GCHQ

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the draft Communications Data Bill, which I have already mentioned in earlier answers. Two parliamentary Committees have considered the draft Bill and concluded that there is a need for legislation in this area, and the Government are committed to bringing forward proposals on that in the near future.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

We are actually at cyber-war at the moment. Since 2000, the cyber-attacks on this country have multiplied some twentyfold. The Chinese held an exercise last week that they called a digital technology exercise at divisional level, involving men in uniform who are designed specifically to attack the west. Hacking can be far more deadly than a gun. May I encourage the Foreign Secretary and all his colleagues to ensure that GCHQ is as close to the National Security Agency as possible in the future?

[Mr Hague]

As I have said, GCHQ has a unique relationship with the National Security Agency. My hon. Friend is right to say that cyber-attack is an increasing threat in many different areas of government and of life in general. That is why the Government decided, in the strategic defence and security review three years ago, to invest an additional £650 million in our cyber-capabilities over a four-year period. The United Kingdom is one of the world leaders in cyber-defence and cyber-capabilities, and we are determined that we will remain in that position.

Mau Mau Claims (Settlement)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I support what we have done. However, when I was a little boy my father was a soldier operating in Aden, and I remember being absolutely petrified by the stories of British-origin settlers and farmers being chopped to bits by the Mau Mau. I note that we are going to subsidise and help to build a memorial to the Mau Mau, but may I make a suggestion? Given that not only were 200 British soldiers and policemen killed, but 1,800 civilians perished as a result of Mau Mau activities, I think that it would be very appropriate for a memorial to be erected to them—both Kenyans and those of British origin.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that terrible acts were committed on both sides over a long period, between 1952 and 1963. Thirty-two European settlers were murdered in horrific circumstances, and many actions that can only be categorised as terrorist actions were undertaken by people who were part of the Mau Mau insurgency.

Equally, however, it is important for us to recognise—as we do, across the House—that torture and inhuman and degrading treatment can never, and should never, be part of our response to any outrage, however terrible. That is because we uphold our own high standards of human rights, and also because it is not an effective way in which to respond to any such outrages. It is very important that we express our own regret and acknowledge mistakes that were made, even though terrible acts were carried out on both sides.

As my hon. Friend will have noted, I recognised in my statement the service done by those employed by the colonial administration, who did so much work to build the institutions that underpin Kenya today. My statement was about the recognition of people engaged in the Mau Mau insurgency or accused of being so engaged, and I think that questions about other memorials and recognition of other people are for a different occasion, but I take full account of the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Persecution of Christians

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lidington]

I agree completely that there is more to do. As I hope to have time to explain, we seek to do things multilaterally and in our bilateral relationships with various countries.

The hon. Member for Belfast East asked what the FCO was doing in practical terms and how we monitor the trends in religious discrimination. We require our embassies and high commissions around the world to monitor violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief. We are clear that that freedom involves not only the right to hold personal thoughts, but to manifest them individually and collectively. We provide our missions overseas with what in the jargon we call a toolkit—a set of detailed monitoring criteria—to help staff at our embassies and high commissions to analyse in detail the many potential manifestations of discrimination on the grounds of freedom of religion or belief, including discrimination in access to education and employment, or other administrative or legal restrictions on groups, buildings or individuals.

I shall move on from that general point to some of the countries to which the hon. Lady alluded. I apologise to hon. Members that I will not have time to go through them all, but I will write to her about the other countries that she mentioned and will place a copy of the letter in the Library.

The hon. Lady spoke particularly about Egypt for much of her speech. We have been clear that we need to speak up in public comments and private conversations with the Egyptian Government about the importance of religious toleration and mutual respect. When my noble Friend Baroness Warsi visited Cairo in February, she met both Pope Tawadros II, leader of the Coptic Church, and the Sheikh Al-Azhar, Dr Ahmed el-Tayeb, to discuss minorities in Egypt.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), spoke out strongly condemning the violent clashes that took place outside St Mark’s Coptic cathedral on 7 April. He also commented that freedom of religion and belief is a vital component of a democratic society and that the security forces should act effectively to uphold those freedoms to express and practise religious belief. My hon. Friend went to Egypt in January and discussed our concerns about the protection of minorities, including Christians and women, when he met the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, the Freedom and Justice party. When he went to Egypt again in March, he met the Anglican bishop and representatives of both local and international human rights groups there to hear their concerns and to ask what more the UK could do to support their activities.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is there any link between aid and this problem?

[Mr Lidington]

Most of our aid is directed not Government to Government, but through non-governmental organisations and charities. The Department for International Development, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, has published a set of principles about the partnership that exists between DFID and faith groups both in the United Kingdom and worldwide. That sets out a number of principles for co-operation in delivering aid, sometimes through faith groups that are really close to the people in greatest need in developing countries, and to ensure that aid is distributed in a way that takes no account of religious belief and is not affected by discrimination of the sort the House would condemn.

The hon. Member for Belfast East mentioned Kenya. We recognise that there has been an increase in attacks against churches, but I caution the House that although the conflict in Somalia has of course a religious dimension, it might be argued that what we saw in Kenya was an attack prompted by political concern at the intervention of Kenyan troops in Somalia rather than purely sectarian terrorist attacks. It is not only churches that have been attacked, but many secular locations from bus stations to bars. There has been a spate of grenade and armed attacks in Nairobi suburbs, Mombasa and the north-east province of Garissa. We are working with the Kenyan authorities to respond effectively to those security challenges and the threat of terrorism from extremist groups in Somalia.

In Syria, we are increasing our support to the Syrian National Coalition and other opposition groups that are opposed to extremism. We want to support moderate opposition groups to boost their appeal and effectiveness over extremists. We have encouraged opposition groups, especially the National Coalition, to ensure that their policies for a future Syria are genuinely inclusive and cover the interests of all Syrian minorities, including Christians. John Wilkes, the UK special representative to the Syrian opposition, is in regular touch with the Syrian Churches and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office here.

European Council

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

We continue to discuss everything with the Syrian opposition Government. We continue to support them and we continue to believe that they are the only viable alternative to Assad for the reasons that I outlined to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman).

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

We have reached the 10th anniversary of the second Iraq war. It was perhaps with good reason that we involved ourselves in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, but it cost us a lot and people now in power blame us quite a lot. Did the European Council consider what more the Arab world can do, rather than just asking us again to help out?

[Mr Swire]

This is something not just to be discussed at a European Council; we believe, particularly on the humanitarian side, that there is plenty more that the Arab world can do. Also, we would urge all countries in that part of the world to look very closely at where they are putting their support. We believe that the official Syrian opposition is best placed to provide a transitional Government to replace the brutal dictatorship of Assad.

My hon. and gallant Friend is showing a certain nervousness about what is going on in Syria, understandably, but I hope he would agree that as of today we are in the right place on this. I believe the Government are not getting ahead of themselves. But we do have a very serious situation, which is deteriorating by the minute, and it is only right that we should be flexible in our approach to how we help bring it to a speedy and long-overdue end.

Syria

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. If regional powers were able to agree among themselves about the situation and about a solution, that would be an enormous step forward, just as it would be a vital step forward if we, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, were able to agree among ourselves. There have been some attempts. Last autumn, the Egyptian Government convened a group consisting of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey to consider the situation together and to see if they could agree on a way forward. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that they did not reach an agreement, but that is not to say that such a group could not be revived in the future. We have absolutely no problem with that. It did not succeed before—the reason it did not succeed is that Iran has not been prepared to agree on a way forward with other countries in the region—but that does not mean that it should not be tried again.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In this civil war, it seems that there is a military stalemate between two sides that have military forces. In those circumstances, and given that each side claims that it wants to negotiate, is there any chance that we can put all our efforts into securing a ceasefire, so that when the guns stop and civilians stop being killed, we may actually be able to use politics to resolve the situation?

[Mr Hague]

That is a very good thought. That too has been tried before, but it should be tried again. In any negotiated way forward, a ceasefire would be a very important element of the early part of the negotiations. My hon. Friend may recall that last summer the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, proposed a ceasefire to coincide with Eid. For a short time there was some hope that the proposal would be implemented, and there were many efforts to implement it in parts of Syria, but within days the ceasefire had completely broken down. Again, that does not mean that a ceasefire should not be at the top of the agenda for negotiations, but as my hon. Friend will have gathered, we do not have successful negotiations at the moment—much as we will discuss that with Mr Brahimi this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

The situation in North Korea following the nuclear test a few weeks ago is extremely serious. I summoned the North Korean ambassador and had subsequent discussions in Seoul in South Korea when I attended the presidential inauguration of President Park. We continue to work with EU partners and the UN in order to introduce a tougher sanctions regime for Pyongyang.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

T5. Twenty-seven years ago, the arrival in Uganda of President Museveni’s regime seemed to herald a new dawn for the country. Last week I was visited by Bishop Zac Niringiye, the assistant bishop of Kampala, who used to be a parish priest at Christ Church, Beckenham. Bishop Niringiye, who was himself arrested three weeks ago, briefed me on the appalling levels of Government corruption now endemic in the country. What can Her Majesty’s Government do to succour the drive to end corruption in Uganda?

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the threat that corruption poses both in Uganda and across the African continent. We remain concerned about the situation in Uganda and he may be aware that the Department for International Development temporarily froze all UK aid going through the Ugandan Prime Minister’s office. The UK, along with other donors, is supporting the Government of Uganda’s action plan, which will be reviewed next April.

Kurdish Genocide

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and others for their speeches and their contribution to this whole issue. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for his speech. As he pointed out, he is the first Kurdish Member of the British Parliament. He and I have shared platforms at Kurdish events and I have no doubt that we will do so again in the future. He made a very good case for the recognition of what was a genocide of the Kurdish people in Iraq in 1988 and I absolutely support what he said. Next month will be Newroz, the Kurdish new year, which will be celebrated across a wide range of communities both in this country and all over the region.

One hopes that we will be able to draw attention to what happened in Iraq in 1988. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) pointed out, she and I were both Members of this House at that time and we both frequently raised the issue, including in the British media. Although the lack of knowledge among much of the public is understandable because of how the media failed to report things, we must be honest that it took a long time for most of the media and the political establishment in this country to cotton on to what was happening to the Kurdish people in Iraq. To be honest, a lot of British Government policy was blindsided by their obsession with supporting Iraq against Iran in the dreadful Iran-Iraq war and Britain’s considerable economic interests in Iraq at the time, not least in oil exploration and exploitation and so on. We must have a sense of deep self-criticism about the process. If we do not have that, it does us no favours.

The news finally came out about the use of gas and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) pointed out, how the villages were bombed first to break the glass so that the gas had the maximum effect. That was an evil piece of work in which a large number of wonderful, brilliant people lost their lives. In remembering a genocide, we must work out how it happened, how it came about and how we can prevent it from happening again.

Let me say a few words in general about Kurdistan, the Kurdish people and how we can move on. There is a complicated narrative in world history of equating nations, ethnic communities and languages with nation states, which does not always work. The end of the first world war was a seminal point for the whole region—this is germane to the history of the region. The Kurdish people had been part of and had recognition within the Ottoman empire, and operated with a Kurdish identity and language. They took at face value Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points, as did many people in the region, including Palestinian people and many others, and assumed that they would achieve nationhood as a result. The high point of Kurdish recognition was a sandwich between the treaty of Sèvres and the treaty of Lausanne. Between those treaties there was recognition of a Kurdish state. Modern Turkey was established, the western interests were more interested in a buffer against the Soviet Union and in the mandates that France and Britain achieved further south, and the Kurdish people and their wishes were obliterated. Britain did not have clean hands in this. We took part in the establishment of modern Iraq and the first aerial bombardment of people using chemical weapons was by Britain in northern Iraq in 1922 against Kurdish people. So there is a history of obliteration of the Kurdish people, their language, their culture and identity. What Saddam was doing was the ultimate in oppression of a nation or people, but the treatment of Kurdish people in other countries in the region to this day needs to be examined—in Iran, in Syria and in Turkey.

I have a substantial Kurdish population in my constituency, mainly but not all emanating from Turkey. Indeed, I have visited most parts of Kurdistan over the years. It is sad to report that we still do not have full recognition of Kurdish people in modern Turkey, or mother tongue teaching in all Turkish schools, or indeed in any Turkish schools except those where Kurdish is the first language. It is incumbent on us, if Turkey wants to be a partner in the European Union or anything else, to put a great deal of pressure on it and say, “You have to give greater recognition, linguistic rights, cultural rights and all the other things to the Kurdish people in Turkey.”

It does not particularly help when the mayor of a major city such as Diyarbakir is put on trial for producing information in the Kurdish language, which is the normal language for that part of the country. The break-up of the Ottoman empire led to that situation, and there has been this passion ever since for recognition of the Kurdish. To a huge extent, that has been achieved with the Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq. It is not totally correct to call it independent because in international legal terms it is not an independent recognised state, but in reality it is recognised as a representative place of the Kurdish people.

It is more than welcome that over the past few weeks, under pressure following hunger strikes and the dreadful assassinations in Paris a few weeks ago, the Turkish Government have openly admitted that they have to talk to Öcalan as a recognisable leader of the Kurdish people in Turkey. There is a growing sense of unity between Kurdish people within the nation states and a recognition that they have to come together. Does this mean that there is going to be a country called Kurdistan that encompasses parts of the other countries in the future? I do not know. As far as I am aware, none of the Kurdish national movements calls for an independent Kurdistan outwith national borders any longer. They all call for recognition within national borders. We have to understand, welcome and recognise that.

If you oppress people, deny them their language, deny them their cultural rights, drive them into the ground in the way minorities have been treated prior to genocides all over the world, including native Americans, Jewish people and many others in the past 150 years, you end up with the acceptance of the ultimate oppression, which is what happened in that genocide in 1988. So I support the motion that is before us today.

Many have drawn attention to the achievements, such as they are, in modern Iraq with the Kurdish Autonomous Region, and I recognise those. Indeed, I visited the region after the Gulf war in 1991. With colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), I opposed the Iraq war in 2003, not because I was in any sense ever an apologist for Saddam Hussein or what he did, but because I did not believe that the motives for the war were the right ones—I believed they were more to do with American military power and military resources than anything else—and I thought an awful lot of people would die and an awful lot of money would be spent as a result of the war. Although we will never agree completely on that, I think we all agree that successive Iraqi Governments have an abominable record on their treatment of the Kurdish people. One hopes that the Kurdish Autonomous Region will be recognised universally and that it will be a place where Kurdish people can live.

When we talk of genocides and holocausts, the holocaust against Jewish people in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s is paramount in everyone’s thoughts. Attending Holocaust memorial day ceremonies is an important thing, as is young people understanding what the holocaust was about, but it is also important to understand that there have been other genocides around the world. There is no time to go through all of them or define them all now, but the European treatment of native Americans during the colonisation of north America from the 16th century onward, but particularly later on, was to all intents and purposes a genocide against those people; other examples are Cambodia and Rwanda—an abominable and appalling series of events. Taking place closer to the region we are discussing today was the Armenian massacre in 1915.

Whenever one of us tables an early-day motion recognising and associating that massacre in principle with what has happened to the Kurdish people, we attract great criticism from people in Turkey who, frankly, ought to know better, but who say that we have no right to draw attention to that. It is important that we understand the history of the abominable treatment of people because of racist attitudes and approaches, which end in the vilest abuses of human rights being condoned.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Holocaust memorial day. Having been slightly involved in what I consider to have been a holocaust, in Bosnia, whenever I speak at or attend a Holocaust memorial day ceremony, I do not think only of the Jewish holocaust. I certainly think of Armenia, the Kurds and the Cambodians as well. I totally agree with him: when we speak of a holocaust, we must mean more than one particular nation.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, on which we agree.

I am proud to represent a significant number of Kurdish people in my constituency. I am proud of the contribution they make, whether they came to this country or were born here. In a month’s time, when we celebrate Newroz in Finsbury Park, that will be, as ever, a joyous celebration—hopefully this time with the greatest possible unity between Kurdish people from every part of the Kurdish area.

If we recognise a genocide, that is a big step. We are recognising something that is defined in law as an attempt to obliterate a people because of their identity, their race or their ethnicity. In doing that, we recognise that something awful happened, and we have to examine ourselves and what we as a country or one of a group of countries did or did not do at the time. But doing that helps the next generation to understand that not forgetting puts one in a position to try to influence the future and protect minorities, wherever they are in the world. Tragically, the genocides we have been discussing today were not the first, and although I hope they were the last, I am not sure that they were. It is recognition and understanding of peoples, their rights, their identity, their culture and their traditions that bring about a safer and more secure world. Achieving that is not necessarily about wars, bombs and invasions; it is much more about understanding and a recognition of people and their rights, and sharing resources not stealing them.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

We have had an absolutely outstanding debate. Everyone present knows that the cause of recognising the genocide in Kurdistan has noble, well-informed and eloquent torchbearers. They brought to the House speeches of great force and sincerity that made the case very eloquently indeed. Everyone who has spoken should be proud of the contribution they made. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) that I have listened closely and learned so much. I will consider what has been said extremely carefully.

I am conscious that I am the first person to speak who has not visited Kurdistan, for which I should perhaps apologise; I hope that will be remedied shortly. I have become aware, through my role on the Front Bench, of the great warmth that exists between the people of Kurdistan and the people of the United Kingdom. I have had many discussions about Kurdistan and heard many accounts of the importance of that relationship. What is striking about the strength of the relationship is that, despite the fact that there are aspects of it that bring shame on Britain, as we have heard, because previous Governments of all colours have done things we should not be proud of, the people of Kurdistan, in their current dealings and their warmth, have shown us forgiveness and respect, to their great credit, for which we should thank them very much.

I should start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). One of the great advantages of this House is that people who come from different backgrounds bring their own experiences, cultures and knowledge to such subjects. He spoke eloquently, and with a power that was compelling. His personal connections are very special. He should be commended for persuading the Backbench Business Committee, which we should also thank, to allow the debate. We all know that this matter must be taken away, considered and reflected on before moving forward. By bringing it to the House’s attention, he has taken a big step in dealing with the issue and carrying it forward.

We heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), who brought to the debate her experiences from visits to the region and from the links between Sheffield and Kurdistan, which are building all the time. She referred to films she has seen of the terrible events that took place, which were referred to many times. I remember very clearly watching a “Newsnight” report about the Halabja attacks in the late 1980s, shortly after the attacks took place, which shocked me profoundly. The report showed a ferocity, an inhumanity and an extraordinary inability to treat people with respect that it was difficult to believe could exist. I would be interested to see the films she referred to, because the words that we have struggled to find today to explain how dreadful the events were cannot fully reflect the acts that took place.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) speaks with great passion on these issues and brought his personal experience to bear on the facts. I think that his Jewish background adds a particular, and hugely relevant, context to the debate. Earlier this year I attended an excellent Holocaust memorial day service just across the road, and I was very conscious of the constant emphasis that the Jewish community places on the fact that the holocaust is not just about them. On that day, a Rwandan survivor explained the effect of the Rwandan genocide on her, and she spoke as eloquently as the holocaust survivors. It is very important that we see this as part of a broader picture.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has an extremely long, impressive and consistent record on human rights issues, particularly in connection with Iraq. I first got to know her in the period after I came to the House between 2001 and 2003, when she was involved in the organisation Indict, which she mentioned. Not many people were involved in that campaign at the time—it became much more evident after 2003—but she was dogged, determined and absolutely committed to the cause of bringing people to justice. She pursued that from the time I met her in 2001 and is pursuing it today. She has a very long and very proud record. The consistency that she has shown on this issue right through from the 1980s—in fact, since 1977, she told us today—until now does her great credit. She is a very busy woman, so unfortunately she is not here at the moment. I am proud to put on the record the fact that she is a friend, and she has taught me a huge amount about this issue.

The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) has an advantage over me in that he has visited Kurdistan. He, too, made a compelling case. It is important that the public are aware that we are visiting these places and considering these issues, which are hugely important for all of us as parliamentarians. It does great credit to all Members present that they are here to take part in this important debate.

We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson)—I understand him like no one else in this House does. I remember a conversation that we had outside the Chamber when he described his complicated position on Iraq and the contradiction that he sees between his views on the Iraq war in 2003 and what he has discovered from the contacts that he has had subsequently. This is not a straightforward issue; it is a difficult one. Our job is to deal with difficult issues, such as the subject of this debate.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—another Member with a long and proud record of campaigning on these issues—said, it is a big step for this House and any Government to say that individual sets of incidents and events constitute a genocide. As we have heard, it is a step that has been taken by other Parliaments, but not necessarily by the Governments of the countries that those Parliaments represent.

The question of whether a set of incidents can be described as genocide has a legal status established under the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which defines it as

“mass killings or other acts intended to destroy a particular group of people.”

The word is used colloquially, but its definition under international law is specific. Genocide requires both the material element of the act of killing and the mental element of the intention to destroy a particular group.

[Bob Stewart]

I have been involved in a genocide. To add to the hon. Gentleman’s point, a poor, frightened, absolutely terrified individual facing the agony of being killed does not give a damn about whether it is called a genocide or a crime against humanity—they are frightened beyond their wits. I am sure he will agree with that. These definitions have always worried me and that is what I thought when I was in Bosnia in 1992-93.

[Ian Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with passion and eloquence from his own experience, which we all respect. We recognise the humanity of what he says. We need to consider how best we can together use the hope behind what we are doing today to ensure that incidents on the scale of a genocide do not happen again. That is what we need to try to achieve. We should reflect on what has been said and consider how best we can prevent genocide from ever occurring again. One genocide is sufficient. We never want to see it again.

Death Penalty (India)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Spellar]

I thank my hon. Friend, the previous Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for that clarification. That is exactly my understanding of the position, and it is useful that he has made it clear.

The Minister said that he raised his concerns with senior officials during his recent visit to India. However, will he clarify the concerns expressed to the Indian authorities by others on that visit and by the Foreign Office elsewhere? Were those concerns raised by the Prime Minister during his visit to India, which included a visit to Amritsar?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) rightly stated, the number of countries using the death penalty has gone down. As the Minister said, 70% of countries have either formally or in effect renounced the death penalty. The commitment of countries around the world was shown clearly by the vote in the UN on a moratorium. It would be a significant step for India, as a major player on the international scene and the world’s largest democracy, not just to reinstate the moratorium formally, which would be welcome, but to abolish the death penalty. India is poised to play a major role in world affairs in the coming decades and such a move would considerably enhance its authority.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman have any knowledge of Indian public opinion on the matter? Does the Indian public want the death penalty to be abolished? Public opinion would, of course, be a major influence on the Indian Government.

[Mr Spellar]

I do not have the polling information immediately to hand. It is clear from the debates that took place in this country that it took us a long while to come to that decision, but no Government or party have sought to turn the clock back. The death penalty in its finality never allows for the prospect of error, and confessions can be obtained under duress or torture—that has happened in this country. People who have been released because they had been unjustly convicted would, in previous times, have been executed. That goes through to public opinion. Quite apart from other aspects of the death penalty, its finality and the inability to remedy injustices is the reason why two thirds of countries have taken the correct decision not to use it.

As has been stressed, a continuing theme of British policy under this and previous Governments has been not only to abolish the death penalty in the UK, but to campaign against it in all countries, including in the US, our great ally. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) was right that, despite our strong relationship with the US and our huge respect for its legal system, we demand absolute assurances that the federal authorities will guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied even for offences that could attract it.

I congratulate Ministers on not only the general campaign that they have been running, but their representations on the specific cases of Balwant Singh and Professor Bhullar, and I thank the Minister for his recent letter on this, which makes clear the actions they have been taking, not just last year but more recently.

While the death penalty is hugely important and has obviously played a significant part in this debate, it is not the only issue of concern, either generally in the community or for the petitioners. I am pleased that the UK is active in encouraging the improvement of the treatment of minority communities in India. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has been campaigning for a long time on this issue. We understand that the British High Commission has discussed minority rights issues with the Indian National Commission for Minorities, and I hope that we are making some progress on that.

I am pleased also that the Minister made a strong case for India, along with other countries, to sign and ratify the Rome treaty setting up the International Criminal Court, which is another laudable aim of this petition. I hope that the Government will have some success in persuading those countries along that path. We also welcome previous assurances from Foreign Office Ministers that these issues have been raised in the annual India-EU human rights dialogue—the Minister mentioned that this work was undertaken not only directly, but through the EU. I hope that the Minister will be able to report progress in the future on the discussions with the Indian authorities; let us know when the next meeting for those discussions will take place; tell us what progress we are making on India’s security legislation and the reports of a significant number of cases of torture by police and security authorities; and report on what progress has been made, not only in ratifying the convention against torture, but adopting robust domestic legislation to that effect.

I shall conclude in order to allow other hon. Members to cover issues that will have been raised very strongly by their constituents. I congratulate Kesri Lehar on its campaign, which has united the community whatever people’s broader views, and gained wide public awareness of the issues that we are discussing today. I also reaffirm the united determination of this Parliament to secure justice for the Sikh community of the Punjab.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point perhaps more eloquently than I could. This is a matter not just of principle for many hon. Members, but a matter of practical impact. The existence of the death penalty can exacerbate situations and stimulate other criminal activity as a response.

I wish to make a couple of points that perhaps go a bit further than the petition in making representations to our friends in India. Although a moratorium is desirable, the intent should really be outright abolition, because history teaches us that moratoriums are not always an effective long-term solution. As has already been mentioned, India has had a moratorium, and it has ended—the consequences of that remain to be seen. We have also had the experience of the United States, where the Supreme Court issued what was essentially a moratorium. That went away, and before George W. Bush became President he was one of the most excited and active executioners of people under the US criminal code when he was governor of Texas. There are pressures on politicians and the judiciary when there is still the option of ending the moratorium. Modern societies need to strive to achieve abolition if we are to accomplish both the in-principle benefits and the practical benefits of the elimination of the death penalty.

[Bob Stewart]

If someone is executed, they can very quickly become a martyr. Martyrdom by execution is rather sad: I would prefer to see people punished by imprisonment. I hate the idea that people become martyrs, especially when they have done great wrong.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend obviously speaks with great experience from before he became a Member of Parliament in dealing in highly conflicting situations with people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds in Europe. Those differences can lead to extremism and the actions of governing authorities can create martyrdom situations that exacerbate divisions. Any healing democracy always wishes to heal the divisions within society. The death penalty is not a friend of that aim; it is an opponent. As we can see from the petition, there are real concerns that the existence of the death penalty in India will exacerbate the tensions within Indian society rather than achieving a better long-term solution.

The human aspect for those under threat of the death penalty must also be a considerable concern to us. It is inhumane treatment to leave a human being on death row for many years. No one should have to go through the psychological trauma of not knowing if or when their appeal may be heard and whether they may be executed. That is not a mark of a decent society.

Sexual Violence in Conflict

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gemma Doyle]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight that issue, but I believe that these attitudes can be found across all societies. They are absolutely not acceptable; we should do everything we can to combat them.

Just as I believe that we will never entirely eliminate violence, it is unlikely that we will ever entirely eliminate sexual violence. The issues we are debating here today are depressing, upsetting and tragic—yet I think we have reason to be optimistic. If everything that could have been done had been done, and still no progress had been made, that would be a hopeless situation. I am optimistic because not nearly enough has been done, and I think that with the will and the resources we can drive down sexual violence in conflict. The investigation teams announced earlier this week were very welcome, and I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment, too, although we need a greater emphasis on prevention, along with a focus on investigation.

There is no doubt that sexual violence is used as a weapon in war. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found that an estimated 20,000 to 50,000 women and girls had been raped during the conflict; the Special Court for Sierra Leone estimated 50,000 to 64,000 had been similarly affected; and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found that an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 girls and women had been raped.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Gemma Doyle]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not. I want to make a bit of progress.

Disgracefully, in all those examples, only relatively small numbers of men faced prosecution for their crimes, and most got away with them. The extent to which people can get away with such crimes is illustrated by what was said by Korto Williams, of ActionAid Liberia, in October last year:

“It was routine during Liberia’s war for women to be raped at check points. Men who committed these crimes never faced the law and were allowed to act with impunity. Today we have had reports that at least one even became a Member of Parliament, representing the country, while the women he violated still wait for justice.”

It is no wonder that women have no confidence in their ability to seek justice in the aftermath of such conflicts. Justice for crimes of sexual violence remains far too distant for far too many women, and they are often marginalised during the subsequent process of resolution. In far too many cases, the rights of women have been sacrificed in attempts to secure formal peace deals. In only 18 of more than 300 existing peace agreements is there any mention of sexual, gender-based violence, and even in modern peace agreements, the position and rights of women in society are still being threatened. I agree with ActionAid, which suggests that that is partly because women are not at the table during discussions, and considers that we should make it a priority to seek to guarantee places for them. Organisations such as ActionAid, Amnesty and Oxfam are working around the globe to try to tackle these issues, and I think that we should try to make progress by harnessing their knowledge and their networks on the ground.

Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), the shadow Secretary of State of Defence, made an important speech outlining his ideas on early intervention, emphasising the need to work alongside our NATO colleagues in conflicts, and to monitor fragile states and, when we can, intervene to stop them from falling into conflict. Experience over the years has shown us the mistakes that have been often made in foreign interventions—mistakes that have cost women dearly in, for instance, the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

I think the fact that for the first half of the current Parliament there was not one woman in the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development or the Ministry of Defence was an enormous step backwards. If we argue that women should be sitting around the table in peace negotiations throughout the world, we must surely accept that they should also be sitting around the table in the Departments that make so many decisions that affect women’s lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I saw rape used as a weapon of war when I was in Bosnia in 1992-93. Between 25,000 and 50,000 women were raped during the Bosnian war. At Foca, Visegrad, Omarska and Prijedor, rape camps were deliberately set up to be used by visiting Bosnian-Serb soldiers when they felt like it. My wife, Claire Podbielski-Stewart—she was then Claire Podbielski—was involved as a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross in visiting Prijedor to try to stop what was happening there.

Elsewhere, individually, women were raped in front of their families—their husbands and their children. Do Members really understand how ghastly that must be for the families? The woman and the husband are demeaned, and the children are terrorised and horrified. They will be horrified for the rest of their lives.

Too often, once that foul crime has been committed, everyone is killed. I found a family outside a house near Vitez—mother, daughter, son and husband in a line. The daughter was holding a puppy. She was killed by the bullet that killed the puppy. I took the family to the local morgue. I went past the same place the next day to discover they had been returned. They were the wrong religion in the morgue. How ghastly is sexual violence in war. How foul.

My soldiers buried 104 people in a mass grave, which I revisited last year. We think there were 104 people. Most were women; a lot of them were children. It was foul, it was ghastly, and it was most definitely something that we should campaign to stop. I applaud what the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development and others are doing to try to stop the revolting practice of sexual violence in war.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Stewart]

I will, if my hon. Friend is quick.

[Mr Newmark]

I will be quick.

I would draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that not only the rape itself is ghastly, but the conviction and prosecution rates. In the field where he fought, only one in 20,000 perpetrators of those crimes was prosecuted. Will he therefore join me in welcoming the international protocol proposed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which will ensure prosecution and investigation?

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend—that was quick. Of course, I agree with him. I have given evidence in five trials. I am thrilled that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has brought charges against people for rape as a crime against humanity, and secured convictions. I am fully aware that not even one in every 100 people guilty of such crimes in Bosnia has been brought to justice.

I am delighted that in Europe, for the first time ever, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is bringing rape convictions. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda started the process, and it is a great move. We must send a firm message to the whole world that sexual violence is considered as one of the gravest crimes.

I will end by commending our British soldiers. Shall I tell the House what a solider said to me when a previous Foreign Secretary—a Conservative one at that—gave me an order to start planning a withdrawal from Bosnia in December 1992? I wandered out and said to a soldier, “I am planning our withdrawal.” He said, “We’re not withdrawing, sir.” I said, “Well, we might have to if I am ordered by the Government to do so.” He said, “Not me, sir.” I said, “Why not?” He said, “Our duty is here protecting these women, children and the vulnerable. That is what we are here to do.” We never did withdraw, but my goodness that shows the quality of our soldiers. We hear far too many stories about how badly our armed forces behave, but here was a soldier who showed the quality of person we send out to put our values into the world outside our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

I agree absolutely. With a subject this big, it is sometimes tempting to think, “Well, it’s always been there throughout history.” We know that. The history of conflict going back hundreds of years contains examples of such behaviour, but 40 years ago, when the big campaigns on violence against women started in this country with the setting up of domestic violence refuges and so on, people said the same thing: “You’ll never change it. It’s always been there. It’s endemic.” Although we heard earlier how far we have left to go, even in our own country, progress has been made. Sometimes, when dealing with difficulties in the justice system and so on, it feels like three steps forward and two steps back, but nevertheless we have made some progress and changed attitudes. I do not wish to sound complacent, but those of us who started campaigns in the early days have seen a difference. If we make an effort, we can begin to change how people think and behave and how they are treated, so although, with a subject this big, people might think, “What can we do? What can anybody do?”, we must make an effort and start to change things.

Members of peacekeeping forces have a particular responsibility when it comes to their behaviour and attitudes. It is crucial that our own armed forces—and I am sure that they do—lead by example in how they treat women, including female members of the armed services in the field. One way to change things is by involving far more women in the process of change in their own countries and peace processes. As many people have said, far too few women feature in the big meetings and peace conferences. Where are the women? It is important that their voices be heard and that they be encouraged and given the tools to start to change things, not just for their own generation but for future generations.

[Bob Stewart]

Women need to be represented at peace conferences, but they can be only if they are leaders in their own communities. That is how we can assure their representation; we have to try to do that.

[Mr Hague]

indicated assent.

[Bob Stewart]

I see the Foreign Secretary nodding.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Many people who have been in conflict zones have fantastic stories to tell about women who can speak up, who have spoken up and who need to be heard. Admittedly, there are not enough of them and building from the bottom up is clearly important, but some are there already. We need to hear from them.

Yes, this is a big subject, but let us not just come back in a year or two and have the same discussion; let us instead come back and feel that there has been real progress.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

That was an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), but one with which I fundamentally disagree. It was obvious from the early part of his comments that they reinforced the points that have been made throughout this debate. In essence, we have jumped back from fundamental rights to human rights.

In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), I asked whether we could try to agree on the difference between human rights and fundamental rights, but everyone seems to have jumped back to accepting that fundamental rights is just another phrase for human rights, and that the agency does no more than replicate what is done elsewhere in the European Union by the Council of Europe. What came out of those comments was the fact that if reform is needed, we need to reform the Court, so that it can enforce the decisions made by the Council of Europe.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What is the difference between British human rights and European Union human rights? Surely British human rights should be decided here and should take precedence.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is the second of the points that I want to make, which is about subsidiarity. We hear a lot about subsidiarity, yet in practice the European Union goes the other way, rather than saying, “Look, these are the matters which you will probably be concerned with. We’ve had a look at the UK and you’ve got plenty of organisations within the UK to deal with all these matters. There is no need for an EU body.” That applies across all 27, soon to be 28, member states.