If he will make a statement about the UK's bilateral relations with the People's Republic of China. [120870]

We pursue a strategy of critical engagement with China. That enables us to pursue a dialogue in depth with another permanent member of the Security Council on a range of issues of mutual anxiety, such as global climate change, nuclear non-proliferation and regional tensions such as those in south Asia. At the recent round of human rights dialogue, agreement was reached on a visit to discuss abolition of the death penalty, a joint working group on implementation of the two United Nations covenants, which China has signed since the start of dialogue, and on a visit to Tibet by the all-party Tibet group.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that reply. Is he also concerned about the unlawful behaviour of the police during the official visit of President Jiang Zemin, when they snatched banners and Tibetan flags from protesters after they had been briefed six or seven times by Foreign Office officials? Does he take pride in the fact that the United Kingdom failed to co-sponsor the resolution of the United States of America—that freedom-loving nation—to the United Nations Commission for Human Rights to protest against human rights violations in China and Tibet?

We did not sponsor the resolution. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we voted against the Chinese motion of no action, which was carried. We did not sponsor the resolution partly because we did not understand the purpose of handing China a victory on its motion of no action year after year. However, when Europe discussed the matter, we expressly said that our decision in future years would be weighed against the progress that is achieved in the human rights dialogue with China.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that China is a colossus on the world stage—whether in terms of the environment, whether in terms of global security, or whether in terms of its general geo-political importance—and that it is important to maintain a dialogue with it? Does he also agree that, in that context, President Jiang Zemin's visit was important and successful?

My hon. Friend sets out clearly and eloquently why it is important for Britain and other major world players to be able to hold frank and open dialogue with China and to start from the perspective of taking each other's views seriously.

What representations he has received calling for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. [120871]

What actions Her Majesty's Government have taken to convey their disapproval of recent events in Zimbabwe. [120875]

If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the situation in Zimbabwe. [120884]

We deplore the continuing violence in Zimbabwe and the persistent failure of its Government to guarantee the rule of law and to respect its citizens' rights to freedom from political intimidation.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that complete and strong answer. Does he agree that the situation has been moved on by the announcement of the date of the elections on 24 and 25 June and that the priority now is to get a Commonwealth team of observers into Zimbabwe to ensure that proper voter registration lists are drawn up, that proper constituency boundaries are sorted out and that the elections are free and fair? Does he also agree that intimidation should cease now?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing his support, and I utterly echo and endorse his demands. On the teams of election observers, I am pleased to tell the House that it appears that the Secretary-General has reached agreement with President Mugabe. If that agreement is also achieved by the European Union, we would expect that both the Commission and the Secretary-General will leave behind in Harare today the nucleus of a team of observers, and we will certainly work to get it up to full strength as soon as possible.

Foreign Office Ministers have previously said that a military coup is a precedent for suspension from the Commonwealth. If Mr. Mugabe reneges on his promise of elections, or if those elections are patently unfair, and he remains in power beyond the constitutional time limit, will the Foreign Secretary give a commitment that Britain will regard that as the equivalent of a military coup and immediately seek Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth?

The hon. Gentleman slightly understates the opportunities available under the Millbrook action programme, which provides for the suspension of Governments who are in power unconstitutionally from the councils of the Commonwealth. Whether the Government of Zimbabwe find themselves in that position in future will crucially depend on the conduct of the elections. That is why we shall watch with great care the report of the international observers and why we shall press the Commonwealth ministerial action group to pay particular attention to the conclusions of the Commonwealth's observers.

When I read the screen at 1 o'clock this afternoon, I was surprised to discover that my question had been grouped; I had had no notification of that.

With respect, we have sent such a message repeatedly, and I have just done so again today. On aid, I have repeatedly told the House that I would be extremely reluctant to take steps that made the position of the poor in Zimbabwe even more miserable than it is already under President Mugabe. I do not see the sense, from our own national interest, of suspending the very large programme that we have combating AIDS in a country where a quarter of the population is HIV-positive. However, if the elections are not free and fair and if the political violence does not moderate, a lot of options will be on the table, and we shall keep many of those issues under review.

I welcome all that my right hon. Friend has said today and all the efforts that he and his colleagues have made through the international community to try to resolve the very difficult situation in Zimbabwe, but does he recall vividly, as I do, that during the 18 years of the previous Government not only were we isolated in Europe, as is well known, but British policy on southern Africa was, quite disgracefully, frequently totally isolated in the Commonwealth? Will he therefore be wary of instant Opposition experts on such problems and continue with the strategy of working with our partners in the international community to resolve those very difficult problems?

It is fair to say that one of our strengths in the current crisis in Zimbabwe is the universal support that we have had from many of the Commonwealth African leaders, especially President Obasanjo of Nigeria, who has been robust in his criticism. I know that his support for our views and his strong support for democracy reflect the fact that he knows that the Government substantially supported the case for democracy in Nigeria during the years of military rule. The support that we are mustering from others in the Commonwealth reflects the fact that they know that we take the Commonwealth seriously.

President Mbeki of South Africa, whom we shall welcome to this country later this week, has spoken of an African renaissance. Is not part of the tragedy that follows the brutal actions of President Mugabe, in encouraging the squatting and deaths, the fact that such a vision becomes less possible? Investment will dry up, and so much damage has already been done that it will be very difficult to restore the basis of confidence that is essential for that African renaissance.

I think the tragedy of what is happening in Zimbabwe, and the publicity that necessarily surrounds it, is that it is obscuring some of the success stories of Africa and the general trend towards higher standards of democracy there. I believe I have spoken to all the leaders of the countries surrounding Zimbabwe, and it is fair to say that there is widespread alarm not just about the situation in Zimbabwe, but about the impact that it will have on the region if it is not brought under control.

I endorse all that my right hon. Friend has said about the situation in Zimbabwe, not just today but in recent weeks, but may I press him on the issue of the British military advisory training team? The House should be given the clear message that that team does invaluable work, not just in Zimbabwe but throughout southern Africa, and that calls for it to be dismantled would be counterproductive in a huge range of countries.

I echo my hon. Friend's praise for the work done by the training team, whose commitment extends throughout the region. It is much valued by Zimbabwe's neighbours, and we would not want to take any step that would make them feel that Britain was reducing its commitment to the region or to the countries themselves. However, if our observers come back and say that the election was pursued with violence and political intimidation, we may well have to review the team's location.

Is not the Foreign Secretary right to exercise some caution with regard to suggestions of immediate suspension—not least because of the attitude of Mr. Tsvangirai, president of the Movement for Democratic Change, who has courageously sought to continue to argue a case for democratic change but who, in this context, has cautioned against any early effort to suspend Zimbabwe because of the weapon that that might well hand Mr. Mugabe in the coming election?

As I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman a week ago, I defer to his superior knowledge of the flexibility of legal advice. I can only welcome his support for the actual outcome.

One of the reasons given for restricting the amount that can be given to the Zimbabwe Government for land purchase and the compensation of white farmers is that existing land has been reallocated to the cronies of President Mugabe. Could my right hon. Friend publish the evidence for that? I think the detail would help the advancing of the case.

I am pleased to say that the information is published. Indeed, it is published in the Zimbabwean Parliament, with answers from the Government of Zimbabwe. It details that, over the past three years of the commercial farm programme, half the farms have gone to employees of the public sector, or to people with connections with the Government. We have always stressed that we are willing to help to fund a fair land reform programme, but that it must be within the rule of law, involve a fair price for the farmer and, importantly, help the landless poor, not those who have the right connections.

I strongly agree with the Foreign Secretary's insistence that the elections that have now been announced in Zimbabwe must be open, free and fair. It is only a few weeks until polling. We know that for many weeks there has been systematic intimidation of opposition activists and voters, with whole villages told that there will be vicious reprisals against the village unless it returns a ZANU-PF candidate.

First, may I say that I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's characterisation of the political violence of the past few weeks. I said to the House a week ago that the current position in Zimbabwe had already compromised the prospect of a truly fair and free election. Nevertheless, the Opposition are united in demanding that international observers be admitted as soon as possible in the hope that that will inhibit some of the worst of the brutality. That is why we are doing everything possible to get those election observers in as quickly as possible, hoping that it may contribute towards a fairer climate of elections. As to what conclusion they come to, I will wait for their result.

Does not the Government's reluctance to put pressure on Mugabe, now an established law breaker, contrast with the Government's attitude to another Commonwealth African country—Sierra Leone? Is it not now clear that it was a mistake to pressure President Kabbah into pardoning Foday Sankoh last year, giving him a whole new power base from which to organise further violence and killing? Did the Foreign Secretary see the remarks of the Nigerian negotiator, Dr. Fayemi? He said:

We called it the pact with the devil.

Order. We are not on the right country. For all that, would the Foreign Secretary like to make some comment? We are dealing with Zimbabwe. I know that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was trying to make a comparison, but it was not close enough.

I am grateful, Madam Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation and I believe that I must be allowed to rebut it. The agreement that was reached at Lomé was brokered by ECOWAS. It was signed and witnessed by ECOWAS and by the Organisation of African Unity. We were not party—

What is ECOWAS?

I do not know what Conservative Members are doing discussing Sierra Leone if they do not know what ECOWAS—the Economic Community of West African States—is. We were not party to that agreement. Nor did we pressure President Kabbah to sign it; far from it—the peace agreement was wildly popular in Sierra Leone. It has also enabled us to drive a wedge between the rebels, which is why the former army of Sierra Leone is fighting against Sankoh, not alongside him.

If he will make a statement about Britain's relations with Japan. [120872]

We have a close and strategic partnership with Japan based on strong trade and investment ties, a shared interest in a peaceful and prosperous world, and a commitment to expanding the already wide range of people-to-people links.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the Government's positive attitude to Europe is one of the reasons why there is so much Japanese investment in Britain? Does he also agree that the reason why there is so much Japanese investment in Wales is the success of the Welsh Development Agency—whose chairman is currently in Japan, trying to enlist more Japanese investment in Wales? I should also point out that next year will be UK-Japan year, which will allow an opportunity to reinforce the United Kingdom's tremendous links with Japan.

I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, more than 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in the European Union comes to the United Kingdom because of our strategic position in Europe. As he will also know, 56 Japanese companies are prospering in Wales because of the Government's policies and the activities of the Welsh Development Agency—starting with Sony, in 1973.

Given that, under the United States-Japan security treaty, Japan is the mother port for the US seventh fleet, on which the security of the whole region depends, what obligations does Britain have in the event of an attack on Taiwan from the Chinese mainland?

Relations between the United States of America, Japan and the United Kingdom are excellent—we are all members of the G8—and I am sure that those excellent relations will continue.

What steps he is taking to promote democratic rights in Burma. [120873]

We are deeply concerned at the brutality of the military in Burma, the systematic use of forced labour and the displacement of ethnic minorities. Within the European Union, Britain recently proposed measures that have toughened Europe's common position against the regime in Burma. Within the International Labour Organisation, we have vigorously supported the decision to invoke article 33—for the first time in the organisation's 80-year history—against Burma.

I thank my right hon. Friend not only for that action by the Government, but for the further action that he has taken in encouraging Premier Oil to withdraw its investment and stop its work in Burma. In the past day, we have seen newspaper reports of Premier Oil's admission, at its annual general meeting, that democratic abuses have occurred in Burma. Has the Secretary of State had discussions with Björn Stigson, chief executive of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development—which represents all the major multinationals and is greatly concerned about democratic rights in the countries where multinationals work—to determine the possibility of organising an investment boycott by multinationals in Burma? Such a boycott would ensure that if, as I hope, Premier Oil steps out of Burma, other multinationals do not step in.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. We shall pursue that with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. I have already raised the issue with my colleagues in the European Union. I noted with interest what was said at Premier Oil's annual meeting yesterday. I fully understand the concerns of the shareholders about the investment in Burma. We have called on Premier Oil to consider whether withdrawing from Burma would be consistent with its legal responsibilities. It is important that the company should consider withdrawing, because if it continued with its development it would produce a revenue stream that would be available to buttress a regime that is in great difficulty.

Yesterday, Baroness Scotland, the Foreign Office Minister in another place, announced that the presence of reputable companies in Burma does not help the democratic cause. The Foreign Secretary has just said that it is now official Foreign Office policy to lean on reputable companies trading in Burma, such as Premier Oil. When the Minister wrote to Premier Oil pressurising it to pull out of the country, did the Foreign Office also write to other companies trading in Burma, such as HSBC, GEC and BAT, asking them to pull out? If that policy applies to Burma, why does it not apply to other countries with similar human rights records, such as Algeria, Cuba and China—or is this yet another example of the double standards practised by a Foreign Secretary who has made a mockery of the words "ethical" and "moral"?

Premier Oil is way ahead of all the rest of British investment in Burma added together. It also publicly claimed that the Foreign Office had told the company that we did not have a view. If it wishes to go public on that, it cannot complain if the Foreign Office takes care to make plain its view on the matter. As for the hon. Lady's last point, if she took the time and the courtesy outside the House to speak to the Burma Campaign or to make contact with any of the many people such as those whom I saw in Thailand who had been evicted from Burma, she would understand full well why we have adopted our policy on human rights in Burma.

What steps he is taking to promote trade with and economic development in southern African countries. [120874]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend on his successful visit to Botswana and his discussions at the headquarters of the Southern Africa Development Community. Through British Trade International, we continue to alert British business to the many commercial opportunities in southern Africa, including a major three-year trade and investment campaign for South Africa.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the effects of the illicit diamond trade in southern Africa? Is he aware that Mr. Sankoh, the leader of the rebellion in Sierra Leone, was recently planning a diamond deal in southern Africa to fund his murderous campaign?

Order. The question is about southern Africa.

I was asking my hon. Friend whether he was aware of the role of the illicit diamond trade in southern Africa. I was giving a current example of the contact between the rebel leader in Sierra Leone and diamond dealers in South Africa, which is enabling Mr. Sankoh to fund his murderous rebellion in Sierra Leone. Does not that demonstrate that the Government's policy of campaigning against blood diamonds is correct and the role of British troops in Sierra Leone should be supported?

I agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his ingenuity and expertise in raising this important matter. There are many important diamond operations in southern Africa—in Namibia, South Africa and Botswana—that contribute enormously to the economic success of those countries. We back them, but we totally oppose the blood diamond trade in places such as Angola and Sierra Leone because it continues to fuel the conflicts in those regions. That is why we are pressing for an international self-certification scheme by the diamond trade, backed by Governments, to stop the trade in blood diamonds and ensure that dreadful conflicts such as the one that we are seeking to resolve in Sierra Leone at the moment are not perpetuated. It is the diamond trade that keeps them going.

Can the Minister describe the new arrangements that he, the Foreign Office and Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry are making for the promotion of trade with southern Africa?

Through British Trade International, which is a freshly launched agency, we are taking several initiatives to promote such trade and investment. In a recent speech in Durban—sorry, in Cape Town—[Interruption.] I shall make a speech on the economic opportunities for trade and investment in southern Africa in Durban next month, if the Opposition can contain themselves. Those initiatives are partly why President Mbeki is visiting London with South African ministerial colleagues, including the Trade Minister, in the next few days for a high-level meeting.

If he will make a statement on the role of British Trade International in securing inward investment into the UK. [120876]

The Invest in Britain Bureau is the Government organisation responsible for the promotion of the whole of the United Kingdom for inward investment. In response to the Wilson review of export promotion, we are examining the relationship between British Trade International and the IBB, but have not reached a decision on whether to change that relationship.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Can he assure me that any new arrangements will promote increased export opportunities for, and increased investment in, the eastern region—including, of course, my constituency of Peterborough? Will his Department closely monitor the success of those arrangements?

I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is what any new arrangements will do. The matter is still under review, but British Trade International and the IBB work extremely hard to ensure that the opportunities for investors in Peterborough are made well known to those who wish to invest in the United Kingdom. I thank my hon. Friend for all the excellent work that she does in supporting local firms in Peterborough in winning new markets throughout the world.

The bureau has presided over an increase mainly because the previous Government kept our tax rates and regulatory costs well below those on the continent and this Government have not frittered all of it away yet. Will the Minister assure us that he and his colleagues will veto the measures in the draft treaty of Nice that would create a centralised Government in Brussels capable of increasing business taxes and regulatory costs in this country? Or will we see, when it comes to a centralised Europe, that, as with Sierra Leone, the Foreign Secretary is the living embodiment of mission creep?

Nobody could give us better advice on creeping than the right hon. Gentleman. As he well knows, the United Kingdom is the number one location for inward investment anywhere in Europe because of the policies of this Government. We have low taxes and a stable economy under the leadership of a superb Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is very different from the policies of the previous Government. Inward investment in the UK last year reached £244.1 billion—a record level—because of the policies of this Government which make people want to invest here.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key factors in determining inward investment is Britain's position in the European Union? If we were to follow the policies of the Opposition in indefinitely postponing a decision on the single currency and taking the approach of a step-by-step withdrawal from the EU, that inward investment and those British jobs would be lost.

My hon. Friend, who is much more knowledgeable than the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on these matters, is absolutely right. There is no question that the step change initiative by the Prime Minister, adopted when the Government were elected in 1997, has made a tremendous difference to Britain's position in Europe. We are fully engaged in Europe, as was seen at the recent Lisbon summit, which moved the European Union on to the irreversible path to economic reform. Some 40 per cent. of inward investment in Europe from both Japan and the United States of America, and 50 per cent. of inward investment from Korea, comes to the United Kingdom. Those countries choose to come here because of our pivotal role in the European Union.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that over four years our trade deficit will double to by far the highest level in our history, due to both our manufacturing imbalance and the Government's vast £10 billion increase in red tape and taxation on our businesses? Does he therefore agree that British Trade International needs all the support that it can get because of the Government's truly shameful record on trade and the soaring cost burdens?

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman had prepared his supplementary question before he heard what I had to say about the statistics. I do not think that £244.1 billion of inward investment last year is shameful. That investment is at a record level, which means that it is an enormously successful outcome. Of course we support British Trade International; Sir David Wright does an excellent job. That is why we are examining the arrangements that will provide a better service for companies that wish to invest in the United Kingdom.

What his policy is on arms sales to India. [120877]

India is set to be a 21st century super-power, and British-Indian relations, including commercial and defence links, are very strong. All export licence applications to India are considered on a case-by-case basis against the European Union code of conduct and strict United Kingdom national criteria.

I thank the Minister for that positive reply. Will he comment on recent, and what appear to be authoritative, press reports that indicate that BAE Systems has at long last secured a contract with the Indian Government for the supply of 60 Hawk aircraft? If such a contract were to be agreed between the company and the Government, would the United Kingdom see such an arrangement as compatible with an ethical foreign policy?

Indeed it would be compatible, because those Hawk jets are for training purposes, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I commend him for his interest and support in this matter; I think that he has British Aerospace workers, interests at heart.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that it would be entirely inappropriate for any military hardware from the United Kingdom to be used by the Indian authorities in Kashmir? Do the Government still expect the Indian authorities to develop a policy on Kashmir that takes full account of the wishes and needs of the Kashmiri people?

Despite our close friendship and partnership with India, we pay particular—and more than usual—attention to export licence applications for arms for India. We want to ensure that any arms that we sell for legitimate purposes are not used for illegitimate purposes in Kashmir. We have constantly pressed both the Indian and Pakistani Governments to resume the Lahore process and the dialogue there to achieve peace in Kashmir and so end a terrible conflict.

I am sure that the House is grateful to the Minister for supporting the arms industry within the United Kingdom. However, will he consider an urgent case in my constituency? Thorn is trying to sell cable to the oceanographic department in India, which will be used to look for oil. It was told originally that it probably did not need an export licence. However, having pressed the Government after months of delay, the project has now been turned down.

I will certainly look into the case, if I can, and I will respond to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible. I realise that submarines have nothing to do with Kashmir, even under a Conservative interpretation. However, there is always a problem with technology that has dual uses. Technology that appears to be for legitimate civilian uses, as seems to be the case with the example that the hon. Gentleman quoted, can also be used for illicit military purposes. That is why we examine each case very carefully.

If he will make a statement on the Government's relations with Afghanistan. [120878]

We strongly support the efforts of the United Nations and others to bring peace to Afghanistan and to secure a negotiated settlement that will lead to a broad-based Government committed to stability. That Government should also be committed to putting an end to terrorism, drugs production, drugs trafficking and human rights violations, especially violations against women and girls.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Afghanistan is in a sensitive area of the world. Does he agree on the importance of encouraging dialogue across the region to bring an end to the suffering of the Afghan people?

I agree with my hon. Friend—it is why we energetically support United Nations' efforts to achieve peace and stability. However, the Taleban Government in Afghanistan deserves strong criticism for harbouring terrorists, such as Usama bin Laden, who contribute to instability in the region. They also deserve criticism for continuing with the policy of pulling up crops and planting poppies. That fuels the drugs trade—90 per cent. of the heroin coming into Britain comes from Afghanistan. The Taleban Government should be indicted for those policies, and we will continue to criticise them for that reason.

What steps he is taking to promote dialogue between South and North Korea. [120880]

We have consistently supported South Korea's policy of engaging North Korea. Through a series of talks with North Korea, we have repeatedly encouraged that country to respond positively to engagement.

Will my hon. Friend send a message of support to the Governments of North Korea and South Korea as they embark on the process of dialogue? Given the example of East and West Germany, would it not be a great success if Korea could find its way to unity after decades of cold war division?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We welcome the announcement, to which she referred, that the leaders of North and South Korea plan to meet at a summit in June. We urge both sides to make effective use of the opportunities for dialogue and co-operation that the summit presents.

Does the Minister understand that it is not immediately obvious why a junior Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister in the United Kingdom should think it incumbent upon him to promote dialogue between North and South Korea? However, if the Minister wishes to take on such very important responsibilities, will he also take the opportunity unequivocally to condemn those Labour Members of Parliament who, throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, supported North Korean communist front organisations? Will he therefore apologise to the Government and the people of South Korea?

Some interventions from Conservative Members are really off the wall, but that one takes the prize. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the past activities of hon. Members, will he also condemn the activities of those Conservative Members who called for Nelson Mandela to be hanged, and who wore badges to that effect when they were members of the Federation of Conservative Students?

What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Iran concerning the treatment of Jews, Christians and Bahais. [120881]

We and our European Union partners have regularly raised with the Iranian authorities our concerns over a number of human rights issues, including the treatment of religious minorities in Iran.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the 13 Jews on trial in Iran on what appear to be trumped-up charges of espionage have not been allowed to appoint their own legal counsel, and that their state-appointed lawyers have complained of obstruction? My hon. Friend highlighted Iran's recent record of discriminating against Christians, Bahais and Jews. Will he assure the House that he will continue to press the Iranian authorities to show proper respect and tolerance to all religious groupings in that country?

Yes, we will. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his energetic work on this matter—I know that he reflects the views of many of his constituents, including members of the Jewish community who are, quite rightly, worried about the way in which the trial is proceeding, as we are. That is why my right hon. Friend and I have consistently raised the matter with Iranian Ministers and will continue to do so. Although we engage with the reforming Government of President Khatami and welcome his electoral success, which has boosted the position of the reformers, we are also aware that there is a battle with the reactionaries, who are bringing their odious influence to bear on this trial.

I appreciate the point that the Minister has just made. Will he emphasise to the Iranian Government that they cannot take their place in international affairs when they sponsor terrorism for Islamists elsewhere while persecuting their own citizens?

It is precisely because of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, which we share, that in our discussions with the Iranian Government—and we have established a good relationship for critical engagement and dialogue—we speak not just about business opportunities but about human rights violations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that for a woman in Iran, it is not required to be a Christian, Jew or Bahai to be persecuted? Will he discuss this aspect of human rights when he next has contact with the President?

I well understand the point raised by my hon. Friend. I would say that the treatment of women in Iran is by no means the worst across the world, but we continue to raise the issue.

It is bad enough.

It is bad enough, as my hon. Friend says, and I freely acknowledge that. It is precisely because we have established a relationship of critical engagement and dialogue that we are able to make these points, and have them heard. Indeed, human rights in Iran have improved over the past few years despite these setbacks, and we should acknowledge that. It is terribly important that the reform process under President Khatami is strengthened and continued and that Britain supports that reform process, because Iran is a critical country for the stability of the region.

Will the Foreign Secretary consider postponing his scheduled visit to Iran in July, unless and until such time as a fair trial is guaranteed to the 13 members of the Jewish community who have been arrested and are facing trial?

My right hon. Friend's visit has already been postponed once—[Interruption.] Be serious; some of the heckling from the Conservative Benches on this matter is ridiculous.

Order. I do wish that Back Benchers would contain themselves when questions are being answered.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

What proposals he has to improve the UK's relations with Slovenia. [120882]

The relationship between the United Kingdom and Slovenia is excellent. We maintain a close dialogue over Slovenia's applications for European Union and NATO membership, and warmly welcome the constructive role that Slovenia is playing in south-east Europe.

As a signatory to the Council of Europe's charter on minority languages, will my hon. Friend commend the exemplary action of Slovenia in its treatment of those linguistic minorities within its border, which, regrettably, has not been reciprocated to the Slovene minorities in Austria or Italy? Italy has long delayed introducing measures that would assist the Slovene minorities there. In the Carinthia province of Austria, the Governor, a certain Jorg Haïder, has recently introduced measures that are damaging to the bilingual Slovene schools.

I welcome the action taken by Slovenia to protect minorities. My hon. Friend raises with me for the first time the position of Slovene speakers in Austria, and I will pass on that information.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the United Kingdom encourages Slovenia in those endeavours, in respect not only of the European Union, but of NATO? What steps are being taken through Partnership for Peace and other NATO organisations to assist Slovenia to play a bigger role?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very constructive comments. I am glad to know that he fully supports Slovenia's entry into the European Union and NATO. We have made our position on NATO clear: it is that all aspirants are part of the action plan that has been set out by NATO. I can give no guarantees here about who will join NATO. That is a matter for NATO at its next invitation meeting, at its next major summit. However, the fact is that we want to make sure that Slovenia is part of the Europeanisation process that will bring it into the European Union and ensure that it is part of NATO's security arrangements. That will be a beacon of hope to other countries in the region, especially the Balkans.

Does the Minister realise that it is a bit patronising for him to talk about the Europeanising of Slovenia, which happens already to be a European nation? Given that one of Slovenia's principal aims is membership of the European Union, as well as membership of NATO, is not the best contribution that the Government can make to improving relations with Slovenia to reject out of hand the ideas propounded last week by Mr. Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, about the creation of a single European super-state? What countries such as Slovenia want is the creation of a modern, flexible European Union of the sort that would also appeal to the British public—in particular, by tackling the common agricultural policy, which is the major obstacle to the early enlargement of the European Union.

I need no lessons in being patronising from the right hon. Gentleman, who could give seminars on how to be patronising.

If he will make a statement on progress in the middle east peace process. [120883]

I returned yesterday from a visit to Damascus and Beirut. I was encouraged by a Syrian and Lebanese commitment to comprehensive peace in the region. Both made it clear that full Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, in compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution 425, would be welcome. I encouraged them to work with the United Nations to ensure stability in Lebanon during and after withdrawal.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that the core of the middle east peace process is the Israeli-Palestinian track? Is not he concerned at the multiple signs of a decreasing confidence among Palestinian public opinion in the peace process? Signs of that include an open letter to the Israeli public by 130 Palestinian intellectuals; the disturbances across the west bank yesterday and over the past week, which culminated in the death of Palestinians, including Palestinian police; and recent opinion polls within the Palestine National Authority which show that President Arafat's popularity rating is at an all-time low and that only 13 per cent. of Palestinians have confidence in the ability of Prime Minister Barak to deliver a peace process.

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are concerned at the serious violence yesterday in the west bank and Gaza strip, and call on both sides to show calm and restraint. Efforts should be focused on moving negotiations forward towards a just, comprehensive and lasting peace. I welcome the Israeli Government's decision to transfer three Palestinian villages east of Jerusalem to full Palestinian control, and look forward to its early implementation. Further courageous decisions by both sides will be needed if the shared goal of a comprehensive agreement is to be realised.

What progress has been made with preparatory work for legislation to restore full British citizenship to residents of the island of St. Helena. [120885]

Our White Paper last year set out our commitment to extend full British citizenship to all citizens of our overseas territories. That has been warmly welcomed throughout the overseas territories, particularly in St. Helena where it is seen as correcting an injustice. Officials of the Foreign Office and the Home Office are at an advanced stage of preparing instructions to parliamentary counsel, and we hope shortly to proceed to the drafting stage of a Bill. Pending legislation, we have already taken steps to improve access to the United Kingdom for citizens of St. Helena, such as the new three-year visas for employment or work experience.

I welcome that statement. Does the Foreign Secretary realise that next year marks the 20th anniversary of the previous Conservative Government making the citizens of St. Helena second-class citizens? In two years time, on 23 May, it will be the 500th anniversary of the discovery of the island. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that by then full citizenship rights will have been restored to the islanders?

The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for long enough to know perfectly well that no one can give a guarantee about legislation until the announcement of the Queen's Speech. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has just joined me on the Front Bench, will make sure that I do not even attempt to give such a guarantee. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware of that injustice and that we are determined to put it right.