1. If he will make a statement on the political situation in Iran. [57926]

2. If he will make a statement on Iran's relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency. [57927]

5. If he will make a statement on Iran's relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency. [57931]

7. If he will make a statement on the political situation in Iran. [57933]

10. If he will make a statement on the political situation in Iran. [57936]

Iran's nuclear activities are of the greatest concern. On 4 February this year, the International Atomic Energy Agency board adopted by a large majority a resolution calling on Iran to restore full suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, but giving it until the March board before the Security Council became involved.

Despite intensive diplomatic efforts by Russia, China and the United Kingdom, France and Germany, the EU3, Iran did not take that opportunity. Instead, Iran has moved in the wrong direction, suspending co-operation with the IAEA under the additional protocol, which it committed itself in October 2003 to sign and ratify. This backward move by the Iranian regime is a symptom of a wider deterioration in the political situation in Iran, which includes further restrictions on press freedom and human rights, support for terrorism and unacceptable hostility towards Israel.

The IAEA director general's latest report said that it was a matter of concern that the nature of Iran's nuclear programmes had not been clarified after three years of intensive agency verification. The issue now moves to the Security Council. Our aim will be to use the council's political and legal powers to ensure that Iran takes the measures that the IAEA board of governors has deemed necessary. Iran must, among other steps, fully suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including so-called research and development. We expect council action to be in support of the IAEA's work, in stages, and also to be reversible according to Iranian reactions.

Allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would be deeply damaging for stability in the region as a whole and for the non-proliferation system. We will intensify our efforts with our partners to ensure that that does not happen.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He will recall that he visited Tehran five times over the past five years as part of his policy of constructive interaction. Following those visits, the Iranian regime has increased its support for Hezbollah, stepped up its drive for a nuclear bomb, turned its country into the biggest prison for journalists in the middle east, backed forces in Iraq targeting British troops and pledged to wipe Israel off the map. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what precisely was constructive about that interaction?

That was an elegantly phrased question, but the insinuation that the one had followed the other is not entirely correct. I remind the hon. Gentleman that my five visits to Iran were all during the presidency of President Khatami, who was elected in what we think were free and democratic elections in 1987 and 2002, and when Iran was moving away from the confrontational approach that had been followed before. I am quite unapologetic about those visits and the efforts that we were making. I am also unapologetic about the work that I have undertaken with France and Germany to try to resolve this issue by peaceful and diplomatic means. Although it has been frustrating, I am clear that it has been far better than the alternative and that without this engagement between these three major European countries, we would never have got the consensus against Iran and for the non-proliferation regime that we achieved, for example, among the IAEA board of governors on 4 February.

Following Iran's formal rejection of Russia's proposals for a joint venture operation and following the Foreign Secretary's welcome speech yesterday, can we conclude that he is nearer to Vice-President Cheney than he was before?

I have always enjoyed good relations with Vice-President Cheney, but I speak for the British Government, not the American Government.

The Foreign Secretary has told us that the UN Security Council will be able to act to reinforce the authority of the IAEA. While he has ruled out military sanctions, can he reassure us today that he will back economic sanctions, should Iran continue to flout its clear international obligations?

I have indeed ruled out military action. I have not ruled out the use of article 41 measures, which include sanctions and which will be before the Security Council if they reach a resolution, and Iran understands that. I shall not speculate about which measures might be appropriate or for which we could achieve consensus, but the actions of the Iranian Government are already imposing sanctions on the people of Iran. There has been a flight of capital out of the country, a fall in the Tehran stock exchange, when other stock exchanges have been buoyant, and, above all, a flight of the most important resource of any country—the brightest and best young people in Iran, and that is likely to continue as long as the regime is in power.

Now that the policy of appeasement has been seen to have been so disastrous, resulting in the dreadful Iranian President, does the Foreign Secretary accept that a firm signal of disapproval should be sent to Tehran? Will he now consider targeted sanctions, such as those suggested, of a travel ban and freezing the assets of senior officials?

The most important thing that we have to do is to maintain a strong and effective international consensus in respect of Iran. Nothing would please the Iranians more than to see the Security Council and the world split between Europe and the United States on the one hand with Russia, China and the non-aligned movement on the other. At each stage, the Iranians have calculated that they would be able to secure that split, while actually at each stage the consensus against them has strengthened, which is why, despite all the rhetoric, we know that they are very worried about the situation.

On appropriate measures under article 41, the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not anticipating which measures we might be able to take. That will depend above all on gaining a majority and a consensus among the permanent five of the Security Council, but Tehran needs to take notice of the fact that having had the tacit acquiescence of the Russian Federation at the beginning of the process, Iran has now secured its active hostility.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he has held with other Gulf states, with a view to putting pressure on Iran to sever its links with terrorist groups such as Hezbollah?

I have held many discussions with the other Gulf states. They are concerned about Iran's approach in respect of their own Shi'a populations and in respect of support for terrorism. Above all, they share the suspicions of the board of governors of the IAEA that Iran may indeed be using its nuclear facilities to develop a nuclear weapons capability and they are deeply concerned about that.

Does my right hon. Friend see any role whatever for a military solution to the problem and, if so, at what point?

No, and I have made that clear.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this crisis has to be handled carefully and long, and that talk of military action or of imminent sanctions is unwise until we have maintained unity in the Security Council?

That is very wise advice; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the situation is frustrating, but those who want precipitate action need to think about the alternatives, which I believe would be far, far worse.

Can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment and representations his Department has made in respect of members of minority religious groups in Iran since its current Government came to power and in particular since the death, on 15 December 2005, of a Baha'i, Mr. Mahrami in Yazd prison?

The human rights situation has got worse since President Ahmadinejad came to power. The position of the Baha'is has always been precarious and has got worse. We continue to make strong representations to the Iranians about that, both directly and through the European Union.

Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the British Government have made representations to the Iranian Government about alleged members of al-Qaeda who are being held in Iran?

We have, and the Iranians are as ambiguous about al-Qaeda as they are about so much else. They recognise that al-Qaeda is an historic enemy of the Iranian regime, yet they have so far failed fully to co-operate with other members of the international community to ensure that members of al-Qaeda are brought to justice.

Iran's non-compliance with its international obligations is extremely serious and completely unacceptable. Amidst the tough negotiations, we certainly welcome the Foreign Secretary's restatement of his view that military action against Iran is inconceivable. Can he tell us whether the Prime Minister and the United States Secretary of State would use the same language, and how does the Foreign Secretary believe that the recent nuclear agreement between the United States and India will affect the Iranian position?

First, may I offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his elevation as a Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman? [Hon. Members: "Mini Ming!"] I think that he is quite a big lad myself, and well able to look after himself.

I have set out the British Government's position on military action. I cannot speak—I do not presume to do so—for any foreign Government, but I can say, because it is a matter of record, that although no Commander in Chief of the United States, the President, ever rules out options, in practice, military action is not on the American Government's agenda any more than it is on anyone else's.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that every Government in the world should regret the fact that Iran has allowed this issue to move from the IAEA to the Security Council? Will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that it is Government policy that any action against Iran will be authorised by the UN Security Council?

Any action that was taken by the international community would have to be authorised by the Security Council, and I speak for the United Kingdom. The IAEA operates under the Security Council's general supervision, and it is under its statutes that we have reported Iran to the Security Council.

I am afraid that I failed to answer the last of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) in relation to India. India was not a member of non-proliferation treaty regime. It acquired nuclear weapons. We in the United Kingdom were co-sponsors of a resolution calling on India and Pakistan to desist. It is a reality that the United States and we have sought to ensure that there are agreements with India by which it comes at least partially—I hope, in time, fully—into the non-proliferation regime; but, interestingly, Iran has never raised the issue of India, because of course Iran continues to deny that it has any nuclear weapons ambitions whatsoever.

Given that all diplomatic efforts to date to dissuade the Iranian leadership from pursuing its nuclear ambitions have failed, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Security Council's response must be particularly robust and determined to have any chance of success? Does he agree that an essential part of that must be a comprehensive embargo on all deliveries of weapons and military equipment to Iran, including all nuclear and missile technology?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the more robust and determined the response, the quicker that this issue can be resolved satisfactorily for everyone and, above all, for the Iranian people. It will be hard going in the Security Council. However, I am heartened by the fact that it was hard going to get a majority in the board of governors to report Iran to the Security Council, but after a lot of negotiation, we got China, Russia, India, Yemen, Sri Lanka, Egypt and Brazil all in favour, so I remain optimistic.

On precise measures, we anticipate an incremental approach. Initially, there will be a presidential statement by the Security Council. We hope that that works. If it does not, we will look for a Security Council resolution, which may not contain measures; but if that does not work, we are considering the possibility of there being measures. The right hon. Gentleman makes a proposal for inclusion in that, which, of course, we will consider carefully.

The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that the use of force against Iran was inconceivable—he has said pretty much the same again today—but on 7 February the Prime Minister said:

"You can never say never in any of these situations."

Has the Prime Minister now changed his view? If so, what has changed in the interim to change his view? In the interests of bringing maximum pressure to bear and of acting in concert with our allies, is it not a mistake entirely to rule out, however far in the future, the use of force?

There is no distinction in the British Government's approach. No one is talking about military action. Military action will not resolve the issue. There is no casus belli that I can see. If Iran were to attack one of its neighbours, plainly the situation would change and the issue of a Security Council resolution would not arise, but in the real world in which we are living, where we are trying to resolve this issue, I do not see that there is a place for military action. I have heard no one who believes that there is a place for military action. Given that that is the case and, frankly, given the understandable anxieties of the House, as well as the country, about military action against the background of Iraq, it is very important that we are straight with the British public about what is likely to be used and what is not likely to be used.

How much consideration has been given to Mohamed el-Baradei's suggestion that member states establish fuel banks with countries with nuclear reactors, thereby ridding non-weapon states of the need to acquire the fuel-processing technology that can be used to produce weapons-grade material? Under such a scheme, if countries comply with their non-proliferation obligations they will receive that material.

A great deal of consideration has been given to that proposal, which fits in with proposals by the American Government. I spelt out to the Iranians the fact that I understand their anxiety about being wholly reliant on one supplier—in this case, Russia—for fuel, which is why we internationally have told Iran that we would be willing for an international guarantee to be given whereby the Russian supply or any alternative supply would be guaranteed. I very much hope that it will accept that offer.

3. If he will make a statement on the situation in Darfur. [57928]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the situation in Darfur; and if he will make a statement. [57934]

The security situation in Darfur remains serious, with 3.5 million people still requiring humanitarian assistance. The United Kingdom has led the international response and we are among the largest providers of aid. I delivered a strong message to the peace talks that I attended in Abuja last month. We recently announced a further £20 million for the African Union mission in Sudan, and we are now pushing for its early replacement by a stronger United Nations force. We were instrumental in securing the investigation by the International Criminal Court, and in New York we are proposing names for United Nations sanctions.

Given that the African Union is determined to persist with its mission in Darfur rather than hand over control to the United Nations as many in the international community had hoped, and given that every month thousands of people are still dying as a result of disease and violence, does the Minister think that £20 million is enough additional support for the African Union? Are those sufficient resources for it to continue its mandate, or does it need more to fulfil it?

It is sufficient for the time being. The African Union's decision was a curate's egg, but we judged it to be more, rather than less, helpful in moving the African Union towards acceptance of a United Nations mandate, as it has reaffirmed its support for the principle of transition to the UN, welcomed the Security Council launch of contingency planning, commissioned AU-UN work on the transition, and called for an end to incitement by the Sudanese Government of demonstrations against the United Nations. It is a controversial issue—it is controversial within the new Sudanese Government—but the presence of a United Nations force is the best prospect for properly securing peace in Darfur, and we are concentrating all our efforts on securing that end.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Kofi Annan and Mark Malloch Brown take the view that to be effective any UN force must include American and European troops on the ground? How realistic is that view, and is he aware that the Sudanese Government are boasting that they have seen off the UN? If the Sudanese will not co-operate, has not the time come to ask the International Criminal Court to unveil the results of its war crimes indictments?

I am aware that there is anxiety in the UN secretariat about logistical support that the United States and the UK could provide but which few other countries could provide. On the other hand, we must ensure that any troops who are posted are acceptable and know the situation, so detailed discussions are under way in the secretariat with the UN peacekeeping directorate and the African Union. A way through can be found, but the crucial thing is to put those blue-helmeted troops on the ground in Darfur in greater numbers. The present situation is absurd, as troops are not doing a great deal in the south of Sudan. The principle has been accepted in a place where they are not particularly needed, but they cannot transfer to the west of the country where they are needed. The Sudanese Government are resistant to the idea of foreign troops—we all accept that—but we have sought to persuade them to understand and appreciate that the only real hope of peace in Darfur is an effective international peacekeeping force alongside a more effective peace-making process in Abuja.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Salah Abdallah Gosh, Sudan's director of national security, was issued a visa, ostensibly for medical purposes. That gentleman has been implicated by a United Nations panel in relation to war crimes. What measures are being taken by the Government to ensure that all international bodies are given the support necessary to end killings in Darfur and bring the perpetrators to justice?

I cannot comment on the particular case that the hon. Lady raises. I am happy to write to her about that and place a copy in the Library of the House. On backing for the International Criminal Court generally, it was as a result of British diplomacy that we got the Security Council resolution—the first work of the ICC in respect of Sudan—and we have actively backed all its work subsequently to identify the perpetrators and to bring them to justice.

The situation in Darfur is grave, but it has been grave for many months. We must find a way of bringing many more troops into the area. There are those who say that the only way to step up troop numbers and to get the UN fully engaged is through NATO being engaged. Is that a realistic proposition, and if not, what is the answer?

I know that my hon. Friend has been to Darfur recently and has great expertise on the situation. The point is the same as that raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) a moment ago. There is a great deal of talk about the high level of expertise in NATO member states, including particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. That has to be balanced against the acceptability of such expertise in Darfur. All I can say is that discussions about that are continuing.

At the Labour party conference in 2001, the Prime Minister described Africa as

"a scar on the conscience of the world."

Since then the humanitarian crisis in Darfur and Sudan has got distinctly worse. Some estimates put the number of displaced people at 3 million, and those who are starving and homeless at another 3 million, with 200,000 refugees crossing the border into Chad. Now we hear that Libya is supporting the Government of Sudan in effectively vetoing any further engagement by NATO troops. What more can the international community do, or is it content to walk by on the other side of the road and watch one of the worst human crises in the 21st century evolve?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. We must stay heavily engaged there. We are doing a great deal. We cannot take over the government of Sudan. In the end, we need the acquiescence of the Government of Sudan for any troops that go into that country. Although I note what the hon. Gentleman says about Libya and some other north African states not being desperately constructive, the other side of that is that under the very sound leadership of President Obasanjo, the former chairman of the African Union, to whom I spoke about the matter less than a week ago, and many of his colleagues, the African Union has shifted. It has finally understood that it must take responsibility for the scandalous situation which, as the hon. Gentleman said, has displaced 3.5 million people in the heart of Africa. All of us have to stay engaged and increase our activity there.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the International Monetary Fund has just concluded an agreement with the Sudanese Government for an IMF-monitored economic growth policy? Could the implementation of that policy be used as a pressure mechanism to impress on the Sudanese Government the urgent need for the civil war to be brought to a close and, more immediately, for human rights abuses to be brought to an end?

I do not have all the details of the International Monetary Fund arrangement, but it is worth bearing in mind that two peace processes have taken place in Sudan. The north-south peace process led to a Government of national unity, so progress has been made and the situation is far better than it was a few years ago, and I believe that the IMF arrangements were made in respect of that process. The IMF always imposes conditions, which are principally economic, but I shall follow up my hon. Friend's suggestion and write to him.

4. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the future of the European constitution. [57929]

Last June, the European Council agreed to undertake a period of reflection on the draft constitutional treaty. I regularly discuss questions related to the future of Europe with our European Union counterparts, and recent discussions have focused primarily on the policy priorities for the European Union, such as economic reform and energy security.

Will the Minister confirm that all EU treaties fall outwith the royal prerogative, and that they, including any future regurgitated constitutional treaty, can be ratified only by an Act of Parliament and that in those matters Parliament remains supreme?

We have had a number of European treaties, so the process by which they are ratified is fairly standard. However, the particular set of circumstances in relation to the draft constitutional treaty meant that a clear undertaking was given that included in the ratification process for the draft constitutional treaty not only ratification by parliamentary means, but a vote of the people of the United Kingdom.

Will the Minister assure the House that the UK Government will not go down the route suggested by the French Government, by which parts I and II of constitution would be ratified and the commitment to hold a referendum would be evaded?

I have seen some of the speculation to which my hon. Friend has alluded. It is clear from our discussions with our European partners in recent weeks and months both that it is necessary to continue the period of reflection and that it is appropriate for the focus in the coming European Council to be on not only those institutional questions, but, as we have long argued, jobs and growth for the European Union.

Does the Minister recall the European Court of Justice case last September that required member states to impose criminal sanctions in support of EU directives, even if those member states vote against those EU directives? Since 21 of the 25 member states opposed that case, what is he doing to reverse that extension of EU power, or is he happy to see criminal laws changed by the EU through majority voting in defiance of the wishes of Parliament and the Government?

On the right hon. Gentleman's view about the European Court of Justice, I accept that if we are part of the European Union, there should be a means by which the rules are enforced within the European Union. However, we have made our views clear in relation to the particular case to which he has referred, and I will make sure that a letter is sent to him confirming the position.

A period of reflection is wise on a constitution that the Foreign Secretary has frequently described as being in limbo somewhere between heaven and hell. It is also correct that issues on which member states agree can be advanced as part of the overall reform agenda, which Britain has been proud of leading in Europe in the past nine years. Will the Minister give an assurance that we will move forward on those issues where reform is possible?

Given a previous appearance at Foreign Office questions, I will resist the temptation further to elaborate on the Catholic theology of limbo. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether it was more incongruous that I was asked the question or that I, as a Scottish Presbyterian, endeavoured to answer it. We have long argued that there should be a sensible set of rules to reflect a European Union of 25 member states—it will soon be 27 member states—which is why we supported the draft constitutional treaty. However, that matter is clearly delineated from the commitment that we made at the time of the draft constitutional treaty, which stated that if the draft constitutional treaty is to be ratified in the United Kingdom, it will depend on a referendum involving the people of the United Kingdom.

The Minister knows that it is not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) who is concerned about the European Court of Justice. The current holder of the EU presidency, Chancellor Schuessel, has said that the ECJ has systematically expanded European competencies in the past few years, even in areas in which there is no Community law. Does the Minister agree with Chancellor Schuessel, and will the matter be on the agenda at next week's summit?

First, on the agenda for next week's summit, the principal focus will be on jobs and growth in the European Union. There will also be an update on the work on energy security. Recently, the European Commission published a Green Paper following our Hampton Court summit. So, there will be a heavy agenda at the coming European Council later this month.

On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point about the European Court of Justice, we have made clear our opposition to certain rulings of the European Court of Justice in the past, but we accept the principle that there needs to be a means by which the rules and laws in the European Union are enforced.

6. If he will make a statement on the political situation in Lebanon. [57932]

The Lebanese Government are committed to addressing political, economic and security sector reform. During his visit to Lebanon in January, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reiterated that the UK stands ready to assist the Lebanese Government to implement those reforms.

The UK supports full implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1655, which promote the sovereignty of Lebanon, and encourages all parties in Lebanon to assist with their implementation.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the optimism of the so-called cedar revolution has been somewhat dissipated in the past few months, that the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories is a setback and further destabilises the region, that as a result our objectives should be, as he says, the implementation of Security Council resolutions, and that we should not use Lebanon as some sort of proxy to fight battles in other countries in the middle east?

My hon. Friend, as chairman of the all-party Lebanon group, has taken a great interest in the affairs of that troubled country. His words are wise. Lebanon has suffered enough over the past 50 years. It should not be a battlefield for other wars fought by proxy in that country and I agree with him entirely.

Does the Minister not think that there is an irony in the fact that, at a time when Lebanon has largely been freed from Syrian influence, the vacuum has now been filled indirectly by the Iranians and their support of Hezbollah? Does he have any evidence that the Iranian support of Hezbollah poses a direct terrorist threat against UK personnel and interests in that area?

We have not heard of specific threats, but I understand full well the hon. Gentleman's point. The area is very unstable. We have a great many people working out there, mostly in the private sector, and we have a duty to be very aware of the danger posed to them by Hezbollah and other groups such as Palestinian rejectionist groups, many of which are financed directly by Iran and the Revolutionary Guard. We know that Hezbollah itself is not acting like a proper democratic and political party. It has not laid down its arms and shows no intention of doing so.

12. What recent discussions he has had with his African nation counterparts on the situation in Zimbabwe. [57938]

We deplore the situation in Zimbabwe. The widespread humanitarian suffering there is caused by misgovernance and bad policies. We regularly raise the situation with African leaders. My noble Friend Lord Triesman of Tottenham, Minister with responsibility for Africa, discussed the issue with a range of South African Government leaders during his visit from 2 to 4 March. African leaders play a vital role in seeking an end to Zimbabwe's nightmare regime.

Does the Minister really think that the other Governments in Africa, including that led by President Thabo Mbeki, are fully aware of the suffering of the Zimbabwean people? Are they fully aware that hundreds of thousands have been dispossessed by Mr. Mugabe's Administration, that hundreds of thousands are dying of hunger, that some 200,000 have already died from hunger, that there is growing anger in the country that is coming from all population groups, and that there is growing disillusionment with the United Nations, which does not appear to have the courage to take action to end genocide? Will the Government seek to take action, either unilaterally, with other countries in Africa, or through the United Nations, to stop that grotesque killing of innocent people?

I think that South Africa and other African nations are well aware of the situation in Zimbabwe. South Africa suffers more than any other country from the Zimbabwean crisis. As a former economist, I must say that the regime, to my reckoning, has got to be close to economic collapse, with inflation rates of 1,000 per cent. and an unemployment rate in the region of 80 per cent. It is clear that the regime is failing, and there is more that African countries can do to bring pressure on it, including supporting the UK and others in discussions in the United Nations.

Of course we welcome what the Minister says, but the problem is that year after year we keep getting the same message. The reality is that something has got to be done. The economy is ruined and the agricultural policy is in tatters, and there is no future for the people of Zimbabwe with a gangster in charge. What can we do, and when are we going to do it?

I share my hon. Friend's sense of frustration at what is happening in Zimbabwe and the complete reluctance and implacable hostility of the regime to do anything about the suffering of its people. Under our chairmanship, Zimbabwe was discussed for the third time at the UN Security Council on 19 December. Such attention is justified by the scale of the suffering that is clearly going on in Zimbabwe. We will continue to work with our partners in New York to ensure that Zimbabwe remains on the Security Council's agenda, and we want to press for a Security Council resolution.

A few moments ago, the Foreign Secretary praised the African Union for becoming involved in what he rightly described as the scandalous situation in Darfur. Will the Minister equally condemn both the African Union and the South African Government for failing to apply similar courage with regard to Zimbabwe?

I think that I have made it clear that the Government believe that African countries could and should be doing more. Many share our concerns, and we have seen President Obasanjo, President Mbeki, former President Chissano and others trying to persuade Mugabe to change track. The simple fact of the matter is that when Lord Triesman talks to them, they reply that Mugabe does not listen to them either. I agree that the situation is terrible, but it is important that we all do what we can to exert international pressure on the regime to change for the good of its people.

13. What his Department's strategy is for ensuring that negotiations for an international arms trade treaty can begin in 2006. [57939]

An international treaty on the arms trade was one of the foreign policy pledges in our manifesto for last year's general election. We are working to build the consensus needed to start the process for a treaty at the United Nations. In 2005, I am pleased to tell the House, we secured support for such an arms treaty from our partners in both the EU and the Commonwealth.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. He will be aware that the treaty is vital if we are to ensure that there is a level international playing field for the UK defence industry and to stop arms from falling into the hands of human rights abusers and indiscriminate killers. What discussions has he had with not only other Government Departments, but countries that have been identified as blocker states? What discussions has he had with colleagues in the House to ensure that there is support for such a treaty across the House?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her interest and concern. There is no party monopoly on the issue whatsoever because there is wide support across the House. She is absolutely right to point out that it is precisely the countries that are resisting such a treaty that show why it is needed the most. Many of the conflicts about which we talked earlier in today's Question Time have been fuelled by an unregulated trade in not only small arms, but medium-sized arms. I have held many discussions about the matter and I raise it with all Foreign Ministers whenever I meet them. As I said, it is significant that we now have active support from the European Union—we achieved that during our presidency—and more than 50 members of the Commonwealth.

A rather notable absentee from those who were giving active support is the United States of America. One has to ask precisely what point there is in a huge amount of official and ministerial effort going towards trying to get this treaty if there is no prospect of the United States being a party to it. Even if it were, if it treated it in the manner in which it treated the extradition treaty with this country, what point is there?

I have had many discussions with the United States and those will continue. The Administration—it would apply to any Administration—faces a difficulty about a possible collision between any international treaty and the right of American citizens under the second amendment of the constitution in respect of what happens internally in the United States. We have to find a way of navigating through that. The American Government are as concerned as any other responsible Government about the unregulated trade in small arms fuelling these conflicts; and in practice, the American Government are the biggest donor in terms of support for the United Nations and other aid programmes when it comes to resolving them.

Does the Foreign Secretary believe that it helps or hinders our role as honest brokers trying to fire up the international arms trade treaty talks that we have at the heart of government several hundred civil servants, paid for by the taxpayer, who are on free loan to the arms companies that promote the sale of arms and armaments to certain regimes, a few of which are very unsavoury by any standards?

There is no inconsistency between our support for the British defence industries and our support for an international arms trade treaty. I can say to my hon. Friend that our system of arms control in this country is one of the most rigorous in the world. It is adjudicated by the Quadripartite Committee on Strategic Export Controls, a powerful Committee that is made up of four of the Select Committees of this House. We are now in a situation where every quarter we give the Quad Committee real-time information about every arms control licence that we issue, as well as some of those that we reject.

14. If he will make a statement on the security situation in Darfur. [57940]

There has recently been further fighting in Darfur between the forces of the Government of Sudan and rebel groups, as well as between different militias and tribal groupings. There have been attacks on civilians, humanitarian workers and the African Union monitoring mission, and the general level of banditry remains high. We call on all the parties to respect the ceasefire and reach an early political settlement. We are taking the actions outlined earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), does the Minister think that it is acceptable that the President of Libya has a de facto veto on NATO involvement in enforcing the UN mandate in Darfur?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, this is clearly a matter for discussion in the United Nations. Let me re-emphasise that we are very concerned about the security situation. In a speech in Abuja on 14 February, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it very clear to all the parties that they need to make urgent efforts to achieve a sustained ceasefire. That remains our hope and our position.

15. If he will make a statement on the current work programme of the Joint Economic and Trade Committee. [57941]

The Joint Economic and Trade Committee is a bilateral mechanism for businesses to raise issues of concern for action by the Indian and UK Governments. It aims to encourage the Indian Government to open more sectors to foreign investment and to increase trade and investment opportunities for British business. Indian and British businesses are participating in working groups for agribusiness, accountancy services, health care, hi-tech clusters, legal and financial services and infrastructure.

When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry was in India last week, we saw for ourselves the huge enthusiasm that exists in the Indian business community to build and deepen trade and investment relations between our two countries. We also saw the dignified response of the Indian Government to terrorist atrocities in Varanasi. Does the Minister agree that one of the most effective contributions that we can make to answering the terrorists is to signal our determination to do all that we can to build and deepen our relationships with the fastest-growing democracy in the world?

I agree and I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to discuss trade in India shortly. He is right that we must conduct more trade, which is surely the best message that we can convey to India. We are doing that through the Indo-British Partnership Network. Recently, I was in India with a strong business delegation and improvements are taking place. However, I am not satisfied. It is a little like England in the second test—our batting performance was poor. We need to do better, and I am sure that we will do better in future.

Does the Minister accept that the Scotch whisky industry is seriously affected by the penal rates of duty and import tax that the Indian authorities impose? What are he, the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry doing to try to ameliorate the position?

I agree that the Scotch whisky industry is unfairly penalised by duty rates. I have raised the matter directly with the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and my opposite number. We have made regular submissions about it. We hope that, as part of the World Trade Organisation negotiations, there will be a reduction in tariffs not only for Scotch whisky, but for other products.

17. What recent discussions he has had with the Ethiopian Government on disturbances in the country. [57943]

We remain concerned about the situation in Ethiopia. We have called on all sides to exercise restraint, avoid confrontation and violence, and respect the law.

Ministers and officials raise our concerns regularly. Since December, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development, and my noble Friend Lord Triesman of Tottenham, who is Minister for Africa, have all discussed developments with the Ethiopian Prime Minister personally.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for the UK Government to continue to work closely with the Ethiopian Government to encourage more transparent democracy in the country? I have recently returned from Ethiopia where I viewed the problems and human rights abuses, but also the progress towards meeting the millennium development goals. We should continue to work closely with the Government there.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her dedication to and interest in Ethiopia. The Government are concerned about the loss of life in the June and November disturbances and we want to work closely with the Ethiopian Government to ensure that they are aware of our views about the importance of a transparent, prompt and impartial inquiry. We want Prime Minister Meles to agree to international jurists observing the trial. We also want the trial to be conducted fairly, quickly and transparently. There are several serious issues to consider, and I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her experiences on her recent visit.

18. When he next expects to meet his EU counterparts to discuss EU sanctions against Zimbabwe. [57944]

At the 30 January General Affairs Council, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary joined his EU colleagues in renewing sanctions against Zimbabwe for a further year. That decision reflected the EU's strong concern about the human rights situation and failure of governance in Zimbabwe. We remain in close touch with our EU partners to maintain a firm international response to the crisis.

We heard earlier about the spineless attitude of neighbouring countries to Zimbabwe. They appear terrified of Mugabe. Although sanctions have been in place for several years, Zimbabwean officials and their families still travel to Europe. Furthermore, does the Minister know that Mugabe has travelled to Europe on five occasions? What more can be done? Is the hon. Gentleman genuinely saying that Her Majesty's Government cannot do more to help the people of that tragic country?

On the point about the stance of African countries, I have nothing further to add. However, the hon. Gentleman's comments are not helpful. He claims that EU sanctions are ineffective, but they place genuine pressure on the regime. They have the support of the democratic Opposition and the non-governmental organisation community in Zimbabwe. Mugabe and his cohorts detest the restrictions that are imposed on their movements. The hon. Gentleman mentioned potential loopholes. Standard exemptions enable travel to the EU in a few, narrowly defined cases, but overall the travel ban works and puts pressure on the regime.

What assistance are the Government offering to the opposition parties in Zimbabwe that are taking such a courageous and noble stand against the excesses of the Mugabe regime?

We talk on a regular basis with the Movement for Democratic Change and the various elements within it. In addition to putting pressure on the regime to change, the key thing that we do is to provide humanitarian assistance to the people in Zimbabwe who are being disadvantaged by that completely odious regime. We will continue to do that through the Department for International Development, because it is important work and it is helping to save people's lives.

19. What assessment he has made of the economic impact of settler expansion in the west bank; and if he will make a statement. [57945]

Settlement expansion—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I have never got this far down my crib book before. Settlement expansion has meant an increase in checkpoints and road closures in the west bank. The barrier circling settlements east of Jerusalem restricts movement for residents between the west bank and East Jerusalem. These factors are damaging the Palestinian economy. Settlements are illegal under international law. The road map is clear that Israel should freeze all settlement construction, and we continue to urge Israel to route the barrier away from occupied land.

I thank the Minister for his answer. I also thank the Secretary of State for agreeing to make a statement in a few minutes' time. When I was in the occupied territories as an observer for the recent Palestinian elections, I was particularly concerned to see the work that had been done to pave the way for building E1, the economic zone that will link the huge settlement of Ma'ale Adumim and Jerusalem, effectively cutting the west bank in two and completely destroying its territorial contiguity. Can my hon. Friend assure me that we are putting pressure on the Israeli Government to halt all building work on E1?

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to put pressure on the Israeli Government. I visited East Jerusalem recently, and I saw the disruption to people's lives that that barrier is causing; it is very severe in some cases. We agree, as we have to, that Israel has a right to self-defence and to protect itself against suicide bombers, but building a barrier on occupied land is contrary to international law. We continue to say to Israel that if it is going to build it, it should build it along the green line and not on Palestinian land.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to deal with the Palestinian-Israeli problem is for the Palestinians to enter into negotiations with Israel to set up a Palestinian state on the basis of a two-state solution? Does he also agree that, to enable that to happen, Hamas must accept the existence of Israel unconditionally and permanently?

Yes, indeed. I agree with that.

20. When he last visited Turkey to discuss human rights; and if he will make a statement. [57946]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last visited Turkey on 25 January 2006 and held talks with Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Gul on a number of issues, including human rights and the importance of continued reforms. It would be unworthy of me to omit at this stage mention of the fact that on that occasion my right hon. Friend was also awarded by the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's Association the 2005 Bosphorus prize for European understanding.

I recently had the privilege of meeting the Mayor of Batman when he was on a visit to Hackney—[Interruption.] Batman in Turkey. He was visiting Hackney and meeting Kurdish compatriots. Following the Foreign Secretary's meetings with the Turkish Government, what words of comfort does my right hon. Friend have for Kurds who are concerned about human rights abuses of their compatriots in Turkey?

I assure the House that I have never had any difficulty drawing a distinction between Hackney and Gotham City. On the substantive question that my hon. Friend has raised, those of us who want an improvement of human rights in Turkey, in particular for the Kurdish minority, have taken heart from the opening of accession talks on 3 October. Many commentators have recognised that while some progress has already been made in relation to the Kurdish community, the very spotlight that the process towards accession to the European Union holds out is the strongest prospect for further progress.

May I join the Minister in his remarks on progress towards Turkey's accession? What progress has there been towards peaceful reconciliation with the Kurdish minority and will he ensure that we give all the support we can to the Turks to make sure that there are no terrorist attacks on the Kurdish minority? Will he join me in asking whether Robin was also present at the meeting referred to earlier?

I will leave the final question to be discussed between the Members concerned.

On the substantive point, of course we continue, through our embassy in Ankara and through ministerial contact of the kind of which I spoke, to press the case for further improvements in human rights. There has been progress—for example, in relation to Kurdish broadcasting—but there is further scope for progress to be made. That is why I give my word to the House that we shall continue to take forward this work during that process of accession over the months and years ahead.

We will now take Question 11.

11. What steps he is taking to establish channels of communication with Hamas; and if he will make a statement. [57937]

We fully support the approach set out by the Quartet. Members of any Palestinian Government must be committed to non-violence, the recognition of Israel and the acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the road map.

May I take this opportunity to explain to the House what has happened today in Jericho and elsewhere in the occupied territories? First, I must emphasise the Government's condemnation of today's appalling acts of violence. They are totally unwarranted. I am glad to tell the House that all United Kingdom monitors and other employees of the British Government are safe—including British Council employees, all of whom are Palestinian—in Gaza and in Ramallah. We are currently advising against all travel to the occupied territories.

I set out the background to the withdrawal of our monitors from the prison in Jericho in a written ministerial statement to the House this morning. The House will recall that they arrived in Jericho under the Ramallah agreement in 2002, which helped to bring about the end of the siege of President Arafat's compound.

The Ramallah agreement set out clear conditions under which the six Palestinian prisoners would be held. The 14 British and American monitors were there to monitor those conditions, not to detain or protect the prisoners. Regrettably, the Palestinian Authority have never in the past four years met all their obligations under the Ramallah agreement, despite our repeated demands that they do so.

Our monitors faced an increasing threat to their safety. I considered—on advice from officials and security experts—withdrawing them last year, but I judged that, on balance, the risk was just acceptable to allow them to stay. In the light of recent reports, however, I decided that their position was no longer tenable and the security risks were unacceptable. The safety of the British monitors had to be my overriding concern. In my original statement to the House of 29 April 2002, I set out the fact that that was our overriding concern, but also the principal responsibility of the Palestinian Authority.

Given the deteriorating situation, on Wednesday last, 8 March, we—that is, the United States and the United Kingdom consuls general—informed the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Government, as the Ramallah agreement required us to do, by letter of our intention to withdraw the monitors "with immediate effect"—I quote directly from the letter—unless the Palestinian Authority took a final opportunity to meet their obligations. I regret that they felt or were unable to do so. For obvious security reasons—namely, the safety of the monitors as they withdrew—we could not give precise timings of the withdrawal, but the phrase "with immediate effect" was absolutely clear. We made sure, and were assured, that President Abbas was made aware of our plans. The letter, indeed, was to him.

Just before coming to the House, I spoke to President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, the United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni. I urged the Government of Israel to show the maximum restraint in their current actions being undertaken in the perimeter of Jericho prison.

In the light of today's developments and of reports of hostage-taking in Gaza, will my right hon. Friend tell us what wider measures he is taking to ensure the safety of all British nationals in Gaza and on the west bank, to reduce the immediate tensions and to limit any possible spread of today's violence?

We immediately issued changes to travel advice, urging British citizens—British subjects—not to travel to the occupied territories for the time being. We also gave other detailed advice. As I told the House earlier, I have already spoken to the Foreign Minister of the Government of Israel, and urged that the Israeli defence force show maximum restraint in the present difficult circumstances.

May I return to the substance of the original question? The Quartet has laid down clear conditions for Hamas to comply with its demands. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us how much time Hamas has in which to change, and specifically when a cut-off in funding might occur?

The Foreign Secretary is right to attach such importance to the safety of our monitors, and his decision in principle to withdraw from the Jericho monitoring mission is therefore understandable. However, several questions inevitably arise. Did the Government give sufficient consideration to the consequences of a sudden withdrawal, and should an interim arrangement have been sought to avert an outbreak of violence when the monitors withdrew? What was done to alert the British Council and British officers in the region to the possibility of a sudden escalation of violence? Were the Government aware of the likelihood of Israel seeking to take custody of the prisoners by force? Under the terms of the Ramallah agreement, which party has responsibility for the lives and safety of the Palestinian detainees now that the monitoring mission has been withdrawn? In the meantime, what steps are the Government taking to make clear to armed Palestinian groups—or, indeed, anyone else—that the targeting of British property and personnel will in no circumstances advance their interests?

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the time that we would give the Hamas Administration. No time scale has been laid down so far. Indeed, for the time being there is no Hamas Administration. We wait to see the nature of that Administration. However, the Quartet's statement is very clear. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I have sought to ensure that while clear expectations are laid at the door of the new Hamas majority in the Palestinian legislative assembly, ordinary Palestinians are not punished or impoverished for the results of their perfectly free decisions in the election.

As for the withdrawal decision that I announced earlier today, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the understanding that he showed. He asked whether sufficient consideration had been given to whether there was any alternative. The answer is yes. The matter had been under active consideration by me for getting on for a year. When I was first asked to agree to the withdrawal I decided not to do so, because at that stage, after further questioning of the security assessments, I judged—although it was a risk, for which I took responsibility—that it was just acceptable for the monitors to stay.

There comes a moment, however, when it is impossible to be irresponsible about such risks. My judgment then became, last week, that the risk to the people for whom we were directly responsible was too great. I also considered whether there could be some kind of phased withdrawal. The problem was that, according to the advice that I received and according to my judgment, if we gave notice our own monitors might end up being subject to kidnap or siege inside the prison. I am in no doubt about that. For that reason—and although we made it absolutely clear in the letter that was sent to President Mahmoud Abbas, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, that unless there was any change the decision would have immediate effect—we could not give either the Palestinians or the Israelis advance notice.

>Did we alert the British Council? I cannot give the House the precise details, but I can say that British Council staff, who were all Palestinians, became aware of the possibility of demonstrations and that all those staff in both Ramallah and Gaza were withdrawn, so happily they are safe.

Were we aware of the likelihood of the Israelis' seeking to take people into custody or seeking, effectively, to lay a siege around Jericho prison? Indeed we were, and that was part of what I had to consider. The House will recall the background—these detainees had been accused by the Israeli Government of complicity or involvement in the assassination of the Israeli Tourism Minister. The Israelis wished to arrest them, but they took refuge in the Muqata'a, President Arafat's compound. There was then a siege of President Arafat and those prisoners, the resolution of which was that the prisoners would be held in a Palestinian jail but with British and American monitors. The Israelis only agreed to that provided that we agreed to monitor the situation. It was for that reason that we kept saying to the Palestinians, "Please improve security, ensure that the conditions of the Ramallah agreement are observed and ensure the security of our personnel."

Who is responsible for the detainees? Legally, I believe it is the Palestinians but, so far as the Israelis are concerned, the detainees are prisoners at large under charge in Israel. That is currently the subject of intensive diplomatic efforts with the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Whatever revulsion Hamas arouses, is not it a fact that its election victory was as valid as that of the Israeli Government and a good deal more valid than that of George W. Bush in 2000? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Israelis continue to create their own do-it-yourself ghetto behind a wall encroaching deeply into Palestinian territory, while maintaining 350,000 illegal Israeli settlers and carrying out pre-election stunts like they have just done in Jericho, peace will be impossible and support for Hamas will rise still further?

The Quartet has accepted and acknowledged and, indeed, congratulated the Palestinian people on,

"an electoral process that was free, fair and secure."

In the same statement, the Quartet reiterated its view that settlement expansion by Israel had to stop, reiterated its concern regarding the route of the barrier and noted acting Prime Minister Olmert's recent statements that Israel will continue the process of removing unauthorised outposts. This is a difficult situation—it has been on many occasions in recent years—and we urge all sides to show restraint.

This is a tragic development and whatever the Israelis' calculations and concerns, their actions have turned a sensitive situation into a highly volatile one, and that is utterly counter-productive. The Foreign Secretary is right that our first priority must be the safety of British citizens in the west bank and Gaza. We agree that retaliatory attacks against them and others are a disgrace and must be completely condemned. Will he clarify the steps that are being taken to mobilise the Quartet in response to these events? Will he confirm when he personally most recently discussed the Ramallah agreement with his opposite numbers in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority? What additional security measures at the prison were requested and refused?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his understanding and acceptance that the first priority for any Foreign Secretary must be the security of his own personnel. Frankly, if I am open to criticism, it is on the basis that I kept them there as long as I did, and not that I had to remove them earlier today. On mobilising the Quartet, I have spoken to the United States' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and I will speak to other members of the Quartet, including High Representative Solana, later today. Earlier today, I spoke to Ursula Plassnik, the Austrian Foreign Minister, who holds the presidency of the Foreign Minister's Council of the European Union. In any event, I am clear that all members of the Quartet will be of the same view as the British Government.

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman off-hand when I last discussed the Ramallah agreement with either the Palestinians or the Israelis. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that our staff in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv have constantly raised the issue, especially with the Palestinian Authority. Following the dispatch of the letter by fax to President Abbas's office last Wednesday, the consul-general, John Jenkins, to whom I spoke just two hours ago, made four separate phone calls to Mahmoud Abbas's chief of staff to ensure that the letter had been received and fully understood. When I spoke to Mahmoud Abbas, who happened to be in Vienna, earlier today, he confirmed that he was indeed aware of the content of the letter. He expressed concern about the fact that we had not given them a precise date and time for the removal, but I have dealt with that issue: if we had, the monitors could have been kidnapped. The security problem has not been the willingness of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah to act, but the inaction of the security personnel on the ground in the Jericho prison.

What we required of the Palestinian Authority was very straightforward—that they kept to the detailed conditions of the operational procedures for the Authority, as agreed in an annexe to the Ramallah agreement. That agreement included no use of mobile telephones, but they were used. Mr. Sa'adat, the leader of the Palestinians who stood in the Palestinian election, ran an election campaign from his cell with his telephone. There were supposed to be restrictions on visitors—they were ineffective—and on correspondence. Moreover, conditions for the monitors became so difficult that they could not carry out cell searches. A fundamental part of the Ramallah agreement was that the six prisoners in question should be kept separate from all other prisoners. However, the monitors were unable to be within the prison; instead, they had to stay on the roof, making effective monitoring increasingly difficult. That was the fundamental problem and putting it right could have been very straightforward—simply by following the Ramallah agreement. I regret that the Palestinian Authority did not have it within them to do so.

As the Foreign Secretary said, these are accused, not convicted, men. However, can he give unequivocal confirmation that there was no collusion with the Israelis on the timing of the withdrawal of the monitors, and will he condemn what I can only describe as state-sponsored terrorism, involving attacking a prison with tanks and rockets?

I can absolutely give that undertaking to my hon. Friend—there was indeed no collusion. Under the terms of the Ramallah agreement, we had to give formal notice in writing of our intention to withdraw not only to the Palestinian Authority, but to the Israeli Government. That letter, a copy of which was put in the House Library this morning, spelled out that we were indeed giving a copy of it to the Israelis. We deliberately decided not to tell anybody about the exact timing of the withdrawal because of the risk to the safety of our monitors, but also precisely to ensure that there could be no collusion with the Israeli defence force. The truth, given the nature of surveillance in the occupied territories, is that if we had told anybody in the occupied territories, we would in practice have been telling the Israeli defence force at the same time.

The week before last, two of my hon. Friends and I visited the west bank. I shall allow them to speak for themselves, but it was quite apparent to me that relations between the Israeli defence force and the Palestinians were hardly cordial, and today's events will not have improved that. Can the Foreign Secretary persuade me that what he is doing is going to have a practical diplomatic and political consequence, and that it is not simply a well-motivated exercise in appearing to do something? What practical steps can he and his friends in the other members of the Quartet take to achieve some form of progress with this very vexing problem?

What I have announced today is a matter of regret, but had I come to the House and instead announced the death of British monitors as a result of my taking too high a risk, that would have been a matter of condemnation, not regret. That is the dilemma that I faced and, as I have said to the House, I was extremely reluctant to take these steps, which is why I held off from taking them, kept asking for more information on the security assessments and insisted that we gave proper notice to President Mahmoud Abbas. But there we are—I took that decision and I happen to think that it was the right one, even though there have been consequences, which we did anticipate.

As for the future, all I can say is that notwithstanding these difficulties there has been some progress, if we look back to April 2002 when the situation was dire and killings were taking place daily on both sides. There is now a ceasefire and the numbers of deaths on each side have been reduced. We have to build on that. It is fundamental to the interests of the Palestinians for Hamas to understand that just as we have responsibilities in terms of recognising the legitimacy of the election, the Hamas leadership has a responsibility to recognise that democracy is incompatible with the pursuit of terrorism.

rose—

Order. I have allowed Question Time to continue for a further 20 minutes, but we must now move on.