If he will make a statement on relations with Iraq. [83499]

The British Government's policy on relations with Iraq and on a range of other significant foreign policy issues was enormously strengthened by the remarkable contribution made by Derek Fatchett. He was both a friend of long standing and a good colleague, and I am proud to have the opportunity to carry on the excellent work that he did.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. I hold no brief for Saddam Hussein or his regime, but I am concerned about humanitarian developments in Iraq. As my hon. Friend will be aware, it is clear from the United Nations report last month that the situation is deteriorating. The report pointed out, for example, that Iraq has moved from being a relatively affluent country to one that is afflicted by poverty. Numerous articles, such as the one in the New Statesman, reported that 4,000 children were dying each month as a result of disease which could well be prevented.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. The Government are equally concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Our draft resolution, to which I referred earlier, reflects the Government's commitment to help the Iraqi people as much as possible. It picks up most of the recommendations of the humanitarian panel which, if implemented, would bring an additional $470 million over a six-month period into the oil-for-food programme.

I join the Minister in his remarks about his predecessor, the late Derek Fatchett, who will be sorely missed. I also congratulate the Minister on his new appointment at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I wish him personally all the best in his new post. Does he agree that our strategic interest as regards Iraq will be far better served by improving relations with Iran?

The Government share that view. Indeed, as the hon. and learned Gentleman may know, today the existing representation of the two countries will be upgraded to ambassadorial level.

If he will make a statement on the steps being taken to promote the middle east peace process. [83500]

If he will make a statement on the steps being taken to make progress with the middle east peace process. [83507]

If he will make a statement on the outcome of the Israeli general election. [R] [83511]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have sent messages of congratulation to Mr. Barak, the Labour leader, on his convincing victory. We hope that the search for peace can now be resumed.

I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a recent report by World Vision, which documented the effects on the Palestinians of Israeli policy since Oslo. When he congratulates Mr. Barak on the election results, will he make it clear to the new Israeli Government that there must be an immediate cessation of illegal settlement building, including Har Homa; an immediate end to the confiscation of identity documents from Jerusalem residents; an immediate end to the demolition of Arab homes; and that those actions are necessary to engender the sort of atmosphere in which constructive negotiations can start between the Israeli Government and the Palestinians, leading to final status negotiations?

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the message of congratulation from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister includes a recommendation for a freeze on settlement activity. It has long been this Government's position that both sides should refrain from unilateral acts that complicate the peace process. We view settlements in the occupied territories as illegal in international law and, more immediately, an obstacle to the progress of peace. I hope that we can now resume on the path of peace.

I, too, join my right hon. Friend in congratulating Mr. Barak and the Israeli Labour party on yesterday's landslide election victory, and in applauding Mr. Barak's pre-election pledge to withdraw Israeli troops from southern Lebanon within 12 months and to renew and reopen negotiations with Syria. In his dialogue and negotiations with the new Israeli Administration, will my right hon. Friend press on them that as great a priority should be given to peace and justice for the Palestinians as to the wider regional context?

It is our view that there has to be a comprehensive peace settlement embracing all the tracks of the peace process, including the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. My hon. Friend ends with an important point: we should not regard the peace process as some kind of zero sum game in which somebody wins at somebody else's expense. The Israeli and the Palestinian peoples have everything to gain from a just and lasting peace, and we would urge both to work towards that in good faith.

Will my right hon. Friend join me, also, in welcoming the results of the Israeli general election as a victory for democracy in the middle east? Will he comment on the instrumental role played by Yasser Arafat in cracking down on terrorism, which so marked the previous general election, in a way that allowed voters in Israel—Arab and Jew alike—to choose a new Prime Minister who is committed to the road to peace and willing to take the kind of risks that are necessary to get along that road?

I am happy to congratulate the new Government of Israel as often as I am invited to do so. The contribution of the Palestinian National Authority to improved security should be recognised—and we have played a part through our advice on dealing with terrorists and improving security. We should firmly keep in mind the same principle that we ourselves have applied in Northern Ireland: we should not let the terrorists, on either side, who wish to impede the peace process to derail us from making sure that the great majority who want peace have their interests served first.

May I press the Foreign Secretary on the question of Har Homa, the sensitivity of which he is personally aware of as a result of his visit there 18 months or two years ago? He knows that those settlements are contrary to international law. Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will press that view on the Israeli Government, not least because, elsewhere in the middle east, we take certain actions based on international law? If we are to enjoy any acceptance for those actions elsewhere, we must surely show that we are even-handed.

I think that, famously, I have done more than anybody else to press that view on the Israeli Government in connection with Har Homa. In the Israeli mind, the issue of Har Homa concerns not only the question of settlements, on which we are entirely at one, but touches on the future status of Jerusalem. It is very important that the issue of Jerusalem is addressed in the final status talks, and Britain played a leading part in achieving the Berlin declaration of the European Union countries which called for final status talks to be concluded within a year of commencement. I hope that we are now on the verge of those talks commencing.

Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in simply welcoming the latest in a long string of democratic elections in Israel? Does he agree that it represents a clear example to other middle east states of the basis on which such elections should be conducted? Can he confirm that he will be pressing to ensure that the next elections to the Palestinian National Authority will be conducted with the same due regard for probity and fairness?

In fairness, I should say to the hon. Gentleman that the previous elections were observed, and the broad conclusion was that they were free and fair, but I of course agree that we should congratulate Israel on its vibrant democracy. We should also take note of the fact that one of the issues in the election on which the Israeli people have spoken is that they want a Government who are willing to work with their neighbours and promote peace throughout the region.

I assume that my right hon. Friend will also be putting pressure on Syria and Iraq and making it clear that support for Hezbollah is not the way to help the peace process forward. Will he also make it clear that, as a nation, we welcome and support the amazing result in Israel because it is possible in a democracy for a whole people to express their desire for peace through the ballot box? That should be the way forward that we, of all people, should support most strongly.

I agree absolutely with every word that my hon. Friend has said. I assure her that we have raised the issue of the security of southern Lebanon with Syria. I hope very much that Mr. Barak's proposals to withdraw from southern Lebanon will create an environment in which both sides can respond, and security can be achieved on the track of both Syria and Lebanon.

What discussions he has had about improving European defence co-operation. [83501]

We have had full and intensive discussions with NATO allies and European partners since last autumn, most recently at the NATO Washington summit and the WEU Bremen ministerial meeting. We look forward to further discussion at the Cologne European Council.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the general principle of defence co-operation is important, what really matters is the building of practical structures to ensure a rapid response in terms of European crisis management? Does not the current conflict in Kosovo underline more strongly than ever the need for European defence co-operation? Does it not also show that Europe needs to pull its weight on defence matters, within the context of NATO?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The lessons of Kosovo are clear. When it comes to collective security, we need a practical mechanism—at the moment, NATO is certainly that practical mechanism—that can both deliver security and engender the stability that Europe needs. Europeans themselves now recognise, however, that the action in Kosovo would have been impossible without the United States. It is a commonly held view that it is time for us to begin to examine, and rectify, the deficits in our own capacity, and move towards a position in which Europe can take responsibility for its own security.

The Minister will, of course, know that a new European document relating to common strategy in the European Union and Russia is due to be considered in Cologne on 3 and 4 June. Does he agree, in the context of the Petersberg tasks—to which the document refers—that there is no question of the introduction of majority voting, which would result in our going down the slippery path towards majority voting in European defence matters?

I understand that that is one of the hon. Gentleman's obsessions. Let me assure him that, in this instance, it is an obsession shared by—1 think—all the Governments of the European Union.

Does my hon. Friend welcome the recent visit to Rome by members of the British-Italian parliamentary group to discuss British-Italian defence co-operation? Does he agree that Italy has a key role to play in European defence, both at present in respect of the conflict in Kosovo, and in the future with regard to securing peace and stability in the Mediterranean region? Will he renew his efforts to establish a strong British-Italian defence link in the context of the NATO alliance, but also as a cornerstone of European defence co-operation?

We welcome the link between British and Italian parliamentarians at any level, but there is no doubt that Italy's role as part of the NATO alliance in Kosovo is particularly significant. All partners are pulling their weight in Kosovo, and, in the future, that co-operation within Europe will become closer and tighter. What was begun by our Prime Minister and President Chirac at St. Malo has been extended to include the rest of the European Union, and, potentially, those who are willing players throughout the European continent.

Does the Minister agree that the process of improving European defence co-operation should not take place in a way that might undermine NATO? If he does, why did the St. Malo agreement provide for such co-operation inside and outside the framework of NATO? Can the Minister tell us what steps, if any, have been taken to implement such co-operation outside the framework of NATO?

Of course NATO remains the cornerstone of our national security and, indeed, of the security of the whole of Europe. That is not simply an historical perspective; we know that, even as we speak, NATO is actively helping the move towards a more stable Europe in Kosovo. There cannot be any suggestion that a British Government would work in any way that undermined NATO's role, but there is no contradiction between the decisions made in Berlin and Washington—which refer to a European role within NATO—and the integrity of NATO as a whole. Of course Europeans must do more for their own security, but, in the end, we shall always have NATO there as the cornerstone of our collective security.

What discussions he has had with overseas Governments regarding the shipment of MOX fuel to Japan. [83502]

What recent representations have been made to him by foreign Governments regarding the proposed shipment of MOX fuel to Japan. [83509]

Discussions have taken place between officials and their counterparts in France, Japan and the United States to ensure in particular that appropriate measures are in place for the physical protection of MOX fuel, consistent with internationally agreed commitments and recommendations.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply, but is he aware of concerns that MOX fuel is not only highly dangerous for the environment, but could be a threat in the hands of terrorists? Can he assure me and the House that the Government will take serious note of international opinion on the manufacture and, indeed, safe transportation of MOX fuel?

The reality is that transportation of MOX fuel is undertaken in a way that is consistent with what the public demand, but I must make the point that, as a fuel, MOX is safer than many other similar nuclear materials. In particular, handling it is inherently far safer. However, the capacity of the transportation systems themselves to deter both accident and attack is high. That includes, of course, arming those who have responsibility for the safe transport of the fuel. Within those terms, I think that I can say that we are certain that what British Nuclear Fuels plc is engaged in is as safe as it possibly can be. There is a high measure of security.

I also thank the Minister for his response, but must press him on the point. Will he impress on other Departments the need for caution and for a plutonium disposal policy that takes into account international concerns, as well as environmental risks, rather than increasing reprocessing and MOX production at Sellafield?

Of course I will refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to my colleagues in other Departments, but the simple reality is that MOX is a better way to dispose of spent uranium through reprocessing. The advantage of MOX is that, in refuelling, the plutonium is destroyed. Therefore, the proliferation risks from plutonium disappear with that reprocessing cycle. It is a very environmentally and ecologically sound way to get rid of the dangers of proliferation.

In view of the imminence of the decision about the Sellafield MOX plant and the increasing public concern about the transport of all forms of radioactive waste—a concern highlighted by yesterday's revelation about secret attempts by British Nuclear Fuels to negotiate the import of spent fuel from the United States—may I ask my hon. Friend whether his Department or other Departments have conducted any independent research into the proliferation risks of the transport of MOX fuel, particularly with regard to the export of MOX fuel to other countries that are also signatories to the non-proliferation treaty?

The export of MOX fuel is covered by the relevant international conventions under the nuclear suppliers group regime. It means that we would not authorise export to countries and Governments where there was no commitment to use MOX solely for peaceful and energy-related purposes, and no agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that the conditions under which the fuels were held were adequate to guarantee security against any risk, including, obviously, the risk of proliferation.

When he plans to visit Cyprus to discuss its accession to the EU. [83503]

Last month, I visited Cyprus to discuss with representatives of both communities the prospects for a settlement and the progress on Cyprus's application to join the European Union. Although my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary currently has no plans to visit Cyprus, he and I have regular discussions with colleagues from other EU member states on all aspects of the accession process. There is also close and regular contact at official level.

Does the Minister agree that the decision not to deploy missiles in the south of the island is only the latest in a long series of constructive gestures made by the Republic of Cyprus, which consistently have not been met by reciprocal gestures by the regime in the north? Will she confirm that the only criteria that could and should properly be applied in negotiations on Cyprus's accession to the European Union are those that would be applied in the case of any other applicant country?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, let me say that we welcomed at the time the decision not to deploy the missiles, and believe that that was a positive step. Indeed, we urged that the authorities in the north should make similar gestures to build confidence and try to relaunch the peace process on the island. I should also like to pay tribute to the work of Dame Ann Hercus, who negotiates regularly with both communities on the island in trying to move the process forward. Perhaps I should also remind the hon. Gentleman that our own Prime Minister has made a strong commitment to undertaking every effort possible to relaunch the peace process this year.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reaffirmation of the Government's commitment to Cyprus's application to the European Union. Does she agree that further progress on achieving a settlement to the Cyprus question will require action by the Governments of Turkey and of the United States? Will she tell the House what representations to that effect the British Government have made to the Administrations in Ankara and Washington?

In our contacts with all interested parties, but particularly with Turkey and the United States—with whom we have worked closely on the issue—we have repeatedly urged on all sides efforts to make progress towards a settlement. We shall certainly continue to do so. We feel that it would be quite wrong simply to sit back at a time when EU accession negotiations offer an important opportunity. We believe that European Union membership would be very much in the interests of both communities on the island of Cyprus.

What discussions he plans with Governments of NATO countries, Russia and the Balkan states about plans for peace in Kosovo and the rest of Yugoslavia. [83505]

If he will make a statement on the current position regarding Kosovo. [83510]

If he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [83515]

Yesterday, 1 attended a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the European Union, at which I tabled Britain's proposals for a new contract between the European Union and the countries of the Balkan region. I also met bilaterally with Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, and Milo Djukanovic, the President of Montenegro, and spoke by phone with President Ahtisaari, who has recently been asked to serve as an envoy in partnership with Mr. Chernomyrdin. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in the region visiting Bulgaria and Albania. I shall shortly report more fully to the House when I open the forthcoming debate.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that answer. Since his report last week, what progress has he made on drafting a resolution to be put before the Security Council, but which would, if possible, be agreed by all parties in Europe? Has he been able to discuss the matter with the European Union special representative, the President of Finland, to engage his good offices in dealing with it? Specifically, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, as we are proposing a multinational peacekeeping force for Kosovo, the position of the Government and of NATO is that forces will not be deployed in a way that results in a de facto division of Kosovo by ethnic allegiance, and that Kosovo must remain as one entity, protected by an international peacekeeping force?

In response to the question about the Security Council resolution, I am pleased to report to the House that we have made good progress in discussion among the western members of the G8, and we have virtual agreement on all the elements of a resolution. We are looking for the appropriate time at which to explore those elements with our Russian partners. There will be a meeting of political directors on Wednesday to discuss the way forward towards a settlement.

I recognise what is already being done to try to protect civilians from the air raids. Does my right hon. Friend agree that even more should be done, even if it means the planes flying lower and extra danger to allied military personnel? On the wider issue, is it not the case that, once Belgrade shows a willingness to accept the basic conditions that have been put forward for a settlement—first and foremost an international military force in Kosovo, the return of all refugees and the protection of all civilians living in Kosovo—the bombing can stop and the talks can begin?

My hon. Friend is right. We have been exploring the precise sequencing of a bombing pause and we shall discuss that again with Russia. We are not going to continue bombing when our troops enter Kosovo to escort the refugees back. There is also plainly room for us to agree to a bombing pause while the Serb forces withdraw so that they can do so with confidence. However, there must be a clear agreement, with a serious intent from Belgrade to withdraw and admit the refugees, before we can do that.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, when we eventually get access to Kosovo, every effort will be made to trace the survivors of the disastrous accident at Korisa the other day, and the survivors of the other accidental bombings of Kosovars, and offer them whatever help they need, including medical assistance, to try to rebuild their lives?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are eager to enter Kosovo to bring medical relief to all those who have been victims, including the many internally displaced refugees who we know have been shelled deliberately by Milosevic's forces. We would be most anxious to provide all possible help to the survivors of what happened at Korisa. We would also be anxious to give them a full opportunity to explain to the International War Crimes Tribunal how they came to be refugees, why the Serb forces took them back off the hillsides and into the village, and why the same Serb forces reportedly prevented them from returning to their homes and kept them in two compounds. When the International War Crimes Tribunal investigators go in, I hope that they will have full access to all the sites at which civilians have been killed, particularly those that are the sites not of a tragic accident of war, but of deliberate, brutal butchery by the Serb forces.

Does the Foreign Secretary recall the words that he used during the Gulf war, when he questioned the efficacy of bombing runs deep into Iraq and asked whether the destruction of every power station, water supply and road bridge hit Iraqi civilians harder than Iraqi troops? Does he share similar doubts over the bombing in Yugoslavia? If not, what has changed his mind?

I do not share the same doubts, because we are not hitting all the power stations and all the water supply in Yugoslavia. On the contrary, we have taken great care to ensure that we hit only those targets that are of direct assistance to the military. That is why there have been many fewer bombing runs than there were during the Gulf war. I am pleased that we are succeeding in hitting the tanks, the trucks, the armoured personnel carriers and the artillery batteries in Kosovo. Those are the units that are carrying out the direct killing in Kosovo. I want an end to the bombing, but I can agree to that only when there is an end to the butchery of the civilians in Kosovo.

May we have an assurance that any resolution will not be based on the Rambouillet ultimatum, which was the severance of Kosovo through NATO bombing with immediate effect, or the severance of Kosovo through NATO occupation three years later? Not surprisingly, the Serbs said no to both.

I was at Rambouillet on every second day of the discussions—

Read the document.

I am familiar with the text, and with what we put to the Serbs. There was no proposal, as is now claimed by some in Belgrade, to occupy the whole of Yugoslavia. That point was never raised by the Serb side during the talks at Rambouillet. We proposed an arrangement which would have preserved the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic by keeping Kosovo within it; which would have preserved the long-term status of Kosovo, with matters to be resolved in consultation with the Kosovar people; and which would have provided full protection for the Serb minority within Kosovo, with their own elected authority to look after their language, religion and culture. It was the basis for a democratic, self-governing, multi-ethnic Kosovo. I very much regret that Belgrade was not willing to accept what was a fair offer.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the Prime Minister, who told the House last week that he believed that the air campaign, as currently conducted, will achieve in full NATO's five original objectives?

I am happy to assure the House that I always agree with my Prime Minister. For the past 48 hours, I have been stressing the success of that campaign, and I have done so again to the House. Only on Friday, I spoke to Hashem Thaqi—the leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army in Kosovo—who told me that the Yugoslav army in Kosovo is even more demoralised than before and has a high rate of desertion. There have been frequently witnessed confrontations involving VJ units leaving the front line and being turned back by the Serb police. We are making a mark, and the VJ army knows it.

Will the Foreign Secretary take steps to move British forces near enough to Kosovo, so that, when fair point. If we are to take advantage of the success of our air campaign, we have to be reathe moment comes—at present, it looks like it will be in the far-distant future—and President Milosevic buckles, there are sufficient troops present to capitalise on that success? Does the Foreign Secretary understand that, unless that happens promptly, not one single refugee will be able to go back to Kosovo this year? What steps are being taken to plan for their maintenance and support in the camps?

The hon. Gentleman raises ady to enter Kosovo when the moment arrives. That is why we have already deployed to Macedonia over 4,000 British troops. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, at the weekend, we put another 2,300 troops on standby to move there. We are making a major commitment, and we are now by far the leading nation within the force that will provide the nucleus for KFOR and enter Kosovo. However, that force must be an alliance force, and that is why we are in dialogue with our allies to make sure that others are deploying forces to the area in the same strength to make sure that we have a balanced contribution.

What proposals he has for the reform of the governance of the European Union. [83506]

The Government are pressing for radical and specific reforms in the way in which the Commission works. We believe that the Commission should be governed by the principles of efficiency, transparency and accountability. Achieving this will require changes in financial control systems, personnel management and structures. We have proposed a number of detailed measures and are discussing these with our partners and the new President of the Commission.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to radical reform, which is clearly necessary. The European Union has evolved substantially in the past 40 years, but its governance has yet to catch up. Does my hon. Friend agree that the chances of securing that reform, and of Britain leading it, are all the greater now that we are in a position of engagement and leadership in the European Union and no longer carping from the sidelines, as was the case before?

Absolutely. That was clearly seen in the positive outcome for this country of the negotiations in Berlin in March and the successes that we secured in structural policy and a variety of other policies, as well as in working out ways to make proper progress with a reformed European Commission.

Why is the disgraced Commissioner Edith Cresson still in post and drawing a salary?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, although we have agreed the appointment of the new Commission president to take forward the reforms that we want to see, the new Commission is not yet in place. Once it is, we expect it to proceed on the basis of the reforms that we and others have put forward. Those reforms will include terms and conditions for Commissioners and future appointments to the Commission. It is important that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should be constructive on the issues. Their manifesto for the European elections would lead to a massive loss of influence for Britain, whereas, at the moment, we are leading the debate—and I welcome that.

If he will make a statement on discussions with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. [R] [83508]

British and Argentine delegations will meet in the UK next week to discuss issues of common interest in the south Atlantic. The UK delegation will include members of the Falkland Islands Legislative Council.

When taking part in those discussions next week, will my hon. Friend emphasise the importance to the Falkland Islands of the fishing industry and the sale of fishing licences? The islanders are concerned that the Argentine Government on occasion use the sale of their fishing licences in a predatory way to seek to undermine the economy of the Falkland Islands. Is it possible to raise with the Argentine Government the issue of co-operation on the problem of illegal fishing in the south Atlantic?

Although the agenda is open, I would be surprised if the issue of fish stocks was not a major part of the bilateral discussions. In particular, it is already a matter of record that the Argentine Government and the Falkland Islands Government have agreed on mechanisms whereby the catch, especially of important stocks such as the whiting and the illex squid, will be kept this year to similar levels as last year. That spirit of co-operation is important because it makes sense to adopt conservation measures for migratory stocks only if they are agreed by all parties.

It is difficult to see how the Falkland Islanders can trust this Government when they have not looked after their interests well during their time in office. For example, it took 21 days from the Chilean Government saying that they would order the cessation of flights between Chile and the islands before the Foreign Secretary even bothered to raise the issue with the Chilean Foreign Minister.

One of the less endearing features of an Opposition who flounder in their foreign policy is their decision always to attack the innocent bystanders. Why attack the Falkland Islands Government when it is they who asked the British Government to play the suspension of Lan Chile flights in a low-key way in order not to politicise it? We agreed to that, but of course the Opposition did not.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) is right: illegal fishing is a serious problem for both the Argentinians and the Falkland Islanders. My hon. Friend the Minister spoke about equipping a fisheries protection vessel with a 20 mm cannon, which is useful, but why are his officials so hostile to the idea of using gear-cutting equipment of the kind that was used so effectively by Icelandic coastguard vessels against our fishermen in the so-called cod war? Why cannot the Falklanders be supplied with that very effective equipment?

We have tried to make progress in devising ways of deterring illegal fishing. We will consider technical means of deterrence as well as diplomatic pressure. Taiwan is one of the principal offenders and we regularly raise the matter with the Taiwanese Government. As well as the effectiveness of the deterrence, we must consider the risks, not only to the fishermen on the poaching vessels but to the sailors on the fisheries protection vessels. We have a duty to ensure that the regime, while being effective, guarantees minimum acceptable safety levels.

What representations he has received from the Spanish Foreign Minister concerning alleged irregularities in the financial sector in Gibraltar. [83512]

The Spanish Foreign Minister made a number of allegations that companies registered in Gibraltar are involved in money laundering, and some material in support of the allegations was handed over. The material has been investigated, but the allegations are either too vague for us to be able to act on them or they refer to cases already going through the courts. Gibraltar has money laundering legislation that conforms to United Kingdom and European Union standards. Both the British and the Gibraltar Government are strongly committed to the fight against crime.

Does the Minister agree that the general allegations are not specific enough to merit consideration? What court will deal with them, and are the Spaniards prepared to recognise the courts in Gibraltar? Is it not time we stopped playing with the Spanish as they seek continually to intimidate the Gibraltarians?

As the Spaniards are members of the European Union, they have to accept that Gibraltar has introduced legislation to conform to European Union standards, and we have made that point very strongly. The allegations are indeed too vague to act on, and we have made it clear that unhelpful, vague and sweeping allegations do not help and are unfair to Gibraltar.

The allegations are unfair to Gibraltar, but do they not also traduce the Foreign Secretary? Is it not time we were much more robust in complaining to Spain that its widespread and ill-founded allegations are a slur not only against the Gibraltar home Government but against the Foreign Secretary, who has ultimate responsibility for the police, courts and financial regulatory process in Gibraltar? Is it not time for a more robust seeing-off of the Spanish Government over Gibraltar than we have experienced of late?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, like all members of the Government, takes his responsibilities extremely seriously. We have protested strongly about those issues, and we shall continue to do so. There has been no lack of robustness on our part.

Is the right hon. Lady not entirely right to fight the unhelpful, vague and sweeping allegations of the Spanish authorities? Does not that vagueness contrast with clearly orchestrated delays on the frontier with Gibraltar perpetrated by the Spanish, which continue, notwithstanding the Anglo-Spanish summit attended by the Prime Minister on 10 April? Is not the Spanish legal jurisdiction one in which no fair-minded person can have confidence?

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's first few words. The border delays were sometimes as long as six hours in February, but are down to an hour or 45 minutes—

That's all right then.

I not saying that it is all right, but the line that we have taken and our robust protests have made a real difference.

What progress has been made to date in achieving a nuclear weapons-free world. [83513]

United States and Russian arms control agreements have brought the arsenals of the two major nuclear powers down dramatically from the cold war heights. The Government last year announced substantial reductions in our own nuclear deterrent. In 1997, Britain and France became the first nuclear powers to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. The entry into force of that treaty, and the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty, are among the highest priorities.

I thank my hon. Friend. At the nuclear proliferation treaty preparatory committee discussions currently under way at the United Nations in New York, the head of the British delegation stated that we have a clear view of our goal of global elimination of nuclear weapons, and that we know how we want to achieve it. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how the Foreign Office intends to achieve the aim of ridding the world of nuclear weapons once the fissile material cut-off treaty negotiations have been successfully concluded?

Britain has already taken significant steps. Announcements made in last year's strategic defence review mean that we have the lowest number of nuclear deterrents of any of the nuclear weapons states. We have also introduced new transparency into nuclear deterrence, and more is known about our nuclear weapons systems than has been known of any nuclear power in the history of nuclear weapons. Those are important steps.

The Minister said that more is known about British nuclear weapons than ever before. That may be so, though perhaps not for the reasons that he meant. Can he comment on the loss of information about Trident to the Chinese in the recent spying incident? Can he reassure the House that the Trident nuclear deterrent is safe in his hands?

The hon. Gentleman would not seriously expect me to comment on security matters. The deterrent is safe in our hands, and allegations about leaks are not allegations about actions by the British Government.

If he will make a statement on the funding for the next three financial years of the British Council. [83514]

As a result of the comprehensive spending review, the Government have been able to secure for the British Council £133.1 million in the first year, 1999-2000, rising to £136.1 million in the second year and £138.9 million in the third year. That means a real increase of about £2 million for each of those years. The British Council now has the resources to continue the excellent work that it does and to develop further programmes in line with the FCO's and its own objectives.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the British Council and the BBC World Service play an important part in representing Britain abroad and thus require stable and adequate funding for long-term planning? Is he also aware that, because the BBC World Service needs to be a quality service, it requires additional funding? Will he give an assurance that he will look into those matters?

I do agree with my hon. Friend and, for that reason, I am particularly pleased that the comprehensive spending review settlement has been able to secure for the council a real increase in line with the FCO's own settlement uplift of about 2 per cent. That will give the British Council a period of stability and some real money with which to plan ahead. Clearly, at the end of that CSR period, the Government will consider further funding again.

Would it be possible for the Minister to agree that more resources ought to be given to the BBC World Service at this time to assist it in the work that it is doing in Serbia to bring the true story of the NATO action to the Serbian people, and to assist it in its interlink programme, the aim of which is to link refugee families who have been split up throughout Europe and among the three receiving nations?

I agree; that is precisely why the Government have been concerned to ensure the stability of funding for the British Council so that it can plan ahead in the way that I have described.

If he will make a statement about relations with Albania. [83516]

Our relations with Albania are good. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Albania today. We are grateful to the Albanian Government for their support for the current NATO air strikes and for their humanitarian relief efforts.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Can he assure me that real contingency plans are being put in place to recognise Albania's efforts in dealing with the refugees and the impact on the country's economy of the conflict in Kosovo? Will he assure me that those efforts will be recognised and that Albania will get the just rewards that it fully deserves—the rebuilding of its country and economy—given its support for those actions?

The Albanian Government have taken the biggest number of refugees—it now stands at 430,000—and their efforts have been prodigious. They have been widely welcomed not merely in the region but throughout the world. There is no doubt that the strain on Albania's fairly weak economy has been enormous. In recognition of that fact, the European Union has already transferred significant sums of money both for the balance of payments and for the direct pressures on budgets.

Would the Minister draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the sayings of the Albanian President, Mr. Berisha, as reported in The Times today? Mr. Berisha, as well as saying that the KLA are a bunch of feuding gangs and racketeers, recommended that NATO should negotiate with Mr. Rugova. However, the House will be shattered to learn that, shortly after that, Mr. Rugova's henchman, Mr. Fehmi Agani—of course, all those names will be familiar to the Foreign Secretary—was assassinated. Immediately afterwards, Mr. Berisha attributed the murder to the KLA.

It is difficult for me to give the right hon. Gentleman a history lesson, but Mr. Berisha has not been President of Albania for some time. As one who knows about feuding gangs of racketeers in his own party, he may be the right person to give advice on such matters. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary heard him directly, I need not comment further except to say that we will work closely with the Government of Albania to achieve the stability that Europe needs.