If he will make a statement on the implementation of the ethical dimension of his foreign policy since May 1997. [117165]

We have a proud record of pressing for torture to be banned world wide, the death penalty to be abolished, anti-personnel land mines to be banned and extreme forms of child labour to be ended. We helped to achieve an International Criminal Court. We have been lifting the stranglehold of debt off poor countries, hugely increasing our overseas aid and banning arms exports that could be used for either external aggression or internal oppression. Never before have a Government given such a priority to promoting human rights in British foreign policy.

Given the Government's extraordinary double standards—for instance, in their dealings with China and Zimbabwe—how can the Foreign Secretary consider a visit to Iran, whose regime carries out the gouging of eyes and the amputation of its citizens' limbs? Will he defend that as an ethical act? Will he reconsider his visit? Will he at least condemn such brutal acts against the citizens of Iran?

Of course everybody in the House, led by the Foreign Secretary, will condemn actions such as the gouging out of eyes, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that my right hon. Friend should not go to Tehran when he has the opportunity to support the reform programme carried out by President Khatami, which has improved human rights there and made Iran freer than it has been for a long time? Should we stop trying to make the world better because we cannot make it perfect? The Government try to make it better at every opportunity.

The Minister rightly mentioned the banning of land mines with pride. Could that be extended to cluster bombs?

I will happily look at that proposal. Cluster bombs are in a different position from anti-personnel land mines. Through the Ottawa convention—we led that process—we achieved a worldwide ban on anti-personnel land mines. I know that my hon. Friend welcomes that.

The Minister will remember that the Foreign Secretary's statement laid particular emphasis on human rights. After the treatment that has been meted out to Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Council of Europe's decision to begin proceedings that may lead to Russia's suspension, do the Government feel no discomfort at the notion of welcoming Mr. Putin to London next weekend? This is the man who became president after presiding over the indiscriminate and disproportionate shelling of civilians in Chechnya. Should not the visit be postponed until Russian actions match Russian words?

We very much welcomed Mary Robinson's visit to Chechnya. It was important that she went and Britain supported her in that task. We use every opportunity to take up human rights matters with the Russians, as the Prime Minister did with President-elect Putin and as will occur when he visits Britain shortly, on the basis that our involvement is without illusions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perhaps asking us to boycott any contact with the Russians to leave us with clean hands, but that does not improve people's rights in Russia, which is the objective for which we have been consistently working.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is both an ethical and a moral imperative for the United Kingdom to do everything possible to help the people of Ethiopia, whom we see dead and dying on our television screens every night? Is he aware that the European Union has sent only half the food aid that it promised last year? Will he do everything in his power to speed up the process of getting that food to the people? If not, it will be too late.

I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the crisis in Ethiopia. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is leading the way in providing more food aid than any other country, apart from the United States. We are very aware that 8 million people face starvation in Ethiopia and the situation is dire. Britain has a proud record of providing food aid and of making sure that the other international institutions address the serious crisis there.

In this week's New Statesman, the Minister reveals to us all that he is seen by the Foreign Secretary as his soul mate. As they are so close, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Foreign Secretary supports the Minister's view, expressed in the same article, that the ethical dimension of foreign policy was "the hook" on which this Labour Government found themselves, was oversold to begin with, and has now been abandoned and

consigned to the memory hole.

I realise that the hon. Lady has used all her considerable creative energies to try to read into the New Statesman interview numerous things that were not there. Let me say, however, that I am proud to work alongside my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whose soul mate I have been for many years. That is true on my side, anyway.

If he will make a statement on the follow-up plans to implement the decisions of the Lisbon EU summit on economic reform. [117166]

The Lisbon summit arose from a British-Spanish initiative. Its agenda reflected Britain's commitment to economic reform within Europe. The summit committed the European Union to removing barriers to e-commerce, and to ensuring that access to the internet in Europe is as competitive as any in the world.

Does my right hon. Friend share my delight that that goal of full employment is now seriously and explicitly back on the agenda in Europe? Does he agree that what Britain must do is engage in Europe, and not seek to let down the people of this country as the Conservative party seeks to do by opting out?

I absolutely agree. I note that the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs put out a press statement on the day of the Lisbon summit referring to the "job-destroying" working time directive and social chapter. Since the Government came to office and introduced both those measures, we have created 800,000 more jobs than were created at the time the Conservative Government were resisting them.

How does this country's continued support for Turkey's accession to the European Union square with an ethical foreign policy, given Turkey's awful human rights record?

Order. The question is about economic reform.

Did the Foreign Secretary read the story in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung last week which claimed that Britain was shaping the agenda within the European Union, and bemoaned the fact that Germany was no longer undertaking that role? Is that not a powerful statement that we can and do secure the best for Britain from Europe, and is it not the most powerful response possible to the xenophobic isolationism of the Conservative party, which ill serves the British national interest and would put 3 million British jobs at risk?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The agenda of the European Union is dominated by two initiatives taken by the British Government, to promote European security and to promote economic reform within Europe. The people of Britain are seeing real benefits from the decision to provide a legal base for our border controls for the first time during our membership of the European Union, and from the decision to give us one of the best deals in regard to structural funds among all European Union countries. That is the gain of positive engagement in Europe, all of which Conservative Members would put at risk.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was the Prime Minister himself who last year, speaking to the CBI, criticised the working time directive for being over-regulatory? That being the case, why did he not demand its reform at Lisbon? Surely what businesses actually want, instead of all the talk of an inclusive, dynamic and knowledge-based economy, is less red tape, less bureaucracy and less interference, not pointless prime ministerial technobabble.

The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read the conclusions of the Lisbon summit. If he had done so, he would have seen that it was not techno-babble of any kind, European or British. It provides specific deadlines by which specific action must be taken: this year, a legal framework for e-commerce; next year, a fully liberalised telecommunications market; by 2001, a Community-wide patent; by 2003, electronic access to all public services. Those measures are sought and wanted by business. Thanks to the Government, they have been secured within Europe.

What plans he has to increase funding for the World Service to meet the costs of the digital revolution. [117167]

The Government granted the BBC World Service an extra £44.2 million over the three-year comprehensive spending review period 1999–2002, partly to finance expansion into online and other digital services.

The World Service is producing record audiences for its radio services. I am sure that the Minister would join me in congratulating the World Service on that, but the expansion so far into online services has produced a full online service only for English, Chinese and Arabic. What plans does he have to enable the World Service to expand its full online services to the other main world languages?

I agree that the expansion in the World Service's listenership throughout the world is extremely welcome. More than 150 million people listen to it weekly. That is good news. The online service is growing from strength to strength. I would like it to expand to other languages where possible and where its management decides, but it is still the best used internet service anywhere in the world—and long may it remain so.

What progress has been made in the negotiations between the Foreign Office and the military Government in Pakistan on restoring democracy? Has my hon. Friend assessed the political situation in Pakistan?

Order. I am afraid that that supplementary question is out of order on this question. If the hon. Gentleman looks at it, he will see that it deals with the World Service and the digital revolution.

Admirable as the new services that the World Service is operating are, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the BBC is adequately funded to continue necessary transmitter investment so as to make certain that the existing short wave radio service, which can reach some of the more obscure parts of the world, is maintained and sustained?

I know of the right hon. Gentleman's close interest in the matter. I agree that it is important that the World Service be allowed to expand its short wave service. It is expanding its FM service massively too, which is also to be welcomed. We have provided an average yearly real-terms increase in funding of 3.9 per cent. for the World Service, which is in stark contrast with the record of the Conservative Government, who cut its funding year after year.

Has my hon. Friend seen the reports in the press that suggest that the new director general of the BBC is considering closing Bush house? Will he make representations to the BBC to let him know how important the World Service is to the House?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the World Service is important to the House. Indeed, it is important to the Government, which is why we have increased its funding substantially. As to whether the World Service is sited in Bush house, or whether the BBC can best utilise its capital and other revenue resources on some other site, that is a matter for the BBC, its board of governors and its management.

What steps his Department is taking to strengthen political and economic links between the UK and Hungary. [117170]

The UK has an excellent relationship with Hungary. We have a strong political dialogue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Foreign Minister Janos Martonyi on 29 February. I have just hosted Zsolt Nemeth, the Deputy Foreign Minister, during a UK visit. I also met the Hungarian Speaker, Janos Ader, during the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union visit.

Having recently met, as co-chairman of the Future of Europe trust, an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation from Hungary, I was left in no doubt, first, of Hungary's keenness to join the European Union; and, secondly, of the business opportunities in that country for companies such as PowerGen, British Aerospace and Tesco. Does my hon. Friend believe that Hungary's early accession to the European Union would create a beacon of stability for south-east Europe? Does he also agree that any tampering with current European treaties, as Conservative Members advocate doing, would dangerously jeopardise the enlargement that we all should like to see?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the excellent work that he does as co-chairman of the Future of Europe Trust. He is absolutely right that it is essential that Hungary should be encouraged in its European Union membership application. Last year, bilateral trade with Hungary was worth £1 billion, and British companies invested $1 billion in Hungary. He is also right to say that the accession procedures are going well. Only yesterday, I spoke to Commissioner Verheugen in Luxembourg, and he assured me that of the 31 chapters of the various acquis that are necessary for the negotiations to be completed, 21 chapters have been opened and 10 have been closed. Progress is therefore going well. We must just ensure that we are ready for enlargement by completing the intergovernmental conference this year.

Is the Minister aware of reports, last week, in The Wall Street Journal Europe, that Hungary and Poland had been rebuked by the French President and the German Foreign Minister for expressing concerns about the European security and defence identity? President Chirac is reported to have asked Mr. Geremek, Poland's Foreign Minister,

whether Poland wished to be America's 51st state,

Implicit in these admonitions has been the threat that the West Europeans will stall the easterners' applications for membership in the European Union.

I do not know which part of the internet the right hon. Gentleman has been looking at, but there is clearly something wrong with his software. There is no question but that Hungary and Poland—two NATO members—fully support the common security and defence policy of the United Kingdom and of the European Union. That was the message that was given to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when their representatives met him a few weeks ago, and that is the message that I received only last week from all the Visegrad Foreign Ministers. When they came to see me, they were extremely relaxed about the matter. They want a policy that will provide for the peace, stability and security of Europe. They want to be part of that.

How does the Minister explain consistent reports that those countries are expressing real concerns about the European defence initiative not including current members of the European Union? Does he not understand that, although those countries certainly want to join the European Union, many of them have serious reservations about the slide towards a European super-state? Why does not the Foreign Secretary now exercise some leadership in Europe and start making the case for the candidate countries to be able to join the European Union without having to sign up to every aspect of the acquis? Does not the growing size of the European Union mean that the old "one size fits all" model is simply out of date?

I feel very sad for the right hon. Gentleman that he has to rely on second-hand information. The Foreign Secretary and I have first-hand information because we have actually met the Foreign Ministers concerned. We have had those discussions with them. They fully support our defence policy. They want to be part of the European Union, and, as members of NATO, they very much want to be part of the defence policy of Europe. I would rather take their word for it than his.

If he will make a statement on the on-going border dispute between Belize and Guatemala; and what steps the Government are taking to resolve it. [117171]

There is an on-going border dispute between Guatemala and Belize. Recently, the tension increased with the abduction, on 24 February, of three members of the Belize defence force and a policeman. All four were released and although tensions have remained, constructive discussions have now taken place in the presence of the Secretary General of the Organisation of American States, and further talks are planned.

Does my hon. Friend agree that what central America needs more than anything at the moment is a period of stability? Is not an essential part of that encouraging the move to democracy in Guatemala? Will he assure the House that any intervention that he makes to assist in resolving this dispute will bear those two facts in mind?

Yes; both I and my noble Friend Baroness Scotland have spoken to the Governments of Guatemala and Belize about the need to reduce tensions and to have serious negotiations. I agree with my hon. Friend that human rights in Guatemala are important, as is its movement to democracy. The context in which the conversations take place should be amicable, and negotiations must not move down the route of violence and the hijacking of personnel.

Does not the United Kingdom have a continued interest in that part of central America, inasmuch as Belize is a fellow Commonwealth country and a territory where the British armed forces have jungle training facilities, as well as staging rights? Since Guatemala has made welcome progress towards democracy and has ended its civil war, should not it now engage in the talks for which a direct agenda has been outlined?

The answer generally is yes. I want to emphasise that the United Kingdom has no legal responsibilities in relation to Guatemala's border dispute with Belize, which goes back to 1859. However, we are ready to give diplomatic assistance to both sides to bring about a peaceful solution. That is our role, and we will continue to work towards it.

What recent meetings he has had with the German Foreign Minister to discuss manufacturing industry. [117174]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the subject with the German Foreign Minister at the General Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg yesterday.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Vodafone's recent takeover of Mannesmann shows that British companies can compete in Germany? Does he further agree that in order for British companies to compete in the future, Britain must maintain its central role within the European Union?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Bilateral trade with Germany last year was worth £49 billion, and 700,000 British companies invest and create jobs in Europe. It is extremely important that we keep that relationship going.

When the Foreign Secretary met his German counterpart, did they discuss the problems that Germany and, to an extent, this country are encountering with manufacturing costs? Is he aware that, for the first time in recent years, Germany has started to export its manufacturing capacity to other parts of the world—not least the far east—because of the heavy social and other costs involved with manufacturing within the EU, and within Germany in particular? Until recently, we have had some advantage—but we are giving it away.

I do not know whether that exact point was discussed by my right hon. Friend, but I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in this matter as chairman of the manufacturing group in this House. Our relationship with Germany is a good commercial one, based on the creation of jobs in both countries. We want to make sure that German firms are able to succeed in this country, and that our firms succeed in Germany. That is what being part of the EU is all about—a market of 390 million people; soon, we hope, to be enlarged by a further 120 million to create the largest single market in the world. We want the climate and conditions for our manufacturing industry to survive and prosper.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the anger and opposition felt by so many people in this country at BMW's decision to break up the Rover Group is directed against BMW as a pan-European company, rather than against German industry or the German people as a whole? Does he agree that German companies—including those that located to Britain in support of BMW's presence here—and Rover dealers in Germany stand to lose out as well? Will he ask his counterpart in the German Foreign Ministry to join us in asking BMW to consider seriously all credible alternative bids for Rover, so that German and British industry can thrive?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done as a west midlands Member of Parliament in promoting the need for jobs in the area following what has happened. I assure him that the Government have put their faith in the taskforce, to which £129 million has been allocated. BMW is working with Alchemy and the British Government, particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to ensure the best possible outcome. We shall do everything that we can to help that process. The record of past taskforces is good. Within nine months of the 1998 Fujitsu closure, when 580 jobs were lost, 97 per cent. of the work force were in employment again. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do all that we can to help the process.

In his foreword to the Department's annual report, the Foreign Secretary places great stress on the role to be played by his Department in what he refers to as a "joined-up organisation", with the Department of Trade and Industry to promote trade and investment. What effect does he think that it has on the efforts of those trying to attract inward investment when they read reports of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Defence calling the management of BMW liars? Does he think that helps?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friends did not say that. He will also know that we were disappointed by BMW's decision, because a commitment was made to the company. Rather than making cheap political points, the right hon. Gentleman should work positively to ensure that those who have lost or may lose their jobs are put back in employment.

When he next intends to visit the Gulf states to discuss the future of Iraq. [117175]

We have regular dialogue with countries in the region on Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain were all helpful in securing agreement in the Security Council to resolution 1284, drafted by the United Kingdom. Every country in the Gulf supports the implementation of that resolution, which unilaterally removes any ceiling on oil exports by Iraq and offers the suspension of sanctions in return for progress on disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. I regret that Iraq has yet to say whether it will take up that prospect of an end to sanctions.

In so far as the United Nations has miserably failed to enforce its own resolutions and not stopped sanction busting by Saddam Hussein, enabling him to raise the money to fund his illegal regime, could we not consider a change in policy away from the enforcement of sanctions, which some of us have supported through thick and thin for nearly 10 years, towards a policy of indicting Saddam Hussein in the international court for war crimes, murder, genocide and crimes against humanity? Should not that be the new approach?

No international court would be competent to pursue those charges. We could pursue them only through a United Nations Security Council resolution to establish a special tribunal on Iraq. As I have said before, I see no realistic prospect of our obtaining agreement to such a resolution. Because of that, Britain was in the lead in supporting the formation of an International Criminal Court, which would have prosecutors who could decide for themselves who should be brought before the court, and which would end the arrangement by which special UN clearance was needed for anybody to be indicted. Once we have such a court, the way will be clear to proceed against dictators such as Saddam in the way my hon. Friend wishes.

In the meantime, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there has been a sharp increase in the smuggling of oil by Iraq. What practical steps are being taken to stop that?

The United States and United Kingdom navies operate in the Gulf and have carried out some successful operations, including one recently against oil smuggling. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There is no reason to smuggle oil out of Iraq. As a result of the recent resolution, Saddam can legitimately export all the oil that he wants. The only reason he chooses to smuggle some of it is that he does not want to be held to account for the money that he receives for that oil. He does not want to put it towards children's food, hospitals and medicines for his people. He wants to use it to support his military. That is the only reason for the smuggling.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while we can and must target sanctions more effectively—I hope that he will have recourse to the report by the International Development Committee on that subject—the fact remains that it is Saddam Hussein himself who bears responsibility for the plight of the Iraqi people? If he wished to take up the opportunity to exchange oil for supplies and humanitarian relief, he could.

At present, Iraq is exporting a volume of oil roughly equivalent to the volume exported by Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. It has just been announced that Iraq will increase its production by another 700,000 barrels a day, which will bring its exports above those of Iran. Potentially, $10 billion is available for humanitarian purposes in Iraq. In those circumstances, I find it hard to understand why people in Iraq are going hungry and are short of medicines. The only reason for that is the priorities of Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions.

What assessment he has made of the political situation in Montenegro. [117176]

We continue to support the democratically elected Government of President Djukanovic, and are keen to see the democratic and economic reforms already under way in Montenegro expanded and developed. We strongly condemn the economic measures taken against Montenegro by Milosevic, including an embargo on food and medicines. I discussed the current situation with the Montenegrin Foreign Minister, Branko Lukovac, at the stability pact conference last month.

Does the Minister agree that it is desperately important to underpin the democratic aspirations in Montenegro? When will the stability pact for south-east Europe deliver for Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania and the other states in the region? Do the serious criticisms expressed in the German press, the Bundestag and the European Parliament give him any cause for concern about, or any lack of confidence in, Mr. Bodo Hombach, the co-ordinator of the stability pact?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in those matters as the chairman of the all-party group on Kosovo. Yesterday, at the Luxembourg General Affairs Council meeting, we heard a very good report from Javier Solana and Chris Patten about the work that they have undertaken following the successful conclusions at Lisbon, where it was decided that there needed to be a much more proactive role in trying to deal with the situation in Montenegro. The hon. Gentleman, more than anyone else in the House, knows how difficult the situation is, but we need to support the Government of Montenegro and ensure that they have the capacity and the confidence to deal with the very difficult situation they are in. Montenegro has had 82.7 million euro given to it in the past two years. We want to ensure that Solana and Patten can work with Bodo Hombach—who has done an excellent job in difficult circumstances—to deliver a practical result for the people of Montenegro.

If he will make a statement on human rights in Iran. [117177]

Although there have been improvements in Iran's human rights record since the election of President Khatami in 1997, we continue to press his Government over continued persecution of the Baha'i religious minority, the lack of transparency in Iran's judicial proceedings and the trial of members of the Iranian Jewish community.

I remind my hon. Friend that the 13 Jews who were detained in Iran more than a year ago face the start of their trial on Thursday. I urge him to use all possible endeavours to put pressure on the Iranian Government to ensure that they receive a fair trial, with adequate legal representation and international observers, so that we can bring that travesty to an end and ensure the detainees' release from those dubious, bogus and trumped-up charges.

I know of my hon. Friend's close interest in that trial, and I applaud him for it. It is an interest that the British Government—including my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself as the Minister responsible—have consistently raised with the Iranian Government. There has been some good news: it is not clear that the trial will start this week. The judicial spokesman has said that the defendants, who do not have representation, will now have time to appoint lawyers, which is good. He has also announced that proceedings will be open to the media and media representatives, which is also good news. It is also clear that only a few of those involved will be charged with espionage and the others will face lesser offences, thus removing the prospect of the death penalty. I hope that the Iranian authorities will take account of the enormous concern across the world about the trial and act accordingly.

While I welcome that question and the Minister's response to it, does the Minister agree that all matters pertaining to middle east issues are of the greatest sensitivity? Does he agree also that someone who will be taking an increasing role in these matters is the Government's so-called special envoy, Lord Levy? In the circumstances, will the Minister confirm to the House that there is no question of Lord Levy's having been in contact with any foreign intelligence agencies?

The hon. Gentleman started off very well, and I applaud him for that. He shares our concern and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the plight of the Jewish detainees in Iran, an issue that we shall continue to address.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that although there remain considerable causes for concern about the human rights record within Iran, reports of reputable human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International show that there has been a slight improvement, and do not bear out the more lurid allegations that were rehearsed at the beginning of the sitting by, for example, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)? The important matter in Iran, with the election of the new, reform-minded Government, is for countries such as the United Kingdom to work constructively with the new regime to try to help Iran to make the transition towards a modern Government who can play a positive role within the region?

That question was a breath of fresh air and common sense after the previous one. My hon. Friend makes the important point that, under President Khatami and his reforming Government, there has been considerable progress on human rights and in other respects. The recent clear mandate that he received for reforms in the elections in Iran has given him the opportunity to work with the international community—Britain included, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will travel to Tehran shortly. That will ensure that Iran is brought back into that community on a basis of friendship with other nations, rather than on one of hostility, as in the past. We need a process of critical but active engagement to assist that reform process, which is precisely what we are doing.

Certainly, we must express concern for the 13 members of the Jewish community who are detainees, but is it not correct that Muslims are experiencing similar charges? If that is the case, is it not wrong to concentrate only on people of one religion? Should we not express concern for both Jews and Muslims? Does the Minister agree that there has been a substantial advance in human rights in Iran over the past five years?

Yes, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a substantial advance in human rights in Iran. There is, however, a long way to go. I can confirm that Muslims are charged under the same procedure in the same trial, and we are equally concerned for their human rights. Given the sensitivities in the middle east, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand why there is particular concern for the detainees who are of Jewish descent and who have been prosecuted.

What assessment he has made of the impact of the World Service's internet site on the target audience. [117178]

We support the World Service's aspirations to be a major internet player and I am delighted that in December there were more than 20 million page impressions and audio listeners monthly. The BBC World Service is now the most listened-to audio news online in the world.

I am pleased to hear the Minister echo those sentiments. I am sure that he agrees that it is a tremendous success story for the BBC. Does he agree also that it is an opportunity for Britain to become the most successful and the best provider in the world of news services on the internet? Bearing in mind how BBC television lost out to CNN as a provider of world television news services, what plans does the hon. Gentleman have to ensure that the BBC on the internet will grasp the opportunities for Britain that are now presented to it?

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I agree with him. We are working with BBC World Service to help and encourage it to spread its online provision, which is the most listened-to online information service in the world. As was noted earlier, it is spreading into other languages. The BBC deserves praise for taking the lead in its commitment to expand and to use the full potential of the internet. We also support BBC World's activities to provide increased television coverage across the world for the BBC. There are 7 million listeners to BBC World, which is available in 500,000 hotels and other places. We welcome that as well.

Does the Minister agree that the BBC World Service is respected throughout the world as an independent and authoritative source of news, especially for people living under repressive regimes? The number of people accessing BBC online services increased by 218 per cent. last year, but my real interest is in the repressive regimes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rephrase."] I shall press the rewind button, Madam Speaker. It is vital that the message gets through to people living under repressive regimes, and it is therefore absolutely necessary that parallel-portal services are made available throughout the world, so that people living under repressive regimes can more easily access BBC online services. What talks has the Minister had with the BBC to ensure that the extra parallel-portal services are made available, so that the people who most need an independent source of news can get it?

I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was making a bid for a Front-Bench job. However, I agree with the important point that he raises. We are in close touch with BBC management to encourage them to go down that route. It is very important that every opportunity is taken to expand the BBC's services in the fast-moving world of modern information technology. The BBC is the voice of freedom across the world. That is especially important for people living under the repressive regimes in which the hon. Gentleman is now taking a close interest.

What assessment he has made of the current state of relations between the UK and Poland; and if he will make a statement. [117179]

Our relations with Poland are excellent. We maintain a strong political dialogue, and Poland is one of our most important trading partners in central and eastern Europe. We warmly welcomed Poland's membership of NATO in March 1999, and we continue actively to support Poland's application to join the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Minister met Poland's Foreign Minister Geremek in February. The weekend before last, in London, I met the Polish Minister for European Affairs, Andrzei Ananicz.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will no doubt be pleased but not surprised to learn that, on my visit to Poland in January—when I went to the Deblin Royal Air Force academy and later had the pleasure of attending the RAF ball in Warsaw—there was no sign whatever of the attitude alluded to earlier by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude).

I am glad that my hon. Friend was able to visit Poland in January. My first visit as Minister for Europe was to Poland, although no one invited me to the ball—perhaps my shoes did not fit.

Does the Minister share my concern that Poland will be on target to join the EU by 2004? He referred to extra work being needed in terms of agricultural reforms, and I draw his attention to the fact that law and environmental protection need further work. How much technical assistance are the Government prepared to provide to help Poland achieve its target date?

As the hon. Lady knows, Poland has set its own target date. That cannot be achieved until the intergovernmental conference is completed by the end of this year and is ratified in the various national Parliaments. We do not want to discourage Poland; we want to encourage it. It is important that the applicant countries know that they have the support of countries such as the United Kingdom.

What steps he has taken to encourage Brazil to sign international labour convention 169. [117180]

Ratification of the International Labour Organisation's convention 169, which refers to the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, is one of the short-term objectives outlined in the Brazilian Government's national human rights plan, which we strongly support. The convention is currently with the Brazilian Congress for ratification.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that positive reply? He may be aware that 22 April marks the 500th anniversary of the arrival in Brazil of the first Europeans. Given the terrible impact that colonisation has had on its indigenous people, does my hon. Friend agree that now would be a very good time for Brazil to sign ILO convention 169, which enshrines the rights of indigenous peoples to have control over their own lives and livelihoods? Will he urge the Brazilian Government to mark this significant anniversary by taking the important step of ratifying the convention?

My hon. Friend has an active and deep interest in Latin American affairs. The answer to his question is yes. We regularly raise indigenous issues with the Brazilian authorities, and we hope that ratification can be achieved. We have raised the matter within the United Nations in the working group on the draft directive on the rights of indigenous people. At the recent sessions of the UN General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, we have regularly raised these matters with the Brazilian authorities and non-governmental organisations.

What progress is being made in co-ordinating the international effort in the Balkans; and if he will make a statement. [117181]

I am happy to report three recent examples of progress. First, the European Council in Lisbon agreed that the international community needed a more coherent strategy to support Kosovo and the region. Secondly, on 28 March, the Contact Group, bringing together Russia and the leading NATO allies, met for the first time in more than a year. Thirdly, on 29 March the regional financing conference of the stability pact pledged more than 2.4 billion euro for reconstruction projects in the region. The United Kingdom has pledged to contribute £100 million in bilateral technical assistance over the next three years.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not think that some lessons can be learned following the recent attack on Polish and United States troops in southern Kosovo, and that since co-operation has been resumed with KFOR, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should look seriously at the matter.

I was not aware of what the Future of Europe Trust discussed this week, but I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleague to discuss the matter, as I have done in the past. The circumstances are difficult. KFOR, the United Nations mission in Kosovo, and all the other groups that are in the region as a result of UN resolution 1244, are there to try to rebuild Kosovo and the region. We should do our best to help that process. These are difficult and sensitive issues. The forces out there are working as well as they can. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to take this discussion forward.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the announcement of the stability pact was greeted with considerable enthusiasm by all countries in south-eastern Europe, but is he aware that some disquiet is now coming into that process as a result of the slow pace of delivery? Can he guarantee that the British Government will be at the forefront of saying that now is the time to act; that the rhetoric is excellent and the will is there, but that we need to see action on the ground to build democracy and an economic pathway for the Balkans into the mainstream of the European family?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that he did when he had ministerial responsibility for the Balkans at the Foreign Office. He gave enormous leadership to the process. The decision taken at Lisbon was important. The involvement of Javier Solana and Chris Patten, working with Bodo Hombach from the stability pact, will ensure much quicker delivery. We know that progress takes a long time and we realise that people are frustrated at the time that it takes. We are frustrated but, as my hon. Friend more than anyone else in the House knows, these are difficult circumstances. I hope that, with the new impetus given by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at Lisbon, the process will be quickened.

What arrangements he is making to assist visa applicants at British high commissions in Dhaka, Islamabad and New Delhi. [117184]

The number of permanent entry clearance staff at Islamabad and Dhaka has been increased within the last year. All three posts receive additional temporary staff during the busy season. I have put in hand feasibility studies at each post to consider further how services to visa applicants can be improved. Decisions will be made before the summer recess.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Bengali community is funding an Immigration Advisory Service office in Sylhet to put applications in order before they are submitted to the entry clearance post in Dhaka? Will he consider funding such charitable offices not only in Sylhet but in Islamabad and New Delhi, as the Foreign Affairs Committee has recommended?

I am aware of what the Immigration Advisory Service proposes to do and, indeed, has started to do. We welcome the involvement of agencies in a complicated and difficult area of law. As my hon. Friend may know, I went to Sylhet to see the operation there a few weeks ago. I am confident that when the feasibility studies have reported, we shall consider how we can improve the facilities in New Delhi, Dhaka, Sylhet and Bombay. On his forthcoming trip to the sub-continent, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will look at the visa facilities. I cannot promise funds for the IAS, because it does not come within the remit of the Foreign Office, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will write to the Home Secretary expressing his view.

If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the USA national missile defence project. [117185]

The United States Administration has not yet decided to proceed with the deployment of a national missile defence system. Nor will they do so before later this summer at the earliest.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. During its visit to the United States three weeks ago, the Foreign Affairs Committee was left in no doubt that the American Government, their advisers and American politicians are wholly convinced of the missile threat from North Korea and of the possibility of such a threat from Iran—hence the talk about upgrading Fylingdales. Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to this issue is agreement with Russia and the United States? Have the British Government held any discussions with the new Russian Administration? If so, are further discussions planned?

I assure my hon. Friend that, when discussions take place between the Prime Minister and Mr. Putin, those issues will be raised—as they have been raised in the past at meetings between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Ivanov. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should continue along the lines that he suggests; I look forward to reading the Select Committee's report.

What representations he has received on the rule of law in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [117168]

If he will make a statement on the future of the United Kingdom's relations with Zimbabwe. [117169]

If he will make a statement on the political situation in Zimbabwe. [117182]

My colleague, the Minister of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—and I have repeatedly expressed our concerns at the deterioration in the economy and stability of Zimbabwe. I met President Mugabe last week in the margins of the European Union-Africa summit. I am grateful to President Obasanjo of Nigeria for helping to arrange the meeting and for having played such a positive part in it.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that statement and for his commitment to cool reason. None the less, if he agrees that what President Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe looks very much like ethnic cleansing, although, in this case, it is directed against many British passport holders, when does he intend to replace the rhetoric and the discussions that he described with some real action? For example, will he consider freezing President Mugabe's international assets? Will he speak more directly to the Commonwealth about the possibility of suspending Zimbabwe? If he will not take either of those actions, when does he intend to do something to which Zimbabwe will really listen?

We are taking every reasonable and responsible step. The hon. Gentleman asks whether we will consider freezing the assets of President Mugabe. I can predict the reaction if we were to confiscate his assets; he would then confiscate farms in Zimbabwe. One farmer to whom I spoke today said:

We are the ones who get beaten over the head here, whenever he gets beaten over the head there.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that my interest in Zimbabwe goes back 30 years. We both believe that it holds perhaps the greatest potential of any country in central southern Africa. Would he emphasise to the House that we have no argument whatever with the good people of Zimbabwe and that we want to play our part through aid to ensure that they do not suffer through the mismanagement and wickedness of their Government? Will he assure us that aid will continue to flow to Zimbabwe, but that it will go through non-governmental organisations and direct to projects that will help the people of that long-suffering country?

I echo the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is important that the message goes out from this House that we want the people of Zimbabwe to succeed. The real tragedy of that country is that it is potentially one of the richest and wealthiest in the region, but that its economy has now been reduced to the extent that it has 60 per cent. inflation and no foreign exchange reserves. I very much hope that the people of Zimbabwe will soon, as a result of the pressure on its Government, have the opportunity to take control of their own government through free and fair elections.

The right hon. Gentleman will be very much aware that not just this but other countries have played an enormous part in helping to revive the agrarian economy of what was Rhodesia. In fact, just two years ago, 700 farms in good areas were available for black people to farm the land. Does he agree that the time has come to put more pressure on the Government of Zimbabwe and that we should not rely just on the countries of the European Union to do that? Would it be more successful if we included countries of the Commonwealth in the representations that we make? After all, Zimbabwe is still a part of the Commonwealth.

As I said earlier, I will raise this matter at the Commonwealth ministerial action group when it meets in two weeks' time. I have already discussed the issue with a number of other Commonwealth leaders and I particularly welcome the help that President Obasanjo gave us in Cairo. Indeed, the assurance that elections will be held in May was given to him and not just to Britain. Therefore, I expect him to support us and to make sure that we proceed on that point.

The holding of free and fair elections is vital. Has there been any indication from the Government of Zimbabwe that they will be prepared to accept Commonwealth observers or monitors at those elections? Would my right hon. Friend confirm, along with the Commonwealth Secretary-General, that the only precedents for suspension from the Commonwealth have been when there has been a military coup in a Commonwealth country? Does he see any further scope for a role for an intermediary from a Commonwealth country, such as President Obasanjo or President Mbeki, because the vital interests of South Africa and the region as a whole could be threatened if there is a crisis of confidence among the white people of that area?

Many of the countries in the region are conscious that the decay of Zimbabwe's economy is of legitimate concern to them, and it is important that we explore every possible opportunity of working with them to find a resolution. My hon. Friend refers to precedents for suspension; there is only one and that is the case of Nigeria under its military regime. Nevertheless the Commonwealth ministerial action group has been gradually pressing for a widening of the scope of its action, and I expect support for us discussing that when we meet next month.

Should not the whole vexed question of land in that country be properly dealt with through the rule of law and negotiations? Is it not unfortunate that Mugabe and his cronies and thugs are using racism and xenophobia to whip up a situation so that Mugabe can hang on to power, because it seems to me that that is certainly the main motive in the present situation? Should not racism and xenophobia be denounced everywhere, whether it is in the country that we are now discussing or nearer home, as we witnessed yesterday with questions about asylum seekers?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that racism has no place to play either in Zimbabwe's politics or in Britain's politics. One point that has repeatedly been stressed by the farmers whose lands are occupied is that they are not white British farmers but citizens of Zimbabwe. They are entitled to protection under the rule of law in Zimbabwe, and if any citizen of that country loses the right of the protection of the courts and the rule of law, all citizens of Zimbabwe have their rights put at risk.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to the high commissioner for Zimbabwe in London the fact that many of us who took to the streets in the 1960s and 1970s to end colonial rule in Rhodesia, and against Mr. Smith, and who supported the black liberation movements, are deeply saddened by what is happening today, indeed, even embarrassed?

I hope that what my hon. Friend has said in the Chamber will be heard, and we will certainly make sure that it is drawn to the attention of Zimbabwe's representative in Britain. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we make sure that the people of Zimbabwe have the rights and democracy that many of us wanted them to have after independence. I have been accused in one or two quarters of having a colonial attitude in lecturing Zimbabwe on rights and democracy for its people. I totally reject the idea that that is a colonial attitude. We would have a colonial attitude if we were failing to insist on the same rights and democracy for the people of Zimbabwe that we insist on for ourselves.

The whole House will want to send a message to the people of Zimbabwe, which should be one of Africa's most prosperous and stable nations, that we are their friend, and that Britain stands by its friends when they are in trouble. They are in trouble because of the regime: the wholesale intimidation of journalists and anyone with dissident views; the way in which the Government are cynically encouraging thugs to invade property despite the Government failing to win the recent referendum; the continued prosecution of a pointless and costly war in the Congo; and the postponement of the elections. All that is condemning Zimbabwe to penury and oppression. It is a process that now has all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing.

I was disappointed when I heard the statement by Robin Cook—basically, it was a bit wishy-washy. I would go for a far tougher course of action…?

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his exercise in burning the midnight oil rather than listening to exchanges in the Chamber. I am grateful to him for agreeing with—indeed repeating—many of my points.

I think the Government needs to restore better relations with Zimbabwe.

Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that Her Majesty's Government have now suspended the export to Zimbabwe of all arms and arms-related equipment, including spare parts for Hawk aircraft?

On the last point, it is extremely important that we do not say anything that could be misconstrued or create a sense of panic. As it is, we always have contingency plans for every country, in case we should be required to assist. I will say no more on that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me.

No, you are not.

The hon. Lady supports a party which as recently as 1992 sent five Hawks to Zimbabwe, and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was a Minister in the Government who agreed to do it. We will of course continue to make sure that the matter is kept under review, but at present there will be no new equipment for Zimbabwe, either for the Congo or for internal repression.

My right hon. Friend will remember that, at the time of the Lancaster house talks, land and cash from the United Kingdom and the United States were major issues in those discussions and the agreements. He has rightly said that, to date, the redistribution of land has been a dismal failure. He will also know that President Mugabe blames the financial position largely on the British Government. Will my right hon. Friend set the record straight and make it clear that the financial position is a result of the fact that Zimbabwe is not using the funds appropriately to achieve the objectives set out in the Lancaster house agreement?

In fairness, it must be said that Britain has supplied £44 million to support land reform in Zimbabwe. We remain willing to help further, but it must be a programme, first, that involves the rule of law and fair price to a willing seller, and secondly, that tackles the needs of the rural poor, not those who happen to have access to, and influence in, Harare. We remain committed to taking that forward. I hope that we will have the opportunity to do so, but we need co-operation from President Mugabe to achieve that.

As the son of parents who stood their ground on a coffee shamba in the heart of Kikuyuland throughout the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya, and as someone who made his maiden speech in the House on the subject of Rhodesia almost exactly 40 years ago, may I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in the comfort and security of the Chamber, we all need to measure our words extremely carefully? While contingency arrangements must obviously be made for any unhappy developments, threatening words from outside Zimbabwe are not likely to be well received, via the BBC World Service, on their wirelesses by European farmers who may be miles away from any other European.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and his appeal for restraint. He speaks with real authority. Those of us who have been directly in touch with people in Zimbabwe in the past few weeks can confirm that his words are echoed by people on the ground in Zimbabwe.

Does my right hon. Friend share my view that, although the issues are emotive, they require a delicate balance between forcefulness and diplomacy, and that the shadow Foreign Secretary's recent indulgence in juvenile partisan abuse on the radio did him no credit at home and may have damaged British interests abroad?

I have already been obliged to express my views once on the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude); I do not want to have to return to him.

Does the Foreign Secretary realise that the position is getting worse and has been deteriorating in the past two or three weeks? Does he also realise that his perceived inaction makes matters worse not only in Zimbabwe but in Kenya? We hear that some opposition Members in Nairobi are calling for similar policies in Kenya. The right hon. Gentleman cannot walk on the fence indefinitely. He must take action. For how long is he prepared simply to say that he will continue to hector President Mugabe when the latter is not in listening mode?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on awaking from his slumber. I will spare the House repetition of all that I have said since we started discussing the matter at 3.30 pm. President Mugabe's strategy for the general election is clear: he will stand as a candidate who opposes Britain. It would not be wise, nor would it help the people of Zimbabwe, if we volunteered to fill the role that President Mugabe is writing for us.

My right hon. Friend is right to ignore the Opposition's domestic political agenda. We are in serious difficulties with President Mugabe. The message that my right hon. Friend has repeated today is important, and it should be repeated to the audience in Zimbabwe. That corrupt regime, which has squandered the money for land reform, will not improve the interests of the ordinary African, white or black. However, it is important that the ordinary Zimbabwean knows that land reform is available and that the British Government will be at the forefront of those who try to achieve that fairly and consistently.

I am happy to repeat the message, and I hope that the BBC World Service and other outlets will carry it to Zimbabwe so that the truth is known: Britain stands ready to support a programme of land reform provided that it is within the law and that it helps the poor of Zimbabwe. That remains our offer, and we await discussions with people from Zimbabwe. I want the people of Zimbabwe to know that it is not true that we do not support land reform. However, such land reform must be in the interests of the people and not only of the Government.

Are not the vital interests of neighbouring African countries also affected? The present circumstances, in which there is no rule of law and property is expropriated, threaten any prospect of inward investment in Zimbabwe. Some of that property belongs to banks, and its expropriation will thus undermine them. The circumstances threaten not only the economy of Zimbabwe—any suggestion of their repetition elsewhere will undermine prospects of serious inward investment in other neighbouring African countries because people will have no confidence in the security of their investment.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, if confiscation of farms proceeds, I cannot imagine that a prospective investor will have confidence in investing in Zimbabwe in the way in which the people need. That could have a ripple effect in the region. In the areas where farms have been occupied, there have been many protests by farm workers who are now denied their livelihoods and cannot support their families.

Despite the valid criticisms of the policy of violent expropriation, does my right hon. Friend share a slight sense of unease that the media and, indeed, the Chamber, take a keen interest in Zimbabwe only when farmers of European origin are involved? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be unwise to place Britain in a position whereby we actively endorse the opposition party in Zimbabwe, as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Foreign Secretary, appears to do? We should criticise policies that are wrong, but we should not attempt to decide Zimbabwean politics.

It is not for us to decide the politics of Zimbabwe or of any other country, but we have the legitimate right to express concern about the human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe or elsewhere. I repeat a point that I made earlier, as it requires to be stressed: those farmers who face the prospect of confiscation are every bit as much citizens of Zimbabwe as President Mugabe, and many of their families have been there for generations. I met one at the weekend who is in great distress about what is happening to what he properly and rightly described as "his country". He regards himself as a Zimbabwean; he should be given the chance to help to build the future of Zimbabwe.

Can the Foreign Secretary shed light on the suggestion that, despite the principle of a fixed-term Parliament, no polling date has been determined because the constituency boundaries have not yet been settled?

As I understand the legal provision, the Parliament of Zimbabwe will require to be dissolved this month because it will come to the anniversary of its election and elections for a new Parliament must be held within four months of the dissolution. I welcome the fact that President Mugabe has committed himself to elections in May and hope that he will carry that through, but the right hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. There are valid concerns about Zimbabwe's preparedness for elections and one is bound to say that the only possible responsibility for that lies with the Government who have been in power for the past four years and have known that there must be elections this year.