To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards resolving the Arab-Israel dispute.

There has been some progress towards resolving the Arab-Israel dispute since the Madrid conference in November 1991. The deportation of Palestinians last month is a setback. We are urging all sides to take the necessary steps, in accordance with Security Council resolution 799, to ensure that that does not disrupt the peace process.

My right hon. Friend raises the question of the deportees. Does he not agree that movement on both sides of the Arab-Israel dispute is needed and, in particular, that the Palestinians need to undertake confidence-building measures to allay Israel's legitimate security fears, and that there needs to be a widespread willingness among Palestinians to take part in the peace process and to bring violence and extremism to an end?

I certainly hope that the Palestinians will continue to take part in the talks with Israel and that they will consider carefully the proposals for an interim period of autonomy. However, if the Palestinians are to do that, there must be further action by Israel, with regard both to the deportation of Palestinians, which I have already mentioned, and to Israel's general practices in the occupied territories which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State illustrated in a speech in Geneva yesterday.

What does the Foreign Secretary intend to do to build the Palestinians' confidence so that they will participate again? As the Israeli Government have demonstrated that they have no intention of moving in any way, shape or form towards the United Nations, what confidence can the Palestinian negotiators have? When we debated the issue a few weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State what guarantees of safety he could give members of the Palestinian delegation if they enter into the talks again while the deportees are still somewhere between Lebanon and Israel and the Israelis are still adopting against the Palestinian population measures that are wholly unacceptable to the international community?

The hon. Gentleman is not right to say that Israel has made no move in any shape or form. On 1 February the Israeli Cabinet decided to allow 100 of the deportees to return, to halve the term of exile of the remainder, and to take various other measures. That is not sufficient, but it is a move in the right direction. I welcome the fact that American Secretary of State Warren Christopher is to visit the area next week and that the new American Administration have taken over the baton from the previous Administration and are clearly giving the peace process a high priority.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is ever to be peace in that troubled part of the world, its history has to be taken into account and that the Egyptian Government's recognition in recent times that they have to live in peace with Israel is an essential ingredient which other Arab nations should take on board?

Yes, indeed; I agree with my hon. Friend. Equally, the Israeli Government have to accept, as they have done, the principle of United Nations resolution 242—"land for peace". Only on that basis will the peace process make progress.

Is it not essential for the credibility of the United Nations, and for the confidence of the Islamic world in general, that we be seen to insist that the acceptance of United Nations Security Council resolutions is universally applicable? Is not the problem simply that Israel has set its face against any attempt to comply with Security Council resolution 799? Is it not also an error to try to fragment the solidarity of the Palestinians, as has been suggested, however much one deplores the activities of Hamas?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the Minister of State, gave the figures to the European Commission of Human Rights in Geneva yesterday. It is reported that 216 children have been injured since 1 December 1992 and that 12 have been shot dead by Israeli defence forces. That is why I said what I did earlier.

If, two years ago, Iraq had withdrawn from only a quarter of Kuwait, would my right hon. Friend really have used the words that he has just used in the context of the Palestinian deportees about that situation? Is it not perfectly clear that when there is such a blatant breach of international law a little bit of persuasion is required, and pressure?

I believe in persuasion backed by pressure. However, I do not think that my hon. Friend is right to equate the two circumstances absolutely. The aggression of Iraq against Kuwait and the decision to deport the Palestinians are both wrong, but they are different in character. The United Nations has taken different measures in respect of each and we wish to pursue the aims of the United Nations in respect of both.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the future structure of the United Nations Security Council; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy concerning reform of membership of the United Nations Security Council.

The increased effectiveness of the Security Council has renewed interest in its role. Several countries would like permanent membership. Any expansion in membership would require an amendment to the United Nations charter. Negotiations on this would be long and complicated. Our aim is to ensure that the Security Council continues to operate effectively. We would not favour any arrangement that undermined its authority or prejudiced the position of the United Kingdom.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the momentum gathering for Britain to lose its permanent place on the United Nations Security Council would not have built up if the Government had not delivered such a disastrous economic performance? Is it not the case that a third-rate economic performance means that we are now increasingly being regarded as third rate in the world at large?

I do not know of anywhere except this country where it is suggested that we should lose our permanent seat. No such suggestion has been made by any of those who have suggested that new members should be added. The hon. Lady's conclusion is false and it is based on a false assumption.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the arguments being advanced for a change in the composition of the Security Council are not new and that they are far less valid now than they were before, in view of the increased effectiveness of which my right hon. Friend speaks, as illustrated by the Gulf war coalition and in other United Nations operations around the world?

Some of those countries have constitutional restraints. However, my hon. Friend is entirely right: the two countries doing the most on the ground for United Nations peacekeeping across the world as a whole are France and Britain, and the two countries doing the most for United Nations peacekeeping in terms of getting supplies to the towns and villages of Bosnia are Britain and France. The facts that my hon. Friend gives put the theoretical arguments in some perspective.

The Opposition, like the Government, support the aims of the United Nations. We should like its remit to be broadened politically and to be supported financially. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the United Nations is to retain our support and trust, it must behave even-handedly with regard to resolutions that it has passed and that if there is to be any restructuring, it should be carried out on the basis of considered debate and not on the basis of gratuitous comment by any country?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address that remark to those on the Opposition Back Benches, who seem to leap into the debate with very little regard to reality. I agree that a discussion has started and we cannot stifle that debate, but we have no intention of altering our own position as a result of it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is easy to pass United Nations resolutions—the number has probably increased 20-fold in the past 20 years—but that if the United Nations is to retain credibility it must expand its influence and that influence must be backed by the support of its member countries? As my right hon. Friend said, far too few countries put their money where their mouth is.

I agree with my hon. Friend. As a result of the end of the cold war, quite suddenly over the past couple of years there has been a build-up in the number of conflicts in which the United Nations is expected, not least by hon. Members, to intervene. The difficulties of intervening effectively are clear: The resources of the United Nations—the assets available to the Secretary-General—are inadequate for the purpose.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many resolutions he has proposed to the Security Council in the last 12 months on matters relating to international security.

Since 1 January 1992, the United Nations Security Council has adopted 83 resolutions: 67 concerned matters relating to international security; 11 specifically invoked chapter VII of the charter. The United Kingdom voted in support of all the resolutions. Members of the council, the Secretary-General and parties to the disputes engage in close consultations during the drafting of Security Council resolutions. The United Kingdom has played a full and active part.

In so far as the western powers appear to lack a strategy for getting rid of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad, is it not time that the British Government promoted, within the Security Council, resolutions that would underpin the position of the Iraqi National Conference—that is to say, the Iraqi opposition?

Our first objective must be to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with the existing resolutions of the Security Council and, incidentally, with the no-fly zones—and that we propose to do.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the staggering number of resolutions passed in a single year reminds us all of the importance of maintaining strong armed forces? Does he further agree that the proliiferation of nuclear weapons in many of the trouble spots that the resolutions affect—in the long term, potentially including Iraq—further reminds us of the importance of keeping a full range of nuclear capability?

On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I agree. On the former part of his question, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we deploy some 3,756 soldiers in United Nations peacekeeping operations and are the second largest contributor to such operations.

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

Our relations with the Republic of Korea are excellent. We look forward to a further strengthening of them during the next Administration in the Republic of Korea.

Given the good relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and South Korea, will the Minister consider using his influence by asking the South Korean Government to cancel the war games—Exercise Team Spirit—on the Korean peninsula for the sake of peace and detente?

We have consistently supported efforts to achieve peaceful reunification of the two Koreas, as has the hon. Gentleman. That can be achieved only through direct north-south contact. We were disappointed that the ninth round of bilateral prime ministerial talks was cancelled in December and we hope that talks will resume shortly.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the so-called Democratic Republic of Korea is on the verge of economic collapse? Does he think that there is now a greater opportunity for both Koreas to unite for the benefit of their people and of world stability?

My hon. Friend makes a very perceptive point.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position on the conflicts in former Yugoslavia.

We and our European Community partners are lending full support to the efforts of Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance. We believe that the plan that they have put forward offers the best prospect for a peaceful solution. We are following discussions in New York closely and taking part in them. We urge all the parties to negotiate seriously and to abide by the agreements reached at the negotiating table.

While accepting that the Vance-Owen peace plan for Bosnia is the only one on offer, what does the Secretary of State have to say to those in the new Clinton Administration who say that the proposals reward ethnic cleansing?

We are waiting for the policy decisions of the new Administration. We have been in touch with them, and I had a good talk with Secretary Aspin last weekend. I believe that we shall shortly get a statement on the American position which will recognise the importance of the Vance-Owen process.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety and disappointment on the part of Bosnian refugee men living in Chertsey at their failure to be reunited with their families? Is he satisfied with the reception of processing arrangements in refugee camps in the former Yugoslavia?

If my right hon. Friend will send me details, I will take up the Bosnian matter with my Department. I will also take up the matter of the refugees in his constituency with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

In the area of conflict prevention, what action is being taken to reduce tension in Kosovo? Is it not time that we set aside Greece's anachronistic objections to the recognition of Macedonia?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is much discussion going on in New York at present about the way in which that country could be admitted to the United Nations. That is the essential step and I do not despair of getting agreement on it fairly soon.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that our troops are deployed in the former Yugoslavia not to fight a war but to deliver humanitarian aid? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate our armed forces on performing a difficult and dangerous task with considerable success?

We have the resources to do what we are doing, which is very substantial. The United Kingdom is second only to France across the world in how we join in United Nations peacekeeping. We have more troops in Bosnia for the humanitarian purpose than any other country. The exercise was treated as perhaps rather negligible when it started, but, thanks to the work of the British troops, it has turned into the only piece of substantial good news to come out of that area this year. Hundreds of thousands of Bosnians, who all the experts predicted would die this winter, are being kept alive—partly because the weather is a bit milder than usual, but mainly because of the efforts of allied troops among whom the British are pre-eminent. Our troops have escorted 244 convoys, carrying 18,480 tonnes of food, medicine and other supplies to the towns and villages of Bosnia. The RAF has delivered 4,773 tonnes by air into Sarajevo.

May I add my tribute to our troops engaged in the humanitarian work in Bosnia? Reports came out over lunchtime that the Clinton Administration have decided on a deployment of troops for future peacekeeping in the area, combined with further aid and the possibility of a special envoy. We would welcome that as a supplement to the Vance-Owen proposals, not as a replacement for them.

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. We have emphasised that point repeatedly. The lawyers are now hard at work trying to overcome the difficulties in establishing an international tribunal for that purpose. I believe that that work has to bear fruit in the Security Council.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that more should be done by the United Nations and the Western European Union to deal with sanction breaking in Yugoslavia, particularly the importation of oil by barges, which I believe is happening on a massive scale?

I entirely agree with that. I discussed it with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister this morning and I have discussed it with the Romanians and the Bulgarians in the past week. For those of us who believe that peaceful pressures are crucial, it is important that those pressures should be effective, and they are increasingly effective on the Adriatic. The Romanians have begun to turn away barges loaded with oil bound for Serbia. It is crucial that all the riparian states, Ukraine and, indeed, all the neighbours of Serbia should do their best to make those pressures effective.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that the Government of Israel complies with United Nations resolution 799.

We have repeatedly urged the Israelis to comply with United Nations Security Council resolution 799, most recently in a meeting berween Euopean Community Foreign Ministers and the Israeli Foreign Minister in Brussels on 1 February. The Israeli Government have now taken a helpful step in the right direction. We hope that they will build on this. We are urging all concerned that the top priority is to resume the peace process.

In answer to an earlier question today, the Foreign Secretary said that different measures had been adopted by the United Nations in respect of resolutions on Iraq and on Israel, as indeed they have: the resolutions in respect of Iraq were speedily enforced, but those in respect of Israel have never been enforced. It is now eight weeks since resolution 799 was adopted unanimously, demand-ing that all the deportees be returned to their homes as quickly as possible. The Foreign Secretary and his Ministers must be aware of Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali's report to the United Nations Security Council last month on the enforcement of resolution 799, which finished with a strong recommendation that whatever—

Order. I must have a question from the hon. Gentleman.

I am coming to it, Madam Speaker. The point is—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question now.

My point relates to the Secretary-General's report—

Order. It is Question Time. I insist on a question being put. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can ask his question.

Will the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers ensure that the Secretary-General's report of last month, which demanded that the deportees be returned home as soon as possible and that whatever measures are necessary should be taken immediately, is endorsed and that fellow members of the Security Council are encouraged to ensure that that happens as speedily as possible?

As my right hon. Friend made plain, we regard the deportation of 450 people as a gross breach of the fourth Geneva convention and a gross infringement of human rights, and that is why we support resolution 799. As my right hon. Friend described, the Israelis have taken a welcome step forward, but it is only a step forward. We expect them to comply with resolution 799 and we shall do our best to induce that to happen.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is no justification in international law or international morality for Israel to deport people from the land that it occupies to a third country? Does he accept that it is not the first time that that has happened but just the most dramatic example? Will he ensure that this country and the world community keep the pressure on Israel to come back into the community of nations, by ceasing that practice and restoring every last one of those people to their homeland?

My hon. Friend makes a good deal of sense. As I said in reply to the previous question, there is no doubt that the deportation was a gross violation of human rights. It was unlawful and we have criticised it in many ways, including resolution 799. As my hon. Friend has said, this is not the first example of such a violation and our view is that deportation must stop and that Israel must comply with resolution 799, which we supported.

Since I have just returned from the area, will the Minister accept from me that people in the occupied territories are in the depths of despair about the failure of the powers to do anything about making Israel implement resolution 799? The fine words that he has spoken today are all very well, but when will the Governments and powers do something about it? Is the Minister aware how isolated and vulnerable the Palestinian negotiators in the territories are, as they have asked their people to put faith in the peace process and international diplomacy? Lastly, the Secretary of State said a few weeks ago that he would not meet the Palestine Liberation Organisation because he was not convinced of the usefulness of so doing. Is he aware how useful it is to the forces of extremism and reaction in the Palestinian arena that he does not do so?

I am trying to pick up the central theme of the hon. Member's multi-headed question. I agree that the Israelis' actions in deporting the deportees did a grave disservice to the peace process in the middle east and encouraged the forces of extremism. For that reason and for many others, we very much hope that the Israelis will rapidly comply with resolution 799.

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

My noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey and I have each recently visited Nigeria. Relations between our two countries remain close and we look forward to a smooth transition to civilian rule in August.

Can the Secretary of State assure me that Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to ensure a smooth transition? After all, the President pulled back from the transition to democracy some months ago and is now talking about August 1993. Can he also assure the House that he will do everything possible to encourage the President to come to an agreement with the International Monetary Fund, as the last agreement lapsed in April 1992, which has created year-end inflation in August 1992 of 51 per cent?

Those are both important matters. I was encouraged by my talks in Nigeria, both with the President and with members of the new civilian transitional council, under a remarkable Nigerian and friend of this country —Mr. Shonekan. A smooth transition to civilian rule is essential and I believe that it will happen. As my hon. Friend said, the economic situation is more intractable. We shall continue to encourage the Nigerians to come to reasonable terms with the IMF.

In his discussions with representatives of the Nigerian Government, did the Foreign Secretary raise the question of Nigerian participation in the west African force in Liberia? Did he ask them about the objectives of that force and what is being achieved in Liberia, where the most terrible civil conflict is taking place, with masses of casualties? Does not he think that a ceasefire must be brought about in that country and can Nigeria help with that?

Yes, indeed, I discussed that issue, and the hon. Gentleman's account is correct. Nigeria leads a number of west African countries that have forces in Liberia and are trying to bring the fighting to an end and restore stability to that tormented country. They have been frustrated at their lack of success so far. Since then, I have discussed with one or two people how the international community can help those countries and help to bring about a return to peace in Liberia.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the fairness of the referendum being planned in Malawi on whether to allow multi-party elections.

If the referendum is to carry any credibility, it is essential that it should be conducted under conditions that are acceptable to the United Nations and to those groups in Malawi advocating democratic reform.

We all welcome the deferral of Malawi's referendum in accordance with the recommendations of the United Nations technical team. However, does not my hon. Friend deplore the fact that the Malawi authorities have still not agreed to the United Nations recommendation that there should be one ballot box for all votes, not one ballot box for yes votes and one ballot box for no votes? Does he not deplore the fact that the Malawi authorities have ignored the United Nations recommendation that an independent referendum commission should be appointed? Worst of all, those authorities have ignored the United Nations recommendation that the laws that allow for detention without trial should be suspended during the conduct of the referendum campaign. Is that not a travesty of democracy?

The British Government are also pleased that the date of the referendum has been delayed. I agree with my hon. Friend about the many shortcomings that he has identified. Clearly, the referendum must be held in conditions of which the United Nations approve if the Malawi Government are to seek to have further aid from aid donors in future. The United Nations must be satisfied of the conditions, as must all reasonable people such as my hon. Friend.

Does the Minister agree that a pre-requisite of any free election and referendum should be freedom of speech, freedom to campaign, hold meetings, issue leaflets and freedom from fear? Certainly there should be no political detainees. What steps are the Government taking through the Commonwealth to ensure that those conditions begin to obtain in Malawi? Does the Minister agree that it stretches credulity to think that there could be a referendum in Malawi as early as next month and that the conditions could obtain by then?

The referendum will not be next month. President Banda has announced that it is to be in June, which is what we have just been discussing. The hon. Gentleman is clearly right—much progress much be made towards achieving conditions that the United Nations and ourselves believe are reasonable for a referendum and for human rights. There has been a little progress on that in Malawi, but we want to see much more. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify those matters and put pressure on the Malawi Government to come to their senses.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to meet President Clinton to discuss British-American relations.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is looking forward to meeting President Clinton in Washington on 24 February.

When my right hon. Friend meets President Clinton will he reiterate to him the importance of the special relationship between the United States and Britain? Will he make it plain to the new President that many people, not only in the United States, but in this country, have high hopes for his personal success and that of his presidency? It is crucial that we have free trade, job creation and economic recovery, which are of paramount importance to both countries.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The first contacts with the new team have gone well. There has been no interruption in our discussions with the United States Administration on former Yugoslavia, Iraq, the Arab-Israel position and the urgent need for the general agreement on tariffs and trade to fulfil the aims outlined by my hon. Friend. The new President carries a huge burden and I think that everyone with goodwill and good sense will wish him well.

Is it likely that the President of the United States will be warned against sending a peace mediator to Northern Ireland? Will he be told that that may cause more harm than good? Are not the days of the American interventionist role in western and northern Europe coming to an end?

I do not think it likely that the new United States Administration will propose a mediator as regards Northern Ireland, but we are doing our utmost, as indeed are the Government in Dublin, to acquaint the new American Administration with what is happening in Northern Ireland and in particular with the efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make progress on the constitutional side.

Will my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister also encourage the American Administration to get the European Community to play a greater role in the middle eastern peace process and to provide more wisdom, judgment, experience and balance, as well as reminding them of the need to avoid obvious mistakes?

I am not sure that that exact pitch would work very well in Washington. One of the good things that have happened is that the new Administration have declared that the peace process started by Jim Baker should continue and should be a priority. That is why Secretary Warren Christopher is going to the area next week. I look forward to meeting him immediately after that. If we in Europe can help, we should do so. We can encourage and apply pressures, as we have discussed in the House already this afternoon. I do not think that we should seek to complicate the task or take the place of the United States so long as they give the peace process priority.

May I warmly welcome the Government's new determination to develop a warm relationship with the Clinton Administration, having previously worked to prevent President Clinton's victory in the election? May I stress that we share the view that it is very important for us in terms of trade? We do not want to descend into a trade war with the United States of America. We want to see final approval of the GATT agreement and we want to see the United States of America playing a positive role in support of the peace process in the former Yugoslavia. All those are important matters on which Britain and the United States of America share interests. I wish the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister well in their discussions with President Clinton and his team.

I am sure that the Prime Minister will be obliged. Thank you.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his polish counterpart to discuss economic development in Poland.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs takes every opportunity to discuss economic and political developments with the Polish Foreign Minister. He last did so at the CSCE meeting in December last year.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a chance to discuss with the Polish economic administration the findings set out in an excellent article in The Economist which point out that while the public sector of the economy is stagnating, the private sector is going ahead by leaps and bounds, because the Government are fragmented, the administration is weak, taxes are therefore difficult to collect and bureaucracy is almost non-existent? As a result, the private sector is now employing 60 per cent. of the work force and accounting for half of the gross national product. Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that we could learn a thing or two from the Poles?

I am glad to say that through our policy of the know-how fund, the Poles have learnt a thing or two from us, particularly the virtues of privatisation.

Will the Minister explain why there is a disparity between Poland, Hungary and the two states that formerly constituted Czechoslovakia in terms of guarantees for credit for the medium and long term? Why are we discriminating against Poland and why do we have a mealy-mouthed approach to supporting and sustaining a fragile democracy and economy?

One of their problems when negotiating the budget within the Parliament is to secure sufficient agreement to ensure that the deficit does not exceed 5 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received about Bophuthatswana; and if he will make a statement.

The most recent representation was from my hon. Friend.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should have an even-handed policy towards all responsible leaders in southern Africa? Will he accept that President Lucas Mangope has led his country in southern Africa for 15 years, a country which is multi-racial and has had democratic elections a number of times since it established its independence? When President Lucas Mangope visits the United Kingdom, will my hon. Friend arrange for a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister to meet him?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government do not recognise Bophuthatswana. Therefore, it would not be right for a Foreign Office Minister to meet Mr. Mangope—although, as my hon. Friend knows, there have been contacts at an official level. The future constitutional arrangements for South Africa must be a matter for the South African people to decide, in accordance with their constitutional negotiations. I am glad that the Bophuthatswana Government participated in CODESA 2 and I hope that they will participate in future Convention for a Democratic South Africa negotiations.

Does the Minister recognise that his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) backed the wrong parties in Angola? Now, because of that sort of backing, the butcher Savimbi is running wild in Angola. The hon. Gentleman also backed the wrong horse in Namibia. Therefore, will the Minister disregard his hon. Friend's representations and instead listen to the people of South Africa, who want a unified, democratic South Africa as quickly as possible? What are the Government doing to help to achieve that?

It does not really help if the House tries to decide the constitutional arrangements for South Africa. It is for the people of South Africa to decide through CODESA when it reconvenes.

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

We are our EC partners have made clear our unequivocal support for the work of the international conference for the former Yugoslavia. Its success would be a significant step towards securing stability throughout the Balkans. We are also working to prevent the conflict spilling over into Kosovo or Macedonia and to provide humanitarian relief to those caught up in the fighting.

Is not it precisely because both Kosovo and Macedonia have all the characteristics of a tinder box that the Owen-Vance peace process must be successful and, above all, complied with by the warring parties? Should not we and other countries do our damnest to put pressure on those parties to comply?

To use my hon. Friend's phrase, we are doing our damnest. However, he is right to draw attention to the special problem of the minorities in the former Yugoslavia. We have rightly focused on the question of Bosnia, but we must also pay special regard to the issues of minorities in Serbia, including Kosovo, and also in Croatia. Their rights must be secured as part of any overall settlement.

Could Ministers be a little stronger about what steps will be taken by the international community to bring to justice those who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, are undoubtedly involved in terrible crimes? People who have read the articles by Robert Fisk in The Independent have been horrified by the systematic torture and rape of Muslim women. Those responsible should face an international tribunal, and that should not be years away.

It is an extraordinarily difficult and important point, because there is no doubt that the most ghastly crimes have been committed in the former Yugoslavia. We assert, and will continue to assert, that those who commit such crimes, either directly or indirectly, should be held personally accountable. However, there is another problem, which the hon. Gentleman will wish to bear in mind. If the authority—the responsibility—for those crimes goes as high as the hon. Gentleman and I expect, we must ask ourselves what is the priority: is it to bring people to trial or is it to make peace? That is the sort of tension with which we must deal.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet his Japanese opposite number to discuss bilateral relations.

I hope to visit Japan in early April and I am in touch with the Japanese Government about that. I welcome the opportunity that that will give me to discuss with the Japanese Foreign Minister our relations with Japan and the whole range of international issues affecting our two countries. We shall also meet at the economic summit in Tokyo in July.

My right hon. Friend's visit will be most timely, as about 200 Japanese companies are now manufacturing in the United Kingdom, directly providing 50,000 jobs, contributing extensively to our balance of trade and reinforcing our manufacturing base. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the Japanese that this Government—unlike the Opposition—remain committed to the policies that have, over the past 10 years, made the United Kingdom the most popular and sensible location for high-quality inward investment in the European Community?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We have 41 per cent. of Japanese investment in the European Community—partly because we fought hard and successfully to secure free circulation within the single market of products manufactured in the United Kingdom by companies owned in Japan. Japanese companies also bring to this country important research and development. More than 30 of the Japanese firms that my hon. Friend mentioned have research and development units here.

Why does not the Foreign Secretary admit that the real reason that Japanese companies come to Britain and have factories here is because, as with Nissan in Sunderland, they can pick up £300 million of taxpayers' money to set up a factory with no-strike agreements, with only 10 per cent. of the work force being trade union members? They pinched the jobs of other car workers in other parts of Britain. The truth is that the Japanese Government have taken the British Government for a ride, because our balance of trade deficit with Japan is about three times higher than the value of goods that we send to Japan, yet Japan was the nation which was reckoned to have lost the war—and Germany is running a close second.

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in this —Japanese firms, and those whom they employ in this country, are benefiting from the reforms and changes that this Government brought to British industry. That is part of the reason why Britain is attractive to Japan, and a large part of the reason for rejecting the nostrum of the social chapter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the President of Israel when he visits Britain in February to discuss relations between the United Kingdom and Israel.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will call on President Herzog during his visit.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that peace and mutual understanding in the middle east would be improved if long-standing hostages such as Ron Arad were released? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he has been kept incommunicado by Arab captors as a prisoner of war for seven years, against all the rules of the Geneva convention? Will representations be made to secure his immediate freedom?

My hon. Friend makes a real point. If Ron Arad is still alive—we thought some two years ago that he was, but we have no up-to-date information—it is extremely important that he be released with all possible speed. The same proposition applies to detainees in south Lebanon. One must acknowledge that the business of holding people without due process of law is intolerable and should stop.

When the Secretary of State meets President Herzog will he make clear to him that, as President Herzog was born in Belfast and reared in Dublin, there is tremendous empathy between our nation and Israel? While we are concerned about detentions in Israel and in the Lebanon, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the standards of justice of Israel's Supreme court are held in high esteem throughout the world?

As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, President Herzog is held in the highest esteem in this country, and also in great affection. As to the Supreme court—yes, its reputation is high, but we must acknowledge also that Israel's policies within the occupied territories need to be rigorously criticised because they frequently constitute gross breaches of human rights. I took the opportunity to say that in Geneva yesterday to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will visit Indonesia to make representations about human rights violations in East Timor.

No. the Indonesian authorities are well aware of our views on the human rights situation in East Timor. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the subject when he met the Indonesian Foreign Minister in Manila in October, as did I—and as I also did when I visited Indonesia in October. As appropriate, we will take suitable opportunities to do so again in future.

Indonesia is not a country at the centre of the world stage and world interest. Does the Minister agree, however, that human rights violations carried out in Indonesia are as important as those carried out in countries that attract more international interest? Does he agree that such violations are more severe in Indonesia than in many other areas? In East Timor, the Government have killed an even larger proportion of the population than were killed by Pol Pot in Cambodia. When will the Government be prepared to act against Indonesia? When will they stop selling goods to the country and stop dealing with its Government?

The hon. Gentleman is right: Indonesia is an important country. It is an important member of ASEAN—the Association of South-East Asian Nations —and is now chairman of the non-aligned movement.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, far from being unimportant, Indonesia is the fourth largest country in the world and the world's biggest Muslim nation? Is he aware that after the deaths in East Timor —which clearly inspired the question—the Indonesian regime set up a commission of inquiry, as a result of which some army officers were disciplined and others removed from the armed services? Should not regimes such as Indonesia's, which is trying to improve its human rights record, receive due praise for the steps that it has taken, rather than being denigrated by ignorant Opposition Members?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The Indonesian authorities behaved in an unprecedented manner after the Dili atrocities in bringing those responsible to trial. My hon. Friend is also right in saying that continuing bilateral relations with what is, after all, a very important country, and continuing to provide that country with trade and aid, is the most likely way of bringing about an improvement in human rights, as we all wish to do.

May I say that I am quite surprised that the Minister, for whom I have some regard, is prepared to be such a snivelling apologist for the Indonesian regime? Where is the morality in British foreign policy nowadays? Is it not outrageous that the British Government should be prepared to supply arms to the Indonesian regime, in view of the human rights abuses in East Timor? Will the Minister make representations to Helmut Kohl, who, I understand, is at this moment preparing to sell large amounts of the old East German navy to the regime?

As I have said, we and our European partners are deeply concerned about human rights in East Timor and have pulled no punches in making our views known. The expression employed by the hon. Gentleman is entirely inappropriate in this context. No one has been firmer than we have.

Irrespective of the regional importance of Indonesia, will my right hon. Friend confirm that originally—after colonial rule—Indonesia occupied East Timor by force and that throughout the past 15 years its record on human rights, regardless of Dili, has been quite deplorable? Will my right hon. Friend do all he can, through the United Nations and the European Communities, to ensure that the voice of East Timor is heard—either directly or, as has been offered, indirectly through the Vatican—in negotiations towards a constitutional solution to this very difficult problem?

My hon. Friend is quite right. Unlike a very large number of other countries, this country did not recognise Indonesia's annexation of East Timor. We continue to believe that the question of East Timor's status and future is best addressed through the auspices of the United Nation's Secretary-General and through contacts between Portugal and Indonesia, and we continue to encourage those concerned to pursue the dialogue in which they are engaging.