1. What his latest assessment is of developments in Iran’s nuclear programme; and if he will make a statement. (293902)

Iran’s nuclear programme is the leading threat to the non-proliferation regime. The latest International Atomic Energy Agency report says that Iran has still not suspended its enrichment or heavy-water-related activities and has failed to engage with the IAEA on the possible military dimensions. The revelations about a secret site near Qom show Iran’s disregard for its obligations to the IAEA and the United Nations Security Council, and increase our concerns about its intentions. The Geneva meeting on 1 October with the E3 plus 3 was a start to the essential process of engagement; there now needs to be intensive and serious follow-up.

Does my right hon. Friend share the frustration of many ordinary people in Iran—they have shared this with me by e-mail—with the regime’s complete refusal to engage with the international community on this issue? The regime is led by someone who not only denies the holocaust, but denies his own people a democratic outcome. Will my right hon. Friend consider what unilateral steps the United Kingdom could take to increase the pressure on Iran to engage more positively?

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the Iranian people, some 50 or 60 per cent. of whom are under the age of 30. They represent a country of great civilisation and education, and they have internet access, to pick up on her point. The requirements on the regime can best be understood by realising that there will never be a better time for Iran to engage with the international community in the search for what Iran proclaims to be its only aim: civilian nuclear power.

The United Kingdom is proud to be at the heart of the international drive to establish normal relations between Iran and the international community over the nuclear file. However, I am sure my right hon. Friend will have seen the important announcement by the Treasury in respect of a financial sanction for one of the banks that has been closely involved in proliferation-related activities. That represents the sort of step that she is suggesting.

With Austria’s leading energy company investing heavily in Iranian offshore and onshore oil, and with Germany being a big exporter to Iran, will the Secretary of State tell the House what pressure he is applying to our European partners to comply with sanctions in order to try to change the regime peacefully?

I do not have to tell the hon. Gentleman just about the pressure on other European countries; I can point him to the fact that the European Union—all 27 countries of it—has tougher sanctions than are required by the United Nations, which indicates how seriously Europe takes the issue.

May I welcome the leading role that Britain is taking in Europe on this issue? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with other partners in Europe about their taking further steps and bringing further economic sanctions to bear?

At this moment, we are engaged in a critical phase of engagement with Iran. The President of the United States has said that he wants to reassess the situation at the end of the year, and he will do so with the international community. My hon. Friend is right to say that the dual track must be a dual track, in that engagement takes place, but increased pressure can be brought to bear, as appropriate. At the E3 plus 3 meeting that I chaired in New York in September, there was agreement that we must pursue the dual track with equal emphasis on both elements.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the missing link in international efforts to achieve a diplomatic solution has, unfortunately, been the continuing reluctance of Arab states to be prepared to put public pressure on Iran, despite their oft-repeated—in private—serious reservations about Iran’s nuclear ambitions? Does he agree that if the Arab states were to put public pressure on Iran, that would make it much more likely that Russia and China would co-operate in the Security Council, and much less likely that the United States or Israel would be tempted towards military intervention?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. It is fair to say that the thinking that he outlines explains the emphasis that we have put on the relationship between the E3 plus 3 and the Gulf Co-operation Council and other Arab states. A very important meeting took place in New York between the E3 plus 3 and the Arab states, led by the GCC. The sort of international unanimity that he refers to is very important. People often talk, rightly, about the fears in Israel of the Iranian nuclear programme, but he will know, as will the whole House, that those fears are matched throughout the Arab world, which recognises the dangers of a nuclear arms race in the middle east of all places.

Will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that Iran is still a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and that that should be welcomed as a sign of at least an ability to negotiate? Will he also recognise that now is the time to push for a nuclear-free middle east, which will of course require the disarmament of all nuclear states in the region, including Israel, as a way of bringing about long-term peace and security?

My hon. Friend will know that we have voted consistently for the aspiration of a nuclear-free middle east as part of a drive for nuclear disarmament around the world. However, I think that it is important to bear in mind that although it is right to acknowledge that Iran is a signatory to the NPT—and that is welcome—signing is only the first step. Obeying the treaty’s injunctions and following its requirements should go with that signature. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in sending a united message from this House that Iran has the hand of engagement outstretched towards it and that it will be treated as a normal country, not least in respect of civilian nuclear power, but that it must behave as a normal country would in its relations with the IAEA and the rest of the international community.

Like the Foreign Secretary, we hope that the talks in Vienna today under the aegis of the IAEA are successful. Does he agree that we ought to be concerned at the indications from the Iranian state broadcast and others in recent days that the offer to send material abroad for enrichment might not actually be delivered? Does he agree that it is important that the Group of Six make it very clear to Iran during these talks that any agreement has to involve Iran’s existing stockpiles being taken abroad in return for nuclear fuel rods being supplied for scientific research, as well as immediate access for international inspectors to the facility at Qom?

There is quite a lot of detail in this. The Tehran research reactor proposal is an important proposal, which would involve the export for development of the low-enriched uranium that Iran has established. It is a very important proposal. The best thing for me to say is that it is good that Iran has said that in principle it is interested in that proposal, but it needs to turn that in-principle interest into an agreement that gets that low-enriched uranium out of the country to be properly fabricated and developed. If that happens, we can be absolutely clear—as Iran will be showing us not just by word but by deed—that it is interested only in peaceful civilian purposes for its nuclear programme. This is an important issue and I look forward to continuing to discuss it with the House.

2. What the Government’s policy is on the status of Tibet; and if he will make a statement. (293903)

We regard Tibet as part of China, albeit as an autonomous region. Our interest is in long-term stability, which can be achieved through respect for human rights and greater autonomy for Tibetans. We believe that substantive dialogue between the Chinese authorities and representatives of the Dalai Lama is the best way to achieve this.

May I first call the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, where I record a recent visit to Tibet? During that visit I became increasingly convinced that the Government’s change in stance on the status of Tibet was quite correct. Tibet needs to be an integral part of the greater People’s Republic of China, albeit an entirely autonomous region. Does not the Minister agree with me about two things? First, that the change of stance should have been announced to the House in an oral statement rather than sneaked out in a written statement, which meant that no one could ask any questions about it. Secondly, I do not believe that much use was made of the leverage that could have been achieved by the UK Government’s change in stance to press the Chinese Government on human rights issues, both in Tibet and across the greater People’s Republic. Does he—

Order.

In terms of leverage, the fact that I was the first Minister to be invited by the Chinese Government to visit Tibet recently and that the all-party group, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, was also allowed and encouraged to visit Tibet demonstrates that that shift in policy has enabled us to exercise significant influence over the Chinese Government. Let us be clear about the issues. It is extremely important—we have made this clear to China—that although we recognise the economic and social progress that is evident in Tibet, there are still major concerns about human rights. The Chinese Government should begin immediate negotiations with the representatives of the Dalai Lama and encourage visits from other politicians, and from journalists and opinion formers around the world, to demonstrate a greater level of openness. There must also be no equivocation on religious freedom, which is enshrined in the constitution of China in relation to Tibet.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s visit to Tibet to get an understanding of and a feel for what is happening there. Does he recognise that we will not solve the problem merely by having MPs and Ministers visiting the country? What needs to be dealt with is the intolerance shown towards the Tibetan people and the lack of freedom. What pressure can he put on the Chinese Government, as well as speaking to the Dalai Lama?

My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. Subsequent to my visit, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I raised the issue of human rights violations with Dai Bigguo, the state councillor from China, and I have also had a lengthy meeting with the very able ambassador to China. Various issues need to be addressed: we must make sure that ethnic Tibetans benefit from the economic growth undoubtedly now taking place in Tibet, and that their language and culture are protected. In addition, we must ensure that ethnic Tibetans have access to fair justice and that there is genuine religious freedom, particularly in the monasteries.

In 1904, Colonel Younghusband took British troops into Tibet. In 1947, those troops left and we recognised the Tibetan people’s right to self-determination. Why do this Government not allow them that self-determination? Why are we not putting more pressure on the Chinese Government to recognise that right? At present, we are exerting less pressure in that regard than we did in 1947.

When the hon. Gentleman asks why Britain does not allow the Tibetans freedom, he is clearly living in the past. The other important point is that the Dalai Lama himself does not demand independence for Tibet: what he demands is genuine autonomy and religious freedom, which has long been the policy of the rest of the international community. There is no doubt that, as a consequence of the policy change that we made last year, we now have greater leverage to influence China’s policies in relation to Tibet.

3. How much his Department has spent on (a) hosting and (b) supporting the involvement of young British people in NATO activities in the last 12 months. (293904)

In the last 12 months we have spent £22,000 in support of the Atlantic Council UK. This covers activities from 2008 to 2010. The council undertakes activities to raise NATO’s profile and, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, recently set up a youth chapter. From November, it will begin a schools programme to further raise awareness of NATO’s activities.

Does the Minister agree that it is worth investing money in educating young people about NATO’s historical role during the cold war, when it ensured that the free world remained free? It is a great organisation that has done so much for our freedom and liberty. Will he raise this matter with his counterparts in other countries to ensure that they are also investing in young people’s education about NATO? Will he meet a British delegation from NATO’s youth chapter—

Order. I have said this many times, but I shall say it once more: Members should ask one question, not two—and certainly not three.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about NATO’s central role in our national security, and in the relationship between the EU and the US. Of course we expect all NATO members to make their fair contribution when it comes to engaging young people and raising awareness among them. Finally, of course I would be willing to meet a youth delegation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that educating young people about NATO’s future role is absolutely vital? What can he do to ensure that the future generation completely understands the threat that faces us, and what NATO can effectively do to defend us?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important that we do not fall for the myth that will be familiar to all hon. Members from their constituency responsibilities—that young people are somehow not interested in politics or international affairs. All hon. Members who visit local schools and colleges know that young people are incredibly interested in the issues that affect the world. The problem is that we have to demonstrate to them the relevance to their everyday lives of what goes on in this House and in conventional politics. Central to that is our future security and the role of NATO.

4. What steps he is taking to promote the protection of free expression in countries without a free press. (293905)

We work to safeguard the international framework that protects and promotes the right to freedom of expression and to support positive change on the ground. We raise individual cases where freedom of expression has been threatened, and we challenge countries to change practices that curtail the exercise of these rights.

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am a patron of Article 19, which campaigns for the rights of journalists abroad. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that this week the Government have tabled amendments in the House of Lords to the Coroners and Justice Bill to get rid of the laws of sedition and criminal defamation in this country? Will he urge his colleagues to promote the fact that we have done this as a way of delivering similar freedoms to journalists in other countries?

It goes against the grain to congratulate a Liberal Democrat. None the less, I am more than happy to do so because I know the hon. Gentleman has played a very important role, along with Article 19, with which we try to work closely, to get rid of the obsolete offences of sedition and criminal libel, not least because other countries have sometimes pointed to those offences in the UK and said that that is a reason why they should be able to continue with laws that deliberately hinder the freedom of expression and the freedom of opinion, which we believe is an essential human right.

Will my hon. Friend make representations to the Government of Morocco about free expression in that country? I was contacted at the weekend by a constituent whose brother is one of seven human rights activists who were detained last week by the Moroccan authorities. I understand that they have been threatened with life imprisonment or even the death penalty. Will my hon. Friend make efforts to intervene in this case and ensure that freedom of expression exists in that country as well?

I am more than happy to look into the individual case if my hon. Friend is able to pass on the information to me regarding the situation in Morocco. The right to express oneself, a free press and free media are essential. Around the world, one of the most important things that we have contributed to that is the BBC World Service.

5. What discussions he has had with his Egyptian counterparts on progress towards a Palestinian reconciliation agreement. (293906)

I spoke to the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, last Friday. As I understand it, despite Fatah agreeing to Egypt’s proposals, Hamas has not. The Foreign Minister told me that the original deadline and further repeated deadlines for reaching agreement among the Palestinian factions will not be met. I told the Foreign Minister that we continued to favour any reconciliation which supported peace negotiations and enhanced efforts to improve governance, security and the economy in the Palestinian territories.

I understand that difficult negotiations are continuing to try to bring about Palestinian unity, which will be crucial. Will my right hon. Friend give his assurance that that unity will be based on the renunciation of violence as the first step to the creation of a viable Palestinian state, as part of a two-state solution with Israel?

My hon. Friend takes a detailed interest in these issues and I know that his commitment to a two-state solution is profound. He is right that negotiations need to take place on the basis of the renunciation of violence. There is no path to a Palestinian state through violence, and it is precisely the sort of accord and determination to renounce violence that is recognised by the majority of the Palestinian people and needs to be recognised by all their leaders.

Unlike the Egyptians, who turned up to vote in the UN Human Rights Council meeting last week on the Goldstone report on the recent conflict in Gaza, is it not deeply disappointing to find that our own representatives stayed away? This seems to have put us in the same voting camp as Angola, Kyrgyzstan and Madagascar, three of the world’s worst dictatorships. What message was the Foreign Office trying to send to the community by staying away from that important vote last week?

The Government do not stay away from the question at all. As the hon. Gentleman should know, the Prime Minister was working closely with President Sarkozy of France, which I do not think even the Conservative party would describe as a dictatorship, on three key issues: first, an independent inquiry into the allegations at the heart of the Goldstone report; secondly, greater humanitarian aid into Gaza; and thirdly, a restart of the peace process. The vote was called in the middle of the discussions between the Prime Minister, President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Netanyahu. I think it is right that the United Kingdom takes every opportunity to drive forward on those three key issues, the aims of which have previously been supported by the Opposition.

Now that the United Nations Human Rights Commission has decided that Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity, and with Israel continuing to flout President Obama’s injunction to stop building in settlements, what action are we going to take to stop these blatant violations of international law?

It is absolutely right that we stick to the position that we have held since the publication of the Goldstone report—that, on the one hand, it did not do enough to recognise Israel’s right to self-defence but, on the other, it did raise serious issues that democratic Governments should address through the sort of full and independent inquiry that is important. Democratic Governments are held to higher standards than terrorist organisations, and such Administrations need to live up to them. That is why it is in Israel’s interest, never mind the international community’s interest, that there be a proper independent inquiry. That is precisely what the Prime Minister was working for last Friday, and we will continue to work for it.

When the UN Human Rights Council voted to endorse the Goldstone report on the conflict in Gaza, the text of the motion made no reference at all to Hamas, despite the fact that it was heavily criticised in the report itself. Given that the motion was so clearly unbalanced, therefore, does the Secretary of State agree that the Government should have voted against it, as the United States did, rather than not even registering a formal abstention but simply not voting at all? We interrupt meetings here all the time to vote. Why could they not have done that?

For the record, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not understood what actually happened at the launch of the Goldstone report. The resolution setting up the report was, indeed, deeply unbalanced, and it did not refer to Hamas. That is why we welcomed the fact that Judge Goldstone immediately said that his inquiry would be into Hamas’s alleged violations of international law, as well as Israel’s, and he was right to do so. The hon. Gentleman will know that, frankly, asking Hamas to set up an independent inquiry is whistling in the wind, but it is right none the less that we say to a democratic Government such as Israel, whom we do respect, that their interests are best served by the sort of independent, full and transparent inquiry that has distinguished Israeli public life in the past.

6. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of EU co-operation with China. (293907)

There is scope for much more productive EU-China co-operation on the whole range of global economic and security issues. We believe that entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, with its new external structures, is the ideal opportunity to put that relationship on a much more productive course.

Will my hon. Friend tell me how existing co-operation and the European Union’s current stance can be used to ensure that we get a fair and effective Copenhagen climate change treaty that involves China?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. She is absolutely right: if we are to get a proper agreement in Copenhagen, we must ensure that the Chinese contribution to that discussion is very much in line with the EU. That is why we very much welcome the further meeting that will take place in Nanjing in a few weeks’ time, in November, just before the Copenhagen summit. We support summit plans for a high-profile EU-China partnership on climate change and, indeed, for the near-zero emissions coal initiative. It is absolutely vital that the EU and China work together, and it is much easier for us to achieve that if we co-operate with other countries in Europe, rather than distance ourselves from the mainstream.

Is the Minister aware of China’s treatment of refugees from North Korea, and of China’s refusal to admit an investigation or access by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees? Does that not rule out any further co-operation so long as China, as a member of the UN Security Council, refuses to abide by human rights obligations that it has signed up to?

Of course, there are always human rights issues that we will want to take up with the Chinese authorities, and we do so very regularly. I think that that is one of the issues that we have specifically taken up, but that does not mean that we do not continue to engage with China. Indeed, I would argue that in recent years, we, as the European Union, have not been able to engage as effectively with China as we might, but that does not preclude us from raising in the most robust of terms human rights issues in every regard, whether in relation to Falun Gong, the issue that the right hon. Gentleman just raised or, for that matter, the death penalty.

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the co-ordination of policy with other EU member states on developments in Afghanistan affecting UK national security. (293908)

I regularly discuss developments affecting UK national security with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, including the outcome of his recent and important visit to Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have pushed consistently with European Union partners for greater and more coherent EU action in both countries, including the adoption of a new strategy to strengthen EU action in Afghanistan and Pakistan and a second EU-Pakistan summit in the first half of 2010.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Will he confirm that he will be working closely with his European partners over the next few weeks to ensure that the next round of voting in the Afghan presidential elections is both free and fair, so that those wishing to rebuild Afghanistan and make it more secure have the benefit of working with a credible Government there?

My hon. Friend raises a very important point that I will touch on in the introduction to topical questions. There are important developments in Afghanistan today that will affect all of us. The commitment to a second round on behalf of both candidates is important, but equally important are the statesmanlike statements made today, which hold out important prospects for the future credibility of an Afghan Government—that must be at the heart of any hon. Member’s concern about the future of that country. The Afghan people need a credible Government and so does the international community as a partner for all our efforts.

Further to the previous question, the Foreign Secretary will be fully aware that soldiers can buy one time and space, but what we need in Afghanistan is a political solution. Given that the electoral complaints commission said that about a third of President Karzai’s votes in the presidential elections were fraudulent, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that any poll run-off will be legitimate and fair and have the confidence of the Afghan people?

The whole House should recognise that the work of the electoral complaints commission has been of the highest order, the highest integrity, and, as we can now see, the highest level of forcefulness. There has been no willingness on its part to be pushed off the central principles to which it has adhered. There has clearly been attempted fraud on a large scale. The vital thing is that all the arrangements, security as well as administrative, are followed through for the second round, or in preparation for the second round, not least to give proper credit and recognition to those brave Afghans who were determined to vote despite the intimidation and threats that they faced.

Will my right hon. Friend once again restate the fact that because the conflict in Afghanistan is so inextricably linked with the military activity in Pakistan, it is absolutely vital for Britain’s own security that we maintain our commitment to seeing a peace process develop, which means a continuation of our military presence in Afghanistan?

Yes, but to pick up my hon. Friend’s point and that of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), ultimately there must be a political settlement in Afghanistan: a political settlement for the people of that country; a political offer to the insurgency to live within the constitution and to come in and share political power or face the military consequences; and a political settlement with Afghanistan’s neighbours, because their tendency to try to see Afghanistan, or parts of it, as a client state rather than a neutral state is completely undermining that country’s ability to run its own affairs.

Perhaps anticipating what the Foreign Secretary intends to say in topical questions, may I, on behalf of the Opposition, join in the welcome for the announcement by President Karzai that he accepts the need for a second round, which in the absence of a national unity Government in Afghanistan must be the best way forward? Building on earlier questions, will the Foreign Secretary expand on what the Government can do and what representations they will make to try to ensure that these elections are run on a far better basis than those on 20 August, with an increase in the number of Afghan and international election observers and a reform of the electoral procedures that were abused last time? Will he assure the House that action can be taken on those matters?

It is important to say that real efforts will be made to live up to the standards that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to sketch out. Frankly, it would be glib and slightly other-worldly for me to stand here and give a blanket yes to his questions, which, although serious, go the heart of very deep security problems that face Afghanistan. However, it is the case that in the first Afghan-led elections significant numbers of people voted despite huge attempts at intimidation. It is also the case that the establishment of the electoral complaints commission held true to the principle that fraudulent votes would not be counted, with consequences that were probably not expected by many people in terms of the overall result. The final score, if it comes in at about 48 per cent. to 31 per cent., represents a degree of competition in the electoral process that is significant and speaks to the work that will be critical in the next few weeks, which is the election of a credible Afghan Government who can be a legitimate expression of the will of the Afghan people, with a programme representing a significant majority of opinion. That is the hope for all of us.

On another matter regarding Afghanistan, the Prime Minister announced last week 500 additional troops for Afghanistan but set out burden sharing across the coalition as one of the conditions for that. Can the Foreign Secretary enlighten us further about that condition? If the United States is the only substantial extra contributor alongside the United Kingdom, will he consider that condition to have been fulfilled?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that one of the commitments that President Obama has made is that not just that the first McChrystal report but that the second should be discussed deeply to ensure that there is full alliance engagement with the request in question. We will engage fully with the process, in respect of not just the American uplift and the discussions about it but the commitments of other countries on, first, the number of troops, secondly, on what those troops do and where they do it and, thirdly, on the civil engagement that President Obama and the Prime Minister have stressed at every stage is a critical part of the effort. We will consider that in the round and then come to our conclusions.

8. What recent discussions he has had with Sri Lankan Government Ministers on the situation of Tamil communities in the north and east of that country. (293909)

10. What his most recent assessment is of the political situation in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. (293911)

I met Foreign Minister Bogollagama on 25 September and urged him to ensure that the Government of Sri Lanka return all 250,000 internally displaced persons to their homes as quickly as possible. The imminent monsoon makes that more urgent, alongside the need for improved facilities for, and access to, camps. I pressed for progress on the protection of minority communities and on reconciliation, which will be vital if the end of the conflict is to be translated into a meaningful and lasting peace.

I also made clear my concerns about the protection of human rights. The European Commission registered those concerns yesterday in its pre-report on GSP plus—general system of preferences—trade preferences. I assure the House that our position on GSP plus is clear: Sri Lanka must respect its international human rights obligations if it is to continue to benefit from GSP plus.

I am grateful for the Foreign Secretary’s answer and for the Government’s efforts on this subject. Given the importance that he has placed on human rights being upheld by the Government of Sri Lanka, can he assure the House that he will make it clear up to and during the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference that it would be unacceptable for the next conference to be held in Sri Lanka?

We will continue to use all avenues to make clear the importance of human rights in Sri Lanka and every other part of the Commonwealth.

We are all extremely concerned about the situation in Sri Lanka, and obviously a political solution is vital for all the people of that country. However, Sri Lanka is to start its process of political reform and reconciliation only after the 2010 election, so the Government there say. If minority communities are not to be disfranchised, the process must begin before the election. What more can the Government do to encourage that?

I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka on the day the civil war ended and said that this was the best opportunity for Sri Lanka to build an inclusive political settlement. There is no need to wait—the time is now. Outreach to the minority communities now, in advance of the election, will be critical to shaping how they engage with a future Sri Lankan Government.

The Foreign Secretary will know that it has been impossible for independent journalists to gain access to the detention camps. Will he press the Sri Lankan Government to ensure that there is free and unfettered access, so that the reports that we are hearing of wilful gang rapes by the Sri Lankan army of women abducted from those camps, and of the taking out of young men, can be brought to an end once and for all?

Yes, access to the camps, not just for journalists but for human rights organisations, is a fundamental part of the building of a peaceful and inclusive Sri Lankan political system.

Now that the EU has concluded that Sri Lanka is in breach of its human rights obligations under its trade agreement with the EU, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK will push for and support the suspension of the GSP plus trade benefits that Sri Lanka currently enjoys, and argue for that across the EU?

I must have disappointed the hon. Gentleman terribly when I answered that question in my original answer. I am sorry that he was not able to change his question after that.

I repeat that the European Commission has produced what is called a pre-report on GSP plus, and that our position is absolutely clear: Sri Lanka must respect its international human rights obligations to continue to benefit from GSP plus. The hon. Gentleman will know that when the Commission finally publishes its report, as opposed to its pre-report, there will be a maximum of two months before a final decision is taken. We will play a full part in ensuring respect for that principle.

With respect to the Foreign Secretary, he did not actually answer my question in his first remarks, and he failed to do so in that response. Are the UK Government going to push for the GSP plus trade benefits to be suspended in relation to Sri Lanka—yes or no?

I think, “Oh yes he did” is the answer that came both from the Opposition and some of the people sitting next to the hon. Gentleman. I think it is important that he recognises that on this issue, he can safely agree with what the Government are saying. A pre-report has been published. Our position on the human rights aspect is that there are 27 international agreements that countries wishing to benefit from GSP plus need to adhere to, including on critical issues to do with children’s rights, torture and so on. They must be adhered to for GSP plus to continue.

In the last few weeks of the conflict in Sri Lanka, Members on both sides of the House were horrified at the civilian casualties, which were the result both of action by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—use of children and the use of women as cover—and of indiscriminate fire by Sri Lankan Government forces. Have the Government been able to get any answer from the Sri Lankan Government on whether they intend to investigate allegations made against their forces? What pressure is the international community applying regarding war crimes?

I hope the hon. Gentleman saw the statement by Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, and President Rajapaksa following their meeting in Colombo—if he did not, I will certainly send it to him. The statement made clear the need for an accountability mechanism. It is certainly our determination in meetings with the UN Secretary-General and in meetings with the Sri Lankan Government to ensure that it is followed up. The hon. Gentleman referred to the international community. There is no better basis for the follow-up of allegations of war crimes than the agreement that the Sri Lankan President had with the UN Secretary-General.

9. What recent discussions his Department has had with the Palestinian Authority on the Arab peace initiative; and if he will make a statement. (293910)

I visited the Palestinian territories in August, and met Ministers and the President’s chief of staff. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, most recently on 12 October. All our discussions include the need for urgent progress towards a comprehensive peace in the middle east, with a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians underpinned by a broader peace between Israel and the entire Arab world.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. He may be aware that on 9 October, in Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper, King Abdullah of Jordan said:

“We have no alternative but to pursue a negotiated settlement that will meet Israel’s security needs and ensure it has normal relations in the region, and fulfils the Palestinians’ right to freedom and statehood.”

Given that the Israeli Government have not yet formulated a response to the Arab peace initiative, what more can Britain do to encourage them to support that initiative, which I think, frankly, gives an unprecedented opportunity for 57 nations to have normal relations with Israel in the context of a wider settlement?

What can I say, Mr. Speaker? My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe genuinely that this is the last best chance for peace in the middle east for a generation. We should give our full support to the initiative led by President Obama, particularly with the appointment of Senator Mitchell. This is now the time in the middle east for responsible and visionary leadership. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid out recently, the basis of the agreement is clear: a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state; resolving the issues of final borders, based on ’67 including issues of settlements and Jerusalem; justice for Palestinian refugees; and not simply recognition of Israel by the Arab world, but normalisation in relations towards Israel by the Arab world.

Will the Minister assure the House that the Foreign Office will encourage all Arab Governments of the continuing relevance and importance of the Arab peace initiative, and to back it not only with hard diplomacy, but with soft diplomacy aimed at the Israeli population?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is important not only that we see justice for the Palestinians in terms of the Palestinian state, but that we give assurances to the Israeli people that their security will be protected should a two-state agreement be reached. That is why it is so important that the Arab world sends very clear and strong messages to terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah that they are obstacles to peace, and that they are not furthering the cause of a Palestinian state.

11. What assessment he has made of the implications for Government policy in the region of the conclusion of protocols on (a) development of relations and (b) establishment of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia. (293912)

The Government welcome the signing of protocols between Armenia and Turkey. That is important not only for those countries, but for peace in the wider region.

What further steps can the Government take to encourage both Turkey and Armenia to ratify and implement these protocols, because the benefits will be immense for the region? We need to ensure that momentum in this process is maintained.

My hon. Friend is right: we need to ensure that ratification is proceeded with by the Parliaments, and two months after that it will be possible to open the border. That is such a significant change from the position that we were in only a few years ago that all Members will wholeheartedly welcome it. We remain committed to Turkey eventually being able to accede to the European Union, but it is impossible to have any leverage arguing that with German and French colleagues unless one sits down in the European Parliament with them, not with people who still refuse to apologise for the Latvian SS.

12. What reports he has received on the security of female refugees from Darfur living in refugee camps in eastern Chad; and if he will make a statement. (293913)

We are understandably concerned by reports from the United Nations and non-governmental organisations highlighting the dangers that Darfuri women face in and around refugee camps in eastern Chad.

Amnesty’s report “No Place for Us Here” documents the worsening plight of the refugees who have fled since 2003 to eastern Chad where rape and other attacks are being committed against many women and girls with egregious impunity inside and outside the camps. Will my hon. Friend urgently raise this fundamental failure to protect innocent victims of the Darfur crisis with the Chadian ambassador and at United Nations level, because this shocking criminal violence must be stopped and the perpetrators indicted?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not only agreed to be my assistant on this occasion, but has agreed to accede to my hon. Friend’s request to write to the UN about this incredibly important issue and raise the concerns of the British Government.

How do the Government intend to integrate UN resolution 1888 on women, peace and security into the existing framework of the national action plan on resolution 1325?

That is entirely consistent with the policies that the Government have promoted on this issue over a very long time, so the UK will be providing leadership on this.

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities. (293926)

This afternoon, President Karzai has announced that in the light of the findings of the electoral complaints commission, he will embrace a second round run-off of the presidential elections in Afghanistan. We welcome that. Both he and Dr. Abdullah have been statesmanlike in accepting the prolonged electoral process and have secured support from across the country. Both have a major responsibility to ensure that the next stages are a credit to Afghanistan. The independent election commission is expected to make an announcement this afternoon on the details of the first round result, once it has collated the orders of the electoral complaints commission to exclude flawed ballots and include some quarantined ballots. The Afghan people and candidates have shown patience and resilience throughout this process and the UK will continue to support them as they bring it to a conclusion.

I also wish to place on record the thanks of the whole House not just to the UN Secretary-General’s special representative, Kai Eide, for the unstinting work that he has done on this election, but to Senator John Kerry for his work over the past few days. I spoke to him on Saturday and Sunday, and he has made a signal contribution to the resolution of the process.

I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has said. I wish him and our colleagues well in reaching a successful conclusion with a run-off.

Does my right hon. Friend have any comment to make about the complaint by the chief rabbi of Poland about the recent election of Michal Kaminski to the leadership of the Conservative group, given his neo-Nazi links? Does my right hon. Friend think that that was an appropriate election, supported as it was by the leaders of the Opposition in this country?

Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that in topical questions both the question and the answer must be brief. I do not want to cut people off, but I will if it is necessary to make progress.

The future of this country depends on wholehearted engagement in the European Union, making Britain’s case and ensuring that we are part of a mainstream majority. This Government are proud to be alongside 27 Governments and 26 opposition parties in saying that now is the time to put the Lisbon treaty into practice and to ensure that it benefits all the citizens of Europe. It is a great pity that the Conservative party is stuck in the past.

On that, it is a great pity that the Labour party broke an election promise that it made to the people of this country at the last election. However, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will join me in welcoming today’s visit to Sarajevo by Carl Bildt and the US deputy Secretary of State. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given the situation in Bosnia and what has happened in that country over the past 15 to 20 years, it would be premature to close the Office of the High Representative or to withdraw the EUFOR presence, and that the time might be coming when the carrot of EU accession for Bosnia and Herzegovina has to be accompanied by the stick of sanctions on those who would undermine its political progress?

The House should know that the real pity is that three times the right hon. Gentleman has refused to debate Europe with me on the BBC and Channel 4, because he knows that his arguments are completely threadbare. We stand ready to take questions about Europe—of which there are none—and to hold debates about Europe, which he refuses to have.

In respect of Bosnia, I spoke to Minister Bildt on Sunday about this important issue, and I agree that today’s meeting is important. The European orientation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a very important part of the package being worked on. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also agree—I think that this is his position—that we must ensure proper conditionality in any switch from the OHR to the EU special representative.

Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but I must say to Ministers that the abridged version, rather than the “War and Peace” version, will suffice. I call Judy Mallaber.

T2. Last week, I visited Bangladesh, which will be critically affected by climate change. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we weaken our political affiliations in Europe and with other countries by fringe activities such as joining fringe groups, we will be in a weaker position when trying to deal with issues such as getting agreements on climate change and other issues critical to UK interests? (293927)

My hon. Friend—[Interruption.] It is nice to be welcomed.

Order. I ask the Minister to hold his horses for a moment. Mr. Simpson, you are very senior and experienced Member of this House. Chuntering away and bellowing from a sedentary position is not in order. You can behave so much better when you try.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to be able to deliver on some key issues for Britain, one of which is an agreement in Copenhagen later this year. It is impossible for us to do that without a stronger EU and our playing a stronger role within the EU. There are no fringe benefits to being on the fringe.

T5. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, may I encourage Ministers to be as positive as that answer about the post-Lisbon future? I ask that, in the interests of a Copenhagen deal that works and an economic future for Europe that delivers jobs, we work positively with all the other 26 countries and do not work on the margins, which will put us on the margins for the decades ahead. (293930)

I fear that I might have done a disservice to the Liberal Democrats and their allies around Europe. All 27 Governments around Europe, 26 opposition parties and all the Liberal parties in Europe are saying that now is time to put the constitutional arguments, and now the reform treaty arguments, behind us and to work for a stronger Europe. It is a great pity that only one party—this Conservative party—in the whole of Europe wants to fight the battles of the past. From now until election day, it will have to answer whether it is ready to live with the Lisbon treaty or determined to fight it on its own.

T3. It is now four years since the Iraqi Government took control of the assets of the Iraqi trade union movement. In the past week, they have seized even more control of the levers of power in the unions. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Iraqi trade unions to see whether we can find a way forward to give these people real support in a situation that should not be happening? (293928)

We believe in not only the rights of trade unions in this country, but in the rights of trade unions in Iraq. At the heart of the Iraqi constitution is the right to organise in a free trade union, and I would certainly enter into discussions with my hon. Friend about how we make this a reality. When I visit Iraq at some stage over the next few months, I shall raise the point directly with the Iraqi Government.

T6. What impact does Pakistan’s deep involvement in the Afghanistan conflict have on the prospect for a resolution of the long-running India-Pakistan dispute over the future of Kashmir? (293931)

The key to re-establishing the composite dialogue, which was so important in trying to establish better relations between India and Pakistan, is action in Pakistan on those associated with the Mumbai bombings. There is a real hunger in the Indian Government and among the Indian population to see real action from their Pakistani neighbours on that critical issue. However, the foundation of confidence needs to be proper prosecution and, if found guilty, sentencing of those who were associated—or allegedly associated—with the Mumbai murders.

T7. May I inform my right hon. Friend that many of my constituents are extremely concerned about the events taking place in Pakistan right now? This is a struggle that the Pakistani Government must win. What support are the Government offering Pakistan, both through what its troops are doing and on internally displaced people? (293932)

I am glad that my hon. Friend, who follows these issues carefully, gives me the chance to reflect with the House on the vital work being done in Pakistan. The Pakistani Government have long been urged to recognise that the multiple insurgencies that they face are a threat not just to them, but to overall regional peace and security. The armed efforts now being taken up by the Pakistani army in six of the districts in South Waziristan threaten a large number of refugees, but also offer the prospect that, for the first time, there will be a proper Pakistani Government security presence in those districts. It is of the utmost importance that we continue not only to offer political and humanitarian support, which is an essential part of our work with the internally displaced persons who will inevitably come with the conflict, but to engage with all Pakistani opinion on this vital issue.

T8. The Government are right to expend diplomatic efforts in trying to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capability, but does the Foreign Secretary understand and accept that one of the issues that the Iranians rightly raise is the Israeli nuclear capability? What is his policy on that and will he encourage Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? (293933)

Yes, and I answered exactly the same question when my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked it at the beginning of questions today.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the appropriate response of the Israeli Government to the Arab peace offer would have been an unequivocal commitment to an immediate settlement freeze, as all the settlements are illegal under international law. What can be done to ensure that they do this now?

I agree with my hon. Friend. President Obama has made it clear that the trigger for comprehensive negotiations that will lead to a two-state solution are, first, the freezing of illegal Israeli settlements, which has long been the British position, and, secondly, a positive gesture towards the state of Israel from the Arab world. We believe that there is no time to waste in responding positively to President Obama’s initiative.

T9. Last year we provided £339 million in overseas development assistance to India. We even provided £97 million to China, but Afghanistan on the other hand received only £178 million. The brave men and women of our armed forces are fighting to defeat the Taliban. Should we not be providing more aid to win the hearts and minds of the civilian population? (293934)

We are providing more aid: Afghanistan is going to become the second largest recipient of British aid this year. It is also worth pointing out that, to put it mildly, Afghanistan is a much smaller country than China or India. By definition, the aid that we give to a country of 20 million people will be much less than our aid to some other countries. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Afghanistan will become the second largest aid recipient this year.

One small cause for optimism in the middle east is the security improvements on the west bank, which have been brought about by the Palestinian Authority finally getting a grip on security there and the Israelis responding by opening road blocks. Will the Foreign Secretary continue to provide full support and backing to General Dayton and his largely British team, who have done so much to bring about that improved state of affairs?

Yes, I have worked closely with General Dayton, who has done an important job, with support from his British No. 2. The commitment to improving Palestinian security was to be found in phase one of the road map, and the Israeli commitment was meant to be to freeze the settlements alongside that. The fact that the Palestinian Authority are determined to follow through on their commitment to improving Palestinian security is right, and it is also reaping dividends in the form of the economic benefits that can be seen by anyone who goes to Ramallah or anywhere else in the west bank.

I am mindful of the earlier exchanges about Sri Lanka and the work being done by the Government. Is it not therefore high time that we had a cast-iron programme from the Sri Lankan Government for the disbanding of those awful camps and the repatriation of the Tamil people?

Yes.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether he thinks that the pressures on freedom of expression elsewhere in the world have an impact on our own freedoms of expression and our safety in the UK?

Freedom of expression, wherever it may be in the world, is a vital subject that we try to raise in many countries. Part of our diplomatic effort in Colombia, Russia, China and many parts of Africa involves trying to ensure that the freedoms that we rejoice in here in this country can be shared by people in other parts of the world.

Zimbabwe has fallen off the Foreign Office radar, yet the tragedy and the crisis there continue. What initiatives are the Government taking to try to bring some form of African democracy to that wonderful country?

I am glad to have the opportunity to assure the hon. Gentleman that Zimbabwe certainly has not fallen off our agenda. There is intensive work going on, not least through our contacts with the new South African Government, to ensure that the crisis that he has rightly described is not forgotten. He will also be aware of our continuing humanitarian work. The vital need, however, is to support the global political agreement and the transition that it promises to a proper election that will recognise the real winner of that election. He will have seen that members of a European Union delegation went to Harare and delivered a simple message without fear or favour to President Mugabe and Prime Minister Tsvangirai. The message was that they would support the Zimbabwean people in delivering and administering that global political agreement, but that it must lead to an effective election to resolve the country’s future.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any massacre, big or small, by whomever, of Jews during world war two was a crime against humanity? To whitewash such a massacre and to try to make it relative is intolerable, unacceptable politics, and those who associate with those politicians shame this House and our nation.

My right hon. Friend has done fantastic work with colleagues across every party on anti-Semitism and the need to combat it. There is no room for hair-splitting when it comes to the massacre of 300 or 400 people in a Polish village in 1941, and I would have thought that every single Member of this House would be able to condemn that atrocity without any hesitation.

T10. In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), the Foreign Secretary implied that our grand abstention was part of a cunning plan involving President Sarkozy. What was the plan? (293935)

The plan was very simple, and I would not describe it as cunning. I would describe it as principled and clear. It is to ensure that there is an independent inquiry into the allegations at the heart of the Goldstone report, that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza and that there is a restart of peace talks on the basis of President Obama’s UN General Assembly speech. That is something that the hon. Gentleman should be supporting, not mocking.