If he will make a statement on the agenda for the current intergovernmental conference regarding Community law. [135160]

The intergovernmental conference is about making the institutional reforms necessary to allow enlargement to proceed. The issues remain those set out at the beginning of the conference; that is chiefly the size and composition of the Commission, the reweighting of votes in the Council of Ministers, the extension of qualified majority voting and closer co-operation between individual member states.

I know that you, Mr. Speaker, prefer brief questions, so will the Minister simply tell us whether the Government of whom he is a member will, at Nice, veto article 280A which seeks to create the position of a European public prosecutor?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have made it quite clear that we do not support the idea, the concept or the proposal of an EU public prosecutor.

Is my hon. Friend aware that double standards are to be found in the position adopted by Conservative Members given that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who went the furthest to abolish the right of veto and introduced majority voting? Is it not a fact that, in any enlargement of the European Union—which the Opposition claim to support—it would be necessary to have an extension of qualified majority voting; otherwise the whole institutional framework would came to a grinding halt?

My hon. Friend is right. As he correctly said, what is important is that the European Union and the Commission operate efficiently. As I have said to the House before, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)—St. Francis of Maastricht as I have described him—signed the Maastricht treaty and agreed to qualified majority voting on 42 occasions during the passage of the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty. In 1996, 80 per cent. of the votes taken at the European Council were taken on the basis of qualified majority voting. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that in 1998 Britain was on the losing side only twice. Therefore, we want an extension of qualified majority voting when that is in our interests.

May we have an assurance that the Government, in any consideration of the expansion of the European Union, will not contemplate smaller countries being treated as second-class nations within the European Union?

I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. We believe strongly not in a two-speed Europe, but in a Europe where all the member states are treated equally. That is why we have said on several occasions that we support enhanced co-operation. However, we support it only on the basis that the decisions to be taken do not undermine the single market and treat all states the same. We will not tolerate a Europe with a hard core of countries; all countries should be treated equally.

What support has been received from other EU member states for the ideas on modernisation of EU institutions expressed in the Prime Minister's speech in Warsaw. [135161]

My right hon. Friend's speech in Warsaw has been widely supported throughout EU member states and was warmly welcomed by the four Prime Ministers of candidate countries who were among his audience. My right hon. Friend set out a vision of Europe that harnessed the economic and political strengths of its member nations to achieve more together than they can alone, but which respected the separate identity and democracy of each member state. Yesterday, President Prodi said:

I agree entirely with the British Prime Minister. I do not want Europe to become a superstate.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be aware that my constituency of South Thanet receives objective 2 aid and, because it is in east Kent, most local businesses look to the continent as their natural trading area. Both those benefits would be put under threat if the British public continue to feel disconnected from the institutions of Europe. In that context, does my right hon. Friend not agree that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's idea of a second Chamber in Europe where national parliamentarians can be heard is not only exciting and innovative, but might be exactly what the British people need to make them feel connected again to Europe?

My hon. Friend states one of the great truths about our membership of the European Union, which is that almost 60 per cent. of our exports go to other EU members. That is why it is so important for us to make a success of that membership. Part of that success will be reconnecting the democracy of Europe with EU institutions, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed that there should be a place in those institutions for British democracy and the democracy of other states through their national Parliaments.

As part of the modernisation of the EU, how many of the 50 British vetoes will have to be surrendered to pursue the national interest as the Foreign Secretary is suggesting? Will not the British veto and our right to self-government disappear into the Bermuda triangle that is the Government's European policy, and that they are not in line with the EU and their colleagues, but are struggling from the rear?

The right hon. Gentleman will be relieved to hear that we are confident that we will keep to our bottom line of having no extension of majority voting to defence, taxation, social security, treaty changes or border control. Those will remain subjects for unanimity, and I am sure that he will welcome that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to protect the democracy of member states is to preserve the veto, and that any erosion of the veto erodes that democracy?

I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that any erosion of the veto is necessarily against British interests. We are pressing for majority voting on a number of matters in the treaty. For example, it would be in our interest to have majority voting on the rules of procedure of the European Court of Justice to get round those who impede its effectiveness and efficiency. It would be in our interest to remove the veto on the site of the European Parliament which enables France to insist that it continues to sit in Strasbourg.

Why does the Prime Minister still refuse to press for the flexible, multi-system European Union that the mainstream majority of the British public want? If he is serious, as he says he is, about wanting to make way for enlargement, why does he not press for reform of the biggest single obstacle to enlargement—the common agricultural policy? Why have not the Government even asked for that to be on the agenda at the Nice IGC?

On the issue of a superpower, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in his speech that we want Europe's economic strength to be harnessed, but not in ways that create the mechanism of a superstate. In Nice, we will be preparing for a treaty that will pave the way for enlargement by making reforms, so that Europe will be ready to receive a record increase in membership.

I make it very clear that nothing in the Nice treaty that is controversial is essential for enlargement. The right hon. Gentleman well knows that the biggest roadblock to enlargement is the common agricultural policy, and the Government are not even discussing that.

If the right hon. Gentleman is insisting that I choose between the Commission and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I will happily choose the view of my Minister of State, who expressed himself robustly and clearly.

If he will make a statement on telecommunications in Gibraltar. [135162]

As we made clear in our response on 31 October to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Gibraltar, we have stayed in close contact with the European Commission, emphasising the urgency of the situation and our expectation that the Commission will uphold Gibraltar's rights in the European Union. We have informed the Commission that we consider the complaints made by operators in Gibraltar to be well founded. In consultation with the Government of Gibraltar, we are continuing our efforts with the Spanish Government and the Commission to resolve this important issue.

I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern at the fact that Spain still refuses to recognise the international code for Gibraltar and that businesses in Gibraltar are being held back by the lack of available telephone numbers. That has been highlighted recently by the failure of the Spanish Minister of Defence to telephone the Chief Minister over a visit to the submarine HMS Tireless. We are all aware of the difficulties, and I look forward to an early resolution of them.

My hon. Friend is right. I know of his great interest in these matters as a member of the Gibraltar parliamentary group and owing to his many visits to the country. The issue is important. As he knows, 30,000 telephone numbers have been allocated through the Cadiz exchange, and they will run out next year. Therefore, for the people of Gibraltar, the issue is very serious. I have discussed the matter with Chief Minister Caruana, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). I spoke yesterday afternoon to the Governor of Gibraltar. I assure my hon. Friend that we have raised the concerns with the Commission and expect it to do something positive to resolve the situation; otherwise, my hon. Friend will not be able to ring his friends in Gibraltar and they will not be able to ring out.

These soothing bromides simply will not do. What is the precise nature of the renewed efforts to which, in their response to the recent Foreign Affairs Committee report, the Government committed themselves? Did the Prime Minister raise the matter at the Anglo-Spanish talks last month? What exactly was the result?

I shall not rise to the challenge to appoint the hon. Gentleman as our special envoy to sort out the problem because it requires very careful dialogue.

If he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [135163]

We welcome the successful and peaceful conduct of the local elections in Kosovo on 28 October. It sends a clear message that Kosovo is making further progress towards democracy and tolerance. We look forward to working with the newly elected members of the municipal authorities in tackling the many tasks ahead.

The Defence Committee has reported that 98 per cent. of the unguided bombs dropped by the Royal Air Force on Kosovo and the rest of Yugoslavia during the recent conflict missed their target. Would it therefore be an appropriate gesture at this time for Her Majesty's Government to send an apology to President Kostunica and to offer compensation? How many times has the Minister visited Kosovo and other Balkan countries?

I am surprised at my hon. Friend. Here is a golden opportunity to welcome the elections and to look forward to a period of peace, democracy and stability in the Balkans. We are not in this House to be apologists for Milosevic. We believe firmly that the people of Kosovo deserve our support—not empty gestures, but practical support, such as that the Government have put into KFOR and UNMIK. We shall continue to provide the people of Kosovo with such support, so that there is real peace and stability in the region. I would have thought that my hon. Friend would support that process.

What progress is being made with the Balkan stability pact, with special reference to Albania, Kosovo's neighbour?

My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will continue to work with the stability pact. The Government have a duty to ensure that it is a success. We receive reports from time to time at the General Affairs Council and will continue to support the work of the pact. It is not just a matter of individual countries in the region. The pact is intended to bring peace and stability to the whole region, and to make sure that the people of the Balkans, and Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia, have a stable future.

What would be the impact on the delicate situation in Kosovo, were George W. Bush ever to have the opportunity of carrying out his threat to withdraw United States forces from the Balkans?

I do not have a vote in the election today. I understand that the report has been denied.

Does the Minister realise that on the ground in Kosovo there is considerable concern about the apparent lack of co-operation between certain of the military forces and, even worse, as I tried to expound in the defence debate last week, there is uncertainty about where and how the United Nations is carrying out its mandate? Will the Minister look into that? The last thing that we want is to let the people down by not ensuring that what we are doing is helpful to them.

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He will know that that is an agonisingly difficult problem. We give full support to the work that is being undertaken by UNMIK, which is there to implement resolution 1244 and bring communities together. There are 4,200 civilian police officers trying to keep the peace between the communities and rebuild the confidence that was destroyed by Milosevic. It will take time, but the way forward is to make a contribution and to support the work of KFOR and UNMIK, which the Government will continue to do, following the work of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and the initiatives that they have taken.

If he will make a statement about progress on the establishment of an international criminal court. [135164]

Good progress is being made. Twenty-two countries have already ratified the treaty, out of the 60 needed for establishing the international criminal court.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that a Bill in the Queen's Speech to ratify the international criminal court would have cross-party support? Does he also agree that whoever is the new President of the United States, that country should take a greater role and ensure that those who commit crimes against humanity are brought to justice?

We would, indeed, like to see the US sign up to the treaty and give the international criminal court its agreement, as its participation would be important. My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on the contents of the Queen's Speech, but I hope that when the Bill is introduced into Parliament, which we hope to achieve as soon as possible, it will receive all-party support. I hope that the official Opposition, and in particular those on the Front Bench, will not obstruct the Bill, but will allow it a quick passage, so that Britain can become one of the first 60 countries to ratify the treaty and bring it into force.

Given that the Minister believes in an ethical foreign policy, can he tell the House what active steps he has taken to encourage Libya and China to sign up to the international criminal court?

We encourage all countries, including Libya and China, to sign up to the international criminal court. In our bilateral diplomacy with all countries in the world, we consistently pressure them to do so. We are committed to the court. It is a way of catching war criminals and ending the situation whereby the Pol Pots, Pinochets and all the dictators of the world continue to act with impunity. It is part of our agenda for human rights, of which we are proud. Our record is a proud one.

In common with many other hon. Members, I welcome the publication of the Bill to ratify the Rome statute and look forward with optimism to its inclusion in the Queen's Speech. Does my hon. Friend accept that as long as the Bill remains silent on the issue of state immunity, there will remain a potential legal loophole through which past and serving Ministers who may seek refuge in this country may be able to escape?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. We have listened closely to representations made to us during the consultation period on the draft Bill. I think that he will be encouraged by the response when he sees the Bill published in its final form.

May I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) set out in his main question? When the war crimes tribunals sit, there should be retribution for the past and a deterrent to obscene atrocity in future. I express some concern that it is taking as long as it is for Britain to ratify the process and to get it under way.

We are committed to achieve ratification as quickly as possible. I am delighted that we shall have the hon. Gentleman's support. It is a unique experience for me, but I am delighted to agree with virtually everything that he said.

If he will make a statement on the situation in Israel and the occupied territories. [135165]

I visited the countries of the middle east peace process last month. In the course of three days, I twice visited Prime Minister Barak and twice visited President Arafat. In all my meetings and in every public statement, I appealed for an end to the bloodshed and a return to the negotiating table.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that what has happened over the past five weeks clearly demonstrates that the Palestinian, people want the removal of 33 years of military rule over the occupied territories? Does he agree also that the Camp David agreement appears not to be working? Will he join with me in calling for a peace negotiation that is based upon UN resolutions 242 and 338, and following from that the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the west bank and Gaza?

The peace process, which was launched at Oslo, is built upon those resolutions. Britain played a key part in the drafting of resolution 242, and is cognisant of its terms. Unfortunately, no agreement was reached at Camp David. However, we came much closer to it at Camp David than we have ever been during the other eight years of the peace process. The area of territory that was still in dispute at the end of the Camp David talks was down to 2 or 3 per cent. I hope that the bloodshed of the past two months will not prevent us from returning to where we were after Camp David and completing the task. If we do not, it is difficult to see an outcome in which there can be any permanent guarantee against future bloodshed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, acknowledging the great difficulties that exist, nevertheless, with all his support and authority, impress upon the Israelis the essential nature of a more proportionate response to these difficulties? Will he agree that all of us who understand the awful history, difficulties and tragedies of the Israelis over the years, find it impossible to understand how they can use heavy guns, machine guns and heavy weapons on children?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the sensitive way in which he has approached a difficult issue. I can assure him that we have already raised in our high level meetings with leaders of the Israeli Government our concern about the need for a proportional response to crowd control. We will continue to do that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the current situation has been the failure to increase the living standards of the Palestinian people? How much of the blame for that does he attribute to the Palestinian National Authority, and Yasser Arafat in particular, for diverting aid intended for education and economic development to other activities, including training terrorists?

My hon. Friend correctly draws attention to the fact that, during the peace process, the living standards of residents of Gaza and many west bank towns went down, not up. There are many reasons for that.

Although the security of the state of Israel is of paramount importance, does the Foreign Secretary agree that equality of treatment between the Palestinian state—the Palestinian authority—and the state of Israel is critical? In my view, the Palestinians believe that they do not get a fair deal.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall of course make early contact with the new Administration, who will not take over until the end of January. President Clinton will remain in office until then, and I am sure that any incoming President will support his work in the middle east peace process. His knowledge of and commitment to the peace process is wide and deep. During his remaining two or three months in office, I hope that both sides will use his commitment and expertise to find a way forward.

I support all my right hon. Friend's efforts in the peace process. Does he agree that Israel's determination to dominate, control and set out the future of the Palestinians is the biggest obstacle to peace in the region? Does he also agree that if there are to be future negotiations, the Israelis should treat their partner in those negotiations—the Palestinians—as equals? That failure to do so made it clear to Palestinians—young and old, and angry and moderate—that what was achieved at Sharm el-Sheikh, Camp David and Oslo was not good enough. A successful future must be based on the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) and, in particular, on Israel's acceptance in the peace process that Palestinian refugees have the right of return. If not, there can be no peace.

I have already discussed with the Israeli Foreign Minister the importance of including refugee return in any overall package. I stress that good progress was made at Camp David. I strongly suggest to the House that we return to first principles in the peace process—we should pick up from the progress that was made and appreciate how far we got at Camp David. In the immediate future, we must try to secure an absence of bloodshed, which will enable the negotiations to recommence. That is why it is important for both sides—not simply Israel—to honour the commitments that they made at Sharm el-Sheikh to put an end to violence.

The whole House will share a common concern about the recent, tragic turn of events in Israel and the occupied territories, and the Foreign Secretary's hope that the agreements made at Sharm el-Sheikh will be implemented. We of course recognise Israel's right to live in peace and security and the right of Palestinians to self-government.

In reality, the peace process has reached the stage of final status talks, to which all the difficult issues were reserved, including that of Jerusalem. It is important for Israel that any peace settlement should include a statement of an end of the conflict by the Palestinian side, but it is difficult to see a Palestinian leadership making such a statement without a resolution to the division of Jerusalem. That is why we may now be in a position in which those difficult issues have to be resolved as part of a package, and both sides will have to recognise that they will not necessarily obtain everything that they want on every element of the package, but that the package itself offers them security, stability and peace for their people, which is the greatest prize of all.

If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Iraq and those items which the Iraqi Government are currently allowed to import. [135166]

If he will make a statement on the impact of sanctions on the humanitarian situation in Iraq. [135171]

We continue to take the lead in alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of a ruthless dictator who cares nothing for their welfare. Under Security Council resolution 1284, the oil for food programme will provide more than $16 billion for the Iraqi people this year alone, paying for a wide range of civilian imports from food and medicine to equipment to improve water and sanitation facilities, to spare parts for the oil industry.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the solution to sanctions is in the hands of Saddam Hussein himself by his taking the comparatively simply step of complying with the—[Interruption.]

Order. An hon. Member is censuring me for the way in which I call Members. I will not allow that, and the hon. Gentleman should take himself from the Chamber.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the solution to sanctions is in the hands of Saddam Hussein by his complying with the relevant United Nations resolutions in respect of informing the international community of his weapons of mass destruction? My hon. Friend has mentioned the sums available to Saddam Hussein, but to what extent is that being spent for the benefit of the people or on self-aggrandisement and palaces for the dictator himself?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Britain wants to see sanctions suspended, but the only vehicle for achieving that is the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1284. In return for allowing in arms inspectors—a new team headed by the widely respected international diplomat Hans Blix—who will check on the capabilities in nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, sanctions could be suspended within a matter of months. We should all unite—critics of sanctions as well as supporters of the United Nations policy in international law—in achieving that, rather than playing Saddam Hussein's game and allowing him to score cheap propaganda victories by humanitarian flights. We should also bear in mind that, while his people have been suffering over the years, he imports thousands of bottles of whisky, wine and beer and cigarettes by the million, and surrounds himself in obscene luxury.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that Saddam Hussein must bear considerable guilt for the suffering experienced by the poor people of Iraq, but does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that it is right for Britain to pursue an open-ended sanctions policy against Iraq, which results in suffering for innocent children and others, while simultaneously pursuing a preferential trade arrangement with the authorities in Iran? Is my hon. Friend aware of the extent to which the mullahs in Iran are acquiring weapons of mass destruction?

We are concerned about Iran's capability in weapons of mass destruction, especially its acquisition of large numbers of missiles, and we continue to press the Iranians on that matter. But I do not think that my hon. Friend will compare the Iranians' relations with their neighbours and with their own people with Saddam Hussein's record, which is uniquely brutal.

Is not it obvious that policy towards Iraq is based on containment by utilising the deterrent effect of credible military force? What possible contribution do non-military sanctions make to that policy? They do grievous harm to the ordinary people of Iraq, they have no effect on Saddam Hussein, his whisky or his brutality, they give him an enormous propaganda advantage and they cause grave disquiet throughout the Arab world. Ten years after the end of the Gulf war, is not it time for the United Nations to lift the non-military sanctions?

I respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman's record on the matter, and his broad support, which I acknowledge, for the policy of the Government and the United Nations. However, $16 billion of oil for food money is now available to alleviate and end the suffering of the people of Iraq. That sum, per Iraqi, is equivalent to three times the amount that each Egyptian spends on food and medicine each year. It is a massive amount of money, and we must work to ensure that Saddam Hussein stops blocking it and allows all of it to reach his people.

The Minister said that sanctions could be suspended provided that United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed back into Iraq. Will he confirm that that is the unanimous view of the Security Council?

It is the policy of the Security Council, which Britain will work extremely hard to implement. There is no hidden agenda; if we can get Saddam Hussein to comply with admitting the arms inspectors, we shall work tirelessly to implement the full Security Council resolution. I am confident that we shall be able to achieve that.

What methods do we use to harm Saddam Hussein that do not harm his people?

We implement sanctions that contain his ability to threaten his people. He has done that repeatedly, for example, by inflicting chemical weapons on the Kurds. He has also threatened his neighbours by invading Iran and Kuwait. From oil smuggling—equivalent to a small proportion of his total oil production—he has been able to surround himself with a considerable security blanket and amass considerable wealth. However, like Slobodan Milosevic, all dictators learn that they cannot survive for ever.

Does the Minister agree that Iraq's humanitarian predicament must be viewed in the light of its treatment of 605 mostly Kuwaiti prisoners, including women and students? What pressures can be brought to bear to get the Iraqis to provide information, even information such as whether those prisoners are dead or alive? Does he agree that humanity and decency demand that?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I pursued it with the Kuwaitis when I visited Kuwait last week. Hundreds of Kuwaiti families are in the dreadful position of simply not knowing what has happened to their relatives who have disappeared. The Iraqis have shown no accountability. We continue to take all opportunities to press them to deal with the issue, and to discuss with Ambassador Vorontsov his work on behalf of the United Nations to resolve the problem.

What assessment he has made of the state of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Sweden. [135167]

Relations are excellent. A month ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had talks in London with Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Sweden in May, and I visited in September. There have been 25 other substantive ministerial visits in both directions so far this year, covering most Departments, as well as ministerial contacts in the margins of the European Union and other multilateral forums. The main aim has been policy co-ordination on European Union issues, especially with a view to the Swedish European Union presidency, which begins on 1 January.

Is the Minister aware of the Swedish Government's determination, forcefully expressed to me in Stockholm last week, to drive forward European Union enlargement during their presidency? Will he ensure that the United Kingdom Government do all that they can to support them in their desire to make clear progress on broadening European Union membership and negotiations with applicant countries?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his highly successful visit to Stockholm last week. As he knows, the United Kingdom is the best friend of enlargement. Through the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in Budapest and Warsaw, we have set out clearly our desire for the European Union to be enlarged as quickly as possible. That is why we need to complete the intergovernmental conference on time. It is essential that we give a message to those countries that we want them in.

Is not Sweden our natural ally in securing major reform of the common agricultural policy? Is it not a tragedy that, over many years, we have failed to build effective coalitions of like-minded nations which would have secured that reform much earlier?

The hon. Gentleman is right. We failed to build those alliances because we had a Conservative Government until May 1997, but, since then, British Ministers have been out there in the European Union fully engaging with their European counterparts, ensuring that Britain's interests are put first and foremost on the agenda of Europe. We will continue to do what we have to do to reform the CAP.

May I point out that the enthusiasm for the success of Mr. Eriksson is not universally shared in the Chamber?

I thought hard before adding the fourth E, for the reasons that were outlined by my hon. Friend.

Has the hon. Gentleman discussed how Sweden's traditional neutral defence posture can be reconciled with the proposed EU defence structure, given its concerns? I remind him that the Prime Minister described plans for a merger between the Western European Union and the EU as an "ill-judged transplant operation". What has changed?

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we on the Government Front Bench have to deal with real Ministers and have real bilateral contacts. We do not have to quote selectively from documents. I assure him that we are totally at one with the Swedes on those initiatives. They are fully involved in the initiative that was put forward by the Government, with the support of the French. We will continue to work with them as EU partners to ensure that the common security and defence policy is a success.

If he will make a statement on the situation in Sierra Leone. [135168]

I spoke to President Kabbah of Sierra Leone at the weekend. He warmly expressed his people's strong welcome for Britain's continued commitment to building a safe future for them.

The Foreign Secretary will know that 1 million people in Sierra Leone are not receiving humanitarian aid because they happen to be in rebel-led areas. He will also be aware of the risk of the conflict spreading to neighbouring countries. Will he confirm that the United Kingdom will adopt a higher profile in Sierra Leone, that it will commit itself to UNAMSIL, and that it will remain committed in Sierra Leone until stability is achieved in the region?

The hon. Gentleman has raised real concerns about the gravity of the situation, and I strongly agree with him about the humanitarian position. I should point out, however, that the Government have done more for humanitarian aid to Sierra Leone than has any other country: in the past year alone, we have provided £30 million worth of such aid. We will, of course, continue to do all that we can to get it to the people who need it.

My right hon. Friend is right in saying that this country has done more than any other western nation to support the legitimate democratic Government of Sierra Leone. If, however, we are to create a climate in which people throughout Sierra Leone can live without fear, what more pressure can be brought to bear on those who profit from its diamonds— neighbouring African countries—on those who are happy to provide the rebels in Sierra Leone with arms without asking any questions about their use, and, in particular, on those who seek closer relations with the European Union while at the same time providing weapons with which the people of Sierra Leone are being murdered?

Speaking from experience, my hon. Friend draws attention to an important dimension of the problem: the extent to which some neighbouring countries—one in particular—support the rebels, and profit from the conflict and atrocities in Sierra Leone. Britain has taken the lead in proposing a scheme to monitor the diamonds that are leaving Sierra Leone, and we have UN backing for it. I hope that that will make it increasingly difficult for the rebels to sell their diamonds, and to acquire the weapons that they need to maintain the conflict.

Will the Foreign Secretary provide a clear statement of purpose, telling us exactly what we are trying to achieve in Sierra Leone, what resources—both military and civil—we are putting towards that, and when he expects the task to be completed?

The House has been given a number of statements explaining precisely what military commitments we are making.

If he will make a statement about conflict diamonds. [135169]

If he will make a statement about conflict diamonds. [135173]

The Government have led the way in the creation of an international certification scheme to deny conflict diamonds access to world markets, and help to protect the legitimate trade on which so many livelihoods depend.

I welcome the hard work done by my hon. Friend and the Foreign Office in cleaning up the diamond trade; but does my hon. Friend accept that sanctions-busters are still taking diamonds from Revolutionary United Front rebels in Sierra Leone and from Unita in Angola, and supplying them with weapons that are used to perpetuate these murderous wars? Does he agree that Victor Bout is a major supplier of arms to the rebels? What action is being taken to stop him breaking UN sanctions?

I agree with my hon. Friend that sanctions-busters are continuing to perpetuate the conflict in Sierra Leone and Angola, with the result that countless lives are being lost and mutilations are taking place. Victor Bout is indeed the chief sanctions-buster, and is a merchant of death who owns air companies that ferry in arms and other logistic support for the rebels in Angola and Sierra Leone and take out the diamonds which pay for those arms. All the countries that are allowing him to use their facilities and aircraft bases to ferry that trade in death into Sierra Leone and Angola are aiding and abetting people who are turning their guns on British soldiers, among others, in Sierra Leone. It is important that they stop doing that.

Will my hon. Friend tell me what pressure has been put on the Governments of Liberia, Rwanda, Togo and Burkina Faso to stop sanctions-busters dealing in illicit diamonds and operating in their countries in blatant defiance of United Nations sanctions?

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that matter, as one of the cruel ironies and tragedies of the appalling conflict in Sierra Leone and Angola is the fact that fellow Africans are allowing sanctions-busters to operate within their boundaries, and carry in arms and take out diamonds. That practice perpetuates such conflicts. All the Governments named by my hon. Friend, including some Presidents and senior Ministers, have been complicit in that barbarous trade, and it is vital that they cease it immediately, comply with UN sanctions and help end those wars

Is not it essential that the conflict diamonds in Sierra Leone cease to be such as soon as possible, and that the areas affected are returned to the control of the Government? Would it not have been better if that had been achieved by a British-led UN force or, indeed, a British-led Sierra Leonean force in the first instance, so that the Sierra Leonean Government had regained control of those diamonds early on? How long will it take us to train the Sierra Leonean army to achieve that task on its own?

We have already helped to train 3,000 members of the Sierra Leonean army and another 3,000 will receive further training in the coming months. One will not end the conflict, win the war or create peace unless one takes control of the diamond-mining areas, and the hon. Gentleman is right to point that out. The way to achieve that is for the Sierra Leonean army to go in, with UNAMSIL filling in behind, to take control of those diamond mines and stay there permanently, or at least for the foreseeable future.

Although I welcome the initiative on conflict diamonds, will the Minister explain what happened to joined-up government? He will be aware of the civil war in the Congo and the problems there, and know that the Zimbabwean army is operating in the Congo. I am sure that he is also aware that a British Army team is training the Zimbabwean army that has gone to the Congo, where its sole purpose is to protect the diamond trade that is lining the pockets of Mugabe and his henchmen.

I agree that it is intolerable that the Zimbabwean army is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo helping to perpetuate that war, draining Zimbabwe's own budget and assisting with the collapse of that beautiful country. However, the British military advisory and training team in Harare is not contributing to that effort. It is not there to train the Zimbabwean army, but to support a regional peacekeeping initiative and work with the UN to bring stability to the region. That is the purpose of that British team's operation.

What help the UK will be giving the new Government of Yugoslavia to further advance its integration into Europe. [135170]

We warmly welcome the powerful rejection of Milosevic by the people of Serbia. We acted immediately to lift European sanctions. We have admitted Yugoslavia to the European stability pact for the Balkans. Britain is also supporting Yugoslavia's admission, at the ministerial meeting later this month, to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Since the fall of Milosevic, the European Union has allocated 200 million euros for immediate aid and reconstruction. We promised that if the people of Serbia voted for democratic change, we would bring down the barriers between them and Europe. We are delivering on that promise.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks on aid for Yugoslavia. One of the main consequences of the war was the blocking of the Danube, because bridges over it were bombed. I am therefore glad that the Secretary of State has made it clear that aid and not loans will be made available. However, does he not agree that circulating planted questions—in the hope that a hapless Back Bencher will stand up and call those of us who opposed the bombings abusive names—will do nothing towards achieving peace and reconciliation in the Balkans?

I am happy to assure the House that I did not plant the question that my hon. Friend asked.