If he will make a statement on the involvement of his Department in the campaign against the drugs trade. [1538]

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office co-ordinates international anti-drugs activity for the United Kingdom. On 25 and 26 June, we hosted an international conference on the global economy of illegal drugs. We have a substantial programme of counter-drugs assistance overseas, which is directed at countries that produce or transport illegal drugs.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Does he agree that it is crucial that drug barons' assets can be seized in any country? What action are the Government taking to press other countries throughout the world to take similar action to that which we propose to take, whereby we can seize the assets of drug barons? Does he share my amazement at Opposition Members, who seem to be opposed to such legislation?

As my hon. Friend notes, the Government are committed to introducing legislation to facilitate the confiscation of drug barons' assets. Much work is going on with our European Union partners and countries throughout the world to strengthen the arrangements for mutual legal assistance so that we can ensure that such drug dealers and transporters are convicted in many countries.

Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are not merely doing everything they can to assist the coca eradication programmes in Andean countries such as Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, but pursuing proper replacement strategies, otherwise, poor people, farming communities and the peasantry will be further impoverished?

Yes, I can. We are working closely with, for example, the Colombian Government following the change of presidency in 1998. I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman says. We must not only have the eradication programmes but recognise the economic reliance of many poor people in those countries on the drugs trade. Therefore, we must ensure that that income stream is replaced by lawful income streams.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that Russia has recognised the massive problem that it has with the drugs trade. At a meeting earlier this year with Russian MPs in the Duma, it was made clear to me and to parliamentary colleagues that Russia is keen to co-operate far more fully with European countries to build an effective partnership. Have there been any recent discussions with the Russian Government on the issue, and are any initiatives planned?

In my previous post as Home Secretary, I discussed the drugs trade—both through Russia and in it—with my opposite number in the Russian Federation. It has continued to be discussed in the G8. It will be discussed further by me and my Russian colleague when Foreign Ministers meet next week in Rome.

What recent representations he has made to the UN concerning the referendum in Western Sahara. [1539]

We supported United Nations Security Council resolution 1359, which was passed unanimously on 29 June and which extended the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara until 30 November 2001.

I welcome the Minister to his new post.

I am sorry if the hon. Lady is confused, but as far as we are concerned there is no confusion. The resolution is absolutely clear: it reiterates full support for the on-going efforts of the United Nation's mission to implement the settlement plan, and for agreements adopted by the parties to hold a free, fair and impartial referendum for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.

Will the Minister assure the House, first, that there will be no further arms sales to Morocco until the situation in Western Sahara has been resolved and, secondly, that Britain will not take part in any operation to try to rewrite the 1974 census agreement on who should be allowed to vote in the referendum? As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) rightly said, it must be for the Saharawi people, and only for them, to decide their future and their self-determination in peace. We do not want more of this constant delay; the UN operation has already been delayed for more than 10 years.

I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot give him the first assurance that he seeks. All United Kingdom arms exports are approved under extremely strict European Union and UK guidelines: they are among the strictest in the world, and are being made even stricter by legislation currently passing through the House.

When he expects EU enlargement negotiations to be completed. [1540]

The Gothenburg European Council agreed last month that we should make it possible to complete the negotiations by the end of 2002 for candidates that are ready. The objective is that those candidate countries should then participate in the European parliamentary elections of 2004, as members.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment, and wish him well in his challenging job.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He may like to know that the Czech Republic has closed 20 of the chapters for accession, and is among the first five or six countries in terms of its advance towards satisfactory accession. As for his second question, about the euro, he will know that just 11 countries are currently in it. Whether the accession countries come in will depend on whether they meet the criteria for the euro, and whether they decide to join. The assumption behind the question does not, therefore, arise for the moment.

I too congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his promotion.

I made it perfectly clear during last week's debate on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill that the Irish people's decision in the referendum meant what it said—that they had rejected membership of the Nice treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I cannot remember whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the Government at the time, as he was in and out so often; but in 1992, when he may have been—[Interruption.] We have now ascertained that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the last Administration. In 1992 they decided, in the light of the Danish refusal to vote yes on Maastricht, to follow a similar procedure to that agreed by the 15 members of the General Affairs Council.

We delayed the Bill.

It is not about delaying the Bill; it is about the principle of the thing.

Has my right hon. Friend received any representations from business leaders on enlargement of the European Union? When I met business leaders in my constituency over the weekend, they were very keen that we move towards the speediest possible enlargement of the European Union. They recognise that access to new markets is good for jobs in my constituency and good for jobs in Britain.

We have had a great many representations on enlargement from business leaders in the United Kingdom. Almost without exception, they support enlargement because of the benefits that it would bring to British jobs and to British business.

May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post? This month, in the Nice treaty debate, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) berated my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) for not reading the Foreign Affairs Committee report, saying that had he done so,

"he would know that six of the applicant countries had closed the chapter on agriculture."—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 282.]

"has yet resolved the thorniest issues: freedom of movement&agriculture, competition policy, transport policy, taxation, environment and budget"?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generous congratulations on my assumption of this post. I did not hear all of her last point—I heard only bits of it, about loving in the morning—so I shall let it pass. As for her point about whether chapters are open or closed, as I understand it my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West corrected herself. The truth is that none of the applicant countries has closed the chapter on agriculture. The hon. Lady is wrong, however, because a number of countries including Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia have closed chapters on the free movement of goods, services and persons.

May I welcome my right hon. Friend—a Euro-realist, like the Chancellor and me—to his new post? Does he recognise that there is huge enthusiasm among Labour Members for the completion of enlargement, as it will underpin emerging democracies in eastern Europe and force a very substantial renegotiation of the common agricultural policy? However, does he also agree that enlargement will make it all the more important that we approach the euro with caution, and will he ensure that at least the European Central Bank becomes far more transparent and that it begins to take employment and output into consideration in pursuing its inflation targets?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We believe that enlargement is very much in the interests of the United Kingdom, the applicant countries and the stability of the peace and security of Europe. I greatly regret the fact that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) seemed to welcome the fact that there have been some temporary difficulties in the pathway to enlargement, as there always will be. The extraordinary achievement of the EU in the past 20 years is the way in which it has enlarged but still brought benefits to the people of Europe. We believe that that will be the case with the enlargement countries.

If he will make a statement on progress with ratification of the treaty of Nice. [1541]

The Gothenburg European Council reaffirmed that the ratification process for the treaty of Nice will continue so that the Union is in a position to welcome new member states from the end of 2002.

May I also welcome the Minister to his post and hope that he will be rather more forthcoming with answers to European questions than his boss?

That was a pretty poor effort, Mr. Speaker. No referendum is planned on the Nice treaty, just as there was no referendum on the Amsterdam treaty or on the Maastricht treaty, which the Conservative Government took through and was constitutionally far more important and far-reaching than the Nice treaty. We respect the view of the Irish people and we await advice from the fish Government on how they intend to take the matter forward.

Does the Minister agree that those of us who support EU enlargement do not take lightly the Irish voters' rejection of the Nice treaty? Does he agree that one of the main issues is that the EU as an institution must be much more democratically accountable? Is it not important that we engage with Europe, as we will lose massive economic benefits in manufacturing in each of our constituencies if we do not ensure that EU enlargement takes place?

What benefits?

It is very interesting to hear the Opposition's catcalls of, "What benefits?"

Well, tell us.

I will tell the hon. Gentleman. More than 3.5 million jobs are dependent on our membership of the EU—

Rubbish!

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be calm.

Conservative Members do not understand why they were so roundly rejected by the electorate on 7 June. Membership of the EU has been enormously beneficial to Britain, and the many companies in the constituencies of Conservative Members that depend on exports to Europe or trade with Europe will hound them out of office if they persist with their policy, which is nothing less than a programme for withdrawal from Europe.

Does the Minister share my assessment that one of the reasons why the Irish people turned down the treaty of Nice was that they benefit so greatly from the cohesion fund? Will he and his colleagues bring pressure to bear on Ireland, and other partners in Europe who benefit greatly, to share the prize of enlargement with us?

May I very much welcome the hon. Lady's point, which for a change was a serious point about enlargement from a Conservative? She makes the point that enlargement has enormous benefits, not just for the accession states but for the British companies and jobs that will benefit from the enlarged market that will be created. The point she makes about the cohesion fund is important. A number of sticky issues need to be addressed as progress is made chapter by chapter, including the common agricultural policy and the structural funds.

What recent discussions he has had with the US Administration on missile defence. [1542]

I discussed missile defence with the US Secretary of State Colin Powell at the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Council and the European Council on 13 and 15 June. I look forward to renewing the discussions during my visit to Washington, for which I leave later today.

May I welcome and congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his appointment? More than 250 Members of Parliament have already signed early-day motion 23. With all due and delicate diplomacy, will my right hon. Friend convey to our United States allies the concern that star wars, in attempting to reduce a comparatively remote threat, might increase far graver dangers? There is also a wider worry: on a catalogue of vital issues the Bush Administration seem recklessly ready either to block or breach international agreements that are essential to a safer and more civilised future and, indeed, to George Bush Snr's vision of a "new world order."

I thank my hon. Friend for his early remarks. I have of course read the early-day motion, and I recognise the concerns expressed in it. I must point out, however, that the motion endorses the unanimous conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which included a commendation of the Prime Minister's approach to the issue.

But does the Foreign Secretary understand that what unites Labour Back Benchers, Liberal Democrat Members and such influential figures in the Democratic party as Senator Joseph Biden, who has recently become the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate, in their scepticism about missile defence is the prospect of unilateral action by the Bush Administration, when nuclear proliferation has been prevented by a network of treaties and collective agreements? What are the prospects, for example, of maintaining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty at its current level of effectiveness if the United States embarks on unilateral action of the kind proposed?

I understand those anxieties. To some extent, they are underlined by the current uncertainties in the propositions from the United States. I note that President George W. Bush, in his speech on 1 May, said:

"We have more work to do to determine the final form the defences might take&We recognise the technological difficulties we face".

Does my right hon. Friend accept that sometimes a good and firm ally of the United States should be willing to tell an American Administration when they are wrong? They are wrong over star wars, and we should have the courage to say so.

It is very important not to generalise about the propositions and use the label "star wars". There has been a series of propositions, some of which are more likely than others to come into effect. Some, although they are on the table, may have no effect for 20, 30 or 40 years, as the American Administration are making clear.

I wish the Foreign Secretary well in his Washington discussions. I hope that they prove fruitful. We believe that a successful missile defence system is strongly in our interests and that the Government should be willing to commit themselves now, in principle, to working with our American allies to develop a satisfactory system. We appreciate the fact that this is a difficult issue for many Labour Members, but I want to make it clear that we will give the Government robust support if they choose to proceed in that way. Is the Foreign Secretary in favour, in principle, of missile defence?

I would probably rather go naked into a conference chamber than with the robust support of the right hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that concern about nuclear missile defence is not confined to the House? In their letters to me, my constituents have expressed three main anxieties, which I hope that my right hon. Friend will raise with the Americans on my behalf. They are worried that the proposed system will not be successful because it is technically flawed, that it will not achieve its aim of dealing with rogue states and that it could cause proliferation in those states that have nuclear weapons. Will my right hon. Friend hammer home those points on behalf of my constituents?

The concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed are entirely understandable, and I shall certainly ensure that they are reflected in the discussions.

What plans the Government have for contributing to a lasting peace and constitutional settlement for Cyprus. [1543]

The current United Nations settlement process offers the best chance of securing a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus, and we remain committed to supporting the UN's efforts. In conjunction with the US and our EU partners, we urge all concerned to engage positively.

Will the Minister confirm that, if all goes well, Cyprus should be able to complete accession negotiations with the EU by the end of next year, with a view to taking part in the 2004 European elections? Should not the clearest representations be made, through the Government of Turkey, to the Government of the self-styled "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" that unless that Government help to achieve a solution to the Cyprus problem they will not be able to participate in Cyprus's membership of the EU? Should not it also be made clear that the Turkish Government's own application for membership could also be harmed?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that would bear careful study by the Turkish Government, and by the Turkish embassy here. The Government very much welcome the progress being made by Cyprus, which has completed 22 of the 31 chapters needed to qualify for accession. Cyprus is an old friend, and we want its accession bid to succeed.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the 27th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus is approaching? For all that time, Turkey has been in illegal occupation of one third of a sovereign country that is a member of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations, and a prospective member of the European Union. Will he make it clear to the Turkish Government that the whole House considers that Turkey's admission to the EU remains out of the question as long as it is in illegal occupation of one third of Cyprus?

My right hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House and of the Turkish Government to the fact that formidable obstacles remain to be overcome before Turkey can accede to the European Union through the enlargement process. Those obstacles must be dealt with so that we can move forward, which is what we want to happen. We want to work with the Turkish Government to ensure that the obstacles are overcome in a way that benefits all who would be penalised if they were allowed to remain.

Will the Minister convey to the police and security forces in Cyprus the House's congratulations on their success in defusing, before any lives were lost, the rioting and regrettable violence that took place last week on the island's sovereign bases? What measures is he taking to ensure that the violence will not recur? Can he give the House a firm date by which he expects Cyprus to be able to accede to the European Union? Frankly, nothing that he has said so far gives any confidence that the process will be anything but slow.

I shall certainly pass on the right hon. Gentleman's message.

Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that the appalling violence that we witnessed last week will not be allowed to interfere in any way with British efforts to secure the peaceful resolution of the wider problems in Cyprus? I appreciate that many people in this country will have been horrified at what they saw, but we seek an absolute assurance that that will not interfere with the normal processes in which Britain is engaged to secure a peaceful resolution of the problems on the island.

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are working closely, in particular with the assistance of our special envoy, Sir David Hannay, with the United Nations and others—including the European Union—to involve Turkey, Cyprus and Mr. Denktash more positively in discussions to ensure that a settlement and the achievement of our objective and that of the UN, which is a bizonal, bicommunal Cyprus, are achieved.

What plans Belgium has for its presidency of the Council; and if he will make a statement. [1544]

Belgium has identified 16 priority areas for its presidency. I will place a list in the Library of the House.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether one of those 16 areas is the proposal pressed by the Prime Minister of Belgium and his Finance Minister to establish a European tax to be levied throughout the European Union on the benighted citizens by unelected authorities in Brussels? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if that proposal were put forward and pressed, he would use his veto to block it, as it is a fundamental principle of our democracy that there should be no taxation without representation?

That proposal is not formally on the list, but perhaps the Prime Minister of Belgium has since expanded it to 17. I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear, which is that we are opposed to that European tax.

A veto?

Hang on. It follows therefore that we will use all the powers at our disposal to ensure that that opposition is carried through.

What plans does my right hon. Friend have to improve the accountability of European Union institutions to ensure that they are more relevant to the people of Europe?

My first plan is to ensure that we better explain, in language that our constituents and citizens understand, the values of the European Union. We should get away from jargon and talk about the benefits that the EU has brought for jobs, security and peace in Europe. Nothing more undermines support for Europe than a retreat into jargon. As for institutional changes, frankly, I am sceptical whether, as if by magic, an institutional change in the necessarily complicated structure of Europe will secure popular support. The Nice European Council set a pathway leading to the intergovernmental conference in 2004, in part so that the institutions could be improved. We are participating in those discussions.

The Foreign Secretary's offer to go naked and the offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to love him in the morning are taking social liberalism a little too far.

The hon. Gentleman is better qualified to speak about social liberalism than me.

What further action he intends to take to combat trafficking in human beings. [1545]

We continue to work with our partners in Europe and across the world against the evil trade of people trafficking.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion to the Front Bench.

I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. When I returned from Paris recently, I was extremely pleased to see British immigration officers at the Gare du Nord working to try to control that flow of traffic. That issue and the problems with Eurotunnel were raised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Paris yesterday. That again proves the necessity for joined-up government between Britain and France to deal with that real menace—in contrast to the isolation and rejection of such integration and co-operation demonstrated by the Opposition.

We welcome the steps that have been taken to deal with human trafficking. Will the Minister also deal with slavery throughout the world, especially in Africa? Are the Government concerned about that? What steps have they taken to put pressure on international businesses to take a stand on the issue?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. I know of the great concern that he has shown over the years about slavery, especially in some African countries. The Government have taken the lead in supporting the UN convention and in applying the protocol on human trafficking. We are stepping up co-operation with several countries throughout the world to try to put an end to that evil trade.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the claim that financial grants from international organisations, such as the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, are going to organisations in Bosnia, such as the HDZ, which then use the money to smuggle not only tobacco and drugs but human beings?

I am aware of those allegations and I shall address them when I visit Sarajevo later this week. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing them to the attention of the House. We have sent 10 British officials to work with the Bosnian state border police to try to damp down the problems of smuggling and people trafficking. Those problems touch many of us in our constituencies. That is why the first line of defence is overseas and why Britain must be engaged in Europe and throughout the world.

If he will make a statement on the ministerial responsibilities within his Department for Africa. [1547]

Within the Secretary of State's overall responsibilities, Baroness Amos is the Minister for Africa. She is responsible for sub-Saharan African issues. I am the Minister responsible for north African issues and will answer questions on sub-Saharan Africa in the House.

I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. Does he agree that at a time of deepening crisis in Zimbabwe, and as Britain's diplomatic efforts in Africa have completely collapsed this week at the meeting of the Organisation of African Unity, it is extremely regrettable that the British Government's response has been to downgrade the ministerial responsibility for Africa from a Minister of State to two Under-Secretaries?

I do not accept for a moment that our diplomacy has failed, and the responsibilities are nothing new. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) split the responsibility between sub-Saharan Africa and north Africa when he was a Minister. Indeed, under the previous Conservative Government, a Minister in the House of Lords, not in this House, had to answer to hon. Members. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State carries the primary responsibility for Africa, and the Prime Minister is extremely engaged in the subject.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new post. What steps are being taken to resolve the long-running land distribution conflict in Zimbabwe?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is an urgent need for land reform, but the British Government believe that it must be within the ambit of the rule of law and that it must be sustainable and transparent. We have contributed £44 million to land reform in Zimbabwe since independence, and we have consistently said that we would support land reform in line with the principles agreed by the Government of Zimbabwe and international donors at the 1998 land conference. Sadly, Zimbabwe is not adhering to those principles.

I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities and congratulate him on his appointment. I also welcome the Government's statements that Africa will be a priority in their foreign policy, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that the institutional arrangements set up do not suggest that; they send the reverse signal. There is so much in Africa, particularly in southern Africa, that is encouraging, given the number of countries that have become pluralist, multi-party democracies, that are embracing the open economy and that are flourishing. We understand the desire of the old organisation of African Unity to rebrand and relaunch itself as a new African Union as a signal of a new era, but does the Minister agree that the decision of the Foreign Ministers of that union to give full support to President Mugabe's tyrannical and ruinous regime is as bad a start for the new organisation as it could possibly have? A generation ago, Africa was wealthier per capita than Asia; since then, the position has been reversed. How will the Minister convey the message that success in today's world lies in embracing the rule of law, democracy and the open economy? Mugabe's regime and the OAU's support for him contaminates the whole continent.

The right hon. Gentleman should view the statement by the African Union, as it now calls itself, in the context of its desire to maintain unity, but he and all hon. Members know that many countries in Africa, and many people in Zimbabwe, share our deep concerns about the Zimbabwean human rights record, want that country to move swiftly towards free and fair elections and feel very sad about the state of the Zimbabwean economy.

I welcome the Minister to his new post. Can he assure me and my constituents, many of whom are African, that Africa remains a top priority and that conflict resolution and the formation of civil society across Africa is at the top of his agenda?

Yes, Africa remains a top priority. The Opposition were rather unfair about my noble Friend Baroness Amos, who will be an excellent Minister and has already shown great energy. She has met a succession of African leaders and will visit Nigeria shortly. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has held a summit with President Mbeke of South Africa. We are very supportive of the formation of the new African Union, and the Prime Minister will take the recommendations that come from the meeting of the African Union this week to the forthcoming G8 summit in Genoa.

When the Secretary of State will next meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss the future of NATO. [1550]

Tomorrow.

I am grateful for that brief and succinct reply. Last year, the Secretary of State for Defence gave the impression that defence spending among European Union nations would increase. Why have the International Institute for Strategic Studies and President Bush of the United States both noted that European defence spending is, in fact, falling? Is it not now essential to repair the damage done to US-British relations by the Labour Government's desire for a European army?

No damage at all has been done to US-British relations. Perhaps President Bush is the best judge of that. He said:

"The United States welcomes the EU's European Security and Defence Policy intended to make Europe a stronger, more capable partner in deterring and managing crises affecting the security of the Transatlantic community".

When Ministers meet their American counterparts, as well as welcoming the fact that the US Administration have changed their approach to the European defence policy, will they also welcome the fact that there appears to be a growing recognition, particularly in the Senate, of the importance of the American Government having a detailed discussion with Russia, and that any move beyond the anti-ballistic missile treaty should take place on the basis of co-operation, not unilateralism?

Yes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, we welcome President Bush's willingness to engage not just with us and our European Union and NATO allies but with Russia and China on the important issues of international security.

I join other hon. Members in welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his post.

There is rather a lot in that question. The hon. Lady and most of her colleagues on the Opposition Benches need to have a little more confidence, particularly in Britain's ability to win arguments with Belgian politicians. She has a serious point on European defence capabilities that was also made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). All of us in the House share the view that the European defence force and Europe as a whole need to improve their defence capabilities. That is partly a matter of spending more, but it is also a question of how we spend the money. At the moment, compared with the United States, we get very little capability for what we spend.

What discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the Kyoto protocol. [1551]

My right honourable Friend the Foreign Secretary will discuss the Kyoto protocol when he meets Colin Powell during his visit to Washington this week.

Does the Minister agree that, while US initiatives to promote renewable energy through its Export Credit Agency are welcome, unless the US is willing to put together a detailed package of measures to achieve the CO₂ reductions that have been set for it in the Kyoto protocol, both President Bush and the companies, such as Esso, that backed him during his election campaign will find themselves increasingly isolated in the international community?

We and the European Union continue to have an active dialogue with the American Administration on how their concerns and reservations about the Kyoto protocol can be addressed. No country, especially one that contributes up to a quarter of the world's emissions, can opt out of the problems. The planet faces a catastrophe unless we work together on climate warming and other environmental problems. The dialogue with the US and others is designed to achieve a solution to that.

I welcome my hon. Friend's response. In making those representations, will he ensure that for every military and industrial adviser that the American Administration listen to, they listen to just three of the 3,000 scientists who have confirmed in a report to the United Nations that global warming is real?

I hope that everyone concerned takes note of American scientists, including those from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, who made exactly the point that my hon. Friend advances. It is important that we all move together, which is why the European Union has been actively pursuing the issue. Incidentally, that is another reason why it is important for us to join together to ensure that the EU puts the environment at the top of its agenda, as it did in the communiqué from the Gothenburg summit.

The Minister will be aware that the last US Administration agreed at Kyoto to reduce greenhouse emissions by 7 per cent. by 2020 on the 1990 levels. At the same conference the British Government commendably pledged to reduce them by 12.5 per cent. Before his right hon. Friend meets the US Secretary of State tomorrow, will he check by what amount greenhouse gases in Britain had been reduced when the commitment was made four years ago and by how much they have been reduced since then?

We shall certainly check that. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a wider issue. We all have a responsibility to make progress on reducing the emissions that cause such dangerous climate change and, if necessary, to put in place policies to do so. Simply because someone is not going along with that does not mean that the rest of us should not. His point is welcome in that context.

What recent reports he has received about Plan Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [1552]

We continually monitor the situation in Colombia, including the implementation of Plan Colombia via our embassy in Bogota and our contacts with the Government and civil society in Colombia and the non-governmental organisations that work at home and abroad.

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the release of Alistair Taylor.

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution at the Foreign Office and thereafter to solving the problem. The civil war in Colombia has been going on for 40 years, so it started well before drugs became a crucial feature of it. However, he is right to raise that issue. This country and the EU insist on recognising the social dimension to the problem because unless we find replacement jobs for the peasant farmers who grow the crops, they will be attracted to the idea of participating in the drugs trade.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He meant them sincerely, and I hope that praise from him will continue.