To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to assist the democratisation of South Africa.

Since the House rose for the summer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has held talks with President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela, in which he restated our support for the transition to non-racial democracy in South Africa. I met Chief Buthelezi. We are discussing with our EC partners, the Commonwealth and the United Nations practical ways to help ensure free and fair elections in South Africa. The mandates of all the observer missions to which we contribute to help stem violence have been extended until next April's elections. Last year, we spent £11 million on direct aid to South Africa, and a similar amount via the EC programmes. We are funding more than 1,000 black South Africans on training courses here and in South Africa. I think that this is money well spent.

Will my right hon. Friend join me and, I am sure, all hon. Members in congratulating Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk on the award of their Nobel peace prize? Does he agree that in the difficult transitional period to a genuine multiracial and democratic society, the international community must give every assistance to help that process?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the award of the Nobel peace prize. The State President and Mr. Mandela have worked nobly together, and it is right that they should receive the award together.

May I associate myself with the congratulations to President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela? May I also commend the Government for what they have done so far, especially in the Commonwealth communiqué which recognises the elections to be held in April 1994 as of historic significance?

The Government are not used to receiving praise from the hon. Gentleman on that subject, so I am grateful to him. I agree with him on his last point. I listed the things that we are doing. It is important that the April elections should be seen to be free and fair. We have a lot of experience in this country. That is available to the South Africans, and they know it.

My right hon. Friend knows how difficult it is to help the political parties to build up their own activities such as training and their understanding of the purpose of elections, particularly in the rural areas. In that context, will my right hon. Friend note the activities of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy? That all-party group was set up with Foreign Office funding, and it is trying to find ways to assist the democratic process in South Africa.

My hon. Friend is quite right, and perhaps I should have mentioned that earlier. What the foundation is doing in South Africa is a sign that the House was wise to set it up on an all-party basis. I am anxious that good South African projects should come before the foundation which are worth considering and which can be approved. They should not be from just one group.

I also welcome all that the Government have done and the support for the foundation. On a specific point, does the Foreign Secretary believe that anything more can be done to try to ensure that Chief Buthelezi participates fully in the process between now and next April? He is a significant player in the South African game, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary agrees that no effort should be spared to ensure that he participates fully in the process before, during and after the elections.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right; that is why we welcomed Chief Buthelezi here in September. We are saying to him, "You should rejoin the process", and we are saying to others, "Don't believe that he can safely be kept out." He is an important player, and he occasionally feels that he has been isolated. It is very important that he should rejoin the process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Foreign Minister of Belgium to discuss international co-operation on human rights.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs meets the Belgian Foreign Minister regularly.

Is the Minister aware of the arrest on 18 October in Brussels of Mr. Amanullah Khan, the chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front? I thank the Minister's office for conveying a request from myself and other hon. Members to visit Mr. Khan in prison which, regrettably, the Belgian authorities have, to date, refused. May I urge Her Majesty's Government to press the Belgian authorities to release Mr. Khan, who was visiting Belgium on a valid visitor's visa issued by the Belgian authorities and doing his best to bring a peaceful solution to the Kashmir conflict?

I am indeed aware of the arrest of Mr. Amanullah Khan. As the hon. Gentleman, I think, will know, he was arrested on the basis of an Interpol warrant. As to whether he should be released and whether there is the possibility of delivering him to India, those are matters for the Belgian Government.

When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets the Belgian Foreign Minister, will he draw to his attention the profoundly important statement made by Prince Charles in Oxford last week in which he described the policy of Saddam Hussein towards the marshlands as "obscene lies"? May I congratulate the Minister on his statement contained in the film that was shown last week and urge him to support the work of Prince Charles by bringing to the UN Security Council the force and vigour that Prince Charles brought to Oxford and force the Security Council to implement the many resolutions it has passed, which at the moment are not worth the paper they are written on?

As we are in the business of congratulating one another, may I congratulate my hon. Friend in this important respect? She has done more than anyone to draw the attention of the House and a wider public to what Saddam Hussein is doing in south Iraq with regard to the arabs in the marshes. That is a terrible business. The world community is alert to it, and that is due, in no small degree, to what my hon. Friend has done.

In his discussions on human rights, will the Minister take up the question of human rights in Jamaica, where, despite the welcome judgment of the Privy Council this week, many men are being held in appalling conditions on death row and where, for example, a prisoner called Lynden Champagnie, who has been on death row for 14 years since he was a teenager, has now been told after his sentence was commuted that he cannot be considered for parole for another 10 years? Is not the attitude of the Jamaican Government on that issue a disgrace and a scandal? Will the Government make that clear to the Jamaican Government?

I certainly welcome the decision of the Privy Council. I have always thought that that type of question, particularly that of the death penalty, is essentially a matter for national Governments. I agree that one is entitled to have regard to the conditions in which people are held. I also agree that, when people are held too long on what is generally referred to as death row, it is an undesirable state of affairs. In general terms, whether or not there is a death penalty and whether it is carried out is a matter for national Governments.

Does my right and learned hon. Friend agree that the focal point in Europe for human rights is the Council of Europe? Will he do all he can to encourage it in its work on human rights, and encourage other nations to sign up to the various conventions?

My hon. Friend has asked three questions to which there are three answers, each of which is yes.

The Government have correctly refused to recognise Indonesia's illegal occupation of East Timor and have supported the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. In view of the appalling human rights record of Indonesia, would it not be logical for the Government to extend their position and support the United Nations resolutions that proscribe the sale of arms to aggressor states, especially weapons that can be used for internal repression, and the diminution of human rights?

We consider any applications to sell arms on a case-by-case basis. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the contract to sell Hawk aircraft. If we had stood in the way of that contract, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to complain.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further contribution Her Majesty's Government intend to make to the progress of talks between middle eastern countries in the moves towards peace in that region.

We shall continue acts of support for the peace talks, both politically through our contacts with the parties and economically.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he try to bring pressure to bear on the Arab countries to end the Arab boycott of trade with Israel when he has further talks with all the parties involved in the middle east peace process? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind, when considering the position of the various parties in that process, that the only democracy in the region is Israel and that there are great concerns about the position of some other countries on a variety of issues including Syria in particular? Does he agree that, while it is in our interest to promote peaceful talks between all the parties and encourage the development of the peace process, those concerns need to be recognised?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the boycott. There has been some progress—if he listens to British firms he will know of the welcome announcement from the Government of Kuwait during the summer—but not yet enough, and we shall continue to urge more. We need a comprehensive settlement. The Israel-PLO accord is a dramatic breakthrough which the House has welcomed, and Israel and the PLO are trying to put it into practice.

Does the Foreign Secretary understand that, if the accord signed by those two brave peoples is to work, the peace talks taking place in Taba must be assisted wherever they can be? Does he have any intention of raising with our European partners the possible attendance of a member of the troika to assist in that dialogue in Taba, which has unfortunately broken down?

I can point out what we are doing. I went to Syria not long ago in order to establish our credentials and our interests in that part. On Monday, in Brussels, Mr. Arafat will come at my suggestion and meet the European Foreign Affairs Council. I will be there. He will be coming to London in December. I think that there is a question on the Order Paper about that. I hope to go to Gaza, Israel and Jordan in the next recess. We British want to do our utmost to keep the process on the move and, where we can, give useful and practical support to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that today the PLO has admitted that Ron Arad is still being held in captivity, seven years after he became a prisoner of war? [Interruption.] Is not that, as my hon. Friend says, quite disgraceful? Did my right hon. Friend raise that matter with the Syrians when he saw them? May we have an assurance that he will raise it with Arab leaders whenever he meets them?

We have often raised that sad case with the Iranians, the Syrians and with any others who might be able to help. There is a multitude of tragedies arising out of wars and terrorist activities in recent years; Mr. Arad is certainly one of them, and he deserves our support.

What weight do the Government presently attach to the Damascus declaration? What is the Foreign Secretary's assessment of the likelihood of persuading the states of the Gulf Co-operation Council to make better provision for their joint defence?

I am all in favour of their making greater provision for their joint defence, and I never cease to urge that on them. The Damascus declaration envisages that they could receive help from Syria and Egypt in that. We support that idea. It is up to them to decide how to put it into practice.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's comments following his successful visit to Syria. Does he appreciate that many of us would like to see the United Kingdom taking a rather more prominent role in trying to support the peace process, which has been achieved with remarkable courage and vision on both sides? Will my right hon. Friend concentrate on the plight of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in particular? How does he see their future?

We will try to take a more visible role. We have deliberately held back, as my hon. Friend knows, in recent years in order not to complicate what correctly seemed to us to be a genuine effort by the United States Administration to get things moving. Now we are in more open country, as it were, and I think that there is scope for more visible activity by ourselves, in support, as my hon. Friend said, of the peace process.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's decision to invite Mr. Yasser Arafat to London for discussions. Is not it clear, though, that, based on many of the other comments—for example, the ending of the Arab boycott—the next key decision will be, if possible, and we hope that it will be possible, an agreement between Syria and Israel on the full guarantee of peace and security for Israel, contingent upon a full withdrawal by the Israelis from Syrian territory?

President Assad and Mr. Shara'a made it clear that they believed in "total withdrawal" and "total peace". Of course, what remains to be worked out is what each of those phrases means. That can be done only between the parties. There is talk in Israel of a need to digest the Israel-PLO accord—that is, to allow time to pass. I think that that is reasonable, provided that it does not go on for ever. That is the Syrian view, too. That is why it is important to stress that a comprehensive agreement includes Israel and Syria.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in respect of the EFTA states joining the European Community.

The European Council last week reaffirmed the 1 January 1995 target date for accession by the four applicants. Good progress is being made towards the object of completing the negotiations by 1 March next year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the inclusion of the EFTA states will be welcome, because not only will they be much-needed and welcome net contributors to the EC budget, but they will be a powerful force for free trade, which will benefit and strengthen the entire Community?

Yes, we welcome the prospect of the four states acceding to the Community. They will be net contributors to the budget, so they will share our interest in enforcing budgetary discipline and controlling expenditure. Their instincts, too, are towards free trade and openness to the rest of the world. Therefore, they share our vision of the Community as one that is open and diverse.

What are the institutional implications of the accession of the EFTA countries to the EC?

There will have to be some institutional adjustments to accept those four countries into the Community. That will be part of the discussions taking place between existing member states. But we wish to confine the debate to what is required by the prospect of enlargement and do not wish to reopen those institutional issues, which were essentially settled by the Maastricht treaty.

Will my hon. Friend tell us what Her Majesty's Government propose about the voting system to be used in the Community once the welcome accession of those countries takes place?

One of the matters to be decided is how many votes to accord to each of the countries coming in and what will constitute a qualified majority vote. A number of ideas are being discussed, but no final resolution of that is yet in prospect.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet Chairman Arafat to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange to meet representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to discuss the middle east peace plan.

As my right hon. Friend has just said, Chairman Arafat has been invited to visit Britain. The visit will take place in December. Precise dates will be announced nearer the time. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to meet him in Brussels with other EC Foreign Ministers on 8 November.

I understand that when Mr. Arafat comes to London, he is expecting to meet both the Labour party and Conservative party on middle east councils. The Prime Minister has replied to me that he expects to meet Mr. Arafat. This historic visit can only mean peace, both in Israel and Palestine.

Mr. Arafat will be a welcome visitor to London. It is certainly true that the Prime Minister hopes to see him. I was not aware of the two other meetings that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but it sounds like a jolly good idea to me.

In view of yesterday's suspension of talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, due apparently to the Israelis' insistence on a mere redeployment of their troops rather than a complete withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho, will the British Government use their influence within the international community to try to ensure that the Israeli Government stand by their commitment for complete withdrawal, as contained in the 13 September agreement?

Both parties are, of course, negotiating at the moment. I am not unduly depressed by what has happened; I regard it as a suspension rather than anything else. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in the sense that both parties must stand by their commitments, must show flexibility and must ensure that the momentum is maintained if public opinion in the occupied territories and in Israel itself is to continue to support the peace process.

When my right hon. and learned Friend meets Mr. Arafat or any other Arab leaders, will he point out that if the Arab nations are genuine in their pursuit of the peace process, the immediate release of Ron Arad and the immediate ending of the iniquitous Arab boycott will do more than anything to build confidence in the process? Will he urge those conclusions on them?

I think that it is important that everyone who is now party to the negotiations recognises the need to carry the opinion in the opposite camp. That means that the Arabs and the Palestinians must stop the violence, relax the boycott and show that there are positive benefits to Israel from the courageous steps that it has taken.

I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. He is aware that the Israeli Government places a high premium on the ending of the secondary and tertiary boycott of Israel as part of the peace process. What evidence has he seen that the PLO, under the leadership of Mr. Yasser Arafat, is prepared to encourage its Arab friends to withdraw from that boycott?

There is already encouraging evidence of a move away from the boycott, especially with regard to the secondary and tertiary boycott. But I want to be even-handed about this. It is important that there is movement from both sides in the negotiations. That means movement from the Palestinians and movement from the Arab states. It also means movement from the Israeli side. In answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), I indicated the sort of movement that we are looking for.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he plans regarding the situation in Angola; and if he will make a statement.

On 1 November, the United Nations Security Council reaffirmed its support for UN efforts to achieve a settlement in Angola through negotiations and its willingness, as necessary, to impose further sanctions against UNITA.

Is there any justification for the continued delay in the implementation of full sanctions against the UNITA forces? We have now delayed so many times that we are in danger of losing all credibility. First, there was a delay until 1 July, then September, then another 10 days and then 1 November, and now it seems that there will be an indefinite delay. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what progress has been made in spending the £5 million of emergency aid that the Government promised to the Angolan people, and whether he is prepared to give a commitment of further support in the light of the appalling conditions faced by the 70 per cent. of the population who live in the Government-controlled parts of the country?

The hon. Member is aware that there have been discussions in Lusaka last week between the MPLA and UNITA. It is my belief that UNITA attended those talks as a result of the United Nations sanctions that have been imposed so far. It has been made clear by all the parties to those sanctions and by the United Nations that if further sanctions are necessary to bring pressure to bear on UNITA, that will be done. The fact is that some progress has been achieved so far in bringing UNITA to the table. That is the right position to be in.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that under United Nations Security Council, resolution 864, phase 2 of the sanctions against UNITA will be imposed only if there are no further talks? Will he confirm that UNITA has now said that, notwithstanding some reported irregularities, it accepts the outcome of the elections two years ago and is prepared to sit down unconditionally and talk to the MPLA and other parties in Angola? Is that not the best way forward towards bringing peace to that tragically stricken country from the bloody civil war that is going on at present?

My hon. Friend is right: UNITA has said what he described in similar terms, but its words must be followed by actions. That is the important point to recognise. As I have said, there were discussions last week. Clearly, it would be inappropriate to take any further action at this stage. We hope that those discussions will continue in Lusaka and that there will be a fruitful outcome.

The whole House will have been appalled at the pictures shown of the situation in Angola, which Mr. John Simpson described as the worst he had ever seen. What are we doing with our partners in the European Community to reopen this window of opportunity for humanitarian aid, not just in the stricken town of Kuito, but elsewhere? What are we doing with our partners to redouble diplomatic initiatives to bring the war to an end? I am asking not about the words that we are uttering but about the action that we are taking in the United Nations and the European Community.

I thought that I had described some action. We were active in getting United Nations Security Council resolution 864, which brought pressure to bear and led to last week's discussions, as I described in my two previous answers. That is what is continuing on the diplomatic side. We have been praised by everyone for the help that we have given on the humanitarian aid side. We have been quick to respond with relief flights to the opening up of besieged cities. We have been praised by the United Nations, the media and, I believe, John Simpson for our rapid response.

As one of four Members of this House who were election observers in Angola, I got to know ordinary people as well as politicians. Does my hon. Friend agree that what is happening in Angola now is a total obscenity which demands more than negotiations and more than sanctions? Compared with the obscenity of 1,000 people a day being slaughtered and others maimed, and the level of starvation of youngsters there, Bosnia—dare I say it—seems but a tragic sideshow. Will my hon. Friend therefore use his best endeavours to persuade our colleagues in the EC and the United Nations to put this obscenity behind the world and do something effective about it?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to describe the situation as he has. I think that, on a fair analysis, he will agree with me that Britain has played a leading part in bringing about last week's negotiations. The problem will have to be addressed by the parties to the problem in Angola. We have brought pressure to bear in the United Nations through resolutions which we have sponsored actively to bring UNITA to the table. There have been discussions. We have made it clear that we shall be happy to support further, more demanding resolutions than sanctions if that is necessary. Meanwhile, we have responded enormously swiftly and successfully on the humanitarian front.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration has been given to United Kingdom relations with Belize.

We continue to develop our already good relations with Belize. In October, the Belizean Prime Minister, Mr. Esquivel, met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Limassol and met other Ministers in London.

Given the August statement of the Guatemalan Vice President, in which he said that recognition of Belize was premature, and given that the new Belizean Prime Minister himself represents a rather nationalistic trend in the electorate, is the Minister confident about the stability of the relationship between Guatemala and Belize? Can he comment on what role this country can play in ensuring that stability? I am aware that the Queen is due to visit Belize early next year. Is that in part compensation for the withdrawal of British troops which is likely to have a bad effect on the economy and which many may see as a threat to their security?

Relations between Guatemala and Belize are not wholly satisfactory, but President de Leon Carpio of Guatemala has reaffirmed that his country recognises the sovereignty and independence of Belize. We have made it clear that if the situation deteriorates after the British garrison withdraws next year we stand ready to be consulted about an appropriate response.

My hon. Friend will be aware that I asked our hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces what specific assurances we could give the Belizean Government about their security following the withdrawal of our troops. My hon. Friend must be well aware of the concern of the Belizean Government about their security. Will he consider carefully the positive steps that the United Kingdom Government can take to ensure that Guatemala is deterred from any intent that it might have in the future of invading Belize?

I and other Ministers discussed the matter with Prime Minister Esquivel last month. We still have the garrison in Belize, and even when that is withdrawn there will still be a training base in Belize. In May, we issued a joint statement making it clear that if the situation deteriorates we shall stand ready to co-operate and co-ordinate our activities and draw up a likely response. At present, however, we do not judge the situation to be quite so serious as my hon. Friend fears.

Does the Minister realise that the answer that he just gave on relations between Belize and Guatemala is different from those given by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), to me and to one or two of my colleagues only a few months ago? They we were told that everything was stable. Given that, even at that time, there was no agreement on the territorial waters dispute between the two countries, is it not premature to consider withdrawing British forces from Belize, where they give people confidence? Are the British Government about to do in Belize what they did when they withdrew the Endeavour from the Falkland Islands?

Belize became independent in 1981 and it was always envisaged that the British garrison might be removed, especially in the light of the 1991 recognition by Guatemala of the independence and sovereignty of Belize. That recognition has not been withdrawn. In answer to the previous question, I made clear our continuing concern and interest in the security of the region, and our continuing military involvement, albeit at a lower level.

As a general principle, dictatorships cause and start wars and democracies win them. Does my hon. Friend agree that events in Guatemala, following the removal of President Serrano, demonstrate the way in which central America, and indeed Latin America as a whole, has consolidated behind a democratic president in that republic?

The continuity of British foreign policy in Latin America is demonstrated by the fact that I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development of common European Community foreign policies will be greatly facilitated by the Maastricht treaty, and that that will enable the Community, with the participation of Britain, to exert greater influence in the world?

What happened at the summit on Friday illustrates my hon. Friend's point. There is no question of our being cajoled or out-voted, because of the treaty of Maastricht, into policies of which we disapprove. What happened, in an orderly way, was that the summit began to identify and tell the Foreign Ministers to pursue areas where it thought that they should act together. One example has already been given in the House: we shall help to monitor the elections in South Africa, to the extent that South Africans want us to. The same is true of the Russian elections next month: we suggested that there should be EC monitoring if the Russians want it, which they do. Another example is the contribution that we make towards implementing the peace process—getting Jericho and Gaza and the occupied territories into a better state to assume more responsibilities. Those are things which it makes sense for Europe to do together.

How will we find out what Foreign Ministers are up to in the European Community, when the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers has just decided that it is now possible to block the publication of votes that come out of their meetings? We are supposed to be in favour of openness. As a result of the Edinburgh summit of Heads of State it was agreed that those votes would be published so that we would know what was taking place: will the Minister guarantee that that situation will not be changed?

There are no votes on those matters—they are of unanimity—and the hon. Gentleman will get his information in the same way as he has always got it: by making my life uncomforable in the House of Commons. One addition that is taking place was outlined by the Government in their recent memorandum to the House of Lords European Community Committee, in which we suggested that Ministers could offer briefings in both Houses on important common foreign and security policy issues. We are willing to do that in addition to arrangements that already exist on the Floor of the House and in Committee to cross examine Ministers and officials.

Would it not be a splendid, if modest, start to the new post-Maastricht era if the nations of the Community could ensure that this winter the starving and suffering people of Sarajevo receive adequate aid and that no one is allowed to stop it getting through?

It is best to do exactly that. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a strong record on that, both in the quality of aid that we are providing, particularly medicines, and in the efforts that our civilian drivers and troops are making to get the convoys through. The lines of communication through Serb-held territory now work reasonably well. The main problem arises partly from renewed shelling around Sarajevo, which has subsided, and fighting between Muslims and Croats in central Bosnia. I hope that the initiative that we took on Friday will enable David Owen and our local commanders to make it more possible to get that aid through. It is certainly a high priority.

I welcome what the Secretary of State said about the practicability of the European Community acting together in foreign policy. That commends itself to everyone. But what evidence is there, from the weak and vague statement on the situation in Bosnia issued following the latest Council of Ministers, that any material change will take place in the circumstances which tragically prevail in Bosnia?

First, the Sarajevo airlift continues in full flight and at full intensity whenever it safely can and is extremely important, although most of the supplies reaching the area come from Belgrade by road through Serb areas. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, about total finance, we are in close touch with Mrs. Ogata. Our total contribution so far has been £51 million. The difficulty is not so much lack of resources as lack of access, which leads to the hon. Gentleman's third point.

I did not say that.

No, but it is widely suggested—and it is contradicted by all the experts and evidence on the ground. We must work with the resources that we have and try to increase those resources, whether they are United Nations soldiers or money for the agencies. We are doing both.

In his discussions with Community partners who are members of the Christian Democratic party, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to repudiate any notion of majority voting in foreign policy matters, as laid down in the Athens declaration—the basic programme of the European People's party? Conservative Members will then be in no doubt that our party will have nothing to do with majority voting in relation to foreign policy, and specifically with regard to any actions connected with Bosnia, in line with the guidelines prescribed recently by the Council of Ministers.

The position is perfectly clear in the Maastricht treaty. My hon. Friend, and other Conservative Members, may have contested the wisdom of the treaty, but he can now rely on its provisions in this regard with complete confidence.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the development of common European foreign policies requires the development of much greater public understanding of, and support for, those policies, not least among young people? Is it not a backward move for the Foreign Office to propose cutting off its funding and support for a national organisation that is committed to those aims—the British Youth Council, with which, like the Secretary of State for Employment, I have been associated in the past? Will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the proposal, and stop it being implemented?

The British Youth Council has done, and continues to do, admirable work. Given all the pressures on my budget, however, I must consider whether the Foreign Office should continue to support it, and how it ranks in relation to the other demands on my resources—scholarships, the British Council and the BBC world service, for instance. I have concluded that I cannot continue to support the British Youth Council with Foreign Office funds.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with EC Commissioners and the Governments of the other member states about trade with and aid to the former communist countries of Europe.

Along with other Ministers, I discuss the issue regularly with other Community member states.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the aid programmes for former communist countries in eastern Europe are very welcome, they are no substitute for free trade? What those countries really want is the removal of tariff and non-tariff restrictions from their goods so that they can access the markets of the European Community. Is not that the only way they will be able to rebuild their economies?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Trade is far superior to aid as an instrument to help social and political reforms in those countries. That is why the British Governments have been at the forefront of the calls for trade liberalisation.

One of the former communist countries most in need of aid is Bosnia. Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary what he meant when he said that the airlift to Sarajevo was at full stretch? In the past month, only half the minimum survival ration that the United Nations has designated for the people of Sarajevo has been delivered. It is supposed to be 600gm of food per person per day, but has amounted to only 300gm.

The aid effort to the former Yugoslavia is fully stretched, taking into account the safety and danger constraints upon us, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises. We are always seeking opportunities to improve the flow of aid and its security. The record of this country in financial terms is extremely good, because in overall terms we have contributed some £150 million to the former Yugoslavia, both through the European Community and through bilateral aid. Our record bears comparison with that of any of our allies.

Have my hon. Friend and his Department made any assessment of the impact of the transfer of manufacturing capacity from the United Kingdom and other European Community countries to eastern European countries? What will be the impact of that on jobs in the EC countries, including our own?

My hon. Friend perhaps regards free trade primarily as a threat. I regard it as an opportunity to build up the stability and prosperity of those countries, and to provide new markets for British exports. I remind my hon. Friend that the European Community currently has a large balance of payments surplus with those countries.

Given the importance of trade, has the Minister studied the latest trade figures issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which show, sadly, that the United Kingdom has fallen a long way behind not only Germany but Italy and France in the volume of trade that we conduct with the countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, particularly in exports? What will the Government do to ensure that the situation is treated with the urgency that it deserves, and that our trading relations with those countries are as close and as beneficial as possible in future?

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position on the Labour Front Bench and I hope that she will remain there for a long time. Our export performance to central and eastern Europe must, indeed, be improved; that is why we believe in lowering trade barriers and liberalising trade. I am pleased to have the hon. Lady's support for that policy.

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

Our relations with Japan are excellent. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Japan from 18 to 21 September, where he held wide-ranging talks with Prime Minister Hosokawa and other Ministers soon after they took office. He and the delegation of senior British business men who accompanied him, confirmed our positive approach to our trading relationship with Japan and stressed the continuing welcome for Japanese manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that continued inward investment from Japan is essential, particularly in areas such as the west midlands, and that it is enhanced by retaining and improving our existing diplomatic relations with Japan? Does he also agree that the Foreign Office has a vital role to play in enhancing and improving inward investment opportunities?

Yes. The British share of Japanese investment in the European Community during the financial year 1992–93 was more than 44 per cent. of the total. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry work very closely with the West Midlands development agency, both here and in Tokyo, to promote Japanese inward investment in the region. An inward investment mission from Japan, sponsored by the Invest in Britain Bureau, has visited the west midlands during the past fortnight. I hope that those investors will smile on Bromsgrove, in whose interests my hon. Friend is such a doughty fighter.

Is not the inward investment from Japan only possible because of its enormous manufacturing success and the balance of payments surpluses that Japan enjoys with most other major manufacturing countries throughout the world? Will the Minister discuss with the Japanese how they achieve that, while we apparently cannot achieve it and are subordinated to the other countries of the Common Market so as to provide a large internal market for our manufacturing industry? Why should we be beholden to the Common Market when the example of Japan demonstrates that that is not necessary?

The House will be unsurprised to learn that the hon. Gentleman is wrong as usual. Exports from this country to Japan in the first part of this year were up by nearly 19 per cent. compared with last year's results, despite depressed levels of demand in Japan due to its current economic difficulties. The whole House, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman, will want to rejoice in that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that cultural and political links with Japan have never been stronger, and nor have our trade links? Does he agree that Japan has consistently placed more than 40 per cent. of its investment in the European union in the United Kingdom —and an even higher proportion in the United Kingdom financial sector? In his forthcoming visit to Japan, however, will my right hon. Friend urge on that country the fact that there are a number of invisible barriers to trade which, if removed or reduced, would enable us to improve our exports to the Japanese and thus help them to reduce their trade surplus?

Yes, indeed. As my hon. Friend knows —in his present capacity he makes a great contribution to our relations with Japan and is very knowledgeable about it—Japan has removed most barriers to trade in recent years, although there are still problems in some areas. The Prime Minister raised those matters during his recent visit and I shall do the same in my forthcoming one.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. We take points of order after statements.