To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Trinidad and Tobago.

United Kingdom relations with Trinidad and Tobago are good. Several ministerial exchanges have taken place in recent months.

Is the Minister aware that I have just returned from Trinidad and Tobago, where I led a delegation on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association? Representatives of 26 Commonwealth countries were there. They are concerned about what their relationship will be with this country post-Maastricht. As this is the first day of Britain's assumption of the presidency of the European Community, will my hon. Friend reassure the Commonwealth, whose ties with Britain go back far longer than those with the European Community, that relationships with the Commonwealth will continue to be excellent and, most important, that the British Government will do everything that they can to ensure that the favoured trading conditions continue and expand, not only with Britain but with all European Community countries?

I share my hon. Friend's appreciation of the value of the Commonwealth and of the CPA in particular, which plays an essential role in reinforcing the ties between Commonwealth Parliaments and parliamentarians. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to our ties with the Commonwealth, which are long and deep. We have worked hard to achieve the best possible trading arrangements for the developing countries of the Commonwealth within the framework of the Lomé convention, and we shall continue to do so.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy on purchasing; and what priority he gives to British suppliers.

In accordance with Government guidelines, the policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to purchase goods and services on a value-for-money basis and in accordance with our international obligations. British suppliers are used where they are competitive on quality, price and delivery.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but will he comment on reports that the British ambassador to the United Nations has traded in his British-built Rolls-Royce for an American-built Lincoln Continental? What image does he think that gives to British industry and what hope does it give to British car workers? Can he imagine any other car manufacturing country that would behave in a similar fashion?

The Rolls-Royce is the finest car in the world. It will succeed in international markets, regardless of whether Her Majesty's ambassador in Washington abides by the criteria that I described. I am delighted that he does.

Does my right hon. Friend, whom I welcome to the Dispatch Box, have regular discussions with Her Majesty's Treasury about seeking value for money in the procurement of items for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? What is the view of his Department's officials, who have to make the decisions, about the directive to impose on the United Kingdom a minimum level of value added tax of 15 per cent? At some future date they would surely welcome a VAT rate below 15 per cent., as would all of us, but that, apparently, is precluded for the next four years.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I welcome his interest in VAT. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is spending £164 million in the current year on buying in goods and services. In the context of the increased globalisation of international trade, it is difficult to calculate the detail of that expenditure with the precision that both my hon. Friend and I would like, but I am sure that he will be as interested as I was to know that it is estimated that more than 85 per cent. of the expenditure is with British-registered companies.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will implement a moratorium on United Kingdom nuclear tests.

No. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom has a continuing requirement to conduct a minimum programme of nuclear tests to maintain the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent.

On 8 April the French Government decided to impose a moratorium on nuclear testing and, following that, President Mitterrand made an offer to negotiate with other countries willing to go along the same lines. Also, expert opinion in the United States believes that nuclear testing is not necessary to maintain the value of nuclear deterrents. In view of all that, when can we expect the Government to start acting in a positive and constructive manner, or will we continue to stand on the sidelines and wait to see what happens?

France's nuclear-testing requirements are matters for the French Government and the moratorium has no direct bearing on the United Kingdom's policy. The United Kingdom's test programme in Nevada is conducted in accordance with the 1963 partial test ban treaty. It is minimal and poses no threat to the environment or public health.

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

Her Majesty's Government were horrified by the events in Bangkok in mid-May, about which we expressed serious concern at the time. We look to the inquiry which is now under way to identify those responsible and to take action. We wish to maintain friendly and constructive relations with Thailand. We welcome the appointment of an interim Government and the announcement of new elections on 13 September.

We all welcome the fact that the new Prime Minister has promised elections in the next few months and I am pleased that the Minister has condemned the atrocities that took place in May. However, does he also condemn the amnesty that has been granted to those behind the slaughter of unarmed demonstrators, and will he assure the House that the Government will do all in their power to pressurise the Thai Government to use the investigative committees to bring to justice those responsible for the atrocities? Does the Minister agree that no new regime can be credible unless the guilty people in the army and the Government are brought to trial?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. Her Majesty's Government will continue to make our views known forcefully to the Government of Thailand.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when was the last visit by a Foreign Office Minister to Hong Kong to discuss the democratic rights of the people of Hong Kong.

The Minister of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad)—visited Hong Kong in May. I hope to visit Hong Kong from 26 to 28 July.

Why are the British Government trying to distance themselves from the democracy movement in Hong Kong? Do the Government stand by the view that 30 members should be directly elected to the Legislative Council by 1995? Is it not true that the best defence for the people of Hong Kong would be full democarcy by 1997, not pieces of paper exchanged between the Chinese and British Governments?

That depends on whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is important that the arrangements in 1995 should continue after 1997. We do. We have said that we shall discuss the 1995 elections with the Chinese, with the aim of ensuring as much continuity as possible. The new governor will be going out there this week. He will want to consult widely and put his views to us. That will take him some time, so I shall not announce any decisions on this matter when I go to Hong Kong at the end of this month.

Is it not a fact that fewer than 10 per cent. of those eligible to register to vote actually did so and that the main winner in the election was the apathy party? That being so, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is Her Majesty's Government's view that the best interests of the people of Hong Kong continue to be served when the relationship between Britain and China is better rather than worse?

That is highly desirable. There is a wide range of views in the House and in Hong Kong on the subject of the 1995 elections. Many different views are expressed by people from Hong Kong who come to see me. Mr. Patten must consult widely when he gets there, weigh up the views and the different factors, including the one that my hon. Friend mentioned, and then let us have his advice.

When the Foreign Secretary goes gallivanting to Hong Kong, will he call on the Hong Kong business man whom the Prime Minister met just before the general election? Taxpayers' money, supposedly, paid for the flight. When the Prime Minister got to Hong Kong, all he was bothered about was raising money for the Tory party and getting money from Hong Kong business men. Is the Foreign Secretary going to do the same?

I expect to keep in touch on Hong Kong matters with a range of opinions, including business opinion in Hong Kong.

Was not the principal failure of the 1919 treaty of Versailles that it rode roughshod over the democratic aspirations of many peoples? Can my right hon. Friend name any other instance in modern times when a colonial power has handed over a colony to another power in defiance of the wishes of the local people? What has happened to the hallowed principle of self-determination?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are following the agreement that was reached in 1984 with the Chinese Government. That and subsequent agreements arrange for a steady increase in the directly elected members of LegCo. That, of course, has never happened before under any British Government or under any Government in Hong Kong. Eighteen members were directly elected in 1991 and 20 will be elected under the Basic Law in 1995. It is that second figure which we need to discuss. I hope that my hon. Friend does not believe that the issue depends entirely on the number of directly elected members. There are other constituencies in Hong Kong in LegCo, and the new governor will want to consider the range of the subject, not just the number of directly elected members.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that we welcome the robust declaration by Chris Patten to the Chinese, which was widely reported today, to keep their hands off Hong Kong for the next five years while we retain responsibility? However, will the Foreign Secretary guarantee that when the Chinese put the heat on and try to blackmail us on issues such as the airport, he will stand firm behind Chris Patten and maintain our right to appoint members—whoever we wish—to the Executive Council, to extend democracy by extending direct elections to the Executive Council and to bring into force a system that protects human rights not only for the next five years, but well beyond? We have that responsibility to the people of Hong Kong and we must exert it fully over the next five years.

The three matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are within our jurisdiction under the agreement and under the joint declaration between now and 1997. Not only the new governor but the Minister of Stale—my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury—have made it plain to the Chinese that, in particular, appointments to ExCo are a matter for the governor, with my approval.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to renegotiate the terms of the Maastricht treaty.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in the House on 25 June and 29 June, the Maastricht treaty was negotiated in good faith by all member states and we intend to stand by it.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the comments made yesterday evening by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom presidency of the Commission provides a priceless opportunity for the Government to set the European agenda? If he agrees, will he accept that that will entail positive steps being taken by the Government? One popular measure would be the endorsement by the Government of the protocol in the Maastricht treaty on the social chapter. Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that such popular measures are essential to stem the tide of opinion inside the House and in the country, which is clearly running against the Maastricht treaty?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on both points. If we followed his advice, the results would certainly be unpopular and would even more certainly destroy jobs in this country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that article 236 of the treaty of Rome would appear to invalidate any treaty of Maastricht that excluded the Danes? Does he agree also that there can be no question of the British Government letting anybody down over the treaty of Maastricht, and that no one could ever be accused of breaking his word, given that it is the sovereign right of this Parliament to make such a decision?

Of course that is right. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Maastricht with the terms that he asked for and later obtained. Those terms were approved in advance by the House of Commons, and they were again approved when he returned from Maastricht.

Will the Foreign Secretary face the fact that, in so far as it relates to the United Kingdom, the Maastricht treaty is, to coin a phrase, an opt-out too far? Does he accept that if he abandoned the social chapter opt-out, which would require no renegotiation of the treaty, he could at one stroke benefit millions of British workers and, in addition, give the Danish electorate a signal of real change in the Maastricht treaty? Such a move would also have the bonus of irritating alarmingly at least one lady down the Corridor.

If we did that, we should also be abandoning British business and people—

No.

The hon. Gentleman should ask the CBI. In particular, we should be abandoning people who are unemployed and looking for jobs and those now in employment who would lose their jobs if the regulations were applied in this country.

I fully endorse my right hon. Friend's policy of building on our version of the Maastricht treaty rather than destroying it or throwing it over. But will my right hon. Friend undertake in meetings with the Commissioners, today and in future, to make it clear that, when it comes to redefining the functions of nation states and Community institutions, the nation states and not the Commissioners should do the redefining and decide who does what?

That is right, and the treaties have come to pass through the agreement of member states. In the Lisbon conclusions last weekend, what we were asked to do, and what we began to do in conversations with the Commission this morning, was to take the doctrine of minimum interference or subsidiarity—whatever one likes to call it—and start putting it into practice in advance of the treaty of Maastricht and in advance of ratification. That will mean a great deal of work by the Commission and by us during the British presidency, in identifying how we can make that doctrine not just a principle in a future treaty but something that guides the daily life of the Community in terms of future proposals and decisions already on the Community statute book.

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

We maintain diplomatic relations with Sudan, but our relationship is not an easy one. Our main concerns are the regime's record on human rights, its apparent lack of resolve in combating international terrorism, its failure to co-operate in the provision of humanitarian aid and the need to make progress towards more accountable Government accept-able to all parts of the country.

What initiatives or help are the Government making available to end the tragic civil war in Sudan, and what contacts or meetings have we had with democratic political movements in that country?

The truth is that we have precious few levers with the Government of Sudan. I welcome what the Nigerians have been doing in persuading the parties to hold discussions in Abuja, and we hope that those discussions will be profitable. We also make our views clear to the Government of Sudan on every possible occasion—including today, here.

My right hon. and learned Friend must be aware that the talks in Abuja ended without any positive result. Does he accept that any talks aimed at solving the problems of the civil-war-stricken country of Sudan must seek a solution that is based on multi-party democracy, a secular state and a constitution that enshrines human rights and individual rights? Surely, as the old imperial power, the British Government must have some opportunity to instigate talks. Perhaps the Government could talk to their partner from the old imperial days— Egypt—about instigating such talks.

We must face the fact that the Government of Sudan are difficult. The objectives that my hon. Friend has outlined are entirely right. We want to see a multicultural, multilingual, pluralistic society in Sudan that is committed to democratic institutions, but our ability to bring that about is remarkably limited. For example, we do not give developmental aid to the country because of its past policies. Our ability to persuade the Government of Sudan to do that which is right is less than we should like.

Will the Minister bear in mind that there are many refugees, both internal and external, in Sudan? They live in the most desperate poverty in great danger to themselves. They suffer a severe degree of ill health. In those circumstances, is he prepared to reconsider the statement that he just made about aid to Sudan? Will he consider whether humanitarian aid can be sent to refugees who are the victims of civil wars throughout the region for which they bear no responsibility?

The hon. Gentleman is right, but I said that we gave no developmental aid to Sudan. We have in place a humanitarian aid programme. We have contributed more than £53 million in humanitarian relief to Sudan since the beginning of the present food crisis in 1990. We make a distinction between developmental aid, which we do not give, and humanitarian aid, which we do give.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards democracy in South Africa.

Before the negotiations were suspended, the Convention for a Democratic South Africa had made remarkable progress in securing agreement on transforming South Africa into a non-racial democratic society. That makes all the more tragic the recent increase in violence. I remain convinced that the interests of the majority of South Africans are best served by concerted efforts to put the negotiations back on track as quickly as possible.

May I please begin by mentioning that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset. West (Sir J. Spicer) is missing from his place in the Chamber today because he is organising the parliamentary plunge on behalf of Macmillan nurses, which is well on the way to raising a substantial sum of money for that well-known charity.

It is clear that the problem of violence lies at the heart of the difficulty and mistrust. That is why we are keen to help Judge Goldstone and his commission of inquiry into public violence and intimidation. Dr. Waddington of Reading university is helping the commission in its work. I can tell the House that, in addition, two senior Metropolitan police officers, Commander Tom Laidlaw and Detective Superintendent David Don, are going out to South Africa to help Judge Goldstone with his work. That is a practical example of how we can help to curb the violence and thus reduce the mistrust.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the awesome scale of the disaster that may face South Africa as a result of the breakdown of the negotiations? As a matter of urgency, will he activate a decision taken by the European Council to send the Foreign Ministers of Denmark, Portugal and the United Kingdom—the troika —to South Africa to investigate what is happening? The Foreign Secretary will learn there at first hand of the desperate need of the people of South Africa for outside intervention and influence to resolve matters.

I am in touch with the South Africans about that. For example. I telephoned the South African Foreign Minister last night. At the right time and with the right purpose, a visit by the troika of Ministers—which I would lead—could be useful. I am anxious to do it at the right time, in a way that will help to bring people back to the conference table, and not merely as a prestige gesture.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cause of democracy in South Africa is ill served by those who would pin all blame for the breakdown in negotiations on one party? The obvious answer is to get the talks going again as soon as possible. Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that the British Government wish the outcome of the talks to be a constitution in which all racial groups can play their part, and that it would not be in our interests for South Africa to slide down the road to one-party rule?

It is clearly for the parties who have been sitting round the negotiating table in South Africa to decide among themselves what their country's future constitution should be. It is tragic that they made a lot of progress, as my hon. Friend knows, and were separated by a narrow but important difference, before trust was undermined and the conference temporarily suspended as a result of the violence. I confirm that the answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is yes.

In condemning the recent violence in South Africa, would the Secretary of State impress upon the South African Government that the patience of the African National Congress is running out? Does he agree with the view expressed in early-day motion 347 that a re-imposition of the sports boycott on South Africa would be appropriate to show international condemnation?

Everyone has to show patience and it is a bad sign when people start talking about patience being exhausted. Great reserves of patience will continue to be needed in South Africa—not for apartheid, but for the difficult business of replacing it with a democratic constitution. A sports boycott would not be a good idea. It is for sporting bodies to decide and not for Governments, but to start to go down that weary road again would give entirely the wrong signal.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to recognise the republic of Kosova.

We have no plans to recognise the republic of Kosova.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the 90 per cent. ethnic Albanian population in Kosova have been regularly and cruelly oppressed by the Serbian military and police, and that in a recent poll—with turnout of approximately 80 per cent., which is creditable by our democratic standards—99 per cent. of the population voted for autonomy?

And that surely must be the right answer. I agree with my hon. Friend. As he says, Kosova is largely inhabited by people of Albanian origin, but it is also regarded by Serbs as the heartland of their country. A few months ago Lord Carrington's peace conference suggested the same answer as my hon. Friend—full autonomy.

While accepting the Government's reservations about the employment of ground forces in the Balkans, if it becomes clear that combat aircraft and Royal Navy ships are necessary to achieve the purpose of the United Nations, will the Government make such resources available to the UN?

We are considering, almost daily, in the Security Council and with our partners in Europe and in NATO, what help we can give, first with the humanitarian air lift. Our planes are standing by, ready for the go-ahead which the UN has asked us to await before we start to send supplies to Sarajevo. We have to look ahead—

The question is out of order.

I am answering the supplementary question of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). We have to look ahead, and I am sure that we would play our part, although not with ground troops, in any future UN plans for humanitarian relief.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary's answer to the orginial question. I advise caution before making the same mistake in prematurely recognising Kosovo as we made with Croatia and Bosnia. Does he realise that to give in to those who want Kosovo to be recognised prematurely would simply send the same message to the minority Serbs in that region as was sent to those in Croatia? They would fell that they had been abandoned, and such action would play into the hands of the extreme Serbian nationalists in Belgrade.

I do not want to add to what I have said about Kosovo. On Croatia, which was one of the republics of the former Yugoslav federation, there was an argument about timing, but I am sure that it was not wrong to recognise it. Last week, we followed up that action by establishing full diplomatic relations with Croatia, which I hope that the hon. Gentleman would consider to be right. I hope to name the first British ambassador in Zagreb soon.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the continued occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkish troops; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend recently met a delegation from the friends of Cyprus parliamentary group. He has received 10 letters on this subject this year. The problem of foreign troops in Cyprus is likely to be resolved only within an overall settlement of the Cyprus dispute. Recent proximity talks in New York chaired by the United Nations Secretary-General went well and will resume on 15 July. Dr. Boutros Ghali has expressed confidence of success, given the necessary political will from all parties. We continue to be active, both bilaterally and through the Security Council, in working to encourage progress.

What help has Britain given to the United Nations to try to broker a settlement to the illegal occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkish troops?

My hon. Friend is right that the United Nations offers the best hope of progress. It provides the necessary authority and impartiality to encourage the two communities to reach a mutually acceptable and lasting solution. The United Kingdom attended the talks at senior official level at the express invitation of the secretary-general. We have continual contact with all parties while trying to assist them in reaching an equitable settlement. We aim to remain particularly involved because of our status as a guarantor power.

As Greece, like Turkey, also has troops in Cyprus in excess of the number allowed by the treaty of guarantee, what representations has the Minister made to Greece about its occupation troops in southern Cyprus?

I believe that a resolution of troop numbers and all the issues that are so difficult in Cyprus will take place only in the context of an overall solution. We are working with the United Nations Secretary-General to achieve such a solution. The difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention is one of many that we would seek to resolve within that overall solution.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus is necessary for the protection of the Turkish Cypriots since international guarantees failed to protect them from massacre by Greek Cypriots in 1963, 1967 and again in 1974?

There is no doubt that a significant reduction in Turkish troops in northern Cyprus would improve the climate for a negotiated settlement. However, as I said to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), that is unlikely to take place other than in the context of a wider solution.

Given the continuing occupation by Turkish troops, what representations has the Minister made to the Turkish Government about the fate of the missing people, some of whom have families living in my constituency?

A few days ago, accompanied by one of the hon. Lady's hon. Friends, I received in the Foreign Office a group of Cypriots acting on behalf of the missing people. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: this is one of the most tragic aspects of the whole Cyprus dispute. What we can do is to continue to work as closely as possible with the United Nations to bring about the overall settlement within which I think that this problem would be resolved.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that most of those missing persons were killed by the Greek Cypriots?

The United Nations committee for missing persons has found it extremely difficult to obtain proper evidence from either side of the argument. I revert to the answer that I have given to other hon. and right hon. Members—this is one of the many tragic problems which will be resolved only in the context of an overall solution.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the most specific terms, allay the fears that have been expressed to me from authoritative quarters in Cyprus that in the current talks pressure is being put on the legitimate Government of Cyprus to make concessions that would water down the sovereignty of that official Government? Will the Minister state very specifically indeed that the British Government will not be a party to any settlement of the Cyprus problem unless that settlement is absolutely acceptable to the present legitimate Government of that country?

I repeat that our view of the way forward rests firmly on the concept of one country, two communities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to arrange for the essential elements of any treaty on European union to be circulated to every household.

The Government have no plans to do so. Copies of the treaty on European union and of the memoranda produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Her Majesty's Treasury are available to members of the public from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the precedent in the previous Parliament whereby certain aspects of Government policy were brought to the attention of every household. If the treaty on European union is in the best interests of the British people, why is my right hon. Friend so keen to stifle wider public debate by refusing the public a referendum and denying them the essential information on which to reach their own conclusions?

I do not think that the accusation of stifling debate on this matter can be levelled against this House, the press or the British public.

Will the Minister tell us why the Government, for the second time, are blocking the progress of the European Union (Public Information) Bill? What are his objections to the principles of that Bill? Can it be that he is afraid of the expenditure? Will he consider putting down a money resolution? Surely the expenditure involved would be a far less than that involved in the 19 charters, including the one just mentioned.

Unless I am mistaken, the Bill to which the hon. Member refers has been introduced at the back of the Chair. The fate of such Bills tends to lie in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, rather than in my hands.

Will my right hon. Friend think again about the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)? Does he accept that many of us who are not Euro-sceptics believe that there is a great deal to be said for thoroughly informing the people of this country about the benefits of Maastricht?

Of course I accept what my hon. Friend says. The Government have to judge very carefully. In the first instance, I am sure that the House will accept that copies of the Maastricht treaty were made available to the House quickly and in large quantities. Given the way in which the debate is developing, the Government will have to consider whether it would be in the interests of the House and of the country at large to make further information about the many benefits of the Maastricht treaty available to a wider public.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the priorities of the British presidency of the EC.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the United Kingdom current policy priorities for the EC presidency.

The House will debate that question tomorrow. We aim to complete the single market; make progress toward limiting the scope of Community interventions; complete future financing negotiations; prepare for enlargement of the Community; conclude, if possible, the GATT Uruguay round; and build stronger relations with central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. All those matters were usefully discussed with the Commission in London this morning.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's comments to the European Union of Women yesterday, is he worried that his priorities for the United Kingdom presidency will be blown off course by political spivs dressed in ermine?

The hon. Lady is getting her news from headlines. I would not have dreamed of calling anyone in either House, or outside, a spiv or a gazumper. What I was criticising was the suggestion that the Prime Minister should have put himself in that position.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that to understand how the Community works some Members of this House, as well as people outside, could also do with an information pack? After recent hysterical attacks on the European Commission, will the Government remind hon. Members that the Commission—including the two British Commissioners—speaks with one voice and that the Council of Ministers of sovereign member states makes the decisions which are supplied and proposed by the Commission unless it is delegated legislation? It is a weird notion that some hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that the European central bank should be in London but that we should not join European monetary union.

That question is an intriguing mix. It is important to make it clear that the Commission proposes and the Council of Ministers decides. What both the Commission and the Council need to do now—after the meeting in Lisbon and before they begin to discuss the merits of any proposal within the Community's competence—is to work out whether it is for the common good that the Community, rather than nation states, should do that. Unless it is clearly for the common good, it should be left to nation states.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that, during the British presidency, one of the highest priorities is given to support for the new Government of Israel and its determination to have a continued dialogue towards resolving the conflict there? Will he also take the opportunity, on behalf of the House, to wish the new Israeli Government every success when it is formed? I am sure that all hon. Members are pleased that that Government have won on their policies. Both Jews and Arabs in Israel have voted for policies which ensure that territorial compromise is the name of the game. We wish them every success in that continued dialogue.

That is gracefully expressed by the hon. Gentleman, who has a keen and continuing interest in the Palestinian problem. We shall do our best during our presidency to support the peace process and I join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that it will now resume with renewed impetus.

To deal with the high level of fraud in the European Community, particularly in relation to the common agricultural policy, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the provisions of the Maastricht treaty which deal with the extra powers given to the European Parliament to investigate the European Commission are carried through successfully?

Indeed, it is important that the provisions in the Maastricht treaty that enable the Parliament and, indeed, the Court of Auditors to do more, should be put into effect. We see no contradiction between that and the exercise that I have already described of restricting Community institutions' scope for intervention.

Consequent on the right hon. Gentleman's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), will the Minister express the anger of this House at the admission by the outgoing Prime Minister of Israel that he deliberately intended to sabotage the Madrid peace process? Will the right hon. Gentleman offer his congratulations to Mr. Rabin, not only on his excellent victory, but on his stated determination to speed up the talks with the Palestinians to try to achieve a settlement as quickly as possible? Above all, will he congratulate the electorate of Israel on voting to rescue the true identity of their country?

I have not seen Mr. Shamir's statement, so I cannot comment on that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent a warm message of congratulations and support to Mr. Rabin. We hope that the Government of Israel will be able, with the co-operation of others, which is also necessary—I am thinking of Syria and Palestine —to set the peace process going again with renewed impetus. That is important for us all. What was the right hon. Gentleman's last point?

My last point was about the decision of the Israeli electorate.

On the whole, I am in favour of congratulating electorates, particularly our own.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to have discussions with his European Community partners concerning the development of common European Community foreign policies.

I meet my European Community partners regularly to discuss the strengthening of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Maastricht treaty will enable Britain, through Europe, to exert much more influence in international affairs and thus protect British interests much more effectively?

What the Maastricht treaty does in that respect is to underline and strengthen the co-operation between member states of the Community in foreign affairs. It takes foreign affairs out of any possible conveyor belt into integration with the Commission's monopoly of initiative and the jurisdiction of the court. Like my hon. Friend, I believe that that is the right framework in which Community members should conduct their essential work together on foreign policy.

Will the Foreign Secretary try to convince the other Community Foreign Ministers to condemn the decision of the Government of Norway to resort to international piracy by walking out of the International Whaling Commission, which is meeting this week in Glasgow in my constituency? Does he agree that Norway's decision to return to the killing fields, thus turning the oceans of the world into bloodbaths with the tracking and butchering of those beautiful and important creatures, makes Norway singularly unsuitable for membership of the European Community?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made our position clear before the conference. We shall seek to persuade others, inside and outside the Community, that our position is reasonable and right.

Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary turn his attention to the letter in today's edition of The Times from the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Dr. Karadzik, explaining why they have initiated a ceasefire? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an extremely welcome development?

Of course I do. I congratulate The Times on resuming something of its ancient role in receiving such letters from all over the world. What counts is not the letter to The Times or radio broadcasts to the same effect, but whether the policy works on the ground. That is being tested in these hours. I hope, as the United Nations hopes, that within the next day the United Nations commander, General Mackenzie, will be able to tell us and others that as a result of the decision to which my hon. Friend referred Sarajevo airport is open for a regular flow of supplies. We shall then send in our supplies. It will clearly be important to continue that flow, to ensure that the road to Sarajevo is open and that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Red Cross can distribute supplies in Sarajevo. I hope that my hon. Friend is right and that the letter in The Times and similar statements elsewhere will lead to the permanent relief of Sarajevo.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the peace process in Cambodia.

Much progress has been made towards the implementation of the comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodia conflict. The United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia—UNTAC—was established on 28 February; repatriation of those Cambodians now in camps on the Thai-Cambodian border is continuing and the international community has pledged some $880 million of aid to help reconstruct Cambodia. We remain concerned, however, at the continuing unwillingness of the Khmer Rouge to co-operate with UNTAC.

Given that the failure of the Khmer Rouge to co-operate was predicted and predictable, does the Foreign Secretary regret that Britain went along with the Governments of China and the United States in sustaining the Khmer Rouge for a long period in the 1980s? Does he agree that sooner or later the Khmer Rouge will have to be confronted?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes an interest in these matters, is historically less than his usually accurate self. We did not sustain the Khmer Rouge. We remain concerned by its unwillingness to co-operate with UNTAC, notably in moving to phase 2 of the ceasefire, and we have registered our concerns with the Khmer Rouge, most recently in the declaration that I made at the international conference on the reconstruction of Cambodia in Tokyo last week. It is vital that all factions work fully and unconditionally with UNTAC so as to move to phase 2 of the ceasefire as planned. We are determined to exert the maximum pressure on the Khmer Rouge to comply with its commitments under the Paris accords. The Supreme National Council will meet in Phnom Penh tomorrow to assess the situation. Thereafter, the United Nation's Secretary-General's special represen-tative will report to the secretary-general and the Security Council. Together with our international partners, we shall then need to consider what further action is required.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we can keep pressure on the Khmer Rouge only if the peacefkeeping forces are provided with adequate troops? Can he confirm that the promises from the United Nations have now been fulfilled, because if the United Nations cannot control the Khmer Rouge the people of Cambodia certainly cannot and we shall be back to the real killing fields of Cambodia all too soon?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is intended that UNTAC should consist of just under 16,000 military personnel, 3,000 police, and up to 4,000 civilians, together with 60,000 locally recruited personnel. The cost are estimated at just under $1.7 billion. The deployment of UNTAC is on course, and most UNTAC troops are now in the country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives from South Africa on the progress of dismantling apartheid.

We maintain a close dialogue with all the parties in South Africa. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister keeps in contact with President de Klerk and Mr. Mandela. We are also in close touch with Chief Buthelezi.

As the former Prime Minister said in this House that the Government of post-partheid South Africa would have to be acceptable to all the people of South Africa, will the British Government make it clear to President de Klerk that when negotiations resume after their suspension it is crucial that the power of veto be overcome? The veto must not preserve apartheid and privilege in a different form in post-apartheid South Africa.

It is precisely because the future Government of South Africa must be accepted by all the parties there that this question is a matter for the Convention for a Democratic South Africa to decide. It would be quite wrong of me to comment on the matter.

As part of this process, is my hon. Friend entirely satisfied that the South African security forces are doing all that they can to police the Zulu hostels in the townships? If he shares my concern about that—it is widely shared—will he communicate it to the South Africa Government?

It is clearly most important that the South African security forces should police those areas in the way that my hon. Friend has described. The South African Government are in close contact with my right hon. Friends, who have discussions with them on these points.

Does the Minister agree that unless Her Majesty's Government make it clear to the South African Government that the South African security forces must be wholly divorced from political incitement to violence—that is the only way in which anyone can ever begin to negotiate—there will be a tradgedy to which the inaction of the British Government will have contributed?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt extensively with that point. Obviously, the escalation of violence is the real and terrible problem in South Africa which is preventing meaningful negotiations. My right hon. Friend said that he was in touch with the Foreign Minister of South Africa only yesterday and discussed the very matters to which the hon. Lady has drawn attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between Britain and Lithuania.

Our relations with Lithuania are very good.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that good relations require efforts by both countries? While welcoming our Government's steps to improve relations with Lithuania, may I ask whether they will make representations to the Government of Lithuania about their failure to compensate my constituent Mr. Salt for the value of property in Lithuania expropriated in 1940?

My hon. Friend has a point. He puts the case for his constituent extremely persuasively and has corresponded with me on more than one occasion. There are problems in that Lithuania's domestic legislation puts a barrier in the way of his constituent's claim. However, I shall see what we can properly do to impress on the Government of Lithuania the consequence of their prohibition.