To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the handover of Hong Kong, and on the current state of British relations with China. [5724]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Sino—British relations. [5728]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an assessment of the United Kingdom's future relations with China following the handover of Hong Kong. [5729]

I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is attending the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit in Madrid.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, on present trends, China has the potential to be the world's biggest economic power early in the next millennium? Does he also agree that it is already a growing and major market for our goods and services? Does he further agree that it is enormously important politically, ecologically and demographically and has the potential to be a major outward investor? The handover of Hong Kong provides a new opportunity to develop a relationship with China, freeing us from the tensions inherent in the earlier relationship. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while human rights and our continuing responsibilities for the joint declaration may be features, we should pursue that new relationship with vigour?

My hon. Friend had a distinguished career as a diplomat before he came to the House and has a real understanding of the situation in China. We are looking forward to a new, constructive relationship with China and are keen to engage with it on a range of political, trade and human rights issues. That is the best way to secure the future of Hong Kong. We are deeply committed to ensuring that we carry out our responsibilities under the joint declaration.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain the rationale behind the last minute volte-face, which resulted in British representatives being permitted after all to attend the swearing in of the new provisional Legislative Council? How can that be rationalised with the view—if it is still the Government's view—that that body is illegal?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raised that issue. The Government's policy was that no Ministers would attend the swearing in ceremony for the provisional legislature. It has always been our understanding that there will be a consensus on Hong Kong policy. We were deeply disappointed that three senior representatives of the Conservative party attended the swearing in ceremony. When the new shadow Foreign Secretary has the opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box, I hope that he will condemn those Conservatives who went against the Government's policy.

I do not suppose that my hon. Friend can tell me the CO₂ emissions for China and Hong Kong and the likely emissions over the next 10 or 15 years. Does he agree, however, that they will make a significant contribution to global warming and that it is important that we draw China into the worldwide agreements that are beginning to emerge in respect of protecting the environment for us all?

As my hon. Friend knows, it is difficult to predict precisely the CO₂ emissions from China or any other country, but my hon. Friend is right to say that they are likely to be significant in the coming years simply because of the size and the growth of the Chinese economy. A further reason to engage China on a range of issues is that the environment is as important to the Chinese as it is to us. We have been working with the Chinese on a number of environment projects, and we wish to extend that work in future.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there should be a continuing role for the House, and perhaps for the other place, in monitoring developments in Hong Kong during the rest of the 50-year period?

I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. There will indeed be great pressure on the House to ensure that there is effective monitoring. We shall certainly provide the opportunities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are still discussing the detailed mechanisms for such provision.

Has my hon. Friend seen the reports in the Sunday newspapers of actions by the noble Lord Howe, which I support, to undermine the negotiating position of Christopher Patten as Governor of Hong Kong? Can we be sure that there will be a full inquiry into those allegations as many of us would like to know what really happened during that period?

My advice to my hon. Friend is to allow the Conservatives yet again to have their internal divisions in public. I enjoy watching those internal divisions. It is important to look to the future, and in that context we must ensure that the joint declaration is honoured and that we and the Chinese carry out our commitments under the joint declaration. That is the best way to ensure the long-term future and prosperity of the people of Hong Kong.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the Commonwealth. [5727]

The Commonwealth has an increasingly important role to play in the modern world. The shared values of its members, reflected in the Harare declaration, are an important force in strengthening democracy and prosperity around the globe. We will take this agenda forward at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh in October.

History will judge the Commonwealth as bringing great benefit to the emerging nations. Does the Minister accept that it needs new vigour and a new sense of purpose if it is to continue into the new millennium to be an effective alternative to the expensive, inefficient and power-hungry United Nations?

I would not pretend for a second to share any of the hon. Lady's sentiments in respect of the United Nations. We applaud the work of the United Nations in many parts of the world. However, there is no conflict between our view of the Commonwealth as an important institution in terms of projecting Britain's own values and making sure that the values that we share with other members of the Commonwealth are appreciated throughout the world. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear in his recent mission statement that the role of the Commonwealth is central to our foreign policy objectives and our shared values in terms of democracy, good government, anti-corruption and building a global sense of values through the Harare declaration to which all Commonwealth nations must adhere.

My hon. Friend will be aware that Labour Members are delighted with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's strong commitment to the Commonwealth. He will have noticed that the previous Select Committee on Foreign Affairs produced a useful blueprint for the work that could be done within the Commonwealth and the genuine help that could be given to everyone throughout the organisation. Will he study it carefully and carry forward its practical views?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We of course welcomed that report, and we shall take its conclusions very seriously. We also share the view that, as I said, the Commonwealth is central to this Government's purposes. It is also central, though, in ensuring that the values that we espouse and those that we espouse in common with our Commonwealth partners are an example not only to the Commonwealth but to the whole world.

May I commend in his absence the recent robust remarks by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in relation to Nigeria? Does the Minister remember that, in 1961, when South Africa left the Commonwealth, it was on the verge of expulsion for its persistent and unrepentant flouting of Commonwealth values? If the present regime in Nigeria persists in its denial of human rights and democracy, will the Government give serious consideration to supporting a policy of expulsion of Nigeria from the Commonwealth?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the Commonwealth ministerial action group will meet at the end of the week. On its agenda, among other things, will be the future of Nigeria in the Commonwealth, and of course the future of its suspension. I think that he will understand if I do not go further than that today except simply to say that we shall be working actively with our Commonwealth partners to see what further action can be taken to bring pressure to bear on the Nigerians so that they recognise that their behaviour is despicable and that it is time they began to reform.

As both Pakistan and India very much value their membership of the Commonwealth, does my hon. Friend believe that this year, given that it is the 50th anniversary of their independence and the 50th year of the Kashmir problem, the Commonwealth could have a role in trying to help resolve that problem?

As we have made very clear, the Government are available to act to bring about a resolution of that very long-enduring conflict. The major parties of the conflict are not only the people of Kashmir, who are undoubtedly the victims, but the Governments of India and Pakistan. The British Government, and indeed the Commonwealth, can operate only within a framework established by those two nations.

Given the events in Kenya reported in today's press, which seem to be in complete disregard of the Harare declaration, what steps are the Government taking to put pressure on the Government of President Arap Moi? Given the division between the Foreign Office and the Department of International Development, would such pressure include the potential suspension of aid?

I met President Moi and, indeed, Opposition figures when I was in Kenya just over a week ago. I made it clear then that our Government expect all parties to make space available so that the forthcoming general election can be conducted without violence and in a way that allows the Kenyan people to exercise their democratic right to decide the future of the country. The events over the weekend are yet one further serious blow to that process.

Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), in the light of the distressing scenes of violence in Kenya, what scope does the Minister think there is for representations by the Government, in co-operation with other Commonwealth Governments, to the Kenyan Government?

We have already made representations to the Kenyan Government and said that we expect them to play their part in ensuring that the run-up between now and the election later this year—or perhaps early next year—must be conducted without violence and in a way that allows the Kenyan people to make a decision. Those representations are firmly established with the Kenyan Government. We shall of course be seeking to work with our close allies in the Commonwealth and elsewhere to ensure that acceptance of the Harare principle is central to the Kenyan Government's actions. I simply repeat that we are in the end seeking to ensure that the Kenyan people have the right to choose the Government of Kenya.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps being taken by his Department to improve human rights in Burma. [5730]

We take every opportunity to press the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council—SLORC—to put an end to violations of human rights in Burma.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will support the tremendous efforts of Aung San Suu Kyi and the National Democratic League to fight for democracy in Burma, which is the true test of democratic rights? Will he also assure the House that Government money will no longer be used to encourage British companies to trade with Burma?

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend on the first point. We will continue to campaign for the restoration of democracy in Burma. It may be some consolation to my hon. Friend to learn that I sent, on behalf of the people of this country, birthday wishes to Aung San Suu Kyi on 18 June. I hope that it is not too long before Aung San Suu Kyi assumes her true position as leader of the Burmese people.

The Foreign Secretary's preoccupation with human rights is well known, and I respect him for it. However, there are four separate questions on today's Order Paper about human rights, all of which clearly envisage supplementary questions urging United Kingdom action on human rights in Burma, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Nicaragua. Is it not the primary duty of the Foreign Office to nurture British diplomatic and commercial interests? Does the Minister think that those are likely to be advanced or inhibited by meddling in the internal affairs of other countries?

The right hon. Gentleman must have been away from the House for so long that he does not understand one of the conventions of the House, or perhaps it has been dropped by the Conservative party. He will recall that only a few moments ago the shadow Foreign Secretary raised the question of human rights in Kenya. It seems that a universal principle is being applied—the right hon. Gentleman may be the only person outside it.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [5731]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [5738]

We are deeply concerned at the continuing stalemate in the middle east peace process and at the deteriorating situation in the occupied territories. We have impressed on all concerned the dangers of the situation as we see them.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the most difficult questions facing the peace process is the future of Jerusalem? That is why it is so important that neither side takes any action that pre-empts the negotiations that must eventually take place. Does he share my concern that the Government of Israel seem intent on removing residency rights from many of the 170,000 Palestinian Arabs who live in east Jerusalem, even though many of them were born there? Will he undertake to investigate that, and does he agree that that policy of quiet deportation is contrary to human rights and to the spirit of the Oslo accord?

We certainly condemn any action by Israel or the Palestinians that pre-empts the final status negotiations. The matters to which my hon. Friend refers seem clearly to fall within that category, and therefore we have no hesitation in condemning them.

Will my hon. Friend welcome the fact that, for the first time since March this year. tentative discussions have taken place between the Israeli Government and representatives of the Palestinian authorities, especially the surprising recent meeting between Mr. Sharon, one of Israel's well-known hard liners, and Abu Mazin? In that context, when my hon. Friend meets Mr. Arafat next week will he urge him to take every glimmer of hope that is available to him to ensure that the peace process can be put back on track?

We welcome any opportunity to reopen negotiations and any initiative that is taken. I compliment Ambassador Moratinos, the European Union special envoy, on his work. He has been particularly influential in trying to restart the talks between the Israeli Government and the Palestinians. I also congratulate the Egyptian Government on their role in trying to restart the peace negotiations. They have shown leadership and statesmanship—characteristics and attributes that are often lacking in that process.

Does the Minister agree that the single most important step that the Government of Israel could take to promote peace would be to decide not to build new settlements and not to extend existing ones? If he agrees, will he take every opportunity to press that message on the Israeli Government, both collectively and unilaterally? In particular, will he enlist the support of the United States Government in making their position, alongside ours, absolutely plain to the Government of Israel?

I am pleased to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have already made clear our opposition to the extension of settlements and to new settlements. I visited the Har Homa settlement in May, and I set out clearly the British Government's position, which is based in international law and well known to the Israeli Government. We shall continue to convey that view to the Israelis and to other interested parties.

Does the Minister agree that, in the wider interests of peace and stability in the middle east, he should make the most vigorous representations to the Iraqi Government about the failure to return Kuwaiti prisoners of war? Will he assure the House that, if he has not already done so, he will take steps to represent our views very strongly on that matter?

I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have conveyed that view. During my recent visit to Kuwait, I expressed to the emir this country's concern about the missing Kuwaitis. I gave him a commitment that we will do all we can to assist in ensuring that those missing Kuwaitis get back to their families in Kuwait.

Does the Minister accept that the President Arafat who will come here next week is not the President Arafat who came here with such high hopes a couple of years ago and sat in the Strangers Gallery? He is almost a beaten and broken man because of his identification with a peace process that has become a tragedy, if not a farce. It is a tragedy because there is neither peace nor a process.

I can assure my hon. Friend that, when I met President Arafat the other week, he did not look broken and beaten: he was in good spirits and was keen to maintain the peace process and to restart the negotiations. I wished him well and gave him a clear commitment that we will do all we can to assist. My hon. Friend is correct to say that it is important that we get back to the negotiating table, as that is the only and best option available to everyone in the middle east.

Does the Minister agree that, however faltering, the peace process has been progressive, and there has been a steady handover of territory to Palestinian control? That process needs to continue if we are to achieve peace. Does he agree that the present state of unrest in Hebron is holding up that process? When he meets Yasser Arafat next week, will he impress on him the important role that he can play in creating a climate in which the peace process can proceed to completion?

It is clearly important that the process continues apace, otherwise the commitment to the process will diminish. It is obvious that the process must meet the aspirations of the Palestinian people and the security needs of the people of Israel. It must also deliver economically, as one of the issues that must be addressed is the fact that, since Oslo, the living standards of Palestinians have fallen by nearly one third. That is unacceptable, and progress must be made quickly so that everyone has a clear interest in and commitment to the peace process.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to promote Britain's export trade. [5732]

We work hand in hand with the Department of Trade and Industry on export promotion. Together, we have established a new export forum which will consider how to improve our export promotion initiatives. We have given trade promotion a very high priority in my Department's mission statement

Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the Scotch whisky industry for its considerable contribution to the UK's trade balance? Will he reassure the House that he will continue to use the World Trade Organisation's disputes settlement system to ensure a level playing field for whisky exporters? In particular, will he ensure that everything possible is done to encourage India to include Scotch whisky in the early part of its trade liberalisation programme?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will have no difficulty in gaining support for his first point—that is, to ask everybody to support the value of Scotch whisky. I know that Scotch whisky is an important export for the United Kingdom and an important industry for my hon. Friend's constituents. We wish to see open markets for whatever product, and Scotch whisky is no exception.

Does the Minister accept that the most essential means of promoting exports is competitiveness, which requires established Conservative principles with regard to the promotion of trade and economic liberalism? Will new Labour espouse these principles, as it has done with almost everything else we have put forward in the past 150 years? Does he agree that one effective way of demonstrating the Government's determination to improve exports would be to condemn and eliminate illegal subsidies in the EU?

I was worried for a time that the hon. Gentleman might get through a question without mentioning Europe, and I was delighted that he arrived at that point at the end. As always, he saved the best bit for the end. Of course we condemn any subsidy that is illegal under European legislation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in Nicaragua. [5733]

I say with no apology that human rights are at the heart of our foreign policy. I recognise this receives approbation from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We will monitor human rights closely and raise our concerns with the Nicaraguan Government as necessary. We will encourage further steps to address police standards, prison conditions, banditry in the north of the country and discrimination against women and indigenous groups.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the legislation recently introduced by the Nicaraguan Government which restricts the rights of women and children in that country and is in direct violation of the international agreements that Nicaragua signed in Beijing in 1996 and Copenhagen in 1995?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the legislation on the ministry of the family. While we have not seen a draft of that legislation, I understand that it has received considerable criticism from non-governmental organisations in Nicaragua and more generally, which believe that it will discriminate against certain women and families.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to distance himself from the position taken by the Secretary of State for International Development who, before free elections in that country, called for the expulsion of the American ambassador and the suppression of La Prensa, the anti-Sandinista newspaper?

I merely suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take those matters up directly with the Secretary of State for International Development. I am reliably advised that there is not a shred of truth in what he said. Perhaps he ought to check the source of the information, rather than simply pander to the prejudices of an era that even in Nicaragua is long gone.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with other EU Foreign Ministers about the parts of the Amsterdam agreement that affect his Department. [5734]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly discusses European Union issues with his EU counterparts.

What are the criteria for applicant countries wanting to join the European Union—the Common Market really, if we are talking straight? Every currency in the single market is being badgered to meet the criteria available to fit the economic and monetary union single currency, yet applicant countries apparently do not have to satisfy those to get in. Who pays the cost? Is it not true that we—the British taxpayers—are still paying large amounts of money for the German annexation of East Germany? Is it not odd that today we hear that Slovenia is being given a consolation prize—joining the Common Market—because it cannot get into NATO?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, since the general election, has been building up a reputation for great support for the Government. I am glad that he is continuing that today. May I reassure him that enlargement of the European Community provides a great opportunity on the one hand for better security within Europe and on the other for British exporters to break into a larger market.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) will not be too upset if I return to the question of human rights. Will the Minister tell us a bit about the human rights provisions of the treaty of Amsterdam? Does he agree that, if a member state is in serious and persistent breach of those provisions, the appropriate action should be to suspend that state from membership or expel it, rather than require it to remain a member and remove its voting rights?

As one refugee from the Home Office to another, I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman to his new post. I know that he is embarrassed about raising economic, defence and foreign policy issues arising out of Amsterdam. The issue that he has raised is a red herring. European Union countries together stand for human rights. That was endorsed in the Amsterdam treaty and was very much initiated and supported by this Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to make the announcement of the first countries to be blacklisted under the new code of conduct for arms sales. [5737]

We shall announce, as soon as it is completed, the results of the review of criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms. We are taking this exercise forward as a matter of urgency. The review does not focus on individual countries and will not involve the compilation of a blacklist. It will, however, meet our commitment not to permit the sale of arms to any regimes that might use them for internal repression or international aggression.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have raised expectations that their attitude to the arms trade will be different. The previous Government rejected calls for a ban on arms sales to Indonesia, despite photographic, video and eye-witness evidence of the use of UK equipment for internal repression. Will the Government draw up guidelines to allow the acceptance of such evidence and will he confirm that breaches of those guidelines will lead to the cessation of arms sales to the country concerned?

As I have said, the review is urgently under way. My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on its impact on individual countries because its purpose is to ensure that we have a truly global framework. Nevertheless, in the context of Indonesia, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), has asked for precisely the sort of information she mentioned, so that we can take a proper and informed view of the consequences of previous UK arms sales.

In advance of the review, will the Minister make it clear that the Government support the principle of defence exports? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) called them arms sales, but they are in fact defence exports. Will he confirm, that our defence exports are vital for Britain because they sustain tens of thousands of jobs, often high-technology jobs, not only in my constituency but in those of many Labour Members; that they enable us to provide our services with the best British equipment at a price that we can afford; and that they give us foreign policy levers over countries with which we enjoy good friendship?

The Government might find it easier to take lectures from Conservative Members, and from the hon. Gentleman in particular, if they had not been part of a Government with an incredibly sleazy record on arms sales. He well recalls the way in which that Government prostituted the aid budget to obtain arms sales at the time of the Pergau dam scandal, and how that Government wriggled and tried to hide the truth about arms sales to Iraq. They were prepared not only to put at risk the lives of British people in the services but were so economically incompetent that we are still owed money by the Iraqis for those deals. If he wants to talk about arms sales, he should start by apologising to the House for his role in that shameful Government.

Talking of Indonesia—my hon. Friend will recall that the regime there came to power on the back of a bloodbath matched in Asia only by Pol Pot—was he as surprised as I was to find that the Ministry of Defence has given invitations, no doubt left over from the previous regime, to three Indonesian generals who are due in Britain later this month to discuss who knows what? What discussions has he had with the MOD about whether that is a good idea and whether it will send the right message to the Indonesian Government?

I can confirm that the invitation was issued by the previous Government.

Disgraceful.

Conservative Members speak for themselves.

Further to the last answer, does not the existing policy guidance document on defence exports already include the need to take into account the human rights record of recipient countries? With exactly what aspect of the current criteria does the Minister disagree?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not anticipate the outcome of the review but, that said, I remind him—as I said to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) a few moments ago—that his party in government ran defence sales in such a way that they brought great shame to Britain. They made Britain's name abroad one of disrepute. We intend to ensure that Britain, while recognising our legitimate right to trade on the world stage, operates with a degree of moral responsibility. That might shock Conservative Members, but at least we shall ensure that we can hold our heads high in the international arena.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans next to meet representatives of the Pakistani and Indian Governments to discuss an agreement on Kashmir. [5739]

I discussed Kashmir with both Governments during my visit to India and Pakistan last month. In addition, I met the Pakistani Foreign Minister and the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs in Hong Kong, and we again discussed Kashmir. We shall continue to support both countries in their dialogue on the issues that divide them, including Kashmir.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the reports that the Indian authorities in Srinagar have in their possession audio tapes that could shed some light on the motives and the identity of the people who have taken British hostages? Will he raise the issue with the Indian high commission in London as a matter of urgency?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we have had close relationships with both the Indian and Pakistani Governments on the hostage question. Their help has been greatly appreciated. I am sorry to say that we have made no further progress, but I can give my hon. Friend and the families of the hostages every assurance that we shall continue to work closely and actively with both Governments until we find the hostages.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the plebiscite that was promised to the Kashmiri people on their future in 1947 was denied them because the Labour Government of the day gave India and Pakistan independence six months earlier than had previously been agreed? Does he agree that this year—the 50th anniversary of those events—is a good window of opportunity to permit that problem to be resolved? Will he remind the House of the details of the criteria agreed by India and Pakistan, which must be met before that plebiscite can take place?

I congratulate the Indian and Pakistani Governments on their efforts to renew discussions between the two Governments. It is an act of statesmanship and leadership by Prime Ministers Gujral and Sharif. We hope that those talks are successful. I was delighted with the news that, in the talks last month, it was agreed to establish a working party on Jammu and Kashmir. I assume that all the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred will fall within the remit of that working party. If that is the case, there are good prospects of making progress in an extremely difficult issue. We have made it clear to both Governments that, if they so wish, the good offices of the British Government will be made available to them.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to improve relations with Korea. [5740]

At their recent meeting in New York, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of Korea agreed that the relations between our two countries were improving all the time. We shall work closely together further to enhance this important partnership.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to locate £2 billion of high-tech Korean investment in my constituency was made in the sure knowledge that the economy in Wales under a Labour Government and a Welsh Assembly would be a healthy one for growth and development? Is he aware that those jobs have been relocated three fields away from the site where British technology jobs once were, before they were relocated under the previous Government to countries that have both the minimum wage and the social chapter? What does my hon. Friend intend to do to ensure that the cordial relations between Korea and the United Kingdom improve this year, when we are celebrating the 200th anniversary of the first contact between those two countries?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his efforts and on the initiatives that he took to persuade the Korean inward investment to come to Newport. I am sure that his constituents will be extremely pleased with the success of his efforts, and that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to congratulate him in that respect. He also looks to the future and I think that he, along with many other business people, will be encouraged by the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week, when he reduced the level of corporation tax to an all-time low. That will be very attractive to new inward investors, and they will also notice that, at last, we in the United Kingdom have a Government who are sensitive and friendly to business requirements. That is why we have the lowest level of corporation tax—something that the Conservative party talked about but failed miserably to achieve.

Would the Minister care to share with the House his assessment of how long the present situation in North Korea can persist and what, if any, risk he perceives to South Korea from the impending collapse?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue; and we are naturally concerned about both the nature of the regime in North Korea and the condition of the people there. He will know that the Government have already made £1 million available to help with food shortages. We are also working with our European partners to bring assistance to North Korea. It is crucial, not only to North Korea's immediate neighbours, but to all of us, that the four-party talks are successful and that North Korea changes its political face and economic approach and gives its people the opportunity to achieve what has been achieved in South Korea. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that what is happening in North Korea has serious implications.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relationship with the Government of Zimbabwe. [5742]

The United Kingdom enjoys close and warm relations with the Government of Zimbabwe. We are important partners of Zimbabwe across a wide field, including trade, investment, development co-operation and military training. This week, the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister will come to London to take part in, and chair, the Commonwealth ministerial action group, and I look forward to meeting and working with him in that process.

I thank the Minister for his answer. Has he considered ways in which this country can assist the development of democracy in Zimbabwe by assisting non-racial, non-tribal opposition parties in that country and by encouraging greater democracy within the ruling party?

We have welcomed the Zimbabwean Government's proposals to make the playing field considerably more level, specifically in respect of election law and the financing of opposition political parties. We would urge that they carry forward that process so as to make sure that Zimbabwe develops into a proper and pluralistic society.

Why does the Minister believe that it is right to say that we should have export bans and stop people selling to certain other countries because of the problems they have with their democracies, when he does not propose that UK companies should stop trading with Zimbabwe? Is it not strange that we are keen to see Korean companies importing into this country, without sanctions, while constantly saying that we should have sanctions against British companies which are out there exporting?

Korea is in Asia and Zimbabwe is in Africa. Of course, the question of how we relate to other nations in respect of their human rights and their domestic and global responsibilities is one that varies on a case-by-case basis. That is the position of any Government—it was the position of the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported before the general election and it is certainly the position of the present Government. However, the hon. Gentleman will notice that we shall be a lot more consistent in our views and a lot more honest.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on (a) the human rights record of Indonesia and (b) its impact on the licensing of future arms exports to that country. [5743]

We have serious concerns about the human rights situation in both Indonesia and East Timor. We look to Indonesia to improve its human rights record. As announced to the House on 22 May, we are reviewing the criteria used in considering licence applications to export conventional arms. We expect the review to be completed in the next few weeks. We shall not issue licences for the export of arms, to Indonesia or any other country, which might be used for internal repression or international aggression.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that a genuine concern for the well-being of civilians and in other countries is not tantamount—

Take your hands out of your pockets.

I am sorry.

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman never listens to any advice offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). It has never worked for anyone else, so there is no reason to believe that it will work for him. As for the general points that the hon. Gentleman raises on human rights, he is of course correct to say that we are dealing with universal principles of universal application, and that those will be the criteria that guide Government policy.

I am pleased that my colleague is carefully examining Indonesia's human rights record. Human rights has emerged repeatedly as an issue during today's Question Time. However, it does worry some of us who want consistency when, post-Hong Kong, all we have heard about is gung-ho trade with China and the fact that we have an enormous trade deficit with that country, when surely no one can defend the human rights record of that country.

I suspect that my hon. Friend was not in the Chamber for the first question and the first answer that I gave; if he was, he may well have missed the point that I made about the human rights record of the Chinese Government and the need to engage that Government on the human rights agenda. All that we have said since the handover of Hong Kong, in replies in the House this afternoon and in statements, has been about the need to ensure that China honours the Joint Declaration. That is about human rights, and that is about a consistent and universal commitment to human rights. That will apply in Indonesia, Hong Kong and throughout our policy.

I have a factual question for the Minister, which allows a yes or no answer. Given all the resources available to him in the Foreign Office, can he confirm that British-made Hawks are never used in East Timor?

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to follow a practice that he never followed in office, and I can never remember him giving such a factual answer. On Hawk and every other arms deal, he will have to wait until the conclusion of our review. We shall have to consider the criteria and make a judgment, and then he will be in a position to support or to criticise the Government. I am afraid that he will have to show patience and to wait.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives his Department is taking to mark the United Kingdom Year of the Commonwealth; and if he will make a statement. [5744]

We welcome the initiative of the Royal Commonwealth Society in naming 1997 the UK Year of the Commonwealth. This Department held a reception to mark its launch in January. As well as hosting the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and the Commonwealth Business Forum, we are funding the Commonwealth Centre in the margins of the CHOGM and are contributing to, and are involved with, a number of other events during the year.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I would encourage him to realise that, out there in the community, lots of young people, in particular, are completely unaware of the Commonwealth, of our involvement in it, of its importance, and of the number of people who are Commonwealth citizens and who have settled in this country. They may also be unaware of its benefits, to Britain and to half the population of the world. Will the Minister, perhaps with his colleagues who are responsible for education, set up an initiative so that, by the autumn—around the time of the Commonwealth conference in Edinburgh—people will be more aware of the fact that the Commonwealth is one of the most valuable organisations to which we have ever belonged?

The role of the Commonwealth, although rarely ignored in other Commonwealth countries, may ironically have been ignored in this country. That is perhaps because we take too easily for granted some of the central values that it represents: democracy, good government and so forth. We can be truly proud of those values; we can celebrate them. That is why the Government are placing considerable emphasis on this Year of the Commonwealth. We are grateful to the Royal Commonwealth Society, and to people such as the hon. Gentleman who support it. The society took the initiative to make this the Year of the Commonwealth. We intend to use the rest of this year to highlight the organisation in the run-up to the Edinburgh meeting, which will generate considerable publicity both for the institution of the Commonwealth and for the values that it underpins.