What recent bilateral discussions he has had with those countries seeking entry into the EU. [115423]

Between us, the Foreign Secretary and I have already met our Polish, Czech, Turkish, Hungarian, Romanian, Cypriot, Lithuanian. Latvian and Bulgarian counterparts. Our Government are champions of European enlargement.

Independent research has shown that EU enlargement will add approximately £1.75 billion to our gross domestic product. Does the Minister agree that any opposition to EU enlargement, including from Opposition Members, is not in this country's interests?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Enlargement is not just a favour for the applicant countries; it is a favour for ourselves. It is good for jobs and good for business. Every country that has come into the EU has increased its share of trade with Britain. It is also good for our security to bring additional members into the EU to co-operate on drug trafficking and anti-crime and anti-terrorism measures. That is why it is astonishing that Conservative Members voted against enlargement by opposing the Nice treaty. They have shown all the Polish, Cypriot and other communities in Britain that the Tories oppose their interests.

Why does the Minister not come clean and admit that the centralising power grab of the treaty of Nice has nothing do with enlargement and that the applicant states want to know what his solution to the problem of the common agricultural policy is? They want the money and they want us to pay. How will the hon. Gentleman solve that?

The right hon. Gentleman is bewitched and besotted by his fanatical anti-Europeanism. The truth is that this Government have strongly supported CAP reform, which will be hastened by enlargement, and that is another very good reason why he should support it.

When my right hon. Friend met his Turkish counterpart to discuss Turkey's possible membership of the EU, did they mention the problems that now exist between the EU and NATO in respect of the EU's assured access to NATO assets in the event of the EU carrying out Petersberg-type tasks?

My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary discussed it in some detail with his Turkish counterpart during his visit to Turkey only last month. I can report to the House that significant progress was made in a very important meeting at Ankara, which involved ourselves, as representatives of the EU, and the United States. We are confident that progress can now be made, although there are still some obstacles to overcome. It is in Turkey's interest that European security and defence policy proceeds, to have a good relationship with the EU and, eventually, we hope, to accede to membership, when it satisfies all the conditions.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we clearly warned that all the extraneous baggage surrounding the Nice treaty might well delay enlargement. Given what has happened in Ireland and that it may happen again, what exactly is the fallback position on enlargement?

It is very important that the Nice treaty is ratified by the House and, indeed, by Parliament to secure enlargement and to welcome our friends from Cyprus, Poland, Hungary and all the other applicant states to join the EU, as they wish to do. The Government of Ireland have yet to notify the EU and their colleague member states, including ourselves, about their own advice on how the question should be addressed, but the Government of Ireland very strongly support the Nice treaty and enlargement, and the Conservative party should take heed of that as well.

If he will make a statement on recent discussions with President Musharraf on the situation in Pakistan. [154241]

I met President Musharraf on Friday 23 November in Islamabad. I expressed continuing appreciation for his courageous stand in the fight against terrorism and the practical assistance that Pakistan has provided. I discussed with him the situation in Pakistan and sought his advice on how best to achieve our shared objective of a broad-based multi-ethnic Government in Afghanistan.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and I am sure that the House wants to congratulate President Musharraf on the support that he has given the coalition at this difficult time. In those discussions, I am sure that the issue of Kashmir was also raised with my right hon. Friend. I know that he is aware that many indigenous Kashmiris have been engaged in a struggle with the Indian army over the freedom of their country during past decades.

Sadly, on both sides of the line of control in Kashmir, thousands of innocent civilians—Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and people of no religion—as well as many members of the Indian armed forces have lost their lives. In our judgment, the Kashmir issue can be solved only by bilateral discussions between India and Pakistan. We are therefore encouraging the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan to resume the talks that they held in July in Agra. We would stand ready to provide assistance to those negotiations, but only in circumstances in which both sides agreed that our intervention would be helpful.

Although I welcome the stand that President Musharraf has taken hitherto, can the Foreign Secretary say whether there is any truth to reports from Afghanistan about Pakistani planes flying in to take people out? Might that not have an adverse effect on any settlement in Afghanistan?

I have seen those reports, but I have seen no information that confirms their credibility.

Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) about Kashmir, can I press my right hon. Friend on the issue? Does he agree that, post-11 September, we must work with people across the world and, more important, with our constituents and with people of Kashmiri origin? We must also work with the peaceable people in Kashmir who have pacifically been trying to get United Nations resolutions implemented so that they can enjoy the democratic rights denied them by the failure of the Indian Government and, I am afraid to say, previous Pakistani Administrations, to act on the resolutions passed by international institutions such as the UN. All that those people want is a vote on whether Kashmir should be able to accede to India or to Pakistan. Although they believe that they have been done a great injustice, they do not want terrorists to act on their behalf.

In the Kashmiri dispute, it is possible for both sides credibly to claim the support of various international and bilateral agreements. Typically, those on the Pakistani side of the line of control refer to the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations while those who support the position of the Indian Government claim that the Simla agreement in the early 1970s superseded the UN Security Council resolution of 50 years ago. The crucial point is that, in the real world, the dispute can be resolved only by bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan. That is what we want to happen.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the view now being expressed in the United Nations that the acceptance by Afghanistan of a multinational force is an essential ingredient of any stabilisation and aid package? If so, what part does he propose that British forces should play? If not, what option would he pursue?

I discussed this matter with the President of Pakistan. There are various possibilities for outside assistance in terms of multilateral forces to assist any interim authority, and then a proper Government, in Afghanistan. However, our view is that decisions must wait until there is at least an interim authority that can offer consent to such a force. The role that British troops might play will depend on the nature of the tasks required and, of course, on the consent of any interim authority.

What did President Musharraf say about bombing in Ramadan?

As far as I recall, President Musharraf did not say anything about that.

When he last met his counterparts in the European Union to discuss future parliamentary scrutiny of the European security and defence initiative. [15425]

At the General Affairs Council eight days ago.

I did not quite catch that reply, because it was a bit hurried and the Foreign Secretary was removing his brief from the Dispatch Box.

I acknowledge and pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's long-standing work as a member of the WEU Assembly and to his expertise in such matters. The issues that he raises are being considered. There is an embryonic European security and defence policy in place in operations in Macedonia, Bosnia and Kosovo where we are co-operating on an ad hoc basis with fellow European armed forces, and commanders from other member states sometimes command our forces. It is working very satisfactorily and we are learning a great deal from it, which will help the European Union to determine exactly how that capability can be made operational and contribute to peacekeeping humanitarian missions and crisis management.

I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for raising this issue following a conference that we both recently attended in Brussels.

I will certainly consider the points raised by my hon. Friend, whose expertise is also valued by the House. We need to ensure that the initiative receives parliamentary scrutiny, that the discussions proceed and that the issue is addressed in the run-up to the IGC in 2004. We have no intention whatsoever of ceding scrutiny to the European Parliament. This is an intergovernmental matter that concerns the operational capacity of our troops, which is not something that we can cede to the European Parliament. We need national parliamentary supervision and accountability.

What recent representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe relating to the land redistribution programme. [15426]

Land reform was one of the central issues in the Abuja negotiations in September. I raised it again with Zimbabwe's Foreign Minister, Mr. Mudenge, in New York on 10 November and my noble Friend Baroness Amos discussed it during the Commonwealth ministerial visit to Harare in October.

I sincerely thank the Foreign Secretary for that considered and lengthy reply. As he said, the Abuja undertakings are being flagrantly ignored by Mr. Mugabe and his Government. Farms continue to be invaded and farm workers murdered, hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans face famine, and the country is disappearing down a black hole.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is based on deep knowledge of Zimbabwe, and the manner in which he made his points. I have been concerned throughout to ensure that we work in partnership with Commonwealth countries, the European Union and other southern African countries. Apart from the poor people in Zimbabwe, who are suffering grievously from the results of President Mugabe's policies, it is the countries contiguous to Zimbabwe that are most affected by the disastrous economic and political management of Zimbabwe. We shall continue to work with all those partners.

Given what appears to be the total disregard by President Mugabe for the Abuja agreement and all the other events in Zimbabwe, including the President calling members of the press "terrorists", at what point does my right hon. Friend think he will able to make a statement to the House saying that the Commonwealth has finally, alas, had to withdraw its recognition of Zimbabwe's membership?

Such measures are, as my hon. Friend knows very well, a matter for the Commonwealth as a whole, not the United Kingdom. I will say only that nothing would play better with President Mugabe than if he were allowed to present the issue as one between black Zimbabwe and the old colonial ruler, the United Kingdom, rather than what it really is: a major issue of multinational and international concern.

Surely the truth is that Mr. Mugabe's behaviour is now so gross that Zimbabwe should be excluded from the Commonwealth until he is removed from office.

I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concerns and instincts. We are all profoundly concerned about what has been happening, above all on behalf of the people of Zimbabwe, who have suffered badly from 80 per cent. inflation, a decline in the growth rate of what was once the bread basket of Africa and the impoverishment of what was a prosperous country. However, I counsel the right hon. Gentleman against suggesting that the United Kingdom take unilateral action, which would work to President Mugabe's benefit. The important thing is to work in partnership with the Commonwealth, the European Union and, above all, the southern African countries.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there remains a need for balanced, fair and just reporting of the situation in Zimbabwe? Given what the Zimbabwean Government have said about foreign journalists aiding terrorists, what are the British Government doing to protect our journalists in Zimbabwe?

We would actually do more to protect UK citizens who are journalists in Zimbabwe than we can to protect Zimbabwean citizens. The journalists whom President Mugabe portrayed as assisting terrorism were Zimbabwean citizens and should be mentioned for the great courage that they have shown in reporting the situation in Zimbabwe when faced with flagrant intimidation by people acting on behalf of President Mugabe and ZANU-PF. Following the reports, our high commissioner in Zimbabwe, Brian Donnelly, made strong representations at my specific request to the Zimbabwean Government. We continue to work with independent media, non-governmental organisations and others to ensure that as far as possible the media can report fairly and independently what is happening in Zimbabwe and that when they are prevented from doing so, the world knows.

Does the Foreign Secretary recall the Prime Minister telling the Labour party conference on 2 October that there would be

"no tolerance of … the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe."

We have just had a good example of hand wringing and waffle. The right hon. Gentleman should think carefully; building coalitions is exactly what we have been doing for months and was the purpose of the Abuja discussions. It was crucial that we broke away from the parody that President Mugabe had allowed himself to invent of a bilateral dispute between the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe when it was nothing of the kind. The Abuja declaration was crucial because Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya, Jamaica and old Commonwealth countries signed up to it. The discussions between President Mbeki and our Prime Minister were also important, as were the decision of the General Affairs Council of the European Union to move from article 8 to article 96 and the meeting last week with Commissioner Patten and High Representative Solana in Zimbabwe.

Before I call Question 5, I appeal for shorter questions and replies.

What assessment he has made of the continuing level of support by Muslim countries for the coalition against terrorism. [15427]

What assessment he has made of the continuing support of the Muslim countries for the coalition against terrorism. [15433]

Muslim countries were among the first to condemn the 11 September attacks and support the campaign against terrorism. That support has strengthened further as they have witnessed the liberation of ordinary Afghans—fellow Muslims—oppressed so terribly and for so long by the Taliban.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that in less than 30 years' time a quarter of the world's population will be Muslim? To gain their support, and more importantly, their trust, in our campaign against worldwide terrorism, a vital step must be the settlement of the middle east crisis. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that everything humanly possible is being done to achieve that aim?

Yes, the United Kingdom has been strongly engaged in trying to find a way forward in the middle east peace process. We welcome the statement made last week by United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, and his dispatch of the two envoys to Israel yesterday. We recognise the importance of a solution in the middle east in terms of public opinion in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and we recognise the importance of public opinion in the Arab and Muslim worlds not just in international relations, but in our domestic politics.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has clearly said that the actions of 11 September and associated activities are

"neither connected to Islam, nor accepted by its principles."

Yes, I can. Many hon. Members will have been surprised by the strength of support for the campaign from some unlikely quarters, including Iran. Our relationships with Iran are extremely important. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made two visits there in the past two months—the first visits by a British Foreign Secretary since the Iranian revolution. Iran has an important role to play, particularly in the future peaceful solution in Afghanistan.

How many of those Muslim countries would continue to support the coalition if military action were launched against Iraq, as has been foreshadowed in the past 24 hours, without incontrovertible evidence? Is it not likely that their support would simply melt away? Is it not the case that the further risk of military action against Iraq is that Saddam Hussein, as he did during the Gulf war, would launch missiles against Israel, which would feel compelled to retaliate, leasing to the risk of conflagration throughout the middle east?

I do tot think that it is helpful to speculate about the possible expansion of the current military campaign and its effects on public opinion in the Muslim world. The UK Government have always made it clear that the campaign is targeted and specific, and that its aim is to bring to justice those responsible for the mass murder of 11 September Of course there are further obligations on all countries—not just Iraq, but the United Kingdom—as a result of the two unanimous UN resolutions passed since 11 September.

While Pakistan's support for the coalition against terrorism is welcome, what assessment has the Minister made of the Pakistani intelligence service's continuing role in supporting terrorism in Kashmir?

We have done our utmost to urge the Pakistani Government to cease any support that they might have given in the past to the terrorists to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, and to cease any support that Pakistan has given through its intelligence service to the Taliban. We believe that Pakistan has undergone a sea change in its approach to those two issues, and we will continue to press the Pakistani Government to continue along the right path.

Will the Government make it clear to our US allies that the support of Muslim and other countries has been dependent on action being commensurate and directly related to the atrocity on 11 September, and that, although there are problems relating to various other countries that the international community must address in various ways, injudicious military action could forfeit international support and would not have the unconditional support of the Government?

People should not speculate about expanding the military campaign beyond bin Laden and al-Qaeda, in the absence of any evidence of any other state involvement. There is no evidence of any other state involvement, as far as we are aware. We have always made it clear that the military campaign is limited and specific. However, the United Nations resolutions passed unanimously since 11 September place serious obligations on a number of countries, including Iraq, and pretty stiff sanctions if they fail to fulfil them.

The Minister may not wish to speculate, but speculation is widespread and obviously has an impact on Muslim opinion worldwide. Can we have an unambiguous statement from him that it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to extend the military action and conflict to other states and countries without unambiguous evidence to that effect?

Yes.

I think that my hon. Friend has dodged around this issue. President Bush threatened Iraq yesterday with regard to the weapons inspections. Will my hon. Friend say unequivocally that we will not take part in bombing Iraq or any other Muslim country if America engages in bombing?

I would point out to my hon. Friend that Iraq could very easily solve the problem by adhering to the demands that are made of it by the United Nations. If Iraq implemented the United Nations resolutions, it would not find itself with this problem. I repeat to my hon. Friend that the UK Government's position has been absolutely clear all along during the military campaign, which is directed specifically against those who are responsible for the mass murder of 11 September. There is no evidence of any other state involvement. In the absence of any such evidence, those military objectives remain as they have been all along.

In commenting on the Foreign Secretary's visit to Iran and Pakistan, it grieves me ever so slightly that I have to say once again that I think that he has been doing the right thing. However, the continuing support of Pakistan and other Muslim countries very much will now depend on what happens next. On 4 October, the Foreign Secretary said that

"there should be no safe haven for terrorists anywhere in the world."—[Official Report, 4 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 689.]

I am afraid that I shall not read out a list of the countries that may or may not be involved in helping or supporting terrorist organisations within their borders. I point out to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I am grateful for his kind remarks about the activities of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that the UN resolutions place pretty stiff requirements on all countries, including the United Kingdom. Many of the complaints that we get from countries throughout the world suggest that we have not been terribly good in the past at extraditing or dealing with suspected terrorists in this country. We all have obligations and duties under the UN resolutions, and I think that it would be invidious to start naming names.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are to maintain the support of the Muslim countries, we must deal with the problems that concern them, such as Kashmir and the middle east? Does he also agree that the speech made by Colin Powell last week was very important in terms of ensuring that that is done? If we can keep the United States Government engaged, a strong signal will be sent to the middle east. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things that Secretary of State Powell said was that the US stands ready to contribute towards an effective mechanism to monitor the peace between the two sides? Will my hon. Friend encourage him to move forward very quickly on that issue?

Yes, I would agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. We do indeed encourage the Americans to move forward on that issue. However, I should say as a warning that while we can address all the political and regional grievances in the world, history has unfortunately shown us that the world occasionally throws up madmen and despots who have to be stood up to.

If he will make a statement on the future sovereignty of Gibraltar. [15428]

If he will make a statement on his policy on the right of self-determination for overseas territories. [15431]

The Government resumed talks with Spain under the Brussels process in July. We met again in Barcelona last Tuesday. In accordance with the terms of the Brussels communiqué that was agreed 17 years ago today, in November 1984, by the then Conservative Government, which included consideration of sovereignty, the talks are overcoming all the differences between the United Kingdom and Spain on Gibraltar. Our objective in relaunching these negotiations is to build a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar, greater self-government for the territory and better relations with Spain. We have invited the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to join the Brussels process meetings. Under the treaty of Utrecht, Spain has first refusal if the United Kingdom decides to relinquish sovereignty. We stand by the undertakings given in 1969 that the people of Gibraltar will have a right to vote on any proposal to transfer legal sovereignty.

For brevity's sake, I ask the Foreign Secretary for a simple yes or no. Will he continue to uphold the 1969 Gibraltar constitution and guarantee the right of the people of Gibraltar to remain British citizens, living in a British sovereign territory for as long as they determine?

The answer is yes; I have just said that.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that overseas territories such as St. Helena will have the same right to self-determination as the Falkland Islands? The right exists in the preamble to their constitutions, but will it be included in the main text?

We stand by the principle of self-determination. The extent to which it can be applied in practice depends on the legal position, and the basis on which the United Kingdom acquired the territory. In some cases, we were able agree to total independence; in others, that is not possible. However, in every case, we are committed to a high degree of internal self-government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give two undertakings? First, will he state unequivocally that this country will not unilaterally renounce sovereignty under the treaty of Utrecht? Secondly, will he assure us that any referendum in Gibraltar will be binding on the people and the Government of this country?

I can only repeat what I have already said. We stand by the terms of the 1969 ordinance, the law of this country that provides that we shall not transfer sovereignty in Gibraltar without the consent of its people. I have said that three times in three minutes.

Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, whatever the outcome of the talks with the Spanish Government, the people of Gibraltar will have the right to vote in the European elections?

Yes.

Does the Foreign Secretary understand the genuine fears of the people of Gibraltar, which I witnessed last week, that a deal with Spain is being stitched up behind their backs and that there will be political and economic attempts to bounce them into accepting it?

Of course it would be far better for the people of Gibraltar to be represented in the talks, and we have opened the door to participation in those talks on exactly the same basis as previous Administrations of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. I understand the fears and anxieties of the people of Gibraltar. I am involved in the talks because I support a better future for them. Whatever the outcome on sovereignty, I want them to be able to exercise greater control over their daily lives and greater freedom over their actions. That requires negotiations between us and Spain. They would be greatly assisted by the participation of the Chief Minister; there is every reason for his participation. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is telling us—perhaps he should—that he is resiling from Lady Thatcher's agreement on the basis of the talks, they are the only way forward for the people of Gibraltar. The current position is not a good thing for them.

Is the Foreign Secretary therefore saying that he is offering the Gibraltar Administration the two flags, three voices formula? That is not their understanding. That was the formula offered by Lord Hurd when he was Foreign Secretary.

From that response, I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is now resiling from the Brussels agreement that was negotiated by Lady Thatcher 17 years ago and followed by every successive Conservative Government until 1997. The conditions that we have offered Chief Minister Caruana for participation in the talks will enable him to have his own voice alongside me at the table of the United Kingdom delegation, and the Spanish have accepted that they will respond directly to him. There is no reason for Chief Minister Caruana not to take part in the negotiations, and not to have full independence of expression in those meetings, as part of the United Kingdom delegation.

"The process will be aimed at overcoming all differences between us over Gibraltar"—[Official Report, 28 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 927]—

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reaffirmation of the Government's commitment to the 1969 constitution. Given that Gibraltar, although small, has a distinct history and identity, will my right hon. Friend agree that it would be desirable for Spain to pursue a policy of positive co-operation with Gibraltar if it wants to see a change in the relationship, and that creating difficulties at the border and trying to block EU legislation on Gibraltar-related ground are counterproductive?

I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. That point has been pressed on the Spanish Government in the negotiations and outside, and a lot more remains to be done by the Spanish side. As a result of the negotiations, however, we have already had an allocation of 70,000 additional telephone lines for Gibraltar—on top of the 30,000 that it currently has. That is a tangible benefit for the people of Gibraltar as a result of the negotiations.

That is welcome news, but does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the attitude of the people of Gibraltar towards the Government of Spain would have been very different if they had not been subjected to nearly two decades of harassment at the border, in communications, and in terms of the airport and of NATO ships not being allowed to sail through Spanish waters to the sovereign base in Gibraltar? Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Spanish Government that an early priority should be to sort out the status of the airport? Will he also suggest to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that another early priority should be to sort out the enfranchisement of the people of Gibraltar?

The airport will be one of the matters on the table. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, although the UK unquestionably has sovereignty over the rock of Gibraltar under the treaty of Utrecht, one complication in the negotiations when we come to the issue of sovereignty is that the legal basis for the UK's claim to the isthmus is different and has been challenged by Spain. Of course Gibraltarian people have a number of justified complaints about the way in which they have been treated by Spain, but it is also a fact that a number of complaints have been raised against Gibraltar by Spain and by the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which require answers by Gibraltar.

If he will make a statement about his participation in the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Afghanistan. [15429]

While at the UN, I spoke to the full Assembly on 11 November and subsequently at two Security Council meetings. I also held a number of meetings with Foreign Ministers, the UN Secretary-General and the Secretary-General's special representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi.

In future discussions, will my right hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that full consideration is given to the women in Afghanistan, so that they are fully involved in international talks about a new Government; that the restoration of the rights of Afghan women is a high priority; and that boys and girls receive equal treatment when schools reopen?

Yes. The oppression of women was one of the most terrible aspects of the Taliban regime. All parties to the Bonn discussions are committed to restoring rights for women and I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that three of the 28 delegates due to attend are women. That is not enough, but the proportion is greater than that of women MPs representing the Conservative party.

Following President Bush's comments yesterday, will the Secretary of State please tell the House what discussions he had at the UN about UN weapons inspections in Iraq? What information do the Government have about the situation there in respect of the production of weapons of mass destruction?

Order. The question is about Afghanistan.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent press reports about the upsurge in poppy field planting in Afghanistan in recent weeks? Will he enlist the support of colleagues in the UN to make it clear to whatever regime emerges in Afghanistan that poppy planting and the heroin trade that stems from it are wholly unacceptable?

I certainly will, and I have done so already. A key part of restoring the rule of law in Afghanistan is the eradication of poppy cultivation and the heroin trade. That forms a central part of all the discussions in which we are engaged.

Is it the intention of the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the Government, that the major part of the planning for the overall reconstruction of Afghanistan be conducted through the UN, or does he envisage it being conducted through other organisations?

Overall supervision of the reconstruction of Afghanistan must he conducted under the aegis of the UN, providing the framework and umbrella for discussions. Of course, a great deal of action will be taken multilaterally and bilaterally lo support Afghanistan. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is already in the vanguard in ensuring that there is additional support for Afghanistan and for Pakistan and Iran.

If he will make a statement on his Department's definition of terrorism. [15432]

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the definition of terrorism in part I of the Terrorism Act 2000, which refers to the use of violence to intimidate the public for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

Does my hon. Friend agree that any definition of terrorism must include the deliberate targeting of civilians? Does that not have implications for state activity that might fall within the definition? In the middle east, for example, while Hamas is obviously a terrorist organisation, is it not chilling that an Israeli tribunal has found Ariel Sharon responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians? Can we look forward to a more consistent application of the definition post-11 September?

My hon. Friend might reflect on the fact that when acts committed other than by non-state organisations are then condemned by tribunals and public opinion, that shows democracy at work. We are now talking about terrorism in 2001. We are talking about non-state organisations that commit wicked, godless crimes to intimidate people and destroy civilian life for political ends. That is unacceptable, and that is what we should concentrate on fighting.

Does the Minister agree that it is illogical to try to distinguish between foreign and local terrorists? That, surely, is exactly what the Bill currently before Parliament has tried to do. What representations has the Minister made to the Home Secretary asking him to examine the illogicality?

As there is no illogicality, the answer is none.

What assessment he has made of the prospects for renewing the peace process in the middle east; and if he will make a statement. [15434]

The UK remains engaged, with its EU partners and the US, in efforts to reinvigorate the middle east peace process. I particularly welcomed United States Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech last week, which set out the US Administration's vision of a comprehensive settlement, and the arrival of the two US envoys Bill Burns and General Zinni in the region yesterday. That represents an important opportunity for the process to be taken forward.

My hon. Friend will know that the historical record demands, as recent events dictate, that Britain and Europe show leadership, along with the United States, in the century-long search for lasting peace and stability in the middle east. We failed after the first world war and the break-up of the Ottoman empire; we failed after the second world war; and we failed after the Gulf crisis, despite the promise of the Mitchell report and the Oslo accord. Does my hon. Friend agree that only a just settlement can produce lasting peace in the middle east, and that in order to be just, the settlement must take account of the legitimate claims of all the historic peoples of the middle east?

Yes, and yes.

Does not Israeli Foreign Minister Peres's statement that there is now broad agreement that a Palestinian state should be created represent a significant step towards a middle east peace settlement?

Yes, I think it is an important step. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) says, we have a good opportunity to make progress post-11 September. As I think all Members realise, it will not be easy, but we are working hard towards that end.

If we are to promote a just settlement in the middle east, is it not important for us to demonstrate consistency in our application of international law? Must we not continue to say that Israeli settlements are illegal? Should we not also say, as a European Union, that we would object to Israel's exporting goods from illegal settlements to the EU on the pretext that they were made in Israel?

Yes. We are making progress in regard to imports from illegal settlements. Moreover, as my hon. Friend suggests, we continue to remind the Israelis that the settlements are illegal. In the end they will have to be dismantled. Their continuing growth does absolutely nothing to further the cause of peace in the middle east.

If he will make a statement on the progress being made towards EU enlargement. [15435]

The enlargement negotiations continue to make good progress, enabling candidates that are ready to join the EU to do so by 2004.

I welcome the Minister's response and the progress that is being made on accession. On Cyprus, will the Minister confirm that he agrees with Génter Verheugen, the European Commissioner with responsibility for enlargement, that our strategic goal is to take a united Cyprus as a new member, and that reaching that goal requires constructive and substantial progress towards a lasting solution? What does he think constitutes substantial and constructive progress?

I confirm that we strongly endorse the European objective of accepting a united island into the European Union as part of the enlargement process. The Cypriots want to join. If the island were not united, we would still accept Cyprus's entrance to the European Union. We would not allow anyone to veto that provided that the Cypriots had completed the full process of negotiation and closed all the chapters. Currently they are in the lead among all the applicant countries in doing so.