To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Russian Foreign Secretary over the last four weeks on relations between the United Kingdom and Russia; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Mr. Kozyrev in Moscow on 2 April, and will see him in Tokyo tomorrow, with our G7 partners. I also met Mr. Kozyrev in Moscow on 27 March. Our relations with Russia are excellent. In our contacts we have repeated our support for the economic and political reforms which President Yeltsin and his Government have pursued.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that full reply. Will he assure the House that, at this time of considerable political uncertainty in Russia in the lead-up to the referendum, he and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make it clear to their counterparts that future aid, both technical and economic, from this country in particular and the west in general will be contingent on continued economic and political reform, continued improvements in human rights and swift withdrawal from the Baltic states?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The purpose of supporting economic change in Russia is, at least in part, to support the process towards genuine political pluralism. Therefore, we want to make it plain to all that our support is dependent on that continued process; at the same time, we want to ensure that such economic aid as we make available is most likely to underpin a genuine restructuring of the economy.

Is there full agreement between Russia and Britain on the need for substantial progress in South Africa? Have the Russian Government and the British Government come to the conclusion that what happened over the weekend—the tragic assassination of Chris Hani—was a terrible disaster? I hope that the British Government will make their views known clearly and publicly as soon as possible. Does the Minister agree that it should be made perfectly clear that the peace process in South Africa should continue—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is totally out of order. The question relates to relations between the United Kingdom and Russia. If the hon. Gentleman has a question directed to that subject I shall hear it, but he must not abuse the House as he is doing.

Does the Minister agree that both Russia and Britain should come to the conclusion that the peace process in South Africa should continue as quickly as possible?—[interruption]

Order. We will now move on. I call Mr. John Marshall.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the know-how funds available for eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

The purpose of the know-how fund is to support economic and political reform in central and eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states. Since the fund was launched in 1989, we have spent more than £100 million. The budget for 1993–94 is £54.3 million.

May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer and congratulate the know-how funds on being much more cost-effective than the European bank for reconstruction and development, the excesses of which are an affront to the people and the taxpayers of this country?

I shall certainly accept that compliment in the spirit in which it was tendered.

Does the Minister know that the President of Lithuania, the governor of his bank and others are in this country at the moment searching for more help from the know-how funds and generally? Does the Minister accept that now is the time for such help to be given while those countries are on the path to democracy and seeking to remain with the west? If the Government wait too long, there may be disaster.

I certainly agree that economic aid plays an important part in underpinning and supporting political reform. However, it is important to keep in mind the fairly limited nature of the know-how funds and their principal purpose, which is the transfer of technical know-how. That said, if the Lithuanians have proposals that they wish us to consider, I shall be willing to have them examined.

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

We enjoy close and friendly relations with France based on many shared interests, included membership of the European Community, the Security Council, NATO, the Group of 7 and many other international organisations. In recent years close practical co-operation has increased as a result of the world-wide role of our two countries. We expect the close relationship to continue with the new Government.

Is there not something faintly disreputable about a country which expects to be able to export a high proportion of the food that it produces but which takes minimal action against its own producers when they burn lorry loads of live English lamb and wreck consignments of fish? Should we not gently tell our French partners that they have no right to deny European consumers, who already subsidise them through taxes, a wider and freer choice of food by trying to wreck the GATT round which has been so painstakingly negotiated and which is so near to a successful conclusion?

France is our third largest trading partner. My hon. Friend is right in the sense that France has not only a population similar to that of the United Kingdom but similar consumer interests. I certainly believe that the French stand to gain more from an open market approach than from the sort of protectionist approach that my hon. Friend mentions. We have no reason to believe that the French Government are about to adopt protectionist policies. The new Government have inherited some difficult policy decisions but remain committed to working within the European Community framework for a successful conclusion to the GATT round.

Is the Minister aware that it is no wonder that France has friendly relations with Britain when we consider that its trading surplus with us is very large and that we are running a trade deficit with France? Part of the reason for that is that we subsidise French electricity and then kindly buy an amount equivalent to about 6 million tonnes of coal. If this Minister and the Tory Government had any guts at all, they would tell the French that we intend to cut the interconnector and save the British pits.

This Minister and this Government believe in free trade. It is our intention and our policy, wherever possible, to ensure that the British consumer gets the best value, whether in energy, food or in any other matter.

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 foreign policies.

We meet our European partners regularly to discuss the strengthening of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the foreign affairs and security provisions in the Maastrich treaty build on the concept of political co-operation, which was an important part of the Single European Act? Does he further agree that this country has played a major part in the development of that political co-operation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. European political co-operation and the single market were two of the great achievements of the Single European Act. The Government have played and will continue to play a forward role in European political co-operation and in the common foreign and security policy when it is set up after ratification of the Maastricht treaty.

Does the Minister agree that those of us who support ratification of the Maastricht treaty must be mindful of the criticisms being made of western Europe and the European Community—by, among others, Baroness Thatcher last night—in relation to the tragedy in the former Yugoslavia? Will the Minister take the opportunity to remind the House and others outside that what that means is that we must ratify Maastricht, build on those provisions and move towards a more united and coherent defence and foreign policy for the European Community as a whole so that tragedies of that nature within our own perimeter of influence can be much more urgently addressed?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that he hopes for a peaceful settlement in Yugoslavia. That rests on the Vance-Owen initiative, which has been strongly supported by the European Community and this Administration.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss with his opposite number in Paris the possible withdrawal of General Philippe Morillon from his United Nations command in Bosnia? Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to that highly controversial general, who, none the less, has shown great dedication to the cause of the United Nations and whose courage is exemplary?

I shall be travelling to Paris on Friday to meet my new opposite number. I will not hesitate to pay tribute to the courage and dedication of General Morillon.

Does the Minister accept that, where possible, European Community foreign policies should be welcome and effective? In that connection, will he work with our European partners to construct a common foreign policy towards South Africa, and particularly to assist in progress towards a democratic, non-racial South Africa? Should not Europe unite in condemning the appalling brutal murder of Chris Hani, which is a tragedy for the whole of South Africa? Should we not also welcome the statesmanship of Nelson Mandela in appealing for calm and continued progress and work towards a democratic, non-racial South Africa?

I certainly join the right hon. Gentleman in applauding the approach that Mr. Mandela has taken. I think that Mr. Mandela and this Government are right to believe that the best tribute to the man who has been assassinated is to continue to pursue the peace process. Certainly the European Community, through the election monitors it has sent and the police training it has offered, is supporting the democratic forces for change in South Africa.

Returning to the question put by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), does my right hon. Friend agree that what is needed is not just the courage shown by the French general and many of the troops of all nations in the United Nations force in the former Yugoslavia, but to build on the emotional demands for a rational way forward so that we make matters not worse but better?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Like me, he will not be surprised that many Members and also people outside the House feel very strongly about what is going on in the former Yugoslavia, given the horrific nature of the events taking place there. Nevertheless, the course that the Government and the European Community have pursued—that of support for the Owen-Vance initiative, difficult furrow though it is to plough—is the right one.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is planning in support of the middle east peace process.

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

The American and Russian co-sponsors of the middle east peace process have issued invitations to a further round of bilateral negotiations in Washington on 20 April. The Israelis have accepted the invitation. The Arab parties are in Washington this week for consultations, which we hope will result in their agreement to resume negotiations.

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the acceptance by the Israeli authorities of the appointment of Mr. Feisal Husseini as leader of the Palestinian delegation to the peace talks? Does the Minister accept that that gives at least some hope of a way forward, particularly as Mr. Husseini is from east Jerusalen and is a resident of that city? In terms of legitimising the position of east Jerusalem as an occupied territory, in line with EC policy, can the Minister confirm that one way to move forward the peace talks would be for President Clinton to urge the Israeli authorities to adopt resolutions 242 and 338 so that the peace talks could begin to move forward in a meaningful way?

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Feisal Husseini a little whole ago. I certainly recognise the important role that he plays in the peace negotiations and I welcome any step that promotes that role. As to resolutions 242 and 338, it is important for all of us to recognise that negotiations within the peace process must move forward on the basis of those two Security Council resolutions.

While recognising the frustration of many Palestinians, does not my right hon. and learned Friend roundly condemn the recent murderous attacks on Israeli citizens and soldiers in parts of the occupied territories? Does he agree that that does not contribute to the peace process? Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to put pressure on moderate Palestinian leaders to reduce the level of violence and give peace a chance?

My hon. Friend makes a very real point. About 69 Palestinians and 22 Israelis have been killed since the beginning of this year. That is lamentable. Escalating violence is something that we all deplore as strongly as we can, and it reinforces the importance of all the parties getting back into bilateral talks as speedily as possible.

The Minister will have seen reports in the press at the weekend of the death of Mohammed Suweiti, a citizen of Hebron, who was unable to travel from Hebron to Jerusalem for essential hospital treatment because of the closure of the west bank. Does the Minister not agree that the closure of the west bank and the division of the occupied territories into three is itself a form of collective punishment? If we are to encourage the Palestinians to return to the peace table, does the Minister agree that one of his roles is to seek assurances from the Israeli Government that they, as an occupying power, accept their responsibilities under the fourth Geneva convention?

On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, yes, indeed—the fourth Geneva convention applies to the occupation by the Israelis of the occupied territories. To take the hon. Gentleman's question more broadly, he is right indeed to deplore the fact that both Gaza and the occupied territories have been closed and that the flow of occupants of those two areas into Israel where previously they worked is very restricted. That will not promote a peace settlement. We need to do all that we can to persuade the Israelis to lift the burden of the occupation.

In the light of the Palestinian slaughter and the deportation of Palestinians from Israel, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us how the talks with representatives of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation are going?

I am not quite sure to which group of people my hon. Friend is referring at this point. What we want to do is to see all the parties to the bilaterals return to those bilaterals as speedily as possible. That means accepting the invitation to attend on 20 April.

May I reinforce two of the points that the Minister has made to the House? First, I join him in condemning all the violence in the occupied territories and in Israel, wherever that violence comes from; none of it helps the peace process, nor will it lead to an ultimate solution for either side. Secondly, I join him in welcoming the reports that the Israeli Government are willing to recognise that Mr. Feisal Husseini, a resident of east Jerusalem, should be given his rightful position as the spokesman and leader of the Palestinian community in those talks. That would be a step forward—as would the rumoured move by the Israeli Government to allow some long-standing exiled deportees to return to their native land for the first time in many years. As the Minister pushes the urgency of the middle east peace process further and further up the agenda, notwithstanding all the competition that it faces, will he ensure that the Israeli Government comply both with international law and with international civilised standards so as to ensure that whatever punishment they mete out to the civilian Palestinian population is not so disproportionate as the present decision to close off the occupied territories seems to be?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his first two points and for the support that he has given the Government. I agree entirely about welcoming the possibility of allowing people who were deported some considerable time ago to return to Israel and I agree with the general point about the proportionality of any response to acts of violence, but it would be very much easier for the Israeli Government to make progress in the talks if the violence being committed by the Palestinians were to stop.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the peace process in the middle east would be much enhanced if all middle eastern states signed the international convention banning chemical weapons and had equal opportunities to participate in the watchdog organisation set up under that convention? What steps is he taking to promote that process?

The point that my hon. Friend makes about the chemical convention, in particular—and, by implication, weapons of mass destruction in general—is wholly correct. We want all the parties to ratify, and thereafter implement, the chemical warfare convention. We must work to achieve the removal from the middle east of weapons of mass destruction, but those desirable and essential objectives are unlikely fully to be achieved unless and until there is a general settlement within the framework of the current peace process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Danish Government about the forthcoming referendum on the Maastricht treaty.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this and other issues with the Danish Foreign Minister, Mr. Helveg Petersen, in London on 22 March.

Did the Foreign Secretary at any stage communicate to his Danish counterpart the view held by Members both for and against Maastricht and also substantially by people outside the House—that Maastricht is exactly the sort of constitutional issue which should be decided by the people in a referendum? Is there any prospect of the Government accepting that strong viewpoint and changing tack, or will they merely depend on Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to bail them out in the vote next week?

No, there is no such prospect: the Government, like previous British Governments, will depend on the will of the House.

Has the Minister been able to clarify whether it remains the position of the Government that they will not seek to invite the House to approve the Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill until after the Danes have had their second referendum? Is that still the position?

Yes, that remains the position.

Does the Minister recall that in a recent written answer he stated that the obligations placed on Denmark by the treaty on European union signed at Maastricht were not changed by the decision reached intergovernmentally at Edinburgh? In that case, will not the question that the Danish people have to answer on 18 May be substantially, if not exactly, the same as they answered previously?

I recall that answer, but the question put to the Danish people and the answer that they give are matters for the Danish Government and the Danish people and not for me.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Governor of Hong Kong's constitutional proposals for the colony.

We support the Governor's proposals for broadening democracy in Hong Kong. We have long wanted to hold discussions with the Chinese Government on these proposals with the aim of achieving a smooth transition in 1997. We and the Chinese Government announced yesterday that talks on these issues will start in Peking on 22 April.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that talks are now resuming with China vindicates the firm position taken by the Governor of Hong Kong on extending democracy in Hong Kong? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that representatives of the Hong Kong community will be at the negotiations, and will he ensure that the Chinese do not use the negotiations as a means of prolonging the process to prevent the introduction of the electoral law and the widening of democracy in the 1995 elections in the way that the Governor wishes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. As we have said, the talks are between the two sovereign powers. The British representative will be Sir Robin McLaren, Her Majesty's ambassador in Peking. Other officials from the British and Hong Kong Governments will participate in the talks in exactly the same way as they have in the past.

Is it the Government's intention to continue to consult widely the people of Hong Kong, including their elected representatives in the Legislative Council, during the progress of the talks with China?

Yes, Madam Speaker.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he feels that the Chinese Government are keeping to the letter and spirit of the treaty between the Government and the Chinese Government on the handover of Hong Kong's sovereignty in 1997? Judging from China's record so far, does he believe that China will keep to the treaty after the handover? Do we have any way of renegotiating the treaty or getting out of it if we feel that China is not meeting its obligations?

The Chinese leaders say that they will abide by the joint declaration and the Basic Law. Under the joint declaration, we are of course responsible for administering Hong Kong until July 1997.

We warmly welcome the recommencement of talks as laid out in the proposals announced yesterday. However, may I say that we hope that, during future negotiations, the minimal democratic propositions put forward by the Governor are at least adhered to and that, in whatever negotiations come about, the people of Hong Kong will finally have a say, rather than the British Government alone?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I said, our aim is to reach an understanding with China on arrangements to ensure that the elections will be fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. If we reach an understanding with China, the British and Hong Kong Governments will recommend it to the Legislative Council and it will be for it to pass the necessary legislation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's involvement in Bosnia.

Britain is playing a major role in efforts to restore peace in Bosnia and to provide humanitarian relief for millions of civilians caught up in the conflict. We are the largest single national troop contributor to the United. Nations protection force in Bosnia, escorting relief convoys. Our troops and aid workers are doing a magnificent job in difficult and often dangerous circumstances. We have also devoted considerable material resources to the aid operation.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to distance the Government from the suggestions made by Baroness Thatcher which, if implemented, would perhaps lead to an extension of the conflict in Bosnia, to the further killing of military and civilian personnel and would perhaps jeopardise the humanitarian aid effort? Does he also agree that the situation in Bosnia cannot be allowed to continue and that existing sanctions should be properly enforced and tougher sanctions implemented?

The broad nature of the policy that we are currently pursuing is, I think, the right one and the one to which we should hold. We need to continue to put all the pressure that we can on Serbia to get Serbia to induce the Bosnian Serbs to sign up to the Vance-Owen plan. That must be the heart of the policy. I think, too, that it is desirable that the sanctions be yet further tightened. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a draft resolution to hand, but, for reasons that. I think are good, it has been decided to defer the vote on the resolution until the end of April—but I hope that if the resolution is passed its implementation will be immediate and that no grace period, has proposed in the original draft, will be provided.

I do not wish to do anything other than praise the bravery of our British troops, but may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to agree that our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, with whom I do not always agree, spoke for many people yesterday when she talked of the sense of horror and shame that people throughout this country feel when they see our troops having to stand by while women and children are shot down? Will my right hon. and learned Friend talk to the Foreign Secretary on the telephone today and ask him to summon an urgent meeting of his fellow Foreign Ministers so that we can begin to act a little more effectively?

My hon. Friend is clearly right when he describes what is going on in Bosnia as a tragedy and a crime. I do not suppose that a more appalling set of events has taken place since the end of the second world war. But on the question of shame—no, I cannot agree with him, because I look at what British troops in Bosnia are doing. We have 2,600 men there performing acts of great courage and gallantry. We—or rather, I should say, they—have escorted some 448 convoys conveying something like 33,399 tonnes of supply. I am proud of that contribution.

Does the Minister accept that Lady Thatcher is not alone in believing that the present arms embargo plays into the hands of the Croats and the Serbs, and places the Bosnian Muslims at a great disadvantage? Does he further accept that there is an increasing feeling that the arms embargo should be partially lifted so that the Bosnian Muslims will at least be able to defend themselves against the atrocities being committed against their nation?

I do not try to deny that a case can be argued for lifting the arms embargo, but I put to the House two considerations that point in the opposite direction. The first is that if we were to lift the arms embargo for the Bosnian Muslims I believe that others would speedily supply arms to the Croats and the Bosnian Serbs. That would not bring about an early ceasefire. The second consideration, which I find even more persuasive, is that it would take time for the arms to be delivered to the Bosnian Muslims and even more time for those people to be trained and expert in their use. I ask what would happen in the meantime; and I answer that rhetorical question by saying that the Bosnian Serbs would be likely to redouble their aggression so as to grab yet more land against the possibility that the Muslims might be in a better position thereafter.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the continuing horror caused by the evidence of alleged war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, not least that now forwarded by the International Red Cross to the special commissioners appointed under UN resolution 780? Is he aware that under resolution 808 the Secretary-General has to report by 22 April on the proposals to establish an ad hoc tribunal to try and, if necessary, punish people alleged to have been engaged in war crimes? Will he do all that he can on behalf of the British Government to ensure that such a tribunal is established as quickly as possible?

I am, indeed, aware of the resolution. I am also aware that the Secretary-General has been commissioned to report back to the Security Council by the end of April on ways in which to carry forward the holding of a war crimes tribunal. I think that that is an important object of policy and, to the extent that it is possible—one must recognise the difficulties—that people who are guilty or who are alleged to be guilty of war crimes need to be brought before that tribunal and punished appropriately.

Do not the Government recognise that even for those of us who have supported the peace process and the decisions of the Security Council, the policy of the United Nations appears to be falling apart in Bosnia? Is not it clear that sanctions are being widely breached by certain countries, including Russia, and should not any aid to Mr. Yeltsin be contingent on his obeying the mandatory sanctions against Serbia imposed by the Security Council?

Our purpose—it must be—is to achieve continued consensus within the Security Council, because it is only by maintaining a united front between the five permanent members that we can hope to continue to place great pressure on Serbia. Against that background, we must consider the request by the Russian Government not to put the matter to the vote until the end of April. Our purpose must be to keep Russian consent, because if we lose it, the ability of the Security Council to act effectively will disappear entirely. That is the thinking behind our decision to accede to the Russian request. I believe that it was a right decision.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations beween the EC and the USA.

EC-US relations are close, crucially important and wide ranging, including especially trade relations and political dialogue. We are committed to maintaining and developing this relationship on the basis of the November 1990 EC-US declaration which sets out shared aims and principles. The next EC-US summit will take place in Washington on 7 May.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital for both the European Community and the United States that there is a successful outcome to the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade? Will he confirm that the Government will do everything in their power to ensure that the protectionist tendencies of Mr. Delors, of French politicians and of some within the Clinton Administration are not allowed to stand in the way of a successful outcome to those negotiations?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of a successful conclusion to the GATT Uruguay round. I assure him that the Government will continue to give the highest priority to that. The initial signals coming from the new United States Administration are encouraging. The trade representative, Mr. Kantor, recently confirmed President Clinton's commitment to a more open trading system and to the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round. He also confirmed the United States Administration's commitment to seeking an extension to the fast track authority, which is also a very positive step.

But could the Minister press for a joint initiative between the EC and the United States of America to put pressure on the South African Government to ensure that white terrorism is rooted out from both the community and the security forces? The tragic death of Chris Hani over the weekend is a clear example of the way in which white terrorists are being assisted——

Order. I have again to call an hon. Member to order. The hon. Gentleman started out reasonably but moved so far away from the question that his remarks really were out of order. I ask all hon. Members to look at the questions very carefully, and not to try to put one over on the Speaker, as they sometimes do.

rose——

No. We will now move on.

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

Our relations are excellent. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary paid a successful visit to the Republic of Korea last week. He had full and useful exchanges with—among others—the President, the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister. As well as bilateral matters, their discussions covered regional and international issues, including North Korea, market access, trade, technology co-operation, investment and the European Community. This was a very good opportunity to establish contact with the new South Korean Administration. My right hon. Friend also met and had useful discussions with representatives of the British business community.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that extremely informative reply. Does he share South Korea's grave concern about North Korea's threatened withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty? Does he agree that that poses the threat of destabilisation throughout the region and that there is an urgent need for the International Atomic Energy Agency to move in and carry out an inspection? Will he seek the support of the Government of the People's Republic of China in putting pressure on North Korea?

Yes. North Korea's announcement of its intention to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty is a cause for great concern and its refusal to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency's special inspections gives further cause to question the intentions of the North Korean Government. The United Kingdom is determined to maintain and strengthen the non-proliferation treaty. We urge North Korea to reconsider its position and we intend to explore all possible avenues with our Security Council colleagues to persuade North Korea to change its mind.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and where he intends to have talks with the Government of the People's Republic of China on the development of democracy in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

We and the Chinese Government announced yesterday that talks on Hong Kong's electoral arrangements will begin in Peking on 22 April. Our aim will be to reach an understanding with the Chinese side on arrangements which will ensure that elections are fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. If we can reach such an understanding, we and the Hong Kong Government will recommend it to Hong Kong's Legislative Council. It will be for that body to pass the necessary legislation.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although it was the Governor who tabled the proposals for constitutional change in Hong Kong, those proposals were, none the less, the recommendations of Her Majesty's Government and have the broad support of hon. Members on both sides of the House? Furthermore, they are within the Basic Law. If the People's Republic of China thinks otherwise, it would help the proposed talks if the Chinese were to be specific about the respects in which they think that the proposals depart from the Basic Law so that those matters can be addressed in detail before the talks take place.

My hon. Friend is correct in every particular.

The Minister keeps talking about reaching an understanding with China. Is it not a fact that any understanding with China can result only in a further watering down of proposals that were already grossly inadequate in terms of what the Hong Kong Legislative Council and OMELCO have asked for? Is it not also a fact that continual caving in to Chinese tactics of delay and dilution will result in there being very little democracy indeed to be handed over in 1997?

The right hon. Gentleman's views are well known to the House. I can reiterate only that the outcome of the talks will be placed before the Legislative Council in Hong Kong and will, we hope, be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Peruvian ambassador to discuss the democratic process in that country.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed Peru with the Peruvian ambassador on 18 November 1992. I visited Lima from 7 to 9 January and was able to assess the progress that Peru has made in restoring democratic government.

Is the Minister aware that when I visited Peru last year, I witnessed for myself the evil which the Sendero Luminoso is perpetrating on the people of Peru? However, there is no social welfare programme in that country, and the more President Fujimori goes ahead with his proposals and ignores the social reality, the worse it will be for the western world, particularly in relation to drugs. When the Secretary of State next meets the ambassador, will he impress on him the overall need for democracy in Peru so that that helps the people of that country?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his perfectly correct remarks about Sendero Luminoso which is probably the most horrific terrorist organisation operating anywhere on the globe today. We must recognise that since the autumn coup—as I believe it is called—President Fujimori has made progress in the restoration of democracy and the new constitutional assembly holds out considerable hope for the future of Peru. When I was there, I was able to speak not only to the Speaker of that assembly, but to a number of human rights groups. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the end, although the activities of Sendero Luminoso may be challenging and deeply repulsive, the route to its defeat must be through the proper restoration of full democratic human rights in Peru.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with the Government of Malaysia on United Kingdom-Malaysian relations.

I visited Malaysia from 1 to 5 April and was able to see at first hand that our relations with Malaysia are excellent. I met the Minister of Finance, Mr. Anwar Ibrahim—who had himself visited the United Kingdom earlier this year—and had wide-ranging discussions with him and a number of his ministerial colleagues. I also visited the free trade zone in Penang and the Forestry Research Institute of Malaysia.

Is it not important that British firms should try to secure contracts in respect of the new Kuala Lumpur airport? What are the Government doing to assist?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is plenty of scope for British firms to increase British business in Malaysia; the new planned airport at Sepang is an important example of that. In February, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister offered up to £42 million-worth of grant finance to be used in association with export credits and contracts that may be awarded to British companies of up to £120 million-worth of United Kingdom goods and services for the planned new airport. Any firm commitment will be subject to the usual appraisal procedures and contacts with our Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development partners in line with internationally agreed rules on the provision of tied aid. I very much hope that our companies will be successful.

As the Minister said that he visited the forestry institute, what did it say about the rate of logging and the truction of rain forest in Sabah and Sarawak Wand on the Malaysian mainland?

Nothing, Madam Speaker.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to improve the effectiveness and impact of United Nations and European Community sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.

We have provided customs personnel to the sanctions assistance missions, which are helping Serbia's neighbours enforce sanctions more effectively, and £100,000 to establish a communications network along the Danube. I am confident -that sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro are already having an impact, but sanctions may need to be,tightened still further to put pressure on the Serbs to sign- the Vance-Owen plan; further action is under consideration in New York.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the report of the debate in European Standing Committee B which, a few weeks ago, probed the Government on the policing and implementation of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro as they relate to this country? It was shown that there was an hiatus and an unsatisfactory system of controlling and policing exports from the United Kingdom to the former states of Yugoslavia. Further, there was an indication from the Minister that Greece was, to say the least, sloppy in its policing of the sanctions regime. Will the Minister bear that in mind and tell us whether the Government have taken measures to ensure that the United Kingdom is rigorously applying the sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro and that there is no sloppiness on behalf of the United Kingdom?

It is certainly our intention rigorously to impose sanctions and I am not aware of any shortcomings. If the hon. Gentleman—or any other hon. Member, for that matter—has evidence of substantial shortcomings, the Government will be anxious to look at it.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is one thing to have tight sanctions to try to bring the parties in the former Yugoslavia to their senses and to a peaceful resolution, but that it is another thing to start talking from the comfort of another place about military intervention, which would mean that the fighting forces in Yugoslavia would move into the towns where the bombing would be on civilians and children?

It already is.

Yes. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many people in the United Kingdom and, indeed, the Chamber would be aggrieved if the British armed forces were used in a warlike manner in the former Yugoslavia? The people who are crying for military intervention would soon be crying for the bodies of our men and women if they, were returned in body bags to Southampton and other 'airports.

I agree with a lot of what my hon. Friend said. It seems that there are two different sorts of military action that one should consider. The first is whether it would be right to deploy United Kingdom ground troops in an aggressive role—and then the question is whether it would be right in what is effectively a civil war to take action that would condemn probably a substantial number of British soldiers to die. That is a question which the House must consider. My view is that it would not be right.

Does the Minister agree that there are awful parallels between Europe's failure to protect the jews before the second world war and our failure to protect the Bosnians from the systematic use of rape and ethnic cleansing? Is it not proposed that massive ground forces will be put in place if the Vance-Owen proposals are carried? The Serbs are refusing to accept implementation of those proposals. Can we not have an alternative plan at least to create some safe havens for the Bosnians?

There is a distinction to be made between deploying troops in a peacemaking role and deploying troops in a peacekeeping role. So far as the latter is concerned, if there were a genuine agreement and a sustainable ceasefire, and if there were substantial troop contributions from a number of other countries—most notably the United States—and the control and command mechanisms seemed right, we should look sympathetically at a proposal that British troops should be used in a peacekeeping role.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to support and assist the independent republics of the CIS to ensure a smooth transition to democracy.

We fully support the development of democratic and economic reforms in all the countries of the former Soviet Union. We contribute to this process through our bilateral aid programmes, such as the know-how fund, and play a substantial part in multilateral efforts. We are doing all that we can to foster contacl.s and exchanges with the newly independent states through international forums to support democratic processes.

Following the demise of the Soviet Union, there is great instability in the former Soviet states that are now independent within the Commonwealth of Independent States. One of the problems is that Ukraine and Kazakhstan have access to nuclear weapons. What is the Government's opinion on trying to force these states to sign strategic arms reduction talks in exchange for aid so that we can help them on the path to democracy and alleviate their poverty?

The hon. Lady is right with her general point that there is instability. We look to the conference on security and co-operation in Europe as the instrument most likely to provide the solution of regional and ethnic problems in the former Soviet Union.