If he will make a statement on the development of a northern dimension to the EU's common foreign and security policy. [90455]

The objective of the northern dimension is to improve the co-ordination and effectiveness of the European Union's policies and programmes in its northern regions and to contribute to the developing relationship between Russia, the other states of the Baltic region and the European Union. The Government fully support the initiative.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming Finland to the presidency of the European Union and in paying tribute to the crucial role that Finland played in the Kosovo peace settlement, especially through its president, Martti Ahtisaari? Does she agree that Finland's initiative late in 1997 in developing a northern dimension to the European Union's common foreign and security policy recognises the interdependence between the European Union, Russia and the Baltic states and the pivotal role that the EU can play in promoting stability in non-EU areas?

I strongly support the points made by my hon. Friend. I join her in welcoming the Finnish presidency of the European Union, and also wish to pay tribute to the officials in my Department who have worked with their Finnish counterparts to help to prepare for that presidency.

How can we have an effective common foreign and security policy without a defence element, which can be achieved only by amalgamating the Western European Union with the European Union? What are the implications of that for a country such as Finland, which is traditionally neutral?

The Finnish Government, and the Finnish presidency, are keen to work towards strengthening the common foreign and security policy that was the basis of last year's St. Malo initiative. We are working with the Finns and other nations to find the best way to move forward institutionally, but we all agree that practical results are important. The European Union nations, in co-operation with the NATO countries, need to have the capabilities and facilities to make an effective contribution to peacekeeping tasks. That is what the strengthening of the defence and security initiative is all about.

What plans he has to assist progress towards democracy in Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [90456]

We strongly support the transition to democracy in Indonesia, to which we attach great importance. We contributed more than £2 million in preparation for the first genuinely multi-party democratic elections since 1955. The money was spent on voter education, BBC local radio projects and assistance for domestic election monitors. We welcome the fact that the elections ran smoothly, and we are considering how we should help consolidate democracy in Indonesia.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response, and for the wide-ranging help given by the Government towards establishing full democracy in Indonesia. Will my hon. Friend be especially mindful, and watchful, of the army's role in the country, and give consideration to the freedom of trade unionists such as Mr. Pakpahan? I hope that the Government will support independent trade unions in Indonesia. The previous Government had the opportunity to do that, but did not take it.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. Certainly, the Government have put a great deal of effort into promoting the observance of human rights in Indonesia. I can tell my hon. Friend that Mr. Pakpahan was released at the start of President Habibie's period of office. We welcome his release, and the other releases that took place at that time.

Of course we all wish Indonesia well in the conclusion of the electoral process. If and when Megawati Soekarnoputri becomes president, will the Government guard against engaging too enthusiastically with her—in the way that was evident with Presidents Suharto and Habibie—until real advances in human rights, good governance and the provision of support for Indonesia's minority peoples have been achieved? Without the stability that will come with the fairer distribution of resources across the archipelago, are there not real risks for the region?

The hon. Gentleman may be a little over-enthusiastic, as the election result will not be announced until 24 July, making it a little early to anticipate the process that must be followed after a Government have been formed. The election and the count have been a spectacular achievement in democracy for Indonesia and its 128 million voters.

We welcome that exercise in democracy. Bearing in mind the fact that the Government have yet to be formed and that there will be a referendum on East Timor, has the Minister any thoughts on how democracy might be maintained if speculation is correct that the Indonesian Government are already withdrawing troops and others from Timor?

I am not aware of that speculation. We monitor the situation in East Timor closely, and I held several discussions on it during my recent visit to New York, particularly with my United Nations counterpart. Security is vital in East Timor if consultation is to take place freely and fairly, and we look to the Indonesian Government to create the right conditions.

Is my hon. Friend aware of reports that British-supplied Hawk jet aircraft were seen flying low over Dili, the capital of East Timor, last Thursday, and making two low passes over the town? Diplomats on the spot say that that was a macho gesture to remind the East Timorese of who is in charge. Given that we have been continually told that Hawk aircraft are not used in East Timor, will my hon. Friend investigate those reports and make known his objection to such flights?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already written to the Indonesian Foreign Minister to express our concern at press reports that UK-built Hawk aircraft have flown over East Timor. We have reminded the Indonesians that there are no circumstances in which UK-supplied military equipment should be deployed there.

What policy objectives he plans to secure under the Finnish presidency of the EU in relation to enlargement. [90457]

Negotiations to enlarge the European Union have made good progress since the launch of the accession process during the British presidency. Six of the applicant countries have opened detailed negotiations, covering 15 of the 31 chapters of European law. We are working for a commitment by the end of the Finnish presidency to open negotiations on membership with Bulgaria, Romania and others.

I am sure that the Secretary of State is right on that. However, at the conclusion of the United Kingdom presidency, the Finnish Prime Minister said that enlargement was more problematic than it had been a year before. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the most important item on the agenda of any presidency, and of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, must be enlargement so that an outward-looking Europe can be secured?

I entirely agree with that sentiment. The British presidency's priority was, with full consensus, the launch and smooth start of the accession process. The recent agreement on Agenda 2000 provides the financial headroom to do that. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support, for once, on European policy, and I assure him that we shall press strongly to make a success of enlargement.

Will Turkey be invited to the proposed European conference in the later part of the year? Is there any indication of whether Turkey would accept such an invitation? How does my right hon. Friend envisage an improvement coming about in the strained relationship between the European Union and Turkey?

I regret that Turkey did not attend yesterday's meeting of European Foreign Ministers. The invitation remains open to Turkey, and we hope that it will be accepted. It is in the interests of both the EU and Turkey that we establish constructive working relationships, and we are ready to do so when Ankara proves ready.

I join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming Chris Patten's appointment as a Commissioner. It is good to see the overwhelming victory of the centre right in the European elections reflected by the appointment of at least a few Commissioners of that persuasion.

First, there is an IGC coming—I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having acquired the information on that. It will follow on the Portuguese presidency, and the Finnish presidency will be responsible for making preparations for it. If we are serious about the point raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—giving priority to enlargement—the European Union has to carry through the reforms necessary for that enlargement.

Of course, it would not have been imposed in the first place without qualified majority voting. The two issues are linked, because the Finnish presidency document says:

"Work will be pursued on the proposals on the taxation of savings and interest and royalties with a view to reaching agreement before the Helsinki Council meeting."

Of course the Government will stand up for the British interest. Part of that interest is in making sure that industries on the continent do not receive unfair subsidised tax breaks from their Governments. That is why Britain is proud of the fact that a British Minister is leading the working group on such unfair tax competition. If the hon. Gentleman would go out and talk to industry in Britain, he would find that it was as enthusiastic as we are about achieving a level playing field with our competitors.

Has my right hon. Friend seen statements from the Governments of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic that they seek membership of the European Union? How does that square with the clear views of Conservative Members who wish to see Britain withdraw from the EU?

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. It is one of the remarkable features of the debate that the Conservative party constantly distances itself from Brussels while the whole of the rest of Europe is queueing up to join the bus that the Tories want to get off.

What discussions he has had with his opposite numbers in the United Nations regarding the present situation in East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [90458]

I had extensive talks with the United Nations in New York about East Timor as well as other issues between 5 and 7 July. The Secretary-General decided that registration for the delayed United Nations-organised ballot should go ahead on 16 July. The United Nations will, however, keep the security situation under constant review. The Secretary-General will make a further assessment of conditions on the ground half way through the registration period before deciding whether and when the consultation should take place.

In view of the present unstable situation in East Timor prior to the vote, what assessments has the Minister made of the Indonesian Government's apparent intention swiftly to withdraw from the area if the vote goes against them? Does he agree that the Australian Government, which has a joint security treaty with the Indonesians, is now in a strong position to help to bring peace to that area? What contribution will the Foreign Office make towards bringing peace to the area? It is clear that international intervention is becoming more and more likely.

We have sent seven police officers and two military liaison officers to be part of the United Nations mission for East Timor, which is headed by a British United Nations official. It is important that Indonesia fulfil its responsibility to ensure security so that the consultation can go ahead. Contingency plans are being prepared by the United Nations for an early withdrawal by Indonesia from East Timor following the result of the consultation.

In the light of the attacks on the UN posts in East Timor, what have the Government done to try to bring to the attention of the new Indonesian Government the clear view that their pro-integrationist militia will not be tolerated in the period running up to a referendum?

Following the attack on 29 June on Maliana, I summoned the Indonesian ambassador to express our deep concern and to request that his Government bring the pro-integrationist militia under control. On 8 July, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Indonesian Foreign Minister about the situation. The EU has been taking similar action. We welcomed last week's visit to East Timor by half the Indonesian Cabinet to assess the security situation. As a result, we anticipate that the situation should be calmer.

If he willmake a statement on progress in implementing Agenda 2000. [90459]

Legislation implementing the vast majority of the Agenda 2000 package has now been agreed. The whole package was supported by the European Parliament in May. Much of the legislation will come into force from 1 January 2000. The Berlin summit deal on the budget and on policy reform made provision for enlargement. Pre-accession aid of 3 billion euro a year will be available to help the candidates to prepare for accession. Substantial structural funds will also be available for new member states joining between 2002 and 2006.

Not unnaturally, there has been a great deal of publicity in the United Kingdom for the Government's huge success in achieving funding under objectives 1, 2 and 3 and also in achieving the safety net. That is especially appreciated in Wales. However, there has not been much publicity for what has been done on the other side of the coin—the progress towards enlargement itself. Will my right hon. Friend enlighten us on that matter?

In relation to preparation for enlargement, the Government and the EU are doing a great deal. In particular, Departments throughout Government are working with their counterparts in the applicant countries to prepare those countries in specific policy matters. I especially commend to the House the twinning scheme which links our Departments with several Departments in applicant countries. In the second round of twinning, we have won more successful schemes than any other country.

Is not the prerequisite for entry to the EU, the ability to join the single currency, a serious impediment to the applicant nations of central and eastern Europe? They should have been allowed to join long since. The Berlin wall fell almost 10 years ago; is it not true that the EU has demonstrated itself to be a rich man's club—more interested in protectionism and feathering its own nest than in showing itself as a true community of outward-looking nations to which the countries of eastern and central Europe are welcome?

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that this year is the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. However, I do not draw the same conclusions from that as he does. There is much to rejoice over in the transformation that has taken place during the past 10 years. I am very pleased that the countries of the EU—including our own—have built up so many political and economic relations with countries that were formerly behind the iron curtain. Indeed, the whole process of enlargement and the funds that have been attached to it should show that we are serious in ensuring that we build a constructive relationship with the countries from which we were formerly divided.

Although I accept that the Minister herself has visited the applicant countries for EU membership, when will the Government address the deficiency in their senior members' visits to such countries on behalf of the UK? Is it not true that, after two and a half years of Labour Government, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not visited any of the applicant states? Why is that? Why was priority given to south America and Australia? Is it not true that the Prime Minister has not yet been able to visit any of the applicant states, either? Bearing in mind the fact that Ministers in countries comparable to the UK have kept a high profile, and have advanced the interests of their commerce, in the applicant states, when will the matter be addressed?

While I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong commitment to the countries of central and eastern Europe, his information is not up to date. There have been many ministerial visits—in fact, I think that there have been five ministerial visits to Poland in the past month. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has visited all the applicant countries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has visited certain of the candidate countries and plans to do more: his recent visit to Poland was cancelled, but for a reason that hon. Members on both sides of the House should understand, which is the situation in Northern Ireland. Ministerial contacts across the board have improved dramatically over the past year and I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes those efforts. We shall undertake more visits, but our engagement with applicant countries is already at a very high level.

Does the Minister consider it satisfactory that, in the financial forecast developed after the Berlin Council to meet the Agenda 2000 objectives, the financial forecasts for EU budget payments go up by 12 per cent. between 2000 and 2004? Does she consider it satisfactory that, at a time when people are concerned about extravagance and waste in the Commission, the only line in the six years of those forecasts that continuously rises faster than inflation is expenditure on the EU' s administration itself?

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome the financial package that was agreed at Berlin, which stands in stark contrast to the financial packages agreed by the Conservative Governments in 1992 and 1988, under which overall expenditure soared and the bill to the taxpayer was considerable. The most recent round of financial negotiations is the first time such expenditure increases have not resulted. We got a satisfactory solution that included generous receipts to this country in terms of structural funds, but kept well within the ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of EU GNP.

What discussions he has held with his counterparts in other Governments about the future of Kashmir. [90461]

What plans he has to assist in negotiating a ceasefire by India and Pakistan in Kashmir. [90464]

What assessment his Department has made of relations between India and Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [90471]

I have discussed recent developments in Kashmir with the Foreign Ministers of both India and Pakistan. I expect to meet the Pakistani Foreign Minister for lunch next week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw the Prime Minister of Pakistan last week and subsequently wrote to the Prime Minister of India. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), has also discussed the latest fighting with the high commissioners of both countries.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is high time India and Pakistan resolved their dispute over Kashmir? While India and Pakistan squabble, the people of Kashmir suffer. Does he recall the energy that Commonwealth Heads of Government devoted to tackling apartheid in South Africa? Given that India and Pakistan are both Commonwealth countries, is there a role for the Commonwealth in helping to find a just and lasting settlement in Kashmir that builds on the United Nations resolutions and on the Simla process to bring peace to that troubled region?

As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the majority of the population of the Commonwealth lives in Pakistan and India. It pains all members of the Commonwealth to see two strong members of the Commonwealth with so many difficulties between them. I do not know whether there is necessarily a role for the Commonwealth in resolving the tensions between India and Pakistan: in the first instance, both parties would have to agree to seek that mediation. I hope that, now there has been an agreement to withdraw, the way is open to resume the promise that was held out at Lahore of meaningful dialogue between both Prime Ministers, who showed real courage in making that commitment.

One of my constituents, a British citizen, told me recently that he saw eight members of his extended family killed during the recent conflict in Kashmir. Bearing in mind the fact that the lives of British citizens are being affected by the conflict, and that, last year, both India and Pakistan demonstrated to the world that they have a considerable nuclear capability, may I urge my right hon. Friend to use whatever power he has to press the Governments of India and Pakistan, however difficult it is for them, to stay with the negotiations and make every effort to ensure that the conflict is finally brought to an end? It is beginning to affect us all.

I assure my hon. Friend that the content of my conversation with both Foreign Ministers and the contents of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's conversation with the Pakistani Prime Minister were exactly along the lines that my hon. Friend urges—namely, that both countries must, through dialogue, seek to resolve the areas of tension between them. My hon. Friend singles out a worrying aspect of the picture: the near-nuclear capacity of both states. Britain has taken a leading role in trying to encourage both countries to sign up to the global non-proliferation regime, and the task force initiated by Britain met again only yesterday.

My right hon. Friend will know that there is a large Kashmiri community and an equally important Indian community in Bradford, both of which are frustrated and concerned about what is happening between India and Pakistan. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that frustration is caused partly because the 1948 United Nations resolution has not been acted upon? Both communities are frustrated at the failure of the international community to deal with the situation and to bring both parties together. The solution can be determined only between India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri community.

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend's last point. This issue must be addressed, in the first instance, by the parties to the dispute: India and Pakistan, who should have regard to the opinion of the people of Kashmir. My hon. Friend touches upon an important issue for us in Britain: we must ensure that the dispute over Kashmir is not imported to this country.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any political settlement must command the assent of the majority of people in Kashmir? Does he envisage a more proactive role for the United Nations, the Security Council and the Secretary-General in trying to bring the different sides of the conflict together?

I agree absolutely that any outcome—if it is to be just and lasting—must be acceptable to the people of Kashmir. However, I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to underrate the difficulty of establishing what is acceptable, particularly given the line of control that divides historic Kashmir. Whether there is a role for the Secretary-General or anyone else is in the hands of the two parties. Both sides must be willing to accept such mediation and good offices before the offer could be productive.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is the Indian Government's refusal to accept a United Nations role? Although it begrudgingly acknowledges that there are monitors on the ceasefire line, the Indian high commission does not agree with the resolution that India took jointly to the United Nations Security Council. Will my right hon. Friend therefore use all his powers to ensure that all international diplomatic players exert whatever influence they have on the Indian Government, first, to monitor human rights; secondly, to demilitarise the zone, which has the highest military/civilian ratio in the world; and, thirdly, to allow free and fair elections to take place in Kashmir? We all agree that, while there is a continuing military presence, there is no chance of democracy flourishing.

It is correct that, if we are to make progress in addressing the underlying source of the problem, the only realistic way forward is through interim confidence-building measures. They might include strengthening the observance of the line of control, because UN monitors in Kashmir regularly detect violations on both sides of that line; or greater transparency in human rights matters and the observation of human rights by outside monitors. Those measures could form part of a process that would lead to tackling the underlying issues of tension. I hope, when the Lahore dialogue recommences, that it will be able to address some of those, and other, confidence-building measures.

If he will make a statement on anti-Semitism in Russia. [90462]

We continue to be concerned about anti-Semitic incidents in Russia. As I said in my written answer to my hon. Friend's question on 22 June, anti-Semitic comments by Duma Deputies Makashov and I1yukhin last year caused widespread outrage. The recent stabbing in the Jewish cultural centre in Moscow also reminds us of the dangers of extremism. We instigated European Union presidency representations on anti-Semitism in January, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue with the Russians during his visit to Russia in March.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her statement. Clearly, there is grave concern in the Jewish community which is fuelled by the growth of anti-Semitic statements such as those that she mentioned and the attacks on synagogues in Moscow and the far east in May, including, most recently, the appalling attempted murder last week of Mr. Kaimonarsky, the director of the Jewish cultural centre in Moscow. Although the Russian Government promise that they will take action, very little appears to have happened on the ground. When Mr. Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, comes to London tomorrow for a two-day visit, will my right hon. Friend raise with him our concerns about the extremely worrying lack of action and find out whether something practical can be done to deal with the problem?

Certainly, human rights will be one of the issues on the agenda for the discussions between my right hon. Friend and the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Ivanov. We constantly seek information about that area of policy via a number of routes, including, not least, our embassy, and we make representations whenever it is appropriate. I also discussed those issues with the President's human rights adviser, Professor Kartashkin, when he visited London earlier this year.

When the Foreign Secretary made representations about the offensive statements by Russian Deputies, was any apology, whether direct or indirect, forthcoming? In considering the problem of anti-Semitism among the Russian population as a whole, will the right hon. Lady accept that economic adversity, although it can never justify or excuse that evil, provides fertile ground for its continuation? Does she therefore agree that early pressure on the Russians to undertake the reforms necessary for economic progress is of the utmost importance?

First, shortly after Deputy Makashov's original outburst, President Yeltsin condemned such racial intolerance, and I understand that the Russian authorities have brought charges against Deputy Makashov, so action has been taken.

When he next expects to meet representatives of the Israeli Government to discuss the middle east peace process. [90465]

If he will make a statement on the UK's relations with the Palestine National Authority. [90467]

If he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the state of Israel. [90468]

The new Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Ehud Barak, will call on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tomorrow. We warmly welcome his bold inaugural speech in which he committed himself to achieve

"a peace of the brave".

I join my right hon. Friend in warmly welcoming the change of atmosphere since Mr. Barak took control. However, for the past few years, under Mr. Netanyahu's direction, there was continued settlement building in the west bank and east Jerusalem. In his discussions with Israel, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it is important to reverse that position to assist the peace process?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the essential basis for any progress on the peace agreement is the principle of land for peace. For that reason, we have continued to criticise unilateral breaches of the peace agreement by the expansion of settlements on the occupied territories, which we consider illegal. We shall certainly explore that as part of the peace process. Any final settlement will need to be a package, and one acceptable to both sides—Palestinian and Israelis alike.

The announcements from Washington yesterday were particularly encouraging. The Palestine National Authority's economy is badly damaged by severe restrictions on movement of goods and people, especially between Gaza and the north and south of the west bank. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a further boost to the peace process, it is important to press for implementation of the parts of the Wye agreement that address that very problem?

Yes. We warmly welcome Mr. Barak's commitment to proceed with the Wye agreement and to implement it. That must be one of the best steps towards confidence-building before we can start on the final stages of talks. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the inconvenience, irritation and very deep economic impact of the restrictions on movement in the Gaza strip and the west bank. If we are to ensure that the peace process can continue in a stable and lasting way, we must be able to show the people of Palestine its benefits to them individually and its economic gains to their society.

I am sure that the whole House will welcome Prime Minister Barak on his visit tomorrow. It shows the very high standing of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. I am obviously concerned about ensuring that the peace process moves forward at great speed. The Wye plantation agreement was accompanied by a memorandum of understanding on arrangements, should the agreement go forward, between British armed forces and Israeli defence forces. Prime Minister Barak has famously called the middle east

"a tough neighbourhood to live in".

We did sign a memorandum of understanding separately from the Wye agreement, to which we would certainly be committed. We have worked very hard with the Palestine National Authority to assist it with technology and capacity to ensure security, and have provided British advice and support in that effort. It is very important that, although we cannot provide a 100 per cent. guarantee of security, there must be a 100 per cent. effort to achieve security—without which neither side can trust the peace process.

Does the Foreign Secretary welcome signs—according to reports in today's press—that in response to Israeli peace initiatives, the Syrian Government appear to be instructing Hezbollah to lay down its arms and stop waging its proxy war against Israel in the Lebanon? Is he concerned by reports that Hezbollah is apparently resisting those demands? In the context of any peace settlement between Israel and Syria, does he agree that in order to lay many of the ghosts of the past, it is important that the Syrian Government cease their decades of sheltering Aloïs Brunner, who, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, was Adolf Eichmann's henchman in charge of implementing the holocaust in France?

I am not in a position to confirm the reports in the press over the past 24 hours about Syria's calling on radical groups to refrain from armed resistance to Israel or to the peace process, but if they can be confirmed, they are very welcome. For today, that is perhaps the appropriate response. Plainly, as we enter into dialogue with Syria, and as Israel carries that forward, there may be other matters to be addressed. If Syria's response is confirmed, it underlines Mr. Barak's courage and wisdom in making a commitment to seek the withdrawal of Israeli troops from south Lebanon in one year. The peace process must be comprehensive; it must proceed on all tracks, not just the Palestinian track. There is now hope that we may be able to take that process forward in the next 12 months.

May I, like the Foreign Secretary, welcome any progress that is made on the peace settlement in the middle east and offer the Opposition's support to Prime Minister Barak on the occasion of his visit tomorrow?

I can give the House and the hon. Lady absolutely no assurance that we shall use only Ministers or official diplomats in areas of sensitivity. If the hon. Lady ever occupies this side of the Chamber, she will discover that it is quite normal, where there are sensitive issues to be taken forward, for Prime Ministers to use special envoys.

Mr. Barak has been quoted as saying that although he wishes to stop the illegal settlement on Ras al-Amud, it is too late to stop the development on Har Homa. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Har Homa's development would be in defiance of international law and the fourth Geneva convention, and that if the Israeli Government wish to stop that development, they can?

My views on Har Homa are well known in Israel and here. Any unilateral breach of the peace process is unhelpful to the peace process as a whole. In fairness to Mr. Barak, he can no more put back the clock to the start of the Netanyahu Government than this Government could put back the clock to 1979. He has to start from the point at which he inherits. We very much welcome the commitment that he has shown to the peace process. We shall be happy to discuss with him tomorrow how he takes it forward.

What plans he has to improve relations with Iran; and if he will make a statement. [90470]

Our policy towards Iran aims to encourage the reforms already under way in Iran while pressing for improvements in those Iranian policies that are of concern.

I thank the Minister for his statement. Is he aware that his twin-track policy towards Iran is causing concern among the Jewish community, the National Council of Resistance of Iran and other groups? They consider that a single-track policy that focuses on human rights would be more appropriate. In relation to the Jewish community, will Ministers seek assurances from the Iranian authorities that the 13 members of the Jewish community who are currently detained will have access to family visits and kosher food, will have adequate legal representation, and will have a fair and open trial?

Our twin-track policy does focus on human rights—it is part of the twin track to ensure that where there are continuing concerns about human rights abuses in Iran, we raise those vigorously at every level with the Iranian Government. In particular, on the point about Jewish detainees, I invited the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office on 1 July and urged him to ensure that there would be a fair trial and access for visitors, together with legal representation. I received assurances on each of those matters. In particular, I understand that visits have now been allowed.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the reported remarks by leading members of the military in Iran against the policies of the elected President, and the fact that there is clearly a danger of a serious backlash and reactionary moves away from the limited liberalisation that has taken place so far? Will he assure the House that as well as taking up the issue of minorities—including the Jewish minority—in Iran, we will not tolerate any reversion to the dreadful reactionary policies that were adopted under Khomeini?

That is the essence of the Government's twin-track policy—to encourage reform, and at the same time to concentrate on areas of continuing concern. If my hon. Friend is referring to recent events in Iran, I think that it is still too soon to make judgments about their outcome. It is right for the Iranian people to resolve those matters, particularly the role of the army.

Is the Minister aware that a considerable number of hon. Members recently attended a briefing on Iran by the BBC? We were all impressed by the quality and breadth of that briefing. Will he join me in paying tribute to the work of the BBC external services, which probably do more than any other institution to promote knowledge and understanding, especially in countries suffering some form of internal difficulty?

I was not aware of that particular briefing, but I happily join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the BBC on the excellent work of its external services, which serve as a source of information for large numbers of people around the world who otherwise would not have access to that information, because of the policies of their Governments.

What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the reconstruction of Kosovo. [90472]

My European Union colleagues and I discussed the reconstruction of Kosovo at yesterday's meeting of the General Affairs Council. We will discuss it again next week at the Sarajevo summit of the stability pact.

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about reports that the United Nations is running out of money to fund the vital reconstruction of villages such as Qirez and Polac, which I visited in the last weekend of June, and where every house, school and mosque has been destroyed?

My hon. Friend, from the evidence of his own visit, is right to draw the attention of the House to the task that remains before us, which is immense. I do not think that the final problem will be one of resources. The European Union and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development together will undertake most of the reconstruction effort, and resources are available to them and have already been earmarked within the EU. However, we are concerned at the slow pace of development on the ground. That is why we supported the appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for a trust fund to start now on small projects that can provide confidence and hope in Kosovo, and why Britain was the very first member of the United Nations to make a contribution, by offering $1 million.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that conditions will be attached to the reconstruction aid being given through the European Community? Will he also say which specific external programmes will be cut because of the additional reconstruction aid agreed by the Budget Council last week?

I am not sure what conditions the hon. Lady has in mind. Let us be clear that we are providing the money not to any Government of Kosovo, and far less to any Government of Yugoslavia. The funds being provided for the reconstruction of Kosovo are part of a United Nations effort, of which we are part. We will, of course, want to make sure that that money is used prudently. On the question of the budget, the money will come from category 4, which at present is underspent, and we do not anticipate other parts of category 4 being cut back.

I understand from animal welfare groups that the state of meat control in Kosovo is extremely serious, because the Serbian heads of the meat management departments who controlled the quality of meat have left and taken much of the equipment. It seems to be a general problem that a great deal of the administration of Kosovo is no longer functioning because of the withdrawal of the Serbian management.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on finding a question relating to the reconstruction of Kosovo that I have never previously been asked. I shall consider it and write to my hon. Friend. On the broad principle, he is right. One of the revealing features about the extent to which the 1989 autonomy was cancelled by Serbia, is the stark degree to which all public industry and services were in the hands of Serbian, not Kosovo-Albanian, management. Many of those dismissed in 1989 are still in Kosovo and available to undertake such tasks, but in the short run there is an immense appetite within Kosovo for people with specialist skills who can help in the management of the reconstruction. We have appealed for such people—not just from central Government, as there is also a real role to be played by local government servants working at a local level in Kosovo.

I understand the huge and urgent requirement for reconstruction in Kosovo, but can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that that aim will not divert the Government from their long-term strategic support for other countries in the region, most notably, Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania?

The hon. Gentleman is right. When we travel to Sarajevo next Friday, we will have an opportunity to give the countries of the region the clear message that we are determined that the outcome of the Kosovo conflict will be a turning point for the region and that we will bring down trade barriers with the countries of the region, promote a climate for private investment there, and tackle the security issues which have resulted in far too high military expenditure in some of the countries of the western Balkans. We must ensure that we not only reconstruct Kosovo, but act throughout the region to prevent future conflict of the same kind.

If he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Turkey. [90474]

The United Kingdom is keen to continue to build constructive relations overall with the Turkish republic. I recently visited Turkey from 12 to 14 July, when a number of issues were discussed.

Have real representations been made to the Turkish regime about the way in which it has suppressed the Kurdish population for years and years? How can we regard Turkey as a democracy when it deals with part of its population in that way? What positive steps will now be taken by the international community—to borrow a phrase—to put right the conditions in that country so that it can enter the world community on the same basis as other democracies?

On my visit, I raised a number of human rights concerns, including the treatment of people within Turkey's own borders with regard to laws controlling freedom of expression and some of the court and legal proceedings there. The new Government have introduced a number of measures to the Parliament in the past month, which are welcome steps, but there are also a number of ways, through our mutual membership of organisations such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe, in which those real matters of concern can be pursued.

When he next plans to consult his European Union partners on further approaches to resolve the Cyprus problem. [90477]

We and our EU partners are in regular contact about Cyprus and continue to give strong support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts towards a settlement in Cyprus. The members of the G8, which met on 20 June, and the UN Security Council, which met on 29 June, have urged the Secretary-General to invite the leaders involved in Cyprus to enter without pre-conditions comprehensive negotiations starting in the autumn. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have assured the Secretary-General that he will have our full support in efforts to get those negotiations under way.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reflect on the fact that today is the 25th anniversary of the cruel and tragic division of that island? I urge her and all Foreign Office Ministers to renew their efforts to persuade the authorities in Ankara to understand that any ambitions that they may have to join the European family of nations cannot be fulfilled unless and until they facilitate a settlement of the Cyprus problem.

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of today's anniversary, and I know that an early-day motion referring to it has been tabled. He is also right that we should renew and redouble our efforts to make progress towards resolving the Cyprus issue and I made that point forcefully during my visit to Turkey last week.