To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the situation in the Sudan.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is making representations to the Sudanese Government about the situation in the Sudan.

We have serious differences with the Sudanese Government over their policies on the Gulf conflict, human rights, and terrorism. We are also most concerned about their failure to co-ordinate effectively with foreign relief agencies in order to deal with the major famine that is in prospect. We have made our position on these issues clear to the Sudanese authorities.

What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the Government of Sudan about the latter's rather unhelpful approach to the Gulf crisis?

The Government of Sudan are one of the few Governments in the world who have given support to the Government of Iraq. That is wrong in principle and it is contrary to the interests of the Sudan. We have made both those things clear to the Sudanese Government.

That huge country, with its immense resources and its wonderful people, has not enjoyed political stability since it was under British administration. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that Britain has a vast reservoir of experience and expertise with regard to the problems of the Sudan which is not sufficiently tapped? Will he please ensure that that resource, which is available to Her Majesty's Government and to the authorities in the Sudan, is used for the mutual benefit of both countries?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am aware that the Sudanese civil service attracted some of the ablest administrators in the colonial service and there is thus a pool of informed opinion. I shall give careful thought to my hon. Friend's ingenious suggestion.

I fully support the Government's robust response to the release on 7 January by the Sudanese Government of the terrorists who murdered five British citizens. Will the Minister say a little more about the extent of the co-operation between Sudan and Iraq in the Gulf war? For example, Christian Sudanese from the south say that chemical weapons have been supplied by Iraq to the Sudanese Government and ABC News recently carried a report that before the conflict Iraq had positioned combat aircraft and missiles via Port Sudan in Sudan itself for possible use against strategic targets either in Saudi Arabia or against targets such as the Aswan dam in Egypt.

As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, yes there have been rumours to the effect that Iraq has been basing equipment of various kinds in the Sudan, but we have no evidence to substantiate them. Our view would be that that would be wrong in principle and contrary to the interests of the Sudan. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am grateful to him for the support that he has given to the Government for the way we responded to the disgraceful decision to release the terrorists who murdered five British citizens and two others.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take any initiative in the United Nations to seek an immediate ceasefire of hostilities in Cambodia.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the situation in Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

Britain has contributed fully to the agreement between the Permanent Five and the co-chairmen of the Paris conference on Cambodia on a draft comprehensive settlement document, an integral part of which is a monitored ceasefire. We continue to pursue the early implementation of these proposals.

Can the Minister confirm that one of the provisions of the United Nations peace plan is such that a ceasefire cannot be implemented, nor can the external supply of arms be discontinued until a date is agreed for the implementation of the plan? A meeting to try to arrange a date seems to be becoming increasingly bogged down and is not happening. He must be aware of the public's great concern about the carnage that has taken place in Cambodia. Can the Government take any fresh initiative to hasten the day when a ceasefire will be possible and will not not necessarily be dependent upon the United Nations peace plan?

We constantly urge a ceasefire. Our objective—with our friends and partners, notably the permanent members of the Security Council—is to work for a comprehensive political settlement which includes a ceasefire. The consensus between the Permanent Five, the Paris conference co-chairmen and the United Nations on the draft settlement document must provide an opportunity for the Paris conference to reconvene one day and to adopt a settlement.

Are not people a little suspicious of the Government's intentions when the Government have been involved in training members of the Khmer Rouge, which includes the Pol Pot faction? Does not the United Nations settlement involve a ceasefire which disarms the Cambodian Government before the Khmer Rouge, including the Pol Pot faction? As the British Government are so concerned about containing aggression, why are they not doing more to aid the Cambodian Government, supported by Vietnam, to resist encroachments by the Pol Pot faction which, as the Minister will readily acknowledge, has one of the worst records in existence for battering human rights?

We have repeatedly stated, and I shall state it again today, that there has never been and there is no Government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with the Khmer Rouge. The hon. Gentleman should use his undoubted energies in the direction of encouraging a comprehensive peace settlement. In that way, we would create the conditions to enable the Cambodian people to elect a Government, free from fear of foreign invasion and civil war or Khmer Rouge atrocities.

As regards getting a comprehensive settlement, which is what we all seek, will my hon. Friend consider ensuring that a member of our foreign service goes to talk to the Phnom Penh Government? There are difficulties with the interpretation of the United Nation plan and it would be helpful if we used our diplomatic skills to get over them. Also, will he consider the position of the camps in Thailand, where we are feeding people who are party to a civil war and not under United Nations control?

We have no objection to talking to representatives of the Phnom Penh regime to urge them to co-operate in restoring peace to Cambodia on the basis of the Permanent Five's framework. It is certainly the case also that we support efforts to improve the lot of displaced people in camps along the Thai-Cambodian border.

Given Mr. John Pilger's apparent success in perpetuating the myth that the SAS and other British units have been training the Pol Pot regime and its supporters, has the Foreign Office given any consideration to employing Mr. Pilger as a propagandist against the regime in Baghdad?

The Foreign Office has made clear its fundamental disagreement with so many of Mr. Pilger's allegations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the intergovernmental conferences.

Both intergovernmental conferences were opened on 15 December, in Rome. The conference on European monetary union met again on 28 January, attended by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I attended a meeting of the political union conference on 4 February. Ministers' personal representatives are also meeting weekly. The United Kingdom is playing a full and constructive role in both conferences.

The EC conferences are about the future control of our economic, foreign and defence policies—the hallmarks of an independent state. Does it not strike my right hon. Friend as odd that at a time when, quite rightly, our troops are in the Gulf to restore independence in Kuwait, we should talk about giving away our own independence?

I am not sure that the two situations are entirely comparable. So far as we are concerned, the two conferences are exercises to see whether we can co-operate more effectively with our partners in Europe. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not suppose that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's plan for a hard ecu, or the ideas that I am quoting in the other conference for stimulating the role of national parliaments in controlling the Community and for more effective compliance by member states of European decisions that they have already accepted in theory, involve any sacrifice of independence on our part.

The Foreign Secretary has given an unusually bland and uninformative reply. He surely recognises the great interest that there is in the progress of the talks on the intergovernmental conferences—particularly that on political union, for which the right hon. Gentleman is more directly responsible. Will the Foreign Secretary keep the House informed as to the substance of the talks at the meeting on 4 February? Will he also ensure that, in future, a separate statement is made whenever the right hon. Gentleman returns from Brussels, Luxembourg, or wherever it may be, so that the House will be kept fully informed?

I always try to ensure that the House is kept properly informed. On 4 February, we had a general discussion in the intergovernmental conference on the subject of foreign policy. I maintained the view that there is everything to be said for working together effectively, and in trying to agree a line and implementing it—but that would not be achieved by playing about with majority voting or procedures.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has become clear from events in the Gulf that the intergovernmental conference ought not to come to any conclusion that the defence of western Europe should be handed over to the Community? Will he use his best endeavours to strengthen the Western European Union, which is the right organisation, as the European pillar of NATO?

So far as we and most members of the Community are concerned, there is no question of trying to load on to the EC the responsibility for our defence that is shouldered by NATO. There is a question of how far we can build up the WEU, as my hon. Friend knows and approves, but the essence of our defence will continue to lie in the Atlantic alliance.

Why, even at this late stage, with the intergovernmental conferences now involving weekly meetings of officials, do we still not have the Government's promised paper on the agenda for the political union conference? When it comes to the economic and monetary union conference, we have not only the Government's agenda but an alternative draft treaty, whereas we know little of the Government's views or negotiating position in respect of the political union prospectus. When it comes to matters of major substance affecting the future of this country, the House of Commons and the people of this nation should have a right to participate, rather than everything being left to faceless officials meeting in Brussels.

I recall a debate in which I set out our proposals and ideas very clearly. I will refresh the hon. Gentleman's mind by sending him the relevant copy of Hansard.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries have now played an active role in the military operations taking place in the Gulf.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the United Nations are contributing financial or military aid to the allies in the Gulf war; and if he will list those countries which have not contributed.

More than 30 nations, including nine European Community members, are contributing equipment, material and personnel to the multinational force in the Gulf. A number have been involved in military operations already, and others will become involved as the allied campaign takes its course. Most recently, the Governments of Germany, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have offered generous financial support to Britain.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed answer. Manfred Woerner, secretary-general of NATO, has called for a common defence and foreign policy within the EC. On 5 February, Mr. Jacques Poos said in The Times that if there had been a common foreign policy the result would have been speedier but the same. What is the point of speedier disunity? Does not taking NATO further into the EC risk uncoupling America's defence policy from the destiny of Europe?

As I have just said, I believe that the bedrock of our defences must continue to be NATO. It is perfectly clear to me, however, that the Americans expect NATO's European members to play a larger part in the defence of Europe; and that expectation will have been increased by what has happened in the Gulf.

On day two of the war, I described the aerial bombardment of cities as, by definition, mass murder. I was ridiculed by the Prime Minister and later by the Foreign Secretary.

I have no information about the event that the hon. Gentleman has described, beyond what he and I watched on television. He will know—and, I hope, accept —that the greatest possible care is being taken to avoid indiscriminate attack on civilian targets and that the targeting is as precise as has ever been achieved in the history of modern warfare.

Do not the allied forces in the Gulf deserve immense credit for the trouble that they are taking to minimise civilian casualties, sometimes at risk to their own lives? Is it not quite possible that the casualties among Iraqi civilians caused by allied bombing are fewer than those caused by Saddam Hussein's terror squads?

That may well be so. The allied forces do all that they can to avoid civilian casualties; in that regard they are very different from President Saddam Hussein, whose Scud missiles are aimed indiscriminately at civilians, whether in Tel Aviv or in Riyadh.

Everyone must deplore the number of civilian casualties and I hope that what has happened causes great and genuine concern to every hon. Member. The allied military command should hear in mind both the human and the political costs of the raids and the casualties.

The hon. Gentleman puts his points well. I refer his hon. Friends who think otherwise to the Amnesty report on what has happened and is still happening in Kuwait.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern at the fact that the suffering and plight of the civilian population of Kuwait go unreported because the dictator of Baghdad does not permit them to be reported, while the western media are making themselves the vehicle for Saddam Hussein's propaganda machine by playing up every civilian casualty? Very often, those casaulties may be caused by Iraqi surface-to-air missiles and they may often involve not civilian but military casualties.

It is very important that all those reporting on these matters do not lose sight of, and continue to search for, evidence of what is happening in Kuwait. When I was talking to the Kuwaitis in Taif a few days ago, I urged them to do everything that they could to make that material available. We are doing our best in that respect.

I wish to express the dismay and horror of everyone in the House—certainly all Opposition Members—at the terrible event which took place in Baghdad this morning. I should be grateful if the Foreign Secretary could confirm that the air raid shelter in which those people died was not deliberately targeted. I should be grateful if he would ensure that the utmost efforts are made by the coalition forces to prevent the repetition of such a tragic mistake and that the avoidance of civilian casualties is given an even higher priority than it has been already. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most effective way to avoid further appalling loss of innocent life is for Saddam Hussein to accept the United Nations resolutions, withdraw from Kuwait and end the war?

The aim of all the allied forces in action now is to weaken the military machine which is perpetuating the aggression in Kuwait and thus bring nearer the time when Kuwait can be liberated as the United Nations has asked. Therefore, it is part of the policy of all the allied forces to keep to a minimum the civilian casualties which may occur as military targets are attacked. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's last point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Soviet Foreign Minister to discuss human rights in the Soviet Union.

My right hon. Friend last discussed human rights with the Soviet Foreign Minister during his visit to Moscow in September 1990.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the continued enslavement of the Baltic states and the refusal of exit visas to a number of refuseniks is intolerable? Will he remind the Russian authorities that we judge them not by Mr. Gorbachev's speeches but by his deeds and that some of his recent actions are offensive to all decent-minded men and women?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we believe that the peoples of the three Baltic republics have a right to self-determination and we hope that they and the Soviet Union will be able to negotiate the outcome that is wished by the people of those republics. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I agree entirely that the unfettered right to emigrate is one of the characteristics of an open and accountable society. There have been substantial improvements in that regard within the Soviet Union, but there is still further to go.

Before the Secretary of State meets his opposite number in Moscow about human rights issues, will he make immediate inquiries of President Gorbachev as to whether the latter supports the views of his own Prime Minister that somehow there was an absurd plot to destabilise the rouble in recent weeks?

That allegation by the Soviet Prime Minister was manifestly dotty, and Mr. Gorbachev is not dotty.

In all the representations that my hon. and learned Friend and other members of the Government have made to the Soviet authorities about the disgraceful shootings in Vilnius and Riga in recent weeks, have the Government received any satisfactory explanation from the Soviet authorities as to why they took place; and will my hon. and learned Friend continue to stress to the Soviet authorities that it would be very difficult for the western powers to be accommodating to the economic needs of the Soviet Union until a satisfactory explanation is given?

We have had a number of explanations from the Soviet authorities, some more persuasive than others. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, this is indeed extremely regrettable. The British Government, in concert with others, want to signal our disapproval and condemnation of what is happening by, for example, suspending the non-humanitarian aid element of the Rome declaration. So I support the latter part of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Will the Minister reconsider his letter to me about bringing up at the United Nations the repression and killing in the Baltic states? Will he, even now, acknowledge that it is not good enough to say, as he did in his letter, that he does not think

"the United Nations Security Council is likely to solve the issue."

The hon. Lady does not fully comprehend the jurisdiction and competence of the Security Council. If we tried to raise this matter in the Security Council I am afraid that it would be frustrated by endless sterile procedural arguments. What we need to do and are doing is to take every other opportunity open to us—they are many—to make it plain to the Soviet Government not merely that we condemn what they have been doing in the Baltic republics but that they will have to pay a price in terms of lost co-operation with the west.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and the people's republic of China.

We are working to achieve a full and constructive relationship with the People's Republic of China. The dialogue we are developing covers a wide range of issues, including human rights. We have a common commitment to the maintenance of the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the People's Republic has made a substantial contribution to the international peace process in the United Nations, particularly over events in the Gulf? In that context, what progress has been made in recent weeks in discussions between the People's Republic, the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Hong Kong about the development of the port and airport scheme—especially the airport at Chek Lap Kok?

I am happy to confirm that the People's Republic of China has made a constructive contribution to Security Council debates on the crisis in the Gulf.

Is the Minister aware of the role that the British inter-parliamentary group is playing in building better relationships with the People's Republic of China, specifically in the areas of human rights and the rights of the people of Hong Kong? Will he acknowledge the role that the British IPU plays in this important matter?

I am sure that the IPU has made its concern on human rights felt. We, too, express our concern about them on every possible occasion.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is as much in the interests of China as of Hong Kong that the territory should continue to enjoy stability and prosperity, to which he referred, and confidence in its future? Does he agree that the remarks attributed to Deng Xiaoping about British tricks and about sending in troops to put down rebellion do not contribute to confidence?

I confirm that it is as much in the interests of the Chinese Government as of the Hong Kong Government that Hong Kong should prosper. My hon. Friend referred to a newspaper article quoting remarks by Deng Xiaoping. That statement was not an official one by the Chinese Government. The report to which my hon. Friend referred was of an earlier article in a Hong Kong magazine last month. It is not helpful to comment on speculation.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, with only two weeks to go to the deadline, fewer than 6,000 Hong Kong people have applied for the 50,000 available passports? Does not that shambles show that the Government would have been better occupied bringing full democracy to Hong Kong instead of having this flawed scheme? Does not the fact that Hong Kong people are still flooding to Canada, the United States and Australia show that the scheme is not anchoring people in the territory and that those people, like us, no longer have confidence in the United Kingdom Government?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recall that Labour Members, perhaps including himself, suggested that this scheme would flood the United Kingdom with people from Hong Kong. Considerable interest has been shown in the scheme. A quarter of a million application forms have been distributed. Experience shows that there may be a rush of applications just before the deadline.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what importance he attaches to the strengthening of collective security arrangements.

NATO, including the presence of north American forces in Europe, remains the basis for our collective security. The alliance is adapting to the new circumstances in Europe and we have put forward proposals for strengthening the European pillar within the alliance by building up the Western European Union. The WEU has shown that it can play a useful role in co-ordinating European military activities outside Europe.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he accept that defending Europe's interests as an entity must extend beyond physical boundaries to include its interests? If so, does he find less than edifying the response of some of our European and NATO allies to the crisis which we face in the Gulf, particularly nations such as Belgium which have been less than enthusiastic about the part that they could play in the conflict?

This was not a NATO responsibility, except in terms of the threat perceived to Turkey, a NATO member. Efforts to achieve a concerted military response have had patchy results. The Belgians have sent three warships and we are discussing further forms of help with them.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the United Nations plays a part in collective security. Has he heard the suggestions in Germany that in future the Germans cannot be expected to pay without a say and that they should have some kind of representation in the United Nations, perhaps collective European representation, or, as Willie Brandt suggested, two alternating seats for Europe? Does the right hon. Gentleman have a statement to make about those two suggestions?

I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises the United Nations role in enforcing collective security. I hope that she will now back resolution 678—

I do.

Withdraw.

I withdraw that insinuation. I am glad that the hon. Lady shares my view of the importance of the United Nations to collective security. I hope that the German Government will persist in their plan to amend the German constitution, to enable Germany, with her allies and partners, to play a full part in collective security. Germany has not asked for a permanent seat on the Security Council and there is no such proposal on the table.

On a point of order. The Foreign Secretary misrepresented me—

Order. Hon. Members are frequently dissatisfied with the answers that they receive. I heard the Foreign Secretary withdraw that comment.

May I commend my right hon. Friend for his wise remarks at Blaby on future collective security in the Gulf? Is not it essential that the Gulf states themselves decide what they want, and with whom they co-operate? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the United Kingdom is prepared to play its part in underpinning peace in the region, there is no question of our having a large military presence east of Suez once again?

May I say, first, that I withdrew my suggestion about the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) as soon as she began to show indignation. Indeed, I withdrew it even before I had completed it. I am delighted that, with regard to the Gulf war, we are on the same side.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Arab League states about further exploration of diplomatic solutions to the Gulf crisis.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had dicussions with any of his counterparts who are members of the union of Arab Maghreb nations, since the commencement of military action against Iraq.

Discussions with members of the Union of Maghreb Nations and of the Arab League continue. We all agree on the need to end the conflict as early as possible, on the basis of the relevant Security Council resolutions. But a diplomatic solution can be possible only once Saddam Hussein is willing to comply with the Security Council resolutions.

Does the Secretary of State agree that, although Saddam Hussein bears the primary responsibility for the conflict in the Gulf, the events in Baghdad this morning, involving very substantial loss of human life, not only constitute a human tragedy but represent a political disaster for the coalition forces and, in particular, for those Arab leaders associated with the coalition, against the wishes of the mass of people in their countries? Does not this point to the need to rule in compromise as a possible solution before the land battle commences and further civilian casualties of the magnitude experienced today occur? Has the Secretary of State talked to the Kuwaiti Government and received from them any suggestion that they might agree with the United States ambassador to Baghdad that Saddam Hussein could perhaps retreat to the two islands and the oilfield and hold them as a compromise solution until international—

Order. That is far too long for a supplementary question.

I had discussions with the Kuwaiti Government four days ago, but I should not have thought it right, or in any way fruitful—their whole country having been invaded and virtually obliterated, and their people tortured and oppressed—to suggest to them that they should take the initiative or should accept from anybody else any initiative involving the dismembering of their country.

What effect does the Secretary of State think the bombing of the air raid shelter today has had on the opinion of these nations and their leaders? Is it not clear that there is growing revulsion, not only among the Arab nations but throughout the world, at what is happening in Iraq? Surely the Secretary of State must accept that thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians have now been killed.

In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and in discussions here with Syria's Foreign Minister, I have heard that in those three key Arab countries, which are members of the coalition against Saddam Hussein, the issue of civilian casualties has been considered fairly and accepted—accepted in the sense that those countries realise the nature of the operation, agree with its objective and intend to stay within the coalition. I do not believe that even tragedies of the kind reported this morning will alter that analysis or shake that determination.

Is it not more constructive that my right hon. Friend has made it absolutely plain that the British Government stand ready, once Kuwait has been liberated, to respond to any request from middle east countries to play a prominent role in the economic and political reconstruction of the middle east?

Indeed, and it is because the Kuwaitis have begun to plan in detail the reconstruction of their country that a group of British business men came with me to talk to the Kuwaitis four days ago. I am glad that they did that. We have made two things clear—first, that it is not for us to impose a political, strategic or economic blueprint on the region. The good ideas have to come from the region itself and that is beginning to happen. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend says, we have made it clear that we are willing, within our means, to consider any suggestions for help from those countries once they have sorted out their own ideas.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in pursuing a diplomatic solution that will see the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, one of the key players at the present time is Iran? Will he take this opportunity to characterise the state of the dialogue with that country? Does he also accept that the continuing parliamentary links with Iran suggest that there is a much more favourable climate now in which to make progress?

We restored diplomatic relations with Iran in the autumn, as my hon. Friend is aware. I am in favour of the kind of parliamentary contacts to which he referred and I hope that they will bear fruit before long. The progress of our relations has not been as fast as I would have wished. I am very anxious to make progress on some of the bilateral points, which is diplomatic jargon for the British hostages held by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon and also Mr. Cooper who is in prison in Tehran.

When the Foreign Secretary next meets the Arab League states, as part of his attempt to find a diplomatic solution, will he assure them of his determination to strengthen the new Lebanese Government? As part of that determination, will he raise with the Israeli Government the need for them to stop their land, sea and air incursions into Lebanon? Will he also raise with them the need to help strengthen that Lebanese Government?

I welcome the move of the Lebanese Government into the south of their own country, but that is a slightly different point. Palestinian groups have been using force and rockets against settlements in the north of Israel. While I accept the need for the whole tragedy of Lebanon to be discussed, the Palestinian part in the latest violent episodes cannot be brushed aside.

Will my right hon. Friend contrasts the immediate comments of certain Opposition Members about the tragedy—and I stress the word "tragedy"—of the civilian loss of life about which we have heard today, with the absolute silence that greeted the destruction of thousands of homes in the state of Israel as the result of Scud attacks?

To be fair, the whole House has shown its revulsion against the indicriminate attacks made by the Iraqi Scud missiles whether against Israel or civilians in Riyadh. The sooner this whole crisis can be brought to an end by reversing the aggression and freeing Kuwait, the sooner we can get on with the task of trying to rebuild a more sensible middle east in which these tragedies d o not occur.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for repudiating the offensive and foolish remark made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). Does the Foreign Secretary agree that as Scud missiles continue to rain on Israel causing civilian casualties and destroying people's homes, the need for Israeli security through a peace settlement becomes more obvious, because it is clear that the occupation of the occupied territories does not provide Israel with that security, as Amos Oz so widely said in that superb interview that he gave on television on Sunday afternoon? Will he remind Mr. Shamir that a settlement is not possible unless he is ready to speak to representative Palestinians and that it is deplorable that he places in prison moderate Palestinians like Sari Nusseibeh?

I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and the right hon. Gentleman are differing in their reactions to the attacks on Israel or in their support for the restraint that the Israel Government have shown in response. However, the right hon. Gentleman's second point is soundly based, because after the war we will have to return to the search for a lasting settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute. That cannot be done simply by agreements between Israel and Syria on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and other Arab states on the other. It must include what is called the Palestinian question. It must be based on the United Nations Security Council resolution which defines as necessary the ending of the occupation by Israel of the occupied territories and the recognition and the securing of Israel's security behind safe borders.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Iraqi ambassador to make representations concerning the treatment of British and allied prisoners of war.

I summoned the Iraqi ambassador on 21 January to protest about Iraqi threats to use allied prisoners of war as human shields. I summoned him again on 29 January, following Iraqi news reports that prisoners of war had been wounded and that one perhaps had been killed. I told the ambassador that the Iraqi Government were in breach of their international obligations under articles 19 and 23 of the third Geneva convention. I asked him to convey our views to the Iraqi Government at once and at the highest level.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Was his meeting with the ambassador held in the Tower of London? If not, why not? When the ambassador returns to this country, will my hon. and learned Friend have further meetings with him in the Tower of London so that the ambassador can be close to the torture chamber and make himself familiar with what Saddam Hussein has done to prisoners of war and, in particular, our loved ones?

When I saw the ambassador I made it plain to him that we regarded the conduct of his Government as wholly disgraceful. After that meeting he was under no illusion whatsoever.

Does the Minister recall that during the previous war, when it was reported to the House that RAF air crew had been badly treated and, indeed, shot, a promise was made to do something about it after the war? After the war, it was decided conveniently to forget it. I hope that the Minister's words—a correct condemnation —will not be the end of the matter. It must never be forgotten that, when prisoners of war on any side are badly treated, somebody must be brought to justice.

I made it plain to the ambassador that where there was a gross breach of international obligations, those responsible could be held personally liable.

What are the penalties for a reckless breach of the Geneva convention in these matters, and who is responsible for enforcing them?

There are a variety of ways in which individuals can be made accountable for their individual action. Of course, the consequences depend upon the precise nature of the breach alleged.

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

We do not have substantive dealings with the Najibullah regime, which is not supported by the majority of Afghans. We would welcome its replacement by a Government truly acceptable to the Afghan people with whom normal relations would be possible.

If the British Government are so chummy with Syria and Iran, for example, what is wrong with Afghanistan? To my knowledge, Dr. Najib's Government are not associated with terrorism—certainly, they are a revolutionary Government—but I wonder why there is not one British representative in Kabul. Could it just be that the Tory Government can never forget that the Afghan trade union movement backed the miners during the struggle—[Interruption.] That is true. The Afghan trade union movement backed the miners against the Thatcher regime. We can never forget that.

No, it has nothing to do with the miners. We have not broken off diplomatic relations wit h Afghanistan but the Najibullah regime is only there with the support of the Soviet Union. It remains unrepresentative and unacceptable to a majority of the Afghans and controls only some 20 per cent. of the territory.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that a contingent of the Afghan mujaheddin is currently serving in Saudi Arabia? Is not that a welcome development? Can he say what their role is?

I can confirm that a contingent of the Afghan mujaheddin is serving in Saudi Arabia.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the ambassador of Yugoslavia to discuss that country's relationship with European institutions.

The Yugoslav ambassador last paid a formal call on my right hon. Friend in November 1989. On 30 January 1991 he called on my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg).

Although our minds are rightly concentrated on the Gulf, does the Minister agree that the possible break-up of Yugoslavia creates potential danger to peace in south-east Europe and that the nationalist tensions within that country could give rise to problems for Yugoslavia's neighbours? Is it not therefore in our interest to support the Yugoslav federation's application for membership of the Council of Europe and for a new association treaty with the European Community?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Yugoslavia already is a guest member of the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly. Yugoslavia has applied for full membership of the Council of Europe. That has been passed in the usual way to the parliamentary assembly. We now await the opinion of the assembly on the matter. No doubt it will bear in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Yugoslavia seems to be perilously close to civil war? Can he assure the House that he will do everything in his power, both through our diplomatic channels and through European institutions, to persuade the leaders of Croatia and Serbia to turn back from their tragic collision course towards bloodshed?

The United Kingdom is obliged under the CSCE Final Act to continue to support the unity and integrity of Yugoslavia and also the right of individual peoples to national self-determination. We would deplore the use or the threat of force against any democratically elected Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what have been his Department's responsibilities and activities in connection with the international response to environmental damage caused since the commencement of hostilities in the Gulf; and what consultations he has had with other Governments on the subject.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is maintaining close touch through diplomatic channels with the Gulf states affected, who are leading the response to the environmental damage that Iraq is inflicting on the region. The FCO was pleased to be able to assist in making the arrangements for, and a financial contribution to, the visit of the RSPCA team to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Does the Minister accept that there was widespread concern that at the time of the oil slick—caused, I accept, by the Iraqis and not in other ways—there had not been adequate preparation, given the many warnings of environmental risk to the Gulf as a result of hostilities? In view of the greater danger to human life and to the environment if the chemical cocktail of toxic substances in Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia were to be detonated or released by future conflict, what is being done now to ensure that the allied forces avoid such detonation, and what preventive measures are planned to mitigate any further much worse environmental damage to humans and to the middle east in general?

The response to the emergency caused by the oil slick is clearly the responsibility of Saudi Arabia and the other sovereign Gulf states affected. However, I can confirm that a considerable amount of equipment—90 tonnes of anti-pollution equipment—from stocks held in Britain has been delivered to the region.

Does my hon. Friend agree that loss of human life is the worst form of environmental damage? Is it true that the Iraqis are setting up concentration camps in Kuwait for Kuwaiti civilians? Will he give an undertaking that, when the war is over, those responsible will be prosecuted under international law?

My hon. Friend has raised a point that is not relevant to the environmental damage, but I can confirm that the worst possible environmental damage caused by Saddam Hussein involves the appalling atrocities that he has committed against people in Kuwait and that region.