If he will make a statement on the development of democratic institutions in Hong Kong. [171829]

We have repeatedly said that we hope to see early progress on universal suffrage at a pace in line with the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. We are concerned about the recent decision by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to set limits on constitutional development in Hong Kong. We have made our concerns known to the Chinese Government.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. As the Prime Minister of China is in the United Kingdom and has held discussions with our Prime Minister, can my hon. Friend confirm that our Government have impressed on the Chinese Government the fact that delaying elections in Hong Kong would lead to greater instability and is unacceptable to the British Government?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. This is an issue that we are actively discussing and which was raised by the Prime Minister with the Chinese Premier yesterday. It is particularly disappointing that the NPC acted before the Government of the Special Administrative Region completed its consultation. We have a shared interest with the Chinese Government in the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, and we believe that the best way to secure and sustain that is an early move towards universal suffrage.

Given the seriousness of the decision by the National People's Congress what will the Government do if the Chinese Government continue to take no notice of those protests?

It is a statement of the obvious that we do not run Hong Kong any more, and are therefore dealing with a sovereign Government. Nevertheless, we retain an historical commitment, and strongly believe that the best way to secure stability for the people of Hong Kong is an early move towards universal suffrage at a pace in line with their wishes. We will continue to express that view.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that if the one nation, two systems solution for Hong Kong is seen by the Chinese as the ultimate solution to bring Taiwan back to the motherland, its actions regarding universal suffrage will not be welcome in that territory? Does he also appreciate that this appears to an outsider in the United Kingdom and to the people of Hong Kong to be a significant departure from the substantial degree of autonomy that they were promised?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend in his last remarks. We have expressed concern because the decision by the NPC appears to be inconsistent with the high degree of autonomy that was put forward in the joint declaration. We have expressed that view both publicly and privately, and we will continue to do so.

How has China breached the Basic Law in Hong Kong? Would it not be better, having allowed China to take over the sovereignty of Hong Kong, to trust the people of China to get this right? They have shown good faith in relation to Hong Kong to date, and British berating will probably not be particularly productive.

Since the handover in 1997—we report on this twice a year to Parliament—the one country, two systems arrangement has generally worked well. Nevertheless, it is right that we should voice our concerns. We have publicly voiced our concern that the decision appears to be inconsistent with the high degree of autonomy in the joint declaration. With respect, that view commands majority support across the Chamber.

What assessment he has made of Mr. Sharon's plan to remove settlements from Gaza and its effect on the road map. [171830]

In what ways the Government are carrying forward their commitment to the success of the middle east peace plan. [171839]

The removal of settlements and the withdrawal of the Israeli army from positions in the occupied territories are in line with Israel's commitments under phase 1 of the road map. For this reason, the plans of the Israeli Government were welcomed by the Quartet, as Kofi Annan spelled out last week. It is the road map, internationally agreed and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, which is fundamental to a peaceful settlement in the middle east. Despite the setback of the recent Likud referendum, we, the European Union, and the Quartet are fully engaged in making what progress we can. Last week, I met Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Maher and Nabil Shaath and Salam Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of ordinary Israelis do indeed want peace? Does he further agree that it is essential that the Palestinian Authority be involved in negotiations with Israel? What steps should now be taken by both sides in order to get negotiations started?

I entirely share my hon. Friend's views. The steps are set out in the road map and include more activity by the Palestinian Authority in respect of security, and withdrawals by the Israeli Government. So far as security is concerned, there have been some improvements in the organisation of security forces inside the Palestinian Authority, and we continue to offer what advice we can to that authority.

Given the recent statement by the President of the United States that progress towards the implementation of the Palestinian state is slipping, what discussions has the Foreign Office had with my right hon. Friend's counterpart in the United States to clarify the situation? Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that any future discussions between the Israelis and the Americans will also involve the Palestinians, and will not repeat what happened a few weeks ago, when the Palestinians were left out of discussions about the settlements?

I have a great many discussions with Secretary Powell of the United States and I shall be seeing him again this Friday to discuss the middle east, among other things. The United States is one of the four members of the quartet and is as fully committed as the other three members of the Quartet to the two-state solution set out in the road map and to the lines of progress described by the road map, which include full involvement by the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority.

The right hon. Gentleman will know about the International Development Committee report in January entitled "Development Assistance and the Occupied Palestinian Territories", which condemned the damage to the Palestinian economy and blamed Israel's incursions, curfews, checkpoints and so on. The Palestinian economy is being choked and decimated. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about that?

We were grateful to the Select Committee for the report. As it highlighted, after the United States, the United Kingdom is the largest single donor of aid within the Palestinian area. We have had continuing discussions with the Israelis and I raised these matters again last week when I saw Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom about the need for them to lift the restrictions, which are unquestionably making life, which is always difficult, much more difficult in the occupied territories. At the same time, it must be put on record that the sooner the Palestinian Authority gets a real and convincing grip on rejectionist terrorist groups operating within those territories, the easier life will be—and the easier it will be, too, for the Israeli Government to lift some of those restrictions.

Despite the uncertain impression made by the Prime Minister on his most recent visit to Washington, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the British Government remain fully committed to the full implementation of United Nations resolutions 242 and 338?

I confirm that, and I also make it clear to the House that in his press conference alongside President Bush as well as on many other occasions, the Prime Minister was categorical in his support for the British Government's long-established policy of supporting resolutions 242 and 338.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's opening remarks that there is no inconsistency between Israel's obligations under the road map and a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza strip. Is it not time that instead of complaining about that, other parties to the road map recognised their own phase 1 obligations under the road map—namely, the complete cessation of terrorist violence? Is not the reason why the timetable is slipping and the road map is not being implemented that Hamas set out last summer to destroy the road map through bus suicide terrorist bombs?

There is no doubt that reasonable progress was being made in the implementation of the road map between the end of June and 19 August, and it was the planting and detonation of a terrible bomb in the middle of Jerusalem on that day which has marked the decline of progress and much bloodshed since then. The road map lays down obligations on each party there—Israel and the Palestinian Authority separately—and on the international community. What is crucial is that each party—Israel and the Palestinian Authority—instead of complaining about the other, take the steps that it is obliged to take to implement the road map.

Whatever the contents of the revised Sharon plan when it finally emerges, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government's response and subsequent actions will continue to focus on getting the parties talking to each other again and on getting the road map back on track? Does he agree with President Bush that a Palestinian state in 2005 is no longer realistic? Given the lack of progress since 2003, is it intended that new time lines will be introduced into the road map?

Of course, a key part of our approach is to encourage both parties into direct collaboration. There is always some collaboration—often more than meets the eye—and that is of crucial importance. That is one of the reasons why I met representatives of the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Foreign Minister last week. On time lines, our position remains as set out in the road map. Of course it is the case, given what has happened since last August, that delay is more likely than rapid progress, but the road map set out obligations, and it is our responsibility as an indirect member of the quartet, through the Security Council and the European Union, to do all that we can—as we are—to ensure that the road map's implementation is as consistent as possible with the time line.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is despair among the Palestinian community here and in the middle east following the meeting between Prime Minister Sharon and President Bush and the subsequent hype made of it by Prime Minister Sharon. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the communiqu?#x00E9; issued on behalf of the Quartet last Tuesday makes it clear that final negotiated positions with regard to refugees and borders must be based on resolutions 242, 338, 1397 and 1515, the Madrid peace process and the Prince Abdullah initiative, which was accepted in Beirut, and that that is our Government's position?

I confirm all of that. I also remind the House, as I did a few minutes ago, that the United States is a key member of the Quartet, and that it signed up to the road map and to these conclusions. Although I understand the concern of many of our friends in the Palestinian community, both here and abroad, about what happened in the rose garden three weeks ago, I ask those friends to examine what President Bush actually said. President Bush mentioned the road map six times, and has made it clear, both then and subsequently, that he stands by the road map and resolutions 242, 338 and 1397, and that that includes no prejudice or prejudging on the final status negotiations.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the proposal for disengagement from Gaza is the first step towards the creation of an independent Palestinian state; is very much in line with the requirements of the road map; and indeed is similar to proposals made at Camp David four years ago, which is why, as he said, it has the broad support of the Quartet?

Yes, I do. Whenever the withdrawal from the occupied territories occurs, it is bound to be on a phased basis. We should not get into a position where, because we cannot have everything all at once, we take nothing. That is why the withdrawal policy was welcomed, and I hope that the Israeli Government can resurrect it, notwithstanding the problems with their referendum.

What assessment he has made of the impact of violence in southern Thailand on the security of British tourists; and if he will make a statement. [1718311

On 28 April in the south of Thailand, 200 militants took part in well co-ordinated attacks in 10 locations, which resulted in the deaths of 112 people, including five members of the security forces. Our assessment of the impact of the violence on the security of British nationals is reflected in our travel advice—we currently advise against all non-essential travel to four provinces in the south of Thailand.

The advice to travellers given on the FCO website is generally first rate, but the advice on Thailand needs to be extended and updated. Does the Minister agree that it should now reflect the real risk of insurgency travelling north to the tourist areas, in light of the widening void between the mega-rich lifestyle of the elite surrounding Thaksin Shinawatra in Buddhist Bangkok and the grinding poverty endured by those in the Muslim southern provinces?

We updated travel advice on terrorism in southern Thailand on five occasions during the course of this year, including on 8 April and 28 April. We recommend against all non-essential travel to the four far southern provinces of Patani, Yala, Narathiwat and Songkhla. However, I take on board my hon. Friend's suggestion that we should consider issuing broader advice, and I will listen to the views of officials who consider such matters. As he says, it is very important that we give people practical advice on which they can rely.

Notwithstanding what the Minister says about giving travel advice, does he agree that the Foreign Office must recognise, first, that there is no such thing as an entirely safe country; and secondly, that Muslim extremists aim to put off any contact between western tourists and Muslim countries? Does he agree that if travel advice becomes over-prescriptive, the terrorists are winning?

We cannot provide travel advice that covers all eventualities, but we endeavour to ensure that it is as practical, objective, accurate and up to date as possible in terms of helping British nationals to make decisions about travelling abroad. In respect of southern Thailand, we have no evidence that the violence is directly linked to international terrorism. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that when we give advice we must be careful to ensure that people are aware of the general problems, not only in south-east Asia, but across much of the world. Terrorism is a threat to us all. The terrorists are not winning, but they certainly remain a major threat.

Is it not the case that apart from the violence in the south, Thailand is generally a difficult country for Europeans to visit? Two of my constituents have recently had appalling difficulties in Thailand: one faces a sentence of life imprisonment; the other has seen a member of their family murdered. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that his advice to the British embassy in Bangkok is that it should provide the maximum possible assistance to relatives of British citizens facing difficulties in Thailand in order to support them when they have to visit to deal with such problems? The British embassy—

Order. I think that the Minister will be able to answer.

More than 700,000 British nationals travel to Thailand every year. Our consular staff in Thailand and in London will do everything that they properly can to provide them with appropriate consular assistance where it is required. My hon. Friend will appreciate that among those 700,000 people, some have very serious priority problems, while many others require elements of help. Therefore, staff need to try to allocate their assistance as best and as appropriately as they can.

What recent discussions he has had with President Mbeki of South Africa concerning the future of Zimbabwe. [171832]

We are in regular contact with the South African Government on the issue of Zimbabwe. The Prime Minister discussed Zimbabwe with President Mbeki when they recently spoke following the election victory by the African National Congress, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regularly discussed it with South Africa's Foreign Minister. I will have further discussions when I visit South Africa later this month.

Every hour of every day, thousands of Zimbabweans continue to flee across the Limpopo from Mugabe's nightmare into President Mbeki's South Africa—this at a time when even a respected local journal such as theKenya Times is joining the general chorus of condemnation of President Mbeki's inactivity. We know that the Foreign Secretary is still of the belief that President Mbeki is key to unlocking the unhappy situation in Zimbabwe, but does the Minister honestly believe that President Mbeki has either the intention or the willpower to do so, or is he merely clutching at straws?

Yes, we do believe that President Mbeki and his Government are making a serious effort to resolve the situation in Zimbabwe, and he has not been inactive. He has been extremely active, but the trouble is that he is dealing with extremely difficult customers, as we all are, in Mr. Mugabe and his cronies.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent visit to the House of Commons by the then Deputy Speaker of the South African Parliament, the hon. Baleka Mbete—you will be delighted to know, Mr. Speaker, that she is now the Speaker—and of her clear recognition of the key role that South Africa will have to play in any change of Government and leadership in Zimbabwe? She also made the point, however, that such change will have to be brought about within the democracy and structures of Zimbabwe, rather than by any major inward force from other countries.

Yes I was aware of the visit of the Deputy Speaker—now the Speaker—although I did not meet her. It is true, as my hon. Friend says, that any solution to the problem in Zimbabwe will inevitably involve South Africa, which is the main player. Any differences that we have with South Africa involve tactics rather than principle.

Given that the articulate, charismatic and democratically elected mayor of Harare, Elias Mudzuri, was first suspended and then removed from office, and that the Mugabe thugs are now seeking to evict him and his family from their home—which I had the privilege of visiting in February this year—will the Minister accept the urgent need to beseech the President of South Africa to stop appeasing the tyrant Mugabe and to start insisting that the Southern African Development Community norms and standards, according to which the South African elections were conducted, are the norms and standards by which the Government of Zimbabwe should also be conducted?

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the South African Government would too. I do not think that it is necessary to beseech the South African Government. We have a regular dialogue with them, based on mutual respect, but at the end of the day, the problem is being caused by Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF, and by their unwillingness to engage with their opponents.

Is it not now time for the British and South African Governments to make a joint approach to the United Nations to make it clear that there can be no free and fair parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe next year unless there is a change of Government there? This has to be said clearly now. Zimbabwe needs free and fair elections, but it is not going to get them. President Mbeki and our Prime Minister should go to the United Nations to get this whole issue discussed.

We would be happy to join in any initiative that the South Africans thought worth while. The problem with going to the United Nations—certainly to the Security Council—is that there has to be an international dispute before the Security Council will become involved. The matter is therefore unlikely to discussed by the Security Council unless the surrounding countries signify that they want it to be. In regard to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at Geneva, we and our EU colleagues have raised the issue of Zimbabwe there for the last three years in succession, but on each occasion our motion has fallen to a non-action motion prompted by the African states.

The Minister is well aware that President Thabo Mbeki, whose African National Congress party swept back to power in South Africa recently, is absolutely critical to the solution of the problems in Zimbabwe. The Minister will also be aware that those who can help to restructure Zimbabwe continue to flee the country—many of them going to South Africa or coming here to the United Kingdom—with absolutely nothing, because they can bring nothing out. Have the Government considered discussing with President Mbeki the matter of the supply of power to Zimbabwe, because the Republic of South Africa plays a critical part in that regard? I do not want the people of Zimbabwe to suffer any more than they are already, but could that be a way of bringing additional pressure to bear on President Mugabe?

That is certainly an issue that has come up from time to time. It would be a very large step to take, partly because it would inflict even more suffering on innocent Zimbabweans, and I know that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention. I think that is all I can say about it for the time being.

What his Department's policy is on sporting links with Zimbabwe, with particular reference to cricket. [171833]

As the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I met officials from the England and Wales Cricket Board last week to discuss the proposed tour. Our view is clear: we would prefer the tour to be postponed until the situation in Zimbabwe improves, but the decision to tour is one for the cricketing authorities to take. The Government have no power to instruct people not to leave this country to play sport abroad. We do not have state-run cricket in this country, nor should we. We have great sympathy for the position in which the England and Wales Cricket Board finds itself, having been presented by the International Cricket Council with a choice between touring and facing extremely serious financial penalties.

I recognise the position that my right hon. Friend has set out, but he will acknowledge that the Labour party never pussyfooted around taking sporting sanctions against South Africa. That played a vital part in ending apartheid. Will he say to the cricket people that the tour should not take place, and say it loudly and clearly, because I believe that that is what the overwhelming majority in the House believes we should be saying?

I accept the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend entirely, but there is a fundamental difference, which is that while we backed sanctions against sporting links with South Africa—I have to say that they were, as I recall, rather resisted by Conservative Members—we did so as part of an international consensus, under the Gleneagles agreement. What, sadly, has become all too clear is that there is no such consensus, even within the ICC—indeed, far from it. It is that which places the England and Wales Cricket Board in this very difficult and untenable position.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the argument over the England cricket tour of Zimbabwe in the autumn is not so much between politics and sport as between morality and money? I accept that the Government do not have the power to ban the tour, but if, as he says, and I use his word, he would "prefer" that the tour did not take place or was postponed, why will he not give a clearer indication to the ECB, which could allow the England team not to tour without incurring financial penalty?

There is no disagreement of principle between both sides, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to have it both ways. We do not have a power in law to ban people from leaving this country or playing sport. I rather fancy that if we tried that in any other circumstances he would be the first to complain. Indeed, his leader would certainly complain.

"We have a State that does too much, that interferes too much".

I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but does he not feel that the lives of cricketers would be put at risk if they were to tour Zimbabwe and that, on those grounds alone, we ought to be able to send out a clear message, "You are not to tour because of that risk."? Also, the danger is that cricket will be the loser and Mugabe the winner.

My hon. Friend raises an important point about security, which we also discussed separately with the England and Wales Cricket Board. If there is a security problem which we judge would affect the personal security of English and Welsh cricketers if they go there, we will make that clear. As we told the England and Wales Cricket Board, however, we need to make that assessment much nearer the time.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that although there is a consensus in the House that the Mugabe regime is hideous and evil, some of us do not believe that sport should be used as a political weapon? The choice of whom one plays sports with is a moral issue, and the Government should keep out of that. The most pathetic position of all is for the Government to express a desire for the tour not to take place, and to do nothing to implement that desire, financially or otherwise.

Despite the last sentence, I take that as an objection to the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman's own Front Bench.

If he will make a statement about the current situation in the British-controlled area of southern Iraq. [171834]

If he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq. [171840]

The situation in Iraq is overshadowed by the evidence of appalling and disgusting human rights abuses in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, for which there is and there can be no excuse whatever. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last Wednesday,

"it is what we went to Iraq to get rid of, not to perpetuate."—[Official Report, 5 May 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1336.]

I have now had the opportunity to read the ICRC report in full. Will my right hon. Friend accept that its criticisms, particularly of brutal arrest techniques and disappearances, apply to all coalition forces, that we are in a coalition, and that those sickening pictures of American abuse shame us all by association? To whom did Sir Jeremy Greenstock speak when he received the copy of the Red Cross report? Was it Britain's failure to influence the Americans as regards the abuse that was a factor in Sir Jeremy's premature departure from Iraq?

My hon. Friend is right that these images, and the evidence that they portray, are a shame on all of us. They are utterly shameful, disgusting and disgraceful, and they would be if they had been perpetrated by any regime, but they are all the worse for the fact that they have been perpetrated by forces of a member of the international community. I do not accept her suggestion, however, that responsibility for dealing with matters that lie within the United States' sectors is also shared by the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that this marks a new low point in the credibility of the allied occupation of Iraq? It is now obvious that the unilateral strategy emanating from the White House is not helping the situation. What does my right hon. Friend intend to do to involve neighbouring countries with which we have good relations, such as Turkey, Syria and Iran, or to respond to President Chirac's wish for an international conference like the one that was held in Bonn after Afghanistan? Such action must be in the interests of both Britain and the people of Iraq.

The allegations and clear evidence of abuse in the United States sector are very damaging: there is no question.about that, nor should there be any pretence to the contrary. I should also make it clear that, as President Bush has asserted, in no sense was this supported or connived at by the United States Administration, who are as appalled by the evidence as we are.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the United Kingdom is paying a considerable moral price for the reports of recent days on the conduct of forces in Iraq? Does he accept that the closeness of the relationship with the United States means that Britain and British forces will be answerable, in the minds of the Iraqi people, for anything done by anyone in the name of the coalition? In the light of his reference to Lakhdar Brahimi, and adapting the words of the Prime Minister, may we now take it that the United Nations is no longer part of the problem but is providing the only solution?

I do not accept the first point. On the basis of my discussions and my knowledge of the way in which British forces are operating in the south, I believe that their professionalism, integrity and subscription to the rule of our law and international law are well known to the vast majority of Iraqis. Of course they do not want any occupation of their land to continue for longer than is necessary, but they recognise the benefits that have accrued from the way in which British forces have operated.

Will the Foreign Secretary comment on the Amnesty International report that is splashed over the newspapers today? An eight-year-old girl was allegedly shot by British soldiers. I have been told that, in fact, a stone-throwing crowd surrounding two Warrior armoured personnel carriers fired over the heads of the crowd, and the girl was subsequently discovered dead. Blood money is involved. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on those appalling allegations, and ensure that they are investigated swiftly so that our soldiers can be cleared?

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman: the allegations are being investigated very swiftly. I hope to be able to tell the House more during the current Session, but it would be inappropriate for me to say more now, given that an investigation is under way.

The Foreign Secretary may know that in the last couple of weeks I have met two Iraqi constituents who have returned from Iraq after several months in Basra and Baghdad. The two have similar tales to tell. Both found it convenient to bribe their way into the country via Syria and Jordan, which tells its own story; both talk of the difference between the approaches of British and American troops. They support our action, but are extremely concerned about the way in which, even before the latest revelations, American behaviour had alienated and appalled supporters of the coalition—and the position is becoming far, far worse. What will we be able to do if we cannot influence the American Government?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. The American Government are well aware of the damage done, not only by allegations but by evidence of abuse, to their reputation and to the reputation of the coalition more generally. That is clear from the observations made at the highest level by the United States Administration. As for what we are doing about the situation, we are working in our way in the southern sector. Yes, we are leading by example, but we are also engaged in active discussions with President Bush, Secretary Powell and other senior members of the United States Administration.

On what date, and how, did the Foreign Secretary become aware of the contents and existence of the ICRC report, which was given to Sir Jeremy Greenstock in February?

I became aware of it at the weekend.

Is the Foreign Secretary seriously suggesting that Foreign Office Ministers were kept in the dark about that important report for some two months? I do not believe that the people of this country find that position credible.

On that last point, I am always happy to debate these matters. That is a question for the usual channels, but I am happy either to make a statement or for there to be a debate on Iraq—or, indeed, both. I enjoy it—it is important that I should come to the House and that the Government's position should be properly explained.

May I ask the Foreign Secretary to confirm some points about the ICRC report? We learned yesterday from the Defence Secretary that the report was given to Paul Bremer, who shared the contents with Sir Jeremy Greenstock in February. The Foreign Secretary tells us that he received a copy of the report only this weekend, which was the second weekend in May. What happened to the report in the meantime, with whom did Sir Jeremy Greenstock discuss it, and where in the British Government was it sent after his receipt of it?

My understanding is that Sir Jeremy Greenstock did not in fact receive the report, notwithstanding the suggestions made in the newspapers today. It was seen by a legal adviser to the British part of the coalition provisional authority in Baghdad, and was passed at the time to the British and to the CPA there. I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact date for that now, but I will be happy to do so by way of a written answer. A copy was subsequently received in the British Foreign Office and we can say with the benefit of hindsight that it should have been made available to Ministers; but as it happens, it was not.

What his Department's latest assessment is of the situation in the autonomous Georgian region of Adzhara. [171835]

I welcome Abashidze's departure from Adzhara and I am pleased that the tense situation there has been resolved without violence. That will help President Saakashvili's attempt to build a democratic and stable Georgia. I also welcome the constructive role played by the Russian Government in bringing this about.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he concerned about the fact that the Georgian Government are taking steps to expel Mr. Plamen Nikolov—special representative of the Council of Europe's Secretary-General Walter Schwimmer—following statements by Mr. Schwimmer on Adzhara? Does the Minister think that that helps or damages Georgia's international reputation, at a time when its Government say that they want to enhance the country's democratic and human right standards?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this question. I have seen today's press reports that Plamen Nikolov, special representative of the Council of Europe's Secretary-General Schwimmer in Georgia, is being expelled, and I am concerned at that development. As I have said, much progress has been made in Adzhara, and that has been widely welcomed internationally. In that regard, it is critical that Georgia continue to work with the Council of Europe to fulfil its obligations.

Bristol constituents who are actively involved in the twinning of Bristol and Tbilisi have followed developments in Georgia with some interest, as Members can imagine. What active role are the British Government taking in ensuring greater stability for that country in future?

We, along with the wider international community, have an interest in achieving a secure and stable Georgia. We are investing £2.5 million through the Department for International Development, we have a special representative in the region and we are advising and assisting the parliamentary reform process and defence sector reform. So it is fair to say that we are critically engaged and doing everything that we can to take Georgia forward in this important task.

If he will make a statement on the prospects for the reunification of Cyprus. [171836]

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Foreign Secretary's written statement to the House on 28 April.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government respect the overwhelming democratic decision of the Greek Cypriots on the Annan plan? Will he confirm that this was a clear and unequivocal rejection of a bad plan, and will he commit this Government to working towards a new plan which, unlike the old one, will respect the existing UN resolutions and international law, and be for the benefit and justice of both communities in Cyprus?

Of course we respect the decision of the Cypriot people. Members of the House and different Governments have dealt with this problem over a number of years. Everyone of good will concluded that the Annan plan, which had the overwhelming backing of all European and other member states of the international democratic community, was the best way forward. There is no other possible basis for a settlement. If we want a reunited Cyprus, we will have to come back to the Annan plan or something very close to it.

I welcome the Minister's statement and his acceptance of the democratic decision of the Cypriot people. Will he also accept that the international community did not fully understand the Cypriot community's fears and concerns in respect of the decisions put to them? Notwithstanding his comments today, will he redouble his efforts with the UN, and with the EU in particular, to ensure that this process is begun at the earliest opportunity?

My hon. Friend is right. I understand the difficulties associated with the way in which people voted in that referendum, but as I said, we have looked at the plan in some detail and it is very difficult to find an alternative, because we have to get support from all those involved. Leadership was there in Cyprus, but perhaps it was not expressed in the referendum, given that people have to take political positions. A lot of rethinking is taking place on the island.

Does the Minister recognise that a plan that was perceived by the Greek Cypriot communities as being far too heavily stacked in favour of the interests of Turkey and the illegally occupied area of northern Cyprus was never likely to command support? Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have worked with the people of Cyprus over many years recognise that we have to start looking again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) rightly said, at the resolutions that have been made over a longer period. Far too many of them were ignored in the Annan plan. Does the Minister accept that the Government have a responsibility to work with President Papadopulos to produce a new plan that will fairly balance the interests of both communities? The current plan was far too stacked in one direction ever to have a hope of commanding the support of the Greek Cypriot community.

I have been listening to Cyprus debates and questions during my l0 years in the House, and believe that this plan offered more than any previous one. Any plan has to be acceptable to both sides. Large sections of the Cypriot political community were in favour of the plan to begin with, until the politics changed dramatically with a rejectionist front growing ever wider. I like to imagine that a better set of solutions could be rustled up to solve the problem, but the hon. Gentleman, while he is still a Member of the House, will have to tell his friends in Cyprus that the way to win people's support is to be there, leading them. Such leadership was not much in evidence towards the end of the process. Britain cannot provide a solution. We need a UN solution, an international solution or a European solution. Some people in Cyprus said yes; alas, others did not.

Later this year, the European Union will have to decide whether to allow Turkey to enter the formal process of becoming a full candidate for EU membership. Can that happen without the reunification of Cyprus;?

Of course. We said clearly that Cyprus could enter the EU, uniquely among all member states, without having first resolved its own internal divisions. If we have behaved honourably towards our friends in the Government of Cyprus, we also have to behave honourably towards the Government of Turkey, who have made immense strides on the Cypriot question, making concessions that were literally unthinkable only 12 months ago, let alone 18 months or five years ago. Turkey has to meet the Copenhagen criteria and all the other norms required of her to start EU accession talks. On Cyprus, I believe that the Turkish Government cannot be faulted. Recent meetings in Greece between Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Karamanlis very much emphasise that point.

I agree with the Minister that the Turkish Government played a most constructive role in the lead-up to the referendum, further enhancing their credibility on the path to EU accession. Equally, however, does he agree that, in the light of past tragic memories, the stationing of Turkish troops in Cyprus post settlement presents a particular problem that must be addressed if fresh progress is to be made?

I cannot object to any proposal that the Turkish or any other Government might make in respect of troop numbers on the island. They were to come down dramatically over time. Turkey, along with Greece and the United Kingdom, is a guarantor power, but it was not on that issue alone that the Greek Cypriots voted no. We have to look forward to a more positive approach in Cyprus. I think that the time may come sooner than we expect when moves are made towards that double yes. I hope that it comes as soon as possible. I urge all hon. Members—and I know how passionately they are involved in Cypriot matters in their constituencies—to find a language that allows a way forward for Cyprus, rather than digging deeper into the trenches.

What steps the Government are taking to support a more effective security force for the Palestinian Authority. [171837]

The UK is supporting the Palestinian Authority in its efforts to improve its effectiveness in delivering security in the occupied territories, both for their own people and to prevent attacks against Israel. We are offering advice, encouragement and some limited practical support.

Both sides of the House want a two-stage solution to be achieved, based on a viable Palestinian state. Does my hon. Friend agree that a key part of the Palestinian Authority becoming a state is for it to show its control over security? Does he think that the key obstacle to its doing that is a willingness to use its capability, or the capability itself? What steps can we take to help the authority to achieve that goal?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, for the authority to become a state, the responsibilities of being a state need to be taken on. That is why we are helping and assisting as we are. The Palestinian plans appear to be a good approach to addressing some of the key security challenges. The international community, through the Quartet and other mechanisms, has urged the Palestinians to demonstrate 100 per cent. effort on security. Some effort has been made, but we believe that more can be done.