Shaker Aamer

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Stephen Timms

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes the central case that we are discussing.

Let me add a few words to what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said at the start of the debate. Shaker Aamer has been detained for 13 years. He has twice been cleared for release: once in 2007 by the former US President, George Bush, and, more recently, in 2009, by President Obama. Our own Prime Minister has made vigorous representations, if one is to believe the press, in respect of Shaker Aamer, and the United States has made it clear that there is no evidence against him, and yet he is still incarcerated in the conditions that were described by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on another point that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made in his speech: that Shaker is not being released because of what he has seen in Guantanamo, and the authorities do not want that to be known more widely? If there is a mystery here about why he is still being detained, does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is the answer?

[Mr Mitchell]

That might or might not be so, and it is an important matter, but it is not central to the case I am making, which is this: here is someone whose release has been cleared by two US Presidents, and against whom the US authorities have made it clear there is no evidence, yet he remains incarcerated, after 13 years.

There have been numerous British requests, the most recent of which was made by the Prime Minister during his highly successful visit to America. Jacqui Smith, when Home Secretary, made the request, as did the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), and other Foreign Office Ministers, including my right hon. Friend to my right—geographically, at least—my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who engaged in the case energetically. The failure to make progress fuels the theories referenced in the most recent intervention. Nevertheless, those British requests cannot be treated with apparent arrogance by the American Administration and just cast aside with glib words while that man remains incarcerated with no case against him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Stephen Timms

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

2. What progress he has made on enshrining in law spending on international development equal to 0.7% of gross national income; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

The 0.7 Bill is ready and is with the business managers. As the Prime Minister has said, the coalition Government will introduce the Bill when parliamentary time allows.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. There was widespread dismay that the Bill was not included in the Queen’s Speech. Why has the commitment made in the coalition agreement not so far been fulfilled?

[Mr Mitchell]

The commitment was referred to in the Gracious Speech. The most important thing is to get on and fulfil the commitment, which has been made on both sides of the House and by all parties, to give development aid equal to 0.7% of our gross national income. That is what we are doing. The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We must get on with the legislation. As soon as the business managers say that there is a slot, we will take it.

Pakistan Floods

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Stephen Timms

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

On the last point raised by the Chairman of the International Development Committee, I said before these floods hit Pakistan that I thought it likely that, as a result of the bilateral aid review, Pakistan, within a comparatively short period, would become Britain’s most significant bilateral aid programme—so I underline the point that he made in his third question.

On his first point, I thank him for what he said about British leadership. It is encouraging to note that there has been a significant increase in support for the Secretary-General’s appeal fund. On his second point, about the reconstruction effort, he is clearly right that there needs to be strong co-ordination between all those taking part, and I hope that it will be provided by the pledging conference, which undoubtedly will take place before too long, and which I hope will take place in Islamabad.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that concern has been expressed about the effectiveness of Pakistan Government agencies in responding to the terrible crisis that has engulfed that country, perhaps with the exception of the Pakistan army. However, he has rightly drawn attention to the contribution of NGOs—he mentioned Save the Children, Oxfam and Islamic Relief. What is his judgment of the right balance for the deployment of his Department’s funding to, on the one hand, agencies of the Pakistan Government and, on the other hand, the NGOs that he has mentioned and others?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to focus on those points. It is fair to say that no Government in the world would have been able to handle a catastrophe of this scale, and there are many who believe that the Government of Pakistan have done rather better than might have been expected. Despite the experience from the earthquake gained by General Nadeem, who is in charge of the disaster authority on behalf of the Government, and whom I met during my visit, there has clearly been a struggle. However, the Government have done better than many people expected.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how British taxpayers’ money and the money so generously donated to the Disasters Emergency Committee by the British people is being allocated. None of it goes through the Government of Pakistan; it all goes through the United Nations or through the NGOs that he mentioned, which are doing such good work in very difficult circumstances.