If he will make a statement about progress towards achieving the elimination of chemical and biological weapons. [69420]

Chemical and biological weapons are banned under their respective conventions. We continue to work for universal accession to both conventions and are playing a leading role in negotiations on a protocol to strengthen the biological weapons convention. We are working hard to ensure effective global implementation of the chemical weapons convention. It is our ambition to prevent proliferation and help rid the world of those weapons of mass destruction.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and congratulate the Government on their stand, particularly on the convention on chemical weapons. Does he agree with me and with the Defence Select Committee that it is crucial that, under the chemical weapons convention, we continue to encourage countries to lay open their pharmaceutical industry for inspection, to ensure that all countries—including, of course, Iraq—are aware of exactly what is being produced?

Unfortunately, Iraq is not a state party to the chemical weapons convention—which gives us a problem, and is why more direct action to degrade Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capability was necessary in recent weeks. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right to say that, if we are to rid the world of those weapons, we need not only processes to prevent the export of relevant technologies, but systems of verification and of challenge inspections, to ensure that those who want to flout the convention are brought to book.

Does the Minister think that it would be appropriate to send international inspectors to Sudan to check whether the factory that was bombed by the United States was making weapons of mass destruction, or aspirins?

Obviously that is a question for the Government of Sudan. Undoubtedly, it would help enormously if Sudan were to join as party to the chemical weapons convention and—were it so to do—specifically to accept the regime of challenge inspections and verification. That would put the matter beyond all doubt.

Why is it a matter for the Government of Sudan? The United States Government launched a devastating blitzkrieg of cruise missiles on a pharmaceuticals factory on the basis of evidence that Kroll Associates—the respected New York investigators—in a report this week, said was "totally wrong". Will the Minister now say publicly, in the interests of proving that we have an independent foreign policy, what I know to be the Foreign Office's private view—that the attack on Sudan was a terrible, ghastly mistake?

The United States Government's public position, which my hon. Friend knows very well, is to hold to the view that the factory was being used for the production of chemical weapons. I simply repeat what I said to the House: the way for Sudan to move forward in the matter is to adhere to the chemical weapons convention, and to accept the verification procedures and challenge inspections.

The Minister and I can agree that a fundamental objective of foreign policy must be the elimination of chemical and biological weapons. However, we must not forget the accompanying technology and delivery systems. Will the Minister confirm the alarming reports that Russia is not only supplying technology illegally to Iraq, but has plans to provide Syria with a ballistic missile capability, and has thousands of Russians working on the development of Iran's nuclear, chemical and biological programmes? Does he agree that the Russians' actions dramatically escalate security risks in the region? Will he tell the House what he is doing, either directly with Russia or at the United Nations, to discourage Russia from rearming Iraq and increasing tensions in the middle east?

Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov has categorically denied those stories, which is important. We always treat with concern any stories—from whatever source—about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Within those terms, the matter has been raised with the Russians. I can repeat what I said: we have no evidence to suggest that there is any truth in the stories. I should tell the House—although I am sorry to have to raise a political note—that the previous Conservative Government were prepared to arm the Iraqi Government and Saddam Hussein. In so doing, they were prepared to breach any concept of international law, and they dictated who built weapons of mass destruction.

What representations he has received about Agenda 2000 in respect of enlargement of the Union; and if he will make a statement. [69421]

What representations he has received about Agenda 2000 in relation to European institutions; and if he will make a statement. [69428]

We are in regular contact on Agenda 2000 with consumer groups, regional organisations and the business and farming communities. In the negotiations, we support the Commission's proposals on reform of the common agricultural policy, particularly the cut in intervention prices, which will bring annual savings of £80 a year for the typical British family.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that it is a sad indictment of the policies of the previous Government that Britain has some of the poorest regions and some of the richest? Will he do all that he can to ensure that structural funds continue to go to the areas that need them to try to bridge that gap?

As I have told the House, we shall have an increased number of areas covered by objective 1 structural funds. That should not give hon. Members any comfort, because it reflects the extent to which those regions have suffered over the past two decades, since they were last looked at. We are determined to ensure that they have every opportunity to recover from their current position. We shall ensure that they are supported by appropriate Government measures.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reform of the common agricultural policy is inextricably linked to European Union enlargement? Would he like to contrast the Government's attitude with the little England mentality of the Conservative party—

Order. That is not the Foreign Secretary's responsibility. Will the hon. Gentleman finish his question?

I apologise, Madam Speaker.

My hon. Friend's question speaks for itself. [Laughter.] I do not know what the Conservatives find funny about the fact that they were unable to make progress on the beef ban for two years. We have made progress through constructive engagement. Through our approach to Agenda 2000, we are likely to achieve prices in cereals and beef that will be broadly comparable to world prices. That was never secured by the previous Administration over 18 years. The rest of the nation may laugh at the Conservatives' record, but Conservative Members have nothing to laugh about.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he accepts the recommendation of the International Development Select Committee on Agenda 2000—that all development should be undertaken by one commissioner, so that the whole development budget can be combined in a managerially and administratively sensible way?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have considerable concerns about the European Union's development budget. It does not follow the policy, which we have adopted strongly, of targeting help on the poorest people in the poorest countries. As Britain is increasing its development budget thanks to the Government's policies, we can speak with authority on the issue and will continue to do so.

Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an absolute assurance that the British rebate is non-negotiable?

Yes.

Madam Speaker, I apologise for having called you Madam Deputy Speaker last week.

I said that the hon. Member would never be called again. It shows what a softy I am.

It shows that we can both make mistakes.

Spain's position on Gibraltar existed long before the cohesion fund was invented. It is our view that as the cohesion fund was invented to prepare countries for membership of the single currency, it is illogical to continue with that fund once they are actually in the single currency. In those circumstances, we remain to be convinced of the case for the cohesion fund.

When he expects to make an announcement on the outcome of his review of Britain's dependent territories. [69422]

What plans he has to visit the island of St. Helena to discuss his White Paper on British dependent territories. [69423]

I intend to publish the White Paper on overseas territories during the week commencing 15 March. The White Paper will provide a comprehensive review of Britain's relations with its overseas territories, including their relationship with the Foreign Office, their financial regulation and protection of their rich environmental heritage.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that no overseas territory is causing more concern to Parliament at present than Gibraltar? What will his review say about the future sovereignty of Gibraltar? Will he take the opportunity of the publication of the review to say what he will do about the Spanish proposals for joint sovereignty which, at the moment, are sitting in his pending tray? If those proposals are clearly rejected—as they should be, if he is to follow the wishes of the people of Gibraltar and, I believe, of this House—what alternative proposals will he put on the table?

The Spanish Foreign Minister's proposal was tabled at a meeting of the Brussels process. The Brussels process was, of course, agreed to by the previous Conservative Government, and committed Britain to discuss once a year with Spain the issue of the sovereignty of Gibraltar. When the Spanish Foreign Minister tabled proposals on the transfer of sovereignty in 1985, the Conservative Government left them lying on the table not for 15 months, but for eight years. At that meeting of the Brussels process, I undertook to give a reply at the next meeting. However, I said at the time that there would be no compromise on sovereignty against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. That was our position at the last meeting—it will be our position at the next meeting as well.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement this afternoon that the White Paper will be published next month, but does he agree that we now need speed in bringing St. Helena back into the British family, from which it was ejected in 1981—against its wishes—by the previous Government? Can we have an assurance that, before the millennium, St. Helena will be back in the British family?

I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will publish the White Paper in the week commencing 15 March. He will understand that I cannot anticipate what may be in the contents of that White Paper. I look forward to answering a question on the same subject come that day.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that the Government are making on the White Paper. Those of us who have constituents from St. Helena are well aware of the complexity of the issue, and of the problems of the island—high unemployment, a lack of opportunity and a heavy reliance on budgetary aid. Will he assure us that he will give sympathetic consideration in the review to the wish of the people of St. Helena for full British citizenship?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the issue has been pressed upon us by the Government of St. Helena—and by the Governments of some other overseas territories—and that we are well aware of the real concern. I entirely share my hon. Friend's other point of concern about the economy of St. Helena, which is one of the two overseas territories in receipt of overseas aid from Britain. It requires such assistance, and we are continuing to commit ourselves to make sure that we achieve economic reconstruction within St. Helena.

Will the overseas territories review address the democratic deficit in the overseas territories, whose Parliament is this place and whose Foreign Secretary is my right hon. Friend, but for whom there is no access to Westminster? Should not the Government follow the Parliaments of France, the Netherlands and Spain—as well as the US Congress—which give representation in the main legislature to overseas territories? Is it not time that a Labour Government addressed themselves to enfranchising these people?

There is not universal demand from the overseas territories for such representation, primarily because we have much stronger decentralisation for their government than is practised in France, which retains some central control; but I assure my hon. Friend that the people continue to have direct access to myself and my Ministers, and one of the proposals in the White Paper is to provide a better structure for more regular dialogue.

When, in January 1997, the Spanish Foreign Minister proposed joint sovereignty for Gibraltar, within days, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the then Foreign Secretary, said:

"The idea is a non-starter. The simple point is that Gibraltar people want to remain British citizens. And that is the end of the matter."

The fact is that no proposals were tabled in January 1997. There was an oral discussion between the two Foreign Ministers, as there has been between me and Mr. Matutes on six occasions in the past year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is imagining any U-turn, weakening or retreat in the British position. As I have said to the Spanish Foreign Minister and to the House, the Government's position is that there can be no compromise on sovereignty against the wishes of the Gibraltar people. Their views on the matter are sovereign. We stand firmly by the commitment given by a previous Labour Government in 1969—that the people of Gibraltar will freely and democratically decide whether there should be any transfer of sovereignty.

If he will make a statement about arrangements for financing the United Nations. [69424]

We continue to promote the European Union's proposals for reform of the arrangements for financing the United Nations, which are designed to reflect more closely countries' capacity to pay. We believe that the proposals represent the best way of resolving the current crisis in funding. At the end of 1998, the United Nations was owed over $2 billion by member states. We urge all United Nations member states to pay their dues promptly, in full and without conditions, as the United Kingdom does.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, although I am concerned at its content. Over the past decade, 2 million children have been killed in war, and many more have been left disabled and homeless. The world looks to the United Nations to help to solve the conflicts that result in those deaths. How can the United Nations function without the funds that it requires to do its work? Will my hon. Friend make urgent representations to the right-wing Republicans on Capitol hill, and make it clear that they are acting irresponsibly and that children's lives depend on their agreeing to pay their dues without further delay?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The simple reality is that a United Nations that is owed $2 billion is not in a proper position to do all the work that we ask of it. We want a more efficient United Nations, but we do not necessarily want a cheapskate United Nations that cannot do the job that the world wants it to do. That is why we as a Government are the biggest single funder of, for example, the UN Commission on Human Rights. Now that President Clinton is firmly back in the saddle, it is incumbent on the United States Congress to accept that it must pay the United Nations what it owes.

hi view of the American Government's lamentable record on the funding of the United Nations and their persistent default in stumping up what they owe, would the Minister support a proposition that the UN headquarters should move to London, at the very centre of the European Union, removing it from the ambit of the rather more absurd American views on it?

Hear, hear.

The hon. Gentleman certainly seems to have created a popular movement among Government Back Benchers; but there is no proper proposal to remove the United Nations from New York. The reality is that both New York as a city and the United States as a country do very well out of the presence of the UN on their territory. That is why we expect Congress to come up with the money that it owes.

If he will make a statement on progress on peace in Kosovo. [69425]

Along with my colleague the French Foreign Minister, I have been acting as co-chairman of the peace talks at Rambouillet. We have tabled a framework agreement and other texts that provide for a democratic, self-governing Kosovo.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and congratulate him on the steps that have been taken so far to bring the sides together. Conservative Members have been liberal with their criticisms of my right hon. Friend, but I assure him that there is an appreciation, on these Benches and throughout Europe, that without his personal contribution, the talks might never have got going. Will he confirm that, if the talks are successful and there is a settlement, British ground troops under British control will be committed to Kosovo to ensure that the humanitarian atrocities that have afflicted the region in recent months will not be repeated?

It is indeed the case that Britain as a whole can take some pride in the work that is being done by its officials to secure those talks. It was, after all, Britain that drafted the key texts at New York and at the Contact Group meeting in London, and which played an important part in getting agreement in the North Atlantic Council. I am glad that our efforts have managed to bring together both sides for these talks.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, if troops are deployed in Kosovo, they will have to go for more than six months? With one division deployed indefinitely in Bosnia, the possible deployment of a corps headquarters and a brigade to Kosovo would drive a coach and horses through the central assumption of the strategic defence review about the full defence structure required by the United Kingdom. Will the Foreign Secretary recommend to the Prime Minister that there should be a review of the full structure, and of the Army in particular, so that he can continue to pursue the foreign policy that he is pursuing at present?

We have only just completed a defence review that has been widely praised around Europe and which is currently being copied by a number of allies. The outcome of that review was in stark contrast to the repeated cuts, which amounted to a third of British forces' capacity, made under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported—and during his time as an adviser at the Ministry of Defence.

Any fair person must congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way that he and his French counterpart have acted, and would hope and pray that there will be a successful conclusion. The success, or otherwise, of the negotiations will determine the success of the Washington NATO summit in April. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not a laboratory experiment, but a practical experience of Europe working with the United States for proper ends?

My hon. Friend is right, in that the drafting of the strategic concept for discussion at the forthcoming NATO summit envisages that organisation playing an important part in crisis management and crisis intervention. However, if such an international force is to be provided for Kosovo, we would want it to go beyond NATO, and would hope that some of NATO's other partners for peace would also play a part and help to provide a truly multinational force.

The Foreign Secretary is right to be cautious about the prospects of a successful agreement. May I press him, however? If there is no successful agreement, there will, of course, be no NATO ground forces in Kosovo, but the threat of air strikes will remain. What would be the strategic and military purpose of air strikes if no agreement can be reached? Would the purpose be, as has been reported recently, to break Belgrade's hold on Kosovo by degrading its military infrastructure?

I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that there is no question of NATO ground troops being provided if there is no settlement. We shall not fight our way in. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right to say that a NATO decision already provides Javier Solana with the power to activate military action against Belgrade in the event of Belgrade not complying with the Contact Group's demands. The objective of such action, and of the threat of such action, is to try to secure the compliance of Belgrade. At present, we are still working to achieve a successful outcome, and that must be our priority for the next four days.

If there is an agreement and troops go to Kosovo, can my right hon. Friend assure us that they will be sufficiently well equipped either to extricate themselves or to defend themselves adequately if there is any danger of the ceasefire breaking down? The experience of Bosnia has been one of mission creep, and many of us are concerned that we cannot be sure at the start of a process just where it will lead in some months' time.

The lesson of Bosnia is, indeed, that one should not commit forces unless they have the capacity both to defend themselves and to enforce their mandate. That is why the proposed force for Kosovo is significantly greater than the one deployed in Bosnia in the early years. As my hon. Friend may know, we are already embarking heavy equipment as a contingency plan, in case we need to commit British troops, as we want that equipment to be available in advance.

We wish the Foreign Secretary well in his attempts to broker an agreement on Kosovo. We support his efforts and we hope that they will succeed.

There is no point in the right hon. and learned Gentleman rising at the Dispatch Box to wish us well in the talks, but then trying to knock away one of the main incentives for reaching agreement. We are clear on two points. First, the Chief of the Defence Staff has been fully involved in our decisions, and I am sure that he would have made no irresponsible decision. [Interruption.] I do not see why any hon. Member should find that amusing.

No one is suggesting that the Government should walk away from that responsibility. As I have repeatedly said, we support the Government's efforts. But the Minister of Defence Procurement, at least, was aware of the questions posed for overstretch within the British Army. The question is: will the Government look again at the strategic defence review, or will they look again at their foreign policy in view of the great overstretch conceded by that Minister?

I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have no intention of looking again, as he puts it, at the foreign policy that is committed to trying to achieve peace in the Balkans. I wish that, just once, the right hon. and learned Gentleman could rise to express his support without immediately following it by a "but".

If he will make a statement on the contribution of Her Majesty's Government to efforts to achieve a solution to the Cyprus problem. [R] [69426]

When he next plans to visit Cyprus to discuss with the parties the end of the division of that island. [69431]

We remain committed to resolving the tragedy of Cyprus's division. We continue to believe that the best means of achieving a solution is on the basis laid down in UN Security Council resolutions for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. Therefore, we welcome UN Security Council resolution 1218, adopted on 22 December 1998, which sets out clear and far-reaching objectives for reducing tension and for progress towards a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement in Cyprus.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was some concern on the island at the recent comments of Sir David Hannay? Therefore, I welcome the Government's reaffirmation of the policy of looking to a settlement based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation and on a single sovereignty. Does my right hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the decision of the Cyprus Government not to take S300 missiles on to the island? Also, does she agree that one of the best ways forward is to work towards a more general demilitarisation of Cyprus as a step towards a settlement of the tragedy that has been taking place there for 25 years?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right to welcome the decision of President Clerides not to deploy those missiles, which will both reduce tension and help Cyprus to accede to the European Union. Having seen the transcript of what Sir David Hannay said, I am satisfied that his remarks were misrepresented. Indeed, in various meetings, including one with the high commissioner for Cyprus here in London, he and I have reaffirmed that there is no change in our policy on Cyprus.

Does the Minister agree that, given the unilateral decision of the Cypriot Government not to deploy missiles to reduce tension, as she put it, and the complete lack of any countervailing contribution from the regime in the north of Cyprus to reduce any part of the military presence there, the only answer is to press forward as fast as possible towards accession to the European Union at least for the south of the island—hopefully, to be followed one day by the north?

The accession process is on track in terms of the examination by the European Commission of the various dossiers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have always hoped that the accession process could provide a catalyst towards the settlement of the Cyprus problem, and we still want to concentrate minds on that possibility.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most useful ways in which we could ease the situation in Cyprus is through increasing the number of intercommunal exchanges? Therefore, will she join me in commending the recent successful visit of 1,280 Turkish Cypriot Muslims to the Hala Sultan Tekke shrine in Larnaca and in hoping that there will be similar exchanges for Greek Cypriot pilgrims, for example, to visit the Apostolos Andreas monastery in the far north of the Karpasia peninsula, and even the church of Ayios Mamas in Morphou?

I agree that initiatives to try to increase contacts between the communities are worth while. Those initiatives, along with others with which the friends of Cyprus, including Members of Parliament, have been involved are welcome and we wish to encourage them.

In seeking to follow up the constructive question of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), does the Minister accept that, if we are to achieve lasting peace and unity in Cyprus, we must carry with us in achieving that objective not only Turkey but the Turkish Cypriots? Cyprus has had a sad history in the past 30 years. What action are the British Government taking to work more closely with Turkey, which is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and has given that body great support, and with those responsible Turkish Cypriots who want a united Ireland—[Interruption.] That was merely a Freudian slip, Madam Speaker. I should have said a united island—hon. Members misunderstood my Cheshire accent. What action are the Government taking to work more closely with Turkey and with the Turkish Cypriot Administration to get greater co-operation on the ultimate unity of Cyprus?

I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman's comments signalled a dramatic shift in his party's policy on a variety of issues. He and I can at least join in saying that we are interested in promoting peace processes; and we are certainly interested in doing that in Cyprus. We engage in dialogue with Turkey and try to promote measures to build confidence between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. We support the work of Sir David Hannay and of Dame Anne Hercus, who is doing a good job on the island of Cyprus trying to bring communities together and to find ways of solving the long-term problem.

The whole House will welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. She will be aware that there have been many disappointments in attempts to achieve a settlement in Cyprus, none more acute than on the return of Famagusta, which would benefit both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Will she give an assurance to the House and to the people of Cyprus that the return of Famagusta is a Government priority?

We have raised the issue of Famagusta and Varosha on many occasions, but my hon. Friend will accept that the best way to make progress is to continue to press the various initiatives taking place within both the United Nations and the European Union towards a comprehensive settlement.

What steps he is taking to monitor human rights abuses in Pakistan. [69427]

During my visit to Pakistan last week, I raised with the Minister for Justice a number of concerns about human rights.

Is the Minister concerned about the arrest earlier this month of four leading members of Pakistan's third-largest party, the Mohajir Qaumi Movement; and about the considerable evidence of religious persecution side by side with political persecution, including the fact that five Christians currently await trial under Islamic blasphemy laws? Is the Minister willing to use this country's considerable leverage—Pakistan is a recipient of aid from us and is a full member of the Commonwealth once more—to make those points strongly to the Pakistani Government? Is he willing to receive written representations from the MQM on the political matters and from Christian rights organisations?

Last week, I took the opportunity to stress our concerns about the need to maintain religious freedom, which is part of Pakistan's written constitution. The Minister for Justice reassured me that the Government were committed to that constitution and would try to implement it. What is important is that practice coincides with the written letter of the law, and we shall certainly take every action possible to ensure that that step is taken and that there is religious freedom in Pakistan.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to read last week's debate on human rights for women, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer)? May I draw the House's attention to the fact that, under the Zina laws and Huddood ordinances, women in Pakistan are quite often denied basic human rights? Dreadful practices often take place. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister take up directly with the Government of Pakistan the need to get rid of those unjust laws?

I assure my hon. Friend that I took up those points last week: I expressed our concern that there should be equality before the law and that women in Pakistan should enjoy the same rights as men. I also stressed to the Ministers I met that the increasing influence of the Taliban on Pakistan is a detrimental and negative influence, on which the Government in Pakistan should keep a close watch.

The Ahmadiyya community have their European conference centre in my constituency, and they report a series of deplorable human rights abuses, including lack of freedom of religion, speech or assembly. They know that the Government have said that human rights are at the heart of their policy, but what substance is behind the rhetoric? Is there any hope for practical improvement for them and their families in Pakistan?

I can only repeat to the right hon. Lady the point that I have just made to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), which is that we are concerned about religious freedom in Pakistan. Pakistan's written constitution states that individuals should have a right to practise their faith, but clearly that right is not always honoured in practice. I assure the right hon. Lady that we shall continue to make the strongest possible representations to the Government of Pakistan that people should enjoy their rights under their country's constitution.

What steps he is taking to support the Palestinian Authority in developing a sound economy. [69429]

We actively support the Palestinian economy through an extensive programme of bilateral aid and our contribution to EC aid programmes. We announced last November that we shall provide over £50 million in bilateral aid during the next three years. That aid will not only help to develop health and infrastructure facilities and support refugees, but provide technical support for training economic experts for the technical assistance unit of the Palestinian Authority. That brings our total bilateral aid since the signature of the Oslo accords to £122 million.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the Palestinian Authority in providing what is perceived to be clean and successful government is very much in the interests of all the countries in the area? Will he urge all those concerned, including the United States, to facilitate the access of Palestinian goods to world markets as a contribution to that success?

My hon. Friend raises two points. First, it is important, as he rightly says, that the Palestinian Authority is transparent and accountable, and it is important for donor countries that there is clear accountability in the use of aid. Secondly, the best way forward for the Palestinian economy is to be able to trade with the rest of the world, and we should like such opportunities to open up for the Palestinians.

I welcome that answer, but is the Minister aware that, since the authority's formation, Palestinians' annual income per capita has fallen from $1,700 a few years ago to $1,400? Is he aware that that is partly due to the corruption in the Palestinian Authority? Is he aware that, among all the squalor in the area, some 100 families are building large villas, almost palaces? What can the Government do to ensure that corruption is stamped out and that aid from the United Kingdom and the European Union gets to the people that we are trying to help?

It is crucial that there is transparency in the use of UK and European Commission aid, and we shall continue to argue for that. Since the Oslo accords, the living standards of the average Palestinian have declined. We need to address the crucial questions in the middle east relating to the peace process and we have to give Palestinians the belief that peace will bring prosperity. I hope that the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority recognise the commitments that they have made under the Wye River accords and that they honour them and implement them in full.

May I take up my right hon. Friend's previous answer and ask him what pressure the Government are putting on the Israeli Government to implement the Wye River accords and not to put them on hold until after the general election? Those accords were made with the state, not with whichever party happens to be in government.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct—the agreement was made on behalf of the state of Israel. There is no opt-out clause stating that the agreement should be put on hold while a general election takes place. It is our strong belief that the commitments made by both parties under the Wye River accords should be implemented in full and we call on the Palestinians and the Israelis to do just that.

What recent discussions he has held with his European counterparts on the continuation of the national veto. [69430]

The veto has not figured in recent discussions held by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or by me. A decision will be taken at the European Council in Cologne in June on when and how to discuss institutional reform in preparation for enlargement. No proposals are on the table.

Is it the Government's policy to resist absolutely to give an inch—or perhaps I should say a centimetre—in terms of our veto power? Can the Minister confirm that the Government are opposed to any attempts under the Amsterdam treaty to use the power of the courts, especially in the area of tax harmonisation and the common European withholding tax, to get around the powers of our veto to block such measures?

Taxation is one of the matters on which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we believe that unanimity should remain. There are other matters too, which we have listed, such as treaty changes, defence and immigration. However, the hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter sits ill with the Conservative Government's record on both the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act, whereby, as he knows, majority voting was extended dramatically.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the veto is the ultimate preserver of the national interest, threatening to use it at the start of any discussions with our European partners in intergovernmental negotiations actually serves to undermine the British national interest? If any demonstration of that were wanted, we need only look back to the beef crisis, when the Conservative party in government threatened our European partners with everything bar nuking them and got absolutely nowhere—but, within 18 months, the Labour Government got the ban lifted.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Certainly, on issues such as tax harmonisation, on which we obviously have several allies, it is absurd to start from the presumption that we are in an isolated position.

In an earlier answer, the Foreign Secretary was very dismissive of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for implying that we might be less than firm in defence of the British rebate. Can the right hon. Lady reiterate, without any equivocation whatever, that, if the British rebate were to be reduced, Her Majesty's Government would forthwith issue a veto on that proposal?

I am always delighted to repeat guarantees given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

If he will make a statement on his policy relating to Brazil following the recent economic turbulence there. [69434]

Brazil remains by far our largest market in Latin America and we are committed to strengthening our trade and investment links with that country.

I thank my hon. Friend. Will he press the Brazilian Government to ensure that, in their stabilisation process, poorer and more vulnerable people are given as much protection as possible? More generally, does not the economic crisis in Brazil underline the importance of the work of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in creating new international arrangements to assist world financial stability—in contrast to the previous Government, who saw no further than boom and bust?

On the second point, of course my hon. Friend is right; he has a particular interest in Brazil. The record of the previous Government was poor in terms of not only Brazil but the whole international financial system. Not only have the present Government given considerable support—some $2.25 billion—to the Brazilian economy directly, but the Government. and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, have been concerned to ensure, through the G7 and elsewhere, that the global financial system works to move to greater stability, greater transparency, the introduction of codes of conduct, and practical co-operation between regulators: practical efforts to ensure that this financial crisis can be brought to a speedy end.

What discussions he has had with his German counterpart about the prospects for political integration within the EU. [69435]

I maintain close contact with Joschka Fischer. Last month in Brussels, I expressed our support for the priorities that he has set for the German presidency: employment, Agenda 2000 and enlargement. The German presidency has not made any proposals for integration part of its agenda, and nor have we.

What did the German Foreign Minister mean when he told the European Parliament last month that political union must be our lodestar from now on? More important, what did he tell the Foreign Secretary he meant by that statement?

The German Foreign Minister set out for the European Parliament a broad visionary statement which was a characteristic expression of the German vision of Europe. It happens not to be one that we share; nor have we shared that vision over many years. Our position is closer to that expressed by President Chirac last week, when he called not for a united states of Europe but for a united Europe of states. That statement shows clearly that we have many friends in trying to fashion a Europe in which we work together when we have common interests, but preserve our national identities and ensure that there is decentralisation wherever possible.

As my right hon. Friend said, is it not a fact that the German Government have exactly the same priorities as the British Government within the European Union: jobs, securing European enlargement and making Europe work positively? That is better than an obsession with the silly things, which the Conservative party continues to pursue.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we share fully the priorities of the German presidency. We think that Germany is absolutely right in putting jobs at the top of the agenda. We intend to work with Germany in making practical progress on the things that really matter to our people. That is—to coin a phrase—the British way.

Surely the Foreign Secretary cannot pick and mix the bits that he likes and the bits that he does not like from the German Foreign Minister's comments. Is it not a fact that the German Foreign Minister—a man elected to that position on less than 7 per cent. of the popular vote achieved by his party under proportional representation—has said time and again that he envisages the European Union serving the purpose of political union? Why does the Foreign Secretary not disown that statement if he does not believe it?

Whenever the German Foreign Minister makes a specific proposal with which we disagree or which we believe will not be in the British interest, we will oppose it. However, I rather doubt whether it would assist my relations with Germany if I were to suggest to the German Foreign Minister that he lacks a popular mandate.

What plans he has to improve relations with Latvia. [69436]

The United Kingdom enjoys excellent relations with Latvia. We plan to enhance our bilateral co-operation programmes, which are designed to help Latvia's preparations for membership of the European Union and to improve Latvia's defence capabilities.

Is it not a matter of congratulations and satisfaction for all those concerned that the rebirth of democracy in the three Baltic states has gone ahead so peacefully, despite the great potential for divisions between ethnic minorities both within those countries and outside their borders? When members of our sister Parliament, the Saeima, visit us next month, will it be possible to give the Latvians, and pass on to the Lithuanians, an assurance that the breach that has occurred in progress towards European unity—involving Estonia and Europe, the other Baltic states and the unfortunate difference in pace—may be put right by ensuring that the Baltic states proceed towards joining the European family of nations together? Estonia does not need to take the lead.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in seeking to build good relations between this Parliament and the Parliaments of the Baltic states.

Given the recent spate of bombings in Latvia, what advice is the Foreign Office giving to visitors to that country?

I am not aware that we have changed travel advice recently with regard to Latvia, but, if what I say is not correct, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.