Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and there continue to be worries about the security of the camp. We must set those in the context of security worries across Iraq at the moment. More than 700 people were reportedly killed by terrorist violence in January, and it is a serious situation across the country. We will continue to remind the Government of that country of their responsibilities, and do all we can to ensure the security of the camp.

[Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

8. What progress has been made on the establishment of an international investigation into alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan civil war.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has reported that Sri Lanka has failed to ensure independent and credible investigations into past violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. She recommends establishing an independent international inquiry, and as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) made clear yesterday at the Human Rights Council, the UK fully supports that view.

[Sir Andrew Stunell]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. I am sure he understands the deep concern on both sides of the House and elsewhere about the continuing violations. Will he assure the House that the Government will work with other Commonwealth countries to put pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to desist from their harassment of those who dissent, and to ensure that the international inquiry takes place?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, those are points that the Prime Minister and I, and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), made forcefully when we were in Sri Lanka at the time of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting last November. We are pursuing the issue actively at the Human Rights Council to secure an international inquiry of the type recommended by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. I expect there will be vigorous debates at the Human Rights Council over the next few weeks, but we will certainly stick up for the view that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) has put forward.

Arms to Syria

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate and I shall be as brief as possible.

Like other Members present, I spent some time as a member of the Committee on Arms Export Controls, which gave me a picture of some of the issues at stake. Like every previous speaker and many of my constituents, I am appalled by the unfolding events in Syria—by President Assad’s attacks on his people, the bloodshed, the destruction of whole communities of whole towns and cities, and the huge transfer of refugees out of, and displaced people in, the country. Like many other contributors, I am frustrated that the usual levers do not seem to work, that ethics and morality do not seem to have any force, and that nations outside Syria are making the situation ever more complex. Even an appeal to the basic common sense and pragmatism of the country’s leaders is not delivering results. In the meantime, the killing and destruction continue. There is also the threat of chemical weapons, which I will ask the Minister about when I conclude.

We are, of course, very angry about our impotence in this situation. I caution the Government against letting their anger spill over into a feeling that something must be done to assuage it. This has to be about principled and measured steps. There are already at least two bulls in this particular china shop and we should not put a third bull in there.

That brings me to the issue of any proposal to supply arms and military equipment to the Syrian National Coalition and its affiliates. There are many issues on which the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who introduced the motion, and I do not agree, but on this issue we very much do agree. Of course, it is right for this or any Government to use careful and deliberate decision-making processes when deciding whether they want to use force and, if so, what level of force. Of course, they will want to keep their cards close to their chest—they do not want every card they hold to be put up in lights before it is played—and, of course, they will want to choose the timing of any announcement, not simply because it might meet this House’s satisfaction, but because it may be very important in terms of international negotiations. I accept all of those constraints —if I may put it that way—on how the Government might proceed, but I have to say that successive Governments have a very poor record of judging which cards to play and how and when to play them.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what should not be lost in the political debate is the people aspect and the fact that 4 million people are internally displaced in Syria, more than 1 million people are refugees outside Syria and more than 100,000 lives have already been lost? Surely the Government’s focus should be on both an humanitarian and a diplomatic resolution.

[Sir Andrew Stunell]

I shall devote at least 15 seconds of my remaining time to precisely that point. Examples have already been given—I will not elaborate on them—of decisions taken by previous Governments of all colours that have not always turned out for the best.

I say to the Government that it would be really unhelpful if all their thinking, assessments and deliberations resulted in them activating their decision on, let us say, 29 July, bypassing this House completely. I believe that that is the concern that lies behind the motion. It would be just as unfortunate if Ministers were to say on 29 July that the House had considered the issue today. This is not the debate about whether this House approves or disapproves; it is a debate about this House approving. I am delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) is nodding. I know that he is a gentleman of great good will and understanding and I look forward to his explicit confirmation of that point.

What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the risk of chemical weapons falling into the hands of al-Qaeda and its affiliates and potentially being directed, ultimately, at the United Kingdom? Will he acknowledge robustly that the constitutional and parliamentary situation has evolved in the past decade and that the Government now accept that this Parliament must have oversight in good time and must be the body with authority when the decision is taken?

Rakhine and Kachin State (Human Rights)

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I am pleased to take part in this debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on securing it. This is the most recent in a series of debates, each of which has shown that hon. Members are passionately committed to seeing Burma emerge as a successful, flourishing country with a mature and maturing society at peace with itself. Unfortunately, although a lot of progress has been made, that is not the case at the moment.

I am also here because, like the hon. Lady, I have been approached by constituents concerned about the human rights situation in Burma—not exclusively the matters on the Order Paper today. As the hon. Lady rightly said, conflicts in various parts of Burma involve all the minority groups in the country, including minority religious groups such as Christian and Muslim groups as well as animist groups and those from other marginal religions, and they seem to involve just about any group that does not have some claim to what might be described as pure Burmese heritage or lineage. That cannot be right. The persecution of religious and racial minorities—of those who have been excluded from citizenship—is what this debate is about and what I want to spend a few minutes talking about.

It would be wrong not to recognise that there has been progress, as shown by the 42 by-elections last year that resulted, for the first time, in Opposition Members being elected to Parliament. We need to recognise that the restoration of some stability in the country has led to rapid economic growth, the rate of which the Library briefing states was estimated at 6.5% last year. Let us face it: that is something we cannot match in this country. There are plans for fair and free elections in 2015. Those are all things that we ought to celebrate and encourage and not in any way undermine.

The reality is also that Burma is the poorest country in south-east Asia; it is a by-word for poverty and under-investment and, as the hon. Lady passionately pointed out, for discrimination as well. I support exactly what the hon. Lady said—that discrimination is not casual and not accidental; it is clearly orchestrated and state-sanctioned, or at least the state allows things to proceed with complete impunity. Reports of destruction of mosques and homes, and attacks on individuals, with the police and security forces standing by and simply allowing it to happen, illustrate that point.

I do not want us to be blind to our own history, either. There is a tendency for us—perhaps particularly in England, but certainly in western countries—to imagine that we have lived for the past 1,000 years in countries with secure human rights, where these things could never have happened, and we seek to export that to other people. I remind hon. Members that 200 years ago I would not have been permitted to be in this House, because I am not a member of the Church of England.

So we have history ourselves. Even 70 years ago, we had a somewhat flaky history about what to do about the Jews—the internment of Jews who came from Germany, for example, is not necessarily something that we would want to celebrate. The idea of universal human rights is politically contested, even now, within this building. We sometimes need to stand in other people’s shoes.

Burma is having to catch up with 200 years of our history and our developing understanding of what it means to have a civilised, mature democracy. It is only to be expected that that will be a difficult and sometimes painful process.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Although the right hon. Gentleman is right to acknowledge the time it took us to achieve the standards that we hope other countries will achieve, would he not agree that now our role and that of the EU, in engaging with Burma, is to apply our influence to ensure that history does not repeat itself and that people in Burma who are being persecuted do not have to wait hundreds of years before they have the kinds of rights that he enjoys now, and which his forefathers should have had?

[Andrew Stunell]

The hon. Lady, for whom I have a lot of time, could have been reading the next paragraph of my speech, so I have to agree with her. Indeed, our own history should give us the determination to help and support other countries and ensure that they do not have to spend 200 years getting to where we have got.

I give credit to the work that successive Governments have done, particularly in the past three years, in making this country the biggest aid donor to Burma at the moment. That gives us a significant role and voice in respect of Burma’s future and how it should develop. A contribution of some £1 million was made last year towards improving governance and civic society in Burma, and humanitarian help was in the order of £2 million or £3 million. That means that it must be right for us to engage strongly, as a country, as well as through EU and UN institutions, with the Burmese authorities to ensure that our voice, and our learning, can be shared with them.

Of course, the humanitarian aid and support is going in not simply because there are poor people and a harsh climate in Burma, but because of the purges and the cleansing that the hon. Member for Bolton South East outlined so well. That is part of a bigger pattern, as she also said. It is to be welcomed that the military forces have signed some kind of ceasefire in 12 out of the 14 different conflicts that had been going on in Burma, but those remain fragile and do not in any way seem to represent the military power structure’s accepting the legitimacy of alternative views and alternative religious persuasions, let alone alternative ethnicities as having legitimacy inside the country. We can welcome the fact that there is less conflict in some parts of Burma, but we also need to recognise that that does not mean that the underlying problems have been confronted and resolved.

I think—perhaps the Minister will comment on this—that there is a certain amount of game-playing by the military authorities in Burma. They gave in to international pressure, and pressure from their own citizens, to go through at least the appearance of sharing power and drawing in the Opposition, but, as the hon. Lady said, the current President is a general, but not with his uniform on.

Some of the macho posturing that we have seen in conflicts inside Burma comes in the category of flexing muscles and demonstrating the role and strength—and perhaps the necessity, as the military authorities would see it—of continued military participation in the governance of Burma. That is surely something we need to keep a close eye on, and I hope Britain will challenge it.

I notice, again from the papers prepared for the debate, that the UK was proud to boast that its military officials were the first foreign military officials to visit Burma since 1950 or some other early date. I can see the value of getting alongside the military forces in Burma and of demonstrating to Burmese military officials and leaders our forces’ values and their role in civic society, but I would be concerned if we were showing them how to be better at suppressing internal dissent. It would be interesting if the Minister commented on the role of our military mission and on the placing of a defence representative in the embassy in Burma.

At the moment, we are seeing a denial of citizenship and deliberate tactics to drive out minorities. That is all cloaked in a dangerous racial nationalism, which we in western Europe have, thankfully, utterly rejected. I hope the Minister will be forthright in saying that we are determined to help Burma to do the same and to reject utterly that nationalism, as it develops its state, which it very much needs to do. Perhaps we could start by simply saying that if a country denies people within its borders citizenship, that does not mean that it is entitled to deny them law, basic services and human rights. The right to life, the right to family life and the right to practise one’s religion are not dependent on citizenship, and it is a function of any state to ensure that those within its borders are free to worship and live as they wish.

Let me echo the words of the hon. Lady by saying that it is puzzling why Burma is not on the preventing sexual violence initiative list. I have seen some of the parliamentary answers on the issue. As somebody who was giving parliamentary answers himself until last September, I know how they are written and what lies behind them. There really is no good reason why we should not be saying that we want to put Burma on the list. It is an excellent initiative, which is capable of doing a lot of good. We should take real credit for initiating and promoting it, but there is a strange reluctance to apply it in this case.

The hon. Lady commented on the removal of sanctions. It is perhaps worth underlining that military sanctions remain in place, and rightly so. However, I would like to hear from the Minister whether consideration has been given to making the withdrawal of sanctions conditional on further positive developments. Sanctions have been lifted, but they could be reimposed, and the Burmese authorities need to be clear that that is a consideration.

The hon. Lady talked about the UK supporting a UN commission of inquiry, and there are established mechanisms for doing that. What is the Government’s view of how such an initiative might be proceeded with? If the Minister’s brief does not allow him to say that, will he at least tell us that the views of Members speaking in this debate will be taken back to the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister, to assist them in forming the view that they need to support that inquiry initiative as soon as possible?

I am not one of those Members who have been to Burma and seen it first hand; I have only newspaper reports and briefings. Some of those briefings have been eloquently put to me by constituents with first-hand, or at least immediate second-hand, knowledge of the country. There are real prospects for peace and development, and we celebrated that in this very building only 18 months ago. However, there are worrying and dangerous signs that the process is going off track, and I hope the Minister will reassure us that the Government are determined to help the Burmese authorities to get back on track, stay on track and deliver a peaceful, prosperous and inclusive Burma in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Stunell Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

T3. My constituent Mr Percival is one of many who have been robbed by property fraud in Cyprus following the default of the Alpha bank. Will a Minister meet me to discuss with the Greek and Cypriot authorities what might be done to rectify this disgrace?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our high commissioner in Cyprus regularly raise property issues with the Cypriot authorities. I have made a commitment to meet members of the all-party group on the defence of the interests of British property owners in Cyprus to discuss the particular case to which my right hon. Friend has referred and the broader issues. I would be very happy to talk to him in that context.