The Secretary of State was asked—
Climate Change
The latest United Nations scientific report on climate change has shown that the scale and urgency of the challenge demands immediate international action. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is working with Government partners, business and civil society—and through the European Union, the G8 and the UN—to mobilise international action on climate change.
Does my hon. Friend believe that, as a result of the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change conference in Valencia, there is a need for an effective price signal to cut greenhouse gases significantly, and that the Chinese and the Americans might be willing to use mandatory and binding targets, which could be agreed at the Bali conference in December?
I am not sure that we are yet at the stage of the binding targets that my hon. Friend and many other Members would support, but in the context of world energy needs rising by 50 per cent. between now and 2030, there clearly is a need for concerted and immediate international action, particularly on China, which this year for the first time becomes the world’s biggest carbon emitter. There is hope in the light of some of the work happening in China, and there is increasing pressure in the United States, partly driven by the findings of the Stern review, of course.
In view of the Secretary-General’s remarks last week that industrialised nations need to play a greater part in tackling climate change, what discussions is the Minister having with colleagues in other Government Departments—the Treasury, for example—so that international forums such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank continue to live up to the highest environmental standards?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—this issue requires a cross-government approach, just as it requires a concerted approach by Governments and business across the globe. We are working through the United Nations—we have participated in a leading way in the UN Security Council debate—and we are trying to ensure that the work of the UN, the G8 and the World Bank is co-ordinated. I am happy to discuss this issue in greater detail with the hon. Gentleman.
China has coal reserves of more than 1 trillion tonnes, is producing 1.2 billion tonnes a year and is opening some 550 new coal-fired power stations. What consideration has been given to, and what discussions are taking place on, expanding clean coal technology and sharing it with the Chinese, so that we can cut their carbon dioxide emissions? Such efforts would also help us to meet our own targets.
My hon. Friend has detailed knowledge of, and a long-held interest in, these issues. We are involved in a specific carbon capture and storage project in China, and wider efforts are being made regarding the intellectual property rights of climate change technology generally, so that such investment can be rewarded. Significant moves are therefore being made in China not just on coal, but on wider energy efficiency, and that is part of a continuing and growing international consensus.
The Minister will be aware that the Scottish Government have more ambitious climate change targets than those set at Westminster, so I am intrigued by the following question. How will UK Ministers co-ordinate best practice, in order to ensure the best co-ordination of international efforts to address climate change?
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Of course, if he and his party stopped opposing renewable wind energy schemes wherever they are proposed throughout Scotland, that would be a start. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), future investment is phenomenally important to the evolution of modern technologies. Many people who share an ambition for climate change technology would be puzzled—indeed, flabbergasted—by the Scottish Executive’s budget announcement on cutting investment in Scottish universities.
My constituents—and, I suggest, Members of the House—struggle to find independent and trustworthy information on green and carbon issues. Can I persuade my hon. Friend to open negotiations with Al Gore and our leading universities to create a green institute that could be the centre of such information for the world?
As my hon. Friend is aware, the UK is the first country in the world to set legally binding targets for CO2 emission reductions, and other countries are genuinely interested in incorporating that initiative into their own domestic legislation. Of course, there is more that we can do and I shall look into the specific issue that he raises, but it is a fact that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has enabled 30 different visits by Stern to countries across the world, including Mexico, Brazil and countries in south-east Asia. They are very attracted to the research and analysis that Nick Stern has carried out.
Kosovo
The UK fully supports the work of the EU-Russia-US troika aimed at bridging the divide between Pristina and Belgrade on Kosovo’s future status. Intensive negotiations are ongoing and will be concluded by 10 December. We share the UN Secretary-General’s view that the status quo in Kosovo, which is unique by virtue of its tragic history, is unsustainable. I have met leaders of both sides in the dispute and I am working with EU colleagues on contingency plans to develop a constructive EU position.
Will the Foreign Secretary give a clear assurance that the United Kingdom Government will not recognise any premature declaration of independence by Kosovo before there is international agreement? Does he accept that to give such recognition would breach a Security Council resolution for which the United Kingdom voted and would conflict with the assurances that NATO gave Serbia at the time of the military action against that country? It would also have serious consequences with regard to the likely action by Republika Srpska and similar entities in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova and other parts of the former Soviet Union.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important point. I can give him comfort in respect of the first half of what he said. I have made it clear to the Unity team, which represents Kosovo, its different parties and its Government, that it must work with the international community, because a chaotic and unplanned declaration by it would certainly not contribute to the sort of stability that we need. In respect of the second half of his question, resolution 1244, which forms the basis for UN action, for NATO action and for EU action, is very wide-ranging. As far as we are concerned, it allows us to proceed with the range of contingencies for which we have prepared. That legal base is an important part of this final piece of the Yugoslav jigsaw, which he knows well.
What discussions is the Foreign Secretary having with the United States Administration to try to persuade them not to recognise precipitately a unilateral declaration of independence and to use their influence with the Kosovo Albanians to allow a little more time in the last hope of getting some agreement?
I confirm that in September I chaired a meeting of the Contact Group at the United Nations in New York, in which Condoleezza Rice, of course, participated. That meeting gave full support to the current 120-day process of negotiations and discussions, following, let us remember, 15 months in which the Ahtisaari team had been leading on the issue. It is an opportunity for all sides to engage responsibly with the troika representatives. Post-10 December, we must ensure that the international community sticks together on this issue. That is what my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe was talking about yesterday at the General Affairs Council of the European Union. I shall certainly remain in touch with the US Secretary of State on this issue.
Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that any appearance of a permanent separation of Kosovo from Serbia will lead to endless tension and instability throughout the Balkans, heightened by Russia’s strong and understandable feeling of kinship with the Serbs?
The comment of the UN Secretary-General that the status quo is unsustainable is very important. The legitimate aspirations of more than 90 per cent. of the people of Kosovo for their nationhood to be represented—
indicated assent.
I see that the Scottish National party representative is nodding his head. Every single person who has studied this issue emphasises that the situation in Kosovo is unique and results from the tragic circumstances of the 1990s—[Interruption.] Members cite all sorts of parts of the world, but the situation in Kosovo is unique, not least because of the way that Kosovo is currently governed by a UN resolution, which has unique characteristics. Although we must recognise the rights of the minority community in the north of Kosovo, we must address the legitimate aspirations of more than 90 per cent. of Kosovo’s citizens.
Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that Britain’s name and reputation will not be dishonoured or shamed by continuing to appease either Belgrade or Moscow, as happened in the 1990s, and by not allowing independence for the Kosovan people, who, first peacefully, then in a short military campaign, won their independence nine years ago, although they have not yet achieved it? Does he understand that it is in the interests of Serbia, which seeks to join both Europe and NATO, to let go of Kosovo? It is no more going to live under Serbian tutelage than Ireland will come back under English control or the Baltic states will come back under Russian control. Britain had a record of shame and dishonour in the 1990s in this area, and it must never be repeated.
I certainly agree about the terrible consequences of inaction in the early to mid-1990s. This is not about punishing Serbia, but about drawing a line under the terrible nationalist legacy of the 1990s. This process has been going on since 1999 in the UN and it is important that we see it through to a political conclusion.
The whole House recognises the sensitivity of the situation in Kosovo and in the wider Balkans, and would also agree that we must ask Kosovan politicians not to rush to any unilateral declaration of independence. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that in return for that restraint the international community must not jettison the basic principles of the Ahtisaari proposals, which seek to ensure the rights of the Serb minority and set out a path towards Kosovo’s independence? Does he also agree that if Russia alone stands in the way of a new UN Security Council resolution, the rest of the international community must take the lead in swiftly recognising Kosovo under the terms of the Ahtisaari plans?
The short answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes. The Ahtisaari plan was a painstaking piece of work and it is very much on the table. If more can be done to guarantee minority rights in the north of Kosovo, it should be done, but any suggestion that the Ahtisaari plan should be taken off the table would be quite wrong.
In the Foreign Secretary’s reply to the hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)—
Don’t interrupt me; you will upset my thought process. In the Foreign Secretary’s reply, he referred to the legal basis, about which the UK is confident. In the Gracious Speech debate, he offered to share that legal advice with Opposition Front Benchers, and I shouted out, “What about the rest of us?” Will he disclose that information to the House? Yet again the Foreign Office is relying on legal advice that it has conjured up to buttress what might well be a foolhardy and reckless decision in respect of Kosovo, as well as a flouting of the UN.
When my hon. Friend says, “Yet again”—
I mean Iraq—
I know. When he says, “Yet again”, he answers his own question, because of course it is a long-standing position of all Governments that we do not publish Government legal advice—
Dodgy legal advice.
It certainly is not dodgy legal advice. That is a slur on Government lawyers who do an honourable job and provide honourable advice.
The whole House will appreciate that we could soon be facing a serious situation in the Balkans. The Foreign Secretary referred earlier to contingency plans, so may I ask him what contingency plans have been put in place by the EU and NATO to address any potentially difficult effects that a declaration of independence by Kosovo might have on Bosnia and Herzegovina or Macedonia?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are 18 battalions on the ground in Kosovo. The most important contingency planning that we can do is to work with both sides to ensure that they behave in a responsible way that engages with the international community. He rightly raises the issue of Bosnia, and the most important thing that we can do there is to support the work of High Representative Lajcák, because his authority is key to continuing stability in Bosnia, where there are real tensions at the moment—as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out. It is important that the authority of the high representative is maintained.
Darfur
The Government welcomed the start of the Darfur political process in Libya on 27 October. Although it is disappointing that some rebel leaders are not engaging, it is good that civil society groups are represented. The Government of Sudan’s commitment to a cessation of hostilities is potentially significant, but the violence and humanitarian suffering continue. The Government call on all parties to engage fully, to be prepared to negotiate and to cease acts of violence.
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and congratulate the Government on the work that they are doing behind the scenes to try to provide some unity among the different groups who maintain their independence of mind. However, does he agree that it is vital that we do not give the moral high ground to those who intend to abstain from the peace talks? The best way to do that is to ensure that all members of civil society, including the Arabic people, are fully engaged in all the discussions that are going on. In that way, we will get a genuine peace settlement that will not unravel as the last one sadly did.
Yes, I agree, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his commitment to the effort to build peace in Darfur. There will certainly not be peace there unless all the parties come to the table and all the issues are discussed. The peace process must be worked on systematically, and we cannot expect success if there is only occasional attendance at the occasional meeting. That approach has failed in the past, and will do so in the future.
Many hopes were placed on the African Union forces coming into Darfur but, sadly, they have been largely dashed because of the Sudanese Government’s refusal to agree to the make-up of the peacekeeping force. What else can the Government do to put further international pressure on Khartoum?
The right hon. Gentleman is right that that is one of the problems that has bedevilled any move towards peace in Darfur. We have worked with the Sudanese Government, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken at the UN about the need for Sudan to realise that there has to be an effective peacekeeping force there and not just one that is the most convenient for Sudan. That is an important point, and we shall keep on arguing it. If we get an effective peacekeeping force there, we may be able to turn from rhetoric into reality the Sudanese Government’s new statements that they now want a peaceful outcome.
May I put it to the Minister of State that what is required is not a peacekeeping operation, but a peace-enforcement operation? Peace talks are necessary but they are not a sufficient condition of progress. Foot stamping by the Sudanese Government has so far prevented the necessary deployment, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) has observed, and that Government are now seeking to determine the peacekeeping force’s precise ethnic composition. Given all that, can the Minister tell the House how optimistic he is, on a scale of one to 10, that the deployment will take place in Darfur before the genocide of Darfureans has been completed?
The hon. Gentleman has been passionate about this matter for a long time, and he will know that I am an optimist—one cannot be Minister for the Middle East without being that. There have been rather more encouraging moves in the past couple of months, and I very much hope that they will result in some progress towards what he accurately describes as a situation in which the peace is guarded. We can negotiate from now until the end of the century but, as the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) noted, there need to be effective troops on the ground who are able to discipline both state representatives and rebels. Both sides must be part of the peace process, or else it will not succeed.
Remembrance Service (Cenotaph)
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no discussions with representatives of the overseas territories on arrangements for the service of remembrance at the Cenotaph. He lays a wreath on behalf of all the overseas territories at the service, and there are currently no plans to change that arrangement.
I think that my hon. Friend will accept that the Foreign Secretary has not served in any wars, and that we should allow the London representatives of the overseas territories to alternate the wreath-laying duties between them. Their people fought in the war, and it is to them that the wreath pays tribute. I am sure that the ego of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is not so great that he will refuse to give up the wreath-laying duties to representatives of the overseas territories.
My hon. Friend is perhaps the greatest champion in this place of the rights of the overseas territories, in particular Gibraltar. We value the strong relations between Her Majesty’s Government, Her Majesty the Queen and the overseas territories, whose representatives are regularly invited to events hosted by Her Majesty and her Government. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, with whom I often agree, but we have no plan to change the current arrangements at the Cenotaph.
I support the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) in his question, so will the Minister confirm that the Cenotaph commemorates all people from the Commonwealth and the empire as was who lost their lives not only in world wars but in more recent conflicts? As this year is the 25th anniversary of the Falklands war, is not it time that the Minister had a word with his ministerial colleagues so that people from the island of St. Helena were awarded the south Atlantic medal, which has, so far, been denied them?
I will of course bring the hon. Gentleman’s comments to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence. I do not wish to upset him by championing the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for the overseas territories, because the hon. Gentleman has a proud record in that matter, too. The current arrangements provide the correct balance: the central involvement of Her Majesty the Queen, the respect and honour shown in the act of national commemoration and the role played by the Foreign Secretary in laying a wreath on behalf of the overseas territories. We think that is the correct balance.
Iraq
Our locally employed Iraqi staff have made an invaluable contribution, in very difficult circumstances, to the work of Her Majesty’s Government in Iraq, and we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out in his written statements of 9 and 30 October our new policy of assistance to Iraqi staff. Eligible staff are now able to apply for assistance and a number have already done so.
What will the Government do to assist civilians whose lives will be at risk at the end of their duties to the UK? Will the Minister ensure that they are not left behind when our troops return home?
I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that everyone who meets the criteria will be properly looked after and their cases properly assessed.
How many Iraqi interpreters or civilians assisting the Government and our forces abroad have been granted leave to enter the United Kingdom since the Foreign Secretary’s welcome statement of 9 October? Will the Minister confirm that if anyone is refused admission they will have the right of appeal and that they will not need to travel to Syria or other countries to make an application?
So far, we have received 281 requests via the dedicated Foreign and Commonwealth Office e-mail address and about 10 postal applications. Of those, 181 were from former Ministry of Defence staff and eight were from former Department for International Development staff. Thirty-three forms were incomplete, or the applicants did not appear to have worked for a Department, 36 requests were from former FCO staff, including 10 who probably qualify for assistance, and another 23 are being assessed. I am sure that appeals will be made in the usual way through the immigration appeal tribunal.
Does the Minister agree that when foreign nationals are employed in any capacity it would be helpful if the terms and conditions of their employment were made clear from the outset?
Yes, that would make our job a lot easier than it is at the moment.
Palestine
As I said in my written ministerial statement this morning, I have returned from the region today more convinced than ever that there is an opportunity for progress towards a two-state solution. The Annapolis meeting later this month and the process that will follow need the support of the whole international community. As the Prime Minister said last week, we intend to make up to $500 million available over the next three years for economic reconstruction in the occupied Palestinian territories and on Sunday I saw in Jericho the basis for the additional £1.2 million for the EU police training mission in the west bank.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. In light of Israel’s declaration of Gaza as a hostile entity, will he confirm that the Government view any collective punishment of Gazans, in particular the cutting of water supplies, as a war crime under the Geneva convention?
As the Secretary of State for International Development and I made clear when the announcement was made, we always oppose any form of collective punishment. It is vital that all states adhere to international and humanitarian law. I assure my hon. Friend that in, I think, all my meetings in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories over the past three days, the humanitarian situation in Gaza in the short term, and the political situation in the longer term, have been a feature of the discussions.
Any possibility of a settlement for the Palestinians has been made immensely more difficult by the building of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. It is a breach of the fourth Geneva convention and has been opposed by successive British Governments. However, there is a report in The Jerusalem Post that the Foreign Secretary visited one of those illegal settlements. Plainly, it would be a manifest stupidity for someone in his position to have done that. Will he take the opportunity to tell the House that he did not visit one of the settlements and that the Government’s position on Israeli settlement-building in occupied territory remains what it has always been?
Of course I am happy to make that clear. I visited Jericho and the EU police training centre there. I am certainly happy to make it clear that, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, successive British Governments have made their position on this issue clear, and there is certainly no change on the basis of any report in The Jerusalem Post or elsewhere.
While the Foreign Secretary was on his way to Jericho, did he not see the cranes and bulldozers expanding the settlements at Ma’ale Adumim, on Palestinian land, which is doing more than anything else to strengthen the position of extremists and to undermine moderate Palestinian positions, because it is in defiance not only of international law, the Geneva convention and UN resolutions, but the Oslo accords and the road map?
I did see those settlements. I also had a briefing from the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which monitors these issues extremely carefully. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is very important that the settlement process that has been started is brought to a close. In that context, however, it is important for the House to recognise the statement made by Prime Minister Olmert yesterday, after his Cabinet meeting. He said, as a confidence-building measure in advance of the Annapolis meeting next week, that he was committed and that it was the position of his Government to fulfil their responsibilities under the first phase of the road map—which is precisely to cease settlement activity.
In the past year, there have been well over 1,000 identified rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza. Thirteen Israeli citizens have been killed and 317 wounded. What are the Government doing to prevent the proliferation of missiles in the Gaza strip, which are the cause of unacceptable daily attacks on Israeli citizens?
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. Obviously arms smuggling into Gaza is a major concern of the Israeli Government. I discussed that in detail with the Israeli Foreign Minister and was then able to take up the issue that she raised with the Egyptian authorities—the Egyptian Foreign Minister and others—whom I met yesterday. I know that the hon. Gentleman studies this issue and he is absolutely right to raise the matter of rocket attacks. He mentioned the figure of 1,000 attacks. The House should be in no doubt that such attacks have continued right over the summer and continue to the present day. I know that it is of major concern to the Israeli Government—rightly—but it should be of concern to everybody.
Can the Foreign Secretary indicate what assurances President Abbas was able to give that he would be able to fulfil the first requirement of the road map—to dismantle the apparatus of terror?
I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that President Abbas was absolutely unstinting in his commitment to fulfil Palestinian obligations in respect of building a viable Palestinian state not just in economic terms, but in security terms—in relation to both the security of its own people and the security of Israeli people. The issue of the link to Gaza and the representative nature of President Abbas—as a representative of all Palestinian people—is vital. I am sure that the whole House will have seen the scenes last week of hundreds of thousands of Gazans demonstrating and then six of them being killed by Hamas thugs. That is an important issue that of course needs to be addressed in any long-term settlement.
Does the Foreign Secretary believe, before Annapolis, that it is possible to make genuine progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state without the consent and participation of representatives of all the Palestinian people?
There are two parts to that question. First, before Annapolis, the best that we can do is maximise the consensus that exists between both sides and launch negotiations for the first time in many years. The process of negotiation has been in deep freeze.
Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers obliquely to the position of Hamas. President Abbas is the elected leader of all the Palestinian people. It is for him to lead any process towards reconciliation across the divide that now exists between Gaza and the west bank. My impression is that much of the activity undertaken by Hamas since the coup in June has shown its true nature, not just to the wider world, but to the Palestinian people.
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his visit to the region in the past few days and on his attempts to promote dialogue between Israel and Palestine? I welcome the points that he made about the need for economic development in the Palestinian territories, but can he reassure me that something will be done about the 563 restrictions on movement and access? If something is not done about them, any chance of Palestinian economic development or statehood will be a pipe dream.
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will have noted the announcement made by Defence Minister Barak yesterday that between 20 and 30 checkpoints are being taken away—a start to the process that my hon. Friend describes. He will also know that Jon Cunliffe and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, in his previous capacity at the Treasury, produced a Government publication on the economic road map to peace. It makes very clear the links between economic development, improvements in security and tackling the checkpoints issue in the west bank.
May I express the Opposition’s support both for the Foreign Secretary’s work over the past few days and for his hopes for the Annapolis conference? Everybody in the House will want that conference to succeed. I put it to him that if we are to take a real step towards reconciliation in the middle east, it will require from Annapolis not just a statement with plenty of warm words, but a plan for practical steps on the ground, involving some painful decisions by both sides to start to rebuild trust that has been badly damaged in recent years. How confident is he that there is sufficient agreement, at least about an indicative timetable for such practical steps, so that the conference can be the success that we wish it to be?
I am happy to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Annapolis needs to set out the consensus that exists between the parties, including, critically, on the shared goal of a two-state solution—a viable Palestinian state living alongside a secure Israel. He did not specifically mention this, but it also needs to launch a negotiating process, the absence of which has been terrible for the political horizon that is necessary if we are to make practical measures really bite. He is right to say that practical, economic and security measures matter. I referred in my answer to what the UK Government hope to do. The work for Tony Blair as the Quartet representative is important, too. On timing, there is a short-term need for progress on practical measures, but the House will recognise that we need a timetable, or at least some sense of the timing, for the negotiating process. The emerging consensus that next year is absolutely critical to making substantial progress can give the process the spur that it desperately needs.
Pakistan
All friends of Pakistan will share the Government’s grave concern about the state of emergency in Pakistan. We have strongly urged General Musharraf to restore the constitution immediately and to ensure that free and fair elections take place by mid-January. My hon. Friend will have seen yesterday’s announcement that the elections will take place on 8 January. Democratic values and the rule of law are our best allies against the extremism that threatens both Pakistan and this country.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response. Does he intend to raise the issue of Pakistan at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, and will he continue to do all that is in his power, together with international partners, to ensure that the elections on 8 January are free, fair and properly observed? Will he continue to press General Musharraf to stand down as head of the army?
Certainly. I should have said in my answer that the meeting of the Commonwealth is particularly well timed. I shall be heading for Kampala tonight, and the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministers action group on Thursday morning will have Pakistan right at the top of its agenda. I am happy to confirm that it remains the strong position of the Government not just that General Musharraf must resign as head of the army, but that political prisoners must be released and that media restrictions and the state of emergency must also be lifted.
Is it the Foreign Secretary’s assessment that General Musharraf will still be in power in three months?
It is probably wise not to get into the prediction business in any political system, perhaps especially in respect of Pakistan and some of the other issues that we have spoken about, notably Kosovo. It is clear that there is unanimity across the international community about what General Musharraf needs to do. The best ally of stability in Pakistan is an extension of democracy, which is vital for the country and for the region.
Can my right hon. Friend give the House an update on the welfare of Imran Khan, the international cricketer? He is the chancellor of Bradford university and I have been asked by the university to raise the question. I have spoken to Maleeha Lodhi, the high commissioner, twice. She can tell me only that he is in prison and on hunger strike. Is there anything further that my right hon. Friend can tell the House?
I am happy to confirm that our officials are trying to make contact with Imran Khan or his colleagues and associates. We have all seen the news about his proposed or actual hunger strike. The most important thing to say is that he, like all political prisoners, should be released as soon as possible. If the story that was running on the wires this morning about 3,000 political prisoners being released is translated into action, we will all welcome that, but it must be a step towards all political prisoners being released.
The continuing state of emergency in Pakistan raises serious questions about the Pakistan Government’s ability to maintain security throughout Pakistan and, in particular, in the volatile and largely ungoverned border areas with Afghanistan. Almost three weeks ago the Foreign Secretary said in his statement:
“It would be wrong to say that we have seen any short-term spillover of the situation in Pakistan into the border area.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 134.]
Is that still the case? Has any increase in cross-border incidents been reported by British commanders in Afghanistan? Is he confident that British forces are adequately equipped and protected to deal with their mission?
Yes, that remains the case, but the challenge for British forces in Afghanistan along the 2,600 km border remains a severe one. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that there has been no change in the reports to us about the situation in the federally administered tribal areas.
Zimbabwe
Under the misrule of President Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s catastrophic decline continues. We have made it clear that no senior Minister will attend an EU-Africa summit in December if President Mugabe is there. We are supporting those working for democratic change. We are supporting African efforts, through President Mbeki, to resolve the crisis, and we are supporting, with humanitarian aid, the millions of Zimbabweans in desperate need of assistance.
What recent discussions has the Minister had with senior representatives in the South African Government to persuade them to fulfil their responsibilities, as the main power in the region, to apply far more pressure on the Mugabe regime to change its ways?
We have held many discussions on the matter with senior leaders in southern Africa. The hon. Gentleman is right. The thrust of his question is the key one: what are neighbours doing about putting pressure on President Mugabe? It is only the truth to say that unless they pressurise President Mugabe much, much more than they have done, he will not relinquish his position. He could even win the next election, and the misery of the Zimbabwean people could continue for a very long time.
I am encouraged by the Minister’s reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). While it is important to bring pressure on Mr. Mugabe through African states, particularly South Africa, what new initiative might the Government seek to bring forward as a result of the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference that is taking place in a few days? Could we not use the influence of a country of growing influence—that is, India—and that of other Commonwealth countries to exert pressure to bring democracy, peace and genuine stability and improvement to Zimbabwe?
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is travelling to Kampala this evening, and I know that he will attempt to use every meeting that he has on the margins of that conference to raise the subject and to urge other nations to start to apply pressure on President Mugabe. The hon. Gentleman knows that as Zimbabwe is not a member of the Commonwealth at the moment, it is not on the formal agenda. I wish that it was.
US Missile Defence
The UK contributes to the US missile defence system through our operation of the radar at RAF Fylingdales, the data relay station at RAF Menwith Hill and our well-established technical co-operation programmes.
In February, the then Prime Minister promised a debate in the House on the UK’s involvement in the US missile defence system. However, the Secretary of State for Defence later turned down such a debate in a letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). Does the Minister agree that a full parliamentary debate will be necessary before the United Kingdom takes any further steps in support of yet another controversial, unilateral and highly dangerous United States policy?
There has been no official request from the USA; as the hon. Gentleman knows, such issues are for the usual channels. There is a genuine issue about how the international community, particularly Europe, deals with the potential threat to the UK and Europe from a rogue state firing a missile across Europe. That is why we have given our support to the proposals at the moment in respect of the capacity of the deployment in both Poland and the Czech Republic. That is an important part of the wider defence of both the United Kingdom and Europe and against the potential firing of a missile by a rogue state, and particularly from one in the middle east.
Is the Minister aware that the programme has already cost the US more than $100 billion, yet its technology is unproven and does not work? The programme is designed to guard against an unforeseen future threat, yet it is destabilising Europe now. Is it not the most dangerous and expensive white elephant in history? How much will it cost British taxpayers?
With respect, I think that that is an absolutely ridiculous assessment of the situation. The fact is that there is the potential threat of a rogue state attacking Europe, in the future, by the use of such missiles. It would be irresponsible in the extreme if we were not to, yes, participate with the United States, yes, have discussions with Poland and the Czech Republic, and yes—and importantly—have them with our NATO allies and friends about how best to protect ourselves and our European neighbours from a potential attack from a rogue and dangerously evolving threat.
Topical Questions
I have just returned from the middle east, where I spoke to Israelis, Palestinians and Egyptians about the contribution that the UK can make to progress towards a lasting two-state solution. Tomorrow, I will join Her Majesty the Queen, the Prime Minister and other ministerial colleagues for the state visit to Uganda and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings, whose agenda will focus on climate change, international development, education and the situation in Pakistan.
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the positive cross-party and Government work done on anti-Semitism in this country. He will also be aware that anti-Semitism is not just a British problem but one that is growing across the European Union. Will he be prepared to consider how he can best raise the matter with ministerial colleagues from other European countries?
I certainly will. I can also say that when I recently met representatives of American Jewish groups in New York, they said that they recognised last year’s parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism as an absolute landmark—not only in this country, but globally—for the sort of investigation and vigilance that are so important. I am happy to ensure that all EU colleagues know of the work done by that cross-party parliamentary group and to look at ways in which we can follow it up. I know that my hon. Friend and colleagues recently met my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. We will certainly be happy to take the issue forward in any sensible way.
On Wednesday, the Foreign Secretary circulated a speech in which he called for the creation of an EU military capabilities charter. On Thursday, when he delivered the speech, all references to this had been removed, apparently by the Prime Minister. Is the Foreign Secretary in favour of a military capabilities charter, or not?
I can only think that the right hon. Gentleman did not read the speech that I put out on Thursday. If he looks at the section on defence, he will see that it says, first, that we need to enhance the capabilities of European nations in respect of defence issues; secondly, that we need to co-ordinate them better so that when we work with NATO we do so in a sensible way; and thirdly, that we need to ensure that European forces are used in a preventive way. That seems to me to be an utterly sensible thing to do.
I think that that roughly translates as, “Not any more”, and that the Foreign Secretary was muzzled by the Prime Minister, which at least gives him something that he can recommend to his wise eminence, Lord Malloch-Brown, from time to time. Instead of unseemly accusations of disloyalty and destabilising each other being flung between No. 10 and the Foreign Office in the weekend press, is it not vital that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary make a joint effort on many of the issues facing the nation? For instance, will they, in the coming days, seek to ensure as a matter of urgency that a senior single co-ordinating figure is appointed in Afghanistan for the international aid and reconstruction effort so that tactical successes there do not turn into strategic failure?
As the Prime Minister said in his statement last week, we are certainly committed to improving the co-ordination of forces in Afghanistan; in fact, that idea is being developed actively at the moment and will come to fruition. However, I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that this time last week he set out in the Queen’s Speech debate the new Conservative policy on the European treaty, and within one hour his own leader had rubbished his statement. [Interruption.] Oh yes—I look forward to discussing it with him. On this side of the House, we agree our speeches in advance rather than having to correct them afterwards.
Last night, I was rung by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has recently been in Lebanon. The impending crisis four days before the election of a new president is a very serious concern, not least given the dangers that it poses to the wider middle east peace process. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue. On Sunday night in Jerusalem, I met my colleague, the French Foreign Minister, who was going back to Beirut for the second time in a week to try to work on the issue. I assure my hon. Friend that, with our ambassador there, we are working on it too.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is very disappointing that the OSCE observer mission has not been able to take up its opportunity to visit Russia to act as independent and impartial technical observers of the Duma elections. It is clear that the democratic space in Russia has shrunk over recent years. The space for civic society and the media to operate freely has decreased. We will continue to press for a modern Russia that conforms to modern democratic international norms, which would involve full access for the OSCE without inhibitions being put in place by the Russian authorities.
I am happy to address that point, but for the record, I said that we have to back up the high representative’s authority. We are not making proposals to enhance it, as the hon. Gentleman puts it. The best thing that we can do is undertake practical projects such as police reform. That is a major issue in Bosnia, and it is sensible to take such action before a crisis rather than afterwards.
My hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on that issue in general, and on the specific issue of attacks on women in that country. I can confirm that we are working with all international partners to ensure that our aid policies are targeted at the right people and that they support the right rather than the wrong actions.
Perhaps my hon. Friend is referring to the need for economic reconstruction in Zimbabwe. That is impossible while President Mugabe is pursuing completely wrong-headed policies that have plunged the country into the chaos of 8,000 per cent. and now 14,000 per cent. inflation. I can confirm that as soon as there is a sensible Government in Zimbabwe, we will want to work with them not just on economic issues, but on broader social and political reconstruction.
This issue is sub judice at the moment, and it is therefore very difficult to comment on it. In general, I can say that, across the House, we deplore any terrorist activities by any organisation.
It is a silly proposal, and we will not be supporting it.
I will certainly look into the legal issue that my hon. Friend raises, but the basic humanitarian issue, which is the need for the people in Gaza to be able to keep body and soul together, is essential and is at the forefront of our minds in discussions throughout the EU and in the region.
Will the Foreign Secretary take every opportunity that Kampala offers to talk to African Heads of Government and to persuade them of what an appalling regime Mugabe is running in Zimbabwe? It is far, far worse than anything that exists in Pakistan.
There is no question about that; I am happy to provide that confirmation to the hon. Gentleman. I am confident that I will go there with the unanimous view of the House that the situation in Zimbabwe is not just an appalling tragedy, but a preventable one. President Mugabe’s role in that affair needs to be at the forefront of our minds.
Veterans of the Malaysia campaign are allowed to accept the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal, but not wear it on public occasions such as Remembrance Sunday. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has responsibility in this area, does he agree that the decision of the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals is unjust, and will he intervene to overturn it?
I am happy to take up the issue that my right hon. Friend raises. Granting the medal was an important step forward, which has been widely welcomed. However, I shall certainly look into the matter.
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of my correspondence with the Department about the case of my constituent, Grace Ciliberto, whose son was abducted to Dubai, despite being the ward of an English court. Although I accept that normal consular advice was given, will the Foreign Secretary explain why no top level diplomatic contact has been made with the Dubai authorities to get Mrs. Ciliberto’s son returned to this country? Will he meet me to discuss the matter?
It would be wrong to discuss the details of an individual case on the Floor of the House, but I—or one of my hon. Friends—will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to go through them.
What assistance is my right hon. Friend giving to Bangladesh to cope with the flooding disaster?
I am sure that all hon. Members viewed the situation in Bangladesh with horror. The matter obviously falls to the Department for International Development and its emergency relief contingency plans. However, I am happy to write to my hon. Friend and place in the Library clear details of the way in which the UK Government are responding. I assure him that, on a diplomatic level, we are in touch with the caretaker Government in Bangladesh to ensure that everything possible is being done to support them.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I think that the last thing the House wants at the moment is a point of order.