If he will make a statement on the verdict of the trial of the Jews from Shiraz in Iran. [129540]

We have expressed our deep concern to the Iranian authorities about the sentences. We and our European Union partners have consistently raised our concerns about the conduct of the trial—in particular, its closed nature despite earlier assurances to the contrary.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time when the Israelis and the Palestinians are moving that extra mile for peace, Iran remains a bastion of religious intolerance? Will he express to the Iranians the British Government's deep concern about their sham trial of Jewish teachers, rabbis, schoolboys, shopkeepers and cemetery attendants who are guilty of no more than being Jewish?

I agree that the trial was deeply flawed. Indeed, we have consistently made our concerns about it clear to Iranian Ministers.

The Minister will be aware that the 10 Iranian Jews were held for months without charge, and were denied the right to appoint their own lawyers. Will he remind the Iranian Government, given the pending appeals process, that Iran is a signatory to the international charter of human rights, which enshrines the right to a just trial?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), the Minister for Housing and Planning, is in Iran now. He has raised our concerns about the trial yet again, and has pressed for the sentences to be reviewed in a favourable way that addresses precisely the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Will my hon. Friend nevertheless insist that if there is really a serious programme to bring Iran into the circle of nations that believe in democracy, and if Iran really wishes once more to be an important player in world politics, Iran must recognise that show trials are not acceptable, that democratic countries will not support them, and that unless there is a very rapid move towards at least lightening the sentences there will be total opposition to allowing Iran to regain the role that it sees for itself?

I agree that the eyes of the world will be on this case, and particularly on the way in which the appeals process proceeds. As my hon. Friend says, the trial was deeply flawed, and an injustice has been done. We continue to believe, however, that our policy of critical engagement with the reforming Iranian Government of President Khatami is the best way both to protect human rights in Iran and to engage the Iranian people directly with the objective of achieving an Iran that returns to what my hon. Friend rightly described as the circle of nations, so that it can play an honourable and peaceful role in the establishment of justice in the region and internationally.

When he next plans to meet the French Foreign Minister to discuss EU institutional reform; and if he will make a statement. [129541]

I have a high regard for the French Foreign Minister, whom I meet regularly to discuss institutional reform. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt warmly welcome Mr. Vedrine's statement of last week that he was a pragmatist rather than a federalist.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the French Foreign Minister that a constitution for Europe is an aspiration?

I read with interest the whole text of Mr. Vedrine's statement last week. He made it clear that it was difficult to conceive of a constitution for Europe, because it would require a people of Europe. There is therefore no proposal from the French Foreign Minister for such a constitution.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there is no consensus among EU Governments in favour of either the French or the German long-term view of the European Union, and that therefore—much though the Conservative party might wish it—the federalist nightmare is not upon us? Does he also agree that if the European Union enlarges there will need to be change, and that that change should focus on, as much as anything, the need to reconnect national Parliaments with decision making in the European Union?

The proposal for a pioneer group of European member states has encountered criticism from various countries, from Finland to Italy. The Prime Minister of Italy has said:

Federalism is the model of the past.

In his discussions with the French, will the Foreign Secretary still call for swift progress on enlargement, as promised in the Government's annual report, or does he now accept that there has been a cooling off on the issue, with 2006 being the earliest date at which countries will be able to join?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no cooling off on the part of the Government of Britain on that issue. We remain firmly committed to enlargement, and enlargement as soon as possible. Indeed, when this morning in Berlin, I met the German Foreign Minister, I repeated Britain's conviction that we should stick with the timetable that we set out recently at Helsinki, which is that the European Union should be ready for new members by the end of 2002. There are countries in central Europe that are making major strides, very painfully, towards membership. We should encourage, not discourage, them.

When the Foreign Secretary prepares for his meeting with his French opposite number, he will have to read the draft treaty of Nice. Does he understand that, in that draft treaty, it is proposed that a large number of powers should transfer from our elected Parliament to an unelected European Government, including powers to tax? Will he now tell the House if he will rule out transfer of such powers under that treaty?

I have repeatedly told the House—I am happy to say to it again for the right hon. Gentleman's benefit—that the Government will not agree to qualified majority voting on tax; but I notice that he is credited with having introduced Mr. Paul Sykes to the Conservative party. Perhaps, therefore, he can shed light on why it is that he belongs to a party—and was in a Government—which went into the European Community without a referendum, which signed the Maastricht treaty without a referendum, and which would deny us a vote on the single currency if it were ever in power again; and explain why he has suddenly decided that a referendum on the treaty of Nice would be appropriate. The answer is that it has nothing to do with what might be in the treaty of Nice and everything to do with Paul Sykes and what he might put into Tory party bank accounts.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be little or no benefit to Britain if our approach was to stand and whinge on the sidelines like the Tory party? Does he further agree that the best place for Britain to be is at the centre of the European stage, working for reform and enlargement to build a more democratic and accountable European Union?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important for Britain to be at the centre of Europe and to be a leading partner in Europe. We will be a leading partner only if we retain the support that we have received from the countries that are seeking to be the new members of Europe. I believe that it is very important for Britain to champion enlargement and to be regarded by those countries as their ally and friend. That is why I view with bewilderment the Conservative party's decision to campaign strongly against the treaty that is necessary for enlargement and to throw away that support from central and eastern Europe.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that EU enlargement through membership of the former communist states of central and eastern Europe is a political and, indeed, moral imperative? Can he, despite his assurances, therefore comment on recent reports that the enlargement process is being delayed to 2005 or 2006 because of the EU' s unwillingness to carry through the necessary reforms? Does he agree that, for enlargement to succeed, the EU will have to reform itself as well as the candidate countries?

Absolutely—of course Europe must reform itself. That is precisely what we are doing in the enlargement intergovernmental conference, which will culminate in the treaty of Nice. It is the hon. Gentleman and his party who are proposing to campaign against the treaty of Nice. If it is a moral imperative to enlarge the European Union, perhaps he can explain why the Tories will oppose the very reforms necessary for it. The reality is that he represents a party that, far from enlarging the European Union, frequently sounds as if it would rather shrink the European Union by taking Britain out of it.

But is not the real barrier to enlargement the unreformed common agricultural policy? Why are the British Government not leading demands at the intergovernmental conference to tackle that? Is not their failure to engage seriously in the debate raging on the continent about the future shape of the EU yet another example of Britain being, to use the Prime Minister's own self-description, "insufficiently assertive"? Why is it that the Government have no vision whatever of what the enlarged European Union should look like?

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has recently joined us as his party's European spokesman. He may, therefore, have forgotten—or not noticed—that, at the Berlin summit, Britain did lead the campaign to reform the common agricultural policy. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks what that got us. It has got every household in Britain £64 off its food bill compared with the food bill when he was last in office and the previous Government were in power.

If he will make a statement on recent bilateral contacts with Cyprus. [129542]

Recent bilateral contact with Cyprus has been both regular and valuable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met President Clerides in April, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Foreign Minister Kasoulides in May. The meetings focused on the current United Nations Cyprus settlement process and the United Kingdom's continuing interest in and support for that process. Sir David Hannay, the UK special representative for Cyprus, is in regular contact with all those in Cyprus who are involved in the settlement process.

This week sees the 26th anniversary of the invasion of the island, and they have been long, frustrating years for Cypriots waiting for a solution. I welcome resumption of the proximity talks in Switzerland. Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government continue to support a comprehensive solution to the problems in Cyprus that will reunite the island? Can he also confirm that the action that he is taking will lead to those talks being productive?

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work that he has done on the issue and on behalf of his many Cypriot constituents. I can reassure him that the Government are doing everything that we possibly can to support the proximity talks. As he knows, the talks will resume next Monday. As I said, Sir David Hannay is our representative. He has visited twice this year to talk to both sides. Our ambition, as set out in the Prime Minister's statement on 23 September 1998, is that there should be a just and lasting settlement. We would like to see a united Cyprus entering the European Union, but that is not a precondition to accession. We shall continue to do everything that we can to propose and support that settlement.

Can Turkey become a full member of the European Union and yet still keep its army in northern Cyprus?

The issue of Turkey's candidacy is quite separate from the issues in Cyprus. Turkey has only just become a candidate for inclusion in the Helsinki accession process, and Turkey will be judged on whether it meets the Copenhagen criteria and on the state of its negotiations. No third country has a veto over the accession of another country into the European Union. We will, of course, be carefully monitoring the situation. We will ensure that we are fully aware of all the negotiation processes.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity of confirming that the Government will stick to their position that Cyprus's accession to the European Union will not be vetoed by Turkey or by any other country, and that settlement of the Cyprus issue is not a condition for Cyprus to join the European Union? Will he also make it clear to Turkey, in negotiations on its entry, that there can be no prospect of Turkey's joining the European Union unless and until it gets its troops out of Cyprus?

As I have just made clear, and as the Foreign Secretary made it clear on 14 February, we would like to see a united Cyprus entering the European Union. However, that is not a precondition for accession. Cyprus has done extremely well in the negotiations—it has opened 29 of 31 chapters of the acquis, and closed 16 chapters. Turkey does not have a veto over the accession of Cyprus. The issue for Turkey is quite separate: it will have to meet all the criteria. As we have said on many occasions, Turkey is a long way off. It will have to meet the Copenhagen criteria, and it will have to be part of its own negotiation procedures.

In relation to Cyprus's application to join the European Union, will the Minister confirm that the main issues still to be resolved centre mainly on banking and ship registration? Will the Minister further confirm that there is no reason why those and a few other remaining matters cannot be cleared up in, say, six months' time? If so, why should Cyprus have to wait another two years for the sake of diplomatic convenience so that other successful applicants can join at the same time?

We would like Cyprus to join as soon as possible. It has made excellent progress and has opened 29 of the 31 chapters. There are a number of outstanding chapters and difficult negotiations, including banking. We would like Cyprus to join as soon as possible. It is up to the European Union to ensure that the IGC is completed as at the end of this year. Once that is done and the various treaties have been ratified, it will then be for Cyprus to set its own timetable. We are doing everything that we possibly can to help Cyprus as want to see it in the European Union.

What recent assessment he has made of bilateral relations between the UK and Portugal; and if he will make a statement. [129543]

Relations between Britain and Portugal have always been close, both bilaterally and as partners within the EU and allies within NATO. The relationship is stronger than it has ever been, following the intensive contacts we have had with Portugal in the run-up to and during its presidency of the EU. I pay tribute to the work of our ambassador to Portugal, Sir John Holmes.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Can he confirm whether or not the historic British-led agreement on the EU economic reform at Lisbon is now paying off in terms of real jobs and growth creation in the EU? Is that not the right way forward for Britain and Portugal, by contrast with the suggestion by the Opposition, who would have Britain out of the EU and working in partnership with Mexico in the North American Free Trade Agreement area?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: Lisbon was an enormous success. It was a watershed in terms of the economic reform of the European Union and a tribute to the negotiating skills of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. The importance of the Lisbon summit is that it was preceded by a number of bilateral agreements between the United Kingdom and other countries. Of course our future is in the European Union—not in NAFTA, as has been barmily claimed by some Opposition Members.

The Minister will recall that the murderer of my constituent Isabelle Peake escaped to Portugal from France and thereby escaped justice in France. Will he confirm both that progress is being made in establishing how that person managed to evade justice and extradition by committing suicide in his cell, and the circumstances in which that happened? Apparently, the guards were watching football rather than guarding the prisoner. Finally, will he confirm that we will resist all attempts to pay compensation through Portugal to the person who committed the murder rather than to the victim and her parents?

I know that these must be painful matters for the family of Isabelle Peake, the hon. Gentleman's constituents. May I suggest that he come to see me about this matter with her parents so that we can take these matters forward? We will certainly do everything that we possibly can to assist the family and the hon. Gentleman in getting justice for his constituents.

If he will make a statement on the funding of the British Council. [129544]

The British Council is receiving grant-in-aid of some £136 million this financial year as part of the three-year comprehensive spending review settlement. This represents a 2 per cent. increase in real terms over the 1998–99 level.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he and all right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the British Council does excellent and supportive work. I should particularly like to highlight its current work in the Punjab in relation to human rights and encouraging women there to stand as local government representatives. Will he confirm his support for higher funding for the British Council, in line with the opinion of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the British Council is doing an excellent job in the Punjab. It has, for example, a library that is a showcase for Britain there, as it has in many other parts of the world. Wherever I go on overseas ministerial visits, I make a point of visiting the British Council if I can. As for funding, we shall have to wait for the Chancellor's statement, but 10 years ago under the Tories, spending on the British Council was 8 per cent. of the budget of the Foreign Office, whereas now it is 12 per cent. That shows our commitment to the British Council, and we shall continue to give it.

I declare an interest. I received a British Council grant to study at a Danish university. I also received a grant from Rentokil. How many postgraduate students are now able to benefit from British Council funds to study at a European Union university, as I did in my early 20s?

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady can spray a bit of Rentokil around the Conservative Benches, thereby enhancing the quality of the House. We are committed to the British Council's getting as much support as possible in respect both of the issue that she raises and of other issues. When I have visited posts, I have seen the excellent work of the council and the way in which it encourages students to come to Britain by providing all sorts of support, from IT support and English language training to assistance with visas and university placements. That is another excellent mark to its credit.

May I join the fan club of the British Council and express the hope that in the next hour it will receive an increase in its three-year funding? Will my hon. Friend use his best endeavours to support the council? As he knows, it deals with the English language, which is the world's premier language. Would it not be great if we could use some of the money in the next three years to link the British Council with the British library so that we could offer the best service in the world through British Council offices?

I will certainly consider that. I agree with my hon. Friend that the council's commitment to English language teaching, much of it now self-financed, is extremely important. When I travel in francophone or lusophone African countries, it is clear that their leaders want to see their people and their countries engage increasingly with the English language and the anglophone world, not least because English is the language of IT and international business. For that reason, the council's work will continue to have support from the Foreign Office, and I am sure that it will have support from the Chancellor later.

What plans he has to meet the President of Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [129545]

Meetings with President Mugabe are always memorable, but at present I have no immediate plans for another such meeting. The recent elections in Zimbabwe were a triumph of the democratic spirit over attempts to suppress it. Despite two months of intimidation and gerrymandering, almost as many citizens of Zimbabwe voted for the Opposition as for the Government. I have urged President Mugabe to respond positively to the Opposition offer to work together and to accept the mood for change demonstrated by the people of Zimbabwe.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that reply. Given the appalling violence in the recent Zimbabwean elections, the call by Morgan Tsvangirai for the impeachment of President Mugabe, and the Prime Minister's acknowledgement that the Government are seen to be "insufficiently assertive" on this issue, why does the right hon. Gentleman not make President Mugabe a pariah by pressing internationally for the freezing of his assets and the immediate imposition of a ban on his foreign travel?

I have the advantage over the hon. Gentleman, in that I spoke to Morgan Tsvangirai earlier today. He made it clear that the Opposition would be seeking ways of working together—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman quoted Morgan Tsvangirai; he should allow me the courtesy of sharing with the House what Morgan Tsvangirai shared with me this morning. He made it clear that, as the Opposition were seeking to work with the Government in the Parliament, which sits for the first time on Thursday, and as he had invited the Government to respond to that call for national reconciliation, he did not believe that penal sanctions would be helpful. The matter of impeachment is in the hands of the Parliament of Zimbabwe, not this Parliament.

Would my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary be astonished to hear that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was once the secretary of the immigration and repatriation committee of the Monday club? Does not that show the nature of the remarks that we are hearing from the Opposition Benches? Is not the mask being peeled away, to show the racism and xenophobia that have always been endemic in the Conservative party?

I was unaware of that episode in the career of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I have obviously failed to follow it with the attention that it deserves.

The Foreign Secretary has been remarkably slow to condemn what has happened in Zimbabwe in the past. Given the universal condemnation of the elections as a travesty of democracy and the remarkable success of an extremely brave Opposition, operating with all the odds stacked against them; and given the fact that the Mugabe regime seems to have changed its behaviour not one iota since the elections, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time now for Britain to use its position at the centre of the Commonwealth to mobilise some serious international action? Such action would show Mr. Mugabe that he is being watched, that he and his thuggish cronies will not be permitted the type of conduct that they have engaged in to date, and that it belongs firmly in the past? If he fails to do so, will he not be receiving another memo from the Prime Minister demanding to know why, on issues like Zimbabwe, the Government are seen to be "insufficiently assertive"?

Far from our being slow on the question of Zimbabwe, there were 400 election observers towards the close of the election campaign, solely because Britain mobilised the international community and obtained observers from both the Commonwealth and the European Union—action which was warmly welcomed by the Opposition and the Opposition candidates. I have already discussed the report of the Commonwealth observers with the chair of the Commonwealth ministerial action group. We are inviting the comments of President Mugabe and the Government of Zimbabwe in response to it. We shall be ascertaining what steps we can take to ensure that when the people of Zimbabwe next have the opportunity of an election to fill the presidential post in two years' time, they can take it without fear of violence, intimidation and gerrymandering.

If the Burmese regime has responded to the recommendations made by the International Labour Organisation following its recent mission to the country. [129546]

We are deeply concerned about the brutality of the military in Burma, the use of forced labour and the displacement of ethnic minorities.

Will my hon. Friend continue to make it clear to investors in Burma that the military regime is in breach of ILO and other international conventions and that they should not be helping this outlawed country by doing business with its rulers?

Yes. We announced on 17 June 1997 that we do not encourage trade with or investment in Burma. We have suspended financial support for trade missions and trade promotions. In March, I told Premier Oil, the largest UK investor in Burma, that we would welcome its moving out. Any British companies that inquire about trade with Burma are informed of the dire political situation and its appalling human rights record.

Given the abuses that the Minister has already described, will he continue to stress that message to British companies, including Premier Oil? Will he seek also to persuade the Governments of eastern Asia, especially the Japanese, that the policy of constructive engagement with Burma is not working and that stronger measures are now needed?

The answer is yes, we are doing that, and we will continue to do so. We have put pressure on the ILO, and, I think for the first time in its history, it has adopted exceptional measures which, if there is no change, will come into force in November. We have made representations, and we have proposed measures to strengthen the EU position. We have co-sponsored UN resolutions, and, with countries in the Association of South-East Asian Nations, we have also made the point forcefully that we will keep up pressure on Burma until it respects the democratic tights of all its people.

Why does the ethical foreign policy apply to Burma but not to China?

It does apply to China. The small difference is that Burma does not accept that there is even a question of its denying human rights, despite the fact that it is estimated that between 500,000 and 2 million people are refugees within that country. Burma will not enter into a dialogue at all. At least China is prepared to discuss the question of human rights. With Burma it is a shut door.

What assessment he has made of the BBC World Service's role in conflict prevention in third-world countries; and if he will make a statement. [129547]

The objectivity that is the hallmark of BBC World Service broadcasts plays a crucial role in areas of tension and conflict. The BBC World Service also plays an important role in carrying out media training predominantly funded by the Government, where local media bias may be a contributing factor to conflict.

Does the Minister agree that the BBC remains the premier and most impartial international news organisation? Will he pay tribute to the World Service, not just at Bush house and elsewhere in Britain, but to its training programmes in places such as the Balkans, Indonesia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan? Will he assure the House that, in the Chancellor's announcement which is to follow this Question Time, the World Service will be given the additional resources that it needs to upgrade its transmitters and relay stations and keep pace with modern technology?

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to respond to his request to anticipate the Chancellor. The Government are strongly committed to the BBC World Service, which is booming. Since last year, the number of its listeners has risen by 8 million to a record 151 million, and we have put in an additional £44 million during the current three-year period. That is a sign of our commitment. We want to see the BBC World Service and BBC world television extend their coverage throughout the world.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us welcome the positive comments that he has just made about BBC radio and television internationally? Will he take this opportunity to congratulate it on its balanced coverage in a difficult situation during the recent elections in Peru?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the coverage was very good, as it almost always—if not always—is throughout the world. Travelling throughout the world as my colleagues and I do, we continually hear praise heaped upon the BBC World Service, as one of the few objective sources of information in far too many countries.

Does the Minister share my view that the BBC World Service in radio and television is Britain's greatest diplomatic asset?

Yes, probably, apart from the present team of Foreign Office Ministers.

What recent representations he has made on behalf of kidnap victims in Colombia. [129548]

The British ambassador in Bogota delivered a clear message to the guerrillas that they must end their involvement in kidnappings, forced disappearances and extortion, prior to an international meeting in Colombia on 29–30 June. A statement subsequently issued by all 23 countries and organisations represented—including our EU partners—also called for an end to extortion, kidnappings and other serious violations of human rights.

As my hon. Friend is aware, kidnapping for political and financial advantage is an all too common occurrence in Colombia. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the five remaining hostages of the Avianca hijacking in April last, one of whom is Juan Manuel Corzo, a member of the Colombian Parliament. Will the Minister use every means at his disposal to urge all armed groups in Colombia, including the FARC and the ELN to grant an early release to all hostages as a genuine and sincere indication of their desire for peace?

Yes. We regularly discuss human rights with the Colombian authorities. Those discussions include the subject of kidnapping and hostage taking. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised our concerns over the continuing violence in Colombia when he met President Pastrana during the President's visit to London on 13 April. We also stress the need for further progress on human rights. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office visited Colombia, she also urged the Government to tackle the problem of the paramilitaries.

I associate myself from the Conservative Benches with the remarks of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins). Is not the fact that President Pastrana has sent his former high commissioner for peace to this country as ambassador a sign of the importance that the Colombian Government attach to the United Kingdom in advancing reconciliation and the restoration of security within that country? Can Her Majesty's Government now make resources available to Plan Colombia to reconstruct the country, and not necessarily wait for the European Union to do it?

In relation to Plan Colombia, we are playing a full part in the international and EU discussions. We convened a conference in London to engage the non-governmental organisations in that process. The recent conference in Madrid took the process further. I believe that no country is discussing contributions at this stage, because we want the structure of our contributions to the plan to be right, which includes improving the human rights situation in Colombia. Our aim is to work constructively to ensure that the peace process is properly supported and that the horrific accounts by Amnesty International of some 24,000 murders that it has catalogued become a thing of the past.

I understand that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has recently had meetings about Plan Colombia in Colombia and in the United States. Can the Minister tell us something about those meetings and whether the British Government are mindful of the need to modify the military aspect of Plan Colombia, which would do so much damage to the people there? Will the Minister also comment on the fumigation of crops that is proposed by the United States Government?

The fact that my right hon. Friend was engaged in the process both during her visit and at the meeting in Madrid was a clear indication that we certainly attach importance to supporting the peace process. That not only means including alternative crops rather than spraying, but involves a wider social and economic agenda than has been suggested by others: it means tackling illegal drug production and trafficking, and we insist on an emphasis on human rights. Our intention has been to broaden and deepen the agenda so that it is not a single instrument; that would be in no one's interests. We want to ensure that in the long term Colombia has a peaceful way of ensuring the development of the people and not a dependency on drug cultivation.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the best long-term guarantee against kidnapping is to move on the peace process. But will he also make sure that the message from our Government is clear: we expect the Colombian Government to prioritise the problem of hostages and hostage taking and make sure that that is a part of their own peace dialogue; and that there is also an expectation that the ELN and the FARC will make sure that hostage taking becomes a thing of the past, as a measure of their sincerity in moving towards the process of peace?

I can only re-emphasise that in all our meetings at every level we tackle that agenda and keep insisting on it. The British embassy maintains a regular dialogue with human rights bodies and other NGOs in Colombia and has facilitated meetings between NGOs and representatives of the Colombian armed forces in order to encourage confidence building. In addition, the ambassador and officials often visit trouble spots, both at the invitation of interested parties and on their own initiative, to try to bring people together around the peace process, which is the way forward.

What recent representations he has received about the middle eastern peace process. [129549]

We warmly welcome the initiative of President Clinton in bringing Israel and the Palestinian Authority together in a summit. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met Prime Minister Barak on the eve of the summit and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent a message of support to President Arafat. There remain formidable differences to be bridged on the territory of the west bank, on the status of Jerusalem and on the rights of refugees. Both sides must show courage and compromise if they are to secure for their peoples the great prize of a permanent peace.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, in their response to President Clinton's initiative, both Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat are making it abundantly clear that they are committed to the peace process and are doing everything in their power to bring about a lasting settlement in the face of substantial internal opposition? Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what practical steps the Government are taking to support them and, in particular, to help gain the acceptance of the Israeli and Palestinian people for the peace process?

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman about the courage being shown by both those leading the delegations. I stress that peace is a far greater advantage to both sides than the price of any compromise necessary to secure that permanent peace. The hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing to be helpful. Only yesterday, I spoke to Madeleine Albright and assured her that, if there is a peace settlement, Britain, and Britain in the European Union, will be willing to ensure that we take every possible step to see that it is bedded down and that the people of Israel and Palestine can see that there are real and concrete advantages from it.

I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has played an important part in bringing together President Arafat and Prime Minister Barak. Does he agree that one of the major keys to peace in the area is to persuade and encourage the Syrians to support the peace deal? Will he step up his efforts, possibly working with one of the Arab leaders, such as Egypt, to persuade the Syrians to accept peace with Israel?

Britain's position has always been to favour a comprehensive peace settlement. Only with a comprehensive peace settlement and all its tracks can we have security for the region. I met new President Bashar al-Assad at the state funeral in Damascus and assured him that we will wish to continue our dialogue and would wish to encourage both sides to find a solution to the Golan Heights and the Syrian track, which will bring stability and security to the region.

If he will make a statement on the agenda for the current IGC as it relates to enlargement. [129550]

The central purpose of the intergovernmental conference is to prepare the European Union for enlarged membership. The applicant countries will measure Europe's commitment to enlargement by our resolve to complete these reforms on schedule. Britain's positive role in the IGC reflects the Government's position that Britain must be the champion of enlargement.

Notwithstanding the Foreign Secretary's platitudes, does he agree with recent authoritative estimates that enlargement could cost the EU budget £24 billion because of a failure to achieve fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy? Does the Foreign Secretary regret his Prime Minister's failure to secure such reforms at Berlin last year?

At Berlin we secured reform of the structural funds and the common agricultural policy, which has provided—[Interruption.] We did indeed. Every household in Britain will see its bill decrease by £64 as a result. We created room in the budget to afford enlargement in the current financial perspective until the year 2006.

Is there not a paradox in that many of the new applicants are newly emerging democracies? If they are accepted, they will be joining an organisation that is bureaucratic and centralised and will be giving up some of the democracy that has just been established? Should not the European Union enhance its democracy and help them to share in its operation?

Whether those countries should join is a decision for their own democracies. I do not know any of those Governments who are not enthusiastic about joining the European Union. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must make the European Union more transparent, democratic and accountable and that is precisely why we are pressing at the IGC for reform of the Commission and the Council of Ministers, and for votes that will fairly reflect the size of population in the larger countries such as Britain.

What steps he has taken to put into practice his ethical foreign policy with regard to Africa; and if he will make a statement. [129551]

We back positive change in Africa by supporting those Governments who promote democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. We are helping Africa in the fight against poverty, AIDS, corruption and conflict. I am focusing on activities that fuel conflict and break sanctions, especially the illegal diamond trade. Yesterday, I spoke at an international diamond trader conference in Antwerp to press for action to block diamonds that fund wars in Angola, Sierra Leone and the Congo.

I am grateful to the Minister for his words, but when he contemplated the sight of child soldiers in Sierra Leone carrying British weapons, did he consider the devastating candour of his own analysis in the New Statesman that the phrase "ethical dimension" in relation to Britain's foreign policy was just

a hook on which we found ourselves … ?

That was a well rehearsed little contribution, wasn't it? The fact is that this Government have taken a stronger stand on human rights and social justice than any previous Government in Britain, and certainly the previous Tory Government of 18 years. What action did they take against the diamond traders who fuel conflict in Sierra Leone, Angola and the Congo? They did nothing. Yesterday, I represented the Government and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Antwerp in seeking an agreement with the International Diamond Manufacturers Association, the producer countries and the importer countries, and the trading centres in Tel Aviv, Bombay and Antwerp, to put on the agenda for the first time a proper certification scheme to stop the illicit export and import of the diamonds which fuels war rather than prosperity. That is a great blow for human rights in Africa and elsewhere.

My hon. Friend has made a significant personal contribution to human rights, especially in southern Africa. Does he agree that when apartheid reigned in South Africa, when the Group Areas and Registrations Act was on the statute book and when Nelson Mandela was in prison, there was no ethical foreign policy from the then British Government? One of the most significant things that we can do now to promote an ethical foreign policy is to help the South African Government with good governance and to relate to them in every way so that they can be a beacon in the region.

Absolutely. As my hon. Friend points out, it was Conservative Members and their former leader who condemned Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. It was some of them and their supporters who went round universities in Britain with badges saying "Hang Nelson Mandela." Where was the ethics and the commitment to human rights in that? Our commitment on those issues was strong in opposition and continues to be driven forward in government.

Has the Minister had the opportunity to see yesterday's report that five people collecting relief items were killed in an ambush by Sudanese Government forces in the Nuba mountains? Is he aware that in recent months the Sudanese Government have bombed schools and medical centres in their country? Given that the United Nations Security Council and the United States have both condemned strongly the atrocities committed by the Sudanese Government, will not many people be appalled and dismayed by the tactless move of this Government in granting a visa to and laying out the red carpet for the Sudanese Foreign Minister today? When it comes to foreign policy, can the Minister tell us where hypocrisy ends and ethics begin?

I shall take no lessons in hypocrisy from the hon. Lady, or from Conservatives generally. Is she saying that the Foreign Minister of the Sudan, who met me this morning to discuss the peace process and how to take that forward and who will meet my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary this afternoon, should not come to visit the Archbishop of Canterbury either—because he is to meet the Archbishop too? To take forward the agenda for peace in that war-stricken country, the hon. Lady should support the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development peace process and all the initiatives that we are taking and discussing with the Sudanese Government to end the misery and atrocities. I agree with her that those atrocities and miseries should be ended as soon as possible, which is why we are taking decisive action.

If he will make a statement on recent bilateral contacts with Estonia. [129552]

Bilateral contacts with Estonia are in excellent shape. In July 1999, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Tallinn on the occasion of the formal opening of the new British embassy building and held talks with senior members of the Estonian Government. President Meri called on my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary during his visit to the UK in March this year. I plan to visit Estonia in the autumn.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that the passing of language laws in Estonia on 14 June was a genuine step forward in the protection of minorities there? Will he assure me that as enlargement takes place in the EU, applicant states will be closely monitored on their dealings with minorities and on good governance?

I agree that the passing of that law was extremely important. I assure my hon. Friend that, working through the High Commissioner for Ethnic Minorities at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, we are doing our best to monitor the situation. Estonia is doing extremely well in its application to join the European Union and has opened 29 of the 31 chapters of the acquis, having closed 13 of them. Relations with our country are excellent and I believe that there is even an Estonian football player who plays for Derby County.

I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that Estonia is close to being ready for accession, as are a number of states. Can he tell the House when he expects accession to take place, as all the applicant countries keep telling us that they are getting extremely frustrated at the way in which Europe is holding them back?

As I told the House earlier, it is not for the European Union to set admission dates for applicant countries. It is for us to get our house in order, which the Foreign Secretary says we will have done with the conclusion of the IGC by the end of this year. We obviously want Estonia to join as quickly as possible, but it must set its own timetables and will only join once we have completed institutional reform. It will set its own timetables, and we want to see it in as quickly as possible.

If he will make a statement on the UK's relations with the Holy See. [129554]

We have very good relations with the Holy See. During my visit to Rome in January this year, I had a meeting at the Vatican with Monsignor Migliore, and also met Cardinal Etchegaray, Archbishop Van Thaun and Bishops Martin and Fitzgerald. Her Majesty the Queen will meet Pope John Paul II when she visits Rome between 16 and 19 October.

Does the Minister recall that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, along with the American Department of State, considered it appropriate to give unsolicited advice to the Vatican on what it deemed to be the imprudence of the Holy Father making a visit to Iraq. Bearing in mind the fact that the Pope's travel arrangements are deemed to be appropriate business for the FCO, as well as our residual duties and obligations to promote human rights and religious liberties in Hong Kong, can the Minister tell us what representations have been, or will be, made to the Chinese authorities in the light of the fact that they refused the Pope permission to visit the 250,000 Catholics in Hong Kong on a pastoral visit?

If our embassy in the Holy See is consulted on these matters, we will be part of the discussions. There is no question of our telling the Pope or the Vatican where they should go or whom they should visit. However, if those matters are raised as part of the bilateral discussions and negotiations, the UK Government will put their views forward.

If he will make a statement on the resumption of the Cyprus proximity talks. [R][129555]

If he will make a statement on the resumption of the Cyprus proximity talks between the President of the Republic of Cyprus and Mr. Denktash. [129558]

We welcomed the resumption of the UN proximity talks on 5 July in Geneva, which have adjourned but will resume on 24 July and proceed until around 4 August. There will then be a further recess, after which talks will resume on 12 September in New York. UN Assistant Secretary-General De Soto has stated that he is happy that a calendar for the talks has been established but is unwilling to characterise their state of play.

On behalf of the British Government, will my hon. Friend condemn the recent advance of the Turkish army across 200 m of neutral ground at Strovilia, which is not only an act of aggression but an insult to the UN and, indeed, calculated not to facilitate the success of the negotiations? Further, will he confirm that the recognition of a Turkish republic of northern Cyprus as a legal entity can be neither the starting point nor the end point of negotiations, as that would legalise the armed occupation of a sovereign state?

My hon. Friend is clearly a friend of Cyprus and has raised these issues on a number of occasions. The Government do not want anything to interfere with the success of the proximity talks, which as he knows will begin on Monday. I shall certainly take on board the points that he has made and pass them to Sir David Hannay. [Interruption.]

Order. I should be obliged if the House would come to order. It is still Question Time.

Although I note my hon. Friend's reply, is he aware of the crucial importance of the present round of talks? Over the 26 years since the brutal invasion of the Republic of Cyprus, which I remind my hon. Friend is a Commonwealth country, we have seen countless similar talks, only for them to fail. I hope that my hon. Friend will propose that the United Nations resolutions on Cyprus form the basis of the talks and that Mr. Denktash and his advisers will at long last be asked to enter meaningful discussion and not engage in the spoiling tactics that have been used repeatedly over the years since the invasion of the Republic of Cyprus.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on the Cyprus issue. He will recall the Prime Minister's statement on 23 December 1998 and the progress that we have made in the past two years. He will know of the importance of the proximity talks, and that they resume on 24 July—next Monday. We will do everything that we can to ensure a just and lasting settlement to this sorry issue.