To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the United Nations to discuss the continuing hostilities in Afghanistan.

I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is in former Yugoslavia today.

In view of the continuing slaughter of innocent people in Kabul and other centres of population in Afghanistan, will the Foreign Secretary and the Minister arrange an early meeting with the United Nations to raise two matters—first, the need for an urgent arms embargo, especially on weapons from Pakistan; and secondly, the early re-establishment of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Afghanistan, which was withdrawn from the country in January? While the slaughter continues, both measures are needed.

We have regular contacts with United Nations representatives. In recent months, we have supported two Security Council presidential statements calling for an end to the hostilities and for support for the programme of humanitarian aid.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Government policy with regard to the situation in Rwanda.

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

We are fully joining in international efforts to bring a halt to the bloodshed. On 8 June, the Security Council approved the deployment of an expanded United Nations force. We have offered 50 trucks to the United Nations Aid Mission in Rwanda, UNAMIR, and we are considering whether we can do more. We have supported the French initiative to mount a humanitarian mission until the expanded UNAMIR can be put in place.

I thank the Minister for his answer and for the letter to us all from the Minister for Overseas Development. Can he assure the House that we are giving as much humanitarian assistance as is needed? Can he ensure that the people of Rwanda are protected in the humanitarian zone? Given the finding that genocide has been perpetrated in Rwanda, can he assure the House that all responsible for it will speedily be brought to justice by the relevant international authorities?

I have outlined the humanitarian assistance that has been given to help refugees in the humanitarian zone and the neighbourhood, and a mission is assessing whether we should be doing more.

Is not it true that the French stepped in only because of the failure of the United Nations to act with urgency, and that the French have committed themselves to pulling out at the end of July? All my information leads me to believe that there is no commitment to replace them. Surely the Minister realizes that 50 trucks are wholly inadequate as supplementary logistical support. Whatever else happens, can the Minister assure us that we will be spared the obscenity of the Government of Rwanda becoming the president of the UN Security Council in September?

The hon. Gentleman has heard what Isaid and he has been in correspondence with my ministerial colleagues. I can only reiterate that the provision of British equipment is the result of what has been requested of us by the United Nations. Of course, we are not the only country that has responded in that area. A number of countries have offered logistical support, including ourselves, America, Russia, France, Canada and South Africa. So there are others involved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the troops sought by the Secretary-General are coming from a number of African countries, which I think is right; they are from Ghana, Senegal, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Congo and Mali. Local countries have taken the initiative at the request of the Secretary-General.

In his report to the Security Council, the Secretary-General suggested that, because the performance of the Security Council and the international community in dealing with the issue was, I think he said, deplorable, he would set up an inquiry into the operation of the international community when confronted with crises such as that in Rwanda. Has my hon. Friend any news about the inquiry? Has it been set up, and at what stage will we hear the result of it?

I am not aware of any detailed conclusions that have been reached; but of course I shall be happy to answer a question from my hon. Friend when those details are available.

The United Nations agreed a force for Rwanda, but did not agree its deployment. Now that its deployment has been agreed, we are told that it has been held up because of lack of logistical support from western countries. Why is further delay occurring? Genocide continues in Rwanda and hundreds of thousands of terrified people are flooding across the borders of some of the most impoverished countries in the world. Of course, no sensible person blames all that on Her Majesty's Government; I am not suggesting that. [Laughter.] I am dismayed that Conservative Members think that this is a laughing matter; it just shows how pathetic their attitude really is. We want to know from Foreign Office Ministers whether it is lack of capability or lack of political will that is preventing the United Nations from getting its act together.

Certainly it would be wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to blame the British Government and I defend the British Government—

I did not say that.

No. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to cast blame widely—including, in part, on the British Government. We have responded to the request of the Secretary-General for the supply of equipment. We have made that equipment available; it is being inspected by United Nations people at the moment and will be ready for deployment when the United Nations is ready. It is not lack of support from the British Government that is constraining activities in that area. As to humanitarian aid, we responded immediately and provided a substantial amount of help; we are ready to do more. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the British Government cannot be accused of not taking our international commitments seriously as we are the fourth largest contributor to United Nations operations in the world.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Israeli relations.

They are excellent.

I am pleased to hear that from the Minister. Is he aware of concern about the British Government's attitude to the continuing Arab trade boycott of Israel? Does he agree that British companies need the shield of legislation to allow them unequivocally to reject demands that they comply with the boycott? Will he consider introducing such legislation here?

There is concern about the trade boycott and we deplore that boycott. I am glad to say that the tertiary and secondary boycott has been falling away and that there has been a substantial increase in the volume of United Kingdom exports to Israel. In 1993, exports to Israel were up by 50 per cent; in the first five months of this year, exports to Israel were up by 26 per cent; and Israel is now the third most important export market for United Kingdom goods in the middle east.

What is the Government's attitude to the idea that Jerusalem could become the capital of an independent Palestinian state as well as the capital of Israel?

That is certainly a matter which should be given the utmost consideration by those who will have to negotiate Jerusalem's status. It has long been agreed that that status will be addressed at the very end of the peace process, which I consider both inevitable and right, but the parties to the negotiations will wish to think seriously about finding a way for Palestinians and Israelis to share Jerusalem.

Will Her Majesty's Government give a warm welcome to last week's political initiative from King Hussein of Jordan, which has received a ready response from the Israeli Government? I understand that official talks between the two countries are taking place this very week.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, and we do indeed give a warm welcome to the speech made by His Majesty the King of Jordan. Negotiations between Jordan and Israel will start on 18 July, and will deal with such important subjects as the border, security and water. That is a very welcome development, and we applaud it.

I welcome the recent improvements in relations between Britain and Israel, but may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to agree with people in Israel who—remembering what happened in the years before 1967—are reluctant for Jerusalem ever again to become a divided city?

I do not think that I can sensibly add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel). The question of Jerusalem is of key importance, and is best dealt with at the end of the peace process. There are powerfully competing emotions among all sides in the negotiations, which must be dealt with sensibly.

I am sure the Minister will agree that the international community has a duty to help the new Administration in Gaza and Jericho. No doubt he is aware that that Administration requires an estimated £900 million of aid just to stabilise living conditions for the 700,000 Palestinians who live in Gaza, mostly in deplorable conditions. Will the Government give a lead in ensuring that the money promised by donor countries is delivered to those who have the great task of rebuilding Gaza?

But we are giving a lead. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not overlooked the statement made on 8 July by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who made it plain that, in addition to the £70 million that we would make available over the next three years, we were providing an additional £5 million in bilateral assistance. That will go largely to the Palestinian police force, but there will be other technical support. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind the fact that, for example, the Bank of England is now helping the Palestinians to establish a Palestinian monetary authority. We are already playing a full part, and we now look to others to do likewise.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Foreign Office is doing to reinforce commercial sections in Asia and the Pacific.

I am glad to say that exports to the Asia-Pacific rim region rose by 28.5 per cent. in 1993 to £13 billion, and that since 1990 total export promotion effort at the Foreign Office posts in Asian and Pacific rim countries has risen by 23 per cent.

I welcome the increasing trade in what might be termed a frontier market, but I was seeking assurances about the amount of additional assistance that the Foreign Office is offering business men. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the increased co-operation with the Department of Trade and Industry will continue, so that our business men receive as much assistance in these important markets as business men in our European competitor nations?

My hon. Friend is quite right. As I have said, the export promotion effort has risen substantially: we have created 40 new front-line commercial jobs at posts in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Delhi, Singapore and Hanoi, and at the British trade and cultural office in Taipei. My hon. Friend can rest assured that a great deal of effort is going into meeting that frontier market.

How many letters has the Foreign Office received from British business men or businesses suggesting—indeed, complaining—that Britain's attitude to China over Hong Kong is costing them business?

Some facts speak clearly for themselves. In 1992, exports to China were up 72 per cent. and in the first quarter of 1994 they were up 22 per cent., so we are on course to do the same again this year. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. There have been assurances from Chinese Premier Li Peng and from the Vice Premier and Foreign Minister that China will not discriminate against British companies in commercial interests.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the performance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in trade development in recent years. Notwithstanding the statistics that he has just given us in relation to China, is my hon. Friend satisfied that we are doing as much as we can—and as much as our major competitors—to capture that fast-growing market?

All I can say is that we are doing extremely well. I cannot give precise comparisons because they are difficult to make. I believe that we are making an enormous effort to help British exporters, who are responding.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of the war crimes tribunal investigating atrocities in the former Yugoslavia.

We co-sponsored Security Council resolution 827 which established the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We welcome the recent appointment of Judge Richard Goldstone of South Africa as the prosecutor. In the meantime, we have been co-operating with and supporting the work of the acting deputy prosecutor, Mr. Blewitt, who has been setting up the prosecutor's office in The Hague.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell the House when he thinks that the first indictments will be issued by the tribunal and when the first prosecutions are likely to start? Does the Minister think that the time may be right for the British Government to give serious consideration to the establishment of a permanent United Nations tribunal to deal with war crimes and human rights violations around the world?

The former part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for the prosecutor. I understand that there is some chance that there will be trials before the end of the year.

Given the situation in the former Yugoslavia, which is symptomatic of the failure of our common European foreign policy led by Germany, will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the Karlsruhe judgment in Germany this week? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the speeches by President Clinton proposing a leadership role for Germany oversimplify foreign policy in Europe and are rather more reminiscent of Joseph Kennedy than of J. F. Kennedy?

What is happening in former Yugoslavia has more to do with the bloodiness of human nature than with anything on the part of the German Government or any other Government. I disagree with my hon. Friend on that point.

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

The situation in central Bosnia is stable. The ceasefire between the Bosnian Government and the Bosnian Croat forces has held up well. The United Kingdom UNPROFOR contingent has played an active part in monitoring the ceasefire, chairing the joint liaison commissions and assisting humanitarian work in the area.

Does the Minister agree that to establish a lasting and successful peace framework in central Bosnia it will be essential to respect two principles: first, that the internationally recognised boundaries of Bosnia should be preserved in any peace settlement and, secondly, that there is a right for refugees and displaced persons to return to their areas of origin, from which many were forced out by the horrors of ethnic cleansing? Will the British Government be resolute in pressing for those principles as part of a peace settlement?

Both are important principles. The map worked out by the contact group provides for the preservation of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a complete entity, the external frontiers of which will be respected. The return of refugees is also tremendously important, but we must keep in mind the fact that before people will go back and, a fortiori, stay there, they must have confidence that they will be safe. If there is a settlement, the international community can achieve some things by way of implementation. I hope that it can instil confidence, which is a necessary precondition for the achievement of that second element.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the achievement of peace in Bosnia—we all wish the Foreign Secretary well in his difficult mission—depends primarily on the Serbs; that the Bosnian Government have behaved extremely responsibly in recent weeks; and that, as he himself said, the alliance with the Croats has held?

I welcome the alliance with the Croats, and it is true that the federation between the Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats seems to be holding firm. It is important to keep in mind the fact that the recent infringements of the ceasefire were committed by both sides—by the Bosnian Government as much as by the Bosnian Serbs. It is important to be aware that the contact group's proposal will not work unless it is accepted by both sides; so we look to both sides to accept it.

Everyone wishes the Foreign Secretary well on his mission to former Yugoslavia and we hope that he will be successful in impressing on the combatants the fact that this is perhaps their last opportunity for a negotiated settlement. It is sad that the current offer to the Bosnian Government is worse than was available when they had the opportunity to reach a settlement in 1992. Of course we wish the Foreign Secretary well, but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that, if a success is not achieved in the next few days, there will be no early abrogation of either the sanctions against Serbia or the arms embargo on Bosnia?

If a settlement is not reached because the contact group plan is rejected—I am focusing now on the question of rejection by the Bosnian Serbs—it is certain that sanctions will remain in place and that they will almost certainly be toughened. It is probable that the arms embargo will not survive. The pressure to relax the arms embargo in the event of the Serbs rejecting the plan will probably prove irresistible.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, at this stage, it would be a tragedy if the contact group were not successful, bearing in mind the sacrifices that have been made by French and British troops in delivering aid in Bosnia? I hope that he will continue in his endeavours to encourage everyone to sign the agreement.

I agree with my hon. Friend. This is a critical moment. If the parties do not accept the plan that has been proposed and worked out by the contact group, there is a grave danger that war in Bosnia will re-ignite and develop with ever-increasing intensity.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken or proposes to take in the light of Serbian aggression against Albania and Macedonia.

Following the occupation by Serbian troops of a hill near the Serbia-Macedonia border in mid-June, the British chargé d'affaires in Belgrade made representations to the Serbian authorities. We welcome the recent agreement brokered by UNPROFOR, under which Serbian and Macedonian troops withdrew from the vicinity of the hill. We are not aware of any recent cases of Serbian aggression towards Albania. We continue to watch developments in the region carefully.

Does not the Minister recognise that the west's inaction when Milosevic first used his tanks and aircraft against Ljubljana gave a green light to Serbian aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that appeasement of Serbian aggression and acceptance of their ability to gain territory by force encourages acts of aggression against Macedonia and Albania and the further persecution of the Albanian majority in Kosovo?

The hon. Gentleman should not indulge in generalities; he needs to be careful not to induce people to suppose that the Government mean, or that he means, things that we do not or he does not really mean. It is our policy to try to persuade the parties to accept the plan worked out by the contact group. We are not in the business of waging war; the hon. Gentleman sounds as if he is, but that is not the policy of his party's Front-Bench spokesmen.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the Macedonian resolution passed almost unanimously by 53 nations in the Parliament of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe demanding of Greece the recognition of Macedonia and the withdrawal of any trade restrictions? Would that not greatly assist Macedonia with any problems that might arise in the future?

I have indeed seen the resolution to which my right hon. Friend refers, and I welcome it. The Greek Government's policies towards Macedonia are quite wrong, especially that of imposing sanctions. We were very pleased when the European Court of Justice took up the issue. Proposals worked out by Cyrus Vance address all the relevant questions which divide Macedonia and Greece, and I very much hope that Macedonia and Greece will be prepared to accept the compromises worked out by him.

Is not Macedonia facing a grave crisis in terms of its security and economy, with industry virtually at a standstill and unemployment rocketing? I welcome the Vance initiative, but what contact is the Minister having with the Greek Government and his European Union partners to resolve the problem, as it seems that the European Court avenue is not going to provide a speedy solution?

The hon. Lady is right that the European Court is not prepared to take interim action—a fact which I very much regret, as it would have been a useful way forward. We have been in frequent bilateral contact with the Greek authorities and the issue has been raised frequently by Ministers in the context of various European Union Councils. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary intends that it should be raised at the next Council meeting which, I believe, is early next week. It is a very important issue and we will continue to press the Greek Government on it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans he has to try to persuade the Nigerian authorities to respect the result of last year's presidential elections.

The Secretary of State is worried about developments in Nigeria. The Nigerian Government claim to want a speedy transition to democratic government, but their actions contradict their claims: their decision to put Chief Abiola on trial cannot help to achieve that end. Meanwhile, their regressive economic policies are stifling industrial production and domestic and foreign investment and damaging Nigeria's standing with its creditors. We are urging all sides in Nigeria to join in constructive political dialogue.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he emphasise that the British Government's friendship towards the Nigerian people makes it absolutely clear that we want democratic accountability to come to Nigeria, that we want the President who was elected almost a year ago to be allowed to take his place, and that we want the Parliament that was freely elected to be able to take control from the military Government?

I can, of course, confirm that we wish Nigeria to return to democratic civilian government. Last June's elections were the most free and fair in Nigeria's history. It is important that Nigeria should have a President who is acceptable to all, and it must be for Nigerians to resolve whom that should be.

Is the Minister aware that there is grave concern about the arrest not only of Chief Abiola but of many other people who support the democratic process in Nigeria? Some people in this country, including Nigerian students, say that we should at least impose an arms embargo, if not go further, to try to ensure that Nigerians accept the democratic process.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in conjunction with our European partners and the American Government we have imposed certain sanctions against the Nigerian military: visa restrictions, bans on high level visits and on military training, and restrictions on defence sales. Those will remain in force for the time being.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Paraguay following the recent visit to the United Kingdom by President Wasmosy.

Relations are excellent. We were delighted to welcome President Wasmosy to the United Kingdom for the first time last week.

During the recent visit of the Paraguayan President, did my hon. Friend have a chance to discuss with him the difficult question of drug trafficking from Latin America? Does he agree that it is time for a fresh initiative to try to stem the flow of life-destroying drugs from South America to Europe?

Yes, Paraguay is on a number of drug routes, which is why we so warmly welcome its Government's commitment to getting on top of that scourge. During the President's visit, we signed a drug assets confiscation agreement and we look forward to its being put into practical effect.

Does the Minister acknowledge that a key issue for people concerned about strengthening the democratic process in Paraguay is the establishment of a civil service free of party political interference—one which has security of tenure for its civil servants and is professionally recruited on merit? Does he share my deep concern, however, that we are in a weak position to lecture any other country on such subjects, having so weakened our own civil service under the present Government?

I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's insinuations about this country, but I welcome without reservation Paraguay's return to democracy after more than 50 years.

Is not the significance of President Wasmosy's visit the fact that he is a directly elected Latin American President who received his symbols of office from a predecessor who was also directly elected—something for which Latin America is now once again becoming renowned? Is it not of great value to have within Mercosur, the trading bloc of southern America, a country with a long-standing record of free enterprise and free trade?

Yes, we welcome the return to civilian democratic government of almost all the countries in that continent. There is an especially interesting development concerning trade in the southern part of South America, in that we hope that the Mercosur agreement will come into effect at the beginning of next year. There will be a free trade zone among the countries of that region, and Paraguay will be at the centre of it, so our excellent trading relations with that country will stand us in good stead.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks he has had with other Governments about international paedophile rings.

We take every opportunity in all international forums to urge action against child prostitution.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he consider having talks with the Sri Lankan Government, who are taking strong measures to combat paedophile rings? For example, they have established a Cabinet sub-committee and set up a separate unit in every police department, the tourist board is closely supervising hotels and guest houses, and the Government are carrying out a public awareness programme as well as conveying strongly to foreigners the message that they will not tolerate the exploitation of children. Does the Minister think that other Governments could learn from that? If so, what could his Department do to co-ordinate a campaign against that vile practice?

As the hon. Lady knows, I have myself been in touch with the Sri Lankan high commissioner on all these matters. I can tell her that there is a great deal of police co-operation between Britain, Sri Lanka and other countries. The national crime intelligence service has a paedophile unit which gathers information on known British rings and liaises with its counterparts in the region of which the hon. Lady speaks. British officers take an active part in the work of Interpol in dealing with offences against minors. Interpol provides a useful focus for international police co-operation in the area.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the time of kid glove action is over and that we must go for a mailed fist result? We must really go after the perverts—the evil people who prey on the bodies of children in an unnatural way. Would my hon. Friend consider discussing with people overseas and our Home Office whether, on a second conviction, castration might be a very suitable approach? One would be surprised to see how few people would need to be castrated to stop this evil practice against children—and I would do the same for those who rape women.

I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion is a matter for the Foreign Office.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Bosnian Government in respect of recent breaches of ceasefire agreements; and if he will make a statement.

We have repeatedly urged all sides to show restraint and we are supporting UN efforts to extend the ceasefire. We are also pressing the parties to accept the proposals put forward by the Geneva ministerial meeting on 5 July. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his French colleague Mr. Juppé are taking action with the key players in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia on their current visit.

Does the Minister agree that the breaches of the ceasefire have been mainly by the Muslim Government from Sarajevo since the recent ceasefire agreement was arranged? It is important that we get the right message through to the Bosnian Muslim Government. Does the Minister agree that it is erroneous to tell the Bosnian Serbs that whenever they have breached the ceasefire agreements they may be confronted by air strikes when there are not tit-for-tat threats against the Muslim leaders in Sarajevo? If there is to be a successful conclusion to the present peace negotiations and if there is to be agreement by the Bosnian Serbs, this country and the United Nations must show an even-handed approach.

On the first three paragraphs of the hon. Gentleman's question, the factual position is as follows: in terms of the number of infringements during the past month's ceasefire, the Bosnian Serbs committed the most, but perhaps the most serious infringements were committed by the Bosnian Government. Looking forward, I greatly welcome the fact that Mr. Akashi was able to negotiate an extension to that one-month ceasefire.

In the context of what the Minister said earlier, when he surmised that the arms embargo could be lifted, and given the fairly trenchant position that the Foreign Secretary and the Government have taken on the issue, what would be the British Government's position if such a development were to come about or draw near?

It is true that for two years or so we have argued strongly against the relaxation of the arms embargo as we believe that such a relaxation would run the risk of seriously re-igniting the war in Bosnia. That remains our view, but it also remains a fact that if the present negotiations do not succeed and, in particular, if they are rejected by the Bosnian Serbs, the pressure to relax the arms embargo—most especially, although not exclusively, in Washington—will probably prove irresistible. We shall have to judge our own policy as the facts develop.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the Commonwealth Institute.

I am pleased to announce that the Minister for Overseas Development has today informed the acting chairman of the Commonwealth Institute that the Government are willing to provide a grant of £2.4 million over the three-year period from 1996–97 to enable the institute to regenerate its galleries and become self-supporting by March 1999.

I thank the Minister for his reply and also for kindly telephoning me this morning in relation to the matter. Is he aware, however, that the Commonwealth Institute in London is desperately in need of cash to finance the refurbishment of the building, which will cost about £5 million? Given that grants were previously in the order of £2 million per year, does not £2.4 million over three years pale a little in comparison? Does that not show a negative attitude towards the Commonwealth?

No. The Government are most certainly committed to the continued strength of the Commonwealth. The offer that the Government have made is under discussion with Mr. David Thompson, the acting chairman, and it is on condition that the institute raises £5 million in sponsorship and submits satisfactory business and building maintenance plans. Mr. Thompson is confident that, with the restructuring in hand and with the assistance that he will receive from private sponsorship, he will be able to maintain the building and make the Commonwealth Institute a viable and flourishing institution for the future.

Does my hon. Friend accept that that is excellent news which will be widely welcomed on both sides of the house? Does he further accept, as I am sure that he does, that that institute or club, the Commonwealth, is not only thriving, but growing and that more and more countries are seeking to join it? Does he realise, as I am sure that he also does, that the provision is a very good move which reflects the growing interest of this country and Commonwealth members in grouping together for the future?

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend and I am grateful for his encouraging comments. We hope that the Commonwealth Institute will thrive and flourish with an injection of private sector funds as well as Government assistance in the interim period because it is an important institute for the development of the Commonwealth which we wish to see flourish and thrive. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, we paid some 30 per cent. of the costs of the Commonwealth secretariat in London and 60 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to Commonwealth countries.

I do not quite understand why the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) thinks that the Government are advancing when there is a cut in grant from £6 million to £2.4 million. The Minister and the Government are sending out completely the wrong signals to the Commonwealth. We should like to know whether the Government intend to privatise or to hive off that valuable and focal institution because that is what they are doing under the restructuring. Will the Minister tell us what status he envisages for the Commonwealth Institute after 1996 and whether, when the process which he seems to be undertaking starts, he intends to repeal the Imperial Institute Act 1925 and the Commonwealth Institute Act 1958 under which the institute is governed? When will that process be put into train?

No, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government believe that the Commonwealth Institute has a great future ahead of it, in the way in which I have indicated, with assistance from the private sector and help from the Government over the interim period. The institute is, of course, run by its own body of management, governing body and trustees. There is no plan to repeal the Acts of Parliament to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which established the Imperial Institute and later the Commonwealth Institute.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current state of relations between North and South Korea.

It is too soon to know how the new leadership in Pyongyang will approach relations with South Korea, but we hope that the death of Kim Il-sung will not lead to a lengthy postponement of the summit talks between South and North Korea earlier planned for this month.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the words "North Korea" are merely shorthand for the dangers posed by nuclear proliferation? Has he seen reports that North Korea may have as many as six—certainly at least two—nuclear devices which it is seeking to develop to a state in which it can deliver them overseas? Is he aware that North Korea is trading in nuclear technologies with a number of countries whose interests are not favourable to ours? Will he use the hiatus caused by the death of the North Korean leader to accelerate rather than decelerate pressure on that country to reduce nuclear proliferation?

There is no hard evidence that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons. There must be suspicions, however, because North Korea does not allow the necessary international inspections which would assure us that plutonium is not being diverted. We take the drive against nuclear proliferation extremely seriously. We are glad that North Korea has not denounced the nonproliferation treaty, and we hope very much that it will allow the necessary inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In the context of North Korea, does the Minister know whether Marxism-Leninism now accepts entirely the Conservative principle of hereditary succession? Will Ministers be writing to congratulate the North Korean leadership on a new development in Marxism-Leninism?

They do like to try to keep it in the family in such countries. That is a feature of Marxist dictatorships. The succession to the leadership is a matter for the North Koreans. It is important to note that the dictator concerned is one of the last vestiges of a socialist world order that is now widely discredited.

It is pretty well established that both Iran and Iraq have been spending substantial sums—Iran has been spending up to $0.5 billion every year—on nuclear proliferation. Much of the technology has been transferred to Iran and Iraq from North Korea and China. Does my hon. Friend have any clear plan to deal with that? It would seem that the policy of nonproliferation has pretty well failed in many countries and that we should be looking to something much harsher.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend that non-proliferation has failed. We are working to achieve an indefinite extension to the non-proliferation treaty. We are also working to negotiate a comprehensive test ban, provided that it is part of a wider move to prevent proliferation, especially among the states that my hon. Friend mentioned.

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

Relations with China have improved recently. On Hong Kong, we have reached agreement on defence lands and have made progress in our discussions on financing the new airport. Our trade figures show a 72 per cent. increase in direct exports to China last year and a 22 per cent. increase in the first quarter of this year. We also have an active dialogue on human rights and international and United Nations matters. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), will be visiting China from tomorrow.

What representations did the Government make to the Chinese Government after the underground nuclear test on 10 June, which was conducted in defiance of international opinion and in breach of an international moratorium? Can the Minister able assure the House that that second underground nuclear test in nine months met with firm representations from the Government and that difficult relations over Hong Kong did not prevent the Government from expressing concerns about real and important nuclear issues?

Yes. We have expressed our disapproval of the continuing underground testing in China and I am glad that China has at least indicated its intention to participate in negotiations for a comprehensive test ban.

Despite the public rhetoric of the Chinese Government, will my hon. Friend continue to keep the pressure on them to accept the democratic through train up to and beyond 1997?

Yes. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will doubtless be carrying those discussions forward during his forthcoming visit.

When will the Government next have discussions on Bosnia in the United Nations Security Council? Will the Government be trying to work with the Chinese to veto any move by the United States to lift the arms embargo? In view of the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—and of the Prime Minister yesterday, when he said that he was against the unilateral lifting of the arms embargo—may we have a categorical assurance that our Government will not give way to misguided pressure from the American Congress and President Clinton but will work with others to stop the lifting of the arms embargo?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it known to the United States Government that any unilateral move of the sort suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be strongly deprecated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the criteria for the establishment of a specialised science and technology section within British embassies abroad.

Science and technology work is carried out by different sections within a wide range of our overseas posts, as appropriate and in response to demand.

Does the Minister agree that it is crucial that scientists and businesses in the United Kingdom are kept aware of developing science and technology in other countries, particularly in the United States? Will he explain why he has decided that the science and technology counsellor in Washington can be absorbed into another section when the German embassy in Washington maintains a section of five people, the French embassy maintains a section of six people, and the Chinese embassy maintains a section of 11 people?

I believe that we are extremely well served by the new arrangements established in Washington. We have created responsibilities at counsellor level for a counsellor with science and technology responsibility and also in other areas, including transport, energy and the environment, in line with the kind of arrangements which prevail in Paris, Bonn and elsewhere. We also have one full-time first secretary below him and a part-time first secretary assisting him.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to visit the south Pacific forum in Brisbane this summer.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), will take part in a post-forum dialogue which follows the south Pacific forum in Brisbane.

Does my hon. Friend understand the concern that Britain's role in the region is not always as significant as it once was? Against that background, does he understand the welcome that will be given to my right hon. Friend's visit to Brisbane, emphasising the fact that we must take a very close interest in the affairs of the south Pacific?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Our annual attendance at ministerial level in discussions following the conference shows the importance that we attach to the area. There will be an opportunity to identify shared policy priorities and objectives. My right hon. Friend will continue with his visits in Australia and New Zealand. Furthermore, we maintain a significant aid programme in the area which shows our continuing interest.

In view of the contortions of a slightly earlier question, will the Minister consider, on his way to visit the south Pacific forum in Brisbane this summer, the necessity to apologise to the Chinese Government for the—[Interruption.]

Order. That is a little way out geographically.

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

I welcome Mr. Arafat's return to Gaza and Jericho, which symbolises progress in the peace process. We shall continue to provide assistance to his new Administration. We welcome recent progress on the Jordanian track of the peace process and hope for progress on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks.

Earlier, the Minister skated rather rapidly over the question of the boycott. Why is it that France, Germany and America and various other countries have very firm anti-boycott legislation, but the British Government, who know that British businesses are losing out in this matter, absolutely refuse to support the European directive or to introduce legislation in this House which would outlaw such activities?

I do not think that legislation would be helpful. We have already been successful in persuading the Arab states to relax the boycott. I have already spoken of the relaxation in the secondary and tertiary boycotts. Israel is now the third most important United Kingdom export market in the middle east, and there have been substantial increases in UK exports to Israel. That shows that the boycott is extraordinarily ineffective.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between the United Kingdom and Cyprus.

Our relationship with Cyprus is close. We regard the division of the island since 1974 as damaging and unacceptable. We continue to work, both at the United Nations and in our capacity as a guarantor power, for a peaceful, just and lasting settlement. We believe that the package of confidence-building measures put forward by the UN offers the best way to make progress towards such a settlement. The gap between the two parties is now narrow. I hope that they will be able to seize the present opportunity to take a decisive step forward.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be quite wrong for Mr. Denktash to have a right of veto over Cyprus's application to join the European Union? May we have an assurance that the Government will support that application, whether or not the current measures lead to agreement?

We do support and have supported the application. Neither Mr. Denktash nor anyone else has a veto over the application, but we recognise the difficulties of bringing in a divided island: that is why the position will be reviewed by a European Union observer at the start of next year.