To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to promote the international protection of human rights.

Do the Government and the Foreign Secretary accept that any new world order worthy of its name is not one that permits Governments to continue persecuting and terrorising their populations? Will the Government and the Foreign Secretary follow the lead taken by the French and German Foreign Ministers and by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and start arguing for an international tribunal under the United Nations at which systematic violations of human rights can be brought to book? Is not that the kind of new world order that the world deserves?

We have been playing a leading part in all the effective initiatives that are intended and are likely to produce an enhancement of human rights in every country where there is a human rights problem. I am not sure that the particular solution identified by the hon. Gentleman is likely to be profitable, if only because before there can be an effective trial there must be a defendant.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us welcome the fact that the international community is taking a much more robust view of article 41 of the United Nations charter, which allows intervention in the affairs of a sovereign state? Will my right hon. and learned Friend seek through the international community further urgent intervention in the appalling situation that is developing in the Sudan, where the Nuban people in particular are being systematically persecuted in a way that is likely to put their survival at risk?

My hon. Friend makes a serious point. We are deeply worried by reports of possible atrocities in the Juba area and in the Nuba hills. As my hon. Friend probably knows, a relevant resolution is going through even today at the European Commission of Human Rights in Geneva. We have taken every step that we can, bilaterally and collectively, to impose further pressure on the Sudan. I raised that precise matter recently with the incoming Sudanese ambassador, whom I saw but a few days ago.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to acknowledge, particularly in a week which includes Commonwealth Day, when the focus was on human rights, the special role and importance of the Commonwealth in human rights initiatives? Bearing in mind—I doubt whether the right hon, and learned Gentleman will agree with me on this—the undoubted damage that was done to the Commonwealth during the Thatcher years due to weakness in respect of human rights in South Africa, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that at next autumn's Heads of Government conference, social and political rights will be high on the agenda and actively supported by the British Government?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my right hon. and noble Friend the former Prime Minister, but I accept that the Commonwealth has a role to play. However, it is important to have as broad a base for collective action as can be achieved. The United Nations and the European Commission of Human Rights are therefore even more effective, because those institutions are more broadly based than the Commonwealth.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Nagorno Karabakh.

There has been a further recent escalation in the fighting in Nagorno Karabakh following an offensive by the Armenian forces there. We are concerned by reports of hundreds of further casualties in recent weeks. We urge the parties to the dispute to heed the call by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe for a ceasefire and to negotiate constructively in the talks being held under CSCE auspices.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those negotiations are unlikely to succeed without a ceasefire? Will he commend to both sides in the Nagorno Karabakh dispute the Atkinson peace plan, which was put to both sides in Strasbourg last September, as a realistic way forward—not least to avoid the genocide and ethnic cleansing which would undoubtedly occur in the area if the promised Azeri spring offensive were allowed to take place in the next few weeks?

Before I commend the Atkinson peace plan to the House, I congratulate my hon. Friend on our involvement and that of our noble Friend Lady Cox in the question of Nagorno Karabakh.

I join the Minister in congratulating the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on his activities in this regard. Does the Minister agree, however, that the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe could do more and that the Muslim community in our own nation should help Muslim communities elsewhere to show the same tolerance that Christians show them here?

I certainly think that the CSCE is the leading international organisation in terms of promoting a ceasefire and subsequent negotiations. It may, indeed, be the leading organisation if and when a peacekeeping force becomes necessary. I do not think that it makes sense for any of the parties to think that they would do well to transfer the negotiations to the United Nations; let us keep them within the CSCE.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Governor of Hong Kong to discuss his plans for democratic reform.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House and the people of Hong Kong that he and the Governor are of one mind about how to implement the proposals for democratic reform in the territory? Can he reassure us that Hong Kong will be fully involved in any discussions that may take place between the British and Chinese Governments?

Yes. As I have said, the Governor has our firm and daily support. He and the Executive Council are fully involved in making policy on this and other issues. We hope that it may soon be possible for us to do what the Governor has always wanted and start discussions with the Chinese on the constitutional position. If such discussions were to start, the British team would of course include representatives of the Hong Kong Government.

In view of the Governor's previous high-profile partisan role in politics in this country, is it not important to make it clear that his proposals enjoy not only the support of Her Majesty's Government but support across the Floor of the House? Many of us regard them as the minimum necessary to give reality to the pledge of one country, two systems.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I agree with him. It is also relevant that the Governor's proposals continue to enjoy wide support in Hong Kong.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as evidenced by the last question, the Governor of Hong Kong has the full support of the House in his difficult handling of the reform process with Beijing? Does he accept that although we respect the aims of the People's Republic of China in trying to develop a market economy, want its friendship and wish to pay it every courtesy, that is not by any means the same as agreeing with its every whim in every case?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. We welcome and support the liberalising measures that the Government of the People's Republic are taking inside China. We want to hold to the joint declaration. We have no intention of going against the Basic Law. We believe that the Governor's proposals fall within the Basic Law. We wish to proceed in consultation and in discussion with China on this and other matters, but the points that my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick, and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) have made are valid and it is useful that they have been echoed in all parts of the House.

Does the Foreign Secretary understand that we have always supported the Governor's proposals to widen the franchise and to increase democratic involvement in Hong Kong and that that remains our position? When the right hon. Gentleman says that we have to be clear about that, do we not also have a duty to make clear to the people of Hong Kong themselves, including those who sit on Legco, the exact nature of the delay that has been announced? Would it not be clearly unfair to the people of Hong Kong if that delay were to endure without some indication from the Government of the People's Republic of China as to whether, and on what terms, they are willing to return to the discussions about the future of Hong Kong?

The Governor and Exco have delayed publication of the draft legislation in order to create the possibility and the best possible climate for the talks that we hope to achieve, but it has been made clear to all concerned that the delay cannot reasonably continue indefinitely.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited the Falkland Islands to discuss relations with South American countries.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with me, however, that the prosperity of the Falkland islanders depends on their being allowed fully to exploit the considerable natural resources that exist in that part of the world in terms of oil and gas reserves and fish stocks? Should they not also be allowed to develop, reaffirm and restore their sensible trading links with Argentina? Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the Government's commitment to British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, on which the freedoms and aspirations of its people so heavily depend?

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. In the course of his visit to Argentina, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reasserted in firm and robust terms our position on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. It is important for the Falklands to continue to cultivate their long-standing links with Chile and Uruguay. Links with Argentina are a matter for the Falkland islanders themselves; we should not seek to exert any pressure whatever on them in that regard.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Falkland islanders provided the Foreign Office with a draft letter of comfort as long ago as June last year, but that it took the Foreign Office until December to say that the letter was not acceptable and that the Foreign Office has not yet produced its own letter? Is it not now well past the time for that letter of comfort to be issued to the oil exploration companies? When does the Minister intend to make a statement about the next round of block explorations so that people will know exactly where they are going? If such a letter is not issued, the only people who will be prepared to buy the seismic investigation report will be the Argentines? None of us wants that. We want an international input.

The hon. Gentleman's point is well made. He is aware that we have supported the prospect of seismic exploration in Falkland Islands waters. That is now going ahead. I know that there is anxiety in the Falklands about the letter of comfort. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is under active consideration and that we hope to make a decision very soon.

Following my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's successful visit to Argentina, it emerged that the President of Argentina would welcome an invitation to pay an official visit to this country to discuss the Falkland Islands as well as the economic and political issues between our two countries. What is the Government's current position on such a visit?

During my right hon. Friend's visit to Argentina, no Argentine representations were made on that matter. As for a visit by President Menem, we have nothing definite in mind. If such a visit were to take place, it would be important for it to be carefully prepared and timed, but there would be no question of discussing, as my hon. Friend put it, the future of the Falkland Islands: their future is secure and the basis on which our excellent bilateral relations with Argentina are predicated is that sovereignty is not a matter which we are prepared to

Will the Minister be a little more precise in announcing a date for the next licensing round for oil exploration? I understand that the seismic investigation company currently operating there is doing so on a daily basis but that other exploratory companies are holding off because of the uncertainty. When the Minister finalises the licensing round, will he take into account the fact that there are other sovereign states in the area that might want to explore the sedimentary basin and which have legitimate interests in the area?

The hon. Gentleman's latter point is, of course, absolutely right. I perfectly understand the anxiety that he and the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) expressed, but I cannot go further than I already have, which is to say that the matter is under active consideration and we expect to make an announcement very soon.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Japan to discuss the role of his posts in furthering trade.

I plan to visit Japan in early April. During the visit I shall talk to our ambassador about the considerable effort that our posts in Tokyo and Osaka are giving to export promotion, trade policy and other commercial work, including the encouragement of Japanese investment in this country. I shall also discuss our trading relationship with Japanese and British business men.

May I say how warmly the visit of the Foreign Secretary and, later this year, that of the Prime Minister, will be welcomed in Japan, as they back up the efforts of our excellent ambassador and his staff in Tokyo? Does my right hon. Friend agree that relations between the United Kingdom and Japan are excellent, as exemplified by the fact that more than 40 per cent. of all Japanese investment in Europe is in the United Kingdom? Does he also agree that that investment is being made here because we are in the centre of Europe?

Yes, our relationship is good. It needs to be maintained at all times by visits at all levels, including, and perhaps most important, business visits. My hon. Friend is right—there are now 184 Japanese-owned manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom which have created, or will create, more than 50,000 direct jobs. Those companies come here because they know that we are fully committed members of the European Community and fully committed partners in the single market, not half-in, half-out.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that since our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism the rate at which the Japanese have invested in this country has slowed down considerably?

I think that overseas Japanese investment as a whole has slowed down. I do not have the latest figures, but I am sure that anything that creates uncertainty about our future position in Europe is likely to discourage investors from outside, whether from Japan, the United States or anywhere else.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extension of UNPROFOR's mandate in former Yugoslavia under United Nations Security Council resolution 807.

We support the extension until 31 March of the mandate of UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia under Security Council resolution 807. We look forward to the forthcoming report by the United Nations Secretary-General on further extending and strengthening the mandate.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if, under the renewed mandate, the United Nations or any member state decides to send further troops to former Yugoslavia, they should be deployed in Croatia to implement the Vance plan rather than being sent to Bosnia, where they could get bogged down in a difficult military situation from which it might be extremely difficult to extricate them? If they were sent to Croatia, they would reinforce the credibility of the United Nations and compel the Serbs to give up territory unlawfully seized from Croatia. That would greatly improve the chances of reaching a peaceful solution in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It cannot be done the other way around.

My hon. Friend is right. There are two processes in hand—one in Croatia, to which his question and my answer referred, and the other in Bosnia-Herzegovina. They have to go forward in parallel. The credibility of the United Nations in Croatia certainly needs to be restored, which is why the existing mandate is being prolonged only until the end of the month, so that the talks that I mentioned—not simply on renewing the mandate and the United Nations effort in Croatia in support of the Vance plan, but on strengthening them and making them more robust—may be pursued. At the same time, David Owen and Cyrus Vance are energetically trying to find an agreed settlement. They have made some progress in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but they are not there yet.

Is it not a regrettable fact that the only thing that will stop the Serbs—[Interruption]—and the Croats—misbehaving in Bosnia is the fear of military force? I do not seek to pretend that there are simple solutions to the problem—everyone knows that there are not—but in what circumstances would the British Government support military intervention by the United Nations?

lf, as the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question suggests, he is talking about military intervention to impose a settlement or solution that has not been agreed, the answer is: in no circumstances. I can think of no Government who propose that and no circumstances in which we would support it. But if the hon. Gentleman is talking about peacekeeping—implementing and helping to make durable a solution that has been agreed—that is a different matter. I do not believe that trying to enforce a particular solution by military means, without agreement, is on.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the credibility of the United Nations in Bosnia is considerably damaged by the spectacle of troops, including British troops, standing by while men and women are killed and ethnic cleansing is carried on in front of them?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is not underestimating what our troops and civilian drivers are doing. Our troops have escorted 300 convoys carrying 21,000 tonnes of supplies of food and medicines. That is just about the only good news to have come out of Bosnia this year, and we are glad to be able to continue it. We wish to continue it as long as the need is there. I do not believe that that humanitarian effort could be continued—and it could not succeed—if the mandate were changed to force our troops to take sides in the conflict. It is because, with great skill, they have fulfilled their existing mandate that it has been successful and many people of all three communities in Bosnia-Herzegovina who would otherwise have died are alive. We now need to aim at an agreement. David Owen and Cyrus Vance have made progress. The agreement would lead to a ceasfire, and then the question of implementing the ceasefire would have to be tackled.

Was not the ceasefire in Krajina breached on 22 January by the aggresive action of the Croatians? If a ceasefire is to hold and a more permanent peace be brought about, is not one of the vital needs in the area that the Serb minority should feel that they are protected? Would it not therefore be right to press for UNPROFOR's presence to continue at least until the peace negotiations are completed, and to give full support? I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about intensifying and strengthening the UNPROFOR presence. It is undoubtedly needed in that area.

The hon. Gentleman has shifted us back to Croatia. UNPROFOR is needed on a more vigorous basis than before. It also needs to be accompanied by progress, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said, in carrying out the Vance plan. Not only the Government of Croatia but the Serbs living in Croatia have responsibility for making that possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards enlarging the membership of the European Community.

On 1 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the opening of accession negotiations with Austria, Finland and Sweden. Negotiations should start with Norway on 5 April. We shall work with our EC partners for a swift and successful conclusion to these negotiations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Community can only benefit from the addition of further countries with long democratic traditions and relatively high standards of living? If the Maastricht treaty is such a bad thing, is it not amazing that so many countries wish to join the Community? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the Community should be looking not only to enlarge its membership, but in the long term to enlarge the number of countries, especially in eastern Europe, with which it has free and fair trading relationships?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The accession of the countries I have just mentioned will help to promote a Community that is open, diverse, outward looking and not closed in on itself. Conservatives have always felt that an enlarged Community would be more dynamic and would speak with even greater authority on the world stage.

Will the Minister give a statement of unequivocal support for the entry of Cyprus into the European Community? Will he confirm that the resolution of the Cyprus problem will not be made a prior condition?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Cyprus applied for membership of the European Community in 1991. The Commission is preparing opinions on that application. The European Council has already decided to strengthen relations with Cyprus by building on the existing association agreements. It would not be right for me to anticipate the Commission's opinion. We shall have to wait and see what the Commission's opinion is.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the meeting of the Nordic Council the week before last clearly demonstrated that parliamentarians from Scandinavian countries, those attending from the Baltic Council and those representing the Commonwealth of Independent States, led by Russia, are coming together as an important group to which membership of the Community is now a vital link? Does he agree, therefore, that we should facilitate the process and that it would be greatly expedited if we put the Maastricht treaty behind us?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been our position throughout our membership of the Community that it must be open to democratic states that can fulfil the conditions of membership. That has been the British position for some time and that is why we were especially pleased that at the Edinburgh Council, for the first time, the goal of European Community membership for the new democracies in eastern Europe was agreed at European Council level. It goes without saying that the applicants from the European Free Trade Association with which we are now negotiating would regard it as not only a disaster for the European Community but as a disaster for themselves if the Maastricht treaty were not speedily ratified.

Has the Minister ensured that the EC's position on the common agricultural policy, for example, is made clear to new entrants? Has he made it clear that approximately 70 per cent. of all EC expenditure goes on that wasteful means of food production which has produced nightmarish levels of pollution through the pouring of pesticides and insecticides on the land, which has in turn polluted our water courses? Has he made it clear that the CAP costs every family in this country roughly £18 extra each week in the family food budget? My guess is that the propaganda from the Common Market tends to paint a very different picture from the bleak reality of that disintegrating organisation.

The hon. Gentleman can assume, as indeed can the House, that the applicant EFTA countries are not only highly developed democracies but very sophisticated countries. They have made their own calculation about the benefit of Community membership and specifically of the common agricultural policy. It is faintly patronising of the hon. Gentleman to give advice to four such countries.

To ask the Secretary fo State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of the areas of policy which remain within the exclusive competence of national parliaments in the EC.

The Community exercises only such powers as are delegated to it by the member states. Any powers not so delegated remain with the member states. It is not possible to draw up an exhaustive list.

Is not it an outrage that the Minister has not even tried to answer the question? Does he accept that if we go for the Maastricht treaty, almost every single remaining area of exclusive competence will disappear apart from, in my calculation, grammar schools, the council tax and the level of income tax in so far as it is part of an overall level of taxation approved by central Community institutions? Does not the Minister think that he has a duty to tell people the facts before they vote?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend's calculation. Indeed, I believe the opposite to be the case. I think that in a number of areas where we have found deficiencies in the Single European Act the Maastricht treaty moves to restrain those deficiencies and to take the Community in the direction in which we wish to see it going. I will not detain the House with a whole list of examples. Let me give just one. In health, while we have recognised the need to co-ordinate research and public information on health protection concerning things like AIDS, the Maastricht treaty provides specifically for the Community not to involve itself in health care because there is no reason why it should do so. The Maastricht treaty specifically constrains Community action in that area, whereas, under the existing treaty, we were under some danger of what my hon. Friend would call creeping competence. There are many such examples littered across the treaty.

Does not the Minister understand that while he and Ministers like him on the Front Bench, as well as other members of the chattering classes and other politicians, talk about the glories of Maastricht and the Common Market in particular, 70 per cent. of the masses outside do not want the Maastricht treaty, because they can see what is happening on the ground floor, with neo-fascist parties being set up in Germany, Italy and France, and with a former SS leader getting massive support in the German elections at the weekend? Together with mass unemployment, that is the truth about the Common Market of today. The halcyon days are over.

So far as the House is concerned at any rate, the hon. Gentleman certainly belongs to the chattering classes. The only time recently that I saw a substantial, albeit paltry, turnout of the National Front in this country—I am sure that my hon. Friends who were there were as shocked as I was—was at the so-called referendum rally in Trafalgar square. I gather that that was well attended, not least by such people.

Given the strong attachment of the EFTA nations to their national sovereignty, is not it clear that once the enlargement of the Community becomes a reality, the dreams of those who would create federal palaces in the air will slam against the buffers of reality?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The accession of EFTA countries will do two things. First, it will produce a number of countries that are net contributors to the budget and therefore likely to take the realistic attitude that this Government take. Secondly, my hon. Friend is right; it will reinforce the position of those of us who believe that we are building in the European Community not a unitary structure and a unitary state but a union of co-operation between member states.

While we are talking about the rights of national parliaments, what about the right of this House to make a decision about the Government's opt-out from the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty? Does the Minister not recognise that the stinging humiliation suffered by the Government on Monday this week should tell Ministers at least one thing—that if they attempt to use legal trickery or sleight of hand to ignore or override the carrying of amendment No. 27 on the social protocol, it will be seen at home and abroad as a betrayal of this House, this Parliament and parliamentary democracy

Her Majesty's Government intend to ratify the treaty that we agreed with our 11 partners in the European Community. If the hon. Gentleman had wished to have the treaty altered, the Labour party should have won the election. The Labour party did not win the election and this Government's mandate to ratify the treaty that we agreed with our partners is supported by not only a vote in the House but an overwhelming vote in favour of the Conservative party at the last general election.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the applicant parliaments in the European Free Trade Association which wish to join the Community know only too well that they already have for their people the economic benefits of the Community through the European economic area? Their precise reason for applying to join the Community is that they want to be part of and influence its political structure, just as we left the European Free Trade Association in 1973 to join the political structure of the European Community.

My hon. Friend is right. The European economic area gives EFTA countries the benefits of the single market. Those countries, like us, see in the Community an ability to enhance their influence as sovereign states. That is why they are as anxious as we are for the Maastricht treaty to be ratified as soon as possible and for their negotiations to proceed so that they may become full members of the Community.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Israel regarding the middle east peace process.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs most recently saw the Israeli Foreign Minister in Brussels on I February. I have recently seen the Israeli Ministers of Housing and Justice, and I shall be seeing the deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Beilin, tomorrow. There is no doubt that the Israeli Government wish to resume peace negotiations as soon as possible. We have reminded them that this resumption will be facilitated by further Israeli moves to resolve the problem of the Palestinian deportees and concrete measures to improve the human rights situation in the occupied territories.

Will the Minister be discussing with Israeli Ministers the opening of talks with the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the meeting that he had with them yesterday? At the meeting yesterday, did he clearly demand that the Palestine Liberation Organisation seeks to end the violence and terror in the occupied territories?

I will indeed be talking with Mr. Beilin about the sorts of reasons that caused us to see Mr. Husseini, the Palestine Liberation Organisation representative, yesterday. At yesterday's meeting, I talked about the need for the Israeli Government to take confidence-building measures within the occupied territories to reduce the weight of the occupation. I made it plain to Mr. Husseini and the PLO representative that it would be much easier for the Israeli Government to take that action if violence in the occupied territories could be stopped.

Contact with the PLO was suspended two years ago because, at that time, when the lives of British troops were at risk, the first people to rush to Baghdad to support Saddam Hussein were PLO representatives and Yasser Arafat. Has my right hon. and learned Friend any evidence to put before the House that the PLO's attitude has changed or, given a repetition of the Gulf conflict, would the PLO behave in exactly the same way?

I think that we can agree that a resumption of the bilateral talks is a matter of enormous importance for the peace of the middle east and, thus, the world. Her Majesty's Government felt that it was important to communicate that view as swiftly and powerfully as possible to the Palestinians and the PLO. That is why we had the meeting yesterday.

I welcome the resumed ministerial contacts between the Government and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Does the Minister agree that, in order to promote the peace process in a firm and confident move, it would be as well for the Israeli Government—as signatories to the fourth Geneva convention—to accept the Palestinian recommendation to end deportations and all other contraventions of that convention?

I have made the point to the Israeli Ministers, whom I have met on a number of occasions, that the fourth Geneva protocol applies to the occupied territories and that the policies of the Israeli Government constitute a breach of that fourth protocol in a number of inportant respects. I have also said that the weight of the occupation, and some of the specific policies employed there, stand in the way of a successful outcome for the peace talks—at the same time, so does the violence being practised by the Palestinians.

I commend the Government for at last recognising the PLO at ministerial level again following the decision in the Knesset to allow citizens of that country to talk to PLO representatives. Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to do all that he can to support traditional, secular Palestinian political action as a way of checking Islamic fundamentalism in that part of the world?

The answer to my hon. Friend's specific question is: yes, I will. The thought lying behind my hon. Friend's question is important—if the present Palestinian leadership, represented by Mr. Husseini, is unable to make obvious progress, it is likely to be supplanted by a fundamentalist party. Therefore, I say to the Israelis when I meet them, and through you, Madam Speaker, that it is important that they make rapid progress on reaching an agreement and lifting the weight of the occupation in the occupied territories.

Is it not sad but predictable that Dr. Hannah Ashrawi announced in Jerusalem today that the Palestinians will not be returning to the peace talks in April? Is not one of the principal causes for that decision the regrettable illegal expulsion and deportation of the 400 or so Palestinians by the Israeli Labour Government? When the Minister meets Foreign Minister Beilin—as I shall—will he make it clear that a rapid solution to that problem will facilitate a return of the legitimate voice of the Palestinians to the peace negotiations? Will he also join me in making it clear to Mr. Husseini—as I shall when I meet him shortly—that the appalling descent into sectarian violence in Israel is deplored by all friends of Israel, as well as supporters of the legitimate claims of the Palestinians, who want to see peace in the middle east?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and am glad that he, too, is to see Mr. Husseini and the London representative of the PLO. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the deportation stands as an obstacle to further discussions. I hope that the Israeli Government will build on what they have already done to comply with resolution 799. I would also go further and say that I think that it is desirable—indeed, essential—that the Israeli Government make it plain that they do not intend to resort to the policy of deportation but will look urgently at other ways of lifting the weight of the occupation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent discussions with the new United States Administration on the middle east peace process.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the peace process with the United States Secretary of State when he saw him in Brussels on 26 February following Mr. Christopher's visit to the middle east. It is clear that the new United States Administration are engaged very seriously in the peace process. They have our full support.. We are urging all sides to resume the negotiations as soon as possible.

Does the Minister share my impression from a recent visit that millions of ordinary, decent Israelis and Palestinians are sick to death of the endless saga of violence and killing? They are no longer interested in jogging backwards 30 or 40 years to see who was originally right or wrong. If partition was right in 1948 and was supported by the whole international community, does not that same community, together with Israelis and Palestinians, now have a duty to work to restore that position between the parties? In further contacts with the Americans, may we please make sure that at long last the American Administration take a decisive lead in that context?

My hon. Friend is right. There is a recognition in the state of Israel that the policies pursued in the past, especially the policy of settlement, are not in the interests of the people of Israel. I think that there is also a recognition by the Palestinians that the time has come to reach agreement with the state of Israel. One can detect similar thinking in the adjoining Arab states. That is why it is so important for the parties to go into the bilateral talks again as soon as possible.

While I welcome the Government's decision yesterday to resume ministerial contacts, may I ask the Minister to make it clear to the United States that a similar sign from the United States Administration to the secular, moderate Palestinian leadership would be even more valuable in getting the talks back on the road? I, too, was recently in the area. The position of Hannah Ashrawi, Faisal Husseini and even Arafat is being consistently undermined by the failure of the Israel Government to implement resolution 799, to allow themselves to be forced to do so, or to desist, while talking about violence, from the reign of terror that has been waged in the occupied territories since early December. Tens of children have been shot dead during that time. President Clinton could do a great deal to bring the peace negotiations forward if he sent the same kind of message as that sent by the British Government yesterday.

The United States is doing a great deal to bring the peace process forward. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Secretary of State Christopher recently visited the region and took a letter from President Clinton making it plain to everybody that the President and the United States collectively intend to be a full partner—I use the phrase that was employed—in the peace process. I know that that statement was a great encouragement to Mr. Husseini and others.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he intends to take to facilitate the entry of Malta to the EC.

We agreed at last year's Lisbon European Council, and confirmed at Edinburgh, that the Community should develop and strengthen relations with Malta by building on the association agreement and membership application and by developing political dialogue. When the Commission issues its opinion on Malta's application, the Council of Ministers will consider how to proceed.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that Malta is an independent, sovereign and prosperous state, and that it is as European as Greece, as democratic as France and is of similar size to Luxembourg? The state of Malta has traditionally looked to Europe. In view of that and the long and strong bonds of friendship between the United Kingdom and Malta, what additional action will my right hon. Friend take to facilitate the early entry of Malta to the Community?

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says about our traditional links and friendship with Malta. Those links were underlined by a visit by Her Majesty the Queen last year. I also agree with what my hon. Friend says about Malta's suitability as a European sovereign state for accession to the Community. We must wait for the Commission's report on the membership application. That will identify the issues arising from the application and they will include, no doubt, the institutional aspects of accession by small states. When we have received that opinion we can consider how best to proceed. I think that Malta could help itself if it were able to meet more fully the obligations under the present association agreement, particularly by moving more quickly towards a common customs tariff.

While I associate myself with the plea by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on behalf of Malta, will the Minister tell the House what advantage has been gained and what progress has been made towards extending the European Community by admitting the central European states of Poland, Hungary—

Order. This is a long way from Malta. We must move on.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on media training for journalists from middle and eastern Europe.

The media have an important role to play in the process of political and economic reform in central Europe. The know-how fund has therefore set up a number of projects to train journalists and other media personnel from the area. Major programmes have been managed for the know-how fund by the BBC World Service and the Thomson Foundation, covering Poland, Hungary, the former Czecholsovakia, Romania and Bulgaria.

May I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that if all 650 projects under the know-how fund are well managed by organisations as good as the World Service, we can be proud of the £50 million that we are putting into that work?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I think that his point is well made.

Will the Minister make it quite clear that the services of Mr. John Birt will not be used on the courses for journalists to teach the comrades how to keep their zlotys and roubles out of the hands of the taxman?

I would not choose to make such a trivial point.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given Russia's awful problems at the moment, the last thing the Russian people need is a rampant fourth estate? Does he further agree that the term tragedy is not an understatement as there is a high risk of immense problems and sadnesses emerging inside Russia which should be the top priority of the Foreign Office? Perhaps that should exercise the bulk of our energies instead of something that historians may see as a side-show around a town called Maastricht.

I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend who makes a serious point about the turmoil in Russia. That is true, but as much as we may sometimes dislike the press, we must recognise that a free and independent press is an essential condition in a pluralistic and democratic country—[Interruption.] We are doing our best to have one here. Although it is sometimes not all that easy to live with, I am in favour of a free and independent press. I think that is as true of Russia as it is of anywhere else in the world of which I have ever heard.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in respect of relations with India.

During my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to India in January the Indian Prime Minister assured us of three things: that he attached importance to respect for human rights, that allegations of human rights abuses were investigated, and that those responsible for wrongdoing were punished.

I am sure that we join the Minister in welcoming those moves and the proposals by the Indian Government to set up a human rights commission. However, until the Indian Government are prepared to open up the entire country to international organisations such as Amnesty International, there will never be confidence on human rights issues; stories of human rights abuses will continue to trouble people here and abroad. Will the Government continue to press the Indian Government to open up the entire country to the scrutiny of those international organisations?

We do press the Indian Government on that. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Indian Government are in touch with Amnesty International and India will be open to visits by its representatives, except in areas where their presence may cause tension.

As the most important human right is the right to stay alive, and as India has an entirely exceptional problem with terrorism, which causes death, and as the Indian Government are quick to investigate and punish acts of violence, should not India have the complete understanding and sympathy of the House?

As my hon. Friend suggests, it is most important that we recognise that human rights abuses and tragedies in India have most certainly occurred through terrorism, but terrorists are not accountable to the democratically elected people, whereas the Indian security forces are.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now propose that the United Nations should apply sanctions against Israel in order to enforce resolution 799; and if he will make a statement.

The United States Secretary of State's visit to the middle east has, we hope, paved the way for the resumption of the peace process. We hope that the Government of Israel will now build on the important first steps they have taken towards complying with Security Council resolution 799. We continue to believe that any move towards sanctions would be unhelpful at this juncture.

Does the Minister agree that while so many of the Palestinian deportees are still in the wilderness —and it looks as though they will remain there for several months—there is a danger that as they drop out of the immediate news they will cease to have the cutting edge that they have previously exercised in negotiations?

We have made our position quite clear. We believe that the deportation was quite wrong and we have said so directly to the Israeli Government. Indeed, I shall do so again tomorrow when I meet the Israeli deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Beilin. What the Israeli Government have done thus far in compliance with resolution 799 is an important first step, but we hope that they will build speedily on that. It is in their interests to do so because while substantial numbers of deportees are out of Israel, that fact will stand in the way of a successful outcome to bilateral talks.