| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Iran
9. Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central): What further discussions he has had with the Iranian Government about Iran's nuclear capacity since his visit there. [137404]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I discussed a range of issues of mutual interest with the Iranian Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharrazi, on 4 November, including the agreement that the three European Union Foreign Ministers had reached with the Government of Iran on 21 October. The next stage in the process, which we all hope will lead to full compliance by Iran with its obligations, follows the publication of the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency yesterday and its consideration by the IAEA board on 20 November.
Mr. Illsley : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response and I congratulate him on his successful visit to Iran with his two European counterparts. Can he confirm that Iran will abide by the agreement that he and his counterparts reached while they were in Iran, and stop the enrichment of uranium?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Whether Iran has finally decided to abide by its obligations is a matter that will be considered in the light of the IAEA report, which became available only yesterday. It raises some serious issues, which we are studying. I am glad to note that yesterday the Iranian Government informed the director general of the IAEA that they had decided to suspend, with effect from yesterday, all reprocessing and enrichment-related activities in Iran. Specifically, they had decided to suspend all activities on the Natanz site; not to produce feed material for enrichment processes; and not to import enrichment-related items—an undertaking that we had sought and which the Iranian Government had given in the agreement reached on 21 October. I am glad also that the Government of Iran have made what appears to be a much fuller disclosure than they have ever made before. We all now have to analyse it and will reach decisions—I hope—on 20 November.
Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon): While I do not wish to denigrate the good work being carried out by Mohamed el-Baradei and his colleagues at the IAEA, some worrying questions remain unresolved—not least the Iranian definition of enriching uranium, which is too narrow. What progress is being made in tracing the country that originally supplied Iran with the equipment that has enabled it to produce highly enriched uranium? Once that country is identified, what action will be taken against it?
Mr. Straw: On the latter point, great effort is being made to identify the country concerned and appropriate action will be taken, according to the nature of the information that we have and its provenance. On the first point, everyone accepts that there have been worrying questions about Iran's previous nuclear-related activities. Dr. el-Baradei has been worrying about that, which is why he has been so involved—alongside the rest of us—in hoping to secure a full and complete disclosure in respect of past activities, as well as for future obligations.
Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent): While I support the Government's attempts to get Iran to abide by the non-proliferation treaty, will my right hon. Friend inform the House what this country and the Government are
doing to ensure that we too abide by the non-proliferation treaty, to which we are a signatory, and in particular in relation to article 6, under which we are committed to negotiate away in good faith our nuclear weapons of mass destruction?
Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, we are a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, but as one of the permanent five members of the Security Council, for historical reasons that the House understands, we are in a special category within the treaty as a nuclear weapon state. However, we fully acknowledge our obligations under article 6 and all the other articles. Indeed, the UK is further ahead in implementing its obligations under article 6, and the other articles, than almost any other country in a comparable position.
Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon): May I say on behalf of the Opposition that we welcome the Foreign Secretary's recent visit to Iran and the Government's constructive engagement with this important issue? But at a time when the negotiations between the international community and the IAEA and the Iranian Government over their nuclear capacity are so delicately poised, how helpful does the Foreign Secretary think that it was for the Prime Minister recently to describe Iran as a rogue repressive state? Is not this a time for clear-headed statesmanship rather than headline-seeking megaphone diplomacy?
Mr. Straw: I think that congratulations to the hon. Gentleman are in order, and I am happy to offer them.
If the hon. Gentleman reads the Prime Minister's remarks, he will clearly see that he was referring to Iraq, and that he made a separate point about Iran.
Western Sahara
10. Mr. John Grogan (Selby): If he will make a statement about Government policy towards Western Sahara. [137405]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Government seek a just and durable outcome to this long-running dispute that allows the people of Western Sahara to exercise the right to self-determination. We fully support the efforts of the United Nations and the United Nations Secretary-General and his personal envoy, James Baker, and wish to see both sides become flexibly engaged in the search for a long-term solution.
Mr. Grogan : Given that Western Sahara is the last open file at the United Nations Decolonisation Committee, and that the Polisario front has accepted the Baker peace plan, what steps are the Government taking to urge the Moroccan Government also to accept the plan?
Mr. Mullin: We are urging both sides to take the Baker plan seriously. The United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed it in resolution 1495. The
plan is a compromise—it offers something, but not everything, to both sides—and we want them to get together to sort out its implementation.Iraq
11. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West): What discussions he has held with other Foreign Ministers on the effect of the security situation in Iraq on the prospects of aid agencies continuing their work in Iraq. [137407]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The Foreign Secretary regularly discusses Iraq, including its security and reconstruction, with his counterparts. Throughout Iraq, security for most people is improving. We will not be deterred in our efforts to rebuild the country—indeed, we are doing all that we can to ensure that the security that is required for the aid agencies to do their work continues.
Gareth Thomas : I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but does he accept that the targeting of aid agencies in Iraq is a very grave development? What practical steps can the Government take at ground level to enable those agencies to carry out their crucial work?
Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. We certainly deplore the targeting of aid agencies. Whatever view one has taken on this conflict, it is abominable to see those forces targeting people who are doing their level best to bring security and relief to the Iraqi people. To provide some context, however, security is improving throughout Iraq for most Iraqis—indeed, 80 per cent. of attacks take place in a limited area to the north and north-west of Baghdad. Nevertheless, concerns remain, and we are doing our level best to help in those circumstances. The coalition provisional authority is working closely to improve security for those important aid agencies and we recently committed £6 million to that end through the Department for International Development.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland): Is the Minister aware of the report published this morning by Medact, the medical charity, which outlines the real difficulties that are faced by aid agencies and local Iraqi authorities in re-establishing public health programmes? In particular, does he agree with its authors' conclusion that, for the security situation to be improved sufficiently for that to happen, the lead must be taken not by the occupying forces, but by the United Nations?
Mr. Rammell: That report was published this morning, and we are studying it in some detail. I would not want to underestimate the fact that there are still difficulties on the ground in Iraq. Nevertheless, one of the worst aspects of Saddam's regime was the appalling public health situation, and despite the difficulties, real improvements are taking place. That is testified to by the views of ordinary Iraqis, especially those advanced in opinion polls, which show that more than two thirds back the actions that were taken and want those that are being taken to continue.
Intergovernmental Conference
12. Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston): If he will make a statement on the progress of the intergovernmental conference. [137408]
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary and I updated the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference in detail on progress at the IGC. The IGC has so far met four times. In its latest discussion, it covered reform of the system of Council presidencies, the scope of qualified majority voting and non-institutional issues. The next meeting of the IGC will be on 18 November.
Ms Stuart: I am grateful for that reply. The assumption is that the IGC should be completed under the Italian presidency. Assuming that the Minister agrees that it is more important to get the text right than to finish it, and therefore that having to wait until the feast of the epiphany would not be a disaster, have there been any discussions with the Irish Government about how they might take the IGC over if it had to run on into their presidency?
Mr. MacShane: I am not sure that we should wait for three wise kings to solve the problem of the intergovernmental conference. We and our European partners would like to see it finished under the Italian presidency, but that will require compromise in respect of the acceptance of the positions that 25 sovereign states—including this one—are putting forward. We are, however, keeping our fingers crossed and aiming for completion under the Italian presidency.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Following close examination of the text, is the Minister convinced that this country's energy supplies will be safe?
Mr. MacShane: Article III-130 of the proposed constitutional treaty states:
- "the Council of Ministers shall unanimously adopt European laws or framework laws establishing . . . measures significantly affecting a Member State's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply."
- "Union policy on energy shall aim to . . . ensure the functioning of the energy market",
- "ensure security of energy supply in the Union".
Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly): Does the Minister agree that the proposals in the draft constitution to strengthen the Council of Ministers underline the fact that the EU is an association of independent sovereign states?
Mr. MacShane: That is right. It is important to nail at the Dispatch Box the propaganda lies of those who talk about a European superstate. We are talking about 25 independent sovereign states coming together to strengthen the workings of Europe. For 500 years, it has been English, then British, policy not to allow a continental grouping to come together from which we would be isolated or in which we would have no influence. I find it odd that the isolationist tendency on the Conservative Front Bench has been strengthened in the reshuffle. We shall maintain Britain as an active partner in Europe and defeat the Tory isolationists.
Angus Robertson (Moray): In yesterday's Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference, the Foreign Secretary gave an assurance that the UK Government would seek to rescind or amend the controversial energy chapters that have already been mentioned in this question. Will the Minister for Europe repeat the commitment of the UK Government to have those chapters removed entirely from the draft treaty? When will Government representatives be able to come to the House to confirm that that has happened?
Mr. MacShane: As I have said, I shall receive a delegation of hon. Members on this issue. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking for the energy industry when he seeks to remove any reference to the need for an open market in energy, because that is something that the British Government have always stressed in any discussions on this matter. A requirement for unanimity is contained in article III-130. However, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's persistence in the Standing Committee. The Committee, which was set up by the House, has had two sittings. Just one Conservative Member attended the first, and only two out of the 165 attended last night. They talk about the importance of Europe, yet they do not even turn up at the Standing Committee set up to discuss the issue. That is a disgraceful performance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |