Object.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Cuba to discuss security in the Caribbean.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no plans to do so.

I am sure that the Secretary of State regrets that answer almost as much as I do. Does the Minister of State agree that the only basis for security in the Caribbean is respect for the sovereign independence of all the countries in that area? Will he therefore join me in deploring the US-backed campaign of destabilisation against the Government of Cuba? Will he tell the Americans that their proper role in the Caribbean is not to break international law and undermine legitimate Governments but to show respects for those Governments by entering into constructive dialogues with them on the way forward towards peaceful coexistence?

The United States is not using or threatening to use force against Cuba. In May, President Bush laid down the conditions for improvements in relations in a message to the Cuban community of Miami. He said that Cuba should hold fully free and fair elections under international supervision. I recognise that Fidel Castro and his regime remain a constant attraction to the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends. After all, he is the last remaining member of what might be called the international Militant Tendency who has not allowed his membership to lapse.

Would not one of the best contributions to greater security in the Caribbean—this is a point that my right hon. Friend could easily make were he to visit Cuba—be for the Soviet Union, now that the cold war is over and so-called peaceful coexistence is a thing of the past, to wind down its excessive aid of all kinds to Cuba, which still includes some military assistance?

It will not surprise the House to know that the Soviet Union is reassessing not only its position internally but its relationship with Cuba. Opposition Members should start to do likewise.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held recently with other southern African leaders, in addition to the African National Congress, the Pan-Africanist Congress, Inkatha leaders and the President of South Africa.

In recent months I have met President Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Dr. Savimbi of Angola. During my recent visit to South Africa I met a range of leaders, including some from the Democratic party.

I welcome the conversations that the Secretary of State has been having. However, if he has been meeting a range of leaders, from the ANC to Dr. Savimbi, does he agree that it may be time that Ministers met people such as President Mangope of Bophuthatswana, on the ground that moderate people as well as those who engage in terrorism should be listened to?

I agree that a wide range of opinion is necessary and I have thought about the hon. Gentleman's point. The trouble is that Bophuthatswana is a product of a so-called grand apartheid policy which we have never accepted and it would not be sensible for Ministers to meet its president at a time when that whole policy is being changed.

Would my right hon. Friend care to tell the House his reaction to reports that the South African Government have been giving aid to Inkatha at the expense of the ANC?

Like everyone in the House, I am troubled by those reports. This morning I telephoned the South African Foreign Minister and spoke to him for more than half an hour to express our concern. I urged that the South African Government should be clear and open about what had occurred and that for the future they should make it clear that old policies had been discarded and that the policing of the country would be politically impartial and effective. In reply, Mr. Botha assured me that there had been no connivance by the South African Government at violence in the townships originated by Inkatha or anybody else.

Although the Foreign Secretary and I may disagree on many things, does he at least agree that it is absolutely imperative for the peace process to proceed? That being so, will he go even further than his conversation this morning with the South African Foreign Minister and say clearly to President de Klerk that the covert funding of Inkatha and the covert and overt collusion by the police and defence forces in the violence in the townships greatly endanger the peace process and must stop? Will he make it clear that there will be no question of this country or any other lifting sanctions until this process is completely clear?

It is certainly true that there has been a setback to confidence in the process which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, must proceed, because there is no alternative. As I have said, it is important for the South African Government to be clear about the past and they must re-establish confidence about the future policing of the country.

My right hon. Friend may be aware that his answer to the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) will be received with some disappointment in parts of South Africa. Would not my right hon. Friend consider it appropriate for members of his staff in the embassy in Pretoria to talk to Bophuthatswana and the other South African homelands, if only to tell them that their future very much depends on the political settlement that must be made in South Africa in due course and that they must join in the process?

I welcome the opportunity to make that clear, but I am not sure that talks are needed to do that. Plainly, the future of the people living in the so-called independent homelands must be considered together with the future of all South Africans.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the revelations that have been admitted and which have caused great perturbation within the South African Government, about their funding of Inkatha, must cast a very worrying light on the good faith of the South African Government in their negotiations with the African National Congress? The Foreign Secretary's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was simply not precise enough. Does not he now agree that it would be folly precipitately to lift sanctions as long as the good faith of the South African Government remains in doubt?

I am sure that we have been right to move on sanctions in the way that we have. We are talking not about the rewarding of this or that party, but about nation-building in the new South Africa. Anyone who has been to the townships, as I did recently, sees what needs to be done; that can be done only by investment which, in turn, can come only from economic growth. That is as plain as a pikestaff.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Britain is making towards encouraging increased educational opportunities for black people in South Africa.

Of our growing bilateral aid programme for black South Africans of more than £9 million this year, about 70 per cent. is being spent on initiatives to increase educational opportunities for black people. Those include some 1,200 bursaries for black students attending tertiary courses in Britain and South Africa. We are also running programmes in South. Africa to improve the teaching of basic literacy, English, mathematics and science.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although the adult literacy rate in South Africa is, at 71 per cent., almost double that in the rest of the African continent and although spending on education for black South Africans has risen by about 30 per cent. per year in the past 10 years, compulsory schooling for children in South Africa is still not mandatory? Will Her Majesty's Government press the South African Government on that? What other measures do the Government have to improve the training of black South Africans upon which their economic and educational development depends?

We regard the education of all South Africans as imperative, particularly those black South Africans who have for so long been denied education. The South African Foreign Minister and I discussed that earlier in the year. We are also increasing the amount of help that we give to the technikons, the technical colleges, because so many young people there need the technical ability to apply the knowledge that they have gained. I particularly praise the Peninsula technikon and the others to which we are giving many bursaries.

I welcome the Minister's statement on educational provision, but will she condemn in forthright language the behaviour of South African Cabinet Ministers who have organised millions of pounds of slush money to divide and destroy and to create conflict in the black community and have, with the same objective, promoted shadowy forces within the South African defence force and the peace force? Does she agree that President de Klerk's reputation as a man of credibility and honour has been destroyed by that shadowy episode?

We have no reason to believe that President de Klerk is not entirely serious and direct in carrying out his promised reforms. There is no doubt that he has to tackle a legacy of apartheid. He has to obtain the agreement of all parties on a new constitution. On the particular matters that the hon. Gentleman raises, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said other than to say that there is an urgent need to help black South Africans with investment for their education and jobs—and that we shall do.

I remind hon. Members that this question is about educational opportunities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the major stumbling blocks to members of the black communities taking up educational opportunities is the fact that they have to be taught and have to learn in three different languages—initially, quite properly, in their mother tongue and then in Afrikaans and English? Will she use all her influence to ensure that English, being an international language, is treated as the main language in South Africa? Will she further ensure that we give all the technical help that we can towards education so that members of the black communities can use that technical knowledge in assisting the future of their country?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, I cannot insist on what is taught, but, as all our help is for basic literacy and for the teaching of English, mathematics and science, as I said in the main answer, she can be assured that, in total co-operation with the South African Government, we are doing our best to enhance the teaching of English from the earliest possible age, because that is the language which South Africans, black and white, will need in the international world of the future. My hon. Friend will have heard what I said about technical education in answer to an earlier question.

Does not the Minister understand that what is fundamentally required in South Africa is not any number of well-meaning and well-intentioned developments for the social system, but the right of black people to vote? That is what the demand has been for the last quarter of a century. Any statement about apartheid being at an end is meaningless until they have that opportunity.

As you reminded us, Mr. Speaker, this question is about education. Anybody who has seen the lack of education facilities in the townships will know why we believe that education is absolutely crucial. Of course, the next stage is constitutional talks and we shall do all that we can to foster them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the forthcoming CSCE conference in Moscow on the human dimension.

We plan to send a delegation to the CSCE conference in Moscow on the human dimension, subject to developments in the Soviet Union between now and September. Participation in the conference would enable us to press for further improvements in the human rights issues that cause us concern.

As the conference is less than seven weeks away, will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that he has received cast-iron assurances from the Soviet authorities that representatives of the international human rights organisations and other non-governmental organisations will enjoy the same access to this conference as they did in Copenhagen last year? Is he aware of recent worrying reports that several established Soviet human rights organisations have been told that they will not have access to the conference?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the confirmation that he seeks, but, like him, I attach considerable importance to the openness of the conference. It is very important that NGOs should have same free access to the conference and to the delegates as they had in Paris and Copenhagen. We shall continue to press the Soviet Government on that point and to monitor their response.

Does the Minister agree that there is no more important human dimension to our relationship with the Soviet Union and the newly democratised countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary than ensuring some political stability, which will derive from economic stability and from the changes that we all hope will be made sooner rather than later? Does he further agree that more needs to be done to ensure that the Russians are able to buy the food surpluses of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and that by helping the Soviets we shall solve many problems at one stroke?

I certainly accept that we shall not achieve long-lasting political reform in any of those countries, especially in the Soviet Union, without sustainable economic improvement. One cannot speak of western countries placing large sums of money in, for example, the Soviet Union. We have a role in integrating the Soviet Union into the western economy, in transferring information and technical know-how and in encouraging investment. But we must be certain that the Soviet Union not only intends to carry out the economic restructuring that is necessary but is in a position to do so.

In the work of the CSCE on human rights, will my hon. and learned Friend assure me that he will continue to watch closely the development of the CSCE parliamentary assembly and its relationship with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has much expertise on human rights?

I agree with my hon. Friend and I can give that commitment.

In forming a judgment on human rights in the Soviet Union, does the Minister accept that legal civil rights are an important test—but only one test—of human rights in that country? Equally important are people's ability to vote in elections and the construction of a parliamentary process and of lasting democratic institutions. In that context, will the Minister explain why the valuable initiative that was launched by the Foreign Secretary more than a year ago to create a foundation that would allow the British political parties to work with and help the new democracies in the Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe has achieved absolutely nothing? Many other countries have been successfully involving themselves, to their great benefit.

We have put much work into the creation of the institution that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. Indeed, we have a fairly elegant creation of our own in mind. There is a little more work to be done to it. I look forward to being in a position to reveal it, but if Opposition Members suppose that they will have public moneys to dish out to their friends they have another think coming.

Am I right in thinking that, as the economy of the Soviet Union goes into substantial collapse, two features of that country are still intact? One is the red army and the other is the KGB, which seems to be spawning clones in other republics in the Soviet Union. Now that the central Government is much weaker, can my hon. and learned Friend guide us as to who is in charge of those institutions and whose finger will be on the nuclear button in the 1990s?

We are seeing a fundamental transition of power in the Soviet Union. Over the next 10 years or so, there will be a complete change in the shape of that country. I should be surprised if all the constituent republics remain within the union. I am sure that much power will be devolved to the republics. That will inevitably dilute the authority and power of the KGB and the red army.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any recent discussions with representatives of the British Virgin Islands.

I had discussions with the Honourable Lavity Stoutt, Chief Minister of the British Virgin Islands, when he visited London in March 1991 and also when I visited the BVI between 20 and 22 May.

Will the Minister confirm that there was no consultation with the elected representatives about the appointment of the new governor? Is that the right way for the Government to behave?

Consultation took place with the locally elected representatives. I know the governor-designate, Mr. Peter Penfold, well. He has a supreme qualification for that appointment, in that he is personally committed to and fond of the Virgin Islands and is committed to their welfare and progress. I hope that he receives a warm reception when he goes to the islands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to meet Mr. Talabani.

We remain in close touch with the Iraqi Kurdish leadership. I have no plans to meet Mr. Talabani at present, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to meet him later this month.

When Ministers meet Mr. Talabani, will they make it clear that the only reason why London and Washington are considering partially raising sanctions is that the western powers have failed miserably to fund properly UNICEF's programmes of humanitarian relief in Iraq under resolution 688? Instead of partially raising those sanctions, would not it be far better to defreeze Iraq's multi-billion dollar assets in the west and use those resources to fund Iraq's requirements for humanitarian relief?

'That is a highly complicated question, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There are many claims on the assets. The point that we are trying to tackle arises from the reports of Prince Sadruddin and others about shortages of food and medicines in Iraq. There are no sanctions on sending to Iraq, through the sanctions committee, medicines or food for humanitarian purposes, but the question is how they should be paid for. If we can devise—it is still an "if" —a scheme by which a limited amount of oil revenue can be spent and the proceeds fully devoted to that purpose, that is worth considering.

When my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Talabani, will he remind him that, had it not been for the decisiveness shown by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend, the allies' humanitarian aid effort would not have got off the ground? Obviously, that aid has saved thousands of lives. What aid is going to the Kurds to help them to rebuild villages in their territory?

A lot of help is going through the United Nations to the Kurds in the north of Iraq. We have not ended our efforts to reassure them. As my hon. Friend knows, a small allied rapid reaction force remains in Turkey. Yesterday, I had discussions in Ankara with President Ozal about that matter and I am satisfied that the arrangements for that force, with Turkish participation, are well in hand.

Was President Bush absolutely right when he said that the international community's quarrel is with the criminal dictator who rules Iraq, not with the people? Is not it essential to try as much as possible to give aid and assistance so that millions of people do not suffer even more? What effective steps can be taken so that the partial lifting of sanctions helps the people of Iraq rather than the criminal dictator's war machine? As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power he will present a great danger to the neighbouring states.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, which is a valid one, is to devise a scheme—if we can—that ensures that the total of any proceeds from a limited sale of oil goes to purposes approved by the United Nations and that it is not left to the whim or discretion of the Baghdad regime.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government proposes to take to assist towards progress in achieving democracy on a non-racial basis in South Africa.

We will continue to encourage all parties to begin talks on a new constitution for South Africa as soon as possible. We are helping the black opposition parties to take part in shaping the new democracy.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Recalling what he has already said this afternoon —that a movement towards democracy in South Africa has to be underpinned by an expansion in its economy —does he agree that if sanctions against South Africa are to be progressively lifted and if the country is to have access to international funds, the time available to the South African Government is not extensive—indeed, it is limited? It depends on what they do inside their country whether the international community continues to have faith that the South African Government will produce the democracy that we all want.

I agree. What has happened so far is that the legal pillars of apartheid have been abolished. What now has to happen is multi-party constitutional talks to move towards a democratic constitution on the basis of one man one vote. At the same time, South Africans have to begin building a new nation and coping with the legacy of apartheid and all the poverty that went with it. That is the argument for investment, for economic growth and for wellwishers towards black South Africans encouraging, from now on, the building of a new nation—instead of thinking of new punitive measures.

Does not everything revolve around achieving one person one vote in South Africa? Will the Foreign Secretary admit that until universal suffrage is achieved in South Africa and blacks have the vote there can be no question of dropping sanctions or of admitting South Africa to the civilised community of nations?

I disagree. One man one vote is the basis on which state President de Klerk is proceeding—that is the purpose of the constitutional talks—but saying that there should be no investment and no growth between now and then would mean that on the day when there is one man one vote in South Africa the country will be impoverished way beyond what is necessary. It is now and not then that we and the South African Government should start rebuilding South Africa.

Will any aid that the Government give to any party or racial group in South Africa be made conditional on that party or group remaining part of the constitutional talks to achieve democracy in that country?

Certainly, the help that we give in the political process is designed to equip those whom we are helping to take part in the democratic process. That is the whole purpose of it.

The Foreign Secretary has recently travelled in South Africa. If he had opened his ears he would surely have heard that the effectiveness of any contribution that we can make to democracy-building has been much undermined because of the British Government's total identification with the white minority Government. Will he now seek to reduce some of that considerable damage to British interests, first by consulting the representatives of the majority in South Africa and, secondly, by ensuring that Britain does not take the lead in the EEC and in the Commonwealth in the destruction of sanctions?

I sometimes wonder why nice people like the hon. Gentleman persist in living in such a time warp where South Africa is concerned. He can have no conception of what Mr. Mandela and other ANC leaders have told me and many others about the British aid programme in South Africa which, at £9·5 million, makes us the biggest donor of the lot. The money is overwhelmingly devoted to helping young people, especially in the townships. I have been warmly thanked for that. Of course, we consult the ANC about where it should go and when the ANC told us that it was time to relax the sporting sanction against cricket, we went along with it and helped it to achieve that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that as he attaches so much importance to these constitutional talks, it is extremely important that the state of Bophuthatswana participates in those talks, whatever he may think of the status of that state? Surely, if he wants to see what South Africa may be like after reaching the free society of non-racial democracies, he has to go no further than Bophuthatswana, which has been free of apartheid for many years.

I do not think that many people would accept that Bophuthatswana is the model for the future of South Africa. I have no disrespect for its leader and there is nothing personal in this, but, for the reasons that I have already given, I do not believe that it would be right to enter into conversations with him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now meet the Dalai Lama.

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

May I express my appreciation to the two diplomats who visited the Drapchi prison in Tibet to see 89 political prisoners? As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has recommended that we recognise the Dalai Lama as a marker for peace, democracy and human rights, conditions which could hardly be said to exist in China at present, why do not the Government change their policy?

We, too, are grateful to the two British diplomats who visited Tibet in July. They visited the prison in question, but were unable to meet any prisoners. More generally, they commented that there was severe resentment among Tibetans about the presence of Chinese, but there were no obvious signs of tension on the streets of Lhasa. Of course, we raise the subject of human rights with the Chinese at every possible opportunity. For example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State emphasised our concern to the Chinese Foreign Minister and the general secretary on a visit to China in April. However, the Dalai Lama has no plans to visit Britain at present so the hon. Gentleman's question is hypothetical.

While the cultural revolution throughout China in the 1970s was quite ghastly, does my hon. Friend recognise that the few of us who have recently been to Tibet—I can see only one of them in the Chamber now —saw no sign of tension in the streets of Lhasa? Furthermore, contradictory to the propaganda put out by the Dalai Lama, there was visible and open observation of the Buddhist religion on every street corner. Therefore, will my hon. Friend continue to rely on the advice from our embassy in Peking about the best way to deal with these sensitive matters?

Naturally, we listen to the advice of our embassy in Peking. We are concerned deeply about human rights violations and we take the opportunity to make our concern clear to the Chinese on all suitable occasions and at the United Nations.

Is it the Government's considered view that the Dalai Lama will never be allowed to return to his country? Is it not time that the United Nations, the European Community and the leaders of the advanced industrial nations stood up to the nasty, vicious old men in China who have inflicted such brutal outrages against the people whom that man so nobly leads?

Of course, the question of the Dalai Lama's return to Tibet must be a matter for discussion between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese. The Chinese have offered to talk to the Dalai Lama, but, at present, they have set conditions with which the Dalai Lama is not happy. That impasse has to be resolved. We continue to encourage the Chinese to talk and we believe that dialogue offers the best solution.

Is it not sad that although you, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Prince of Wales, the Pope and now—

And the Lord Chancellor.

All right, and the Lord Chancellor, and now President Bush have met the Dalai Lama that the Prime Minister had neither the sense nor the courtesy to do so? Will the Minister ensure that when the Prime Minister goes to Beijing as the first European head of state to do so since Tiananmen square he protests not only about violations of human rights in China, but about the clear violations of human rights in Tibet?

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman denies it, but The Guardian on Monday quotes the American ambassador in Beijing as saying during his visit to Lhasa that the Government's presentation of prison conditions in Tibet was as phoney as a $3 bill. We must protest about that.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been in touch with the Dalai Lama who wrote a letter of congratulation to him on his election as leader of the Conservative party. The programme of my right hon. Friend's visit to China has not yet been finalised, but I have no doubt that human rights will form a part of his discussions with the Chinese leaders.

Is the Minister aware that when the Dalai Lama was here he reiterated to those of us who met him that his wish was merely to return to Tibet as the spiritual leader of his people without any claim for international autonomy for Tibet? In those circumstances, why do Ministers continue to refuse to meet him?

The Dalai Lama is not planning to visit the United Kingdom at present. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said that President Bush had met the Dalai Lama. When President Bush did so, he emphasised the fact that the Americans regard Tibet as part of China. Those who press for such a meeting should consider whether it should be on the same terms.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of children under the age of five in Iraq who are likely to die of starvation or disease in the absence of additional humanitarian assistance.

The report of the latest United Nations mission to Iraq estimates that 300,000 children below the age of six are malnourished. We have repeatedly stated that we have no quarrel with the Iraqi population. It is, however, the responsibility of the Iraqi regime to co-operate fully with the United Nations and thereby ensure that relief is brought to those in need.

But surely the Government are not going to turn their back on the dying children in Iraq? The Minister and his right hon. Friend are humane men and they well know that the British Government have United Nations authority to unfreeze Iraqi assets in this country. Why do they not do so and establish with the United Nations agencies on the ground in Iraq a mechanism to ensure that the money is used to avoid human starvation, suffering and death?

There are two issues wrapped in that question. The first is that of Iraqi assets in United Kingdom jurisdiction. We have made it plain that while Mr. Richter is held in custody in Baghdad we can not agree to a release of the assets held in the United Kingdom. As for the report of Prince Sadruddin, he is recommending that there be a sale of oil under the provisions of article 23 of resolution 687. We shall reflect on that.

Will my hon. and learned Friend remind the House that if there is any suffering among the children in Iraq it is because of the brutality of Saddam Hussein and his complete insensitivity to the well-being of his people? If there were to be any arrangement which would allow the Iraqis to purchase foodstuffs and other supplies for their people, could my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that it would be done within the organisation of the United Nations so that no money purported to be destined for the children gets into Saddam Hussein's hands?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have quite a lot of evidence about the state of affairs in Iraq, and I can tell the House that one group of people that is not suffering from malnutrition is Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party. Privation is focused on the ordinary people of Iraq. Resolution 687 relaxed restrictions on the import of food, humanitarian necessities and medicines —which were never covered by the sanction regime. It is important to ensure that if oil is sold moneys thus released are used only for purposes of humanitarian relief and, to some extent, for other approved purposes, such as the special commission, the demarcation commission and the compensation fund.

How long will the United Kingdom take to reflect on the sale of oil, bearing in mind that every day probably costs the lives not only of children but of men and women as well? What is the position of other members of the Security Council on this period of reflection?

We shall come to a very early conclusion.

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

We have supported the Sri Lankan Government in their efforts to overcome terrorism, but have also made very clear our concerns that all parties must respect human rights. Our response to Sri Lanka's unwarranted expulsion of our high commissioner has been to cancel high-level visits, further restrict arms sales and delay consideration of major new aid commitments. We will review these policies once a new high commissioner is in place.

I thank my hon. Friend for that typically helpful and detailed response. I take on board what he says about the importance of human rights, but can he suggest when a high commissioner will be reappointed to Sri Lanka? Can he also say when we might resume the provision of development aid to that island?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for our human rights policies. A new high commissioner will be appointed in the very near future, but I cannot say when. He will, of course, continue to make representations of the kind made by Mr. Gladstone. We have not cut off aid; we have merely reconsidered one £3 million tranche of aid that was under consideration. Aid already in the pipeline, and already being spent in Sri Lanka, continues.

Would not it be appropriate if hon. Members expressed their strong approval of the stand taken by David Gladstone, our former high commissioner, on the appalling abuses of human rights in Sri Lanka? I hope that the House will endorse that.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and very much support what he says.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to finding a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict acceptable to the international community.

We have been second to none in our support for Mr. Baker's initiative. We have urged all concerned to show flexibility. We welcome the constructive Arab responses to President Bush and Mr. Baker, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had an excellent discussion on the subject with President Mubarak this morning. I encouraged the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Levy, when I met him on 18 July, to seize this opportunity for progress towards peace.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have the best opportunity for settling the vexed Palestinian-Israeli problem that we have had since the previous round of fighting between the Israelis and the Arabs, and that it is therefore essential for the United Kingdom and our European Community partners to pull out all the stops to encourage a long-term peaceful settlement? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the Syrians, several other Arab countries and the Palestine Liberation Organisation have made genuine concessions, and that the international community is entitled to look to the Israelis to make similar concessions shortly?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are now waiting for the considered Israeli response to the new situation and, in particular, to the Syrian President's response to President Bush. There is a chance here. The Israelis have within their grasp something for which, quite legitimately, they have been aiming for 40 years—an opportunity to sit down and talk peace and negotiate their disputes with those of their Arab neighbours who are still at war—still belligerent—with them. But of course, at the same time, the Israelis have to discuss with representatives of the Palestinians the problems of the occupied territories.

Has the Minister seen the reports this morning to the effect that Prime Minister Shamir compared President Assad's response to the Baker initiative with the response of the late President of Egypt when he came to Jerusalem? There is therefore hope of movement. Recognising that President Assad has total control in his country and is in fact a military dictator making his own decisions, whereas the Israeli Government is democratically elected—even if some of us would not have voted for them, just as we would not have voted for the Government here—does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best way that we can help is by understanding the sensitivities of the Israeli Government and of the people who desperately want peace?

I have always tried to do that, and the talk I had with the Israeli Foreign Minister last week was an example of both of us trying constructively to understand the view of the other. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point.

Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations thus far and will he further commend Secretary of State Baker for his painstaking shuttling in an effort to achieve peace in the region? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to get Israel to the conference table—and, more important, to keep her there—the continuing application of United States pressure is absolutely essential?

I am accepting no congratulations, but I agree with what my hon. Friend said about James Baker. The energy and persistence that he has shown in the face of occasional discouragement are not only worth praising but, as my hon. Friend said, absolutely essential. I have never supposed that other pressures—whether by Europe or by Arab countries—can be an adequate substitute for the sustained energetic interest of the United States in achieving a settlement.

Has the Foreign Secretary had a chance to study the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that came out this morning? If he has—as I have—was he shocked to read, in part IV, which is headed "Obstacles to Regional Stability" that the Committee identified Islam as such an obstacle without in any way separating Islam from fundamentalism? Does he not think that, given that the report will be studied, that is at least a regrettable mistake, and that it will be compounded by the fact that there is no mention of Jewish fundamentalism which clearly threatens the area and the Israeli Government?

I looked quickly at the report, but I did not happen on that particular phrase. It is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman will have to take it up with the Chairman and members of the Select Committee.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his robust efforts in trying to bring the Israelis and the Palestinians together at long last under a true peace treaty, which is now within their grasp and within the grasp of the whole international community? Does my right hon. Friend agree that money does, indeed, come into it, in the sense that the entire world community would, I am sure, favourably and positively consider the question of economic assistance to a near-eastern common market of all those countries if a true peace treaty were eventually attained?

Yes, indeed, and of course the tragedy is that, although this is an area rich in resources, those resources are not properly used for the benefit of the people, not least because of the persistence of this poisonous dispute. Although particular help may be needed in particular matters, once the dispute is settled, the resources are there to make the area one of the most prosperous parts of the world.

I pay the warmest tribute to the efforts of Mr. James Baker, which have been indefatigable and determined and which have quite certainly brought about the greatest possibility of a middle eastern peace settlement since the 1940s, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that it is important quickly to solve the outstanding issue of the representation of the Palestinians at the talks—because represented at the talks they must be? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that Mr. Shamir is right to draw attention to the enormous concessions and progress made by the Syrians and that it is now for Mr. Shamir to make a similar advance on behalf of Israel, because it is the state of Israel perhaps more than any other country or people in the region that stands to benefit from the ending of a dispute which has bedevilled and impoverished the region?

The right hon. Gentleman puts it well. We are waiting for the considered response of the Government of Israel. The first response of the Prime Minister was encouraging, as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) have pointed out. We hope that Chat will develop into a positive response. Of course the Palestinians must be properly represented and a great deal of work has been devoted to overcoming that obstacle. The idea of having a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation seems to have gathered strength and support. We very much hope that that will happen. I also very much hope that it may be possible to suspend the building of settlements in the occupied territories at this time. There is no doubt that the building of settlements by Israel in the occupied territories constitutes a very considerable obstacle to peace.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the New Zealand Foreign Minister.

We met in April and again in May in Washington. There are no present plans for a further meeting.

In view of the still close cultural, historical and political links between the two countries, will my right hon. Friend continue to ensure that New Zealand has open and fair access to the United Kingdom market and to other markets in the EEC? Will he also do his best to support New Zealand in the next round of the GATT talks so that our friends on the other side of the world know that we have not forgotten them?

I am glad to say that my talks with my New Zealand colleague and the talks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with his New Zealand colleague show that our dealings and relations are in excellent shape. Of course New Zealand, perhaps as much as any other country, stands to benefit from an open European Community and from success in the GATT talks. That is one of the matters that we discuss most often with New Zealand and in which it has a wholly legitimate interest.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he has recently taken to strengthen links between this country and the Baltic states.

Since new authorities were elected in the Baltic republics our contacts with them have developed steadily. Baltic leaders have paid several visits to London over the past year. British diplomats have been frequent visitors to the Baltic capitals. We keep in touch with the Estonia and Lithuania information offices in London. We are already backing projects in the Baltic republics through the know-how fund. We hope to add to these and to expand cultural and educational contacts through the British Council.

As the attacks on the Baltic states by the Soviet Union have continued relentlessly with attacks on border stations and the present attempt to impose on the Baltic states the sale of all union factories at ruinously disadvantageous prices to those states, will the Minister assure us that the increased aid to the Soviet Union under the G7 agreement will be conditional on respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Baltic states, one of which is full independence?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We have taken every opportunity, including the opportunity last week, to impress upon the Soviet Union the vital importance of getting down to meaningful negotiations with the Baltic republics. That is the only way forward and we will continue to stress that at every opportunity.

May I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his positive response on both points? May I encourage him to ensure that the Soviet Union is continually reminded of Britain's long-standing view about the illegitimate occupation of those lands and that we believe that their opportunity for economic growth will be much greater if they are allowed to pursue their own destinies?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the British Government have never recognised the de jure integration of the three Baltic republics into the Soviet Union. He is also right to stress that it is absolutely vital that there are negotiations between the Baltic republics and the Soviet Government with a view to determining the future of those republics.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about solving the outstanding problems in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend keeps in close touch with all concerned. He discussed those issues with our G7 colleagues during the recent economic summit. The political declaration issued by the summit contained a substantive passage on the middle east. He raised the peace process with the Israeli Foreign Minister on 18 July.

Does the Minister agree that Mr. Shamir's latest response to the Baker initiative is a welcome indication that the Israeli Government are at last beginning to shift from their intransigent position? Will the Minister, along with the Secretary of State, try to use his influence to pursue the point that was made in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report, which was published earlier today, that a comprehensive peace plan should be based on United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which provide for the recognition and security of Isreal as well as the recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination?

I suppose that this is the first time that I have agreed with every single point that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has made. I agree that Mr. Shamir's response is important. I agree, too, that any discussions must be on the basis of resolutions 242 and 338. I agree further that it is essential that the participating Arab states recognise the need to maintain the security and the sovereignty of the state of Israel.