Deep Sea Mining Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Friday 6th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sheryll Murray]

Deep-sea mining takes place at great depth in specific areas of the ocean. I do not think that the warps, bridles and trawl doors on my late husband’s boat were long enough to trawl the sea bed. We should not excavate in a non-environmentally friendly way, and I will come on to discuss that. This is one of the reasons why the UK needs to amend the 1981 Act, so that we can impose stringent and clear environmental conditions. The UK takes part in the council meetings, which are considering—this was started at the last meeting in July—what conditions should be applied to the exploitation. These are very early days—we are talking about exploration at the moment and not exploitation, which is still some way off—but the UK should be a leader in that sphere.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am most heartened by the hon. Lady’s response to the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) that one of the reasons why it is important to legislate and ensure that licences come through the UK state system is that we would then be able to apply improved environmental measures. However, I do not see any mention in the Bill of a requirement on the Secretary of State to do that. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady could point out to me any such requirement.

[Sheryll Murray]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I think the whole House will know how interested he is in the global maritime environment. However, he may be unaware—I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will expand on this—that a lot of the environmental requirements will be covered in the wording of the contract with the International Seabed Authority, so we do not to include that in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak in this debate, which is important not simply because of the economic interests that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) has outlined; she spoke of a potentially accessible resource that could be worth something to the tune of £40 billion. As she appreciates, it is also important because of the natural environmental resource that could be at risk from both the exploration, and ultimately the exploitation, of those resources.

I was grateful for the clarification made by the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on clause 5 of the 1981 Act, which I have highlighted in my copy. When he quoted the clause, however, he left out one salient phrase:

“so far as reasonably practicable”.

Let me quote the clause in full:

“In determining whether to grant an exploration or exploitation licence the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to protect (so far as reasonably practicable) marine creatures, plants and other organisms and their habitat from any harmful effects which might result from any activities to be authorised by the licence; and the Secretary of State shall consider any representations made to him concerning such effects.”

In its time, that was an eminently good and sensible environmental protection to introduce, but 32 years later, environmental law has superseded it. It is no longer the significant protection that it may have been regarded as when it was introduced in 1981.

In particular, we need to pay attention to principle 15 of the Rio declaration—the precautionary approach—in all such environmental matters. Principle 15 states simply that, if there are indications of likely but uncertain significant adverse environmental impacts, an activity should not be authorised to proceed. The principle switches the burden of proof. Of course, in overall terms, deep-sea ecosystem processes, connectivity and the importance of deep-sea ecosystem services are poorly understood by contemporary science.

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall described some processes, and mentioned scooping and vacuuming, but she will also know of the process of crushing when mining for these nodules. More than most hon. Members, she will be aware of the deep-sea ocean currents that can take sediment produced from such operations and disperse it over wide areas. As some of the minerals being explored are so toxic, it is difficult to understand with modern science just what the effect of their dispersal by those deep-sea ocean currents could be.

[Sheryll Murray]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the polymetallic nodules are golf ball-size spheres that occur in ocean bed sediments? I bow to his expertise, but my knowledge of the sea bed suggests that trying to crush a polymetallic would simply bury it further into the sediment. We need the Bill so that the UK can ensure that the environment is cared for and so that the activities are undertaken in the most environmentally friendly way. If he is concerned about the hoovering and harvesting of the nodules, he should support my Bill.

[Barry Gardiner]

Let me give the hon. Lady the assurance that I am sure the Bill will pass on Second Reading. I have no desire to stuff it and am not foolish enough to attempt to do so. However, I would like to obtain from her and the Minister another assurance: that the environmental protection, which is currently only in the 1981 Act, will be strengthened when the Bill goes into Committee. The burden of proof in the precautionary principle is reversed in the Act, which states:

“In determining whether to grant an exploration or exploitation licence the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to protect”.

I want to change the focus, so that instead of the Secretary of State having regard to the need to protect, no licence is granted unless full environmental impact assessments have been undertaken.

[Alistair Burt]

Does the hon. Gentleman intend to present evidence on any matters that would affect the issue of licences by the UK under the 1981 Act? Has any such evidence given him cause for concern that environmental protection measures are insufficient? I understand where he is going, but does he have, or is he aware of, any concerns about how successive Governments have applied the condition? I take his point and understand where he is coming from, but he can also present these concerns in Committee.

[Barry Gardiner]

As the Minister knows, few licences have been granted since the 1981 Act took effect, so I would not at this stage seek to adumbrate examples. However, I am aware of many concerns from the environmental community about deep-sea mining and about how the Bill does not reinforce the protections that I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House would want us to have.

The World Wide Fund for Nature position paper on deep-sea mining states:

“Distinct ecosystems are or can be associated with these minerals and will be affected in different ways by different types of mining. Dredging for nodules is likely to damage large areas of the seabed and disperse large clouds of sediment. Polymetallic sulphide mining may destroy active and inactive hydrothermal vents (black smokers) and their associated communities and disperse toxic materials. The extraction of cobalt rich crusts may destroy the benthic seamount communities and dependent fauna.”

I will not quote the paper at length—it is available online for hon. Members to read for themselves—but we need to take those concerns seriously. The global community has a principle on environmental legislation. It is the precautionary principle, which is that when we do not know, we do not do something that we have good reason to believe will cause damage.

[Philip Davies]

There are always uncertainties, so the precautionary principle would mean that we never did anything. Many of these environmental concerns were raised in the debate back in 1981, and according to Hansard the Labour party opposed that Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the misgivings expressed back then were unfounded, and therefore the misgivings that he is expressing are also likely to be unfounded?

[Barry Gardiner]

That is a very interesting interpretation of the precautionary principle—that because misgivings were unfounded in the past, they are likely to be unfounded in the future.

I do not speak from the Front Bench, but I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown), who will do so today, that we will not oppose the Bill. I certainly seek not to oppose the Bill, but to improve it. Indeed, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said that it was a good Conservative principle to conserve what we have and to improve it. On the sea bed we have immeasurable riches, and the international community has stated clearly that they are part of the common heritage of humanity. That is what the international community has agreed and that is what the Government have signed up to. That common heritage should be preserved, protected and improved. If the hon. Member for South East Cornwall will give the assurance that in Committee we can ensure that protection through this legislation, I for one will be very happy to see the Bill make progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I was coming on to say that my understanding was precisely the same. The 1981 Act set out to regulate mining on the sea bed in the farthest and deepest oceans of the world. The reason it was required was that it had been discovered that valuable hard mineral resources, known as manganese or polymetallic nodules, existed on the seabed, as we have heard, and United Kingdom companies, among others, were interested in mining them.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman just used the important word: “hard” mineral resources. The Bill would excise that word to allow for the exploitation of oil and gas as well. Would he care to reflect on the assurance given by the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) in introducing the Bill that operations at a deep-sea level such as fracking would not be used?

[Mr Nuttall]

I cannot give any assurances about that; it is not for me to do that. I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about environmental protection, and quite rightly too, but I venture to submit that if the Bill is not made friendly towards companies, there is a danger that they will go and seek some other jurisdiction with a lot fewer environmental protections than in this country. There is a danger in going too far the other way. We have to strike the right balance on these matters, and I believe the Bill attempts to do that.

United Kingdom companies at that time were among those interested in mining polymetallic nodules. The idea behind the 1981 Act was to provide a statutory framework for the development of a nascent industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said, it was passed in the full knowledge that negotiations were taking place at the United Nations. As we have heard, unfortunately, things did not proceed quite as fast as parliamentarians at the time thought they might. That might be due to a difficulty with the technology. Indeed, it is interesting to consider that man was able to send rockets and put men on the moon, the satellite of our planet, back in the 1960s, yet it has proved to be technologically much more difficult to travel to the depths of our planet.

A United Nations conference on the law of the sea had for several years been working towards an agreement on establishing an international system for regulating the exploitation of the mineral resources of our oceans. It was hoped that when a satisfactory agreement had been reached and had entered into force, the international arrangements would supersede the national provisions contained in the 1981 Act. It was for that reason that the legislation was sold to the House as a temporary measure. The Government of the day anticipated that there would be no need for any national legislation once the United Nations convention came into force.

The Government of the day were understandably keen to improve the security and availability of future supplies of vital raw materials for our UK industries. The UK was, and still is, heavily dependent on a small number of countries for supplies of minerals that are critical raw materials for our manufacturing industries. The possibility of securing our own supplies of minerals such as nickel, cobalt, copper or manganese from the sea bed was understandably regarded as a very welcome prospect indeed. Furthermore, the prospect of UK companies participating in the new industrial activity of sea-bed mining promised an economic opportunity for the benefit of the companies involved and the wider British economy.

The nodules that gave rise to that flurry of interest and activity were described at the time not as being like golf balls, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall described them, but as like charred potatoes that varied in size and, where they occurred, were like a carpet on the sea bed in a single layer. We do not yet fully understand how and why the nodules form, but it is clear that they apparently require the undisturbed conditions that are found only in the deepest areas of the ocean. Although the nodules were found in various parts of the ocean, only very few areas contained sufficiently rich deposits to justify the enormous costs of establishing commercial mining operations. The deposits of nodules are beyond the limits of national jurisdictions and were consequently treated as resources of the high seas, which any nation could attempt to recover.

It is perhaps worth considering what exactly it is envisaged will be mined as a result of the Bill. There are essentially three types of minerals involved. First are the polymetallic nodules, which contain manganese, copper, cobalt and nickel. As my hon. Friend mentioned, they either occur on the surface or are partially buried, and are discovered at depths of 3,000 to 6,000 metres—in other words, some 4 miles deep, so we are not talking about something that one can undertake lightly. It is estimated that the global reserves of deep-sea manganese nodules are in the order of 10 billion tonnes. Those of greatest economic interest are made up, on average, of about 30% manganese, 1.5% nickel, 1.5% copper and 0.3% cobalt. However, I understand that the presence of traces of other, rare earth elements might also attract interest in these resources, particularly as the supply of such metals from land-based resources is reducing.

Secondly, there are polymetallic sulphides, which are sulphide deposits found at water depths of up to 3,700 metres in mid-ocean ridges, back-arc rifts and sea-mounts. They often carry high concentrations of copper, zinc and lead, in addition to gold and silver. That is what gave me the idea that there could be a 21st century Klondike in the deep sea. Thirdly, there are ferromanganese crusts, in which cobalt-rich iron-manganese forms on the sea floor. These, too, could lead to mining activity.

Before I began to research the Bill, the letters “ISA” had always stood for “individual savings account”. Now, when I see them, I think of the International Seabed Authority. That new body was established under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, and it plays a pivotal role in deep-sea mining. The authority has stated that the areas of exploration have not advanced much since 1981. They still mainly comprise the Clarion-Clipperton fracture zone in the equatorial north Pacific ocean, south and south-east of Hawaii, and the central Indian basin in the Indian ocean. Exploration for polymetallic sulphides is also taking place in the south-west Indian ridge and in the mid-Atlantic ridge.

Unsurprisingly, in view of the potential economic importance of those resources, there has been considerable international interest in, and concern about, the nature of their exploitation. In 1967 and 1970, that concern was formalised in two resolutions of the United Nations. The first sought to impose a complete moratorium on deep-sea mining until international arrangements had come into force. The second was a declaration of principle stating that the sea bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and its resources, were the common heritage of mankind.

A United Nations conference on the law of the sea was convened in 1973 to negotiate an international system of regulation for sea-bed mining. No agreement was reached by the time of the passage of the 1981 Act, even though the conference had met regularly since 1973 and made some progress on developing an international regime. The negotiations were sufficiently advanced, however, for it to be fairly clear that any convention emanating from the talks would contain complex provisions for operations by private companies and by an international sea-bed authority. Incidentally, the negotiations apparently stalled because the United States decided to carry out a full review of its policy on the law of the sea, and therefore decided not to play an active role in those negotiations.

Those uncertainties demonstrated the problems that would face Governments and mining companies until an international convention could be agreed and ratified. Because of those uncertainties, the United Kingdom Government of the day considered it necessary to pass the 1981 Act as an interim measure to give the UK mining industry a firm basis for proceeding, pending an international agreement being reached.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It raises the question of how the inspectors carry out their work. It brings to mind the old adage, “Out of sight, out of mind.”

[Barry Gardiner]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that the provision of inspectors relates more to the other functions under the 1981 Act, whereby certain minerals could be made available to the Secretary of State and the Government for inspection so that there was a clear understanding of the quantities and qualities of the minerals that were being mined. I think that that is the inspection regime that was envisaged in section 11, not going down to the sea floor and seeing how the mining was being carried out.

[Mr Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to provide that distinction. Again, without wishing to put pressure on the Minister, perhaps he will be able to give the history of what has been done.

Greenpeace, as quoted in the standard note, draws attention to

“the rapid increase in license applications being made to the International Seabed Authority to exploit the mineral resources found in international waters.”

It also states:

“If seabed mining is allowed to go ahead without a comprehensive system of environmental protection in place we may be destroying species forever before they have even been scientifically described.”

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall gave an explanation of what Greenpeace is talking about. There are things down there that have not yet been determined or detected.

Let me make it absolutely clear that the Opposition will not oppose the Bill. However, as was said earlier, we would like certain parts of the schedule to be improved. The Bill is about the protection of our environment and the opportunity to use the resources that are there for this nation—I am sure that the hon. Member for North East Somerset would agree with that. We should be able to fully utilise what lies in the murky waters of our seas and oceans, but we must consider the manner in which that is done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I should like to set out responses to the Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, and, when I have made some progress, to deal with the series of questions colleagues have raised during the morning. This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I thank colleagues for their contributions. Deep-sea mining is in its infancy, but by being at the forefront of developments, we can ensure that the UK economy sees the benefits and that any environmental concerns are fully addressed.

The subject of the Bill is probably, in all fairness, unfamiliar to most colleagues. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway was honest enough to say that it is a relatively new subject for him. I could pretend that my situation is different, but I will not. I am indebted to Mr Chris Whomersley and other Foreign and Commonwealth Office colleagues for their assistance in preparing me for the debate.

On the background, I want to fill out what colleagues have said about the origins of the Bill and the importance of correct definitions of, for example, the deep sea bed. Deep-sea mining does not come up every day, so it is important to alleviate concerns, particularly bearing in mind recent concerns about mineral extraction and the environment on land, by noting that any activity would take place a long way from any coastal area.

The term “deep sea bed” is defined in amendments in the Bill to the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981. The UN convention on the law of the sea calls it the “area” of the

“sea-bed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.

That is commonly referred to as the common heritage of mankind, a phrase that has found its way into the UN convention in article 136. The concept, which goes back to the 1960s, expresses a profoundly important point, namely that the area and its resources do not belong to any one state. They should be developed for the benefit of everyone on the planet. They are controlled through the International Seabed Authority, an international organisation to which all states can become a party. I will say more about the ISA later.

To refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), getting the balance right between what is controlled by regulation and legislation and what is allowed to run free, as it were, is difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley spoke about the freedom of the seas and the like. Access to the sea and freedom to roam on the seas is important, as is the enforcement of such rights to freedom. However, the world recognises that the resources of the sea and what lies on the sea bed and below are genuinely precious. Hon. Members are aware how resources can be badly exploited—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall knows that some countries have badly exploited resources through their fishing practices. That gives us pause to say, “Simply having a free-for-all will not work.” My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset can be assured, however, that the attitude of the United Kingdom is to ensure that, if international regulation does curtail freedoms, it must be because that is the right thing to do. We have to take our responsibilities seriously, and our responsibility to the environment and the need to ensure that the regulations cover that adequately are as important as ensuring that opportunities for prosperity are not lost through over-regulation or complicated bureaucracy.

The “area”, or the common heritage of mankind, is the area beyond the limits of any coastal state’s continental shelf. Under article 76 of the UN convention, a coastal state is entitled to a continental shelf of at least 200 nautical miles from coastal baselines, and more where the slope of the continental margin meets certain specified criteria. This entitlement is without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between states with opposite or adjacent coasts. The exception to the rule is for a small islet or rock that cannot support economic life. Under the UN convention, such rocks only generate a territorial area—a maritime zone up to 12 nautical miles from coastal baselines.

The UK has one such rock which is sometimes the subject of academic debate. That is Rockall, some 186 nautical miles west of St Kilda in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. Anyone who has seen this rock, or seen pictures, will well understand why we could not claim that it could support economic life, being only a jagged spike of rock jutting up some 60 feet above sea level. Therefore, and contrary to some of the sometimes ill-informed comments about Rockall, the United Kingdom does not regard Rockall as capable of generating a continental shelf of its own. Does this mean that deep sea mining could take place in the vicinity of Rockall? No. While the UK uses a baseline on St Kilda—which, coincidentally, is uninhabited but has in the past supported a human population—the UK claims a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in a westerly direction, way out into an area known as the Hatton Rockall plateau. Other states have overlapping continental shelf claims in the same area, but while the claims exist and their validity is yet to be considered by the appropriate international body, the area does not fall within the definition of one

“beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.

To be clear, deep sea mining as provided for by the Bill, would not take place anywhere near the coast of the UK, or the UK’s overseas territories, or any other coastal state for that matter. Indeed, most of the current applications relate to areas in the Pacific ocean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) mentioned, and are a long way from any landmass.

I have described the “where”, now let me explain the “what”. As hon. Members appreciate, we are not talking about hydrocarbons, at least not at the moment. My notes suggest that it is safe to say that many hon. Members will be unfamiliar with the mineral types, but the debate suggests that they have made themselves very familiar with the mineral types we are discussing. Those minerals currently being explored for in the deep sea are composite mineral deposits, in formulations unique to the sea bed, which is why they are so special.

Presently there are international regulations in place for the exploration of three mineral types in the deep sea. The first, polymetallic nodules, have already been the subject of discussion today. Polymetallic or manganese nodules contain manganese, copper, cobalt and nickel, and are—as far as the FCO is concerned—potato-shaped balls generally found on the sea bed surface. I have no information about whether they may be tennis-ball sized, and it is the official view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that they are potato-shaped balls. They are generally found partially buried in sediment, and cover vast plains in the deepest areas of the sea bed.

Secondly, there are polymetallic sulphides. These, mainly sulphide deposits, are found in ocean ridges and seamounts, and often carry high concentrations of copper, zinc and lead, in addition to gold and silver, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset will be pleased to hear. Not for the first time, he is right on the ball—the tennis ball-sized ball. Such deposits are associated with previous volcanic activity, where the deposits have built up over time via plumes from vents. Where such vents are active, they tend to be places of unique fauna and flora. However, mining would take place only when such sites were extinct, not least because of the very high temperatures associated with live vents. That deals with one of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley raised. There is no question of mining such areas when they are live, because frankly the temperatures would make it impossible.

The third group of mineral elements to which the current legislation applies are found in cobalt-rich crusts or ferromanganese crusts, which form at the flanks and summits of seamounts, ridges and plateaus. They contain amounts of iron and manganese, and are especially enriched in cobalt, manganese, lead, tellurium, bismuth and platinum. Such minerals are important. Mineral prices have increased noticeably since 2000, largely as a result of increases in demand, especially from emerging economies such as China and India, as colleagues have noted. According to the United States geological survey in 2013:

“China has advanced from consuming less than 10% of the global market for metals to over 25% of the market in the past few years and that trend is increasing; India is following on a similar path.”

As I will explain, changes in demand have created a need for legislation.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Alistair Burt]

I will answer colleagues’ questions in due course, but I am happy to take an intervention now.

[Barry Gardiner]

I might have missed it in the Minister’s remarks about the various chemicals, but the briefings that I have read refer to deposits of submerged massive sulphides—the hon. Member for Bury North talked about the ISA, but this is SMS. Will the Minister say what category SMS falls into? My understanding is that a different treatment might apply in their mining.

[Alistair Burt]

The point I was making in going through the three mineral types is that they are the ones that are currently affected by regulation, but we are moving on. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: as he will be well aware, seafloor massive sulphide deposits are the modern equivalents of ancient volcanogenic massive sulphide ore deposits—or VMS deposits, as we call them in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The term has been coined by mineral explorers to differentiate modern from ancient deposits. SMS deposits are indeed relevant; I will come to the reason for changing the legislation.

There is also an issue of limited sources of supplies. For example, in 2010 it was estimated that the Congo produced 40% of global cobalt supplies, South Africa 79% of global platinum and China 97% of global rare earth elements. That factor can distort total global supplies and costs. Access to supplies makes these strategically important minerals. An increase in available stocks of such minerals should increase competition in the global market, reduce the price faced by consumers and help to ensure sufficient future supplies to satisfy rising global demand. For example, present estimates suggest that there is a 100-year supply of cobalt deposits on land, which might increase to 200 to 300 years if deep-sea supplies are included.

As the world, we hope, exits recession—helped in the United Kingdom, of course, by this Government’s economic policies—it is inevitable that demand for minerals will increase. It is certain that commercial companies will be looking for new sources of such minerals, and the deep sea bed is the new frontier for them. We in the United Kingdom must be at the forefront of such developments.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister has drawn a parallel that will have ramifications for the environmental agenda. He will know that the mentality of the Klondike and the frontier, and the rush for the extraction of minerals on land, resulted in some of the worst environmental degradation. Will he accept that the Opposition are simply trying to ensure that the Bill contains proper safeguards and environmental protections relating to the new frontier that he is describing, so that a similar laying waste of the environment that happened as a result of the extraction of natural resources on land does not happen on the sea bed?

[Alistair Burt]

That is the intention not only of the hon. Gentleman and his party; it is part of the Bill’s raison d’être and of the working environment on which the regulations are already based. There is already a double lock. The reason that UK legislation provides for licences is to ensure that those whom the UK sponsors for licence applications to the ISA have already passed the standards that this House, and this country, would expect from those involved in mineral extraction and exploration. Once the UK has been satisfied, the second lock comes into operation. That involves the environmental controls put forward by the ISA, and I will cover that subject in more detail in a moment.

There is no difference between us on the importance of this matter. In answer to some of the hon. Gentleman’s previous questions, there has not, to date, been any challenge to the existing arrangements. Only two licences have been granted under the 1981 legislation. The original reason for introducing those temporary provisions was that the possibility of Klondike-type activity was in the minds of companies in the early 1980s. That proved to be a false expectation, however, and the pace of exploration has been slow. The reason for introducing this legislation now is that we anticipate the pace picking up, given the increase in information and technological development.

In the interim, however, the environmental protections in section 5 of the 1981 legislation have proved entirely sufficient, as have the inspections. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that and wishes to raise a challenge to what we have done, he is entitled to do so. He is right to be concerned about this, but I am genuinely not aware of any challenges to those who have taken licences through the United Kingdom. We must protect for the future, however, and I will go on to explain how that is being covered by the ISA, how we are dealing with negotiations as we look forward four or five years to mineral exploitation—which is not anticipated yet—and how we are involved with the ISA in relation to that. He need not fear that we are not considering these matters. Nor need he fear that this matter has caused any concern to date.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the Minister for trying to respond fully to my concerns. I appreciate that. However, it is not sufficient to say that there is no cause for concern simply because only two licences have been issued to date and because there have been no problems with the way in which section 5 of that 32-year-old Act of Parliament is being implemented. He knows very well that section 5 states that

“the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to protect”

the marine environment. The words “have regard to” do not provide for a strong protection. All we are asking is that that wording should be upgraded in the Bill.

[Alistair Burt]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall will give that matter her consideration. I was not seeking to link the fact that only two licences had been issued to the issue of environmental protection. There have been only two applications because only two consortia have felt it necessary to do that kind of work. Others have not been prepared to do it. There is no linkage between the two points. My point was that we have no evidence that environmental issues have ever been a matter of concern in relation to those applying for a licence under our legislation and going on to be sponsored for permission from the ISA. The protections that are in place have in no way been considered inadequate. Had they been, that would have been an important point of evidence, but we do not have any such evidence to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

This is a fact never lost on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I also have in my room at the FCO a copy of a treaty with Algeria that dates back many centuries; we have such treaties scattered around the place. There are many claims to be our oldest ally and we can be quite sure that the facts would prevent the United States from claiming that. For the avoidance of any doubt, however, let me make it clear how close and warm our relationship is with the United States across the board. Environmental protection and the law of the sea is another area where the House can expect the warmest and closest engagement between us and the US. We look forward to the US’s playing a full role in the International Seabed Authority.

As I have said, the UK, in common with other industrialised countries, did not feel able to participate in the original convention because of the terms of part XI. There was a general recognition that it was unsatisfactory for the industrialised countries to remain outside the convention. So in 1990 the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Perez de Cuellar, convened informal consultations, which continued for several years. The UK played a key role and the result was the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of an agreement on the implementation of part XI of the convention in July 1994. Such agreements assisted the UK’s joining the convention.

The part XI agreement is particularly pertinent to the Bill. It remedied the major defects of the original convention and, in particular, it addressed the costs to states parties and ensured that they were kept to a reasonable level. It clarified and streamlined the procedures for the approval of applications to explore for or exploit the mineral resources of the deep-sea bed. The agreement reduced the possibility for the so-called Enterprise, an international organisation composed of states parties, to participate in exploitation or exploration. It emphasised that decision making in the authority should normally be by consensus. It resolved satisfactorily the problem of how to ensure equitable representation of all states in the council, including the industrialised and developing states, as well as the consumers of metals and land-based producers.

The agreement ensured that any transfer of technology to developing countries should be by agreement. It also stated that the development of the resources of the area should take place in accordance with sound commercial principles. It emphasised that the system of payments to the authority should be fair to both the contractors and to the authority and established a finance committee, on which the United Kingdom has a member, which has a key role in scrutinising the finances of the authority.

The adoption of the part XI agreement paved the way for the United Kingdom to become a party to the convention in July 1997. When the UK became a party to the convention, we considered whether the 1981 Act was sufficient to enable us to comply with our obligations under the convention. At the time it was concluded that it did—although, as I think it is fair to say, only just. Obviously the intention behind the 1981 Act was not to implement the convention, which had not even been adopted when the Act was enacted, but the essential elements were thought to be sufficient. In particular, as we have seen, the Act provided for the issue of licences to prospective contractors and we are satisfied that that gives the United Kingdom sufficient powers in relation to such contractors to comply with the requirements of the convention, particularly that the sponsoring state should have effective control over its contractors.

The International Seabed Authority is the body that under the convention is responsible for regulating deep-sea mining. It has its seat in Kingston, Jamaica. The House will be aware of the extent of my portfolio in the FCO—Iraq, Iran and various countries throughout the middle east—so I hope it will not mind if I apply to the Foreign Secretary to suggest that it might be necessary for me to visit the ISA in Kingston, Jamaica at some point, with, of course, an appropriate delegation including Members of the Opposition, to ascertain that the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall in her Bill will be accepted by the authority. With the permission of the House, I will make that request to the Foreign Secretary. However, that is a digression.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alistair Burt]

Of course, and I will check on the tickets before we go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

Just to correct the impression that may have been given to the House by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), the treaty of Windsor in 1386 was of course a treaty between Portugal and England, and as so often with the hon. Gentleman, the key is, who is the—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is testing the patience of the Chamber a little bit, and I will be quite honest with him. We have had a lot of long interventions, and the last thing I want to get into is a history lesson from either side of the House, because other Bills want to get a hearing, and I am sure he has an interest in those as well.

European Council

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

Of course, the former Prime Minister has tremendous expertise but I am not aware that we are consulting him on what we should be doing as a coalition Government with regard to the situation in Syria.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister understand that it is the trajectory that worries Members? First, we lift the arms embargo, then we supply arms, then we supply military advisers, then personnel and then those very arms are used against the personnel. The best way to put a fire out is not to put more fuel on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Of course, we absolutely do not agree with any such remarks. My hon. Friend is quite right to give the date, because those remarks were made well before the President of Egypt took office as President. We welcome, since he took office, his maintenance of the peace treaty with Israel and the work that Egypt has done, including engaging with Israel, to try to succeed in bringing about a ceasefire in the Gaza conflict that we saw a few weeks ago. We will continue to judge the President by his actions in office.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

T2. At the global conference that the Foreign Secretary was good enough to host last week in the Locarno rooms, Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, made it clear that a settlement in 2015 would as much reflect national legislation as define it. What steps is his Department taking in bilateral arrangements with other countries to promote that national legislation?

[Mr Hague]

We do a great deal of that in our bilateral relations. This work was started under the previous Government—I pay tribute to that—and it continues in the current Government. I think we are foremost among Foreign Ministries in promoting the recognition of climate change and the need to act on it within other countries around the world. We have done a lot of that in China and do a lot of it in Brazil and many other emerging economies, so that work has the continued energy that we have all put into it over the past few years.

Sri Lanka

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I strongly support the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, which I hope to address later.

The UN internal review proved that war crimes and human rights violations took place, but it admitted that UN staff did not think that preventing those killings was their responsibility and that they deliberately suppressed casualty figures. According to the review, when the UN began collating information on casualties the

“reports pointed to the large majority of civilian killings as being the result of Government shelling and aerial bombardment, with a smaller proportion of killings resulting from the LTTE actions.”

However, the UN played down evidence about the scale of what was happening, and the truth was portrayed as propaganda from Tamil Tiger terrorists.

In fact, as outlined by the Secretary-General’s panel of experts on Sri Lanka in 2011, and as we were told by Marie Colvin in 2009, there was systematic shelling of hospitals and civilians by Government forces, as well as restrictions on humanitarian aid and assistance. The panel of experts speaks of “tens of thousands” of casualties—perhaps up to 40,000—and even worse figures are now emerging. The Bishop of Mannar, Rayappu Joseph, has stated that over 146,000 remain unaccounted for, and the former BBC journalist Frances Harrison cites a World Bank estimate of 100,000 people still missing. All that only emphasises the importance of having an independent, international inquiry into the conduct of both sides during the conflict. Credible investigations into war crimes allegations and human rights abuses are a duty under domestic and international law. However, Sri Lanka’s own inquiry, the so-called Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, has failed completely to provide the accountability required. It has been described as “deeply flawed” by the panel of experts, which has called for an independent, international investigation into war crimes. The LLRC was not independent or international, and our fears about it have been shown to be well founded. Government forces were largely exonerated of culpability. Only military rather than independent courts of inquiry have been established to look into the few abuse cases that were deemed worthy of further consideration by the LLRC.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and pay tribute to the work that she has done over many years in exposing what has been going on. Does she recall that, in a previous debate on the LLRC, the Minister said that the Government would see what action the LLRC took, and if it were not substantial they would take much stronger action and do precisely what the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) said and review again the decision to hold the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo later this year? I hope that we will see such a view reflected in the Minister’s response today.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We all have faith in the Minister, and we ask him to take action.

As there is no justice or accountability with the LLRC, what we see instead is a culture of impunity—enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, gender-based violence as well as the recent trumped-up impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice—which is testament to the breakdown of the rule of law in Sri Lanka. Just as we had a responsibility to protect civilians at the time of the killings, so too do we now for ensuring that there is accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). She knows more and has researched more than anybody in the House, and she has done more to keep this issue at the forefront of its debates and of the Government’s mind, as they consider their obligations to the international community.

I arrived here this morning with a speech that detailed many of the things in the UN internal report and the way in which the UN had looked at its own failure. It is important to understand that it was extraordinarily courageous of Ban Ki-moon to establish a report looking at the UN’s failure properly to protect people and to intervene at the right time in the war in Sri Lanka. Although it was a courageous report, however, it now needs to be followed up. It highlighted many of the actions that took place at the time, but the international community must now see whether the reconciliation that we all wish for has actually taken place.

My hon. Friend spoke of the LLRC. At the time, many of us said it was a smokescreen intended to avoid having the independent international review that was being called for. However, the Minister said, “Let’s give it space. Let’s see what it comes up with. Let’s see whether it actually delivers. If it does, we should judge it on that basis.” Well, it has now produced its report, but it has not delivered. The international community, from the UN right through to Amnesty International, has acknowledged and documented the LLRC’s failings. Initially, the commission made absolutely no mention of war crimes; subsequently, under pressure, the Sri Lankan Government made further moves to switch the international community’s focus. When the Minister sums up, I would ask him to be true to his words in our previous debate: we should judge the Sri Lankan Government by their actions. On any international standard, they have failed.

I said I had come with a speech that I had prepared. What I was not prepared for, however, was the schoolboy nonsense from the Government side—“Oh well, have you ever been to Sri Lanka?”—and the sniggering when my hon. Friend said that, no, of course she had not been there. Does that in any way reduce the value and the quality of her research? Absolutely not.

I wish I had not been to Sri Lanka, because I could have stood with my hon. Friend, but I have been there. A decade or so ago, the then Foreign Office Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), asked me to become involved in the second tier of the negotiations that were going on at the time. I was partly responsible for Anton Balasingham coming here with his wife, Adele. I also went to Sri Lanka and met all the parties there.

When I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, I invited Mahinda Rajapaksa to dinner there to discuss speaking to the communities in Northern Ireland to see exactly how reconciliation could be achieved and how a country could move on. At that stage, I hoped he would go back to his country to try to implement some of those ideals, but he did not: he went back and turned Sri Lanka into a kleptocracy, in which the Rajapaksa family controls absolutely everything. How is it that the President’s brother, Gotabaya, is Secretary of Defence? Another of his brothers, Basil, is Minister of Economic Development. Chamal, the third brother, is Speaker of the Parliament. They have carved up the country between them and there is absolutely no economic freedom.

If we take the Commonwealth Heads of Government or the Commonwealth Business Council there, what will we be doing? We will be putting money into the pockets not of Sri Lankan people, but of one family: the Rajapaksas. Anybody who pretends to be part of this debate without acknowledging what is going on in that country currently is fooling themselves. Those Members on the Government Benches may or may not have gone to Sri Lanka, but if they have, they have not looked into the detail of what is happening in that land, because it is corruption and it must end. The Government of this country should not allow Her Majesty the Queen to set foot on Sri Lankan soil.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I add my thanks to those of my colleagues, Mr Hollobone, for your chairing of this debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her brevity and her remarks. I start, as always, by congratulating the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate. Her deep and committed interest in Sri Lankan issues is well known. I welcome the opportunity to state the Government’s position and the opportunity that she has once again provided the House to discuss the issue.

I welcome the interventions of a number of colleagues in this debate. They have been passionate, thoughtful and honest. The difference of views expressed across the Chamber emphasises the complexity of the issue. In an effort to defuse a little of the heat, may I say that, bearing in mind the history of the issue and who was in Government in 2009, a degree of humility in all parties is helpful? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The contributions of colleagues with personal experience of reconciliation in parts of the UK were particularly important in bringing to the surface some of the difficulties involved.

The UK’s relationship with Sri Lanka is long-standing, strong and based on close historical, cultural, educational, commercial and family ties that will not weaken. The United Kingdom is fortunate to have a large Sri Lankan diaspora community, which contributes much to our rich and diverse culture. Over the past couple of years, I have met regularly with Sri Lankan Ministers, parliamentarians from different parties and members of the diaspora in the United Kingdom. As has been noted, in two weeks’ time, I will make my second visit to the country.

The hon. Lady suggested that my visit might be taken as a vindication of the Government. I assure her and the House that judging from experience over the past couple of years, my remarks are not always taken in that way by the Government, who are entitled to see them as they wish. I do not think that that is a particular risk.

There are different ways of visiting a country. People do not always have to go on a Government-sponsored visit; non-governmental organisations are operating, for example. People should declare everything and of course they must be on guard, no matter who takes them on a visit. It is helpful to visit and get a picture, if it is possible to do so, although that does not preclude views from those who have not visited but know a great deal about the issue.

The decades-long war in Sri Lanka, which ended in 2009 with the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, devastated the country and deeply scarred its population. Sri Lankans deserve lasting peace and reconciliation and where the United Kingdom and international organisations, such as the UN, are able to encourage and support the process it is right to do so.

I want to deal with three elements that came out of this debate: the situation of the UN; progress being made in Sri Lanka; and issues to do with the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. In essence, I agree with and support the remarks made by the hon. Lady. It is right that the UN has been through an intense process, examining its role in relation to the conclusion of events in Sri Lanka. We welcome the report by the panel of experts appointed by the UN Secretary-General in 2011, which found credible allegations that both sides were involved in violations of international humanitarian law, and its setting up its own independent internal report to consider what happened with regard to the UN’s role. We agree that shortcomings were identified. In following that up, we note that the UN has moved swiftly to put in place a lessons-learned programme overseen by a panel chaired by the Deputy Secretary-General’s office. It is there that we will make our contribution to how the UN is going to repair what it failed to do in relation to the responsibility to protect, and we will follow that panel’s progress closely. I expect that questions will be raised about that over time.

We are committed to and support the concept of responsibility to protect, which was supported by all UN member states in 2005. The difficulty that was found in 2009 was that a pillar III responsibility-to-protect response required the agreement of the UN Security Council. It was clear at the time—former Ministers in this Chamber know this better than I—that there was not widespread support in the wider international community for a more assertive position towards the parties to the conflict. This turns out to have been a tragedy. The United Kingdom’s primary concerns during the final offensive were to ensure unimpeded access by humanitarian agencies and compliance with international humanitarian law, including investigations of allegations of violations. The UK focused, therefore, on the parties’ obligations to protect the civilian population.

[Barry Gardiner]

In the light of what he has just said, will the Minister comment on paragraph 15 of the internal report? It says that there was

“concern that the moment that humanitarian organizations leave, the Government will begin bombing Killinochchi town and that the physical security of the civilian population will be at increased risk”.

It is implicit that there is safety by the UN organisation’s very presence and that there is supervision.

[Alistair Burt]

Yes. As we have all said during the debate, the UN is examining its processes carefully as it finds fault in what it did in the past and emphasises the importance of UN engagement in the most difficult circumstances. Of course, we see in Syria today how difficult that has become. No doubt, the UN panel will look carefully at how it failed to meet that obligation and what might be done in difficult circumstances in future.

The LTTE is a brutal, ruthless organisation that rightly remains proscribed in the UK, but a military victory alone cannot deliver the stable, lasting peace all Sri Lankans deserve. Addressing events during the final days of the conflict is important and the UK has consistently called for an independent investigation into allegations of violation of international humanitarian law on both sides. There needs to be a more fundamental approach that goes beyond accountability. Colleagues have mentioned this in terms of the context of the future of Sri Lanka being for Sri Lankans themselves and how they take this forward. Therefore, we support the view, widely held in Sri Lanka and outside, that long-term peace can best be achieved through an inclusive political settlement that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict. Such a settlement must also take into account the legitimate grievances and aspirations of all Sri Lanka’s communities.

On the progress that has been made, the Sri Lankan Government recognised that in appointing the LLRC, which submitted its report in December 2011 and made more than 200 recommendations, including calls for credible investigations of alleged judicial killings and disappearances, demilitarisation of the north, implementation of impartial land-dispute resolution mechanisms and protection of freedom of expression.

Although we welcome the recommendations that were made, as I said at the time, the Government’s view is that the report left gaps and unanswered questions on alleged violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law. We were disappointed by the report’s conclusions and recommendations on accountability. None the less, as colleagues have said, the recommendations, if implemented in full, would go a long way to achieving the reconciliation that we believe will achieve lasting peace.

What progress has there been and, in answer to colleagues who have asked what we are looking for, what have we measured? The UK recognises and welcomes progress made in various areas. UK officials have visited all nine provinces of Sri Lanka in the past 12 months and have seen much to welcome. The absence of conflict has brought greater security and opened up economic development—the demining was mentioned by colleagues—with UK financial support, freeing up yet more land for resettlement and agriculture. Rehabilitation of thousands of ex-combatants, including child soldiers, has allowed many individuals to integrate back into society. The majority of internally displaced persons have now moved out of camps, although there is still work to be done in ensuring that “permanent homes” means just that, and does not mean people being deposited in places that they came from. Troop numbers are well below those in 2009. Although that is positive, there still remains more to be done to ensure that there is lasting peace and prosperity.

The March 2012 Human Rights Council resolution, supported by the UK and a number of member states, called on the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the LLRC recommendations and address alleged violations of international law. I assure hon. Members that we will be robust in pursuing that in the March 2013 council meeting. We wish that action plan, with deadlines from early this year for the implementation of LLRC recommendations, to be carried forward. It only covers about half of the LLRC recommendations. When I go to Sri Lanka in a couple of weeks, I will see if Sri Lanka will consider implementing all the recommendations and, if so, how to take it forward.

It is too soon to talk about our attendance plans for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. We will not move from that position for a period of time. Sri Lanka was scheduled to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2011, but given ongoing concerns about the humanitarian and human rights situation, the UK and other Commonwealth members did not support its bid. However, Commonwealth members decided that Sri Lanka would host in 2013. To reopen that decision would require a consensus of all member states and I do not think that is likely.

I have listened carefully to exchanges between hon. Members. The intensity of views and the sharp divide between colleagues emphasises how difficult and complex the situation is. A decision on the location of CHOGM is not for the UK; it is for the Commonwealth. The meeting will discuss many issues, not just Sri Lanka, but as Sri Lanka well knows it will inevitably shine a spotlight on the host country, demonstrating either its progress or lack of it. It is up to Sri Lanka to choose what will be seen. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we expect the Sri Lankan Government to demonstrate that they uphold the values of the Commonwealth.

Colleagues have said that the UK should not let Her Majesty the Queen go to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. It is important to clarify that she attends that meeting as head of the Commonwealth, not the UK Head of State. Her attendance is not a decision for the UK Government. If she were to ask for advice, it would be from all Commonwealth members.

Following the resolution of the conflict, it is clear that long-term reconciliation is an issue. The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), perceptive as he often is, said that unless that is done the problem will come back at some stage to haunt everyone in Sri Lanka. The process of reconciliation is not easy. Some progress has been made in implementing some of the recommendations in the LLRC report. More needs to be done. The LLRC needs to be given time and good will must be there on all sides to see the process through. Nothing has been swept under the carpet and we are mindful of what has happened in the past and of the wishes of all Sri Lankans for the future.

Sri Lanka (Human Rights)

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. I am sure that the Minister will respond to it. I cannot at this stage find whether there is anyone such as my hon. Friend describes, but I will definitely be looking through the papers to see whether I can find anyone.

Given that the British Government have consistently called for a credible and independent inquiry into

“all allegations of grave abuses”,

it follows that the UK should be willing to support an investigation under international auspices, in the light of the LLRC’s unsatisfactory conclusions. It is clear that independent credible investigations of human rights abuses cannot be achieved within Sri Lanka. The actions of the Rajapaksa regime and the conclusions of the LLRC support that case. Indeed, the need for an international investigation becomes even more acute when set against the backdrop of systematic Government failure to provide credible processes of accountability for rights abuses over many years. The current and previous Sri Lankan Administrations have established a number of domestic commissions of inquiry to investigate human rights abuses. However, they have often failed to provide accountability and justice for the violations identified.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case. Does he agree that this is not just a matter of looking back at what happened and ensuring that it is properly and fully investigated? The UN Committee Against Torture, in its examination of Sri Lanka last November, concluded that it has serious concerns about

“the continued and consistent allegations of widespread use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of suspects in police custody”.

The report also states that

“torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by state actors, both the military and the police, have continued in many parts of the country after the conflict ended in May 2009 and is still occurring in 2011”.

It is the UN Committee Against Torture reporting that. This is not a matter simply of looking back to what happened before and during the war.

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Last month, I was one of the signatories nominating Channel 4 News for the Nobel peace prize in recognition of its work in highlighting human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. Parliamentarians around the world were shocked when Channel 4 broadcast a harrowing documentary, using video from victims and perpetrators that proved, according to the UN special rapporteur, “definitive war crimes”. I imagine that all of us have seen that programme, and none could forget the impact that it had on us. The Minister himself gave an eloquent speech after watching that programme. It showed the routine shelling of civilians in hospitals and safe zones, video evidence of executions carried out in cold blood at point blank range. Disgusting scenes were shown of dead, semi-naked women, who had obviously been sexually assaulted then shot dead, being thrown on to the back of lorries, while soldiers joked about who was the best looking.

In the nomination letter, I said:

“By bringing to light the breaches of international conventions by the Government of Sri Lanka in a bold manner and by piecing together numerous forms of evidence in a coherent way, the value of independent journalism to the building of a peaceful global order in the century ahead has been amply demonstrated.”

It is easy to forget quite how dreadful the conflict was. Some 100,000 people were killed—40,000 civilians in the last few months alone. The UN identified

“serious violations of international humanitarian law”

and the European Commission described

“unlawful killings perpetrated by soldiers, police and...groups with ties to the Government.”

Although the previous British Government may have come to realise what was going on too late, they are widely recognised for taking a lead in standing up against those abuses. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) was widely praised for visiting Sri Lanka and imploring the Government there to stop shelling their own people. Thanks to his influence, we brought an end to Generalised System of Preferences—GSP Plus—which gave preferential trading status to Sri Lanka in Europe, prevented it from hosting a Commonwealth conference and voted against an IMF deal worth $2.5 billion.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I hope my hon. Friend will understand, but I will not give way. I want others to be able to speak, so I must do this quickly. Britain has a proud record of leading world opinion. The grip we had in leading international opinion is, I believe, one reason why the United Nations has placed so much emphasis on accountability for war crimes. Yet despite the UN stressing that

“not to hold accountable those who committed serious crimes...is a clear violation of Sri Lanka's international obligations”

and despite the Panel for Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka calling for an independent, international investigation into war crimes, Sri Lanka instead established a Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission that was clearly not independent. After all, it was comprised of people who supported the Sri Lankan Government’s behaviour during the civil war and, according to the Sri Lankan Government, the LLRC’s job was to

“relegate the past to history.”

Fears that that commission would reach unsatisfactory conclusions now appear to be well-founded. Indeed, the Minister himself has said:

“The British Government is, on the whole, disappointed by the report’s findings and recommendations on accountability...These leave many gaps and unanswered questions...We note that many credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, including from the UN Panel of Experts report, are either not addressed or only partially answered. We believe that video footage, authenticated by UN Special Rapporteurs, should inform substantive, not just technical, investigations into apparent grave abuses.”

Most observers have come to similar conclusions. For example, Freedom from Torture has said:

“On the all important question of accountability, the Commission has completely failed to deliver.”



Internationally, the LLRC is seen as an attempt to brush war crimes under the carpet.

However, although our words have sounded damning, I must say that the Tamil community are increasingly concerned that British actions are anything but damning. Freedom from Torture’s chief executive, Keith Best, has said:

“The UK government has insisted that Sri Lanka demonstrate ‘progress’ on accountability for international crimes by the end of 2011...but there is no getting around the fact that the necessary progress has not been achieved”.

How can Britain respond? Despite the lack of progress; despite the widespread evidence of torture; despite the fact that more than 300,000 Tamils are being held in camps after the war, with many of them still living in deplorable conditions described by the International Crisis Group as being

“devoid of the most basic amenities”;

despite independent reporters still not being permitted to report; and despite allegations of all sorts of ongoing human rights abuses, Britain has embarked on a policy of sending planeloads of Tamils back to Sri Lanka even though there is a genuine and understandable fear about how they might be treated there. How does that look to the rest of the international community? What it looks like is an endorsement by Britain of the appalling behaviour of the Sri Lankan Government and a snub to Tamils who fear for their safety. Understandably, Tamils look at us and say that, if Britain were serious about its criticisms of Sri Lanka, those flights would not be taking off.

What is even worse is that, while everyone else has been increasingly frustrated by Sri Lanka’s efforts to use the LLRC to wriggle out of its legal obligations to investigate war crimes, not once have we heard from the mouth of a British Minister these words: “We support an independent international mechanism to conduct investigations into the alleged violations that took place in Sri Lanka.” Those are not radical words; they simply repeat what the UN panel of experts has asked for.

Britain’s Tamil community is understandably impatient. The US is bringing a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council and the European Parliament has passed a motion demanding

“a UN commission of inquiry into all crimes committed”.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) has said that the Labour party supports an international commission to investigate the “acts of unconscionable violence” perpetrated in the final months of Sri Lanka’s armed conflict in 2009. Britain’s recent reticence and reluctance to join in that support for the UN panel of experts is extremely disappointing and has no doubt been noted by many Tamils here in the UK. I hope that the Minister will be able to rectify that situation today.

Britain is respected around the world for taking brave and principled leads, as we did in supporting military action in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Libya; in imposing sanctions against Robert Mugabe and Bashar al-Assad; and in helping establish the International War Crimes Tribunal. Surely we can join the moderate voices supporting the calls by the UN panel of experts for an “independent international investigation”.

I hope that the Minister will remember how he felt, and how we all felt, when we saw the Channel 4 documentary on Sri Lanka: numb; angry; and driven to right the horrific wrongs that were shown. Crimes such as those must be investigated and justice must be served. Kofi Annan has said that

“the international community cannot be selective in its approach to upholding the rule of law and respect for human rights.”

On behalf of my constituents, I implore the Minister to consider the message that Britain is sending the world by forcing Tamils on to planes to go back to a country where torture continues, and by failing to support loudly the UN panel of experts. I hope that today we can reassure British Tamils that Britain is serious about doing the right thing, and that we will take a lead on human rights in the international community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

We still believe that. Let me marry that with the remarks that I will make to the hon. Member for Bristol East about the LLRC report.

Does the report form a basis for progress? Yes, it does. We said that there are some aspects of it, particularly in relation to reconciliation and justice, where clear suggestions for the way forward have been made. We said that they had possibilities, and I said clearly that implementation of the recommendations is the real test of Sri Lanka’s progress.

There are other areas where we did not believe the LLRC provided an adequate basis for going forward, principally in relation to accountability issues. We believe that more must be done with regard to those. As either the hon. Member for Bristol East or another hon. Member quoted earlier,

“we note that many credible allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, including from the UN panel of experts report, are either not addressed or only partially answered.”

That includes Channel 4’s documentary. The quotation continues:

“We believe that video footage, authenticated by UN special rapporteurs, should inform substantive, not just technical, investigations into apparent grave abuses.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 21WS.]

Accordingly, our approach is to work with both the Sri Lankan Government and international partners on the different aspects. Where we believe the Sri Lankan Government can and should make progress, we still believe that a process led in Sri Lanka is better than one led internationally. However, where progress cannot be made, we reserve the right to work with international partners to apply pressure to ensure that it is made. That remains our position on an independent investigation and the international aspect of it.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alistair Burt]

No.

There is much in the report that can contribute to the pursuit of enduring peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, but that can happen only if the recommendations are implemented in a timely fashion. We call on the Government of Sri Lanka to move quickly to implement the recommendations and to address questions of accountability for alleged war crimes that were left unanswered by the LLRC report.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way just very briefly ?

[Alistair Burt]

I cannot. I have four minutes.

I will deal with two or three major issues raised by colleagues in the debate. First, I will deal with the deportations, which is an important issue. All asylum and human rights applications from Sri Lankan nationals are carefully considered on their individual merits, in accordance with our international obligations and against the background of the latest available country information. The situation in Sri Lanka is still evolving, and where individuals can demonstrate that they face a real risk of prosecution and/or ill treatment on return, they are granted protection. It is only when the UK Border Agency and the courts are satisfied that an individual is not in need of international protection and has no leave to remain in the UK that removal is sought. We do not routinely monitor the treatment of individual unsuccessful asylum seekers once they are removed from the UK. They are, by definition, foreign nationals who have been found, as a matter of law, not to need the UK’s protection, and it would be inconsistent with such a finding for the UK to assume an ongoing responsibility for them when they return to their own country.

The Foreign Office follows the human rights situation in Sri Lanka closely. For chartered flight operations, we currently make a small payment to enable returnees to travel to their home town or village. We also ensure that UK Government representatives are present at the airport. Every returnee, whether on scheduled or chartered flights, is provided with the contact details of the British high commission in Colombo, should they want to make contact with the migration delivery officer based there.

We are aware of media allegations that returnees are being abused. All have been investigated by the high commission, and no evidence has been found to substantiate any of them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave a moment ago.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that 90% of the species for which the UK has responsibility reside outside the UK in the overseas territories. They are therefore not the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs but of his Department. Given that that 90% are his responsibility, can he assure the House that he is spending nine times as much as DEFRA on protecting biodiversity?

[Mr Bellingham]

We had a very successful overseas territories consultative council last week. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the biodiversity issue, and I can assure him that we are putting a huge amount of emphasis on it. We spent £15 million last year on biodiversity and environmental schemes in the overseas territories; they are a key priority of the overseas territories.

Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker]

The hon. Lady is right, and I am most grateful to her. Of course, I share that view, which is why we are here today.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman be characteristically even-handed and mention the Amnesty report, “As if Hell fell on Me: the Human Rights Crisis in North-west Pakistan,” given that this debate is about human rights issues on the subcontinent as a whole?

[Steve Baker]

I am most grateful—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Scott]

I totally agree and reiterate that there must be justice for all. I would never say that there should not be.

In the short time left to me—that is, in this debate, not beyond that—I would like to raise a number of issues. I have said in the past that, when the conflict ended, a number of babies and children below the age of 12 were not accounted for. I have asked the Sri Lankan high commission to share with me what happened to those babies and young children. To this day I have not received an answer. I will continue to follow that up, but I would also ask the Minister to look into the matter, just as I have asked our high commissioner in Colombo.

We are also getting sad reports of what are called “grease devils”. These are men who attack people after applying grease to their bodies so as not to be captured by the authorities. They then run into military camps or police stations, having attacked their victims—normally women—in their homes. I am not casting any aspersions against anyone as to who they might be, but I would like to see the practice stopped and the perpetrators caught. I would also like to ask what has happened to the elderly and disabled people who were left behind at the end of the conflict, on 18 May 2009, because they are still unaccounted for.

I have here a list of various things I could run through, but I shall not do that because of the time. What I want to say, to everyone in the House, is that we have a duty. We have a duty to represent not only our constituents, but those who have no voice, wherever they are in the world. We have a duty to stand up for innocent people, whether they be Tamil or Sinhalese, and to get justice.

[Barry Gardiner]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Amnesty International’s country report on Sri Lanka this year will be of equal concern to both the Tamil and Sinhalese communities? The report says that in the immediate aftermath of the elections, the Rajapaksa family,

“which controlled five key ministries and more than 90 state institutions,”

introduced a constitutional amendment in September that

“removed the two-term limit on the presidency”.

[Mr Scott]

Yes, that is a great concern. Again, individual action is needed on all these items.

Today, however, we are here to speak about human rights on the Indian subcontinent. We have to speak about human rights in Sri Lanka; we have to get justice for the Tamil people. If we do not get it, we will all have let those people down. I, for one, will continue to do everything in my power—whoever I upset, whether they be colleagues or not—to continue to try to get that justice for the Tamil people. We have said that we will look at the situation in November to see whether the Sri Lanka Government have failed to take action. It is now mid-September, so it is not long till November. I hope that, for everyone’s benefit, the Sri Lanka Government will allow an independent international investigation into what happened. I believe that that is what we must go for. I know that the Minister stands up for the rights of all in this area, so I hope that will happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I agree, and I know that the hon. Gentleman does a great deal in this House on these issues. I congratulate him on that.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman asked why the world was not doing something about Kashmir. Does he agree that that may have something to do with the Simla agreement, under which Pakistan and India agreed that they would settle the issue bilaterally without outside interference, and in a completely peaceful way?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I am afraid that I would agree more if we had seen more proactive responses from both Pakistan and India. Having been to the Pakistan-administered side of Kashmir and spoken to many people, I found it frustrating to see that many politicians there are inhibiting the efforts to find a solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Today a delegation from Conservative Friends of India heads off to the subcontinent. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) has ensured that when they land in Delhi they will walk into a major media storm. The UK Parliament should be very wary of intervening in the dispute over Kashmir.

Members have talked about the UN resolution and the plebiscite, but the resolution had a condition—

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) rose on a point of order as a result of a tweet that he had received, I attempted to intervene on him, but so powerful was his flow that I could not. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) confirm that when a newspaper makes a statement through social media, it does not speak for the Government of the Republic of India, and these are two very separate matters?

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend is right, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend knew precisely that when he made his “nearly a point of order”, as Mr Deputy Speaker called it.

The UN resolution attached a condition to the holding of the plebiscite—the withdrawal of the Pakistani forces that had invaded that part of Kashmir in 1949 when the maharajah of the state of Jammu and Kashmir had vacillated over whether to become part of India or part of Pakistan. The invasion precipitated the maharajah to jump towards India, with the consequences that we have seen since.

Of course, it is absolutely right that this House should always take a keen interest in the protection of human rights around the world, but hon. Members and members of the public watching this debate must think there is a certain irony in the fact that although the hon. Member for Wycombe sought to raise his concern about human rights issues in India, it is not India but five of India’s closest border neighbours, including Pakistan, that the 2011 “Failed States Index” lists among the 50 most failed states in the world.

[Steve Baker]

I tried to approach this with considerable caution. I am not sorry if the Indian media pick up on this issue, as I would like our constituents’ concerns to be given the widest publicity. I paid tribute to India as the world’s largest democracy and a country with institutions based on our own which seek to reinforce the rule of law, and noted that Indian Government institutions have recognised many of these human rights abuses. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, on the whole, the House has sought to be balanced.

[Barry Gardiner]

I accept the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman says that he has contributed to the debate, and I would not wish to challenge that. However, if one looks at the immediate neighbours surrounding India, one will often find that there is far greater cause for concern in those jurisdictions than in India.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

No, I will not.

Some of the worst human rights abuses of recent memory have occurred in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar, in a part of the world where, frankly, India stands out as a beacon of democracy on the subcontinent. The relations between India and the UK, at both a trade and a strategic level, are excellent. They reached new levels of cordiality after Tony Blair’s visit in 2005, when the two Prime Ministers signed the New Delhi declaration, and they have been further strengthened by the current Prime Minister’s visit last year. Economically and culturally, as well as strategically, it would be a retrograde step should a debate such as this sour those excellent relations.

I first visited Kashmir in 2000, when I took a delegation of MPs on a fact-finding visit. We visited at a particularly important time: two years previously, both India and Pakistan had declared themselves nuclear weapon states. Pakistan had announced that it would adopt a doctrine of first use in certain circumstances. India had stated to the international community that it would never use nuclear weapons first. It was a time of great tension.

In 1999, Atal Bihari Vajpayee travelled to Pakistan to meet Nawaz Sharif. It had been hoped that that might reduce the tension between the two states and all seemed well. Three months later, however, Pakistan-based militants invaded across the border at Kargil on the line of control into India. A bloody border conflict started in what became known as the phoney war. That invasion directly violated the Simla agreement of 1972, in which both nations agreed to resolve the issue of Kashmir by exclusively peaceful means.

President Clinton summoned Nawaz Sharif to the White House and persuaded him to withdraw Pakistani forces from Kargil. The confrontation de-escalated until Nawaz Sharif was overthrown by General Musharraf, who had been the key architect of the Kargil incursion. In 2000, Musharraf proclaimed himself the new President of Pakistan, without the benefit of a general election. In the following months, India was subjected to some of the most vile and well-orchestrated state-sponsored terrorist attacks ever seen, including the hijacking of an Air India flight, the attack on the temple at Gandhinagar and, of course, the attack on the Indian Parliament.

Despite the constant threat to India’s citizens from hostile parties at home and abroad claiming thousands of lives every year, India has continued to stand for tolerance and human rights in that part of the world. Terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed have continued to bombard India with state-sponsored terrorism supported by Inter-Services Intelligence.

It is against that background that we must consider today’s Amnesty International report. The report documents detentions under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act and makes some specific allegations. It is right that this House should consider them, albeit in the context of public safety that I have outlined. The report relates to more than 600 individuals detained under the Public Safety Act between 2003 and May 2010 when the research was conducted. That is fewer than 90 people each year for seven years. Amnesty states:

“The research shows that instead of using the institutions, procedures and human rights safeguards of ordinary criminal justice, the authorities are using the PSA to secure the long-term detention of political activists, suspected members or supporters of armed groups and a range of other individuals against whom there is insufficient evidence for a trial or conviction”.

That sounds remarkably similar, as the hon. Member for Wycombe admitted, to this country’s Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. On 14 July last year, he voted to keep detention at 28 days and I think I voted to bring it down to 14 days.

At this year’s Reith lectures, Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, talking about security, said that

“not all intelligence can be turned into evidence. It can fall well short. As I have said before, of evidential standards, hearsay at third hand, things said, things overheard, things seen and open to varying interpretation, rarely clear-cut even with the benefit of hindsight…and which any judge would unhesitatingly kick out even if the prosecution thought them useable. That requires us to accept that not everyone who presents a threat can be prosecuted.”

It is in that light that we need to consider these allegations.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly right. As a result of the campaign in India and the support that we and Amnesty International are giving it, there could be a breakthrough in this case that could lead to the abolition of the death penalty. There are clear concerns about the fairness of the trial, as well as about the eight-year delay in implementing a decision, which I believe constitutes cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment. As a friend of India—as many of us here are—I therefore appeal to the Indian Government to think again, to allow the mercy petition to go ahead and to allow this person’s death sentence to be commuted, but also to consider the issue of the death penalty itself, which I see as a continuing blemish on the Indian constitution and political system.

[Barry Gardiner]

I was most concerned to hear my hon. Friend say that the only evidence against Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar was the confession that he had made in police custody. The Amnesty report, “A lawless law”, describing another case, records that

“the trial court dismissed two of the three outstanding charges against Sheikh noting that the only evidence against him was a confession made by him while in police custody which was inadmissible in court (in India, confessions made to the police are inadmissible as evidence because of fears that they may be coerced).”

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

[John McDonnell]

Yes, that is common practice, and it is usually taken into account when considering the mercy petition. That did not happen in this instance, however. There have been four recent cases in which mercy petitions have been rejected by the President. That is a change in practice that we have witnessed over the past seven or eight years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) suggested. There is a change of political climate on this issue in India at the moment, and I think that it is to the detriment of India. On that basis, pressure needs to be mounted in India and internationally, to address not only this individual case but the whole question of the abolition of the death penalty.

The issue of Sri Lanka and the treatment of the Tamils has also been raised with me. I want to associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) in this regard. A key issue is that, although the commission took place and various recommendations were made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, a number of them have not been implemented. For example, the simple recommendation that a list of names of those in detention should be published still has not been implemented. As a result, a number of my constituents are still anxious to find out what has happened to their families and where they are in detention.

When people are released from detention, despite reassurances that they will be assisted with resettlement, that is not happening in every case. Some are living in very distressing circumstances, but they are getting no assistance. Furthermore, there is a continuing problem of land having been taken over, particularly by the military, and reallocated to the majority community. In that way, members of the Tamil community are being displaced yet again as a result of the Government’s actions. I would welcome our own Minister putting pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to address those issues and to get back into negotiations with the Tamil National Alliance, which has withdrawn from the current negotiations because of the Government’s intransigence. In that way, we might be able achieve an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s assertion about the deep friendship between the United Kingdom and Japan. We have expressed that friendship and it has been evident in our actions. Our economies are intertwined, but we are also leading the debate within the European Union on a free trade agreement between the EU and Japan.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Has the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in the UK been asked to supply any expertise on the decommissioning of contaminated water at the plant? I understand that that is one of the more considerable problems that the Japanese authorities are facing.

Middle East and North Africa

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We can be fairly confident that the transitional national council very much wants to use the telecommunications equipment that we have given it as telecommunications equipment, as it is doing. It would not be productive to divert that into other things. The other equipment that we have given is body armour, and it is quite difficult to use that in any way other than to save life.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

On 18 March the Prime Minister said:

“The resolution helps to enforce the arms embargo, and our legal understanding is that that arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 623.]

That has been reinforced by the Foreign Secretary today. Can he therefore tell us what active measures NATO forces are taking to stop the supply of any arms to the rebel forces from outside Libya, or is it in fact the truth that NATO is the military wing of the rebel forces in a civil war?

[Mr Hague]

The NATO operations, in which ships of many nations are involved, including those of our own Royal Navy, are dedicated to enforcing an arms embargo on the whole of Libya. They are positioned in order to do that, so the hon. Gentleman can be confident that they are doing that.

Africa and the Middle East

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

No, I think that the high moral ground is retained by basing all our actions on what is legally correct, as we have done in our handling of the whole Libya crisis from the United Nations resolution downwards, and in the handling of these individual cases. When somebody with such a long association with the regime wants to leave it, and by doing so damage the regime, I think that it is right to assist them in doing so. Additionally, it can only be a good thing to discuss with such a man the situation in Libya and the middle east, and gain his insight into it. It can also only be a good thing that any prosecuting authorities that wish to speak to him and get more information from him can do so. I see no downside in doing what we have done with him over the past few days.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that among the restrictions that he proposes to remove is the freezing of Musa Kusa’s assets? That will mean that a man who has engaged in the most despicable acts, both abroad and in the exploitation of his own people, and who has built up his assets on that basis, will be able to enjoy the fruits of those acts.

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman makes a number of assumptions in his question. I will not necessarily take issue with those assumptions. However, where we have placed asset freezes and travel bans on individuals purely because they are members of a regime, as is the case with the European Union asset freezes and travel bans—we are not talking here about United Nations Security Council travel bans—when an individual ceases to be a member of that regime, it follows that a change in those restrictions should be discussed; otherwise there would be no incentive whatever for members of the regime to abandon its murderous work. When the situation changes and the reasons the restrictions have been placed on an individual change, of course the restrictions should change as well.