To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position concerning the establishment of a middle east conference; and if he will make a statement.

The United States Secretary of State is continuing his attempts to secure the agreement of all parties to the convening of a peace conference. He has our full support.

While acknowledging the error of judgment made by the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organisation during the recent Gulf crisis, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that the problems associated with the Palestinian people remain and, indeed, that their solving is central to obtaining any middle east settlement? Is not it about time that the international community, including the Americans and the Israelis, gave them some positive encouragement to act in a positive way?

I believe that Mr. Baker's initiative is very much in the interests of the Palestinians. I agree with my hon. Friend that the PLO cannot be ignored because it made a grievious mistake in the Gulf war, but it can help by supporting the Palestinian leadership in the occupied territories and by re-emphasising its National Council strategy of 1988 on a negotiated settlement with Israel.

Since later today the United Nations Security Council will consider another aspect of the aftermath of the Gulf war—what proportion of future Iraqi oil revenues will be used for the rehabilitation of Kuwait—do the British Government support the proposition that 30 per cent. of those revenues should be used for that purpose or would they, like the United States Administration, prefer the figure to be increased? In any case, the sooner a settlement is reached the better, regardless of whether the figure is 30 or 50 per cent.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The discussion has gone on long enough and we must bring it to a conclusion. It seems that a conclusion of about 30 per cent. is attainable and, I think, about right.

With regard to the middle east peace process, as the weeks and months go by and no advance is made on the Baker initiative, does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a more vigorous approach to be adopted, or are we going to accept that Mr. Shamir has the right to veto any progress towards peace while continuing to defy international law and the United Nations resolutions and that, therefore, double standards apply in the middle east and will be tolerated?

The present position is that President Bush is waiting for a reply from several middle eastern leaders to letters that he sent after Mr. Baker's latest visit, setting out the areas of agreement and disagreement. There has been some progress, as my hon. Friend will know, but it is not decisive. I believe that an initiative backed and led by the United States is essential if there is to be progress towards peace and we should continue to support it as long as there is life in it. I believe that there still is.

With regard to two of the potential participants in any middle eastern peace conference, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Kuwaiti Government that those of us who were most determined that Kuwait should be liberated are among the most saddened and worried by the capital sentences being passed in Kuwait and by the capital trials taking place there? Will he ask the Kuwaiti Government to abandon them?

I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the trials and sentences in Kuwait. As I understand it, the emir has not confirmed the sentences. Our views are known to him and he will read what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I also agree with what he said about the settlements. As we, our European partners and the American Secretary of State have made clear, there is no doubt that the continued policy of establishing settlements is one of the major obstacles to any sensible peace process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what priority the Commonwealth attaches to the promotion of good government among its members.

There is wide interest among Commonwealth members in promoting good government. Moves by the Commonwealth Secretary-General to put emphasis on the promotion of democracy will receive our full support. An excellent start, for example, has been made with election monitoring.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her speech at Chatham house yesterday? Does she agree that as the whole of the eastern bloc and even the Soviet Union are following the lead set by the United Kingdom in dismantling state socialism and moving towards a market economy, it would be conducive to good government in totalitarian and often corrupt regimes in Africa and elsewhere if they did the same? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the readmission of South Africa into the Commonwealth might help to set a good example?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on my speech yesterday. The promotion of good government knows no boundaries. Every country that expects to work in harmony with its people needs to pursue good government, accountability, respect for the rule of law and respect for human rights. I agree with my hon. Friend that dismantling state socialism is one of the most important things that we can help those countries to do and it is part of the good government programme that there should be divestment of parastatals. I further confirm to my hon. Friend that as we told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in May, in reply to a report on United Kingdom policy towards South Africa, we would support an application from a post-apartheid South Africa to join the Commonwealth when there is a non-racial democracy.

Does the Minister agree that there is a good Government in Sierra Leone? Do the Government take seriously the question of supporting the Sierra Leone Government against incursions by Liberian rebels?

I know of the hon. Lady's great interest in Sierra Leone. She will be aware that I have been able to respond to the Sierra Leone Government's call for help by the provision of non-lethal equipment to try to help them to restore the order that they used to have there and which I know they very much want to have again.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of good governance is that the government are accountable to their own people and that the people are satisfied with the government? We should be careful, when we promote good governance, which is essential, that we do not try to impose an external model on countries that already have systems that are genuinely accountable to their own people.

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. That was exactly what I said yesterday in my speech. It is not for us to impose a system on emerging democracies, but for them to develop a system that is fully accountable to their own people and involves the participation of those people in the system of government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if when he visits South Africa, he will discuss policy on sanctions and boycotts with representatives of the African National Congress.

I hope to discuss many matters with the South African Government and with representatives of all the main parties in South Africa, including the ANC.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree with South African political and sports leaders who say that sanctions have been the main pressure for change, but that the negotiations that are going on risk being jeopardised? There is still no commitment by President de Klerk to one person, one vote. The sports negotiations, although they have made a far greater advance, still have some way to go. I know from personal experience that whites change only when there is no alternative. The Foreign Secretary's premature call for sanctions to be lifted risks jeopardising progress and reversing the momentum for change. Does he really think that he knows better than Nelson Mandela?

The hon. Gentleman is hopelessly out of date. The ANC representatives who came to see me a few weeks ago said that 29 June—in a few days' time—will see the foundation of one non-racial united cricket board for South Africa. The ANC said, "Please do your best to ensure that the International Cricket Council readmits South Africa to international cricket when it meets next month." I hope that the hon. Gentleman will back the ANC in that respect.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the last person to whom the House should listen on the subject of the abolition of apartheid is the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who has done more to delay the process than probably any other individual inside or outside South Africa? Will my right hon. Friend send a message to the International Cricket Council and to Mr. Colin Cowdrey, its chairman, when it meets in London next month, that the British Government are totally satisfied with the moves by the South African cricket authorities and Government and with the fact that cricket there is now fully integrated? Does he further agree that we should resume test matches against South Africa immediately?

My hon. Friend is well placed to modernise the education of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) in these matters. Surely it is sensible that, as South African sport becomes integrated sport by sport, those sports should be readmitted to the international family. That is what is about to happen with cricket. I hope that the whole House will support—and will urge the Caribbean countries and India to support—South Africa's readmission to international cricket.

When one examines the tragedy that befell South Africa from 1948 onwards, is not it clear that it is precisely the people who fought that tyranny—first and foremost people in South Africa, but also those outside who urged sanctions and boycotts—who have helped to bring about the present situation? Is not it a fact that time and again Tory Members, such as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), have defended in every possible way the tyranny that is now being disbanded in South Africa?

I do not think that that is true of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). It is certainly not in any way true of the Government. Whatever the past arguments, sanctions are now out of date. We have now dealt with sport. On investment, I believe that the more investment that is made in South Africa now, the better the chances for building the new South African nation after apartheid.

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

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the Cyprus problem with the UN Secretary-General on 20 May and next plans to meet the Secretary-General at the UN General Assembly in September. We maintain regular contact with all parties, including the UN, in support of the UN Secretary-General's initiative.

Given our special and close relationship with Cyprus, will Britain take an active part in the renewed round of efforts to secure a just solution to the Cyprus problem? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the British Government will encourage Turkey, our NATO ally, to take a more positive response to this round of talks?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He takes a close interest in the subject and, as he knows, the United Kingdom is closely involved with Cyprus, through traditional links, and is a guarantor power. We have put great efforts into helping the United Nations to find a way forward through continuous diplomatic contacts with all parties, including our fellow guarantor powers, Turkey and Greece, and the secretary-general himself. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have had valuable talks with the President of Cyprus. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw the Turkish Prime Minister in April and spoke to him on the telephone a few days ago.

The Minister said that we were one of the guarantor powers of the island of Cyprus. Will he assure the House that we will use the influence that that role gives us to ensure in any settlement, first, that lands and properties that have been taken from either Greek or Turkish Cypriots are returned to their rightful owners and, secondly, that any settlement will include free movement for people throughout the whole island, be they Greek or Turkish Cypriots, without any restrictions whatever?

Yes, Sir. In their position as a guarantor power the Government believe that the best way to exercise their influence is by supporting the United Nations Secretary-General. Certainly, any settlement will have to take into account both communities' concerns, some of which the hon. Gentleman outlined.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of the rare opportunities since 1974 to make progress on this vexed issue? Is not it deplorable that we have an army of occupation inside a Commonwealth country? Does he realise that the so-called green line in Cyprus, which is made of concrete and rusty barbed wire, is one of the few divisions between peoples that are still allowed in Europe?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The situation in Cyprus is, indeed, a tragedy. The fact that the United Kingdom Government have to maintain the level of troops that they do as part of the United Nations Force in Cyprus underlines that tragedy. I agree with my hon. Friend that the new authority that we believe that the United Nations has and which should be sustained by us all, should enable the Secretary-General of the United Nations, with all our support, to work towards a settlement of that terrible tragedy.

The Minister must be well aware that there is a strongly held view that despite our long, traditional and community links and our position as a guarantor power for Cyprus, Britain has been too laid back in dealing with the affairs of that tragically divided island. Do the Government accept that the road to a settlement must lie through a change in the position taken by Ankara? If so, have the Government made it clear to the Government of Turkey that Turkey's European ambitions will be mightily affected one way or the other by their response to the current prospects of a settlement in Cyprus?

I hope that neither the hon. Gentleman nor the House believes that Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the problem is laid back. As I said before, we are the largest single contributor to UNFICYP. We take the position in Cyprus extremely seriously and we are in constant dialogue with our fellow guarantor powers, two of which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, are Turkey and Greece. As I said to the House a moment ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has continual contacts with President Ozal and we keep up a continual dialogue with all parties in the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House do not feel that we are anything other than wholly committed to supporting the secretary-general in his struggle for a settlement.

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

The conferences on economic and monetary union and political union have made good progress, but a number of problems remain to be resolved during the next months of negotiations before the shape of the final package becomes clear.

Is not it ironic that at a time when the Soviet Union cannot handle the 15 nationalities in that empire, the Indian sub-continent is continuing to disintegrate and Yugoslavia cannot keep its nationalities together, people like the Foreign Secretary continue to waffle on about some grand political design in the Common Market? The truth is that British history and western European history show that in the past 11 centuries treaties have been drawn up between some of the oldest industrialised countries, every one of which, almost without exception, is in the dustbin of history. This latest grand political design will finish in the same place.

I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman. Up to now, I have disagreed with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about Europe, but at least what he has said has been plain, blunt and brief. He is taking a bad example from his leader.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that sovereignty is not some kind of political football to be used for the vanity of politicians? If we are to cede some sovereignty in the interests of creating a modern and vigorous western economy in this country with greater prosperity for all our people, that is something devoutly to be hoped for.

I understand that we are to discuss those matters later today and I look forward to doing so. Although it is not certain, we believe that it is increasingly possible that in both conferences at the end of the year we shall be able to reach conclusions of which the House will overwhelmingly approve. They will reconcile our desire and determination to keep our own identity with our wish to go forward and work increasingly in Europe.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, whatever may be the merits of a single currency, economic and monetary union and a federal arrangement, none of those issues was put before the electorate in a referendum or put before the public for endorsement in the 1987 general election? As they touch not only the rights of Parliament but the rights of the British people to elect and remove those who make the laws under which they are governed, will not the matter have to go back to the British people before any move is made to take away their rights through any of the proposals now before the intergovernmental conferences?

I do not think that such matters are best tested in a referendum. They are best tested in the House. That is a continual process, which is continuing again today.

My right hon. Friend, more than most, will be aware of the problems being caused to the Government by the Single European Act, particularly in employment and the extension of majority voting. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that at the intergovernmental conference on political union the British Government will veto any changes to the treaty of Rome that extend majority voting?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend about the effects of the Single European Act. It is working out overwhelmingly beneficially to this country. As for our stance in the IGC on political union, perhaps my hon. Friend will await my full explanation in a few minutes' time.

May I press the Foreign Secretary on that point? In the IGC on political union the Government are isolated on the social charter, the extension of qualified majority voting, any extension of powers to the European Parliament and reforms to the regional and structural funds. As all those matters are of central and fundamental importance to our 11 European partners, will the Foreign Secretary use the veto if they press it to a conclusion later this year?

The hon. Gentleman's premise is wrong and consequently his sequence does not follow. The only matter on which we are sometimes alone is legislation that flows from the social charter. Even there, one directive was passed unanimously again yesterday. Others have failed to make progress not because of Britain but because a sufficient number of countries were opposed to them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Romania.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had wide-ranging discussions with the Romanian Foreign Minister, Adrian Nastase, in London on 9 May. He announced then the extension of the know-how fund to Romania.

Will my hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the tremendous efforts of the voluntary sector in this country and to the many individuals who, over the past 18 months, have brought relief of many sorts to the people of Romania? I thank my hon. and learned Friend for telling the House that the know-how fund has been extended to Romania. What do the Government hope will be achieved by that?

The know-how fund is a very important instrument of policy to assist the transformation from a command economy to a market-oriented economy. Officials were in Romania recently discussing a number of priority projects with the Romanian Government and we have been able to identify a number of areas in which it will be helpful to make progress there. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about voluntary workers. I had the advantage of attending a meeting last week where I met many of those directly involved.

Will the Minister take an early opportunity to raise with the Government of Romania, directly or through its ambassador, the fears of Romania's small Jewish community at the resurgence of anti-semitism in that country, especially in the influential and popular press? Is he aware that an all-party group of hon. Members was recently in that country—where 400,000 Jewish people perished in the holocaust—and received assurances from the highest level of the Romanian Government that they would deal with an anti-semitic resurgence if it came about? As it has indeed come about, will the Minister ask the Romanian Government to take action now before the problem gets worse?

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a serious point, the force of which I accept. We have already made representations on precisely that issue to the Romanian authorities, and we shall keep the matter under careful watch because it is important. As and when necessary, we shall make further representations to the Romanian Government.

On behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on Romanian children, of which there are other honorary officers in the Chamber this afternoon, I thank the Minister and Foreign Office staff for the support given to that group and to other aid groups in the United Kingdom when they were addressed last week.

First, I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. The work that she and other hon. Members have performed in the all-party group has been extremely welcome.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his proposals for security and co-operation in the middle east.

It is for the countries of the region to reach agreement on future security arrangements. We support their efforts to achieve this and are prepared to help where we can. But we do not envisage stationing ground troops permanently in the region.

Are the United States and United Kingdom Governments not sitting on their military triumphalism and doing little for the future security of the middle east? Is it not the case that the Baathists are still in power in Iraq, the future of the Shias and Kurds is unsafe, there is festering bitterness about the 100,000 dead, with more to come, the west and China have restarted arms sales, Syria and Egypt are already alienated from the allies and there is no hope of any justice for the Palestinians? Should not the Government act, for example, to stop the arms proliferation and set up a conference for security in the region? Or have the glorious victors not got an idea for peace in their heads?

The hon. Gentleman has set a full agenda, and I fear that he was wrong in every particular respect. The Government have been active in all the respects he described. I re-emphasise the support that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just given to the peace process, which is directed to one of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member should also keep in mind the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on arms control, and the strong support that we are giving to the Bush proposals for arms control in the middle east. We have made an effective response to the problems in north Iraq.

Will my hon. and learned Friend note Conservative Members' welcome for the British Government-inspired series of initiatives in the European Community aimed at achieving a common foreign policy in the middle east, particularly in view of the historic problems of that region which have been somewhat provoked by divisions among the European powers? Is not a most important aspect of future attitude to both the Israeli problem and the initiatives relating to Iraq and the Kurds that a common policy should be developed in the Community, and then applied? Should not we continue to work on this problem through the intergovernmental conferences?

I agree that co-ordinated policies are extremely important, but they are not limited to the European Community. For example, it is extremely important that we work closely with the United States Government in pushing forward the peace process, including its operation in north Iraq.

The Minister referred to the excellent statements that were made last month by both the Prime Minister and President Bush on the need to stem the flow of conventional arms into the middle east. Does he share my dismay that since those statements were made the Pentagon appears to be putting together massive arms sales packages to Israel, the United Arab Republic, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Egypt? What effort will the Foreign Office make to ensure that the excellent statements are implemented and that we do not turn the powder keg of the middle east once again into a conflagration?

The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that it is important that we actively carry forward President Bush's proposals to control armaments in the middle east. I have considerable sympathy, too, with the broader proposals of President Mubarak. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that in July, in Paris, there will be a meeting between officials of the Permanent Five to ascertain how we can advance the general concepts expressed by President Bush.

As Israeli citizens will also benefit from a genuine peace settlement that is fair to both Palestine and Israel, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a double tragedy would occur if Secretary Baker were to lose heart as a result of the obstinacy of Mr. Shamir, and if Mr. Shamir, with his hesitations and stubbornness, were to assume that a temporary abatement of the intifada would be a signal for him to go easy on the peace process?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend."] Forgive me, he is indeed my hon. Friend. This is an extremely important moment for the state of Israel. I think that it is important that it should take advantage of the opportunity that presents itself. It will be regrettable, I think, if the policy of settlements is pushed ahead, for that would stand in the way of genuine peace talks. Israel will benefit more than any other nation from a peace settlement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the meeting of the Antarctic treaty nations in Madrid.

There was general acceptance by most parties, including the United Kingdom, of the draft text of an environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty and of four annexes dealing with marine pollution, waste disposal, conservation of wildlife and environmental impact assessment.

Included in the Minister's statements in the past has always been the need for consensus between nations on the Antarctic treaty. Will he confirm that the United States Government have moved to a policy of majority voting? Will he confirm also that that is entirely opposed by the British Government? Does he agree that there has been a considerable amount of backsliding by the United States Government? What efforts is he making to ensure that the United States Government sign the treaty that was agreed in April in Madrid?

Fortunately, I do not have to answer at the Dispatch Box for the position of the United States. The hon. Gentleman is right in that the main purpose of the Government's policy has been to seek consensus. He will recall that shortly after assuming these responsibilities I advised the House, with the authority of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that we were reviewing our policy. It was we who came forward with a proposal to seek consensus around a moratorium, and that has found favour with almost all our treaty partners. I am confident that the United States will find a way of joining the consensus that we very much support.

Does not the Minister recall that on 16 January he claimed that Britain had led the way on Antarctica? In his euphoric letter of 10 May to all hon. Members he said that he anticipated agreement in June. Did he know then that the Americans were planning to sabotage the agreement? If he did, he was misleading us. If he did not, he was being deceived by them. Will he now do what the director of the World Wide Fund for Nature asked in the letter of 20 May to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, to which the director has had no reply, and put pressure on the American Government to accept the draft protocol, to agree a ban on mining in Antarctica and, to use the Minister's own words in the letter,

"hand over Antarctica in pristine condition to future generations"?

The hon. Gentleman is trying very hard, is he not?

Why don't you try harder?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to my letters, because they make it clear that the British Government, without being over-boastful, have some reason to claim that our initiative before the Madrid conference assisted our treaty partners to return to consensus. One leader of a non-governmental organisation, in an effort—misplaced, I believe—to put pressure on the British Government, told me before we went to Madrid that the United States had agreed to a world park.

rose—

Order. I regret that I was distracted for a moment and called two hon. Members from the same side of the House. Now I must redress the balance.

Will my hon. Friend take note of the increasing concern of people who work in Antarctica and the south Atlantic about the future of HMS Endurance? Does he hope very soon to have a concrete answer about what the Government can do in that respect?

As my hon. Friend knows, the vessel underwent a major refit to allow her to remain in commission in Antarctic waters until the mid-1990s. A replacement is planned for that time. No decision to the contrary has been taken.

Does my hon. Friend agree that what the environment of the Antarctic does not need is hot air and grandiose rhetoric? It needs agreements that stick and are signed, especially by nations with appalling environmental records. Such nations should sign an agreement and be kept to it. Are not the Government to be complimented on continuing to work to bring them all together and get them to stick to a line?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be aware, as will the House, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was one of the first leaders of any country to welcome the consensus that was reached. I am sure that both my hon. Friend and the House will be interested to know that Her Majesty's Government are already giving close attention to the need for a secretariat to supervise the Antarctic treaty partners and the future of Antarctica.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government are making to the achievement of a one-person, one-vote constitution for South Africa before the date of the next scheduled South African parliamentary election.

We continue to encourage all in South Africa to reach agreement on a new, non-racial and democratic constitution. We are helping the black opposition parties to prepare for democracy and future political and economic life.

I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. Will she join me in paying tribute to the South African Government, the African National Congress and the leaders of most of the homelands and the churches, who have allowed tremendous progress to take place since the previous South African elections, so that all but the last barrier to the ending of apartheid have been removed? Will the Minister ensure, however, that the Government make it absolutely clear that the momentum must be sustained? It would produce bloodshed and catastrophe in South Africa to arrive at the date of the next scheduled elections without a secure one-person, one-vote constitution in place.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the first step was to get rid of the statutory pillars of apartheid. The South African Government have removed those, and the second step is the negotiation for agreement on a new constitution. All the parties are involved in that, and they are all to be encouraged to reach it in good time. I believe that the South African Government and all the parties are so determined. They may need some help and advice from time to time, and I believe that all nations that believe in the democratic process should be prepared to give it.

Is it not pretentious and dangerous for us to shower unasked-for advice on South Africa? Does not good government, both here and abroad, depend on some understanding of the limitations of both power and influence?

I am only too well aware of the limitations of power and influence. The British Government have responded to the requests of the South African Government in a number of different ways. We shall continue to respond to that Government and to the various parties—the ANC, the Pan-Africanist Congress, the Azanian People's Organisation and others—to help bring forward that period of negotiations that will lead to a constitution for a non-racial democracy. That is what the people of South Africa want, and that is what they have asked for.

Will the Minister make it clear to South Africa that Britain would not look favourably on a future system of government involving a one-person, one-vote system for the lower chamber—protecting the rights of all peoples in South Africa, which would be welcome—but under which apartheid nevertheless remained, albeit perhaps in a different form, in the upper chamber?

It is not for this House or this Government to impose a system on the Government or people of South Africa. It is for the people of South Africa, the South African Government and all the other parties to work out their new constitution—for an upper and lower house, or whatever system of government they choose. If they ask for our help, as they have done, they will get our help. We insist on helping to promote good government in countries that seek to promote good government. I believe that the Government and people of South Africa want that and will pursue it.

I give a warm welcome to what my right hon. Friend has just said, and to what the Foreign Secretary said about an application to join the Commonwealth being favourably considered. Will my right hon. Friend take a broad-brush guess, however, at how many United Nations member countries, or, indeed, Commonwealth countries, on the basis of the universality of their suffrage and the frequency and integrity of their elections, have the right to prescribe to South Africa?

I do not have a crystal ball, but I do not believe that anyone has the right to prescribe to others —they must work things out for themselves.

Hear, hear!

I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that South Africa has asked us for that help. That is why we are giving it. We are not giving it unasked.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Heads of the Governments of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia on the current situation in those republics; and if he will make a statement.

We have received recent messages addressed by Baltic leaders to western Governments, and remain in frequent contact with the elected authorities in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I saw the Lithuanian Foreign Minister yesterday. We share the view of those authorities that the problems of the Baltic republics should be resolved through negotiation and without coercion. We have expressed concern to the Soviet Government about recent actions by Soviet forces in the Baltic region and about the Soviet procurator-general's interim report on the Janaury shootings. Under the provisions of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, we and our Community partners have requested a full explanation from the Soviet Government.

I welcome that positive statement and I recognise the Minister's personal interest in these matters. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman advise the House whether he has had the opportunity to discuss, and possibly to implement, specific projects that would assist the three states economically, socially or educationally until such time as the western world recognises their obvious independence?

The hon. Lady is right to stress the significance of the know-how fund, which has an important role to play. I am glad to say that we have been able to identify some projects in the Baltic republics for support through the know-how fund. For example, we have been able to assist with port privatisation in Estonia, and we have been pursuing projects relevant to agriculture in Latvia and Lithuania.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House unequivocally that as we have never recognised that the invasion of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the armed forces of the Soviet Union resulted in a legitimate annexation, so we have always and continuously recognised—as we still do—those three countries as having national sovereignty which is independent, and that if they send diplomatic representatives here we shall receive them, just as we kept them in the past for as long as they still lived?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have never recognised the de jure incorporation of the Baltic republics in the Soviet Union; they are, however, de facto members of the Soviet Union. We hope for—and will press for—negotiations between the Baltic republics and the Soviet Union, leading to an agreement that will regularise their relations in a way that is compatible with the desires of both parties. We are pressing the Soviet Union to enter into meaningful negotiations with the Baltic republics.

What response did the Government receive from the President of the Supreme Soviet when those points were put to him on his visit to Britain a couple of weeks ago? Will the Government respond positively to the Estonian Foreign Minister, Mr. Meri, by suggesting that trade missions be established in each of the Baltic states?

We are anxious to see how we can develop our relations with the Baltic states. A good example of that is the way in which we have used the know-how fund to support activities within those states.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit the Seychelles.

Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any current plans to do so. I met the Seychelles Foreign Minister, Mrs. de St. Jorre, when she paid an official visit to Britain in March last year, and meet her often at multilateral gatherings. We have made it clear that, as elsewhere, we support freedom of expression and genuine political participation.

If my right hon. Friend goes to the Seychelles, she will witness at first hand the antics of a particularly vile extreme socialist regime. She will see numerous abuses of human rights, and no sign of democracy. When such regimes are being increasingly rejected elsewhere, is it not time for Her Majesty's Government to get tough, and to tell Albert Rene that, unless he reforms his country, aid will be cut off?

We regard the Seychelles as a one-party socialist state which exercises undue restrictions on freedom of association and of expression. I have made it absolutely clear to the Foreign Minister of the Seychelles that we believe in freedom, both political and economic, and that we are looking for change. I agree with my hon. Friend—there are few signs of the moves for change that we intend to come about. Certainly, the help that we have given the Seychelles people—help with health and education—is very limited; I hope that it will assist the people, but we are not in business to help a Government of that kind.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit of the Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), to Lebanon.

My visit to Lebanon from 9 to 12 June was the first by a British Minister since 1985. I had useful discussions with the President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and other leaders. They addressed the situation in Lebanon and in the region. I was impressed by the determination of the Lebanese Government to restore their authority over the whole country. I was also able to stress the great importance that we attach to the release of the hostages held in Lebanon.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that he conveyed to the Lebanese Government the British Government's support for their efforts to reassert their control over, in particular, southern Lebanon?

That is an important point. We strongly support the policy of the Lebanese Government, and that of the Lebanese army, to reassert control in south Lebanon. We are anxious for the militia now in south Lebanon—particularly the Palestinian and Hezbollah militia—to be disarmed. It is also important for the Israeli army to withdraw to Israel, pursuant to the provisions of Security Council resolution 425.

Having adverted at our last Question Time to the hon. and learned Gentleman's role with regard to the hostages, I pay tribute to his courage in going there. It is not easy to go to such a dangerous country where anybody's life, however well protected, must be at risk. The hon. and learned Gentleman's visit will, I hope, demonstrate to the relatives of John McCarthy, Jack Mann and Terry Waite that the whole House is determined to bring about their freedom.

The right hon. Gentleman is too gracious, though I am extremely grateful to him. Incidentally, I should pay tribute to the members of the Royal Military Police, who provide the close protection unit for the ambassador, and to our staff there. They are the people who really deserve the credit. I also had the opportunity to meet all the families, and I pay tribute to them. The courage of all of them is extraordinary, as is their forbearance. I would single out Mrs. Sunnie Mann, an elderly lady who is living in Beirut in a block of flats five storeys up and has to carry the water up to her flat. She is a very brave lady. The House should know that.

I share in the welcome given to my hon. and learned Friend for his visit. Has he seen the very useful exchange and comments made by the Prime Minister at a recent Prime Minister's Question Time? Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government still hold the Israelis responsible not just for Sheikh Obeid but for the other Lebanese hostages whom that Government hold? What messages are Her Majesty's Government sending to the Israeli Government about the hostages that they hold?

We have never accepted a linkage between those held by the Israeli Government and the western hostages. There are two reasons for that. First, one does not link one evil with another. Secondly, we do not have the capacity to make the Israelis deliver anything. If we accepted a linkage, the position of the western hostages might be worse rather than better. However, it is extremely important that we should work for the release of all the hostages. I certainly agree that it is highly desirable that the Government of Israel should release Sheikh Obeid and the detainees in south Lebanon. At the same time, the Government of Israel have a perfectly legitimate interest in securing the return of the bodies of their service men, which are now in the Lebanon, together with any of their service men who are still living. All those things are important. To the extent that we can promote them, we shall do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position of safe havens in Iraq; and what consultations have taken place with his United States counterpart on this matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the plight of people in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

To reassure the refugees of their continuing safety once the allied forces have withdrawn, we need, first, an effective presence on the ground. There is better progress now in the deployment of the UN security guards. The UN hopes to have more than 400 in place by mid-July. We need a continuing military presence in the region and clear warnings to the Iraqis that any renewed repression would meet with the severest response. We would see this as a multinational force that could be quickly deployed. Finally, we need to continue the sanctions. We are building up these elements with our allies. Meanwhile, it is too soon to fix a final date for the withdrawal of our forces.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that I am very pleased about those safeguards? It would be unforgivable for the Kurds, or any other minority group in Iraq—we should not forget the Shi'ites in the south—to be left to the tender mercy of Saddam Hussein. Even if the Foreign Secretary does not agree with me, will he bear in mind the possibility that the people of Iraq as a whole and the international community may have to pay a heavy price indeed for the fact that earlier this year the allies did not complete the job?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. We completed the job for which we put our service men at risk—the reversal of the aggression against Kuwait. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. We have always made it clear that we did not intend to complete the withdrawal of our forces from Iraq in circumstances which would create again the problem that they went in to solve—the flight of refugees to the mountains.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that sanctions against Iraq must be reconciled with humanitarian assistance? He has said that he does not want to see Iraq swept by epidemics and starvation. Is he satisfied with the efforts being made to prevent more than 100,000 Iraqi children under the age of five from dying of hunger and disease this year?

The hon. Gentleman talks of hunger and disease, and I understand that, but medicines have never been covered by sanctions. Food for humanitarian purposes can go in, as authorised by the United Nations sanctions committee, which does precisely that, but I do not think that the House would think it right to go beyond that and to allow Saddam Hussein to reconstruct his country when he has not fulfilled all the Security Council resolutions and when his ambitions against the Kurds are all too clear.

My right hon. Friend will pay tribute to and recognise the contribution of British military personnel, but will he acknowledge the contribution made by British civilians—and in particular by my constituent, Mr. Floyer-Ackland—in giving humanitarian aid to those citizens in Iraq?

Between 150 and 200 British civilian relief workers have been in action in Iraq, and I pay tribute to them. They have shown considerable courage and perseverance in doing the job for which they are so admirably equipped.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is bound to be heightened anxiety about the future of the Kurds when allied forces withdraw, because it is still not possible to rely on the benevolence of the Iraqi authorities, not least in the light of their refusal to allow United Nations officials to inspect the suspected nuclear plant in Iraq yesterday?

My hon. Friend is right. Security Council resolution 687 places a clear obligation on the Iraqis, but they are not carrying it through. Another item in the accounts that I must mention is the continued detention of Mr. Ian Richter: we are determined to get him out.