1. What recent discussions he has had in the General Affairs Council on measures to improve UK energy security. (319382)

There have been regular discussions of energy security at a wide range of Council meetings, both formally and informally. We wholeheartedly support a robust united European position on energy security and a liberalised energy market.

Has my hon. Friend given any thought to having discussions with his European counterparts about the development of a European super-grid, which would enable us to transfer excess energy from one country to another and thus to make better use of renewables and to use less carbon-producing fuels?

My hon. Friend has laid out all the key issues that we need to address in bringing forward a united position on energy security throughout Europe. The third internal market package, which was brought together last year, lays out a series of ways in which different regulatory authorities can co-operate and ensures that there is some funding available to enable greater transfer of energy supplies from one country to another, and that will help, but in the end we must have a wholly liberalised energy market in the European Union, so that it is not rigged in its relationship to countries such as Russia.

Is there not concern that we have paid a high price for being the first to liberalise, while the rest of Europe has not liberalised? It is important to have a level playing field. Given that Ofgem’s Project Discovery report is beginning to suggest that we need to row back from the completely open market in this country, where are we in trying to equalise the playing field between the UK and the rest of Europe ?

We need to ensure that there is a level playing field so that British people can own energy companies in Germany, Spain and France, just as people from those countries can own energy countries in the UK. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society are fully protected throughout the EU, especially in parts that sometimes have much more dramatic energy needs than we do, particularly in winter. The third internal market package makes specific provision for that.

2. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Yemen; and if he will make a statement. (319383)

The recent ceasefire in northern Yemen offers hope for a longer-term, political settlement between the rebels and the Government. However, tensions continue to run high in the south. Yemen also faces a growing terrorist threat. The London meeting of 27 January galvanised international support for the Government of Yemen's reform efforts, which are essential to address Yemen's challenges and ensure its long-term stability.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can he tell the House the outcome of the Gulf Co-operation Council meeting held in Riyadh last month? Can he elucidate the current position on Yemen?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the key outcomes of the Friends of Yemen meeting in London was that the Gulf Co-operation Council should play a more proactive role in helping economic and other development in Yemen. At the meeting in Riyadh on 27 and 28 February there was agreement not only to a more intensive process of GCC engagement with Yemen for the first time, but to bring forward the aid flows that were promised in the 2006 London conference, which in 90 per cent. or so of cases have not yet been delivered.

Before the usual suspects send foreign troops blundering into a fourth Islamic country, will the Foreign Secretary draw their attention to the fact that the northern frontier of the Yemen is only 360 miles from Mecca, that the two main land routes for pilgrims on the Hajj cross its territory, that thousands of Yemenis fought against the Russians in Afghanistan, and that very large numbers of their offspring work in the oil states of the Gulf?

I am very disappointed to have to agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has spoken with characteristic force but uncharacteristic accuracy in describing all the points. His warnings are well made. I note his commitment in respect of the role that Yemenis play throughout this country, including in South Shields, the historic centre of the Yemeni population in Britain, and I commend him for his views on the topic.

I declare my interest in welcoming the steps that have been taken so far, including the visit to Yemen by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the lobbying of the GCC. Is it not important that we now have a fresh initiative? Given the strong personal relationship between the Secretary of State and Mrs. Clinton—I think that she last described him as “vibrant and attractive”—is it not appropriate for a joint visit to be made to Yemen? The German Foreign Minister has been there. I know that the Secretary of State sent his Minister of State, but a joint initiative between the United States and the UK could help the whole process.

Needless to say I have thought of many places for a joint visit with the Secretary of State and I shall certainly bear in mind the attractions of Yemen. To be serious, the Yemeni Government have taken some important measures since the 27 January meeting. For example, they have reduced fuel subsidies by about 9 per cent., arrested a major alleged arms dealer, removed an allegedly corrupt governor and, of course, brokered the ceasefire with the Houthi rebels. We should support such initiatives and will do so through the sort of visit that my right hon. Friend suggested and in any other way possible.

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Israel on its plans to build a border wall along Israel's frontier with Egypt. (319384)

We are in regular contact with both the Egyptian and Israeli Governments regarding Gaza and related matters. We recognise Israel's right to protect its citizens from acts of violence but make it clear at every opportunity that all measures must be in accordance with international law.

I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to cause grave concern to many, certainly in my constituency. I endorse his words about the security of Israel and acknowledge that the capacity of Hamas to fire rockets into Israel must be stopped, but I would like a reassurance from my hon. Friend that he is doing all he can to persuade Israel and, indeed, Egypt not to forget the people of Gaza who are suffering as a result of the current situation.

The UK and the EU use every opportunity to call on Israel to remove all obstacles to humanitarian assistance getting into Gaza. If we are to secure a mainstream majority for peace, we need to enable Gazans to begin to rebuild their homes, public institutions and businesses. Equally, Hamas must stop rocket attacks against Israel and should release Gilad Shalit without preconditions.

The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) has just asked the Minister to discuss the issues regarding Gaza with Israel and to persuade the Israeli Government, but how can we have proper discussions and a proper search for a peaceful solution with Israel when a leading Israeli political figure is threatened with arrest with a warrant issued by a British court under universal jurisdiction? What are the Government doing to clear away this effort to hamper the search for peace?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. We have made it clear, as have all parties in this House, that the principle of universal jurisdiction must be non-negotiable but that the means by which arrest warrants can be obtained is not acceptable. In this case, leaders from a strategic partner and close friend of Britain have been prevented from entering the United Kingdom. It could of course have the same impact on leaders of other strategic partners and friends of this country. We are seeking a satisfactory remedy that maintains the principle of universal jurisdiction but ends the unintended consequence whereby an arrest warrant can be obtained by individuals in dubious circumstances.

The Minister will be aware that the Foreign Affairs Committee recently visited the west bank. We were not allowed to go to Gaza. We witnessed the creation of settlements that are causing physical apartheid and depriving many Palestinians of access to their land and therefore their livelihood. Exactly what pressure are the Government putting on the Israelis with regard to settlements?

First, we should applaud the improvements that have been made on the west bank in security and economic development as a result of the leadership of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. We should also applaud the removal of some checkpoints by the Israeli Government. Having said that, settlements are both illegal and an obstacle to peace in the middle east. We have constantly called for a total freeze on those settlements. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s partial freeze is an important movement but we believe that settlement expansion is not acceptable in the context of the peace negotiations that we hope are about to get under way.

Is the Minister aware that the blockade of Gaza has already turned a coastal strip into a net importer of fish—just one example of the damage being done to Gazans and to their economy by the blockade? While condemning all the rocket attacks launched from Gaza into Israel, has the Minister conveyed to the Government of Israel that they should be ending the blockade of Gaza, not tightening it still further with the wall? Do the Government oppose the building of the wall?

I think that I have answered the question. I said clearly that the Government at every opportunity make clear directly to Israel and in the context of international institutions that all obstacles to humanitarian assistance and the capacity of the Gazans to begin reconstruction should be removed. We equally make it clear at every opportunity to Hamas that the rocket attacks must stop and that Gilad Shalit should be released.

4. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department’s policies of the outcomes of the London G20 summit. (319385)

In essence, the G20 London summit showed that international economic crises require international remedies in the form of clear and co-ordinated action in all the major economies. It is noticeable that not a single major economy currently believes in making savage cuts now.

Will the Minister expand on that, and tell us whether any countries had been planning for that, and if they were, whether they thought that that was fiscally responsible and their patriotic duty?

My hon. Friend’s comments help to make the very good point that not a single major economy around the world is now proposing to make savage cuts. Indeed, all the major economies in the world, both within the European Union and elsewhere, are talking about how they can make sure that they maintain a level of fiscal stability by maintaining a fiscal stimulus. I would just quote the words of President Obama. He said last April:

“I think that this kind of co-ordination really is historic…I think that’s a testimony to the great work that Gordon Brown did…I’m very proud of what’s been done.”

We will have quite enough time for all these party political shenanigans, so will the Minister just focus on what needs to be done now? He knows that world trade dipped by 12 per cent. last year, which is an absolute disaster, and Pascal Lamy has already said that he believes high unemployment could lead to protectionism. The United States has got “buy American only” clauses in its stimulus package of $780 billion, which is regrettable. Will the Minister use his good offices to promote, and help ensure, world free trade?

The hon. Gentleman makes the very good point that it is important that nowhere in the world resorts to protectionism in this case. That is why the G20 summit last year was particularly successful. Some countries tried to advance significant protectionist measures across the EU, and we were wholeheartedly opposed to that. I should say, however, that this is not just about free trade; it is also about fair trade. That is why we want reform of the common agricultural policy as well.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for meeting members of the UK-India round table last Friday. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the best way of recognising the rise of India and other new economies in the global economy would be to develop a strong permanent secretariat for the G20, and to locate it in New Delhi?

My right hon. Friend makes a good point about the need for a full-time secretariat for the G20, because although there are those who adopt a rather little Englander attitude towards economic problems, around the world there is generally a consensus that big economic problems require big economic solutions. That means much more action on an international basis. I would also say, however, that if Britain is to get the best out of our relationship with India, we need to make sure that the whole of the EU plays a far more co-ordinated role in relation to India, and that requires action that the Conservative party always seems reluctant to take.

The G20 discussed maintaining financial stability, which is an issue for Britain and many other EU countries, not least Greece. Does not their fate show how wise we in Britain were to retain the pound sterling? Why is it still Government policy to consider joining the euro when recent events only reinforce how mistaken that would be?

That question was very wide. I suggest that the Minister be extremely discriminating in the way in which he replies.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on his ingenuity and imagination. In trying to stay within the realms of a discussion of the G20 meeting, I should say that he knows perfectly well that Greece is not a member of the G20, and at the moment I do not foresee any prospect of its joining the G20.

5. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [Official Report, 8 March 2010, Vol. 507, c. 2MC.] (319386)

This is a crucial year for Sudan, with elections due in April and the referendum on self-determination for south Sudan in January 2011. We welcome the recent Darfur framework agreement and ceasefire. We urge all parties to work together to build a peaceful future for Sudan, whatever the referendum result.

The Minister will be aware that following that ceasefire agreement the President of Sudan said Darfur is now at peace. Since then however, the Sudanese military has attacked the Jebel Marra region. What information does the Minister have on that, including on civilian death and displacement, and what representations are his Government making?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue, about which there is serious concern as it continues to destabilise prospects for progress. Our information is that more than 300,000 people have been forced from their homes—more than double the number in 2008. We have urged the Sudanese Government and the UN mission to prioritise the protection of civilians and to support reconciliation. We will argue for that in discussing the renewal of the UN’s mandate in April.

The EUFOR Chad mission in the region is key, and it is supported by more than 2,000 French troops, 500 Irish troops, 400 Poles, 200 Swedes, 160 Austrians and many more. Some in this House are very critical of other countries making small deployments to international operations, so could the Minister confirm whether only four UK service personnel are part of the mission?

It is rather a unique moment when the Scottish National party calls for more British troops to be deployed somewhere in the world—however, this is no place for political knockabout, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said. Let us be clear that the UK contribution to the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur has been more than £100 million. In March 2009, the UK contributed a further £1.85 million in discretionary funding for the training and equipping of a Sierra Leone reconnaissance company to deploy to UNAMID, and we continue to explore all possibilities for further and effective UK support. The UK is doing more than its bit to contribute to the mission.

Will my hon. Friend comment on whether it is possible to strengthen the democratic process across Sudan and on how that is emerging?

My hon. Friend raises the crucial issue. The elections are scheduled for next month, and we have so far pledged £12.5 million towards them. That funding has been focused on technical preparations, civic education and conflict management. We hope that the process will be credible; the voter registration process was conducted largely peacefully. The legal framework for the elections has been approved with a level of consensus, so we hope that they will be another milestone on the way to stability in Sudan.

6. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of co-operation between Government Departments in the formulation of policy on Afghanistan. (319387)

The Prime Minister set out in April 2009 the Government’s strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is a comprehensive approach that draws on the range of security, political and development levers in pursuit of our objectives and those of the international community as a whole. The test of effectiveness is on the ground, and it is widely recognised that the co-operation in the civilian-military mission in Helmand, which is led by the UK, is the best of its kind.

At the London conference, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and for International Development worked very hard to ensure that human rights, particularly women’s rights, were high on the agenda. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what progress has been made to ensure that human rights, and in particular women’s rights, are protected throughout Afghanistan?

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The only basis for guaranteeing human rights is first, decent security, and secondly, the rule of law according to the Afghan constitution. That is why I think that since the London conference the major effort in Helmand province, including in Marjah, has been a significant step towards that goal. However, the strengthening of the constitutional framework at the national level remains a priority for the new Government.

What terms of reference has the Foreign Secretary set for the latest review of the Helmand road map and, crucially, how do they differ from those used two years ago?

I will not try to dictate the terms of reference from memory, but I am happy to set them down and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we continue to support the Afghans in order to improve their Government’s capacity? We are still undertaking a similar process in Iraq, so does he welcome the forthcoming Iraqi elections as the next stage in that?

I certainly welcome the democratic advance in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. I am sure that everyone will recognise the significant role that my right hon. Friend has played in strengthening human rights in Iraq and the example that she has set for our work in Afghanistan too.

Last month, President Karzai signed a decree amending the electoral law to allow him to choose all five members of the Electoral Complaints Commission and exclude the three non-Afghan members. Is the Foreign Secretary not concerned that the impartiality of the commission will now be called into question? It was very important, given the issues that it raised, at the previous elections. Should we not be bringing all pressure to bear on President Karzai, because this is what our troops are fighting for—democracy in Afghanistan?

Yes, I am very concerned, to use the hon. Gentleman’s words, about the perception that might be raised about the impartiality of the Electoral Complaints Commission. The Electoral Complaints Commission, which sits alongside the so-called independent Electoral Commission, played a critical role in rooting out fraud in the presidential elections. The best way of making our views clear is to say the same thing in public as in private, which is that the people who are appointed to the panel will be scrutinised very carefully. If they are not to be internationals, they need to be people of the highest quality and integrity. I certainly hope that President Karzai chooses international representatives precisely to tackle the perception dangers raised by the hon. Gentleman.

8. What recent representations he has received on UK sovereignty over the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. (319390)

Argentina has made a number of recent protests on this issue. The Government have made it clear that we have no doubt about the United Kingdom’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. The principle of self-determination underlies that. There can be no negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless and until such a time as the Falkland islanders so wish it. They have made it clear that they have no such wish.

I thank the Minister for that response. May I ask in what ways the UK Government are supporting companies planning to drill for oil in the seas around the Falklands?

The best way of supporting legal and appropriate economic development around the Falkland Islands is to uphold the rule of international law. That is precisely what we are doing in the case of the hydrocarbons exploration that is going on at the moment. The companies are acting wholly within their rights and within the legality of international law—[Interruption.] I am happy to answer a question from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) if he would like to put it properly rather than from a sedentary position. There is a good answer to his question, if he chooses to ask it, concerning where the proceeds go. The best way to secure such rights is for international law to be upheld.

May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his unequivocal and reassuring response to the original question? Will he tell the House what special action has been taken to ensure that the mistakes of the early 1980s are not repeated and that the Argentines are given no encouragement whatever to think that they can take unprovoked, provocative action against a sovereign country and an independent people?

The most important way in which we can continue to secure the Falkland islanders’ right to determine their own future is to continue the security presence that we have in the area. We do so on a routine and uninterrupted basis, and that is very important. We will continue to maintain in international forums as well as bilaterally with the Argentine Government the importance of upholding international law.

The people of the Falkland Islands have very broad shoulders and they deal with Argentine sabre-rattling with great resilience. They do so because they know that all Members of this House give them our full support. May I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider sending one of his Ministers to the Falkland Islands before the general election so that they know that they have our solidarity and support and our very best wishes may be taken to them?

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that our military capacity and security presence somehow needs the reinforcement of a ministerial flak jacket in the Falkland Islands. My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has been extremely active bilaterally both within the European Union and with other South American countries. It is important that we say that the right of the Falkland Islands to self-determination is absolute while, at the same time, continuing to work for co-operation with the Argentines, for example in the forum of the G20, which is a good forum for international co-operation.

When the Foreign Secretary next meets the Argentine chargé d’affaires, will he perhaps suggest that the development of hydrocarbons around the Falkland Islands could benefit the people of Argentina as well as the people of the Falklands if Argentina were prepared to undertake normal commercial relations with the Falkland Islands, but that on questions of democracy and self-determination we cannot compromise?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not making a suggestion regarding the proceeds from that exploration. Perhaps he is trying to answer the question that the hon. Member for Moray raised earlier. I assure him that I do not have to go to see the Argentine chargé d’affaires, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe met the Argentine chargé on Friday and was able to discuss this issue fully and in the round.

9. If he will discuss with the Government of Bermuda their policy on the prohibition of Buckfast tonic wine. (319391)

I am always happy to discuss any matter with the Government of Bermuda, although the prohibition of Buckfast would be a matter solely for them.

I am very glad to hear that, because Buckfast is a noxious substance that causes tremendous difficulties with antisocial behaviour and crime in my constituency and throughout the west of Scotland. It is very welcome news that Bermuda is considering banning it, and I welcome the fact that the Government will not intervene to prevent the Bermudans from doing so. Will the Minister undertake to give them a warm welcome when the new aircraft carriers visit Bermuda?

My hon. Friend proves that, in the words of Horace Walpole, the anniversary of whose death is today:

“This world is a comedy to those that think, and a tragedy to those that feel.”

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the issues relating to Buckfast. The Government in Bermuda have not made it clear that they want to ban it, but they have made it clear that they are considering the issue. They have already decided to reclassify some other alcoholic and caffeine drinks.

10. What representations he has received on the effects on the indigenous Tibetan population of his Department’s change of policy in relation to the status of Tibet. (319392)

The decision to update our position on Tibet brought the UK into line with international partners, including the United States, and the position of the Dalai Lama himself. It gives us a stronger platform to raise the issues that matter to the people of Tibet, and we have been raising those issues. I have been very clear in my contacts with the Chinese leadership that we have serious concerns with the human rights situation and the lack of meaningful autonomy in Tibet. I have urged them to engage in dialogue, and I will do so again when I visit China later this month.

I am grateful for the response that I have been given, and I recognise that the Government have been doing lobbying of that nature, but I am concerned that there has not been one single concrete achievement for the Tibetan people as a consequence of that change of policy. I do not refer to the visit to Tibet by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), as that was not for the Tibetan people. Can the Foreign Secretary, in all honesty, point to a single thing that has been achieved for the people of Tibet arising from that change?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. In the end, the test is whether there is an improvement in conditions on the ground. If we are to have any kind of engagement on that internal issue, we have to do so through forums such as the human rights dialogue that we have now established with China, in relation to which there has recently been a visit to Tibet. Such engagement is important, and I look forward to reporting back on the discussions that I shall have in China later this month.

Has my right hon. Friend any information about the whereabouts of the Panchen Lama, who was for all practical purposes kidnapped at the age of five or six by the Chinese Government and has not been heard of since, even now, about 15 years later? Has my right hon. Friend ever asked the Chinese about the whereabouts of the Panchen Lama?

Yes; the issue is raised regularly. It was raised most recently by my hon. Friend the Minister of State during his visit to Tibet, but no we have never had an answer.

11. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Iran; and if he will make a statement. (319393)

Iranian authorities continue to suppress legitimate protest, restrict civil liberties and threaten violence, even execution, to silence dissent, but the Iranian people continue to demand their fundamental rights. We urge the authorities to respect the right of their citizens to be heard.

Efforts for peaceful regime change seem to have stalled at the moment, but the Iranian President continues with his development of nuclear weapons and his hatred of Israel. Will the Minister tell the House what specific pressure is being put on the Iranian regime to improve its human rights record?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue at this time. Amnesty International says that it is the worst human rights situation for 20 years. The way in which the Iranian authorities attempted to quell protests during the national day celebrations has rightly been described as

“a chilling campaign of threats and intimidation”.

We, in the context of the European Union and with our allies in the United Nations and the United States, constantly apply pressure to the Iranians about their human rights record and their nuclear file.

Frankly, we have reached out an olive branch to Iran. We have offered a diplomatic and political way forward but, instead of getting a positive response, we have seen a deterioration in internal human rights there. In addition, Iran has not co-operated in meeting its responsibilities under international obligations with regard to its nuclear weapons capacity. That is why we now believe that the only way forward is to consider tougher economic sanctions against Iran.

Has the Minister had any discussions with representatives from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which involves Russia, China, India and Pakistan among others, to see whether it can exert pressure on the Iranians to cease their nuclear installation programme?

We have had those discussions with Russia, but not with the Shanghai organisation to which my hon. Friend refers.

Is the Minister aware that on 14 February, in the presence of representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Iranian authorities transferred almost their total supply of low-enriched uranium from a deeply protected underground facility to a surface plant, for no obvious reason? Does the Foreign Office have a view about why that might have happened, particularly as it makes the country’s very valuable enriched uranium far more vulnerable to possible military action?

This has been discussed in the IAEA only this week. It is a serious escalation of the situation that should give the international community more cause for concern. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is fully aware, it is essential that we achieve international unity over the next stage, which is adopting economic sanctions, especially against the decision makers in the regime. We have seen no attempt by the Iranian authorities to respond positively to our requests for diplomatic and political solutions. The door remains open, but we have no choice now but to consider economic sanctions.

I thank the Minister for what he said about human rights in Iran and I agree with him on that. Will he look forward to the non-proliferation treaty review in May and extend efforts to create a nuclear-free middle east? That would help to defuse the situation and bring Israel into discussions about nuclear disarmament, which in turn would remove any arguments that could be used in favour of developing nuclear weapons in the region.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Every UN resolution on the question of Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity that has been proposed and passed talks about a middle east that is free of nuclear weapons. As a result, it is simply untrue for the Iranians to say, as they sometimes attempt to do, that we are not playing on a level playing field when it comes to our response to their nuclear weapons capacity. We should remember that this is not just about the threat to the stability of the middle east that would be posed by Iran developing nuclear weapons. The arms race that would be triggered in the region would be like nothing we have ever seen before, and that is why it is so crucial that we stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.

At the last Foreign Office questions, the Foreign Secretary assured the House that it would not take “several months” for new UN sanctions on Iran to be agreed. That was in January; it is now March, and the US Secretary of State has said that it may take up to two months more for those sanctions to be agreed. Does he need to modify in any way what Ministers have said about that, and should we not now be galvanised, for some of the reasons that the Minister has set out, into urgently adopting new sanctions? The latest IAEA report says that Iran has amassed a dangerous stockpile of enriched uranium, and that it may be working on a nuclear warhead and have secret nuclear sites.

Modifying statements made by the Foreign Secretary is not a good career move from my point of view—[Interruption.] Not everyone agrees, necessarily. I genuinely think that the right hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement on these issues. Of course speed is important, and it is urgent that we send the strongest possible message to the Iranians, but he would agree that unity matters too. If the Iranians spot any sense of division in the international community, that could undermine the power of our message. It is worth waiting those few extra weeks if it means that we can achieve the maximum international support that we need if we are to take the further economic sanctions that are so crucial.

It is of course vital to have that unity, but there must also be a necessary sense of urgency. Will the Minister set out what the British Government are doing diplomatically to ensure that other nations in Europe and around the world are ready to co-ordinate tighter sanctions, if necessary on top of and in addition to what is agreed eventually at the UN Security Council? That could include action against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, as well as tough financial sanctions and targeted action against the Iranian leadership. Is it not time to step up our diplomatic efforts on this matter, if Iran is to take our resolve seriously?

We are leading the argument at the UN and in the EU. We are using our bilateral relations to encourage countries with influence over less supportive countries to move immediately to sanctions; we are using all those diplomatic channels, from the Prime Minister downwards. As I said, speed matters and the urgency of the message to the Iranian Government is important, but so is maximum international unity if they are to take that message seriously.

The regime is despicable, but why is it so troubling to the United Kingdom that Iran is going nuclear when so many other countries have already done so—for example, India, Pakistan and, of course, Israel? Does that not smack of double standards?

I have a massive amount of respect for my hon. Friend, but he does himself a disservice by sending that kind of message from the House to the Iranian Government. Let me make the position clear. Of course, Iran’s development of nuclear weapons is a threat to stability in the middle east, but it would also trigger an arms race the likes of which we have never seen before among Iran’s neighbours. In a year in which the world is seeking to make progress on non-proliferation in the review of the non-proliferation treaty, this is about the threat that Iran would pose to our national security and that of countries in the region, but it is also about the arms race that it would inevitably trigger.

12. What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on piracy around the coast of Somalia. (319394)

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly discusses piracy off the coast of Somalia in both bilateral and multilateral meetings. Recent discussions took place during the Yemen conference in January and the EU Foreign Ministers meeting in November 2009.

Does the Minister agree that the root cause of that piracy is instability in Somalia and the surrounding countries, so what progress has been made to stabilise them?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that this is a broader question of stability. We have decided, quite rightly, as part of the international community, to support the transitional Government. This issue requires an approach that is about security as well as more inclusive and effective government, and getting the economy and social provision moving in Somalia. Through the Department for International Development, we are applying an integrated approach, bringing together security, improved governance and development, and the international community needs to adopt that approach if we are to bring stability to Somalia.

The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) is absolutely right. Although I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments, the reality is that the world has been very slow to recognise both the seriousness of the vacuum of power in Somalia and the serious threat that that represents to individuals through piracy and to the wider community in east Africa and globally. Is it not time that we said to Washington and to others who are involved that we need to apply proper pressure to build an effective infrastructure in Somalia?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is okay to discuss a joined-up UK approach on security, governance and development, but we need members of the international community to come together in a co-ordinated way. We are working closely with our EU partners and the United Nations, including the special representative of the Secretary-General. This is an issue that is increasingly discussed in the context of our bilateral relationship with the United States.

13. What assessment he has made of the implications of the Argentine Government’s position on oil drilling in the waters around the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. (319395)

Argentina’s reaction to the resumption of hydrocarbons exploration in Falklands waters has not changed the British Government’s position one iota. We have no doubt about Britain’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, nor about the islanders’ full right to develop a hydrocarbons industry.

I am very glad to hear that response. In 2003, we gave unequivocal support to the United States of America on Iraq, and we are now fighting shoulder to shoulder, and our soldiers are dying together, in Afghanistan, yet the US Government are equivocating on the subject. Will the Minister tell me what Hillary Clinton might facilitate when she offers to act as a facilitator?

The US Government’s position, which they have held since 1947, has not changed at all in any recent discussions, and we have made it absolutely clear that we do not believe there is any need for negotiation or discussion, because there is nothing to discuss in terms of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which should be a self-determined issue and solely a self-determined issue. The one point on which we would be prepared to continue negotiations is a return to the 1995 joint declaration on hydrocarbons co-operation from which the Argentines themselves withdrew unilaterally in 1997.

On the question of Afghanistan, the issue surely must be—[Interruption.] I am sorry, we have taken the questions too quickly. My apologies. I was getting up for the question on Afghanistan. I got the wrong question.

I am sorry to have inconvenienced everyone. Let us hear from Mr. Russell.

The Falkland Islands, in the south Atlantic, are very important to Britain’s interests. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that without Ascension Island the Falklands could not be sustained, and that without the people of St. Helena living on the Falklands and Ascension Island the Falklands could not be sustained? Is it not time that Britain looked at the whole south Atlantic as a single strategically important part of the world?

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. and I have had many conversations with the Ministry of Defence about ensuring that it recognises the financial requirements on Ascension. We also have a duty to stand by St. Helena.

14. What recent assessment he has made of the state of relations between the UK and Argentina; and if he will make a statement. (319396)

We have a productive relationship on a range of issues, including in the G20, such as climate change, sustainable development and counter-proliferation. We hope that current tensions over the Falklands will not escalate and undermine our co-operation on other issues.

Argentina today is very different from the Argentina of the early ’80s. It is a wonderful place full of many people who share our values. Does the Minister agree that the Government should reach over the head of Argentina’s rather dysfunctional Government in Buenos Aires to the people of Argentina in order to communicate the fact that this is not a simple, tired, post-colonial issue but is about the islanders’ right of self-determination?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that this is a matter of self-determination for the people of the Falklands. When some people—Argentines—suggest that there are not any indigenous people to the Falklands, I point out that many people from Argentina are of Italian, British, Scottish and German stock, going back fewer generations than the presence on the Falklands Islands. [Hon. Members: “And Welsh.”] For that matter, as several hon. Members are pointing out, many people of Welsh stock live in Patagonia.

I know that the relationships between our two countries are very strong, and there are many areas in which Argentina has been extremely courageous, not least in relation to counter-proliferation. We stand ready to work with it on all those issues, as I pointed out to the chargé d’affaires the other day. It would be good if it had an ambassador back in London.

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. (319407)

On Saturday, Chile was struck by an earthquake of magnitude 8.8 on the Richter scale. My thoughts and, I am sure, those of every Member are with the families of those killed and injured. Currently, there are no confirmed British casualties. We have located more than 270 British nationals and confirmed that they are safe. The Government have made an initial donation of £250,000 to facilitate the work of the Red Cross in Chile, and the European Union has provided an immediate €3 million for the relief effort. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to President Bachelet yesterday to offer further support and condolences on behalf of the whole country.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that update on the situation in Chile.

My right hon. Friend travels the world vigorously promoting the UK’s foreign policy interests. In any of those multilateral and bilateral discussions, which he has had over some years, has it ever been suggested to him that it is unpatriotic of a British Foreign Minister to work for the return of a Labour Government at home?

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. I, like many people, was shocked by the Leader of the Opposition’s suggestion that it was somehow unpatriotic to work for the re-election of a Labour Government—or, for that matter, for any other party. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was showing his inexperience, and I think that he should apologise to all Labour voters in this country.

Ignoring the last remark, may I associate the Opposition fully with what the Foreign Secretary said about the situation in Chile and the action that the Government have taken and endorsed?

On the separate matter of the killing of Mr. al-Mabhouh in Dubai, the Foreign Secretary said to me in a letter last week that

“if the Israelis had been responsible for this, the UK would have the strongest expectations that this would not happen again.”

I think the whole House will back him up in that. However, may I repeat a question that I have now asked Ministers twice? Did he specifically ask his Israeli counterpart for an assurance that Israel will never sanction the misuse of British passports in any future intelligence operation? Will he seek such an assurance, and does he have any expectation of receiving such an assurance?

Of course I make it clear, not just to Israel but to any country, that we have every expectation that no country, especially a friendly one, would interfere with British passports or promote their fraudulent use. I made that clear to the Israeli Foreign Minister, and I do so to anyone else who is considering such a course. The Israeli Foreign Minister insisted to me that he had no information that corroborated allegations of Israeli involvement, but I none the less made clear to him our very strong view that Israel should co-operate with the investigation that has been launched by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and that, as I said clearly in my letter, we had every expectation that if there had been an occurrence such as this, it would never happen again.

T3. My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the situation in Nigeria, where President Yar’Adua had been out of the country for health reasons and then came back without being seen, and the Vice-President had no access to him. Meanwhile, the post-amnesty problem in the Niger delta is getting worse. Will he have a word with the Nigerians to ensure that British citizens working in Nigeria will be protected? (319409)

My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in Nigeria and always tries to be constructive on the issue. Of course, the situation is very difficult. The President has returned to the country and the acting President continues to govern. What is important is that the Government of that country behave in accordance with its constitution and rule of law. We welcome the fact that the acting President has committed to make progress on the Niger delta amnesty programme, electoral reform and addressing corruption. It is obviously important that, at this very delicate time, we try to contribute to securing maximum stability, which will in turn protect British citizens in Nigeria.

What pressure is being brought to bear on the Sri Lankan Government to release, as soon as possible, an estimated 100,000 Tamils who are still being held in internally displaced persons camps 10 months after the fighting ended?

In every conversation that I have with the Sri Lankan Prime Minister, I make the precise point that for the future of Sri Lanka, after the end of a bloody civil war that lasted 26 years and claimed the lives of some 70,000 people, the process of political reconciliation, including constitutional reform, needs to start immediately, but also that there is a short-term, immediate humanitarian issue in respect of the 100,000 or 80,000 IDPs. It is obviously a good step forward that instead of 280,000 or 300,000 IDPs there are 100,000 or 80,000, but the number needs to get down to zero as fast as possible. That is certainly the case that we make publicly and privately in all forums.

T4. Has the Secretary of State visited Cuba recently, and if he has not, does he have any plans to do so? [Interruption.] (319410)

I would be delighted to visit Cuba—and delighted, of course, to go with Mrs. Clinton. My hon. Friend raises an important point, and if I were to go to Cuba, I would insist on meeting the Opposition as well as the Government. That is a common EU position. I am very disappointed that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) went to Cuba without meeting the Opposition. If I went, I certainly would not go on a free flight on Ashcroft airways, and if I ever met Lord Ashcroft, I would want to know what his tax status was. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain that when he—

Order. We do not need to go into that now.

T2. In June last year, I asked the Foreign Secretary about the provision by Britain of military training to the vile Sudanese regime. At the time, he said that he would review the matter and come back to me. Some eight months later, he has not yet done so, so will he kindly give me an update now? (319408)

I am happy to give an update by letter, and I will send the hon. Gentleman a letter as soon as I can.

T8. The Foreign Secretary has told us what the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Liberman, insisted to him. Does he believe Mr. Liberman, and does he expect the House to do so? (319414)

I certainly would not tell the rest of the House what to believe. However, I would say, very seriously, that an investigation is going on. It is right that while allegations fly around, we should wait until the conclusion of our investigation before coming to any conclusions.

T5. Those who visited the excellent exhibition on human trafficking in the Upper Committee corridor last week would have been impressed by the stories of domestics working for embassies, many of whom were treated as domestic slaves. Will the Foreign Office now support the Home Office decision to amend the diplomatic domestic visa, so that those maltreated domestic workers no longer face deportation if they run away from the embassy in which they have been maltreated? (319411)

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I know that he has devoted a considerable part of his political career to addressing that issue, for which I pay tribute to him. One terrible problem faced by people—normally young women, but sometimes young men—in that situation is that they are in a complex double bind: if they try to break free, they will be sent back to the country of origin. We are looking very closely at that situation with the Home Office, and I hope we can provide a satisfactory answer fairly soon.

T9. Will my hon. Friend tell me what steps his Department is taking to promote free and fair elections in Burma later this year? (319415)

Recent events in Burma do not encourage us to believe that the elections will be free and fair. For example, Aung San Suu Kyi faced trumped up charges, a bogus trial, and a sentence that was an offence to any notion of justice, and now her appeal has been thrown out. Of course, we continue to hope that the Burmese authorities will miraculously change their position in the weeks and months ahead, so that the elections will be free and fair, but that will require not only the release of Aung San Suu Kyi but the changing of the constitution and the release of more than 2,000 political prisoners. We continue to hope, but I must say that we are very sceptical about the prospect of those elections being free and fair.

T6. Despite the potentially significant costs to US-China relations, President Obama was none the less happy to meet the Dalai Lama. Why did the Prime Minister refuse to do so? (319412)

The Prime Minister did meet the Dalai Lama.

T10. Co-operation between NATO and the European Union continues to be undermined by the absence of agreement between Turkey and Greece on the long-term future of Cyprus. What are the Government doing to try to resolve that situation? (319416)

We are very keen to use the current opportunity—Governments in Ankara and Athens, and leaders in the north and south of Cyprus, who are committed to a successful, whole settlement in Cyprus—and determined to do everything we can to ensure that there is a further intensification of those talks. The current situation on the island is a tragedy of significant proportions, and it will never be resolved unless there is a comprehensive settlement.

T7. To return to the vexed situation in Iran, I am sure we agree that the best solution would be a more moderate and democratic Government in that country, yet the oppressive Ahmadinejad regime is now blocking all international broadcasts, including BBC Persian TV. Could the Government put pressure on satellite broadcasters that are used by Iran via the International Telecommunications Union, and consider including telecommunications in any proposed sanctions? That would at least allow the people of Iran to see a different view to that which their Government want to show them. (319413)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Not just the BBC but Deutsche Welle and other international broadcasting organisations are being blocked from Iran. That is doubly significant given the popularity of those international stations. He makes the very good point that we should be working hard to get those airwaves free again. We are certainly doing so bilaterally, but I can assure him that we are also doing so on the multilateral scene.

Checkpoints in west bank cities have been reduced from 41 to 14. How far is this responsible for economic progress on the west bank?

Obviously, the reduction in checkpoints is welcome. I have the latest figures for 2008 and 2009 for economic development in the west bank and I have discussed them with Prime Minister Fayyad recently. It is fair to say that although the reduction in checkpoints is welcome, the economic growth was secured before that reduction. We hope that the reduction in checkpoints will contribute to further economic growth in the years ahead.

Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what practical measures of co-operation are being offered by the Israeli Government to those conducting the investigation into the abuse of British passports? How would he characterise that co-operation?

I would say that it is premature to characterise the co-operation on a scale of one to 10, or nought to 10, but it is important that we send a clear message that we expect that full co-operation. The Serious Organised Crime Agency investigation is getting going, and is now spending some time in the middle east. For obvious reasons, I shall not give a running commentary on that investigation, but I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point seriously—I am sure that the House agrees—and we expect full co-operation with SOCA’s work.

The Government are correct to work for the toughest possible inspection regime of the Iranian ambition to promote enriched nuclear material, whether for domestic or other purposes. However, the Foreign Secretary has a duty to tell us in what circumstances he believes the Iranians might launch an attack on any other country in that region, especially Israel.

The Iranians do not have a nuclear weapon yet, thank God, and that is important. The whole thrust of our policy is reducing tension in the area. From my discussions with Gulf neighbours, I can tell my hon. Friend that they are extremely worried about Iranian destabilisation activities in the Gulf. The support that is given to Hezbollah and Hamas is also destabilising for the middle east. The offer that has been made clearly to Iran is that it will be treated as a normal country, on nuclear and other matters, when it starts behaving as a normal country. That is not victimisation; Iran is the author of its own misfortunes, massively against the interests of its people. That is why our strategy of reaching out to the Iranian people—not victimising them—while putting pressure on the regime must be the right one. After all, we may be dissatisfied with the Iranian regime, but it is only half the dissatisfaction felt by the Iranian people.

Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity this week to speak to the South African President and Foreign Minister and discuss the situation in Zimbabwe? Will he try to persuade them that we really would appreciate it enormously if they put a little more pressure on Mr. Mugabe, because he is the impediment to progress in that country?

I am happy to report to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I met the South African Foreign Minister this morning in advance of the state visit. There is a high degree of interest in, and excitement about, the state visit in South Africa, as there is here, and we welcome President Zuma and his 12-strong ministerial team and 200-strong business team very warmly. We discussed the Zimbabwe situation this morning. I very much take the content of the hon. Gentleman’s question in the spirit in which it is intended, recognising South Africa’s central role, and I assure him that I conveyed both at the meeting today.

Will the Minister take a look at Amnesty International’s January report “Giving Life, Risking Death”, which reports 200,000 unnecessary deaths among pregnant women in Burkina Faso because of discrimination and other factors? Will he authorise a diplomatic effort to try to help that country to bring down that figure?

I am grateful for the point that my hon. Friend makes. He is right to say that there are significant issues that we need to address, and that is one that will be referred to in the Foreign Office’s own human rights report, which we will publish in the next couple of weeks.

To return to the horn of Africa and piracy, is the Secretary of State aware that some people in international shipping are turning off their automatic transponders, which is making it very difficult for ships, including those from the Royal Navy and other navies from across the world, to protect international shipping? It might also be a breach of chapter 5 of SOLAS—the international convention for the safety of life at sea—and disqualify any future insurance claims.

No, I was not aware of that important point, but I am happy to forward it to Operation Atalanta headquarters—the centre of the EU naval mission off Somalia—at Northwood here in the UK. He raises an important point. International shipping has a responsibility to work with international security forces, both on the lanes and the identification of their ships to promote safety on the high seas.

On 11 February, at least 17 children were arrested from the Al Jalazun refugee camp by Israeli forces in the middle of the night and allegedly suffered ill treatment, then and during interrogation. What representations has the Secretary of State made to the Israeli Government about the large number of Palestinian children held in custody and facing trial, if at all, by a military tribunal?

My hon. Friend, who I know follows these issues carefully, has raised related or similar issues with me before. As I said to him on those occasions, we raise very clearly with the Israelis and, I have to say, with the Palestinians, a range of human rights issues, including not only social and economic rights but security and the treatment of detainees. I do not know of the individual case that he raises, but I shall certainly look into it. It is important that the message goes out very clearly that we expect all sides to live up to their international, as well as domestic, obligations under international law.