To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the United Kingdom's Arab allies about the United States' attack upon Baghdad; and if he will make a statement.

The policies of the Baghdad regime of course cause us great concern and therefore we have frequent and close consultations with our Arab friends and partners.

I thank the Minister for that answer, although it did not answer my question. In their discussions, did his allies tell him that when the 1,000 lb of explosives landed on the house of the celebrated Iraqi artist Leila al-Attar, killing her, her husband, and a member of her staff, and cruelly maiming her children, they had any idea what would arise from the ashes of that disaster? What rises from the ashes of Al Mansour is the barbarism of extremism and fundamentalism, which is breathing down the necks of the allies with whom he has had regular discussions. When the Minister reads of the latest murderous assault that will come any day now, will he bear in mind the fact that as long as our Government and the western powers are ready to pulverise Iraq, but appease Israel, and are ready to starve and blockade innocent Iraqis, but allow Serbia to get off with genocide in Yugoslavia, our Government's policies will be contributing to the disaster that is on its way?

The death of anyone not connected with the aggressive policies of Iraq is to be deeply regretted. However, it was quite plain that the Government of Iraq were behind the attempt to assassinate former President Bush. That was a clear attack on the security of the United States. We believe that, in invoking article 51 of the charter, the United States was entitled to take the action it did, which received broad support.

In considering a response to Iraq's failure to comply with the appropriate Security Council resolution, will the Government be in touch with the political opponents of Saddam Hussein outside Iraq and the Arab countries threatened by Iraq, and will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that any action taken is proportionate, involves the minimum loss of life and advances the long-term strategic aims of the United Nations?

We will indeed ensure that any action that may have to be taken—I hasten to say that I hope that no action will have to be taken—is proportionate, causes the minimum casualties and is firmly based on international law. We are in continuing discussions with our Arab friends, partners and others about that issue and related matters.

For the reasons that I gave the Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Michael Burton, in the interview that was arranged for me by the Foreign Secretary, do Ministers accept that, whether they like it or not, sanctions and bombing strengthen the regime of Saddam Hussein in a way that nothing else could?

I do not accept that point, but I accept that it is extraordinarily difficult by a policy either of sanctions or of bombing to displace Saddam Hussein. It is essential for all of us to ensure full compliance by Iraq with the mandatory elements of the Security Council resolutions, especially those that relate to the eradication of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We must hold to the sanctions regime if we are to achieve that.

What representations has my right hon. and learned Friend had from our Arab allies regarding the missing 627 Kuwaiti prisoners of war—male and female civilians—who were taken from their homes three years ago? To this date, Iraq has failed to comply with United Nations resolutions seeking their release. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make the greatest endeavours to achieve justice in that important humanitarian matter?

My hon. Friend is right. The Government of Kuwait raise the question with us on every possible occasion and we raise it with the Iraqis in New York and at the sanctions review meetings. It is one of the very important respects in which Iraq is in breach of the mandatory parts of the Security Council resolutions and it makes the relaxation of the sanctions regime impossible at the moment.

How does the Minister expect to secure the release of the three Britons being held in Iraq when his Government condone the bombing? The family of Michael Wainwright think that every time the British Government support such actions, they put the lives of those men in danger.

It is important to separate the two issues. We are, of course, very concerned about the position of Mr. Ride, Mr. Wainwright and Mr. Dunn and we take every opportunity to impress on the Iraqis the fact that we regard the sentences imposed on them as outrageous. As the hon. Lady knows, our representatives saw the three men a few days ago. The Russians have been extremely helpful in facilitating visits to the three men. We will do all that we can to secure their release, but we will not pay any kind of blackmail and we insist on our right to support, for example, the Americans when they exercise their right of self-defence under the charter of the United Nations.

My right hon. and learned Friend has taken a tough and robust stand in forcing the Iraqi regime to conform to the United Nations requirements on weapons of mass destruction. Does he agree that this is a matter in which the vital interests of this country and of every other country in the west and in the civilised world are fundamentally involved? If the west backs off and the United Nations requirements on weapons of mass destruction are not enforced, the consequences are too horrible to consider.

I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. I had the pleasure of seeing Ambassador Ekeus a few days ago and he made two important points. First, he believes that there has been a substantial eradication of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq, but that it has not been completed. Secondly, he believes that provided that we hold to a tough verification and monitoring regime in future, we can prevent the Government of Iraq from reassembling weapons of mass destruction. He goes on to say—and I agree—that if we fail to hold to a tough policy of monitoring and verification, the chances are that the Iraqi Government will do just that.

Although we of course support the determination to enforce the resolutions of the UN Security Council in respect of Iraq, what evidence is there that the frequent launching of missiles against Iraq is hastening that process? Is not it really the case that as well as causing the inevitable slaughter of innocent civilians, it causes Iraq to become more intransigent, especially when missiles are launched under questionable legal authority? Is not there also another grave consequence, which is that our friends and allies in other Arab countries in the middle east are themselves politically destabilised? Is not it far better to pursue the action being taken now in the name of the United Nations, which is further discussions and an insistence on Iraq's meeting the requirements of the resolutions, than to contemplate yet another missile attack, with yet more civilian casualties and yet more support for the odious regime of Saddam Hussein?

The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points and I shall be unable to reply to them all. First, I say at once that I deplore as much as he does the civilian casualties. That is, indeed, a tragedy and one cannot pretend otherwise. Secondly, I do not believe that our friends and allies in the middle east are being destabilised.

Yes, they are.

I do not believe—it is a matter of judgment—that they are being destabilised in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has claimed. Thirdly, I do not feel uneasy about the legal basis for the action in the way that the right hon. Gentleman apparently does.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the G7 summit in Tokyo.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement in the House on Monday. The progress made on trade was especially welcome and the market access package endorsed by the summit provides the much-needed impetus for resuming the multilateral negotiations in Geneva.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was the British Government's agenda for international economic recovery that found widespread acceptance in Tokyo, as it did in Copenhagen some weeks ago? As Britain is a leading advocate of free trade, does not the enhanced prospect of a successful conclusion to the GATT talks later this year mean good news for the British economy and for British jobs?

My hon. Friend is right. We have pressed that view for a long time. It has proved to be a long road. We do not believe in systems for regional trade—Fortress Europe, Fortress Asia or Fortress North America—which are not good for a world trading country such as ours, so we were encouraged by the success on trade access. We can approach the main GATT negotiations in Geneva with a good deal more optimism than seemed likely a few weeks ago.

What is the use of fine words about Bosnia when, on Monday, 12 people were killed and 15 were seriously injured queuing for water as a result of the action by Serbian war criminals? It should be clear to the Government, and to other western Governments, following the summit, that the Serbians will continue their aggression, their murder and their crimes and atrocities against humanity, as long as they believe that they can get away with it? What on earth is the west going to do about it?

I will talk about that when I answer a later question, but the two immediate needs are to keep people alive by continuing humanitarian supplies—Mrs. Ogata urged that in London on Monday—and to bring the fighting to an end, which will happen only through a negotiated settlement, unless the hon. Member and others in the west are prepared to do something that no one has been prepared to do, which is to send an international expeditionary force to impose a particular solution. No one has suggested that, save one or two Opposition Members. No Government have suggested that. The rhetoric that has done so much harm in the matter has come from exaggerated expectations, leading to exaggerated criticisms.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important outcome of the G7 meeting was that it was plain that the British Government were not going to engage in any military intervention in Bosnia? Was not that a significant demonstration of leadership and choice to the British nation and a rejection of the dangerous and deceitful dream of world government, which the parties of the left in the House enjoyed for at least 100 years? Did not the Government at last demonstrate a true Tory view—that British soldiers should risk their lives only in upholding the British national interest?

My hon. Friend knows that 2,500 British troops are in Bosnia. They are helping to keep people alive. They have so far escorted 950 convoys and 45,700 tonnes of food, mainly to Muslims and Croats. Many Bosnians, of all backgrounds, would have been dead had it not been for the British effort, so I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think that was, and remains, a thoroughly worthwhile effort. However, I do not believe, and have never used rhetoric that would lead anyone to believe, that it was part of Britain's interests to pretend that we could sort out every man-made disaster in the world, of which there are many at the moment. The United Nations is struggling with great difficulty in places such as Somalia, Iraq—which we have just dealt with—Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique and Bosnia to do what it can. It is in our interest to do our bit, but we should not over-pretend, or let rhetoric get in the way of reality.

Did the G7 consider the reports from Iran that it might want to send as many as 17,000 troops to Bosnia? If that were to happen, what would be the response of the western democracies?

It is for the Secretary-General to assess replies to his request for more troops for Bosnia. I am glad that the French are sending more and I hope that other European countries that have been thinking of it will do so. I believe that there is a strong case for having Muslim contingents there. I do not personally think that Iran would be a suitable candidate for that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Governor of Hong Kong to discuss the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

On Friday 9 July. I reported to him on my visit to Peking on 8 and 9 July. In Peking I had useful wide-ranging talks with Chinese leaders. On the electoral issue, I was able to focus their attention on the essential points and to make plain the need for more rapid progress. I emphasised the need for fair and open elections acceptable to the people of Hong Kong and for the negotiations to concentrate on three things: the functional constituencies, the election committee and the through train—that is to say, the need for clear, objective criteria for candidates standing in the 1995 elections to remain members of the legislature for a full four-year term. Chinese leaders also agreed to speed up work on the airport and in the joint liaison group.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply. He mentioned the joint liaison group which, clearly, has a key role to play between now and 1997, but it has been making particularly slow progress. What success does he think that he had in discussing with officials in Beijing and with the Governor ways in which the work of that group could be expedited? Will he take this opportunity of explaining to the House the implication of the establishment with the Chinese of the preliminary working committee?

On the first point, yes, we made some progress inasmuch as the dates for future meetings have been fixed for September and later this year in Peking and London. I emphasized—this was not contradicted—the need to get on with much of the agenda, for example the air services agreement, defence lands and the technical changing of legislation. I hope that there is progress there, although the next few months will show whether that hope is real.

When I met Governor Patten on his visit here on 1 July I was pleased to hear that the process of getting democratic structures into place by 1997 was advancing and that the through train has been pursued assiduously. When will the Secretary of State make a decision on the future of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong? There are 7,000 such people, mainly of Indian origin, who were removed to Hong Kong as many as 100 years ago and who are likely to become stateless under the citizenship propositions. Surely they deserve much better treatment from this Government than what has been proposed.

This is a long-standing argument and I know the strength of the case. It was dealt with a few days ago on 9 July by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. He repeated the assurance that the group already has: that if, against all expectations, they come under pressure to leave Hong Kong and have nowhere else to go, the Government of the day would consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to this country.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards enlarging the EC.

Accession negotiations are in train with Austria, Finland Sweden and Norway. The June European Council set a target date of 1 January 1995 for their accession. It also agreed that the six associate countries of eastern Europe should become members as soon as they could assume the responsibilities of membership. On 30 June, the Commission's opinions on the applications for membership of Malta and Cyprus were issued. We welcome those developments.

While I welcome the proposals for the accession of, in particular, the European Free Trade Association countries, because they will be net contributors, will my hon. Friend keep a firm hold on the present: first, by ensuring that the deliberations of EC Ministers are dealt with more effectively by their meetings beginning on time; secondly, by ensuring that there is a complete absence of pettifogging and nitpicking regulations emanating from Europe; thirdly, by ensuring that article 3(b) is brought into effect as soon as possible; and, fourthly, will he do his best to ensure that the social chapter is kept well offshore?

I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. We, too, want article 3(b) of the treaty brought into effect as soon as possible, but that requires ratification first. I know that my hon. Friend will play his part in that. I believe that the accession of the additional EFTA states will help us, as they, too, believe in a decentralised, open-trading Community with strong budget discipline. That will help us to resist those who want an enclosed, protectionist, centralised, socialist Europe.

Despite the schedule of events that the Minister sketched in his opening reply and the fact that, for example, Finland acknowledges the diplomatic role that Britain is playing within the Community to assist it in its progress towards membership, will the Minister none the less acknowledge that there are fears among various parties in various countries within the existing Community that the British Government—not least because of reports about the Foreign Office preparation for the next set of intergovernmental conferences, if we can look that far forward—see the enlargement process as a means of putting the brakes, along the lines that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) was hinting at, on the process of further European integration? Will he allay fears on that matter?

The Government welcome the accession negotiations, which are well under way and going well. We were in the lead in inviting other member states to set a target date for the accession of the additional states. We want to strengthen Europe by enlarging it.

Will my hon. Friend say a word more about the accession of the associate states that were part of the old Soviet Union? What does he think is now the likely timetable for them?

We believe that Europe should be open to any application from a European state that is democratic and willing to take on the responsibilities of membership. That includes the states of eastern and central Europe. I have to be candid in saying that their membership must be some years away, but the Copenhagen summit was clear in welcoming their eventual accession.

Assuming that enlargement is completed successfully, what consequential changes in the decision-making processes of the European Community does the Minister expect will be necessary? In particular, does he expect that more majority voting in the Council of Ministers will be required?

No, that does not necessarily follow, although it is true that the accession of four additional states will cause us to look again at some of the institutional mechanisms. The number of votes that each of the accession states has remains to be negotiated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to how many countries he has made representations in the last six months urging them to hold democratic elections.

We have made such representations to 12 countries in the past six months.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that, in the middle east, the only true democracy is Israel? In view of that, and if he believes in democracy, will he tell me why the Government discriminate against Israel, in both trade and aid? We know that the shambles opposite do not know anything about democracy, dominated as they are by the unions—no say no pay, and all that nonsense—but we do. In view of that, does not he think that the Government should give their undivided support to the Government of Israel?

I agree with my hon. Friend that Israel is a democracy, although I hope that it will resolve the problems of the occupied territories in the context of the current peace process. It is not true that we discriminate against Israel. Only last week at the Tokyo summit there was a call for removal of the Arab boycott.

Does the Minister agree that the violation by the Nigerian military authorities of the democratic process in Nigeria last month was tragic not only for the people of Nigeria, but in the precedent that it set—an all-too-frequent precedent—for those around the world who accept the democratic process only when it gives them the results that they want? Will the Minister confirm that that violation of the democratic process in Nigeria has resulted in bloodshed and a further infringement of civil and human rights? Will he further confirm to the House and to the Nigerian authorities that there can be no normalisation of relations with Nigeria—rather, relations will inevitably deteriorate—until the regime there understands that the only legitimate source of political authority is not the army but the will of the people?

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have taken a strong line and we have deplored the decision of the Nigerian Government not to respect the elections and to seek another way forward. We have made it absolutely clear that we will not normalise relations until a proper democratic civilian regime is in place in Nigeria.

Will my hon. Friend be making representations to the Chinese Government about the present situation in Tibet, where no democratic elections have been held since the invasion in 1948 and where recently large-scale riots in the streets have been savagely put down by the Chinese occupation forces?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that matter with the Chinese Government in Peking last week and made our position clear.

Is the Minister aware of the increasingly dangerous situation in Cambodia following its elections, particularly the gains of influence and territory being made by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? Is it not disgraceful that the western powers have included that appalling organisation in the so-called peace effort and allowed it to make gains which bring the probability of another year zero even closer?

We are actively encouraging the Cambodian authorities to complete the new constitution and form a Government who respect the wishes of the Cambodian people as expressed in that election.

I am sure that one of the countries to which Her Majesty's Government will have made representations is the Republic of South Africa. Have the Government expressed any preference for the sort of democratic structure that they would like to see in place in that country when the reforms—which are long overdue, and welcome—are in place? Will he acknowledge that a federal or perhaps a confederal system in South Africa is more likely not only to protect the democratic rights of minority groups but to assist that country to the economic recovery without which the people's economic aspirations are not likely to be met after the elections are held?

We welcome the South African Government's decision to hold elections on 27 April next year, but the constitutional arrangements for those elections are a matter for the South African people in their current discussions. We continue to give strong support for negotiations to end the current violence.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to ensure that Serb and Croat aggression in Bosnia is not rewarded by territorial acquisition.

A solution dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Bosnian Muslims would not be accepted by the international community. Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg continue the search for an equitable negotiated settlement based on the concept of one Bosnia. Mr. Stoltenberg briefed the United Nations Security Council yesterday. This would have to involve Serb and Croat withdrawal from the present positions taken by force. Sanctions will continue to be enforced against Serbia and Montenegro until the conditions set by the Security Council are met. We believe that the time has come for the European Community, perhaps on Monday, to consider economic measures against Croatia so long as Croatia, too, is engaged in activities contrary to internationally established principles.

Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that that answer essentially reiterates the policy that he and the Government have pursued during the past year and more? That policy has failed to stop the aggression by the Serbs and Croats and the sickening slaughter of innocent men, women and children in Sarajevo and countless other Bosnian towns.

The difficulties of following that advice may be seen in Somalia today, and the situation in Somalia is easy compared with the problems of Bosnia. That is why I repeat that no Government with whom we have been in contact—in fact, no Government at all—have proposed, as the hon. Gentleman does, that an international expeditionary force be sent to impose a solution to the civil war in Bosnia and then stay there to enforce that solution for one, two, five or 10 years. Many half-measures have been suggested, and we have analysed them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not enough to say that the UN and this country will not condone the Croat and Serb invasions of parts of Bosnia? That cannot be done without making it clear that the only way to enforce any settlement is to ensure that there can be a degree of resettlement of the people who have been subject to ethnic cleansing. That will not be decided by a few words. There will be a need for an international force to ensure that resettlement can take place. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to take that up with the UN as soon—I hope that it will be soon—as some kind of settlement is agreed among the three parties?

My hon. Friend is right. Once there is a negotiated settlement, which cannot be dictated by Serbs and Croats, the question of saving people and establishing them in new homes or their old homes arises immediately. There will have to be a big international effort. The Heads of Government said at their meeting in Tokyo that that cannot be undertaken at the dictate of Serbs and Croats. Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg are not seeking to press the Bosnia Muslims into accepting a particular settlement. They are saying that it is worth while from everybody's point of view that the discussions in Geneva should continue to see whether such a settlement can emerge based on one Bosnia, either a confederation or a federation.

Few people, apart from the right hon. Gentleman, are in any doubt that the outcome in Bosnia is being dictated by Serbian and Croatian aggression. All the evidence points to that inescapable conclusion, and the deplorable statement from Washington in May this year was almost an invitation to that end.

The right hon. Gentleman is a firm disciple of the "something must be done" school. I listened with growing bafflement to the rigmarole of the Leader of the Opposition elaborating on this theme in answer to the Prime Minister on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman is rightly against lifting the arms embargo. He talks about air power, but I do not know what he means; it has never been spelt out. What does he think will be achieved? The position is clear: NATO and the Security Council have agreed that if UNPROFOR troops, and our troops, are attacked from the air, NATO can defend them. That is perfectly clear and has been made perfectly clear to everyone. The right hon. Gentleman must get out of the habit of supposing in a vague and unformulated way that the half-measures that he is advocating will produce results which could be produced only by something so drastic that not even he would propose it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of personnel in post on Foreign and Commonwealth Office duties (a) abroad and (b) in the United Kingdom; at what cost; what were the corresponding figures five, 10 and 15 years ago in numbers and cost in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

The total diplomatic wing United Kingdom-based establishment of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is currently 6,648, of which 4,048 are serving at home and 2,600 overseas. The corresponding figures in earlier years were 6,578 in 1988–89, of which 3,775 were serving at home and 2,793 overseas, 6,763 in 1983 and 7,275 in 1978. A breakdown of personnel between home and overseas in 1978 and 1983 is not available.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply—[Interruption.] For all the hilarity in the House, I am sure that we are grateful to all members of staff in embassies and consulates around the world for the excellent work that they do for our country. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the number of staff in post in the foreign service is diminishing rather than increasing at a time when more are needed because the world situation is so much more complex with the break-up of countries into much smaller units? Will he convey the support of the House to the Treasury and say that we want more people in post and properly supported because that is the only way in which this country's influence can be sustained and improved and in which trade can be improved?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The Government will ensure that the level of staffing in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is equal to the tasks laid on us.

Has the Minister received any more information from Foreign Office staff in Turkey about the possible release date for my constituent David Rowbottom and his partner who are being held by the PKK? Can he give the families any assurances because, as he will appreciate, they are extremely worried?

I will write to the hon. Lady.

What evidence is there that, as we supposedly proceed towards ever-closer union in Europe, there will be an ever-diminishing number of Foreign and Commonwealth diplomats stationed in European Community countries? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no diminution of posts, but rather the opposite, in the real growth areas in the world where significant economic advances are being made and where opportunities really exist for British business, such as the Pacific basin and south America?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We shall have people where they are needed.

Is there any chance that Foreign Office Ministers might drop the supercilious veneer that they deploy in circumstances in which the most trivial and most serious issues are still at stake?

The hon. Gentleman is extremely eloquent in dreaming up ghosts at which to start. I can assure him that we will ensure that the resources provided are equal to the tasks laid upon us.

Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues exercise a little less reticence in attacking ill-informed press criticism of Foreign Office expenditure overseas? Will he confirm that the appointment of the Governor of Bermuda, for example, costs the British taxpayer nothing and that the Government of Bermuda meets the bill in full? Why was it left to the Governor of Bermuda, and not Foreign Office Ministers, to draw attention to the crass criticism in The Mail on Sunday and The Times, among other newspapers?

If I were to occupy myself dealing with crass criticism by newspapers I should not have time for anything else. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Governor of Bermuda costs the British taxpayer nothing, as he is paid for by Bermuda. The Premier of Bermuda is in this country today and is very welcome here.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present state of United Kingdom relations with Sierra Leone.

We are hopeful that our relations will improve.

I hope that our relations will improve sufficiently to enable the United Kingdom Government to ask the Sierra Leone Government to honour pension commitments that are still outstanding after, in some cases, 40 years. I refer to United Kingdom citizens who are ex-employees of the Colonial Office, having worked in educational establishments in Sierra Leone. If there is no improvement, will the United Kingdom Government pay the pensions of those people at long last?

I will certainly look into the question of our representations to the Sierra Leone Government about the pensions to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He will know that we have many issues outstanding with the Sierra Leone Government. We were very distressed by their conduct last year, and we are seeking, by persuasion, to bring about an improvement in the political situation there, in so far as we can influence it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Bosnia with his European counterparts.

My right hon. Friend did so at the Copenhagen meeting of the European Council on 21 and 22 June and, again, in the margins of the Tokyo summit held between 7 and 9 July.

In the absence of European troops in Bosnia and of the political will to commit them, can the Minister say what we shall do when the members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference appeal to the United Nations to commit up to 18,000 troops there? Given our own indifference to the plight of people who have been masscared in Bosnia, to the mutilation of that country, and to its right to self-determination and sovereignty, and even though we have failed to commit troops for the purpose of saving people there, we should say that we will not oppose the placing of Islamic troops to defend the interests of Muslims, who continue to be massacred.

I have heard some pretty silly questions in this place, but that is one of the silliest. All hon. Members, with the possible exception of the hon. Gentleman, know that we now have 2,400 troops in Bosnia. In addition, there are very substantial French and other European formations. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in consultation with our European partners, there is scope to seek to deter aggression in Bosnia if we can take forward the process of bringing to justice those who are guilty of crimes against humanity? In that regard, does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that it will be possible to name names so that we can deter those who have gone in for ethnic cleansing and other horrors?

The Security Council has made it plain that there should be an ad hoc Yugoslav war crimes tribunal. I agree with that. What is even more important, however, is that we get the parties to the fighting to start negotiating.

Does the Minister really believe that Serbian expansionism will stop when Bosnia vanishes from the map? It is well known that the Serbians will extend their aggression to other areas in the Balkans once they have finished with Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Two questions are rolled up in that question. As to Bosnia, it is our determination that there shall continue to be a state of Bosnia. We are seeking to carry forward negotiations whereby the three warring factions can live in peace within the existing frontiers of Bosnia. Whether that is a confederal or federal solution is a matter for the parties involved. That we hope and intend to see a state of Bosnia in future is clear and beyond doubt.

Is it not a cruel and cynical betrayal of the Bosnian Muslims that the United Nations should send in a United Nations protection force with no mandate to protect and should declare safe havens that it has no intention to make safe? For how much longer will the United Nations and Her Majesty's Government maintain a position whereby we deny the victims of aggression any outside assistance and refuse to let them have access to the means of self-defence when we know that the other side—the Serbs—started the conflict with more than 10 times as much ammunition and hardware?

We need to be clear about this. The United Nations is neither more nor less than its member states. Therefore, the essential question is whether the member states—in particular, the United Kingdom—are prepared to put combat troops into Bosnia to wage war. If the answer is no—and that, indeed, is the answer—people must not encourage the Bosnian Muslims to suppose something different.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's representations concerning harassment of the press in Kenya.

We have repeatedly stressed at the highest levels of the Kenyan Government the importance of a free press.

The Minister knows from my question on Monday that I am particularly concerned about the case of Fotoform publishers, in which we have a particular locus because its managing director is a British citizen. Is he aware that since its presses, which I visited in May, were raided and forced to close, three of the company's publications—Society, Finance and Law Monthly—have been suspended? That is direct harassment of the press. My latest information is that the judgment that should have been delivered yesterday was not forthcoming and that the case is still continuing. Such suppression of the press is outrageous and we have a particular duty to make repeated condemnation of it.

I am, of course, aware of that case and of the right hon. Gentleman's interest in it. We exchanged words about it on Monday. He will know that we take a strong line about it. I am extremely disappointed that the case was adjourned yesterday. We believe that the legal proceedings should be concluded as soon as possible.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Kenyan Government and other Governments that economic assistance from this country depends on those Governments adhering to basic principles of human and political rights?

Yes. As my hon. Friend is aware, the elections in Kenya were, ultimately, conducted successfully, even though in the run-up to them there was cause for concern. The Government and the International Monetary Fund have made it clear to the Kenyan Government that further balance of payments support depends on their complying with a shadow programme that they have negotiated with the IMF.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with Israel's application for associate member status with the EC.

The 1975 co-operation agreement provides the present basis of the relationship between the EC and Israel. In 1992, the EC and Israel agreed to examine how those arrangements might be updated. The Commission has had exploratory talks with Israel and will soon propose a draft negotiating mandate to the Council.

Does the Minister believe that the economic regeneration of that region is the surest way to achieve stability and lasting peace? If so, will he actively promote—not merely support—Israel's application for associate membership of the EC? Will he further consider the active promotion of Israel's application to join the "Western European and Others" group of the United Nations?

I am cautious about using the term "association agreement" because it might imply that EC membership is in prospect when at present it is not. I agree that it is a matter of mutual interest to develop trade relations and better political dialogue.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel's application for associate-only status would be considerably reinforced if the British Government would put pressure on the Arab countries to remove their boycott, which harms Israel's economic performance? If Israel now has the imagination to reach genuine and lasting peace with the Palestinians in the present negotiations, the great prize of the near east common market will be available, including maximum support from the European Community.

I confirm to my hon. Friend that we deplore the Arab boycott of Israel.

Does the Minister agree that, if it is reasonable for Israel to seek closer relationships with the European Community, it is reasonable for the international and European communities to seek from Israel reasonable standards of conduct of the sort expected of other countries? That includes ending the economic strangulation of the west bank and Gaza strip, respecting the rights of Palestinians living in the occupied territories, and abiding by international resolutions such as ending the illegal occupation of the west bank and Gaza strip and the illegal annexation of east Jerusalem.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly made it clear that the Israeli defence forces must respect human rights in the occupied territories. We deplore all violence of that nature as well as terrorist activities against Israeli citizens.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the peace process in the middle east; and whether he will make a statement.

The 10th round of bilateral negotiations adjourned in Washington on 1 July. The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have reached an important moment. Both sides now face the decision whether to engage in detailed negotiations about interim arrangements in the occupied territories. We think that they should.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the present agreeable climate in the peace process would be better promoted by a constructive dialogue with the newly pragmatic Palestine Liberation Organisation rather than allowing Hammas and fundamentalist groups in the region to continue to pose a dangerous threat to the whole of the middle east?

I certainly think that Hammas poses a threat to the middle east in general and to the peace talks in particular. That is why it is extremely important that urgent progress should be made in the peace negotiations now under way.

Does the Minister agree that the middle east talks are threatened by a three-and-a-half month closure of Gaza which, after 26 years of occupation, does not have the finance to sustain itself and in some cases lacks the basic infrastructure for water, sewerage and a financial system? Does he also agree that, while Israel has a right to legitimate security rightly, as an occupying power it also has a duty to look after the interests of the occupied population? If the Israelis will not help the Gazans, will the Government do something through the EC to help them?

I certainly think that if we are to see progress in the talks it is important that the Palestinians and the Israeli people see that positive advantages are to be gained from those talks. Therefore, I say to the Government of Israel that they must lift the weight of the occupation—there are various ways in which to do that—and I say to the Palestinians that they must stop the violence.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the process of peace negotiations in the middle east depends crucially on the brokering by the United States of a settlement? Will my right hon. and learned Friend put pressure on the United States Government to encourage Israel to bring the future of Jerusalem into the negotiations in a constructive manner?

I entirely agree that the role of the United States is critical to a successful outcome of the negotiations. We, the United Kingdom Government, will do what we can to support the process, but our agenda is not separate from that of the United States. The negotiators must hurry, as it is always possible that; if there is no progress the enthusiasm of the United States to remain involved may diminish. I think it is prudent to leave the issue of Jerusalem until last.