asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they support the accession of Georgia and Ukraine to NATO.

My Lords, we remain committed to the decision made by NATO heads of state and government at the Bucharest summit in April 2008 that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO. December's meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers will provide the first review of progress so far.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Given Georgia's disputed territorial frontiers, mounting evidence that Georgia was indeed the aggressor in the war with Russia in August, and the deep political fissures in Ukraine, does he agree that the early accession of these countries to NATO would be dangerous and undesirable? Will the Government join their European allies—France, Germany, Italy and Spain—in pressing that view at the NATO Foreign Ministers' meeting in Budapest on 2 and 3 December, even if it goes against the wishes of a dying American Administration?

My Lords, a European commission is investigating who started the war, and we should wait to see what it can uncover about the circumstances in which this conflict began. However it began, we can also conclude that the Russian response was disproportionate. As to the meeting in December, I assure the noble Lord that there is very unlikely to be an early accession to NATO. There is a recognition that the umbrella, if you like, of future membership is important to these two countries—to their security, economic development and political development—but that should not be done in a way that is provocative or before they have developed the necessary internal societies that comport with membership of NATO.

My Lords, I am encouraged by the Minister's reply. Was it wise for the Foreign Secretary to go to Kiev—apparently, at a week's notice—to give encouragement at that difficult time and to continue to support Ukraine's application to NATO? Would it not be better to hesitate a little until the situation has clarified? Furthermore, in view of the mutual defence commitment under Article 5 and the fact that British interests count as well as those of applicants, should we enter into mutual defence commitments that we possibly cannot hope to fulfil?

My Lords, it was important that the Foreign Secretary made it clear that there was no backing down under Russian force from commitments that had been already made. However, this certainly needs to be advanced with an understanding of the Russian point of view. The goal remains membership, but the path to full membership needs to be cautious.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that co-operation between the new American Administration and the Government of Russia is crucial if we are to get any forward moves on disarmament and, for that matter, on nuclear proliferation? Given that, does he agree that consultation with Russia on the expansion of NATO might be very important? Although no one could condone the scale of the Russian reaction to the Georgian feint into South Ossetia, the level of responsibility is by no means clear, and perhaps we should consider Russian concerns about encirclement when we proceed further.

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes the case very elegantly. The decision by European Ministers last week reflected the fact that it was important to restart the dialogue with Russia on a successor to the European partnership agreement, but also to ensure that these issues of Russian behaviour towards Georgia, and indeed towards Ukraine, become part of that dialogue. However, she is correct; the process is to talk through these issues.

My Lords, have the Russian troops in Georgia retired to the positions agreed in the ceasefire?

My Lords, we do not yet have the complete compliance with the ceasefire arrangement that we would like.

My Lords, on the more general point, as there is no obvious connection in most people's minds between Georgia and Ukraine on the one hand and the north Atlantic on the other, is there any geographical boundary that would define the applicants that could be considered as members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

My Lords, the original purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which was an alliance against a resurgent Soviet Union, has obviously been overtaken by circumstances. It always was a defensive alliance, but its purposes have changed to reflect the new realities. Therefore, countries in this region that commit to its principles can be seen as joining over time, but in a way that must be seen as unthreatening to Russia.

My Lords, does the Minister recollect that the purpose of NATO, as defined by General Pug Ismay a long time ago, was to keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out? But the world has changed rather since then. Does he agree that offering NATO membership to these countries is almost as provocative as it would have been for the Russians to offer Warsaw Pact membership to Belgium or even the Isle of Wight?

My Lords, the noble Lord is in good company in making that argument—George Shultz and Henry Kissinger have made a similar argument in the American media. That is why we need to have a balance between the commitment to membership, which we should not back away from because of the action in South Ossetia, and understand that that commitment must be advanced in a way that is not provocative or unfair to Russian interests.

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that in the short term it is important that we get Georgia and Russia to accept their obligations as members of the Council of Europe where they are in breach of their membership obligations? They are in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is absolutely clear that those obligations have to be fully met, fully understood and fully accepted before we consider their membership for any other international organisation.

My Lords, my noble friend correctly points to the fact that there remain important outstanding human rights issues. Displaced people have been unable to go home, and there are issues of violence and of who originated it, all of which need to be sorted out. The Council of Europe is playing a lead role in that. There will be no solution to this issue that does not address the injustices that took place during the conflict.