If he will make a statement on the recent EU troika mission to East Timor. [48701]

At the initiative of the British presidency, EU troika ambassadors in Jakarta visited East Timor from 27 to 30 June. The purpose of the visit was to mark the EU's continuing concern about the situation in the territory, to improve our knowledge of the situation there and to support the UN search for a fair, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution to the problem. Their report was considered yesterday at the meeting of the General Affairs Council, which welcomed their initiative and their report. I record the appreciation of the House for the courage and determination of our ambassador and his colleagues in carrying out the visit in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances.

I welcome the troika's visit and look forward to reading its report. Has any pressure been put on the Indonesian Government to have a referendum in East Timor, as required by UN decolonisation rules, so that the people of East Timor can decide for themselves the kind of future that they want? Before we give any more financial assistance to Indonesia, should not one of the conditions be progress towards that referendum? It is worth pointing out to the Indonesian Government that their presence in East Timor costs $1 million a day, a sum which they can hardly afford in the circumstances.

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that it is repeatedly pointed out to Indonesia that part of the process towards financial restructuring must be political reform, and that that must go side by side with the IMF packages. With regard to the will of the people of East Timor, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the troika ambassadors' conclusion was as follows:

"It is our impression that there will be no lasting solution in East Timor without a firm commitment to some form of direct consultation of the will of the people there."

I welcome the Foreign Secretary's response to the original and the supplementary questions, but does he accept that Indonesia is the fourth largest country in the world, that it holds an important position in its part of the world and that, despite its current political and economic problems, it is a country with which we should have on-going constructive communication and contact at all times?

I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that we do do that. Only recently, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), visited Indonesia, when he met a variety of figures from Indonesian politics, including Xanana Gusmao, the imprisoned East Timorese leader. I entirely agree that Indonesia is one of the largest countries in the world and will one day will have one of the largest economies. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, in the words of the Indonesian Foreign Minister as he expressed it once to me, East Timor prevents Indonesia from taking its full and rightful place on the world stage; it is a pebble inside his shoe which limits Indonesia's place on the world stage.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that oil production is about to commence in the waters off the coast of East Timor. What steps can he take to ensure that the people of East Timor benefit from the revenues from that production rather than the Indonesian Government as a result of their illegal occupation?

The best way to ensure that the people of Indonesia benefit is to ensure that Indonesia is served by a democratic, accountable system of government. We remain in close dialogue with the Indonesian Government, pressing on them the importance of that, not just in the interests of the people of Indonesia but in the interests of the Indonesian economy.

If he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [48702]

If he will make a statement on the current position regarding the middle east peace process. [48706]

We remain committed to the Oslo process based on the principle of land for peace. Under the Oslo agreement, the third redeployment of land on the west bank to the Palestinian National Authority should take place next month. It is a worrying measure of the delay to the peace process that there is as yet no agreement on the second redeployment, far less to a third redeployment.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which goes some way to answering the question before I ask it. Many right hon. and hon. Friends in the House consider themselves to be friends of the state of Israel. That does not mean that they are always friends of the Government of the state of Israel. Will my right hon. Friend add to his comments an assurance that pressure will be put on the Palestinian National Authority to ensure that terrorist activity occurring within that organisation is stopped and that the continuing desire within the Palestinian charter for the destruction of the state of Israel no longer exists? With that continuing pressure on the Government of Israel, we can once again have momentum, and land for a lasting peace, which the whole House supports.

We are very active with the Palestinian National Authority in seeking to win the war against terrorism. That is why Britain has seconded a security adviser to the team of the European special envoy on the middle east peace process and why we were able, during my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit, to secure an agreement on security between the European Union and the Palestinian National Authority.

It looks from the outside as though the Washington peace initiative has run into the sand. Unless the Israeli Government accept the package by the end of the present Knesset session, which is I believe 29 July, it looks like staying that way. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Israeli Prime Minister's prevarications on acceptance of that package and events that have occurred recently in that region—not least of which was a serious attack on the Israeli Prime Minister by the Israeli President—have created a dangerous situation? Does he feel that it might be worth while for European leaders to try yet again to kick-start the middle east peace process?

I do not know whether the suggestion of a sitting in August would be any more welcomed in the Knesset than it would in this Chamber. All the details of the package have been known since 4 May and there can be no justification for continued prevarication in coming to a decision on that package. We have hitherto bent our efforts to ensuring that we supported the American proposals and encouraged both parties to accept those proposals. I am bound to say that I think that that was the right course because it was important that there should be no diversion from the peace process. Should we arrive at the point at which the American initiative collapses and the United States withdraws from the process, that will obviously be a point at which European and other parts of the international community will have to consider what alternative way forward there may be.

Does the Foreign Secretary remember the qualified optimism that greeted the Oslo peace accords and the feeling of admiration for the courage of Yitzak Rabin and Yasser Arafat—a feeling common both to friends of Israel and friends of Palestine alike—courage for which Yitzak Rabin ultimately paid with his life? We have come a long way since those days, have we not? Does the Foreign Secretary think that the current proposals to cede some 10 per cent. of the west bank to the Palestinians, or to expand the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, are consistent with the spirit of the Oslo agreements?

I can frankly and candidly tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that we support the United States proposal of a 13 per cent. redeployment. That in itself is a major compromise by the Palestinians, which went into those negotiations seeking a 30 per cent. redeployment and has already come down to 13 per cent., which it has accepted. To invite the Palestinian negotiators to go further would be to leave them without credibility among their own people.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the American policy on the middle east has, for the past 10 years, proved a catastrophic failure, with serious consequences for the future of peace and the stability of the middle east? Does he agree that now is the time for Britain and the European Community to take a more independent and more robust line of their own? What steps does he envisage taking down that road?

We were absolutely right to make sure that we gave every possible opportunity for the American proposal to succeed. If we had produced, over the past two months, a diversion from the American proposal which had taken away from either party the pressure to sign up to it, we would not have been serving the cause of peace in the middle east. If it becomes evident over the next week or two that there is no way forward on the American proposal, others will have to become more active, but, for the present, I am not for letting up the pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to sign up to a package which is in the interest of his people and, on the most recent opinion poll, is supported by 60 per cent. of them.

One of the positive steps that the European Union has taken is the drawing up of an interim trade agreement with Israel and with the Palestine National Authority to encourage a commitment to peace in the area. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as part of that, the European Commission is receiving monthly reports on human rights violations in the occupied territories by the Israeli Government? What action does the EU intend to take in respect of those violations, given that there is a human rights clause in the interim trade agreement?

My hon. Friend is correct; there is a human rights clause in all trading agreements reached by the EU. She is also correct to say that we monitor those agreements carefully; indeed, our embassies in Tel Aviv regularly produce a monitor on the growth of settlements in the occupied territories. We will continue that monitoring, and will certainly take action should we at any stage consider that to be appropriate.

If he will make a statement on future funding for the BBC World Service. [48703]

What recent representations he has received about the funding of the BBC World Service. [48707]

What steps he is taking through the grant-in-aid to enable the BBC World Service to provide a multimedia service. [48715]

Future funding of the World Service has been considered as part of the recent comprehensive review of public sector expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making a statement to the House shortly.

I understand what the Foreign Secretary says, but we should compare financial support from Governments for international broadcasting in the current year. The United States spends 70 per cent. more than the United Kingdom, and Germany spends 40 per cent. more. In the light of that, will the Foreign Secretary ask the Chancellor to find a bit more money to help the World Service to produce the more modern services that it wants to provide, and to keep it in its well deserved position as the leading international broadcaster in the world?

I fear that, were I to do so, I should be a little bit late in the day, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been having words in my right hon. Friend's ear for some time. Although the hon. Gentleman rightly produced the relative spending figures, we should take pride in the fact that, despite the United States spending much more, the audience of the BBC World Service is double that of Voice of America—it is by far the most successful of the examples that he listed.

As one of many British insomniacs who listen to the World Service every night, may I say how much I appreciate its independence of mind and the unique quality of the service? Long may it continue, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be the necessary financial provision to achieve that and to keep the World Service apart from commercial pressures? Does he remember that the World Service faced a cut of £20 million under the previous Conservative Government, which only sustained pressure from the Labour party managed to avert?

Regrettably, we did not save the World Service from a 5 per cent. cut during the last Parliament. I think that the House will wait with interest to see what contrast is revealed this afternoon.

I know from his earlier answers that my right hon. Friend considers the BBC World Service to be one of the country's most important resources, and that he will not allow the damage to be repeated.

My hon. Friend has raised a serious issue—the importance, in the modern media world, of the World Service moving with the times. Because of that, we have listened carefully to its proposals for increased digital transmission, and for the provision of an on-line service on the internet. It is important for the World Service to be available on the most modern outlets.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that one of the legacies of the last Government is that the BBC World Service now has more listeners than not only Voice of America, but of Deutsche Welle and Radio Moscow's world service combined? Will he confirm that the current number of vernacular services will continue, and—just for the record—will he tell us exactly how many foreign languages are broadcast on the BBC World Service?

More than 40 vernacular services are provided.

Congratulations.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's congratulations; but his preening would be more justified if we had not inherited a World Service that had been cut throughout the last Parliament, and if I had not inherited from the last Administration a public spending plan that did not contain one penny for the Oman transmitter, which is the World Service's largest single capital project.

What reports he has received on the killing of street children in Brazil. [48704]

I receive regular updates on the subject of street children, and have raised the matter directly with the Brazilian authorities on a number of occasions, most recently on 7 July.

I take it that the Minister will share my concern about the apparent further eruption of shooting of street children. Is he aware of the fear of those who work among them that some of it is being carried out by off-duty police officers, and does he know whether the authorities have taken action against those officers?

As I said, I have raised the issue with the national secretary for human rights, Dr. Gregori, who was in Britain last week. He has told me, on that and other occasions, that one of the first actions of the secretariat for human rights when it was established in 1997 was to study the role of the military police, and in particular their responsibility for the killing of street children.

Is the Minister aware that, in a recent parliamentary answer, the Secretary of State for International Development said that 250 million children in this world of ours—that is an astonishing figure—work for wages or act as pickpockets or prostitutes? Is he further aware that, during their time in government, the Conservatives consistently and continually opposed reference of such child labour issues to the World Trade Organisation? Does he agree with me that that places them firmly in the camp of the exploiters, and not on the side of the exploited?

My hon. Friend is right to say that failing to protect children and to provide a proper legal framework nationally and internationally is not acceptable. Those who were responsible for such matters should seriously examine how that was allowed to happen. However, that contrasts with the role that the present Government have played. My hon. Friend will probably be aware that the Secretary of State has been instrumental in ensuring that the issue of child prostitution has been kept at the top of the agenda internationally. Those discussions will be taken forward yet again this year with a view to ensuring that those who commit the crime of abusing young children through prostitution are brought to justice in this country, and globally.

If he will make a statement on relations with India and Pakistan following their recent decision to place a moratorium on future nuclear tests. [48705]

It is important that both countries now respond to the requirements of the international community, particularly to refrain from developing nuclear weapon systems and to adhere to the global non-proliferation regime without conditions. As a step towards meeting those requirements, we welcome the moratoriums on nuclear testing.

India and Pakistan are our friends and allies. Every one of us should have a feeling of guilt that we left those countries with unresolved nightmares, of which Kashmir is only one. Will the Foreign Secretary make it abundantly clear that he will use all his power to seek to resolve these nations' problems with the international community, especially in view of the fact that they are now making a positive response by placing an embargo on future tests? Will Britain do its best?

I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says today about our efforts to try to resolve the problem of Kashmir, although I would have welcomed such sentiments when this matter was discussed last November following the remarks that I am alleged to have made on Kashmir. The international committee attaches the highest importance to trying to resolve the source of the tensions between India and Pakistan. This is primarily a matter for the parties in the first instance, and they must try to find a solution that is acceptable to all the people of Kashmir—whether Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim. However, if they require the support of the international community, I am sure that it will be forthcoming.

Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to continue to express to his opposite numbers in Pakistan and in India the real concerns felt by our constituents when those countries carried out nuclear tests? Will he reinforce the message that, rather than increase their country's security, they led to a much less stable south-east Asia, and lowered the standing of both countries within the international community?

Any observer of the situation involving the two countries is bound to conclude that the tests have increased tension rather than increased security. The tragedy is that the tests have given fresh impetus to the voice of extremism, and not to the voice of moderation.

Does the Foreign Secretary consider it a matter of concern that the Foreign Office did not seem to have any intelligence or forewarning of the recent Indian nuclear tests?

It is a matter of concern, not only to us, but to our partners. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot say anything further on intelligence matters.

What recent meetings he has had with other Commonwealth countries regarding Sierra Leone. [48708]

I discussed Sierra Leone at the most recent meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group on 2 and 3 March. I then took part in a CMAG mission to Sierra Leone on 31 March with colleagues from Zimbabwe, Ghana, Canada and Malaysia.

When my hon. Friend next meets Commonwealth Ministers, will he tell them that a debate that was staged last week on Sierra Leone—one of those great parliamentary occasions that was much heralded—turned out to be a damp squib? It seems that the caravan and the barking dogs of the Opposition have moved on and are encamped on Derek Draper's doorstep.

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I mention only in passing last week's debate. I might tell my colleagues in the ministerial action group that, although the Opposition wanted to enter a narrow blind alley in that debate, the reality of Sierra Leone is continuing murder, mutilation and torture of innocent civilians by the Revolutionary United Force rebels. The world might think that that was a far more serious issue for Britain and British foreign policy. We look forward to the Opposition joining in a serious debate about the future of all the people of Sierra Leone, including those who will have to overcome the memories of the torture, the horror that so far the Opposition have failed to mention.

Can the Minister say whether the report by Sir Thomas Legg will be published before the recess?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to know, the Legg report is an independent one. Not long ago, Sir Thomas Legg wrote to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee advising him that he still hoped that the report would be with the Secretary of State by the time that Parliament rises.

What consultation he plans to have with other EU countries on proposals for Agenda 2000 relating to EU enlargement. [48709]

What consultations he plans to hold with other European Union countries on Agenda 2000 in respect of EU enlargement. [48719]

The Cardiff European council agreed to adopt the Agenda 2000 proposals by June 1999. In the meantime, Agenda 2000 and European Union enlargement will be the key issue in my regular contacts with my European colleagues.

I welcome the rapid progress towards admitting the five central and eastern European accession countries to the European Union. Does my hon. Friend agree that, just as the EU should be regarded by British companies as their home market, so should Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Estonia? Is he aware that, in terms of export performance and direct foreign investment, Britain compares badly with Germany, France and many other EU countries? In conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry, will he consider what further steps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can take specifically to target those accession countries so that we can assist and encourage British businesses to do more work there?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because it is pertinent to the whole enlargement issue. Enlargement offers an enormous opportunity to British exporters. Those new marketplaces can create a huge number of jobs in Britain, but that will happen only if we take the opportunity that is open to us. A priority of my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry is to try to stimulate British interests, not only in exports, but in investment in those areas.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, while enlargement of the European Union is broadly welcome, at least on this side of the House, it must be accompanied by reform of the common agricultural policy? The previous Government ignored such reform, and cost us millions of pounds as a consequence. Does he agree that we must reduce the proportion of the European Union budget that is used for the common agricultural policy, and that that must be at the core of the Government's programme and their policy on enlargement?

My hon. Friend is right. In the long term, it is essential that the objective that he has identified is attained by the European Union. He is also right to highlight the fact that, over all the years of Conservative government, there was no progress on reform of the agricultural policy. We have better relations with our European counterparts and we shall be able to take advantage of the opportunity to negotiate. The Commission has presented reform proposals on cereals, dairy products and beef, which will potentially save British consumers £1 billion a year. That is a highly desirable objective, and it is a top priority in the negotiations.

Does the Minister support the view of the Austrian Foreign Minister, Mr. Schüssel, that negotiations on the process of enlargement should be accelerated? Will he give every support to the Austrians in their view that significant progress can be made on common agricultural policy reform during their presidency?

It is important for the management of the European Union that there should be continuity between one presidency and the next. I hope that we established good continuity with our Austrian friends. The priorities identified by the hon. Gentleman are priorities of the Austrian Government, which we support.

Does the Minister agree with the Financial Times that

"failure to inject momentum into reforms"

"most dispiriting aspect"

"looking more problematic than it did a year ago"?

I do not mind taking criticism where criticism is due, but, on the matter of taking the process of EU enlargement down the track, the Government played a crucial role in making sure that speedy progress was made. That is acknowledged by all our partners in the EU, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find if he speaks to them. An important European conference took place in March, which was described by the Romanian European Minister as an historic day. That feeling was shared by all the countries of central and eastern Europe.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the British Council on the work that it is doing, building relationships with key members of the communities in the accession countries? Does he agree that it is enormously to the benefit of the United Kingdom and our partners in the European Union for us to take a leading role in building those relationships in the accession countries?

My hon. Friend is right. I want to put on record the important role that the British Council plays in building relationships not with Governments or even with Opposition parties, but with the people and institutions of those countries. Such progress on the ground pays back rewards in the future. That is why it is essential that it continues to be a top priority of the British Council.

What discussions his Department has held with the Nigerian regime about restoring democracy to that country. [48710]

I visited Nigeria on 25 and 26 June. I had a constructive meeting with General Abubakar. I reiterated our support for an early restoration of democratic civilian rule and called for the release of Chief Abiola, whose death is particularly tragic when we believed that his release had been imminent. I also called for the release of all other detainees and for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights special rapporteur to visit Nigeria.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should continue with the arms embargo on Nigeria? Will he confirm that British companies—certainly some companies—were arming Nigerian troops when they were in Sierra Leone? What is he doing to make sure that Sir Thomas Legg looks into the matter? That clearly was a breach of an arms embargo to a regime that we all condemn.

Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman that the common position of the European Union, including the arms embargo, is still in force and will continue until we see the return of Nigeria to civilian government and the release of all political detainees. Those have been the common demands of the entire European Union. Although we have no knowledge of British companies arming Nigerian troops in Sierra Leone as part of the ECOMOG forces, that would not be in breach of the EU arms embargo. The embargo is specific to the territory of Nigeria and as such would not be a matter that arose as a breach—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.!"] Opposition Members may find that difficult to understand, but it is a simple statement of the legal position.

Can my hon. Friend tell me what steps the British Government took to verify the cause of death of Chief Abiola? Can he give an idea of the steps that he intends to take to help secure the early release of other detainees? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that commercial interests will be put second to human rights interests in Nigeria?

Let me take the final part of my hon. Friend's question first. The difference between this Government and the previous Government is that our policy on Nigeria has always been pursued as one about principle and about the need for restoration of democratic forms of government. That will continue now and in the indefinite future, because it is what the Nigerian people want and deserve.

There is no doubt that the whole House wishes to see Nigeria return to stable and democratic government. To that end, the British Council has been playing an important role through its good governance programme. Its programmes included supporting organisations trying to reduce and expose corruption, training and informing human rights workers, and conflict management training, which has even resulted in getting opponents around the table for the first time since four years ago when they were killing each other. Does the Minister agree that that work is invaluable and that failure to sustain the budget of the British Council in that region could severely jeopardise progress towards democracy? Can he give the House a guarantee that there will be no reductions to that vital budget and no fiddling of the figures to try to present a glossy picture in the spending review?

I find it astonishing that an Opposition Member should talk about cuts in the British Council budget after the damage that the previous Government inflicted on the work of the British Council on a global basis. It is truly astonishing that the hon. Lady should have the gall to come to the Dispatch Box with that statement. However, the hon. Lady, like the whole House, must wait with patience to hear the statement from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in just a few minutes. I hope that, at the end of that statement, she will have the good grace to be fulsome in her congratulations and to reflect on her need to criticise the actions of her colleagues when they were in government.

When he will next meet his European counterparts to discuss EU relations with developing countries. [48711]

I discuss aspects of the EU's relations with developing countries at most meetings of the General Affairs Council. The next General Affairs Council will be on 5 October.

The European Union has a very proud record of support for black independence and the anti-apartheid movement in southern Africa. Those emerging countries depend for their continuing success on developing successful trading conditions. Can the Minister tell me what Britain is doing positively within the European Community to develop fair trading agreements within Europe as an economic community and with the countries of the Southern African Development Community?

Essentially, we are doing two things. First, where we can, we are supporting bilateral arrangements between the European Union and countries in southern Africa. We have pushed firmly over the past six months to try to conclude an agreement with South Africa, urging that more flexibility be shown. Secondly, we have taken action on the Lomé agreement, which relates to trade matters and other related matters between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

Does the European Union support a Nigerian being appointed to head the Sierra Leone army?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, although I am not quite sure how it relates to the main question. I shall look into the matter and come back to him on it.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity when meeting his EU counterparts to mention the increasingly worrying situation in Western Sahara? Morocco seems to be taking every opportunity that it can to obstruct—it is hellbent on objecting to—the Western Sahara referendum. Will he guarantee the House and assure the Saharawi people of Western Sahara that we shall not allow Morocco to foil the long-awaited referendum process in Western Sahara, and that we shall push our EU counterparts to ensure that that referendum takes place as soon as possible?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and hope to reassure her that we shall be doing everything we can to support the Baker process, which is trying to improve the situation in countries that are crucial in the relationship between the European Union and the ACP group.

In the light of evidence of disruption of the Togo elections by President Eyadéma, and the European Union observer's report that the Togo Government wrongly stopped counting in the middle of that election, will the Minister discuss with his European counterparts what measures would be appropriate to take to bring Togo back to a democratic path?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall do what we can about the matter by raising it at the European Union African working group. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who deals with Africa matters, has been in contact with the opposition parties in Togo. We are hoping that that contact will help to create a situation in which stability can be established.

If he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to provide increased public information on the decision-making process in the European Union. [48712]

We made good progress during our presidency of the European Union to make EU decision making more open—for example, by an agreement to establish a public register of Council documents. We shall continue to push for greater openness—for example, in measures to be drawn up for implementation of the relevant provisions of the treaty of Amsterdam.

I thank the Minister for that response, and welcome the real progress that was made during the British presidency. Will he urge his Austrian colleagues to continue making greater transparency in European decision making a priority? Specifically, more Council of Minister meetings have to be opened up to the press and public. Will he also endorse the developing practice in the House of Ministers appearing before Select Committees both before and after Council of Minister meetings? Such measures will bring greater legitimacy to the decision-making process in Europe.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that Hansard will show that Ministers from my Department have attended Select Committee sittings on many occasions—and on more occasions than our predecessors in the previous Government. We take seriously that form of scrutiny and accountability.

In their half-time presidency report, the Government described one of their key achievements as

"a seminar of government press officers"

"Did you know that Britain had a Minister for Europe? Do you know his name?"

The hon. Gentleman should by now have learnt not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers, and perhaps not even everything that he reads on the internet. The internet is a modern form of communication. It might not be terribly open to hon. Members, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that most young people in this country use it. That is why it is important that we maximise the information about the European Union and, for that matter, other issues of parliamentary interest on the internet.

Will my hon. Friend ignore those silly comments from that member of the Opposition Front-Bench team, and agree that the internet is a very powerful tool for communication with the parliamentarians of Europe, of whom there are nearly 5,000? Will he take some interest in the group of parliamentarians entitled Interparle, which is actively campaigning and putting together a programme that will provide access, information and knowledge, as it is those things that will strengthen the European Union?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will accept that my main answer covered the matters that he raises. I found it amusing the other day that, when I told a European Union ambassador that I was going to meet another ambassador from the European Union after my meeting with him, he said that he knew I was, because it was on the internet.

If he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [48713]

The situation in Kosovo remains tense and there is a real risk of further deterioration, unless there is serious political dialogue between both sides.

Bearing in mind the imperative of preventing Kosovo from declining into a second Bosnia, will the Foreign Secretary say what concrete progress the British Government and the European Union have made in the pressure exerted so far on the Serbian president, Mr. Milosevic? Does he believe that other leaders, especially perhaps President Yeltsin of the Russian Federation, can play a constructive part in helping to achieve a politically brokered solution in Kosovo?

The hon. Lady asks about the practical steps that we have taken. We have imposed an arms embargo, a visa ban and an export credit moratorium; we have frozen the funds held abroad by both Serbia and the Former Republic of Yugoslavia Government; and we have now introduced a ban on flights by the Serbian airlines. If the hon. Lady has any ideas to add to that list, we would willingly accept them.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Government's policy of limited autonomy for Kosovo is still tenable, given that months of Serb aggression in that province mean that a growing majority of Kosovars will settle for little less than full independence?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, if President Milosevic had responded to our urging three months ago to enter into negotiations for meaningful autonomy, we might well have been able to achieve a solution which, frankly, might have been more acceptable in Belgrade than anything that is likely to be agreed now. However, we have to be extremely careful about endorsing any demand for independence, because of the wider impact on the region. If we concede independence in Kosovo, how do we resist those who are demanding independence for the Republika Srpska in Bosnia, which would defeat both the Government's policy and that of the previous Administration?

Ultimately, will not self-determination be the only democratic road to peace? As the Government believe in self-determination as the correct justification for our role in the Falkland Islands and for the majority will to prevail in Northern Ireland, how can they set their face against self-determination as a potential cure for the insidious conflict that prevails in Kosovo?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take a stand on democracy, let me remind him that, only two months ago, Dr. Rugova was re-elected by the overwhelming majority of the Kosovo people in a ballot that the Kosovo Liberation Army urged them to ignore and despite a boycott that they chose to ignore. Dr. Rugova and those around him have repeatedly made it clear that they are willing to enter into negotiations without precondition.

I share my right hon. Friend's concern that any move towards independence for Kosovo could lead to greater ethnic-based conflicts in Europe. Following a previous question, does he agree that every effort must be made to persuade Russia that it is in its best interests to end the continued conflict in Kosovo, that it has a crucial role to play in achieving a peace settlement and that, in the long term, peace and prosperity for the Russian people and for Europe can best be achieved by Russia and NATO working in partnership?

I assure my hon. Friend that we lose no opportunity to urge those views on Russia. Russia well understands that its own interests in the Balkans will not be served by supporting one regime that is increasingly isolated there.

On 10 March, the Foreign Secretary said that President Milosevic had been given 10 days to withdraw paramilitary forces from Kosovo. On 7 April, he said:

"we are determined that Belgrade should stop behaving as it is in Kosovo".—[Official Report, 7 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 146.]

"Mr. Milosevic should back down and he should back down now. This is his last warning."

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at what has happened in Kosovo since 8 June, he will find that President Milosevic has not returned to the major military offensive that he was conducting then, which rendered 50,000 people homeless in a single week. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman really wants progress in Kosovo—and I am not clear from his question whether he does—he should not suggest to President Milosevic that the warnings of NATO and the Contact Group of the United Nations are empty threats.

If he will list his proposals for the reform of the European Union's institutions. [48714]

What proposals he is putting forward to reform the European Union's institutions. [48718]

At this stage, the Government have no formal proposals for reform of the institutions. However, we are examining future developments in the European Union and how Britain should approach them.

Is not Britain's gross domestic product per head now the fourth lowest in the European Union? Does my hon. Friend accept that the reform of the European structural funds must fully reflect the structural problems in the United Kingdom? What reassurance can he give areas such as South Yorkshire that there will be an increase in the United Kingdom's take of European structural funds in general and an increase in objective 1 funding in particular?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. If we are to proceed with the enlargement of the European Union, structural funds must be available to help the economies of central and eastern Europe to develop. That will augur well for our exports. The rest of the funding available to the European Union has to be allocated among the existing member states. A fair solution must be reached, taking account of priorities such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned in South Yorkshire.

Is not one reason why the Conservatives failed to deliver any significant reform of EU political institutions the intemperate and extreme language used by the present shadow Foreign Secretary and his colleagues on most matters European? Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will continue to press for measures to improve the environment in areas such as the common agricultural policy?

My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that the House realises that a Government cannot negotiate with their EU partners unless they have established a relationship. Each country emphasises its priorities, and, through a process of negotiation, deals have to be reached for the European Union. Those involved must be committed to the European Union and feel that a fair settlement has been reached. That is vital for reform of the common agricultural policy, to which I have already referred.