If he will make a statement on developments at the United Nations with regard to weapons inspections in Iraq. [77161]

Iraq has been in clear defiance of a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions for many years. We are working with colleagues in the Security Council to secure a robust resolution so as to ensure that the weapons inspectors can find and destroy the weapons of mass destruction held unlawfully by Iraq.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Does he agree with me and many other hon. Members that a United Nations approach to this crisis is essential? Will he congratulate and praise the Government of France on continuing to promote a diplomatic and multilateral solution to this crisis?

I congratulate all Governments who promote a diplomatic solution to this problem, including the Governments of the United States, France, Russia, China and the United Kingdom.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the weapons inspectors could have been back in Iraq some weeks ago if the Iraqi Government's offer to allow unfettered access had been taken up? Will he explain why Britain and the United States seem to be pursuing a resolution in the United Nations that will give President Bush the sole power of decision making and veto over the future of any weapons inspectorate or any bombing or invasion of Iraq?

My hon. Friend's interpretation of the draft resolution is not correct. I know that he feels the same detestation of Saddam Hussein as we all do, so it is all the more surprising that he has been taken in by what Saddam said. Everyone knows that Saddam is in complete defiance of a series of United Nations resolutions on weapons inspectors, and that there were fundamental flaws in the previous inspectorial regime, especially the fact that it allowed Saddam to put his weapons of mass destruction into so-called presidential sites, which incidentally, are larger than the whole borough of Islington, and thus avoid inspection.

I commend the Secretary of State for his robust opposition to Mr. Sharon's proposal that if military action is taken against Iraq it should be followed by military action against Iran. Will he assure the House that any resolution supported by the United Kingdom will not bestow on any member of the Security Council an automatic right to take military action if that state alone considers Iraq to be in breach of its obligations? Will he also give the House an assurance that if military action is considered necessary as a last resort, it is for the Security Council as a whole to make that decision? Will he resist any attempt to put military action on a hair trigger to be pulled by any state that so chooses?

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for his support for our position on Iran. I made it clear on the radio that, although we understand the acute sense of fear felt in Israel, we do not remotely support the suggestion of Prime Minister Sharon that the appropriate way to deal with problems in Iran is to launch an attack on that country. There is a significant difference between Iran and Iraq. Iraq is a totalitarian dictatorship, whereas Iran is an emerging democracy. I take the same view in respect of the holding of Iran's weapons of mass destruction as we have taken in respect of the more serious problem of North Korea. So far as is humanly possible, we should pursue a diplomatic route if that remains remotely feasible.

Given the time it is taking for the resolution to be discussed at the United Nations, it will clearly be complex if agreed on. Would it not be appropriate for the House to consider its terms in detail if and when it is passed? Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that we shall have such an opportunity?

Yes. I intend—with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and provided that Parliament is sitting—to make a statement as soon as possible, when and if a resolution is passed. As for any issue relating to the authorisation of military action, which is not on the agenda at present but is obviously a possibility, I, like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have made clear the Government's wish for a substantive resolution to that effect.

For many of my constituents, one of the critical planks in the whole question is the link between the regime in Iraq and international terrorist organisations. Does the Foreign Secretary consider that that link exists now, and is there a real threat that it might exist in the future?

We work on the basis that the Hussein regime is so evil that it has, for certain, the capacity to develop links with all kinds of international terrorist organisations. Certainly, it actively supports terrorist organisations operating in Israel and the occupied territories. I have seen no direct evidence of the Iraqi regime's involvement in the al-Qaeda operation before 11 September, but were such evidence presented to me I would not be surprised.

If it were suddenly announced that there would be no military action in any circumstances, would not the chance of the weapons inspectors going back into Iraq be as remote as the possibility of that criminal and murderous regime turning itself into a parliamentary democracy? It is a pity that the critics do not recognise that.

Exactly, and I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) that, to the extent that Saddam Hussein has made any change in what he is saying—by saying that he will allow inspectors in—the only reason he has done so is the existence of a credible threat of the use of force against him.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that we were

"reaching the point of closure"

We are working on the basis that an agreed resolution will be possible. I have been working very closely with the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and my other opposite numbers, particularly the P5's French, Russian and Chinese Foreign Ministers. We engage in daily, sometimes hourly, discussions about the text of the resolution, and I share the Prime Minister's view that we are approaching closure.

If he will make a statement on the political situation in Burma. [77162]

I spoke to Aung San Suu Kyi on Friday on the telephone. I told her that Britain is very concerned about the lack of political movement in Burma and the renewed political arrests. The Burmese regime must enter into substantive dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi without further delay if the credibility of the reform process is to be maintained. We will continue to put pressure on the Burmese regime until firm steps towards democracy are taken.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that like all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have an interest in Burma he was heartened by the release of Suu Kyi earlier this year from house arrest but disappointed by the apparent reluctance of the military junta in Burma to reinstate democratic government there. Can he do all lie can in the policies that he pursues to encourage those British interests still with an economic presence in Burma to follow a policy of disinvestment, which has had some success in the past—companies such as Premier Oil in the UK withdrew investment in September this year—and to encourage other countries that have economic interests in Burma to do the same?

There is virtually no inward investment in Burma from other countries at the moment. The EU reaffirmed its common position only last month in relation to Burma. Its provisions are worth setting out: an arms embargo, bans on the supply of equipment that would be used for internal repression, no defence links, no non-humanitarian aid, no high-level visits, a visa ban and an asset freeze on the members of the regime. In addition, the EU suspended Burma's trading privileges in 1997 due to concern about forced labour in Burma and the UK does not encourage any trade, investment or tourism in Burma.

Is the Minister aware of the plight of the Karen people in Burma, which some people have characterised as genocide? Will he undertake to try to draw the international community together to focus attention on what is happening to the Karen people and to put pressure on the Burmese Administration to try to protect that people?

In short, the answer is yes. The human rights situation in Burma is very poor, particularly in relation to the Karen people and other ethnic minority groups. We are seeking to put as much pressure as we reasonably can on the Burmese regime to try to get it to amend its ways, to ensure that we get some movement towards democracy and, I hope, some reduction in the amount of repression that the Karen and other groups face from the Government.

What recent discussions he has had with the Afghan authorities on action being taken to combat poppy farming there. [77163]

The Foreign Secretary met Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Foreign Minister of the transitional Administration of Afghanistan, on 24 October. They discussed progress on eliminating opium production in Afghanistan. I was in Afghanistan three weeks ago and discussed poppy farming issues with President Karzai and other Ministers.

Was a UN survey right in suggesting that, whereas opium production in 2001 was 185 tonnes, this year it will be a staggering 2,700 tonnes? Is it true that 90 per cent. of the heroin that comes to Britain originates from Afghanistan?

It is true that about 90 per cent. of the heroin that comes to the UK is from Afghanistan, and it is certainly true that the poppy crop is higher this year than last year, although probably not as high as the 1999 peak. The Afghan Government's best assessment is that intervention—the destruction of 17,300 hectares of the crop this year—reduced the quantity of drugs on the market by about a quarter. We should remember that last year, for one season, the Taliban reduced production to drive up the price, holding on to their stockpiles for sale later. However, their threat to hang anyone who grew poppies cut production.

The United Nations drug control office says that poppy production has increased 18 times in the past year. During that time, Britain has spent £40 million on trying to eradicate poppy production in Afghanistan. Has not that drug eradication programme proved a catastrophic failure, and will we not pay a price for that failure on the streets of Britain?

As I have already said—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was not listening—the reduction by some 25 per cent. in the size of the poppy crop has been achieved by intervening in this year's production process. Some pressure has therefore been exerted, but it is undoubtedly true that the poppy crop is increasing. We are not pursuing the Taliban's policy of hanging anyone who grows poppies—a policy that they pursued for one year only to drive up the price. Instead, we must recognise that this will be a long-term process, and that the growth of poppies is likely to increase in the next year. What we need to do is to put in place a strategy that will deal with the problem over years to come, and which will apply the downward pressure that, in the long term, will save lives in this country, as well as in Afghanistan.

Does the Minister agree that alternatives to poppy growing must be put in place quickly? When representatives of the International Development Committee were in Afghanistan just two weeks ago, the Afghan Finance Minister told us that he felt let down by the international community. He stuck his neck out by saying to the farmers, "I have an alternative for you," but the international community has failed to come up with the money. Does the Minister also agree that, unless ISAF is extended and security and stability ensured, there can be no reconstruction of any kind in Afghanistan?

My hon. Friend raises three difficult and complex issues, but I shall try to deal with each of them. I, too, had discussions with Ashraf Ghani, the Afghan Government's Finance Minister, when I was in Afghanistan a few weeks ago. His main concern was to ensure that the money came through to pay the farmers who had allowed their crops to be destroyed. I have had further negotiations with him, and we have reached an agreement with the Afghan Government, so that that money will be coming through. It is essential that we provide for poppy farmers alternatives such as those that my hon. Friend describes, so that they can produce a crop that gives them a livelihood, thereby preventing them from believing that they have to grow poppies to survive. We will therefore put resources into seeking to provide, as soon as we reasonably can, the alternative livelihoods that they require.

If he will make a statement on the Alexandria declaration for peace in the Middle East. [77164]

The Alexandria declaration, by which religious leaders of all faiths are pledged to work together for a just and lasting peace in the middle east, has our wholehearted support. We recognise its important role in promoting inter-faith dialogue, and we have helped to fund the work of the declaration. In that context, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, for his tireless contribution to the valuable process initiated by the Alexandria declaration.

Given the vital importance for the whole middle east region of a just and lasting peace between Israel and Palestine, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Alexandria process is just about the only viable part of the middle east peace process still working? Can he tell the House what steps the Government have taken to encourage the European Union and the United States to support that process both politically and financially, given that the International Centre for Reconciliation at Coventry cathedral has largely funded the process?

We have been in discussion with both our European Union and United States colleagues, and I am happy to follow up those discussions with specific proposals. We have also helped to fund the process initiated by the declaration. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is one of the few viable processes of reconciliation between the two sides—the so-called track 2 process—but alongside that, and notwithstanding the dire situation between Israel and the Palestinians in the occupied territories, is the work initiated by the so-called quartet of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and the Russian Federation. At the moment, the quartet is working on a road map for progress towards peace talks and a final settlement. I hope that that work can now be pursued and that the road map will be published.

Will my right hon. Friend condemn yesterday's suicide bombing in Israel? Can he confirm that it was carried out by a Fatah activist and that therefore some suspicion must arise that it occurred under the control of Arafat? Will he take measures to ensure that EU or British aid is not used by terrorist organisations? What steps is he taking to further the peace process in Israel and the middle east?

I condemn all terrorist acts, including the outrageous suicide bombings, without qualification. I have no more details than my hon. Friend about the background of the terrorist. We take extremely active steps to ensure that money that is put into the occupied territories, directly or through UN or EU organisations, is used only for the peaceful purpose intended.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), I wish to express my support for the spirit of the Alexandria declaration. It is important to see different religious groupings coming together in a common cause, especially when that cause is peace. At the same time, I trust that the Foreign Secretary will share my disapproval of the sort of religious extremism that causes obstacles to peace, be it from those who are intent on pushing Israel's borders to the River Jordan or those in Arab countries who refuse to recognise Israel at all. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in the run-up to the Israeli elections next February it is vital that moves towards a lasting peace do not get lost in the inevitable political manoeuvrings that an election provokes? Does he also agree that the peace process unfortunately appears to have stalled since June and that it is important that the United States keeps up a sustained interest in promoting peace? Given that Mr. Sharon and Mr. Arafat seem disinclined to talk to one another, what lower-level dialogue is the Government assisting to give new momentum to the peace process?

I agree almost completely with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He is right to say that we must not allow the prospect of elections in Israel further to delay the path to peace, because it is in the interests of every single peace-loving person in Israel and in the occupied territories that we get the peace process under way. I am in almost constant touch with Secretary of State Colin Powell and my EU colleagues about how we give further impetus to the peace process set out in the road map. In addition, the hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech to the Labour party conference, spoke about the need for the final status negotiations to begin by the end of the year. Notwithstanding the elections in Israel, we are actively looking at the positive steps that we can take to assist in that process.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the withdrawal of Labour members of the Knesset from the arrangement that meant that they were in government with the Likud party is a helpful sign? They withdrew because the Likud party was trying to promote the establishment of even more illegal settlements, which is one of the main stumbling blocks to a resolution of the middle east conflict. What is my right hon. Friend doing to help the Israeli Labour party to return to the doctrine of "land for peace", under which they won an election under Prime Minister Rabin, and to achieve the objective of getting the Palestinians and the Israelis back around the negotiating table?

Obviously, decisions by the Israeli Labour party, a sister party to the British Labour party, about participating in the inevitable coalition Governments are a matter for that party. However, I have two comments to make. First, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my very good friend Shimon Peres, who has just resigned as the Foreign Minister of the state of Israel, and to salute the astonishing work in pursuit of a path of peace that he has done in very difficult circumstances.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, if we are moving towards a more warlike stance towards Iraq, it is even more important that we show that we are concerned about establishing peace between Israel and Palestine, that we do not accept the illegal settlements that Israel has placed there, and, on the other side, that we are also wholly opposed to the sort of terrorist acts that have taken place in the region? If we are to persecute the process that the Foreign Secretary has outlined, does he agree that we must be seen to care about the results of the battle between Israel and the Palestinians

I think that the right hon. Gentleman meant to use the word "prosecute" rather than "persecute". There is a difference. Internal persecution is the process going on in the Conservative party, whereas prosecution is a recourse.

The chances of success for the peace process are further eroded by the continuance of the Israeli Government's policy not only in building settlements but in constructing their security/isolation wall. Will my right hon. Friend pass comment on the fact that Israel continues to construct this wall on Palestinian land, in doing so destroying Palestinian property and razing Palestinian farmland? Will he give a commitment that the United Kingdom Government will be protesting as strongly as our counterparts in France and Sweden? It is my understanding that the French and Swedish consuls in Jerusalem are occupying a peaceful protest at Jayyous to try and stop the construction of the security wall. Can my right hon. Friend say what he and the Government will be doing to ensure that our protest is just as strong?

I have already spoken about the Government's position in respect of the settlements. Although I fully understand the need for security by the state of Israel and the Israeli defence force, and the fact that in certain circumstances there is sometimes a need to put up security fences—Israel is not alone in this—it looks as though the route taken by the fence was decided partly on the basis of security and partly on what land was available. That is unacceptable. My information suggests that when joined with the planned fence around Jerusalem, another 7 per cent. of the west bank will be annexed by the fence and 70,000 Palestinians without Israeli residents' permits will be trapped between the wall and greenline Israel and so will be under further pressure to leave their homes. That is unacceptable, and we shall be making representations to the Government of Israel about it.

If he will make a statement on the Government's planned response to the Gibraltarian referendum on joint sovereignty with Spain. [77165]

As I told the House on 12 July, there will be no change in the sovereignty of Gibraltar unless the people of Gibraltar agree to it. I also said that if we could reach agreement with Spain on a comprehensive settlement, the whole package would be put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum and they would decide. At present there are no such proposals.

The Foreign Secretary will of course acknowledge that since the Government's election, referendums have been held in Northern Ireland, London, Scotland and Wales. Will the Government undertake to respect the wishes of the British people of Gibraltar, whatever their decision, and will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to end this shameful period of negotiation with the Madrid Government and respect the freely held and democratic wishes of British Gibraltarians?

I understand the strong feelings held in Gibraltar. I have made it clear from the start that any proposals that were discussed provisionally with the Government of Spain would be the subject of further discussion with the Government of Gibraltar and would then be put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum. On the referendum that will take place on Thursday, there are no proposals before either the British or Spanish Governments, still less before the Government of Gibraltar. However, our commitment that the final say is for the people of Gibraltar is absolute.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the early 1980s the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which had a Tory majority, recommended exactly the policy that he is pursuing now, and that the previous Conservative Government pursued exactly the same policy? Whatever the pros and cons of the argument, the attitude of the Tories, particularly the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), smacks at the very least of expediency and perhaps even of hypocrisy.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.

The hypocrisy?

Yes.

I will stick with expediency then.

But the Minister will talk only about Gibraltar, not the Opposition Front Bench.

My right hon. Friend is of course right, up to the point when he said something that had to be withdrawn. The Brussels process, which he had in mind when he made his remarks, was initiated by the Government of the then Mrs. Thatcher—[Interruption.] It explicitly included the issue of sovereignty. However, my right hon. Friend is too generous to previous Conservative Governments. Documents just released from the Public Record Office show that in 1971, under the Government of Edward Heath, as he then was, supported by all Conservative Members—[Interruption.] They fall for that every time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Heath's Conservative Government were planning to give Gibraltar away with no referendum whatever. That is not our policy.

Does the Foreign Secretary realise that what really upsets people in Gibraltar is seeing him treat this serious issue with such levity—as he has today? Will he disabuse himself of the idea that the Gibraltar issue is about Anglo-Spanish relations? It is not It is about the constitutional and democratic rights of the people of Gibraltar.

I understand the need of the deputy leader of the Conservative party to let off steam, but even by the right hon. Gentleman's standards that was slightly over the top.

If he will make a statement on the recent discussions he has had with the Sudanese authorities about the war in that country. [77166]

We continually carry out intensive consultations at ministerial and official level with the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement in support of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development peace process. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary most recently met the Sudanese Foreign Minister at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

We are grateful to the Minister for that response. Will he comment on Operation Lifeline Sudan? How effective is that aid package? Have the Sudanese Government obstructed the programme? Will the hon. Gentleman also comment on reports that many of Sudan's oil reserves are being used to buy arms? Is that not contradictory?

The Lifeline Sudan programme is extremely important. We investigate every allegation about the purchasing of arms. At present, we have a real opportunity to push forward the IGAD process and we welcome the fact that on 14 October talks were resumed and that there has been a cessation of hostilities and unrestricted humanitarian access. That must be the starting point for a durable settlement in that dispute.

I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and to his well-deserved promotion. I congratulate him, his hon. Friends and Alan Goulty, the Government's peace envoy to Sudan, on the work that has been done to assist the Machakos peace process. I congratulate them on the military standstill. Will my hon. Friend assure me that every effort will be made to ensure that Operation Lifeline Sudan can capitalise on the arrangements to get full access for the first time ever to the whole of Sudan and that the work of that vital programme is monitored so that access can be maintained?

I thank my hon. Friend for his words of congratulation, which are well received.

The Liberal Democrats also welcome the Minister to his new post. He will know of the Sudan Peace Act 2001 passed by the United States Congress. Does he support the United States of America in its threat to both sides in the civil war should they break the peace?

I thank the hon. Lady for her words of congratulation. The United States—I believe—has been a constructive force for change and reconciliation in Sudan and has been working alongside us and all other partners to bring the two sides together. We certainly welcome its constructive engagement.

What assessment he has made of the recent elections in Jammu and Kashmir. [77168]

What assessment he has made of the recent elections in Jammu and Kashmir. [77170]

The elections in Jammu and Kashmir were marred by high levels of violence and intimidation, which we unreservedly condemn. Despite that, the Indian election commission has made strenuous efforts to deliver free and fair elections. Many Kashmiris chose to participate. We hope that the election will be a step in a broader process that will bring peace to the region.

I am reassured by what my hon. Friend has said, but does he accept that the situation in Kashmir remains dangerous and very concerning? Eight hundred people have died since the election was called and cross-border violence persists. I would appreciate hearing my hon. Friend's views on how a dialogue between Pakistan and India can take place and what qualities that dialogue may have. What does he believe is central to achieving a solution?

The tension between Pakistan and India has reduced in recent weeks. I was in Delhi two weeks ago on the day that India announced its intention to redeploy forces from the Pakistan border. That is certainly to be welcomed. Pakistan responded promptly the next day by announcing a return to barracks of some of its forces. There has been a broad welcome for that de-escalation by both sides. Both President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee have shown that they do not want war and that they want a peaceful way forward. We now need to ensure that there is an end to terrorism and a beginning of a process of greater contact between the two countries. In due course, I hope that it will be possible to hold discussions that will lead to a peaceful settlement of the disputes, including those in relation to Kashmir.

I hear what the Minister has said, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) pointed out, 800 people have died, many because of cross-border terrorism. Pakistan appears either unwilling or unable to deal with that robustly. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that Pakistan lives up to the promises and pledges that it has made on this issue?

I share the concern about cross-border infiltration. We have raised the matter regularly with the Pakistani Government, including during the visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to Islamabad on 19 and 20 July, and when he met the Pakistani Foreign Minister on 16 September in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly. The Pakistani Government have assured us that President Musharraf's pledge that there will be no further movement across the line of control still stands, and that the Pakistani army is doing all it can to stop infiltration. We are ensuring that the Pakistani Government are aware of our continued concern and we are working with them in order to try to ensure that those promises are indeed kept.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there would have been more confidence in the election process if international observer teams had had full and unfettered access throughout?

There was some examination of the process involved in the election in Jammu and Kashmir. We certainly felt that the personal intervention of Prime Minister Vajpayee, which ensured that the Indian election commission tried to run free and fair elections, produced a level of fairness despite the fact that large numbers of people were killed. There was also, to some extent, a view in certain parts of Jammu and Kashmir that people did not want to participate. None the less, we hope that the election and other steps taken in the south Asian region can be part of a process that will begin to heal some of the pain and the disputes that have bedevilled the region for so long.

If he will make a statement on recent developments in the Convention on the Future of Europe. [77169]

The convention is making progress. The outline constitutional treaty unveiled last week provides a useful framework for the next stage in the discussions.

I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box in his new post, not least because of his sane, sensible and sound views on Europe—although knowing his reputation for speaking so many foreign languages, I am not sure whether I should say wilkommen, bienvenue, or welcome.

My hon. Friend is quite right. What we need is

"to make clear to the citizens of Europe what the EU stands for, what it seeks to do for its citizens, and what it does not seek to do".

I welcome the Minister to his new brief. Does he agree that until recently the Government strongly opposed both a written constitution for Europe and a single legal personality for the European Union, they strongly supported the intergovernmental pillared structure of the European Union, and they promised that the EU charter of fundamental rights would not be made legally binding on British courts? Why, at the halfway stage of the Convention on the Future of Europe, have the Government abandoned all four of those policy positions?

If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the excellent article in The Economist by the Foreign Secretary the other week on the need for a European constitution, he will find that that is fairly long-standing thinking on the part of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had to resign from the group of Conservative parties on Europe because he is so far out to the right that he speaks for no one—not even, I suspect, himself. The task of the Government and all the parliamentary representatives to the convention is to defend the interests of the British people. I am content that they will continue to do so, and I wish that he were back with his colleagues arguing for Britain.

Will the Government support proposals for the greater involvement of national Parliaments in the European decision-making process?

Yes, of course. It was the Prime Minister who set out the need for national Parliaments to be involved in the European decision-making process, and I ant very pleased that Mr. Giscard d'Estaing has included that proposal in the draft outline constitution that he published last week.

I, too, welcome the Minister to his new role. Does he acknowledge the disappointment of many in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that the UK Government have never argued in the convention for the right of devolved legislatures or Executives to have direct access to the European Court of Justice? Does he not find it slightly inconsistent that the UK Government are arguing for greater transparency and democracy at EU level, which I am sure everyone supports, yet intergovernmental relations within the UK between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations are confidential and secret?

The EU is an association of sovereign states and it is right that one state speaks for the constituent elements within it. There is the same problem in Spain and France. I think that the hon. Gentleman should park his nationalism and start speaking for Europe.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. Given the absence of European government, is it not right and proper that the European Commission should continue to initiate legislation, given that we have a democratically elected European Parliament and democratic Heads of Government in the Council of Ministers?

I am a democratically elected Member of this Parliament, and I want to see it playing a role in Europe. The convention and the discussions will continue, but I hope that at the end of this process the Prime Minister's vision of national Parliaments playing a strong role will he contained in whatever is the final outcome.

I, too, congratulate the Minister on his promotion to the role that, given his track record, we must regard as Minister for a fully integrated and politically united Europe. Can he clear up some confusion about the Government's position on the convention, the constitution and the charter of fundamental rights? Did not the Prime Minister state in the House last week that the charter

"should not extend the legal competence or jurisdiction of Europe in any way at all."—[Official Report, 28 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 546.]

It is always good to hear the word "united" from the Opposition Front Bench. I sincerely thank the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. The Prime Minister made the British Government's position clear last week. The discussions will continue. I am now the Minister for Europe and I will take a very great interest indeed in the matter.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is still some disquiet about the workings of the convention? In particular, the European Scrutiny Committee expressed its disappointment at the weakness of the report from the working group on the role of national Parliaments. In line with the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), does my hon. Friend agree that on questions of subsidiarity, when it looks as though Europe is going too far, we in Parliament, rather than just Ministers, should have the right not just to bark, but to bite?

I have worked with my hon. Friend for many years, and believe me, he is a remarkable biter. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) sits for the House on the convention, as do some Members of the European Parliament and representatives from the other place. The general direction of incorporating a role for national Parliaments is the right way forward. My hon. Friend's point is well taken.

What discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence regarding the defence implications for the naval dockyard in Gibraltar of a shared sovereignty deal between the British and Spanish Governments. [77172]

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed to the House on 12 July, we have made it clear that our current arrangements for the British military facilities in Gibraltar should continue.

I extend my congratulations to the new Minister and hope that he will succeed in being a better friend to the people of Gibraltar than was his predecessor. Will he confirm the news that the Royal Navy has moved two anti-terrorist boats previously used in Northern Ireland to Gibraltar, underlining once again the fact that the people of Gibraltar are in the front line of defence of British interests and have an important role to play as the closest British territory to the Muslim world—a role that they continue to accept loyally and unquestioningly? Does it not make a mockery of that loyalty for the Foreign Secretary to be negotiating a grubby backroom deal with Spain that would inevitably compromise the position of the naval dockyard as a strategic defence facility for the defence of both British and Gibraltarian interests?

The hon. Gentleman asked a perfectly good question and made a perfectly good second point, then muddied it with some rant left over from the Front Bench. The answer, of course, is that it is not from the Dispatch Box that there should be an announcement of any operational activity in the area that he mentioned. I do not think that the reference to the Islamic world is particularly relevant or necessary, but given the role that the people of Gibraltar played in defending freedom and defeating fascism, I as Minister for Europe can give a guarantee that Gibraltar will be safe in my hands.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and thank him for what he has just said. Could he give the House an assurance that, in the event of hostilities, Spain would behave in every sense as a true NATO ally and not obstruct the use of the Gibraltar base in any way whatever?

We are entering hypothetical waters, to put it mildly. Spain took a clear and democratic decision to join NATO some 15 years ago. Its officers, service men and king are, I believe, loyal members of the Euro-Atlantic alliance, and I have no doubt at all that Spain will stand by any NATO or alliance obligation that may be put upon her.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Greek army today, in evidence at the appeal of the British plane spotters, has said that one individual in particular took excessive notes and deserves a prison sentence. Have you, Mr. Speaker, been approached by the Foreign Secretary with an undertaking that, if there is a guilty verdict and any British citizens are sent to prison, he will make a statement?

I have had no approach from the Foreign Secretary on the matter.