1. What recent reports he has received on Iran’s nuclear programme; and if he will make a statement. (267595)

3. What his most recent assessment is of Iran’s nuclear programme; and if he will make a statement. (267597)

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest report of 19 February shows that Iran continues to refuse to suspend its proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities and has not granted the IAEA the access that it seeks as required by five UN Security Council resolutions. We, and the international community, will continue to press for Iran to fulfil its international obligations and restore confidence in its intentions.

Does the Secretary of State agree that while President Obama’s recent outreach to Iran is welcome, diplomatic overtures must be backed by a readiness on the part of the United States and the EU to impose such further sanctions as are necessary until such a time as Tehran can demonstrate to the unequivocal satisfaction of the UN inspectorate that it has abandoned its ambitions to develop a military nuclear capability?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his enunciation of the policy, which I think has support across the House. It is the so-called dual-track policy, which is that we should seek to engage with Iran, that we should make it clear that we have no quarrel with the Iranian people and that the choice of Government in Iran should be a matter for them. However, whatever the Government in Iran, they need to abide by their international responsibilities. If they refuse to do so, there are costs associated with that decision.

The hon. Gentleman is right that there are responsibilities on the EU and the US, but the responsibilities go wider. The international coalition, which is right to fear an Iranian nuclear weapons programme, goes wider than the EU and the US. Russia, China and the Gulf states have responsibilities, too, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to join me in working to ensure that they are part of a global coalition against an Iranian nuclear weapons programme.

With North Korea, it has proved useful to include its neighbours, Japan and South Korea, in the negotiations to discourage it from going down the nuclear weapons route. Should not Iran’s neighbours, particularly Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, be invited by the Security Council to join the negotiations over Iran, especially as the Iranians need to realise that those three countries might themselves go nuclear if Iran ends up as a nuclear weapons state?

Only up to a point. The multilateral negotiations are not being conducted under a UN framework—the E3 plus 3 is not a UN body, but it is recognised to have a global coalition behind it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might have an important point, which was at the heart of the E3 plus 3 offer agreed under my chairmanship last May in London. It concerns what will happen in the future if Iran ceases its nuclear weapons programme or restores the confidence of the international community that it does not have a nuclear weapons programme. There are important regional political issues about Iran’s legitimate interests in the region, but no discussion of those issues can take place without the involvement of the countries that he has mentioned.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and that the best way to prevent any ratcheting up of tensions in the region is to declare our support for a nuclear-free middle east? That would include Israel’s having to bring its nuclear weapons to a de-alert status and would help to promote the idea of disarmament throughout the region to bring about stability, rather than the obviously very great danger of the development of an arms race across the region.

We have done that for a long time. It is important to be clear that through the Iranian programme we face the danger of proliferation and the sort of domino effect described by my hon. Friend. Iran, of course, is a signatory to the NPT. My hon. Friend is right. Inherent in the idea of the drive towards multilateral disarmament, eventually including the global abolition of nuclear weapons—a commitment that every signatory to the NPT makes—is the idea of a drive towards a nuclear weapons-free middle east, too.

At a meeting of the board of governors of the IAEA in Vienna on 2 March, the director general, Dr. Mohamed el-Baradei, reported, in addition to what the Foreign Secretary has said, that Iran continues to work on heavy water projects and that it declines to implement the additional protocol that is required of it. His recommendation was that a method should be found to find a way through by transferring these activities from national control to multilateral control. How does the Foreign Secretary think that that might be achieved in the short to medium term?

I spoke to director general el-Baradei about that issue when I met him at the Munich security conference. Inherent in the idea that Iran has to win the confidence of the international community that its uranium enrichment programme does not have dual use is the notion that we are open to a range of ideas for multilateral engagement with Iran over a civilian nuclear power programme—a programme that, above all, is destined only for peaceful use.

That is why we have strongly supported Russian support and investment in the civilian Bushehr nuclear power plant. There is a range of options on the table, as long as Iran is clear that it cannot pursue a programme that fails to win the confidence of those of us who believe that anything other than a solely peaceful programme—and one that has the confidence of the international community that it is solely peaceful—is ever going to be able to play any part in stabilising the middle east.

As well as selling air defence systems to Iran, Russia has continued to block attempts by the west to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. What are the Government doing to ensure that Russia does not continue to block the sanctions process?

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. I am sure that he will have seen, as I did, at least a report of the interview that President Medvedev did for the BBC on Sunday, when he stated unequivocally that Russia does not want the development of an Iranian nuclear weapons capacity. That is why Russia has supported successive UN Security Council resolutions to that end.

The hon. Gentleman is also right that it is important to recognise the urgency of the matter and the need to make it clear to the Iranians that the American offer currently being developed and made represents the best chance that Iran will ever have of normalising its relations with the rest of the world, and above all with the US. The whole world can play a role in supporting American outreach in that regard. It is not only for Europeans but for Russians and Chinese as well to make it clear that this is the best chance that Iran will ever have to regularise its relationships with the rest of the region and the rest of the world, but that cannot be done while there is so much concern about its nuclear weapons intentions.

I wish a happy new year to Iranians here and around the world. The Foreign Secretary rightly talks about multilateral engagement with the Government of Iran. Does he agree that part of that process should also be multilateral engagement with the Government of Israel about its nuclear weapons, as that would build confidence among the Iranians that there is an equivalent process there?

The multilateral basis of engagement with the Iranians is first of all in respect of its NPT obligations. That is why this is an IAEA process, as well as a UN process. The sort of confidence and stability that I know that my hon. Friend wants to see in the middle east can be achieved only if nations abjure the sort of rejectionist rhetoric that has emerged from Tehran, which produces the sort of fears that can lead to a nuclear arms race.

The other thing to say is that not only Israel is worried about an Iranian nuclear weapons programme. If one talks to people from any Arab or Gulf state, one sees that there is a very high degree of concern among them for obvious reasons, given the tinderbox that is always the middle east. The last thing that it needs is a nuclear weapons arms race. In that context, we have a real opportunity, and responsibility, to bring old foes over the Israel-Palestine issue together on the Iranian issue. We believe that it is essential to move forward on the middle east peace process, but we must also recognise that there are also new coalitions to be built on the Iranian nuclear issue.

A moment ago, the Foreign Secretary spoke about the urgency of the process. Given that it is more than 12 months since the Prime Minister threatened new sanctions on Iranian oil and gas, and nine months since the E3 plus 3 made the offer to transform relations if Iran would suspend enrichment, will the right hon. Gentleman say today how much longer we are prepared to wait before we go back to the EU and the UN to ask for more sanctions? That would clearly show that we are taking both tracks of the dual-track process that he has described with equal energy and determination.

The hon. Gentleman asked the same question several times last year. I know that he shares the Government’s commitments on this matter, but I say to him—in the nicest possible way—that one very big thing has changed since then. For the first time in 30 years there is an American Government who want to open a bilateral channel with the Iranian Government and people. By any stretch of the imagination, that is a big change.

Given that the whole world, as well as the American Government, is committed to seeing that outreach take place—[Interruption.] I hear an Opposition Member shout, “How long?” but the Americans have not even completed their review yet, so let us hold our horses about that. It surely makes sense to say that the Americans should complete their review and ensure that the elements of their multilateral and bilateral outreach are clarified for the Iranians. If the Iranians do not respond in a positive way, we can then ensure that further steps are taken. If the hon. Gentleman pauses to think about it, he will recognise that now is not the time to be rushing for more sanctions; instead, now is the time to be backing the American outreach, which is a once-in-a-generation opportunity both for us and for the Iranians.

2. What discussions he had in the most recent meeting of the General Affairs Council on the contribution of the European Council’s European economic recovery plan to the development of employment in the environmental sector. (267596)

At the General Affairs Council on 16 March 2009, I discussed the proposal to invest €5 billion of EU funds in a number of projects, including on carbon capture and storage and energy infrastructure, ahead of final agreement at the spring European Council.

On Friday, I met representatives of several companies in my constituency, all of which are involved in environmental technologies with a wide range of potential applications. They seek in particular help with research and product development. Does the EU recovery plan contain anything for them?

The package outlined, in terms of carbon capture and storage and opportunities involving wind power, provides an exciting future in which businesses can grow. The environmental business sector is growing apace, at 5 per cent. each year. I suggest that my hon. Friend makes sure that his constituents are aware of what we are providing domestically through the Carbon Trust, the environmental transformation fund, the Technology Strategy Board and the various other ways in which we are supporting businesses to become low carbon and to make their good ideas reality. What is most important is where the EU adds value to what we do at national level. The €5 billion package will be helpful to boosting environmental technologies here and throughout the rest of Europe.

I imagine that the Minister has noticed the remarkable similarity between Questions 2, 8 and 17. Has the Government’s competence so disintegrated that they cannot even adequately disguise an exercise in arranging questions for themselves to answer?

I am absolutely delighted that some Members, especially on the Labour Benches, are interested in what the EU has to offer that is additional to what we in this country can do alone. We are more interested in the substance than in the process.

The EU is to be commended on directing between 60 and 70 per cent. of its economic stimulus funding to proposals relating to the environment. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in her Department and more widely across Government to make sure that the G20 decisions and the Budget announcements show the same level of commitment as the EU has shown to environmentally sustainable projects? Here in the UK, environmental projects account for less than 10 per cent. of the total; if it were 50 per cent., we would be getting somewhere.

The debate now is on how to green the economy as part of our way out of the recession facing us and other countries around the world. Six months ago, when I started this job, it was hard to conceive of reaching agreement on a package at EU level, but we did. I hope that the G20 will ensure that opportunities to use fiscal stimulus to stimulate low-carbon economies, which would be good for our planet and good for jobs and skills in future, are at the heart of its achievements.

Given that the European economic recovery plan will not work if we cripple businesses with excessive red tape, can the Minister for Europe redeem herself from yesterday’s incredible admission that she has not read the Lisbon treaty, and so does not know what Europe has to offer, by assuring us that the Government will work hard in the negotiations to protect the UK opt-out on the working time directive, which has as critical an effect on environmental employees as it does on many others across this country?

Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman asked me whether I had read the elements of the Lisbon treaty that relate to defence. I answered honestly that I had read some, but not all, of it, but I have now done so. I have no doubt that he spends many nights and many hours—alone, I presume—poring over the Lisbon treaty to discover some hidden plot. This Government are working with our European partners to engage constructively and to ensure that we find a way out of the recession facing the world, which is a darned sight more than the Opposition are doing.

4. What steps his Department is taking to encourage partnership between the EU and the US. (267598)

A strong and vibrant EU-US relationship is clearly in the UK’s interest. It provides an essential basis for meeting many of today’s most pressing challenges, from the global economic crisis and climate change to foreign policy priorities, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, the middle east and Iran. I shall continue to work to strengthen that relationship with European and American colleagues, as will the Prime Minister when he represents the UK at the EU-US summit in Prague next Sunday.

I am grateful for that answer. One area where one might expect closer partnership working is the middle east. Given the appointment of Senator Mitchell, but the relative failure of the Quartet and the Annapolis process, what role does my right hon. Friend see for the EU, and Britain within the EU, in moving the peace process forward?

I thought that my hon. Friend was going to anticipate a later question by complimenting the Quartet representative on the outstanding work that he has done, side by side with Senator Mitchell, to take forward change on the ground in the west bank and Gaza. My hon. Friend might try to catch your eye to make that point later, Mr. Speaker. The appointment of Senator Mitchell has in fact brought respect and applause from across the middle east, because of his obvious knowledge of the region, given his work on the settlements issue in 2001-02, and his record in the Senate and elsewhere. From my conversations with Senator Mitchell on four occasions, he will make a distinctive contribution to a region that needs urgent engagement on a problem—that of Palestinian statelessness and Israeli insecurity—which, if not solved soon, will never be solved.

Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity yet to look at the details of the US stimulus package? The majority of the $787 billion of new money is being spent at a state level. May I encourage him to employ that approach in the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union, rather than to pursue his Government’s plans of cutting public spending by £1 billion in Scotland, £500 million in Wales and nearly £200 million in Northern Ireland?

I understand why the hon. Gentleman was drawn to the American example; of course, President Obama has had to bail out a large number of states that have left their public finances in a baleful condition. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman has some experience of that as a result of the performance of the Scottish National party in Scotland. The measures being taken in this country, including some of those that he has criticised, have been of benefit not only to national Government and individuals, but to local government right across the country.

As we welcome President Obama to this country and to Europe, is it not time to congratulate NATO, reaffirm the transatlantic partnership between Europe and the United States and ensure that European Union countries and the US work together on security issues for the future?

My hon. Friend has made a very important point. The summit on Friday and Saturday marks the 60th anniversary of the foundation of NATO, and it is an important chance to look forward. One of the foundations of NATO’s future, whatever the debates about how it should combine the defence of its members with operations beyond its borders, is that it must embody the transatlantic alliance that has served Europe and North America so well over the past 60 years. I hope that the meeting on Friday and Saturday can be more than a “celebration”. First, it needs to be a chance to chart the future in respect of Afghanistan, the biggest and most important NATO mission currently under way. It should also start the debate about how NATO can look forward, in the next 10 or 20 years, to working in a very different context from that in which it was created.

Given the Government’s failure to act urgently on carbon capture and storage, and the fact that the Prime Minister’s own adviser, Lord Stern, said last night that he thought that it was unacceptable for Kingsnorth to go ahead without carbon capture and storage, does the Foreign Secretary expect leadership on that technology, which is crucial to tackling climate change, to be ceded to the United States?

No, not least because on the Friday before last, the United Kingdom was successful in ensuring that a significant tranche of the €5 billion stimulus package agreed by the EU should be dedicated to countries that want to take on carbon capture and storage, and €180 million is coming to the UK precisely for that purpose.

5. What recent assessment he has made of UK relations with Ukraine; and if he will make a statement. (267599)

The UK has a very strong bilateral relationship with Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary and I both visited Ukraine last year, and President Yushchenko has paid three visits to the UK in the past 12 months.

On the eve of England’s first ever World cup match against Ukraine, does my right hon. Friend agree that it should not be too long before the European Union offers Ukraine a long-term membership perspective, to use the Euro-jargon, and that that measure, more than any other, is likely to encourage further political, legal and economic reform?

That might depend on the outcome of the match. Seriously, it is important for the EU and Ukraine to conclude a substantive new association agreement, including a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement. That will represent a strengthening of our ties and will offer an opportunity for Ukraine to integrate into the European economy, to align with EU energy policy—an important issue in recent months—and to co-operate in other areas such as tackling organised crime and trafficking.

When does the Minister envisage Ukraine becoming a member of the European Union? [Interruption.] “Not too soon,” I heard someone say. Has the economic crisis in Ukraine delayed that country’s entry into the European Union?

Ukraine will become a member of the EU when it meets all the requirements, and that is a matter for Ukraine. With the eastern partnership being launched, it is important for Ukraine to show that it is ready to reform and to find a consensus across the political divide to move forward on an issue that is very popular among the Ukrainian people, namely joining the EU.

The Minister has mentioned trafficking. It is estimated that half a million women from central and eastern Europe are working as prostitutes within the EU. When the Home Affairs Committee went to Ukraine, we found that it was both an origin country and a transit country. What further measures are the Government proposing to help the Government of Ukraine deal with the serious issue of human trafficking?

My right hon. Friend has made an important point. As I have said, getting the association agreement under way will lead to greater collaboration on matters such as organised crime and trafficking. He is right to point out that Ukraine is a significant transit country for illegal migrants and a major exporter of trafficking victims. The Serious Organised Crime Agency is currently working on identifying the criminal networks involved, and we are offering programme assistance to prevent trafficking. We are liaising with agencies here in the UK, such as the UK Border Agency and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, and working with our Ukrainian colleagues to stamp that out.

Will the Minister assure the House that targets are in place to ensure a significant reduction, in human trafficking, particularly in the numbers of women coming either from or via Ukraine into the UK to work in the manner outlined?

I will write to the hon. Gentleman with some detail about targets, because I am not in a position to answer that here. But it is important to demonstrate that the measures we are taking are having an impact. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about how we assess that because, presumably, knowing the flow is important in understanding whether the problem is being tackled effectively.

6. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Sri Lanka. (267600)

We have become increasingly concerned about the humanitarian situation in northern Sri Lanka and in particular about the fate of the many civilians caught in the conflict area. We have made repeated calls on both the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to agree an urgent humanitarian ceasefire to allow civilians to leave the conflict area safely and for increased humanitarian supplies to be brought in.

One of the great tragedies of the conflict has been the loss of civilian life, particularly in the so-called Government safe zones. Many feel that the only way in which we can have a lasting settlement is if the alleged abuses of human rights are investigated. Does the Minister agree? What action are the British Government taking to ensure that that happens?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The scale of losses since January this year—more than 2,600 civilians killed, more than 7,000 injured and hundreds of thousands internally displaced—is truly shocking. The UN Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed very serious concerns about the civilians reported killed and injured in the conflict. We are urging all parties to investigate those matters, and we believe fundamentally that there needs to be full and independent investigation.

I commend my hon. Friend and the Government on appointing the former Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), as an emissary on these matters. Notwithstanding the initial reception for this move, will my hon. Friend stress to all parties involved in this tragic case that this is not a matter of taking sides; it is a recognition that however essential military means may sometimes be, they are never sufficient to solve a problem? One cannot ultimately solve a political problem by military means alone, and it is in that spirit that we approach trying to assist a resolution of that terribly tragic conflict.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is not about taking sides; it is about standing up for all the innocent civilians who are caught in the middle of the conflict. He is right to draw attention to the fact that on 12 February the Prime Minister appointed the former Secretary of State for Defence as his special envoy to Sri Lanka. I very much regret the fact that the Government of Sri Lanka have yet to agree that appointment. We are disappointed and do not understand their attitude. I further agree with my right hon. Friend that the conflict cannot be resolved by military means and that there must be a political solution.

The Minister has rightly identified the problem in northern Sri Lanka with the Tamils, but is he aware that in parallel with all that is the persecution—I think that is the right word to use—of journalists in the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and in national newspapers in Colombo? What steps can the Government take to try to protect journalists and ensure that journalists can speak out and speak the truth?

We have the power of advocacy, but we do not have the ability to mandate actions on the ground. Nevertheless, the aspect that the hon. Gentleman has identified is a matter of the highest priority. The attacks and threats to journalists, members of civil society and others is extraordinarily concerning, as is the culture of impunity. We have urged and continue to urge the Government of Sri Lanka to do everything possible to investigate such instances and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.

About two weeks ago, Balasingham Nadesan, the political leader of the LTTE, made a plea for a ceasefire. My view is that the Government of Sri Lanka should take that plea seriously. Have the Minister or his colleagues pressed the case with the Government of Sri Lanka and their representatives?

I know that my right hon. Friend is extremely concerned about the situation and has forcefully put forward her views. We agree that there should be a ceasefire. Indeed, our Prime Minister was the first international leader unequivocally to call for a ceasefire, and at every opportunity we are making it clear to all the parties that that is our view.

I call Keith Vaz.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman’s lawyers will be speaking to mine.

May I draw the Minister out a little further in his comments about the UK special envoy? Will he explain to the House what reasons the Sri Lankan Government have given our Government for refusing to accept the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne)? Does he see any way in which, in the near future, we will be able to resolve that impasse?

Dead ringer, I would say!

Let me be clear on the position of our special envoy. He remains our special envoy and we emphatically urge the Sri Lankan Government to recognise that. I do not know and do not understand why they will not work with our envoy. We are not in isolation. There are other envoys with whom the Sri Lankan Government are not co-operating. The message that we need to communicate emphatically at all levels is that there must be a political solution in Sri Lanka, not a military one.

Over the weekend, a group of brothers from the De La Salle order in my constituency came to see me about their concerns about Sri Lanka and the civilian safe zone in particular. Can my hon. Friend assure us that whoever is to blame for the problems and the mayhem, we will continue to give as much humanitarian support as the situation clearly invites?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. There has been a limited delivery of UN humanitarian supplies to the conflict area since January. That is not enough, and we urge all parties to ensure that medical supplies, food and equipment get to the people who so desperately need them.

7. What recent assessment he has made of the state of UK relations with Iran; and if he will make a statement. (267601)

The UK desires a constructive relationship with Iran, based on mutual respect. However, we have significant concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its regional activity and internal repression. Unacceptable harassment of staff in Tehran has forced the British Council to suspend its operations, which has obstructed the legitimate activities of our embassy. We have protested to Iran on numerous occasions, and we regret that it has done nothing to address the situation.

The Minister did not draw attention to the fact that Iranian activity has been responsible for the deaths of our servicemen in Iraq—and now, particularly, in Afghanistan. What are we going to do, other than merely protest?

We make our views very clear to the Iranian Government. We also interdict the forces coming from Iran. The message that needs to go out from all of us—it is part of the message that President Obama is sending the Iranian regime—is that we want Iran to be a responsible international partner. Fuelling terrorism and fighting in the region does nothing whatever to further that end.

What representations has my hon. Friend made to Iran following Israel’s interception of Iranian missiles that could reach Tel Aviv? They were being transported across Sudan to be smuggled into Gaza.

The reports have not yet been confirmed; nevertheless, a constant refrain of our dialogue with the Iranian regime is that such activities, wherever they occur, are not only wrong but move us further away from the peaceful outcome that we all want in the region.

We are right to be very concerned about Iranian nuclear ambitions; so, too, are the Government of Israel. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is important that we should stress to Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli Government that their interests are best served by working in concert with the United States and the European Union, rather than by contemplating any unilateral action on their own part?

I very much agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s statement. There is a shared interest, and all our interests are served by our presenting the Iranian Government with that choice—a choice between engagement, with all the political and economic benefits that that can bring, and much tougher sanctions imposed on behalf of the whole international community.

8. What discussions he had in the recent meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council on the effect on consumers of the European Council’s European economic recovery plan. (267602)

The overriding aim of the European economic recovery plan is to stimulate demand and boost consumer confidence across the EU. The €5 billion package discussed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council and agreed at the spring European Council on 19 and 20 March focuses particularly on improving energy and broadband infrastructure. It will deliver cheaper, greener energy and better internet access, particularly to consumers living in rural areas.

My right hon. Friend’s answer has confirmed that making sure that consumers get back into the marketplace is central to the European economic recovery plan. That, of course, means jobs here in Britain. Does she believe that Britain’s influence and ability to make sure that we get those jobs would be increased or decreased if we had a Government who were withdrawing to the fascist wing of the European process?

We can be proud that the UK Government have more friends and allies in Europe in 2009 than we inherited in 1997. What is important is that we can come together across Europe, at this crucial time for our citizens, to focus on the issues that matter—rather than on internal institutional navel-gazing, which the Conservative party likes to do. The Conservatives’ decision to remove themselves from their alliance with the European People’s party is a bad one; it is bad for politics and it is bad for—

Order.

Does the right hon. Lady agree that spending yet more taxpayers’ money in this way is unlikely to do anything good for consumers, as it all has to be paid for? Will she instead look at the continuing blizzard of high-cost, job-destroying regulations that are pouring out of Brussels? The European Scrutiny Committee has to look at more than 1,000 such regulations a year. Will she ask for at least a moratorium on such regulation, at least for the duration of the recession, in the interests of employment and consumers alike?

I would have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that investing in carbon capture and storage and renewables is a bad thing to do. There is a time when regulation is right. We need to look at how we better regulate the banks and the way that they work. Over the past few years, we have seen some huge reductions in regulation in the European Union, and there is a target to reduce the number by another 25 per cent. by 2012. That has been greatly influenced by the better regulation unit that we set up here in the UK, which has found favour in other member states, and certainly within the Commission. I look forward to less red tape, but where we need it, it has to be SMART—specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely.

Is the right hon. Lady confident that enough is being done to address the problems of the countries of eastern Europe that 20 years ago were members of the Warsaw pact, and which now see their hopes collapsing around them and their economies in shreds?

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We need to be clear that some, not all, countries in eastern Europe are facing difficulties at this time. I agree with the Prime Minister, who said in a speech only the other week that it is important that we ensure within the European Union family that none of the members is left behind. That is why the G20 is important, but also important is what happens afterwards to ensure that Europe comes out of this recession stronger and better able to equip itself for the future.

9. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Burundi and the great lakes region. (267603)

Burundi has made some progress while recovering from the legacy of a long civil war. However, elections next year will be a real test for its fragile democracy. The recent co-operation between the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Rwanda offers the best prospects for peace in the great lakes region, which we warmly welcome.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. On a recent visit to Burundi, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and I heard concerns from civil society and opposition parties about the elections that are due next year. We met journalists and trade unionists who had been imprisoned for criticising the President—two of whom, happily, have now been released. Will my hon. Friend ensure that we do everything in our power as the UK Government to support those elections and, critically, what happens in the post-election period, which has traditionally been the time when violent acts take place, so that the country can continue down the path of peace that its people have chosen?

First, I thank my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) for the excellent work that they did when they went to Burundi in promoting good democratic practice by working with parliamentarians there. We were very glad to support that.

I can assure my hon. Friend that along with the Department for International Development we are working very closely with international partners to assess the potential risks in the lead-up to the elections and how we can best take action to head off those risks in advance of the elections and beyond. I would be delighted to meet both my hon. Friends in order to discuss how we might bring that forward.

I, too, was impressed by the Minister’s original answer to the question. Does she accept, however, that it is not appropriate to force western European democracy on to cultures that are very different from those in Europe? We need to look at the systems of democracy that we seek to help countries to develop in accordance with their needs and cultures. If we do so, we can perhaps find an acceptable arrangement that will not lead to the bloodshed that has been so typical in that part of the world.

May I first wish the hon. Gentleman a very happy birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That clearly commands support in all parts of the House.

This is not about imposing models of democracy, but about assisting with the development of good governance. I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that good governance in Africa needs stability, growth and development. That is the purpose of the work that we do in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in DFID. I can assure him that we will work closely not only with Governments but with non-governmental organisations, civil society and the media to give them a voice in ensuring that their countries can be stable, absent from the bloodshed that he mentions, and can move forward.

In the next two years, there are crucial elections in three countries of the great lakes region—Burundi, Rwanda and the DRC. The evidence strongly suggests that in countries that have come out of long periods of conflict, it is always the second democratic election that can mark the turning point. Will my hon. Friend do everything possible to support the integrity and transparency of the electoral process in those three countries over the next two years?

I share that view, but I should also say that we welcome the good signs of progress that we have seen in the region, particularly the serious and constructive work that the key leaders have done together, which has meant the restoration of diplomatic links and co-operation on matters such as reintegration. That proves that the solution is never just military, but also political. We will continue to support that process.

10. What recent discussions he has had with his Pakistani counterpart on relations between the UK and Pakistan. (267604)

I maintain regular and frequent contact with Foreign Minister Qureshi, Prime Minister Gilani and President Zardari, as well as opposition figures in Pakistan. Our recent discussions have covered political development, stability in Pakistan’s tribal areas and in Swat and prosecuting those responsible for the attacks in Mumbai.

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that reply. Even before yesterday’s brutal attack, President Zardari had appeared on UK media outlets appealing for direct and urgent UK assistance for Pakistan in tackling its Taliban problem. According to some reports, the Taliban control vast swathes of the Swat valley. Can the Foreign Secretary spell out how he intends to respond to that appeal, and what practical assistance we can give to Pakistan? If Pakistan continues its slide into bloodshed and violence, the consequences for the entire region will be catastrophic.

There are three or four ways in which we can respond to the needs of Pakistan. We are close friends of the Pakistani people, as well as of the Pakistani Government and the political parties. As well as the economic aid, which is substantial—not just the Department for International Development programmes, which amount to £500 million, but the International Monetary Fund loan, which we strongly supported and which is being well implemented—we can offer security support, which obviously we do not detail publicly. Finally, we can offer political engagement with Pakistan. It is significant that today, the United States Government have called a meeting in The Hague to discuss with the whole region the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that the US has proposed setting up a trilateral body of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US to work on economic and security issues. Those are two examples of what has come out of the Riedel review on Afghanistan and Pakistan, both of which have the strong support of the British Government. Such political engagement with the problems in Pakistan and Afghanistan is essential.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Her Majesty’s Government have recently taken steps to suspend the constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Although the population there are grateful for the corruption probe that is taking place, is he aware that they are anxious that the Government should work with all the countries in the region to restore democracy to that country as soon as possible?

Order. I could not hear properly because I was distracted, but I do not think that that supplementary is tied to the question before us. Perhaps the hon. Lady is thinking of topical questions. We will try Mr. MacShane—I think that he will be able to get it right.

No!

Set up again, Mr. Speaker, with your usual courtesy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Foreign Office should never use the ugly acronym “AfPak”, which is patronising and condescending to the nation of Pakistan? Secondly, will he take the shadow Foreign Secretary behind Mr. Speaker’s Chair and agree with him that we have to talk about India if we are to get a solution on Pakistan. Finally, can we get more free trade going on Pakistan—[Interruption.] Well, I was invited to ask a question by the Speaker. [Hon. Members: “Not three!”] I chanced my arm. I hope that I can have an answer to all three questions.

I must say that I am disappointed not to have had the third part of my right hon. Friend’s question.

The situation in Pakistan deserves the full engagement of the UK. My view on its immediate responsibilities is that it must ensure that those responsible for the Mumbai attacks are prosecuted and, if found guilty, punished. There is no way in which the necessary dialogue between India and Pakistan can be restored until confidence is established that the Pakistani authorities will prosecute and punish, if found guilty, those responsible for the Mumbai attacks. On that basis, President Obama spelt out the regional equities very well last week.

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. (267620)

I visited Basra and Baghdad at the end of last month on 26 and 27 February. Today in Basra there is a ceremony marking the handover of coalition divisional command. Multi National Division (South-East), led by British troops, has done so much to stabilise southern Iraq, and the handover signals the merger of MND (South-East) with MND centre to form a new MND (South) command for all nine provinces of southern Iraq. Over the next few months, the final draw-down of British forces will take place while civilian engagement from the UK rises. As the first majority Shi’a democracy in the Arab world, Iraq’s future success matters to the whole region, and we will be working with the Iraqi Government and people for that success.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He answered at great length earlier questions about Iran and its nuclear programme, but may I press him on other Iranian activities? He will be aware that The Times newspaper believes that some 40 British soldiers have been killed by Iranian roadside bombs and that Iran is funding Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban. Iran is fast becoming a rogue state. Is there any positive action that we can engage in to try to bring Iran back into the international fold?

Yes, there is positive action that we can take. First, we can ensure proper interdiction of the sort that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), referred to, so that our troops are properly defended. Secondly, we can make it absolutely clear in the diplomatic engagement not just by us but, crucially, by the United States, that if Iran seeks a normal relationship with the rest of the region, it must behave responsibly. The hon. Gentleman cites a number of areas in which Iranian behaviour needs to change. The important point that has changed, though, is that it is now clear that saying to the Iranian Government that it is behaviour change that we seek, not regime change, can be done with unity and clarity right across the west.

T2. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a Government who spend 25 per cent. of their gross domestic product on weapons, who regularly work in an environment in which journalists are assassinated and nobody is ever found, and who drop cluster bombs on their own people are unlikely to give way to quiet diplomacy? Does he agree that now is the time for action against the Sri Lankan Government, such as removing them from the Commonwealth, to make it absolutely clear where this country stands? (267621)

The passion that my hon. Friend brings to this issue is well merited. Democratic Governments are held to higher standards than terrorist organisations, and the actions of the Sri Lankan Government in respect of the 150,000 to 200,000 people in the north-east of the country have fallen below the expectations of people all around the world. That is why we have unequivocally called for a ceasefire. The fact that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have herded people into that zone is no excuse for the actions of the Sri Lankan Government.

The rules of the Commonwealth are quite clear: it is democratic norms that are the foundation of membership. An important part of the power of our argument and our international action—including by the special envoy, who was discussed earlier—comes from making it clear to the Sri Lankan Government that if they isolate themselves from international norms, they will cause grave damage to all the people of Sri Lanka.

I know from what the Foreign Secretary has already said that he will agree that the United States White Paper on Afghanistan and Pakistan, published at the end of last week, is very much to be welcomed. In December, the Prime Minister announced that he would be leading the UK review of policy on Afghanistan. Now that the United States has published its review, will the Foreign Secretary undertake that the British Government will complete and publish the review led by the Prime Minister? In particular, will he ensure that it is published and put before Parliament before any final decisions are made about the commitment of additional British forces to Afghanistan?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman asked about this in the House at the end of last year. I said that initial results from our review had been fed into the American review, which is right. I, too, am pleased by a significant number of the aspects of the Riedel review, the so-called “review of reviews” by the President’s appointee. The Prime Minister will discuss Afghanistan and Pakistan with the President tomorrow, and there will be EU-US discussion later.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, troop numbers are decided on the basis of the situation on the ground, and they will always be reported to this House at the appropriate time.

The Prime Minister referred in December to a UK review. There would be great disappointment in the House if the British Government did not produce a review—a basis—for decisions that are to be made. General Sir Richard Dannatt seems to have gone ahead of Ministers by giving journalists the impression that 2,000 additional troops will be deployed. Is that an accurate number in the minds of Ministers? Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, if the Government are to authorise additional troops, they will entirely satisfy themselves that those troops will be accompanied by the right equipment, including the right number of helicopters, the right civilian back-up of every kind, and some reasonable prospect of a well-thought-out political process running alongside their difficult military mission?

I can certainly confirm that no decision has been made to send 2,000 troops or any other number to Afghanistan. Indeed, the UK has not been asked by the United States for any more troops, although we always keep the number under review for obvious reasons. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there has been some increase in the number of troops precisely to ensure better protection of the troops who are already there. The defence and protection of our troops is prominent in the minds of military commanders, as well as those of Ministers.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows from the debate about Afghanistan that we held earlier this year, it is vital that the Afghan Government lead the drive for a political solution under the tag of reconciliation. It is also right that the Afghan Government must be clear that the contract of which President Obama spoke last week includes a crackdown on corruption, which does so much to sap the confidence of the Afghan people, never mind the international community, in progress in that country.

T4. On Afghanistan, is my right hon. Friend confident that the sort of security in Iraq that he mentioned in his opening remarks in topical questions will be sufficient to hold presidential elections this year? (267623)

We have always taken the view that elections need to be credible. Not only presidential but parliamentary elections are due next year—the latter are rarely discussed. Sustainable security improvements are vital for presidential and parliamentary elections. It is dangerous to profess confidence, but I am confident that a significant number of measures, including deploying extra troops from the US and the Afghan national army, are designed to ensure security for people seeking to exercise their democratic right on 20 August.

T3. I know that the Foreign Secretary was as saddened as I was by the death of two young soldiers and a policeman in Ulster recently. I wonder whether he is therefore as disappointed as me by the indecent haste with which the security apparatus in the north seems to have been dismantled. Will he assure me that initiatives are in place to drive forward intelligence sharing with the Eire Government, so that we end the recent bloodshed as quickly as possible? (267622)

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience and he well knows that we are careful about discussing the details—or any sort of substance—of intelligence-sharing arrangements. The House shares a determination to ensure that those who perpetrated the terrible crimes, which claimed the lives of the soldiers, are brought to justice, and that everything is done to ensure the safety of soldiers—those who are stationed in Northern Ireland and also those, as in this terrible case, who are on their way to Afghanistan. They must be properly protected.

Following the Attorney-General’s decision to refer the allegations about British complicity in the torture of Binyam Mohamed to the police, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the police will be provided with all the relevant papers that the UK’s secret services have, even if their source was the intelligence services of another Government—be they American, Pakistani or Moroccan? Will the police be able to interview any Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, not just secret service agents?

Of course they will have access to all the necessary materials, as did the High Court in conducting its investigations. The intimation or underlying assumption in the hon. Gentleman’s question that somehow the High Court inquiry did not have access to American or other papers is erroneous. We have had the debate precisely because the court had access to the American papers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman intended no slur on the work of the Attorney-General or the Metropolitan police. The work will take place under the precise terms that the Attorney-General set out, which are in line with this country’s determination to abide by its national and international responsibilities.

T5. Credible evidence of war crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza are now arising from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Israeli soldiers. If a culture of impunity is not to continue in the region and if those responsible for war crimes are to be brought to justice, will the Government support a UN Security Council move for an independent inquiry into all war crimes committed by either side during the Gaza offensive? (267624)

As I think I said when I made a statement to the House on the Gaza conflict on the first day back after the Christmas holiday—the conflict was still under way then—we take seriously all allegations of war crimes and they should all be properly investigated. At the moment there are investigations by the Israeli Government, the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross. We wait to see the results of those investigations, but we must get credible answers. That is the basis on which we will judge the need for any action after those inquiries.

T6. Notwithstanding earlier statements made on different occasions, can the Foreign Secretary today give the House an absolute assurance that at no time since May 1997 has any person who has been subject to extraordinary rendition been detained and held on any British island territory? (267625)

I am racking my brains back to the statement that I made last February on the issue. I can confirm that we were informed of two people who were rendited through Diego Garcia, but the hon. Gentleman will have to get a proper written answer from me to that question, because I certainly would not want to mislead anyone on the issue. I have nothing further to add to the statement that I made here last February.

T7. Considering Estonia’s first-class contribution to NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan, what can we do to defend Estonia against cyber-attacks from its near neighbour Russia? (267626)

I would like to echo my hon. Friend’s comments about the valuable support that Estonia has given to our collective efforts in Afghanistan. I am pleased to inform him that assistance to Estonia is being provided through NATO’s work to protect both its own and its allies’ communication and information systems from cyber-attack. NATO has established the cyber defence management authority to oversee work in that area and a team of deployable experts who can respond in an emergency. NATO has also set up a centre of excellence in Estonia to conduct research into cyber-threats. Threats come in many forms. We should not underestimate those that come in the form of blocking technology.

T8. What does the Foreign Secretary hope to achieve from the G20 summit to defeat protectionism and promote free trade, and what in his view would constitute a successful summit? (267627)

I am pleased to answer that. In addition to the measures on financial regulation and macro-economic co-ordination and the help for the developing world, it is vital that international leaders first make the right statements against protectionism, and secondly, ensure the right mechanisms to follow them through. Those mechanisms began to be put in place at the Washington summit, but I look forward to the hon. Lady reading the final communiqué of the G20 summit, which I think will show substantial progress in a number of areas. She knows that the agenda for the G20 is much broader than that for the Washington summit, but I believe that there will be important progress in those areas, which will more than justify the leadership that has been given on the issue by the Prime Minister and the Government more widely.

T9. What consideration has been given to the impact on UK foreign policy and on our commitment to Afghanistan and Pakistan of the potential cancellation of the A400M tactical airlift aircraft programme, which would have very serious consequences indeed for the deployment of any future rapid reaction force? (267628)

I do not know whether that is a question more designed for me or for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the rise in force projection in Afghanistan is very significant indeed. Obviously it is Pakistani forces that are operating in Pakistan, rather than coalition forces, but there is certainly no military constraint of the kind that she implied on coalition forces in Afghanistan at the moment.