When he next plans to meet his European counterparts to discuss developments in Kosovo. [79944]

When he last met his colleagues from other member states of the European Union to discuss matters relating to the current political and military circumstances in Kosovo. [79965]

I speak nearly every day to Madeleine Albright and to Foreign Ministers of other major allies. Recent meetings of the Foreign Ministers of the European Union and of NATO have endorsed unanimously the objectives of our military campaign in Yugoslavia. Those objectives are a ceasefire in Kosovo with the withdrawal of all Serb forces from Kosovo, and the return of the refugees under international military protection.

The meeting last week of European Heads of Government confirmed that there can be no compromise on those objectives. Anything less would reward President Milosevic for his brutal and deliberate programme of ethnic cleansing and would be a betrayal of the right of the Kosovo refugees to return to their homes in safety.

A constituent of mine, Fadil Dugolli, visited me on Friday. He is a Kosovan refugee. His mother has died since the conflict began, and his two sisters are currently unaccounted for in Albania. He said to me, "Tell them not to stop the bombing. Milosevic has been killing us—murdering us—slowly, for years." Does my right hon. Friend agree with those words? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we want a United Nations protectorate and self-determination for the Kosovans, we must be determined to use ground troops?

I said to the House yesterday that the international community would have to accept more direct responsibility for the interim administration of Kosovo than was previously envisaged. We want, if possible, to get agreement from the other permanent members to secure a UN resolution giving us a mandate for that administration. My hon. Friend is right to say that that would need to be backed up by ground troops to guarantee security and to underwrite a ceasefire.

However, I also echo the point with which my hon. Friend began. One of the issues that gives us the resolve and determination to see through this conflict is the solid support that we have received from the Kosovar Albanians. None of them has said that they fled the NATO bombing: all of them are clear that the military action must continue until they are able to go home.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that last week, in evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, he said that the international community had the right to intervene to protect the human rights of individuals, communities and peoples against tyrants? However, does he agree that such intervention is out of kilter with extant international law and the modus operandi of the Security Council? In the long run, after peace has been secured in Kosovo, we must ensure that international law—which is itself out of kilter with the modern world—is brought into line so that it can cover the intra-state wars which are increasingly common.

First, we are confident that the action that we are taking is fully based on international law. However, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I echo the statement of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who has said that the rights enshrined by the UN should be enjoyed by peoples, and should not be confined to Governments. No Government have the right to defend, on grounds of sovereignty, oppression of their people and ethnic cleansing such as has occurred in Kosovo. For that reason, we are right to act, and it will be right to ensure that this becomes the basis for an approach to future conflict.

Today, in Brussels, the Prime Minister said that the Government intend to see the matter through to the end. Does the use of such an expression not imply that, if the option of using ground troops arises, NATO will be willing to impose its will on Kosovo and will not rely on receiving the agreement of Mr. Milosevic before determining to put troops into Kosovo?

There can be no question of President Milosevic having a veto. I very much hope that we would be able to obtain UN backing for making sure that we can carry through a solution. However, we must be realistic. We have said from the start that we do not intend to fight our way into Kosovo. We cannot: to do so would require a much larger invasion than we have in that theatre at present. It would require agreement from countries in the neighbourhood that we do not have, and it would also mean that our troops would be taking part in an armed invasion in territory that was very inhospitable and did not lend itself easily to such an operation.

We are willing to provide the ground troops to secure a ceasefire. We are also willing to put in ground troops at the point at which there may be no organised armed resistance, but an armed invasion would incur far greater casualties on both sides than the present military campaign.

Following on from what the Foreign Secretary said, is there not a danger that we are fighting a war in which we believe that no one can get hurt except the enemy? The right hon. Gentleman talked about a protectorate. Am I to understand that there would be troops on the ground under NATO command to give the necessary protection? Does that mean that he has ruled out the partition of Kosovo and independence for the Kosovars, even if there were safeguards for the very holy Serb places in Kosovo?

No one in the Government imagines that we can fight a campaign of this intensity without anyone getting hurt. The Prime Minister said at the outset that we cannot give a guarantee of no casualties on our side. Everyone will share our relief that there have been no allied casualties, but we cannot guarantee that that will necessarily continue.

On ground troops, we are committed, and have been ever since the Rambouillet talks, to committing forces as part of international military protection to Kosovo. Forces from NATO would be under NATO command, but I would hope that other countries would join us. I assure the House that we have no intention of consenting to the partition of Kosovo. To do so would be to legitimate the policy of ethnic cleansing and a new apartheid in Europe.

Given that we have almost total air superiority and that the bombing has succeeded, or is succeeding, in cutting oil and other supply routes into Kosovo, will there not come a time when it is possible feasibly to introduce ground troops?

I think that I have already touched on that point in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). It is possible to conceive of a situation in which it may be feasible to commit ground troops in circumstances in which they would not meet organised armed resistance and in which the Serb army would already be withdrawing from Kosovo. I repeat to the House: that should not be confused with any commitment, intention or capacity on our part to mount an armed invasion against organised resistance.

Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that, after the fighting, the administration of Kosovo would need to be placed in the hands of international bodies, including the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the European Union. A few moments ago, he appeared to indicate that he had not yet obtained agreement to that among the members of the Security Council of the United Nations. Has he obtained agreement from our NATO allies, the neighbouring countries, the OSCE and the European Union?

I have to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, if it is to be a condition of making a policy announcement to the House that we first obtain the agreement of the 19 members of NATO, the 15 members of the Security Council and the 40-odd members of the OSCE, the House will not often hear a statement that will come as news to it. What I indicated is the preference and policy of the Government. We have shared that with close allies, and I am at present confident that it commands a consensus, but not unanimity.

It would inspire much greater confidence if, yesterday or today, the Foreign Secretary had been prepared to answer the question. The answer to the question is no. There is no difficulty about giving that answer, but it does not inspire confidence if the right hon. Gentleman does not give a clear answer. Concern was expressed yesterday in many quarters of the House about the lack of clarity in the way in which the Government were expressing their goals and methods of achieving their objectives. It would inspire much greater confidence if he gave straight answers to simple questions such as those that I have asked.

With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who I know is trying hard to build bipartisan support for our case, my reply to him could not have been clearer. There is no doubt whatsoever about the clarity of our objectives. They have been restated in identical terms twice in the text of European Union meetings and of the North Atlantic Council meeting. They have been repeated in the House on several occasions. Indeed, I am now so familiar with them that they are etched on my brain like the Lord's prayer. There is no doubt about the clarity of our objectives. It is about time that the Opposition, if they really support our campaign, accepted that they understand and share them.

What progress is being made on the negotiations for the enlargement of the European Union. [79945]

Good progress is being made on enlargement. By June, it is intended that half the chapters to be examined in the accession negotiations will have been opened with Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Slovenia and Cyprus. The Berlin European Council confirmed the priority that the European Union attaches to enlargement, and the Agenda 2000 agreement makes financial provision for enlargement of up to six new member states between 2002 and 2006.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that the discussions in June on the size of the Commission and the voting weight of members must seriously deal with the prospect not of six new members, but of an even larger European Union? Does she agree that a cumbersome and bureaucratic Commission will do nothing to further partnership for all EU members?

The points that my hon. Friend makes are important and need to be considered by the Council of Ministers. It is clear that the stimulus to enlargement comes not only from the six countries that I mentioned, but from other countries that have a natural desire to be part of the European Union in future. It is therefore incumbent on the Council to ensure that decisions are made that will facilitate that enlargement in a climate of efficient, transparent and open decision making.

Despite the rhetoric that the Minister employs and the good speech that she made at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the reality of what happened at Berlin simply does not stack up with what she is saying. Does she not understand that the European accession countries have realised that? Did she notice that the enlargement section of the 35-page document on the conclusions of the Berlin summit amounted to no more than four small sentences tucked away right at the end? With the Agenda 2000 process now clearly seen as a means of fixing differences between existing members of the EU, what encouragement has she to offer to those countries that long to benefit from the stability and support of membership of the EU?

It is not a question of rhetoric; it is a question of putting in place the necessary measures and mechanisms to ensure that enlargement can take place. That is exactly what we are committed to do. The Agenda 2000 negotiations were all about that. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman look at some of the reactions to Agenda 2000 from various Governments in the applicant countries. They have expressed satisfaction that we kept to the timetable because they feel that that is a guarantee that enlargement can take place.

What assessment his Department has made of future relations between India and Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [79946]

Good relations between India and Pakistan are important for regional stability. The resumption of talks between the two countries, including the meeting of Prime Ministers in Lahore in February, is a particularly welcome development. We wish India and Pakistan success in their efforts to resolve all bilateral issues, and urge them to refrain from actions that might heighten tensions.

I welcome the Lahore declaration, especially the element that relates to both Governments' intentions to intensify their resolve to settle the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a significant step on the part of the Indian Government if they signified their intentions in relation to the Lahore agreement and allowed more international human rights groups into Indian-held Kashmir? Will he use his powers of persuasion to encourage them in that direction?

It is a matter of recorded fact that we deplore the violence inflicted on the civilian population in Kashmir and call on all parties to refrain from acts of violence, which of course infringe the human rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In that context, we have also supported access to the area for the United Nations special rapporteur. We would welcome access for non-governmental organisations that have expertise in the area, but the significance of the Lahore declaration is that a commitment has been made by both Governments. We hope that, whatever Indian Government emerge from the current uncertainty, they will maintain that commitment to take forward bilateral talks to resolve once and for all the problems in Kashmir.

What discussions he has had on the proposals of the Berlin European Council on EU enlargement. [79947]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward).

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the deal that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister secured on Agenda 2000 at the Berlin summit. Does she agree that an important part of successful enlargement will be for the economically weaker parts of the United Kingdom, such as west Wales and the valleys, to raise their business and economic performance by taking full advantage of objective 1 status in preparation for the new markets that enlargement will offer?

My hon. Friend is right: the overall result that we obtained at Berlin was excellent. In particular, he is right to refer to the deal on structural funds that has especially benefited certain areas of the UK, including his own. The point that he makes about preparing business for the enlargement of the EU is tremendously important. The Government are keen for business throughout the UK to prepare for enlargement, in order to build up good commercial and trading links with the new countries that will join in the future.

Does the Minister realise that many of the countries that she listed as applying for membership of the EU were held under the undemocratic structures of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet bloc only a few years ago? In the light of the statements made recently by Mr. Prodi, the new head-to-be of the Commission, that his aim is to create a single economy and a single state in Europe, will she ensure that those new applicant countries are clearly warned that, having recently regained their democracy, they are in danger of losing it if they apply to a Europe headed by such a man with such aims?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the countries applying to join the European Union see that precisely as a way of safeguarding and emphasising democracy and security. Indeed, that is one of the most attractive aspects for those countries of belonging to the EU.

If he will make a statement on his policy towards the future status of East Timor. [79949]

We continue to support the efforts under United Nations auspices to secure a future for East Timor that will fully respect the interests and legitimate aspirations of the East Timorese people.

Will my hon. Friend tell the Indonesian Government that they must exercise far tighter control over the paramilitaries in East Timor? If Indonesia is ever to be a full and respected member of the global community, it must accord full democratic rights to the people of East Timor; it is certainly not doing that at present.

My hon. Friend raises two important issues. There is a need for a solution in East Timor that respects the rights of its people. It is certainly true that this Government are strongly committed to the UN process. I can tell the House that, over the forthcoming days, there will be meetings between Foreign Minister Alatas of Indonesia and Foreign Minister Gama of Portugal to pursue that agenda.

We also urge strongly that there should be respect for the fundamental human rights that were so appallingly betrayed in recent incidents in Liquica and Dili, where there were about 50 and 30 deaths respectively. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has written to President Habibie drawing his attention to our great concern about that matter and, of course, we shall continue to press the Indonesian Government to ensure that the Indonesian military offer protection not only to pro-integrationists, but to all the people of East Timor.

I welcome the initiative of the Prime Minister in writing to President Habibie. Is it not true that, apart from Portugal, the United Kingdom is especially well placed to intervene to help to secure an appropriate political destiny for the people of East Timor, who have been oppressed for far too long? Is it not also true that President Habibie, who has worked in the aircraft industry and knows the United Kingdom, and his brother, who was a respected ambassador for his country to the Court of St. James, have a family interest in maintaining good relations with the UK? We could say that, if Indonesia does not grant autonomy or self-determination to East Timor, we will not provide the financial assistance that Indonesia so badly needs.

With the exception of Portugal, which has a unique role in respect of East Timor, Britain has been at the forefront in Europe's debates with the Government of Indonesia and more generally. It is true that we have used our influence to press for precisely the type of progress and process that is now beginning to take place at the United Nations. We welcome the more positive notes that have been struck since President Habibie came to power and shall continue to maintain the pressure that we have already applied so that matters come to fruition through the UN process and the people of East Timor become the masters of their destiny.

Given that the Indonesian army is responsible for training and arming the paramilitaries who are wreaking havoc throughout East Timor and who are likely later to frustrate the UN ballot, will my hon. Friend raise that matter in the meeting of EU Foreign Ministers next week and call on the Indonesian Government to disarm and disband the paramilitaries and get all the Indonesian troops out of East Timor, or the ballot will not take place?

There is no doubt in our mind that the Indonesian military has a responsibility not only to pro-integrationist forces, but to all people living in East Timor. During the recent appalling events in Liquica and Dili, where deaths occurred, protection for the people from the armed forces was not forthcoming. Both publicly and privately, we remind the Indonesian military of its responsibility to offer security to everyone. That is the gist of the strong message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to President Habibie yesterday.

In view of the atrocities that have occurred in East Timor, in view of the fact that the Indonesian Government have been arming the paramilitaries and in view of the apparent acquiescence of the Indonesian Government, will the Minister ensure that the views of the British Government are expressed in terms as strong as those used by both the Portuguese and the Australians? In addition, will he give an assurance that the British Government will not sell more arms to Indonesia?

On the second point, I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the recently published report on arms sales. He will discover that, despite rather lurid accounts that spoke of this Government having licensed the sale of quite sophisticated and complex weapons systems, the annual report proves that there is no truth in those allegations. The letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to President Habibie was couched in the most clear-cut and strong terms, and President Habibie is in no doubt about our strong concern about current events and our view that he, as President, has a responsibility to ensure that the Indonesian military plays its part in restraining all sides from committing acts of violence.

If he will make a statement on the future role of the European Commission. [79950]

If he will make a statement on the appointment of the new President of the European Commission. [79955]

The Government are in favour of a European Commission that is efficient, transparent and accountable. The independent experts' report revealed a catalogue of deficiencies in the Commission's internal structures and practices, but the resignation of the Commission gives us an opportunity to ensure that, in future, the Commission carries out its functions more effectively and makes much better use of taxpayers' money. The Berlin European Council took a decisive step towards that by agreeing the nomination of the new Commission President.

Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the only sensible words ever uttered by the noble Baroness Thatcher were that "advisers advise, Ministers decide"? That is the principle that underlies the civil service in this country; should it not also be true of the European Commission? Will the people of this country not accept more readily the institutions of the EU if they are confident that decisions are taken by democratically elected Ministers, rather than by unelected bureaucrats? Will my right hon. Friend use this opportunity to press for reform of the European Commission that brings about that state of affairs?

The Government have tabled a number of proposals for reforms. It should be emphasised that, in European decision making, the elected Council of Ministers has the final say and is responsible for making final decisions; that is a system of which we approve. As for the accountability of the European Commission, a great deal can be done to improve matters in terms of its relations with both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, and we have made proposals in that respect.

In backing for the presidency of the European Commission Mr. Prodi, who says that economic and monetary union and political union are two sides of the same coin, why can the right hon. Lady not admit in Britain what is widely acknowledged on the continent—that Mr. Prodi is a committed "federast", who is determined to create a single defence policy, a single economic policy, a single foreign policy, a single immigration policy, a single social policy, a single constitution, a single Government and a single state called Europe?

First, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the appointment of Mr. Prodi at the Berlin Council was linked firmly with Commission reform, and that is why he received the support of all member Governments. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman obviously has a short memory. I am not sure whether he was in the House when Romano Prodi's predecessor was appointed, but I remember the press coverage at the time about the fiercely federalist Jacques Santer, who was the Conservative Government's appointee.

Does the Minister agree that, in taking forward the essential reform process, we must establish a mechanism whereby individual acts of proven misconduct against individual Commissioners can result in their disciplining or dismissal? We should not always have to take the nuclear option of forcing the entire European Commission to resign.

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We must not only move ahead in appointing a new Commission, but consider the terms and conditions that govern such appointments in order to address some of the issues to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Prodi has declared his intention to use his presidency to create a single economy and a single political unity; yet the Foreign Secretary said recently that the Maastricht treaty was a high water mark of integrationism. How can those positions be reconciled?

I am always surprised by the contrast between Opposition Members' present paranoia about the word "integration" and the policies that they adopted in government, which led to much greater integrationism than those that we have pursued. We have said that we will consider proposals on their merits and agree to policies that are in our interests. We have even introduced our own initiatives in the defence sphere, for example. That is the way to proceed in Europe. I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the reasons why Mr. Prodi was appointed and the important tasks that we expect him to carry out and about which he will report to the Cologne European Council.

If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Libya. [79952]

If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Libya. [79953]

When he next plans to meet the United Nations Secretary-General to discuss the handover of the Libyan Lockerbie suspects. [79957]

I welcome the handover of the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing in response to our initiative to offer a trial before a Scottish court in the Netherlands. I would like to record our warm appreciation for the generous co-operation of the Government of the Netherlands in making that possible and of the United Nations Secretary-General in arranging the handover.

We have since fulfilled our commitment to suspend UN sanctions against Libya. Further steps in our bilateral relations will depend on satisfactory progress with Libya on the case of WPC Fletcher. In the meantime, the breakthrough in the Lockerbie bombing has ended a 10-year diplomatic stalemate and enables us at last to bring before a criminal court this case of mass murder.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the most important outcome of this affair is that at last the families of those who were brutally murdered at Lockerbie will be able to see the men accused of that terrible crime stand trial?

I have met the relatives in Britain on several occasions in the past two years. I met them again on the day when the two suspects were handed over, and the families expressed their immense relief. Those meetings were difficult because I was unable to share with the relatives the evidence that we hold and the information that we have gathered, because to do so would have prejudiced any future trial. A great advantage of the breakthrough that we have secured is that that evidence and information can come out in open court and be shared with both the relatives and the public.

I thank my right hon. Friend for achieving a major success for British diplomacy in ensuring that the two Libyan suspects have been brought forward for trial. The people of Lockerbie realise that, initially, that development will mean only that the town will, once again, be a focus for the world's media. What comments has my right hon. Friend received from UK business about the lifting of sanctions?

I immensely appreciate my hon. Friend's support and constant interest in this case. I am well aware of the dignity and restraint with which his constituents have handled their grief in the past 10 years.

We have not been under great pressure from business on sanctions. Business understands that any active trade promotion must wait for the restoration of full relations with Libya, which in turn requires a resolution of the case of WPC Fletcher. British companies are, on the whole, free to trade with Libya. The UN sanctions have now been lifted, as have many of the European Union sanctions. In those circumstances, I am sure that British business will be seeking opportunities for trade, but the extent to which we can help them will depend on the progress that we make with Libya in the case of WPC Fletcher.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on at last ensuring that the case will come to a fair trial, for which the families have long waited. He mentioned the case of WPC Fletcher; until further progress is made on that, normal relations, rightly, cannot be established with Libya. What is being done to make progress in that case so that we can move forward in our relations with Libya?

We have had exchanges at official level. Last week, I met a representative of the Libyan Government—the first time in 10 years that a Foreign Minister has done so—at the Stuttgart meeting of the Euro-Med conference. On the margins of the conference, I raised with him our concerns about the case of WPC Fletcher. We are pressing Libya to co-operate with the Metropolitan police inquiry, to accept responsibility for what happened and to make a fresh offer of compensation. I hope that we can maintain that dialogue and reach a conclusion on that matter, so that we can not only resume full relations with Libya, but deal with the concerns of WPC Fletcher's family and her colleagues in the Met.

What will the Government do if, in the course of the trial in the Netherlands, it appears that the bombing of the aircraft was authorised by the Libyan Government and those who were responsible for the authority being given are still present in the Administration?

I make it clear to the House, as I have done throughout the case, that the indictment is of the two accused, whom we sought to stand trial. The charges are against them and it is for the prosecutor and the judges now to proceed with those charges. We have, of course, pressed Libya to recognise that, in the event of those two being found guilty—that is a matter for the court, not the Government—we shall look to Libya for compensation. Libya recognised that in its letter to Kofi Annan. I hope that we shall be able to proceed with the trial in due course. I stress to the House that our obligation as a Government was to secure the surrender of the two accused so that a trial could take place. That will be a free, fair trial, and the Government are not under an obligation to secure one outcome from that trial.

If he will make a statement on the declaration on the middle east peace process at the Berlin European Council. [79954]

What assessment he has made of the current situation regarding the middle east peace process. [79956]

If he will make a statement on progress with the middle east peace process. [79960]

The United Kingdom played a leading and positive role in negotiating the text of the European Union declaration on the middle east peace process which issued from the Berlin European Council on 24 and 25 March. The declaration signals to the parties the importance that the European Union attaches to a negotiated settlement.

Together with our EU partners, we remain concerned about the continuing deadlock in the middle east peace process and will seek renewed progress, including progress on Wye implementation, after the Israeli elections, whatever Government emerge from those elections.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the UK's contribution to the Berlin declaration on the middle east peace process, and thank him for his constructive comments. Will he give an assurance that, in the months to come, we shall not lose sight of that declaration, particularly its penultimate paragraph which, with Madam Speaker's permission, I shall quote? It says that

"the creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian State on the basis of existing agreements and through negotiations would be the best guarantee of Israel's security and Israel's acceptance as an equal partner in the region."

I thank my hon. Friend for her opening remarks. Let me make it clear that the United Kingdom, as one of the major parties that worked for the declaration at Berlin, is obviously very much committed to all the sentiments expressed. Certainly, we want a return to a negotiating framework in which the problems between Israel and the Palestine National Authority can be resolved and brought to a satisfactory conclusion. Obviously, within that, although the declaration is deliberately non-prescriptive, it certainly refers to the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, including the option of a state.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply to the question about support for the Palestinian right to self-determination, but specifically in respect of Jerusalem, will he confirm that it is still the Government's view that there is no Israeli sovereignty over either east or west Jerusalem, and that the final status of Jerusalem remains open to negotiation as part of the final settlement?

Yes, I can confirm that the status of Jerusalem is roughly as my hon. Friend set out to the House. We recognise, of course, the de facto control of Israel over west Jerusalem, but we consider east Jerusalem to be under illegal military occupation. In that context, we do not recognise any de jure sovereignty over the city. The status of Jerusalem has to be determined in the final status talks. We hold that position to be binding on all parties.

Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the recent burst of settlement activity on the west bank and in Gaza, which has been particularly encouraged by the present Israeli Government? Will he comment on US satellite information which suggests that 25 per cent. of existing settlements are uninhabited? Does that not clearly show that the land grab has more to do with affecting the final settlement processes contained in the Oslo accord than with the need for homes?

I am not in a position to comment on those particular reports. The Berlin declaration calls on all parties to refrain from unilateral actions, which of course include settlement activity. If my hon. Friend is right and some settlements remain unoccupied, that would at least encourage the view that it is possible for the Israeli Government to accept that it is in their own interests now to move forward on the basis that those unilateral actions of further settlement should be avoided. The necessity now is for whichever Government emerge from the coming election to recommit themselves to the negotiating process.

Some months ago, the Israeli Government offered to reduce any military presence that they may have in southern Lebanon if there was an equivalent response from the Syrian Government. Has any progress been made in that regard, or is there any prospect of progress, because surely, demilitarisation of Lebanon would be an important piece in the jigsaw in realising a durable and fair peace settlement in the middle east?

Of course, existing Security Council resolutions make it clear that southern Lebanon should be vacated by outside military forces. That must remain the position of the British Government. Clearly, we look to the election in Israel to produce a Government who will recommit themselves to a comprehensive package which will include not only southern Lebanon, but negotiations with Syria in respect of the Golan heights.

Further to the question before last, given that the settlement policy is against international law, what representations are the Government making directly to the Israeli Government on this subject?

The Berlin declaration openly calls for all parties to avoid unilateral actions that could damage the peace process, and it is clear that among those actions would be the continuation of settlement activity. That has been a long-standing demand, not only of this Government, but of the European Union. The Israeli Government, whichever parties they emerge from, can be in no doubt of the position of the international community in the European Union, including Britain, on that issue.

Does the hon. Gentleman, pursuant to those answers, agree that— especially in light of the admirable Berlin declaration—the continuing behaviour of the Israeli Government in pushing ahead with what are, and are known to be, illegal settlements puts the Israeli Government beyond the pale? After the election, will the Foreign Secretary see to it that there is convened in London a European conference to decide how Europe should move ahead in light of the new elections—perhaps decoupling ourselves slightly from the American process, which has been dismally unsuccessful in the middle east—and promote a European initiative to bring about progress in the middle east, to lead us out of the current impasse?

I make it clear to the House and to the hon. Gentleman that the Berlin declaration was published when it was in order to ensure that both Palestinians and Israelis were in no doubt about the views of people here in Europe. Those views certainly contained a clear warning against any unilateral actions, and, as I have told the House, the continuation of an illegal settlements policy would be such a unilateral action.

We await the election. We hope that the new Government will commit themselves, and we urge any Government in Israel to recommit themselves, to a negotiated process, because a return to the Wye declaration and the spirit thereof is the only way forward, not simply for the Palestinians but for the people of Israel.

What instructions he has given to posts abroad in relation to policy on environmental protection. [79962]

The environment is an important and increasing priority for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Through our posts abroad, and our role in a wide range of international organisations, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office makes a real contribution to the Government's environmental agenda, which is of course led by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Recent instructions to posts have covered a variety of subjects, from institutional aspects of oceans governance to negotiations on the biosafety protocol and the environmental aspects of the Budget.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given that globalisation is still having an adverse effect on many parts of the world—for example, rain forests are still disappearing at an alarming rate—does he agree that there should be widespread reform of global institutions such as the World bank, the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations, to ensure that environmental protection is placed at the top of the agenda?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The need to ensure a greening of global governance is high on the Government's agenda. That includes the international financial institutions, the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that precisely those ideas appeared on the agenda of the G8 recently, and that the G8 has called on the IMF and the World bank to consider their own environmental responsibilities. We very strongly support the United Nations Secretary-General's demand for reform of environmental governance at United Nations level. We are therefore trying to meet my hon. Friend's requests.

The environment around the Falkland Islands is being devastated by the poaching this year of up to 30,000 tonnes of illegally taken squid. The Falkland Islands Government have had approval for the delivery of a 20 mm weapon, which has suffered lamentable delays. They have put in an application to use a locally available 0.5 inch gun. What instructions has the Foreign Office given the newly appointed governor of the Falkland Islands to save the Falkland Islands environment by arming with locally available weapons?

Let me say—

Answer.

Yes, I will answer. We have given permission for the arming of the naval protection vessel with an appropriate weapon, but the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and the people of the islands must take into consideration the fact that, although there is a right to protect fishing stocks, and in this instance that right includes permission for the use, under carefully controlled rules of engagement, of a lethal weapon, they also have duties to ensure that any use of force does not go beyond those rules of engagement. Consideration of what are acceptable rules of engagement is obviously central to the deployment of any system. We are working hard and we are in close and detailed discussion with both the Falkland Islands Government and the fishing industry there to ascertain how we can provide a satisfactory framework to deal with poaching. We have, as I have said, already given permission for a cannon to be available for fisheries protection.

When he plans to introduce legislation to restore full British citizenship to the people of St. Helena. [79966]

I confirmed in the White Paper last month that we shall be extending British citizenship to all citizens of the overseas territories, including St. Helena. The Government of St. Helena have since expressed their welcome for this. The House will be aware that it is the convention not to announce in advance of the Queen's Speech when parliamentary legislation will be introduced, but we shall seek to do so as soon as practicable.

I certainly welcome the Government's best intentions to put right the 18 years of wrongdoing by the previous Government. I think that the 5,500 islanders are looking for the speedy passage of legislation. I would welcome any assistance that the Foreign Secretary can give to put right the 18 years of neglect and rejection of the previous Government.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the number of times that he has raised this issue, which I know is a matter of interest to his constituents who, as I understand it, share the same patron saint, St. Helena. I am glad for the hon. Gentleman's support and I look forward to it when we introduce legislation. It will be a complex and detailed matter, as any nationality legislation must be. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, having secured the agreement, we intend to act on it as soon as we can to put right the injustice that we inherited from the previous Administration.

May I add my warm thanks and my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on making such a decision, not only for the people of St. Helena but for many other people in other overseas territories who wish to take advantage of what is proposed? Does my right hon. Friend have any idea how many citizens in the other overseas territories are saying that they intend to take up this right?

We would expect that most of the citizens of the overseas territories would take up the right to British citizenship. That does not mean, of course, that they will wish to take up the right to settle in Britain. We should remember that our overseas territories are now so vigorous and successful in terms of prosperity that most of them enjoy a standard of living that is higher than that of the United Kingdom.

It is not immediately apparent why the residents of Caribbean islands with a higher standard of living than that of people in Britain should necessarily choose to leave their home to come to settle in Britain. However, they will find what we propose an important step in demonstrating that we are as proud of them as they are of their British connections. They will welcome the opportunity to travel freely throughout Europe without going through the non-EU channel when they visit other countries of the European Union.

On what basis he determines the charges for processing visa applications in overseas consulates and embassies. [79967]

In accordance with Government policy, the visa fee is set so as to allow the full costs of providing the global visa issuing operation to be recovered.

In working out what the charges are, do the Government pay any regard to the standard of living in countries where charges are operated or to the quality of decision making, at least on initial application? Some of my constituents have spoken to me about people who have tried to visit them from Russia and South Africa, telling me that the very high charges prevent would-be visitors from applying to visit relatives or fiancés in this country.

We have a duty to operate a visa regime in a way that is helpful to those wishing to visit this country, but it is legitimate in terms of taxpayers, who gain no direct benefit from the visa regime, that it should recover full costs. Within that context, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about charges for unsuccessful visas. However, the cost of processing a visa, whether successful or unsuccessful, is pretty much the same. It would be rather unfair on successful applicants to say that they may have to bear the costs that are borne by those who apply unsuccessfully.

A differential charge for different parts of the world would be quite contentious. It would be a highly subjective matter which areas deserved low-cost visas and which areas should have super-cost visa charges. That would be a little difficult to implement.

I know that my hon. Friend recognises the problems in Pakistan and Bangladesh of getting to Dhaka, Karachi or Islamabad, and the cost involved. What is his opinion of the screening process, which deters many people from submitting a visa application, although they would probably have succeeded if they had gone ahead, as they had a genuine case?

I know that my hon. Friend has dealt with many such cases over a long period, as I have. He will know that the best advice that he can give to his constituents is to make sure that the application goes in, and that it is submitted on the basis of the fullest possible information. People cannot be advised by Members of Parliament, and certainly not by Ministers, not to submit applications for fear that they might be refused.

Does the Minister find that people who are resident in the United Kingdom are making applications to overseas posts for visas? I have a constituent who has been waiting seven months for his wife's visa to be renewed through the Passport Agency in the UK. The collapse of the IT system there is causing many problems. Will the Minister have urgent discussions with his colleagues in the Home Office to make sure that the renewal of visas for people such as married women who came from Russia is dealt with properly?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There is no doubt that the Passport Agency is in a state of chaos because of decisions made by the previous Government on these matters. I undertake to draw the attention of my hon. Friends at the Home Office to the points that the hon. Gentleman makes to see whether there is an easy resolution. However, I remind him that, as a supporter of the previous Government, he might consider his own responsibility and perhaps say to his constituents that he is sorry.

How many Ministers of the Government of Chile have visited his Department since 2 May 1997. [79969]

We are aware of eight visits by Chilean Ministers during this period. I have met the Foreign Minister, JoséInsulza, and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Mariano Fernandez. I meet JoséInsulza again tomorrow for breakfast.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that only two of Her Majesty's Ministers have visited Chile since his Government came to power—the Lord Clinton-Davis and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd)? Is it not the case that, if rather more Ministers had visited, there would be a better understanding of that country as it now is, rather than a mentality locked in the 1960s and early 1970s? Is it not the case that Chile desires good relations with the United Kingdom four times as much as Britain does with Chile?

As I said, I have already met both Foreign Ministers of Chile, and I meet the senior one again tomorrow. We have had regular contact and dialogue with them, and we have encouraged them also to understand the nature of modern Britain, where the rule of law applies and the Government intend to uphold the due judicial process. This is the umpteenth time at Question Time that the hon. Gentleman has invited us to depart from the due legal process, which we have no intention of doing.

When my right hon. Friend has met Chilean Ministers, have they said that they are grateful to this country for the way in which, in 1974, when a Labour Government were elected, we gave asylum to so many Chileans who were fleeing from the terror following the coup of 1973? Is that not a great tribute to our country? Is it not a fact that those who found asylum in Britain at the time well understand what is happening and want the rule of law to continue?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was taken in a quasi-judicial role and with the strict application of the legal rules. It was not taken in response to public opinion. However, if we are being invited to have regard to public opinion in Chile, it is important for the House to recognise that there is more than one opinion in Chile. The last opinion poll in Chile found that the public were split down the middle on whether it was right for Senator Pinochet to be detained in the United Kingdom for extradition and trial in Europe.

When the Foreign Secretary has breakfast with the Chilean Minister tomorrow morning, will he make it clear that it would have been lawful for the Home Secretary to exercise his discretion so that Senator Pinochet could be returned to Chile? Will he also make it clear that he will raise a protest over the stopping of LanChile flights to the Falkland Islands at the end of last month as a direct result of the Government's treatment of visitors to this country from Chile? The matter is of great concern to the Falkland islanders, who believe that the Government have sacrificed them on the altar of their own incompetence.

LanChile's decision was a decision made by LanChile as a company, not by the Chilean Government—and the Chilean Government have no right to order it to resume a service, any more than I have the right to order any airline to resume a service.

As for the hon. Lady's wider point, the Home Secretary made a decision involving strict application of the legal rules, having regard to the due process, and rightly decided that this was a matter for the courts, not politicians, to decide. There was a time when the Conservative party prided itself on the rule of law; that pride deserts it when the rule of law is applied to one of its own political cronies.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The relationship between the House of Commons and the courts is always very delicate. May I refer to questions 8, 9 and 13, which dealt with Lockerbie? We shall have to study what was actually said in Hansard, but it seemed to some of us who have spoken to the lawyers acting for Pan Am's executors, and to Professor Black, the professor of Scots law, that to say much about this subject is sailing very close to the wind. Will you reflect on what was said, Madam Speaker, and possibly make some ruling on what can be said in the House in future? After all, a trial is about to start at Zeist.

I was conscious of the exchanges that took place today, and I very much doubt that they offended against the sub judice rule—if, indeed, such a rule applies. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, however: I want to give some careful thought to the matter, and I hope that he will allow me to do so.