To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the recognition of Eritrea; and if he will make a statement.

We warmly welcome the outcome of the referendum on Eritrea's status. We plan to announce our decision on diplomatic recognition by the time the Eritreans formally declare their independence.

Immediately after recognition, should not Eritrea be given massive economic aid from the world community? It has suffered considerably from the civil war which has destroyed its infrastructure, it suffered from a drought last year and it has half a million refugees to absorb from the Sudan. In those circumstances, is not our proposal for £500,000 worth of aid for the coming year inadequate, given that the economic recovery plan will cost $2.5 billion?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given terrific humanitarian assistance to Eritrea— some £12 million worth of aid since January 1992. We are proposing a new bilateral programme of £500,000 worth of assistance a year for that part of the world. With regard to the rehabilitation of displaced persons, the United Nations department of humanitarian affairs will visit Eritrea shortly and make a report. We wish to reserve judgment until we know the outcome of that report before considering any further matters.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the message that I and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) bring back from Eritrea is that the people there are in remarkably good heart after 30 years of war and devastation and now need to face the next 30 years of economic war, which they will win with world support. Will he examine the possibility of supporting the World bank's initiative on its recovery programme, as well as the United Nations Development Programme for returnees and access to the Lom. IV convention, and also see whether Britain can do something to help with the necessary reforms of the civil service, support for the police and especially the improvement in literacy, given that Eritrea has chosen English as its second language?

All those matters will certainly be examined—I can say no more than that to my hon. Friend or the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), both of whom attended the referendum as observers. The British Government warmly welcome the referendum result, wish to help Eritrea in the future and will consider their relationship with Eritrea on a positive basis from now on.

I thank the Minister for his warm welcome for the referendum result. It was a privilege to be present at the referendum on 23 and 25 April. It was a free and fair vote that represented liberation of the Eritrean people after 30 years of war. Can the Minister ensure that some substantial bilateral and multilateral aid goes immediately to the reconstruction of the vital port of Massawa, which was devastated by bombing and recently revaged by a rare hurricane? That port is central to movements of food aid and the reconstruction of the whole country.

There are enormous demands in Eritrea for all sorts of assistance. We are concentrating on the priorities for English language training and agriculture, but we are examining the whole situation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in how many United Nations peacekeeping or peace monitoring operations the United Kingdom plays a part.

The United Kingdom contributes military personnel to five United Nations peacekeeping operations, including 600 to the force in Cyprus, 15 to the force on the Iraq-Kuwait border, 15 in western Sahara, 122 to the force in Cambodia and 2,500 to the United Nations protection force in former Yugoslavia.

The House will be impressed by the extent of that list, representing as it does the country's commitment to peacekeeping in the post-cold war period and, above all, the high regard in which British troops are held worldwide. However, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have reached the point in history at which the whole concept and mechanism of United Nations peacekeeping, and possibly peacemaking, should come under review? In that context, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that, given Britain's permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council and our reputation and abilities, we will maintain the capability to play a full and prominent part?

My hon. Friend is right to stress the ever-increasing nature of the peacekeeping operations conducted by the United Nations. He is also right to say that British forces should make a significant contribution to those operations. We do so especially in the present operations in Bosnia to convey humanitarian supplies. However, I think that my hon. Friend would also agree that we cannot participate in every peacekeeping mission: we have to determine priorities.

I am sure that the Government, with all of us in the House, view with great concern the decision of the Russians to veto the reform of the United Nations financing of the peacekeeping force in Cyprus. Combined with the withdrawal of the Canadian contribution some time in June, that will inevitably put an added burden on this country. In view of the present poor state of our defence forces and the Treasury-driven cuts in the "Options for Change" process, will we be able to fulfil those commitments, which are limited at present?

The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the Russian vote last night. That is a matter which must be considered. But I return to the point that I made. We cannot participate in every peacekeeping force. We have to make choices. Our contribution to peacekeeping forces is recognised as among the most effective made by any member of the United Nations.

If we participate in the number of peacekeeping activities that my right hon. and learned Friend said, that means that there are another 12 in which the United Kingdom is not involved with the United Nations. There are a further eight civil wars going on around the world where the United Nations is not involved and another 25 flashpoints where war could break out at any time, so the role of the United Nations is bound to increase.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the many parts of the world and operations in which we could make a contribution. That rather emphasises the point that I have already made. One must make choices about where the priorities lie. It is also worth reminding my hon. Friend that, for example, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe can operate in a peacekeeping role, sometimes under the direct authority of the United Nations and sometimes free standing. Therefore, it is a question of making priorities and seeing whether regional organisations can sometimes take some of the strain.

Does the Minister accept that the number of forces required for peacekeeping operations would be smaller if they could be deployed in a more timely manner? Does not that underline the importance of the Secretary-General's report "Agenda for Peace", in which he talks about member nations ascribing and allocating forces on a permanent basis to the United Nations? Is that now part of Her Majesty's Government's official policy and, if so, what are the implications for "Options for Change"?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that sometimes timely action can prevent a more substantial contribution later. There is rather a good example of that in Macedonia where, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is now a battalion of United Nations authorised troops in a pre-emptive role. I suspect that over the years we shall see rather more of that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Hungary in the light of his recent visit to Hungary.

I accompanied Her Majesty the Queen on part of her highly successful state visit to Hungary last week. I have had talks with the President, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. Our relations are in good shape. The Hungarians know that we support their wish to become full members of the European Community when practicable and that meanwhile we are working to make a success of the Community's association agreement with them, particularly by opening the Community's market increasingly to their goods. British investment in Hungary and trade with Hungary are growing and there is scope for plenty more of both. The British know-how fund is an acknowledged success, with many good projects coming forward.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the early accession of Hungary and other states like it to the European Community is at the core of our relations with that country? Can he say when that might be? As the European Parliament's consent is required for the accession of new members to the treaty of Rome, will existing member states be required to give up more power in order to obtain that consent?

I do not think that my hon. Friend's second point is very strong. The treaty of Rome provides under article 237 that the Parliament must agree to new accessions. That is not changed under the proposed treaty of Maastricht. Any change in the powers of Parliament is a matter for treaty. But my hon. Friend is right on his first point. Full membership of the Community is one of Hungary's main objectives and we are in favour of its achieving that as soon as practicable. It knows and we know that it is not possible to set an exact date at present.

Did the Secretary of State make it clear to the Hungarian Government that the British Government would take a dim view of any encouragement that might be given to the ethnic Hungarians who live in Transylvania and to the secessionist groups that are beginning to surface there?

The Hungarians expressed the view clearly to me that they do not seek a change in the international borders of Romania, but they are understandably anxious that the Hungarians in Transylvania should be given a proper degree of autonomy.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on achieving a long-term solution to the political problems in the former republic of Yugoslavia.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he assesses to be the most effective in bringing to an end the fighting in Bosnia Herzegovina.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with other United Nations countries regarding the conflict in former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

Despite the intransigence of the Bosnian Serbs, we continue to regard the Vance-Owen plan as an indispensable lead into peace in Bosnia. Our policies are directed towards getting the Bosnian Serbs to accept the plan, carry it out in good faith and desist from further attacks. That means increasing the pressure on them by stepping up still further the growing effectiveness of sanctions and testing the declared will of President Milosevic to carry out his intention to cut off supplies to the Bosnian Serbs and allow international monitoring of the border. In case the Bosnian Serbs cannot be persuaded to comply, we are considering with our partners and allies the possibility of using stronger measures, not excluding military options. We also agreed in the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday on the need to express to the Government of Croatia our dismay at recent actions by Bosnian Croats in central Bosnia and around Mostar.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the fact that he has not been driven off his sensible dual-track approach by ill-judged insults from certain safely distant American politicians during the past few days. In that context, will my right hon. Friend welcome the constructive statement from the American Government today that deployment of United States ground troops in Macedonia is being considered, particularly as it will give the American public a better appreciation of the complexities of what is happening on the ground throughout the former republic of Yugoslavia?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I do not thing that it serves any purpose to start exchanging accusations across the Atlantic. I do not think that some of those remarks would have been made if those concerned had seen the exchanges that have taken place between the allies in recent days, or if they had understood the nature of the effort and the risks which some of us, including Britain, are making in Bosnia at the present time. I agree with my hon. Friend's second point. If the United States were to decide to reinforce the Nordic battalion in Macedonia already referred to, that would be welcome from our point of view.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it is more than ever important that aggression, wherever it comes from, is not seen to be rewarded? As more and more ground is gained by that aggression, with the loss of Srebrenica and Zepa, it becomes more difficult to secure the peace. Can the Foreign Secretary therefore say what measures he will recommend to the allies to ensure that Gorazde does not suffer the same fate?

The Serbs have not, of course, occupied either Srebrenica or Zepa. In my main answer I dealt, I think, with the hon. Gentleman's point. We believe that so long as the Bosnian Serbs continue to push forward in eastern Bosnia, the pressures against them must be built up. The new element in the last few weeks is the declared intention of President Milosevic to put pressure on the Bosnian Serbs. That is being partly carried out. It needs to be tested. What we and the Americans have recently agreed, and what is now being carried forward in the Security Council, is that we should propose and agree that there should be monitors along the border between Bosnia and Serbia so as to prevent the flow of illegal traffic.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is bound to be much disappointment that the leading western countries have not—so far at least—been able to get their act together in dealing with Serbian aggression and vile ethnic cleansing? As for the Foreign Secretary's reference to Belgrade, is not it a fact that if the Belgrade leadership appears to be—I emphasise "appears to be"—dissociating itself from the Bosnian Serb warlords, it is because of the fear of armed intervention? Should not that lesson be carefully learnt, be it here in western Europe or in the United States?

The allies are agreed on the effort which we are carrying forward. That is to say, the Europeans, the Americans and the Russians are agreed on the need for a political process—I have mentioned the Vance-Owen plan—on the need for effective sanctions, with the Americans and the Europeans working together, and on the need for the humanitarian effort: our troops on the ground, a big United Nations effort and the United States and other air drops. All that is agreed and is going forward. There is consultation on further measures. As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, one can never be sure what moves people to change their policy. It may be the undoubtedly growing effectiveness of sanctions. It may be, as he suggested, the hints of possible military action, which we are not excluding. One cannot be sure. Nor is it certain that the change is a substantial and permanent one. That is what now has to be tested.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the perception outside the House of the lowering cloud of shame over the Governments of Europe and America because of the lack of military intervention? That does not include, obviously, the troops we have put there who are giving humanitarian aid. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that at a meeting in this very House the Bosnian Foreign Secretary and the Bosnian UN envoy said that we are keeping their people alive until the Serbs come to kill them? Is not it time to end the delay, to stop buck-passing to the Americans and to commit ourselves to military intervention to deal with ethnic cleansing and create a safe haven now for those Bosnians who are left in their own country?

The hon. Gentleman is the first I have heard in the House, throughout many months of debate, to propose a military intervention on the ground to impose a particular solution. No Government whom I know of, and certainly not the Government of the United States, propose that. The House debated this matter on 29 April. I carried away from that debate the very strong feeling from all parts of the House, although not from all individuals, that hon. Members were in favour of the pressures that we are building up and of the line that we are taking and that they were also in favour of substantial prudence before going into further types of involvement without calculating the consequences. The kind of phrases that fell from the hon. Gentleman's lips are a little bit easy for those who do not carry the responsibility for the result.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation in and around Mostar is becoming increasingly critical? Is he further aware that President Izetbegovic has asked for Mostar to be declared a protected zone? Will he give his support to that request?

I had not heard of that request. The situation in Mostar is serious, but the Spanish troops—the European troops who are escorting humanitarian convoys in that area—have done their best to calm things down. Ceasefires have been negotiated and I believe that there has been some dying away of the fighting, although it comes and goes. We take the matter very seriously and I know that the German Foreign Minister is going to Zagreb. The presidency of the Community, as a result of our meeting on Monday, will express our deep concern to the Croats about the matter, as there is no doubt that the main responsibility is theirs.

I understand my right hon. Friend's reluctance to avoid trading insults across the Atlantic, but is not there support in the Senate, and possibly in the Administration of the President, for arming the Bosnian Muslims? Is it still the Government's view that that would seriously jeopardise the humanitarian relief that we give the Bosnian Serbs, Muslims and others and that were we to agree to such an American request that work would have to be abandoned and other initiatives that have already taken would be jeopardised?

The House discussed this subject on 29 April and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and other hon. Members supported our reasons for having reservations about this option, not the least of which is the one that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is hard to imagine how the humanitarian effort and the troops escorting the convoys could continue—at least in their present form—if that option were taken. No option has been excluded, because the situation may change, but our position on that particular option has not changed.

Is not one of the tragic lessons of the middle east that pouring armaments into areas of instability and conflict does not lead to early political solutions or to peace? Should not we emphasise that point to those who want the United Nations arms embargo on Bosnia to be ended?

I have sketched out again our position on air strikes and the arms embargo, which has not really altered since our debate on 29 April. There was some discussion in the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday about whether we should begin to think of sanctions against Croatia. We reached the conclusion that that was not justified at this stage, but the Croatians should have no doubt that, if the kind of incident that occurred in central Bosnia and has now occurred again in Mostar continues, they cannot expect to have the kind of relationship with the European Community or the international community that they expected.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his European Community counterparts to discuss developments in former Yugoslavia.

Former Yugoslavia will be discussed at the next General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 8 June.

I pay full tribute to the humanitarian contribution made by British forces in Bosnia, but is not the painful reality that it has saved thousands from being starved to death at the price of thousands of others being shelled to death and that Cambodian-type atrocities will continue unless effective deterrent action is taken? Does not relevant 20th century experience tell us that for defending freedom from ruthless aggressors there is no substitute for a strong Anglo-American alliance, compared with which an attempt to secure agreement and joint action among 12 European nations is little more than a mirage?

It is right to be absolutely clear that many thousands of people in Bosnia are now living who would have been dead, but for the delivery of humanitarian supplies over many months, and that much credit for that goes to the British troops now in Bosnia and to the Royal Air Force. We must also recognise that what we face in Bosnia is essentially a civil war. It is true that it has been supported by men and munitions from Serbia and, as has been made plain by many hon. Members, from Croatia too. In essence, however, it is a civil war and we need to reinforce the pressure now on Serbia to get President Milosevic to put yet more pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to subscribe to a peace agreement.

Does the Minister agree that we must learn lessons from the tragedy now occurring in Yugoslavia, one of which is that the precipitate recognition of the new republics by the European Community exacerbated the problems there? Does the Minister further agree that if there is recognition in other parts of Europe in the coming months and years, hand in hand with recognition there must be an agreement recognising the rights of minorities both within the state with which they reside and in any neighbouring state with which they may have linguistic or other relations?

It is true that the British Government were more cautious about recognising Croatia than were a number of our European colleagues, but by the time we recognised Croatia we all judged that the grounds for refusing recognition no longer existed. The same applied in the case of Bosnia. The hon. Gentleman will keep in mind that there was a referendum, and an independent report commissioned by the EC, in the light of which it would have been difficult to withhold recognition of Bosnia. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about minority rights, and it is certainly true in the context of the entirety of former Yugoslavia that the preservation of minority rights within the frontiers is of key importance to any peace settlement.

When my right hon. and learned Friend talks to our European partners, will he point out that although the British people are anxious to play their part in resolving the problems in Bosnia, they would appreciate greater assistance from other members of the Community in terms of sending their forces to be shot at and put into danger? If there is to be a general Community solution to the problem, it should not be left mainly to the British and French forces to carry out the peacekeeping in the name of the European Community. I believe that if that were achieved, my right hon. and learned Friend would find much greater agreement about the way forward, and perhaps rather less resistance to the effective use of British forces.

My hon. Friend makes a point of substance. He was right to pay tribute to the French Government for their very substantial contribution. The Spanish Government, too, have contributed. There are also countries which, by reason of their history or their constitutions, or both, would find it rather difficult to make a contribution in what was Yugoslavia.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the South African Government following the murder of Chris Hani; and if he will make a statement.

We have made every effort to help minimise the effect of the tragic assassination of Chris Hani on the negotiating process in South Africa, including the provision of a senior police officer to help with the investigation.

Following the distinguished and dignified address given by Mr. Nelson Mandela during his recent visit to this country, as well as the death of Chris Hani and the revelation of the alleged plots against other people involved in the constitutional process, will the Minister press on Mr. de Klerk and all others the urgent need to secure an early settlement in the constitutional discussions so that the next stage may be reached? Will the Government also make it perfectly clear to Chief Buthelezi that they will provide no support at all for his proposals concerning separatism, which at best would delay the constitutional talks and at worst could create in South Africa the sort of tragedy now engulfing Yugoslavia?

I wholly endorse the hon. Lady's words about Nelson Mandela's visit last week, which was interesting and remarkable to us all. With regard to the constitutional process in South Africa, the hon. Lady will be aware that negotiations reopened on 26 April—a week after Chris Hani's dreadful assassination. The negotiating council has now agreed that a date for the election should be set before June and that the election should be held before the end of April 1994. Substantial progress has been made. The constitutional process is, of course, a matter for and between the various parties in South Africa. That is all that I can say about that aspect of the matter.

While my hon. Friend is right to offer the South African Government support for their move towards multiracial democracy, may I ask him to urge on them some caution with regard to the pace of reform? Does he agree that until all parties—including the Inkatha Freedom party and, despite current circumstances, members of the Conservative party—are involved in the decision-making process and the discussions, any move towards an early general election would be fatal for South Africa?

As I have already indicated, the negotiating council has tentatively agreed arrangements for setting a date for a general election in South Africa. Clearly it is for the negotiating council to proceed at such pace as it collectively judges would be wise in all the circumstances facing that country.

Was not Nelson Mandela's persistence in calling for peace and reconciliation quite remarkable, and should it not be applauded, especially in the light of the assassination of his colleague Chris Hani and the known assassination threats faced daily by other leading members of the African National Congress? Would it not be beneficial to all parties in South Africa to move quickly to the formation of a transitional executive council, thus allowing all-party supervision of the defence and police forces in South Africa? Would not that, in turn, help to batten down the violence—if not end it, at least in the beginning contain it—and thereby hasten the achievement of non-racial democracy?

I am happy to endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about Mr. Nelson Mandela, whose call for calm and measured reactions in the light of what must be dreadful provocation for so many people in South Africa is greatly to be applauded. The security situation in South Africa is primarily the responsibility of the South African Government, but it behoves all other people of influence to seek to restrain emotions which must be running high. As to the transitional executive council, I agree that its establishment will be beneficial. It will also enable the lifting of all sanctions to take place, as recommended by the ANC.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country can exert much more influence in the world when we work in unison with our European Community partners than when we operate on our own? Does he further agree that the Maastricht treaty will greatly facilitate that process and enable this country to exert more influence in the world?

On a good many subjects, what my hon. Friend says is true. The principle on which we operate today, and which will be strengthened in the Maastricht treaty, is that where we can reach common positions we can take joint action. Where we cannot, or where specific national interests are to be pursued, individual member states must be free to do that.

Before the Foreign Secretary meets his European partners, will he take time to study the important report in Al Wasat of an interview between President Hafiz Al-Assad of Syria and Patrick Seale? In that interview President Assad recognised publicly for the first time, so far as I can recall, that both Israelis and Palestinians have to live in Palestine, and that the Syrians are for full peace with full withdrawal. He also recognised the growing opinion in Israel for peace. Will the Foreign Secretary recommend to his European partners that they support the statements made by President Assad in that interview?

We have throughout given strong support to the discussions under the peace process. That includes discussions between Israel and Syria, and, of course, Israel and the Palestinians.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that while all our attention is naturally directed towards events in Yugoslavia, other wars and civil wars are raging in what was the Soviet Union? Will he give an assurance that there will always be time to discuss those dreadful events and killings, and in particular the awfulness of the war that is developing between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

Yes, indeed. It is the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe rather than the European Community which is attempting to provide a political framework for an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, and we strongly support that process.

When the Foreign Secretary next meets his European counterparts, will he draw to their attention the important resolution of the European Parliament on 22 April, drawing attention to the tragic position in Angola where, because of the colonial legacy, Europe has a special responsibility? In particular, will he draw attention to the way in which the will of the international community is constantly being flouted by the UNITA forces? Will he take note of the contents of that resolution, which draws attention to the crucial importance of isolating the forces of UNITA from support from outside, particularly from South Africa and Zaire, and of seeing that the United States recognises and supports the Angolan Government, who represent the democratic will of the Angolan people?

I am not sure about what the hon. Gentleman says about the colonial legacy—that was some time ago—but I believe that UNITA and Savimbi have lost, and deserved to lose, a good deal of international sympathy for failing to accept the results of the recent election in Angola. There is no alternative to discussion between the MPLA Government and UNITA, and it should be the task of all, particularly those who gave strong support to UNITA, to make sure that those discussions take place and succeed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Swedish Foreign Minister to discuss Sweden's future relationship with the EC.

I met Mrs. Af Uglass on 26 April in Stockholm and the Prime Minister, Mr. Bildt, the following day. I confirmed our strong support for a successful conclusion to Sweden's negotiations now going on to join the Community.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is very much in Britain's interest that the membership of the European Community is enlarged and open to countries that are suitable for membership? Does he agree that the accession of Sweden, a country with which we have many links, will strengthen the EC's economic base and open up further opportunities to Britain in an expanding single market'?

Yes, indeed. We look forward warmly to the day when Sweden joins the Community. We want the negotiations with the four applicants—Sweden, Finland, Austria and Norway—to press ahead as soon as possible so that, preferably, they go through all the processes and become full members by 1995.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that before any question of accession by Sweden to the EC, there is the matter of the European Economic Area, and a 550-page treaty, which is now under discussion? Since the Swiss have decided not to go ahead on that for the time being, can the Foreign Secretary tell us about the position of Sweden? Is it not a fact that accession to this treaty would mean considerable economic, commercial and legal obligations for Sweden? Have they been fully understood in Sweden, and would it have to have a referendum before acceding?

The arrangements that have been made between the European Free Trade Area countries since the result of the Swiss referendum on the EEA are freely entered into by Sweden and fully understood by it. So the process of EEA is going forward and, at the same time, negotiations are making progress between Sweden and the European Community on its full accession.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the rapid accession of Sweden and the other EFTA countries to the EC would result in a far more pragmatic and financially advantageous view of the expenditure within the EC?

I think that they would all be net contributors, if that is what my hon. Friend is hinting at. There are wider and more political reasons why we in this country—and, I believe, most of the Community now —would warmly welcome the arrival as full members of the Community of those four countries. They are all well qualified and they would all, as far as we are concerned, be warmly welcomed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the role of the United Nations Organisation as a peacekeeper.

Article 1.1 of the charter of the United Nations states that the purpose of the United Nations is

"to maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace."

Will the Secretary of State admit that so far, unfortunately, the record of the United Nations has in no way lived up to what is contained in the charter? Will he accept that, while we are now seeing some improvement in the role of the United Nations, we need the following: first, a very rigorous regime of arms control to try to end the possibilities of the sort of wars that we are seeing all over the world; secondly, a permanent structure to react quickly to events such as those occurring in Yugoslavia, where, because everybody was at sixes and sevens, we have seen a tragedy unfolding before our eyes and have been virtually powerless to do very much that is effective about it?

We are all in favour, and have taken initiatives in making, more transparent and open the criteria for the sale of arms, particularly among the permanent five. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to live in the real world in which arms, particularly small arms, are plentiful and cheap in almost every country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important ways of ensuring the peacekeeping process of the United Nations, particularly after a period of civil war, is through the organisation of free and fair elections? In that context, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to send good wishes to all those who will be involved in the process in Cambodia, including hon. Members and local government officials who, with other international representatives, will be leaving for Cambodia next week?

My hon. Friend is quite right. Cambodia is one example where the United Nations has, for the moment, brought most of the fighting to an end and set up a framework in which there can, and should be, relatively free elections later this month. The situation is fragile, however, and my hon. Friend is right that all those concerned need our help and good wishes.

I welcome the Secretary of State's comment that the situation in Cambodia is fragile. Can he enlighten us as to how far the peacekeeping efforts of United Nations are impeded by the lack of finance from one of its largest participants? Does he accept that in Yugoslavia, where our troops are now changing over, humanitarian efforts were being hindered by those who were seeking to use the convoys bringing in aid for the purpose of supplying munitions? It would be worse if the United Nations were arming the participants there.

It is true that one of the handicaps that the Secretary-General has suffered and draws attention to in his "Agenda for Peace" is financial uncertainty. Unfortunately, both former super-powers have in the past contributed to that uncertainty. I hope that both are removing that uncertainty. That is certainly the intention of President Clinton, but I am not encouraged by the Russian veto in the Security Council yesterday on financing peacekeeping. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point: we want to continue the humanitarian effort while it is needed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effect on United Kingdom policy of the result of the recent referendum in Russia.

We have warmly welcomed the outcome of last month's referendum in Russia. Our policy remains one of firm support for the continuation of economic and democratic reforms. This policy has now been endorsed by the Russian electorate.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the sheer scale of the support shown by the Russian people for Boris Yeltsin and the programme of reforms gives a tremendous boost to international confidence in the long-term future of Russia? Does he also agree that in the near term substantial aid will be necessary to help the difficult process of economic transformation? Will he therefore comment on the quantity and quality of Britain's aid to Russia?

My hon. Friend is right. He will know that last month my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced a doubling of United Kingdom direct bilateral grant aid, together with a doubling of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover. Our total commitment to Russia is of the order of $1.7 billion. Referring to the quality of the aid, the United Kingdom's know-how fund is second to none as a mechanism for the delivery of technical know-how.

If the Minister welcomes a referendum in Russia to clarify the position, why does he not take the same view of a referendum in the United Kingdom on the Maastricht treaty? It would clarify the position, and involve the people of the United Kingdom in determining whether to go ahead with this wretched treaty or reject it. If the people of Russia can have a democratic vote, why not the people of the United Kingdom?

I have always known that the hon. Gentleman has a personality difficulty when it comes to judging things in relation to other things. He obviously equates the congress in Russia, which was elected under the Gorbachev regime, with this place. I do not, and I am sorry that he does.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the BBC World Service.

The World Service is an institution of great influence and prestige throughout the world. The substantial real increase in resources that we have provided, and are providing again this financial year, has enabled it to improve audibility, expand output and enhance programme quality.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, and for reaffirming the Government's priority in maintaining the strength and position of the BBC World Service as the leading international broadcaster. Does my hon. Friend agree that in times of international conflict and uncertainty the need for an independent and unbiased news service around the world is greater than ever? Does he further agree that this can sometimes be best achieved by placing special emphasis on developing new language services so that the programmes broadcast become more widely accessible to the people whom they seek to serve?

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the leading role that the World Service plays in the world of international broadcasting and its tremendous achievements. It is due to Foreign and Commonwealth Office recognition of those achievements, which have been followed by substantial assistance and funding that the World Service has been able to do so well in recent years. In the past three year funding period, for example, broadcasts were increased by more than 10 per cent. and two new languages in areas of tension—Ukrainian and Albanian—were introduced.

Is the Minister aware that his views on the World Service, and those of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), are shared throughout the House? The service is held in the highest esteem throughout the globe, not just in terms of the quality of its broadcasting but in terms of its reliability. It is widely regarded as the most reliable broadcasting service on the planet. Does the Minister recognise that there is genuine concern about the future funding of the World Service, given that it has been warned that it may well face substantial cuts in the Treasury spending blitz that is ahead of us? If it were to share in those cuts and its service were cut back, that would be not just a disgrace but hugely counterproductive to Britain's national interest.

I am fully aware of the widespread acclaim for the World Service in all parts of the House and I emphasise that the funding increase for the World Service from the Foreign Office budget over the past 10 years or so has been 40 per cent. in real terms. This year, the increase has been £10 million, which is way above the rate of inflation. What has happened—this is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to—is that the Foreign Office has been in touch with the World Service and said that, depending on the outcome of the public expenditure survey, we shall have to have discussions and if the Foreign Office is unable to meet the aspirations of the World Service, its funding will be put on the same footing as the rest of the Foreign Office budget when it comes to reviewing expenditure.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, on a previous occasion when the Treasury required economies to be made in the foreign service budget, one of the economies made was to close down Spanish broadcasts to Latin America a few weeks before the Argentines invaded the Falkland Islands? Will he make absolutely certain that this immensely valuable institution, which does more for British influence and prestige throughout the world than probably any other activity of the Foreign Office, is protected from the next round of economy cuts?

I am grateful to receive the message of my hon. Friend in the spirit of support for the World Service. I do not believe that there are any cuts in prospect in terms of languages from the World Service. My hon. Friend has referred to an earlier occasion when there were threats; it is since then that the World Service has expanded in such a tremendous way.