If he will make a statement on the agenda for discussion at the Europe-Asia (ASEM2) Conference to be held in London in April. [26427]

We look forward to holding the ASEM2 summit in London on 3 and 4 April, the first of its kind in Europe. The summit will give my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a unique opportunity for wide-ranging, informal and productive discussions with 25 world leaders, representing countries that account for half the economy of the globe. We expect ASEM2 to discuss the financial turbulence in the region, measures to improve business and trade links and co-operation in response to environmental threats such as forest fires.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. As he has remarked, south-east Asia has gone through great political and economic turbulence in recent times, and he will be aware how important a growing and dynamic Pacific rim is for British exports. What steps is the Foreign Office taking to promote British exports to the region?

I am pleased to assure my hon. Friend that, when I was in the region last autumn, I lobbied successfully on behalf of British companies. We have ensured that a third of staff at our embassies in those posts are dedicated to commercial promotion work. As a result, they are winning orders for Britain.

What measures are included in the United Kingdom proposals for an EU code of conduct on arms sales to close loopholes on brokering and licensed production. [26428]

What measures are included in the United Kingdom proposals for an EU code of conduct on arms sales to close loopholes on brokering and licensed production. [26437]

The Government are currently considering the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Trafficking in Arms. We will announce our conclusions during this Session and will have particular regard to the legal loophole that permitted a UK company to broker the supply of small arms to Hutu extremists.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he share the concerns of many people who responded to the Department of Trade and Industry consultation on the Scott report—which is two years old on Sunday—that UK export controls do not cover brokering and licensing arrangements? Will he confirm that some European countries have introduced controls that cover brokering: Germany, Netherlands and soon Belgium? Will he give further consideration to the inclusion of such controls in the UK's proposals for an EU code of conduct on arms exports?

I would be very reluctant at this stage to go back to square one on the code of conduct. We have achieved agreement with the other major arms exporter in Europe—France. Those proposals have been circulated to all EU partners and have been overwhelmingly well received by them. I would therefore be reluctant to introduce new matter into the proposals, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are vigorously examining how we might respond nationally to the issue that he highlights. In the meantime, as he reminds me that we are approaching the second anniversary of the Scott report, may I say that we are determined to avoid the previous regime's experience in supplying export cover for arms and other equipment to the tune of £800 million, which is still unpaid by Saddam Hussein and has become a charge on the taxpayer.

Will my right hon. Friend take action to stop licensed production becoming a major loophole in the European Union code of conduct on arms sales? Has he seen reports that the Nottingham-based company, Heckler and Koch, won a technology transfer contract to produce the latest assault rifles in Turkey, and similar rifles then found their way to Iran and the Sudan under the licensed production procedures? Is it not essential that licensed production is covered by an arms control export system that applies to both the United Kingdom and the European Union?

My hon. Friend raises a serious issue, but in practical terms it is extremely complex and difficult to control the transfer of technology in the same way that we can license the physical export of weapons. Where licensed production takes place, we try to encourage an arrangement by which we have control over future exports and their end use.

Would the proposed EU code of conduct prevent France from exporting arms to Iraq?

The code of conduct that we are proposing is based on the rules that Britain adopted last summer. Under those rules, we could not export arms to Iraq. It is one of the great regrets of our history that the previous Government exported machine tools to Iraqi armaments manufacturers.

I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the point about France. If, for example, under the code of conduct, a British company is refused a licence to supply a certain order for arms and a notice to that effect is circulated to all European partners as proposed by the code, what is to prevent the Government of another member state from interpreting the code of conduct in a different way and permitting a company in that member state to meet the order? Is not that precisely what happens in the real world, and what do the Government intend to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman rightly describes exactly what happened throughout the past 18 years under the previous Government, who made no attempt to establish a binding code of conduct. The code of conduct provides that any country contemplating taking up an order that another member state has refused must first notify that member state and then enter into dialogue with it. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if any country proposed to take up a contract that we had denied, we would pursue the matter through all 14 member states.

What steps his Department has taken to reduce conflict and human rights abuses in Algeria. [26429]

We believe that in order to achieve progress in Algeria, we must keep the Algerians engaged in political dialogue, express our points of view to them and discuss their concerns and requirements. I led a European Union troika mission on 19 and 20 January 1998. The mission's report led to the conclusions that my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary announced after the General Affairs Council on 26 January. They have given us a sound base on which to build.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that when the United Nations Commission on Human Rights meets in Geneva next month, human rights abuses in Algeria will be fully debated?

It is important that there is a full debate on human rights in Algeria. During the troika mission we took the opportunity time and again to say to the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Algeria that we wished for greater openness and transparency on those issues. We urged the Algerians to invite the United Nations special rapporteurs, but unfortunately they declined to do so. We continue to maintain pressure in that direction. We believe that it is important that Algeria invites the special rapporteurs.

In view of the Government's ethical foreign policy, has the Minister had a chance to reconsider his views of 19 November, when he said that the situation in Algeria was an internal problem? Is he aware that Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed exactly the opposite view, saying that human rights had no international borders and that the international community should seek to end such violence? Does he now share her views, and if he does, should not the Government propose more concrete action during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union?

It is difficult to understand where the hon. Gentleman has been over the past month. The simple fact is that, under Britain's presidency, the European Union has taken action. We sent a troika mission to Algeria. The United Kingdom is the first country to have taken such an initiative. Rather than complaining, it is about time that the hon. Gentleman applauded the Government for the action that they have taken.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is overwhelming evidence from human rights organisations that Algerian generals use torture as an instrument of rule, and that no one believes that the 80,000 victims of the war have been killed by only one side?

That is why we urge the Algerian Government to be more open and transparent, and therefore to be more accountable, on human rights issues. That is also why we urge them to invite United Nations special rapporteurs. We think that that is the right way of dealing with all the fears and innuendos that there may be about Algeria's record. We will continue to make that argument to them.

What assessment he has made of progress of negotiations in Sudan. [26432]

The resumption of peace negotiations—on 30 October, in Kenya—between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army under the sponsorship of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development is a significant step forward in the search for peace in Sudan and an end to the suffering of the Sudanese people. We understand that the negotiations focused on the two central issues of self-determination and the relationship between state and religion. Unfortunately, the talks were suspended on 11 November and are due to resume in April.

I appreciate the Minister's response. With him, I welcome movement in the negotiations but regret their suspension. Does he agree that there is also need for the Government to try to develop Sudan's infrastructure—particularly in the southern, western and northern parts of Sudan—and to ensure that aid sent by aid organisations outwith the country get to the places for which it was designed?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for that infrastructure development and a need to ensure that aid reaches those who are desperately in need. The best circumstances in which we can achieve those objectives will be achieved by ensuring that there is a peace settlement between the warring parties, which is why we have supported and will continue to support the IGAD initiatives.

Has the Minister seen today's report by the charity Christian Solidarity International stating that tens of thousands of Christian children are held as slaves in northern Sudan? Is it not in itself a tragedy that the wars in that country, which have killed more people than have died in Rwanda, are unknown because they have not been observed by television cameras? Is it not time that we acted, in so far as we can, to use our influence in the area to establish peace and elementary standards of human rights?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that the events which he describes and which have been described by various organisations are a tragedy. The holding of young children by forces in the north of Sudan is more than a tragedy—it is an evil practice which I am sure that every hon. Member will condemn. I assure him that, through IGAD, we will do all that we can to help the peace negotiation process, which is crucial for everyone living in Sudan.

If he will make a statement on the review his Department is currently undertaking into British citizenship for the people of British dependencies. [26433]

Last week, I announced the progress on our review of the dependent territories. We propose to improve their administration through a single specialist department, to require of them the highest standards of financial regulations and observance of international obligations on human rights, and to rename them UK overseas territories. We have also announced that the Government are exploring the possibility of granting British citizenship to all the citizens of those overseas territories who do not already have it. We are examining the matter sympathetically and urgently. We are currently in discussion on all elements of that package with the Governments of the overseas territories.

Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Government are doing everything possible to persuade the dependent territories to amend their laws against homosexuality? Is he aware that, in October, a written answer from the Foreign Office assured me that the Governments of the dependent territories had received an instruction to review their laws on homosexuality, yet in January the Office of the Governor of the Cayman Islands said that it had heard about the communique but not received anything officially? Have the Government contacted the dependent territories on the issue or not?

First, I encourage the hon. Lady and other hon. Members to use the new term of overseas territories. The term dependent territories does not do justice to the territories' very strong economies and self-government. That is why we propose to rename them.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that his speech at the dependent territories conference last week was widely appreciated by representatives of the territories that attended. On the question of nationality, does he agree that we are talking only about 180,000 people? The largest single territory, Bermuda, has only 60,000 people, none of whom are likely to want to leave their very high standard of living to come here. Overseas territories simply want help with access to education and an end to the humiliation of black politicians and white politicians having to go through different channels at Heathrow airport. Does he recognise that it would be widely appreciated outside the House, as a graceful gesture as we approach the millennium, if citizenship were granted to overseas territories citizens?

I think that I would be wise to welcome my hon. Friend's appreciation while it is available. I fully agree with what she has just said. She slightly overstates the number of people concerned, because citizenship is already available to the citizens of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. That of course gives rise to some sensitivity in other territories of a different racial mix. She also rightly identified two points of great irritation to the citizens of dependent territories: when they come to Britain they have to go through the "other nationality" channel, and if they go to Europe, they need a visa. I hope that it will be possible for us to remove those irritations.

In the light of the Foreign Secretary's answer, what assurance can he give that such treatment will be consistent with the handling of the people of Hong Kong?

Our proposal is to improve the consistency of treatment of citizens of overseas territories. At present, two territories have citizenship and the rest do not. Our proposal provides even-handed and consistent treatment for all our remaining overseas territories. Those who still represent or live in our overseas territories find it hard to be told that they cannot have citizenship because of what were the rules for Hong Kong, but now it is no longer a dependent territory.

if he will make a statement on his Department' s assessment of likely progress on the middle east peace process. [26435]

We believe strongly that the best hope for progress towards a lasting peace in the middle east is through the current process, based on the Oslo agreements and the principle of land for peace. In particular, we believe that significant and credible Israeli troop redeployments from the west bank and an end to the expansion of Israeli settlements in the west bank are essential to restore confidence. We shall continue to work for an outcome that offers peace with security to the Israeli people and peace with justice to the Palestinian people.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but may I push him a little further? Does he agree that Israel should comply fully with international agreements, into which it freely entered some years ago, and with successive United Nations resolutions on the middle east? Does he further agree that, if Israel were to do that, it would not only progress the middle east peace process but make it easy for Arab states which wish to support further action against Saddam Hussein to do so?

My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the read-across in the minds of the population of many Arab countries between the current confrontation in Iraq and the stalemate in the middle east peace process. To ensure that we are not vulnerable to any charge of double standards, and for the sake of peace in the middle east, it is important that we are robust in insisting that the terms of the Oslo accords are carried out. I therefore assure him that we shall continue to condemn any breach of the Oslo accords. In particular, we call on the Government of Israel to honour the agreement entered into by the previous Israeli Government, which, because it has the force of a treaty, is binding on successor Governments.

What information, if any, does the Foreign Secretary have on the production of biological and chemical weapons in other parts of the near east? I am thinking in particular of Syria and Libya, which are a factor in the stability of the area and the peace treaty.

I am not aware of such production in Syria. Libya, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is also subject to very tight sanctions, one of the aims of which is to ensure that there is no possibility of that country developing any chemical or biological weapons.

Can my right hon. Friend say what new European initiatives to push forward the middle east peace process will be made during Britain's presidency of the European Union?

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the European Union is the major provider of funds to the peace process. During Britain's presidency, we shall consider how we roll forward that budget to ensure that we continue to support the peace process practically. In particular, we shall look for initiatives to boost confidence in the middle east and address the economic problems of the Palestinian authority, perhaps through supporting the Gaza sea port and airport. I shall visit the middle east next month to take forward those initiatives.

Is it not clear that an overwhelming obstacle to the peace process—indeed, one that causes the most offence to the Palestinian people—is the Israeli Government's persistent breaches of international law on settlements? If the Government, and those of us who support them in their attitude to Saddam Hussein and his breaches of international law, are to carry any credibility, must not we be even-handed in our condemnation of other countries in the middle east that so obviously breach the principles of international law?

I agree absolutely with the hon. and learned Gentleman. We have done precisely what he says—only last week in the middle east, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), condemned the settlement programme and the expansion of the settlements. The Israeli Government should be under no illusion: whatever they gain in domestic opinion, they lose in international opinion by jeopardising the peace process.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Palestinian demonstrations in support of Saddam Hussein that took place over the weekend will not help the cause of peace, as they intensify the anxieties about security of those Israelis who genuinely want peace for land? Given that the memory of the 39 Iraqi Scud missiles that landed on Israeli towns is still uppermost in Israeli citizens' minds, will my right hon. Friend call on the Palestine National Authority to act responsibly, just as he rightly calls on the Israeli Government to act responsibly?

We would welcome support for our position on Iraq from any quarter, including the Palestinian authority. I agree that the Israeli people are fully entitled to be secure and to feel that their safety is catered for in any peace settlement. It is also important that we remember that those who voted for the current Israeli Government did not vote for a suspension of the peace process; they voted for peace with security. Unless the Palestinian people are offered peace with justice, there can be no peace with security.

The Foreign Secretary has not told us what action he has taken under Britain's presidency to help break the logjam. Will his third planned visit to the middle east, which is due to take place next month, be cancelled as the other two were? Does he accept, as the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) suggested, that the logjam in the peace process is hindering and complicating any action to solve the situation in Iraq? Will he impress that on the Government of Israel, with all the status of his presidency of the European Union Council of Foreign Ministers?

Just for the record, one of those visits was cancelled because of religious holidays in the middle east and the other because of the previous Iraqi crisis. To respond to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's points about the presidency—[Interruption.] If the House will allow me to deal with the question, I can tell him that we had a discussion on the middle east peace process at the last meeting of the General Affairs Council and as a result I have been in close contact with Madeleine Albright. We anticipate that we may have a freer and closer access to the American-brokered initiatives on the peace process. As part of that, we are producing our own complementary measures on the Gaza sea port and airport, to which I referred.

May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust comments about Prime Minister Netanyahu at the weekend? There is a problem as far as the Netanyahu Government are concerned. On the one hand, the Ministry of the Interior is allowing 132 housing units to be built in Ras al-Amud and on the other, the security service is trying to suggest that the Palestinians will complain about that simply to cause problems in the area. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to condemn any attempts to build on the Ras al-Amud area of Jerusalem?

I am very happy to condemn that, and to repeat the statement made by the Minister of State, who did exactly that in the middle east. The Government of Israel are in no doubt as to our views and the overwhelming views of the international community. If they want to return to the peace process, they have to abide by the interim agreements, which means ending the expansion of the settlements and the closure programme, which interrupts the free passage of the Palestinian people.

What plans he has to change the recruitment policies of his Department. [26436]

If he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the appointment of non-career civil servants. [26448]

Recruitment to civil service appointments must follow the civil service commissioners' recruitment code. We are working to make the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a more open and diverse organisation representative of modern Britain. We have appointed Mr. Linbert Spencer as an adviser on minority ethnic issues to help promote the FCO as an attractive career opportunity for members of minority ethnic groups. Separately, we have established a short-term business attachment scheme to strengthen our export promotion efforts by placing secondees from business into posts overseas.

The Minister and various other Labour Front-Bench spokesmen both before and after the election were fond of making portentous statements about the rights of women in the work force. In the light of those, will the Foreign Office now release the ban on Anne Bullen responding to the outrageous attacks on her by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen and their spin doctors? In the light of the Foreign Secretary's recent answer, is not it clear that to avoid religious holidays in the middle east, he probably needs yet another diary secretary?

Given what I have read in the newspapers, I am not sure that there is any ban on Anne Bullen—she seems to have been quite vocal. If anyone had been watching the response to my earlier answer, they would have seen one of the reasons why the modern Conservative party is unelectable. As soon as I mentioned the needs of the ethnic minority communities, all that Conservative Members could do was to find it amusing. It is a serious issue, and I do not treat that section of our community with contempt.

Does the Minister now accept that, if an individual from outside the civil service is being considered for a post within his Department, any personal involvement with any Minister should be declared at the first opportunity? If he accepts that principle, can he explain why the Foreign Secretary did not follow it in the case of Mrs. Gaynor Regan.

All those issues were explained in full last week. I find it wholly depressing that a modern opposition party—I understand why it is in opposition—cannot deal with important issues of state. Opposition Members stay in the gutter and they have got even lower than the gutter in some of their questions. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues were special advisers to previous Conservative Governments—I wonder how they were appointed.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, to those of us who represent constituencies with significant numbers of ethnic minority constituents, it is no laughing matter that people from those communities have been shut off for so long from jobs in the civil service, especially jobs at its higher levels? Will he tell us what his Department is doing to put that right and to ensure that at the top level, including that of ambassadors, we have people who are representative of the communities that we represent?

My hon. Friend asks a valid question. One of our reasons for appointing Linbert Spencer is so that we have help and advice on those issues. I look forward to the day when British ambassadors throughout the world truly reflect the multiracial and multi-ethnic nature of modern Britain.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on broadening the scope of recruitment, and especially on the temporary secondments from business. However, will he do more in terms of getting business acumen around the world to open up our embassies and make them more approachable and accessible? Will he also expand the policy to bring in senior local authority officers and academics, as adding such people to our permanent foreign service could bring nothing but gain?

The short-term business attachment scheme is working well. There has been substantial private sector interest, which shows the extent and depth of the partnership between private industry and the new Labour Government. We shall continue to develop the scheme. I agree with my hon. Friend that bringing in expertise and experience is extremely useful to the Foreign Office.

When I was a very young man, Anthony Eden said to me that he thought that attacks ad hominem in the House were nearly always a mistake. Would not the institution that we are proud to serve do itself far more credit if hon. Members on both sides of the House abandoned them?

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes his point remarkably well. I suspect that he read the Hansard report of last Wednesday's Adjournment debate and realised that his party had shot itself in the foot on that occasion.

If he will make a statement on the recent state visit of the President of Brazil. [26438]

The state visit by the President of Brazil was a significant milestone in the steady strengthening of UK-Brazil relations in recent years. The clear, highest-level commitment to the further development of our relations was demonstrated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Cardoso in signing a joint action plan identifying key areas for future co-operation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply; it is clear that relations between Brazil and Britain are the best they have been for many years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a reflection of the consolidation of democracy in Brazil, where the President was freely elected with more than 50 per cent. of the vote, and of the tremendous trading opportunities between our two countries, with each seeing the other as the gateway to a larger market—the European Union in Europe and Mercosur in south America? In view of that and of the fact that Brazil's is the seventh largest economy in the world, would my hon. Friend consider making an official visit to Brazil in the near future? Would he also be willing to ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a bilateral official visit to that country, the first bilateral official visit to Brazil ever made by a British Prime Minister?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is important steadily to build relations with Brazil, because it is a large country with a huge potential export market for our manufacturers. As part of our export forum programme, an export forum will be established in Brazil to try to boost that trade.

Following the most successful and welcome visit by His Excellency the President of Brazil to this country, will the present Government continue the "link up with Latin America" programme of the Department of Trade and Industry, sponsored by the previous Administration, with particular emphasis on the Mercosur countries of Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil—of course—and, last but not least, Chile, which is associated with Mercosur? All those countries have economies that have greatly reformed and offer remarkable opportunities for British business.

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we build trade links throughout south America. Huge and increasing markets are potentially available to our manufacturers, and democracy is increasingly becoming established in those countries. I met the Foreign Ministers of Mercosur in New York in September and many of those issues were under discussion. I hope that we will continue to press them.

During the meetings with the representatives of Brazil, did my hon. Friend have a chance to discuss the rapid deforestation of the Amazonian rain forest and the problems that that poses for the world's climate and environment? Did he also have an opportunity to discuss the denial of human rights to many of the indigenous people of the Amazonian rain forest, who have seen their land and rivers polluted by illegal mining activities, often conducted with western finance and by western companies?

Those matters were discussed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State when he visited Brazil and when he received the Foreign Minister here. My hon. Friend took up the question as part of the dialogue. The need to help the Brazilian Government to realign their agricultural industry was also part of those discussions and we are currently involved in a bilateral agreement with the Brazilians to the sum of £16 million. We have given them £6.5 million in aid to help the diversification process, and we hope that that will benefit the environment.

If he will make a statement on the ratification of the additional protocols to the 1949 Geneva conventions. [26441]

I am pleased to say that we have ratified the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), announced that to the House in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on 28 January.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What measures will the Government take to ensure that that ratification is genuinely meaningful in practice?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Foreign Office will of course undertake continual monitoring of those matters. On the same day the protocols were signed, the Government announced a £5.8 million aid scheme to the International Red Cross, and part of its endeavours include ensuring that those protocols are adhered to.

If he informed his officials of his relationship with his nominee for the post of diary secretary when he proposed her for that post. [26442]

Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] I think I know which question the hon. Gentleman is asking.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. On reflection, does he realise that, if he had chosen to confide in his officials, it would not have taken him nine days to come to the blindingly obvious conclusion that what he was proposing was an unethical policy for someone in his position in the Foreign Office?

During those nine days, I attended the intergovernmental conference in Noordwijk, I attended the formation of the NATO-Russia Joint Permanent Council in Paris and I attended the Sintra meeting on Bosnia. I know that the hon. Member and some of his colleagues have spent the past 19 days doing nothing but think about my diary secretary, but I have to say that Foreign Secretaries often find other things to work on in nine days as well.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position of diary secretary in any organisation, especially in government, is an extremely important political position, the occupant of which must have the total confidence of the person for whom they are working? In those circumstances, does he agree that it would be very unusual, if not ridiculous, to have an active Conservative, appointed by a political appointee of a previous Government, continuing and working for a Labour Foreign Secretary of an incoming Government?

Miss Bullen was recruited by the previous Foreign Secretary, from a post where she was working as personal assistant to a Tory peer who had been formerly a Minister in a Tory Government. She was appointed by a totally exceptional method, by Order in Council. What is especially regrettable is that she was appointed in preference to three career civil servants who had applied for the job.

Was anything said to the right hon. Gentleman between 21 and 30 May that had any bearing on the decision not to appoint Gaynor Regan as his diary secretary?

Absolutely nothing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman persists under the fantasy that MI5, the permanent secretary or the Prime Minister were involved. Nothing was said to me that altered my own personal judgment. If I may say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he is notorious for having dismissed Derek Lewis, the Director General of the Prison Service, at a cost to the taxpayer of £300,000, in view of his expensive track record a period of silence from him would be welcome.

If he will list the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government to support the effectiveness of UN weapon inspection teams in Iraq. [26443]

The UK is one of the main providers of specialist personnel to the United Nations Special Commission. We have been at the forefront of measures both in New York and in the Gulf to press Saddam to grant UNSCOM the full access required by Security Council resolutions, which is essential if UNSCOM is to carry out its work effectively. Later today, I shall make a further statement on Iraq.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, whereas everyone understands that high-technology nuclear weapons pose a threat to the world population, many may find it difficult to realise that a small jar of biological agent can similarly kill millions of people? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the possession of chemical and biological weapons by Saddam Hussein, and his continued flouting of Security Council resolution 687, poses a threat to world stability, and will he use all diplomatic channels to seek to ensure that we now have full support for taking any measures necessary to ensure that resolution 687 is accepted?

The hon. Member is correct in everything that he says. Saddam Hussein has the capacity to produce 200 tonnes of the VX nerve agent. If he had the means to deliver it, that would be sufficient to wipe out human life from the planet. It is very important for us, therefore—not only for the countries immediately adjacent to Iraq—that every possible diplomatic pressure, and the clear resolve to use military force if necessary, is applied to ensure that he is not left in possession of such an arsenal of tenor. After all, he has already used nerve gas against his own people, in Halabja 10 years ago. He is perfectly capable of using it against the people of other countries.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what are at stake are not only the policy objectives of the United Kingdom and the United States but the authority of the United Nations? We have a stark choice: either we agree to face up to evil dictatorship and support the United Nations or we turn our back on ever trying to achieve human rights and world peace.

My hon. Friend is correct. This is not a confrontation between the UK and the US and Iraq; this is a confrontation between the United Nations and Iraq—and if Iraq were to win in this confrontation, the UN and the Security Council would have no authority in any future confrontation against any future dictator.

What recent representations he has received on the position of Kuwaiti nationals held in Iraq. [26444]

We take a keen interest in the issue of Kuwaiti detainees and play an active role in the tripartite commission. We continue to insist that Iraq provide full information on the whereabouts of the detainees. We assume that Saddam Hussein's recent offer to release Arab prisoners will include the more than 600 Kuwaiti detainees held in Iraq since the Gulf war. That would at last mean the end of their seven-year ordeal.

Notwithstanding his comments and in light of the Government's professed ethical foreign policy, does the Minister agree that the release of 600 Kuwaiti civilians—many of whom are women and children—held as prisoners of war in Iraq should be made a condition of removing sanctions, in addition to allowing the United Nations Special Commission's work of examining and destroying chemical and biological weapons?

The detainees' fate underlines the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others during the exchange on the previous question. We know the record of Saddam Hussein as a dictator and the threat that he represents to others. We shall certainly continue to work through the tripartite commission to make the return of the Kuwaiti detainees to their families in Kuwait a priority. There is no question of that not being in line with an ethical foreign policy: there is nothing more ethical than ensuring that those detainees are returned to their families. We shall work towards that objective, which I am sure everyone shares.

What assessment he has made of the impact of the current financial turbulence in Asia on his Department's export promotion work; and if he will make a statement. [26445]

It is too early to say what the full impact of the current financial turbulence in Asia will be on British companies doing business in the region. We shall continue to provide the full range of overseas trade services. We are confident that, with full implementation of the necessary policy reforms, Asia's impressive growth performance will continue over the medium term and that there will be excellent opportunities for British companies.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that this is a glitch in the Asian countries and that there will be continued growth in the region? What efforts have the British Government made to ensure that British exporters can take advantage of the situation in those Asian countries when their economies improve?

We have urged the Asian countries that have been affected by the financial turbulence to take the measures urged on them by the International Monetary Fund. We feel that there is a need for greater transparency, accountability and openness in financial markets, and those countries are now taking heed of the programmes. We have worked hard alongside other countries to assist the IMF efforts.

As one of those recovering from a hard night at the Brit awards, I urge the Minister to continue to work with the music industry to ensure that its exports to Asia remain as buoyant as they have been in recent years. Will he work with his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and at the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that intellectual property is protected? One of the greatest threats to our music industry exports is the thieving of intellectual property, which is still carried out by one or two leading Asian countries.

It is good to see that the hon. Gentleman is dry after his night out at the Brit awards—I understand that, in terms of his politics, he is not always held in that regard by his colleagues.

When he last met his European Union counterparts to discuss common foreign and security issues. [26446]

I met my counterparts at the General Affairs Council on 26 January.

Will my hon. Friend outline the progress that has been made by the EU Foreign Ministers in achieving a peace agreement in Bosnia? The area has gone out of the news recently, with attention understandably focused on Iraq, but the situation in Bosnia is none the less serious, and we must do all we can to bring about a speedy resolution.

I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing everything that we can to continue to press for settlement of the various issues in Bosnia. At the General Affairs Council on 26 January we took an initiative two weeks after President Dodic's new Government was elected in the Republika Srpska to give the country some assistance from council funds to enable it to reinforce its democracy. Specifically, we gave it 6 million ecu to help the payment of public servants, which is essential if a civic society is to be established.

Does the Minister agree that membership of the European Union carries with it a mutual security obligation, although no guarantee? Does he therefore agree that, for the countries of central and eastern Europe, enlargement of the EU is as important to their security as enlargement of NATO?

I think the hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of economic and social links. Regardless of any arrangements that they may make through NATO or any other organisation for their security, many of the countries in central and eastern Europe recognise that full membership of the European Union brings economic and social stability, which provides security for their nations.

If he will make a statement on Israeli settlement expansion in the west bank. [26447]

The EU position on settlement building in the occupied territories is clear. It is both illegal under international law, and damaging to the peace process. The building of settlements pre-empts final status talks and destroys hard-won trust between Israelis and Palestinians.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation there is critical and is inhibiting a peaceful settlement? I was delighted to hear this afternoon your previous statement on the matter, and I give you full support—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak through the Chair. I think the Foreign Secretary has got the question—a very complimentary one, which I am sure he can answer.

As I understand it, I have my hon. Friend's support, as well as his question. I fully share his concern on the matter.

There is no doubt that the expansion of Israeli settlements on the west bank and elsewhere is impeding the peace process in the middle east. Bearing in mind the exceptional relationship that exists between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States, and the fact that, through its funding of Israel, the United States is undoubtedly contributing to the expansion of the settlements, what action is the Foreign Secretary prepared to take to bring pressure on the Government of the United States to influence what is going on in Israel?

I discuss the middle east peace process at least every second day with my opposite number in the United States, the Secretary of State. I entirely and thoroughly endorse her call on the Government of Israel to take time out from settlement building. During Mr. Netanyahu's recent visit to the United States, President Clinton made perfectly clear the impatience of the United States at gestures that make it more difficult to take forward the peace process.

What assessment he has made of the welfare of children in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [26449]

What assessment he has made of the welfare of children in Iraq, and if he will make a statement. [26455]

The children of Iraq have suffered enormously at the hands of a ruthless dictator who cares nothing for their welfare. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we are concerned for their plight. We have provided £94 million in aid to the people of Iraq since 1991, much of which has been specifically targeted towards projects for children. Our co-sponsorship of oil-for-food resolutions has ensured that food and medical supplies reach all Iraqi people. We welcome the recent recommendations of the Secretary-General that the oil-for-food programme be expanded. That will also help to improve the situation for all vulnerable groups in Iraq.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the estimate that some 1 million under-fives are underfed, it is obscene that Saddam Hussein should have squandered some $1,000 million on building luxury palaces for himself, and it is dishonest that he should have sought to put the blame on United Nations sanctions?

My hon. Friend makes a strong and valid point. In many of the comments that we hear about the current crisis, one of the grotesque ironies is the fact that Saddam Hussein has argued about access to what may be 40 presidential palaces. At a time when, because of his own actions, his own people have been suffering, a dictator has no moral right to indulge in luxury for himself and to build palaces in those numbers. Saddam Hussein's record speaks for itself. Again, my hon. Friend makes the point on why we have to ensure total access to the United Nations inspectors.