What assessment he has made of Iraq's compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. [84320]

If he will make a statement on progress made by UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. [84321]

What recent discussions he has had with the US Secretary of State about UN weapons inspectors in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [84326]

I apologise for the non-attendance of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is attending the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels. I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, and the spokespersons for the Opposition parties received notice of that.

Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements made by the Security Council and with the United States of America for consideration of the 11,807 pages, 352 pages of supplements and 529 megabytes of data are satisfactory and will enable a full and transparent interpretation to be made in good time?

Yes, I am satisfied that the process is being handled properly. At the request of the Security Council presidency, the United States is helping with the formidable task of reproducing the documents for the permanent five members, who will then be in a position to assist UNMOVIC and the IAEA in removing material of proliferation concern from the declaration, before it is circulated more widely. There is no question of denying or delaying access. Copies were handed to all the P5 in Washington or New York last night, and I understand that we now have a copy here in London.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and hope that the UK will support the inspectors in their work and not denigrate them, as is happening in some quarters in the United States. Will he explore all possible alternatives to war, including using international law to indict Saddam Hussein and his regime for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide?

We certainly do strongly support the inspectors and want their tasks to be carried out to the full: there needs to be a full and proper inspection to ensure that Iraq is dealt with in terms of its development of weapons of mass destruction. Resolution 1441 is an opportunity to find a pathway to peace, disarming Saddam Hussein and removing the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We want him to take that pathway, which we have made open to him, to avoid war and ensure that the threat of weapons of mass destruction is dealt with. In that sense, the ball is in Saddam's court. We need to ensure that we are not threatened, and we hope that the pathway to peace will be taken.

Does the Minister truly believe that 17 weapons inspectors constitute an adequate number to do the job, and if he does not, can he tell the House what Her Majesty's Government will do about that?

Seventeen weapons inspectors are there, 25 are in transit, and 100 should be there before Christmas. If UNMOVIC and IAEA require further inspectors, they will be in a position to request them. Obviously, inspectors need to be properly qualified. They are not that easy to come by, but opportunities do exist to recruit further inspectors, and to request members of the UN to provide qualified people. At this point, we believe that a steady increase in the number of inspectors, allowing for the capacity of equipment and buildings available to them, is the proper way to deal with the situation, and we hope that they will be able to do the job efficiently and effectively.

Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1995 two sons-in-law of Saddam Hussein defected to Jordan and revealed the extent of the biological weapons programme that previously the regime had strenuously denied having? Why should we believe that this hide and seek game with the inspectors will lead to anything, bearing in mind the amount of time that Saddam Hussein has had to conceal the weapons of mass destruction? This is a murderous and lying regime that cannot be trusted under any circumstances.

It is true that defectors revealed the development of weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological weapons, in 1995. This should not be a game of hide and seek. Let us be clear: UN resolution 1441 places the obligation on Saddam Hussein and Iraq to show that they are not developing weapons of mass destruction. The obligation is not on the inspectors; they are there to verify claims made by Saddam Hussein, and we need to ensure that we support the inspectors, and that the threat from Saddam Hussein is dealt with.

The Minister will be aware that resolution 1441 requires the Iraqis to supply an accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of their programme to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Does he agree that American interference in the distribution of the Iraqi submission will undermine the United Nations process, weaken the international consensus against the Iraqi regime and offer Saddam Hussein a completely unnecessary propaganda victory?

Frankly, what the hon. Gentleman has just said is complete nonsense. The Americans have not interfered; at the request of the presidency of the Security Council, they have assisted it in distributing the material. As far as we are aware, and according to the evidence available to us, that has been done entirely properly. We have a copy of the documents here in London, and the suggestion that this constitutes American interference that will somehow weaken the coalition is complete and utter nonsense.

Despite my hon. Friend's reply, surely it is US insistence—under the guise of assistance—that has limited access to the Iraqi declaration to the five permanent members of the Security Council. The entire Security Council voted for resolution 1441, and the rest of the world will undoubtedly see this as the exercise of undue influence by the US Government, who still seem absolutely determined, regardless of the evidence, to go to war against Iraq.

There is concern about proliferation information that may be contained in the declaration: in other words, concern exists that Iraq will be supplying information on the whereabouts of materials, equipment and other issues—dual use or otherwise—that may be of interest to terrorists or to other countries. The view has therefore been taken that the five permanent members—they are nuclear powers—should have a full copy of the declaration. On that basis, distribution is being examined to see whether the material can be passed to members of the Security Council that are not nuclear powers, and to ensure that, if appropriate—this issue has yet to be determined, but the Security Council will look at it—some of the material in the declaration is not widely distributed. The concern is proliferation, not any attempt by the Americans or anyone else—as far as we are aware, there has been no such attempt—to prevent proper application of the terms of resolution 1441, or of the wishes of the UN Security Council.

If there are discrepancies between Iraq's declaration of last weekend and the Government's dossier of 24 September—in connection, for instance, with the existence of the 20 al-Hussein missiles, the L29 jet trainer or of VX nerve agent, all of which were mentioned in the dossier—is the onus on Iraq to prove that the dossier was wrong, or on the Government to show why their dossier should be believed? Do the Government consider that the assertions in the dossier would be sufficient, under paragraph 4 of resolution 1441, to constitute a material breach, if omitted from the declaration?

Paragraph 4 of resolution 1441 requires that, for there to be a material breach, the declaration should be false and there should be a failure to cooperate. So far, Iraq has put forward a declaration, which we are examining. That will take some time. It is true that Saddam Hussein has a record of lying, so we should be sceptical about the information that he provides. However, we will examine seriously the documentation that he has provided, and see how it stands up to the information that we have received from various sources. We will then consider how to proceed. Obviously, it is for the inspectors to examine whether Saddam Hussein and Iraq continue to possess weapons of mass destruction.

I must press the Minister further. Surely he stands by the dossier that he published on 24 September? He told us that there was evidence that the weapons that I mentioned were in existence. If those weapons are omitted from the declaration made by the Iraqi Government on Saturday, is that a material breach? If the Minister insists that his information is correct, there must therefore be an omission from the declaration and, under paragraph 4, that would constitute a material breach.

The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have listened to what I said. Paragraph 4 of resolution 1441 contains a requirement that, for there to be a breach, the declaration of information must be false and there must be a failure to co-operate. We shall examine the contents of the declaration seriously. The Government certainly stand by the contents of the dossier, but we also know that there is some recent information that Saddam Hussein has been seeking to hide weapons of mass destruction. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking whether the fact that the items that he mentioned are not in the precise place specified in the dossier proves that Saddam Hussein does not have them, my response is that we must look at all the evidence. We must consider all the intelligence information and look at the detail of the dossier. That must be done carefully. These are serious matters and they need to be dealt with seriously. This is an attempt to avoid going to war yet achieve the end of ensuring that Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction. That is an end that we will achieve.

Is there not a danger that our rightly firm resolve to make Saddam blink may leave us unable to recognise our success? If there is no material breach or nothing disclosed, can we remind the US—and, indeed, the Opposition here—that that should be a cause not of disappointment but of rejoicing? Will my hon. Friend the Minister say what is pencilled in the diaries of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to ensure that discussions are held with the US before that country fires off its judgment without consulting its very loyal and patient allies?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are in full consultation with the US. We will look at the declaration and consult on the issues that it raises with the US and other permanent members of the Security Council, and indeed with other members of that council. If it were found that the declaration was genuine and full, and that the inspectorate was able to carry out its inspections completely unhindered and for a prolonged period of time, that might represent some evidence that Saddam was prepared to follow the pathway to peace.

The Minister refers to the pathway to peace, and I am sure that we all agree with that. If there is an alleged breach of resolution 1441, will the Minister confirm that it remains the Government's view that any further action should be a matter for the Security Council, because many in the United States Administration view resolution 1441 as the pathway to war, not to peace?

Resolution 1441 does not stipulate that, for example, there needs to be a second resolution to authorise military action. It says that the UN Security Council must be given the opportunity to consider any report or other information. As the Foreign Secretary has said, in the event of a material breach, the Government's preference is for a second resolution. So far the Security Council has, as Kofi Annan said, faced up to its responsibilities, and we believe that it will continue to do so. However, we must reserve our position in the event that it does not. Iraq should be in no doubt that the message of resolution 1441 is clear and that any failure to comply will have serious consequences.

What recent discussions he has had with representatives of allied countries on extending the mandate of the international security force in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [84322]

On 27 November, the UN Security Council agreed to extend the ISAF mandate until 20 December next year. The area of operations remains Kabul. We are discussing with other coalition members ways of getting what is called an ISAF effect in areas beyond Kabul.

What role are the Americans playing? Are they still floating around the country handing out bin bags full of dollars to warlords and shooting up wedding parties, or has it been possible to engage their attention in nation building?

I am pleased to report that the Americans are very much engaged in nation building, in that they are putting substantial amounts of aid money into Afghanistan and are looking at ways of improving the security situation. The US has recently proposed having small civil military teams of 40 to 60 strong to work with the Afghan national army regional leaders and non-governmental organisations to help to improve security in areas outside Kabul. Substantial sums are going into Afghanistan from the United States and the US is working with other countries to improve the security situation. It is also working closely with President Hamid Karzai's Government. I visited President Karzai recently and he was very grateful for the help that Britain as well as the United States has provided to Afghanistan.

May I, through the Minister, congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on asking one of the great, classic, perennial parliamentary questions? Does the Minister recall that when the viceroy of the day posed the question to the great Lord Salisbury, the Foreign Secretary advised the Viceroy's Council to study Afghanistan on a larger-scale map—a piece of advice that is of general application today?

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) welcomes the hon. Gentleman's advice. I, too, will ensure that I study all the maps that I need to study.

I think that my hon. Friend is aware of the concerns of the NGOs and their workers outside Kabul. However, does he know that one of Mercy Corps' veterinary surgeons was shot dead in Kandahar province when he was attending to his duties as a livestock support worker and that three other Afghans working for Mercy Corps have been kidnapped? Fortunately, they have now been released, but that has led them to consider whether they can continue their operations. When will a demilitarisation programme begin in Afghanistan?

As I have already indicated, the coalition is looking at ways of extending the ISAF effect to improve security in the provinces beyond Kabul. We need to demobilise and disarm the militias, build an accountable Afghan national army, create an effective police force, stamp out the drugs trade and construct a legal system. We are in the process of nation building, and I cannot tell my hon. Friend that we will achieve that overnight. I wish that we could do it more quickly, but these things need to be built brick by brick. It takes time, but doing it properly will lead to more effective and solid results for the long-term future of Afghanistan. Rushing to judgment and being too quick to put in mechanisms that do not work could be detrimental and counter-productive.

We are not asking the Minister to achieve anything overnight, but we have heard both from him and from his colleague the Secretary of State for International Development that the ISAF remit might extend beyond Kabul. Does he agree that, for every delay, there is an increase in heroin production in Afghanistan, which has a direct impact on the amount of drugs available on the streets of the United Kingdom? The Minister must make the connection between the power of the territorial warlords and the failure to tackle them. When can we expect positive action?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is a link with the disorder in Afghanistan—a country ravaged by war for 25 years. We are in the process of re-establishing law and order in parts of Afghanistan around Kabul and in some other regions. That will be done over a period of time. However, it is wrong for a Government to say that, in a massive country such as Afghanistan, we can make changes within a few days or months, or even a year. The programme does not only address issues with regard to poppy production, which means providing alternative lifestyles for people who grow poppies and using a forced eradication programme. We are supporting such policies not only because they are right for Afghanistan but also because, if they are successful, they will prevent people from dying on our streets. However, we cannot promise to do that overnight; it will take time. I suspect that poppy production will rise before it falls, because we need to establish substantial controls and building an Afghan national army requires time, effort, resources and facilities. It cannot be done overnight.

What links he has identified between Iraq and al-Qaeda. [84323]

We know that al-Qaeda operatives have been in Iraq. It is not clear what links they have with the Iraqi regime.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree with the United States Government that military action against Iraq would be part of the war against terror? If so, does he think that war can provide the solution to terror?

The objective of our involvement in Iraq is to ensure that Saddam Hussein is prevented from developing weapons of mass destruction. That is clearly the objective set out in UN resolution 1441. We know that, in the past, Iraq has supported terrorists such as the Abu Nidal group and Mujahedin-e Khalq—the MEK—and that Saddam Hussein gave money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel and Palestine. Saddam Hussein has been involved in terrorism, but whether he is involved with al-Qaeda is another matter.

Will the Minister keep in mind when exploring those links the fact that many of us will have great difficulty in finding a proper moral justification for war against Iraq unless we can properly invoke the principles of self-defence, which can be properly invoked only if the threat to ourselves or our allies is both grave and imminent?

It is our view that resolution 1441 provides a legal basis for ensuring that the inspectors go into Iraq. We seek to provide a way to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not create the circumstances in which war happens. Our objective is to achieve disarmament. We shall work towards that end.

I would not have fancied being an al-Qaeda representative in Sunni Iraq. Will the Minister put the names of those operatives, if he has them, in the Library?

No.

Is it not clear from all the Minister's answers that there is no link between al-Qaeda and the regime in Iraq and that, whereas there is a perfectly good case to pursue terrorists, such as al-Qaeda, and there is probably an equally good case to pursue the Iraqi regime, to link the two together simply does a great disservice to truth?

The right hon. Gentleman obviously knows more than those who are a lot better informed than him. It is not clear that there are links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda. We are still examining some evidence that is available to us. We know that al-Qaeda operatives have been in Iraq, and we also know—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) should not shout at the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What help he is offering to further the reconciliation process in Sudan. [84324]

In 2002, there is a new window of opportunity for peace in Sudan and a new round of peace talks led by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. The United Kingdom has played a major role in the peace effort so far, through its role as international observer at the Machakos talks. This year, we have committed about £10 million to support humanitarian work and the peace process itself.

I am very pleased to hear the report from my hon. Friend the Minister, but does he share my concern about the damage that might be done to peace in Sudan if war were to break out in Iraq? That seems not to be the kind of development that most of us who are interested in peace in Sudan would want to see.

Our aim in Sudan and Iraq is to secure peace and security. In Iraq, we face a threat from weapons of mass destruction. We are trying to resolve that issue peacefully. Saddam has the opportunity to do that by complying with resolution 1441. Although I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, I do not believe that we would sustain human rights in Sudan by failing to stand up and ignoring the very real danger that exists in Iraq.

May I address the question itself? Although I recognise that the key to resolving the conflict in Sudan lies mainly in achieving an equitable sharing of power and wealth between the north and south, does the Minister agree that the lasting solution must also depend on trust and respect for human rights? Is not one of the grave human rights problems facing the people of Sudan the incidence of slavery? Will he therefore agree that that issue must be addressed during any future negotiations? What are the Government doing to try to ensure that that happens?

I wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that matter. We have much contact with the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children, which is making significant progress. Already, more than 600 abductees have been returned. We are concerned, however, that a market may be created by paying for the return of abductees, but that is a real issue, which must be taken into account in the eventual peace settlement.

If he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Brazil and the election of President Lula. [84325]

Before I specifically answer the question, I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in expressing our concern and sadness at the news that 36 people have been killed overnight by a mudslide in Brazil.

Given the important trading relationship between the United Kingdom and Brazil—I think that we are the eighth largest exporter to Brazil—will the Minister outline to the House what he will do to encourage that relationship, make sure that we increase the trade opportunities for British companies, and assist in the continuing development of Brazil, the fifth largest economy in the world?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for his keen interest in our relationship with Brazil. We certainly believe that Brazil is a good place to do business. It is the UK's largest export market in Latin America, and, so far this year, our exports are up by some 16 per cent. Indeed, over the last year, more than 100 British companies have invested in Brazil, indicating strongly that they regard Brazil as a good place to do business. We will continue to support those efforts.

While I welcome the Minister's response, will he confirm that fears that the new President might change the economic pattern of Brazil are unfounded, and that he is continuing to lead his people to a better way of life?

I certainly feel able to do that. Whatever initial concerns existed, the whole international community is now reacting favourably to the way in which President-elect Lula is forming his Administration. Indeed, the recent International Monetary Fund delegation to Brazil reacted very positively to the developments that are taking place.

Despite the Government's substantial efforts since 1997 to encourage British business to engage more readily with Brazil, it is fair to say that the response has not always been as good as that for which we hoped. Business often cites the complexity of the regulatory regime in Brazil as off-putting. When the Minister has the opportunity to discuss these matters, will he make that point to his counterparts, and will he also encourage them not to be tempted down the route of protectionism?

The point is well made. As I said, the 16 per cent. increase in exports in the last year is very positive. I am visiting Brazil next week, and I will meet representatives of the British business community there. I look forward to discussions within that forum.

What recent discussions he has had with governments of sub-Saharan African countries about the import of their skilled health service workers into the UK. [84327]

The recruitment of staff for the national health service is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his Department.

Surely the Minister understands that his Government's view that this is simply a matter for the Department of Health shows that there is an unethical black hole in the middle of their foreign policy. South Africa, which has already requested this country not to recruit its hard-trained nurses and doctors, has seen the number of its staff recruited by this country increase from 393 in 1997 to 2,114. As for Malawi, 43 out of the 235 nurses that it trains per year are now working here. Surely foreign Governments have told him and his colleagues that that is unacceptable. Until the Government keep an exact record of the extent to which we are destroying the capacity of foreign countries' health care systems, and offer to put something back, we will not be behaving ethically in this area.

With the greatest respect, to describe that as an unethical black hole is exaggeration even by the standards of Lib Dem "Focus" leaflets. We are firmly committed to ensuring the protection of developing countries. That is why we have developed the code of practice, in which we are ahead of the game—no other country throughout the world has done that. On what the hon. Gentleman says about putting something back, through the Department for International Development, we invest £30 million a year, 30 per cent. of which goes into the South African health system.

It is, however, possible, as my hon. Friend will accept, to provide proper training and assistance to African nations while not denuding them of desperately needed staff. Real problems exist in southern Africa, particularly in relation to those groups affected by AIDS, and it is essential that they are not deprived of their health care professionals.

My hon. Friend makes an important and serious point. AIDS is the scourge of southern African. Through the Department of Health, we have constructive programmes that we are developing with the South African health department. We will do everything that we can to help. On the specific issue that has already been raised, the code of conduct offers the best protection available for the recruitment of health care professionals from developing countries.

This is truly disingenuous. The national health service does not have to recruit these nurses, because they are recruited by agencies. If the Minister wants to see hell on earth, he should visit the Lilongwe general hospital where practically every nurse who was trained last year was stripped out to come to work for agencies in this country. The Minister's answer was accurate but totally disingenuous.

Agencies and organisations working with the NHS have to comply with the code of practice that we have established. We take the issue seriously, and we would all want to operate in an ideal world. The fact remains that the code of practice that we have already established is the most advanced in the world. The Government will not apologise for the fact that we are expanding our capacity in terms of the number of nurses in a way that the Conservative party consistently failed to do.

If he will make a statement on the forthcoming enlargement of the EU. [84329]

I hope that we will complete enlargement negotiations with 10 candidate countries at the Copenhagen European Council this week. That will allow us to meet the aim, first set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, of reuniting Europe in time for the European Parliament elections in 2004.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the enormous contribution that Turkey has made to the security of Europe over the years. Does he agree that the best way to encourage human rights and the Europeanisation of institutions in Turkey is to give it as soon as possible the beginnings of a move to a start date for negotiations on its entry to the European Union?

Very much so. Turkey is at the crossroads. It can look west towards Europe to modernise and democratise its institutions and political processes, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have been in the van of arguing within Europe that Turkey should be given at Copenhagen later this week a clear and proximate date for the start of entry negotiations.

I am mindful of the concerns of some accession countries about securing support for entry in referendums, but will the Minister tell the House if and what the Government's objections are to the latest Danish financial and common agricultural policy proposals? Does he agree that new flexibility on direct farm payments would be advantageous to the accession states?

No, because the accession states have negotiated in good faith under what is called the Berlin ceiling, which was the package set. That means that all of them will be better off once they are inside the EU. They have to absorb the money as part of a process of reform and modernisation. That it is precisely why, in the Financial Times today, four Prime Ministers have argued the case for a yes at Copenhagen and for the reuniting of the European family of nations.

My hon. Friend referred to the enlargement of the European Union in 2004 and to Turkey. Does he agree that it is also important to consider the enlargement of the EU in 2007 when I hope that Bulgaria and Romania will join?

Yes, indeed. I am keeping my fingers crossed that, at Copenhagen, we will also confirm 2007 as the target date for Bulgaria and Romania. That is the new Europe of the 21st century, united as a zone of peace, prosperity and democracy.

Does the Minister share the concern of many of my constituents in fishing communities that the Copenhagen summit, which is rightly trying to expedite the enlargement of the EU, does not have the fishing crisis on its agenda? Will he explain to my constituents what efforts the UK Government are making to ensure that fishing is on the agenda at the summit, or do the Government think that the crisis is not important enough for them to press for the issue to be on the agenda in the first place?

No. No Government have done more to raise the plight of their fishermen than Her Majesty's Government. Of course every one of the 15 EU member states will have pressing problems that it will want to place on the agenda at Copenhagen. What is important is that the Fisheries Council deals with the matter and that the reform of both the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy is maintained. For the first time in 20 years, this Government are doing something about that in a serious, professional and coherent manner.

What assessment he has made of the implications of the policy statements made by the new leader of the Israeli Labour Party for the peace process. [84330]

It is for Israeli voters to decide which party's policies are most likely to bring them peace and security. We look to the next Israeli Government, whoever leads it, to engage with the Palestinians and the international community in the implementation of the Quartet road map within the time frame set out by President Bush on 24 June.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the emergence of Mr. Mitzna offers us new hope for restarting the middle east peace process and for withdrawal from illegal settlements on the west bank? Does he also agree that whether Mr. Mitzna becomes Israel's next Prime Minister or the leader of the Opposition, this Government should do their utmost to support his efforts towards a peaceful and political settlement in the middle east?

We certainly want a peaceful settlement of the middle east conflict. Our policy on settlements is clear. They are illegal under international law and are an obstacle to peace. Israel should freeze all settlement activity, including road building, because it is creating facts on the ground. It breaks up Palestinian territory throughout the west bank and makes the possibility of a negotiated settlement much more difficult to reach. We have consistently called on both parties to refrain from unilateral acts which prejudice the outcome of the permanent status negotiation. Each brick in a settlement is a barrier to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Mr. Mitzna said that if he were Prime Minister, he would immediately begin talks without condition. Whichever candidate wins the forthcoming Israeli elections, does the Minister agree that with attention largely focused on Iraq, the international community, especially the United States, must actively re-engage in pushing for a resumption of the middle east peace process? Does he agree that a continuing stand-off is simply not acceptable and that there is a moral compulsion on all parties to make every effort to engage in dialogue based on a genuine desire to reach an agreement? Who is he in touch with on each side who might actually be prepared to talk to each other?

It is the case that we need to resume the talks. The process would be enhanced if the suicide bombings stopped and the Israelis were able to remove their forces from the large areas of the west bank that they occupy, which disrupts activity among Palestinians, so atomising that society. We are in regular contact with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Indeed, this week I met Palestinian representatives and this afternoon I will meet the Israeli ambassador. We are also obviously in contact with representatives of the Quartet who are working hard to create the road map that we hope will be the basis on which a peace process will be constructed. A great deal of discussion is going on and there are many contacts between various Israeli and Palestinian groups. It is important that we encourage a process of dialogue because it is only through negotiation and dialogue that we will secure peace.

Have the British Government made representations either to the new leader of the Israeli Labour party or Mr. Sharon on the illegal building of the great Israeli wall? It is illegal from end to end because it is built 6 or 10 km within Palestinian territory, thus confiscating 10 per cent. of the total land.

Only a small portion of the wall is built. I have seen photographs of it, but I have not been to see it. The wall is clearly wrong. We have made strong representations to the Israelis that it should not be constructed. Israel has a right to protect itself from terrorist activity, but, frankly, building barriers and walls is not the way to go about creating long-term security for Israel. The Israelis will get long-term security when there is a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians and when a middle east peace process brings about a two-state solution—a state for the Palestinians, but also a secure and peaceful state for Israel.

Endorsing what the hon. Gentleman has just said, has the Foreign Secretary told the leaders of both major parties in Israel that the constant flouting of UN Security Council resolutions is not conducive to peace in the middle east?

Both parties are well aware of our view that resolutions 242, 338 and 1397 are the basis on which any peace process needs to go forward. We have made it clear that flouting or ignoring those resolutions is not acceptable, but we also know that those resolutions require a peace process. That is why the discussions in the Quartet are important—they will provide the road map to peace. We hope that both parties—Israel and the Palestinians—will work with the international community to ensure that that road does lead to peace.

If he will make a statement on the political situation in Colombia. [84331]

The new democratically elected Colombian Government face enormous challenges, particularly in their fight against terrorism and the illegal drugs trade, as well as over human rights and Colombia's humanitarian crisis. We support their efforts to tackle all those issues.

The United States of America has earmarked $1.3 billion for Plan Colombia, of which 80 per cent. is destined for the military and the police and a pathetic 1 per cent. for the peace process. Can the Minister reassure the House that the millions of euros pledged by the EU nations will be used for the search for an economic, political and social solution to the complex difficulties in Colombia, which have worsened with the endemic violence in that country and the ambivalent attitude of President Uribe to the trafficking of heroin and cocaine?

I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in those issues. I should make it clear to him that the British Government and the EU more generally have no involvement in Plan Colombia. The British Government are committed through the EU process to a package of €330 million to support humanitarian development, the peace process and, particularly, projects involving the rule of law and the defence of human rights. I heard what he said about President Uribe and his alleged past associations. However, despite exhaustive investigations, no evidence to support those allegations has been produced. Nevertheless, we constantly urge Uribe to tackle paramilitaries, collusion and impunity, and we will continue to do so.

Will the Minister give the Government of Colombia, who have been democratically elected—there is nothing better than the rule of law throughout the country—the fullest possible support, especially in the war against terrorism? Is he aware that hundreds of distinguished Colombian citizens—bishops, priests, mayors, congressmen, judges, senators and countless others—have been kidnapped or have lost their lives as a consequence of terrorism? Can he therefore assure the House that, on behalf of the Government, he will proscribe FARC and the ELN in both Colombia and the EU? Without the elimination of those organisations, the drugs trade will not be eliminated and peace will not be restored.

We have already introduced a number of the measures that the hon. Gentleman has called for. I very much share his view that we are dealing with a true humanitarian crisis. The statistics show that 2 million people are displaced, 60 per cent. of whom are under 16. More trade unionists were killed in Colombia than in the rest of the world put together last year. The crisis is appalling, and we must support President Uribe's Government. On the point about democratic legitimacy, we certainly take account of the fact that Uribe got 53 per cent. of the vote and has a 70 per cent. approval rating, so there is clearly support for the measures that he has introduced to tackle the crisis. At the same time, however, he must respond to legitimate concerns, especially from non-governmental organisations engaged in the country.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the proposal from human rights organisations for an exchange of kidnapped people for political prisoners in Colombia? Would the Government consider and support such a proposal?

I am not aware of that, but if my hon. Friend speaks or writes to me about it, I would be more than happy to discuss it.

What assessment he has made of co-ordinated al-Qaeda activity against British interests abroad. [84332]

We constantly monitor the threat to British interests posed by all terrorist groups worldwide. All the intelligence that we receive is sifted and carefully assessed by the intelligence agencies. All the resulting threat assessments are then passed to policy makers.

Given that the Australian Government managed, nearly a fortnight before the event, to pass on a specific warning to their holidaymakers about the threat of a terrorist attack in Mombasa, why did the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with access to the same intelligence, fail to pass on a similarly specific warning to our holidaymakers in the area?

There was no specific intelligence of an attack being planned in Bali—[HON. MEMBERS: "Mombasa."] I am sorry; Mombasa. As far as we are concerned, there was no specific intelligence. If there had been, we would certainly have made that information available.

My hon. Friend is aware that for many years a large number of British people have been going on holiday to Kenya. He will also know that last week the British embassy there had to be closed on security grounds. Can he reassure constituents who contacted me last week that he will further consider updating the website that gives advice about the situation whenever circumstances change so that people do not have to rely on press reports or radio broadcasts when they are about to go on holiday and, understandably, anxious about whether they should cancel it, even if they are going to a part of the country far from the incident?

We amended all our travel advice on 18 October to warn travellers of the increased threat from international terrorism. The fact that that was a global warning should not detract from its relevance. Travel advice is kept under constant review in the light of all the information available to us. It was changed on 28 November to reflect the implications of the Mombasa attack and the risk of terrorist groups carrying out further attacks in east Africa.

What advice he gives to British companies with joint investments in Burma with the military junta. [84333]

We do not encourage trade or investment with Burma. We do not offer support of any kind for companies to pursue trade or investment with Burma. Companies that seek advice are told of the appalling human rights situation, corruption and dire economic situation that exist there.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be well aware that almost the only British company still in Burma is British American Tobacco, which jointly owns a cigarette factory with the military junta and clearly generates considerable profit and tax revenue thereby. When challenged, the company says that, in effect, corporate responsibility requires it to stay in Burma to sustain employment—

Order. A supplementary question must be very snappy, but that is not a snappy question. Will the Minister try to deal with that point?

I have made it very clear that, as far as we are concerned, Burma is not a place where we encourage any companies to invest. At least, I am not aware of BAT being given any encouragement to continue to operate there and I shall certainly ask officials to identify any information of the sort that my hon. and learned Friend suggests has been given to it. The economic situation in Burma is deteriorating and the Government of Burma abuse human rights on a substantial scale. I spoke yesterday to Aung San Suu Kyi about our wish to ensure that the Government of Burma carry out a process of modernisation and democratisation as quickly as possible. Only then will the economic problems of Burma be resolved and will we have a roadway leading to a process whereby Aung San Suu Kyi and those who represent democracy can feel that Burma truly has an opportunity to rebuild itself after the tragedies of recent years.