If he will restore full British citizenship to residents of the island of St. Helena. [64585]

The issue of British citizenship for all residents of United Kingdom overseas territories who do not already have it is being considered as part of our review of policy towards the overseas territories. The issue will be covered in the overseas territories White Paper, which we expect to publish soon.

I am sure that we all welcome the early publication of the White Paper, but can the Minister give any reason why the 5,500 citizens of St. Helena should not have restored to them the full British citizenship that the islanders enjoyed for more than 300 years, before the Conservative Government withdrew it in 1981? Surely the islanders deserve an early return to full British citizenship.

Hear, hear.

I am very pleased to hear members of the official Opposition cheering on the hon. Gentleman. When all is said and done, it was they who took away that right from the St. Helenians, and he is absolutely right about that. I think that he would be happy to acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it very clear for a long time that the issue of citizenship will be treated constructively and sympathetically, but I must tell the House, and those outside who show a keen interest in the matter, that it is still, I am afraid, necessary to wait for the White Paper, which will be published soon.

While the Minister is considering citizenship for the St. Helenians, will he also recognise that they have grave concerns about their transport links? Is he aware that, in order to attend a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference—which hon. Members of all parties attended, including me—a delegate from the St. Helena Parliament had to travel for three and a half weeks by ship to Cardiff? Even more urgently than citizenship, the people of St. Helena need an airstrip.

It may be that, in this case, the people of St. Helena speak for themselves better than the hon. Gentleman speaks for them; when they meet me and other Members of Parliament, they may say that transportation is important, but citizenship is always the issue that they raise first. A review of transportation links is taking place. All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman, and through him to the House and the world, is that the most important thing is to ensure that there is adequate communication. The existing ship that sails regularly to St. Helena must be a long-term part of the island's transportation structure, and we want to do nothing to threaten the viability of that sea route.

Is my hon. Friend alluding to the charge that many of us made against the then Government, that in 1981 the citizens of St. Helena and other dependent territories were treated cynically as pawns, to ensure that that Government did not face continuing embarrassment over large influxes into the United Kingdom of residents of Hong Kong when Britain was negotiating the handover of that territory?

My hon. Friend castigates the official Opposition in their former role as the Government better than I can, but I can assure him that their days in government are now receding rapidly into the past and that it will be a long time before the British people give that failed party any credence and trust them again with the onerous burden of government.

What assessment he has made of the prospects for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe verification mission in Kosovo.[64586]

The courage and commitment of the Kosovo verification mission have brought stability to the lives of many in Kosovo by brokering local ceasefires and assisting in the return of refugees. It was months before the world knew the full truth about the massacre in Srebrenica. Thanks to the Kosovo verification mission, we had clear, accurate and reliable information within 24 hours of the atrocity at Racak, and as a result we were able to secure immediate universal condemnation of the massacre.

In planning the way forward, is the Foreign Secretary aware of one of the lessons of the Bosnia experience, that persuasion by itself achieves little and that the threat of force, to be effective, must be matched by a willingness to use it?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I said to the House yesterday, the NATO planes remain on 96-hour notice and the actord—activation order—remains in force and requires only one political decision to trigger it. We showed last time that we had a credible threat of military force, or we would not have secured the agreement. We are now determined that President Milosevic will honour the agreements that he made.

Is it not clear that President Milosevic has broken every undertaking and assurance given to the International War Crimes Tribunal? Is it not evident that he has no intention of co-operating? What positive action can be taken to punish his flagrant violations?

General Clark and General Naumann, the two top North Atlantic Treaty Organisation generals, are currently in Belgrade for discussions with President Milosevic. They will report tomorrow to the North Atlantic Council, which will consider appropriate steps in the light of any assurances that President Milosevic gives. I echo my hon. Friend's reference to the International War Crimes Tribunal: it is vital that it is given access to Kosovo so that it may carry out an independent investigation of what was plainly an atrocious war crime.

It is clear, is it not, that, but for the presence of the official monitors, the sort of events that occurred last weekend in Kosovo might have been repeated elsewhere on many occasions? When General Wesley Clark talks to Mr. Milosevic today, does he do so with the full political and military authority of NATO? In particular, can the Foreign Secretary assure us that military planning for every eventuality is occurring, covering all options including deployment of troops on the ground?

I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that General Clark has the full authority of NATO; he is, after all, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and he went at the request of the North Atlantic Council following its meeting on Sunday. General Clark's mission carries the full authority of NATO.

A uniformed police force in Europe is murdering its own citizens in cold blood with the full support of its Government. Like the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), I had hoped to have seen the last of that sort of thing in Bosnia, and that lessons had been learnt from that conflict. As President Milosevic has comprehensively reneged on the agreement that he made with Richard Holbrooke, can we rely on NATO to take whatever steps may be necessary to degrade or restrain the forces that are perpetrating atrocities?

My hon. Friend can certainly have an assurance that NATO remains fully engaged, fully prepared and fully ready to take whatever action is judged to be necessary. I must remind him that, as has been said already, the presence of the verification mission in Kosovo has prevented such atrocities from occurring much more often than they have. Were we to contemplate going down the road towards military action, the first thing that we would have to consider would be the withdrawal of that verification mission.

Has not the situation in Kosovo deteriorated, even since the Foreign Secretary's statement at the Dispatch Box yesterday? The Prime Minister's official spokesman was quoted yesterday as saying that there was little scope for early military action. How can that be reconciled with the statement of a State Department spokesman that NATO would very quickly have to make a decision to use force? How can it be reconciled with the repeated threats of force made by the Foreign Secretary? Does the presence of the verification mission not imply that action will be taken if the mission is not allowed to do its job? What action will be taken if President Milosevic refuses to submit to the demands made by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, and repeated today?

First, I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday and discussed with him with great gravity the options available to us. As I said yesterday, NATO has sent its two top generals to Belgrade to repeat to President Milosevic our demands for full compliance. President Milosevic knows full well what NATO had prepared last time round in October when military action was prepared. The actord that authorised the commanders to carry out that action remains in force. It requires only one decision of the North Atlantic Council to start the process, and the council will meet tomorrow to hear the report of the two generals.

When he last met his colleagues from other member states of the European Union to discuss matters relating to enlargement.[64588]

Enlargement is a regular theme during my meetings with colleagues from other European Union member states. EU Foreign Ministers discussed enlargement issues at each of the General Affairs Councils during the Austrian presidency in 1998.

In view of the shenanigans in Strasbourg last week, the failure of the Commission to deal with fraud and the need to reform the common agricultural policy comprehensively, should not Ministers of member states agree to offer an honest and realistic assessment of the timetable for accession? Do not applicant states deserve that honesty? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of the special European Council in March to persuade her colleagues to be as honest as possible, because there is no chance of those countries coming into the EU within the next 10 years?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we have to be honest in our dealings with the applicant countries. I also believe that we must respect the timetables that the European Union has set itself for the reforms that it needs to conclude by March and the March deadline set by the European Parliament for action on fraud by the Commission.

Does the right hon. Lady recall the first sentence of the communiqué agreed at the Vienna summit:

"European integration has gained new momentum"?

When the hon. Gentleman asks questions in the House, he always seems keen to overlook the fact that the Maastricht treaty was concluded under the stewardship of a Conservative Government, as was the single market, which represented a big step forward. If he is against the single market, he will find few allies in the House. The Vienna conclusions to which he referred are worth while and show the areas of agreement between European countries, which are very much in the interests of the citizens of this country and of citizens throughout the EU.

What progress has been made in discussions between the Government of Turkey and the European Commission on drawing up an understanding of what Turkey needs to do to fulfil conditions for an approach to membership of the EU?

It is clear that Turkey would need to meet the criteria that all other countries need to meet if they are to become part of the European Union. Those include important economic criteria and important political criteria relating to democracy and human rights.

Does the Minister accept that, after enlargement, countries that come into the EU will take a substantial share of its structural funds? In those circumstances, does that not put additional pressure on us in the period up to 2006 to maximise the benefit that comes to the countries of the United Kingdom from those funds? Can she assure us that the Government are turning every stone to achieve that?

Indeed; I believe that the Government have already negotiated with a good degree of success on the retention of structural funds, in particular the use of objective 1 funds, which are likely to go to additional areas in the UK. That is important. Also, we have to prepare adequately for enlargement and to recognise the financial responsibilities that all EU countries have to make that enlargement process a success. The long-term economic benefits of enlargement will be considerable.

Will the Minister's Department audit ministerial visits to the principal applicant countries of the European Union, as compared with those of Ministers from our EU counterparts? Does she realise that the United Kingdom, both under this Government and the previous Administration, is insufficiently engaged in terms of ministerial visits to applicant countries in central Europe? The United Kingdom does not compare favourably when one considers the visits made by German Chancellors or French Prime Ministers and Presidents. I hope that that will change.

I do not accept that there are insufficient ministerial contacts. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has visited several applicant countries in recent months. I assure my hon. Friend that we wish to ensure the best possible co-ordination of ministerial visits. [Interruption.] I am trying to give the House some information, which is difficult because it is, unfortunately, wasted on Conservative Members. Through the co-ordination committee that I chair, we seek to co-ordinate ministerial visits to make maximum use of our contacts, not only with existing European Union countries but, very importantly, with the applicant countries.

Can the right hon. Lady clarify whether candidate countries are to be required to join the economic and monetary union? Would that not erect further hurdles in their path? Can she confirm—I understand that she was at the relevant meeting—that the Foreign Secretary recently described the Government's approach to the euro as unsustainable?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point is not correct. On his earlier point, the candidate countries express great interest in belonging to the euro zone, but the conditions for them will be negotiated during the current accession negotiations. We are keen to ensure that their conclusion represents a good balance between the European Union's interests and those of the applicant countries.

If he will make a statement on the middle east peace process following the Wye agreement.[64589]

If he will make a statement on action by the British Government to support the middle east peace process. [64593]

We believe that the Wye agreement offers the best way forward in the middle east peace process. We are deeply concerned by the decision of the Government of Israel to freeze progress on its implementation. Both sides should abide by the commitments that they entered into at Wye and refrain from unilateral acts that undermine it. Both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority would benefit from progress on the peace. Both should now demonstrate an equal commitment to it.

Assuming that the Palestinians declare statehood on the intended date, what will the Government's reaction be?

I have just told the House that we would call on both sides to refrain from unilateral acts that would undermine the peace process. I fully understand the frustration in the Palestinian Authority about the fact that 4 May is the terminal date of the Oslo process. It was anticipated that the final stages would have been resolved by then. It remains the view of Britain that all options should be available through self-government decisions by the Palestinian people, not excluding the option of an independent state. However, we would hope that such progress could be achieved through the peace process and not by unilateral action.

Since the Wye agreement was signed at the end of October, 251 Palestinian political prisoners have been detained by the Israeli Government. The Israelis have confiscated a further 3,000 acres of Palestinian land and accelerated the building of Jewish housing on it. What action are the British Government taking to represent to the Israelis that those activities must cease and that their unilateral suspension of the Wye agreement until after the Israeli general election in May is incredibly unhelpful, and not what one would expect of a state that has signed a binding agreement?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, if the Israeli Government wish to make progress with the peace process, they must carry out the implementation of the peace agreement that they agreed at the Wye Plantation talks.

Given the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to an ethical foreign policy, does he agree that, in the light of Israeli obduracy, a continuing and monstrous injustice is being done to the Palestinians? Accordingly, does he not consider that it is about time we decoupled ourselves from the pointless, fatuous and ineffective middle east policy of the United States of America, to whose coat tails we continue to hang in that department; and that we should try to create a sensible, pragmatic, European policy that we can follow with pride and good sense?

The hon. Gentleman addresses the House with his characteristic robustness and trenchancy. Of course, we shall continue to explore, with our European colleagues, what helpful initiatives can be taken by Europe.

Do not bother.

The hon. Gentleman tells me not to bother, but Europe is underpinning the peace process with funding. If it was not for Europe putting that money behind the peace process, the process would have crumbled long ago. It little befits him to say that we should not bother to keep the peace process in being.

What recent discussions he has had with the Government of India on the future of Kashmir.[64590]

We regularly discuss Kashmir with representatives of India and Pakistan.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have welcomed the talks that took place at the end of last year between the Pakistan and Indian Governments and the confidence-building measures that resulted. Will he assure me that the British Government will be prepared to accept a solution in Jammu and Kashmir only if it has actually been put to the people of Jammu and Kashmir?

My hon. Friend is right to say that we welcomed the talks that took place last year, and we look forward to the next round of talks in February. We hope that those talks will deal with the crucial issues between India and Pakistan and there is no more important issue between those two countries than the future of Kashmir. I agree with my hon. Friend that any future agreement reached between India and Pakistan will stand only if it has popular support.

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that problems over Kashmir have arisen only because Britain pulled out of India six months earlier than agreed, under a previous Labour Administration. Does he agree that we therefore have an important responsibility in respect of the future of Kashmir, because the people of Kashmir have always been denied an opportunity to decide their own destiny? The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the existence of the Simla agreement and, when he last answered questions in the House on Kashmir, he said that Pakistan would be happy for Britain to take part—perhaps as chairman—in discussions under the provisions of the Simla agreement. However, we still await a view from India on the matter. Has the right hon. Gentleman raised the subject in his discussions with the Indians, and is there any hope that Britain could act as an independent chairman to bring the two sides closer together and to get agreement over Kashmir, as provided under the Simla agreement?

Both the Indian and Pakistan Governments feel that the best way to make immediate progress on all their bilateral relations is for them to engage in talks. If, at any stage, the two countries told the United Kingdom that we could play a responsible and constructive role, we should be happy to do so. Both Governments know that.

When he plans to introduce tape recording of interviews by entry clearance offices at overseas posts. [64591]

In accordance with the recommendation of the recent Foreign Affairs Committee's fourth report on entry clearance operations, the Department is planning a pilot project. Preparations are under way for the pilot system to be installed as soon as practicable in the financial year 1999–2000.

I welcome that news, as some hon. Members have pressed for such a project for a long time. Can the Minister confirm that the pilot will cover the full range of interviews, including interviews for settlement and visits? Will he confirm also that the pilot's time scale will be as short as possible so that we can evaluate the findings and look at extending it to other posts? Can the Minister give us any idea of which posts will be considered for pilot projects? Will he take into consideration the number of problems and complaints that have been brought to the attention of his Department by hon. Members whose constituents have experienced difficulties in particular posts?

We have not yet decided on a post, but I welcome my hon. Friend's broad comments. We aim to keep the pilot as short as possible, but we must have an opportunity to make an effective evaluation of the way in which the pilot system works. When it comes to that assessment, we must be open to any possibilities that may flow from the pilot system. I assure my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members who have an interest in these matters that we will be open with them and will look to engage them in discussion about possible developments.

The Minister may know that I founded the Immigration Advisory Service, which plays a large part in such matters. I welcome the Minister's comments today. He knows that we introduced tape-recorded interviews into our criminal justice system to ensure fairness and protection for the defendant. Many Conservative Members believe that fairness and protection for those seeking entry to this country would also be greatly enhanced by the rapid introduction of tape-recorded interviews. I hope that they will be introduced very widely very soon.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his work with the Immigration Advisory Service. We must learn from the pilot before we move towards using extensive tape recording as a means of reaching decisions. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that may be an effective means of ensuring fairness.

I welcome the Minister's decision to start the pilot project and suggest that he chooses the Bombay post as the subject of the study. Does the Minister agree that, even with recorded interviews, unless we examine the way in which the migration and visa correspondence unit operates when taking statements, there is a risk that, because of MVCU inefficiency, those statements will never reach the applicants in this country?

My hon. Friend raised several concerns about the migration and visa correspondence unit in an Adjournment debate last week. I said at the time that we would examine those points and do all that we could to improve the unit's efficiency. My hon. Friend kindly made some complimentary comments about the work of the entry clearance staff, the burdens that they carry and the way in which they discharge them. I hear what my hon. Friend has said about Bombay and I understand his reasons for suggesting that post. However, we shall also consider other posts before taking a decision.

What assessment he has made of Iraq's compliance with United Nations resolutions.[64592]

I regret to say that Iraq persists in failing to comply with many of the requirements of Security Council resolutions. It has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and it continues with gross violations of human rights, including torture, extra-judicial killing and suppression of ethnic minorities. It has also failed to release or to provide any account of the fate of the 600 detainees removed from Kuwait.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that full and rational reply. He clearly agrees that Saddam Hussein is flagrantly ignoring his international obligations under United Nations resolutions. Does he agree also that many Arab nations are urging Saddam Hussein to work closely with the United Nations and to obey the United Nations resolutions? Even the distinguished leader of Egypt, President Mubarak, blames Saddam Hussein for the suffering of the Iraqi people.

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, Saddam Hussein has on one occasion attempted to fly planes in the no-fly zone, which produced an immediate response from us. He has repeatedly threatened the allied aircraft that are enforcing the no-fly zone. We shall continue to enforce that zone and to take necessary measures in self-defence. The House should remember that the no-fly zone is not in any way a threat to the Iraqi people; it is there to defend them against being bombed by Saddam Hussein.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I visited northern Iraq—Kurdistan—just before Christmas? I was deeply moved by the Kurds' view that Saddam Hussein, in violating United Nations Security Council resolutions 986 and 688, was mainly responsible for the suffering in Iraq. Will my right hon. Friend therefore assure me and the Kurds that the Government will take every step, particularly in the United Nations, to ensure that Saddam is not given opportunities to punish his own people further?

I can assure my right hon. Friend that I was aware of his visit to northern Iraq because it was brought to my attention at the very interesting time at which he was in the Kurdish area. I assure him and the people of that area that Britain will remain committed to making sure that Saddam cannot infringe the no-fly zone. We recognise that Saddam is sustained in power not by public opinion but by the savage, brutal repression of all those who would otherwise challenge him.

With Saddam clearly not back in his cage, as the Secretary of State promised, the need for a new approach to the Iraqi regime is now very urgent. The French and the Russians are calling for a relaxation of sanctions, which is alarming the people in northern Iraq, who fear that they may lose the oil revenues that they receive for humanitarian purposes directly from the UN escrow account and be forced, once again, to rely directly on Saddam and Baghdad.

I can repeat to the hon. Lady and the House the assurances that I have given several times—there are no sanctions against imports of food and medicines by Saddam Hussein and, in a period when he persists in saying that his people go hungry, his harvest in Iraq has increased by 15 per cent. We are certainly exploring how we can build a diplomatic consensus to isolate Saddam Hussein and we are in dialogue with France and Russia on those points.

Will the Foreign Secretary explain why the Government treat Iraq and Israel differently when they are both in breach of UN resolutions? Does he accept that the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of both those countries are outlawed by the United Nations? We know the Government's position on Iraq; will he now explain their position on Israel?

I have already this afternoon explained our position in relation to the Government of Israel and made it perfectly plain that we greatly regret their unilateral actions which undermine the peace process. If my hon. Friend is attempting to put both Governments in the same box, he should reflect on the fact that Saddam Hussein is the leader of a country in which he has himself used chemical and biological weapons. He used them extensively against his neighbour in the Iran-Iraq war and used them mercilessly against his own people in the Kurdish area where he killed 5,000 villagers when he attacked Halabja. We cannot walk away and leave a man with such a track record in possession of those weapons.

What training his Department provides to diplomats in the execution of an ethical foreign policy.[64595]

All new entrants attend a one-day human rights course. We run regular courses for other officers, with non-governmental organisation participation. New heads of mission are briefed by the head of the human rights policy department before posting. Where relevant, they are briefed by NGOs such as Amnesty International and the Save the Children Fund.

Does the Minister agree that the logic of the Government's position is that Ministers and diplomats must resist all temptation to discriminate by picking on smaller and perhaps less significant countries in respect of minor defects, because it is safe to do so, while conveniently overlooking much greater defects on the part of countries that are powerful or where major trade interests are involved? Will he remind his diplomats that in those circumstances, and in the context of the Government's general policy, they have not merely a responsibility but an obligation to draw to the authorities' attention any cases of inappropriate discrimination?

I am delighted to be able to agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. Of course it is right and proper that no distinction should be made between abuses of human rights, whether perpetrated by large or small nations. I assure him that the Government try to and succeed in maintaining a consistency of approach, whether such abuses are perpetrated by countries with which we have strong bilateral interests or by those with which we have relatively little contact.

The House must be heartened to see the sudden interest in a moral and ethical foreign policy exhibited by the Opposition. Those of us who have been here for the past 18 years certainly did not discern it in the Conservative Government's approach to some of the minor and larger Governments with whom they dealt.

My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government's record did not stand close examination in respect of human rights. That was a disgrace, not only for Parliament but for the whole nation. Since the general election, Britain's image has undergone a radical transformation abroad, precisely because of this Government's level of activity. My hon. Friend mentioned the international criminal court, but I could also mention the human rights fund, a changed policy on arms sales, support for the international tribunals in Yugoslavia and Rwanda and many more initiatives, not all of which received support from the Opposition.

Will the Minister consider it a success for the Government's ethical foreign policy if reports in this weekend's press prove to be accurate? I refer to the report that the Foreign Office assured the Chilean ambassador on Friday 16 October that nothing would happen to Senator Pinochet before 20 October, four days later. However, within 24 hours, Senator Pinochet had been arrested. The Minister will surely understand that suggestions that the senator was entrapped in Britain by the Government, deliberately or through incompetence, will do little to enhance their ethical reputation. Will the Minister now clear up that question for the House?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that he should not believe everything that he reads in the press.

Answer the question.

I intend to answer the question. Had the shadow Foreign Secretary taken the trouble to read Hansard this morning, he would have seen that it is already answered today in any case. There is absolutely no truth whatever in such suggestions. No such commitment was given either directly to Senator Pinochet or to his representatives. The House should know that we respect the rights even of Senator Pinochet, which is why his case is now before the judicial system, not the political system—a very important distinction that he did not make in Chile.

What steps he is taking to encourage democracy in Burma. [64596]

The United Kingdom is at the forefront of international action to press the Burmese regime to abandon its repressive policies and enter into dialogue with pro-democracy leaders. We supported the renewal and strengthening of the European Union common position in October and co-sponsored the United Nations General Assembly resolution in December.

I thank the Minister for that answer. How important does he feel is the role of the BBC World Service in promoting democracy in Burma? Can he reassure the House about the level of financial support being given by the Foreign Office to the BBC World Service to enable it to do that?

I know that the BBC World Service is widely respected by all those who favour and believe in democracy in Burma. We look forward to the BBC World Service continuing to play an excellent role; that is why the Government have ensured that, over the next three years, the BBC World Service will have a £44.2 million increase in funding, representing an increase of 3.8 per cent. in real terms in each of those years. That increase in real terms contrasts sharply with the 7 per cent. cut in real terms that took place during the last five years of the previous Government. The BBC World Service is valued by Labour; it was cut by the Conservative party.

I am sure that the whole House would agree that the World Service does a wonderful job, and I congratulate the Minister on what has been done for it. Is it not time for the repressive regime in Burma to be brought before an international court for the actions that it has taken against some of its citizens?

I very much appreciate the comments that the hon. Gentleman has just made about our role with the BBC World Service. As for the regime in Burma, I sympathise with the argument that he made. The regime has the worst record in the world; we continue to condemn that record. We continue to ensure that pressure builds on the regime in Burma, and we feel that it is crucial that that pressure is maintained so that we can ensure that dialogue is engaged with the pro-democracy forces.

When he next intends to discuss the Basra enclave with his US counterpart.[64598]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to discuss a Basra enclave with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, but we are in frequent contact on a wide range of Iraq-related issues, most recently on 10 January 1999.

On the question of a new approach, are the Government in principle opposed to a sanctions-free Basra enclave in southern Iraq?

My hon. Friend has advanced that idea for some time. We continue to look at ideas that will enable us to achieve our objectives of disarmament, containment and helping the people of Iraq. I am not yet convinced that my hon. Friend's notion is the best way to proceed, but we shall certainly continue to consider all ideas.

Will the Government consider a longer-term solution for the people of Basra and for the other people of Iraq? At the moment, every few months there is yet another crisis in Iraq; yet more bombs are dropped in Iraq; and yet more Iraqi people are killed. The Government have already expressed support for Indict. What steps have the Government taken at the United Nations to indict Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi war criminals, and will the Government make it their policy to support those in Basra and the rest of Iraq who wish to change the Government in Baghdad?

The hon. Gentleman is right yet again to draw attention to the record of the regime in Baghdad. In much of the current debate, the report by the UN special rapporteur on human rights, Max van der Stoel, is often overlooked, but the most recent report sets out a catalogue of human rights violations by the regime in Baghdad—a catalogue that every hon. Member should look at and remember. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the Government support the Indict campaign. It is crucial to remind the world of Saddam Hussein's record, and we shall continue to do so. It would be a perverse person indeed who did not recognise that a change of Government and change of regime in Baghdad would be in the interests of the people of Iraq.

I am pleased that the Government do not favour the Basra enclave option. Would it not lead to the beginning of the break-up of Iraq and problems over which area Basra would be associated with—for instance, with Iran? Given that Basra is the only port in Iraq, the people of Iraq, who are already in very bad economic circumstances, would be cut off from their supplies. If the enclave were established, it would look like American-British occupation.

We have always said that we want to maintain the territorial and political integrity of Iraq. My hon. Friend makes several important points in that context. We shall certainly continue to ensure the imposition of no-fly zones, which are very important to the security of people in southern and northern Iraq. To remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier, those no-fly zones are there to protect the ordinary people of Iraq, and are crucial for that reason.

What steps he is taking to assist in the re-establishment of an independent judiciary in Nigeria. [64599]

We welcome the steps that Nigeria has taken to strengthen an independent judiciary by the installation of a democratically elected Nigerian Government. Through our good governance fund, which is administered by the high commission in Lagos, we have offered support to civil society, including help for the judicial system and for lawyers specialising in human rights work.

That is no doubt a well-intended answer, but it is not a very clear one. Will the Minister clarify precisely what he means by it?

Of course I will clarify it. For example, the high commissioner in Abuja made it clear to the Nigerian Attorney-General and Minister of Justice in September that Her Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to an independent judiciary. To achieve that, we have taken steps with the chief judge of Lagos state and the Nigerian Institute for Advanced Legal Studies to modify court procedures in order to reduce the number of people on remand.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the continued failure of the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to communicate or co-operate properly with our high commission in Nigeria on consular cases? I have been trying to pursue a case of a constituent of mine who was murdered in that country. I know that there has been virtually no response from Nigerian authorities. The Nigerian Government give information to oil companies in the country, but those companies do not always—in fact, quite commonly do not—share it with our high commission. Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Nigerian Government that such a way of operating is unacceptable? Will he tell oil companies that operate in Nigeria that it is unacceptable not to share information on their employees, especially when hostage taking is involved?

The House will sympathise with my hon. Friend and, indeed, his constituents, who have suffered such a loss. We would all accept that there is a duty not simply on the Foreign Office but on Governments of countries in which British citizens are killed—indeed, murdered—to ensure not only that a full investigation is carried out, but that its results are made available to the families of the victims. If my hon. Friend wants to talk either to me or to my noble Friend Baroness Symons, I am sure that we can find ways in which to pursue the matter for him.

What measures he has taken to improve the United Kingdom's relations with Chile. [64600]

What ministerial visits to Chile are scheduled in 1999. [64602]

In recent weeks I have held meetings with both the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Foreign Minister of Chile. During the recess I met our ambassador to Santiago, who was at home on annual leave. The Chilean Foreign Minister and I remain in regular contact and we have both expressed our determination not to allow the legal process concerning Senator Pinochet to disrupt long-term relations between our countries.

What engenders in our natural friends such a profound antipathy towards Her Majesty's Government—an antipathy that is widespread in official circles, but not among the Chilean population? Is it because the Government regard Chile as a country very far away, of which they know extremely little and care even less? Is it because the Government have a predisposition to neo-colonialist interference in other nations' internal affairs? Or is it because the Government have acquired their knowledge of Chile from National Union of Students broadsheets of some 25 years ago?

When Mr. Insulza, the Chilean Foreign Minister, left the meeting that he had with me, he said that he fully understood the position taken by the British Government. There was no great antipathy there. As regards the opinion of the people of Chile, last month 44 per cent. said they believed that Senator Pinochet's detention in the United Kingdom was a good thing, and 45 per cent. said that it was bad. There was no massive antipathy there.

May I take it from the Foreign Secretary's failure to list any future visits to Chile that he now acknowledges that relations between the United Kingdom and foreign countries are best served and improved when he and his colleagues stay at home, rather than jumping on to Concorde or private jets? Will he acknowledge that, given the Government's admission that British companies are losing business and contracts in Chile, and given the assessment that the trial of General Pinochet could cost the British taxpayer more than £30 million, breaking even the record of the Maxwell brothers, it would have been better to send General Pinochet back home to face due process in his own country, rather than subject the United Kingdom to this expensive and damaging circus?

Let us be quite plain about what the hon. Gentleman is asking. He is asking the Government to defy the courts and end due legal process. He is asking us to set aside a legally proper and properly submitted request for extradition from the Spanish authorities. Yes, it may well cost us some money to meet that extradition requirement. The standard basis on which the financial cost of extradition proceedings is met is exactly the same as it was under the Conservative Government: we meet the extradition costs for applications to our country, and Spain meets the extradition costs for applications that we make to Spain. If we expect Spain to honour that, we must honour our side of the bargain.

Will the Foreign Secretary take some time to look through the archives in the Foreign Office, and reveal all the documentation available to him about the relationship between past Conservative Governments and the fascist organisations in Chile, and in particular any documentation relating to Operation Condor, under which General Pinochet and Argentinian generals hunted down and assassinated Orlando Letelier, General Prats and others, and a British citizen, William Beausire, was hijacked out of Argentina and subsequently died in Chile? Does the Foreign Secretary accept that revealing everything that we know will help the process of restoring human rights and putting on record the truth of what happened in Chile during the terrible years from 1973 to 1990?

I cannot enter into discussion of the substance of the matter that is currently before the courts. In response to my hon. Friend's plea for full disclosure, may I say that we stand ready to assist the courts in any matter in which the courts may seek our assistance.

Does my right hon. Friend remember that the gift of this Parliament to the Chilean Parliament following its first democratic elections after the brutal regime of Pinochet was a copy of the Magna Carta? Is he aware how strongly the people of Chile, particularly those committed to the democratic system, honour the support for human rights that this country has always upheld, and how much we are admired because of our acceptance of an independent legal system that can judge those who condone murder and torture fairly, without political intervention?

My hon. Friend makes her point perfectly well. The upholding of that independent legal system is central to our democratic constitution, and our respect for it is widely respected throughout Chile.