To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on sanctions against South Africa.

The international community is increasingly recognising that the continued application of sanctions will not help the peaceful abolition of apartheid. South Africa's political transformation needs urgently to be underpinned by economic growth. With the political process now irreversible—a point reinforced by the tabling of legislation yesterday—economic sanctions should be lifted as soon as possible.

In the week that the English rugby team hopes to win the five-nations championship and consequently the grand slam, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to seize the initiative and abandon all forms of sporting sanctions against South Africa? Would she care to remind the electorate of Neath that the prospective Labour candidate in the forthcoming by-election used to spread tintacks on rugby pitches and made his political career by disrupting rugby matches against South Africa? The electors in that lovely part of the world, who are rugby lovers, should remember that when they vote.

My hon. Friend has made his point about Neath extremely well and I can add nothing to it. The Government aim to restore normal sporting contacts with South Africa as soon as possible. We believe that sporting contacts should be resumed where and as soon as the sports bodies become integrated. The key is to build on the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers agreement of 16 February that those bodies that achieve unity should be recognised by the international community. Perhaps we can then all enjoy the kind of competition in sport, particularly in rugby, which I know we shall.

While I welcome the statement of intention by President de Klerk, is it not the case that very few political prisoners have yet been released, very few exiles have yet returned home, no one has yet received an indemnity from prosecution as promised a year ago last February and that negotiations for a peaceful change have yet to start? Given all that, would not it be better if the Government continued to put pressure on the South African Government to make progress instead of resting on rather vague promises and very little real action?

The hon. Gentleman should find out what is happening. The first large groups of exiles, 97 of them, returned on 7 March. They were members of the African National Congress from Lusaka. More are due to return from Zambia and Tanzania, and other groups as well, as the process speeds up. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other point, President de Klerk's target to remove racially-based restrictions on the tenure of land, which he announced in a White Paper and about which legislation was tabled yesterday, seems to us to be making good progress. I know from my own discussions with him that he intends it to be brought through in the months ahead, and no later.

Since the South African Government are acting to remove all racially based legislation from their statute book, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in the interests of all South Africans, especially black South Africans, that we put all talk of sanctions behind us and concentrate instead on how we can build the social and industrial investment that will underpin the new South African democracy?

My hon. Friend is right. The real inhibition to progress at the moment—it is serious—is an internal sanction—that of violence. It concerns the leadership of the ANC and of Inkatha, and they are trying very hard to get their own supporters not to follow the path of violence. As my hon. Friend says, it is vital to get new investment into South Africa so that the people there may have the benefit of it in terms of jobs, job experience and education. Those opportunities have been missing for black South Africans for far too long.

Why is it that, despite the manifest success that sanctions pressure has had for change on the South African Government, our Government continue to remain out of step with everybody? At the Commonwealth Ministers meeting that our Government chose not to attend, the European Community Foreign Ministers and the United Nations sanctions committee believed that sanctions pressure should not be lifted until the legislation is enacted, not just tabled. Why must we be the only Government in the world to believe that the firm smack of appeasement is the way to deal with South Africa?

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He knows full well that ever since 1986 we have not been part of the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers meetings. It is not just the United Kingdom that has been saying that sanctions should be lifted and that new investment should be encouraged. The European Community was unanimous that we should lift bans on the import of iron and steel and of Krugerrands when President de Klerk tabled legislation to repeal the Group Areas Act. On the Commonwealth, the many discussions that I have had over the past three months tell me full well that the Commonwealth is anxious to restore normal relations and that the southern front-line states have upped their trade with South Africa in no small measure since February 1990. That is to be encouraged.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will meet the Secretary-General of the United Nations to discuss the middle east.

I have no plans to meet the United Nations Secretary-General in the immediate future, but we remain in close touch.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the war is now over, recent events in Iraq have shown that the peace and stability referred to in resolution 678 are unlikely to return to the region while Saddam Hussein remains in power? Does he further agree that any peace settlement for the region must include provision not only for the Palestinians but for the Kurdish people who merely want the autonomy and democracy for which they have fought for many years?

I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. It is hard to see how Iraq can re-enter the international community or, indeed, reconstruct the country effectively while Saddam Hussein is in power. We should all like to see, as part of the general settlement, greater autonomy for Kurds and respect for their aspirations and rights.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that since the plight of the Kurds has been known for so many years while Saddam Hussein's power has increased, it is vital that the Government address the issue now?

I have already answered that point.

Bearing in mind that the Geneva convention is systematically broken by the Israelis on the west bank and Gaza and that, although there are encouraging signs of movement towards peace, progress will inevitably be slow, can anything be done in the meantime to protect the Palestinians from further abuse?

The Security Council has debated that matter within the last few months following the shootings at Temple Mount. It is very much in the interests of all concerned that while we are working, as we are now working again, towards a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian problem, the conditions in which the Palestinians live on the west bank and in Gaza should be improved. I put that point strongly to the Israeli Foreign Minister when he visited me not long ago.

When the country is mourning our service men who were killed in the Gulf war—a war which would never have taken place if outside powers had not supplied Iraq with armaments—is not it indecent that outside powers are now poising themselves to pour arms back into the middle east once again, thus creating the potential for further wars in the region? Will the right hon. Gentleman meet the secretary-general and propose to him that the United Nations take an initiative to impose the most stringent controls on all arms imports into the middle east?

The right hon. Gentleman has obviously studied this matter. As he knows, agreements and control regimes exist for the weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. We and the United Nations must ensure that those regimes are strengthened and that the loopholes and weaknesses are blocked. The issue of conventional arms is more difficult. We have our own criteria in this country, which are considerably more strict than those that others apply to the export of arms. There is a need for suppliers to discuss what criteria are reasonable to prevent a repetition of what has happened, when someone such as Saddam Hussein, with his record and clear intentions, built up an army of tanks that was nearly twice as large as those of Britain and France combined.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government expects to post its ambassador back to Kuwait.

Her Majesty's ambassador returned to Kuwait on 28 February.

Will my right hon. Friend express to the ambassador and his staff the considerable admiration that is felt in this country for the professionalism and courage that they displayed during the occupation of Kuwait? Turning to the future, my right hon. Friend will be aware that Yorkshire people and Yorkshire industry played a considerable part in the liberation of that country and would like to participate in its reconstruction. Is he satisfied that the embassy is now staffed up to the levels necessary to assist British industry during what might be an exceptionally busy period?

I am sure that business men in Yorkshire and elsewhere are turning their minds ingeniously and energetically to playing a part in reconstructing Kuwait. Yes, the embassy is now staffing up. I suggest that business men from Yorkshire who are thinking of visiting Kuwait should get in touch with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Department of Trade and Industry task force under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, because it may be a little time before visitors who do not have firm contracts can obtain visas to go there.

Will the Foreign Secretary discuss with the British ambassador last night's worrying report on "Newsnight" by Mr. Charles Wheeler, which showed that foreign workers who were resident in Kuwait but had been abducted by the Iraqis and who are now attempting to make their way back in the most difficult and appalling circumstances are not being allowed back, but are being kept in the open desert for weeks on end, and that the Kuwaitis are denying food to foreign nationals who are resident in Kuwait? Is that what British service men died for? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is appalling? Will he take up this matter immediately with the British ambassador to get things changed?

The ambassador has instructions, which he is carrying out daily, to urge upon the Kuwaiti authorities that they should deal with foreigners—I am thinking especially of Palestinians—equitably. There are bound to be problems in restoring ordinary conditions. Of course, there is a vacuum and it is not reasonable to expect normal conditions to return quickly. The hon. Gentleman is fair minded and he will accept that. However, from the beginning—indeed, before the liberation of Kuwait—we have been in contact with the Kuwaiti authorities and have urged them to bring the country back to normal conditions, especially in relation to justice and law and order, as soon as they can.

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

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

The coalition forces suspended hostilities against Iraq on 28 February. Security Council resolution 686 sets out the conditions which Iraq must fulfil for a definitive end to hostilities. We and our coalition partners will continue our efforts to achieve this and to restore peace and security to the area.

That answer is welcome. Notwithstanding the incomprehensible public stance of the Palestine Liberation Organisation on the invasion of Kuwait, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that private pressure from the PLO led to, among other things, the release of British and other foreign hostages by Saddam Hussein back in December? Will he further acknowledge that there can be no security in the middle east until a just settlement is achieved for the Palestinian people? Will he join me in welcoming the acknowledgment by Secretary of State Baker of the continuing role of the PLO? Can we expect the British Government to start holding conversations with members of the PLO in the near future?

It is certainly true that there cannot be a settlement of the Arab-Israel problems without a just settlement for the Palestinians. Unfortunately, it is also true that the present leadership of the PLO substantially weakened the authority with which it can speak on behalf of the Palestinians by supporting Saddam Hussein's aggression. That is a fact with which the Palestinians have to wrestle. I welcome the meeting that Secretary Baker had with Palestinians yesterday. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have our own contacts with Palestinians, both in the occupied territories and in Tunis.

I am sure that the whole House welcomes the sending of a United Nations team to investigate possible Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait. Will the remit of that team be extended to cover any possible subsequent atrocities?

Like my hon. Friend, I welcome this sending of the secretary-general's team. I believe that it is investigating atrocities in Kuwait. I urged the Kuwaiti authorities some time ago that one of their actions when they returned to Kuwait should be to start drawing up an authentic catalogue of stories of such atrocities so that it can be made available to the United Nations.

On the third anniversary of the atrocities against the Kurds and the deaths of some 5,000 Kurds in one town alone, does the Foreign Secretary agree that perhaps the most fitting commemoration would be for the British Government and other allied Governments to take a more active role in seeking self-determination for the Kurdish people? What information does he have on the present Kurdish resistance in Iraq and the success that it is having?

It is not realistic to suppose—nor does the hon. Gentleman ask for—an independent Kurdish state when one considers that Kurds live in four countries. What we are talking about and what my hon. Friends were talking about earlier, is a degree of autonomy and respect for Kurdish rights and practices. I agree with that.

Now that many countries in the Gulf region—especially Kuwait—are back to the political drawing board, does my right hon. Friend accept that Britain has a historic and influential role to play in any political reconstruction? Does he share the view of some that there is little prospect of more enlightened and democratic government simply through transferring power from ruling families to other pairs of hands? Does he agree that what is probably needed is the democratic check of some representative councils along the lines of those set up in other Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Sultanate of Oman, which have worked well to defend the interests of their people against excessive autocracy of government.

I believe that Arab states, like countries in South America and black Africa, will find their own way towards greater involvement of their people in the processes of government. I hope very much that that will happen in Kuwait.

In an earlier response, the Secretary of State suggested that the PLO had somehow blotted its copybook. Yet he knows as well as I do that in recent attempts by western nations to find out who represents the Palestinian people, such as the visit of the troika of Ministers last week and that of James Baker yesterday when he met Faisal Husseini, Hanan Ashrawi, the mayor of Bethlehem and the ex-mayor of Hebron among others, who are the leaders of the Palestinians on the west bank and Gaza, all delegations made it clear that the one group which speaks for them is the PLO. I hope that the Secretary of State will not go back to the old game of simply putting off discussions on the pretext that he does not know who represents the Palestinians. They have made clear who their representatives are, and unless and until we talk to them, there can be no moves towards peace.

I accept that, because the Palestinians must be an essential part of the answer to the Arab-Israel problem, there must be representative Palestinians, as opposed to Palestinians selected by the occupying forces. But it is important that the PLO leadership should, when organising themselves and deciding what to say and do in the near future, reflect on the harm that has been done by elements of that leadership during the recent Gulf crisis.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Anglo-German summit on 11 March.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others of us had excellent talks with Chancellor Kohl and his colleagues in Bonn at the summit on 11 March. The subjects discussed included the Gulf, the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, and issues affecting the European Community and the NATO alliance.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive and reassuring reply, but is it not the case that our new-found friends the Christian Democrats, are keen on federalism and a single currency? In those circumstances, what is to happen to our vision of a group of sovereign nation states co-operating together to achieve their mutual targets?

If my hon. Friend is thinking of ties between parties, that is not strictly a matter for me. However, there is a lot to be said for coming together with like-minded parties against any socialist dominance in the European Parliament or anywhere else.

While welcoming the development of a good working relationship with Germany, as described by my right hon. Friend, will he assure the House that the economic strength of a new united Germany should be regarded as an opportunity rather than a difficulty or threat?

I think that my hon. Friend is right. I believe that there is everything to be said, partly due to the reason that he gave and partly due to the natural political weight of a unified Germany in the Community, for ensuring that we take every opportunity to make ourselves better acquainted with their ideas and make them better acquainted with ours.

Did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to tell Chancellor Kohl to ignore any political Scud missiles emerging from Cirencester or Finchley and assure him that there would be no more peculiar conferences to examine the German psyche?

The hon. Gentleman bases his question on some lurid press accounts of that occasion, which I attended and which was noted for its sobriety and good sense.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only people of the Prime Minister's generation, but those who are so old that they actually took part in the second world war, who want the closest possible relations between the United Kingdom and Germany? Is it not natural and sensible that the leadership of the European Community should be in the hands of the United Kingdom as well as those of Germany and France?

As I have said, I am sure that it is right that we should be closer than we have sometimes been to the ideas of others, and that they should be closer to ours. That is happening in the Community, not just among the three member states that my right hon. Friend mentioned, but among other smaller states such as the Netherlands, Portugal and Belgium, with which we are increasing the intensity of our contact.

In welcoming the improved climate in Anglo-German relations, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he agrees that the fears about Germany expressed in the United States by the former Prime Minister are groundless? In any case, is not the best safeguard against an over-mighty Germany a strong European Community?

We are fortunate that the German leadership is determined to use the strength of a united Germany within the Community and within the Atlantic alliance. Long may that continue. If we can help to make sure that that German policy is permanently routed for the future, we will have done a good turn to the alliance and to the Community.

Following the talks with the German partners, will the Foreign Secretary give a clear and specific reply to the question which his right hon. and dithering Friend the Prime Minister dodged at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday: do the Government now support a European central bank and a single European currency, or was the visit to Germany just another example of the style of this Prime Minister—empty words and no action?

The right hon. Gentleman is adapting his familiar platitudinous question about the community charge. It is as much nonsense in one context as it is in the other. As I said in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), the guidelines on which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is approaching the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union were set out last year and were spelt out most recently by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his foreword to the White Paper.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the European Community speaks with one voice against tyranny, oppression and international terrorism.

The European Community is the largest free market in the world. As my hon. Friend knows, market economies are underpinned by democracy, and democracy is the enemy of tyranny, oppression and international terrorism. Through the intergovernmental conference on political union, we hope to strengthen European political co-operation and thus enable the Community's voice in these matters to be strengthened even further.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Who does he think behaved worse over the Gulf—the Belgians who would not supply weapons to an ally in war or the Opposition who did not support the Government in the Lobbies and who, in other words, did not support our troops?

I am glad to say that I do not have any responsibility for the conduct of Opposition Members. My hon. Friend asked about one of our European partners. I remind him that the Community has no responsibility for defence, nor in our view should it have. The Belgian Government have offered a contribution of £25 million towards our costs in the Gulf war, and we are grateful for that.

By way of the IGC, will the Minister make every attempt to ensure that the member states of the European Community speak with one voice in denouncing tyranny and oppression in Turkey? Will he also ensure that the Community will never seriously consider Turkish membership of the Community until tyranny and oppression are obliterated, and until the annexation of part of Cyprus is ended?

The Community partners have agreed that no applications for membership of the Community will be considered until 1993, and that applies also to Turkey. We frequently make representations to our Turkish friends about human rights in Turkey. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, within their sovereign territory the Government in Turkey have been subjected to considerable terrorist activity.

Although I accept that my hon. Friend is obviously right to say that the Community has no responsibility for defence, none the less it seeks to speak with a common voice on foreign affairs. One of the outcomes of the Gulf war must surely be the realisation that it is unrealistic for us to expect the Community to do that in the foreseeable future. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is Government policy to maintain the right to an independent stance, whatever happens to the Community in terms of political co-operation?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance but he will be aware that, when the Community speaks with one voice, it does so under European political co-operation, which is outside the remit of the Commission and the treaty of Rome. We believe that it is right to continue to work with our partners to find ways in which we can arrive at common positions, because when we can do so, as we did over the Gulf, it works remarkably successfully. We want to build on that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on international co-operation concerning the war against drugs.

We attach great importance to fighting the drugs trade and are continuing to promote effective international action, both in multilateral forums and through our bilateral contacts.

What progress has been made in implementing any of the 33 paragraphs that form the declaration of intent issued at the end of last April by the world ministerial conference in London? Does not the fight against drugs remain one of the highest priorities for this country? Can the Minister tell us of one initiative taken by his Department in the past year that will enable us to show the rest of the world that we took the conference seriously?

Yes, I can give many examples. I shall give a few now.

Give one.

I shall give one straight away. This coming February, the demand reduction task force is visiting Belize and the British Virgin Islands. [Interruption.] I am sorry: immediately. It has made its visit. Furthermore, we have continued with substantial aid to the Caribbean area. We have sent £8·5 million to Colombia and £6 million to the Caribbean over the past two years.

When will Britain be in a position to ratify the United Nations convention? Will my hon. Friend commit the British Government to continued support of the Pompidou group efforts under the new chairmanship of the Norwegians?

Yes, we shall be ratifying the United Nations convention soon. We give great support to the Pompidou group. As my hon. Friend knows, there will be a meeting in Oslo later this year, in which contacts with east European countries in the fight against drugs will be developed further.

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

The United Kingdom continues to play a full and constructive role in both intergovernmental conferences. The conference on EMU met most recently on 25 February, attended by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended a meeting of the political union conference on 4 March. Ministers' personal representatives meet about weekly to examine the issues in more detail.

When the Prime Minister on Monday in Bonn said,

"I want us to be where we belong. At the very heart of Europe. Working with our partners in building the future",

The United Kingdom fully accepts the social dimension of the Community, but there is no question of changing our course on the social charter. We opposed it in 1989. The Rome European Council rightly reaffirmed that the Community solution to social issues should take account of subsidiarity, creating and developing employment and the need to respect the different customs and traditions of member states. That is the United Kingdom message.

Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that there is no question at the intergovernmental conference of our conceding a single currency, a central bank or political union along the lines proposed by Chancellor Kohl?

The Government have frequently made it clear that there is no question of our accepting the imposition of a single currency.

What is the Minister's reaction to the suggestion at one intergovernmental conference that, on a rotational basis, Germany and the other European countries should replace the United Kingdom on the Security Council of the United Nations?

There has been no such suggestion. My reaction is that it is not a good idea.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the role of the BBC World Service during recent periods of international crisis.

The BBC World Service has been of enormous value both during the events in eastern Europe last winter and in the Gulf crisis. Its accurate and timely reporting has been widely welcomed, and its audience has increased.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the BBC World Service should be congratulated on the emphasis that it gave to getting the allied message across to Arab countries?

Yes. The primary duty of the BBC World Service is to enhance Britain's standing abroad. I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend that that is precisely what it managed to do during the recent crisis. The Arabic service was increased from nine hours to 14 hours a day, and there was and will continue to be 24-hour coverage in the middle east as long as British forces remain in the area.

Why are the Government so half-hearted about the BBC world television service which started on Monday? Will the Minister now pledge the Government's full support, both practical and financial, which is necessary to ensure the success of the service so that people around the world may have a real alternative to Cable News Network?

We are delighted to wish the BBC project success, but the hon. Gentleman should be aware that ITN started a commercial world television service without the need for public funds. We believe that that is the way forward.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the BBC world radio service is superb and is deeply honoured and respected throughout the world? Will the Government realise that my hon. Friend is not right? What he says is the way forward is not. The way forward is for the BBC World Service to receive strong governmental support.

The BBC will receive strong Government support, but when it comes to financial support, we have to recognise that several companies with substantial British ownership, including ITN and BSkyB, operate in the market.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made any representations to the military Government in Thailand; and if he will make a statement.

We deeply regret the replacement by military rule of Thailand's democratically elected Government. We will make clear to the National Peace Keeping Council and to the interim civilian Government our desire to see the early lifting of martial law, the release of all detainees, and the speedy restoration of democracy.

I am grateful for that reply. Will the Government ensure that they make early representations to secure an early return to democracy within Thailand? Will the Minister urge the intervening Government to distance themselves from the Pol Pot regime and Khmer Rouge?

We greatly regret the displacement of democracy and regret that the Military Council has not confirmed its initial commitment to restore democracy within six months.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great causes for regret at the fact that the regime has taken over is that it appears to be very close to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge people who are living in comfort inside Thailand? Will he persuade the Government and people of Thailand to hand this man to justice, because Pol Pot and his regime committed crimes under the genocide convention every bit as bad as the war crimes of Saddam Hussein?

We have repeatedly called for an end to all arms supplies and all support to all the Cambodian parties of that kind, but we are assured by the Foreign Ministry in Thailand that it continues to support the comprehensive settlement proposals for Cambodia.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had about the establishment of a comprehensive middle east peace conference.

Since the ceasefire in the Gulf, I have talked to the Americans, the French, the Twelve and most recently with the Israeli Foreign Minister on 5 March. We are also in touch with other countries in the region. We remain committed to an international conference on the Arab-Israel problem at the right time, but there is a great deal of preparation to be done first.

While I entirely accept both that answer and what the Foreign Secretary said earlier this afternoon about the authority of the PLO leadership having been weakened, will the right hon. Gentleman accept as a basic principle of such a conference that no other participants can be allowed to dictate who should represent the Palestinians, and that they themselves are entitled to choose their representatives?

Indeed that is right, and the representatives must be representative, or there is no point in having a conference; but equally, everyone else has to attend Israel has to attend—if it is to be worth while. That is what I mean when I say that a good deal of preparation must be done first. However, that preparation is in hand. There is now a visible effort by the United States, by the troika of the Twelve and to some extent also by the parties to make some real progress.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no question of a comprehensive conference of this sort while Saddam Hussein remains in power in Iraq? It is essential that Iraq be represented at any conference, and that evil man cannot represent his country at this sort of conference.

I think that is right. Iraq is not of course a main party to this dispute, although Saddam Hussein thrust himself forward as if it were. That claim has now been rejected by everybody, and by events, so I do not think that the search for justice for the Palestinians and security for Israel need wait on events in Iraq.

The Secretary of State said earlier that the Palestinian representatives must be representative. He is not seriously suggesting that the position of the PLO has been weakened within the ranks of the Palestinian population, is he? We may disagree, as his Government certainly do, with what the PLO said—I thought that he caricatured the PLO position on Saddam Hussein's aggression—but he cannot seriously be saying that the PLO no longer represents both the two thirds of Palestinians who live outside Palestine and 99·99 per cent. of the Palestinians who live inside. Let us not turn the page back to all those years when the Secretary of State was forced to pretend that the PLO does not comprise the people we should talk to. It is indispensable to the peace process, and the Foreign Secretary should say that to the Americans, who are listening to what the British Foreign Office says.

I did not caricature the PLO attitude. There was no need. Many of us have seen Mr. Arafat creating that attitude on television. There is no doubt about that. The hon. Member is right to say that the PLO continues to enjoy very wide support in the occupied territories and among Palestinians dispersed across the world, as was illustrated again at Mr. Baker's meeting; the difficulty is that what they have weakened is their acceptability to those with whom they must talk, who include some of the most important of their former Arab friends.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with the Israeli ambassador regarding the Palestinian question.

I discussed the Palestine question with the Israeli Foreign Minister on 5 March. The ambassador was present. I stressed that stability in the region could not be achieved without progress on this question.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important that, before there can be any sensible or speedy resolution of the Palestinian question, there should be a peace treaty between Israel and all Arab countries? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it is important that any negotiations involve a true, democratically elected representative or representatives of the Palestinian people? The question that we must all ask ourselves is whether, in the end, the PLO can really deliver.

It is not realistic to imagine negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbours being successful unless, at least in parallel, there is discussion between Israel and representative Palestinians. It would be a mistake to create the impression that we believe that it is possible. The two things have to go together. The encouraging thing about my talk with Mr. Levy was that he accepted that, although obviously the basis on which the Israelis are prepared to talk to the Palestinians is not the same one as we think would be most fruitful.

Will the Secretary of State recognise that one of the great injustices of modern times is the treatment of Palestinian people by Israel? Will he impress upon the Israeli Government the fact that, for there to be peace and stability within the middle east, the Palestinian people must have the right of self-determination, and that that opportunity will exist if and when they are prepared to talk to the PLO and come to some settlement with it?

Palestinians have a right to self-determination, as Her Majesty's Government have long accepted. That will be achieved only through the kind of discussions that the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. We and friends of the Palestinians in the House, of whom there are many, should do our utmost, particularly at this critical stage when everything may be a bit more flexible and a bit more promising than in the past, before the mould sets again, to impress upon the Palestinians and on Arab states which have not yet attained peace with Israel, the fact that Israel's anxiety about her own security is real, not fictitious, and it has to be met if there is to be a lasting settlement. The two things must go together.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for future peace and security in the Gulf.

We warmly welcome the initiative taken by the Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council states together with Egypt and Syria, to discuss future security arrangements for the region. We will be ready to play our part if asked to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the peace and security of the Arab Gulf states would not be enhanced by putting in danger the peace and security of the long-suffering people of Israel? Will he join me in rejecting the unashamed apologists on the Opposition Benches for that repulsive man Yasser Arafat?

In the past 10 minutes, I have chosen my own words, which were slightly different from those of my hon. Friend, to make essentially exactly those points.

Bearing in mind the fact that we stepped back and fed Saddam Hussein arms which eventually led to the elimination of 5,000 Kurds, does the Secretary of State realise that there will never be peace in the middle east without a solution to the Kurdish problem? When will the Government back the Kurds' right to be an independent nation?

I have already answered several supplementary questions about the Kurds, and I shall not repeat what I have said. Realistically an independent Kurdish state is highly unlikely. What is realistic is that Kurds within the borders of the states in which they live should have a decent existence and be able to exercise political rights.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the persistent and disturbing reports that Saddam Hussein's forces might once again be using chemical weapons against his own population, and would not that be a matter of the utmost gravity? If such reports were to be true, would my. right hon. Friend immediately consult the other members of the Security Council to see what positive measures could be taken to protect the Kurdish and other Iraqi civilian populations?

My hon. Friend is right to say that there have been such reports. We have not been able to confirm that they are true, but he rightly states what we would have to do if such reports were confirmed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait to resolve their differences in conformity with United Nations resolution 678.

The first step towards any negotiations must be to secure a definitive end to hostilities—a proper ceasefire—in the Gulf. Security Council resolution 686 sets out the conditions that Iraq must fulfil for this to come about.

Should not action be taken to establish links with Arab nations following the Gulf war? I refer, for instance, to moves towards the establishment of a Palestinian state and to the adoption of United Nations resolution 666, which concerns humanitarian assistance for Iraq and for Kuwait, as well as support for the democratic forces that associate themselves with change inside those two countries.

Those are three rather different questions. I think that I have answered the question about Palestinian self-determination. As regards humanitarian help, I should say that the sanctions committee of the United Nations is examining quite a large number of requests for permission, within the sanctions framework, to allow food to go through to Iraq on a humanitarian basis—that is of course happening—in addition to medicines, which are not covered by the embargo. I have answered questions about how I see the movement towards greater popular involvement in government in the Gulf proceeding.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that talks are progressing between the Gulf Co-operation Council countries and Kuwait, as well as Egypt and Syria, which performed on the allied side during the Gulf war, to ensure that stability may return to Kuwait? Kuwait still faces danger from the uncertainty in Iraq. The priorities must be to make sure that Kuwait has stable government and that the people are well looked after.

Of course that is right. I very much welcome the fact that, quite soon after the liberation of Kuwait, the six GCC states, including Kuwait, sat down in Cairo with Egypt and Syria. Contact was resumed in Damascus last week and a declaration was issued. There is a long way to go, but we have the core of Arab co-operation on security and other matters. Those countries will have to work out a peaceful relationship with Iran and will have to deal with other important matters that have not yet been tackled. However, a good start has been made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest information about the damage or alleged damage to the shrines at Kerbala, Najaf and Sammarra.

We are not aware of any damage caused to shrines at Kerbala, Najaf or Sammarra. I reiterate that allied pilots and instructions to ensure minimum civilian casualties and to avoid damage, wherever possible, to cultural and religious sites.

At a length impossible in the context of answers to Foreign Office questions, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to brief the Environment Minister who will reply in the debate on Friday 15 March on this country's attitude to the Shia who may be fighting Saddam in Najaf; on the use of chemical weapons, possibly in Kerbala, in the inter-Iraqi struggles; and on any damage and contamina-tion that may have occurred at the Iraqi chemical factory at Sammara. Also, why, in the last 48 hours, was it necessary to bomb the Basra road? May we be given a full explanation of these matters on Friday?

It sounds as though it would be prudent if were to give my hon. Friend some briefing on these matters for the purposes of the debate on Friday. However, some of them go well beyond the range of that debate. I have already answered a question about the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqis and I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's main point about damage to the shrines that he has mentioned. There does not seem to have been any such damage. Given the habit of President Saddam Hussein of locating very important industrial and other plants close to shrines, it is a tribute to the allies that there has not been such damage.

As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to chemical weapons capacity, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) a moment ago? Whether or not there is evidence that Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons against his own people in the present situation, it is a fact that, two years ago, he murdered 5,000 Kurds with chemical weapons manufactured in Iraq. Surely this is a matter that should be raised at the United Nations now.

That matter was raised—and by whom? It was raised by the British. We were the first people to do so at that time. It is partly in the memory of that that we are now proposing that among the measures to be taken by the United Nations should be the verified destruction of all such weapons and the missiles that could deliver them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Cambodia to discuss the political situation in that country.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

Is not it disgraceful that no Minister has visited Phnom Penh to discuss with the Government—who are at least in control in the capital of Cambodia—the position in that country? Does not that give a wrong message to the Khmer Rouge that the Government are still soft on Pol Pot? Should not we make a clear declaration to the world that we are not on the side of terrorism, whether in Iraq or Cambodia?

This Government are not soft on Pol Pot, whom we condemn unhesitatingly. The way forward is through a comprehensive political settlement that has been endorsed by all the parties and by the United Nations. That is the way forward, and that is what should be impressed on the Phnom Penh regime.

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the poll tax is beyond reform and must be abolished immediately; condemns the Government's dithering and delay in carrying out yet another review and its reluctance to face the fact that the poll tax must go; warns against any attempt to retain the essential elements of the poll tax in another guise, either alone or in combination with another tax: and urges the Government to replace the poll tax with a property-based tax, linked to the ability to pay, along the lines of Labour's Fair Rates proposals.

I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. A large number of hon. Members wish to participate in this most important debate. I have no authority to limit speeches in a half-day debate, but if hon. Members will

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

What possible point of order can there be in that?

The point of order relates directly to the motion. I shall be brief, but I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that, on 17 July 1811, your illustrious predecessor, Speaker Abbot, ruling on the debate on the Gold Coin and Banknote Bill, said this:

"If hon. Members open their journals they will find it established 200 years ago, and then spoken of as ancient practice, that a personal interest in a question disqualified a Member from voting."

"No Member who has a direct pecuniary interest in a question is allowed to vote upon it; but, in order to operate the disqualification, this interest must be immediate and personal."

I have seldom heard anything more spurious. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we are all subject to paying the community charge and if I ruled as he seems to be suggesting, nobody would be able to vote.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I have already said that this is not a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Not everyone in the House is liable to pay the poll tax. Are we to infer from the point of order that the only people who can vote on the motion are hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I hope that this is not as bogus as the first point of order.

This is a different but related point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you reconsider your view? On Monday night, when Lambeth council discussed the community charge that it was to set, two councillors who had not paid their community charge were debarred from voting because they had a pecuniary interest in the matter. Therefore——

Order. This is not Lambeth council.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue this point, he should reflect on what I said to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). If I ruled as he wished, no hon. Member would be able to vote, except those representing Northern Ireland constituencies.

This is relevant because we make the Standing Orders by which the House works and we make the standing orders by which Lambeth council works—[Interruption.] That is true. With great respect, that is the local government law. We make those standing orders and we make these Standing Orders. On page 384 of the 21st edition of "Erskine May"—this is a separate reference from that made by my hon. Friend——

Order. I have heard enough. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is not making a good point. If he seeks to be called in the debate, let him make the points then.

rose——

Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that it is legitimate.

It is a serious point. On Monday night, Lambeth council——

Order. It is not legitimate.

rose——

I hope it is not about Lambeth council.