What recent meetings he has had with the President of the European Commission to discuss enlargement of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [112868]

My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary regularly have discussions with the President of the European Commission, including on enlargement. We agree that enlargement is essential if we are to spread peace, stability and shared values throughout the continent. The United Kingdom is committed to a swift and successful enlargement of the European Union, and is working with the European Commission as well as other member states and the candidate countries to achieve this. I have also met Commissioner Verheugen to discuss these matters.

I am delighted to be able to agree with the Minister's response to my question, but can he explain how an unreformed common agricultural policy, a single currency and generally deeper integration will assist in the historic purpose that he so eloquently described?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, discussions and negotiations are a matter for the candidate countries and the Commission. The chapter on agriculture has not yet been opened, although 23 of the 31 chapters of the acquis have been. They will be tough negotiations, and I am sure and I hope that they will have a successful and swift conclusion.

Although I welcome the emphasis and attention that the Government are giving to the enlargement process, may I urge the Minister and his colleagues to pay particular attention to building up non-governmental organisations and the process of political development not just in countries such as Hungary and the Czech Republic, which have made substantial progress, but in others, such as Romania and Bulgaria, where progress still needs to be made?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is clear that the tough on-going negotiations are important. However, at the level of political engagement between applicant countries and the Commission and the United Kingdom, we must ensure that such links are made. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have made a number of visits to the applicant countries, and we regularly receive Ministers from them. It is essential that the positive engagement between the United Kingdom and the applicant countries continues.

May I congratulate the Minister on his triumphantly successful and newsworthy speech in Washington? Are those who were present at it now anxious about memory or hearing loss, or both?

There will always be discussions on these matters, and clearly agriculture is extremely important. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the United Kingdom is committed to ensuring that the CAP is reformed, but we will not hold up enlargement before it is reformed. Clearly, the agricultural chapters will be watched very carefully.

If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with Uganda. [112869]

Britain and Uganda have a close relationship and we are supporting Uganda's economic, social and democratic development.

Will my hon. Friend seek to strengthen our ties with Uganda and will he reassure the House of the importance that we attach to a party-based democracy in that country? Does he believe, as I do, that the World Service of the BBC, which can regularly reach 68 per cent. of the population of Kampala, has a part to play in that?

We will certainly strengthen our ties with Uganda, which probably has the best anti-poverty record in Africa, and we are supporting it. I am, however, concerned about a number of aspects of the coming referendum on a no-party democracy. I have expressed them to President Museveni and pointed out the need for a level playing field between those in favour and those against his proposals. It is not obvious that such a level playing field is being provided at the moment. It should include free access to the media, and the role of the BBC World Service, as my hon. Friend says, could be important in that.

Is the Minister aware that there are 15 million people in the Horn of Africa, including 750,000 Ugandans, who are in fear of starvation and disease as a result of the complete crop failure in that area? Can the House be reassured that the Government are planning preparatory measures to deal with this incipient crisis? Is this not yet another example where arranging for bases in Africa to stockpile equipment and foodstuffs against such emergencies might be helpful?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, and I very much share his concerns about the drought and the worsening food problem in that area, which are affecting countries as far south as Kenya. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is making the preparations that the hon. Gentleman has identified and will make every effort to ensure that the problem is addressed, as she has so effectively done in other parts of Africa.

Has my hon. Friend had time to read early-day motion 515, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett)? Is it not worrying that elements in Uganda are flagrantly breaching sanctions, as are some of their neighbours? Does not that inflict terrible damage on the effectiveness of sanctions and international agreements? Is it not time to name and shame?

I have indeed seen early-day motion 515, and I am very concerned about the evidence that it contains. In particular, there is a reference to a senior member of Ugandan society. I am sure that President Museveni, who assured me that he would investigate all such reports of sanctions busting involving the supply of UNITA, will want to consider that closely.

What representations he has made to the Commission on the document, "Adapting the Institutions to make a Success of Enlargement"; and if he will make a statement. [112871]

What representations the Government have made to other EU member states on the proposals set out in the Commission's document, "Adapting the Institutions to make a Success of Enlargement"; and if he will make a statement. [112883]

The Government are in regular contact with the Commission on a range of issues, including the intergovernmental conference. However, IGC decisions will be made by member states alone. The Government's position is set out in the White Paper laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 15 February.

Does the Minister not realise that the document completely reverses the current situation in which voting by unanimity is the norm and qualified majority voting is confined to certain policy areas? If he does not take this opportunity to make it clear that he is opposed to that, he will be seen by Brussels as giving it the green light to take control of a huge range of policy areas such as structural and cohesion funds.

The hon. Gentleman should calm down. Nobody is trying to take over this country—or, indeed, him. The Commission is entitled to put forward its view, and it has made its opinion clear. We have a short and focused agenda of what we shall achieve. We shall fight very hard at ministerial and official level to make sure that our agenda is accepted. Certainly, in relation to the development of the IGC, everything that the UK has asked for is proceeding according to plan. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the end, as I said, the decision will be taken by the member states and the European Council, and not by the Commission, although of course we always value the Commission's input in those deliberations.

Does the Minister not accept that the document shows that the European Commission is using enlargement as a Trojan horse for the creation of a federal European super-state? Can he explain why the Government have not set out in their White Paper any response to the pernicious proposal for European-wide voting lists, which would involve Members of the European Parliament being elected by an electorate of more than 300 million adults? How is that compatible with democracy and national sovereignty?

I feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman if he is so obsessed with the idea of a federalist state that he thinks that everything that emanates from Brussels is a step on the long march to a federalist state. We have made our position absolutely clear. I commend the IGC document to him. If he has not received a copy of the White Paper launched by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 15 February, I will send him two copies.

Are there not two problems bedevilling the enlargement process? One is the failure to reform the common agricultural policy, and the other is the freedom of movement of labour. How can there be such freedom when at this very moment most member states are tightening their immigration laws? What would happen in an enlarged Europe with those tightened regulations?

I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the IGC has a short and focused agenda. The purpose of the IGC is to prepare the European Union for enlargement. We have a strict timetable, which means that the IGC must be completed by the end of 2000. If we do not stick to a very short and focused agenda, we will not complete it by the end of 2000, and we will not be ready for enlargement. The issues raised by my hon. Friend are important. We have a tough but fair immigration policy, and we are certain that our European partners will operate on the same basis.

What representations he has received on his White Paper on the IGC; and if he will make a statement. [112872]

There have been no formal representations on the White Paper, but the response from the applicant countries has been universally positive. Over the past two weeks I have discussed the proposals with the Foreign Ministers of Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Romania. All of them welcomed the fact that the Government are giving such a strong commitment to the reforms needed for enlargement.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that such matters are outwith the real concerns of the majority of the British people? Their concern is that the European Union as at present constructed is still very imperfect, not least because many countries apparently flout many of the regulations to which they have appended their names. Many British people would not support the extension of the Community into other policy areas, be it the existing 15 member states or the applicant countries. Will the Secretary of State give his commitment that he will concentrate at the IGC on making Europe work better at what it is doing now—including the applicant countries as they join—rather than on any further extension of its activities into policy areas in which it is not currently involved?

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that those of us who support the European Union and want Britain's membership of it to be a success also want the European Union to be reformed. That is why one of the issues that we have proposed within the IGC is for reform of the European Court of Justice, particularly its rules of procedure. As I think the hon.

Are there any areas into which my right hon. Friend would resist the extension of QMV?

Yes, there are, and I have repeatedly stated them to the House. They are border controls, defence, social security, taxation, treaty amendments and the financial resources of the European Union.

Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that the IGC and the enlargement programme might be jeopardised by strained relations with Austria within the EU?

No, I do not share that anxiety. I have heard the Austrian Foreign Minister address meetings of the European Union, particularly the General Affairs Council. She made clear her commitment, and the commitment of the Chancellor for whom she works, that they will make sure that the business of Europe continues. It is important that those in Austria who want the European Union to succeed and the other member states of the European Union make it plain that we will not allow Mr. Haider's xenophobic views to wreck the European Union.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the mainstream majority of the public are strongly opposed to further legislative interference from Brussels? Are there any areas of legislation where the Government are prepared to contemplate the extension of qualified majority voting in the course of the IGC, or is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to rule out today any further erosion of the legislative—I stress "legislative"—veto?

On public opinion, I was struck by The Daily Telegraph poll last week, which found that 50 per cent. of the public recognised the Labour party as representing their views on Europe, and that only 34 per cent. recognised the Tory party as representing their views. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that on this one, we seem to have more of the public with us.

By harping on the Maastricht treaty, the Foreign Secretary illustrates the central point. He does not understand the difference between driving to the end of the pier, and carrying on driving when he has reached the end. Does he not understand that such equivocation encourages the Commission to introduce proposals such as it is bringing forward later today, which would get rid of the veto on taxation and social security? Is it because the Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, Andrew Duff, was right when he said on the IGC recently that the Government's attitude

is in fact much more flexible than certain public declarations suggest …?

I cannot improve on the right hon. Gentleman's metaphor, since he speaks for a party which at the last election constituted the end-of-the-pier show.

If he will make a statement on Anglo-Spanish relations, with particular reference to the issue of Gibraltar. [112873]

Relations with Spain are generally strong. We have a developing dialogue and co-operation across a wide range of bilateral, EU and other international issues.

In welcoming the new Spanish Government, will the Minister make it clear that the UK expects Spain to abide by all its EU treaty obligations on Gibraltar? Spain has been in flagrant and long-term breach of some of those obligations, especially on border controls and transport between Gibraltar and Spain, direct-dial telephone access to Gibraltar from Spain and Gibraltar travel documents. Will the Minister make it clear to the Spanish Government that unless they move quickly and decisively to resolve those problems, Britain will take action under article 227 to ensure their future compliance?

We will maintain our strong relationship with the Spanish Government, and we shall continue to work with them to resolve any outstanding difficulties. We have made our position on border controls absolutely clear. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—and I when I met Commissioner Vitorino—pointed out our anxiety about the way in which Spain approached border controls.

Surely the underlying and inescapable matter that the Government must tackle is the acute democratic deficit for people whose Parliament is ultimately this place but who are not represented here. Is it not time that the British Government considered giving representation—albeit limited—in the House to those who are governed by this place despite the existence of a local House of Assembly? That would be consistent not only with the practices of the other principal democracies in relation to their comparable territories but with our human rights obligations and legislation.

My hon. Friend is a great champion of Gibraltar, and I am not surprised that he has raised that matter. He knows the Government's position on the Matthews judgment. We are bound by it, we will honour it and we are considering ways in which to ensure that the people of Gibraltar are enfranchised and can take part in European parliamentary elections.

When will Her Majesty's Government cease to contravene the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the people of Gibraltar, being in the European Union, should have votes in the European parliamentary elections?

The right hon. Gentleman will know from my previous answer that we are bound by the decision of the ECHR and we are seeking ways to ensure that at the next opportunity, when there are elections to the European Parliament, there is enfranchisement under that judgment.

If he will exert pressure on the Burmese regime to respect the human rights of the Burmese people. [112874]

The whole House is appalled by the human rights violations and the lack of democracy in Burma. That includes killings, rape, torture, forced relocation, forced labour, political detentions and a lack of press freedoms. The Government take every opportunity to condemn those violations and to urge the regime to change the situation.

I thank my hon. Friend for taking that position. It is essential that we speak out on behalf of the Burmese people and in defence of human rights internationally. Will the Government use their partnership with the International Labour Organisation to take every opportunity to ensure that the Burmese regimes end forced labour?

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Forced labour is one of the large number of human rights violations. A 1998 ILO report, which highlighted its use, made clear recommendations for the regime to implement, but they have done absolutely nothing about that. However, we shall raise the matter at the March Governing Body of the ILO, which meets at the end of this week, and continue to put pressure on the regime over the use of direct forced labour.

Is not the despicable catalogue of malpractices of the Burmese regime mirrored across the border in the People's Republic of China? Is it not the case that Burma at least does not threaten its neighbours as China threatens Taiwan and the exercise of Taiwanese democracy? Could not the Government be consistent in their application of an ethical foreign policy? Were they to be so, they might get some praise, and justifiably so.

The crucial difference is that the Burmese regime has locked up the democratically elected opposition and will not engage in conversation with them at all. Let me make it clear that at least the Chinese regime is willing to enter into dialogue and discuss human rights. We believe that we should have critical engagement, and have raised with China Tibet, democratisation, freedom of religion, torture, judicial independence, political detainees, Falun Gong and many other issues. Only recently, and as a result of our pressure, we achieved agreement that the all-party group on Tibet can now visit Tibet. The death penalty panel will discuss a strategy for the abolition of capital punishment and we have established a working group of experts on the ratification of the two United Nations human rights covenants. We are making progress to get China to change, but there is no way forward in Burma because the regime will not enter into critical engagement. I hope that the Opposition might at least acknowledge that there is a difference between the two situations.

On human rights, will my hon. Friend make representations on behalf of Mr. U Aung Khin, who was arrested in 1989 by the military authorities and sent to Insein prison? He appears to have disappeared without trace. I have written twice to the embassy asking for information, but it has declined to reply. We must not allow people to disappear without trace.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I will raise that matter with our embassy staff in Rangoon. We will work with our European Union partners for a resolution even tougher than last year's to be adopted at the forthcoming UN Commission on Human Rights meeting. Individual cases will represent some of the reasons for toughening our approach.

Will the Minister tell the House what plans he has to ban investment in Burma by British companies?

In June 1997, the Government announced that they would not encourage UK companies to trade or invest in Burma. We suspended all financial support for trade missions to Burma and for trade promotions activities in Burma. British companies that inquire about trade with Burma are informed of the dire political situation, its appalling human rights record and the poor state of the economy. Those are effective sanctions. We did all that as soon as we came into government. It is interesting that the Conservative Government did nothing to raise the issue or to take any action to try to change the situation in Burma.

If he will make a statement on relations with Mongolia. [112875]

Our relations with Mongolia are particularly strong. The Mongolian Prime Minister visited the United Kingdom as a guest of Government from 27 February to 3 March. I understand that the hon. Gentleman visited Mongolia as part of the Inter-Parliamentary Union team. I understand also that it was a successful visit.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he join me in welcoming the Mongolian delegation, which is visiting Parliament this week, following the successful visit by the Prime Minister last week?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The delegation of 10 Mongolian MPs who are here now is most welcome. I hope perhaps to meet them tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has established an all-party group on UK-Mongolia relations. The sixth UK-Mongolia round table is scheduled for 8 to 10 May, when there will be discussions on commerce, the environment and education. We support Chevening scholarships to allow the exchange to take place. I think that the scholarships have been extended to a further two. The spirit of the hon. Gentleman's question is welcome.

My hon. Friend will know that every one of the Mongolian MPs who is visiting the UK has said that the prime objective is to learn from this country about democracy while they are here. Will he make sure that every support is given to that objective? Will he ensure also, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, that the UK does everything possible to ensure that the steps towards democracy are not hindered by the tragedy of the appalling weather conditions which have led to the death of so much livestock in Mongolia?

As I said, my hon. Friend has been active in establishing an all-party group. He led the delegation to Mongolia, and I was grateful for his report-back. The answer is yes. We want to do all that we can to encourage understanding of democracy. The Mongolian MPs have a full programme and I understand that they are visiting the House tomorrow. They are meeting a range of people who have views on our system of democracy. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, to ascertain whether we can continue our efforts.

I am sure that the Minister is well aware that the Mongolian economy was much affected by the collapse of the Russian economy. The fact that Russia took troops home from Mongolia also took quite a lot out of the economy. Will the hon. Gentleman consider what we can do in this country to develop trade links to help Mongolia with its mining industry—I understand that it has considerable mineral deposits? Will he have conversations about how the economy, being improved, will back up the excellent democracy that Mongolia now has?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that a trade and economic agreement has been in place between Mongolia and the European Union since 1997. It has granted Mongolia most-favoured status for most of its products. The sixth UK-Mongolia round table—it was originally intended as a bi-annual event—which was postponed owing to Mongolia's internal political troubles in 1998–99, is now back up and running, and is scheduled for 8 to 10 May. It will cover themes of bilateral interest, especially commerce and trade, and I think it will be a productive meeting.

If he will make a statement on his recent talks with the Foreign Minister of Iran. [112876]

Dr. Kharrazi's visit in January was the first official visit to Britain by a Foreign Minister of Iran since the revolution 20 years ago. His visit enabled us to take forward our co-operation in areas of mutual concern such as the drugs trade. We are now contributing more than £1 million to assist Iran in combating the drugs trade. I impressed on Dr. Kharrazi the importance that we attach to Iran's commitment concerning Salman Rushdie, and our concern about a number of issues, including the continuing detention without trial of members of the Jewish community and others.

I am grateful for that answer, but will my right hon. Friend think carefully before agreeing to visit Iran? Will he bear in mind that the Government of Iran continue to provide funding, weapons and training for terrorist groups opposed to the middle east peace process? Will he also consider the case of the 13 Jews in Shiraz, who were arrested on apparently dubious charges of espionage? Are they not entitled to proper legal representation and to a fair trial that is open to international observers?

I assure my hon. Friend that I share his anxiety. I impressed on Dr. Kharrazi the importance that we attach to the middle east peace process and the severe damage that would be done not only to the peace process, but to relations between Iran and the rest of the world if anything were done to disrupt that peace process.

Did Iran's Foreign Minister say that his Government support the middle east peace process? If they do, should not the Government of Iran recognise the state of Israel?

I very much hope that the Government of Iran will eventually recognise the state of Israel; that would plainly be expected as Iran engages with the outside the world. However, I have to admit that, no, I did not get a statement of Iran's support for the peace process. I hope that the new mandate will ensure that the Government of Iran listen to those of us who urge restraint on them so that they do not disrupt the peace process.

What assessment he has made of recent political developments in Russia; and if he will make a statement. [112877]

I visited Moscow last month and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited St. Petersburg at the weekend. It is in the interests of Britain and the west that we engage with Russia at the highest level. My right hon. Friend and I both expressed Britain's deep concern about the level of military violence in Chechnya and the unnecessary human suffering that it has caused. Mr. Putin assured my right hon. Friend that Russia will permit access to Chechnya by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, and by international bodies such as the Red Cross and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer. In December, I was in Siberia in my role as an OSCE observer of the Duma elections. Russia is now developing into a vibrant democracy that covers 11 time zones. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to build good relations between the UK Parliament and the newly elected Russian Parliament, and to build on the welcome visit by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the new Russian Duma, with six parties represented and 100 independent Members, will be far more effective than its predecessor? Does he share my hope that that Parliament will ratify the START 2 treaty as soon as possible?

I commend my hon. Friend on his dedication in going to Siberia in December. His work and that of many others enabled us to conclude that those elections were free and fair, and I am pleased that Russia has invited the OSCE to monitor the forthcoming presidential elections as well.

Do not the Government feel some discomfort about breaking bread and sharing salt with Mr. Putin? He is the man who directed the campaign in which Chechnya was turned into a wasteland and innocent men, women and children were subjected to indiscriminate bombing and shelling. Before we offer advice on the reform of the Russian economy, should we not insist on a commitment from Mr. Putin that, both in word and in deed, he and his Government will respect the human rights of the people of Chechnya?

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the situation in Chechnya is deplorable and unacceptable. My right hon. Friend and I have engaged at the highest level in Russia to express that view. If we have criticisms to make, we should not resist making them in person to the people who can change the policy. I share the conclusion of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that Chechnya is a reason why Britain should be more, not less, involved in dialogue with Russia.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members support that position? We need active engagement in Russia for precisely the reasons that he has just outlined. We must get across to the present Russian Government that there can be no excuse for murder and torture of civilians, and no suggestion that there is a parallel between atrocities that have certainly been carried out by Chechen guerrillas and the actions of the Russia state. It is only by face-to-face confrontation that that message can be delivered to President-in-waiting Putin.

I agree very much with my hon. Friend's conclusion. I also share his view that the international community must have greater expectations of actions by a state than it has of actions by individuals. That is why I very much welcome the fact that Russia has indicated that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the OSCE can visit Chechnya. When we visited Russia, my right hon. Friend and I impressed on Mr. Putin the importance of transparency as the best safeguard against violations of human rights.

There is something not quite right about the answers that the Foreign Secretary is giving us. We know that the Prime Minister prefers to enjoy a night at the opera in St. Petersburg rather than criticise Russian actions in Chechnya. Even the French press have today said that if the Prime Minister

wants to appear as a grand master of diplomacy he will have to wash his hands first.

mild in the highest degree … extremely favourable to Moscow

If the hon. Lady really believes that the Moscow press is unspun, she should spend more time in Russia. I vigorously rebut the suggestion that I said one thing in private and another in public. I assure the House that what I said at the press conference in Moscow was what I said in the meeting.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, in his meetings with the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Government, he is demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya, the engagement of a political process to bring about a solution there, and a guarantee that they will not engage in military activities in similar situations in Russia? It cannot be said that Russia is a vibrant democracy if it is bombarding part of its country using first world war methods against people who have a different view of the world from that held in Moscow.

I did not demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from Chechnya, which, as my hon. Friend has just acknowledged, is part of the Russian Federation. The difficulties of the past two years may have arisen because all troops were withdrawn from that area. I concur with my hon. Friend on the other points that he made, and I assure him that I pressed for a political process. Our criticism of what has been done in Chechnya has all along been that military violence alone will not work, far less the excessive military violence that we have witnessed and that has caused the suffering to which my hon. Friend referred.

What recent discussions he has had with his colleagues in the United Nations regarding Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [112878]

What recent discussions he has had with Foreign Ministers of other countries regarding Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [112880]

I most recently discussed Kosovo with Kofi Annan this morning. As I said after the meeting, we agreed that much progress had been made. A total of 800,000 refugees have returned to Kosovo; the first 350 local police drawn from all ethnic communities have completed training; and 90 per cent. of children have been able to attend school, something that they were denied for a decade by Belgrade.

Does the Foreign Secretary share Madeleine Albright's fear that the European Community is not pulling its weight in delivering hard cash quickly to help to deal with the reconstruction problems in Kosovo?

I met Madeleine Albright last week and we discussed the state of Kosovo at some length. Let me point out that the European Union is funding the majority of UNMIK's administration budget, and that this country, of which the hon. Gentleman is a Member of Parliament, has funded the utilities, the prisons, the transformation of the Kosovo Liberation Army, the formation of the Kosovo protection force and the health service in Pristina. It has provided civil experts for UNMIK, is supporting de-mining and, over the coming year, will fund reconstruction of the health and social services and the registration of electors. We are investing considerable resources and we are working hard to make a success of what we are doing.

My right hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that last week we heard universal praise for the British contribution—for the professionalism of our soldiers, the contribution of our police and our civil administrators. There was, however, deep-seated concern about what was seen to be the proposed precipitate withdrawal of the team from the Department for International Development in Kosovo, which could, it was felt, lead to a great gap and to great disturbance. Will my right hon. Friend, in co-operation with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, undertake to review the contribution of that Department, to ensure that there is, at best, a more phased withdrawal?

I read with interest the reports from Pristina of the visit by my hon. Friend and members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am pleased about the visit, and look forward to discussing it with them when I give evidence to the Committee on Thursday.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware of recent instances in which the activities of the international police force in Kosovo have been frustrated and obstructed by the French military and the French-controlled sector?

I read last week's report in The Times with interest. I made inquiries, and I am sure that the report was not correct in saying that British policemen had withdrawn from Mitrovica because of criticism. It is important for all members of KFOR, the French and everyone else, to co-operate fully with the police and to provide rapid access to scenes of crime.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the supply of additional judges to Kosovo. When we were there, we were made very much aware of the problem experienced by the police, who could arrest people but could then do nothing other than caution and release them.

I entirely agree: it is important for Kosovo to be ruled and governed by the UN international mandate, rather than by men who happen to have managed to hold on to their weapons.

Following the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman has just reported to the House, is he able to tell us the number of Kosovar Albanians forced out of Kosovo, as distinct from the number terrorised out of their homes prior to the start of the NATO attacks on Yugoslavia?

A total of 850,000 were forced out of their homes during that period of conflict. As to those who were forced from their homes in the period preceding the conflict, that, of course, will depend on the period that is taken, but, in October of the preceding year, when Holbrooke attended negotiations in Belgrade, 250,000 Kosovar Albanians had already been forced from their homes. The idea that the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo began with the NATO bombing is totally in defiance of the history of that troubled province in the preceding year. It was the victim of repeated oppression.

What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Egypt concerning the treatment of Christians in Egypt. [112879]

When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Cairo in January, he discussed inter-faith issues with members of the Government, including President Mubarak. We were concerned to hear reports of violence in early January in upper Egypt. The Egyptian authorities have pledged to carry out a thorough investigation.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that that will be greatly welcomed by the Christian community in this country, but is he aware that the conservative estimates are that, last year, tens of thousands of Christians were killed for their faith? Is he further aware that in not only Egypt, but Indonesia and Pakistan, there are real concerns about the use of blasphemy laws to imprison and to torture Christian prisoners? Will he stand up time and again not only for pluralism, but for religious tolerance in all those countries?

Indeed I will. I am happy to acknowledge and pay tribute to my hon. Friend's close and dedicated interest in the matter. Britain has a proud record, having a multi-faith, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society. We press that as a model for the rest of the world. We criticise, condemn and ask for an end to any attacks on Christians throughout the world, just as we do any attacks on members of other faiths.

Was the treatment of the Coptic Christians discussed during the visits to Egypt last October and this February by Lord Levy? Is the Foreign Office told what he gets up to in his role as the Prime Minister's personal special envoy? While the Minister is at it, will he confirm that No. 10 has taken over responsibility for policy on the middle east, the United States, Russia and the European Union? Does he recall that, on one of the Foreign Secretary's earlier forays in the middle east, The Jerusalem Post asked:

with a diplomat like Cook by his side, how can Blair fail to loom as a giant statesman?

On that performance, the right hon. Gentleman will be shadow Foreign Secretary for as short a time as his predecessor. Is he really suggesting that the Prime Minister should not take an interest in those international issues and support the Foreign Secretary's work?

Which items Her Majesty's Government have ruled out for an extension of qualified majority voting at the intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement. [112881]

The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions, in the House and in our White Paper on the intergovernmental conference, that we shall consider the possible extension of qualified majority voting on a case-by-case basis. When it is in Britain's interests to support QMV, we shall do so. However, when key national interests are at stake—such as treaty changes, border controls, social security, taxation, own resources and defence—we shall insist on retaining unanimity.

Will the Government refuse to sign any treaty that extends QMV to cover any sphere of British taxation?

Yes.

If he will make a statement on human rights in Cameroon. [112882]

Cameroon's recent human rights record has been poor, and Cameroon has made little progress towards fulfilling the commitments on human rights and governance made on joining the Commonwealth in 1995.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I draw his attention particularly to the case of members of the Southern Cameroon National Council who were arrested on 8-9 January, in the south-west province? Will he make specific representations to the Government of Cameroon on the fate of those SCNC members? Does he share the view expressed in the report by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the routine use of torture in the central prison in Yaounde?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue—in which he has taken a close interest, and which we raise with the Cameroon Government. The Cameroon Government's human rights record is very poor. There is widespread use of torture and detention without charge. A special Government unit, the Brigade Anti-Gang, is responsible for hundreds of extra-judicial killings in the north—where there should have been another trial of 76 north-west detainees, who have been detained without charge for two years, and of whom seven have died in detention. That is completely unacceptable, and the Cameroon Government must honour their obligations to their citizens and—as a Commonwealth member—to the Harare declaration.

Given that twice in two years Cameroon has come bottom of the Transparency International corruption perception index, how has the hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that no British financial assistance to Cameroon has been in any way misappropriated or contributed to the abuse of human rights?

We have satisfied ourselves to the greatest possible extent on the matter. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary on it, I should be very pleased to hear it. We have also taken a very tough line within the Commonwealth. At the meeting of the Commonwealth ministerial action group in New York, which I attended, I pressed for a Commonwealth mission to go to Cameroon to make an assessment for itself. Cameroon entered into certain obligations when it joined the Commonwealth in 1995, but it is not honouring those obligations. Its continued membership of the councils of the Commonwealth is therefore in question.

If he will investigate the reasons for the recent resignations of (a) Hans von Sponeck and (b) Jutta Burghardt from UN agencies involved in Iraq. [112885]

No. We are looking forward to the appointment of replacements who will channel their efforts into getting the best out of the United Nations humanitarian programme, as improved and enlarged by Security Council resolution 1284

On sanctions, who did Kofi Annan support—von Sponeck and Burghardt, his own officials, or the British or American Governments?

On sanctions, Kofi Annan supported the policy of the United Nations, which is articulated in the new Security Council resolution 1284—on which Britain led in securing its passage through the Security Council. The resolution provides for extra humanitarian relief by lifting the limits on oil for food. It also provides for the suspension of sanctions if Saddam Hussein agrees to an arms inspection regime going in.