If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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 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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.