If he will make a statement on relations with Uzbekistan. [183355]

The UK's relations with Uzbekistan are, in general terms, constructive, but we have serious concerns about the human rights situation and the lack of economic and political reforms. We press those concerns strongly, both publicly and privately, with the Uzbek Government.

As regards Uzbekistan, who does my hon. Friend think has the better emphasis? Our splendid ambassador Mr. Craig Murray said recently in a speech that Uzbekistan was "not a functioning democracy", and he drew attention to the fact that there are between 7,000 and 10,000 religious and political prisoners there. In contrast, our esteemed ally Mr. Donald Rumsfeld said in a recent speech that US-Uzbek relations were growing stronger every month. He failed to mention human rights concerns.

This Government have been extremely forthright in our criticism of the Uzbek Government's human rights record. Our ambassador's position on human rights has this Government's full support, as I and other Ministers have made clear. However, the US Government also express similar concerns. I hope that my hon. Friend will look at the annual human rights report from the US State Department, in which significant concerns about human rights in Uzbekistan are expressed. Both the US and UK Governments have a policy of constructive but critical engagement to try to improve the human rights situation in that country.

Does the Minister accept that all the central Asian republics—including Uzbekistan but with the exception of Kazakhstan—are very poor, having depended for their income largely on the former Soviet Union? Will he and other Ministers use their best offices with EU partners to ensure that more of the EU's external affairs budget is focused on poor countries in central Asia, and on former eastern European states such as Moldova and others in the south Caucuses that are not part of the EU? If we are not careful, such states will become black holes— failed and failing states—in a few years.

I certainly take the point that poverty is a major issue. We need to see what more we can do, bilaterally and through the EU, in terms of support and engagement. However, poverty, or any other problem, is never a justification for a poor human rights record. That is why we express concern about Uzbekistan in the way that we do.

What his assessment is of progress made so far by the Iraqi Interim Government. [183356]

Good progress has been made since the Iraq Interim Government took over sovereignty on 28 June. Security remains the major challenge, but as Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari spelled out to EU Foreign Ministers yesterday, the new sovereign Government are cracking down on crime and terrorism, accelerating reconstruction, and preparing for elections by January 2005. We are proud to be a leading supporter of their efforts.

Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the acid test of the Interim Government's success is how it changes the lives of ordinary Iraqis, such as those in Basra whom I visited last year? The key is to secure the economy by ensuring that the pipeline operates efficiently. The Iraqi Prime Minister has said that every bomb that blows up a pipeline takes food out of the mouths of ordinary Iraqi children. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The saboteurs, criminals and terrorists sought to justify their destruction of parts of Iraq's infrastructure on the basis that they were attacking the occupying forces of the United States and the United Kingdom. It was never true, but that excuse has now gone. They are attacking the lifeblood of the Iraqi people. Notwithstanding that, there has been a significant increase in oil production, an increase in electricity generation and a great improvement in the number of jobs generated in Iraq in the past year, and we look forward to the continuation of that success.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that an important aspect of the work of the Interim Government in Iraq is to ensure good relationships with the Kurdish north, to ensure that a devolved Administration works there and to ensure that senior Kurdish representatives are included in the Government not just now but for the future to maintain a united Iraq?

Yes. One of the striking things about the new Iraqi political sentiment is that ideas of Kurdistan becoming a separate sovereign country have disappeared almost altogether, and all the Kurdish representatives whom I meet are fully committed to maintaining Iraq as a sovereign nation within its existing borders.

Given the increasing difficulties for women in Iraq, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what progress has been made towards registering women's votes? Will any special measures be introduced to enable women to vote safely when the full democratic elections take place in Iraq in January?

Of course we recognise the particular problems faced by women in Iraq, but one of the striking things about the new Government is their commitment, which they have put into practice, to increase women's representation. Six of the 30 members of the Government are women. That may not be a sufficient proportion, but it is greater than in many Governments across Europe.

I join in wishing success to the Iraqi Interim Government in restoring control of Iraq to the Iraqis. However, it appears that recently considerable numbers of Iranians have entered Iraq, many through the British-controlled sector, and have remained there. Can the Foreign Secretary give any indication of their numbers? Are there any connections between them and recent incidents of terrorism and insurgency in Iraq? Does he agree that it would be highly damaging to the credibility of the Interim Government if Iran were in any way seeking to exercise undue influence over political developments in Iraq? How do the Government propose to help the Iraqi Interim Government to combat that?

I agree with the last sentiment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. Generally, we have had good co-operation with the Iranians, including the establishment of border posts along the sector that we previously controlled. Following 28 June, the whole of the border is now under the control of the Iraqi Government; we are there as forces in support. All the neighbouring countries are seeking to exercise some influence over Iraq, but again one of the striking things about the Iraqis, including the Shi'a, is their own sense of being Iraqi and their wish to ensure that they determine Iraq's future, and that it is not determined by other countries.

As the Interim Government came a bout as a result of the war with Iraq, and as we went to war because we were told that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction that could be used within 45 minutes and were a threat to the world, if no weapons of mass destruction are found will the House be right in expecting resignations from some of the highest levels of Government?

I will not anticipate the outcome of the Butler report, which will be published tomorrow, but I remind my hon. Friend that we took military action because Saddam had flagrantly violated 12 years of Security Council mandatory resolutions and that the whole international community, including China, France, Russia and Syria as well as the United Kingdom and the United Stales, declared in Security Council resolution 1441 that Iraq posed a threat to international peace and security by reason of its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, its long-range missile systems and its defiance of the United Nations. I believe that the international community was right to make that judgment when it did, in November 2002, and—in the light of subsequent events—it would be right to make that judgment today.

What recent discussions he has held with the Israeli Government about the border wall under construction in the west bank.[183357]

My noble Friend Baroness Symons and I have discussed the issue of the barrier with Israeli Ministers on many occasions. I hope to talk to Israeli Foreign Minister Shalom later today. All of us understand Israel's need to take steps, within international law, to protect itself from terrorist attack, but together with the European Union we have consistently made it clear to the Israeli Government that the barrier built on occupied territory is illegal.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Israeli Government's decision this week to proceed with construction of the wall represents a serious and potentially lasting threat to any prospect of middle eastern peace? Is there anything that he or other western Governments can do to persuade the Israeli Government to back away from a course that appears to be utterly disastrous?

We have to continue with the process set out in the road map and get both parties back on track to implementing it. The road map places clear obligations on the Palestinians. in respect of security and taking action against terrorists operating within the occupied territory. It also places clear obligations on the Israelis. We welcomed the initial step taken by the Sharon Cabinet to withdraw from Gaza, although that is currently stalled, but I accept the burden of what the hon. Gentleman says. Taking territory from the Palestinians—and it is their territory—may be justified in the short term on the basis that helps to maintain security within Israel. However, in the long term it is not in the interests of the Israelis, nor it the interests of the Palestinians, as well as being unlawful. The only way to secure a safe future for both sides is by the implementation of Security Council resolutions for a secure state of Israel and a viable state of Palestine.

I agree with all that my right hon. Friend has said. However, the ordinary person in the middle east sees Israel flouting international law again and the most powerful nation in the world—the United States of America—saying that the International Court of Justice is not the appropriate forum in which the matter should be decided, at the same time as doing little to move tile road map forward. Can my right hon. Friend take furl her action with the American Administration to ensure that despite their internal problems, they do something to move the road map forward and—at least—send a message to the middle east that we are as concerned about Israel breaking international law as we are about anyone else doing so?

I shall be happy to pass on my hon. Friend's sentiments to the US Government and I think that they are widely shared on both sides of the House. I should say that the conclusions reached at the G8 summit in Sea Island last month were satisfactory and called on all sides to make further progress to implement the road map obligations. I understand the frustration expressed by my hon. Friend, and it is widely shared.

When the Foreign Secretary speaks to the Israeli Foreign Minister this afternoon, will he tell him that friends of Israel on both sides of this House are increasingly exasperated by the promises and actions of the Israeli Government and that we see their actions as the biggest single obstacle to peace in the middle east?

Yes, I shall be happy to do so.

Two weeks ago, I visited Israel and the west bank and saw the fence for myself. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in fact the fence is a fence, not a wall, for 97 per cent. of its length? I share some of my right hon. Friend's concerns about the line that the fence follows, but there can be little doubt that it has contributed to a significant reduction in terrorism within the borders of Israel. There have been very few attacks since May this year.

On my hon. Friend's first point, it is properly described as a fence for part of its line and properly described as a wall for another part, but it serves the same function—it keeps people out, where it runs. Our difficulty with the fence is not in the areas where it runs along what we regard as the international border—the 1967 line—but where it takes territory from the Palestinians. That is the problem. I understand, as we all do, the justification for putting up the fence, but I do not believe—nor, by the way, does the Israeli High Court appear to believe—that it was necessary to put it on that line in order to ensure the security that the Israelis justifiably require for themselves. While I understand the Israelis' concerns, however, it must be put on the record that in recent weeks although two Israelis have been killed in Israel and the occupied territories, 33 Palestinians have been killed. That may include some terrorists but it also includes six children and a mentally handicapped person.

Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why the Government appear to have shown little enthusiasm for the recent judgment of the International Court of Justice? Can he also tell us what assessment has been made by the Foreign Office of the likely consequences for UK influence and interests in the middle east as a result of the Government's lukewarm response to that judgment?

The position we adopted in respect of the ICJ application by the Palestinians was common to all European Union countries; our submission was that although we regarded the wall as unlawful and illegal we did not think it appropriate for the court itself to make judgments, given that there was not consent from each party, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know is a major part of the process if the ICJ is to have any function other than simply declaring what all of us accepted. However, on 30 October 2003 the UK voted in the General Assembly of the United Nations for a resolution declaring the barrier—the wall—outside the 1967 line illegal. That remains our position and I am certain that that will continue to be the position of the EU as a whole.

Ariel Sharon's response to the ruling of the international court was both predictable and disturbing when he called for building work to be stepped up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the barrier is not a security wall and that it does not separate Israelis from Palestinians but separates Palestinians from Palestinians? Will he call for the UN Security Council and General Assembly to discuss the matter so that a ruling can be made?

We have to understand why the Israelis put up the barrier. They did so to protect themselves from the effects of terrorism; there is no question about that. It is a security barrier. We all understand Israel's concern about security and we are all aware of the figures, which are clear, on the reduction in terrorist attacks since the wall went up. We do not argue with Israel's need to protect its security, although that must be within international law; what we argue about is the route of the barrier where it diverges from the line established in the 1967 resolutions.

In the same vein, when the Foreign Secretary meets the Israeli Government, will he communicate to them the anguish felt on both sides of the House at the suffering of people in Israel in the past as a result of the unremitting stream of suicide bombs directed at civilian targets in Israel? Will he reassure the Israeli Government that our Government and the EU will do all they possibly can to bring pressure to bear on the Palestinian Authority to bring to an end that stream of suicide bombers, without the need for a fence?

Yes, of course I will do that. We are doing a great deal to give support and encouragement to the Palestinian Authority in terms of advice and assistance in respect of their improvements to internal security so that they can better interdict the terrorists who are operating in the occupied territories.

Although I deplore all forms of suicide bombings—I hope that that is the view of all of us—would it not be useful if the Israeli Government were told that what happened over the barrier is totally unacceptable to the international community and, moreover, can only increase the anger and resentment of Palestinians who, seeing the absence of any political progress, only come to the conclusion, understandably but unfortunately, that they should give more support to terrorism? Sharon has brought misfortune on Israel and, undoubtedly, even more so on the Palestinian people.

There is no excuse at any time for terrorism, which always ensures that its victims are random and almost always innocent. That must be a rule that we apply without fear or favour, but I understand what my hon. Friend is saying when he suggests that there is very little political hope in the occupied territories, and the erection of the wall in plain contravention of international law obviously does not help those in the Palestinian Authority and the occupied territories who are seeking a political solution to those long-standing problems.

Given that a likely condition of Shimon Peres re-entering the Israeli Government—we welcome that—is that negotiations with the Palestinians in one way or another are likely to be restarted, is it not now time for the security wall itself to be expressly included as part of the road map? Would that not recognise both the Israeli need for security and legitimate Palestinian concerns about the wall's route and impact, enabling a step-by-step approach to be taken so that, as suicide bombing and terror diminish, parts of the wall could be rerouted or dismantled? Is that not something that the Quartet might take forward?

That is an interesting suggestion, which we will certainly consider. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the road map is an agreed document, so for that suggestion to be included in the road map would require the agreement of the Israeli Government as well as the Palestinian Authority and the other key members of the Quartet, but it certainly ought to be considered. Since Prime Minister Sharon himself has said that, when and if there is a political solution, the wall will have to come down—we welcome that—it is very clear that, even in his mind, an end to this line of the wall will have to form part of a final settlement.

What research he has commissioned on future international relations consequent upon demand, supply, distribution and trade in oil; and if he will make a statement. [183358]

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office White Paper entitled "UK International Priorities" identifies the security of UK and global energy supplies as a strategic challenge that, with our international partners, we intend to meet.

The Minister will be aware that current thought links energy security with industrialisation and modernity and that oil remains key to that despite its being a finite resource, but there is high demand for it, including from countries such as China, Brazil and India. Does he agree that it is a myth that such things can be controlled by the market and that, inevitably, military force will apply? Should not the Foreign Office commission a review now to seek some international order in oil supply and demand, rather than the current free-for-all, and to examine the United Kingdom's position, thus shifting us to more sustainable energy sources, less dependent on oil?

If it comes to military action, we will certainly all be the losers in those circumstances. What we need is a comprehensive strategy that takes account of market conditions, whereby we seek to achieve greater political stability in energy-producing countries. We consider energy security, but we certainly consider sustainability. That is why our commitment to the Kyoto protocol and moving beyond that is particularly important, as is increasing our commitment to renewable energy, so our leadership in the renewable energy and energy efficiency partnership internationally is a key component in what we are trying to take forward.

Has the Minister considered the foreign policy implications of the fact that we are about to become a net importer of energy over the next couple of years, much of it gas from Russia? If, for example, we wanted to invade a middle east country to remove its weapons of mass destruction, unless countries such as Russia agreed with us, they would turn off the gas. Given that the Government's energy policy is for us to become 70 per cent. dependent on gas in the future, does that not leave us rather exposed?

The reason why we are pursuing such a comprehensive strategy is that we will become dependent on oil imports, for example, from about 2010. Our relationship with Russia is especially important, which is why we need to consider the security of supply, and the situation explains why it is such a key partner to us. There is no one simple quick-fix solution. The issue is extraordinarily complicated, so we need to take things forward on a variety of fronts.

When my hon. Friend considers these matters, will he pay particular attention to the south Caucasus, given the presence of President Saakashvili in London today., and especially to the continuing tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia, given that Azerbaijan has oil and Armenia has none?

We certainly will take account of those issues. When I was in Georgia last week, we examined specifically the matter of the pipeline, which can be a significant component of the diversification of energy supply within that area. That is something that we must take forward, and I am sure that the Foreign Secretary and I will discuss it with President Saakashvili this afternoon.

Whether he plans to discuss the constitutional treaty for the European Union with members of the Trades Union Congress.[183360]

Yes, on Wednesday 21 July, when I shall meet the TUC executive committee.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will encourage trade unionists to vote for the constitutional treaty when we have a referendum because it will provide a sound legal framework to enable trade unions to pursue their members' interests within the law in a beneficial manner?

Yes, indeed I will. That is one of the many reasons why I shall urge the TUC executive committee and the trade union movement more generally to support the constitution for the European Union when it is put forward in a referendum.

Many thousands of workers in the onshore and offshore fisheries industries are gravely concerned by the incorporation of the common fisheries policy as an exclusive competence of the European Union. Many of them are trade union members who are worried that we will see the continuing decline of our coastal communities. Will the Foreign Secretary tell them whether he believes that that failed policy will lead to more or fewer jobs in the fishery industry in the future?

I think that members of the fishing industry are more concerned about the unconvincing dissembling of members of the Scottish National party over the issue, for which it received a disastrous result in the European parliamentary elections in June. As the erstwhile leader of the Scottish National party admitted to me, it is quite wrong for it to pretend that the conservation of marine biological resources is, for the first time, to become an exclusive competence under the constitution. It has been an exclusive competence ever since the European Union was established. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) knows that, and he needs to spell it out to Scottish fishermen.

Would my right hon. Friend accept that many of us regard the Government's achievement on the constitutional treaty as a considerable political and diplomatic coup in British interests? In that context, it was right for the Government to apply belt and braces to the charter of fundamental rights, but does he accept that by doing so, they gave the impression of giving too little weight to the social dimension in Europe? I think that that is an impression rather than a fact but, none the less, the Government would do well to redress it in the coming weeks and months.

I accept the compliments that my right hon. Friend offered in the first part of his question, and I understand the point that he makes. During my discussions with the Trades Union Congress next Wednesday—and in many other ways—we will certainly emphasise the benefits to British people and British trade unionists that have arisen over the past seven years and more of a Labour Government as a result of signing up to the social chapter. We shall continue with the agenda of social Europe.

Given that the charter of fundamental rights in the constitution will assuredly, according to legal counsel and the European Commission itself, lead to the European Court of Justice overriding our asylum laws and make it easier for trade unions to call strikes, why on earth do we need it?

Were it true, there would be cause for worry, but both points that the hon. Gentleman raises are nonsense. He will be aware that, under an existing article of the treaties, issues concerning negotiation of pay and the right to strike are specifically excluded from the European Union's competence and are a matter for national Governments and Parliaments.

What plans he has to take further steps to seek to amend (a) international law and (b) the structures of the UN to deal with tyrannical regimes. [183361]

This Government have led the international debate on improving collective action against tyrannical regimes. International law and the role of UN bodies are continually evolving to meet new challenges. We therefore fully support further reforms that strengthen the capacity of the UN and other bodies to deal with such regimes.

Does my hon. Friend accept that progressive opinion both inside and outside this House will judge our tenure in the Foreign Office against the criteria of whether we have been able to tackle tyrannies globally, first by strengthening international law and secondly by boosting global institutions so that we can effectively tackle tyrannies? Will he therefore redouble his efforts to seek humanitarian-based criteria for intervention in tyrannical regimes and report to the House on the current state of play in the high-level panel created by the Secretary-General of the UN to bring these matters to a serious conclusion, hopefully before the next general election in this country?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for his interest in this issue, which I know is long standing. We have already taken significant steps, such as through our commitment and support for the International Criminal Court, but much still needs to be done. We need to work on developing an international consensus through the United Nations in terms of the circumstances that should justify intervention in a variety of forms to meet a developing humanitarian crisis. We are very strongly putting that view forward, and I believe that that argument is increasingly gaining ground in the high-level panel.

Does the Minister agree that there are two difficulties with this matter? First, tyrannical regimes do not tend to abide by the provisions of international law. Secondly, the United Nations is itself significantly populated by such regimes, which will define the criteria by which the law might be changed.

In many respects, that is a counsel of despair. Historically, one of the biggest indictments of the whole international community and the United Nations was our failure to act in 1994 when genocide was taking place in Rwanda. I never want us internationally to face that situation again, which is why I believe that it is crucial that we take the agenda forward as positively as we can.

I applaud the ministerial team for its efforts in taking this agenda forward quite boldly, especially with the high-level panel, but what hopes does it hold that we can effectively have charter change and accomplish a two-thirds majority, so that we can seek intervention on humanitarian grounds in exceptional circumstances? When I held a panel of sixth-formers on Monday morning, many of them were opposed to intervention in Iraq, but would also support such action and are frustrated when they look at other parts of the world and see the failure of the international community to intervene in exceptional circumstances.

There is a developing consensus and we would be prepared to consider charter change, although given the requirement for a two-thirds majority at the General Assembly, that is a significant hurdle that we would have to overcome. If one looks at the history of the development of the United Nations, one sees that it has often been through a process of evolution. What gives me confidence, however, is that across the board internationally, there is a growing acceptance that we need to move forward on this issue. We are at the forefront of those arguments.

If he will make a statement on relations with Iran. [183362]

The United Kingdom's relations with Iran are based on a policy of constructive but conditional engagement. We aim to support Iranian efforts to reform, while making clear our concerns about Iran's policies in areas such as its nuclear programme, human rights and its attitude to the middle east peace process.

Does the Secretary of State agree that Iran, which has suffered so much from the brutal bomb attacks from members of the Mujaheddin e-Khalq organisation—the MKO—should have a meaningful role in discussions on the future of its 3,800 members who are housed in Camp Ashraf in Iraq, which is at present protected by US forces? Would not such a step improve relations between Britain and Iran and confirm the US's declared opposition to international terrorism?

I fully understand Iran's concern about the MKO, which I, when I was Home Secretary, declared to be a terrorist organisation following the passage of the Terrorism Act 2000.

What specific representations has the Foreign Secretary made to Iran in relation to its practical support for terrorist groups who oppose the existence of a state of Israel? Does he agree that support for terrorism by those who oppose the very existence of the Jewish state is the real barrier to securing a two-state solution to the problems in the middle east, not a defensive fence?

There are several problems in securing a positive and peaceful outcome to the problems in the middle east. One of those, as I accept, and always have, is the failure by some states, including Iran, properly to recognise the right of Israel to exist and to live in peace within its declared international borders.

Nearly two weeks ago, we were told in a written ministerial statement that the deadline of 29 June for Iran to return the marine equipment and weapons that were illegally seized from our servicemen on the Shatt-al-Arab waterway had not been met. Two weeks later, it appears that they still have not been returned, yet the silence from the Government is deafening. I have to say that the Foreign Secretary's timidity on this matter is quite extraordinary. Of course, improving relations with Iran is important, but not at any price. Cannot he see that a relationship based on giving in to aggression will always be suspect, and that if Iran wants genuinely to lift the veil of suspicion that hangs over her, she should be publicly pressed to apologise and to return our equipment forthwith?

Send a gunboat.

My hon. Friend says, "Send a gunboat." For the avoidance of doubt, we do not intend to do that.

The Foreign Secretary may dismiss my remarks, but this is the first time that we have heard him make a statement at the Dispatch Box about the incident, three weeks after it took place. I find that extraordinary. Does not the fact that our servicemen were intercepted by Iranian forces while sailing legally in Iraqi waters, forcibly escorted into Iran, and there humiliated by being paraded blindfold constitute a grave and hostile act; and why will not the Government stand up for Britain and say so?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should say what he proposes rather than simply increasing the volume. Does he propose military action against Iran—apparently not—or breaking off diplomatic relations? Neither proposal is sensible. The Government's approach is sensible and it is remarkable that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not suggested a single constructive alternative to our approach.

The Iranian Government's record on human rights is poor to say the least. What representations have the UK Government made to the Government of Iran on human rights in that country, especially with regard to the Kurds?

We have a continuing human rights dialogue with the Iranians. It is one of the reasons for maintaining diplomatic relations with them.

What recent representations he has received on solving the Cypriot problem. [183363]

We remain in frequent contact with all parties to the Cyprus problem about the way ahead. On 1 July, the Foreign Secretary and I met Mr. Ali Talat, leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, in London. Yesterday, I met Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister, Mr. Iacovou at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels. I hope to visit the island shortly to urge both sides to move forward rather than remaining camped on the existing positions.

Did the Minister manage to meet the mayors of Famagusta, Kyrenia and Morphou on their recent visit to the House? Does he agree that any settlement must include the right for people to return to their homes, businesses and properties? Does he welcome the fact that the three mayors are willing to work closely with Turkish Cypriots to rebuild their communities for the benefit of both communities on Cyprus?

I commend that initiative and the hon. Gentleman's excellent speech in a debate on Cyprus in Westminster Hall last week.

If he will make a statement on the funding of the proposed elections in Afghanistan. [183364]

The United Nations estimated total budget for the elections in Afghanistan is £106 million. The United Kingdom contributed £13 million of that. The UN has indicated that voter registration is now fully funded. It is confident that existing pledges from donors will cover the total cost of the election budget.

When the Foreign Affairs Committee visited Afghanistan in May, we were somewhat surprised to learn that none of the funding that the United Nations had pledged in respect of the Afghan elections had materialised, given that voter registration is lower than was anticipated earlier this year and that the election timetable appears to be slipping. I urge my hon. Friend to put continual pressure on our international partners to ensure that the funding for those important elections materialises.

The UN has indicated that the funding is forthcoming. Not all of it has arrived but we hope that it will. Six million of the 9 to 10 million potential voters are registered in Afghanistan; 38 per cent. are women. The joint elections management board announced on 9 July the separation of the presidential and parliamentary elections. The presidential elections will be held on 9 October and the parliamentary elections will be held separately in spring 2005. The UN advised President Karzai that there was not enough time to organise more complicated parliamentary elections with 2,500 anticipated candidates. It was unrealistic in the time frame. However, we are satisfied that the presidential elections can go ahead and we hope that the parliamentary elections will take place in the spring.

In what circumstances Chagos islanders may visit the Chagos Islands. [183365]

Under the immigration law of the British Indian Ocean Territory, all persons other than members of the United Kingdom or United States armed forces and Government officials require a permit to visit any part of the territory, including both Diego Garcia and the outer islands. With regard to the Chagossians, we have twice put in hand preparations to organise a visit for them to the outer islands—most recently in 2002. Those plans fell through for reasons beyond our control, but we remain genuinely prepared to reinstate the visit, should the Chagossians make such a request.

Does the Minister not accept that the Orders in Council signed on 10 June, which prevent the Chagossian people from exercising the right to return to the islands that they won in the High Court in this country in 2000, is an absolute disgrace? Does he not also accept that this issue should be debated on a substantive motion before the House and not be hidden behind Orders in Council? The reality is that pressure from the United States on the British Government overturned the legitimate court order made in this country regarding the legitimate right of return of the Chagossian people. Is it not time that the Minister met representatives of the Chagossian community to sort this out, so that those people can exercise their legitimate right to return to the islands from which they were quite disgracefully removed in the 1970s?

I have already met the legal adviser for the Chagossians. I have also met my hon. Friend and the Father of the House to discuss their concerns on this issue, and I am more than happy to meet any other representatives who have similar concerns. We cannot change what happened in the past. We are legislating on the situation as it is today, some 33 years after the islands were depopulated. Successive British Governments have compensated substantially in regard to this issue, and we are trying to take this process forward. We most certainly took this decision on our own account, and not because of any representations made by the United States Government.

Many in the House will find that very difficult to believe. Many people feel that the, treatment of the islanders by the British Government has been shameful over many years, and this latest expedition just confirms how little the British Government have done to protect their interests. Would it not be more honest simply to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to the United States, perhaps in return for an appropriate sum, rather than maintaining the pretence that we have any interest in serving their inhabitants?

If that is a substantive contribution, I am not sure that it meets up to the situation that we are facing. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on what he would have done had he been in Government and been presented with the independently conducted feasibility study that made it abundantly clear that maintaining long-term inhabitation was likely to be prohibitive, and that resettlement of the islands would be precarious. In those circumstances, it would be unreasonable for any Government to permit repopulation 33 years after the Chagossians left the islands. I am not absolving the British Government of responsibility. As I said, successive British Governments have compensated substantially on this issue, but to alloy, a return at this stage would be unreasonable in the present circumstances.

What recent discussions he has had with Commonwealth leaders about democracy in Zimbabwe. [183366]

We are in regular contact with our Commonwealth partners about Zimbabwe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter with the South African Foreign Minister on 13 June, and will do so again when he visits South Africa next month. I discussed the issue at the African Union summit in Addis Ababa last week. We will continue to work for the restoration of democracy and the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

We hear about June, July and then August. It is not only my Zimbabwean constituents who are concerned about the situation in their country. Many people are concerned about the abuse of food aid as a political weapon, militia beatings, police-condoned assaults on Opposition politicians, and attacks on the press and judicial independence. Why is democracy in Zimbabwe apparently an optional extra for this Government?

It is not, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. As I have said before—and as we said in the debate on this subject the other day, at which he was not present—hardly a day passes without the subject of Zimbabwe passing across my desk or that of one or other of my colleagues. We take the situation in that country very seriously, and we have made it clear to all parties that we want to see a return to democracy and the rule of law there.

In his discussions with Commonwealth leaders, has the Minister analysed how we got into this terrible mess with Zimbabwe? Will he discuss with them ways in which the failure to address the land question can be avoided elsewhere in the Commonwealth and, in particular, ways in which similar issues that are now arising in Namibia can be dealt with?

We have addressed the land issue, and we made it clear from the outset—and made money available some years ago to Zimbabwe to help it redistribute land through the rule of law—that we fully acknowledge the unfairness of land distribution in that country. What we do not accept, however, is the criminal way in which it has gone about redistributing land. It remains the case that we are ready to assist in the event that some future democratic Government in Zimbabwe set about trying to reform the land ownership structure in a responsible and democratic way.

Should we not be exploring how the Ministers and senior officials of Zimbabwe can be made personally accountable and ultimately criminally liable for their acts?

Certainly, that is an issue that will arise after the return of democracy in that country, but it will ultimately be a matter for the people of Zimbabwe.

Is it not a fact that each of the Commonwealth countries neighbouring Zimbabwe has a number of refugees from Zimbabwe? That spells out clearly the problems being faced by the people of Zimbabwe. Is it not time that President Mbeki took a strong lead to end the problems that the poor people of Zimbabwe are facing because of the regime there?

The South Africans are under no illusions about the extent of the crisis in Zimbabwe. They have the best part of 2 million refugees from that country, and I am sure that they are as frustrated as we are by the lack of progress. I know that President Mbeki has been trying to achieve dialogue between ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change. So far, we see no evidence that that is working. As I said, I am sure that they are as well aware as we are of,the scale of the problem, and they share our frustration.

If he will make a statement on the Government's reaction to reported corruption at the UN during the oil-for-food programme in Iraq. [183367]

We support the high-level independent inquiry approved by the UN Security Council on 21 April into the administration and management of the oil-for-food programme. Obviously, it is inappropriate for us to comment on the specific allegations of wrongdoing until the investigation has been completed.

I thank the Minister for that answer. But given that Iraqi sources estimate that $10 billion was corrupted by Saddam Hussein and his immediate entourage, and that that money is being used to fund the insurgency that is threatening both Iraqi civilians and our troops, can he give the House more details about when the Government were first aware of this scandal, and what specific moves they are making to support an investigation, independent of the UN, which cannot of course conduct an investigation into its own corruption?

The Government became aware of some allegations. We were able to take some action on those during 2001. Before that, there were rumours for some time of things happening in Iraq. We were aware that the way in which this operation was being carried on meant that it looked like some illegal surcharges were being placed on the price of Iraqi crude oil. It looks as though there were some illegal surcharges on humanitarian contracts through inflated prices, agreements with suppliers to supply inferior items at reduced price with refunds of the difference, and a US dollar fee for unloading and transporting goods within Iraq. A number of issues were therefore being examined. Certainly, it has become clear that the independent investigation must consider all of those. We support the work that Paul Voicker is doing in carrying that out.

What assessment the Quartet has made of Israeli plans to withdraw from the Gaza strip. [183368]

The Quartet principals met in New York on 4 May and issued a statement in which they welcomed and encouraged Prime Minister Sharon's withdrawal plan, saying that it

"should provide a rare moment of opportunity in the search for peace in the Middle East".

Was not my hon. Friend at all concerned when Ariel Sharon unilaterally announced his Gaza withdrawal plan, apparently without consultation with the Quartet, or, more importantly, with the Palestinians? If and when the settlers are withdrawn, will he be pressing with the UK Government for the total withdrawal of the Israelis from Gaza, and especially of the Israeli defence force, which causes so much death and destruction there?

I think the Quartet has made its position clear, and we support it. The Quartet welcomes the Israeli Cabinet approval of Prime Minister Sharon's plan, but sees it very much as a step along the path to implementation of the road map. Nothing in this process avoids the need for those road map commitments on both sides to be implemented, and the plan presented by the Israeli Government certainly does not avoid the need for final-status negotiations which, in particular, will include the issue of borders and refugees.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order, Points of order are always taken after statements.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are about to begin consideration of the Energy Bill, the timetable for which was agreed at an earlier stage. Additional information has come to light since the Committee stage that influences several amendments that Mr. Speaker, with his normal great wisdom, has selected under the heading "Distribution costs and transmission charges." The amendments address future electricity generation in Scotland and the future of the Government's renewable targets, so they are of vital concern. Is there anything that we can do to guarantee that those vital amendments will not be talked out due to the timetable that was produced at an earlier stage of the Bill, given their huge importance to Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Chair has no control over the length of time for which hon. Members speak, and is bound by the Programme Order that the House has already agreed.