What assessment his Department has made of the role of the BBC World Service in raising the UK's profile in British export markets. [31794]

The BBC World Service raises the UK's profile in British export markets in two ways. A survey of British business leaders has shown that, through its role as the most trusted international broadcaster, the World Service helps to create a climate favourable to British trade. In addition, the World Service enhances the UK's profile with its reports on the latest developments in science, industry and commerce and presents a picture of Britain attractive to international business.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which acknowledges that the BBC World Service is a real asset on the world stage for this country. My hon. Friend is aware that the BBC World Service is now operating in an environment in which competitors are bringing on the internet and using television and modern forms of radio broadcasting such as FM and digital. Will he lend his support to the strategy of the BBC World Service to meet the challenge from those competitors by using on-line television and modern forms of radio broadcasting?

I agree with my hon. Friend in his comments about the value of the BBC World Service. It is now broadcasting in 44 languages and reaches more than 140 million people throughout the world. Its reputation is well established. My hon. Friend raises a number of important points about the development of the service. The chief executive had a recent meeting with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and will have a further meeting with my noble Friend Baroness Symons to discuss the future. All the issues to which my hon. Friend referred will be taken into account in those discussions.

Is the Minister aware that to remain competitive in the new environment, the BBC World Service believes that it needs a very modest cash injection spread over four years? Is there any hope of that injection being given?

I realise that the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of Parliament under the previous Government, but he will know what happened to the BBC World Service under them. It was constantly subjected to cuts by the Conservative Government and during that period morale fell considerably. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that morale has now increased. There is a good relationship between the Government and the World Service and funding will continue to be discussed with it. No announcements will be made without the World Service's knowledge.

Is not short-wave transmission of the BBC World Service to China jammed? Is that not a vivid manifestation of China's attitude to human rights? Is it not an utter disgrace that, next month at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, for the first time in 10 years, the United Kingdom Government will not support a resolution to draw attention to China's record on human rights?

I am delighted to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman taking up human rights. When the Government have made a stance on this issue on other occasions, he has been critical. We are always pleased to see a convert on these issues. The United Kingdom, under the Labour Government, has entered into a constructive dialogue with China on human rights. Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, will visit China. That was announced during the visit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We have a record on dialogue with China on human rights of which we can be proud and we shall continue to play a constructive role.

If he will make a statement on Britain's role in the middle east peace process. [31796]

If he will make a statement on the prospects for a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and its neighbours. [31800]

If he will make a statement on progress with the middle east peace process. [31805]

What plans he has to visit the middle east to discuss the peace process. [31811]

With the presidency of the European Union, we have launched an intensive European effort to restore momentum to the middle east peace process. In a speech last Thursday, I set out an EU initiative on the peace process, in three parts. First, I detailed six immediate steps that must be taken to restore confidence in the peace process. In particular, I called on the Government of Israel to make substantial, credible and urgent further redeployments of troops. At the same time, I called on a 100 per cent. commitment from the Palestine National Authority in respect of security.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I hope that he will accept my congratulations on his attempt to restart the Oslo peace process with his speech of 5 March. Does he agree with Ziad Abu Ziad, one of Yasser Arafat's deputies, who has said that to be a true friend of Israel one must also be a friend of the Palestinian people? Will my right hon. Friend pass on our congratulations to President Ezer Weizman—a man very much involved in the peace process—on his re-election as President of Israel?

I am happy to associate myself with my hon. Friend's congratulations to President Weizman, who has always been a friend of the peace process. My hon. Friend also highlights an important part of the whole issue. At the election, the Israeli people voted for a Government who promised to deliver peace with security. The great majority of Israeli people know very well that there can be no security for them if there is no peace. That is why, in working for a resumption of the peace process, we are working with the overwhelming majority of Israelis.

When my right hon. Friend goes to Syria, will he emphasise to the Syrian Government the importance of Syria's being engaged in the process? Does he agree that if there is to be a comprehensive settlement in the middle east it is not just a question of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians? All the states neighbouring Israel must also recognise Israel and come to a peace settlement with Israel if there is to be lasting peace in the region.

I shall be taking to Damascus the very message that my hon. Friend suggests. It is important that Syria play its part too. The Syrian Government's negotiating position is that they want to start again from where they allege the negotiations broke off under Yitzhak Rabin—an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan heights. It is, however, difficult to make progress from that starting point in present circumstances.

I welcome Israel's proposal to withdraw troops from southern Lebanon. The Foreign Secretary said in his speech last Thursday that no peace plan would be complete in the middle east if it neglected the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. When he goes to Syria, will he put it to the Syrian Government that since Israel is prepared to get out of southern Lebanon, Syria ought to get out of Lebanon?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point—one of the keys to solving the Lebanese situation and tragedy is to be found in Damascus. I shall certainly raise that issue while I am there. My progress in Damascus will probably be greater if Israel will act on its promises and complete the withdrawal, which the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply had already taken place.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much frustration among hon. Members at the lack of progress in the peace process in the middle east? Why is there no opportunity for him to visit the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so that it may help to bring about a rapid and successful harmonisation in the middle east?

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I visited Saudi Arabia last month. The focus of that visit was to discuss the then confrontation with Iraq, but we did, of course, touch on the peace process. My hon. Friend will be aware that across much of the middle east an unfair comparison was made between our robust approach to Iraq and our alleged weakness towards Israel. I very much hope that the clear, resolute approach that I took in my speech and the comprehensive visits that I am making to the region next week will make it abundantly clear to all that Britain takes fully its responsibility under the resolutions on the middle east—as we do under the resolutions on Iraq.

I, too, commend the Secretary of State on the terms of his speech last week, in particular his recognition of the importance of Syria and Lebanon and his call for an immediate halt to the settlements. As he knows, the settlements are in breach of resolution 242, which sought to provide a homeland for the Palestinian people. Does he accept that not only are the settlements wrong in international law, but they are a continuing and damaging source of provocation to Palestinians?

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point and one that is central to the peace process. Mr. Netanyahu has sought an early resumption of final status talks. I would welcome the possibility of proceeding to final status talks, but it will be extremely difficult to engage the Palestine National Authority in final status talks unless some concrete progress can be seen on the ground, in particular an end to provocations such as the expansion of the settlements. We have continually condemned such provocation and I hope during my visit next week to visit Har Homa and to express that view there in person.

When the Foreign Secretary goes to Israel on behalf of the EU presidency to try to bring about peace, will he bear in mind the extent to which the Israeli people have grievously suffered from terrorism? Does he believe that the standing and authority of the European Union and Her Majesty's Government will have been enhanced in the eyes of the Israeli Government by the Government's decision not to accede to the extradition request of the German authorities in respect of Miss McAliskey, who was arraigned under terrorism charges in the federal republic? Will he bear it in mind that the European Union should be seen to encourage the rule of law and to be resolute in cross-border co-operation against terrorism?

My general impression is that the middle east peace process already suffers from too many linkages being made. To make a linkage to peace in Northern Ireland is to ensure that no progress is made. On that case, it has been made perfectly clear that the release was on humanitarian and medical grounds. It in no way diminishes the long-standing position of Britain in resolute opposition to terrorism. While I am in the Palestine National Authority I will make it clear that progress on the peace process must be matched by tough progress on security as well.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of his visit to encourage progress towards the construction of a Palestinian airport in Gaza? We have seen press reports suggesting that the Israeli Government are ready to move on that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a substantial step forward, which would encourage Palestinians to feel that the process was working in their favour too?

There are four interim agreements on which progress could be made, which would help immensely to boost the political process. One is the airport; another would be the industrial estate on the border; the third would be the sea port; and the fourth would be the southern free passage. Europe currently puts a great deal of financial assistance into the peace process. We put in twice as much as the United States. I would like to see our money targeted more on helping projects that would break through the obstacles to the peace process. I shall explore in particular how Europe's commitment to continuing aid can be used to unblock the obstacles to the airport and the sea port. My hon. Friend is quite right: if we could achieve that, not only would it be a visible help to the Palestinian economy, but it would go a long way towards building confidence between the parties to the peace process.

I, too, return the Foreign Secretary to his speech of last week, particularly to the six key steps that he rightly identified as marking the start to unblocking the peace process—five of which I believe require joint or unilateral action by Israel. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that, during his meeting with Mr. Netanyahu at the weekend, the Prime Minister forcefully pressed all five of those issues? Did he seek, and indeed receive, any commitments from the Israeli Prime Minister? If he did not receive any assurances, what action do the Government propose to take to bring further pressure to bear on the Israeli Government to see that the demands are met, and within what time scale?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that they are the right six steps: I am glad that the approach has bipartisan support. I am glad also that the hon. Gentleman asked that question as it gives me the opportunity to rebut some of the claims that I understand have appeared in the Israeli press in the past 24 hours to the effect that the Prime Minister took a different position from me in my speech last week. I am pleased to tell the House that there is absolutely no difference between the Foreign Office and No. 10 on this issue: every word in my speech was cleared and discussed with No. 10 before the speech was made.

What representations he has made about the state of emergency in Zambia. [31798]

We have urged the Zambian Government quickly to complete their investigations into the coup attempt, to charge or release detainees, to address claims of torture and to lift the state of emergency soon. We note that most of the detainees have now been charged.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reassuring answer. Does he agree that last October's failed—some might say rather pathetic—coup attempt in Zambia is symptomatic of a country that spends four times as much on debt relief as on health care, which is rife with corruption and where, in the words of ex-President Kaunda, there are no jobs, only people dying of hunger? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will do everything within their power to encourage good governance and sensible economic reform in that country so that the impoverished people of Zambia can look forward to a more hopeful and stable future?

In many ways, the real tragedy of Zambia is that the present Government seemed to be making real progress, so when the attempted coup took place and President Chiluba quite correctly told his people to go about their business, it was all the more bizarre and surprising that he then announced a state of emergency. Even more deplorable was the continuation of that state of emergency in January.

What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the Government of Zambia, and particularly the President, on behalf of ex-President Kaunda? Is it not outrageous that, first, he has been banned from standing in Zambian elections and, secondly, as I understand it, he remains under house arrest? If he has been charged, I do not believe that he has been brought to justice. That is thoroughly anti-democratic and something that we cannot possibly support.

I make it quite clear that former President Kaunda is only one of some 100-plus people who were detained, initially without charge. I am glad to inform the House that subsequently the former President has been charged—although we are very concerned about the nature of the charges that have been laid. They include having knowledge of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government, which is very unusual. I cancelled my visit to Zambia at the time of the former President's detention because it would have been impossible to go ahead in the circumstances. We shall continue to urge the Zambian Government to lift the state of emergency and ensure that the former President, as well as all the other detainees, has a fair and speedy trial.

What representations he has made to the Government of Mexico about human rights in Mexico. [31801]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the human rights situation in Mexico with the new Foreign Minister, Mrs. Green, on 12 February in Panama City. He made clear our concerns that those arrested in connection with the massacre in Chiapas should be brought to trial and that there should be no immunity for those with connections with municipal or state government. I discussed human rights issues with Mrs. Green's predecessor last November.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the best ways to protect human rights in Mexico is to support the growth of free and independent trade unions, which already receive support from the Trades Union Congress and other democratic unions? What plans does he have to assist trade unions in their development?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The development of a fair and democratic society in Mexico depends not only on the growth of proper, democratic political parties and a political system but the growth of civil society more generally. The trade union movement in Mexico is an important component—as it is in this country, certainly under this Government—in underwriting the freedoms of the people of Mexico. I met the Mexican trade unions when I visited Mexico just before Christmas and had long and interesting conversations with them about the future of democratic and free trade unions in that country.

If he will make a statement on the role played by the EU presidency in the negotiations over the situation in Iraq. [31802]

As we have the presidency of the European Union, Britain has maintained close contact with our partners throughout the crisis. In early February, I chaired a special meeting of the General Affairs Council on Iraq. On the weekend of the Secretary-General's visit to Baghdad, the General Affairs Council agreed a policy statement that welcomed the outcome, insisted that Iraq comply with Security Council resolutions and noted that the international community had needed to show firm resolve to achieve agreement.

Although the Foreign Secretary finds close proximity with Madeleine Albright exhilarating and, over the Iraq affair, there was absolutely no doubt that our interests and those of the United States were very much in harmony, will he recognise that that will not always be the case? What practical steps is he taking to ensure moves to more effective common European foreign policy? In what aspects will that be likely to be deployed during the EU presidency and immediately thereafter?

I am not sure that exhilarating is quite the word that I would choose to describe it, but it is a great asset for Britain that the two Foreign Secretaries work closely together and often share each other's thinking.

Do our EU partners fully accept that if the Iraqi regime breaks the agreement which, fortunately, has been reached, there will be most serious consequences, as stated in the latest United Nations Security Council resolution, and the most serious consequences will mean precisely that—there will be no second chance?

I can confirm that the resolution that we drafted and presented to the Security Council makes it clear that if Iraq breaks the agreement there will be the severest consequences. We resisted attempts to produce a lesser phrase.

Is not the simple truth that there was no agreement in the EU about the nature of action to be taken on Iraq and that contrary to the question just asked by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), France revealed in the discussions at the Security Council an interpretation of the resolution that differed sharply from that of the UK Government? Why does not the Foreign Secretary say in a straightforward manner that there was no agreement in the EU on that, instead of indulging in self-satisfied waffle?

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is genuine about putting pressure on Iraq and wants Saddam Hussein to listen to the international community, it might be responsible for him to tell Saddam Hussein and the House the self-evident truth that the great majority of members of the EU shared Britain's position and that when Kofi Annan went to Baghdad he went with the agreement of all five permanent members. The right hon. and learned Gentleman undermines the efforts of the international community when he tries to suggest that there are deep divisions.

Does my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mean that he rejects the view of the Chinese ambassador to the United Nations, that in no way does the Kofi Annan agreement give authority for Anglo-American—

It does.

My hon. Friend is very sure that it does; I am just asking the question. Does it give authority for Anglo-American military action without going back yet again to the Security Council?

I would say gently to my hon. Friend that when we want legal advice we may look elsewhere than to the Chinese ambassador at the United Nations. He himself voted for the resolution, which is explicit: if Iraq breaks the agreement, there will be the severest consequences.

Which countries will be represented at the EU enlargement summit on 12 March. [31803]

The Luxembourg European Council agreed that the member states of the European Union, the 10 countries of central Europe that have applied to join the Union, Cyprus and Turkey should be invited to participate in the European conference.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the progress made by the Polish people since the fall of communism has been truly breathtaking, and that there is great vitality among the upcoming leadership there? Does he believe that it is in the interests of not only Poland, but this country and the strengthening of the European Union that Poland should become a member? Given that not all our partners share our enthusiasm for Polish entry, will he give an undertaking to the House that sufficient momentum will be built up under the British presidency to ensure that any qualifications and problems can be quickly addressed?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Britain fully backs the enlargement of the European Union and recognises that Poland is a prime candidate for enlargement. I said that in a speech in Warsaw when I visited that city just before Christmas. In the past three days, I have spoken twice to the Foreign Minister of Poland, who currently occupies a position of great importance as the chairman of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe for the whole of Europe. We are working closely with him and with his Government, and we shall be delighted to assist them in the process of negotiations because we regard the negotiations not as confrontational, but as between two partners seeking a common objective—the enlargement of the European Union, and stability and democracy throughout central Europe.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be in the best interest of all Cypriots if Cyprus were to accede to the European Union? In that context, will he take the opportunity to confirm that accession talks will not be dependent on or linked to progress in peace negotiations and, in particular, that accession talks will not be subject to veto by the regime in northern Cyprus?

I can confirm that there will be no veto for the regime in northern Cyprus. However, the people of northern Cyprus have more to gain than anybody else in Cyprus from EU membership as their income level is currently a quarter of that of the Greek Cypriot part of Cyprus. For those reasons, we have urged the Government of Cyprus to bring a mixed delegation of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot negotiators. I am pleased to say that there are signs that President Clerides and his Government are willing to do that. I regret to say that the present stubbornness on the Turkish Cypriot side may prevent that from happening.

Does the Foreign Secretary recall saying, on 14 January, that the Government would be working hard to strengthen relations between the EU and Turkey? Does he recall the Prime Minister saying, in December last year, that he wanted to see Turkey as a closer partner in Europe and as part of the European conference that would be held in Britain in the next year? Does he accept that Turkey's decision to boycott the conference on Thursday represents a major diplomatic failure by the Government? Will he tell the House what he intends to do to secure Turkey's future involvement in that vital process?

If the hon. Gentleman says that in Ankara, he will be given a robust raspberry by the Government there, who know perfectly well how hard Britain has worked to involve Turkey and to resist the Luxembourg conclusions which they have found so offensive. I discussed this with my opposite number in Turkey over the weekend. Turkey is invited and it is for that country to decide whether to attend. It has decided that, in view of the conclusions of the Luxembourg conference, it will stand by the view it expressed then that it will not be coming. My colleague, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), and I have agreed that after the European conference, we will look for other ways in which to take forward our dialogue, probably through the association partnership, on which the Commission is about to produce interesting and detailed proposals.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the people of Romania welcome the fact that he has indicated that it is possible for that country to get on to the fast track for entry into the European Union? Will he be meeting President Constantinescu of Romania this week to spell out what steps need to be taken in Romania to ensure that it can enter the European Union on the earliest possible date?

I am pleased to say that Romania will be one of those participating in the European conference. Like all the other conference members from central and eastern Europe, it will participate in a meeting with the Prime Minister, and its Foreign Minister will participate in a meeting with me. I have met the new Foreign Minister of Romania to discuss how we take forward the enlargement process. The Foreign Office has agreed to provide specific technical expert help to the Romanian Foreign Office to help it build up expertise for the negotiations. My hon. Friend's first point is quite right; just because negotiations start with six specific members does not mean that those six will be the first across the line. All 11 have every incentive to make as much progress as possible. Those who get in first will be those who have made the most progress.

If he will make a statement on Iraq. [31806]

If he will make a statement on progress towards removal of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [31808]

Britain played a key role in drafting Security Council resolution 1154 which was adopted unanimously by the Security Council last week. It provides a clear endorsement by the whole of the international community of the agreement between the Secretary-General and the Iraqi authorities. The resolution makes it clear that if Saddam Hussein breaks the agreement, there will be the severest consequences. I am pleased to report that inspections resumed in Iraq last Friday. International inspection has made good progress in halting the Iraqi nuclear and missile programmes. The United Nations Special Commission has now dismantled more weapons than were destroyed during the Gulf war. However, the Iraqi capacity for chemical and biological weapons production remains immense. We are determined that such a capacity cannot be left in the hands of Saddam Hussein, who has repeatedly used chemical weapons in the past and cannot be trusted not to use them in the future.

Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that Iraq is fully complying with the UN accords? Would he like to comment on the accusation that it is fairly worthless allowing inspectors into presidential sites because, by the time of inspection, they will be cleared of any weapons of mass destruction, which will be taken elsewhere? Therefore, there must be continued access. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that if, at any future date, the Americans decide to use force, we shall stand four square with them?

The answer to the last point is that we remain in constant contact with the United States. We stood resolutely together during a confrontation, and we will do so if there should be a future confrontation. I am not sure whether I shall disappoint the hon. Gentleman if I say that inspections have been proceeding well over the three days since Friday. There is no question of one-off inspections—that was one of Saddam' s initial bargaining positions, and it was one of the issues on which he was forced to climb down. The agreement represents a success for our strategy and, if properly carried out, will enable us to halt him in developing weapons of mass destruction.

It is seven years since the Gulf war, and it has taken that long for UNSCOM to uncover these chemical and biological weapons. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present inspection crisis has to be resolved in a matter of weeks or months rather than years, that those weapons must be rendered harmless and that, if Iraq co-operates, economic sanctions can be lifted in that time scale?

The resolution we drafted and presented to the Security Council makes it clear that there is light at the end of the tunnel for the Iraqi people. Sanctions can be lifted if Saddam carries out the obligations to which he has again signed up. The reason we are here, seven years on from the original resolution, is precisely because Saddam has practised a continuous programme of deception and concealment. I cannot accept that we should put a deadline on when the inspectors withdraw; when they withdraw must be decided by when they have finished their business. However, I agree that it could be done in weeks if Saddam Hussein would, for once, honestly accept his responsibilities and fully co-operate with inspectors.

The Foreign Secretary and the Government deserve congratulations on the solidarity they have shown with the United States over Iraq. To refer to a previous question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to indicate what sort of phone calls the Prime Minister had with the other member states in Europe? Furthermore, what did the Prime Minister mean in his statement to the House the other day when he said that we had support from the EU member states? What specific and practical military commitments were the other member states prepared to make to support the United States and the United Kingdom in what could have turned out to be the necessity for direct military action?

I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Belgium and the Netherlands provided a frigate for the fleet; Denmark provided transport aircraft; Sweden was willing to provide medical and logistical troops for support; and Portugal, Spain and Germany offered and made available use of their bases for planes flying on to the Gulf. Those European nations that were asked to help all did so.

Given the growing support among our European Union partners and many other countries in the world for the indictment of Saddam Hussein and some of his closest associates before an international criminal court, has my right hon. Friend thought about some of the other ideas proposed by the Iraqi opposition, which include lifting the sanctions in northern Iraq, supporting the installation of a provisional Government in northern Iraq and installing a no-drive zone in that area to protect it in the same way as the no-fly zone is protected?

This is an issue that we keep constantly under discussion, not just among ourselves, but with our partners. However, what my hon. Friend asks for involves a step that can be taken only with great seriousness and solemnity. We are very much aware that when people in Iraq were invited to rise up in 1991, they were then abandoned and there were many casualties among those who had taken us at our word. For that reason, there is a grave responsibility on us not to encourage people to take action which we then cannot follow through.

What activities in relation to Agenda 2000 have been initiated under the British presidency. [31809]

The Council has approved the framework regulation for the accession partnerships, which will be the principal plank of the EU's relationship with the countries of central and eastern Europe over the coming years. We shall launch the European conference, which will bring together the member states and candidate countries, in London on Thursday.

Although the Minister will have heard the discouraging noises coming from Brussels last week about the possible withdrawal of Community support for aid to the British regions, will he ensure, in the forthcoming conference and subsequently, that he sits down with our existing partners in Europe so that any burdens of transfer to the applicant countries under Agenda 2000 are fairly shared and so that British interests are robustly represented?

I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the position that he outlines is the one that the Government will adopt. As we support the enlargement process, it is important to have a funding system, which means that some of the structural funds must find their way to central and eastern European countries to help them. That means that less funding will be available from the structural cake for the existing European Union states, so it is important to have a fair burden share. That will be a principal objective in our negotiations.

Does my hon. Friend accept the great importance of the structural funds to many of our regions, particularly Humberside, because of the economic development of those regions? Will he assure the House that during our presidency, he will lay the foundations necessary to ensure fairness and equity in the distribution of the structural funds so that our regions may continue with their economic progress?

I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that a principal objective in our negotiations will be to seek a fair solution, part of which is that areas within the European Union that have similar characteristics and a similar need for help will get help. Many areas near my hon. Friend's constituency would qualify, and I hope that we can protect them on the basis of achieving a fair settlement.

The Minister mentioned reform of the common agricultural policy; he will appreciate that to get any fundamental reform of the CAP will require unanimity. What realistic prospect is there of achieving unanimity in the European Union at present?

There is a growing recognition in the European Union that the current agricultural policy is wasteful and that a better way in which to support agricultural interests in the Community could be found. That is recognised in many countries that have previously taken a pretty reactionary view. The prospect of enlargement will force the European Union to look at agricultural policy. I believe that with tough negotiation and perseverance, we can begin to make progress towards bringing agricultural prices in Europe down towards world prices, which will be good for the consumer. Finding the right sort of support for agricultural interests will give the greatest support to those parts of the industry with the greatest need.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we have been talking about reform of the common agricultural policy ever since Britain joined the Common Market on 1 January 1973? I do not see it coming any nearer. If it ever comes about that a policy is presented here in Parliament to reform the CAP, those 142,000 people, or however many went on the countryside march, will be knocking at every single door here, telling the British Government that they do not want it. All those Tory and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament who theoretically support CAP reform will say, "No, we can't afford it."

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I had thought that he was more of an optimist and would be looking forward to changes in agricultural policy. I think that he can reassure me that, in the event of large numbers of sectional interests arguing against changing agricultural policy, he will be able to persuade many millions of consumers in our country that some of the changes, at least, will be in their interests—and they will turn up to show their support.

If he will make a statement on his Department's commercial sections' priorities for 199873x2013;99. [31812]

Our priorities will be to implement a new export initiative based on the recommendations of the Export Forum, and to continue to make the Foreign Office more businesslike through interchange with the private sector.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What action is he taking to ensure that the relevant overseas posts are aware of the new priorities in this Government's export drive? What arrangements will be put in place to ensure that, in future, all commercial inquiries are dealt with quickly and effectively?

On the final point, we work closely with our colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and we will ensure that there is an improved service for potential exporters. It is fair to say that the Foreign Office has become more commercially minded. More than one third of our full front-line staff time is now devoted to export and commercial activity. We have 217 commercial posts, and we are determined to ensure that we become more businesslike and are more successful in selling Britain. We have to improve on the record of the previous Government; we shall do so and are taking all the right steps to do so.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Does he agree that the Foreign Office has, for a long time, been moving towards becoming much more commercial? When I had anything to do with the Foreign Office, I was always very impressed by its effectiveness in promoting British trade. Will the Minister acknowledge the extraordinarily powerful role that is played by defence in commercial diplomacy, not just in terms of weapon sales—where, clearly, the expertise of the British forces and the sophistication of their equipment commands ready markets overseas—but through a range of other goods and services, where the skills of our forces are well deployed in showing how they work so well?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I will certainly ensure that those remarks are drawn to the attention of those staff involved in commercial activities. It is important for all of us that we continue to make strong efforts to promote Britain's exports. As the hon. Gentleman knows, defence sales are an important part of Britain's export activities and an important signal of Britain's export technology. We regulate those sales in a manner that has always been exercised by Government. Although we are determined to do that, we shall ensure that there is due process and due support for export industries, including the defence industry.

When he next intends to visit Bosnia. [31813]

I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that I visited Bosnia on 4 March. I was encouraged by the significant progress that has been made—particularly on the key issues of corruption, black-marketeering and poor transparency in the use of public funds, which I highlighted on my visit in July. It is a sign of the new mood in Bosnia that I was invited to address an assembly of the Republika Srpska—the first Foreign Minister to do so.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the dramatic changes that have occurred in Bosnia since last summer. I congratulate him also on the moves that have been made towards implementing the Dayton treaty, which is so important to so very many people. Does he agree that those changes are a vindication of the tough stance that he and his colleagues took at their meeting, last June, in Sintra?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the progress that has been made in Bosnia is entirely the result of the resolute approach from outside Bosnia, coupled with the will of many people in Bosnia for peace. One of the central challenges that we now face, if we are to secure and stabilise that peace, is to ensure that we also tackle the regional dimension provided by Bosnia's neighbours. One very important message that I sent in Sarajevo is that there is no map of Europe that has on it any place for a greater Croatia or a greater Serbia.

What assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Algeria following the recent EU troika mission. [31815]

The Government continue to be concerned about the situation in Algeria. We discuss human rights in our bilateral contacts with the Algerians and as the European Union presidency. We are encouraging parliamentary exchanges, greater access by international media and visits by United Nations rapporteurs to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Algeria.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that, in this day and age, a country such as Algeria is being terrorised and brutalised, that many people are being murdered in terrorist activity, and that those atrocities have so little resonance in the world outside? Is there not more that we could do, as an individual nation and through the European Union, not only to put the spotlight on those dreadful atrocities, but to try to end them?

In our presidency, the United Kingdom has already taken one initiative on behalf of the European Union, responding to public concern in Europe. I led a European Union troika visit to Algeria. We established a political dialogue with the Algerian Government—part of which was to discuss the terrorist situation there—which we hope will continue. On behalf of the European Union, I invited the Algerian Minister of Foreign Affairs to come to London during the United Kingdom presidency to meet my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss the proceedings of the parliamentary human rights group, which held an open meeting to take evidence on abuses of human rights in Algeria from a wide variety of sources—although the ambassador himself refused to attend? Is he aware that much of the evidence received by the group seemed to suggest that many of the human rights abuses and illegal killings in Algeria emanated from the army or from elements in Algerian society that are close to the army, and that there must be a very robust exchange with the Algerian Government if we are to put a stop to the killings there?

I have had the opportunity to read that evidence, which was shocking. It again made the point that, sadly, life is cheap in Algeria, and that too many lives have been lost there. During my visit to Algeria, I stressed to the Algerian Government that it was important for them to be open and accountable in their human rights record. I also suggested that the United Nations special rapporteurs should visit Algeria, so that they have an opportunity to report on some of the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend. I think that that is very much the best way for the Algerian Government to deal with all the allegations and potential criticisms that have been made of them.

What progress he has made towards achieving enlargement of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [31816]

Our preparations for enlargement are on schedule. In two days, we will inaugurate the European conference. We will launch the accession process in Brussels on 30 March, and accession negotiations with six candidates will begin the next day.

I welcome the Government's initiative in holding the conference between EU member states and applicants this Thursday. Can my hon. Friend assure me that enlargement will remain a top priority throughout the United Kingdom's presidency, and in years to come? Does he agree that we have learnt something that the Tories have never learnt—that it is not possible to be serious and positive about enlargement while being negative about the European Union?

That is a good point. The difference between our approach to enlargement and that of the previous Government is that we believe that enlargement is important for the security of Europe and for its economic prospects. We do not favour it simply as an alternative to the deepening of the European Union.