Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is exactly right to highlight the regional nature of the particular challenges that are faced in west and northern Africa. The principal terrorist threat in west Africa is from the extremist group Boko Haram, which kidnapped French nationals in Cameroon in April. That is why we have put together a north and west Africa strategic framework to tackle the region-wide threats. It is also why the G8 focused on trying to provide a counter-terrorism strategy, which importantly included building security, the rule of law and capacity, and on tackling criminal trafficking as well as the terrorist threat.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the Minister recognises that piracy off the coast of west Africa is part of a wider range of threats, including, as has been mentioned, the infiltration of terrorism from the north and organised crime from the drugs trade. Will he expand on concrete proposals he has made to west African countries, but also, particularly, to our wider allies, as to what action can be taken to counteract these multiple threats to the stability of countries in the region?

[Mark Simmonds]

There are a number of key initiatives to support, through technical facilitation, the west African countries and to enable co-operation with our Navy, in its visits to the region, to train the necessary west African naval capacity to deal with these challenges. Ultimately, however, as we found in east Africa, the solution is on land, not on sea, so we are working with west African Governments to try to provide economic and developmental assistance to make sure that people have economic hope and the ability to provide for their families, rather than piracy off the west coast of Africa.

NATO

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jason McCartney]

I guess that the hon. Gentleman is a bit more pro-EU than I am. That is probably what is behind his comments. I will give another example of what duplication does. It can confuse command and control, and further evidence of that is the EU force headquarters being set up in Belgium, in a similar location to NATO’s headquarters on the outskirts of Brussels. That is more costly duplication of command and control.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman should be celebrating the success of the anti-piracy operation off the coast of Somalia. I will mention unnecessary duplication in my speech, but the activities that he has mentioned are complementary, as are those of the Chinese and a number of other Asian countries. They are all operating together successfully to achieve a common goal. It is a success, not a problem as he is trying to make out.

[Jason McCartney]

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. He will be well aware how confusing it can be to answer to two leaders—for example, the leader of one’s party and a union. As a serviceman myself, I believe it is important to have a clear command and control structure and for people to know whom they answer to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) for introducing the debate and describing the work of the Assembly, and for dipping into the history of NATO. That is a good starting point.

At the end of the second world war there was a triumph and a tragedy. The triumph was the end of the war, the defeat of Nazism, the foundation of the United Nations and the universal declaration of human rights and the UN charter. The tragedy was the descent into the cold war, the foundation of the Warsaw pact and NATO, and the decades-long nuclear arms race with costs borne by both sides and the economic problems that ensued as a result. Then there was the election of Gorbachev as President of the USSR, and his proposals for disarmament. The Reykjavik summit was unfortunately neutralised by Reagan’s proposals, and Gorbachev’s proposals for a common European home and promotion of European security and co-operation were not responded to effectively by the USA or NATO. Gorbachev eventually went and the Warsaw pact collapsed. Surely the 1990s were a time for reassessment and looking at an alternative. Why did NATO continue at that point when its cold war raison d’être had gone?

The Library briefing contains a helpful statement by J. L. Granatstein, a distinguished research fellow from the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute. In the National Post on 5 March 2013 he wrote:

“Perhaps it might have been better if NATO had wound itself up at the end of the Cold War. The alliance instead sought for a new role, a new strategic purpose, and it found it outside the boundaries of the alliance.”

He goes on to mention Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and later the Libyan adventures of NATO.

I think we should seriously consider the whole purpose of NATO. It was founded as part of the cold war and had a specific area of responsibility—the north Atlantic. It successively increased its operations out of area, and with the Lisbon treaty it does two things. First, it vastly expands its area of operation to include Afghanistan, which by no stretch of the imagination can be anything to do with the north Atlantic, any more than can the seas off Somalia or North Korea, South Korea and south Asia.

[Mr Spellar]

Does my hon. Friend accept that in a more communicated and linked-up world, threats to our security from other parts of the world can have a significant impact on our security at home? Piracy off the coast of Somalia is a real threat to trade lanes between western Europe and east Asia. Those are massive trade lanes for the continuing prosperity of the world. Is that a threat to our security, and should we respond to it?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Of course piracy off the coast of Somalia is not a good thing. Instability in Somalia is very bad, but surely one solves that problem by political support for changes in Somalia—to some extent that is happening and considerable changes are taking place. I sometimes get the feeling that NATO spent the 1990s and early 2000s looking for something to do, and that it was more than pleased to get involved in Afghanistan and present itself as the armed wing of the United Nations. It may be that the UN should have its own force, and that is a matter for consideration and debate. However, when NATO calls itself the arm of the UN, what does that say to countries that are not in or aligned to NATO, or indeed are deeply suspicious of NATO and its activities? Members who talk about NATO as being the effective arm of the UN should think carefully about the implications of what they are saying.

The costs of NATO membership are considerable—probably far greater than those of membership of the European Union, which seems to excite massive debate on the Government Benches. NATO requires 2% of our gross national product to be spent on defence, and Members complain that other countries do not meet those demands. Presumably, NATO membership requires a level of expenditure that many countries simply cannot afford, yet they are required to make that expenditure and, for the most part, to buy those arms from the United States or approved suppliers that produce NATO-issue equipment. We must think far more seriously about why we are in NATO and what it is achieving.

Let us consider Afghanistan from 2001 onwards. Yes, 9/11 was a dreadful event and an act of murder against civilians, but was it an appropriate response to invade Afghanistan? Twelve years later, 400 British soldiers, a larger number of American soldiers, and a very much larger number of Afghan civilians, and others, are dead. Drone aircraft are operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there is a real threat to the civil liberties of everyone in the world from Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition and anti-terror legislation. That has not made the world a safer or more secure place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

If I may say so, it is a privilege to follow such a powerful speech about the spread of weapons. The whole House respects my hon. Friend’s extraordinary devotion to his work on arms control for the Quadripartite Committee. He approaches his subject with a passion and knowledge that is probably unrivalled in either House of Parliament.

If I may, however, I would like to respond, perhaps impertinently, to my hon. Friend’s implied rebuke to the Government for their helping to persuade the European Union to lift the arms embargo on the supply of weapons to the Syrian National Council—the least unrespectable part, if I may put it that way, of the Syrian opposition, which we would want to be properly represented in the peace negotiation or peace settlement that we are all striving to achieve. I support the Government in seeking to redress the extraordinary imbalance affecting the more reasonable forces involved in this extraordinarily bloody and complex conflict.

NATO should be agonising over this whole issue because it will have to pick up the pieces of a spreading war and conflagration that almost inevitably will occur unless the United States, Russia and the other major powers in the region—including, perhaps, even Iran—start to sit around a table and work out how to contain the conflict.

We were right to question whether there might be a case for sending arms into Syria to try to redress the imbalance, because the regime is already using a massive stockpile of weapons. Russian-trained pilots are flying Russian aircraft, dropping Russian munitions and firing Russian shells out of Russian guns at civilians all over Syria. I find it very difficult to tolerate the idea that the Russians should be able to do whatever they want in their bloody way in that country, while the west sits idly by doing nothing. It is not just the Russians, as extremist Sunni factions, too, are being armed by Qatari and Saudi interests, which are pouring weapons into the Syrian conflagration.

The danger is not that our sitting back and doing nothing will mean that nothing happens or that the pre-2010 stasis will reassert itself as Assad reasserts his power. The danger is that this conflagration will grow and grow and grow. I therefore think the Government are right to try to redress the political balance and to tempt the Americans into entering this crisis—otherwise, NATO will finish up having to pick up the pieces in a very much more active and perhaps unfortunate way than we would wish.

That brings us back to our subject, Madam Deputy Speaker—I hear you heaving a sigh of relief—which is the question, “What is NATO in our modern age?” I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, was right when he said that NATO has become a coalition of the willing—an organisation or a military alliance from which a coalition of the willing can be drawn. I do not rebuke the Minister for representing the Government at this debate because NATO is a political alliance that represents the foreign policy of this country, albeit backed by national military capability, pledged in co-operation to support the objectives of that political alliance.

Why is NATO still needed? I hope that I have just exposed one possible reason—to prevent war and to contain conflict. The reason NATO seems to be redundant and out of date to so many of our citizens today is that it has been so successful—the most successful military alliance in modern history—at containing, deterring and preventing conflict so that our continent feels perhaps deceptively safe from foreign conflict. NATO not only won the cold war, but keeps the peace. People should not forget the adage “If you want peace, prepare for war”, as that is what NATO is about.

Deterrence is the watchword—preventing wars rather than fighting them. That is why we spend money on defence—not to use the military capability in hot conflict, but so that we do not have to use the capability at all. Its use is pacific. That is one of the reasons the nuclear deterrent lies at the heart of NATO military doctrine. It is the relationship between the future of NATO and the continuation of our own nuclear deterrent that I shall explore briefly this afternoon.

There are three NATO nuclear powers: France, Britain and the United States. What threatens the future of NATO today is not just apathy or the parsimony of its member Governments’ defence budgets, and neither is it ignorance about its vital role. NATO is not going to be abolished suddenly. Nobody is going to make a decision at some NATO summit that NATO has had its day and will be wound up. The great danger is that NATO withers. I put it to the House that, with the war fatigue following Iraq and Afghanistan and the lack of appetite for NATO to play its deterrent peacekeeping and stabilisation role across the world, NATO is already withering. The collapse of key components of NATO is another danger, as is the uncertainty and the question mark that still exists over the continuation of our own nuclear deterrent. In fact, that is a threat to the continuation of NATO.

With the greatest respect to those who advocate European Union alternatives or supplements to NATO, I say that without NATO European defence is sunk. NATO has been doing European defence and security and it is doing European defence and security: there is no substitute or alternative to NATO.

We have left a question mark about the vital part of NATO’s capability. Our nuclear deterrent is pledged to the defence of NATO and our NATO allies. The Government have conducted a study into possible alternatives to the Trident nuclear deterrent. Now is not the time to go into great detail about that, except to say that we understand that it has exposed the truth: that there is no viable or cheaper alternative to our nuclear deterrent. Trident is the only viable nuclear deterrent on offer to the United Kingdom.

[Mr Spellar]

Can the hon. Gentleman—who is probably better informed than Opposition Front Benchers on this—give us any idea of when he expects the outcome of the study to be published so that we can have that informed debate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Members who have secured this debate, especially my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), a long-standing colleague and the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. May I also say, Mr Deputy Speaker, how pleased I am to be participating once again in a defence debate, although, like the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), I am slightly puzzled as to why the Minister for the Armed Forces is not responding? Sometimes the working of the minds of Government business managers baffles even me.

The debate also takes me back to the first defence team of the incoming Labour Government, with Lord Robertson, Lord Reid and our late and much-missed friend and defence stalwart who died recently, Lord Gilbert. I am proud to have been part of such a formidable team.

I was very pleased and encouraged by the nature of the debate, which demonstrated the bipartisan support for Britain’s defence in NATO and our own armed forces. It is right, therefore, to stress the bipartisan support for NATO by all Governments of both political parties since the war, which has also reflected the solid support of the British people. Members on both sides of the House have spoken in that spirit in the main, recognising, I am sure, that it was Attlee and Bevin whose foresight founded NATO and also, incidentally, commissioned Britain’s first nuclear weapons programme.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

NATO was originally a political grouping and then became military after the Berlin blockade, and particularly after the Korean war. The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention that the Labour Foreign Secretary of 1948 prepared the basis for the Western European Union, however. It has now gone, but it was an important part of the history of political and military co-operation in Europe.

[Mr Spellar]

The hon. Gentleman will also find that the North Atlantic treaty, including article 5, was signed in 1948 and that Ernie Bevin was the prime instigator of that. The hon. Gentleman is right that there were a limited number of countries and that other countries came in later, but that demonstrates the foresight of that Government, who saw the nature of the threat and recognised Britain’s responsibility to play our part in addressing it—and, as I have said, who saw the need to commission Britain’s first nuclear weapons programme.

We should also recognise and celebrate the fact that NATO has been one of the most successful military alliances in history, if not the most successful, especially if judged by the attainment of the objectives in restraining and containing an aggressive and virulent Soviet threat until the ultimate, and, in George Kennan’s prediction, inevitable—even if it was rather protracted—implosion of that empire. NATO protected the free world and western Europe, and also provided a beacon of hope for the liberation, with minimal bloodshed ultimately, of eastern Europe.

That does not mean that we should unthinkingly continue an organisation that has served us well in the past, but we must give serious consideration to adapting such an effective organisation to deal with emerging challenges and threats. I was very much taken by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) about the ability, through NATO, to undertake strategic thinking. The success of that policy of NATO inevitably and legitimately raised questions about the role of defence and collective security through NATO at the end of the cold war. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) touched on that period during his contribution. I have to say, and I think that there would be some agreement on this among some Government Members, that the then Conservative Government, under their policy programme “Options for Change”, too readily reached for the so-called peace dividend, cut too far and too fast, and badly undermined our capability. They did not comprehend the stark warning from Senator Pat Moynihan that the world was still a dangerous place and that the end of the cold war represented perhaps less threat but also less peace.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I remember, because I was then a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Ministry of Defence, that the Labour party was begging us to cut further and faster at that time.

[Mr Spellar]

The Labour defence team I mentioned recognised fully how the impact of the cuts the Conservative Government had put through under “Options for Change” had caused huge problems, particularly on the manning side. Huge disruption was caused to manning levels, recruitment and training.

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

Would the right hon. Gentleman say that that created more of a problem or less of a problem than the £35 billion black hole that his Government left this Government to sort out?

[Mr Spellar]

Interestingly, Government Members have got back to their default answer to every question being the so-called black hole, as these days Unite and Len McCluskey are normally the cause of all the problems. This is a ridiculous way for Government Members to continue, because many Conservative Members at the time of “Options for Change”—those who were involved very much on the military side—were concerned at the cuts that were taking place. They did recognise that they were not planned, that the Treasury was taking too much out of defence and that that was to the detriment of defence.

Unfortunately, the current Administration seem to be repeating that error with their policy of drastic retrenchment in our military capability. That is damaging not only in itself—we will have a debate on that—but in the message it sends to Washington, because there is a proper debate in Washington about the balance of military expenditure and its deployment. We need to get that into perspective, because it is undoubtedly true that, as President Obama says, America is still the indispensible power. We should recognise that US defence spending is twice as much as that of the other NATO countries combined, including Canada and Turkey. Furthermore, as we all know, the US spends its money, particularly in the equipment programme, more efficiently.

There have been exaggerated concerns about a US pivot towards the Pacific, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend mentioned. The move from an estimated 60% focus on the Atlantic and 40% focus on the Pacific to a 50:50 balance is a shift, but 50% of the US defence budget is still more than that of the rest of NATO put together; the US is still a formidably effective and overwhelming presence. Our real concern should therefore be voices on Capitol Hill, as people there may become weary of what they would see as carping criticisms from Europe. They may question whether, after the end of the cold war, the US still has that obligation to show such a commitment to European defence unless European countries, including ourselves, show a similar level of commitment.

Hon. Members have mentioned Secretary Gates’s comments about the need for Europe to pull its weight in NATO. Otherwise, he said, NATO will have little future. He has called for the European nations to step up to the bar.

We are either all in this together, committed to playing our full parts, or we are not an alliance that will last. We should also recognise that our public are becoming wary and weary and that there is public reticence about international military expedition. Mixed and impatient European public opinion on Libya demonstrated that, and I would say to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) that if he looks in Hansard he will see that at the time of the Libya situation, I was raising questions in this House about the fate of surface-to-air missiles—an issue that had been raised with me at a very senior level by concerned officials in the Russian administration; they had sold them to Libya in the first place, but they were concerned about their location.

We need to recognise that there is a danger that multilateralist proactive action will be hampered by public scepticism and reserve arising from the experience of recent conflicts and that that will be a problem in all our countries. I recognise that the percentage of GDP spent on defence by the UK is greater than that of other European nations whose defence spending, as a number of Members have mentioned, is at a level that is unsustainable if we are to continue to have an effective European component in the alliance. Those are significant issues with which Ministers and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly will have to continue to deal.

I say to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), regarding his remarks about Somalia, that I think it is unfortunate for us to start to pose NATO against the EU in that context. Somalia is a particularly bad example to pick. There is no uncertainty in the mind of a serving rating or officer about the chain of command—the person who is giving him the orders is above him in the chain of command. In fact, Somalia has been enormously effective in dealing with piracy—not one ship has been captured by the pirates this year and there has been a dramatic drop in piracy and in the number of people being held—and in integrating the international efforts of countries with different traditions, and perhaps even different objectives, but with a combined objective of trying to keep the sea lanes open and to protect seafarers, vessels and cargos. Those operations have been well synchronised between the various parties. It shows that where there is a properly organised European component that can play a useful part and is an encouragement to countries of the EU to step up their contribution to defence within that framework, rather than a cause for criticism.

[Jason McCartney]

Would the right hon. Gentleman be happy to know that there is an EU mission staffed with 80 people in Djibouti, duplicating the effort provided by our embassy, the French embassy and the German embassy? Or is he happy yet again to spend yet more money on more bureaucracy?

[Mr Spellar]

Again, the answer to everything is Europe. If efficiencies are needed, that is worth considering—and they would be welcome—but I notice that the hon. Gentleman in no way denied that this was an effective operation. There might be some surplus people, and let us have a look at that, but the integration of the NATO operation and Operation Atalanta has been very successful. We should be celebrating that, because other piracy problems are emerging in other parts of the world that will need to be dealt with and the United States will be neither able nor willing to participate in all of them. Issues might well arise in west Africa partly because of terrorism but partly because of the serious rise in the influence of organised crime.

[Jason McCartney]

Of course it is a successful mission in Somalia; there are so many people there doing so many things. Another example of the overlap came when we went to Northwood for a briefing: we had a briefing from the NATO admiral—a three-star—and had to have exactly the same briefing an hour later from an EU admiral. Too many three-stars and top brass—come on!

[Mr Spellar]

No doubt in the second world war, the hon. Gentleman would have complained if he had to meet both Montgomery and Eisenhower. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has only just walked into the Chamber, but he seems to have a lot to say.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think I know when people came in, but not to worry about that. I am more concerned about the fact that you have been speaking for 15 minutes and only have a minute left, Mr Spellar.

[Mr Spellar]

I have been giving way, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Giving way does not extend the debate, and we have given a lot of extensions. There are 15 minutes for each Front Bencher. I am very lenient and can allow a minute or two, but not much more.

[Mr Spellar]

In that case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall move on to two other areas I think we need to consider in the context of NATO. One is security, the work of GCHQ and operations in cyberspace.

For Britain, more than for any other alliance country, our relationship with NATO is intrinsically bound up with our defence and security relationship with the United States. That is clear to those who serve in the Parliamentary Assembly and other right hon. and hon. Members who take defence and security matters seriously. Our relationship with the United States is unique and indispensable, not only in the hard power defence of our liberties and interests, but in the developing struggle against international terrorism and organised crime—especially the trafficking of people, narcotics and weapons, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said—and in the sphere of cyberspace, through our security services and GCHQ.

Unfortunately, albeit for understandable reasons, success against those threats cannot be widely publicised, but the pooling of technology resources and intellectual analytical capacity, and indeed the courage of individuals who often have to operate in very dangerous environments, is a joint endeavour. We owe a great debt to all those involved in that work and should acknowledge it more widely, and I am pleased to do so here today.

Military and security cohesion is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the ongoing health of the alliance. Other elements of the transatlantic relationship also need to be refreshed, which is why the talks on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership are so encouraging. As ever, there will be a host of complications and vested interests to overcome, but if the participants can keep their eye on the main prize, it will be considerable. Achieving greater integration of the north Atlantic market, with five of the G8 countries and approaching half the world’s GDP, would not only provide a vital economic boost, but further consolidate our political and security relationships.

NATO, founded by the great post-war Government of Attlee and Bevan, has served this country and the free world well. It faces challenges, and we should be prepared to meet them. We should remember that some of those who argue NATO’s irrelevance today are those who, at the height of the cold war, were most opposed to NATO. Collective defence and collective security have served us well throughout my lifetime. May they continue to do so into the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Secretary Kerry has been instrumental in trying to launch the “Geneva II”, as we might call it—a process of negotiation to come in Geneva between regime and opposition in Syria, supported by all of us. Work on that continues, and one thing the Prime Minister is discussing with other G8 leaders is our unity and determination together to bring about a transition in Syria through a conference in Geneva. I pay tribute again to Secretary Kerry’s efforts on this.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

As we are witnessing the security handover to the Afghan authorities, may I remind the Foreign Secretary that we have been pressing him for some time to bring about greater involvement of the neighbouring powers—including Iran—in the maintaining of Afghanistan’s future stability and the securing of the gains that have been made, especially for women’s health and education? Has he made any progress on that during his discussions with Secretary Kerry?

[Mr Hague]

A great deal of progress has been made on it recently, over a period of several years. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, neighbouring countries, including Iran, have regular meetings with Afghanistan. Relations between Afghanistan and Iran are reasonably good, and we do nothing to stand in the way of those good relations. It is important for Afghanistan’s neighbours to co-operate with it on security, on counter-narcotics, and, of course, on the economic development of the country.

Rakhine and Kachin State (Human Rights)

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) both on securing this debate and making an excellent speech. It is a matter of great concern to her constituents, to Members across the House and in the wider community.

We should start by welcoming the major changes made in Burma over recent years. The country had been so long isolated from the rest of the world, had suffered severe repression for many years and was of concern to the world community. That is why this Parliament was so pleased to welcome Aung San Suu Kyi to Westminster Hall and to hear her message of hope, and why the world is renewing and expanding business and other relationships with Burma. We welcome the corresponding economic growth that is taking place.

It is also right to acknowledge the significant persuasive role of President Thein Sein in bringing about change, and the patient diplomatic role played by Burma’s fellow members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which worked steadily to persuade the previous regime, often facing criticism for what seemed to be their cautious approach. All that offers hope for the future, for Burma and for its people.

As we have seen elsewhere in the world, however, such rapid change can often release old tensions and conflicts that have been repressed under the old regime. That is why we must acknowledge the progress that Burma has made towards peace and democracy. The conflicts in Rakhine and Kachin states demonstrate all too powerfully why there can be no complacency, whether from President Thein Sein or us and the international community. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) alluded to that.

The Rakhine conflict started a year ago, following the rape and murder of a young Buddhist woman and the killing of 10 Muslim men. June and October in particular saw shocking inter-communal violence, with more than 200 deaths and by now an estimated 140,000 internally displaced persons, predominantly Rohingya. Conditions in the camps are shocking, as ably reported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali).

The conflict also raises fundamental human rights concerns, including the seemingly arbitrary arrest of hundreds during the Government-imposed state of emergency. The special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Burma noted

“harsh and disproportionate restrictions on the freedom of movement of Muslim populations in the IDP camps”

and received “credible allegations” of

“widespread and systematic human rights violations by state officials targeted against the Rohingya and wider Muslim populations”.

That includes

“extrajudicial killings, rape and sexual violence, arbitrary detention and torture and ill-treatment in detention, deaths in detention, and denial of due process and fair trial rights”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow also mentioned the chilling report from Human Rights Watch “All You Can Do is Pray”, which expresses considerable concern about possible state collusion in what is argued to

“amount to crimes against humanity carried out as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing.”

I understand and welcome the fact that our ambassador has raised that report with the Burmese Government. Will the Minister tell us the outcome of those talks, and whether the claims will be discussed at the highest level between the UK and Burma? The senior Minister of State at the Foreign Office commented that

“further independent investigative work would be required”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 2013; Vol. 745, c. 1248.]

Will the Minister here today elaborate on what investigations the Government would like to see and on what steps the UK is taking to secure an inquiry and to ensure that the Burmese Government recognise the gravity of the report?

President Thein Sein initiated an inquiry into the inter-communal violence last year, and the Rakhine investigation commission finally reported at the end of April. Unfortunately, it seemed to provide further evidence of the rejection of the Rohingya community, as the report referred to them as “Bengali” throughout. That reinforces the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Bolton South East. There were a number of comments on the birth rate among the community and, as mentioned in the debate, the two-child policy imposed on the Rohingya was reaffirmed last month, a move I am pleased to see was condemned by Aung San Suu Kyi as discrimination that

“is not in line with human rights”.

What discussions have there been with the Burmese authorities and in the European Union or the UN about the Rakhine investigation commission report?

In particular, the report notably failed to support a review of the 1982 citizenship law, which denies the Rohingya citizenship and renders them stateless. What recent representations has the Minister made in support of a review of the law and of positive action to address the prejudice and discrimination suffered by the Rohingya community? Does he agree that continued segregation, as endorsed by the commission, should not be seen as a permanent solution? There was also a strong emphasis in the report on a greater presence for the security forces. Given that we have already discussed grave concerns about their past role, is the Minister satisfied that they can be deployed as a force for good and to calm the tensions, and that they will be held accountable for their actions?

Non-governmental organisations have reported worrying difficulties in supplying vital humanitarian support to the thousands who have lost their homes, and that was acknowledged by the investigation commission, which concluded that 15% of food needs are unmet and that

“some 90% of needs are unmet in the construction and provision of shelter”.

Can the Minister provide an indication of how reliable those figures are and tell us what steps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development are taking to ensure unhindered access for humanitarian support, an issue stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South? Can the Minister also update us on the current safety of internally displaced persons and on efforts to protect them from the monsoon season? What recent representations have been made to the authorities in Thailand and Bangladesh regarding the treatment of Rohingya asylum seekers? Is the Minister aware of any work by the Burmese authorities to stem the violence and to promote inter-religious dialogue?

The focus of today’s debate has been primarily but not only on Rakhine, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East is absolutely right to say that the human rights situation in Kachin state also requires international attention. That conflict intensified in November last year, after the 17 years of ceasefire. There are now estimated to be 90,000 internally displaced persons, to whom humanitarian support was reportedly restricted. There is also evidence that, unfortunately, those fleeing Kachin and seeking asylum in China have been turned back, adding to the humanitarian crisis. As has been mentioned, the UK has contributed £3.5 million in humanitarian aid to people affected by the Kachin conflict. Is the Minister confident that assistance is reaching those who need it, and can he update us on the humanitarian situation?

Amnesty International has received claims of extrajudicial executions, torture, arbitrary detention, forced labour and sexual violence, and concerns about the involvement of elements of the Burmese army. What investigations have the Government made into the actions of the armed forces in Kachin. What representations has the Minister made in support of justice for the Kachin civilians?

We support the Government in welcoming the agreement in the past couple of weeks between the Burmese Government and the Kachin Independence Organisation to begin dialogue and to work towards a ceasefire. Does the Minister consider that to be a likely scenario? What assistance can the international community and regional bodies provide to ensure that the talks prove successful.

As a number of colleagues mentioned, the Foreign Secretary has been rightly commended for his work on tackling sexual violence in conflict. Understandably, there have been calls for Burma to be included in the initiative. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), stated:

“Over the summer, the British embassy in Rangoon will be scoping options to expand the initiative to Burma.”—[Official Report, 5 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1120W.]

Can the Minister assure us today that the urgent need to end the sexual violence and to hold those responsible to account has already been discussed with the Burmese Government? Can he elaborate on how and when the preventing sexual violence initiative could be expanded to Burma, as was also discussed by the right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell)? Furthermore, will the issue be raised at the G8 next week?

In April, the EU Foreign Affairs Council took the decision to lift sanctions, with the exception of the arms embargo. Some have argued that that was premature, and this morning’s debate has certainly highlighted that far too many people in Burma are still waiting for sustainable peace and respect for human rights. That is not to say that those things cannot be achieved, but does the Minister agree that the EU’s decision to lift sanctions must place an even greater obligation on Burma to comply with international law? Will he assure us that the UK, bilaterally and through the EU, will use the lifting of sanctions to press for more concerted action on human rights? What discussions have the Government had with the authorities in Burma since the sanctions were lifted, and what expectations have been set out? Answers to those questions will enable Burma to move on and start to build the democratic, peaceful and prosperous society that its long-suffering people richly deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That would be a very serious national error. We have to bear in mind that North Korea has paraded, but not tested, a long-range missile with a claimed range of 12,000 km. That is clearly the sort of thing that it is trying to develop, and we must bear that in mind when making the decision that my hon. Friend talks about.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Does not the behaviour of North Korea confirm that vile dictatorships are a threat not only to their own citizens, but to their neighbours? Has the Minister conveyed the full support of the UK to the Governments of South Korea and Japan in the face of outrageous aggression from North Korea? What steps is he taking to ensure that disputes in east Asia are resolved through international law, not military action?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we are in very close consultation with those countries. I discussed this in detail with Foreign Minister Kishida of Japan when he was here two weeks ago, and last week I telephoned Foreign Minister Yun of South Korea. These countries are very conscious of our support and grateful for the support that we give at the UN Security Council. On other disputes in east Asia, we make it clear to all countries concerned that we wish to see them peacefully resolved and in accordance with international law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Compared with the last year of the previous Government, we have nearly quadrupled the number of ministerial and senior official bilateral visits to Germany each year. We have established joint meetings twice a year of the British-German ministerial committees on the EU. I have made many visits to Germany, and as my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister works extremely closely with Chancellor Merkel. I believe it is right to say that we now work more closely with Germany than any previous Government.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

As we move towards the final military draw-down in Afghanistan, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure personnel protection for our remaining training forces, and for our brave men and women from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and non-governmental organisations, who are working for a better future for the Afghan people?

[Mr Hague]

Protecting people during the draw-down is extremely important. That is one reason for maintaining a substantial military force. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, our military numbers are coming down from 9,000 to 5,000 this year. We will then decide on the profile of withdrawal from then on. A large part of their job is the protection of the personnel who remain. We also work closely with the Afghan authorities and the very substantial Afghan national security forces to ensure that our hard-working personnel, to whom I pay tribute, are properly protected.

Afghanistan

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for early sight of it. I join him in paying tribute to our forces who continue to serve in the most difficult of circumstances. In particular, I offer the condolences of the whole House to the two service personnel killed since the Defence Secretary last made a statement of this kind to the House. The suffering of the families and the sorrow of the loved ones left behind are in the hearts and minds of all Members. I pay tribute to the ongoing work of our civil servants and to NGOs working, struggling and hoping to build a better future for Afghanistan, often in difficult and dangerous circumstances. I put on record the shadow Foreign Secretary’s regret at not being here to respond to the statement, but given the scheduling of the statement I am responding on his behalf.

Like the Government, we recognise that the transition period between now and the full draw-down of NATO forces will be extremely testing, with significant challenges for all. It is therefore imperative that the Government ensure that the alliance keeps focused on the key objectives. First, they must remain a key priority to ensure that the Afghan state is able to maintain its own security and prevent the country from being used once again as a safe haven for terrorists. The support being given to the Afghan national security forces is vital, as is their increasing capability, but can the Minister reassure the House that that is sustainable, particularly as in the months ahead, as the Foreign Secretary acknowledged in his statement, we are likely to see the period during which in past years we have witnessed some of the most intense levels of fighting and attacks? To what extent is he confident about the internal cohesion of those Afghan forces and their capabilities in the face of such sustained pressures?

In light of the recent tragic reports of continued loss of life through what are referred to as green on blue attacks, can he provide his current assessment of the threat posed to our forces by such attacks, and what steps are being taken to minimise the risks, as much as is possible in the context? Given that British forces will remain in a training role for some time in Afghanistan following the 2014 draw-down, can he provide us with reassurance about the levels of force protection? Frankly, it will not be sufficient to state merely that troops are not in a combat role. As I am sure he will accept, and as soldiers know only too well, unfortunately it is primarily the enemy that defines whether troops are in a combat role. Given that he rightly stated that the insurgents remain committed to conducting a campaign of violence in Afghanistan, what role does he see the UK playing post-2014 in preventing the return of insurgent dominance in regions of the country? Will he also clarify whether the planned force reduction figures from his last statement have altered, and, if so, how does that align with wider ISAF withdrawal planning?

Turning to the issue of Afghan civil society and the protection of human rights, will the Foreign Secretary set out what steps are being taken to embed the considerable advances that have been made in recent years—some of which he has referred to today—particularly with respect to women’s rights? I am sure the whole House will want to join me in welcoming the news of Malala Yousafzai, the brave young girl brutally attacked by the Taliban in Pakistan in October, who this week went back to school—in Birmingham—for the first time since the shooting, and her wonderful treatment at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham. In Afghanistan, despite similar continued campaigns by the Taliban, it is worth repeating that enrolment of girls in school has risen from 5,000 under the Taliban to 2.3 million. In addition, vastly more women now have access to medical facilities, particularly in rural areas.

There is a very real fear in Afghanistan and elsewhere that that could be put at risk by a potential re-emergence of the Taliban in certain regions following the NATO draw-down. Amnesty International has produced an excellent briefing for parliamentarians entitled “Now is the Time for Women’s Rights”, which I commend to the Secretary of State and other Ministers. It rightly quotes the comments of the Chair of the International Development Committee, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce):

“The treatment of women in Afghanistan after troops pull-out in 2014 will be the litmus test of whether we have succeeded in improving the lives of ordinary Afghans over the last ten years.”

What assurances has the Foreign Secretary sought to ensure that those gains will be protected as part of any future negotiations over a political settlement with the Taliban and other insurgent groups, and that the electoral process is, as he says, truly inclusive?

The ongoing situation in Afghanistan is of vital strategic interest to us, but for neighbouring countries its stability is also crucial. The Opposition regularly urge the greater involvement of neighbouring powers in ensuring stability and social progress in Afghanistan, and we welcome the tripartite summit that the Prime Minister hosted in February with President Karzai and President Zardari of Pakistan. In those discussions, did the Prime Minister raise the rights and participation of Afghan women as being essential to any reconciliation process and to securing a stable Pakistan?

These discussions must continue, because, in addition to the support of the wider international community, they are key to ensuring Afghanistan’s long-term security and regional stability. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore outline what diplomatic architecture is being discussed to help ensure the sustained and ongoing engagement of regional partners? There is a danger that if neighbouring countries pursue individual agendas, leading to instability in Afghanistan, all of them will suffer from the fallout, as well as us in the wider international community.

European Council

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I am not the Prime Minister and, unlike other people in this House, I have never thought that I should be or would be. I was not present at the European Council, no.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Was the Prime Minister there?

[Mr Swire]

I can confirm that the Prime Minister was there, that he took a lead, and that he has come back. I am now reporting back on what was decided at the European Council. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) makes the point again about whether the Prime Minister should have come to the House, but he might have noticed that we did have Leveson this week. No doubt his points will have been heard by those who organise the House’s business, however.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

Amazingly, I was not responsible for the agenda at the European Council.

[Mr Spellar]

He wasn’t even there.

[Mr Swire]

At least the right hon. Gentleman was paying attention. I was not even there; we have got that straight, anyway.

My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is right. What we are concentrating on now, in this country, is ensuring that those of our servicemen or diplomatic service, and so on, who are in Cyprus are not adversely affected; as he would expect, discussions are going on to that end.

Death Penalty (India)

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

As my hon. Friend would expect, the Government would review the case on an individual basis. I cannot comment on a hypothetical case of that nature.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Swire]

I am going to make some progress. The motion points out that the Indian Government have not ratified the United Nations convention against torture. Central to the British Government’s torture prevention policy is encouragement to countries such as India to sign, ratify and effectively implement that convention and its optional protocol. Not only does the convention define what is meant by an act of torture, it obliges countries to take measures to prevent such acts. Such measures include legislating to make torture a criminal offence, educating officials on the prohibition of torture, conducting prompt and impartial investigations where there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has taken place, and providing redress and compensation to victims.

The optional protocol provides an important additional layer of monitoring and reporting to prevent torture from happening in any place of detention by allowing visits from national and international monitoring organisations. For those reasons, we continue to call on the Indian Government to expedite the ratification of the United Nations convention against torture and its optional protocol, and adopt robust domestic legislation to that effect. The United Kingdom made a specific recommendation on that issue during India’s universal periodic review in May last year. The EU delegation in Delhi has also hosted a number of events on the importance of ratifying the convention.

While not directly related to the abolition of the death penalty, right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that India is not a state party to the Rome statute to the International Criminal Court. India has expressed its reservations and said that it does not see ratification of the ICC as a priority. That is a strongly held view. The British Government are a strong supporter of the ICC and we actively promote universal ratification. We believe it is in all our interests to support the ICC, which can help prevent devastating and irreparable damage caused by the most serious crimes in the international community, and extend the protection it offers to citizens and state parties.

Concerns have been raised about the treatment of the Sikh community in India, and let me say how proud and privileged I felt to visit Amritsar and the golden temple with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. I understand that it was the first time a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has visited the golden temple, and spending time in the garden of remembrance at Jallianwala Bagh was a particularly moving experience for us all.

During my visit I heard about the prominent role and contribution of the Sikh community in India. The head of the Indian planning department is Sikh, and Sikhs are prominent in the security forces. Indeed, the Indian Prime Minister is a Sikh. Members across the House need no reminding of the respected and thriving Sikh community in the United Kingdom that has such a long and proud history. It is also a community that will be following today’s debate with close interest.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), along with other colleagues who have secured this debate. My hon. Friend and I have campaigned over the decades for the rights of the Sikh community, sometimes to the slight astonishment of some of our colleagues that we can work so well together. I was pleased to be with my hon. Friend in December when we presented a petition at Downing street, along with our hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), representatives from the community and Amnesty International, which, over the years has played an honourable and prominent role in several campaigns in support of human rights in India, particularly for the Sikh community.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington in congratulating Kesri Lehar—wave for justice—on the success of the petition that has attracted considerable support. As my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) pointed out, such support is found not only among the Sikh community but much more widely, and the petition has secured considerable publicity for this worthy cause. Many of those from the community are in Westminster today to observe the debate and show their support for the campaign.

Securing 100,000 names on a petition requires a huge amount of work and a lot of organisation, and our appreciation of that effort by Kesri Lehar should be properly recorded. My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington have substantial Sikh populations—many are second, third or even fourth generation. We should also record that, in the past year, we have lost two prominent and respected members of that community from Parliament: Marsha Singh, the MP for Bradford West, and my great friend Tarsem King—Lord King of West Bromwich—who was previously leader of my council, Sandwell, which, incidentally, is twinned with Amritsar. I pay tribute to both of them.

Within the Sikh community there is an overwhelming concern about repression in the Punjab and the rights of those living there. That feeling was particularly strong in the difficult years of the emergency following the storming of the golden temple in Operation Blue Star and the murder of Indira Ghandi. There were a host of atrocities in the Punjab at that time, widespread abuse of human rights, much loss of life, and rape and torture. Many disappeared, with their families having no idea as to their fate. The families feel that they can never have closure until they know what happened to their loved ones. We know from the history of Ireland how devastating that can be.

In May last year there was a significant increase in tension and great fear in the population in the Punjab when it was believed that Professor Bhullar and Balwant Singh Rajoana would be executed and the authorities instituted a major crackdown. The concern at the fear expressed in the Punjab manifested itself here most visibly in the sea of orange flags in the midlands showing solidarity with their fellow Sikhs. Lord King, a moderate figure who was by no means hostile to India, visited family in the Punjab at that time. I remember him describing graphically the concerns and fears of those in his community there.

More recently, that concern has resurfaced with the case of Balwant Singh and the possibility of his being hanged, especially following the regrettable end of the informal moratorium and the recent executions of Mohammad Afzal Guru and Ajmal Kasab. The Minister will know of the concern in the Kashmiri community about whether they received adequate representation at their trials.

As a former Minister with responsibility for the armed forces, aviation and Northern Ireland, let me be clear that the Opposition oppose terrorism. India and other countries on the Indian sub-continent have suffered grievously from terrorism—the Minister rightly drew attention to the atrocities in Mumbai—but executing Balwant Singh, Professor Bhullar and others would not end terrorism, but instead damage the image of India, which has been making huge progress on being considered rightly as a modern progressive state with a major role in the world.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has rightly identified the concerns of the German courts at the decision to deport Professor Bhullar. Will the Minister in this instance expand on his reply to the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)? My understanding is that the long-standing and consistent policy of the British Government under all parties is that we will not deport someone to another country where there is a risk of them being executed. I am offering the Minister the opportunity to clarify that for the hon. Gentleman and the House.

[Mr Swire]

We have no standing extradition treaty with India. I shall repeat what I have said: we would look at those things on a case-to-case basis.

[Mr Spellar]

I am slightly astonished at that.

[Mike Gapes]

Is it not a fact that, when countries have the death penalty—for example, the United States—the British Government must seek an assurance that it would not apply? Otherwise, the courts in this country will never allow anybody to be extradited to countries when there is a risk of the death penalty. The Home Office has had problems over many years in getting people out of this country because of the bad human rights records of many countries around the world.

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

When I say that it is a regional issue, I do not mean that the rest of the world is not concerned about it. It is a matter to be resolved by the countries in the region. That is the important point. Of course we have been talking to the parties involved and have urged them to seek peaceful and co-operative solutions in accordance with international law, including in accordance with the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, so we will continue to take that role.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The rising economic importance of Asia is widely acknowledged, as well as the importance of those sea lanes, not only to the Asian economy but to the European and the wider world economy. I concur with the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell)—this cannot be just a matter of regional importance, especially with the increasing level of defence equipment expenditure taking place in that region. Can we therefore look at ensuring that the disputes are resolved through international law and not through military action?

[Mr Hague]

The latter point is very important and absolutely right, but the best role that the United Kingdom can play in order to contribute to that is to do the sorts of things that I described. I do not think that the United Kingdom taking a position on the strength of various claims would serve very well our objective of trying to bring about a peaceful resolution, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of that.

Attacks on Civilians (Burma)

Lord Spellar Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I specifically asked this morning about the engagement of international aid agencies. As my hon. Friend will know only too well, the circumstances of engagement on the ground depend very much on security and everything else, but I was assured that international agencies are still working there. I am not currently in a position to say whether that includes our colleagues in DFID working alongside the ICRC or working to provide support, but as a result of my hon. Friend’s question I will make sure that the question is asked again. Ensuring that this aid is delivered directly is absolutely crucial in the circumstances.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) highlighted, Labour Members have been deeply concerned by the escalation of tensions in Kachin state over the past month and by the reports overnight that three civilians have been killed and at least four wounded—attacks that must be condemned. Despite how far Burma has come over the past year, the violence in Kachin state serves as a reminder to the international community of the further progress that it must make. Does the Minister think that the UK has put sufficient pressure on the Burmese Government over the past year to bring an end to the conflict?

I thank the Minister for his report on the discussions held by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), but will he tell us in a bit more detail what contacts the Foreign Office has had with colleagues in the EU and the UN to concert international action?

There are disputed reports about the Government’s convoy to Kachin in December, which the rebels claimed contained ammunition. Has the Foreign Office been able to verify these claims and whether its destination was the army base?

There are also reports that Laiza residents are having to dig trenches and build shelters to try to protect themselves from the military’s attacks. Has the Foreign Office discussed with DFID and with international counterparts what immediate assistance can be provided to protect civilians?

As the Minister will be aware, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has called on the Burmese Government and the Kachin independence army to resume negotiations, and their spokesman has confirmed that

“China has already taken measures necessary to step up control over the border area and protects the lives and property of the border people”.

Has the UK made contact with China to discuss these more recent developments and the plight of Kachin civilians fleeing the violence? Does the Minister have an indication of what these “measures” constitute? Human Rights Watch has reported that China has in fact forced Kachin refugees back to Burma and was denying international humanitarian agencies access to the refugees in Yunnan province. What assessment has the FCO made of the treatment of the displaced and the options for those now escaping the violence? Will the Government work with the international community to ensure that Kachin civilians can access humanitarian support?

The immediate priority must be the welfare of those civilians and an end to the attacks, so what, in the Minister’s assessment, are the prospects for a ceasefire? Will the Government make it categorically clear that we will not tolerate air strikes and helicopter gunship attacks and that we will support the call on 2 January from the UN Secretary-General to the Burmese authorities to desist from any action that could endanger the lives of civilians living in the area?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, which covered a range of areas that obviously concern the House significantly. We share with him and the House a sense of condemnation following the deaths of civilians, as well as their concern about the resurgence of hostilities. We have indeed made it clear to the Burmese authorities that there should be an immediate ceasefire and that hostilities should stop. There is no possibility of the political reconciliation process being able to take place until that happens. We therefore continue to make representations to both sides, because this is a complex issue that has many sides and we want to make representations to ensure that they play their part and that, when hostilities cease, there is a proper opportunity for the necessary political dialogue.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there had been sufficient political persuasion by the United Kingdom over the past year. My sense of the evidence of the progress that has been made comes from the visit of the Minister of State and the contacts that he has, as well as from the obvious progress that has been made in Burma in a variety of ways to ease the situation in different areas. However, as soon as one situation flares up again, we have to question that progress, and the House can be assured that we will continue to exert pressure.

It is obvious that progress must continue to be made if Burma is to resume its place among the rest of the nations. It understands that very well, and the forthcoming Foreign Affairs Council in April will accordingly be of huge significance. We will certainly expect to see further progress by then. In relation to that, contact is of course constantly maintained with partners in the European Union and the United Nations, and we certainly supported the calls made by the Secretary-General at the beginning of the year for a rapid end to hostilities. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the claims made by the KIA. I have received no details of their verification at this stage. He also asked about the preparations for a military attack, and that does indeed form a vital part of the consideration about humanitarian relief and assistance in those circumstances. That matter has indeed been raised.

As I said in answer to a previous question, we are well aware that China has been returning refugees because it classes them as economic migrants, rather than as people fleeing conflict, which would appear to the United Kingdom to be the more obvious way of classing those who are fleeing across the borders. We do indeed make representations to China that it should act responsibly and provide proper humanitarian care to those who are seeking relief from the violence and conflict. None of that will have any impact, however, unless work is done between the KIA and the Burmese Government to settle the issue. We will continue to make representations to the Chinese, but settling the issue is very much the most important thing.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the prospects for a ceasefire. We would hope that, following the international pressure that has been brought to bear as a result of the incidents of recent weeks, and particularly those that took place over the weekend, the Burmese Government will take note of how seriously those incidents are being seen in foreign capitals around the world, notwithstanding the fact that the greatest tragedy is that being inflicted on those who are suffering the violence. That violence must cease so that a proper political process can take place.