To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the programme of aid and assistance for the former Soviet Union.

Britain has pledged more than £80 million in bilateral aid to the former Soviet Union and is contributing through the EC budget about 18 per cent. of Community technical assistance and food aid, which totals £595 million. The Community has also agreed a programme of food credits worth £1·225 billion.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full reply. Clearly, the United Kingdom and the Community are doing a great deal to assist the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe generally. However, what additional measures will be taken, particularly to assist with the distribution of foodstuffs once they reach eastern Europe? My right hon. Friend will agree that empty bellies make poor counsellors. What positive action will be taken to assist people in eastern Europe and in the former states of the Soviet Union?

It is important that food should be not only dispatched but distributed to those who need it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has ensured that the Crown Agents, for example, are working with the authorities in St. Petersburg so that our feed aid for animals around St. Petersburg—£20 million worth—reaches its destination. We are ensuring that the beef that we sent to St. Petersburg and Murmansk has got through, and we are tackling the remaining problems of distribution in Moscow.

Is there not a grave danger of the former Soviet Union lapsing into anarchy? Did we not recently see riots on the streets of Moscow, with two factions fighting it out? Therefore, should we not use our strength and influence to try to organise throughout the west a Marshall plan, similar to the one after the second world war, to strengthen the hands of those who are doing their utmost to stave off anything approximating to anarchy?

It is certainly in our interest that the republics of the former Soviet Union should not disintegrate into anarchy and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, starvation. We believe that the next step, in considering large-scale help for the former republics, should be taken through the International Monetary Fund. That is the orderly and sensible way to proceed, which is why we are pressing and encouraging others to press for the earliest possible membership of the former Soviet republics in the IMF. Meanwhile, we are pressing for IMF teams already in Moscow and elsewhere to start preparing the ground.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a delegation from the Inter-Parliamentary Union has just returned from Russia and the Ukraine? Does he agree that western aid should be given to and deployed in the former Soviet Union with care and tact so that those proud people are not humiliated or offended? Is he also aware that there is apprehension about the possibility of strings being attached to western aid? Under what conditions is western aid being given to the former Soviet Union?

I know of the visit and am grateful to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for undertaking it. There is no doubt that such contact now is particularly useful. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the pride of the Russian people, which must be respected as we seek to help them.

Is the Foreign Secretary awarere is a case for feeding people who are starving in Russia, as there is for those who are starving in Africa and Latin America countries? There is also a case to be made for the Government to spend more money on overseas aid. There is a case to be made for those starving and living in cardboard boxes just around the corner—

Question, please.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no case to be made for taxpayers' money being used to prop up Boris Yeltsin, who will turn out to be the David Owen of Russia?

I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has got around to reading his Financial Times this morning. If he has, he will have seen the eloquent article by the Russian Finance Minister. The case that he makes, which we must listen to, is for help from this country in privatisation, and the creation and stimulation of the free market and the other basics of prosperity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for increased democracy in Africa.

The prospects for democracy in Africa are probably better now than at any time in the post-colonial era. Although there are some countries where little progress has been made, most African nations now have, or are moving towards, multi-party political systems.

Bearing in mind that encouraging answer, may I ask whether the Minister considers that the worsening drought in southern Africa may have implications for the process of democracy in Africa?

Yes, indeed I do. We are deeply concerned about the dreadful effects of the drought in southern Africa. That is why, as a first step today, I have approved £2·5 million each to Zambia and Zimbabwe in balance of payments aid to ease the difficulties that will be caused by the need to import food. We have also agreed on a further £3·9 million worth of food aid to Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique and Mozambiquan refugees in Malawi.

Following the welcome change in Kenya's constitution towards a multi-party democracy, and in view of the unhappy news from Kenya yesterday of the repression of demonstrations in Nairobi, will the Minister not only advise that country on the international standards of multi-party democracy, which she has ennunciated from the Dispatch Box before, but suggest that, in order to disarm such demonstrations, it is time that the Government start a dialogue with the Opposition on both the timing and ground rules for an election?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we shall encourage dialogue wherever it is needed to promote a democratic system. The incidents in Nairobi are regrettable, but we deplore all use of violence and provocation, whether from protesters, the Opposition or Government forces. The way to resolve political differences is through debate, dialogue and the ballot box, not on the streets. That is why we urge all Kenyan political leaders to open up a constructive dialogue on free and fair elections.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best method for underpinning democracy is through economic stability? Has she seen the great efforts being made this year to obtain private inward investment into southern Africa in the form of conferences and other initiatives? Will she give all such initiatives her fullest support?

My hon. Friend is right: economic stability is the only foundation for the sound development of democracy. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that open market systems are developed, subsidy is abolished and there is a proper market economy in all parts of southern Africa. That is one reason why we are putting so much effort as a nation into helping countries in southern Africa to achieve just that.

On the question of democracy in the republic of South Africa, does the right hon. Lady agree that our objective should be to ensure that the white electorate fully appreciates that South Africa will face unprecedented international isolation should there be a "No" vote in this month's referendum? Should not we support the negotiating process now under way through the Conference for a Democratic South Africa, and so secure the maintenance of international pressure for rapid progress towards a new, genuinely democratic constitutional order? Will those be the objectives of this Government this month, as they will he the objectives of the Labour Government next month?

Through the whole of their period in office, the Government have supported efforts to do away with apartheid and to ensure that when change came with President de Klerk, there would be a start towards a new constitution and the transitional arrangements that are now being discussed within the Conference for a Democratic South Africa.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government have proposed for reform of the United Nations.

In January, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convened a meeting of the Security Council at Heads of Government level, which called on the Secretary-General to report on how the peacekeeping role of the United Nations could be strengthened.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the global position in which the United Nations was established has little relevance to today's world? Is it not true that, because of the break-up of the Soviet Union, the balance of power has shifted towards the United States? Does not that make it difficult for the United Nations to carry out a peacekeeping role? Do not the problems of the third world, which is still suffering economic deprivation, need to be addressed? Therefore, will not there be a need for radical changes in the United Nations if it is to maintain any confidence and respect throughout the world?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The United Nations has found it much easier to undertake a peacekeeping role since the end of the cold war because its efforts are no longer frustrated by the clash between the super-powers. We are fortunate that the super-power that remains has no instinct or appetite for dominating the world by oppression and force.

My right hon. Friend referred to the summit. Will he take this opportunity to say what progress is being made on the question of preventive diplomacy, for which the secretary-general has set a deadline of 1 July? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take fully into account the role of parliamentary diplomacy through the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the North Atlantic Assembly and other relevant organisations?

The secretary-general has been asked to produce his report on a range of subjects by 1 July. I am sure that he will not neglect the parliamentary context—which my hon. Friend leads in the IPU. It is an important element in preventing conflicts reaching the stage of war.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the most important international non-EC meetings which he expects to attend this year.

There is the North Atlantic Council consultative meeting and the conference on security and co-operation in Europe ministerial meeting this month; the North Atlantic Council meeting in Oslo in June; the economic summit of the Group of Seven in Munich in July and the CSCE summit in Helsinki in July, both of which I shall attend with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September; the CSCE council of ministers in Stockholm in early December, and Western European Union ministerial meetings in June and November.

Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that when he attends those international meetings and many others in the EC he will discover that Britain's standing, authority and reputation are vastly higher than they were a few years ago? Is not that a tribute to the work done not only by him but by his recent predecessors? Would it not be a national tragedy if that were all to be thrown away by any alternative team of Ministers, who were wrong about every international defence issue in the 1980s and who carry no conviction in the 1990s?

That is rather a difficult question to answer. I hope that we have a reasonable record on piloting Britain's foreign affairs through troubled times. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his team are always ingenious in defending whatever the policy of the moment is; it is just that that policy is changed so often that it leaves a little bit of a question mark over whether they have any plan or direction at all.

When the Foreign Secretary visits the Group of Seven summit in the summer, will he bang some heads together to try to bring forward a new deal for the third world? The announcements made by the Minister for Overseas Development a few minutes ago about the food situation were welcome, but people in Africa are starving and the terms of trade that they receive in their dealings with the developed countries, the problem of their huge indebtedness to the developed countries and the world order over which we now preside are such that hundreds of millions of people live on the edge of catastrophe. The Group of Seven has a responsibility to the human race to deal with that this summer.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is looking forward to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself going to the G7 summit in mid-July. He was specific on that point; rather markedly so I thought. We shall be delighted to seek out his advice just before we go if he is still a Member of the House at the time. Of course he is right on his serious point about debt and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been so energetic in pressing what are called the Trinidad terms to enable the poorest countries of the world to benefit from those terms. We shall do our best within reason and common sense to ease those burdens as best we can.

In the wake of the impressive list of meetings that the Secretary of State will be attending for the remainder of this year, will he encourage the Security Council to have a special meeting, after Britain's anticipated endorsement of the Van den Stoel resolution on the destruction of human rights within Iraq at least to ensure that human rights monitors are in south Iraq to protect the unfortunate Shias?

We are worried about the extent to which Saddam Hussein is still able to inflict hardship and persecution on the peoples of Iraq, both the Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is trying to arrange a donors conference to bring further help, but, as my hon. Friend would agree, the best relief of human rights would be if the Iraqis accepted resolutions 706 and 712 and began to sell oil, the proceeds of which could go to the relief of poverty as well as the compensation of those whom they have victimised.

I advise the Secretary of State to ensure that all his flight bookings are transferable. However, in the few weeks remaining to him, will he pursue at all relevant meetings the question of the massacre at Santa Cruz in East Timor. In particular, will he urge that the Indonesians should immediately abandon the trial of the two East Timorese survivors and press for a full United Nations investigation? Finally, will he make it clear, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has done, that British aid and trade depend on Indonesia seeking an agreed solution and ending its illegal occupation of East Timor.

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that our trade with Indonesia depends on a resolution to that question, that is a new and rather remarkable policy statement. The hon. Gentleman must not beg policy in that way. If he does, his place on even the Opposition Front Bench will be at stake. He is, however, right about the basic seriousness of the problem, which I discussed with the Indonesian Foreign Minister—as, perhaps, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has done. The report published by the Indonesian Government and the action that they subsequently took—for example, against certain military commanders involved in the incident—show that they are not concerned simply with a cover-up. I agree that further action needs to be taken. We are in close touch with the Community and the United Nations about how the issue should be progressed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States Government regarding that country's aid and trade embargo against Vietnam and its veto against Vietnam's membership of the IMF and the World bank.

We regularly discuss those issues in the relevant forums.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the United States still appears to be at war with Vietnam and that it is blocking all aid and trade in the International Monetary Fund and World bank and through misuse of the COCOM regulations? Only recently vice-president Quayle remarked that most of the refugees in Hong Kong are political—which, as the Secretary of State will be aware, led to a halving of applications for voluntary repatriation. No quantity of private representations in the relevant forums will make any difference. It is about time that the Government said something publicly to the psychopaths who run American foreign policy, with a view to achieving change.

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that United States Government policy is a matter for the United States. Now that change is coming, we are trying to ensure that Vietnam will have access to international financial institutions. We already keep under review financial contributions to the support group, because clearing the arrears to the IFIs is absolutely critical. Those to the IMF already amount to £108 million, and to the Asian Development bank, $6 million. There is no United Kingdom trade embargo. This country is Vietnam's fifth largest investor, at some $143—6 million. British industry is taking a clear interest in the opportunities that exist in Vietnam, and I hope that others will follow our example.

While I cannot associate myself with some of the language used by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), many people feel that it is high time that the United States modernised its economic relations with Vietnam and started to observe the common action programme agreed between 24 countries in respect of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. In view of the events surrounding the Haitian boat people who attempted to enter the United States, does it make any sense for that country to continue opposing the implementation of the common action programme?

We consistently encourage observance of the common action programme in respect of Vietnamese boat people and in the light of events in other parts of the world, such as that to which my right hon. Friend referred. We have done well in trying to ensure that we could help Vietnamese migrants—more than 20,000 of whom have returned from all over the region. The success of our work, with the full support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, leads us to believe that the American Government would do better to adopt a plan similar to our own.

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

The peace process continued in a fourth round of bilateral negotiations in Washington last week. A regional settlement remains an important and realistic aim. It is encouraging that all parties remain determined to continue the process. I strongly applaud Mr. Baker's continued commitment to pushing for a settlement and we will maintain our full support of that effort.

I am sure that the Secretary of State recognises the sensitivities of the middle east peace process. As he knows that the Syrians spent the money that they received for their support during the Gulf war on sophisticated missiles from North Korea—all of which are pointing towards Israel—can he reassure the House that Britain is not getting involved in that arms process? Will he confirm the inaccuracy of reports stating that British Aerospace is involved with Egyptian scientists in uprating scud B missiles for use by the Egyptian army? Surely we must keep out of that arms process, if we are to maintain our nation's influence in the peace process that we all hope will succeed.

The position regarding the supply of arms to Syria remains as it was when Ministers were last questioned about it in the House. As for Egypt, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is seriously suggesting that it is about to launch an attack on Israel, or is to be feared in that connection. Egypt's pioneering efforts in regard to peacemaking are well established and respected, and I do not consider such a line of questioning helpful.

Now that the Palestinians have presented serious proposals on autonomy, does my right hon. Friend agree that no progress can be made unless Israel responds by agreeing to freeze the illegal settlements, and by abiding by the Geneva convention? In that context, is not the continued closure of Bir Zeit university, which was announced the other day, an intolerable provocation, and should not it be condemned?

Clearly, it is good that the Israelis and the Palestinians are sitting around a table in Washington, and that each side is advancing ideas for the future of the occupied territories. That is a considerable plus. I have not yet studied the Palestinian proposals, which, I believe, were tabled only yesterday, but I hope that there will now be proper discussion of the proposals that are on the table.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Israeli ambassador to discuss the Government's policy on the occupied territories.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no specific plans to meet the ambassador, but both he and I have met him recently. We are in regular contact with the Israeli Government at the highest level on this issue.

Will the Minister take time in the next week, as a matter of urgency, to meet the Israeli ambassador and tell him about the feeling in the country generally that the Israeli Government are literally getting away with murder? I refer to the case of Mustapha Akkawi, who was killed after being tortured in prison just over a week ago.

Like the hon. Lady, we believe that the fourth Geneva convention—the protocol—applies to the occupied territories. When grave breaches of the convention occur, we raise them frequently, and directly, with the Israelis. The incident mentioned by the hon. Lady is clearly deplorable, as are the deportations that occur from time to time and the closures of universities, about which we have also protested.

Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that, in recent years, several hundred Arabs have been murdered by terrorists for co-operating with the Israelis? Does he accept that those brutal killings, which are still taking place, do not help the peace process?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the pattern of killing involving those who are described as collaborators. That is dreadful and we deplore it, as we deplore all violence. It emphasises the importance of trying to push ahead with the peace process that is now under way.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest view of the prospects for long-term peace (a) in Mogadishu and southern Somalia and (b) in northern Somalia.

The situation is very grim for the innocent people of Somalia. We welcome the United Nations initiative on Somalia. We hope that the factions will honour their commitment to a ceasefire in Mogadishu. This must be the first step towards national reconciliation.

I am grateful for the Minister's reply and I know that she will have been as horrified as the rest of us by the images and the conflict that was reported from Somalia last weekend. Does she agree that one unfortunate thing about the United Nations effort to seek peace between the factions in the south is the implication that those factions, together, represent a Government? Does she agree that the factions that are fighting in the south have no claim to represent the north, which has the main link with the Somali community in this country, and that all factions in the regions of Somalia must be involved in reaching a settlement that can be expected to last?

It is extremely important that all the factions—not just the clans but the sub-clans—in northern, southern and central Somalia come together under the United Nations plan for the ceasefire. I sent one of our officials to Mogadishu and northern Somalia just over a week ago. He reports that stores and vehicles belonging to the Save the Children Fund and Médecins sans Frontieres—MSF—have been looted and that individuals have been abused. If that is starting again, it is as bad as what is going on in Mogadishu. It requires all people to be involved in a ceasefire and a total cessation of hostilities if the aid that we are willing to send—we have sent£8 million to Somalia since early last year—is to get to the people who desperately need it.

Given that the appalling tragedy in the Horn of Africa will not end until there is peace, and given the changes in the pattern of the United Nations' work in recent years, which our Government have so actively supported, does the Minister think that we are now reaching a stage where British troops could be deployed under a United Nations banner in humanitarian action as a precursor to effective aid?

In northern Iraq, we have used British troops to help in that situation. We need a UN relief plan for Somalia as soon as possible. I cannot foretell what proposals it will contain, but without an effective ceasefire no one can be deployed. Having talked to James Jonah following his visit and having seen the national reconciliation plan, I am prepared to consider what is necessary. But we should be very careful not to expect to send troops all over the world. I believe that there are ways of getting local people to participate in their own ceasefire with some help from outside, but it should not need mass troop movements to do it.

The Minister will he aware of the valuable contribution that is made by members of the Somali community in this country and of the tremendous work that is done on their behalf by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Since only the United Nations can do the job of peacemaking, is the Minister concerned that just over half the value of the assessments on individual countries for last year has been paid, and will she therefore press other members of the international community to ensure that they give the United Nations the resources to do that necessary peacemaking and peacekeeping job?

The hon. Gentleman may already have guessed that we have been pressing others to play their part in the important work in which the United Nations is engaged. I shall add that to the list of discussions that I shall be having shortly with other assisting countries who are aiming to relieve the awful effects of the wars, wherever they may be occurring.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a tragedy if law and order is beginning to break down in the north of Somalia, in what is, after all, the old British Somaliland and is now known to local people as Somaliland? If it is breaking down, it is to some extent because the international community has not recognised the separate nature, if not the independence, of that part of Somalia. Will she do everything within her power, with our European Community partners, to ensure that all the people of Somaliland are listened to, not just the factions in the south who, after all, have an Italian connection rather than a British one?

I cannot speak too highly of all the British people who have been in the northern part of Somalia seeking to give help and to assist. They will go on doing so, but they can be effective only if the fighting which seems to have broken out and the looting that I described cease. It is not a question whether it is a separate country —it obviously is not. The relative stability in the months following the purported declaration of independence back in May last year was very welcome and we must do all that we can to re-establish it, but sheer names on pieces of paper will not do so. We must have a relief plan that the United Nations can implement throughout Somalia if there is to be peace and if the people are to be relieved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Her Majesty's Government's principal goals during the United Kingdom presidency of the EC.

Our first job will be to run an efficient presidency. We aim to complete the single market, prepare for enlargement of the Community, support democracy and reform in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe, and prepare the ground for carrying out the Maastricht treaty.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will remain firm against raising the present European Community budget ceiling and that they will continue to encourage EC financing arrangements based on supply-side economics, not on the massive transfers of money between one country and another through the Commission?

We had a first skirmish on that at the Council on Monday. I do not believe that the Commissioners justified their proposal to raise the ceiling. There is headroom within the existing ceiling—for example, we are not in favour of financing an interventionist industrial policy or increased spending on the common agricultural policy.

If the Foreign Secretary is still here—which I doubt—when Britain takes over the presidency of the European Community, will he insist that some race legislation is passed in the European Community to protect black and minority ethnic citizens when they move around Europe?

I do not think that that is a matter within the competence of the Community.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our European partners are not losing sight of the need to make the European Commission democratically accountable, any more than they are losing sight of the need to conform to the European Commission directives that we scrupulously honour?

When I talk about implementation of the Maastricht treaty I mean that one of the things that must be done is to set up the arrangements agreed at Maastricht by which member states can be taken to the European Court and punished if they do not carry out obligations that they have assumed.

Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the Government's principal goals during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community should be to secure recognition and acceptance of national boundaries by all member states?

I do not think that there is any question in the Community of the boundaries between the member states.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the excellent proposals tabled by Sir David Williamson for the reform of the bureaucracy running the European Community? Does he agree that if—in his admirable phrase—we are to prevent the Commission interfering in the nooks and crannies of everyday life, it would be greatly to the advantage of all European countries if there were a thorough overhaul of the mechanics for the administration of the Commission?

Yes, indeed. What the Commission has to do now there is a new article in the Maastricht treaty is to ensure that its practice complies with it and that it does not encourage the drafting of legislation or the working out of projects on matters that can perfectly well be dealt with by member states, or even closer to the citizen, and that applies to English and French cheeses.

Of course, this Government will not be responsible for Britain during the presidency—they will be watching from the Opposition Front Bench. That is fortunate for Britain. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Government's attitude in Maastricht has left a crippling legacy of anger and resentment among our Community partners about the double opt-out, and that it has even led to a denunciation of the Prime Minister and the Government by their own right-wing allies in the European Community? The new Labour Government who will be elected five weeks tomorrow will immediately sign the social charter and set about getting the social chapter firmly into the treaty itself. By doing so, and by being at the heart of Europe, that Government will be able to represent Britain properly during the presidency.

There seems, not for the first time, to be a division between the Opposition Front Bench and Back Benches. Opposition Back-Bench Members have been questioning my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself on the basis that we shall be here for a long time, whereas Front-Bench spokesmen still nurse the occasional illusion. Let us not shatter that illusion for a week or so. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is not usually given to fanciful rhetoric, and if he studies the movement of opinion in Europe he must know that since Maastricht more and more people have begun to comment on the future of Europe in the same sort of way as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I did before. There is no doubt about the direction in which the intellectual tide is flowing. On the whole, that is a good thing. Another reason that we should be against the Labour party is that we should not put them in a position to buck the trend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assistance he is providing to help political and economic reform in Russia.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom is assisting the process of political and economic reform in Russia.

Our relations with the Russian Federation are excellent. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will visit Russia on 9 March. We have strongly supported Russia's application to join the IMF. We have pledged more than £80 million in bilateral aid to Russia and other republics of the former Soviet Union. I have already given the House the details about Community aid in which we participate.

Will the Foreign Secretary also help to provide a breathing space for the Russian Government, by supporting their call for a suspension of interest payments on the debt? Would not it be a disaster if Russia ended up having to pay as much in interest rates as it received in aid? Would not that fatally undermine the radical, bold and much-needed programme that President Yeltsin is now trying to push through?

The crucial factor is that Russia and the other republics should be eligible for macroeconomic aid on an IMF basis. For that to happen there has to be an arrangement about the former Soviet Union's debts. An agreement has been reached. It is important that it should be honoured and that republics such as the Ukraine, which have not yet found a way of doing so, should join in the process. That is a necessary part of providing the kind of aid for which there is an increasingly strong case.

Is not one of the problems of Russia in its current economic difficulties that the country might turn in on itself and revert to its usual historic xenophobic tendencies? Is not it our job to keep open the window on the west? What are we doing in terms of establishing contacts right across the range with Russia, to keep it closely tied in with western Europe?

We are doing more and more, with all kinds of projects. I shall name just the latest, launched yesterday evening—the British Emergency Action for Russia and the Republics Trust, founded by Lady Braithwaite, the wife of the ambassador--which is trying to bring together in an imaginative way charities and non-governmental organisations in this country to make contacts and help to build up that kind of self-help in Russia. That kind of spontaneous effort, by all kinds of people in this country, will he just as important in the long run as what Governments do.

Does the Secretary of State agree that until now, there has been little to encourage the new democracies of central and eastern Europe to change their minds about the EC being a rich man's club? Will he do all that he can to ensure that within the EC, there is some agreement about how we shall tackle the enormous problems, which will not be tackled by charity, however welcome that is? If we do not do that, shall not we see hordes of people sweeping from eastern Europe into western Europe simply looking for jobs?

That is right and that is why we have pressed energetically for almost two years for the association agreements, which include trade and political discussions, with Poland, with Hungary and with Czechoslovakia. That is why we are now pressing for trade and co-operation agreements with the republics further to the east. Effort on all those fronts, including trade and being willing to open our markets to goods from those republics, is necessary. We shall continue to press for that and, as I have said, it is one of the priorities of our presidency.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to persuade Russia that its political stability depends on the stability of the region as a whole, especially its neighbours? To that end, will he encourage Russia to use its good offices to intervene in the appalling situation in Nagorny Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan, if Russia is to win its spurs as a member of the Security Council and ultimately as a member of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe?

I urged especially Mr. Kozyrev, the Russian Foreign Minister, to persevere with his efforts. Realistically speaking, it will be a little time before there is an answer to the terrifying question between Armenia and Azerbaijan. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will go to that part of the former Soviet Union next week and I look forward to hearing what he recommends.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what developments there have been in relation to the attempts by Her Majesty's Government to secure the extradition of the two Libyan nationals accused of bombing flight PA 103 in 1988; and whether he will make a statement.

The Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 731 on 21 January endorsing certain requests put to Libya on 27 November by the United Kingdom, the United States and France in connection with the bombings of flights Pan Am 103 and UTA 772. Those included the request that Libya surrender those accused of the bombing of flight Pan Am 103 for trial in Scotland or the United States. The secretary-general will report formally on the Libyan response to the Security Council later today. I have, however, seen an advance copy of the report, which makes it clear that Libya has still failed to comply with resolution 731.

Will the Minister confirm that under the terms of the 1971 Montreal convention, which was signed both by Libya and by Britain, any dispute can be referred for arbitration to the International Court of Justice? Now that Libya has referred the matter to the International Court of Justice, will Britain desist from trying to get the United Nations Security Council to impose sanctions or take military action against Libya until the International Court of Justice has ruled on the matter?

Her Majesty's Government have the greatest respect for the International Court of Justice and we look to co-operating with it. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Libyan Government have been taking steps in parallel—that is, they have made an application to the ICJ and, at the same time, they are making a response to the UN Security Council. They are working in parallel. That being so, it is appropriate for us to act in a similar way.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that, apart from the political complexities, the matter is straightforward? Two suspected murderers have had international arrest warrants issued against them and the Government's intention is to pursue those arrest warrants. Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that there will be no secret deal and no secret negotiations, but that the international arrest warrants will be executed as soon as the opportunity arises?

Her Majesty's Government have put the position plainly and it has been endorsed by the Security Council. There is a prima facie case against two named individuals which is sufficiently strong to justify the issue of warrants. We are anxious—indeed, we are determined—to ensure that those individuals appear before a competent court as speedily as possible. We think that the courts of Scotland are well placed to judge them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to have discussions about the Cyprus problem with his European Community colleagues.

No. The EC has made clear its continuing full support for the United Nations Secretary-General's mission of good offices, which offers the best hope of progress towards a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the intercommunal dispute. We shall continue to give full and active support to the United Nations.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is it not time that the Government stood up and were counted by telling the Turkish Government to remove their troops from occupied Cyprus and saying that if they do not do so the British Government will veto any attempt by Turkey to join the EC?

I share, and I believe that the whole House shares, the hon. Gentleman's frustration at the tragic situation in Cyprus. But I am sure that, as a reasonable man, he will agree on reflection that the wisest course of action for the Government is to continue to support the secretary-general's efforts. That is what we shall do. Of course, we shall also continue to encourage the other guarantor powers,—Greece and Turkey—to play an equally constructive role. I am sure that that is the way forward.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his clear statement of the Government's policy on Cyprus. Does he agree that Cyprus's application to join the EC provides a positive opportunity for other EC states, including Britain, to take a positive attitude to finding a solution to Cyprus? I hope that our Government will encourage other EC states within the United Nations fully to back up the United Nations and put pressure on Turkey to find an early solution.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and, indeed, to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and all Members of Parliament for their continued interest in the matter. The EC application was referred on 30 September 1990 to the Commission for an opinion, in accordance with the treaty. When that opinion emerges, we shall, of course, examine it with our partners. But we remain keen, as many partners do, to strengthen relations between the Community and Cyprus.

Surely the Minister ought to be a great deal more forthright and clear on the subject than that. Will the United Kingdom advocate the early admission of Cyprus to the European Community? Will he say that the United Kingdom will not agree to Turkish membership of the EC so long as any Turkish troops are present in Cyprus against the wishes of the present sovereign Government of Cyprus? Does he agree that Turkey should not be admitted to the European Community until its human rights record is rectified? Will he give active support to a federal solution for Cyprus which does justice to both communities within the integrity of the sovereignty of the republic of Cyprus?

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has been rushing up and down the country making what I take it he regards as encouraging noises to Cypriots, Kashmiris and others. British Cypriots are well able to judge what weight to place on his remarks. The policy of Her Majesty's Government, which is to support the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations is the wisest policy for both the British Government and other Governments in the Community. No amount of faffing around by the right hon. Gentleman will convince either our allies or Cypriots.

The presence of Turkish troops is clearly a hazard which makes life difficult in seeking a compromise agreement. Is it not clear that the northern Cypriots are afraid that if the troops go they will simply be overrun? Is there not a case for the EC to reassure both sides that they can live in peace if the troops go? I underline that the presence of the troops is causing the problem at present.

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that a significant reduction in Turkish troops in northern Cyprus would improve the climate for a negotiated settlement. However, we also have to recognise that the Turks are unlikely to agree to that in advance of a settlement. My hon. Friend and the House will be aware that our contribution and support for the secretary-general is not merely a matter of words. We make a substantial troop contribution to the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus, UNFICYP, which we think is a tangible measure of the efforts that we are giving to peace there.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit the former Soviet Union to discuss matters relating to technology transfer and aid for the republics.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in January and discussed such question then. I visited St. Petersburg also in January.

Does the Minister believe that a vitally important stabilisation fund for Russia can be made to work successfully without tackling the problems of food supply in Russian markets, especially when we consider the consequences for money supply and wage inflation?

The hon. Gentleman will know from our debate this morning that the United Kingdom is fully ready to play its part in providing the financial assistance, on a multilateral basis, which is likely to be necessary to support an IMF programme—such as the stabilisation fund or some other suitable instrument—for the former Soviet Union, and especially for Russia. I sought to explain to him then and before that we not only need to sort out finance but to get on with distributing the food that they can grow, with the production of the food that they do not grow, and sort out their system of feeding the people. That is why, through the know-how fund, endless new ideas and help available, which are being paid for by this country to assist with the production and distribution of food. That work will continue, but so will work on economic reconstruction.