1. When he next expects to meet his EU counterparts to discuss EU relations with Zimbabwe. (311313)

Zimbabwe will be considered by EU Foreign Ministers during the course of February, and I look forward to having discussions then. The UK and the EU are strong supporters of the global political agreement—the GPA—and we will continue to press for progress. We welcome the recent agreement of the GPA signatories to establish key commissions, and we urge implementation of that agreement.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that reply. Does he agree that, although the economic news coming out of Zimbabwe is now more promising, there are still huge concerns about human rights abuses and about the detention of Movement for Democratic Change MPs such as Roy Bennett? Does he also agree that the existing sanctions should not be lifted until those issues have been dealt with?

Yes, I agree that numerous aspects of the situation in Zimbabwe are of deep concern. It is right to say that, over the past year, the economic situation has changed in a quite fundamental way, although it is not quite right to refer to the detention of Roy Bennett as a continued threat to him through a legal case.

In respect of sanctions, we have made it clear that they can be lifted only in a calibrated way, as progress is made. That is something that we will discuss. I do not think that it is right to say that the choice is between lifting all sanctions and lifting none at all. We have to calibrate our response to the progress on the ground, and, above all, to be guided by what the MDC says to us about the conditions under which it is working and leading the country.

Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that President Zuma of South Africa has not challenged Mugabe and the MDC fully to carry out the terms of the global political agreement? He seems continually to be urging compromise on the MDC.

President Zuma is playing a careful hand, and he is playing it rather skilfully. The Prime Minister was able to discuss Zimbabwe, among other things, with him at the Commonwealth conference in November. President Zuma will be making a state visit to the UK in early March, and I have had discussions with my South African opposite number. The position of the South Africans has certainly been to urge adherence to the global political agreement, which requires compromise on all sides, and I do not think that they have been less than even-handed in the way in which they have done that.

Should not all European Union Governments recognise that Morgan Tsvangirai was right to enter into a coalition with Robert Mugabe, if there was to be a prospect of peaceful change? Is it not worth remembering that even Nelson Mandela entered into a coalition with the white South African National party, and that Solidarity in Poland entered into a coalition with the communists? They all recognised that change has to be gradual if it is to have any chance of producing peaceful stability.

No European country, to my knowledge, has condemned Mr. Tsvangirai for the move that he made. I am not sure what the implication of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question was, but I hope that it was not to question the fact that this is a transitional agreement whose conclusion will be a proper democratic election that respects the will of the Zimbabwean people. There was a hint in what he was saying that there is perhaps—to echo the term used by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—rather more compromise with Robert Mugabe than the mood of the House would wish. Mr. Tsvangirai’s position has been well established, however: he has shown himself to be a man not only of principle but of competence, and we should support him strongly.

There is one EU member country that has a very direct effect on Zimbabwe, through the Kimberley diamond certification process. Belgium is a member of that process. Will the Foreign Secretary speak to his Belgian counterpart about the human rights abuses in the diamond mines in Zimbabwe, and discuss whether it would be right to threaten suspension of the Kimberley process in order to ensure that the human rights of people working in the diamond mines are protected?

As it happens, I now have another new Belgian opposite number in the new Belgian Government. I spoke to him at the end of last week. I will be happy to talk to him about a range of issues, including Zimbabwe, when I next meet him.

The Foreign Secretary has talked about specific EU targeted sanctions, and said that they should be calibrated. Will he explain which of the current EU sanctions are really having an effect and encouraging ZANU-PF to move towards removing the human rights abuses that have been in place for so long?

The hon. Gentleman will know that a range of EU sanctions is in place. Some of them refer to individuals, others to so-called parastatal organisations. Different sanctions have been brought in at different points, and different sanctions are the responsibility of different ministries in the Zimbabwean system. Some are controlled by the MDC. I would be happy to give the hon. Gentleman a more detailed answer, but I think that it might detain the House beyond the time available for the question. I believe that EU sanctions have helped to send a strong message, and that they have had a practical effect without hurting the Zimbabwean people, which would have been a sanction too far.

2. What his most recent assessment is of progress towards peace in the middle east; and if he will make a statement. (311314)

There is a huge degree of concern in the middle east and around the world at the deadlock in the drive for a credible route to a credible state for the Palestinians, enabling them to live alongside a secure Israel. The UK shares this concern and therefore strongly supports the efforts of Senator Mitchell to establish such a process with such a goal.

Does the Foreign Secretary share my horror that the rocket attacks from Gaza against Israel continue unabated? Will he tell us what the Government are doing to put pressure on the Palestinian authorities to end this outrage and what they are doing to jump start the peace process with Senator Mitchell via the European Union?

I am happy to share with the hon. Gentleman a condemnation of rocket attacks, although I think he has to be very careful indeed before he puts those rocket attacks at the door of the Palestinian Authority, which he sought to do. As he will know, the rocket attacks come from Gaza, and the tragedy of the Palestinians is that the Palestinian Authority does not have control over Gaza. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not want to send a message from the House that there is condemnation of President Abbas or Prime Minister Fayyad—who, frankly, offer the best hope for the Palestinians—rather than of Hamas, which is sending the rockets.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I returned yesterday from leading a delegation of 60 European parliamentarians from 13 countries, including 11 from this Parliament, to Gaza where we saw for ourselves the appalling destruction inflicted on civilian life by the Israelis. We visited a United Nations school where dozens of people seeking refuge were killed or maimed and heard from children how they saw their parents being killed before their eyes. When is action going to be taken to lift this illegal siege and bring justice to the Palestinians?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the other side of the coin to the rocket attacks from Gaza is the siege of Gaza. The flow of humanitarian aid has proceeded from a trickle after the Gaza war to a rather larger number of lorries and a greater volume of aid getting through, but he is also right to say that the current levels of aid going in are below what the United Nations says is the minimum necessary to establish decent life in Gaza, never mind to improve or reconstruct the situation. He will know that resolution 1860, passed by the United Nations Security Council about a year ago under British sponsorship, calls both for an end to arms smuggling and the firing of rockets and for the lifting of the blockade on Gaza. It is important to say that that applies from the Egyptian as well as the Israeli side.

Particularly as the Egyptians tighten the border around Rafah, what is the Foreign Secretary’s understanding of the responsibilities of the Israelis under the Geneva convention towards Gaza as an occupied territory?

I am not going to give the hon. Gentleman a legal answer, but a political one. The responsibilities of both the Israeli Government and the Egyptians are laid out very clearly in UN Security Council resolution 1860. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who has responsibility for the middle east, was in Cairo last week. It is important to send a message of support for President Mubarak’s recent meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Egyptian effort to play a positive role in restarting the peace talks is something that I welcomed in private discussion with Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit last week and the whole House should support it more generally.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that Tzipi Livni, a strong supporter of the two-state solution, is unable to visit this country to discuss the way through to peace, providing justice for both Israelis and Palestinians, for fear of arrest? When is action going to be taken to stop this deplorable state of affairs?

It is very important that this country, as a permanent member of the Security Council, is able to talk to all leaders from around the world who are involved in conflicts and disputes, including those from Israel, including Mrs. Livni. That is not in contradiction to our determination to uphold our responsibilities for so-called universal jurisdiction; it is a cross-party consensus in the House that we must be the people who uphold international law on war crimes, which we did in 2005 in respect of an Afghan warlord. We do ourselves no good by preventing ourselves from having a serious discussion with the Israeli Government or the Israeli opposition on these important issues.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we will not get peace or reconciliation in the middle east unless the people of Gaza can see some hope not only of reconstruction, but of a normal life in the future? To that end, what representations has he been making to the Governments of Egypt and Israel about reopening the crossing points further, and about whether an international presence on the ground might be needed as part of any agreement?

This issue is raised by the Prime Minister, myself and the International Development Secretary in all our contacts with both the Israeli Government and the Egyptians. The hon. Gentleman is right to point, as have other hon. Members, to the fact that Gaza has to be part of the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It cannot be left until last. However, the Palestinian divisions do neither them nor the prospects of peace any good.

The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Gaza issue has become tied up with the question of the continued detention of Corporal Shalit. This is a further complication, and it is in everybody’s interests both that Corporal Shalit is released as soon as possible and that the Israeli Government and the Egyptians honour their responsibilities as enunciated in resolution 1860 as soon as possible.

Did my right hon. Friend see last night’s “Panorama” report, which sketched very graphically the systematic dispossession and expropriation of Palestinian properties in East Jerusalem? It appears to many of us that Israel feels it can do this without consequence, even though the international community may express displeasure. Will he say what the consequences for Israel could be if it continues with that illegal policy?

I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I did not watch last night’s “Panorama” programme as I was otherwise occupied. The point he makes is important, however, because, as we know, Jerusalem is the tinderbox to beat all tinderboxes, and the process of evictions in East Jerusalem—never mind the settlement building—is a direct threat to the achievement of the sort of peace and stability that would be vital for any peace talks to make progress. It is important that the international community does express displeasure—to repeat the word my hon. Friend used—and it is also very important that all sides honour the commitments required of them under United Nations and other resolutions.

3. What support his Department provides to British citizens who are victims of crime abroad. (311315)

The support we provide to British citizens who are victims of crime abroad varies enormously from person to person. It might include the following: giving general information about local police and legal procedures; giving details of local lawyers, doctors, hospitals and translators; contacting relatives or friends; or providing specific help if a British national has suffered rape or serious assault, or is in hospital.

Mark Aveyard died tragically in suspicious circumstances in Gran Canaria, and there is clear evidence that the Spanish police have not properly investigated his death. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff’s response to the grieving family was to say, “Go and find yourself a Spanish lawyer.” I am afraid that that was not an acceptable response in helping a family whose son may have been the victim of a serious crime abroad. Will the Minister meet me and the family to discuss this very serious case?

Of course I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and the family. He and I have already exchanged several letters on the issue, and I send my condolences to the family of Mr. Aveyard. This must be particularly distressing for a family in a country where they do not fully understand the legal system or speak the language. However, the difficulty for the Foreign Office and consular staff is that, as I think the hon. Gentleman will accept, it is not possible for them to provide legal advice, and often the most important piece of advice we can give is to make sure that people have access to a lawyer who speaks English.

On crime abroad, Google last week identified e-mail accounts that had been hacked into by people based in China. Hillary Clinton has said this is so serious that she has raised it with the Chinese. Does the Foreign Office intend to do the same, and what reassurance can the Minister give the Foreign Office staff who use the Microsoft browsers about which the Germans and the French have said, “Please don’t use”?

I am not quite sure what this has got to do with British citizens abroad, but my hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right to say that we should take up every instance of human rights abuses in China with the Chinese authorities, and we do so constantly. A vital element of the free society that we aspire to for China is free access to the internet and the ability to live without censorship.

4. What his latest assessment is of the political situation in Iran; and if he will make a statement. (311316)

The Iranian Government continue to face protests from their own people following the disputed elections in June. The abuse of the human rights of demonstrators has fuelled concern in the country. The Iranian Government’s problems are exacerbated by a poor economic situation of their own making. Attempts to blame the United Kingdom for any of the post-election disturbances are not only wrong but an insult to the intelligence of the Iranian people.

I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will accept that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terror against British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq as a result of its supplying explosively formed penetrators to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. If that is the case, what are the British Government trying to do to stop the supply of these weapons and funds to Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that in a wide range of countries there is evidence of Iranian support for terrorist groups. However, I do not think one should believe that the sum of the problems in Afghanistan is down to the Iranian Government. Iran has a border with Afghanistan, it has to deal with a range of problems that are exported from Afghanistan to Iran and it has a range of links with a variety of groups in Afghanistan. In many of our debates about Afghanistan we have talked about the importance of engagement with its neighbours, but I do not think that that particular neighbour is the primary source of the problem in Afghanistan, however much it has failed to play the sort of constructive role across the country that is important. One final point that should not be forgotten is that in the west of Afghanistan—in provinces such as Herat—the Iranian influence is strong but the situation is relatively peaceful.

In the context of Iran’s nuclear power, be it civil or for weapons, have we made any progress in persuading Moscow that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be much more immediately threatening to the Russians than it would be to us in western Europe?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. All the members of the E3 plus 3—the European three plus America, China and Russia—oppose the development of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme. All of us support an Iranian civilian nuclear programme, as long as we can be sure that it is not leaking into a military programme. That applies as much to the Russian authorities, for the obvious reasons that he points out, as it does to the other members of the E3 plus 3 and the rest of the United Nations Security Council. After all, on five occasions the Security Council has said to the Iranian regime that it needs to take action to comply with its international obligations and on three occasions it has imposed sanctions towards that end.

Earlier this month, Secretary Clinton said:

“Our goal is to pressure the Iranian Government, without contributing to the suffering of ordinary Iranians”.

It thus seems clear that the Obama Administration are not going gung-ho for a new round or an early escalation of major new economic sanctions. Do the Government also see a danger in additional early economic sanctions, in that they might serve to bolster President Ahmadinejad against the growing green movement? Might it be better to push harder with the engagement strategy and limit any future sanctions to targeted, smart sanctions against the main figures of the regime in Tehran?

Nobody is in favour of dumb sanctions; smart sanctions are obviously better than dumb ones. Sanctions need to be properly directed towards the objectives on which they are designed to have an effect. The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent the American position. The choice that he poses between imposing sanctions and hurting the Iranian people or doing nothing does not appear to be the right approach. There is a wide range of agreement on our need to explore the whole range of sanctions opportunities, because over the past three months Iran has made it clear that it is not willing to have the intensive dialogue with the international community that was called for and it has not given a positive response on the so-called Tehran research reactor deal, which would be one way of building confidence with the international community.

Will the Foreign Secretary be a little clearer on the Government’s thinking on the type of sanctions that they wish to see? What weight do the Government put on the views of the opposition to the Tehran regime when they consider this matter? How does he assess the risk that major new economic sanctions across the board might assist Iran’s Supreme Leader and President in resisting the internal opposition that they face?

Tempting as it is to give a public commentary on the sort of sanctions that are being developed, it would not be wise to do so. Let me give the hon. Gentleman one obvious example: when one is considering financial sanctions, it does not make sense to give six, eight or 10 weeks’ notice to some of the entities that might be involved of the sort of financial sanctions that might be coming in. For obvious reasons, we have to make this a process that is conducted in private. However, I am telling the hon. Gentleman that we believe that financial sanctions, to take one example, have an important role to play in exerting pressure at the appropriate points in the regime and not affecting the Iranian people.

Is it not true that the Iranian regime rejected a visit of Members of the European Parliament recently for fear that they might meet opposition politicians in Iran? [Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend extend an invitation to opposition members in Iran to visit Britain to visit him as Foreign Secretary and will he offer the opportunity to Members of this Parliament to meet them?

I did not know about the visit by the European Parliament. In contrast to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I think that it is a good thing that the European Parliament takes an interest. He will also be pleased to know that the EU has imposed tougher sanctions on Iran than those mandated by the UN Security Council. That is one further example of the way in which Europe can play a constructive role.

I know what my right hon. Friend is saying about the importance of understanding the position of the Iranian opposition. Given the incessant attempts of the Iranian regime to brand the opposition as British or western stooges, we have to be very careful about how we engage with them. It is absolutely clear that this is an indigenous movement led by patriotic Iranians who want to see their society change. It is not the plaything of the international community.

Order. The comprehensiveness of the exchanges is in many ways illuminating and useful to the House, but I must emphasise that there are a lot of questions that we need to get through and that we must make somewhat sharper progress.

Further to the exchange between the Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), will the Foreign Secretary agree that smart sanctions that hurt the interests of the Iranian Government but not the ordinary people of Iran might include—these are things that one can talk about in advance—a ban on arms sales to Iran, a tough United Nations weapons shipping inspections regime and action against the interests of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Will he say whether these are sanctions that the British Government will be in favour of, notwithstanding the objections of the hon. Gentleman on the Bench next door?

In the interests of a short answer, there is already an EU arms embargo that the Government were happy to vote for. That is a pretty clear indication that we consider that to be a worthwhile effort.

I was referring to what might happen at the United Nations. On that matter, does the Foreign Secretary agree that we have now reached a position where stronger sanctions from the UN on Iran are justified and necessary? Is it true that the lack of agreement at the UN Security Council means that there is now little prospect of a further UN resolution on this matter for several months? Do the British Government find that acceptable, and what action will they be taking to try to speed up the process?

Yes and no, Mr. Speaker. If you will permit me to give a slightly longer answer, yes, it is correct that the failure of the Iranian Government to give any kind of positive response to the suggestion of more talks to discuss their nuclear programme or former director general el-Baradei’s proposal for a Tehran research reactor means that we have to consider a sanctions package, but, no, it is not right to say that there is no prospect of achieving that for several months. I think that it will take some time, but I do not believe that this can, should or will be punted into the long grass.

5. What recent steps he has taken to encourage the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. (311317)

We continue to call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. The Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and I have discussed her situation with Burma’s neighbours and the UN Secretary-General. We have made it clear that the elections cannot be credible if political prisoners are not free and able to engage in an inclusive process.

While the world watches, Aung San Suu Kyi’s appeal against her sentence is in its final stages. Can the Minister indicate what real chance there is that she will be released? What intelligence does he have on the situation?

I say to my hon. Friend that the charges were trumped up and the trial was bogus. In any decent, objective, reasonable criminal justice system, they would have been thrown out, Aung San Suu Kyi would have been acquitted and we could have moved on. The reality is that we are not very optimistic about the regime and its behaviour towards Aung San Suu Kyi or the other 2,100 political prisoners.

6. What steps he plans to take to seek to ensure that the 2010 election in Burma is fair. (311318)

We have maintained international pressure on the Burmese regime. We have lobbied China, India and Association of South East Nations members to recognise that only free and fair elections will lead to a stable and secure Burma. We support the UN Secretary-General’s continued engagement. Tough EU sanctions will remain in place in the absence of any progress.

Can the Minister give us an idea of whether any independent election monitoring teams will be allowed in to observe the elections?

I am afraid to say that we have no expectation that international observers will be allowed to observe the election. It must be clear that without the release of political prisoners and a commitment to an inclusive process in respect of opposition and ethnic groups, the forthcoming elections in Burma will not be recognised by the international community—indeed, they will be entirely illegitimate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do we expect openness, transparency and people to be able to watch the election, but more importantly, we expect the democratic result to be accepted and the military junta not to interfere in the end result?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is only one difficulty: the constitution that underpins the election is deeply flawed. It is designed to perpetuate military rule in Burma. It is therefore important that there is no interference in the elections. As long as the elections are contested on the current constitution, whatever the outcome they cannot be recognised by the international community.

Do we not have to be realistic and realise that the elections will inevitably not be fair and democratic, but that they nevertheless present a real challenge for democracy campaigners within Burma? Will the Minister take his lead from the democracy movement, in particular the NLD, in determining the approach that is to be taken by this country in relation to the conduct and the outcome of the elections?

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. It is not for us to determine the decision by the opposition parties whether to participate in the forthcoming elections. It is equally important that the entire international community gives a united response to any election outcome. If there were any suggestion that some members of the international community attempted in any way to legitimise that outcome, that would be very dangerous in terms of strengthening the regime. What we seek to achieve is maximum unity of response on the basis that the election will be fought on a flawed constitution.

7. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on progress on reform of the EU budget; and if he will make a statement. (311319)

Reform of the EU budget was last discussed at the December European Council. Heads of Government called on the Commission to produce a report in order for the Council to lay out its priorities during 2010. The Government remain committed to far-reaching reform of the EU budget.

When Tony Blair abolished Margaret Thatcher’s rebate, we were promised significant reform of the EU budget and of the common agricultural policy, instead of which Britain’s membership fee for the European Union has more than doubled, there is no significant reform to the common agricultural policy, and EU accounts remain dodgy at best. Is this not another broken promise by a failed Labour Government?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about broken promises, he should speak to the leader of his own party. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is pretty depressed by the end of the cast-iron guarantee, but he should not mischaracterise what happened. The abatement still exists. It is worth billions of pounds for the UK. We, however, not only willed the end—namely, the enlargement of the European Union—but we were also prepared to will the means, by being prepared to pay an element of the advantage that other countries coming into the EU would provide to the UK in the form of trade and jobs.

When can citizens of the United Kingdom expect to see a reasonable and fair deal for membership of the European Union?

I think that all citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland get a very good deal out of the EU. It guarantees jobs, and more than 50 per cent. of this country’s trade is wholly dependent on our membership of the EU. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take Britain out of the EU, he should table a motion. [Interruption.]

Order. I know that the Minister for Europe has the effect of winding up Opposition Members, but they must do their best to contain themselves.

8. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Cyprus. (311320)

Last week’s talks in Cyprus were a positive start to intensified negotiations. The Prime Minister has spoken, I think, to both leaders this week. We remain a keen supporter of the Cyprus settlement process and continue to believe that it presents a unique opportunity to solve this historic and difficult problem.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that there are hundreds of Greek Cypriots in my constituency who will welcome the talks continuing. However, one thing to be regarded as a success in Cyprus is the Committee on Missing Persons, which is bi-communal. It has been supported by significant funding from across the international community, and has been hugely successful—indeed, only last year one of my constituents, Andrew Michael, was able to find closure when he went to the island to bury his father, who had been missing. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give me an assurance that the funding for this important project—from both the UK and the international community—will continue?

I visited Cyprus last year. When I was there, I met the people who run the Committee on Missing Persons. The important forensic work that they do is very moving, and my hon. Friend is right to say that it gives people an opportunity to find closure through knowing what happened many years ago.

I am aware of the significant financial needs that committee members think that they will have in the next couple of years. We will work with them to make sure that those needs are met.

In fairness, the Minister sometimes winds his own side up too.

The Minister will be aware that elections are due in northern Cyprus in April, and that not all the candidates are fully behind the current talks process, so there is a danger that the window for achieving a lasting settlement is beginning to close. Given that, what more can Britain do to encourage all the parties, including the Turkish Government, to demonstrate greater flexibility, so that this truly important opportunity to achieve a lasting settlement for Cyprus is not lost?

I am grateful for the ringing endorsement from the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that this is a very important moment. The two leaders have known each other for many years, and both have staked their political careers on trying to come to a resolution of a situation on the island that feels both tragic and morally indefensible. I was in Istanbul this weekend, when I spoke to Egemen Bagis and argued with him about the need for Turkey to implement the Ankara protocol, to which it has already signed up. It is clearly important that we do our job of work in persuading both Greek and Turkish counterparts to do their fair share, but the proposal that we have put on the table is that 50 per cent. of the land currently in UK sovereign bases will be made available to a united island, once there is a resolution.

9. What his most recent assessment is of the state of relations between the UK and Iran. (311321)

10. What his most recent assessment is of the state of relations between the UK and Iran. (311322)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) is learning the art of asking questions. We will give him a lot of practice for many years to come, I think.

Iran continues to refuse to engage in a constructive manner with the international community. We have been ceaseless in seeking better relations with Iran, and the E3 plus 3 group has made a serious offer for widespread co-operation on the basis of international rules. Despite this, Iran refuses to heed five UN Security Council resolutions, continues to deny its own citizens’ human rights, and supports armed groups in the region.

Unlike the Foreign Secretary, I do not take six hours to answer the important questions.

On Saturday, the Chinese effectively kicked into the long grass the effort by the E3 plus 3 to impose a new round of sanctions when they sent a junior delegate to the meeting in the UN. Given that China has faced two ways on arms sales, oil imports and now on sanctions on Iran, is it not about time that the countries that want to try and resolve the issues to do with Iran seek more imaginative options? Will the Secretary of State let the House know what other options he may consider?

I counsel the hon. Gentleman very strongly not to fall for the propaganda that says that the E3 plus 3 has failed to come to a united position; the truth is the opposite. All six countries agreed that now was the time to assess which sanction options were the right ones to implement. It may comfort President Ahmadinejad to dwell on who attended for the Chinese at the meeting on Saturday, but the Chinese commitment and representation was absolutely clear. At no stage was there any suggestion from them that they want either to opt out of the E3 plus 3 unity or to deny the progress that needs to be made. Iran is isolated on this issue, not China or the United Kingdom, and we should stick to that position.

Last month the Iranians successfully test fired a new long-range missile capable of hitting targets in Israel and United States bases in the middle east. That, combined with their nuclear programme, is a very frightening nexus, indeed. Are we not sleepwalking towards a major war in the middle east? What steps can the Government take to avoid that?

It is important that we are clear about the dangers posed by the Iranian’s nuclear programme and their other activities in the region. Equally, we must not talk ourselves into—the hon. Gentleman used the word “war”, which is a very dangerous word to use, especially in the middle east. It is quite the wrong time to believe that diplomacy cannot resolve the issue. It is clearly in the interests of the Iranian people to seek proper relations on the basis of international rules with the international community, and that is why we are absolutely committed to the diplomatic track and believe that it can work. The truth is that the Iranian people do not have an argument with the rest of us, and we must make sure that we do not start one.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether the E3 plus 3 group has discussed the Russian proposal to enrich uranium? Does he think that there is any mileage in it, and is it something that the Iranians may well bend to as negotiations continue?

We certainly have. It is a very important proposal, which former director el-Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency tabled, but the Iranians have not given a positive response. Their reply, which is not in writing and, even at that, has not been formally tabled, does not accept the simple point that the IAEA-Russian proposal makes, which is, “The Iranians say that they have only civilian use for the low-enriched uranium; here is a way in which it can be enriched for medical purposes and returned to Iran for those purposes.” Nothing would more clearly demonstrate to the wider world that Iran is serious, but it has not taken that opportunity.

I hope that my right hon. Friend does not flinch from those criticisms of Britain’s involvement in Iran. I would be very proud if the United Kingdom was on the side of the great Persian nation, its culture and the green revolution of young people as they march to overthrow those ayatollahs and their tyrants. Is this not a case whereby so-called soft power has to work? Will he talk to other Departments and other Governments to see what we can do to encourage the people of Iran, like the people of Poland in 1980 and the people of South Africa, to overthrow that tyranny and install democracy?

I think that I am right in saying that on 70 occasions over the past few years the Government have raised human rights issues. Given that the Iranian Government say that they want to give us a slap in the mouth for the vehemence with which we have expressed our opinions, no one can say that the Government have been soft or recalcitrant in putting forward those views.

11. What recent reports he has received on the Viva Palestina convoy to Gaza; and if he will make a statement. (311323)

The Government remained in close contact with the convoy organisers and the Egyptian Government. The Government’s clear advice is against all travel to Gaza. We set that out to the Viva Palestina convoy organisers, and we provided appropriate consular assistance to all the convoy members who requested it.

I thank the Minister for that, but, given that it is now 12 months since the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that convoys and aid can reach the stricken people of Palestine?

The Foreign Secretary made it absolutely clear that, at every opportunity, Britain makes it clear that it is Israel’s responsibility—and, indeed, Egypt’s responsibility—to remove all obstacles to humanitarian assistance. Since the conflict in Gaza, the United Kingdom has made unprecedented resources available in terms of humanitarian assistance and reconstruction through international development assistance and aid. Alongside that, we have made it very clear that we call on Hamas to do everything to stop the rocket attacks that have recently restarted against Israel, and to release Gilad Shalit as a matter of urgency.

In view of the destruction that Gaza suffered last year, and arising from previous answers by the Foreign Secretary, is my hon. Friend aware that it would be wrong and harmful to Britain’s reputation if the law here on suspected war criminals were changed in order to protect former Israeli Ministers or, indeed, former Ministers anywhere, and does he agree that the law should remain as it is?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it very clear that we will uphold our international obligations in terms of those accused of war crimes. However, Israel is an important strategic partner and a close friend of the United Kingdom. If we are to bring peace to the middle east and make a significant contribution to kick-starting the beginning of a political process that will lead to the two-state solution, which all Members of this House fundamentally believe in, it cannot be right that leaders of Israel are unable to enter this country because of what we believe to be an unintended consequence of the universal jurisdiction laws.

12. What recent steps his Department has taken to seek to resolve the conflict in Yemen; and if he will make a statement. (311324)

13. What steps the Government are taking to seek to resolve the conflict in Yemen. (311325)

The root causes of conflict in Yemen are a lack of governance and of delivery of services by the state. The UK strategy is to tackle these causes in co-operation with the international community. The meeting in London on 27 January is part of that wider strategy, and it will seek to help the international community to co-ordinate both its response to these issues and support for the efforts of the Government of Yemen.

Given how important next week’s meeting will be, can my hon. Friend outline the objectives that he hopes will be met in order to solve not only the problems of Yemen but the problems that Yemen causes for so many other countries?

My hon. Friend asks absolutely the right question. Last year, the United Kingdom signed up to a cross-Government strategy that dealt with the issues of security, more effective governance and economic and social development in Yemen, and those will be the focus of the meeting in London. We want to get the international community to come together and support the Government of Yemen in relation to those challenges. Ultimately, social and economic progress are the best ways of guaranteeing security and stability in Yemen.

Does my hon. Friend see the problems in Yemen as exactly analogous to those in Afghanistan? If he does, what kind of intervention by the international community is needed?

We do not see the challenges that we face in Yemen and in Afghanistan as being the same. In Yemen, while there is a very fragile state and Government, there is a functioning Government. It is very important that we do everything that we can at this early stage—surely the lesson from Afghanistan and, indeed, from Iraq, is early intervention—to support the Government of Yemen in relation to the economic and social challenges that they face, because, as I said earlier, that will be the ultimate difference that will lead to greater security and stability in Yemen and minimise the threat to the international community.

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. (311338)

No one in this House can fail to be moved by the plight of the Haitian people today. It is a human tragedy of enormous proportions, with more than 50,000 confirmed dead and 3 million in need of assistance—fully one third of the total population of that country. The UK Government have so far pledged £20 million, and the British public almost the same. UK search and rescue experts are working alongside teams from 27 countries. Yesterday, the EU pledged more than €345 million. An increasing amount of aid is reaching those who need it—a huge task given the extent of the damage to the limited infrastructure of Haiti. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, the Prime Minister and I are working closely with the UN, whose lead co-ordinating effort is vital, and with key partners—above all, the US and Canada—to ensure that all necessary steps are taken for the effective delivery of aid.

I declare an interest in relation to a recent visit to Iraq supported by the Kurdistan regional government.

The forthcoming Iraqi elections are an important step in the development of Iraq, but so is the development of trade links. Will my hon. Friend agree to organise the first UK trade mission to Kurdistan, Iraq’s safest and most open region, to support its future development?

I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend for her long-standing interest in Kurdistan. Before Christmas I visited Iraq, and I went to Baghdad, Basra and Erbil. There is absolutely no doubt that there is a tremendous appetite for a much closer business and trading relationship and a normalisation of the economic relationship between Kurdistan and the United Kingdom, and I will certainly look into her specific proposal.

T3. On 1 December, the Foreign Secretary said that he would follow up the issue of the 8,000 desks provided by the United Nations for schoolchildren in Gaza that cannot be assembled because Israel will not let in the screws and brackets. Could he kindly tell the House what follow-up action he has taken since then? (311340)

I cannot, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as we get an answer. I asked for the issue to be followed up, and I will certainly write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

T2. While I am sure you have received a blizzard of congratulations on your birthday today, Mr. Speaker, may I add my voice, particularly as I believe you share this glorious anniversary with three Conservative Members of Parliament and, possibly even more felicitously, with Dolly Parton?May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe what assessment he has made of the European arrest warrant as a counter-terrorism measure? (311339)

Happy birthday, Mr. Speaker—I hope that that does not wind you up.

My hon. Friend makes a serious point about the European arrest warrant, which is one of the most important crime prevention tools that we have in Europe. It proved vital following the 21 July attempted bombings, when we had to secure the arrest of a citizen in Italy. The only sadness is that the Conservative party does not support it.

T4. On 3 January the Prime Minister announced with great fanfare the conference on Yemen, and this afternoon the Minister of State has given its importance further billing. However, we discovered in a written answer yesterday that the conference is likely to last two hours. Has the announcement been over-sexed just a little bit? (311341)

My felicitations as well on your birthday, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it was the mention of Dolly Parton that excited the hon. Gentleman.

The meeting on Yemen will bring together 21 countries including the United Kingdom. It will be a serious look at the security, economic and political issues in that country, and I hope that it will also lead to more cohesive international engagement with Yemen. The hon. Gentleman should welcome the meeting, as it will make a useful contribution to a dangerous situation.

T5. I declare my interest in respect of Yemen and welcome the conference. However, what is the rationale behind the Department for Transport suspending direct flights between Sana’a and London? Surely this is the time when we should be engaging with the Yemeni Government and people, not isolating them by preventing them from flying direct to London. (311342)

I would lead a chorus of “For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow”, Mr. Speaker, if it would guarantee unanimous support from the Opposition.

My right hon. Friend raises an important issue, but the first responsibility of any Government is the security of its citizens. The Department for Transport has very good information that suggests that in that context, at the moment it is in the best interests of Yemen and of the UK for those flights to be suspended. However, I want to make it very clear that representatives of the British Government are currently in Yemen supporting the Yemeni Government and advising them about how they can enhance security measures at their airport to ensure that those flights can be resumed in future. Once we have a report back from that visit, we will be able to make decisions.

I support what the Foreign Secretary said about the plight of the people of Haiti and the efforts made to alleviate it.

Does the Foreign Secretary share our concern about recent developments in Iraq involving the disqualification from the forthcoming elections of large numbers of Sunni candidates on the grounds of their former membership of the Ba’ath party, possibly even including the current Defence Minister, who became a strong opponent of the Saddam regime? Would it not be deeply disturbing and dangerous if Iraq’s politics became once again more sharply sectarian? The United States is very active in trying to change that situation. Can the Foreign Secretary say what representations the British Government have made, and what representations they will be making, to the Iraqi Government?

It has been a foundation of UK policy in Iraq over successive years to argue the case that Iraq needs to establish itself as a pluralist democracy in the middle east. It is very important that the sectarian potential of that country does not become the basis on which politics is organised.

We view with genuine concern any attempt to restrict the candidates in the forthcoming March elections. In that context, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), was in Iraq just before Christmas and was able to discuss directly with Prime Minister Maliki the importance of opening up the democratic process. A very large number of candidates are putting themselves forward for election; as far as we are concerned, it should be as large as possible.

Many innocent families were forced off their properties during the 1974 occupation of northern Cyprus. Therefore, does my hon. Friend agree that any peace process must allow those people to go back to their legally owned homes or to get compensation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one of the key issues is going to be property. That is why we support a whole-package solution to Cyprus. In the end, the solution must not be dreamed up in Ankara, Athens or London; it must be a resolution of the two sides, which everybody in Cyprus can then vote for. The decision of the Court of Appeal today in the Orams case is going to provoke quite a lot of soul searching over the days to come.

T6. Following the election of the new President in Croatia and the successful resolution of a territorial dispute with Slovenia, will the Foreign Secretary accept that there is no need for any further delay in Croatia becoming a member of the European Union, and will he and his fellow Foreign Ministers use their best offices to ensure that that happens as quickly as possible? (311343)

We welcome the election of the new Croatian President, although I hope that on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that he slightly misspoke. There is a major outstanding issue before membership of the European Union, namely full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in respect of the situation in the 1990s. I spoke to the Croatian Foreign Minister last week and said that the UK would not block the opening of chapter 23, which is an important chapter in the renegotiations, but I emphasised to him that while we welcome what the Croatian Prime Minister has done in terms of setting up a taskforce to find the important lost documents that are at the heart of ICTY co-operation, it remains the responsibility of the Croatian authorities to pursue this case to the end.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman recognises that that sort of conditionality is an important part of becoming a functioning member of the European Union. May I make this point, Mr. Speaker, because I think it important? The Croatian Foreign Minister said that he agreed with that approach, because he is helping to drive a process of reform in Croatia so that it can come to terms with its own past. That requires the sort of openness and transparency that is at the heart of the EU accession process.

Order. It goes without saying that all the Foreign Secretary’s points are important to the House, but we must try to make a bit of progress.

The Foreign Secretary today repeated that the UK Government favour sanctions against Iran because that country might be trying to develop nuclear weapons. However, the UK Government do not support sanctions against the state of Israel, which already has nuclear weapons. Will he please explain that contradiction?

I do not think that that is a contradiction because, first of all, we are clear that the possession of nuclear weapons by any state in the middle east is not a contribution towards peace in that region. That is why we have long supported a middle east that is free of nuclear weapons. Secondly, Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. I would have liked to see Israel itself sign the NPT a long time ago, but it did not do so. Thirdly, it is very clear in the Arab world that although the Israeli programme may be viewed with disdain, it has not been the basis for mass proliferation in the middle east. The danger of the Iranian programme is that it will be the basis for precisely that sort of proliferation right across the Arab world.

The three Baha’is detained in Tehran and the one detained in the town of Semnan turn out to be relatives of the seven Baha’i leaders whose trial commenced on 12 January. Is the Foreign Secretary willing to meet me and a delegation of UK Baha’is to hear our concerns about the arrests and the trial? We also encourage him to seek assurances of fairness and justice from Tehran.

We are very concerned about the situation facing the Baha’i community, and I personally agree with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I am more than happy to meet him and a delegation as soon as possible.

May I take my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary back to the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), which contained a huge non sequitur? If my right hon. Friend is condemning Iran, as I would, for developing nuclear weapons, why cannot he—in the same unequivocal terms—condemn Israel for holding and developing nuclear weapons? There is an obvious danger of proliferation in the region simply because there are nuclear weapons there and, therefore, an implied threat.

We do clearly say that that policy of a middle east free of nuclear weapons is the right vision for the future. Equally, I think that it is right to recognise that the development of the Iranian programme is of concern not just in Israel, but right across the Arab world. Now, it is absolutely clear that if the Iranians do go ahead and develop a nuclear weapons capability, the chances of Israel disarming are zero, and that is why the immediate challenge that we face does relate to the Iranian programme. That is why it is very important to stop the rot in the NPT before it gets any deeper.

T7. I listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary’s answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). He agreed, I think, that leaders of Israel should be able to come to the United Kingdom without fear of arrest. What I did not hear in his answer was the steps that the British Government will take to ensure that that can happen. (311344)

The issue arises in respect of an anomaly in English law with respect to the taking out of arrest warrants on the basis of so-called prima facie evidence—a different test than is required for prosecution. So under English law, arrest warrants can be issued even when there is no chance of a prosecution taking place. The Government are looking at ways to remedy that anomaly, but it is important that we do so in a way that preserves our commitments to pursue war crimes and allows private individuals to make representations in such cases. When we have been through all the legal aspects, we will come forward to the House with an answer.

The Government have sought to reassure concerned Members about the EU negotiations on the free trade treaty with Colombia. That has been reassuring, but will the Minister raise the case of Liliana Obando, a human rights campaigner who, to use the words that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) used earlier, is facing trumped-up charges and a bogus trial for her human rights activities?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. We will indeed do so. The human rights situation in Colombia is a matter of significant concern to us, with the number of trade unionists and others murdered every year. We need to ensure that if we move forward with a trade deal with Colombia and Peru, it contains robust and enforceable human rights clauses.

T8. Last year, the Government changed their long-standing position on the status of Tibet to recognise Chinese sovereignty, despite the fact that it has no historical basis. The Chinese secured a major diplomatic victory as a consequence, but the Government said at the time that the decision would enable progress in Tibet. Can the Minister point to one single concrete achievement for Tibet that has resulted from that badly judged decision? (311345)

I can; I was the first British Minister ever to be allowed to visit Tibet.

Did my right hon. Friend hear the comments by Khalil al-Hayya yesterday in which he roundly rejected the Egyptian proposals for reconciliation on the Egyptian border with Gaza? Does not that clearly indicate the responsibility that Hamas carries for the suffering of its own people?

My right hon. Friend is right that Hamas bears a strong responsibility for seeking reconciliation on a basis that would allow the Palestinian people to find a way to achieve the state that should be their right, but is not yet their reality. Hamas bears a heavy responsibility in that area. Given that the whole Arab world has endorsed the Arab peace initiative, the question is why Hamas has not, and that question needs to be repeated again and again.

After the last demonstrations in Iran, hundreds of political prisoners are languishing in jail, some being tortured and 17 facing the death penalty. I do not think that Iran cares a stuff about having good relations with the UK, but can the Foreign Secretary use his influence with the international community to protect the lives of these innocent political prisoners?

It is a tragedy that Amnesty International has said that the human rights situation in Iran is the worst for 20 years. That is a blot on the copybook of a civilised and historic nation that deserves a civilised regime. I believe that it is not in Iran’s interest to be isolated, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that Iran does not care at all about its isolation. However, the people on the streets of Iran deserve our admiration for their determination to stand up patriotically for what their revolution was all about—serving the interests of the people in the Islamic republic.

Will my right hon. Friend now relinquish his duty of laying a wreath at the cenotaph and ensure that the overseas territories lay their own wreath? That decision has been deferred for a long time. Can it now be taken—yes or no?

It has not been possible to secure unanimity on that decision, so we have no plans, I am afraid, to bring it forward this year.

T9. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on Haiti, but may I ask whether we are using all our assets? The Type 23 frigate, HMS Iron Duke, is in the Caribbean but not being utilised. Our military stabilisation and security teams, which performed so admirably after the Indonesian earthquake, remain to be dispatched to Haiti. Will he consider those assets? (311346)

Unlike the situation in Indonesia, Haiti’s Government have been all but eradicated. The Ministry of Defence has certainly looked at the use of all its assets as part of the international effort under UN leadership, and we will continue to consider any way in which we can make a difference in Haiti.

The President of the European Union Council, Mr. Van Rompuy, has been in London today. Will the Foreign Secretary inform the House on whether he stopped the traffic?

As it happens, I was not listening to Capital Radio at 8.30 am, when the Council President’s motorcade—for I assume that it was a motorcade—went through London. However, I know that he was delighted to meet the Cabinet after his meeting with the Prime Minister this morning, and that he and the Prime Minister set out a very ambitious agenda for European growth and jobs that will support the efforts being made in this country to ensure that the fragile recovery is turned into strong and robust growth.

T10. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how many powers have been handed from the European Union back down to national Parliaments since the principle of subsidiarity was recognised under European Community law by the Maastricht treaty? In the same time, how many powers have gone from national Parliaments up to the EU? (311347)

One of the most important powers that Parliament now has, following the Lisbon treaty, which the hon. Gentleman opposed, is the power to say no to legislation proposed by the Commission. I would have thought that he would support that—it is one of the reasons why I would have thought that he would support the Lisbon treaty—but if he wants to remain on the extremist wing of Europe, he should feel free to remain there.

Even without the nuclear question, Iran remains a malevolent, oppressive and destabilising influence in Latin America, the horn of Africa, central Europe and Lebanon. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Government of India to try to convince Iran to understand the will of the international community?

I was pleased to meet my Indian opposite number at the G8 meeting and then at the Commonwealth conference. It is important to recognise that when the IAEA voted recently on a resolution on the Iranian nuclear programme, India supported the majority position—I think that 22 of the 25 countries supported it. That is an important step forward, and I was pleased that it did so.

With the terrible events in Haiti, and as we look forward to its reconstruction, can the USA’s blockade or embargo of Cuba be helpful to regional prosperity, including in Cuba’s near neighbour, Haiti, in the years to come?

We have long opposed the blockade of Cuba. We think that it is inappropriate and does not encourage Cuba to open its society and economy. We think that it is wholly misguided, as we regularly tell our American counterparts.

Over a number of years the Foreign Office has been complicit with the Government of the Republic of Turkey in denying the Armenian genocide of 1915. In the dying months of this Administration, is the Foreign Secretary happy that this situation should prevail?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has happily deferred to me to answer this question.

He doesn’t know!

I do.

My hon. Friend says that he knows the answer, but he did not spring to his feet. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) will know that it has been the long-standing position of the British Government, as articulated both publicly and privately in Turkey, that there should be a proper historical investigation into those events that has the confidence of both sides. However, he should recognise that the recent opening of closer relations between Turkey and Armenia is a significant step forward. As it happens, last Tuesday, when the Turkish Foreign Minister was here, was also the day when those talks took a further step forward beyond so-called football diplomacy and into real diplomacy. That is something that we should welcome and congratulate both sides on.

I am glad that the House is in such an ebullient and, on the whole, good-natured mood. As usual, I have tried to practise the maximum inclusivity and have done my best to be accommodating, but from now, if we are going to get everybody in, we will need pithier questions and pithier answers.

rose—

We will shortly move on to the ten-minute rule motion, but I hear a chorus of points of order on its way.