Arms Exports and Controls

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

As this will be our last opportunity during this Parliament to debate a report by the Committees on Arms Export Controls, I start by thanking most warmly my colleagues from the four Select Committees who have served on our Committees during this Parliament for the time that they have given, and most particularly for the tenacity that they have brought to our scrutiny of the Government. I also thank our staff who, because they are so few in number, are exceptionally cost-effective. Most particularly I thank the Clerk, Mr Keith Neary, who has given the Committees exemplary service for the greater part of the Parliament during which he has been Clerk.

I am conscious that the increasing width and depth of our Committees’ scrutiny of this key area has imposed a significant additional work load on the four Departments concerned, especially the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, both of which we have visited as Committees to see arms export control procedures in operation. I thank the officials for how they have responded to that increased work load, and I make it clear that in so far as there are shortcomings in those responses, that is entirely a matter for Ministers. That brings me to the two areas of major shortcomings that I must address in opening this debate, both of which relate to what the Committees and I regard as the single most important area of Government policy: the export of weapons and dual-purpose goods that can be used for internal repression.

The previous Government’s arms export control policy was set out in a ministerial written answer on 26 October 2000 by the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). It included a key statement of policy, which remained unchanged throughout the life of that Government:

“An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed…by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression”.—[Official Report, 26 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 200W.]

We spent two years during this Parliament going hither and thither with Ministers on whether they adhered to that policy, had changed it, or were seeking to change it. That was brought to a conclusion this year when the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced the present Government’s arms export control policy in a written ministerial statement on 25 March. When that statement appeared, the previous Government’s policy wording, which I have just quoted, was dropped. Notwithstanding that fact, the Business Secretary said in his statement:

“None of these amendments should be taken to mean that there has been any substantive change in policy.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 10WS.]

Since March, when the Business Secretary gave his written ministerial answer, the Government have made various attempts to downgrade or outright dismiss the key policy wording on arms exports and internal repression in the original ministerial written answer of October 2000. First, in their latest annual report on United Kingdom strategic export controls, which was published in July, the Government chose to describe the wording in question as “the preamble”, even though the word “preamble” does not appear anywhere in the answer given by the right hon. Member for Neath.

Then, in a letter to me on 6 October, the Foreign Secretary tried to maintain that that key wording did not represent a statement of policy at all, saying:

“The text in question did not contain any substantive statement of policy.”

I leave it to hon. Members to judge whether that is the case:

“An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed…by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression”.

That was the statement in the written ministerial answer recorded in Hansard.

I stress to the House that it was the unanimous view of all four Select Committees comprising the Committees on Arms Export Controls that that wording did represent a substantive statement of policy. It was also the view of the right hon. Member for Neath, who came before the Committees to give oral evidence on that very point. When we asked him specifically whether he thought that policy on arms exports and internal repression had changed, he said:

“So I do think the policy has changed. It is a more relaxed approach to arms exports.”

In the light of those facts, as far as the Committees are concerned—we made this clear in our report—only one, regrettable conclusion can be drawn from those important exchanges on arms exports and internal repression: the Government have made a significant change in policy, but have not been prepared to acknowledge that such a change has taken place. I put it formally to the Government that they should consider most carefully whether they should now offer an apology to the Committees and the House for making a change in policy without being prepared to acknowledge that to the Committees.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Hon. Members may be aware that, in terms of development, the UK scores extremely well except on one significant issue: arms exports. That is the issue that drives our ratings down the development index. The Minister might not think that that matters, but will he acknowledge that there is a perception, which the Chair of the Committees is bearing out, that the UK is more inclined than other countries to sell arms to countries and regimes where their use may be questionable? That slightly undermines our reputation for being a pro-development leader.

Commonwealth Day

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

We have to develop our contacts below the parapet. We should be stretching out the hand of friendship to work on contacts and to persuade people so that we can bring those countries to closer assimilation with the Commonwealth’s standards. That will take time, and we cannot plot an exact timetable, but, once gone, countries should not be abandoned and forgotten.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Gambia left voluntarily precisely because it was moving in a direction incompatible with the Commonwealth’s ideals? In one sense, that shows an understanding that we stand for ideals, but leaving the Commonwealth is a pretty cynical annunciation of a country’s unwillingness to conform with those ideals. I agree that we have to find ways of engaging so that, at some time in the future, Gambia can come back and be a better place than it is now.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

There are examples of countries that exited the Commonwealth voluntarily and happily returned some years later, so I do not despair of the possibilities.

The high-profile difficulties, of which we are all too aware, are likely to be besetting our politicians and statesmen. When, as parliamentarians, we understandably dwell on such things, we should balance the picture and remember that there are many organisations in civil society that span the Commonwealth and bind people together in many constructive ways. There are between 90 and 100 such organisations spanning many professions and interests, so it is an ever-intensifying network that, in its own way, vividly illustrates the “team Commonwealth” theme of this year.

We should also acknowledge the work done by other Parliaments and other countries to mark and celebrate the Commonwealth anniversary every March. I have been reminded by the City Remembrancer of what the lord mayor and the City of London corporation, for example, do to involve young people in recognising the Commonwealth and the flying of the flag.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pamela Nash]

The hon. Gentleman has made two good points. He mentioned private conversations. My work through the CPA has allowed me to have such conversations with Members of Parliament and Government Ministers and officials from some of the countries I mentioned, including Uganda. At the time, I found those private conversations to be most helpful in gaining a better understanding of where the movements are coming from. However, with all due respect, in Uganda it has not worked. We have been hearing all the right things—other Members here today will have had those conversations, particularly with Ugandan parliamentarians, and the President and the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament—but we are now in the situation we are in. Although my fears are mainly about Uganda at the moment, I am incredibly concerned about what will happen across the rest of the Commonwealth.

In terms of the possible knock-on effect, it is not always clear what is happening in those countries. I found it difficult to research exactly what the legislation was in some countries and what the changes were. I will use Malawi as an example. President Joyce Banda, who has been a guest of mine in this House, announced in November that she had suspended all laws criminalising homosexuality, but the Malawian Government have recently denied issuing that statement, and the laws criminalising same-sex acts remain in place. We are stuck in a position where we are hearing one thing in private conversations with legislators, but the reality for people on the ground is something very different.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) also raised the role of DFID as a lever to encourage or discourage partner countries on the ground. Although that is possible, in the case of Uganda we do not, as far as I know, provide any direct Government support, as all our money is directed through NGOs and other projects. There is therefore the difficulty of what levers we can use to influence Uganda. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us about what more the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can do in our conversations with Uganda.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

The hon. Lady is making an important and powerful case. Does she accept that gay rights are not our only area of concern? In a number of countries there are also concerns about the rights of women and the right of access to family planning, and the fundamental issue of unsafe abortions. We do not have the right to impose our view on people. We have to find partners within the country with whom we can engage at all levels. She is right to say that the situation is tricky, because if we start trying to use the DFID budget as a lever, the danger is that those countries will turn round and say, “We do not want your aid.” We have to be careful to find a partner we can work with inside the community and give them the support they need.

[Pamela Nash]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has a lot of experience in international development. It is a tricky balance to strike. We should not be frightened of saying what we think, but we must use the correct levers. We should not wield the DFID budget as a weapon but instead should use it to promote the values and beliefs that we have as a nation, the fundamental one of which is universal human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I thank my hon. Friend, who fired the shot for me without my accent, which was helpful.

The Commonwealth is a unique organisation. It is a worldwide family with a mixture of races, religions, languages and creeds based around the United Kingdom and the Queen. As I said, I come from New Zealand, which is a huge supporter of the Commonwealth and the Queen. If the New Zealand magazine, Women’s Weekly, does not have six pictures of the Queen and the royal family, there has been a misprint along the line.

New Zealand has slight republican moments, and I understand that it is considering a slight variation of the flag, but we will see. It will be amusing because Women’s Weekly will battle to keep the flag and I suspect that elderly New Zealand ladies will rally to the cause.

Next door to New Zealand is another Commonwealth nation—a little island called Australia. It has a few republican problems and, if asked, any New Zealander would explain that being Australian is in itself a difficulty, but it seems to overcome that, particularly in the cricket field.

Those two old Commonwealth nations have a huge rivalry, which can be seen on the rugby field. The insults and jokes between them are phenomenal and racist, but every joke can be turned round the other way, so anything a New Zealander says about Australia can be returned the other way round. However, they work extremely closely with the British Commonwealth, particularly when the United Kingdom is under deep threat. With Canada and South Africa, they are the old Commonwealth. They have a Commonwealth link, reinforced by kith and kin, and a two-way flow of tourism and migration going back two centuries, although that is being stemmed now.

My direct knowledge is obviously predominately of New Zealand, although I have lived in the UK longer than I lived there. I occasionally return there for a refresher course in the accent and attitudes. A touch of history may be helpful. New Zealand’s biggest influx of immigration over the past couple of centuries involved people who went there by choice—I am sure I will receive letters from Australians about this—and were not transported there. That can be seen when wandering around New Zealand, because the place names are a mixture of Maori, English, Scottish and Irish, and there are even a few Welsh names. The people there drive on the left. They predominantly speak English or a version of it, and the parliamentary system, although it has only one House, is much the same as that here. In fact, it mimics it even to the building. It is not quite as spectacular and not anywhere near as old, but it does mimic it.

My parents’ and grandparents’ generations talked of the United Kingdom as home and of “going back”. They still do. What intrigued me was that many of them had never been here, but they still talked about going back. They all have close links with this country and they display that in their houses. My parents’ and grandparents’ generations in particular would have on the coffee table in the sitting room—it was a sitting room, not a withdrawing room or drawing room—a fantastic book or two. Those fantastic books are full of photographs, which are dramatic for two reasons. First, they feature the United Kingdom and its beautiful scenery. The second and even more amazing thing is that the photographs were taken on sunny days. How the photographers managed to get 50, 60 or a couple of hundred sunny days to take fantastic photos beggars belief, especially after the last few months.

The close rapport between the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia is perhaps emphasised most in the farming communities. There are very close links, including educational links, both ways between the farmers, but perhaps it is more educational for the farmers from this country. One of my colleagues in this place asked me whether I could find a farm—he was thinking of a farm in this country, as I belong to the National Farmers Union—for his daughter to spend her gap year on before going to veterinary school. She needed a very good and unusual entry—a star entry—on farming on her CV to get into vet school. I ignored the thought that the farm would be here and rang New Zealand. I spoke to one of the high-country farmers I know there. They said, “Yes, we’d love to take her here—kith and kin etc.” She was over the moon, until she arrived and suddenly realised what she had taken on. The farm has barley, lucerne hay and so on, 1,000 head of cattle, 1,000 head of deer and 23,000 lambing ewes, so when they have lambed—this is the farm I came from—there are 50,000 woolly beasts running around the place. That my colleague’s daughter went there was an example of kith and kin. She had a hard time for the first couple of weeks and then settled into it and came back really educated. She staggered the people who interviewed her for veterinary school, and walked straight in.

Of course, the biggest example of kith and kin is seen at times of conflict. We have the first world war commemoration coming up. In that war, there was the battle of Gallipoli, which led to Anzac day. Here, Remembrance day is important. It is covered on television. Anzac day in Australia and New Zealand is the same. Interestingly, the young people in Australia and New Zealand now go to the remembrance celebration there. They used not to do that in the past. The people of those countries remember the soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought for the United Kingdom as part of the Commonwealth.

I found this hard to understand as a child. My little village—it was a little village, in the north of the south island—had a war memorial. In typical New Zealand style, people were pragmatic about it. It was a superb memorial, but of course they had public toilets underneath it, because they had to use the space there for something useful. The walls of the memorial—one can see this at any of the memorials in Australia and New Zealand, but particularly at the war memorial in Canberra—were covered with the names of the soldiers who had died, and there were hundreds upon hundreds from that little village.

On Remembrance day in this country, I go to the villages in my area, and they read out the names. That is desperately important—it is desperately important that the names are remembered—but people cannot read out the names in the little village that I come from, because that would take up the whole time for the service.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point. May I share this with him? Recently, my daughter did a first world war project, which involved researching the names on the war memorial in our village. We found that a significant number of them were people who had emigrated before the first world war to New Zealand and who came back to fight for their country and die for their country, their country being both New Zealand and the UK.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

This is one of the latest examples of what I am discussing. Some of us will remember that in Afghanistan there was a Mumbai-style attack on the Intercontinental hotel in Kabul. Two vehicles rolled up. Six guys got out, charged in, dealt with the terrorists and came out unscathed. They did look as though they had come out of a Rambo movie, but they were the New Zealand SAS, who had just been called up on spec to go in and deal with the situation. They did that, calmly, and got out. They are dangerous people, those New Zealand SAS.

Some years ago, I visited Monte Cassino, the scene of the battle for Rome in world war two. Between 17 January and 18 May 1944, four battles were fought there. The soldiers involved on our side were called allied troops. There were Polish troops, but the only others were from Commonwealth countries. A total of 54,000 men from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Canada were lost, as well as a number of Gurkhas.

The horrible reality of what happened came home to me during my visit. There were separate cemeteries for the various nations, with thousands and thousands of tombstones, but what really struck me was the ages of the troops buried there. Most of them—these are troops from the Commonwealth countries—were in their late 20s or in their 30s or 40s. Almost all of them would have been married and had families. Those families had no father, because they were over here, fighting for a United Kingdom war. That explains why, when I was a kid, I noticed that in my village there were a lot of single-parent families and a lot of ladies who remained single. That was simply because there were no men.

After the war, shoals of people from New Zealand and Australia came to the United Kingdom on six-week boat trips. Nowadays they fly. Many if not all are skilled. They are doctors, dentists, nurses, farmers, accountants, lawyers and experts in banking, finance or construction. Some stay; others move on to other parts of the world; and some go back. But they all contribute to this country. For decades, university graduates have been among New Zealand’s biggest exports. In the main, they used to come here. However, the United Kingdom has become progressively less receptive in the past few years. Entry is becoming more difficult, and to stay to contribute is becoming more difficult. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will look at that.

People from New Zealand, Australia, Canada and South Africa are exactly the type of immigrants this country needs. In general, they have high skills, earn high net incomes and pay a lot of tax. They are almost invisible to social services, because they never use them. They integrate well into British society. After all, most of them have parents, grandparents or even great-grandparents who came, either directly or indirectly, from the UK. They share the culture. They share the language, mostly. They share the heritage. And they tend to play slightly better rugby, but they blend in and add value to the United Kingdom. Their ability to blend in was recognised at one of the recent grand slam games—I am talking about rugby, ladies. The coach of one of the most successful Welsh national rugby teams has a very strong New Zealand accent.

Distressingly, the United Kingdom, as I have said, seems to be closing the door on Commonwealth immigration. It is losing expertise in medicine, dentistry, accounting, physiotherapy, the law and so on. I find that extraordinary. Highly trained professional people who come to the United Kingdom are being required to sit extra exams so that they can work here, whereas they are welcome in some other nations. The quality of their degrees is every bit as good as—and, dare I say it in hushed tones, perhaps sometimes better than—what is achieved here. If degrees from the United Kingdom are acceptable in those countries—and they are—that should be reciprocated, especially as a disproportionate number of the medical, dental and legal teaching staff in universities here are from those old Commonwealth nations. The same applies to the United States and Canada, but without the same difficulties.

Lord Rutherford began the process. It has continued; and I hope that, with a bit of freedom and a bit of relaxation, it will still continue. I receive many complaints from United Kingdom businesses and from Australians and New Zealanders that they are able to work here for only a very few years—generally two. Perhaps the Government could positively review that aspect of immigration policy.

The Commonwealth is very special for its people. In these difficult days, the United Kingdom needs to build on that family of nations and not destroy the willingness and desire to be in harmony with the United Kingdom in the Commonwealth.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

We approach this issue in a spirit of agreement, and, in accordance with the pledge that I had given the hon. Lady previously, I was able to raise the issue of political prisoners. I believe that there are still 30 whose cases are disputed.

As for the census, the hon. Lady will be aware that we are providing funds for it, and that it is the first census to take place for a very long time. There are issues surrounding it, but we believe that it is the right course. I believe that our engagement with Burma is on the right lines, but serious issues remain, not least the continuing problems in Rakhine.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I welcome what the Minister has said, and his engagement with Burma. Of course there are many challenges within the country, but does he not accept that the steps towards peace and democracy deserve our support and wholehearted engagement while the opportunity presents itself?

[Mr Swire]

Yes, I do. I have been able to discuss the situation with Baroness Amos, the United Nations under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, in the last couple of weeks. I also discussed it yesterday in Geneva with António Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and last night with Peter Maurer, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

We are all extremely concerned about aspects of what is still going on in Burma, but we believe that, with our support across the board, the Burmese Government need encouragement on the path towards democracy. It was never going to be easy, but we must redouble our efforts to ensure that they deliver on the pledges that they have made.

Burma

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for inviting me to take part in the delegation and for leading it so ably. I congratulate the hon. Members for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on bringing these matters to the House’s attention. The International Development Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, will be producing a report on Burma, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to elaborate on some of these findings and debate them more fully in the House. At this stage, I think that it is important that we hear from the Minister.

Sergei Magnitsky

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. Does he accept that one of the problems in Russia is that although those in positions of leadership can perpetrate crimes against individuals by using the full undercover agencies of the state with absolute impunity, the one thing they most value and would not want to lose is the freedom to travel and to use their money, often stolen from the Russian people, in a life of luxury outside Russia?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation of and rationale for what we are trying to achieve. It is precisely that. We are not seeking to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction by depriving anyone of their freedom; we are merely saying, “You cannot come into this country if you have that kind of blood on your hands.” So the motion is not anti-Russia, but pro-Russia.

Sergei Magnitsky

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bellingham]

I will certainly make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s strong comments are passed on to the Minister for Europe, so that he will speak to his European counterparts about this case at the next appropriate Council. He has already raised it with them, and similar action has been taken by other European countries. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman says, we will ensure that the case is raised again.

I should like to say a few words about the wider situation in Russia. The FCO’s annual human rights report makes it clear that we remain concerned about the rights afforded to Russian citizens and the strength of democracy. The Russian Government’s support for human rights often appears ambivalent. As President Medvedev has acknowledged, there is a pressing need to strengthen the rule of law in Russia. Legislative changes to reduce corruption represent a tentative step in the right direction. Reports of grave human rights abuses in the north Caucasus continue, and Russian human rights defenders and journalists remain at high risk. In some cases, though, we have seen some minor positive developments.

The state Duma parliamentary elections have been the key recent test of Russia’s democratic credentials. The conduct of those elections confirmed our concerns about human rights and democracy in Russia. Before the elections, NGOs and media organisations were routinely harassed. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe was permitted to observe the elections. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that they had been

“slanted in favour of the ruling party”.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said on 6 December, those conclusions underline the need for alleged electoral violations to be investigated rapidly and transparently and to ensure that all democratic institutions, including the media, civil society and opposition political groups, can operate freely in Russia.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I apologise for being slightly late. I very much appreciate this debate. Does the Minister acknowledge that it is not just the conduct of the elections but the whole functioning of democracy in Russia that prevents anyone who could challenge the system from getting nominated, never mind elected, as a presidential candidate? Will Her Majesty’s Government not make it clear that pluralism requires a much more open access to democracy than is currently available in Russia?

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that strong point. In light of what he says, I can tell him that our wider work on human rights in Russia focuses on a number of key areas: democratic rights, including supporting free and fair elections, freedom of expression and freedom of the media; support for those seeking to resolve conflict in the north Caucasus; support for those seeking to increase monitoring, reporting and prosecution of human rights abuses; better support and protection for human rights defenders; support for those seeking a stronger rule of law with improved access to justice; and making progress towards greater equality and reduced discrimination.

Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I shall come to Yemen in a moment, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to keep a semblance of order to my remarks, but he is quite right to raise that important issue.

The experiences of Egypt and Tunisia reveal an important lesson from the Arab spring—that an immense economic challenge goes hand in hand with the political opening up of those societies. Two other lessons should act as a warning in the region to those who might be tempted to think that legitimate aspirations can be ignored.

The first is that demands for political and economic freedom will spread more widely and by themselves, not because western nations advocate these things, but because they are the natural aspirations of all people everywhere. The second is that Governments who set their face against reform altogether are doomed to failure. Simply refusing to address legitimate grievances or attempting to stamp them out will fail. Reform is not a threat to stability; it is the guarantor of it over the long term. It is not credible or acceptable for any country in the region to repress now and suggest that reform will only follow later, nor is it sustainable to promise economic reform without steady political development.

This is our message to Syria, alongside our utter condemnation of the violence. Only meaningful reform that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people can provide peace and stability for Syria in the long term. The alternative—ever more violent repression—simply stokes up anger and frustration that will spill over in the future. On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), the European Union has already imposed a travel ban and assets freeze on 13 individuals in the Syrian regime, and on Friday we informed the Syrian ambassador to London that if the violence does not stop immediately, the EU will take further measures, including sanctions targeted at the highest levels of the Syrian Government.

Alongside this action in the EU we are seeking a response from the UN Security Council in New York, where we are working to convince others that the Security Council must send an unequivocal message of condemnation of the situation and call for urgent political reform.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary is making a perfectly correct and robust case, but does he agree that the emergence of protest right across the middle east changes the dynamics of the middle east peace process and the mood of the Palestinians, and that we need to ensure that the international community secures a response and that they do not feel that they are stuck in a time warp when things are changing all around them?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend is right. That is changing the dynamics and it is important for all to understand that this increases the urgency of the middle east peace process, rather than meaning that it can be put off. The remaining opportunity to breathe new life into it must now be taken. I shall say more about that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

This debate certainly covers a vast number of countries of interest, but it does not include China, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary, is visiting today, as he mentioned in last week’s exchanges. It is also unfortunate that so much other business has been put on today’s agenda, given what is clearly a timely, popular and well-supported debate.

I accept that we are in somewhat uncharted territory, and we recognise the difficulty for the Government of making decisions in response to rapidly changing circumstances, but it is nevertheless necessary that those decisions are taken speedily and coherently and that they are implemented effectively. For Parliament to scrutinise the Government’s performance properly, it is important that the Government share their thinking and the evolution of their doctrine in assessing options and that they ensure a firm grip on delivery.

I know that a considerable number of Members wish to speak, that they have an interest and considerable expertise in the subjects covered by the debate and that there is a time limit, so without more ado I will cover some, although not all, of the countries involved. Inevitably, given the dramatic death of Osama bin Laden, we must start with Afghanistan.

At the outset, let me make it clear that we believe that the allied forces were right to go into Afghanistan in response to 9/11, and that the UN was right to set up ISAF with the following mandate, which we should remind ourselves of today:

“Stressing that all Afghan forces must adhere strictly to their obligations under human rights law, including respect for the rights of women, and under international humanitarian law,

Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,

Determining that the situation in Afghanistan still constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

Determined to ensure the full implementation of the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force, in consultation with the Afghan Interim Authority established by the Bonn Agreement”.

That mandate, in its essence, remains relevant today.

The UK took the lead in the initial phase of ISAF, and our forces have played a prominent and—I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise this—distinguished role since then. They show great skill, courage and determination in their operations, and some have made the ultimate sacrifice, including the Royal Marines sergeant mentioned by the Foreign Secretary. Others have suffered serious injuries that will affect their whole lives, as was highlighted in the statement made earlier. Because my constituency is very close to Birmingham, I recently talked to a nurse there who works at Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, who described how heartbreaking it is to see these once-fit young men who have desperate injuries but who remain enormously positive and resolute. We owe them a huge debt. The nation must honour the military covenant, and today’s statement is an important step in that process. I also join the Foreign Secretary in his tribute to aid workers in Afghanistan, a number of whom have died in trying to bring help to the people of Afghanistan. They have shown enormous dedication and courage.

We must look to the manner and timing of the handover of the governance of Afghanistan to the Afghan authorities, army and police. One of our key objectives was to prevent al-Qaeda from using Taliban-run Afghanistan as a base from which to launch terrorist attacks around the world. While Osama bin Laden’s death has not finished al-Qaeda, it has certainly dealt it a serious blow. It also confirms previous intelligence suggesting that nearly all of al-Qaeda has left Afghanistan. That probably means that Washington will start phased troop withdrawals in the next couple of months. We must be clear that the process is determined by the situation on the ground, not by the calendar, but also that it will start to happen shortly.

It is clear that intense internal discussions are going on in Washington, and some elements of those discussions are starting to emerge. Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, last week described as “fundamentally unsustainable” the US’s current expenditure of $10 billion a month on what he called a massive military operation with no end in sight. He made it clear that he was not advocating a “unilateral precipitous withdrawal”, but that the US ought to be working towards achieving what he described as the “smallest footprint possible”. The ranking Republican Senator, Richard Lugar, who also has huge experience on that committee, reinforced the message, saying:

“The question before us is whether Afghanistan is important enough to justify the lives and massive resources that are being spent there, especially given our nation’s debt crisis.”

The atmosphere in Washington shows that people feel that the death of bin Laden will have a significant effect on the setting of milestones and the pace and slope of the US troop withdrawal.

I hope that in his reply the Secretary of State for International Development will outline, as far as is prudent and possible, our plans in this regard and the considerations that will shape the progress of the draw-down. Will he also, without being definitive, indicate the intended completion date, although we recognise that that will, of its essence, be tentative and might be varied in either direction? We all know that the British public are realistic and resolute, but it is also clear that they now want to see our boys, and increasingly our girls, starting to come home.

Will the Minister indicate what role he sees for the neighbouring powers—obviously Pakistan, but also Iran, Russia, China, India and possibly Turkey, as well as the various “stans”—in this process of a resolution for Afghanistan? They all have significant interests, which are not entirely geopolitical, and many also have kinship with ethnic groups within Afghanistan. However, their interests are not necessarily coincidental and will have to be carefully handled. It is in no one’s interests, neither in the wider world nor in the neighbouring powers, for Afghanistan once again to be a centre of instability and a haven for international terrorism. We need to decide what outcome is desirable and practicable and, together with the United States and the international community, move resolutely towards it.

In that context, what should be the basis of a settlement? First, there should be a new and more inclusive internal political arrangement in which enough Afghan citizens have a stake and the central Government have enough power and legitimacy to protect the country from threats within and without. Secondly, on which the first depends, there should be a new external settlement that commits Afghanistan’s neighbours to respecting its sovereign integrity, as outlined in the UN resolution that I have mentioned, and carries enough force and support to ensure that they abide by that commitment.

In the UN’s words, the internal settlement will require

“a process by which the ex combatants acquire civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income”.

It will then require reconciliation, including ensuring that tribal, ethnic and other groups are represented and recognised. Parliament and parliamentarians should also be recognised and encouraged. Several Members of Parliament participated in the sessions with the group of Afghan parliamentarians who were over here last month and who are developing a vibrant approach to their democracy. That event was extremely welcome, and we congratulate the organisers, but a lot more needs to be done by us and by the international community to sustain the process. As has been self-evident in many exchanges about this in the Chamber, there must also be a sustained drive to cut corruption.

In many ways, we have been looking from the wrong end of the telescope at events in what I will describe, in historical terms, as the north-west frontier region. We are considering events in Pakistan in the light of their impact on Afghanistan, whereas the crucial issue is how Afghanistan will affect Pakistan, which is a country of 160 million people—it is the second largest Muslim country—with a significant military, including nuclear, capability. It is also, as the Foreign Secretary has rightly acknowledged on behalf of Britain, a country that has suffered considerable losses from fundamentalist terrorism, and it continues to do so even in recent days. We need to think very seriously about Pakistan’s concerns and prospects. This is not helped by some of the knee-jerk responses to the death of bin Laden that we have seen in the media, with too many people making facile assertions regarding subjects about which they do not have, and may well never have, the full picture. Idle speculation on this matter is not helpful in forming an effective, considered judgment, and it is certainly not helpful in the internal politics of the region.

I therefore welcome the fact that the United States appears determined to continue to support Pakistan rather than to repeat the mistake that it made following the end of the Soviet invasion by cutting aid substantially and drastically. I note the welcome news in today’s Financial Times that Senator Kerry is about to visit Pakistan. However, there is also a clear obligation on Pakistan, in terms of good governance, to improve its administration, especially in relation to tax collection; to improve educational opportunities, particularly in taking education away from fundamentalist madrassahs and thereby ensuring proper education for its young people; to enable and sustain a more pluralist society; and to engage in dialogue significantly to reduce tension with India, which occupies so much attention and resources in both countries.

[Malcolm Bruce]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that commentators in the British press who attack aid support for Pakistan and Afghanistan are missing the point in that if we do not deliver education, hope and livelihoods to those countries, the chances of reducing terrorism and disintegration are lower, not higher?

[Mr Spellar]

I certainly do. This is an argument that needs to be had right across the world. Recently in Australia, there was a big attack on the aid programme to Indonesia—again, it is substantial—which is designed to ensure proper secular, state-run education, so that youngsters do not only get their education in fundamentalist organisations. It is enormously important that we sustain that programme for the future of that country, the largest Muslim country, as it is for the future of Pakistan, the second largest Muslim country. That is essential not only for the long-term security of the region but for international security. I was encouraged by the comments of the Foreign Secretary on that subject, and I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will enlarge on them in his response.

Turning to the middle east and north Africa, it has been rightly said that the death of bin Laden was a serious setback for al-Qaeda, but the most telling blow has been the Arab spring, with its demands for democracy and more open societies, and certainly not for al-Qaeda’s dream of a return to mediaeval brutality. We should be realistic about the various elements that are involved in that movement and the possible course of developments.

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his Mansion House speech. I notice that he recycled quite a bit of it in his speech this evening. That is obviously part of the Government’s commitment to be greener. However, the speech bears repetition. As he rightly said:

“Demands for open government, action against corruption and greater political participation will spread by themselves over time, not because Western nations are advocating them but because they are the natural aspirations of all people everywhere.”

In that context, we should recognise that the events in the middle east and north Africa are not isolated. A tide has been sweeping around the world.

In spite of some disappointments, we should reflect on how much progress has been made around the world over the past couple of decades. Most countries in south America have emerged from military dictatorship, are overcoming their ruthless, destructive guerrilla groups and are building a better future. Interestingly, in his famous Chicago speech in 1999, Tony Blair referred to the need for

“more effective ways of resolving crises, like that in Brazil.”

Brazil is now a roaring economic power, and it has just celebrated the election of a new successive social democratic President. The countries of eastern Europe have returned to their European home, having thrown off the shackles of their corrupt, vicious, incompetent communist leaderships and the Warsaw pact. They have willingly joined NATO and the EU. Indonesia, which I mentioned in response to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), is the world’s fourth most populous state and the largest Muslim state. In 10 years, it has gone from being a military-backed dictatorship to being a vibrant democracy with a rapidly expanding economy. It is now a G20 member and an effective partner against terrorism. There has been a seismic, historic shift in the international landscape, and we should recognise and welcome that.

That is why we fully supported and support the Government’s decision to join international partners to enforce United Nations resolutions 1970 and 1973 in Libya. Those who query resolution 1973 and this country’s rapid decision to act must consider how we would have felt, and how the world would have reacted, if Gaddafi’s tanks and death squads had poured into Benghazi over that weekend and killed people, to use his words, “like rats”. In this day and age, that would all have been carried out on 24-hour TV in real time.

While giving support, it is our responsibility, as a Parliament and as an Opposition, to scrutinise carefully the Government’s conduct and effectiveness in fulfilling the task. We need from the Government a clearer and better articulated strategy. Frankly, we need them to explain how their self-imposed cuts to our expeditionary capability will enable them to implement the policy. The article that the Prime Minister wrote with the French and US Presidents in April said:

“So long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds”.

It is incumbent on the Government to be clearer to this House and to the British people about how they propose to bring about such a resolution of this situation, especially in the light of the comments over the weekend.

It was asked earlier, but I think it needs to be asked again, what is meant by “infrastructure targets”. If it means command and control posts within a military structure, I understand that. I think it is arguable—I hope that the Attorney-General would back me—that that is perfectly within the bounds of the UN resolution. If, as some commentators have suggested, it means industrial infrastructure, and particularly electricity infrastructure, we have considerable doubts. Even in Kosovo, which was a major operation, the object was to immobilise the transmission systems not to destroy them, because after military operations are over, there is a need to reconstruct the country. It is difficult to do that without adequate electricity supplies. It is therefore important that we have clarity on what is meant by infrastructure. One meaning is perfectly within the current programme, but otherwise we have considerable questions and doubts.

It has to be clear that there is continuing international and regional support for our strategy. I can see no UN mandate for ground troops to move into Libya, and I think it is fair to say that there is no chance of getting such a mandate at the Security Council and no prospect of regional support. We must recognise that there is little appetite among the British public for such a course of action, and I suspect that the situation is similar in the United States and France.

I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will update the House on the considerable efforts of his Department, with others in the international community, to assist the 750,000 people who are estimated to have crossed from Libya into neighbouring countries, and to get supplies to people in parts of Libya that are under siege from Libyan Government forces. I do not underestimate the task, but we need to know how we are tackling it, because it is substantial and urgent.

What are our realistic options across the middle east and north Africa? Although it is true that we are one of the few countries with the strategic capability to provide meaningful intervention, we must recognise the constraints imposed by our existing commitments elsewhere, the clear problems of overstretch, and the cuts made in the strategic defence and security review, which are increasingly seen as ill advised and outdated. Whatever action we take will be in conjunction with others, and not only our key strategic ally, the United States, but increasingly the EU, or at least key European allies. It has become clear, particularly in the last week or so, that a stretched United States has self-imposed limitations. Our European deliberations will have to consider that, and our response will have to be shaped accordingly. It is true that we could take a position of splendid isolation and say that those issues are nothing to do with us, but developments would continue in north Africa and the middle east. Although we should not overestimate our ability to shape events, we should not underestimate it either.

A key area is to develop capacity for the emerging democratic forces and parties in the countries concerned. It would be tragic if the principal beneficiaries of the new democracies were the remnants of the old dictatorial parties or underground fundamentalist Islamist groups. We should draw on the experience of eastern Europe, where post-communist parties were able to exert disproportionate influence because of their well-developed corrupt networks. I am sure all parties hope that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will play a major role in building capacity for democratic parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

As befits my role as Chair of the International Development Select Committee, I will concentrate on the development aspects of this wide-ranging debate. In the context of Libya, I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) about the Department’s prompt response to the emerging crisis in north Africa, and especially to the evacuation of people fleeing the violence of the conflict. I also commend the non-governmental organisations that are operating in difficult conditions, often under fire, to provide medical relief, assistance and support to those beleaguered people.

We all recognise the capacity of the Department to respond to these situations, and the way in which it has done so is extremely welcome, although I think that the Secretary of State would agree that Libya is not a prime target for our aid programme and budget, and nor should it be. Clearly, reconstruction should be carried out within the country’s own resources, but in regard to the first and immediate response, it is good to know that we can respond as well as we have done. In passing I would point out that, as and when we get a resolution that enables Libya to start its reconstruction, the prime investment should come from within its own resources and those of its Arab League neighbours, although we will want to have a constructive engagement if, as we hope, a more benign regime emerges from the conflict.

As far as the rest of the middle east is concerned, one area of interest is the role of the European Union’s external relations strategy. It has focused on the neighbourhood to the east of Europe, which does not have quite the same affinity but which has nevertheless been pursuing a Mediterranean policy. I hope that our Government will encourage the EU to shift the emphasis of its neighbourhood policy towards north Africa a little, rather than seeking to draw down more of the development budget from the UK. It is a matter of some embarrassment that the money we pay into the central budget of the EU goes into a neighbourhood policy that is classified as overseas development assistance, the prime beneficiary of which is Turkey. There is nothing wrong with encouraging Turkey to join the European Union, but it is a little disappointing that that overseas development assistance, which the UK would prefer to go to the poorest people in the poorest countries, is going to those who have the capacity to address their own problems. I hope that the UK has a degree of authority to assert in this instance. Given that we will be the first G20 country to achieve a 0.7% commitment on overseas development assistance by 2013, I think that we are entitled to say to other members of the European Union, which will not have achieved that, that they should not be diverting their aid away from where it could be most effectively targeted.

I intervened on the Foreign Secretary about the middle east peace process. We will be giving £343 million to the occupied Palestinian territories over the lifetime of this Parliament, which is a tragedy because we would not have to give anything if a proper peace process were in place. The area is not incapable of economic activity; it is prevented from being economically active by the frozen conflict. We should use whatever influence we have through the Quartet—I accept that the United States is the dominant influence—to point out to Israel that if it responds to the protests of the frustrated Palestinians in the way that Syria has responded to its protesters, the international community has a responsibility to put pressure on Israel to behave differently, even if we have no ability to intervene in Syria. We must point out that, if Israel does not unblock the peace process now, it could make matters much worse in the short to medium term and that it is really missing an opportunity.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are totally interlinked. The irony is that it looks as though we have more possibility of achieving stability in Afghanistan, difficult though that might be, than we do in Pakistan. It is instructive to take on board the fact that we are committing £2.1 billion of UK overseas development assistance over the course of this Parliament to Pakistan and Afghanistan combined. We must ensure that people understand why we are doing that. The military engagement in Afghanistan understandably gets all the attention, because our soldiers—male and female—are losing their lives in that operation. At the end of the day, however, it is our ability to deliver real improvements in the quality of life, education, health and livelihoods in Afghanistan that will have the most chance of giving people a sense that our engagement has validity and that we are on their side rather than against them.

The same applies, perhaps even more, in Pakistan. I know that the Secretary of State has placed particular emphasis on visiting that country and ensuring that our aid has precisely that effect. Pakistan has a huge, young and very suggestible population who are open to persuasion to take up extreme political positions. The best way to address that—although the outcome is not guaranteed—is to give people access to things that will give them a stake in the future and make them less inclined to join the terrorist activity to which they might otherwise be recruited.

I want to summarise the complicated developments taking place all over the world. Just as the collapse of the Soviet Union took place with unexpected suddenness, so did the onset of what is being called the Arab spring. Looking back to the collapse of the Soviet Union, we can see that we failed to hold Russia to a path of pluralism, democracy and human rights, but we were able to offer its satellites the opportunity to break away from the Soviet Union, achieve democracy and join NATO and the European Union. We cannot do quite the same for the Arab states, but we should hold out a hand of friendship and encouragement. To the extent that they can move towards pluralism, democracy and human rights, they will find willing partners to engage with in Europe.

We must not underestimate the fact that the Iraq war incensed middle eastern and Arab opinion. It also distracted us from the legitimate tasks in Afghanistan, took our eyes off Pakistan and, in many ways, damaged the legitimacy of the democratic world when engaging in these issues. We need to tread more softly if we are to build trust and respect that can open the way for economic development and poverty reduction, and expand the numbers and proportion of people in all those countries who have a stake in peace, transparency and the rule of law. We need to be a little more humble and a little less arrogant, and we need to use our soft power development funding in ways that build trust and confidence where our foreign policy has not always achieved the same result.

BBC World Service

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The previous Government doubled the national debt in four years and ran up a budget deficit of 11% of our gross domestic product. That is why we are now in a period of public spending restraint, whether in the World Service or any other area.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), the Foreign Secretary acknowledged that World Service funding was ODA-able in some cases. Does he envisage having discussions with DFID, given the increased commitment to operating in fragile and post-conflict states and the consequences of withdrawing the Portuguese for Africa, Nepali, Swahili and great lakes services? There could be scope for an agreement between the two Departments to reinstate or maintain those services.

[Mr Hague]

As I said, a good deal of the expenditure is already ODA-able. I do not know what scope that leaves for additional ODA-able funding, but DFID is already in the process of setting its own priorities, which do not normally include supporting the operations of the BBC World Service. Overall, these changes are necessary. I said that I am considering whether additional money can be provided to help the World Service through the restructuring—I am talking about only up to a few million pounds, but it may be of assistance. I cannot promise a large part of the DFID budget for this cause.

Emerging Economies

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that echoes one made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and others. How can we best concentrate our resource in countries and avoid duplicating Government functions or Departments in the same location? There is a wider point: although it is important for the FCO to give intellectual leadership and momentum to our policy making overseas, our policy is not simply about relationships between the FCO and other Foreign Ministries. Rather, it is about Britain as a whole visiting China, India or Brazil, which includes the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and right across the board. We should not see emerging markets policy as a bolt-on, extra function of the Government that is divorced from our other deliberations in the House. Rather, it is a key function of the Government. It is led by the FCO, but it involves many Departments.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

To take up the point that my hon. Friend has just made, in some countries our engagement is a development relationship, but we have both a high commissioner and a head of DFID. Are the Government prepared to consider whether those roles could usefully be combined? In some cases high commissioners or ambassadors have told me that they are only there to wave the flag because the only people that the host nation wants to talk to are those from DFID. Would it not be sensible to combine the two?

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s expertise as the Chairman of the Select Committee. It is important that when we engage with countries, especially those that are substantial recipients of British aid, we have a joined-up approach in which the aid is not divorced from the wider discussions that we have with them. I do not mean that the aid should come with strings attached, but it is bizarre—when resources are stretched—for us to have competing Government offices in one capital, potentially with competing agendas, when there is scope for the money to be spent more efficiently and effectively.

It is possible to overstate the existing scale of the change. Britain’s GDP per capita remains high, our absolute prosperity—rather than our relative prosperity—remains high, and our economic, political and cultural leadership in the world remains very strong. But as a country and even as a continent—not just as a Government or Parliament—we cannot afford to be complacent. The world is changing rapidly. We need to engage constructively and energetically in that process of change so that we can shape it to ensure that Britain benefits as much as the new emerging economies from the opportunities that their rise undoubtedly offers. This task will be central to our future prosperity in the decades to come. We are already embarking on turning that goal into action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

rose—

[Malcolm Bruce]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I shall give way first to the newer Member, then to the old lag.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am a bit distressed that my hon. Friend has just welcomed me to the Opposition Benches, but there it is. We came into the House at roughly the same time, and I will take that matter up with him later. He also made a good point about a growth strategy, which I will come to in a moment. First, I will give way to the slightly older Member.

[Malcolm Bruce]

Just refer to me as the old lag. On a detailed point, the Crombie overcoat company in my constituency went out of business—or at least contracted its business—because it had a major contract with the KGB, not because it had been successful in the free market. The point that the hon. Gentleman is making about a growth strategy is all very well—yes, we should have one—but can he divorce that from spending even more Government money and getting ourselves further into debt? Can he explain how we can have a growth strategy that does not involve spending more taxpayers’ money that we cannot afford?

[Chris Bryant]

I was about to do precisely that, so I am grateful to the old lag—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

May I also welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Benches, and may I welcome, too, the many Labour Back Benchers who are present for this debate?

[Malcolm Bruce]

All one of them.

[Mr Ellwood]

Absolutely right.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the importance of green technology, but I am reminded of a fantastic company on the Isle of Wight—not far from my Bournemouth constituency—that made blades for wind turbines. For some reason, they could not be used in the UK, but they were manufactured to be used in the United States. That company closed down because it did not receive the support it needed from the previous Government. Does he now regret that decision?