If he will make a statement on the issuing of visitors' visas in Bombay. [54285]

In 1997, the visa section in the British deputy high commission in Bombay issued 43,318 visit visas. Up to 15 October this year, the visa section had issued 45,339 visit visas. Ninety-two per cent. of the straightforward visit visa applications are being issued within 24 hours. Currently, applicants are receiving their visas within two hours of presenting their application.

Will the Minister pass on hon. Members' thanks to Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean for the changes that she introduced to the visa system to make it more efficient? However, as he must be aware, a large proportion of applications made in Bombay come from people who live in the Gujarat. Will he meet me and other interested colleagues to see whether visa facilities might be made available in Ahmadabad? Such facilities would greatly improve the position, lessening the pressure on Bombay and making the process much easier and much cheaper for applicants.

I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's best wishes to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. She will be delighted to hear those words from my hon. Friend. I know that he keeps her busy on immigration and visa matters, so his words of support will be well received.

If a visa application were made in Bombay by, let us say, a former dictator or former terrorist, would such an application be sympathetically considered by the Minister, and if it were granted, would it carry with it any immunity from rogue applications for extradition from this country?

Any visa application made at the deputy high commission in Bombay will be dealt with according to the immigration rules.

What progress has been made towards a permanent peaceful settlement in Sudan. [54286]

The UK has long supported the Intergovernmental Authority on Development peace process as the best chance to bring an end to the civil war in Sudan through a negotiated settlement. With a mandate from the IGAD partners forum, I visited Nairobi and Khartoum from 13 to 16 July to discuss the possibilities of securing a break in the fighting in the areas most affected by the humanitarian crisis.

I welcome the Minister's response. He will be aware that, today, the aid organisations warned us that we might have a greater catastrophe than in Kosovo if something did not happen shortly to help people in Sudan. Is there any more recent information that would enable the Foreign Office to confirm the claims of the American State Department, corroborated by the Ministry of Defence, that the factory in Khartoum was a chemical factory—or does the Minister agree that the bombing of that factory may not have helped to advance the peace process in Sudan?

I very much respect the hon. Gentleman's interest in the issue of Sudan. He is right to say that the only way to deal with the long-term humanitarian problem is to achieve a political solution. That is one reason why I took a more active interest in the matter in the summer of this year. I hope that the United Kingdom, with others, can continue to play a more active role.

May I express my appreciation of the efforts that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have made to bring about a settlement in Sudan? Our concerns are with the women and children in southern Sudan, who are suffering the most as a result of the conflict in their country; the recent bombing by America did not help the situation. However, will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will do all that he can to bring about a negotiated settlement to the problems in Sudan, so that we can be of more help to the people there who are suffering as a result of the conflict in their country?

Sadly, we are seeing a continuation of the civil war that has been going on for several decades. It is clear that the only way forward is to find a peaceful solution. There cannot be a military solution to the civil war in Sudan. We must encourage the parties to get to the negotiating table. That is why we support the IGAD process, and why the United Kingdom is keen to play any part we can to assist the negotiations and to help towards peace. As my hon. Friend says, that is the best way to give a long-term future to the people of Sudan, who have suffered too much and for too long.

May I thank the Minister for the work that he has put into trying to find a solution to the civil war in Sudan? In view of the news that Sudan has resumed bombing in the south, and the fact that, other than at Bahr al Ghazal, the fighting has intensified in recent weeks, could he find a way to bring about the support of the United States and the United Nations for urgent action to prevent the continuation of the tragic starvation in that area?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about my role. It was important in July to look for a way to achieve a partial ceasefire. It is temporary and covers only part of Sudan, but, for the many thousands of people in that area, it gives slight relief and the possibility of a longer life. We must extend those principles to the whole of Sudan and get the parties together. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the United States and the United Nations. The entire international community has neglected Sudan for too long and we have a responsibility to do what we can.

If he will make a statement on Government plans to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. [54287]

Five decades after the universal declaration of human rights was signed, it remains an inspiration and a common standard of achievement for all nations and all peoples.

I welcome the action that the Government have taken so far. Does my hon. Friend agree that the universal declaration of human rights is just that: universal? It should therefore apply to all countries, including Malaysia, China, India and Pakistan and countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and north America. [Interruption.] Will my hon. Friend reassure me that this Government, unlike their predecessor, will adopt universal standards of human rights and emphasise the importance of the United Nations and its institutions?

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in doing that. I was rather sorry to hear some barracking from the Opposition Benches about the universal declaration. That highlights the difference between the present Government and their predecessors in their commitment to human rights issues. In every part of the world the universal declaration has played a significant role in improving observance of and respect for human rights, but in every part of the world there are still areas where improvements are needed. Perhaps the finest way in which we could mark the 50th anniversary would be to ensure that the universal declaration is indeed universal.

When making his plans for the anniversary of the declaration of human rights, will the Minister recall that the last Conservative Government had an excellent record on human rights, and that last year and every year for the past 10 years the Conservative Government co-sponsored a UN resolution calling for an improvement in China's human rights situation? Can the Minister explain why his Government have failed to renew that resolution? Does that failure to renew not confirm the accusation by Wei Jingsheng, probably the most famous Chinese prisoner of conscience, that the present Foreign Secretary is two-faced, and show that Labour's supposedly ethical foreign policy is hypocritical and spineless? Will the Government support that resolution when it comes back to the next UN meeting?

That is a very good try, but it is a shame that the Conservatives must make human rights a matter of party politics. The reality is that, when the resolution went through, the European Union nations were split. The Conservatives know that. Under the present Government and the present Foreign Secretary, we have a united European Union position with respect to China. We have seen progress in China, and Mary Robinson and the Prime Minister recently visited that country. Unlike the situation under the previous Government, the human rights debate with China is now on-going.

Is my hon. Friend aware of newspaper reports today that suggest that the Foundation for Human Rights in the EU will close at the end of the year? That is worrying news for non-governmental organisations all over the world, including Redress Trust, the London-based charity that, among other things, deals with the victims of torture in Chile. That organisation is likely to lose up to half its funding. Will my hon. Friend act as a matter of urgency to ensure that that does not occur?

There can be no doubt that NGOs play an important role in maintaining respect for human rights worldwide. It is sad to see a threat to any legitimate organisation operating in that area. I do not know about the particular events leading to the situation that my hon. Friend describes, but I shall take her remarks on board and inquire as to the proper position and how the problem may be resolved.

If he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [54288]

Since my statement to the House last week, Britain has remained fully engaged in efforts to implement the Holbrooke package. At the weekend, after hours of intensive negotiation, President Milosevic gave a detailed commitment to reduce the levels of army, police and heavy weapons in Kosovo to their levels before the conflict. Diplomatic observers in Kosovo report that several thousand security troops have left over the past 24 hours.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. I am sure that everyone hopes that President Milosevic will continue to pull back from the brink. I am also pleased to hear that thousands of refugees are returning to the valleys. However, anxiety remains about what the international community intends to do to ensure safe and unrestricted access to Kosovo throughout the winter months in order to provide humanitarian aid to the refugees and prevent thousands of deaths from illness and starvation.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to express concern about the position of the refugees. So many of their homes have been destroyed by the actions of the Serb security forces that, although returning from the hillsides may take them nearer to where they once lived, it will not necessarily provide them with shelter. The refugees are still at risk from cold, hunger and disease.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware, that over the weekend, Alastair Campbell briefed the press in Austria? I have a transcript of that briefing, which said that the Prime Minister would tell the informal summit that

"Kosovo showed us far too often to be dithering and disunited".

I assure the hon. Gentleman that Britain played a leading part in building unity both in NATO and in the contact group. If this country had not shown that leadership in securing agreement for the diplomatic track in the contact group—backed by a credible threat from NATO—we would not have made the progress that I have just reported to the House.

If, as appears possible, it may not now be necessary to use the attack aircraft of NATO's air forces, would it not make sense to use NATO's transport aircraft to help to meet the priorities already established by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? Is it not the case that, in communities that were first razed to the ground and then looted, it is not only food and blankets that are required but medicines, equipment to restore essential services such as electricity and water, agricultural implements and building materials? If necessary, should we not have a Kosovo airlift to prevent the humanitarian disaster which we all dread?

I can certainly assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that, if the United Nations should approach us for support in the transport of goods to Kosovo, we would be very willing to consider that sympathetically because we would not want essential goods not to get through because of the lack of logistics. One of the reasons that we are anxious to get the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe verification mission up and running on the ground is precisely so that we can have those members of that team in every village and town, not merely to stand by and observe but robustly to intervene and make sure that they broker access to humanitarian goods and that the people of Kosovo are given the chance to come through this winter.

If he will make a statement on the UK's relations with Chile. [54290]

I met the Deputy Foreign Minister of Chile, Mr. Mariano Fernandez, on Saturday. I explained to the Minister that the Government of Britain had no power to intervene in the court proceedings concerning Senator Pinochet, and nor would it be proper for us to direct the police in the execution of a magistrate's warrant. I also stressed to Mr. Fernandez the determination of the Government to prevent these legal procedures from undermining our excellent relations with the democratic Government of Chile.

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the people of Chile on the smooth transition from dictatorship to a robust democracy? Does he agree that one of the most remarkable features of that is that opponents of the former regime worked side by side with people who supported it, forswearing individual acts of violence, to build a strong and robust democracy in Chile? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that that balance between opponent and supporter is a fine one and that outside influences are not welcome in that process? If he agrees with that, has he had an opportunity over the past fortnight to pass on that view to other members of the Government?

Of course there is a fine balance in direct conciliation and accommodation in Chile. That fine balance includes 14 current prosecutions outstanding against Senator Pinochet.

I have never had tea and sympathy with General Pinochet, and, having visited Chile during the reign of terror in the early 1980s and seen the way in which the oldest and longest democracy in Latin America had had its democracy subverted, I would never seek to parley with that gentleman. However, our views are surely irrelevant: will my right hon. Friend confirm that, once a proper application had been made under the Extradition Act 1989, we had no option but to let due process proceed?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. One of the most curious features of the past few days and the comments on them is the idea that the Bow Street magistrates issuing a warrant and the Metropolitan police executing it somehow adds up to a left-wing conspiracy. The Government are clear: due process of law must be carried out and it must not be warped to fit anybody's political agenda.

Is it not correct that the handling of this arrest and the possible extradition of General Pinochet have been bedevilled by chaos and confusion throughout? Why have the Government still not established whether or not the Spanish Government, as opposed to one Spanish judge, are applying for his extradition? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Home Secretary had a discretion not to authorise the grant of a warrant and could at that point have taken into account many factors, including the implications of the arrest for the future of democracy in Chile?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote to me last week saying that, if an extradition request were made, of course the normal processes and procedures should be followed. It is difficult to see that sentiment in the question that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just put to me. Of course we have had no contact on the question with the Spanish Government. It would be deeply improper to do so. The extradition request has been processed by entirely competent legal authority in Spain. It is for the Spanish authorities to decide whether they wish to withdraw it, not for us to decide whether we should ignore it. The Home Secretary was entirely proper in allowing the due process of law to proceed. There was a time when the Conservative party would have prided itself on being the party of the rule of law. It is rather sad that it has now departed from that principle of our constitution.

Does the Foreign Secretary not appreciate that the rule of law in this matter includes a discretion for the Home Secretary to take into account factors such as those that I mentioned, before authorising a warrant? On what conceivable basis does the Foreign Secretary allege that it would be improper to ask the Spanish Government whether they, as opposed to one judge, want General Pinochet to be extradited?

It is a matter for the Spanish legal authorities to decide whether to proceed with this, just as it is a matter for the British courts to decide how to proceed on it. Of course, areas of discretion are available to the Home Secretary after due process and after the matter has been before the courts. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is really saying that there were occasions when, in secret, he squashed a warrant for extradition, he should tell the House when it was.

What progress has been made in simplifying the process for those countries seeking to join the European Union. [54291]

The European Union agreed a clear and inclusive enlargement process at Luxembourg last year. Britain has played a key role in pushing forward that process, which was launched during our presidency. It remains on track, and will bring the applicant countries into the Union as soon as they are ready for the demands and the obligations of membership.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Following the Foreign Secretary's recent visit to Bulgaria and Romania, is there any progress to be reported on their meeting the criteria for membership?

Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a useful visit, which included Bulgaria and Romania, and there is no doubt that the prospect of EU membership is a great stimulus in those countries to produce reforms. We welcome some of the progress that they have already made and look forward to further progress in due course.

Does the Minister accept that part of the process towards enlargement necessarily involves questions of democracy? Does she further accept that the whole process of proportional representation, as expressed by a leading politician in The Times on 16 October, clearly shows that proportional representation is regarded by those in the Czech Republic as unhealthy, inequitable and leading to the blackmail of the larger parties by the smaller parties, as in Israel, and to dissatisfaction, as exists in New Zealand? Will the Minister therefore accept that, whether with regard to the Westminster system of democracy in Britain or the process of European elections, the whole concept in principle of proportional representation is objectionable, for the reasons that I gave?

I have forgotten what the hon. Gentleman said.

It certainly was an elaborate supplementary which took us some way away from the enlargement process. Despite that, however. I agree that democracy is a tremendously important—indeed, essential—part of the candidacy of any country for accession to the EU. But with regard to election systems, existing EU members have a variety of systems, and nothing in the enlargement process would alter that.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to consider the impact of the recent elections and referendum in Latvia and the general election in Slovakia? Does she agree that they justify including those countries in the fast-track process of enlargement, especially given that the Latvian impediment was its relationship with the Russian minority, which has been resolved by the consequences of the referendum result?

The application of each country needs to be regarded on its merits. Like my hon. Friend, I very much welcome the result of the referendum that took place in Latvia and the recent encouraging signs in the Slovakian election results. They show that coming closer to the European Union can stimulate democracy and respect for human rights and ethnic minorities. I very much welcome that.

Is the Minister aware of the news that, during the past week, Greece has placed fighter planes in Cyprus for the first time ever, and that, in January, the Greek Cypriot Government intend to bring in Russian missiles manned by Russian personnel? Is the European Union wise to absorb those problems into the Union before a settlement in Cyprus?

We regard the accession process in Cyprus as an important factor in applying pressure for a settlement of the Cypriot problem and uniting the island. That is tremendously important. However, we do not want a build-up of weapons in a volatile part of the world, which is why we have expressed serious reservations about missiles in Cyprus.

When he last met his European counterparts to discuss Agenda 2000 and enlargement. [54292]

When he last met his European counterparts to discuss Agenda 2000 in relation to enlargement. [54299]

I last met my European counterparts to discuss Agenda 2000 issues at yesterday's General Affairs Council in Luxembourg.

I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that the current gross domestic product per capita in South Yorkshire is only 75 per cent. of the European average? Is she further aware that in my constituency that figure falls to 65 per cent? Does she agree that, if this country is successfully to regenerate the most economically deprived regions, it must negotiate extremely hard to try to maximise the amount of European regional assistance that comes to this country under Agenda 2000?

I very much support my hon. Friend's comments. We generally support the criterion of 75 per cent. of GDP as the threshold for European regional assistance. European funds have already been used to effect in regenerating certain areas of the British economy. We are keen to see that process continue, as it rebounds on the efforts of those regions to the credit of both Britain and the European Union.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the rail port in my constituency of Doncaster provides rail freight services from the north of England to Europe? Does she agree that, to protect the environment and regenerate areas like South Yorkshire, the development of European rail links should be a high priority in any discussions on Agenda 2000 and European Union enlargement?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that transport infrastructure is a vital part of the economic development of a region. European transport links make a great deal of sense in the context of the European Union's structural funds and European efforts generally to promote economic development.

Will the Minister tell the House why so little progress is being made on the financial and other reforms which will be essential if the European Union is to be successfully enlarged? Is it because her Government, and other centre left Governments within the EU, are still obsessed with yesterday's backward-looking agenda of a Europe which is uniform, not diverse; rigid, not flexible; and deeper, not wider?

The basic premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is simply incorrect. Good progress is being made towards the Agenda 2000 timetable, as was evident from our discussions in Luxembourg yesterday, which ranged over all the issues involved in the negotiations, including financial and budgetary ones.

Does the Minister think that assurances given during enlargement negotiations can be kept to? I have in mind the assurances made by Spain, when it joined the European Union, about its treatment of Gibraltar. Spain is now attacking Gibraltar's fishing rights as well as its border rights, as always. Can she assure us that she takes these matters into account in the discussions on enlargement, and that the Spanish Government will be told, yet again, that they should keep to their assurances over Gibraltar?

It is certainly important that, in enlargement negotiations, undertakings that are given are implemented in practice. Indeed, a range of mechanisms has been put in place to make sure that the progress of existing applicants can be monitored through all the different chapters of the accession negotiations. In respect of Gibraltar, the hon. Gentleman might like to know that we recently protested strongly about increased delays at the border. As a result, those delays have been greatly reduced.

When my hon. Friend last met her European counterparts to discuss enlargement, was any attention given to the question of Cyprus being admitted to the European Union as an occupied country, in light of the view held by some of our EU partners that the idea of EU membership as a catalyst to a peace settlement appears to have failed?

In the General Affairs Council, we have said clearly that we believe that the accession negotiations regarding Cyprus remain an important pressure on reaching a settlement and reunifying the island. That is our view, and we have put it forward strongly. We believe that the accession negotiations represent a real opportunity to make progress, however difficult the problems are.

If he will make a statement on progress in the EU enlargement process. [54293]

Britain negotiated the launch of the enlargement process during our presidency, and progress in the accession talks has been good. We expect that next month, we can move from the screening process to substantive negotiations with six of the candidate countries.

Enlargement in due course is clearly essential for the applicant countries, and much in the interests of this country and of existing member states.

indicated assent.

I am pleased to have the Foreign Secretary's acknowledgement of that. Would he resist firmly any further moves towards gratuitous deepening of the Community, on the ground that, if applicant countries already have enough difficulty keeping their footing through the existing acquis communautaire, any further impositions might put them out of their depth altogether?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point that we should remember that enlargement is also in the interest of the existing member states. It will make the European Union larger, give it greater potential for prosperity and greater clout in world trade talks, and enable us to deal with cross-border problems, such as the environment and cross-border crime. This is not simply a matter of altruism towards the applicant countries—it is in our interest, too—but it is not the case that the applicant countries would oppose what the hon. Gentleman referred to as further deepening. They want to become members of a full, strong Europe, with integration where necessary and decentralisation wherever possible.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the five eastern European accession countries, with 63 million people and a gross domestic product of about 400 billion ecu, represent a major addition to the European Union economy and a major opportunity for British companies to extend their home markets? Will he, in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry, review the substantial information that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has on markets and market opportunities in those countries, and ensure that it is available to British businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, because too few of them are approaching the FCO about such opportunities at the moment?

I have just returned from Bulgaria and Romania. I was struck not only by the opportunity for investment and trade in those countries, but by their desperate need for that investment and trade. Enlargement offers us an economic opportunity, but we must recognise that we cannot maintain a Europe that, although no longer divided by an iron curtain, is divided into the rich nations of the European Union and the poor countries at our gates. That is not sustainable, and we shall suffer from the pressures from illegal migration, the drugs trade and other problems that come from poverty. It is in our interests to assist those countries to achieve our prosperity.

Does the Foreign Secretary really believe that deepening integration, increasing spending and moving towards tax harmonisation and a European army—all of which were agreed in Austria last weekend—will help the enlargement process? Is it not clear that there can be deepening or widening of the European Union, but not both? Does he accept that his statement in August that

"Maastricht was a high water mark of integration"

The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot complain about the response in Kosovo and yet refuse to apply that lesson for Europe's security. That is exactly what the Prime Minister was drawing to the attention of the leaders of Europe when they met in Pörtschach.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary's comments on enlargement. What assessment has been made of the challenges and opportunities that enlargement will bring, and of the adequacy of existing EU structural funds? Decisions may need to be taken about extending the scope of such funds.

There are substantial programmes to assist countries that are preparing for membership. The pre-accession funds are generous. Yesterday, in the General Affairs Council, we agreed on re-allocation as applicant countries become full members. Structural funds will be available to them as full members. That is why it is important that we proceed with the reform of not just the structural funds, but the common agricultural policy to ensure that we can afford enlargement and that the resources of the European Union go where they can best be used.

If he will make a statement about UK relations with Dubai. [54295]

Our relations with Dubai are good. As an indicator of that, our trade statistics with Dubai show that in 1997, United Kingdom exports were worth more than £900 million.

The trade with Dubai affords tremendous opportunities for British business based on our expertise, experience and the competitiveness of our tenders. Does the Minister agree that our relations with Dubai stand to be damaged by the continued detention of George Atkinson? What representations will the Minister make to the Government of Dubai consequent on the decision by the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention to describe Mr. Atkinson's detention as "arbitrary"?

I welcome the first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments, particularly his reference to the competitiveness of British exports in the middle east. It is good to hear him talking in those terms, unlike many of his colleagues, and I welcome his comments.

What representations he has made to his United States counterpart to try to achieve that country's agreement to ensure compliance with biological and chemical weapons treaties. [54296]

We are in regular dialogue with the United States on all aspects of the implementation of the biological and chemical weapons conventions. I am pleased to report that the United States has passed legislation to implement the chemical weapons convention.

That is news to me.

I am pleased to say that the United States Congress recently ratified legislation allowing precisely the type of challenge inspection that my hon. Friend has described. There is now no possibility that other countries can hide behind the supposed reluctance of the United States, which is now complying with the chemical weapons convention. We welcome that, having played our part by making our views known to the United States Government and Congress.

Was it not a piece of barefaced cheek for the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) to point the finger of accusation at the United States in relation to treaties banning biological weapons? The United States, like this country, signed the treaty to ban biological weapons in 1972, and President Yeltsin admitted in 1992 that for 20 years—as we in the west had suspected—the Soviet Union had been flagrantly breaching the treaty. If accusations of that kind are to be made, should not the hon. Gentleman direct them at the Russians, who, even now, have not cleaned up their act in this respect?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like me to go a little beyond party political rhetoric, and stick to the substance of his question. He is right: the United States was one of the signatories of the 1972 treaty, which was an important step forward. Britain's record is good in this regard, and I must pay tribute to what the previous Government did in respect of chemical weapons, although perhaps they did less in respect of biological weapons. As a House and as a country, we should hold firmly to the view that all nations should sign and ratify both treaties.

What recent discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with representatives of the Indian and Pakistani Governments, regarding Kashmir. [54297]

We have had a number of discussions with representatives of India and Pakistan on regional security issues, including the question of Kashmir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is understandable that there is worldwide concern about the increasing tension between Pakistan and India over the Kashmir problem, especially following the nuclear tests carried out by both countries earlier this year? Does he hope that the talks that started last week, which will be resumed in the new year, will lead to an end to the problem? That is in the interests of people on both sides in Kashmir, and in the interests of India and Pakistan. Will my hon. Friend make it clear to both sides that, while there is a problem for those countries to solve, we will do all that we can to assist the achieving of that objective?

I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said. It is crucial that India and Pakistan are able to establish a sensible, constructive and peaceful bilateral relationship. We wish the talks well that started last week and had been preceded by discussions between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan in New York. We hope that those discussions lead to measures that relate not just to Kashmir, but to other confidence-building issues and broader economic and security issues—but my hon. Friend is right. The south Asian sub-continent is a volatile area, and the question of Kashmir makes it that much more volatile. Hence the need for the discussions to be successful.

Does the Minister of State recall that today is the 51st anniversary of the occupation of large parts of Kashmir by Indian forces? Therefore, does he not think that it would be a good day to confirm the United Kingdom's determination to bring Kashmir back on to the agenda of the United Nations Security Council, bearing in mind that there were resolutions from the Security Council in 1948, 1949 and 1957 calling for a plebiscite of the Kashmiri people on their future? Does he not think that that should be pressed for by Her Majesty's Government?

The international community is naturally concerned about the developments in relation to Kashmir and the threats that those pose for regional stability and security. The best current approach is through the bilateral talks between India and Pakistan. We wish those well. The obvious parties to resolve these difficulties are the two Governments. If they can come to an understanding, that is the best way for the peace of the area and for the people of Kashmir.

What plans he has to meet the President of Argentina to discuss UK-Argentine relations. [54298]

The President of Argentina arrives on an official visit today. He will hold talks with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me. He will address the City of London and the Confederation of British Industry, and lay a wreath in commemoration of those who fell in the Falklands war. This is the first visit to Britain by the President of Argentina since it became a modern democracy, and a welcome demonstration of the growing strength of relations between our two countries.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to rebuild Britain's relationship with the new Government of Argentina? Will the Government use President Menem's visit to take forward our growing ties in trade and industry for the benefit of both our nations?

I assure my hon. Friend that we expect this visit to provide a further boost to the excellent commercial relationships that Britain and Argentina enjoy. President Menem will bring with him 100 leading Argentine business men and the contact with the CBI and the City will, I am sure, deepen those commercial ties.

In welcoming President Menem, personifying as he does the process of reconciliation and compassion in his country, will the right hon. Gentleman take heed of President Menem's wise counsel with regard to relations between both Argentina and the United Kingdom and Argentina and its neighbouring states? Therefore, could the right hon. Gentleman do nothing that will prejudice democracy within a state neighbouring Argentina, which had a very tense relationship with that country?

If I were to pursue the line of thinking in the hon. Gentleman's question, President Menem might justifiably be rather confused as to which country I thought he came from. First, however, I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the reconciliation, which has been welcomed by most of the veterans of the Falklands war; secondly, of course, we will do nothing to undermine democracy in either Argentina or Chile; nor will we do anything to undermine the rule of law in Britain.

Will my right hon. Friend tell President Menem of this country's undoubted good will towards Argentina now that it is a democracy, but make it clear that he should understand that it is important to allow the due process of law to take place regarding General Pinochet? That very process of law, I am glad to say, is being carried out in Argentina.

What about China?

Order. The question is about Argentina. I shall have something to say on these matters a little later. Does the Foreign Secretary want to make any response?

indicated dissent.

I thought not.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the close links between Wales and Patagonia—links that came under considerable strain during the Falklands war—and that there is a well of good will in Argentina towards the United Kingdom and a desire to forge much closer relationships. Does he agree that the best safeguard for the Falklands is for such links to blossom and grow constructively?

I am well aware of those links. It is worth recalling that we have a deep and wide relationship with Argentina. For instance, British service men are currently working alongside Argentine service men to maintain the peace on the green line in Cyprus. If our service men can achieve that partnership, our politicians should seek to do so too. I fully agree that a healthy understanding between our two countries must be good for the Falkland Islanders in the long run.

If he will make a statement on the impact of the German general election result on British-German relations. [54300]

The United Kingdom has excellent relations with Germany and we look forward to developing them further with the new German Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I will meet the new German Minister for Foreign Affairs, Joschka Fischer, for discussions both tomorrow and on Thursday.

Does my hon. Friend believe that the election of a fellow centre left Government in Bonn will help in our Government's task of repairing our damaged relations with Germany—relations that suffered so badly under the previous Government—and that the election result shows that it is entirely possible to have decisive political change under a system of proportional representation?

As the German SPD belongs to our political family, we are, of course, pleased that it has won such support from the German electorate. We look forward to working closely with the new Government, and it is satisfying to note that the centre left seems to be so popular with European electorates. Perhaps Conservative Members would like to reflect on that trend.

The Minister will be aware that the new German Government have already imposed a moratorium on an important joint arms programme, for the multi-role armoured vehicle. Defence relations are obviously an essential part of our relations. What is the new German Government's response to the Prime Minister's proposals for a change of policy on defence in Europe, which the House has not had the opportunity to hear?

Chancellor Schröder complimented the Prime Minister on his contribution at Pörtschach, and felt that his proposals were a good basis for future discussions on that part of European policy. The Prime Minister's statement was welcomed generally as an important contribution to the debate of the heads of state.

If he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations to resolve Lockerbie-related problems. [54301]

Last August, I announced agreements with the Governments of the Netherlands and of the United States on the conditions under which we could hold a trial of the two accused in a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands. The agreement has been endorsed in a unanimous resolution of the Security Council, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations is in discussion with Libya on the arrangements for the handover of the two accused.

Is it not a matter of record that the Libyan Government have constantly said that it is up to the defence team to decide, from its point of view, the locus of serving a sentence, if there is one? Does he not therefore take encouragement from the fact that, as far as most of us know, the defence lawyers have not objected to the locus of Scotland in terms of a sentence, if any sentence is passed?

It is, indeed, the case that the defence lawyers have not expressed any view on where the accused should be held in prison. However, I should tell my hon. Friend that, before we made our offer last August, there was no statement from the Government of Libya expressing any concern about imprisonment in Scotland. That concern surfaced only after we had met their demand for a trial under Scottish law in a third country. We now expect Libya to oblige the Security Council resolution by surrendering the two accused for trial on exactly the same basis as that for which Libya itself has lobbied for a long time.

As the Government of Libya have indicated in writing that they agree to the proposals, subject to some amendments, and as the British Government have said that there will be no amendments, is it not rather insulting to the House that the draft order setting out the proposals for the trial and the expenditure has been dealt with under a procedure entailing that the order cannot be discussed in the House? Does not the Foreign Secretary think that it would be appropriate for the House to debate the order and to be able to express a view on it? Does he not also agree that there is a case for quiet private discussions and flexibility, and that the issue could well be resolved very speedily?

The draft was passed by an Order in Council under the standard procedures for Orders in Council, and gives effect to a Security Council resolution, which has standing in international law. As for flexibility, the Libyan defence team has come up with no concern on which we have not been able to reassure it, except for the one matter of it wishing to dictate where the two accused might serve their sentence if convicted.