1. What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of India about membership of the UN Security Council. [224384]

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in Indian affairs. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed the issue with his Indian counterpart, Mr. Natwar Singh, during his visit to India on 18 February. The Foreign Secretary made clear the Government's long-standing position, which commands consensus across the House, of support for India's candidacy for permanent membership of the Security Council without the power of veto.

I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that India, as the largest democracy in the world, one of the fastest developing economies in the world and with a long-standing reputation as a champion of the wider developing world, has a right to expect that Security Council seat at the earliest possible date?

It is obviously the case that it is appropriate that India's significance strategically, both in the regional grouping and around the world, is reflected in the support that Britain has offered. It is also the case that the Secretary-General, in his most recent report, indicated his personal desire that the matter be moved forward rapidly, which is obviously a subject of discussion in the United Nations at present.

The people of Kashmir have yearned for justice and the quiet miracle of a normal life for more than 57 years. My hon. Friend must recognise that there are grave reservations in many quarters of this country and beyond about admitting any nation to the United Nations Security Council while it is in breach of UNSC resolutions. Will he press the Indian Government in any future negotiations about the UNSC on the need for movement in implementing Security Council resolutions, and in particular on the need to admit independent human rights observers to all parts of Kashmir? Will he go further and tell political parties in this country that it is high time that one and all published their position on the region?

I acknowledge my hon. Friend's considerable interest in Kashmir. The United Nations charter does not link Security Council membership with full implementation of all UN resolutions, but the important point to recognise is that there is a moment of opportunity in relations between India and Pakistan. I know that the subject has been of some interest to my hon. Friend for some time. We are greatly encouraged by the work on the consolidated process to date, so we encourage all parties to the conflict in Kashmir—the Indians, the Pakistanis and the people of Kashmir—to continue to engage in that constructive process.

Will the Minister reiterate to the House and to his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) that the issue of Kashmir will not be allowed to act as a veto on the important case for India's membership of the Security Council, support for which is shared across the House, even if not entirely unanimously on the Labour Benches? Can the Minister give the House his best estimate of when we can expect the whole business of the new Security Council membership to be resolved? How long does he think the process will take?

The recent report by the Secretary-General, "In Larger Freedom", indicates his desire to see the matter moved forward expeditiously before the UN millennium development goals review summit in September. Whether that is feasible, time will tell, but the subject is clearly receiving much greater attention than it has previously and I am assured that much work is being taken forward by India and other nations concerned about and interested in those matters to try to find a way forward in the months ahead.

Although admitting that India has a good case to argue for a place on the Security Council, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to build confidence between Pakistan and India over the talks on Kashmir? If we allowed non-governmental organisations, such as Amnesty, and UN observers to monitor human rights in Indian-controlled Kashmir that would help to bring the two sides together.

We all have an interest in ensuring that breaches of human rights in that part of the world, or anywhere, are ended, so I endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments. However, it is also important to acknowledge the pace of the progress that has already been achieved by India and Pakistan. Recently, I had the opportunity to discuss that with the Pakistani high commissioner in London and I celebrated the fact that a new bus service is being established between Pakistan and India, which is just the latest confidence-building measure in a process that we are keen should be continued and taken forward constructively.

2. What recent discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary of Australia on policies in relation to the future of Iraq. [224385]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been in contact several times with Foreign Minister Downer to discuss the situation in Iraq and in particular the deployment of additional Australian forces. We certainly welcome the Australian decision to deploy 450 troops to al-Muthanna, one of the four provinces in southern Iraq in the UK's area of responsibility.

Is my hon. Friend aware that on four recent occasions in Question Time in the Australian Parliament the Australian Foreign Secretary has used my involvement with the organisation Labour Friends of Iraq in an attempt to undermine the stance adopted by the Australian Labour party? However, that has led only to establishing better links between Labour Friends of Iraq and the Australian Labour party. As in Britain, people, whether for or against the invasion, can unite in helping the emerging Iraqi trade union and labour movement to play an active role in the development of civil society and democracy in that country.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He will forgive me if I do not delve into Australian electoral politics, given that we have got a bit of that going on in this country at the moment, but I genuinely congratulate him not only on forming Labour Friends of Iraq, but on the significant contribution that he has made to the House over the past 18 years. I disagree with him over the decision to go to war with Iraq, but I respect his view, and I think that he respects mine. However, as he has demonstrated by his actions, whatever view we took on the war, it is crucial that we now work together to unite to help the Iraqis to build a free and peaceful Iraq, and I believe that his efforts in that regard represent a positive step forward.

On Iraq's future, I spent some time out there about three weeks ago, and I was reminded by many people of the need for the infrastructure to be rebuilt as soon as possible. I realise that, in the less secure areas, such as Baghdad, that is impossible at this stage, although there is a huge task ahead: it is estimated that $55 billion needs to be spent between now and 2007, but only $2.5 billion has been spent hitherto. May I urge on the Minister the need to consider the possibility of putting in new infrastructure as soon as possible in the more secure areas, such as the south, Basra and so on? That is fundamentally important to keep everyone on board. By the way, the importance of this issue was confirmed by the head of the UN mission out there.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. It is critically important that we redouble our efforts to improve the infrastructure in Iraq. Things are improving, and the Department for International Development is committing £40 million to a project to improve water supplies, sanitation and other aspects of the infrastructure. That project, which will start in April, is just one part of our overall commitment to rebuilding Iraq.

3. If he will make a statement on the position taken by the UK in the UN on Darfur. [224386]

We have been very active in the UN Security Council to secure the passage of three Security Council resolutions on Sudan: 1590, on 24 March, provides for troops in support of the comprehensive peace agreement; and 1591, on 29 March, applies sanctions against those who impede the peace process and pose a threat to stability in Darfur. The third resolution, 1593, was passed early last Friday, after weeks of intensive negotiations. It refers those identified as complicit in war crimes in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. Notwithstanding its opposition in principle to the ICC, the United States abstained on that resolution, as did China, Algeria and Brazil. Eleven nations voted in its favour, led by the United Kingdom, which sponsored the resolution. That resolution was, therefore, historic, because for the first time, the Security Council has made a referral to the ICC, sending out a clear message that there is now no hiding place for those who commit crimes against humanity.

I think that the whole House would welcome the passing of Security Council resolution 1593—as the Foreign Secretary says, it is an historic one—but does he agree that the only way that we will stop the killing in Darfur is if the Security Council introduces a chapter VII resolution to give an enhanced mandate to the African Union, increasing its deployment and giving it a peace-enforcing mandate, rather than simply a peace-monitoring mandate?

I agree with the burden of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The problem that we faced was to gain nine votes in the Security Council. When it came to resolution 1590, gaining a sufficient consensus for that deployment of troops was very difficult. Throughout, we have had to get other member states of the Security Council to recognise the gravity of the situation and some of them to appreciate that their obligations under the UN charter must take precedence over their immediate commercial or political interests with the Government of Sudan.

I warmly welcome the UK position on this, and I also welcome the United States position on this. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what influence he had over the US making that decision?

It is for that Administration to answer that, but all I can say is that there was a lengthy, yet constructive, period of negotiation with Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State. The US, along with several other countries on the Security Council, including China and Russia, is not a state party to the International Criminal Court—that is on an all-party basis. I am very grateful to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the US Government for their constructive approach and for the fact that they allowed the resolution to go through and thus let the International Criminal Court make an effective start, not withstanding that opposition.

The International Development Select Committee, in its recent excellent report, estimated that up to 300,000 deaths might have occurred in Darfur and that the UK Government should have done more initially with the international community to raise the alarm. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Sudanese Government must be compelled to halt their genocide; that the perpetrators of the appalling crimes must be brought to justice; that a no-fly zone must be enforced over Darfur; that oil and arms sanctions must be imposed and that the African Union, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, must be authorised to undertake peacekeeping instead of monitoring?

I refute entirely the suggestion that the British Government did not act quickly enough. Our aid programme is more than twice the level of that which we inherited from the previous Conservative Government. There is one absolute certainty of many: if there were a Conservative Government, aid would be the first casualty of the public spending cuts that they have in store. We have always argued for the toughest possible action in Sudan, but achieving that depends on gaining agreement inside the Security Council.

I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary finds it appropriate to go into party political politics because this important issue concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. Conservative Members accept UN resolutions 1591 and 1593 as a small step forward. We welcome the travel ban and the assets freeze, but that is not enough to stop the genocide. After seven Security Council resolutions, 10 reports to the Security Council, 2 million people being displaced and 300,000 deaths, it is scandalous that the African Union force has less ability to protect civilians than the UN mission in southern Sudan. Why did the UK Government and the UN ambassador not insist at least on that minimum condition?

What that question shows is how detached the hon. Gentleman and the official Opposition are from the way in which the UN operates. We have to gain a consensus, which involves international engagement and even engagement with our European partners to gain the four votes of the EU members of the Security Council. We have been arguing for months for tougher action, but in case the hon. Gentleman has not noticed, one or two members of the Security Council with veto powers have been reluctant to achieve that. We have not got to the point that we would wish to get to, but it is infinitely better than where we might have got to—and certainly better than where we would have got under a Conservative Government.

Although I recognise the lead taken by the Government, does my right hon. Friend accept that the failure of the international community as a whole to act on the terrible crimes and atrocities in Darfur reminds one of what happened 11 years ago in Rwanda? Is he further aware that those of us who have seen the film "Hotel Rwanda" are reminded once again how the international community—of course there was a different Government in Britain then—stood aside while some of the most terrifying crimes were committed, which were, in fact, the worst since 1945?

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. Rwanda was the most appalling example of brazen neglect by the international community, including the United Kingdom at the time. We in this Government have adopted a different approach, but the truth is that there are still members of the so-called international community—member states of the Security Council and others—that are turning a blind eye to clear atrocities that have taken place in Darfur. The United Kingdom has not been one of those countries because we have been at the forefront of not only giving aid to the benighted people of Darfur, but calling for effective international action.

May I welcome the progress that has been made on Darfur and especially the fact that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court has been invoked in the way in which the Foreign Secretary described? May I press him a little further on an answer that he has already given? He knows that the African Union committed to provide 3,600 troops and police, but only two thirds of that number have actually been deployed. Two years after the crisis began, with estimates that as many as 300,000 people have been killed, what steps can he take to persuade those in the Security Council who might be otherwise minded of the urgent need to provide a larger force of at least 10,000 with a clear and unequivocal mandate for the protection of civilians, who, not withstanding the welcome progress, remain at grievous risk?

Resolution 1590 provides for an AU mission of up to 10,000 military personnel. There is agreement to that. The problem is finding the necessary troops and, as its leaders accept, the African Union's capacity is an issue. Our aim is to give the African Union active military and other technical support—some of which is elementary logistical support—so that we can get the available troops into the region and deployed effectively.

4. What action the Government are taking, in conjunction with others, (a) to bring an end to killings in Darfur and (b) to ensure that essential supplies reach the region. [224387]

7. What action the Government are taking with the international community to ensure aid supplies reach Darfur. [224390]

Insecurity remains the biggest obstacle to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Darfur. We continue to insist that the parties stop fighting and abide by their commitments and we have provided significant technical and financial support to the African Union force. The UK is also one of the leading humanitarian donors to the crisis.

My hon. Friend is aware of the huge development need of all the people of Sudan. However, there is concern about the way in which development aid and debt relief are provided to the current Government, whom many of us do not trust at all. Does he agree that it is imperative that the entire international community, particularly the European Union, agrees a set of clear benchmarks and timetables for the provision of aid to the Government of Sudan and clearly states the consequences if the Government do not comply with the conditions of those grants?

I certainly agree. We have made it clear to the Government of Sudan that there is no prospect of, for example, action on debt relief, which they urgently want, until there is a wholly different approach in Darfur. We provide substantial aid and will continue to do so, but much of it goes through the UN agencies and NGOs that are active on the ground, not through the Government of Sudan.

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the aid that the UK Government have given, but he must be aware of the indications of the immense impact of the crisis on the region's population. It is suggested that up to 2 million people have left their homes and fields and, according to the most optimistic analysis, at least that number will remain in that position until 2006 and possibly beyond. In those circumstances, what is the likelihood of the Government providing additional aid, especially for the NGOs, and what is the likelihood of the level of contributions being increased at the forthcoming donor conference?

We stand ready to increase our aid as needed, but the key issue on the ground is security. The African Union force now numbers about 2,500, including 200 police, and as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned, there are plans to increase it to 10,000 if necessary. The signs are that the force is becoming more effective in protecting civilians, and once security on the ground has been established it will become far easier to get aid to the people who need it. Part of the problem now is not a shortage of aid, but an inability to get the aid that is already available to the people who need it.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) referred to the lack of trust in the Sudanese Government. Although one welcomes the improvement of the situation in Darfur, albeit there is still a long way to go, what assessment has been made of the impact of the continuing conflict in Darfur on the peace deal between the south and the north?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole international community is extremely anxious to see the comprehensive peace agreement that has been signed between the south and the north succeed. I am glad to say that representatives of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army have now arrived in Khartoum; we think that that will make a difference to the Khartoum Government's approach in Darfur and other parts of the country. We do not want to take our eye off the ball of the north-south peace agreement, because the prize is great. Our view has always been that the settlement reached between the north and the south could form the basis of an eventual settlement in Darfur. It is important to note that the civil war in Sudan between the north and the south was the longest-running civil war in Africa, in which 2 million people died.

As justice delayed is justice denied, I warmly welcome the referral of the war crime suspects to the International Criminal Court, a step for which many of us have long been arguing. I enthusiastically congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his role in bringing about that important achievement. Given, however, that we are all agreed that the priority must be to stop the killing in Darfur now—killing that continues to take place at anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 people a month—would the Minister again accept that there is a distinction between peacekeeping and peace enforcement? What is needed is peace enforcement through a larger African Union force, and a force that is blue-helmeted so that it receives the logistical and financial support that it requires to do its job.

I certainly accept that there is a difference between peacekeeping and peace enforcement. The mandate of the AU force is a matter for the AU, and up to now it has expressed itself satisfied with its mandate, the exercise of which is open to quite wide discretion. It has used force to protect civilians on occasion. In the past couple of months, the UN special representative, Mr. Pronk, has commented increasingly that the AU, as it extends its presence on the ground, is becoming increasingly effective at protecting civilians by a combination of what he describes as "deterrence and mediation". He says that it has "surpassed expectations". The key issue is to get more troops on the ground and there are plans for an eventual deployment of up to 10,000. Indeed, the numbers have increased substantially in the first few months of this year.

As for resolution 1593, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is far too modest to say that he played a crucial role in obtaining that resolution. I have no doubt that but for his intervention it would not have been obtained.

6. if he will make a statement on Government policy on Kashmir. [224389]

The Government fully support the ongoing composite dialogue between India and Pakistan, which includes the issue of Kashmir.

We warmly welcome the progress made over the last 18 months, including the ceasefire over the line of control and, among other things, the agreement to run a bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad, scheduled to start in two days' time. We continue to urge both countries to seek a just and lasting resolution to their dispute that takes into account the wishes of the people of Kashmir.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I commend his interest in the subject. Indeed, we were in the region at the same time. Can I have an assurance that when he was in India he made clear to the Government of India that any violations of human rights of the people in Kashmir would be unacceptable, and always has been unacceptable, and that proper remedies are required? Will he assure me that this outgoing Administration will leave with a clear message by repeating the final point in his main response: that the only solution that will be satisfactory for the people of Kashmir is one that they agree is satisfactory and where they determine their own future?

Yes, I did discuss the issue of human rights in Kashmir when I was last in India, which was in February, at about the same time that I went to Pakistan. We always raise the issue. Some limited progress has been made on that front, which I welcome. We shall continue to maintain the pressure. The fact that there is now a Congress-led Government is important in this respect because they realise that there is a human rights deficit in respect of Jammu and Kashmir. As for Kashmir generally, I commend what the hon. Gentleman said recently:

"What is needed in Kashmir is a broad based peace process, in which all the communities of the province feel that they have a part to play and have their voices heard."

That is our position too.

My right hon. Friend will recognise that this problem has gone on for 57 and a half years too long. The answer that he has just given was very encouraging, and we all welcome the positive signs that progress is now being made. He will also recognise, however, that there is still some way to go before the problem is solved. Will he ensure that this country gives the necessary support and encouragement to India and Pakistan in this regard? I agree with the final part of his first answer, in which he said that if there is to be justice for the people on both sides in Kashmir, a solution must be found that is acceptable to the people of Kashmir as well as to those of India and Pakistan.

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. As this is probably the last exchange that he and I will enjoy in the Chamber, may I wish him well in his retirement? He is a close neighbour and a good friend of mine, as well as an active and fine parliamentarian.

It is perfectly plain that there cannot be justice or a solution to the terrible problem in Kashmir without a solution that enjoys the consent of all the peoples on either side of the line of control, and that is something that we shall continue to press for. We shall also continue with our active engagement. It was the British and American Governments who played a very active part in persuading India and Pakistan just over three years ago that their mobilisation to war—they were right on the brink of war at that time—would have done nothing for the people of Kashmir and would have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on either side of the line of control. Since then, we have actively supported the composite dialogue.

I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on all his hard work to ensure that Pakistan and India came together to engage in this dialogue. Does he agree, however, that he need take no lessons from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on this matter? We have an all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, but not one Liberal Democrat Member has turned up to any of its meetings to discuss any of these issues—

Order. These are not matters for the Minister.

8. What progress has been made in implementing the proposals on international law and tyrannical regimes put forward by the UN's high level panel in November 2004. [224391]

We continue to work actively with the United Nations on improving collective action against tyrannical regimes. The high level panel and Kofi Annan's report, "In Larger Freedom", offer bold ideas for reform. These proposals will enable the UN to deal with the challenges that it faces, including the international community's collective responsibility to act against regimes that are unwilling or unable to protect the fundamental human rights of their people.

I congratulate the Minister and the Foreign Secretary on the priority that they have given to the work of the high level panel. This involves the big picture and the long-term perspective, but unless the United Nations has teeth, and the willingness to use them, nations on the Security Council and outside it will always be tempted to act unilaterally. Will my hon. Friend therefore ensure that the United Nations extends its willingness to take action to protect the human rights of the citizens of the nations of the world, and will he redouble his efforts to ensure that the UN eventually gets the teeth to make our international peace more secure?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for his interest in this issue; I think that this is the third time that he has raised it in Foreign Office questions. As many hon. Members have already said, the most damning indictment of the international community and the United Nations was the failure to act in Rwanda in 1994. If we can grasp the opportunity presented by the high level panel's report and the Secretary-General's response to it, we shall be in a better position to prevent similar situations from occurring. That is why we must strongly support the proposals.

What can be done about the United Nations Commission on Human Rights? The panel has pointed out the crisis of credibility, and the problems relating to membership and to the blocking of serious discussion of the major transgressors of human rights. The panel also made various recommendations. What are the prospects of their being carried forward?

There is a genuine problem with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I have spoken at meetings of that body three years in a row and it is a deeply problematic organisation. One aspect of the high level panel report that did not come up to scratch was its recommendations on that commission. In that regard, the Secretary-General's proposals, especially for a human rights council, are well worth exploring. We want that to happen.

9. If he will make a statement on Ukraine's progress towards fulfilling its action plan with NATO. [224392]

Following the election of President Yushchenko, European and NATO partners have stepped up dialogues with Ukraine. I held talks with President Yushchenko last week in Kiev. Through the annual target plan, Ukraine is moving towards NATO standards.

Will the Minister join me in sending good wishes to the people of Ukraine as they move closer to accountable democracy, including political control of the military? Will he also comment on press reports that the previous Kuchma regime sold Cruise missiles to other nations, including Iran? Is the Yushchenko Government co-operating fully in having the matter thoroughly investigated? What impact will that information have on our discussions with Iran?

I fully support the hon. Gentleman's first point. I encourage hon. Members to visit Ukraine, which, after the Orange revolution, is moving forward towards a European future as a strong democracy, and we must be there with the Ukrainian people.

I have raised directly with Ukrainian Government officials and the Foreign Minister exactly the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred of illegal sales of what they described as defunct Cruise missiles to Iran and China. They promised a full investigation and co-operation with us and other NATO Governments in finding out what went on.

10. If he will make a statement on the progress of the EU negotiations with Iran about Iran's nuclear programme. [224393]

Representatives of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the EU High Representative, the European Commission and the Luxembourg EU presidency met an Iranian delegation in Paris on 23 March. The meeting was the latest in a series launched by the Paris agreement of 15 November 2004. All sides remain committed to agreeing long-term arrangements, as envisaged in the Paris agreement.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. However, bearing in mind the Government's use of intelligence over Iraq, how can we trust their assessment of Iran's weapons of mass destruction?

We have made no published assessment based on intelligence about Iran and we have no plans to do so. The international community is concerned about Iran not because we have seen incontrovertible evidence that it has a nuclear weapons programme, but because of what is plainly on the record in the reports of the director general and the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency—namely, that Iran, over a period that goes back 20 years, has failed to comply with its safeguard agreements to give notice to the IAEA of all areas in which it was pursuing dual-use nuclear programmes. That is the basis on which we, in the so-called E3, have been taking forward the negotiations. I hope and believe that they are tough and will produce an acceptable solution.

We should acknowledge the great personal effort that the Foreign Secretary has put into our relations with Iran by going to Tehran, but, to be fair to the Iranians, is not it also true that they have suspended all nuclear activity over the past 18 months? Is it not the case that, on 23 March, Condoleezza Rice put forward some pretty positive ideas? Are they acceptable to the British Government? Do the Government stand by the commitment that there will be no military action against Iran? Is there some divergence from the French over attitudes to Iran in that they are more favourable towards having more positive relations than perhaps we are?

My hon. Friend asks me several questions. First, if I may, I should like to pay tribute to him because it is his last Foreign and Commonwealth Office Question Time and probably his last three days as a Member of this House after 42 years, including the past four years as Father of the House. My hon. Friend has been a good friend to me. He is a great parliamentarian, who will be remembered for his commitment to Parliament. He provides a fine example, which all should follow, whatever position they hold. I commend his work in Parliament and wish him well for the future.

I shall take my hon. Friend's questions in reverse order. He asked whether there was any divergence between us and France; there is not. Some have long suggested that there is such a divergence of view. The disappointment for some in Iran and some in the United States is that the United Kingdom, France and Germany have clearly kept together.

On military action, I have made it clear beyond peradventure that we can conceive of no circumstances in which military action against Iran would be justified. I cannot be clearer than that—[Interruption.] Do not forget what?

Do not forget the word "gravamen".

On the issue of the offers made by Condoleezza Rice on 23 March, we welcome those and they are a product of the negotiations. The real importance of the announcements made by the United States Government on 23 March was that they had moved from a position of some detachment about the E3 process to one of active support. Some of the things that we want to give to the Iranians we can only give to them if the US also does so. That is what we have now got, with the United States commendably agreeing not to block Iran's application for membership of the World Trade Organisation and to provide Iran with much-needed aircraft spares.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that while many of us criticise the Government for many things, a lot of us would like to pay tribute to him for his enormous efforts to maintain co-operation with Iran on the difficult nuclear issue? Does he accept that real progress is now being made, with access to all the appropriate centres at which such activities take place? Will he carry on with the good work, which is helping to maintain a situation that is desperately important for stability in the middle east?

I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Gentleman, who has taken such an interest in this issue over many years. It has helped me, and us, to know that there is wide support for our efforts to secure a peaceful solution to Iran's problems. Iran is not the easiest country with which to negotiate. It has made progress, however, and has suspended its reprocessing and uranium enrichment activities, which is of great importance in order to ensure, as provided by the Paris agreement, that there are objective guarantees that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons programme. Although I am clear that negotiations will continue to be difficult, I look forward to their satisfactory conclusion.

First, may I associate the Conservative Benches with the Foreign Secretary's tribute to the Father of the House, and also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) who is also retiring shortly? Is it not the case that the United States' support for the negotiations was only won following the pledge that in the event of failure, the UK and the EU would support a reference to the Security Council? What is the deadline for progress to be seen to be taking place before a referral will be supported?

I apologise for the fact that I omitted to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor). As an Essex lad, it always seemed slightly improbable to me that he, coming from the west coast of Scotland, should have taken to the rather raucous people whom I know and love in Southend, but he has done so, and they have to him. It has been a wonderful relationship. He, too, is a great parliamentarian.

There has been no change of approach by the E3. What was on the table right from the start of discussions between Joska Fischer, Dominique de Villepin, the then Foreign Minister of France, and me in June 2003 was that the default setting would be that we would join with other partners in referring Iran's clear breach of its safeguards agreement to the Security Council. That has always been in reserve, and it has been the means by which we have encouraged Iran to come to the negotiating table. Some active discussions took place on 1 March between the three European Foreign Ministers and Condoleezza Rice in private, and those discussions led, I believe, to the movement by the United States.

We have no specific time scale, and cannot set a specific one. I hope that the moment does not arise, but if and when it does, we shall all be clear that it has arrived.

11. What assistance he is giving to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to bring suspected Holocaust perpetrators to justice. [224394]

The Government believe strongly that all war criminals should be brought to justice whenever possible, and we support the aim of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to do that. I am sure that the whole House will share my pleasure that the Queen last year awarded an honorary knighthood to Sir Simon Wiesenthal as Britain's tribute to his contribution to righting the wrongs of the great evils of the Nazi era, which must never be forgotten.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he accept that the international community must take the final opportunity to deliver justice to the victims of the holocaust, and bring to account those who committed acts of genocide?

Very much so. In January, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre launched what it called Operation Last Chance, a campaign in eight countries to identify suspected Nazi war criminals and bring them to justice. It has the Government's full support.

13. If he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [224396]

Securing peace in the middle east through the implementation of the road map, leading to the establishment of a viable independent state of Palestine alongside a secure state of Israel, is a top priority for this Government. The London meeting that we hosted on 1 March was a successful example of our commitment to working with the international community and the parties concerned to achieve a negotiated settlement.

I thank my right hon. Friend and wish him every success in the ongoing dialogue that will be required. May I remind him, however, that while we recognise that the core of the middle east problem is the Israel-Palestine question, if there is to be peace in the middle east, Israel must live in peace with all its neighbours? People in Israel—Israeli Jews, Israeli Christians, Israeli Muslims—need to feel that they are living in a democratic state that recognises their rights as well. May I ask my right hon. Friend to continue to press, in the months ahead, to ensure that there is a comprehensive peace plan so that all peoples in the middle east can live in peace together?

My hon. Friend and I entered the House on the same day in 1979. He, too, has been a very fine parliamentarian, but he has also been extremely active—indeed, I can think of no one more active—on the issue of peace in the middle east and justice for the Palestinian people, as well as security for the Israelis. He has been Chairman of our party's foreign affairs committee for many years, and I am extremely grateful to him for supporting it. I am sure that the whole House wishes him well in his retirement.

I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that after years of frustration, not least for him personally, he can now see some light in the middle east. The prospects are better than they have been at any time in the past four years, and the London meeting called by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and attended by representatives of the Palestinian Authority, many Arab leaders and members of the Security Council set out tangible steps that we in the international community are taking better to support the creation of that Palestinian state.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is clearly in everyone's interests in the middle east today—in the interests of both the security of Israel and the settlement of the problems from the Palestinian point of view—for all possible support to be given to the moderate Palestinian leadership that has emerged? Does he also agree that one way of doing that is to give more material support, particularly for economic development of the infrastructure of the Palestinian people, and that more careful account should be taken of the way in which such aid has been used than has been taken in the past?

I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. There have been defects, to say the least, in the way in which aid has been used in the past. That has changed in the past two years under Mr. Fayyad, the Finance Minister: indeed, it is now changing rapidly.

One of the many good things to emerge from the meeting on 1 March was a clear international commitment—and the involvement of the World Bank—to achieving precisely what the hon. Gentleman seeks and what is wanted in the Palestinian area, namely, an active programme of economic reconstruction.

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Israeli Government on the progress made so far on the implementation of the Gaza withdrawal plan and on beginning the handover of Palestinian towns? What more can the Government do to support the Palestinian leadership in dealing with the terrorism sponsored by external agents?

I am glad that my hon. Friend put on the record her support for the action taken by the Israeli Government, because the truth is that Prime Minister Sharon and his Government and the majority in the Knesset have shown enormous courage in the decisions that they have taken to secure long-term peace and a degree of stability never enjoyed before in the whole of the region. On support for the Palestinians as the Gaza withdrawal takes place, we are giving the Palestinians active support in rebuilding their security forces, reforming their political institutions and reconstructing their economy.

14. What issues will be discussed at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Vilnius. [224397]

NATO Foreign Ministers will discuss enhancing political dialogue in NATO and current operations, particularly those in Afghanistan and Kosovo. The NATO-Russia Council will focus on enhancing political dialogue and practical co-operation.

Is the Minister aware that when I attended the headquarters of NATO with a Western European Union delegation recently, it took a somewhat mischievous question from me—

Most unusual!

Yes, most unusual, as my hon. Friend says.

It took a somewhat mischievous question from me to elicit a clear and robust explanation of NATO's developing role, which I got from the British ambassador, rather than from the Secretary-General. Will the Minister—or whichever Minister is going to Vilnius—make it clear to the Secretary-General that we expect him to be a robust and clear defender of NATO's new role and particularly of the transatlantic link, including Canada as well as the United States?

Put him in the House of Lords.

In my right hon. Friend's perhaps final contribution, he shows just how much the House will miss him. But he is a very young man and a great Scot, so perhaps there is a role for him in international activity; and—who knows?—perhaps the post of Secretary-General of NATO might fall vacant. I will certainly vote for him.

The NATO alliance remains the guarantor of our collective defence, a key forum for transatlantic consultations and security, and an effective vehicle for crisis management, as we have seen in the Balkans and Afghanistan. It is also central to the development of stability and security beyond its borders, through partnerships in the middle east and central Asia. That is why I find it so distressing that the leader of the Conservative party is as unwelcome in Washington as he is unwanted in Europe. I hope that the people of Britain deliver a verdict on the Tories' cynical policy. In fact, the one party committed to NATO—

Order. There are still two days to go.

17. If he will discuss the situation in Chechnya with the Russian authorities. [224400]

The Government remain concerned about the situation in Chechnya. Ministers and officials, including the Secretary of State, frequently discuss our concerns with the Russian authorities and will carry on doing so. The Government will continue to work with the Russian authorities to identify further opportunities to support social and economic development in Chechnya and in the wider north Caucasus region.

My hon. Friend will doubtless have read the latest Human Rights Watch report on Chechnya, which is extremely worrying. It shows that disappearances in that country are continuing and that, in the view of the HRW, they constitute a crime against humanity. Will he point out to the Russian ambassador that in 2002, the all-party group on human rights sent a delegation to Russia, backed by the Foreign Office, to ask about Chechnya, and that we met a high-level Russian group and were invited to visit Chechnya? That invitation has not been followed up, despite requests on our part. Will my hon. Friend ensure when he next meets the Russian ambassador that that invitation is honoured?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. There are genuine concerns in Chechnya about disappearances and abductions, and we do press these issues very strongly. We have been encouraged by recent indications that Russia is willing to collaborate with other states to improve the situation in Chechnya. It wants to work with them to bring positive improvements to the region, and we should respond in that regard.

In specific response to my hon. Friend's question about the all-party group, there are some genuine security concerns within Chechnya that would make such a visit exceedingly difficult at the moment. Nevertheless, I shall ensure in my discussions with the Russian ambassador that my hon. Friend's commitment and enthusiasm is communicated to him so that he can correspond directly with her.

19. If he will make a statement on the EU embargo on arms sales to China. [224403]

The arms embargo review announced by the December 2003 European Council is ongoing. In December 2004, the European Council concluded that any decision regarding embargo lift should not result in an increase of arms exports from EU member states to China. We continue to work with our partners on that issue. We recognise that the political environment has become more difficult in the light of the passing of the anti-secession law in China on 14 March. We are consulting widely and taking all relevant factors into account.

I thank the Minister for that reply. What is the point of lifting the embargo if it is not going to increase arms sales, and what is the point of having an embargo when the Foreign Office is committed to an ethical foreign policy?

It is clear that the vast bulk of arms sales blocked by the embargo would have been blocked by the EU code of conduct on arms sales. That is the element that provides us with protection and reassurance. Nevertheless, there is a debate across the EU about the issues and questions involved. I believe that it is important to take time to deal with those issues properly, so the process will take as long as it takes.

Notwithstanding the Minister's answer, is it not important to take note of the Amnesty International report today, which makes it clear that the death penalty is still very much alive in many parts of the world, particularly in China? Nearly half of all the death penalty executions last year occurred in China. Should we not also take human rights issues in China into account?

We take strong account of the human rights situation in China. Indeed, we have a twice-yearly human rights dialogue with China and one of the key issues that we consistently raise is the widespread resort to the death penalty. As my hon. Friend is aware, the death penalty applies, though we oppose it, in many parts of the world. We need to take the opportunity to put forward our concerns on human rights, but the process will take, as I said, as long as it takes for all the EU concerns to be addressed.

There is a strong and growing alliance against lifting the EU embargo. All the informed regional players—the United States, Japan, Australia, Russia and South Korea—are, for regional security reasons, all against lifting the ban.

In the context of China's anti-secession legislation, which talks about using non-peaceful means against Taiwan, is it not time that the UK Government stopped vacillating and that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary took a principled stance on this issue?

I seem to recall that the arms embargo was put in place in response to the events in Tiananmen square and that the first Government to visit Beijing after that event was the previous Conservative Government.

Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific concerns. As the Foreign Secretary has made clear, he recognises that the political environment has become more difficult in the light of the passing of the anti-secession law in China on 14 March. Nevertheless, China is a major strategic partner in the international community and the hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on whether it is right to put China in the same basket as Burma and Zimbabwe. We do not believe that it is, and we are protected by the EU code of conduct. There are questions and concerns across the EU and we must deal with them effectively. As I said, that process will take as long as it takes.

21. What progress is being made with Croatia's application to join the EU. [224405]

The European Council of December last year agreed to open accession negotiations with Croatia on 17 March 2005, provided that there was full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. On 16 March, EU Foreign Ministers concluded that the conditions for opening negotiations had not been met and postponed their opening. We hope that the Croatians will meet those requirements as soon as possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and I am pleased that the Government are taking a strong line on this matter. Many of us agree wholeheartedly that the apprehension of war criminals is of the greatest importance. Will he pursue that policy well into the future?

When I was appointed four years ago, my first visit was to Zagreb, when I urged full co-operation with ICTY in respect of a gentleman called Gotovina. After serving in the French Foreign Legion, he was reported to have popped up in Guatemala and Argentina in the years of dictatorship in those countries, before returning to his native Croatia. He is wanted on very serious charges. I appeal to him to report to The Hague so that the barrier to Croatia starting negotiations for EU membership can be lifted. That membership is a policy goal that the Government fully support.

rose—

Order. I call Michael Jack.

5. What assessment his Department has made of the fairness of the Zimbabwe general election. [224388]

15. When he next expects to meet his EU counterparts to discuss the recent election campaign in Zimbabwe. [224398]

16. If he will make a statement on the recent election in Zimbabwe. [224399]

As the House is aware, elections were held in Zimbabwe last Thursday, 31 March. The declared results give ZANU-PF 78 seats, the Movement for Democratic Change 41, and Independent one. With 30 further seats being by appointment, the gift of the president, the declared result will give ZANU-PF the two-thirds majority required for amending the Zimbabwe constitution.

Those are the official published results, but there is strong evidence that they do not reflect the free democratic will of the Zimbabwean people. There was, it is true, less violence than in 2000 and 2002 but, overall, the election process was seriously flawed. Thousands were turned away from the polling booths. There are serious unexplained discrepancies between the votes tallied and the official number announced, and other abuse was rife. That included the misuse of food aid, ghost voters, a lack of equal access to the media, the use of draconian security legislation, and an election commission packed with ZANU-PF supporters.

If Mr. Mugabe had had nothing to hide over the conduct of these elections, he would have allowed full access by the international media and experienced external election observers. Yet the BBC and others were banned, Commonwealth and EU monitors were refused access and, most revealing of all, even observers from the experienced and respected Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum were banned—presumably to punish them for their critical report in 2002.

The recent official report by the Commission for Africa rightly set out the need for stronger action by the international community to address Africa's problems. However, the commission also made it crystal clear how much bad governance has "blighted"—its word, not mine—parts of Africa, and frustrated people's hopes of building for themselves a better and more prosperous future. There is, tragically, no more powerful example of that than the situation in Zimbabwe.

Given all of that, I am surprised and saddened that Zimbabwe's neighbours have chosen to ignore the obvious and serious flaws in these elections, and have declared them fair. However, many in southern Africa have spoken out about the reality of the situation in Zimbabwe. Just two months ago, Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that Zimbabwe was a

"huge blot on the record"

of the world's poorest continent. Moreover, the deputy president of the Confederation of South African Trades Unions. Mr. Joe Nkosi, complained that free and fair elections could not occur "under current legislation". Confederation delegations have been banned from Zimbabwe for their stand.

The UK will continue to work with its international partners for a return to accountable, democratic government that respects the rule of law and the human rights of Zimbabweans.

The EU's common position on Zimbabwe is the strongest on any country in Africa, and includes targeted sanctions against the Government of Zimbabwe and an arms embargo. Meanwhile, the UK is committed to doing all that it can to help to meet the humanitarian needs of the Zimbabwean population. The UK has made a major contribution to ensuring that Zimbabwe's food shortages do not lead to a famine by donating over £71 million in food aid since September 2001. We have also contributed £26.5 million to efforts by non-governmental organisations to tackle the AIDS epidemic now affecting one in four Zimbabweans.

A strong statement about the elections was issued last night by the EU presidency. That statement concluded that the elections could not be judged free or fair, and called on Zimbabwe to restore democracy. International measures taken show the widespread condemnation of President Mugabe's ruinous policies. Until Mr. Mugabe and his regime respond, that regime will continue to be isolated internationally.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that comprehensive statement, which shows what a falsehood the elections were. What steps can be taken to stop the President of South Africa, in particular, seemingly being in denial of the fact that the elections were totally unfair? On humanitarian aid, what further steps can be taken to stop people in Zimbabwe being exploited by a sudden rise in the cost of just about everything they need for their everyday lives?

On the position of the South African Government, they must make their own decisions. South Africa is a neighbour and the largest and most significant country in the whole of southern Africa. It, like Botswana and all the other adjoining countries, has suffered grievously as a result of the ruinous policies practised by President Mugabe, including the flight of hundreds of thousands of refugees from Zimbabwe, particularly to the countries in the south. We have a different view and a different analysis of what has happened in Zimbabwe from that taken by the South African Government. I regret that we have a different view, but I happen to believe that our view is based on the best evidence available.

As to aid, we have throughout the period of difficulty following the policies of President Mugabe made it crystal clear that we will continue to stand by the people of Zimbabwe, who have been the victims of President Mugabe's ruinous policies. We have already put in very large amounts of aid, and we shall continue to do so.

The election was a total insult to democracy. In some districts, dead people were on the electoral roll, whereas thousands of people who wanted to register could not do so. Furthermore, in some of the seats in which the MDC is now challenging the result, more votes were counted than were cast. The Foreign Secretary mentions South Africa. Cannot pressure be put on South Africa by the EU and the US to take a much stronger stance?

The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about flaws. I understand that even those who were allowed to observe the elections because they were thought to be more sympathetic to Mugabe have commented that at least 10 per cent. of those who tried to cast a vote were prevented from doing so. Independent observers suggest that 30 per cent. of people who tried to cast a vote were prevented from doing so. Meanwhile, there was much stuffing of the ballot boxes, use of the votes of ghost voters and so on.

It is a matter of fact and of great regret to everybody in the House that, as I said, we take a different view from the South African Government. The EU shares our view. The way forward is to continue to maintain a close dialogue with the Government of South Africa. I am certain of one thing. I cannot say how long President Mugabe will stay, but I know for certain that he lacks any effective consent of the people. Beneath an apparently strong veneer, his Government are weak and fragile and will collapse sooner rather than later. The responsibility for rebuilding the Government of Zimbabwe will fall on everybody in the international community, not least South Africa.

Sadly, as in so much else, the Government are all talk and no action when it comes to Zimbabwe. Is that not well illustrated by the fact that they signally failed to get Zimbabwe on to the agenda of the recent EU summit?

The reason that Zimbabwe was not on the agenda of the EU summit was that it had been on the agenda of the Foreign Ministers who met a week before, and we had unanimously agreed a position which was followed through last night, after the elections. The hon. Gentleman wishes to mix it. His party's policy is detachment from the European Union. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the deputy Leader of the Conservative party and shadow Foreign Secretary, is unaccountably absent today. He is apparently in the west of England, scared to death about the Liberal Democrat challenge, even in Devizes. He has made it clear that he does not want a common foreign and security policy and has said that it is absurd. Without the common foreign and security policy and our engagement inside the European Union there would have been no common policy on Zimbabwe, no sanctions against it and no arms embargo—[Interruption.] Somebody said from a sedentary position, "What is the difference?" The difference is that we would have been on our own and would have played into Mugabe's hands. He has long suggested that the dispute is a bilateral one between us and Zimbabwe. It is not. It is an international scandal for which he is responsible.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that domestic and international observers are the key to democratic elections? What discussions has he had with the Home Secretary to ensure a change in the law that prohibits international and domestic observers at British elections? Will he allow international observers to come to this country with freedom of access to all polling stations? Perhaps he would consider sending them to the midlands where they would be greatly appreciated.

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my noble and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. However, as far as I am aware, anyone can come to this country and observe elections. I have no evidence whatever to suggest that we would not welcome observers, and they are present in any event.

I can understand why the Foreign Secretary chose to deal with Zimbabwe in that way rather than with a full statement. If one issue highlights the total failure of the Government's foreign policy, it is Zimbabwe. The electoral fraud did not spring up suddenly. Mugabe has been preparing the way for years. He has put in place the Public Order and Security Act and the infamous Non-governmental Organisations Bill under the gaze of the international community which stood by and watched. Is not Mugabe's victory proof that the EU's sanctions were too weak?

Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House where that fraud leaves the Prime Minister's Commission for Africa? Good governance is a prerequisite for progress. With so many African countries endorsing the electoral process as free and fair, has the commission not fallen at the first hurdle?

Is not the Foreign Secretary ashamed that the Government have failed to give effective leadership to the international community in Zimbabwe? After eight years of talk, is it not time for a Government who will act to restore freedom and security to the people of Zimbabwe?

It is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman was unable to see the grimaces of wiser and more experienced colleagues behind him. The House knows that it is absurd to try to imply that any party in this House is responsible for Mugabe's outrages.

I understand the frustration felt by everyone in the House and around the world about President Mugabe, but in the absence of military action—neither we nor the Conservatives have ever countenanced that and it has never been on the agenda—there are understandable limits to the action that can be taken. The hon. Gentleman invites us to look into the crystal ball to see what might happen to policy on Zimbabwe if the Conservatives came to power, but we might as well examine the book to see what happened when they were last in power. Far from standing up against Robert Mugabe, who was then and still is in power, and calling for international sanctions, they did two things; they closed their eyes to appalling atrocities in Matabeleland and gave Robert Mugabe a knighthood.

Many of us who are utterly revolted at the way in which Mugabe has engineered the election and damaged Zimbabwe and its people consider that, in view of the cynical way in which he sought to exploit Britain's former colonial status during the election, our Government have been wise to seek to work in concert with the international community, including Zimbabwe's neighbours. Will we continue to encourage those neighbours to put far more pressure on Mugabe?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend because I know that that was probably one of his last interventions in the House, at least for the time being, and we wish him well.

Yes, we will continue to apply all the pressure we can and to engage in dialogue with our friends in southern Africa about why it is in their interests as well as ours for them to take a tougher line on Zimbabwe. In respect of the future of the Africa Commission, the current situation in Zimbabwe shows not that the commission's report is stillborn, but the urgency of implementing its recommendations.

I do not think that a single Member of the House of Commons does not believe that Mr. Mugabe is destroying one of the most prosperous countries in central southern Africa. May I make a plea that the House remains united in its opposition to Mr. Mugabe so that we and other international bodies can bring about his downfall and a change towards a democratic African system in that wonderful country? Can we pray for the people in their hour of need and hope that Pius Ncube will not be forced to repeat his request to people to go out on to the streets, which may be one way to bring Mr. Mugabe down?

The hon. Gentleman has been consistent and courageous in his position on Zimbabwe. I entirely agree about the need for an all-party consensus, which I believe exists. I hope that his Front-Bench team accept the reproach to their attitude that he has just administered.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his robust statement, which the whole House will genuinely welcome. Does he share my concern that one member of the Africa Commission, the President of Tanzania, recently said:

"I don't see Zimbabwe as illustrating bad governance. I don't buy it."

That strikes me as worrying.

Does the Foreign Secretary further agree that the key to the future will be South Africa and the role of President Mbeki? Will he ensure, when this country chairs the G8 and African leaders, including President Mbeki, come to Gleneagles, that Zimbabwe is made an issue of principle? We must begin to accept that President Mbeki is not a Mandela.

My hon. Friend, like the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), has been consistent in her approach on Zimbabwe, and I commend her for that. As I have explained, and as the House is well aware, it is a fact that the Government of South Africa take a different position from that of the whole European Union, the United States and many others in the international community. It is currently taking a different stand from that of the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who yesterday said, in very measured terms, that he was

"concerned that the electoral process had not countered the sense of disadvantage felt by the opposition political parties who consider the conditions were unfair."

He went on in a similar vein.

We have good relations with South Africa. If there is ever to be any solution to the issue of Zimbabwe, we have to maintain and build those relations so that we can strengthen dialogue, which is what the Prime Minister, myself, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and many others are doing all the time. In the end, I believe that those countries that neighbour Zimbabwe will be forced by the pressure of events to recognise the reality going on underneath their noses.

Bearing it in mind that there is truly a consensus in this House and that South Africa has such a crucial role to play, will the Foreign Secretary invite the admirable and much-admired South African high commissioner to see him later today and tell her just how strongly people in all parts of the House feel about the appalling tyranny in Zimbabwe?

If that is the will of the House, I shall certainly invite the high commissioner in. It may not be this afternoon, but it will be before Parliament dissolves.

He is going off to Blackburn.

No, I am not.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for explaining the absence of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I have given careful consideration to that information, and I think that, on balance, he would have been better off here, but only just.

In a country with 50 per cent. unemployment, with 120 per cent. inflation and with 25 per cent. of its population affected by HIV/AIDS, just how revealing does the Foreign Secretary think it was when Mr. Mugabe thanked the people of Zimbabwe for having voted, in his words, "correctly"?

That one adverb spoke volumes, because there was huge intimidation of voters. It is true that there was less violence than in 2000 or 2002, but let us be clear that the state-controlled media, everybody in ZANU-PF and that apparatus, the police and the army—all the security forces—were all saying that if people voted for the Movement for Democratic Change, they were both cowards and traitors. Being a traitor in Zimbabwe is not just being damned in words; it means losing one's livelihood and, often, being locked up. The level of intimidation was intense, in addition to, as we now know, there being high levels of fraud.

The Foreign Secretary will appreciate that I am no fan of colonial or neo-colonial policies anywhere. Does he agree that the European Union has an essential role to play here? What enhanced measures is the EU considering? After all, that would help to combat false accusations from Zimbabwe that international concerns come only from past colonial masters.

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, may I just say that, these days, nobody in this House has any interest in neo-colonialism? Our past is our past, and Africa's past is its past. No one here is directly responsible for that, and we have to deal with that aspect of the past. What we have shown in respect of every other country that is a former British colony is our ability to develop good relations with those countries—across Africa, across Asia and across the whole Indian subcontinent—building on the best of our shared experience and disposing of the worst. It is tragic that in Zimbabwe President Mugabe has repeatedly used as an excuse for his own ruination of a once fine and wonderfully prosperous country his suggestion that the reason for everything that he has done, in an independent, sovereign state, is our neo-colonial aspirations. It is nonsense; it remains nonsense, and we will continue, with our European partners, to work on ways to increase the pressure on Mugabe.