. Will he take the opportunity to confirm, as he has confirmed before, that the best guarantee of effective subsidiarity is probably federalism, as understood elsewhere in the Community, although the same definition is not understood in sections of this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore continue vigorously to apply subsidiarity within the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and confirm that the Conservative Members of the European Parliament have subscribed to a federal future, through their affiliation to the European People's party?

I advise the hon. Gentleman not to start dabbling in the different meanings of federalism. He will find himself in deeper water than he supposes, as his leader did in Brussels last week. The arrangements within the United Kingdom, as within any other member state, are a matter for the individual state. That was made clear in the Birmingham declaration last year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the repeal or reform of 17 European measures at the Council last week is the first vindication of the Government's stance on subsidiarity during the Maastricht debate? Does he also agree that, provided that the common agricultural policy is adequately reformed, we can foresee a significant decrease in the competences of the European Community and the Commission, to the benefit of every country in Europe?

My hon. Friend is right. I did not entirely blame the more sceptical of my right hon. and hon. Friends who, when subsidiarity was first discussed in the House, dismissed it as a mere phrase, but we are now turning it into a reality. This is the beginning of a process that will be extremely important. We said that it would be important, and we are making it important.

If the Government succeed in abandoning the bathing and drinking water directives, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what will happen to the green dowry of £1 billion that was given to water companies during privatisation specifically to bring our water up to EC quality standards? Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that the British public will not forgive a Government who put party dogma before water safety?

The hon. Lady and the Labour party miss the point. The purification and cleansing of this country's water are matters on which she and her colleagues can reasonably press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment; that is fine. We do not think that the Commission in Brussels should lay down detailed regulations on such matters—regulations, which are, incidentally, out of date. What is new is that the Commission agrees with that point of view.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent visit of the Prime Minister to Norway.

The Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, visited London privately from 14 to 17 November. She called on the Prime Minister during that time and discussion covered the European Community, Norwegian accession and Norway's whaling policy.

During those talks, did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister endorse Norway's role in the middle east process, and did he give similar support to Norway's peace initiative in Bosnia?

The Government have warmly congratulated the Norwegian Government on the mediatory role that they played in the Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough, and I further congratulated Mr. Holst, Norway's Foreign Minister when I was in Norway. That is only part of the way towards the comprehensive settlement that we still have to achieve.

Did the Minister raise with the Norwegian Prime Minister that country's whaling policy and condemn it for environmental reasons? Having said that, I have a great deal of affection for the Norwegian people because of the role that they played in the second world war and their great affinity with the Scottish nation.

We all feel the same way about the Norwegians. During the discussion between Mrs. Brundtland and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland described Norway's whaling policy. Our Prime Minister reiterated the British position and our support for EC legislation—the habitats directive and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species regulations, which amount to a de facto ban on commercial whaling. Anyone who wishes to see an end to Norwegian whaling should welcome the Norwegian accession to the Community in due course.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited the Falkland Islands to discuss arrangements for agreements with Argentina relating to fishing and oil exploration.

I visited the Falkland Islands from 12 to 17 November. During my visit, I discussed fisheries and oil with the Falkland Islands Government and elected councillors.

In view of the decision of the Falklands Islands Government to pursue exploration for hydrocarbons in the area of the continental shelf, will my hon. Friend assure the House that as soon as the necessary legislation is forthcoming from the Falkland Islands, it will be followed by a prompt announcement on exclusive licensing arrangements?

We do not yet know whether there is any oil—at least, any oil of commercial quantities—in the Falklands waters. Two seismic surveys are under way and the results will be published in the early part of next year. Meanwhile, the Falkland Islands Government, assisted by us, are drawing up legislation with the prospect of a second exploration round, which may be announced next year.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's support for the Washington accord on resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway).

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is vital to keep up the momentum of the peace process in the middle east and that there is a need to get Syria and Jordan involved as soon as we can? I welcome the support that Britain will give to the Palestinian police force. Will we be equipping it as well?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. [Interruption.] I thought that that was a tribute to my answer, but I see that it is not. It is important to keep up the momentum. Yes, the Syrian-Israeli track must be supported. Yes, technical assistance will be given to the Palestinian police force. We will assist with training, and if we can find appropriate equipment, we will see if we can provide that as well.

Will the Minister of State ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he visits Israel to impress on the Israeli Government the need to release the 10,000 Palestinian prisoners? When he discusses the issue with him, will he also offer to the Israelis, but especially to the Palestinians, some form of package to help to resettle the 10,000 prisoners in the occupied territories when they are released from Israeli gaols?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have heard that question. Yes, indeed, the release of the detainees is an important part of the confidence-building process and of making it plain to the Palestinian community that there are positive benefits to be gained from the accord. The settlement of the detainees and their families is an important point and Chairman Arafat acknowledged that when pressing for a substantial area of land to be handed to the Palestinians as part of the Jericho region.