To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in developing a conciliation mechanism within the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

The CSCE experts' meeting on the peaceful settlement of disputes, held earlier this year in Valletta, agreed a report containing provisions for the establishment of a dispute settlement mechanism—a panel of indepedent experts—within the CSCE process. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House. The dispute settlement mechanism would offer advice and comment to assist states in resolving disputes. The Valletta report draws extensively on British ideas put forward last year for a CSCE conciliation facility. We expect the June meeting of CSCE Foreign Ministers to endorse the Valletta report and to set up the mechanism.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does not it demonstrate the good progress that has been made in the conference since the Paris summit and show the transformed political atmosphere in Europe? Can these procedures be used to help the suffering people in the Baltic states?

I entirely agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks. As to the second, I do not think that this mechanism can he used to deal with the problems of the Baltic states, for two reasons. First, they are designed to address the problems of inter-state disputes and, secondly, there are exclusions in the procedures that would enable one party to a dispute to exclude issues relating to sovereignty. I agree, however, that the principles reflected in the 10 propositions annexed to the mechanism should guide discussions in the Baltic republics, and we want urgent discussions between the Soviet Government and the Governments of the three republics.

Does not progress depend to a large extent on the continuation of the democratic reforms taking place in the Soviet Union? Should not we pay tribute to the immense achievements that Mr. Gorbachev has brought about in the Soviet Union, transforming a totalitarian dictatorship into a near democracy? Is the Minister aware of the concern felt by many in Europe about some of the elements now appearing in Russia, which remind us of Tsarist tyranny? Such people should he warned that we do not want them to take power.

I certainly agree that President Gorbachev has contributed substantially to the liberalisation of life in eastern Europe—one has only to look at the present position of the states that were satellites but five years ago to see the truth of that. But we also need to understand that there is still a long way to go before a pluralistic democratic state emerges in the Soviet Union. Our support is for the process of reform rather than for any particular individual.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take steps to prevent the further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, Sir. We are working to strengthen existing regimes of restriction and control. We have already reinforced and widened the scope of our export controls on chemical weapons precursors. We are considering urgently how to improve the regimes to prevent the export of technology and materials for biological weapons. We are also working for further accessions to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to strengthen the international safeguards run by the International Atomic Energy Authority, to secure a commitment to the early negotiation of a chemical weapons convention and the strengthening of the biological weapons convention at its review conference in September, and to strengthen the missile technology control regime.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply. Does he agree that the powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency are clearly insufficient, given that Iraq was able to prove compliance with the rules of the IAEA as recently as November 1990? Does he agree also that the time is right for a significant new initiative in limiting the spread of weapons of mass destruction that will involve further inspection and verification powers for the United Nations, perhaps based on Security Council resolution 687, and that the United Kingdom is well placed to take that initiative?

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a general point and directs it specifically to Iraq. The resolution that he mentioned provides for the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We are actively supporting the United Nation's secretariat's work in setting up a special commission to carry through the resolution. I hope that it will be in action before too long.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that a serious aspect of the problem is the growing number of nations that have access to sophisticated delivery systems? As there is a limited number of suppliers of systems such as those for ballistic missiles, is it possible to give serious attention to limiting the availability of the delivery systems?

Yes. That is part of the purpose of the missile technology control regime, which I mentioned. We must try to broaden that so that it includes most of the main suppliers, including the Soviet Union.

In spite of that, did not we learn from the Gulf conflict the necessity of keeping nuclear technology out of the hands of the likes of Saddam Hussein? Surely, therefore, the first and essential step is to convert the partial test ban treaty into a comprehensive ban on all nuclear tests. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that after the sad and avoidable collapse of the review conference in January, the prospect of keeping in existence even the partial test ban treaty will die if the United States and Britain go ahead with continued nuclear tests?

I usually follow the hon. Gentleman's logic, but I do not on this occasion. I think that the step of which he spoke is some way down the road. The first and essential step, to use his phrase, is to ensure that Iraq's potential to employ weapons of mass destruction is destroyed, and that that destruction is verified. We can then proceed to strengthen the regime in the way that I have mentioned.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to give individuals and non-governmental bodies an opportunity to participate in the CSCE process as extended by the charter of Paris.

We consistently uphold the importance of openness within the conference on security and co-operation in Europe process. We periodically hold consultations with individuals and non-governmental organisations. We include non-governmental representatives in United Kingdom delegations to some CSCE meetings. We also seek to ensure that individuals and NGOs have as free access as possible to CSCE meetings.

The Minister will be aware that the charter of Paris, which was signed in November, specifically provided for widening the process to enable individuals and NGOs to contribute. We are especially anxious to have a means of contributing to the process, for several reasons. First, we would wish to ensure that the security provisions of the CSCE could be applied to the breach of the Helsinki agreement by the Irish Republic. For some reason, that is an issue that the Foreign Office seems reluctant to raise. Secondly, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the charter extended the CSCE to include cultural conflicts and the extension of democratic rights. Is the Minister aware that we believe that on both fronts we could make a significant contribution, if only to draw attention to the almost complete absence of democracy in part of the United Kingdom? That is an issue with which the Foreign Secretary, because of his record, might feel inhibited in dealing.

We, too, wish to encourage openness in the process of the CSCE. I know that the hon. Gentleman is especially concerned about articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. I do not think that those issues are best raised within the context of the CSCE, if only because that is likely to entrench the publicly declared attitudes of the Republic. The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that article 1, I think, of the Anglo-Irish Agreement makes it plain that the Republic accepts the status of the Province unless the majority of the people in the Province wish otherwise.

On the question of openness and mutual understanding within the CSCE, would not east-west relations be much enhanced if the Soviet Union were to reconsider its circumvention of the arms control process by, instead of disbanding three divisions on the central front, assigning them to its navy? Have the Government any comment to make on that?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the policy of subordinating the three divisions to naval command calls into question the Soviet Union's commitment to the principles of the treaty on conventional weapons in Europe. Before we ratify that treaty, we must explore how we can bring the spirit of the treaty back into operation. We want to ensure that the Soviet position broadly accords, in every material respect, with the letter and the spirit of the agreement.

Does the Minister agree that the formal inter-state arrangements enshrined in the charter do not adequately take account of the expense and the seriousness of disputes within states? I refer especially to the new nationalisms of central and eastern Europe and the potentially disastrous consequences of the inter-ethnic conflict that could arise.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. However, had we tried to enshrine within the agreement a CSCE mechanism under which those internal disputes could be dealt with, it is probable that no agreement would have been made. The hon. Gentleman knows that a list of principles is attached to the CSCE disputes settlement mechanism, and they are applicable to internal disputes. They are largely procedural in character, but they can be invoked for internal disputes. The general principles that underpin the CSCE agreement are those that contracting states should have in mind when dealing with their internal negotiations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways Her Majesty's Government will be assisting Nigeria in the run-up to the general election in that country.

Our substantial aid programme to Nigeria—more than £32 million in 1990–91—will continue. It includes help with public administration reform and police training and legal drafting, all with the aim of fostering good government and helping to establish structures and systems that will survive the transition to civilian rule.

Will my hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, welcome the impending return of a democratically elected Government to Nigeria? Does he accept that Britain has had both a happy and a long-standing relationship with that country? That includes the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister worked there. Will he do everything possible to assist Nigeria as it comes back into the family of democracies?

The whole thrust of the Government's aid programme in Nigeria is to ensure support for the transition to, and the return of, democracy. Both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)—who is in his place—are, like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, old Nigerian hands. They and Opposition Members represent the long-standing friendship between Britain and Nigeria.

Would not one way to help Nigeria be to deal with the debt question? The Minister is aware that the Trinidad terms do nothing for middle-income debtors such as Nigeria. Just as Poland has required up to 80 per cent. debt reduction to get on its feet, will not countries such as Nigeria be able to help themselves only if there is serious debt reduction, in both the commercial and the financial sectors?

The hon. Lady makes a good point. We recognise that Nigeria is now a poor country, with a per capita income of below $300 and a very heavy debt burden. It does riot formally meet the criteria for reduction schemes available for the poorest countries in the Paris club, but we have argued that, because of its low per capita income, it deserves special treatment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Nigeria is a huge country with tremendous economic and political problems, but with a sensible and moderate Government, who deserve every encouragement as they endeavour further to pursue the path of parliamentary democracy?

Indeed, it is a huge country of which every corner is well known to my hon. Friend. We are supporting the efforts of the present Nigerian Government to return to civilian rule.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recent developments in the Gulf.

Following Iraq's formal acceptance of United Nations Security Council resolution 687, a formal ceasefire is in place in the Gulf. The resolution re-affirmed the Iraq-Kuwait border of 1963, established a compensation fund and provided for the destruction of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missile systems. Sanctions against the import of Iraqi products will be lifted only once Iraq has completed the steps necessary for the destruction of those weapons and weapons systems and once the Security Council has approved arrangements for the compensation fund. Other trade and financial sanctions against Iraq are subject to regular review by the council. The arms embargo will remain in force indefinitely. So long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, Iraq cannot hope to return to a normal relationship with the international community.

What assessment have the Government made of the Amnesty International report on torture in Kuwait, which says that electric shocks, knives, whips, sulphuric acid, sexual assault and threats of execution have been used by Kuwaitis on Palestinians and others? Where is the democracy and respect for human rights that the Secretary of State told the House were at the base of the reason for the Gulf war? Are the Government more concerned with Britain's share of restoration projects, including restoration of gold taps in the Emir's palace?

In pursuit of his argument, the hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent what I said. We went to war to reverse the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and to restore the legitimate Government. Those were the Security Council's words, that is what we set out to do, and that is what we did.

On reflection, will my right hon. Friend concede that he may have been unwise last Wednesday when he said that the Government supported the Kurdish leaders' aims and objectives of autonomy within Iraq? Is not it vital to make a distinction between humanitarian aid and becoming involved in Iraq's internal politics?

We have no desire to dictate or arrange either the map of Iraq or its constitution. The purpose of the presence of our troops in northern Iraq is, as my hon. Friend said, purely humanitarian. That does not prevent us from saying, when asked about our views, that we believe that the Kurdish people should have autonomy within the boundaries of Iraq.

What steps is the Secretary of State's Department taking to elicit exactly what is meant by Saddam Hussein's offer of an autonomous region for the Kurdish population? Has the Secretary of State made representations to the United Nations to ensure that the Kurds are represented at the middle east peace conference?

I have not done that, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been in touch again this week with Kurdish leaders in London. I have no precise information, but I understand that some of them are holding discussions with the Iraqis. The Kurdish leaders know better than anyone else what Saddam Hussein is capable of.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of the experience gained during the Gulf crisis for the European Community's development of a common foreign policy.

The Twelve acted together in condemning Iraqi aggression and in applying sanctions. They are not a defence community and did not seek to agree on military contributions to the allied effort in the Gulf. It is in Britain's interests to seek the greatest possible agreement within the Twelve on foreign policy matters and to act jointly when such agreement has been reached.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that foreign policy and defence policy must be in harmony for progress to be made? Does he also agree that the record of joint action, as distinct from rhetoric, both in the Gulf and in relation to the problems with the Kurds, makes unhappy reading? If that is so, does he agree that it is possible to be a good European by supporting the economic aspects of the EC, while seriously questioning the so-called advantages of a joint defence and foreign policy?

The defence policy for members of the Atlantic alliance should rest on that alliance. I do not agree with my hon. Friend's other point. In the Gulf, both during and before the war, the record of the Twelve was certainly patchy, as I have said before. With regard to the present position of the Kurds, not only is the Commission playing a substantial part in the relief effort, but we are working closely on the spot with our partners, particularly the Germans, French and Dutch.

Will the Foreign Secretary raise with all the European Foreign Ministers the present position in Iraq, the continuing uprising for democracy and, in my view, the disgraceful attitude of the west in failing to support that objective—[Interruption.] Please, Mr. Speaker, will you make Conservative Members behave themselves?

Order. I think that the hon. Lady can look after herself—but hon. Members should, please, behave themselves.

Will the Foreign Secretary openly say that Britain gives its support to the uprising for democracy, and invites other European countries to do so, is willing to meet the Iraqi opposition and will give humanitarian and political support to them, or are we happier to allow Saddam Hussein's regime to continue?

Of course we are not happier to do that. We have been in touch with Kurdish leaders, as I have said, and other opposition leaders as we are with a wide range of leaders of all opinions in many countries. As I have said, and as we have constantly said in the House, it was not the purpose of military action or of the presence of troops in Iraq—either during the war or now—to alter Iraq's boundaries or dictate its constitution.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons of the Gulf conflict has been the need for European politicians to work more closely together? To that extent, does he welcome the closer relationship that now exists between Conservative Members of the European Parliament and their colleagues in Strasbourg?

Yes, I do welcome that—it is a step forward. I am clear, as regards not only the middle east, but all our dealings with, for example, the Soviet Union, that it is a substantial strength to this country if we can reach agreement with our partners on such matters and act on them. If we cannot reach agreement, we should not be bound by a majority voting on such matters. If we can reach agreement, it makes sense to do so and to act jointly.

I welcome the first part of the Foreign Secretary's reply, but put it to him, to place it clearly on the record, that the divisions in the European Community on how to react to the Gulf crisis were, to put it mildly, very worrying indeed, and if we had then been subjected to majority voting in Europe, no effective action would have been taken by this country or others in Europe. Therefore, in the light of the current discussions on a treaty for political union, will the Foreign Secretary make it plain that he will resolutely oppose the extension of majority voting to any aspect of foreign policy, as distinct from seeking consensus, which is entirely sensible, and co-operation with our European friends?

That is indeed our objective, but I hope that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other hon. Member will underrate the advantage to this country of seeking agreement and joint action within the Community. I find that that happens over and over again, although not always. It did not happen all the time in the Gulf, but when it does happen, it is well worth getting.

Will my right hon. Friend stick to his guns and continue along the path down which he is already advancing, of ever-closer co-operation on achieving a more closely co-ordinated foreign policy?

Yes. My hon. Friend chose his words carefully and I shall try to do the same. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said: if we had had majority voting at some of the discussions which I attended during the Gulf crisis, the contributions of Europe, and of ourselves and the French in particular perhaps, might well have been less than they were.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one perfect area in which to seek agreement and to execute joint action would be Antarctica? Is it not therefore a matter of great regret that Britain is now the only European country—[Interruption.] If hon. Members read the question carefully, they would see that it refers to lessons learned from the Gulf for joint European co-operation. Is it not therefore a matter of great regret that Britain is now the only European country advocating mineral exploitation?

The hon. Member has got lost, not for the first time. He strains our credulity when he describes the proposal for a moratorium which we put forward as advocating mineral exploitation. It is nothing of the kind.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to free the British hostages held in the Lebanon.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in efforts to secure the release of British hostages in the Lebanon.

We continue to make every effort in our contacts with the Iranian authorities, who we believe to have a decisive influence, to secure the release of the hostages. We have also contacted other countries, and the European Community troika, to reinforce the point in their own dealing with Iran.

My hon. and learned Friend will no doubt agree that the detention of Terry Waite and John McCarthy is inhuman and morally unjustified, and should be terminated as soon as possible. Is he satisfied from his contacts with the Syrians and the Iranians, who have the key to their release, that the two men are still alive? How recently has information about that been made known to him?

As my hon. Friend knows, there are three hostages—John McCarthy, Terry Waite and Jackie Mann. We are deeply concerned about their plight. We believe that the Iranian Government have a decisive influence over their future. We have made it plain to that Government that we very much want to see our relations with Iran greatly improved. They will improve greatly once the hostages are delivered up.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the people of Lebanon should have the right to self-determination? Does he further agree that, if they had their own sovereign state within a democratic framework, not only would the hostages be released but the taking of hostages in future for political purposes would never happen?

I do indeed think that the people of Lebanon have the right to self-determination. Apart from other things, that means that there should be no foreign troops in Lebanon, and that is a policy objective for which we must strive. Clearly, the taking and keeping of hostages is a dreadful business, and we must use every opportunity—and we are doing so—to procure the release of all hostages, especially the three to whom we have already made reference.

Following the welcome and long overdue release of Mr. Roger Cooper by the Iranian authorities, is the ball not somewhat in our court? Should not we contemplate the appointment of full ambassadors in London and Teheran, and should not we be seen to be active in trying to secure the release of Sheikh Obeid from Israel, where he was abducted from the Lebanon?

I think that the taking of Sheikh Obeid, or anyone else of that kind, is an extremely reprehensible act, and it is extremely important for him to be released with all possible speed. As regards ambassadors, as I have already said, it is our intention to improve our relations with Iran as soon as the hostages are released. I think that ambassadors will be exchanged shortly after the hostages are released, but I do not see them being exchanged until that time.

While improving diplomatic relations between the British Government and Iran and Syria are most welcome, and clearly hold part of the key to the release of British hostages in the Lebanon, does the hon. and learned Gentleman place more importance on the arguments by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democratic party, about the third side of the triangle lying in Israel? Will he put more pressure on Israel to release not only Sheikh Obeid but the large number of Arabs held prisoner or hostage by the Israelis, because many of us believe that that could be the decisive factor in obtaining the urgent release of British hostages in the Lebanon?

I certainly should like the Government of Israel to release the people to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, there are two dangers in the argument that he deploys. First, the taking of hostages is a dreadfully wrong act, and it is important not to link one thing with the other. Secondly, and perhaps more materially, our influence over the Government of Israel is limited in that respect. Therefore, if one impliedly accepts a linkage between the two and then fails to deliver what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for with the Government of Israel, it could make prospects more, rather than less, difficult for the three hostages to whom I have already referred.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, in three recent visits to the Lebanon, I have received every possible assistance from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, both before, during and after my visit. I cannot recall a specific request that I have made to the Government to which they have not acceded. Having said that, may I reiterate to my hon. and learned Friend the last two questions from the other side of the House? Will he accept it from me that while the Iranians, who do not hold hostages, are doing what they can to help with the release of our people, the Israelis, who do hold hostages, are seemingly doing nothing whatsoever to give assistance?

Israel has not got any hostages—Obeid is a terrorist.

It is no use my hon. Friend saying that Israel has no hostages. We all know about Sheikh Obeid.

They are terrorists.

Order. Could the hon. Gentleman ask a question please?

Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that, as regards relations, we mete out the same treatment on equal terms, to both the Iranians and the Israelis, as we are asking both of them to help with this problem?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind observations on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, although it put me on the qui vive when I heard him saying it. I welcome his visits, and I am grateful to him for the persistence and the courage that he has shown. As far as Israel is concerned, I think that I have already responded to that issue and I do not think that I have anything to add. As regards Iran, I do not wholly agree with the premise of my hon. Friend's question, because I believe that Iran has a decisive influence and say over the fate of the hostages.

Without in any way detracting from the hon. and learned Gentleman's efforts on the matter, and without any discourtesy to him, might I ask whether it would not have been appropriate, on the fifth anniversary of the incarceration of John McCarthy, if the Secretary of State had dealt with this question in order to emphasise the importance attached to it at the top of government? I am sure that, when he was in Damascus, the hon. and learned Gentleman was told what I was told when I went there for the same purpose—that the hostage takers pay great attention to the level at which such matters are treated, and that they drew attention to the fact that President Bush and Mr. James Baker had written personally, regularly and consistently about them to President Assad.

We believe that Jackie Mann is still alive. We cannot be certain, but we believe so. There is no item on the agenda between the Government and Iran which is more important than this issue. It is our paramount consideration and guides all our dealings with Iran. As to the importance that my right hon. Friends attach to the release of hostages, the Prime Minister has sent a message to President Rafsanjani. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Foreign Secretary Velayati about this issue, and I raised it on two occasions with the Iranian chargé, and also in Syria last month. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development also raised the matter in Tehrain last week and the European troika has been enlisted, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. We have taken every opportunity—through our friends and allies and by ourselves—to impress on the Iranian Government the fundamental importance of getting our hostages out. Nothing is more important in our relations with Iran.

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

There can be no question of establishing normal relations with Iraq in present circumstances.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the presence in Zakho in northern Iraq of hundreds of Ba'athist armed police and of reports now coming out of intimidation and looting by them. Bearing in mind the potential for an armed clash between them and the Royal Marines now in the area and also bearing in mind the disincentive that they provide to the Kurdish civilians to come down from the hillsides and into care in the Zakho area, what steps are being taken with the Iraqi Government to secure the immediate withdrawal of those armed units?

I share my hon. Friend's anxiety. We are in close touch with our American and French allies to decide the best way of dealing with the matter.

Can I ask a critical question about the Kurds? In the event of the discussion that is currently taking place in Baghdad between Mr. Talabani and the Iraqi Government leading to agreement, will the Foreign Secretary and the Government go to the United Nations to seek a resolution to underpin that agreement in as far as it provides an international guarantee? Is not that the only way in which the Kurdish population in Kurdistan can be reassured that whatever measures are necessary will be taken to ensure their future security? Is not that the only way to proceed?

I do not believe that the Kurds would feel particularly safe under the procedure which the hon. Gentleman sketches. They need, and will seek in any discussions in Baghdad or elsewhere with the Iraqis, something more local. They will need some clear assurance that, if they and their women and children return to their towns and villages, they will be secure, then, as the hon. Gentleman says, that they will enjoy autonomy. The Kurds need local assurance, and our humanitarian effort in the north is, of course, designed to help provide some of them with that.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that, during the Gulf war, the Iraqis committed some serious war crimes, including crimes against our own air crews based in west Norfolk. What is the up-to-date position on bringing the perpetrators of those crimes to justice?

We have emphasised throughout that anyone from the top down in Iraq who is guilty of committing these offences will be held responsible for them. Of course, one must first bring them under jurisdiction. The Kuwaitis are doing that, and the Saudis are doing it in some respects. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has arranged for the collection of any evidence. If my hon. Friend has evidence that he would like to make available, I hope that he will do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the implementation of the United Nations declaration on South Africa adopted in December 1989.

We continue to encourage all sides in South Africa to maintain progress towards the aims set out in the United Nations declaration—the end of apartheid and the adoption of a non-racial, democratic constitution arrived at by peaceful means through negotiation.

Surely the Minister agrees that it would not be right to remove sanctions at this time, because apartheid has not been done away with? Apartheid is not something which can be partially done away with. It must be put in the dustbin of history. We cannot take away sanctions, because there are still 1,300 political prisoners in South Africa and there are serious doubts that the land reforms proposed by the South African Government will take place. There is news this week that those land reforms will be watered down. I should be grateful for the Minister's comment on that point.

I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Britain, in conjunction with our partners in the Europe Economic Community, is attempting to recognise that President de Klerk has made substantial strides towards the type of society that all hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to see. That is the policy in both the United Kingdom and the wider community.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit South Africa soon, for the statesmanlike remarks of President de Klerk during his visit to Britain, and for the arrival of Mr. Nelson Mandela in Britain this morning? Does he agree that the view that the progressive dismantling of sanctions is the best way of encouraging consolidated, desirable change in South Africa is ever more widely accepted throughout the world, except, it appears, by some of the dinosaurs on the Opposition Benches?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to South Africa this summer is a welcome step. It is a recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the encouraging progress that we have seen in South Africa. As my hon. Friend will be aware, Mr. Nelson Mandela will meet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon. I agree with my hon. Friend: some Opposition Members had the opportunity to meet President de Klerk during his visit to London. [Interruption.] I am afraid that they did. Whether that will cause them trouble in their own party, I am not aware. It is encouraging that some Opposition Members met President de Klerk. I hope that they were impressed, as many of my hon. Friends were, by what President de Klerk had to say about progress in South Africa.

Is the Minister aware that we expect from him something much better than parrot-fashion repetition of what he is told by President de Klerk? Is it not the case that the political prisoners have not been released; that the exiles have not returned home; that, since the release of Nelson Mandela, no progress has been made towards real negotiation about the transfer of power; and that the black majority in South Africa still have no vote? President de Klerk declined to meet the all-party South Africa group and when, yesterday, he was asked about the political prisoners, he could not answer but responded with the memorable "Majorian" phrase, "Wait and see." Does not the Minister realise that the people of South Africa cannot wait any longer? The peace progress is in great danger, and nothing that the Government are doing is helping to put pressure on de Klerk to deliver the goods.

The hon. Member's interest in and commitment to an integrated South Africa is well known, and I respect it. However, he is not prepared to recognise the very encouraging steps that have been taken by President de Klerk. It is untrue to say simply that political prisoners have not been released. In fact, 500 have been released in the past year. In addition, more than 1,000 political exiles have returned to South Africa. Unless the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends are prepared to recognise the real progress that has been made in South Africa, they will not make the contribution to the future of that country that I am sure they would wish to make.

May I endorse warmly the welcome that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) has just given to the news that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is to visit South Africa and that, possibly, there will be a visit shortly after that by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? May I remind both of my right hon. Friends that, in 1962 or 1963, the then right hon. Harold Macmillan made a very dramatic speech before both Houses of the South African Parliament, in which he referred to "the wind of change"? I suggest that, if the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister is asked to make a similar speech, they will recall the hurricane of change that has blown through that continent and elsewhere in the world. The world as a whole is pretty sick of hurricanes, so perhaps such a speech would be more appropriately referred to as "the change of wind" speech.

My right hon. Friend's visit to South Africa will be part of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to continue the process of changing it into a non-racial, democratic country. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would like to visit South Africa when the time is right. No doubt he will be encouraged by the cautious welcome that the Leader of the Opposition has given to that proposition.

Do not the Government recognise the potential danger to British interests of our being still seen in the international community, including the European Community, the Commonwealth and the United Nations, as enthusiastically in favour of the premature lifting of sanctions? Are the Government prepared to listen not only to President de Klerk but to the representatives of the majority? Will they recognise that, in addition to the matters that have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), the Internal Security Act, particularly section 29 on preventive detention without trial, is still in force? Until that Act is scrapped, all the exiles are back home, and all the political prisoners have been released, there cannot be a climate for negotiations with a view to bringing South Africa truly back into the international community.

I am sorry, but I am afraid that I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. For example, the recent decision of the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Community to lift sanctions against South Africa was not pressed by Britain, but was taken unanimously. As the British Minister attending that meeting, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I received substantial and solid support both from Mr. Genscher and from Mr. de Michelis. I do not think that Her Majesty's Government would for one minute apologise for attempting to lead the European Community and the rest of the world in recognising the very important changes than have been taking place, courageously led at the moment by President de Klerk.

Will my right hon. Friends take the opportunity to get through to Mr. Mandela and to the African National Congress the message that the world is growing increasingly impatient with their persistent policies of sanctions and non-co-operation in the time warp in which they seem to be stuck? Will my hon. Friend take every encouragement from what President de Klerk has been saying this week, that legislative apartheid will be abolished in June and that the British Government's policy of relaxing and indeed abandoning sanctions will help that process far more than the ANC's policy of trying to wreck everything?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the consistent policy that the British Government have pursued has played an important part in the process of reform to which he referred. Mr. Mandela is a force for moderation, and his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon will undoubtedly be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to make some of the points to which my hon. Friend has just referred.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had concerning the Kurdish population of Iraq.

My right hon. Friend has had many intensive discussions with his American, European Community and other colleagues, the United Nations Secretary-General and relief agencies. The United States Secretary of State and European Community Foreign Ministers discussed the plight of the Kurds when they met on 17 April in Luxembourg.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Did he discuss with the Iraqi opposition their calls for a provisional coalition Government? Does he agree with their views that that would help overthrow Saddam Hussein more permanently? Finally, will he comment on the desperate need to get material aid moving in Britain as so much of it is being stored in warehouses? People have been gathering material together, but cannot get it shipped out to Iraq because of organisational problems in this country. Will he support more material and organisational aid to the Iraqi opposition?

United Kingdom support for delivery and dispatch of aid is very considerable. The hon. Lady will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said on that subject on Monday. The Kurdish opposition groups did not talk to me about a provisional Government. They think in terms of the Iraqi army overthrowing Saddam Hussein. They talk about their aspirations, which we strongly support, for a democratic pluralistic society, ensuring civil rights by constitutional means. They also support the concept of an autonomous Kurdish region within the existing frontiers of Iraq.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Jordan.

I last visited Jordan in January. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State went there last month for useful discussions with King Hussein. I hope to visit Jordan again before long.

Since the Jordanians are likely to suffer a loss of$3·6 billion largely due to export reductions, transient payments and lack of remittances from the Gulf, and since it is important to maintain stability in Jordan and the middle east, what ideas does my right hon. Friend have for providing support to the Jordanian people during their crisis?

My hon. Friend is right. We have a long friendship with Jordan, which will survive the disagreement we have had over the Gulf. There is no doubt that a stable Jordan is in Britain's interests. We have a bilateral aid programme, and we are also joining the substantial European Community aid programme, which amounts to £105 million, the first charge being delivered in February this year.

When the right hon. Gentleman has discussions with King Hussein and other leading figures in the Jordanian Administration, will he discuss with them the ideas which have been put to me by Mr. Peres, the leader of the Israeli Labour party, and which have been considered constructive by the Foreign Minister of Egypt and by Mr. Faisal Husseini, that Jordan can play an important part in bringing about a settlement of the Palestinian problem by helping to solve the problem of how the Palestinians should be represented?

'We strongly support the efforts that Mr. Baker is making at the moment. We constantly urged the United States to make an energetic attempt to tackle the problem when the Gulf war was over, and Mr. Baker is now attempting to do that. Last week, in Luxembourg, he explained to us the lines on which he is working and they seemed sensible to me. Whether they will succeed is another matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with President Iliescu of Romania.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had no opportunity for substantive discussion with President Iliescu during the latter's recent visit to the United Kingdom.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that President Iliescu welcomes the help given by this country to the 170,000 children still in Romania's orphanages? Will he confirm that the British embassy in Bucharest will give all possible help to British couples who have been cleared to adopt Romanian orphans?

Yes, indeed, but we must also remember that the interests of the children in question must be the paramount consideration of everyone.