Universal Health Coverage

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask hon. Members to keep Back-Bench speeches to around seven minutes. That will enable me to call everyone to speak. I call Stephen Twigg.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson.

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing this important debate and pay tribute to him. In my experience—even though I have been here only two years––he was one of the most thoughtful members of the Government, and it is a pity to see him on the Back Benches.

The debate is timely, given the year of opportunity ahead of us, with the high-level meeting in September and the various health financing moments between now and the end of 2020. The concept of universal health coverage is so valuable because it recognises how all health interventions interlink.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said, a strong immune system can only be developed with good nutrition. Without a strong immune system, vaccines and medicines are far less effective, and people are more vulnerable to disease. People living with diseases such as HIV or diabetes are more susceptible to developing other diseases, such as tuberculosis. At this juncture, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It was a pleasure to join my hon. Friend out in Geneva last month.

I will focus the majority of my remarks on nutrition, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for growth. I will reflect on our recent visit to agencies of the Geneva-based World Health Organisation and the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organisation to discuss universal health coverage and the various challenges faced by Governments and civil society in achieving it. It was fascinating to see the steps being taken to achieve universal health coverage, but I was struck by the number of challenges.

One significant challenge to overcome is political ownership of health interventions. Here in the UK—the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) touched on this—where parties jostle and compete at election time to express their support for and admiration of the NHS, it is easy to forget that in many parts of the world healthcare remains politically sensitive. Even more politically sensitive are investments in preventive measures such as nutrition, which, if done right, reduce the burden on health systems and so, in the long run, the funding that they require.

Despite that, the deputy director-general of the World Health Organisation told us that 95% to 97% of health budgets are still spent on institutions such as hospitals. Through the high-level meeting, the UK Government have an opportunity to encourage Governments around the world to invest more and smarter in preventive health measures such as nutrition. Will the Minister do what he can to ensure that strong wording to that effect is woven through the political declaration of the high-level meeting?

Another challenge is the siloed approach to healthcare that we see even in this Chamber, with different Members, including me, focusing on different areas of interest. A degree of siloing is perhaps inevitable, but the Government can help to break down the silos in a number of ways. First, DFID should use its position of leadership at various health multilaterals, such as Gavi, the Global Fund and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, to encourage organisations to work together and to add nutrition elements to their programmes. DFID should also take steps to embed nutrition more effectively across its portfolio. Nutrition elements should be woven into the fabric of all DFID’s health programmes in order to gain maximum impact from each intervention. Lastly, the UK Government should apply that holistic view of healthcare to their own investments.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, there will be multiple health financing moments over the course of the next year. Politically, it is vital at the moment, despite the turmoil and a lot of changes, that every single Member of this House gets behind that, so that health does not become a political football. I hope that it does not.

Globally co-ordinated initiatives such as Nutrition for Growth, and multilaterals such as the Global Fund, Gavi and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, are proven to be highly effective, and they offer value for money for the UK taxpayer. All those investments complement each other, and are the building blocks to achieving universal health coverage. Likewise, failure to invest in any one block compromises the effectiveness of the others. DFID should invest ambitiously and equitably as each of those moments comes up—as it already has done for the Global Fund—and encourage others to do likewise.

As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said, the UK is well respected as a major donor when it comes to global health, and it should not shy away from wielding that influence to encourage others to step up in the campaign for universal health coverage. I hope that the Minister will take on board my recommendations, and I look forward to his response.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Before I call the first Front-Bench spokesperson, I will say that I would like to leave two minutes at the end for the mover of the motion to wind up.

Department for International Development

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for approving this debate today. I would also like to put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Witham (Priti Patel) and the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for helping me to prepare for this debate; the experience they have and the work they have done is admirable.

I have long had an interest in international development, and I think probably it comes from the fact that I certainly feel very lucky to have been born in this country. I did nothing to deserve to be born in this country. We have food, we have clean water, we have medical services, and we have education, which very many people across the world do not have; in other words, we have the building blocks to be able to progress in our lives and to normally live beyond childhood, while many in the world do not have that opportunity.

I would go as far as to say that my interest in international development and in trying to help the world’s poorest people was one of my main motivations for wanting to enter the House of Commons in the first place, and I have had the privilege of being able to witness the effects of the aid that the United Kingdom has provided. I am aware it goes across the world, but my particular interest has been in Africa and I have the honour of being chairman of the all-party group on Ethiopia and Djibouti. I have been to some very rural areas in Ethiopia as well as the cities and have seen the benefits our aid brings to so very many people.

We should look at the achievements we have made in this country through our official development assistance fund, which is now, I am very proud to say, 0.7% of our gross national income. We have donated more than £77 billion since 2013, when we set that target.

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

I am glad that my hon. Friend has introduced the debate in this way. He has mentioned the 0.7%, and if anyone says that we cannot afford 70p out of every £100 of our wealth, they are wrong. We should be able to look after our own people and make this contribution to meet the United Nations target, which we have started to meet rather late but before most other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For a prosperous country—we are supposed to be the fifth largest economy in the world—that is a small amount to be asked to pay, but it has an enormous impact across the world.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wholeheartedly agree with what has just been said. Our aid has made a huge impact. Under both Labour and Conservative Governments, there has been cross-party consensus on this. It is one of the few issues on which we have consensus in this House, and it is a good job we do, because it has made a huge difference. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS, and our aid through institutions such as the Global Fund has made a huge difference. I want to commend the Government for their fantastic announcement of £1.4 billion for the Global Fund in recent days. In 2000, when I was starting to work on these issues, there were only 2 million people globally receiving antiretroviral treatment for HIV; today, that figure is 22 million. This is literally life-saving treatment that we have been able to provide through our aid.

[Mr Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the cross-party support for this issue in the House. The 0.7% target goes back a very long time, and I am pleased that it was a Conservative-led Government who actually reached it, but it would be churlish not to recognise the work that Tony Blair did, for example, in highlighting the issue, and I am pleased to do so. Many other leading politicians have also done work on this. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, and I will come back to it in just a minute.

I mentioned the fact that we had given that £77 billion in aid since 2013, but what does that actually mean? It means that we have helped more than 1 billion children across the world to get an education, as well as helping more than 37 million children to be immunised and more than 40 million people to have access to clean water. These are things that we in this country take for granted, but our aid has helped people in those ways across the world and I am very proud of that.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that a particularly important facet of our investment in children’s education has been the investment in the education of girls? If we invest in girls’ futures, we invest in the future of the whole community and the whole country. Does he agree that the efforts we have made in that regard have been admirable and must be sustained and indeed increased?

[Mr Robertson]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady on that point; I am glad that she has raised it. In rural areas in Ethiopia, I have witnessed situations in which girls have had to walk a number of miles every day to collect water to bring back to their families. That is neither sustainable nor efficient. It keeps the girls away from school, it prevents any progress from being made in the neighbourhood and it is wrong. We have to do a lot more to help in those situations. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady on that. Of course it is important that boys and girls attend school, and there are distractions to keep boys and girls from attending school in such countries, but we really have to address that and get over it; otherwise, we will not make the kind of progress that we want to make.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, particularly in his focus on education. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on disability. Does he agree that in many developing countries, children with disabilities still find it too challenging to get to school and that we must focus on those extremely vulnerable children, who are often kept behind closed doors and never seen? We must ensure that they get every opportunity in life and that, in line with the sustainable development goals, we leave no one behind.

[Mr Robertson]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady makes an extremely good and useful intervention. As many hon. Members have done, I have seen the disabilities that some children have that prevent them from attending school or from doing very much in life, really. For example, we see children who cannot stand up because their limbs are damaged, and children with cataracts who are blind because they cannot get a simple operation. That situation really is unacceptable. So, if our aid can help reduce such incidents, it really is worth doing. We have to increase aid, and we have to improve so much.

It is a sad fact that we are one of only eight countries that actually meet the aid target. Other countries do give a lot of money, but few actually meet the target, and we need to work with and encourage others to do so. The situation is a bit like reducing emissions in this country, because we produce only 2% of the world’s emissions, but if other countries are not going to play their part, we are not going to get the progress that we need. The situation is exactly the same with aid.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

It is appropriate to follow up on the contribution from the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), because our international aid and development programmes are largely centred in East Kilbride. That is yet more evidence of the strength and vitality of this Union that we enjoy and the blessing that it is across the face of the earth.

[Mr Robertson]

Absolutely. I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker would not want me to go too far down that road, but it is a good point.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also in our national interests to keep up our investment in international aid? By making poorer countries more stable, we improve the world’s stability. By tackling diseases, we stop them spreading to our own country. If we are to fight climate change, we need to fight it globally. Aid is not just the right thing to do morally, but it is in our interests to continue it.

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We could take things even further because, in the commercial sense, if countries across the world are richer, that affords us new markets as well, which is in addition to the humanitarian reasons for aid that she rightly outlines.

DFID’s budget is around the £14 billion mark. While it is certainly a small part of our overall income, as was raised earlier, it is still a considerable amount of money. The aid budget has its critics and criticisms, of course, and I will come on to one or two of them, because some may be valid. Perhaps we can improve matters, and we should certainly never be satisfied with where we are, because we can always do better. We all have constituents who point out that some of our schools and our police are short of money, so if we are going to spend money abroad, helping people who are not from this country, then we must ensure that we spend it wisely and effectively, and this estimates day debate is about addressing the budget in the wider sense.

It is worth touching on exactly how aid works. This may come as a surprise to some, but DFID itself spends around 75% of the aid budget, with the other 25% being spent by other Departments, such as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for Health and Social Care and the Home Office, and other outside organisations. Some of the aid that we provide is bilateral and some is multilateral, and I will come on to the difference in a minute.

The National Audit Office report, which came out just a few days ago, says that most of our aid is going to the right places and having a great effect, but it did point out that there is room for improvement. As I go through one or two areas in which we can improve, the observations that I will make are not in any way a criticism of our approach of our aid policy because, as the House has heard, I am supportive of it.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. He is making a good point, but does he not agree that part of the reason why DFID is so good at focusing its share of the aid is that it is a discrete Department and not just part of another bigger Department? Does he share my concern that some right hon. and hon. Members have talked about amalgamating DFID into the FCO? Will he perhaps commit on the House’s behalf to talk to the candidates for the leader of the Conservative party to assure the House that DFID will continue no matter who wins the upcoming contest?

[Mr Robertson]

The hon. Lady raises a good point. I think it was Tony Blair who set up the separate Department, which provided it with focus. Thinking back before that, however, most right hon. and hon. Members would acknowledge the excellent work carried out by Baroness Chalker, even though the Department was then within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

I suppose there are two ways of looking at it. When I travel and meet DFID officials abroad, I often meet officials from the FCO, and maybe also from other Departments linked to it. Overall, I agree with the hon. Lady that this is such an important subject, and it obviously should have close ties to the Foreign Office, and probably to other Departments, too. As I say, 25% of the overseas aid budget is spent by other Departments, so there has to be a close link. I am probably persuaded that that should be the case. I will talk to the successful leadership candidate, whoever they are, about this issue in due course.

I mentioned that other Departments spend about 25% of the aid budget, and that proportion has increased significantly—it was 11.4% in 2013. That spending can be a good thing, because it draws on the expertise of those other Departments. In certain cases, money is provided that might not have been so quickly forthcoming if those Departments had to queue outside the Treasury for it.

However, the spending raises the question of whether these other Departments quite have DFID’s experience and expertise in delivering aid. The Department of Health and Social Care, for example, might be expert in handling health-related issues—I am sure it is—but DFID has that experience of delivering projects abroad. There is a question mark over whether we have got to the right level. Hopefully the Minister will give us some guidance.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way again. Does he agree that that underlines the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on the importance of having DFID leading on this? DFID has that expertise and experience as a separate Department and, actually, some of the criticisms levelled by the National Audit Office and others—I am not an aid purist, and some important aid spending needs to be done in conjunction with other Departments, such as through the Stabilisation Unit, International Climate Finance and other institutions —have been levelled at spending when it has been done well but without the remit of DFID. We need to see DFID in a leading role, using its expertise to ensure our money is spent effectively.

[Mr Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I look forward to hearing whether the Minister thinks that 25% of the budget being spent by other Departments is about right, too high or too low. I have not necessarily come with answers. I am asking as many questions as I am giving answers, but that is the nature of this debate.

This spending also raises the question of transparency, because the other Departments do not have the same legislative requirements. For example, the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act 2006 requires DFID to report to Parliament on where the money is spent, but other Departments are not covered by the Act.

The targeting of aid is something else that concerns some people. In 2017, the last year for which figures are available, DFID spent 66% of its bilateral aid budget on the world’s poorest countries, but the other Departments spent only 25% of their bilateral budgets on the least developed countries. There are always explanations and more details behind these figures but, on the face of it, we need to look at it and ask questions.

Through bilateral aid, we have complete control of the projects we fund; and through multilateral aid, we work with other agencies and do not have the same control, and the priorities of those other agencies might be slightly different from ours. There are different nuances within each of those headings, too. This is never a simple subject.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Before the hon. Gentleman launches into multilateral aid, may I take him back to the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)? In my experience, since 2010 it is the Treasury that has been the principal driver of other Departments increasingly being allowed to count some of their spending as international development spend. To what extent has the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) already had conversations with Treasury Ministers about the comprehensive spending review they are preparing for the next Conservative Prime Minister? I suspect the Treasury has already done work to try to identify ways to get that 25% figure even higher.

[Mr Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I have not had those discussions with the Treasury, but they are certainly discussions we will need to have. I raise this with the Minister to find out her view, because this is increasing quite a lot—it has more than doubled in the past few years, so the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point. This is why I make the point about spending in the countries that most need it and targeting it at the poorest people in the world. That is what most people would want us to do. There can be knock-on effects that come to this country, but the primary concern must be about helping the world’s poorest people.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

On the comment just made by the former International Development Minister from the Opposition, surely the issue is not just the 0.7% but the rules. Any expenditure undertaken by other Departments must of course be within the rules; otherwise, the Treasury would have a fit, as it would have to find the additional money if spending were undertaken outside those rules. The important thing is that this expenditure should be well spent—a point I hope to make if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. It does not matter which Department is spending any expenditure that falls within the rules that Britain has accepted so long as it is spent well.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He has expert knowledge of this issue. We had a meeting before this debate and it could have gone on a lot longer because we discussed so very many things. Where this spending goes does matter, and it does matter that there is accountability and transparency. That is the important point.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

What concerns me is the issue of which partners we use to deliver our aid. DFID has great relationships with large trusted partners, but I am always concerned that smaller, more effective organisations operating in the most dangerous places, such as the Hands Up Foundation, do not get the funding and support from DFID that they need. Does my hon. Friend agree on that?

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. It is very important to consider the partners we use. Accusations are made that some of the partners—the intermediaries—might take too big a chunk of the money before that money gets to ground level, and there are concerns about that. With multilateral aid, who we deal with is certainly one of the issues. Sometimes these bodies do not have the same priorities as we have.

[Victoria Prentis]

rose—

[Mr Robertson]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will deal with this immediately. The bilateral aid of DFID was 62.6%, as against multilateral aid of 37.4%, and this has remained steady over the past few years. However, that is still a lot of money going on aid that we do not fully control. There are some good projects out there. The World Food Programme is an excellent example of multilateral aid that saves lives. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) mentioned the money going to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and today we had the announcement of this being £467 million a year. As I understand it, that is multilateral aid, so there are some excellent projects we are involved in, but there are delays in reporting by the multilateral agencies, which impedes our ability to analyse the work they do.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman, an old friend, knows of my passion for cutting road deaths worldwide; this is the biggest killer, especially of children and young people, and mainly of poorer ones. He knows of my role as chair of the World Health Organisation’s Global Network for Road Safety Legislators. Does he agree that bilateral and multilateral approaches are both good in the right contexts and with the right partners? We are doing work in the real target countries, and in some countries this can be bilateral but often we are looking for a number of partners.

[Mr Robertson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, to whom I pay tribute for all his work in that respect. I shall come back to that issue in a moment.

Let me turn to the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). It has identified some spending by, for example—this is only an example, and it is not the only one—the Newton Fund, which the commission said

“is not promoting the best use of ODA and some projects appear not to be within the ODA definition.”

That is of some concern. The commission lists some of the projects about which it is concerned. Sometimes when one looks into the projects and gets into the details, one finds they actually do help people who need help, but the headlines that they receive do not necessarily suggest that. Nevertheless, we have to be careful, because we all have constituents who want to see that their hard-earned money they pay in taxes goes to the right target.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has just made an important point. It is absolutely right that we fund multilateral projects, and some of the organisations involved, such as the UN, are huge. In respect of the big multilateral projects it is easy to pick on the tiniest point about where some aid might go and blow that up into a huge headline, and that is what our constituents hear. We are not going to change that in the press—the newspapers will not print a headline that says, “All the planes took off on time yesterday”—but it is the House’s responsibility to emphasise exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which enables me to move to another point. Contrary to what is sometimes said, we do not actually finance corrupt dictators in other countries. Another point raised—I have taken so many interventions that I cannot remember who made it—was that it can be difficult to get aid to the people who need it most. For example, people who live in war-torn countries are going to be desperate and will need help of one form or another. The people who live in countries with very poor Governments that have dictatorships need help. It is not the dictator who needs it, but the people who live in those countries certainly do need help. The trick is to get under the radar to help those people, but that should not be confused with the financing of wicked dictators. The two situations are different.

[Gareth Thomas]

Is not another benefit of multilateral aid that it enables a country such as Britain to help by combining with other countries to get significant sums of money to the poorest people, with a minimum impact on that country? I think of a country such as Ghana, which has lots of poor people and a civil service with nothing like the capacity that our great civil service has. Imagine if all 27 EU countries that give money through the European development fund suddenly decided that they wanted not to give money to Ghana through Europe but to do it themselves. The Ghanaian civil service would suddenly have to deal with all those 27-plus reporting lines. Is not one of the benefits of multilateral aid that it minimises the administrative burden of getting aid to the very poorest in the country in question?

[Mr Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Of course, countries working together has to be the way forward, but the system really does have to be accountable, transparent and delivered efficiently and effectively. When it is those things, it is obvious that countries working together is a good thing.

All that takes me to another point: we all want humanitarian assistance to be provided—I certainly do, and we certainly do provide it—and it is easy to justify that, but we also want to see countries being given the building blocks and facilities to develop. The hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) gave the example of the civil servants in Ghana. Tax-raising and collecting authorities in such countries are important. The problem is that it is sometimes difficult to explain to our constituents the difference between development aid and humanitarian aid. It is not always easily understood. It is important that we help countries to build the capacity to move forward. The old adage about giving a man or woman a fish and feeding them for a day or teaching them how to fish so that they can feed themselves for a lifetime is absolutely right. We have to find ways to do that, or we will never make the progress in the world that we all want to see.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

On that important aim, let me say that, like me, the hon. Gentleman probably attended the Fairtrade Fortnight event, which looked at the impact that DFID has when it works with developing countries to ensure that producers receive fair prices for cocoa through the She Deserves campaign. Does he agree that that kind of intervention is vital not just at a governmental level but at an individual level, ensuring that families, and women in particular, are able to support and sustain their families?

[Mr Robertson]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady. We have had campaigns in this country to get fair milk prices for our farmers, so it is certainly right that we should ensure that farmers and traders in other countries get fair trade as well as fair prices. It is very, very important indeed.

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman is being very kind in giving way. He will know the sterling work that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) has done in this area. She, like all of us here, absolutely believes not only in tackling world poverty but in the absolute scrutiny and accountability that go with it. For all of us in this field, they are our watchwords, our doctrine. When the newspapers accuse us of being do-gooders who do not care, it is just not true. My hon. Friend is a champion of that sort of scrutiny.

[Mr Robertson]

It is right that we do scrutinise things and that we do demand transparency, but it is also right that we put things in perspective as well. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman.

I want to try to draw my remarks to a close, because, presumably, lots of hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak. In summary, I want to see an increase in the amounts going to the least developed countries and an increase in transparency, certainly in non-DFID and multilateral spending. I also want us to have a bit more control over, and understanding of, where the multi- lateral aid actually goes. We need to be aware that when we leave the European Union—and I will say “when”—we will get something like 10% of our budget back. We then have to decide where that goes. I am sure that there is no shortage of places or projects for which we want to provide.

In conclusion, I am very proud of our aid budget and of the fact that we have saved and transformed so many lives. The suggestions that I have made and the queries that I have raised today in no way challenge my commitment to our aid budget, but I want to make sure that we help even more people even more effectively than we already are. Most people want to see the United Kingdom, one of the richest countries in the world, helping the poorest people in the world, but they do have a right to make sure that their hard-earned money—it is not our money, it is theirs—actually goes to the people who need it the most. Much of it already does, but I think that all of it needs to do so. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate.

Colombia Peace Process

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I have not been to Colombia, which is something I hope to put right in the near future. Is my hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that American extradition is used as a threat against people who are part of the peace process? Will she, through the Minister, appeal to the Americans to review the use of extradition as a threat to people who have played an active role in bringing the peace process to the point it is at today?

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. There are two further Members who want to speak, and I want to start the Front-Bench speeches at 3.30.

[Jo Stevens]

Thank you, Mr Robertson. I will wrap up with a few questions to the Minister. I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Minister will address it. It was one of the things I was going to ask him about.

I have three questions. Will the Minister make representations to the Colombian Government about the conditions in which Jesus Santrich is being held, and particularly about the lack of access to disability aids? Will he also impress on them the absolute right of lawyers to visit, to prepare a case for the JEP? I take on board the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). Finally, Senator Victoria Sandino, another FARC senator, is visiting the UK at the end of the month. She led on gender and equality aspects of the peace agreement. A request has been made to the Minister’s office for him to meet Senator Sandino. If he could say something positive on that, it would be welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. I would like to leave two minutes at the end for Mr Bryant to wind up the debate.

Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism

Laurence Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to take steps to obtain the required international authority to use a proportion of the assets of the Libyan Government that were frozen in the UK to compensate the relatives of people murdered and injured as a result of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism and to fund community support programmes in areas affected by that terrorism.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate and all right hon. and hon. Members, and indeed the Minister, for attending a debate on a subject that should have been finalised and closed a long time ago.

During my time as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we had the opportunity of holding an inquiry into Her Majesty’s Government’s support for UK victims of IRA attacks that used Gaddafi-supplied Semtex and weapons. That was an opportunity not only to hear from the victims of those attacks and the families of those who, sadly and tragically, lost their lives, but to draw attention to a series of missed opportunities to secure compensation for those victims. Today, we call on the Government to make amends for the inaction of previous Governments by securing justice for those victims and their relatives.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that it is very timely given the Attorney General’s statement earlier, which revealed—and it may be entirely justified—that a Libyan citizen who was wronged by this Government has received £500,000 in compensation?

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As I get deeper into my speech, I will refer to other compensation awards, but the Government should certainly follow that guiding principle.

The role of the Libyan Government in bolstering the activities of the Provisional IRA should not be understated. When he appeared before the Select Committee, the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Jack Straw, stated:

“In the 1980s and early 1990s, Libya was probably the most serious state sponsor of terrorism in the world.”

Those were very strong words. From the early 1970s through to the 1990s, the Gaddafi regime in Libya supplied arms, funding, training and explosives to the Provisional IRA, which is accepted by many to have both extended and worsened the troubles.

Through a series of shipments that took place in the mid-1980s, the regime supplied the Provisional IRA with up to 10 tonnes of Semtex, a highly powerful and virtually undetectable plastic explosive. The Semtex supplied made possible a deadly bombing campaign from the late 1980s, resulting in a horrific loss of life across Northern Ireland and the mainland. These include the attacks in Enniskillen, where a bomb was detonated that killed 11 people during a Remembrance Sunday ceremony, the bombings in Warrington that resulted in the deaths of two children—Tim Parry and Johnathan Ball—and the attack at docklands in this city, where a bomb killed two people and injured about 100 more. This is to name just a few of the atrocities carried out by the Provisional IRA using the Libyan-supplied Semtex. It does not come close to illustrating the extent of the devastation caused. While that loss of life is a tragedy, those attacks also had far-reaching implications for those who were injured and for the families and loved ones of those who sadly lost their lives.

During our inquiry, many victims emphasised not only the physical effects of the attacks, but the emotional, psychological and financial difficulties caused. The testimonies of those victims have been highlighted in previous debates, but it would be valuable to the House to consider them once more, to illustrate the sheer loss, heartache and pain caused by those attacks.

Colin Parry, whose 12-year-old son, Tim, died following the Warrington bombings in 1993, told the Committee:

“Describing the final moments of your child’s life is beyond words…because, as a parent, there is no greater pain or loss than the death of your child.”

Suzanne Dodd’s father was the inspector on duty on the day of the Harrods bombing. She told the Committee that, on the day of the attack, she and her siblings had been waiting for their father to come home to put up the Christmas tree when their mother told them that there had been a bomb at Harrods and that their father would be late. It emerged that her father had been seriously injured. Her mother returned from hospital on Christmas eve, telling Suzanne and her siblings that her father had died.

The urgency of this issue is possibly best illustrated by Mrs Gemma Berezzag, whose husband was left blind, paralysed and brain damaged by the docklands bombing. For 20 years she cared for her husband’s complex needs on a daily basis. She sadly passed away in 2016, before any resolution could be found. I ask the Government: how many more individuals affected by those atrocities will not see justice in their lifetime? Those cases provide only a snapshot of the suffering caused by Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism, and time is running out for many of the victims.

Losing any loved one through natural causes is bad enough. Losing someone through an accident is perhaps even more shocking, but how much worse must it be when that life has been deliberately taken through terrorism? Add to that grief the involvement of a foreign, rogue state, and the victims’ relatives and friends must suffer more than any of us could ever imagine.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard how victims have been repeatedly let down by successive Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments, owing to their failure adequately to pursue compensation on their behalf. At times, it seemed that during periods of improved relations the concerns of victims were secondary to other considerations. The Committee concluded that there had been a series of missed opportunities to raise the issue of compensation, particularly during a period of deepening relations between the UK and Libya in the 2000s.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on a sensitive and important issue. Has he any evidence that the current Government have intensified their efforts to obtain compensation from the Libyan Government for all those victims of IRA-sponsored terrorism not just in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom?

[Mr Robertson]

The hon. Lady is a valuable and active member of the Committee and she took part in the inquiry to which I refer. I will touch on the issue she raised in a moment because it is a very important point.

In the 2000s, compensation was secured for the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims, and in 2004 we had the first visit to Libya by a British Prime Minister for 60 years. That visit was accompanied by the announcement that Shell had signed an agreement worth up to £550 million for gas exploration rights off the coast of Libya, yet there was still no sign of compensation for these victims. For our inquiry, the extent to which the Government of the day were aware of the campaign to seek compensation is unclear. Nevertheless, I believe the UK Government missed a vital opportunity during this period of improved relations to act on behalf of IRA victims.

The situation is even more disheartening for victims when we look to the achievements of the US, French and German Governments in securing compensation for their citizens. Because of the French Government’s threat to veto the lifting of UN sanctions on Libya, Libya agreed to pay the French Government $170 million in respect of the 170 people killed following the bombing of UTA flight 772 in 1989.

The Committee also examined the exclusion of the UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism from the terms of the US-Libya claim settlement agreement in 2008 as another missed opportunity for UK victims. Although the then UK Government claimed they had made representations to the US for the victims’ inclusion, we received no evidence of the level at which they had been made and with what force. It was explained that the US was unable to include UK victims in the agreement for several legal reasons, including that neither international law nor US law allows the US to espouse the claims of foreign nationals. However, this was contested during Committee evidence sessions, when it was suggested that that was not a matter of law but rather a matter of US Government policy. My primary concern, however, is the actions of the UK Government and I do not believe that, on the two occasions I have outlined, enough was done to put forward the claims of victims.

As the Gaddafi regime crumbled in 2011, the UN imposed financial sanctions on several individuals and entities involved in or complicit in the commission of human rights abuses in Libya. In September 2017, it was established that £12 billion of assets from the Gaddafi regime remained frozen within the UK’s jurisdiction. Currently, the UN resolutions, and the EU regulation which enforces them in the UK, provide no option for the UK Government to use frozen Libyan assets for the purposes of compensation. Disappointingly, there is no evidence that the UK Government raised the issue of compensation at the point when the assets were frozen. This is particularly frustrating, as there are precedents for the use of frozen assets to compensate victims. For example, $225 million of former President Marcos’s assets seized in Swiss bank accounts have provided reparations for victims of human rights abuses in the Philippines.

The Select Committee asked the Government to consider the use of frozen assets to compensate victims and to contribute towards community support. At the time, we were very disappointed by the Government’s rejection of recommendations made, and a number of Members, including myself and the new Chairman of the Select Committee, have continued to engage with the Foreign Secretary on this issue. However, to date, the Government have unequivocally ruled out the use of these assets for compensation and the potential use of our veto at the UN Security Council for the purpose of securing compensation. Today, we ask that the Government take a fresh approach to this issue and explore all options available to acquire the international authority to use a proportion of the Libyan assets frozen in this country to compensate victims and to set up support projects in the communities affected.

I do, of course, recognise that there are victims of Gaddafi in Libya, as well as in the UK, and I emphasise that the assets I refer to are the assets of those involved in human rights abuses in Libya and not those of innocent Libyans. The funds seized and frozen in this jurisdiction and across others have a role to play in contributing to the rebuilding of Libyan society and in helping the people who have suffered there to rebuild their lives. However, there is still a responsibility to deal with the legacy of the Gaddafi Government and the pain and suffering caused in the UK. I believe we should pursue these funds to do so.

I am realistic and recognise that since the fall of the Gaddafi regime Libya has faced insecurity and political instability, which has hindered progress on a number of issues, including compensation. I welcome the fact that, when the Foreign Secretary visited Tripoli in May and August last year, he raised this issue with the Prime Minister. To reply to the intervention from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I understand that that is the extent of what happened, although the Minister may correct me on that. I hope that this issue will continue to feature in the discussions that the Government have with the Libyan Government. I ask the Government to pursue this Government-to-Government approach where possible, rather than viewing this as a matter for individuals to deal with themselves. They simply cannot do so. The continued perseverance of the victims and their families shows strength and resolve, but they should not have to pursue this very difficult issue alone, and I ask the Government for their support in that.

When conducting our inquiry, we were repeatedly told by Ministers that it was difficult to move this issue on because there was no functioning Government in Libya to deal with, and as soon as one were established, a more determined approach would be taken. However, that has not happened, and the relatives have suffered for too long. That is why, supported by many hon. Members, we are suggesting today that the Government assess the origin of the frozen assets to determine how much of them were effectively lodged by the then Libyan Government, as opposed to being investments made by private individuals. We suggest that the Government then seek international permission to use those assets to compensate the victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism, to compensate their relatives and to support the communities where the attacks took place.

In the Prime Minister’s address to the Conservative party conference last October, she said that one of her main motivations in politics was to try to “root out injustice”, yet this example of a major injustice remains and rages. Now is the time to act.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

I have been in the House for 21 years, and I do not think I have ever before attended a debate in which I have agreed with every single word that has been said. There is such strength of feeling on this issue, and that is with speakers from four different political parties and, indeed, an independent Member, so the debate has been quite extraordinary.

I will quickly pick up on one or two issues mentioned by the Minister. He acknowledged that the Government intervened on the Lockerbie and Yvonne Fletcher tragedies. However, given that the Government accept that Libya has been involved with supplying arms and Semtex, I do not see why they cannot take up the individual cases we have discussed today. I cannot see the difference. The Minister said that a Libyan Government are not yet in place, but we have been told that for a number of years, and time is passing, so we have to find other ways forward. I thank the Minister for saying that he will explore other avenues throughout the Government.

On the assets, we understand the position, but the motion asks the Government to seek international agreement. Nobody is suggesting that we should break international law. The motion says that we should seek international agreement and co-operation on this issue, and I ask the Minister to take that back and discuss it with his Government colleagues. I am pleased that he is taking forward this issue, and I thank him very much for his response. Finally, all I would ask is that, as far as he can, he keeps me and other Members informed of the progress he is making.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls on the Government to take steps to obtain the required international authority to use a proportion of the assets of the Libyan Government that were frozen in the UK to compensate the relatives of people murdered and injured as a result of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism and to fund community support programmes in areas affected by that terrorism.