NATO Parliamentary Assembly (Membership)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The right hon. the Baroness Taylor of Bolton has replaced Lord Sewel of Gilcomstoun CBE as a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The latest report on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: www.fco.gov.uk. The report covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2012. I commend the report to the House.
Iraq Network Strategic Review
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Today the Government are publishing a new Iraq strategy, a copy of which I will place in the Library of the House.
Iraq is changing. After years of conflict and uncertainty, it has a democratically elected Government and is becoming gradually more stable, although a serious threat from terrorism remains.
Our Government are committed to a broad and enduring relationship with Iraq. We want to support a stable, prosperous and democratic Iraq that is a positive and influential regional actor in a region that is vital to UK security and prosperity. We wish to strengthen our commercial ties with a regional economy of growing importance.
To that end we have taken several steps to strengthen the UK’s partnership with Iraq.
Over the past 18 months, there have been 15 ministerial visits between the UK and Iraq, covering our foreign policy, security and commercial interests, including a visit I made in September.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has supported visits to the United Kingdom by the Iraqi Parliament’s committees for security and defence, human rights, finance, and foreign affairs. This has helped to develop links between the United Kingdom and Iraqi Parliaments and to support Iraqi democracy.
We have taken steps to increase our economic relationship with Iraq. Our embassy in Baghdad has supported numerous delegations of British businesses seeking to re-enter the Iraqi market. We will shortly open a new visa application centre in Baghdad, meaning that Iraqis will no longer need to travel outside of the country to obtain a UK visa, which will make it easier for British businesses to do business with Iraq. During my recent visit to Baghdad, I also agreed to establish a ministerial trade council of British and Iraqi Ministers and business leaders to increase trade and investment links between our two countries.
Following my visit to Iraq in September I have reviewed our diplomatic presence across the country. I have decided to focus staff and resources where they will support the United Kingdom’s partnership with Iraq as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible, and with the greatest impact in the areas of our relationship of the most importance. We will do this by strengthening our embassy in Baghdad, increasing our diplomatic presence in Erbil and moving our representation in Basra onto a different footing.
First, we need to increase the amount of diplomatic resources we are able to concentrate in Iraq’s capital Bagdad. We are therefore expanding our political section to increase its reach across all of Iraq’s 18 governorates and help address some of the main issues preventing British businesses from entering into the Iraqi markets. We are recruiting additional staff in Baghdad to strengthen our UKTI office and help British businesses access markets throughout Iraq.
Secondly, the review of our resources in Iraq has confirmed that the Kurdistan region continues to attract significant interest from British businesses. I am therefore increasing our staffing levels in Erbil. Today, for example, over 40 British companies are attending the Erbil international trade fair, with support from UK Trade and Investment (UKTI). We will recruit a new UKTI commercial attache to expand the consulate-general’s already successful commercial section. I have also made clear my firm intention that the Government should maintain the British consulate-general Erbil on a permanent footing.
Thirdly, we will maintain a British embassy office in Basra to support our work with all of Iraq’s central and southern governorates. However, this will not be staffed permanently.
Because of the improving security situation, it is now easier and safer for staff to travel from Baghdad to Basra and around the country more generally. In particular, embassy staff can now fly direct to Basra airport in one hour, rather than having to undertake a 48-hour trip as was the case previously. This means that we can support UK interests in Basra effectively without the need for staff to be permanently based there. In turn, this allows us to reduce the cost of our presence in Basra, currently £6.5 million per annum. This is significantly more than the cost of, for example, our much larger embassy in Kuwait City.
Her Majesty’s ambassador, his deputy and other diplomatic staff will continue to make frequent visits across Iraq, including to Basra, to ensure that we continue to maintain the strength and depth of our relationship with Iraq.
I am confident that these are the right decisions. They will enable the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Iraq network to achieve the Government’s ambitious strategy for improving commercial ties with Iraq and supporting a stable, secure, democratic Iraq that is a positive and influential regional actor.
The savings we make from a more efficient Iraq network will also allow us to strengthen the United Kingdom’s presence in key emerging powers. This involves opening 11 new British embassies and eight new consulates by 2015 and deploying 300 extra staff to 22 countries, including Burma, Thailand, South Korea, North Korea, Mongolia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Angola, Botswana, Chile, Argentina, Columbia, Panama, Peru, Pakistan, Vietnam and the Philippines with the biggest increases in China and India. This is in line with the statement I made to Parliament on “The Future Diplomatic Network” in May 2011.
Afghanistan (Monthly Progress Report)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 20th progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.
On 8 July at the Tokyo conference the international community, including the UK, agreed to help the Government of Afghanistan meet their country’s development needs for the years up to and after security transition in 2014. Specific pledges were made to 2017, with strong commitments from the international community to provide financial assistance to Afghanistan through the “Transformation Decade” to the end of 2024. This support is vital to ensure that the Government can provide continued stability and prospects for their people when international military troops withdraw at the end of 2014. Our support will depend on the Government taking forward key governance and economic reforms, including on protecting the rights of women and girls, outlined in the Tokyo mutual accountability framework (TMAF). At the request of the Government of Afghanistan, the UK agreed to co-chair the first ministerial review of the TMAF benchmarks in 2014.
The insurgency remains a tangible threat in Afghanistan as the separate attacks in Nimruz and Kunduz provinces on 14 August demonstrated. However, as transition progresses and the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) increasingly move to the fore on operations, we are seeing more evidence that violent incidents are being evermore displaced away from the protected communities where the majority of Afghans live. While there are still areas where the insurgent has relative freedom of movement they are finding it hard to concentrate their forces as they would wish. It is likely that they will continue to rely on improvise explosive devices (IEDs), high-profile attacks and assassination attempts as means of conducting their campaign and maintaining relevance.
Insider attacks (incidents where members of the ANSF attack their international security assistance force (ISAF) partners1) remain a serious concern. We are working with ISAF and our Afghan partners to reduce the potential for such incidents, but while being adamant that they will not derail our strategy for transition.
The UK continued to support the development of the local economy in Helmand province. UK aid has delivered technical and vocational education and training to more than 7,300 Helmandis, giving them the skills to get jobs and start businesses in the emerging private sector. Our assistance is also helping local government officials in Helmand take control of vital infrastructure, including roads, canals and irrigation systems.
I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).
1Also known as green on blue attacks.
Hargeisa (British Office)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I am pleased to inform the House that the British Office in Hargeisa opened formally on 3 September, in line with my intent to establish a presence in Mogadishu and Hargeisa as soon as local conditions allow. This office enables officials to stay in Hargeisa for short periods to carry out diplomatic work in Somaliland. Because of the security situation, this office will not have any consular functions, and we have not changed our advice on travel to the region. Staff are already able to travel and stay in our office in Mogadishu, where work continues on plans to reopen the embassy as soon as local circumstances permit.
The new office in Hargeisa and future British embassy in Mogadishu are part of the expansion of Britain’s diplomatic network that I announced to the House on 4 September, Official Report, column 152. This involves the opening of up to 11 new embassies, up to eight new British consulates/British trade offices and the redeployment of around 300 extra staff in more than 20 countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa.
I will provide the House with a further update on UK diplomatic representation in Somalia as progress is made.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
7. What assessment he has made of the prospects for a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Progress in the middle east peace process is needed urgently. We have urged both sides to focus on dialogue, to avoid steps that could undermine the prospects for peace and to work towards the resumption of direct negotiations. We are in regular contact with the Israeli authorities on legal issues relating to the conflict, and we urge Israel to comply with its legal obligations, including those arising under international humanitarian law.
Ann McKechin
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to this area, which is particularly important in the light of the problems that are affecting the region, to which he referred in his statement yesterday. Does he, however, understand the concern being expressed by many people that, on 24 July, the EU-Israel Association Council agreed to extend into a further 60 areas of trade co-operation while, at the same time, the increase in the number of demolitions and settlements and the blockade of Gaza are continuing apace. Will he tell us what his Department’s role was in that agreement, and whether he is going to hold Israel to account?
Mr Hague
We have repeatedly made clear to the Israeli authorities our serious concern at the 40% increase in demolitions last year, as recorded by the United Nations. We view such demolitions and evictions as causing unnecessary suffering to ordinary Palestinians, as harmful to the peace process and, in many circumstances, as contrary to international humanitarian law. I can reassure the hon. Lady about the EU-Israel Association Council, which discussed some practical co-operation in line with the existing EU-Israel action plan. The EU has been very clear that no progress can be made on upgrading the wider EU-Israel relationship until there is substantial progress towards a two-state solution.
Tom Brake
The Israelis are considering closing the Ras Khamis checkpoints in Jerusalem; they are also building new housing in illegal settlements such as Har Homa. Just two days ago, a rocket was fired from Gaza into Israel. What route map does the Foreign Secretary believe can move the conflict from where it is now towards an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians by the end of this year, as recommended by the Quartet?
Mr Hague
It is a difficult route map. My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the depressing aspects of what is happening now. We have been working hard this year, as have many others in the region, to achieve the resumption of direct negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, but that has not worked so far. My right hon. Friend referred to what might happen later this year, and it will be vital that, whatever Administration emerge following the American elections, they put their full weight behind this issue from the very beginning of that Administration in January.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
21. The Palestinians claim that they will return to negotiations if settlement building stops, but they did not do so when settlement building did stop. They have now introduced two new conditions, including the release of all prisoners. Why does the Foreign Secretary think they are doing that?
Mr Hague
There has been fault on both sides when it comes to making a success of negotiations. We have advocated the need for Israel to make a more decisive offer than has been the case in the recent past, but we have also pressed the Palestinians to enter negotiations and not to set new conditions for doing so. I have said in the House in the past that Israel had been too intransigent in this process, but the Palestinians have been too erratic about the basis on which they are willing to enter negotiations. Both those things need to be put right in order for negotiations to get going and succeed.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that, on Sunday, 280 Israeli settlers were removed from the settlement in Migron under Israeli legal process, as a result of action initiated by Peace Now and Palestinian landowners? Does he not agree that it would be even better if those in some quarters dropped their blanket hostility towards Israel, if the Palestinians were to remove their preconditions to talks, and if there were direct and comprehensive negotiations during which the question of the settlements could be fully addressed?
Mr Hague
I absolutely agree that it is important to drop blanket opposition to Israel. We should stoutly defend the security and the legitimacy of Israel, but we must also be absolutely clear that Israel needs to make its contribution and recognise that settlements on occupied land are illegal, that settlement building activity must cease and that outposts on occupied land are illegal. We should be clear about that and maintain the pressure on Israel, as well as on Palestinians, to enter into direct negotiations and give them some chance to succeed.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
According to the House of Commons Library, multilateral and bilateral aid to the occupied territories and Gaza cost European taxpayers £670 million last year. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that, given that Israeli policy on settlements is making a two-state solution less likely, any deepening of trade relations with Israel would not be justified when the cost to European taxpayers is so high?
Mr Hague
We do give that support. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the extent of our support, which is, of course, very important for the Palestinian Authority to be able to function, particularly on the west bank. The position on trade relations is the one that I explained to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), and the European Union is very clear that an upgrade of the wider EU-Israel relationship depends on making substantial progress towards a two-state solution. That is a position that the United Kingdom firmly supports.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend have a look at the case of Mustafa Tamimi, who was shot at close range by an Israeli soldier recently? What can the Foreign Secretary do to ensure that future inquiries meet global standards?
Mr Hague
We have made representations about this case. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has done so, and he visited the family on his recent visit to the region. Of course, we want all such investigations to be carried out thoroughly and to meet international standards. That will be part of our continuing representations.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to promote political and economic freedom in the Middle East and North Africa; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the potential threat to stability in the middle east of Iran’s nuclear programme.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We remain deeply concerned about Iran’s nuclear programme. A nuclear-armed Iran would result in still greater instability in the middle east and increase the risk of a nuclear arms race. Iran must negotiate seriously on the nuclear issue, to give the international community confidence that it is not developing nuclear weapons.
Mr Hollobone
The International Atomic Energy Agency reckons Iran has 189 kg of uranium enriched to 20%. Were this quantity enriched to 90%, that would be enough for five nuclear bombs. Given that enrichment to 20% requires four fifths of the effort to get to 90%, will my right hon. Friend redouble the United Kingdom’s efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed military power?
Mr Hague
Those efforts have been redoubled in recent times in many ways, and my hon. Friend will be aware that, with our partners in the European Union and many other partners and allies around the world, we have imposed more serious economic sanctions on Iran than we have imposed on any country in recent times. This has caused Iranian oil exports to fall by about 1 million barrels a day from last year. Iran is losing almost $8 billion in revenues every quarter as a result of that, and we will continue to intensify the pressure from sanctions, as well as remain open to negotiations, in order to try to resolve this issue. In the longer term, we take nothing off the table in our efforts to resolve the issue.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Has the right hon. Gentleman read the article by David Remnick in the current issue of The New Yorker? He has just returned from Israel, where he discussed this issue with all the top figures in Israeli intelligence, every single one of whom is opposed to Israeli military action against Iran. Vile though the regime in Iran is, and while it is proper for the right hon. Gentleman to be taking the action he is, will he make it clear to Israel and everybody else that we are totally opposed to military action against Iran?
Mr Hague
I have not seen the article in question; I will be very pleased to have a look at it. Certainly, there is a variety of views in Israel about the merits of military action at any time. We have been very clear to Israeli leaders—the Prime Minister and I have been clear in our recent meetings with Israeli leaders—that the policy we favour and are pursuing is the twin-track policy of sanctions and negotiations. We have been very clear that under those circumstances, we oppose a military strike on Iran.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
20. Can the Secretary of State explain the stark discrepancy between the comments made by Sir John Sawers on 4 July and the Senate testimony early this year of the director of the CIA, General Patraeus, in which he stated that there was no evidence of a decision by Iran to build a nuclear weapon?
Mr Hague
I am not going to comment on the reported comments of the director of the Secret Intelligence Service, but I do not think there is any contradiction in anything that has been said in public. Iran is, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) in asking this question, accumulating material for which there is no logical explanation other than an ultimate intention to construct a nuclear device. There is no peaceful explanation that has been given to the world, and that is the important truth we have to confront, whatever decision-making process is going on in the Iranian leadership.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I have noted all that the Foreign Secretary has had to say about the sanctions that are in place, but given the very concerning terms of the IAEA report, of which he and other colleagues have already spoken, and in particular the reports of the doubling of production capacity in the Fordow underground site, will he share with the House a little more of his sense of whether the current sanctions are themselves sufficient to effect behavioural change in Tehran, or whether other sanctions could be imposed to achieve that outcome?
Mr Hague
Those sanctions are having a substantial effect—I quoted some facts in relation to that a moment ago—but it is important to note not only the impact on their oil revenues, which I mentioned, but that Iran’s other industries are also suffering. Domestic car production has dropped by nearly 40%, textile manufacturers are operating at 50% capacity, and there has been a surge in inflation, which is perhaps twice the official figure of 25%. These are very difficult economic circumstances, which Iran is making worse by the policies it is pursuing.
There is no evidence, so far, that this has produced a change of policy in the Iranian leadership, although I am sure it is the best policy for us to pursue. Certainly, I believe there is a strong case for the intensification of sanctions, and for additional sanctions to be agreed in the European Union and brought into force with the United States and other partners around the world, so that Iran is clear about the consequences of continuing with this policy.
Mr Alexander
As the Opposition, we have associated ourselves with and support the Government’s approach of intensifying sanctions but also securing engagement and dialogue with the Iranians. Given what the Foreign Secretary has had to say about sanctions, many of us welcome the re-establishment of the E3 plus 3 process. Can he update the House on his assessment of the progress made in those discussions, and has a date been fixed for further discussions?
Mr Hague
It was progress of a kind to have the discussions between the E3 plus 3—with Baroness Ashton speaking on our behalf, but all six countries present—and the Iranian negotiators, but those negotiations have not produced any breakthrough. Baroness Ashton and the Iranian chief nuclear negotiator, Mr Jalili, spoke again on 2 August—their most recent conversation—and we expect further contact between them in September. But for those conversations to make progress, it will be necessary for Iran to have less unrealistic objectives for the negotiations, and to be ready to respond to the clear and generous offer that the E3 plus 3 have made.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
6. What discussions he has had with his Russian counterpart on Syria since June 2012.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I held intensive discussions on Syria with Foreign Minister Lavrov during June, in Kabul and Geneva; the Prime Minister and I met President Putin in August; and I will look forward to meeting Foreign Minister Lavrov again at the United Nations General Assembly this month.
Mr Bain
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. The civil war in Syria has just witnessed its most bloody week, and the head of the Syrian National Council has today said that the extent of the economic destruction in Syria means that nothing less than a Marshall plan by the international community will be required to reconstruct the Syrian economy. Will the Foreign Secretary continue to remind his Russian counterpart that a policy of engagement rather than obstruction is necessary for a secure middle east, and is in our and the Russian national interest?
Mr Hague
I absolutely will, and I did that, as I reported to the House yesterday, at the meeting of the UN Security Council in New York last Thursday. We will, of course, continue to press this point through the General Assembly meeting later this month. Again as I said in my statement yesterday, we are, in the meantime, working on what happens the day after Assad in Syria. There will be immense challenges for any future Administration of Syria. It is difficult for the United Nations to do all the necessary planning because the current Government of Syria are still a member of the United Nations, but we are doing that with the Friends of Syria group and we will be taking it forward energetically over the next few weeks.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Did Kofi Annan resign because he recognised that the civil war in Syria is a focal point of the ancient war between Sunni and Shi’a, that even locally it is beyond the power of the great powers to resolve unless Russia is prepared to help and that Russia is determined not to allow its Alawite allies to be overthrown by a western-backed Sunni rebellion?
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend always puts these things extremely well, and that question is no exception. One of the dangers of this conflict going on and on is, indeed, that it becomes even more of a focal point for Sunni-Shi’a rivalry. That is not the only origin of this conflict, as I have argued to him before; there are also many people in Syria who want freedom from an oppressive regime, whatever their religious or ethnic affiliations. Kofi Annan resigned because he was not getting the necessary support from the Security Council, because of the Russian position, which my right hon. Friend describes. As I said to the House yesterday, I believe that that position will probably change only when the situation on the ground changes further in Syria. Sadly, that means a great deal more death and suffering along the way.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Instead of an obsession with regime change, why has the Foreign Secretary not been promoting a negotiated settlement, based on compromise, as all such conflict resolution is? This is not about appeasing Assad’s butchery, Iranian malevolence or Russian self-interest; it is about ending an horrific and deepening civil war, which is reverberating beyond Syria’s borders. Is this not the time to admit that there has been a catastrophic and monumental failure of western policy, and to change course?
Mr Hague
The right hon. Gentleman may wish to familiarise himself with the positions that we have been taking, in common with not only western Governments, but the majority of Governments in the world. Our position was the position of the 133 nations in the UN General Assembly that voted for the resolution of 3 August, with only 12 votes against. That position is to have a transitional Government in Syria, including members of the current Government and the current opposition, based on mutual consent. That is the compromise solution. If he wants us to make a further compromise with forces who have killed indiscriminately and oppressed the people of their country with appalling human rights violations, I can tell him that that we are unable to do.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Although one can welcome his recent announcement of certain modest increases of contacts with the Syrian opposition, does not my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the arms embargo, which Britain supports, creates a hopelessly unbalanced situation, because the Syrian Government have a monopoly of air power, artillery and other forces, and because the embargo is not binding on Russia or Iran, which are not members of the European Union? Does he not acknowledge that this is simply going to mean that this conflict will last for many more months than would have been necessary, with many more thousands of Syrians being killed in the process?
Mr Hague
My right hon. and learned Friend always makes an eloquent case on this subject. I respect his views and always pay great heed to them, but although I do not exclude any option for the future, I do not agree that it would be right now to lift the EU arms embargo. It has not been our policy in any of the conflicts in the middle east to send arms into a region of conflict. He will know that there are disadvantages as well as advantages to the course that he advocates, because it would be very hard to know what some of those arms would be used for. In the long term, there would be at least as great a risk that they would make the conflict greater as reduce it. We support the opposition in the terms that I set out yesterday in the House. It is clear that Syrian opposition groups are obtaining arms from other sources, but it has not been our policy at any stage to join in with that.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Syria.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
15. What recent assessment he has made of the situation in Syria.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The humanitarian situation in Syria is dire and getting worse. More than 2.5 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, many are internally displaced and more than 200,000 have sought refuge in neighbouring countries. The UK is the second largest national donor of international aid for the Syrian people and will continue to do all it can to assist.
Diana Johnson
Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary outlined the blocking stance that Russia and China were taking in the Security Council. Will he set out whether Russia and China, in light of their approach, are giving additional humanitarian aid to ease the suffering of the Syrian people?
Mr Hague
No, and the hon. Lady is quite right to raise that point. Given the under-subscription to the UN appeal for funds, which we discussed in the House yesterday, we need countries around the world to contribute. We are setting a strong example in doing so, as is the United States. It is very important that other countries do so, and in my view that should certainly include all the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Sir Alan Beith
I welcome the efforts that the Government are making through their contact with opposition groups in Syria to promote the protection of minority rights in whatever regime replaces the murderous Assad regime. Will my right hon. Friend particularly bear in mind the especially vulnerable position of the Christian community in Syria—he will understand the reasons for that position—and continue to do that work?
Mr Hague
Absolutely. The position of Christians is vulnerable not only in Syria but in other middle Eastern countries, and it is an issue to which we regularly return. The Syrian opposition must not only come together as a united front for the purposes of negotiation and transition in this crisis, but reinforce at every opportunity their commitment to the representation of all groups and religious affiliations through their own composition and through support for the rights of all communities in Syria. That is crucial and is constantly reiterated by our special representative to the opposition.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement yesterday and for reporting to the House so promptly. One of the areas that he has identified as of real concern is the overspill of refugees and humanitarian problems across Syria’s borders to the adjacent nations. What specific assistance is he giving to the countries that are offering so much to those people?
Mr Hague
Our assistance takes many forms. Our main assistance comes from what the Department for International Development is doing in support of international agencies and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. That is helping to fund the supplies for people in camps who have crossed the border into Jordan and Turkey. Again, through international agencies, a lot of that aid is getting to people inside Syria as well. There are specific projects, for instance to help the victims of sexual violence who have gone to Jordan, which I talked about yesterday, and to help buttress Lebanon and support the work of its armed forces in maintaining its own security. So we have a lot of specific projects, too.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
9. What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the UK’s bilateral relationships with Latin America; and if he will make a statement.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
11. What discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the US strategic pivot towards Asia.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I regularly discuss US foreign policy priorities with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We welcome the rebalancing of US focus to the Asia-Pacific region, which is in line with our own renewed engagement in the region.
David Rutley
Given the United States’ refocus on Asia and repivoting there, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is taking to further our diplomatic and commercial interests in the growth markets of China and south-east Asia?
Mr Hague
We are doing a great deal to increase our emphasis on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations member states. This autumn, I shall reopen our embassy in Laos, which means we will be one of the few EU countries with representation in all 10 ASEAN states. We are doing a great deal to add to our commercial diplomacy in China, adding 60 new posts in the diplomatic service. This year, UK Trade & Investment expects to help more than 3,000 British firms to do business in China in design, construction, management of hospitals and energy generation, and there is a lot more to do.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with our US representative about the sabre-rattling between China and Japan over disputed islands, and between Japan and Korea in relation to their long-term relationship? This is a matter of just a little concern at present, but we do not want it to escalate.
Mr Hague
Of course, we discuss all global affairs with the United States, including those disputes. It is primarily for the countries concerned to resolve them, as is the case with the disputes in the South China sea. We want those disputes to be resolved peacefully and in accordance with international law. That is what we call for when we meet all the countries concerned.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
12. What recent assessment he has made of the state of UK relations with the Commonwealth; and if he will make a statement.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Following the London conference on Somalia in February, there are encouraging signs of progress in Somalia, which matters greatly to the security of the United Kingdom and the world. A new Speaker has been elected to the Somali Parliament and presidential elections will be held on 10 September. The new British office in Somaliland opened yesterday, and a new British embassy in Mogadishu will open soon—our first diplomatic representation on the ground for 20 years.
Christopher Pincher
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the stories surrounding Mr Julian Assange, currently holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, that he might be executed if he faces trial in the United States, are utterly without foundation, and that his rights would be fully protected should he be extradited to Sweden, as that country has requested?
Mr Hague
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I set out the position in a written statement to the House yesterday and made clear the implications of the fact that the United Kingdom and Sweden are both signatories of the European convention on human rights. We are two countries which have some of the strongest attachment of any countries in the world to human rights. Therefore the fears that have been expressed that extradition to a third country could lead to a death sentence are without foundation.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Bahraini Government have long claimed their determination to pursue the path of reform and reconciliation, but only yesterday it emerged that the retrial of 20 activists and Opposition figures had resulted in all of them being found guilty, with long sentences and, in the case of eight defendants, life sentences. In light of this, can the Foreign Secretary set out the British Government’s judgment as to whether these were fair trials? More widely, what is his assessment of the Bahraini Government’s commitment to reform and reconciliation?
Mr Hague
I am very disappointed at the Bahraini civil court’s decision to uphold all the sentences of 20 political activists in Bahrain. We welcome the decision to review these cases in a civilian court but we remain very concerned by some of the charges that defendants were convicted of, and I urge the Bahraini Government to ensure that the human rights and freedoms of their citizens are fully upheld at all times. We are aware that the defendants can now appeal to a further court and we hope that this will be conducted thoroughly, with urgency and with due legal process. That will be one of the tests of the Bahraini Government’s commitment to reform.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
T4. In light of the recent news that the legislature of Argentina in Buenos Aires has passed a Bill to prohibit British ships from docking in its ports, what recent discussions have Ministers had with their counterparts across south America to prevent other states in the region from taking similar economically counter-productive measures?
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
T2. The lives of 179 brave British soldiers were lost in pursuit of non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If the nuclear state of Israel attacks Iran in pursuit of non-existent long-range Iranian missiles carrying non-existent Iranian bombs, can we have a guarantee that the House would discuss its position before any British lives were put in jeopardy?
Mr Hague
First, the hon. Gentleman must be careful not to extrapolate too much from one case to another. The position on Iran and its nuclear programme is documented in dramatically more detail than any of the programmes of Iraq discussed before the war in Iraq. But of course we have established a clear convention in the House over the past 20 years about the commitment of our forces to military action and the need to consult Parliament and to have a vote in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. That is a convention well understood across the House.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
T5. Ministers will be aware of the concern about the case in Pakistan involving a young girl, Rimsha Masih, who is thought to be as young as 14 and to have learning difficulties and who has been accused of blasphemy. Can Ministers update the House on what representations they have made to the Pakistan Government about this case?
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
T3. Given that Venezuela has held more elections than nearly any other country in the world in recent years, and that these have been independently verified as free and fair by international bodies, will the Foreign Secretary join me in calling for all parties in Venezuela, including the Opposition parties, to recognise the outcome of October’s presidential elections, whatever the result may be?
Mr Hague
There is certainly a vigorous election campaign going on in Venezuela; there is no doubt about it. We support a democratic process in Venezuela, and of course want the elections to adhere to the highest standards. Everyone will have to make their own judgment about the elections at the time, but we certainly hope that they are elections whose outcome everyone can respect.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
T6. Will the Foreign Secretary please update us on the long-term vision for Afghanistan? What sort of presence is Britain likely to have in Afghanistan in, say, 2020 and what will we be doing there at that date?
Mr Hague
As my hon. Friend knows, our troops will not be in a combat role after the end of 2014 and will not be there in anything like the numbers they are now, but we have gone out of our way over the past couple of years to stress our long-term commitment to Afghanistan. That will include, on the military side, leading the officer training academy. Decisions will be made in due course about any other military support. Of course, our prime contribution will be an economic and diplomatic one, and the Secretary of State for International Development has announced large-scale development aid for Afghanistan for the future, so I hope that our role will be one of encouraging regional support for Afghanistan and working with a democratically elected Government on the country’s future.
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely. We have said what we have said about demolitions on the west bank, and that certainly applies to demolitions in Gaza as well. I will look at the reports to which my hon. Friend refers. There are many things that we call on Hamas to do in order to make a peace process viable and, of course, it is important that it respects the rights of the people living in Gaza.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware of the strong relationship over the past year between trade unionists in the United Kingdom and in Colombia. What recent assessment has he made of the spate of killings this summer of trade unionists in Colombia known personally to members of the British trade union movement?
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State provide the latest information on the situation facing the Rohingyas in Burma, and would he be prepared to meet a group of Rohingyas who live in my constituency and have appalling tales of atrocities to tell about the situation in both Burma and, indeed, Bangladesh?
Mr Hague
These people are in a very difficult and often desperate situation in Burma and in neighbouring countries. This is a subject that both I and the International Development Secretary have raised in recent times with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, and with Burmese leaders, including the Opposition and Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as the Burmese Government, so we are constantly engaged on the issue and wish Burmese leaders to address it. Certainly, one or other of the ministerial team would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary will have seen the worrying reports about young people from the United Kingdom travelling to Syria as the recruits of al-Qaeda and other extremist groups, and he will recognise the risk that such individuals may pose on their return. Will he assure the House that the security services will do all that is needed to counter this potential threat?
Mr Hague
Absolutely. We take very seriously the reports that British nationals are among the foreign fighters in Syria. We cannot provide any estimate of the numbers, which the right hon. Gentleman asked for in his earlier question on the Order Paper, because there are numerous travel routes via many third countries. However, where there is evidence that British nationals are involved in terrorism or other illegal activity, the Government have a range of powers to stop them travelling and will use those powers appropriately.
European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As the House will know, the reason for the treaty change that the Bill approves is the crisis in the eurozone. That crisis was predictable and, in fact, predicted by some present in the House. The existence of monetary union without fiscal or economic union has led to severe economic strains in a number of eurozone countries and permitted the build-up of excessive debts by some members to an unsustainable level.
I have always opposed Britain’s membership of the euro, as Opposition Members will no doubt recall, not only because of the single currency’s flawed design, but because of the limitations that it would impose on our national democracy. I think that there is now near-national consensus that we are better off with our own currency; I say “near” because the Leader of the Opposition has said that Britain could join the euro if he were Prime Minister for long enough—a pretty good reason for not allowing him to become Prime Minister at all.
None the less, there are solid majorities in every national Parliament in the eurozone that wish to retain their membership of the single currency and see it restored to stability. They have their reasons for that, and we should respect them. Obviously, it is also crucially in our interests for the eurozone crisis to be resolved. As the—
Mr Hague
It is a little early, even for my hon. Friend. In a few paragraphs, I will of course give way to him—probably more than once, I should imagine.
The Governor of the Bank of England has said that the crisis is casting a black cloud of uncertainty over our economy. Eurozone countries could take a number of measures to bring about a resolution, and the decision about which are the right ones is for them. One measure that has been decided is the European stability mechanism, a permanent financial assistance mechanism established by the eurozone for the eurozone, to help eurozone countries that get into difficulties. The amendment to article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union confirms the ability of the eurozone countries to do that. The simple purpose of the Bill is to approve that decision.
Mr Cash
I am most grateful to the Foreign Secretary. Why in his own judgment and opinion is he prepared to invoke the exemption arrangements, the effect of which is to say that the matter does not really affect United Kingdom businesses, as was set out in the explanatory notes to the European Union Act 2011? Plainly, the implosion in Europe does affect us, and this failed attempt to put a sticking plaster on an increasingly impossible situation is simply making the position worse.
Mr Hague
Clearly, the economic crisis in the eurozone—“implosion”, as my hon. Friend terms it—affects us enormously, but so do many other things in the world such as the deficit of the United States and the economic policies of China. What we are dealing with is the approval of one change to article 136—a change that concerns eurozone countries and gives certainty to the creation of a treaty purely for those countries. It has an additional benefit for the United Kingdom, to which I shall come in the course of my speech.
I do not pretend for a moment that the ratification of the decision or the establishment of the ESM alone will solve the eurozone crisis. As the present situation shows, many other things are needed for that solution. For the long term, sustainable public finances and globally competitive economies in all the eurozone’s member states are needed. Those tasks are vital not just for eurozone countries to succeed but for the United Kingdom as well, and are at the heart of this Government’s programme.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving way. He has talked about resolving the eurozone crisis, but the measure will just pour good money after bad. Will not the ultimate resolution of the eurozone crisis come only when certain countries are allowed to leave the eurozone, recreate their own currencies and expand their economies again?
Mr Hague
Different solutions can be advocated and the hon. Gentleman is advocating what he thinks would help as a solution. However, the point that he and I have to bear in mind is that those countries—their national Parliaments and democratically elected Governments—wish to stay in the eurozone. That position is different from the one that he and I have always taken on the United Kingdom, but that is their wish. Therefore in practice we are dealing with that situation. We want those countries to succeed in stabilising the eurozone.
Let us take the worst-case scenario—the hon. Gentleman’s assumption that the measure would pour good money after bad. What we are ensuring is that money from the United Kingdom taxpayer is not going after other money, good or bad, giving assistance to eurozone countries. The Bill provides solely for the parliamentary approval of an amendment to article 136 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which makes it clear that the eurozone member states may, by means of a separate intergovernmental agreement, establish a financial assistance mechanism—the European stability mechanism, or ESM—without acting in contravention of their obligations as member states of the EU.
As the House will know, this is not the first time that this treaty amendment has been considered and approved by Parliament. Before the Prime Minister agreed to the treaty amendment decision in March last year, a motion in favour of the draft decision was passed by both Houses under the provisions of the previous legislation—the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. Before our Act of last year, that was all the parliamentary scrutiny and control required for the Government to agree to a change in the EU treaties under the simplified revision procedure.
In our view, those provisions were grossly inadequate, so at that time my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe committed us to bringing the decision before the House again under the more stringent parliamentary scrutiny of what was then the European Union Bill. Indeed, we introduced an amendment to that Bill, now section 5(6), to enable the treaty change to be subject to the Bill’s provisions once it entered into force. That Bill has become the European Union Act 2011 and any use of the simplified revision procedure now requires an Act of Parliament for ratification. That is why this Bill is being presented to the House.
Having gained the approval of Parliament in March last year, the Prime Minister formally agreed to the decision at the following European Council. The decision must now be ratified by all 27 member states before the amendment to article 136 can enter into force. Eighteen member states have now done so. The target date for entry into force, as set out in the European Council decision, is 1 January 2013.
The scrutiny process under the European Union Act 2011 began in October last year, just under two months after its relevant provisions came into force, when I laid a statement before Parliament, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has referred, under the provisions of section 5 of the 2011 Act. I set out in that statement why the decision does not trigger the requirements for a referendum set down in the European Union Act 2011.
The proposed amendment to article 136 applies only to member states whose currency is the euro. Consequently, it does not transfer further competence or power to the EU from the UK. The opinion set out in the statement was open to judicial review, but in the intervening 11 months no one has sought to challenge it in the courts. To ensure timely ratification of the decision, which is strongly in our country’s interests for reasons that I will now come to, the Bill was introduced in the Lords, where it was passed without amendment. Should the Commons now grant its approval, the Government intend to ratify the treaty amendment by the end of this year.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Is this really such a big change in the scrutiny of how these things are done? Since we joined the European Union, has there ever been an amendment to the European treaty that did not require an Act of Parliament?
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) was saying that throughout the history of the European Union every treaty amendment has required an Act of this House, so what we are doing today is no different from what has been done in the past.
Mr Hague
Yes, but in the past we did not always have the simplified revision procedure and the provisions of the Lisbon treaty that most Government Members—or rather most of us in the Conservative part of the coalition—opposed when the legislation was passing through this House. Even without this change in scrutiny, there would now be far greater scope for treaty changes without the passage of an Act of Parliament.
Mr MacShane
The Foreign Secretary’s two colleagues have made important points. This treaty requires ratification by the Parliaments of the eurozone and it is going through that parliamentary ratification. The notion that it could simply have been nodded through as a statutory instrument is silly. It is quite an important treaty, and this Parliament is right to be adopting it tonight; other Parliaments are doing likewise.
Mr Hague
Yes, other Parliaments are doing that in their own various ways. My point is that the reason this requires the full examination and passing of a Bill is the passage through this House of the European Union Act 2011, which the right hon. Gentleman probably opposed if he voted on it. A much briefer procedure was required under the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which he supported. Parliamentary scrutiny has been enhanced by the recent change, and I am merely establishing that point. [Interruption.] Labour Members are reminding me that they did not vote against the EU Act 2011—although they were probably unable to vote for it. Having taken so many positions on the holding of a referendum, they decided not to have a position at all.
As the House will remember, the background to the ESM is that in response to the first Greek crisis, the previous Government, in their very last days, agreed to the establishment of two emergency instruments to respond to financial crises. The first is the European financial stability facility, an emergency facility established intergovernmentally by euro area member states. It has been used to provide loans to euro area member states in financial difficulty. The UK is not a member of that facility and has no exposure to financial assistance provided by it. The EFSF will operate alongside the ESM up until its wind-down by the end of June next year. The second is the European financial stabilisation mechanism, or EFSM. This allows the Council to agree by qualified majority a Commission proposal to provide assistance using money raised on the financial markets, backed by the EU budget. It has been used for assistance to Portugal and the Republic of Ireland, for which we also contributed a bilateral loan.
In the new Government, we have never thought that that was a satisfactory state of affairs. It was a questionable use of article 122 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. An inability to access the markets because of the unsustainability of public finances is not a natural disaster, and it is hard to argue that it is an exceptional occurrence beyond a country’s control, and those were meant to be the criteria for the use of article 122. When qualified majority voting was introduced into the provision under the Nice treaty, we warned the then Government of the risk, and that warning was dismissed. The amendment to article 136 gave us the opportunity to deal with the problem, and we took that opportunity. Britain is not in the euro, we are not going to join the euro, and we should have no liability for bailing out eurozone countries.
On coming to office, therefore, the Government found established a mechanism which enabled the Council of Ministers to decide by qualified majority voting to allow the European Commission to raise funds on the capital markets guaranteed by the headroom in the EU budget—about €60 billion—for loans to eurozone countries. We must grant that thus far this has not cost the British taxpayer a penny. The money is borrowed from the markets by the European Commission against the headroom in the EU budget. It must be granted that these are only contingent liabilities that would be called on only if Portugal or the Republic of Ireland defaulted on their loan obligations. However, it is still not right that a country outside the euro should be obliged to assume contingent liabilities for matters that are clearly the responsibility of countries that are in the euro. That is why this Government were determined to bring the situation to an end, and we have succeeded in our goal. That is a good example of this Government repairing the damage caused by the last one.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because we have come to the crux of the matter. Will he please confirm that if the Bill goes through and reaches the statute book, this country will have no further liability whatsoever under the European financial stabilisation mechanism and will not be called on to contribute any further?
Mr Hague
That is what has been agreed. I am going to examine, in what my hon. Friend or other hon. Members might find painstaking detail—[Interruption.] Actually, I can see that some of my hon. Friends will not find it painstaking. I will go through this in detail to give full, frank and maximum assurance to my hon. Friend and others.
Not only does the new mechanism, the ESM, which is limited to eurozone countries, supersede the EFSM; crucially, the decision that the Bill approves and which is being ratified by all other EU countries reflects in its recitals, or preamble, an agreement that article 122
“will no longer be needed for such purposes”,
The Heads of State or Government have therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes. Therefore, when this decision is ratified, our liability for future euro area financial assistance programmes under the EU budget will be removed. That is a great gain for British taxpayers and, because it fetters the use of article 122, a shift of a power from the European Union to the United Kingdom.
Mr Hague
No, I am going to explain quite a bit of this, and then I will give way to my hon. Friend again.
The House will want to know how our contingent liability under the EFSM is being brought to an end and—this was the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall)—how sure a protection we have against any future use. First, when eurozone member states agreed to bring forward the introduction of the ESM at the ECOFIN meeting on 23 January this year, the Chancellor won agreement from his fellow Finance Ministers that the EFSM would not make any new commitment as soon as the ESM comes into force, which we expect to happen this autumn when the German ratification process is complete. That is an important political agreement. Secondly, there is the decision that we are approving in the Bill and which all our European partners have agreed to ratify by the end of this year. The fourth recital to the decision reflects the agreement reached in the European Council to close off the future use of the EFSM or any such mechanism under paragraph (2) of article 122. As I have said, we expect every country to have ratified the decision by the end of this year.
Those present who are cynical about the ways of the European Union—and there are such people here; in many respects I share a lot of their cynicism—may ask what would happen if, notwithstanding the decision, the Commission made a proposal to reactivate the EFSM or something like it. First, that would be a breach of a political agreement unanimously reached in the European Council, recorded in the Council conclusions, and reflected in the preamble to a decision unanimously agreed at the European Council and soon, we expect, to be ratified unanimously by all EU countries under their respective constitutional requirements. If, despite all that—this is an extreme hypothesis—the Commission made such a proposal and somehow received a qualified majority, the British Government would of course challenge any such measure before the European Court of Justice, citing the agreement of all EU member states in the European Council and the fourth recital to the decision in support of the argument that any such measure would be in breach of the clear intention of all EU member states and that article 122 would no longer be needed and should not be used for this purpose. Those would be very strong arguments indeed. That is the protection that we have secured against any future obligation to participate in bail-outs, and it is a good one.
Mark Reckless
Is there not a fundamental inconsistency in the Foreign Secretary’s position? On the one hand, he says that ratifying the European Council decision of 25 March 2011, which amends article 136, will affect only member states in the eurozone and not the UK, and that he therefore does not need a referendum. He then goes on to say, “Ah, look at recital (4) within the decision. That will mean that the mechanism cannot be used to impose costs on the United Kingdom in future.” That is surely a fundamental inconsistency.
Mr Hague
No, it is not. The decision relates to a treaty being created for the eurozone countries. In conjunction with that and at the same time, as is reflected in the fourth recital, the Prime Minister secured agreement at the December 2010 European Council that article 122 would not be used. That is absolutely clear. If my hon. Friend wants to argue that we should have a referendum on our not being liable for eurozone bail-outs any more, he can do so, but I will not agree. That is not the kind of thing that we had in mind when we passed the European Union Act 2011; nor would it do any good to the good name of referendums.
Mr Jenkin
My right hon. Friend is in something of a Catch-22, which he is skilfully trying to obscure from us. If the article basis for the May 2010 mechanism was illegal or questionable, why do we need this legislation to get out of it and why did we not challenge it? If it was not illegal, why is it necessary to amend the treaty to legalise a different mechanism? The very fact that the European Commission and the other member states have agreed to the treaty amendment, which effectively does away with the no bail-out clause that was so central to the passage of the Maastricht treaty, means that they admit implicitly that the original mechanism had an illegal treaty base.
Mr Hague
I can go over that again. It is that article 122 will no longer be used for eurozone bail-outs. It may be my hon. Friend who faces a Catch-22 here, because he just cannot bear the idea that a Bill that says “European something” on it might be good for the country. This Bill is good for the country. Even those of us, like him and me, who are very sceptical about many aspects of the European Union have to admit that securing an agreement that means that we are no longer liable for eurozone bail-outs and that does not harm the country in any other way is, in the words of our noble Friend Lord Flight in the other place, a “no-brainer” to support. That is why I hope that the House will support the Bill.
Mr Hague
No, I will not give way any further. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) will never see me go native on European subjects.
The ESM is being set up under an intergovernmental treaty that was signed on 2 February by the eurozone member states. That treaty is now being ratified by those 17 member states. It will come into force as soon as euro area member states representing 90% of the capital commitments to the fund have ratified the intergovernmental treaty.
The treaty amendment that Parliament is being asked to approve in the Bill does not establish the ESM. Our clear view—this is part of the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin)—is that the treaty amendment is not legally required to set up the ESM. Eurozone member states, in particular Germany, want the legal certainty that the amendment provides, partly because of article 125, which is the no bail-out provision that he talked about. The UK, of course, will not ratify the ESM treaty because it has not signed up to the intergovernmental agreement, is not part of the eurozone and is not going to be part of the eurozone. The intensification of the crisis led eurozone member states to agree to bring forward the introduction of the ESM to this year. Their position has not changed the timing of the ratification.
Members may also be aware that a legal challenge to the validity of the decision amending article 136 is currently being considered by the European Court of Justice. The Irish Supreme Court is seeking a ruling on whether it is valid, whether the ESM treaty is compatible with EU law, and whether eurozone member states can establish the ESM before the article 136 decision enters into force.
We are wholly satisfied that the decision is valid from a legal perspective, but it is absolutely right that the Irish Supreme Court seeks the ruling of the European Court of Justice, particularly because Ireland is a member of the eurozone and a signatory to the ESM treaty. We do not expect the ECJ to find against the decision in any way, but should it find the decision invalid or the ESM incompatible with EU law, there would need to be a new ratification process. A failure to approve the decision would, naturally, have an unfortunate effect on our trading partners in the eurozone by undermining certainty about the legal validity of their firewall, and it would leave unratified the decision, the importance of whose recitals to us I have explained. That would be unfortunate from our point of view.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr Hague
No, I am concluding my speech.
The UK will no longer be exposed to any future programmes of financial assistance for the eurozone through the EU budget. The Bill will help our friends and neighbours in the eurozone, whom we wish to see prosper, in their search for financial stability in their currency area. This House has already agreed, under previous provisions, to the Prime Minister signing the treaty amendment. I hope that its merits mean that it will be approved again under the new and vastly more rigorous provisions that we have put in place. I commend the Second Reading of the Bill to the House.
Syria
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Syria.
More than 20,000 people have now died in the conflict in Syria, up to 1.5 million are internally displaced, and 230,000 have fled to Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan. According to the UN, 2.5 million people in Syria need urgent humanitarian assistance—double the number in March—and fewer than half of Syrian primary health care facilities and hospitals are now fully functional. The regime is using indiscriminate shelling, aircraft, helicopter gunships and militias to terrorise civilians. There are reports of up to 400 people slaughtered in a single atrocity in the town of Darayya.
Our objective remains an end to the violence and a transition to a more democratic and stable Syria. That is the only way to avoid protracted civil war, the collapse of the Syrian state, an even greater exodus of refugees, and further appalling loss of life. That is not just our view or the view of other western countries; it is the view of the Arab League and the vast majority of UN member states, and I particularly welcome the recent strong statement by President Morsi of Egypt condemning the Assad regime’s actions.
Despite our best efforts, the United Nations Security Council has been unable to put its full weight and authority behind a peaceful resolution of the crisis. On three occasions we have tried with our partners to adopt a Security Council resolution that would require the regime to begin a political transition, rather than simply call on it to do so. On each occasion, Russia and China have used their vetoes, most recently on 19 July. It is a terrible indictment of the Council that approximately a quarter of all those who have been killed in Syria died in the month following the last vetoed resolution.
We continue to urge Russia and China to work with us to end the crisis and to allow the Security Council to live up to its responsibilities—a case the Prime Minister made to President Putin during August, and a case I made again at the Security Council in New York last week. We are also working closely with the new UN and Arab League special representative, Mr Lakhdar Brahimi, whom I met in New York last week as well.
In the absence of that international unity, however, we have sharply increased our work to help the people of Syria in five areas: helping to create the conditions for a political transition; providing further humanitarian aid; increasing the pressure on the regime; supporting justice for victims of human rights violations; and planning assistance to a future Syrian Government. In each case our actions are carefully co-ordinated with our partners, and I organised a conference call in mid-August with Secretary Clinton and the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Turkey to ensure that that is the case.
Briefly, I will take each of those five areas in turn. First, a political transition requires the Assad regime to stop the violence, but it also requires Syria’s opposition groups to win the trust of the Syrian people and provide a united and viable political alternative. We are therefore greatly increasing our work with opposition groups and political activists in Syria. The UK’s special representative to the Syrian opposition continues to meet opposition groups in the region, and last month I authorised his first limited contacts with political representatives of the Free Syrian army outside the country.
On 10 August, I announced an extra £5 million in non-lethal practical assistance to help protect unarmed opposition groups and human rights activists in Syria, including communications equipment, training to support the documentation of human rights violations, and other equipment for civilians. Communications equipment is en route to Syria as I speak.
We have already trained more than 60 activists in documenting human rights violations, and provided support, including equipment, for 100 Syrian citizen journalists to report on events in Syria. Activists who helped investigate the massacre in El-Houleh, for example, were trained by the United Kingdom. The new assistance I announced on 10 August is designed to support similar work and to help save lives. All the support we provide will be carefully targeted, co-ordinated with like-minded countries, consistent with our laws and values, and based on rigorous analysis and risk assessment.
The second area is action to address the humanitarian crisis. The UK is the second largest bilateral donor to the Syrian people. Since July, our aid has provided food to more than 145,000 people, water and sanitation for up to 60,000 people, and health care for more than 50,000 people. In August, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced a fourfold increase in UK assistance for Syrian refugees. At the UN Security Council last week, I announced a further increase in UK aid from £27.5 million to £30.5 million. It includes £2 million in new funding for medical aid inside Syria and £1 million for refugees in Jordan, particularly those who have been victims of sexual violence—a particular focus for our Government ahead of our G8 presidency next year.
Both my right hon. Friend and I have visited the Jordanian border with Syria in recent weeks to meet refugees, and we have seen how the need is growing. As of last week, the $180 million UN humanitarian response plan was only half funded. There is an urgent need for other countries to help make up the shortfall. To that end, in New York I proposed, with the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, that Development Ministers and UN agencies meet to help generate donations and co-ordinate assistance. Through the conflict pool, we are also increasing our bilateral support to the Government and armed forces of Lebanon as they grapple with insecurity caused by Syria’s conflict.
Thirdly, the UK has been at the forefront of efforts to isolate the Assad regime and cut off its finance. We have led the way on 17 rounds of EU sanctions on Syria since last May, targeting 155 individuals and 55 entities close to the regime. Senior Syrian military officers and diplomats are joining senior members of the Government in courageously turning their back on Assad, including former Prime Minister Riad Hijab. At the UN Foreign Minister Fabius and I also called for others around Assad to follow Mr Hijab’s example and dissociate themselves from the regime.
This leads into our fourth area of work—supporting justice for the Syrian people and helping to deter crimes. The UN Human Rights Council commission of inquiry has reported human rights violations on an appalling scale by the regime and its militia, and also abuses by some armed groups. A list of individuals and units believed to be responsible for human rights violations and abuses will be submitted by the commission at the end of this month, for the purposes of holding to account those responsible for atrocities. We strongly believe that the commission’s mandate should be extended so it can continue that vital work.
We also support the initiative by the Swiss Government to build momentum for a referral of the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court, and urge others to join these efforts. If these do not succeed, we look forward to a day when a different kind of government in place in Syria will take responsibility for voluntarily referring the situation to the ICC. The UK’s expert human rights monitoring mission visited the region earlier this year. We will continue to work to help improve the quality of information and evidence gathered by Syrian human rights activists which may be used in a future accountability process.
Fifthly, Assad’s departure from power is inevitable. His regime is doomed, and the international community must plan rapid support to a new government in Syria now.
Any such government will face a broad range of challenges, from reforming the security sector and restoring health and education services, to ensuring people have shelter, water and food. So FCO officials are working closely with the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence and the stabilisation unit, and also with key allies in the Friends of Syria including regional countries, so that we develop and co-ordinate plans for assistance now.
This crisis began when the people of Syria demanded their legitimate rights and freedoms. The Assad regime has tried to crush their aspirations and extinguish their hope. We will use all diplomatic means available to us to help them, working with the UN, the Friends of Syria, the European Union, Arab countries and key allies such as France, the United States and Turkey. As I have said to the House before, we have not ruled out any options as this crisis deepens. At the UN General Assembly later this month, we will seek once again to generate the determined, concerted international action that the situation demands and that Syrian people have every right to expect.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his remarks and for prior sight of the statement.
Since the House last debated the situation, the pace of the conflict unfolding in Syria has quickened and the situation on the ground worsened. It is impossible yet to quantify the scale of the tragedy, but already, as we heard from the Foreign Secretary, the figures are stark and the suffering immense. I welcome much that he set out for the House today, therefore, but does he accept that the situation in Syria continues to represent not only, of course, a terrible indictment of Assad’s brutality but a tragic failure by the international community? The longer the conflict continues, the greater the risk of a rise of jihadism on the one hand and indiscriminate sectarian violence on the other, making a sustainable resolution to the conflict even harder to achieve. Military action alone will not bring peace to this country, and the bloodshed will not stop unless there is a plan to build the peace as well as one to win the war.
It is deeply to be regretted that the continuing division of the international community has meant that the UN has failed, time and time again, to take the necessary action. Since the House last debated the matter, Kofi Annan has resigned as special envoy, the UN observer mission’s mandate has expired and only today the man brought in to replace Mr Annan has described his mission as “nearly impossible”. But adversity cannot, and must not, be an excuse for inaction, so I welcome—on behalf of the whole House, I am sure—the fact that the Foreign Secretary has set out in his statement the vital and urgent support and relief that the UK is offering for the millions both within Syria and in the border regions.
The number of internally displaced people inside Syria is 10 times greater than the number of refugees in neighbouring countries, but the appeal for assistance for those inside Syria is only 20% funded, and many non-governmental organisations argue that, compared with the appeal for refugees outside the country, the allocation for those in Syria is much less in proportion to the scale of the need. Will the Foreign Secretary set out the steps being taken to address this situation? Given the recent reports of French and Turkish thinking on this issue, what assessment have the British Government made of the viability of buffer zones within Syria to protect fleeing civilians, and will he make clear the Government’s position on this, given that apparently no agreement was reached on it at last week’s UN Security Council meeting?
Alongside steps to relieve the immediate crisis, we share the Government’s view that work must be done to improve Syria’s prospects, but given that Syria has now descended into full-blown civil war it is vital that the Government act with real care in their engagement with the Syrian opposition. I note that the Foreign Secretary told the House this afternoon that “All the support we provide will be carefully targeted, co-ordinated with like-minded countries, consistent with our laws and values, and based on rigorous analysis and risk assessment”. In the light of this commitment, what assurances can he give on the identity, ideology and tactics of the rebel groups to which the UK Government are now providing direct support, and what specific safeguards are in place to ensure that this support is not being channelled to jihadist forces operating within the Syrian opposition on the ground?
I turn briefly to the efforts of the UN. I regret that it took so many months and lives for many finally to acknowledge that the Annan plan had failed—something that many of us warned was in prospect some months ago. In the light of this failure to reach an agreement on next steps at last week’s UN Security Council meeting, what is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the likelihood of either Russia or China changing course and supporting a UN resolution—even one enforcing sanctions on Syria or signing up to a global arms embargo? Of course, we welcome the work he set out on documenting human rights abuses but, in the light of the suspension of the UN monitoring mission, has the level of information getting out of Syria increased or decreased since the suspension of the UN mission?
The Foreign Secretary concluded his remarks by stating: “we have not ruled out any options as this crisis deepens.” However, does he accept, and will he confirm, that there is today not the agreed legal basis, the regional support or, indeed, the public appetite for British ground forces to be deployed in Syria? It is imperative, therefore, that the Government focus their important efforts in the weeks ahead on unifying the international community’s response, uniting a fractured opposition behind a credible plan for inclusive political transition and addressing the continued and growing humanitarian need of the millions suffering in Syria today. If that is the focus of the Government’s work in the weeks ahead, they will continue to have the Opposition’s support.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, what he said in summing up at the end of his question is what I have been putting to the House, so we have a unity of approach across the House. In the absence of the international agreement and unity to mandate and require the implementation of the Annan plan or something very similar to it, we are setting out to continue to work on unifying the international community, to help to unite and assist the opposition in various ways and to address the humanitarian crisis. That is exactly our approach.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the deployment of British ground forces, which is not something I have heard anybody advocate in this country. However, it is also true that we do not know how the situation will develop over the coming months. It is likely to deteriorate sharply even from its current position, given the diplomatic outlook and given that a peaceful transition is becoming harder to achieve, not easier, as the fighting goes on and intensifies. Therefore, it would be wrong to rule out options, but clearly we are proceeding with care and caution in everything that we do.
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the pace of the conflict has quickened. More than a quarter of the people who have died in Syria probably have died since the last time we discussed it in this House. That shows how terrible the events of recent weeks have been. He is right that that reflects not only the appalling brutality of the Assad regime, but a failure by the international community. That is due to only a small part of the international community. The UN General Assembly passed a motion on the subject, with which we were very happy, by 133 to 12 on 3 August. However, two of those 12 wield a veto in the 15-member UN Security Council, and have done so on three occasions. I said in my remarks at the Security Council last Thursday that the Security Council has failed, so I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis. This is a failure of the responsibilities of the United Nations Security Council. We should be very blunt about that.
However, I have to inform the House that the prospects for a change in the Russian position are not strong at the moment. As I said, the Prime Minister and I both met President Putin when he came for the Olympics in early August. The Prime Minister discussed the Syrian situation with the President. From all the conversations that we have had with him and with Russian officials and Ministers, I think that the Russian position is likely to change only when the situation on the ground changes further to a substantial degree. Therefore, we have to make a success of all the other actions that we are taking, in the absence of the international agreement that we have sought.
On those topics, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the shortfall, which is serious, particularly as the crisis is getting rapidly worse in terms of IDPs and refugees. That is something that we have called on the international community to address. The United Kingdom is setting a strong example, as I have set out. The Department for International Development is doing a great job in the work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and in supplying the necessary funds, and we will continue to encourage other countries to do so. Indeed, that will be a major topic for us at the UN General Assembly ministerial week, which I and the Prime Minister will attend later this month in New York.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about buffer zones. We are sceptical in the current situation about buffer zones inside Syria. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at our Security Council meeting on Thursday said:
“all human beings have the right to seek and enjoy asylum in another state. This is a right that must not be jeopardized, for instance through the establishment of so-called ‘safe havens’ or other similar arrangements. Bitter experience has shown that it is rarely possible to provide effective protection and security in such areas.”
We must weigh those remarks heavily.
I pay tribute, however, to the people and Governments of Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan for their generosity and hospitality. Many of the people who are fleeing Syria are initially going to camps, but in many cases they are then going to live in people’s homes, particularly in Jordan and Lebanon. We should bear in mind, as we provide the generous assistance that we are putting forward, that the people of those countries are also making an important contribution at a personal level. I paid tribute to them at the Security Council meeting last week as well.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly asked about support for the opposition. Of course, this is an area in which we have to proceed with care, but I believe that the necessity of providing support for people in such a desperate situation outweighs the risks involved in doing so. There are risks attached, however. We know a lot about the various Syrian opposition movements—they vary greatly—and our knowledge of them is improving all the time. Our representative to them, John Wilkes, is working hard and knows them well. I therefore believe that it is possible, subject to the legal constraints and the legal advice that we always have to take on this issue, to channel the kind of assistance that I am talking about—communications equipment, water purification kits, protective clothing—to certain groups without the items falling into the wrong hands. In any case, we are not talking about anything that could cause lethal harm to anyone else, so we have that failsafe, if you like, on the assistance that we are providing. I will keep Parliament updated regularly on how that assistance is being provided and, as far as possible, on how it is being used.
The situation is deteriorating further, and it does represent a failure by the international community, but we in this House can be confident that the United Kingdom is doing its utmost to help the millions of people caught up in this tragic conflict.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and I share his frustration with the United Nations; this calls into question the influence of the Security Council as far as this matter is concerned. I am disappointed that he is sceptical about a buffer zone. That was a proposal put forward by the Turkish Government and it must be taken seriously. Is his scepticism based on a conclusion that he would be unable to garner political support for the proposal, or would there be a military problem that would render it unenforceable?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right about the United Nations on this subject, although I should stress that, although I have very bluntly said that the United Nations Security Council is failing in this matter, that does not mean that it is failing across a whole range of others. In recent months, the Security Council has been doing its job very well in respect of issues involving Somalia and Yemen, for example, but on this subject it is blocked and failing in its responsibilities.
My hon. Friend said that a proposal for a buffer zone had been made by the Government of Turkey. These ideas are floated from time to time by that Government, but Turkey is welcoming refugees. It is of course concerned about the numbers coming in, but it is not suggesting any change to that approach at the moment. We know from bitter experience that we can advocate safe havens or safe areas only if we are absolutely confident that we will be able to protect the people in those areas and the people travelling to them. That would in turn require not only huge military force but the readiness to use that force. The international will to do that and the decision to do that are clearly not there.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to take credit for the constructive role of his own Department and the Department for International Development, and to draw attention to the lamentable failure of Moscow and Beijing to look to their responsibilities. He also mentioned the position of Lebanon, which is the most likely of all Syria’s neighbouring countries to see an extension of the conflict igniting within its borders. Is the international community sufficiently apprised of how dangerous that situation is, and of how intractable a return to civil war would be if that were to happen in Lebanon?
Mr Hague
I hope so, and I hope that we are helping to increase the recognition of the importance and fragility of Lebanon in these issues. I mentioned briefly in my statement that we are using conflict pool funding to increase the support we give the Lebanese armed forces. We are also working closely with the Government of Lebanon in understanding the whole situation and in highlighting their difficulties to the international community. I am glad to say that under the French presidency of the Security Council and the meeting we had last week, the Lebanese Government were invited to the Security Council and were able to put the very serious situation in their country directly to the Security Council. That has helped to highlight the international difficulties. We will encourage other countries to give Lebanon practical assistance of various kinds and to follow suit in respect of the refugees entering Lebanon.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Despite the bleak news it contained, may I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and, in particular, the news of the significant humanitarian aid that the Government are bringing to the Syrian people? Mr Brahimi may have described his mission as “nearly impossible”, but he does have very strong contacts within the Arab League. In his conversations with the Foreign Secretary, did he tell him of any plans that Arab League members have for them to put pressure on Russia and China to lift their disgraceful vetoes, which are effectively preventing any international action against this doomed but murderous regime?
Mr Hague
Mr Brahimi is a very wise man. I pay tribute to the work of Kofi Annan, but I also welcome Mr Brahimi to this difficult post. He has set expectations as low as possible, which is a wise thing to do, particularly given the situation, but that does not mean he will be lacking in energy or ideas as to what to do. He will be working closely with the Arab League, as well as being the representative of the UN Secretary-General. The Arab League countries have indeed been putting pressure on Russia and China, but so far it has not worked. A large part of the world has been putting that pressure on, including many African nations, too. A majority of the UN member states have attended one or other of the meetings of the Friends of Syria, so the trend of international opinion is very clear, but that effort to change the minds of Moscow and Beijing has not yet been successful.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Twenty years ago, the Foreign Secretary was a member of a Government who initiated no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq without explicit UN Security Council resolutions. Is it not time, even if President Obama is not interested, that this country, France, Turkey and other European NATO countries seriously considered what we can do to stop this growing humanitarian and political disaster?
Mr Hague
Clearly, we are doing a great deal, as I have set out, to address what the hon. Gentleman rightly describes as a growing humanitarian disaster. I have been careful not to rule out any option. He is putting forward a particular option, but I have to say that such an option would be practicable only with the full support of the United States of America. It is not something to advocate in the way that he did of, “Whatever President Obama thinks”; the air defences of Syria are an entirely different matter from those of Iraq 20 years ago. It is very important to bear that in mind when advocating that particular option.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The west’s track record on protecting minorities in interventions of this sort has not always been good. What work is being done to ensure that the minorities in Syria, including the Christians and the Alawites, will be afforded the same protection as they have received under Assad should he fall?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and this is a crucial part of our work with the opposition; it has certainly been a part of all the meetings I have had with different opposition groups from Syria. We stress, of course, that for their own success and support within Syria they need to represent the full range of not only political views, but ethnic origin and religious belief in Syria. It is very important that they do that. We are continuing to work with the opposition to help them present a united front and work together in a completely united way. The different opposition groups, including the Syrian National Council, have made many important and helpful statements about respect for all minorities in Syria, but we will not let up in reminding them that that requires practical action as well as strong statements.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
What will the Foreign Secretary do specifically to put pressure on China and Russia to support a UN resolution enforcing sanctions on Syria and to sign up to a global arms embargo?
Mr Hague
We do not ever stop in our efforts on that point. Of course, we have done everything we possibly can to try to persuade them over the past few months, including my visit to Moscow at the end of May, the discussions I had with both the Russian and Chinese Foreign Ministers when we met in Geneva at the end of June and the meetings that the Prime Minister had in August. There is no let up in the efforts by the United Kingdom, France and the United States—and indeed many Arab countries—to try to persuade them. We will continue to do that. This subject will be a focus of discussion, as I have mentioned, at the UN General Assembly ministerial week later in September. Again, we will directly address the question face-to-face with the Russians and Chinese during that week. I imagine, without prejudging the Prime Minister’s speech to the General Assembly, that there is a high likelihood that the subject will feature in that speech. I have to be—[Interruption.] Yes, I might have something to do with writing it as well, but the Prime Minister will have views about what he is going to say. I have to be realistic and I am trying to be as frank as possible with the House and I have seen no sign that Russia will change its position without a further substantial change in the circumstances on the ground.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree with some observers that the new UN envoy to Syria, Mr Brahimi, must have strong, real support from the United Nations Security Council or he will fail, like his predecessor?
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), I commend the Foreign Secretary, his colleagues and his Department for their work. May I press him on Russia? We all understand what equities Russia has had in the Assad regime, but what explanation does he offer for why Russia has a belief that its strategic advantage lies in continuing to back the Assad regime while it is falling apart, notwithstanding that it might continue for a little while?
Mr Hague
There are several factors at work. One, of course, is that there is some regret in Russian Government circles that Russia abstained on the Security Council resolution that authorised the use of all necessary measures to protect the population of Libya. That is reflected in its approach to any subsequent parallel situation, even though in this case neither we nor anyone else has advocated a military intervention of the sort that we mounted in Libya. Russia is very reluctant to allow any resolution that it sees as leading to any such thing, despite all the reassurances we have given both directly and at the Security Council.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about Russia’s assessment of its strategic interests, it is also possible that it has a different analysis of what is likely to happen in Syria. Our analysis, which I expressed in the statement and which is common in western nations, is that the Assad regime is doomed and that having spilt so much blood and presided over such a catastrophe it is not possible for such a regime to recover its authority or for Syria to return to any stable position while it continues in power. On that point, the Russian analysis might be different and that will lead Russia to a different policy position.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
China did not veto resolutions on intervention in Libya. Have the Foreign Secretary’s Chinese counterparts explained to him what is the difference between Syria and Libya such that they are now obstructing us in the Security Council on the matter of Syria?
Mr Hague
That is a difficult explanation; certainly, they have tried to explain. They support a great deal of what we say, and the analysis and what should be done and the need for a peaceful transition in Syria, but they stop just short of supporting a chapter 7 resolution that would embody that in a UN resolution. I think the reasons are similar to the ones that I just gave to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) about Russia.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
What can the Foreign Secretary tell the House about worrying reports today of clashes between the Turkish army and Kurdish forces on or near the Syrian border? Does he agree that, whatever happens in Syria, this does not constitute political cover for the Turkish Government to attack over their border or further to oppress the Kurdish people?
Mr Hague
I absolutely agree that this does not provide political cover for that, and I have not heard any suggestion from the Foreign Minister of Turkey that it would do so. I am concerned about a series of clashes on the Turkish border involving serious loss of life, including among the Turkish armed forces, in a number of recent incidents. I have expressed our condolences to Turkey on those incidents, and this underlines the need to tackle the situation in all the ways that I have described.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
While I thank my right hon. Friend for all the actions he is taking, last week I met a coalition of most of the major American friends of Syria groups, which make the point that, at the current rate of attrition of 300 deaths a day, in the next 10 weeks—to the American presidential election—there could be another 10,000 people killed. They also make the point that, each day, people face Assad’s helicopter gunships and tanks. They are frustrated with the help that they are getting from the international community. What further can the international community do to prevent these dreadful atrocities?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is sadly right on the arithmetic, but the policy of the United States on the issue is identical to the one that I have been expressing as the policy of the United Kingdom, and that is a generally common feature across American politics as the United States comes to its presidential election. I have no information that there would be a sharp change in that policy should there be a change of Administration, so we have to continue to do the things that I have set out to keep up the pressure for international unity and action, and in the absence of those, in the five different ways that I have set out, to deliver ever increasing help, including to the Syrian opposition groups, to people caught up in the conflict.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about the generosity of ordinary people, particularly in Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere, quite apart from what Governments might be doing in taking in Syrian refugees. The United Kingdom has stepped up to the plate in the support that we are giving to the refugee relief effort. He says he is making representations to other countries to meet and to make up the shortfall. What response is he getting and what further pressure can we apply to other countries to step up to the plate as well?
Mr Hague
We cannot force other countries to do so. We can highlight the good example that we have set; that is one of the reasons that I went to the Security Council in New York last week. We can work through the European Union to increase aid, although the use of EU funds is at a good level. However, many nations in the EU have not made large bilateral donations. I will take that up with my EU colleagues, all of whom I will see at the end of this week, but we shall be active through our embassies all over the world, and very active in the forthcoming General Assembly, when we will be able to address all the nations of the world.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
With regard to regional players, what efforts is my right hon. Friend making, alongside his colleagues in the Department, to engage such organisations as the Arab League, as well as wider players such as Kurdistan and others that share borders with Syria, to reach some sort of resolution?
Mr Hague
We work closely with the Arab League, which has done a good job and has passed its own sanctions or measures on Syria. Of course, we want to make sure that those are more uniformly implemented, so we will continue to discuss that with it. I visited Jordan at the beginning of the recess, and I will very shortly visit a wide range of other countries in the region to encourage the sort of co-ordination that my hon. Friend describes.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the steps taken by the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an update on the level of assets of the Assad regime that have been seized in London? I know that this is a terrible crisis, but will he also keep his eye on the ball as regards Yemen, because the situation there is still at crisis level?
Mr Hague
Yes, we certainly keep our eyes on Yemen. Indeed, the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan), is currently on his way to the latest meeting of the Friends of Yemen in Riyadh, at which the Friends of Yemen will encourage relevant donations to help with the situation in Yemen.
We have taken all the action necessary under the asset-freezing decisions of the European Union in relation to 155 individuals and 55 entities. I am not sure that it is possible to quantify that in pounds, but if it is, I will write to the right hon. gentleman.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know it is not an immediate priority, but has my right hon. Friend raised with the Syrian opposition the issue of the future of any chemical weapons stocks currently held by the Assad regime that might fall into the hands of the opposition?
Mr Hague
Yes, we have raised the very important issue of weapons stocks held by the Assad regime. I also raised it at the Security Council last week, and asked the UN Secretary-General to ensure that what is called the investigation mechanism is ready to be deployed if we have any reports of such chemical weapons being used or moved. Of course, a very strong warning has been sent by the United States and this country to the Assad regime about any possible use of chemical weapons. We have discussed the issue with the opposition as well.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
What are the Foreign Secretary’s immediate concerns regarding the deployment of Syria’s chemical weapons? What does he think is likely to happen in the current situation?
Mr Hague
Well, there are only isolated and anecdotal reports of the use of such weapons—nothing that is verified on any substantial scale. Some of the refugees whom I met in Jordan in July referred to the use of poisonous weapons against them, but it has not been possible to verify that, and they meant that in the sense of small arms at a local level—not that that would be acceptable in any way. We do not have any evidence of the use of chemical weapons. Our hope and expectation is that they will not be used, but if they were to be used, it would be an extremely serious matter, and it might change some of the international calculations about this crisis.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary about the non-lethal practical assistance being provided to protect unarmed opposition groups. What level of confidence does he have that we have the intelligence and infrastructure to monitor where that money is spent and ends up, so that my constituents can have some assurance that the money is not being wasted, and that our investment is in the right side of this war?
Mr Hague
We do have a good deal of information about how such equipment is used. I cannot say to my hon. Friend or to the House exactly how all such information will be arrived at, but we have information about how the equipment that we have provided so far is used, and are able to check on it in various ways, and will be able to do so, in various ways, in future. I can give him a considerable level of reassurance about that, but there is some risk; that is why we are supplying only non-lethal practical assistance in the first place. As I say, in such a desperate situation, the benefits and the need to supply such equipment outweigh whatever risks are attached to it.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the stabilising factors after the break-up of the Soviet empire and then the break-up of Yugoslavia was, paradoxically, the emergence of rather small states where people could live in harmony with each other, rather than being spatchcocked together? Instead of trying to preserve Syrian unity, might there be some case for two or three nations and states in Syria, none of them with the absolute power or military authority to oppress the others?
Mr Hague
That, ultimately, would be for the Syrian people, not for us, to decide. Whether or not that is something that they will want as an option in the future I do not know, but I doubt it, since I find the majority of the opposition groups from Syria strongly committed to the unity and territorial integrity of Syria. In any case, there are downsides. Although I accept much of what the right hon. Gentleman says about small nations, it is also true that when small nations are made out of a large nation, that can create a great deal of chaos, movement and sectarian conflict, so there are dangers in that as well.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the hard work that he is doing to oppose the atrocities of the Assad regime. Can he tell the House what progress is being made by international aid organisations in securing greater access to civilians at risk, particularly in Damascus, and what steps the Government are taking to support these important activities?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend puts his finger exactly on a very difficult problem. There is some access; a good deal of aid does get into Syria. In particular, there are some areas of Syria where the regime has very little control on the ground, so much of the aid that I spoke about in my statement is getting through to people in Syria, but of course there are places where it is phenomenally difficult. The regime does not allow humanitarian access. That is another example of what a brutal and appalling regime it is. One of the things for which there was a general call at the Security Council last week was unimpeded access for aid and for humanitarian agencies to all parts of Syria.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary talk about additional humanitarian assistance being made available, particularly the £1 million to Jordan to help with refugees, focused on victims of sexual violence. Is that proving to be a big problem? What is its extent, and how will that money be allocated?
Mr Hague
It is a big problem. It has been a depressingly tragic and horrible problem in a series of recent conflicts around the world. It has, of course, been a problem through many periods of history, but we know much more about it today. Rape as a weapon of war is certainly used in the conflict in Syria. One can hear about that first hand from the refugees whom I have met in Jordan, and no doubt in other countries as well. Raising the awareness of this and dealing with the impunity that has existed for too long in this area will be a major foreign affairs theme of our G8 presidency in 2013, so it is something that we are already working on and feel passionately about in the case of the refugees fleeing Syria now.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I totally understand and accept my right hon. Friend’s assessment that the Assad regime is doomed. At some stage there will probably be anarchy in Syria. In such circumstances the international community will demand action, and that action will be humanitarian. From bitter experience may I suggest that humanitarian action without protection for the people going in would be rather silly? May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that any action that we contemplate should include a military element—not necessarily a British element, I hope, but international decent, good, well-trained forces to look after the people who are trying to save lives in Syria?
Mr Hague
There is an important point in my hon. Friend’s question: we could be dealing at some stage with the complete collapse of the Syrian state, a situation of anarchy and the breakdown of all order—there are many anarchic attributes to what is happening now—even in areas that have been less affected, and even in Damascus itself. That is why it is important that we do not to rule out any options for the future. If we come to that point, we must bear in mind his wise advice on this point.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
May I ask the Foreign Secretary to be more specific about the situation facing Palestinian and Kurdish people? There are reports that Palestinian refugees have been prevented from staying for any extended period in either Lebanon or Jordan. In answer to an earlier question he made the point that the Kurdish people are under attack within Turkey by Turkish forces and within Syria itself by some of the opposition groups. Is he confident that the opposition groups in Syria respect minorities and their rights?
Mr Hague
One of the important aspects of bringing the opposition groups together is uniting in one co-ordinating body the Kurdish elements of the opposition with the rest so that the point the hon. Gentleman makes is well understood and accepted by opposition forces in Syria, and we are of course encouraging that. There have been additional problems for some Palestinian refugees, on top of the tragic situation. We always make the point to neighbouring countries that Palestinian and Kurdish refugees have the same rights as all other refugees have to seek safety and asylum in neighbouring countries.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary quite rightly mentioned five areas of work for himself and his colleagues. The first and the fifth are obviously mutually dependent and revolve around the condition and quality of the opposition, so I would like to probe how those links between the opposition and the outside will be developed in the immediate future.
Mr Hague
They are being developed all the time. There was a constructive meeting last week in Cairo of opposition groups, which we hope will be built on, and the UK special representative to the opposition is working with them on an hourly basis and giving good advice. We are working in that respect with countries such as Turkey, France and the United States and, importantly, with Arab countries, and we will continue to do so. I always stress to Syrian opposition groups that when a country such as ours faces an existential crisis, such as the last world war, across all parties we come together and sink all differences for the duration of the crisis. Syria is in an existential crisis and that is exactly what they need to do.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Following the horrific airstrikes by the Assad regime, an estimated 180,000 refugees have fled across the border into Jordanian refugee camps. What representations will the Foreign Secretary make to his international counterparts to ensure that the estimated $700 million funding shortfall is met and a humanitarian disaster avoided?
Mr Hague
I hope that I have covered that in answer to previous questions. I made the very strongest possible representations at the Security Council last week, in bilateral meetings and in the Security Council itself. We will be doing this over the coming weeks through our embassies around the world and with our European Union partners—I will meet them all at the end of this week—and of course the Prime Minister and I will pursue this with all the nations of the world at the UN General Assembly later this month.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I should like to commend my right hon. Friend for the measures he has taken to make progress on this matter. A protest group called Together We Can – For Syria in my constituency has been writing repeatedly to the Foreign Office. I would like him to clarify what changes on the ground Russia would like to see before getting further involved?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is my view that there would have to be changes on the ground for Russia to change its position. Russia itself has not spelt out such conditions or criteria. At the meeting in Geneva at the end of June Russia signed up to an agreed transition in Syria and the creation of a transitional Government, as we all did, in the hope that that would make any other measures unnecessary, but now we have to make sure that such a transitional Government is actually created. Russia has not spelled that out; I am simply giving the House my analysis.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to highlight the Russian Government’s disgraceful role in the barbarism we have seen in Syria, or at least in preventing the international community coming to a single mind on it, but will he clarify whether the statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) yesterday in a national newspaper—that the British Government have written to the Russian Government to tell them that the 60 officials involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky or the corruption he unveiled will not be welcome in this country—is accurate?
Mr Hague
I think that if I gave much of an answer to that I would be going very wide of the subject of the statement, and I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr Speaker, but I can say that there has been no change in our immigration policy. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to comment on that in due course.
Julian Assange (Extradition Proceedings)
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I am writing to update the House about developments in the extradition proceedings against Mr Julian Assange, and discussions on that matter between the United Kingdom and Ecuador.
On 20 November 2010, the office of the Swedish Prosecutor-General issued a European arrest warrant for the arrest and extradition of Mr Assange, who is alleged to have committed serious sexual offences against two women during a visit to Sweden in August 2010.
Pursuant to the European arrest warrant, police officers arrested Mr Assange on 7 December 2010, who was at that time living in the United Kingdom.
On 24 February 2011, a district judge ruled that Mr Assange should be extradited to face proceedings in Sweden concerning allegations of sexual offences. Mr Assange appealed against the ruling, but on 2 November 2011 two judges at the High Court upheld the decision to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden. Mr Assange appealed again, but the Supreme Court ruled on 30 May 2012 that Mr Assange should be extradited to Sweden.
Following the ruling of the Supreme Court, Mr Assange was given two weeks to seek to reopen the appeal. On 14 June, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr Assange’s bid to reopen his appeal, and conferred a two-week grace period before Her Majesty’s Government could begin extradition proceedings.
Over this 15-month period, Mr Assange exercised fully his legal right to challenge the extradition procedure, with competent legal representation. Mr Assange took his case through successive independent judicial hearings to the highest court in the United Kingdom and in the process exhausted all options of appeal in the UK.
On 19 June Mr Assange entered the embassy of Ecuador from where he asked for the protection of the Government of Ecuador. The same day, the Government of Ecuador informed Her Majesty’s Government by Diplomatic Note that it was considering Mr Assange’s request.
Following this, I asked my officials to initiate a formal, regular, dialogue with the Government of Ecuador. This included seven formal discussions as well as many other conversations and written exchanges, in order to seek an acceptable resolution to this situation.
Throughout our exchanges, we have noted that the rights of diplomatic missions conferred by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations come with responsibilities. Article 41 of the Vienna convention sets out the obligations of diplomatic missions to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state—in this case the United Kingdom. These include the duty not to impede the due legal process of that state.
Furthermore, Her Majesty’s Government have made it clear to Ecuador that we recognise that Ecuador and a number of countries in Latin America are party to the Caracas Convention on Diplomatic Asylum of 1954, and that that convention provides the right, between its state parties, to grant diplomatic asylum in certain circumstances. The United Kingdom is not party to that convention and there is no legal basis for the United Kingdom to meet the request of the Government of Ecuador to grant safe passage for Mr Assange out of the United Kingdom.
The Government of Ecuador have also sought guarantees regarding the possible onward extradition of Mr Assange to a third country, and has pointed to concerns about possible human rights implications if Mr Assange were to be extradited from the United Kingdom. In our discussions with Ecuador, we have been clear that the safeguards in place under the European Convention on Human Rights, international law, European Union law and United Kingdom law fully address the concerns raised by Mr Assange and by the Government of Ecuador.
The suggestion that there would be a risk of a breach of Mr Assange’s human rights on extradition to Sweden is completely unfounded. An argument to this effect was comprehensively rejected by the courts in the United Kingdom. Both the United Kingdom and Sweden are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and the British Government have complete confidence in the independence and fairness of the Swedish judicial system. As we have discussed with the Government of Ecuador, the United Kingdom and Sweden robustly implement and adhere to the highest standards of human rights protection.
The suggestion that Mr Assange’s human rights would be put at risk by the possibility of onward extradition from Sweden to a third country is also without foundation. Not only would Sweden—as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights—be required to refuse extradition in circumstances which would breach his human rights, but the authorities in Sweden would also be legally obliged to seek the United Kingdom’s consent before any extradition to a non-EU member state could proceed. Our consent may only be given in accordance with the international conventions by which the UK is bound, including the European Convention on Human Rights, and also our domestic law. In practice, this means that the United Kingdom could only consent to Mr Assange’s onward extradition from Sweden to a third country if satisfied that extradition would be compatible with his human rights, and that there was no prospect of a death sentence being imposed or carried out.
We have used our discussions with the Government of Ecuador to explain the issues in detail. In the context of widespread speculation that a decision to grant asylum by the Ecuadorean Government was imminent, and as part of these exchanges, on 15 August the British embassy in Quito shared with the Government of Ecuador an informal note, or aide-mémoire, to set out key points of our position and ensure that the Ecuadorean authorities had a complete understanding of the full legal context. Ecuador reacted to this communication claiming that a reference to the UK’s Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 constituted a threat to its embassy in London. I have been consistently clear that we are not threatening the embassy of Ecuador and that we are absolutely committed to the principles of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and always act in accordance with it.
It is a matter of regret that instead of continuing our discussions, the Foreign Minister of Ecuador announced on 16 August that Ecuador had decided to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr Assange. This was confirmed to us in a Diplomatic Note of 16 August.
We wish to continue our dialogue with the Government of Ecuador. We believe that our two countries should be able to find a diplomatic solution. We have invited the Government of Ecuador to resume, as early as possible, the discussions we have held on this matter to date. I confirmed that in a meeting with Ecuador’s Vice-President Moreno on 29 August in London, during his visit to the Paralympics.
We continue also to discuss the matter with the Swedish authorities, which retain an interest in the completion of Mr Assange’s extradition proceedings.
Building Stability Overseas
Lord Hague of Richmond Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Defence, wish to update the House on the progress our three Departments have made in implementing the Building Stability Overseas Strategy (BSOS) that we launched on 19 July 2011. The BSOS is one of the cross-Government strategies adopted following the strategic defence and security review.
We launched the BSOS at the time of the Arab spring, which was a profound demonstration that genuine stability can only be achieved when societies have strong and legitimate institutions to manage tensions peacefully. The BSOS was the first cross-Government strategy on conflict issues. It sets out that it is in the UK’s interest to build capacities overseas that help prevent the conditions that lead to conflict before they develop; and to identify emerging crises early and to respond rapidly to prevent or mitigate them.
We have made good progress in implementing the new strategy since its publication. The BSOS has produced a range of different mechanisms that ensure that the different skills, perspectives and expertise across Government are brought together in an integrated way.
We have established new systems for early warning, to better identify rising risks. Senior officials from across Government meet regularly to systematically review and, if necessary, challenge the Government’s approach to selected priority countries.
We have increased the level of overall resources for conflict prevention in the tri-departmental conflict pool and are aligning the pool’s approach more towards upstream conflict prevention. I intend to place before the House details of proposed conflict resources allocations, through the conflict pool, for financial years 2012-13 and 2014-15 once the National Security Council has endorsed them.
Our aim is to ensure a clear fit between conflict pool allocations and the Government’s highest conflict and stability priorities. We have increased conflict pool funding for the middle east and north Africa region, aligning our work closely with that of our Arab partnership initiative which supports Arab-led efforts to build more open, prosperous and stable societies. We are increasing our support to Somalia and Pakistan, while continuing important commitments to the Balkans, the Caucasus and to the UK’s peacekeeping presence in Cyprus. Within the conflict pool, we have also created a new £20 million early action facility (EAF) to provide rapid funding for unforeseen crises or to address new opportunities for conflict prevention. The facility has already been used to support work on Syria.
For the first time, we have made conflict pool allocations across more than one financial year, increasing our ability to plan ahead, deliver better value for money and improve the impact of our work. We are strengthening the conflict pool’s focus on achieving results. Our reform programme will draw on recommendations from independent reviews this year by the National Audit Office and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact.
We commissioned an internal review of the tri-departmental stabilisation unit. The review concluded that there continues to be a clear need for the stabilisation unit. It will remain an important tool to help integrate the Government’s approach to conflict and to help build more stable states. We are working to implement the recommendations of the review, including strengthening the leadership of the unit and its oversight by our three Departments, moving the unit to a new location and driving value for money and efficiency changes (including headcount reductions).
Our development programme continues to prevent conflict upstream, supporting countries to make that vital transition towards a peaceful, stable and lasting future. Three-quarters of the Department for International Development’s (DFID) focus countries are fragile and conflict affected states. DFID is on track to direct 30% of UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) to such countries by 2014-15. In 2011-12 UK aid investments supported freer and fairer elections in four countries, helped 300,000 women to access justice through the courts, police and legal assistance and helped over 16 million people hold their authorities to account.
The UK can achieve a much greater impact to building stability and preventing conflict around the world when we work with others. We are well placed to do so, exploiting the UK’s established roles and networks at the UN, within the EU, NATO and other multilateral forum and with our traditional partners. We are working with the UN’s Department for Political Affairs to improve its capacity for conflict prevention. We have provided UK secondees to the European External Action Service conflict prevention team and we are ensuring conflict prevention features in EU budget negotiations. We are also engaging with a broader range of partners, including Brazil and South Africa. The BSOS has enabled the UK to remain at the heart of international thinking on conflict prevention. The London conference on Somalia in February was a good example of the way UK leadership can reinvigorate and galvanise international efforts.
We recognise that Government do not have all the answers and therefore we are seeking deliberately wider views beyond Whitehall to provide challenge and to ensure we access, reflect on and assimilate latest thinking. We have used the positive reaction to the publication of BSOS from NGOs and academics specialising in conflict to develop relationships further through joint initiatives.
The BSOS recognised the need to include the protection of women and children. I informed the House of the Government’s new initiative to tackle sexual violence in conflict on 12 June including the establishment of a new team of experts and an international diplomatic campaign during our G8 presidency in 2013. As well as directly supporting and undertaking investigations, this team will support upstream interventions by providing training to national authorities to strengthen their domestic response to rape and other crimes of sexual violence.
In post-conflict scenarios, holding those responsible for appalling crimes of sexual violence and removing the sense of impunity will contribute to the peace building process.
The new approach outlined in the building stability overseas strategy is already beginning to have real impact on way the UK tackles conflict and instability overseas. We have the tools in place and are now working on implementation. Addressing instability and conflict overseas is a sound investment in both our national interest and a better future for all.