Burma (Human Rights)

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this timely and important debate on the issues facing Burma. I thank him for his usual courtesy in giving us sight of his speech so that I am able to refer to a number of the issues he raised. I also thank Members for attending the debate, a larger number than is usual for a late-night Adjournment debate, and for their obvious interest. There is no doubt that their interest in Burma, expressed over a lengthy period by their visits and interest in human rights issues—not least by yourself, Mr Speaker—has been supported by a number of their constituents. Allow me to set out the background to some changes before dealing with some of the issues raised by colleagues in their remarks.

The decision a year ago to suspend economic sanctions against Burma was a key step in encouraging the regime to continue down the road of democratic reform. The decision on 22 April by EU Foreign Ministers to lift those sanctions, except the arms embargo, recognises the significant progress that has been made. By-elections a year ago gave Aung San Suu Kyi and her party 42 seats in Burma’s Parliament. Ceasefire agreements have been signed with 10 out of the 11 ethnic armed groups. We have seen many hundreds of political prisoners released. Daily newspapers are now sold on the streets of Rangoon, free from censorship. Those are real benefits to ordinary Burmese people who want to live, work and raise their families free from fear. As Aung San Suu Kyi herself said,

“It is time we let these sanctions go...we can't go on relying on sanctions for ever to aid the democracy movement.”

While it is right that we acknowledge the strides Burma has made towards reform since President Thein Sein took office in 2010, it is also right that we continue to express our concerns and take action. That same balance has been echoed by those who have spoken in the debate. Human rights remain at the heart of UK policy and our discussions with the Burmese Government. By lifting EU sanctions, we have paved the way for deeper engagement on issues of concern. Our engagement has, to date, yielded progress in a number of areas. The United Kingdom is supporting peace negotiations and reconciliation to turn ceasefires with ethnic armed groups into political dialogue. In Kachin state, we are cautiously optimistic about early engagement between the Burmese Government and the Kachin Independence Organisation. We recognise that a ceasefire agreement will require time and effort.

The language of the EU Council conclusions—referred to by a number of Members—which accompanied the lifting of sanctions highlights the need for action to address the conflict in Kachin state. The EU will not be short of determination to exert pressure in that regard, and we will not be short of determination to press our EU partners. We have said to both sides that we stand ready to support the process in any way we can.

On 15 April, the Burmese Minister for the President’s office, Aung Min, led a delegation to London, where they met the Foreign Secretary and other political figures before travelling to Northern Ireland to learn from our experiences there. Once again, people were given an opportunity to learn about reconciliation from the pain and difficulty experienced in Northern Ireland, and also from the political leadership that it has provided in recent years.

Hundreds of political prisoners have been released, and are now being reintegrated into society. On 23 April, the Burmese Government announced the further release of more than 50. We are delighted that prominent members of the “88 Generation” of former political prisoners will visit the UK in June. However, about 200 remain in prison. We will continue to put pressure on the Burmese Government to ensure that their political prisoner review mechanism is comprehensive and transparent, leading to the release of all political prisoners, which was one of the requests listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).

Britain is Burma’s largest bilateral aid donor. We are providing £187 million between 2011 and 2015 to support education, health care and governance. Despite its massive development potential, Burma remains one of the poorest countries in south-east Asia. Lasting prosperity for the Burmese people will also come from responsible business investment, which will create much-needed jobs and opportunities for training and education. That is why, last month, G8 Foreign Ministers, under British chairmanship, endorsed the Burmese Government’s calls for responsible investment in Burma.

Responding to a request from Aung San Suu Kyi, we are supporting the development of Burma’s Parliament and strengthening democratic accountability. Last month, three Burmese Members of Parliament visited the UK to learn about budget scrutiny. That work will grow and continue.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

May I ask a question about bilateral aid? Will the Minister tell us—or otherwise arrange for a letter to be placed in the Library, or write to hon. Members—about the financial and technical assistance that we are offering to the various United Nations and humanitarian agencies, particularly those that are working in Rakhine state? Will he also tell us whether we are offering similar support to agencies which are working with refugees and asylum seekers who are in Bangladesh, having fled from Burma?

[Alistair Burt]

We are offering such support, but I probably could provide more detail by placing a letter in the Library. I do not want merely to come out with the obvious platitudes and say that we are engaged in that respect, because of course we are.

[Rushanara Ali]

Is the Minister aware that the non-governmental organisations that have been working to support Rakhine refugees in Chittagong do not have access to the camps, and that the position is getting worse? Will he ensure that his colleagues in the Department for International Development apply pressure on the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that access is provided? We are a major donor to Bangladesh, and it is not clear why we are not applying such pressure. Bangladesh does not even accept the existence of an informal camp.

There is also the question of humanitarian access, involving the international multilateral institutions that we support. The World Health Organisation has not been doing enough work to get assistance to people who desperately need health care, and there is a major issue of segregation in the hospitals. That is costing lives. Will the Minister make further representations?

[Alistair Burt]

My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi takes these matters extremely seriously, and she has, indeed, pressed Bangladesh on this issue. She has taken this issue directly to the Bangladeshis. It is not a matter on which the United Kingdom can give a guarantee, of course, but I assure the hon. Lady that the UK takes very seriously the issues of access and recognition for refugees that are facing Bangladesh.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister will be aware that Human Rights Watch produced a report that agreed that ethnic cleansing had taken place. Has he applied any pressure either through our Government or Europe to ensure that that report’s findings are made known and action is taken?

[Alistair Burt]

The Human Rights Watch report contained a number of disturbing and specific allegations, which we believe are backed up by comprehensive evidence. We are following up on them with the Burmese Government. If serious crimes have been committed, those who perpetrated them must be held accountable for their actions. We, too, take that report as extremely credible.

I had just reached the “but” point in my remarks about Burma. While recognising that some progress has been made, and having responded to that sense from colleagues, there is a but, and, as colleagues know, it is a big but.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made abundantly clear:

“The work of the EU in Burma is not remotely finished.”

There are many significant challenges facing the Burmese people, particularly on human rights and ethnic reconciliation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and other colleagues who have spoken for again bringing to the attention of the House the many extremely concerning examples of human rights violations, and for further highlighting the urgent action that the Burmese Government, with the support of the international community, must take. I also thank the non-governmental organisations and others who are engaged in this difficult work, including some friends of ours, such as Ben Rogers.

The UK was one of the leading voices behind this year’s UN Human Rights Council resolution on Burma. The resolution recognised progress had been made, but highlighted Burma as a country of concern to the international community and extended the mandate of the UN special rapporteur for a further 12 months. It called on the Burmese Government to adhere to a number of pledges, including opening an in-country office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights and signing up to the international covenant on civil and political rights, which my hon. Friend rightly highlighted in his speech.

During a visit to Burma in December, the Minister for Asia, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), pressed senior Government Ministers there to make progress on both these points, as well as on the convention against torture and its optional protocol. We will continue to lobby the Burmese Government to ensure that they make progress against these and all their human rights commitments.

We continue to raise our concerns about human rights abuses in Kachin state. During the visit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Asia, he pressed the Burmese Government—[Interruption.] I should have said the Minister for Asia; my right hon. Friend’s constituency may be large, but it is not that large. He pressed the Burmese Government to ensure humanitarian access to all conflict-affected populations in Kachin state. The Department for International Development has allocated £3.5 million to support humanitarian needs in Kachin, making the UK the largest bilateral donor there. This aid is helping meet food security, shelter, water, sanitation, health, and bedding needs, and it is reaching conflict-affected areas. We continue to call for unhindered humanitarian access at every opportunity.

Sexual violence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate also rightly raised, is an issue that the Foreign Secretary has made a key priority. The British Government proactively lobby the Burmese Government on the rights of women, particularly the need to take measures to prevent sexual violence against women in conflict areas. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Asia raised this issue with Burmese Ministers during his visit in December.

We are also taking a number of targeted actions. We provide support to the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement to fulfil the Burmese Government’s obligations under the convention for the elimination of discrimination against women, to which they are a signatory. We support legal assistance centres in Burmese refugee camps in Thailand, which can help support victims of rape to secure access to justice, and we work closely with the UN in Rakhine state to strengthen its work to prevent, and respond to, sexual violence there. Our embassy in Rangoon is exploring options to increase our engagement on this concerning issue.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments about the work to prevent sexual violence. May I take it that Burma is included in the prevention of sexual violence initiative, in which the Foreign Secretary is taking a key lead? Is Burma one of the countries included in the initiative?

[Alistair Burt]

I do not believe that Burma is technically included at present, but not all the countries in which we consider sexual violence to be a matter are necessarily included in the initiative at this stage. The point I was making is that this area is of significance to the Government and the Foreign Secretary, and if somewhere is not technically included in an initiative, that should not be taken as indicating a lack of interest or engagement. The points will still be made, and my right hon. Friend will have taken the point made by my hon. Friend.

The United Kingdom has been one of the most vocal members of the international community in calling for action in Rakhine state, and we continue to lobby on the issue internationally. The UK requested the recent briefing in April of the UN Security Council by the UN special envoy, and the Minister for Asia was the first EU Minister to visit in the aftermath of the violence last year. We note the release of the Rakhine commission report on 29 April into the causes of last year’s violence, and we are examining its many detailed recommendations —that deals with the point about our response made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). We have consistently called on the Burmese Government to take action to meet humanitarian needs, ensure security and accountability, and to address the rights of the Rohingya people to citizenship. We are of course deeply concerned by Human Rights Watch’s most recent report, which contained a number of disturbing allegations. We regularly raise specific allegations of human rights abuses with the Burmese Government at the most senior levels, and we will continue to do so.

Some 140,000 internally displaced people, mostly Rohingya, are living in overcrowded camps vulnerable to flooding. When my right hon. Friend Baroness Warsi met the Minister responsible for Rakhine state on 15 April, he pledged to ensure that all those at risk would be moved to safe areas. Lobbying alongside the UN, the United States, Australia and the EU, we have also strongly reinforced the message—as I indicated a moment ago—that NGOs operating in Rakhine state must be granted the freedom to operate, free from bureaucratic constraints. We gave £2 million over the past financial year to support humanitarian efforts in Rakhine state, and we are considering new plans to contribute to efforts to support and protect the displaced this year.

Further violence will be averted only through security and the establishment of the rule of law, and we again call on the Burmese Government to uphold those. All those guilty of having instigated, incited or carried out violence in Rakhine state need to be held accountable for those crimes. This should be done through a just, clear and transparent process, but it must be done.

The plight of the Rohingya, a people who have lived in Burma for many centuries, will not be resolved until the long-term issue of their citizenship is addressed. It is essential that the Burmese Government uphold the rights of all individuals, including the right of the Rohingya to nationality and freedom of movement. We note the Rakhine commission report’s recommendations in that regard and we will push to ensure that the solution meets the criteria I have set out.

As Members have indicated this evening, we are also extremely concerned about the violence directed against Muslim communities in other parts of Burma. The attacks against Muslims in central Burma in March and in Oakkan, near Rangoon, just last week point to a highly worrying new trend. We continue to make our concerns very clear. More work needs to be done by the Burmese Government to bring the organisers and perpetrators of violence to account. Both Baroness Warsi and the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns with senior Burmese Ministers on 15 and 16 April. Along with the EU, in response to a request from the Government and Aung San Suu Kyi, we are reviewing what steps we might take to assist with police and security reform.

As well as upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability, the Burmese Government must tackle the hostility underlying the recent attacks. President Thein Sein’s speech earlier this week, in which he called on Burmese citizens to stand up against hatred and to reach out to those of different beliefs and backgrounds, will be an important starting point. We have provided funds for inter-faith dialogue in Burma, and will continue to do so, in order to build trust between communities. We have encouraged the Burmese Government to issue a formal invitation to the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief to visit Burma and assess the situation.

After almost half a century of repression, the last two years have seen Burma make progress towards the goal of being a freer and more democratic nation, but as the House indicates, and as my remarks have set out, there is still much to do to achieve greater democracy. To make progress, Burma must deal with the ethnic conflict it faces and tackle discrimination against minority groups. As colleagues know, this is not my normal area within the portfolio, although I have spoken on Burma before and, as a practising Christian, it pains me to see how religion is used, and faith is abused, to separate people and inflict cruelty and wickedness on others. We see that time and again in too many other places. We need religious leaders of all faiths to speak out against such actions constantly, so that faith is not abused in the way we have heard described tonight.

We will continue to engage with the Burmese Government to shape the process of reform. We want the United Kingdom to contribute with meaningful and targeted assistance, whether in reforming the economy or supporting Burma’s nascent institutions. Above all, we will ensure that human rights and ethnic reconciliation remain high on the agenda.

This is just the beginning of a process which could transform the lives of millions of people. It will not be completed overnight; it will take time. The British Government and the European Union will continue to be a constructive, supportive and critical partner, committed to supporting reform moves under the President and Aung San Suu Kyi, in order to see a stable, prosperous, more democratic Burma, where the human rights of all people will be respected. The House, and those we represent, will accept nothing less.

Question put and agreed to.

Shaker Aamer

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) for raising this issue and for her work in supporting Shaker Aamer’s family, which she has done consistently since she was elected. She has done all she can to raise his case, including through conversations with me at the Foreign Office.

I also acknowledge the work of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), whom parliamentary convention prevents from speaking in the debate. He has been an advocate and a concerned Member of Parliament for other parts of the family. We fully appreciate his presence and the reasons why he cannot speak. I also thank colleagues who have made interventions and speeches during the debate.

I will do my best to deal with as many of the questions that have been raised as possible. I would like to put some remarks on the record first and then to deal with some of the issues that have been raised in questions. I will not be able to deal with all the questions. Some refer to confidential discussions we have with the United States, which we cannot go into. Some deal with intelligence matters, which no Government discuss in public. I do not have the answers to one or two of the questions with me, including some of those asked by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I thought I might deal with her list of questions by writing to her and putting a copy of the letter in the Library so that other Members can see it. However, let me deal as best as I can with some of the issues that have been raised.

For absolute clarity, let me say that the Government’s consistent position is no different from that of our predecessor. It is the long-standing policy of the Government that we should seek the release and return of those UK nationals and former legal residents who have been held at Guantanamo Bay and, in so doing, assist the US Administration in their efforts to close the detention facility. There is no change in Government policy; our policy is to support efforts in the United States to close Guantanamo and to seek the return of UK residents and nationals—that now comes down to Mr Shaker Aamer.

As Members will be aware, Shaker Aamer was part of an exceptional request in 2007 by the then Foreign Secretary for the release and return of all former legal UK residents held in Guantanamo Bay. Securing the release and return of Mr Aamer, the last remaining former British legal resident, remains a high priority for the Government. It remains the Government’s understanding that Mr Aamer has only ever been cleared for transfer, and not release. The US authorities have not charged him with any crime, and nor do they intend to prosecute him. It is the Government’s belief that it is Mr Aamer’s wish to return to the United Kingdom to be reunited with his wife and family. We therefore continue to make it clear to the US that seeing Mr Aamer released and returned to the United Kingdom is a priority for us.

Mr Aamer’s case has been repeatedly raised by the Foreign and Defence Secretaries with their US counterparts. That level of engagement has been undertaken on the understanding that the US Secretaries of Defence and State, in consultation with the director of national intelligence, have the authority to affect Mr Aamer’s release and return. It is the Government’s intention to raise Mr Aamer’s case with new office holders as soon as is practical. In support of that ministerial level engagement, I raised Mr Aamer’s case with Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns just a week ago last Monday, at a face-to-face meeting in Washington. In addition, senior officials continue to discuss Mr Aamer’s case with their US counterparts.

Despite the high level of public and parliamentary interest in Mr Aamer’s case, it remains necessary for the Government to keep the details of diplomatic discussions with the United States Administration confidential. Any breach of their expectation of confidentiality would likely hinder UK efforts to secure Mr Aamer’s release and return. Confidentiality aside, we welcome the continued engagement of Members of the House who share our common vision to see Mr Aamer returned to his family in the United Kingdom. We remain committed to offering assistance to those parliamentarians who wish to raise his case directly with figures in the United States. We also welcome the degree of interest from the public and the signing of the petition, which led directly to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea raising this issue today.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister is absolutely sincere in what he is trying to do. I appreciate what he says about confidentiality. A lot of constituents regularly raise this matter with me, and they cannot understand why, given the special relationship with the United States, it is not possible to get a more positive response. Is there anything further the Minister can say about the reasons he is being given by US officials?

[Alistair Burt]

Let me deal with that when I respond to the remarks and questions from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on that subject. There is a limited amount I can say, because, ultimately, it is the United States that is holding Mr Aamer, not us. There is only so much we know about the reasons, but I will say a little more about that later.

I reiterate that the Government continue to support President Obama’s commitment to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. We understand the requirement for detainee transfers and releases to satisfy US legislation. Previous legislation passed by the United States Congress—namely, the 2011 National Defence Authorisation Act—all but precluded transfers out of Guantanamo Bay. That legislation was renewed by the US Government for 2012 in largely the same terms, but it allowed for the US Secretary of Defence to exercise a waiver should stringent conditions be met.

Despite our best endeavours, Mr Aamer was not released in 2012. Indeed, no detainees were released from Guantanamo Bay in 2012. The National Defence Authorisation Act was renewed in January 2013. All Guantanamo Bay detainees cleared for transfer or release now require a waiver under the Act before they can be transferred or released from the detention facility, regardless of their destination country. The Government continue to work with US counterparts to consider the implications of the NDAA 2013 for Mr Aamer’s release. Notwithstanding that, any decision regarding Mr Aamer’s release ultimately remains in the hands of the United States Government. I will have a little more to say about that in a moment.

Let me deal briefly with welfare issues and then return to some of the questions colleagues raised in the debate. We continue to take concerns about Mr Aamer’s welfare very seriously. The US Department of Defence has confirmed to us that Mr Aamer is participating in the current hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay. Notwithstanding that, the US authorities have assured us that he is in a stable condition, that he is not in solitary confinement and that he is being offered medical treatment. In addition, the FCO has asked the US Department of Defence substantively to respond to specific allegations that have been made. We have no reason not to believe the welfare assurances we have been given by United States authorities. I should add that the International Committee of the Red Cross has access to Guantanamo detainees.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Has anybody from the Foreign Office actually visited Guantanamo Bay and seen for themselves the condition of Shaker Aamer? If they saw him, there would be independent evidence to say that he was fine and that he was being treated properly, and we would not worry so much. If it is being said he is being treated well, has any effort been made to go to see him? If not, has permission been refused?

[Alistair Burt]

The reason is that we cannot offer a non-British national, which is Mr Aamer’s status, consular assistance. Consular access and responsibilities are afforded to states only in respect of their nationals. Our consular policy towards non-British nationals is clear; we cannot help non-nationals, no matter how long they have lived in the UK, and regardless of their connections to the UK. However, although we are not able to visit him in Guantanamo Bay, we routinely inquire about Mr Aamer’s welfare, and we always follow up allegations of poor health, as a matter of priority. We are confident that the assurances that we receive from the US are accurate and credible, and have no reason to believe otherwise.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I appreciate that because Mr Aamer is not a British national he cannot technically or legally speaking be given consular assistance, but bearing in mind the fact that the British Government are making representations on his behalf for him to be released back here it would not be that difficult for someone independently to go and speak to him, and then come back and say, “He’s okay; the suggestion that he is being tortured or treated badly is all wrong.” That would shut people up if they are wrong in saying he has been treated badly. That is all. It is just common sense.

[Alistair Burt]

As far as I am aware, there is independent access to Guantanamo detainees through the ICRC. That provides exactly the independent reference that the hon. Lady would look for. Our consular policy is clear.

[Jane Ellison]

On the point about the ICRC, I suspect that the Minister will not be able to answer now, but will he, having inquired of the ICRC, write to me and other hon. Members to tell us when it last visited and whether there was a chance to meet Mr Aamer and make an assessment? If that was possible, could that be put on the record?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I can certainly do that, and am happy to write to my hon. Friend; but I want to make it clear that we take the allegations extremely seriously. We have asked the US Department of Defence to respond to specific allegations about treatment and we will continue to do so. As I say, we think independent access, through the facilities that are available, is important; but I will happily respond to my hon. Friend in due course.

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Ind)]

I take the Minister’s point about the issues to do with mistreatment or otherwise, but does he agree that there is not really a precedent for holding someone, ostensibly as a prisoner of war, for 11 years? The only precedent that I can think of is the gulags after the second world war; that is not something that we would care to accept as a common practice.

[Alistair Burt]

Let me now deal with some of the questions that colleagues have raised in the debate, starting with why Mr Aamer is in Guantanamo Bay, which is the central question. I will say what I said before: he is not being held by the United Kingdom, so we do not have a reason why he is detained. In our view the detention is wrong and he should not be there. I make that very clear. The United States must satisfy itself that it has reasons.

It is genuinely very difficult to comment on why the United States might think that Mr Aamer is rightly in Guantanamo Bay. We have to discuss the detail with the US to seek to secure his release. That is sensitive, and we do not discuss intelligence matters. We have always held the view that indefinite detention without review or fair trial is unacceptable. We welcome the President’s continuing commitment to closing the detention facility and to maintaining a lawful, sustainable and principled regime for the handling of detainees there. Beyond our making it clear that we do not consider the detention of Mr Aamer to be right or correct, the United States plainly has a different point of view. The process of our arguing for Mr Aamer’s release is seeking to persuade the US; to a certain extent the parliamentary and public pressure in the United Kingdom adds to that sense of persuasion that the detention is not right or appropriate. That remains the Government’s view.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister tell us exactly what the US Secretary for Defence says about why Mr Aamer is in Guantanamo Bay at all? What reason do the US offer for putting someone who was legally resident in this country in prison for so long, with no legal process?

[Alistair Burt]

Forgive me; that is one of the questions that I cannot answer in direct terms, because that forms part of the confidential discussions that we need to have with the United States in relation to this matter. A breach of its confidentiality in relation to it would damage the efforts that we are continuing to undertake in relation to Mr Aamer’s release. Although I fully understand the reason for asking the question, and the degree of frustration about my not being able to give a response, those are my reasons for not going into it. Plainly, there is an obvious difference of opinion.

[Caroline Lucas]

The debate is becoming increasingly Kafkaesque; it is like a nightmare. Can the Minister at least tell us whether he knows why the US will not release Mr Aamer? It is one thing not being able to tell us; but can he tell us whether he knows why? Can he indicate his assessment of what the US tells him?

[Alistair Burt]

In all fairness, we are getting into the same sort of area. I do not make light of this. Plainly, I have a supposition about why the United States might want to retain Mr Aamer. It is inconsequential in terms of the United Kingdom’s position on his release from detention, and whether we think the detention is wrong. We do. It is clear we have a difference of opinion with the United States in relation to this; but going into the detail of what we think and what they think is part of the confidential discussion we need to have on his behalf, in order to seek his release. Going into that detail here is not something I can do, understandable though it would be to Parliament, as it is an intelligence matter, which a previous Government would understand well, and would deal with in exactly the same terms.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I understand that the Minister cannot tell us the details of the discussions that have been happening, but when he next has a chance to discuss the matter, can he raise something with the US authorities? Mr Aamer’s lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, has said that he has access to classified material from MI6, which he cannot share—a bit like the Minister— even with his client. However, he is able to give some information from the documents, and he can say that the British security services are actively misleading their US counterparts to ensure that he is never allowed to return to Britain; and that they have gone round bad-mouthing Mr Aamer and saying things that are simply false. Not only were they part of his abuse, but they falsified evidence against him.

[Alistair Burt]

I understand the point fully, and, again, the answer is partly the same that I would have given a moment ago, in terms of allegations made against British security forces and the like. However, I will say two things in response. I can say clearly that we are using, and will continue to use, our best endeavours to secure Shaker Aamer’s release. I am aware of the allegations that have been made, and want to make it clear that all parts of Government are pulling in the same direction, for Mr Shaker Aamer’s release.

Also, as to the Government’s response to allegations of wrongdoing in the past by British security services, and our attempts to open things up and to give compensation where things have been wrong, the Prime Minister has said explicitly that torture and rendition are not part of British security activity, whether or not they have been in the past. We have opened that up and offered compensation where things have been wrong. I think that the hon. Lady will appreciate that it is not in our interest, having gone so far in relation to other cases, to seek to do something contrary now. I give an assurance that all parts of the British Government system are pulling in the same direction, for the return of Mr Shaker Aamer.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful for that assurance about the activities of all parts of the UK Government. Can the Minister shed any light on the point that we discussed earlier about the reason for the change on the part of the US authorities from apparently clearing Mr Aamer for release, to clearing him only for release to Saudi Arabia?

[Alistair Burt]

As far as I am aware—I checked with officials during the debate—our understanding is that he has only ever been cleared for transfer. I am not aware that he has been cleared only for transfer to one place. [Interruption.] He has been cleared for transfer to Saudi Arabia; but it is our understanding that he has always been cleared for transfer to Saudi Arabia. That does not, of course, prevent the United Kingdom from seeking to get him returned to the United Kingdom. We believe Shaker Aamer should be returned here, to his family and everything else. Our understanding is that the United States has not changed its position and that it has always been the case—he is cleared for transfer to Saudi Arabia.

[John McDonnell]

It is bizarre that the very people who could find themselves in the dock as a result of this witness’s evidence are preventing the Minister from telling us why that witness cannot be released. That is extraordinary.

The level of seriousness with which the American Government will treat this matter depends on the level at which it is raised by this Government. I fully accept that Ministers, including the Minister himself, have raised it consistently, but that means that the Prime Minister, at some stage, has to come into play. After this debate, will the Minister communicate to the Prime Minister that the House now feels it is time for him to intervene personally in the matter by using his relationship with Barack Obama?

[Alistair Burt]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and, of course, the Prime Minister will be made aware of the substance of this debate and the strength of feeling, which I know he understands. I cannot make a commitment on the Prime Minister’s behalf to raise particular issues, but I make it very clear that I think the debate should be read widely. Besides the United Kingdom, I hope the debate will influence opinion elsewhere. The matter has been raised with the US Secretary of State and Defence Secretary, and the reason for raising it at that level is, of course, that we believe they are the chief interlocutors who have responsibility under the Act and, ultimately, will need to respond to Congress. We will continue to use our best efforts to get the result we are seeking, but I fully take and understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am quite sure that it will be further considered.

One or two questions have been asked about other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea asked whether the FCO is considering the new provisions in the NDAA to identify obstacles and opportunities for Shaker Aamer’s release. She asked what progress has been made. The NDAA 2012 allows for the US Defence Secretary to exercise a waiver should stringent conditions be met. We have tried, as I have said, to use our best endeavour to ensure that that happens. We are continuing to work with counterparts to try to understand the implications of the NDAA 2013 for Mr Aamer’s release, but so far that has not been successful. We understand that no detainees were released last year. Ultimately, that remains in their hands, but we are continuing to press.

My hon. Friend and other hon. Members asked for details on any guarantees or securities that we could give on our behalf in relation to Shaker Aamer’s return to the United Kingdom and any onward activity. I cannot give an answer to that, because, again, it clearly forms part of the confidential discussions we must have. I have to rely on previous intelligence assurances given to the House about our not being able to comment in detail on that.

[Jane Ellison]

This will be a brief intervention. Have the British Government reiterated the UK’s excellent track record on previous returners from Guantanamo? Stating that would seem to me to be entirely legitimate and not within the bounds of confidential intelligence discussions.

[Alistair Burt]

I can state that the subsequent activities and conduct of those who have been released from Guantanamo Bay to the United Kingdom and elsewhere is clearly one of the considerations that we would expect the United States Administration to take into account. My hon. Friend’s point is well made.

A question was also asked about the business of this law of war and how long it is likely to last. Again, we have had no indication from the United States about the length of time that that particular provision might cover. It is a matter for them, but, again, we have made it clear, as a number of colleagues have said, that it does not address the fundamental issues of detention without charge or trial that are at the heart and root of the matter.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion raised a number of serious issues in relation to letters from Shaker Aamer to the Foreign Secretary. I do not have those details at the moment, but she has a list of questions, and I will deal with them in the manner I suggested by putting a letter in the Library and writing directly to her.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised issues about the intelligence services, to which I have responded. If not in his terms, I have been able to answer them fully. We take the allegations very seriously. As I have said, the Government’s record of dealing with allegations against the intelligence services in the past has been, I believe, good. Our record of uncovering things that we believe to have been wrong in the past, from Bloody Sunday to Hillsborough, is also good. It is against the Government’s spirit to seek again to be complicit in anything that we believe to be wrong. I hope I have given a clear enough assurance on our views on the detention of Mr Shaker Aamer and our clear determination to have him returned.

The hon. Member for Islington North raised similar issues, and he particularly asked why Mr Aamer was detained. Again, I have given the best answer I can at this stage, but none the less, in relation to whatever reason the United States may have, the United Kingdom will continue to argue that his detention is wrong and that he should be returned.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

The Minister is very generous in giving way. If it was the other way around—if the UK had detained a US resident—would we be getting the same response, and would we accept it?

[Alistair Burt]

That is a hypothetical question. As far as I am aware, we do not have anyone detained in the UK who is not going through what we believe to be the appropriate court processes, some of which are very difficult, as we have seen with Mr Abu Qatada. We can be challenged at any time. We do not have any comparable facility. Would we seek to respond? Yes, of course we would. We would respond to legitimate requests from another Government in relation to one of their residents. We would always put our own security first, and we are very clear about that. This is a big political issue in the United States, as we know. This is not just about the President and the Administration; it is about Congress, too.

I will conclude by saying something about that. There is no MP in this room who does not understand or sympathise with the people of the United States and their profound sense of shock after 9/11, in which, of course, a larger number of UK citizens lost their lives than in any other terrorist incident. Certainly, none of us opposes a state’s right to protect itself against terrorism. Parliament debates that regularly and agonises over how to legislate in a complex field to balance security with the very rights and freedoms that are at the heart of what our security is designed to protect. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion mentioned the Justice and Security Bill, which profoundly concerns those dilemmas and difficulties.

Over the years, we have all come to do our best to understand the complex interplay of motives of those who would cause us harm, and we have sought to defuse them with action directed against those actively engaged in planning or carrying out acts of terrorism, while also doing all we can to de-radicalise those who might be influenced by others or turned in the wrong direction by any action of the UK Government, however unfairly judged—if efforts to protect ourselves are deliberately misinterpreted so as to suggest that a section of the community is being targeted by the state in a manner that denies their rights or discriminates against them, for example. Against such a background in the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom Government simply believe that the continued detention of Shaker Aamer is wrong without charge or trial, and we will continue to do all in our power to seek to return him to the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with the Commonwealth ministerial action group on Sri Lanka.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

The UK is not a member of the CMAG, but we have regular bilateral conversations with its members. We do not expect Sri Lanka to be on the formal CMAG agenda at its next meeting on 26 April, but we expect, and support, it being discussed at some stage in the meeting.

[Mr Cunningham]

The CMAG is the custodian of the Commonwealth’s fundamental values and principles. Given the allegations of war crimes in Sri Lanka and the impeachment of the Chief Justice, will the Government be calling on CMAG members to take action on Sri Lanka at its Friday meeting?

[Alistair Burt]

We have been very clear in a variety of statements, and in direct contact with the Government of Sri Lanka, that they should be upholding the very best of Commonwealth values, particularly in view of their intention to hold the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Colombo later this year. We know from comments by members of the CMAG that they share the concerns and that they will also be expecting Sri Lanka to uphold those values.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Do the Government accept that it is becoming increasingly apparent that great damage will be done to the Commonwealth if the next CHOGM is held in Colombo later this year, given the appalling human rights record in Sri Lanka and its Government’s disregard for the rule of law? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government are taking action, along with many other Commonwealth states, to have this matter ventilated not just at the CMAG, but if necessary between Heads of Government, to ensure that action can be taken over the next few months to find an alternative venue?

[Alistair Burt]

The decision to site the next CHOGM in Colombo was taken by consensus in the Commonwealth back in 2009, and we have no indication that the Commonwealth intends to change its view on that, but my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to point out the contrast between Commonwealth values and concerns about what is happening in Sri Lanka. We and other Governments have made that clear, and the recent passing of the Human Rights Council resolution in Geneva, which the UK strongly supported, is evidence of that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister just referenced the most recent United Nations resolution on Sri Lanka, in which it noted

“the continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture, and violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly”.

Given that Sri Lanka has been judged in those terms by the UN, to what extent does the Minister think the country complies with the principles of the Commonwealth and the recently adopted Commonwealth charter, and should we use CHOGM as a means of leverage to put pressure on Sri Lanka to put its house in order?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Lady is correct when she says that CHOGM provides the opportunity for us and others to express concerns to Sri Lanka, and to urge it to make good its own promises to fulfil the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations. We have urged it to do so and we will continue to do that.

I was able to speak to the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister yesterday. I made reference to our further concerns, whether they are about the impeachment of the Chief Justice or further attacks on the press in Jaffna, and made it clear that if Colombo is to host CHOGM later this year, the spotlight will be on Sri Lanka and it will need to demonstrate to the world how it has responded to these concerns and made good its own beliefs in reconciliation for the future.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

May I again urge on Ministers the idea that the Commonwealth should have a group of people independent of the relevant Government, who can go in and look at human rights issues, so that we can have not just a charter, but a method of reporting back to see whether the charter is upheld in Sri Lanka and other places?

[Alistair Burt]

The determination of the Commonwealth to uphold the highest principles, the Lancaster principles, and how that can be ensured in all Commonwealth countries, is a matter of active discussion in the Commonwealth. The situation in Sri Lanka has pointed out very sharply the discrepancy between the concerns and those values in principle. I have no doubt that leaders of the Commonwealth and Heads of State are acutely aware of the concerns that my right hon. Friend raises, and will be addressing them.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Indonesian Government about the death penalty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

11. What discussions he has had with his Commonwealth counterparts about the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo in 2013 and the progress being made on tackling human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

We have discussions with our counterparts in the Commonwealth on a variety of subjects on a regular basis, including on CHOGM. We make every effort to reiterate our concerns about human rights directly to Sri Lanka, whenever we get the opportunity. I was able to do that most recently in a meeting with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister just yesterday.

[Ann Clwyd]

It is obviously not enough, because the Sri Lankans are not listening. They do not listen to the UN or the Commonwealth. It beggars belief that we think that they will listen more if CHOGM goes ahead there and we attend. I ask the UK Government to think carefully about the signal that it will send about their commitment to human rights if they go ahead with that visit.

[Alistair Burt]

I understand the concerns of the right hon. Lady, as do all hon. Members. This is a decision for the Commonwealth. It decided by consensus that the Heads of Government meeting should be in Colombo. The Commonwealth recognises the issues of concern in Sri Lanka. There is no doubt that whoever ends up going to CHOGM, from whatever country, Sri Lanka will be in the spotlight. The progress that can be made on a number of the positive recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission is a key topic that many will want to address. We want Sri Lanka to get to where it professes it wants to go. However, I agree with the right hon. Lady entirely that the evidence of that at present is pretty scant.

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

21. On human rights abuses, the British and US assessments of the level of torture in Sri Lanka seem to be at variance. The FCO says merely that reports of torture continue, while the US State Department says that there is“widespread impunity for a broad range of human rights abuses, particularly involving police torture”.Why the difference of views?

[Alistair Burt]

We judge the evidence of torture that is brought to us and make our calculations upon it. We have expressed concern about incidents of torture. Our asylum processes take account of the possibility that some people, but not all, could be subject to torture. Cases are dealt with on an individual basis. Part of the overall picture of human rights concerns in Sri Lanka is that the Government appear to be determined to address the issue, but the evidence remains difficult to see in certain cases. We will continue to press the case and we know that this is a matter of great interest to all right hon. and hon. Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

T4. Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation in Kashmir remains a key to lasting peace and security in Asia? What efforts are the Government making to help Pakistan and India to resolve their differences and unlock the great human and economic potential of the region?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Efforts to resolve the issue in Kashmir continue and will be of huge benefit to both countries and the region as a whole. The UK is in contact with both Governments to urge them to do as much as possible to assist that reconciliation. We were particularly engaged after the incidents in January, when, once again, there were killings and shootings. It is important to note that those incidents did not disturb the dialogue that had grown up between India and Pakistan, which is important for the resolution of the issue.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

T2. Following the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), is he aware that Ahava Cosmetics, which produces cosmetics in an illegal settlement, is currently labelled as “Israeli” in the UK? Despite complaints to trading standards, it refused to take up the matter. I welcomed his approach to EU-wide guidelines, but will he talk to his colleagues to ensure that the guidelines we already have are upheld and enforced?

[Alistair Burt]

It is of course essential that guidelines that have been introduced are adhered to, and that products are correctly and properly labelled. I am aware of the concerns about the product that has been mentioned—it is discussed. It is important that the voluntary guidelines are extended, and that settlement produce and Israeli produce are correctly labelled to give people a choice.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

T5. A Palestinian news agency has reported that Hamas will seek to petition the EU to remove it from the terrorist list. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of those reports, and will he confirm that the British Government will remain steadfast in its position that Hamas is indeed a terrorist organisation?

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

T3. Will the Minister update us on the ratification of the UN arms trade treaty and what work we are doing with our international partners to implement it as soon as possible?

[Alistair Burt]

I am so glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised this point. It has been rather unnoticed in the past few weeks that the ATT was passed. It is one of the most important things the UN has achieved in recent years. Ratification will begin on 3 June, and we will be playing a leading part in encouraging states to sign up and ratify as soon as possible. I appreciate the support of the whole House. This has been a joint effort; it began in 2007 under the previous Government and we have seen it through to its successful conclusion. I would like publicly to congratulate Ambassador Jo Adamson, who has led the team in the United Nations and done a wonderful job.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

T6. Last year, Conservatives on Essex county council passed a motion calling for the EU budget to be cut, a reduction in our contributions to the EU and for EU red tape to be slashed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the good people of Essex should back Essex Conservatives on 2 May—the only party to stand up to Europe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T8. My hon. Friend will be aware that this year marks the 25th anniversary of Saddam’s mustard gas attack on Halabja. Will he support the principle of a UN inquiry into those many hundreds of western companies that supplied the chemical weapons that enabled Saddam to carry out his attacks?

[Alistair Burt]

I am aware that my hon. Friend was in Iraq recently for the commemoration on the 25th anniversary of this dreadful massacre, and he also spoke with great passion in a recent debate in the House. Following the incident, there were extensive UN and UK investigations into the use of chemical weapons and any involvement of UK companies. Those inquiries were fairly comprehensive and did not illustrate any UK involvement. From a UK point of view, I am not sure that any further inquiries are necessary.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Recently, the Prime Minister made the very eccentric contention that North Korean missiles could reach the shores of the UK, apparently in an attempt to bolster support for Trident’s renewal. Is it not time to scrap the Trident renewal, save £100 billion, spend it on public services and avoid hitting the vulnerable in society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to set out the UK’s opposition to boycotts, disinvestment campaigns and other attempts to de-legitimise the state of Israel, because the only way we will see peace in the middle east, with a secure Israel living peacefully alongside a viable Palestinian state, is by initiatives that bring people on both sides who believe in peace to work together, not by boycotts and all the rest of it, which just drive people further apart?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman puts it very well, and I know he cares passionately about this subject. The United Kingdom has always opposed boycotts and disinvestment. We believe absolutely that the future for peace in the middle east will come through negotiations between the two different sides. President Obama’s recent speech, in which he spoke about the urgency and possibility of peace, but also about the need for justice, provides a good base for both sides to proceed. We believe and hope that those opportunities should be taken as quickly as possible.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Sanctions against Zimbabwe were recently eased and the UK gave £90 million in aid last year, but many British pensioners are being robbed of their pensions, following Mugabe’s decision in 2002 to stop paying pensions to British citizens. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the case of my constituent Mr Scott, who worked for the Zimbabwean police for over 20 years and is being denied his pension, to end this injustice?

Justice for Tamils

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on securing the debate. His tireless work to raise the profile of human rights issues in Sri Lanka and to seek accountability for events that took place during the war is well known to the House. His speech demonstrated his passion and commitment to the cause. I do not know what his definition of a coward is, but he does not conform to my definition. We are all aware of the way in which he approaches his work in the House. I also thank other Members for their contributions to the debate.

Having visited Sri Lanka last month, I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House, and to hear Members’ views about a country with which the United Kingdom has long-standing and deep ties. Our relations have been cemented through trade, tourism and education, as well as through the diaspora community in the UK. We value those links, which reflect the strong bond that our countries continue to enjoy. I am sometimes asked why the United Kingdom is so interested in Sri Lanka, and why the issue arises time and again. I think that the reason is a combination of that background of relationships and the real pain that we all feel—the sense that following the tragedy that was this conflict, everyone in Sri Lanka deserves something rather better to look forward to. There are so many unanswered questions; we just feel that more could be done.

The United Kingdom’s long-term interest is in a stable, peaceful Sri Lanka, free from the scourge of terrorism, where the human rights of all Sri Lankans are protected, but as the House is well aware in a different context, certain things need to happen to enable a country to rebuild itself after a tragedy. That is one of the reasons why we feel so much for Sri Lanka, and why we talk in the way that we do about the opportunities that exist. There must be a balance; there are issues to be considered on all sides.

As my hon. Friend observed, the debate comes at an important moment. Later this week, the UN Human Rights Council will consider a motion on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka. As my noble Friend Baroness Warsi made clear in her statement to the high-level segment of the Human Rights Council, the United Kingdom supports the motion. Let me reply to my hon. Friend’s query by saying that all international resolutions of this kind are composites, and are put together in a manner designed to create the greatest possible support for them. That sometimes means a degree of compromise on language. The United Kingdom felt that the most important thing was that the demonstration of a significant number of countries with concern about Sri Lanka was better than having a motion that some might have felt unable to support. We wanted to give a clear indication, as we gave last year, of the importance of these issues to many nations, which is why the resolution is drafted in the terms it is. We think it is still firm and meaningful.

The text reflects widespread concern that, in simple terms, the Sri Lankan Government, having won a brutal war, are not winning the peace. There should be no doubt about the fact that it was a brutal war and about the importance of defeating terrorism, but the brutality of the terrorism of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is not sufficient, in itself, as an answer to questions about actions taken at the end of the war.

As I have previously made clear to the House, progress has been made in Sri Lanka in a number of areas—it is still important to say this—including de-mining, the reintegration of child soldiers and the resettlement of an increasing number of internally displaced persons. Considerable investment has also been made in infrastructure, as I saw during my visit in January. However, as the resolution highlights, progress is lacking in other areas fundamental to the reconciliation and long-term stability that all Sri Lankans deserve after almost 30 years of armed conflict.

As hon. Members are aware, the Sri Lankan Government took steps to address the root causes of conflict by establishing a Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, which reported in 2011. Despite gaps on accountability, the recommendations of the LLRC were, contrary to some opinion that had been expressed beforehand, constructive and far-reaching. Regrettably, however, the July 2012 plan of action for LLRC implementation covers only about half the recommendations, and for many the actions were scheduled to begin only in 2013.

I have repeatedly encouraged the Sri Lankan Government to implement all the recommendations, making it clear that the real test of the LLRC’s recommendations is in their implementation. I stress that these concerns and commitments made from outside Sri Lanka are absolutely based on the desires of Sri Lankans themselves, as their Government have expressed, to give effect to reconciliation and the pathway to it. All people from outside who are concerned about the future of Sri Lanka are asking for is that the Sri Lankan Government implement the things they have said are necessary to be brought forward if true reconciliation is to be achieved among all the people. The Foreign Secretary was assured in a letter from Foreign Minister G. L. Peiris just last week that all the LLRC recommendations will be implemented. I warmly welcome that assurance, but we urge the Sri Lankan Government to ensure swift implementation of all the recommendations. Many, such as that for a national day of remembrance for all those who died in the war, can be implemented relatively easily and quickly, if the political will exists.

[Mr Scott]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful if the Sri Lankan Government would start to involve the Tamil diaspora from around the world in some way, engage them and start working with them so that some of these questions, fears, desires and aspirations can be addressed?

[Alistair Burt]

That is a question for the Sri Lankan Government. In short, it can only be helpful if members of the diaspora in the UK are clear about their desire to be engaged in the Sri Lanka of today and to work for the future of Sri Lanka, as well as about concerns about accountability and issues in the past. There are strong and deep feelings on both sides. I cannot see, given my knowledge of everyone involved, that everyone is going to come together on this, but it is true that elements in the diaspora community in the UK do want to be engaged in that work and that is very important. There needs to be an open door on both sides to try to engineer something that will be of assistance for the future.

The United Kingdom’s calls for the swift implementation of the LLRC recommendations are not unrealistic. The UK has never suggested or expected that reconciliation after sustained armed conflict would be instant. We realise that the LLRC recommendations cannot all be implemented immediately and that a credible process of accountability takes time. However, to make progress in the long term there needs to be a sense of urgency and a positive trajectory. This is particularly the case in areas that require agreement between various parties, changes to legislation and negotiated solutions to complicated issues such as land rights. From our own experience of reconciliation in Northern Ireland, we know well that these processes are complex and require a long-term approach, tenacity, co-operation and, if I may say so, political leadership.

We know too that delay serves only to make the process more difficult and widens the circle of those affected. At present, our view is that a number of key LLRC recommendations have not been tackled at all, or have been tackled in name only. First, the military presence in many areas may be less invasive than at the end of the conflict, but armed forces continue to occupy significant areas of civilian land, which are now classified as high-security zones or military cantonments. Secondly, military involvement in civil and commercial activities has reduced in some areas, but involvement in reconstruction work, and in the wider economy, including the tourism sector, remains widespread and a source of tension.

When I was in Sri Lanka, in the northern area, it was noted that I was not alone. I was accompanied not only by UK officials and officials from the high commission, but by a significant military presence, some uniformed and some non-uniformed. It is not uncommon for a Minister visiting someone else’s country to be protected and supported by the military in those areas, and I raise no issue about that. I felt safe, and it was only appropriate for the Government to do that. However, the extent of military involvement was noticed by others, who were keen to pick out the non-uniformed individuals who were there, which raises a significant matter.

Our observation is that military intrusion in the north is significant. There are too many stories of people in the area who, if they speak to non-governmental organisations or western journalists, are immediately interrogated by non-uniformed military personnel, and an oppressive sense of intrusion was reported by those who were able to report it. People commented on my visit and said how foolish I was. They said, “Don’t you know that no one will be able to speak to you honestly?” Trust me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I knew that full well, and I made no judgment in relation to what was said to me. However, my going on that visit, on which people could see how I was treated, made, I think, its own point, and I would ask that in future perhaps there would not be quite as much intrusion. That is something that needs to be recognised in the area.

Thirdly, not only has there been no agreement on political settlement, but a recent Bill in the Sri Lankan Parliament has restricted existing devolution by repatriating budgetary powers to the central Government. Fourthly, there is no reliable information on the missing, and families are unable to establish whether their relatives are among those still detained. Finally, there has not been, even as we see new footage that has been released, an independent investigation into the Channel 4 footage, as recommended by the LLRC.

One area not adequately covered by the LLRC is justice, or accountability, for the alleged violations of international humanitarian law by both sides in the war. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate on justice in Sri Lanka earlier today, all Sri Lankans deserve access to fair and transparent justice, yet for many Sri Lankans, Sinhala and Muslim as well as Tamil, the military defeat of the Tamil Tigers in 2009 has not been followed by an accounting for the events that they experienced during the war. The independent, thorough and credible investigations into alleged violations that the UK and many other countries have called for have not taken place.

A transparent, independent, Sri Lankan-led investigation with full access to witnesses would be a significant step in delivering justice. If Sri Lanka is unable or unwilling to deliver that, the calls for an international alternative will only increase. As hon. Members know, the concerns of the British Government are not simply related to the period of war. We have expressed concerns recently about the impeachment of the chief justice, and the intimidation of the media, opposition politicians and human rights defenders over the past 12 months. We remain seriously concerned about widespread impunity for sexual assault, rape and domestic violence in Sri Lanka—a concern that we are seeking to tackle by working with Sri Lankan non-governmental organisations.

We are very much aware that this year there is a period of intense international scrutiny of Sri Lanka, not just in the Human Rights Council session, but in the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. In September, the Sri Lankan Government plan to hold long-awaited northern provincial council elections, in which a free and fair process would send a strong signal of progress. In November, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is scheduled to take place in Colombo and, whatever the formal agenda, and whoever attends, the spotlight will be on Sri Lanka, and it will either highlight progress or focus attention and pressure on the lack of it. As my hon. Friend said, our attendance has not been decided. We look to Sri Lanka to uphold Commonwealth values, including on good governance and human rights.

The Sri Lankan Government have in CHOGM an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to Commonwealth values and progress in carrying out the actions necessary for long-term reconciliation and stability. The United Kingdom urges them still to seize this opportunity with the support of the international community. This is a society that we want to see succeed. No matter what the difficulties have been, there is still an opportunity to fulfil the recommendations that the Sri Lankans have announced themselves for their future.

I thank hon. Members for their continued interest. I am sure that we will be meeting again.

Question put and agreed to.

Government Policy (Kenya)

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

May I begin with an apology to colleagues? One is never quite sure with an aeroplane malfunction—in the case of my flight from New York last night, a back-up generator on the starboard engine of the aeroplane was not working—whether to be annoyed at the loss of three fairly vital hours, or grateful at the skill of the pilots and engineers in recognising something that might have caused the passengers harm. On balance, I think it is best that I say that I am very appreciative of being here, but I am also very grateful for your courtesy, Mr Bone, and that of all colleagues in the Chamber for appreciating my dilemma.

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

It was, however, not very long after the start of the debate that I got to the Chamber, so I was able to hear the majority of the speech made by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce). I thank him for securing the debate, for his continued interest in Africa, which he has demonstrated on a number of occasions, and for his courtesy in informing my office of the general topics that he wanted to raise today. That enabled the preparation of advance briefing that I could read while I was in the US and on my way back, which proved to be fairly beneficial.

I thank all hon. Members who participated in the debate for their contributions. The tone of the debate—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was kind enough to mention that I sometimes pick this up—has been very much one of support and encouragement. We have heard of personal knowledge from visits and a sense of moving on, with hon. Members recognising that few states are completely free of difficulties and political clashes. However, it is important to move on, and all the opportunities are there for Kenya, with which we have a deep and abiding relationship. If hon. Members will allow me, I will take a little extra time to say a bit about that relationship and to reflect on the comments that they made.

This is an historic moment for Kenya, as it prepares for only its fourth President since independence, so this is a timely moment for the House to take stock of how the UK’s relationship with Kenya has changed since independence. At the outset, let me be clear about the United Kingdom’s perspective on the relationship. Although we are often still thought of as the former colonial power, the modern-day relationship between the United Kingdom and Kenya is one of partnership. We are bound together by strong commercial, security and personal links that benefit both our countries, not least of which, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said, is our growing parliamentary link through the IPU, the CPA and the parliamentary armed forces scheme. From my work around various countries, I have seen how valued those parliamentary links are by people who are building democracy, who are always searching for ideas. Equally, I have seen how we benefit, as the hon. Gentleman said, from swapping ideas with newer democracies, some of which are doing innovative work that it is more difficult to do in a more established Parliament such as ours. We all benefit from that.

Let me say a little about the general relationship before turning to the specifics that the hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned, particularly the elections and the ICC. The United Kingdom is the largest commercial investor in Kenya and home to half the top 10 tax-paying companies in the country. More than 200,000 British nationals visit Kenya every year—the largest number of visitors from any country. As colleagues have mentioned, the tourism industry is vital. A similar number of Kenyans live in the United Kingdom, and the benefits include the remittances sent back to the Kenyan economy. We are the second largest bilateral donor to Kenya, contributing more than £100 million a year, and I will say a little more later about the development matters that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned.

The British Army trains 10,000 British soldiers in Kenya every year, to the benefit of the Kenyan armed forces, as well as the wider local economy. Let me say a little more about that because it was mentioned, in particular by the hon. Member for Strangford. The British military has trained in Kenya for decades, and we have an excellent, long-standing relationship with the Kenyan armed forces and the local communities surrounding the training areas. Kenyan troops are also trained at the MOD base, and Kenyans are routinely welcomed to attend training courses at staff colleges in the United Kingdom. The relationship is a partnership, and it is governed by a memorandum of understanding that was signed by both sides in 2010. When issues arise, we always seek to resolve them through discussion. We will continue to have a strong shared interest in working together on important security issues, starting with Somalia, which a number of colleagues mentioned, where Kenyan troops still play an important role in pushing back al-Shabaab.

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned piracy off the east coast. Kenya is, indeed, an important partner in dealing with piracy. I recently had the opportunity to visit Northwood, where all the east coast of Africa’s maritime operations, involving 27 countries, are co- ordinated. I also recently had the opportunity to visit the area to see some of the work being done. All states in the region play a vital part in that work, which is partly political and partly military. There have been no successful hijackings over the past year or so of vessels carrying an armed guard, and we now have 80% fewer hijacking cases, although four ships and 108 hostages are still being held. That dramatic success has been due to a lot of hard work by the various countries involved, skilled leadership, in which the United Kingdom has been heavily involved, and the application of resources. We must continue that work so that the piracy issue does not arise again, because it is far from solved. Of course, development efforts on the ground are also crucial in giving some of the young people sent by the ringleaders to do the hijacking at least the possibility of an alternative occupation.

I was recently in the Seychelles to open the new criminal prosecution centre, which the United Kingdom has paid for. It will deliberately target the ringleaders—there are expected to be about a dozen in the area—who cause so much damage to so many people. That is a measure of the commitment to dealing with this issue, and Kenya is, indeed, a key player. Dealing with piracy is a priority for our Nairobi mission and our Somalia embassy, and their work is well resourced. However, I will look at the issue again, as the hon. Gentleman asked me to, just in case there is anything further that can be done.

It is clear that Britain and Kenya matter significantly to each other. The Government therefore look forward to building on our substantial shared agenda in our partnership with the next Kenyan Government.

The March elections were a key aspect of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Falkirk. As Members will have seen, the Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), made a statement following the announcement of the results by the Kenyan electoral commission. Two things stand out for us. The first, which colleagues have mentioned, is the determination of the Kenyan people to express their sovereign will, as was demonstrated by the impressive turnout and the way in which many Kenyans waited patiently for hours to vote. The second is the largely peaceful conduct of the elections, which was in stark contrast to the violence of 2007-08.

Kenyans everywhere, including civil society, religious groups and Kenya’s youth, have spoken out for peace. We welcome the important role played by Kenya’s leaders, from all parties, in urging their supporters to exercise their democratic right peacefully, to show restraint and, above all, to refrain from violence. We welcome, too, the way in which those who have been unsuccessful in the various elections have accepted defeat or, in some cases, taken their disputes to court for peaceful resolution. That is the clearest sign that Kenya has learned lessons from the appalling violence that followed the elections in December 2007, which led to more than 1,000 deaths and to hundreds of thousands people being displaced. The Kenyan people should be proud of the message they have sent to the world about their determination to exercise their democratic right peacefully.

I am proud, too, that the UK has played a role in supporting the democratic process in Kenya, including by providing £16 million in funding to support free and peaceful elections, much of which was delivered through the United Nations Development Programme’s election basket fund. Our support helped to put in place a more accurate voter register and an independent parallel vote-counting system, and thus to ensure that more than 14 million Kenyans were registered to vote and had greater confidence that their vote counted.

However, the election process is not yet complete. The Coalition for Reform and Democracy has challenged the presidential result, and its petition is being considered by the Kenyan Supreme Court. That is an important part of the checks and balances put in place by the new constitution to ensure that disputes are taken to the courts, not the streets. We continue to urge all sides to show restraint and to wait patiently for the court’s ruling. The United Kingdom’s position is consistent and clear: it is for the Kenyan people to elect their leaders and for the Kenyan courts to resolve any disputes. In that context, we need to be even more careful than usual in our public statements that we do not unintentionally influence or prejudge what the courts will say.

The hon. Member for Wrexham mentioned the EU, but it is too soon for us to have received its report. We are collating the information. We will observe the challenge in the Supreme Court, but it is a little too soon to say anything further. However, my remarks about the way in which we have been able to play a part in the election process, and the way in which that has been received in Kenya, suggest that the influence of supporters from outside has helped the Kenyan people in their determination to ensure that the election process is good and strong.

We utterly reject any allegations of interference by the British Government or the British high commissioner. I am grateful to hon. Members for their comments made in relation to Christian Turner. We have always said that this election is a choice for Kenyans; it is for them alone to decide. We did not endorse any one candidate over another. It is for the electoral commission and courts to resolve any disputes.

Looking ahead, some people have expressed concern that the UK will reduce its co-operation with Kenya because of the charges pending against President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta at the International Criminal Court. That assertion is not based on facts. We are motivated by a desire to respect Kenya’s sovereignty and to ensure that the Kenyan court is able to do its work free from interference. We are confident that it will adjudicate swiftly and fairly, and we call on all sides to respect its independence. Irrespective of who emerges as the confirmed winner, I am confident that the UK will want to continue working with the next Government in Kenya; to continue supporting a reduction in poverty; to continue helping UK companies looking to invest in Kenya in support of Kenya’s Vision 2030; and to continue working together on security and stability in Somalia. Fundamentally, both our nations have a strong interest in working in partnership in pursuit of these shared goals.

The International Criminal Court proceedings regarding Kenya are, of course, a controversial topic, on which I am happy to clarify the UK’s position. Kenya and the UK share the same values of justice and peace. As the Foreign Secretary said in July last year,

“We have learnt from history that you cannot have lasting peace without justice, accountability and reconciliation.”

That is why we continue strongly to support the International Criminal Court’s work around the world, including its efforts to provide justice for the victims of the 2007-08 violence and to help Kenya move on from the past.

The ICC is an impartial, independent court. Alongside Kenya, 121 other countries are states that are party to its founding Rome statute, and there are more states that are party from Africa than from any other region. To respond to the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Falkirk about whether there is unfair bias against Africa, and whether the ICC pitches its cases against the less powerful rather than the more powerful, I have to say that we reject that suggestion. The ICC, an international independent organisation, is a court of last resort providing for the primacy of national jurisdiction. It steps in only when a country cannot or will not investigate and, when necessary, prosecutes fairly the most serious crimes in the international community. It puts victims at the centre of its work. Accusations to the effect that the ICC has focused solely on Africa are understandable, as all 15 cases formally under investigation are from the African continent, but the ICC itself is conducting preliminary examinations outside Africa, including in Afghanistan and Colombia.

We understand that civil society in Africa strongly supports the work of the ICC and the justice that it can and will deliver for many Africans. In every African situation in which the court has been involved, either the country in question—or, when relevant, all African states on the United Nations Security Council—have supported its involvement. Fatou Bensouda’s appointment as prosecutor, by consensus of all states that are party to the agreement, is a clear indication of Africa’s important role in the court. We hope that that will go some way to addressing the concern expressed by some African states that their voices are not being heard.

[Martin Horwood]

Does the Minister agree that there are other international judicial processes, such as those relating to the former Yugoslavia, where the ICC has not been necessary, because an effective international judicial process has been available and has been rigorously pursued?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point.

The focus on Africa is due to the number of cases, as has been mentioned, but it is unfair to infer from that that there is an unfair bias. The support of African nations and states for this work, which adds an essential element of transparency and accountability for some of the issues of the past, should not be neglected. It is important, as hon. Members have said, that the net is spread fairly and widely to catch those who have been most active contrary to the law.

Polls have consistently shown a strong desire for justice among the Kenyan people. In Kenya, the ICC became involved only after the Kenyan Parliament’s decision not to establish a special tribunal. We judge that that has helped to challenge the culture of impunity and to show there is no place for hate speech or incitement to violence in the new Kenya. Consequently, we continue to urge the Kenyan Government and all those facing charges to co-operate with the ICC. We welcome the co-operation that has already been provided, which marks Kenya out as a country that wishes to respect its international obligations. We are equally clear that a defendant is innocent unless proven guilty by a court of law. It is not for the UK, nor anyone other than the court, to pass judgement.

[Eric Joyce]

It is not my intention to be overtly critical of the ICC. Indeed, the Minister will be aware that Rwanda has successfully taken custody of Bosco Ntaganda, and Rwanda, like Kenya, regards the ICC as important. The processes are not exactly as we would understand them in the UK, and it would be a mistake to think that they were in all respects. For example, it is possible to be held by the ICC for five years before trial and then acquitted. Jean-Pierre Bemba’s case is under way, and he has been at The Hague for five years, but his case is far from over.

[Alistair Burt]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Of course, the ICC’s processes are independent of the UK. I am sure that concerns have already been, and will continue to be, expressed. When taking on such an extraordinary responsibility on behalf of nations that are states party to the agreement, it is essential that the functions of the ICC are performed fairly, efficiently and quickly. Justice delayed is justice denied, as all hon. Members recognise, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns will have been heard.

I stress that, despite media reports to the contrary, the UK has never threatened sanctions against Kenya on this issue. The charges are being made against three individuals, not against Kenya as a whole. The people of Kenya should not be arbitrarily punished for the alleged crimes of their leaders.

A number of colleagues mentioned the important issues of trade and development. The UK remains the biggest cumulative investor in Kenya and the second largest training partner after Uganda, and trade is in Kenya’s favour. The hon. Member for Strangford made an important point about the sort of engagement that takes place with the UK and the way in which we hope that we conduct business. It is noticeable that, in winning contracts abroad, a key part of the offer of many big UK companies is capacity building and training, which is in stark contrast to others who seek contracts with the aim of maximising profit, sometimes to the exclusion of local workers. UK companies are urged by UK Trade & Investment, although many do it naturally, to ensure that their offer for winning a contract is supported by efforts on further education, vocational training and capacity building, so that something long-term and sustainable is offered to those places in which the contract is being run. That is one reason why total trade exceeds £1 billion. UK exports rose by 38% from 2010 to 2011, and a substantial number of the largest tax-paying companies in Kenya are from the UK.

The hon. Member for Falkirk is right that a more secure Kenya means a more secure United Kingdom. Increased trade benefits both countries, so we will continue to take an interest.

On the growing influence of China, naturally the UK welcomes competition and free trade. We are determined to meet the challenge. As the hon. Member for Wrexham said, UKTI is active in Kenya, and it covers the region as well from Nairobi. Further efforts are being made to secure our trade and commercial interests. As all hon. Members have suggested, the relationship is deep and it is supported by long-standing ties and the recognition that growing trade is in our mutual interest.

Finally, on the development issues that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham and touched on by other colleagues, UK aid is supporting the Kenyan Government’s Vision 2030. We are the second biggest bilateral donor after the US and our budget is growing. We will be spending up to £150 million in aid a year by 2014, which is a doubling since 2011, to tackle conflict, to increase stability and to improve education, health outcomes—particularly in relation to malaria—and the livelihoods of the poor. We are focused on helping the poorest Kenyans and we are definitely here for the long haul.

Water is, of course, vital, as the hon. Member for Strangford said. The Department for International Development provides significant funding for water projects, and Kenya is part of its humanitarian climate change work, so we continue to work with the private sector and other donors on efforts there. Those of us who support charities such as WaterAid know how extraordinary the commitment is.

I was delighted by what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of faith in Kenya and the number of churches per 100 yards. That was a remarkable statistic to hear from someone from Northern Ireland who knows his faith well, and I thank him for providing that context.

In general, the debate has demonstrated hon. Members’ wide interest in Kenya and their understanding of its contemporary problems and issues, as well as their wish to look ahead and ensure that those will be overcome by fair and impartial courts that are able to deal with concerns that arise and by the Kenyan people’s belief that that is the way to resolve their disputes. We look forward to the resolution of disputes and to a long and growing relationship with Kenya. I am grateful for colleagues’ interest and how they expressed themselves, and particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Falkirk for raising the matter as he did.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Even though the issues are serious, it is always nice to talk about sunny places on a cold, damp day in Westminster.

Sri Lanka

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this debate and on conveying to us the human tragedy and agony behind the statistic of the murder of a UK national abroad. I also pay tribute to the force and the manner of his description of the case, the circumstances of which make for powerful listening and reading. I hope his speech gets wide distribution. I am also grateful for the contributions of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).

I applaud the long-standing commitment of the hon. Member for Rochdale to securing justice following the brutal murder of his constituent, Khuram Shaikh, in 2011, and I welcome the opportunity to bring attention not only to that tragic case but to the wider circumstances that have been described. It is no secret that the United Kingdom has a number of concerns about progress in Sri Lanka, a country with which we have long and very strong ties but about which we have everyday worries that are shared by a number of other nations. One of our dearest wishes is that balance and equilibrium are restored to our relationship with Sri Lanka by those issues’ being addressed, but that is not what we currently see.

It is important to note that we have a long-standing and strong relationship with Sri Lanka. Our close ties are formed through history, educational links and culture, as well as the Sri Lankan community in the United Kingdom, which contributes so much to our rich and diverse culture. We value those links, which we are determined to maintain.

A key link, of course, is tourism. UK citizens accounted for more than 10% of tourists visiting Sri Lanka last year. Even in these tough times, tourists are making a significant contribution to the Sri Lankan economy. Together with Sri Lankan citizens, they deserve to know that they can rely on the Sri Lankan authorities to keep them as safe as tourists in any other part of the world. They also deserve a swift investigation, with the perpetrators being apprehended and brought swiftly to justice in a fair and transparent trial, should any crime be committed against them.

Unfortunately, the events highlighted by the hon. Gentleman today have served to undermine that trust. The horrific murder of Khuram Shaikh has gone untried for 15 months, bringing further grief and frustration to those closest to him. Of course, justice can take time, which we all understand, but in this case we were encouraged by the quick arrest of the suspects and the Sri Lankan Government’s early assurances that such a brutal crime would be investigated quickly and thoroughly, and that all guilty parties would be sentenced appropriately.

No trial has yet started, and the suspects, the most prominent of whom is a local politician, have been released on bail, which is extremely disappointing. There is a growing perception that the guilty parties may escape justice due to political connections, despite repeated pleas from Khuram Shaikh’s family and the British high commission in Colombo. I welcome the recognition of the work of our high commissioner and his team. It will be reported back to him. There is a sense, 15 months after this heinous crime, that those who deserve to be put on fair trial for their actions might escape justice. We sincerely hope that that is not the case, and that the accused will soon face a swift trial, free from political interference.

I was able to raise Khuram Shaikh’s case with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister during my visit to the country in January, as well as in a meeting with the Sri Lankan high commissioner in London on 23 January. During my meeting with the high commissioner, I was advised that progress would be made within three months. I trust the high commissioner and the Foreign Minister, and expect to hear soon of progress on the case. The British Government, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will monitor closely the progress of investigations in the coming weeks, in the hope that those assurances will lead to the justice that the Shaikh family so deserve. It is unfortunate that senior members of the Sri Lankan Government did not meet with the hon. Member for Rochdale or with Khuram Shaikh’s brother, Nasir Shaikh, during their recent visit to Sri Lanka to press the case further.

We are concerned about the possibility of increased attacks on and threats to our tourists abroad. Our travel advice recognises an increase in sexual and gang violence in Sri Lanka. We condemn all instances of violence. They must be investigated, and those responsible brought to justice with a swift and fair trial. We advise any visitor abroad to read the travel advice on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. It is kept up to date. It is accurate, factual and not used for any political purpose; it honestly describes the situation there. It will change to reflect circumstances and the UK Government’s concerns about UK citizens travelling abroad. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to it. We draw the attention of tour operators and others to our travel advice, and we hope that people accept it and understand what it implies.

Turning to wider issues mentioned by hon. Members, Khuram Shaikh’s tragic case is, regrettably, not our only concern about justice in Sri Lanka. Hon. Members have spoken eloquently about other concerns. We are clear that judicial independence should be a principle at the heart of all free countries. Since the impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice in January, many feel that that principle has been fatally compromised, which is why we and others, such as the International Commission of Jurists and the UN, have expressed deep concern at the impeachment. We are disappointed that the Sri Lankan Government continued with the process despite objections from Sri Lanka’s highest courts and outcry from its own citizens.

The Sri Lankan Government have defended the impeachment, stating that the process was constitutional and followed due procedure, but many eminent legal authorities, in Sri Lanka and overseas, have given a contrary view. We also note that when the legal experts of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute planned to visit Sri Lanka to investigate the impeachment, they were denied visas by the Sri Lankan Government. Such actions do not inspire confidence in the claims that the process would stand up to further scrutiny.

Of course, our concerns about the situation in Sri Lanka do not end with justice issues. The long conflict in Sri Lanka ended in 2009 with the defeat of the brutal Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. After such a devastating period in their history, we believe that all Sri Lankans deserve lasting peace, justice and reconciliation. Following the end of the conflict, the 2011 report by the UN Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka found credible allegations that both sides violated international humanitarian law during the conflict. More recent work such as the Human Rights Watch report and footage from a new documentary about the final days of the conflict have also brought to international attention important information supporting allegations of abuses.

We have consistently called for an independent, thorough and credible investigation into the allegations. Until such an investigation takes place, it will be difficult for the Sri Lankan people to move forward. We are clear that all allegations must be investigated, whether committed by the LTTE or Government forces, and that those responsible must be brought to justice. We believe that fully addressing and condemning events of the past is crucial to ensuring that justice is done and that Sri Lanka can begin to look forward, not back, but so too are wider measures recommended by Sri Lanka’s own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. In order to ensure that the dividend of peace can be enjoyed by all Sri Lankans, it is vital that the Sri Lankan Government make concrete progress in implementing the recommendations, which include investigation of alleged extra-judicial killings and disappearances and implementation of a mechanism to resolve land disputes impartially.

We recognise that the path to justice and reconciliation, particularly after such a bitter conflict spanning generations and affecting so many, will be long. It is also important for us to recognise that the Sri Lankan Government have made some progress. I saw the situation for myself during my visit to Sri Lanka in January. Infrastructure had been rebuilt, and I saw roads being repaved in the northern area. I also heard from non-governmental organisations about extensive de-mining work done in former conflict zones. We recognise and welcome such progress. We also recognise that there are obstacles to progress in some areas, and that the way forward will never be clear of stumbling blocks. Much more work is needed to guarantee a stable future for Sri Lanka and ensure justice for all its citizens. The appropriate application of the rule of law is clearly a key factor.

[Simon Hughes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I am just about to come to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. The United Kingdom has still not made a decision on our attendance at CHOGM. We look to Sri Lanka to demonstrate the Commonwealth principles of good governance, respect for human rights and adherence to the rule of law.

The spotlight will be on Sri Lanka, and will inevitably highlight either progress or lack of it. It was decided at CHOGM 2009 that Sri Lanka should host the meeting in 2013. I remind the House that to reopen that decision would require the consensus of all member states. We will look to Sri Lanka to demonstrate its commitment to upholding Commonwealth values. We must also be sure that the emphasis at CHOGM will be on the Commonwealth. That is what it is about. Bearing in mind the location, however, there is a risk that attention will be drawn to other factors. We are working strenuously with other partners to ensure that Sri Lanka recognises its opportunity to demonstrate its values; also, in the run-up to that period, questions are being asked, exemplified by the individual circumstance raised by the hon. Gentleman that is reflective of wider concerns. We have similar questions, as do other members of the Commonwealth, and other concerns are being aired this week at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

As I mentioned at the beginning, our relationship with Sri Lanka is long and deep. We recognise the bitterness and difficulty of the conflict that came to an end and the brutality of terrorism and the importance of seeing it ended; if there is to be proper reconciliation and justice, however, there has to be a recognition of accountability for what has happened, as well as looking forward to the opportunities available for all the population in Sri Lanka. All that the friends of Sri Lanka and its people are doing is to draw attention to the need to reconcile the statements of the Government of Sri Lanka about justice and reconciliation with actions on the ground to deliver that. Government statements about implementing the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations are emphasised because that is what Sri Lankans themselves expected to see happen to deliver the justice and reconciliation that the Government talk about.

Those outside are asking for no more than for the Sri Lankans to live up to what they themselves said was needed to ensure reconciliation for the future as well as justice for the past. Adherence to the rule of law and the ability to deal with the sort of issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and others in this Chamber this afternoon are a key part of that process. The United Kingdom is keenly aware of the concern about such issues and of the need to look at them extremely carefully in the months ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Tunisia.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

We continue to watch events in Tunisia closely. We condemn the assassination of Opposition leader Chokri Belaid. We have watched the peaceful transference of the premiership from Prime Minister Jebali to Prime Minister designate Laarayedh, which has been accompanied by strong statements by those in Tunisia about their adherence to democracy and building democratic institutions.

[Pat Glass]

What is the Minister’s assessment of the likelihood of the presidential elections proceeding as planned?

[Alistair Burt]

Matters relating to dates and timings of the constitution and everything else remain unclear. We have seen nothing at this stage to suggest that any date should be affected, but a new Government have not yet been formed. The Prime Minister designate has until the end of this week to create a Government. There may be an extension after that, but hopes are high that that Government will be confirmed. It will then be easier to see what dates will follow for the other parts of the democratic process of rebuilding.

[Graham Stringer]

I do not want to accuse the Minister of being complacent, because I tend to agree with him on Tunisia, but there is no constitution and no set date for the elections. Before the leader of the Opposition was assassinated, he said that anybody criticising the Government would be taken out, in effect, and there is video evidence of direct links between the ruling party and al-Qaeda. Should the Minister not reassess his policy?

[Alistair Burt]

I am not quite sure what reassessment the hon. Gentleman is asking for. As I have said, we are monitoring events as closely as we can. We are engaged with a variety of projects for democracy building in Tunisia, yet the constitutional processes being undergone are for Tunisians themselves. I spoke to our deputy head of mission just this morning. The streets are calm; people are expecting a Government to be formed at the end of the week. They are well aware of the difficulties of forming the Government and of the pressures between the political parties, but as he said, there are grounds for some optimism. These are obviously difficult days for Tunisia, but the fact that the process has been handled democratically and peacefully to date is much to be welcomed, and we will continue to encourage it.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister can agree that Tunisia has made remarkable progress in its transition to democracy. For quite some time it has led the way in the region, but the inevitable wobble has now happened. Can he say what role the Deauville partnership has in helping the political, social and economic transition to democracy?

[Alistair Burt]

I very much appreciate what my hon. Friend says. There has been good progress, but we must all be clear that each state is different. These events in the Arab world will take time and there will inevitably be progress, both forwards and backwards. Tunisia is facing its own difficulties, but facing up to them well. The Prime Minister has made it clear that, as part of our responsibilities for the G8, the Deauville partnership will be reinvigorated to ensure that economic support is available to countries in transition. We believe that the G8 process this year will be able to deliver economic benefits to countries in transition such as Tunisia, which will be of enormous help to them.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that building a stable democracy takes a long time? After all, it has taken us 800 years and it is far from perfect. Should not those of us who support the democratic changes in north Africa and the middle east therefore exercise both patience and perseverance?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. There is a great risk of trying to see all political developments through the prism of 24-hour news or a rolling news programme. These things will not be settled quickly. I suspect that we will not know the outcome of the Arab spring even by the time most of us have finished our period in Parliament. My hon. Friend is right: this will need patience. Equally, the commitment of those such as the United Kingdom to democracy-building institutions—which we are involved in through the Arab partnership and other partners—is a vital part of the process, if it is to be a success.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

When President Marzouki came to Britain last autumn, he stressed the vital importance of establishing a broad-based constitution. In view of the difficult atmosphere following the death of Chokri Belaid, what specific actions are the UK Government taking to support the development of democracy, perhaps through Arab Partnership projects? This is an absolutely crucial time for Tunisia.

[Alistair Burt]

It certainly is. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to our engagement, through Arab Partnership, in various democracy-building processes. We are expecting a number of projects to be developed during the course of this year, at a cost of some £2.5 million, and we will be looking to develop projects on election monitoring, on the support of political parties and on democracy building. We are constantly looking, with the Tunisians, at what they will find most effective. Last year, one of the most effective projects was to help them to move their state broadcasting company into a public broadcasting company. Such efforts to open up democracy to more people are a vital part of the process that we hope will lead to the establishment of a new constitution in the time scale already set out by the Tunisians.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

21. There are 60 British companies currently operating in Tunisia, compared with 1,800 French ones. What steps is my hon. Friend’s Department undertaking with UK Trade & Investment to ensure greater British economic engagement with Tunisia?

[Alistair Burt]

We continue to encourage more UKTI missions to Tunisia. Through the G8 process, there will be a major investment conference later this year for all those countries involved in transition, at which UK companies will be able to look at the opportunities that are available to them in Tunisia. We want UK companies to be prepared to take more risk. We are sometimes told by nations abroad that they see more of other countries’ companies than our own, but we do not believe that that is necessarily the case. We want to encourage British companies to become involved, and Tunisia presents a series of fine opportunities.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

2. What recent steps the Government have taken to improve the prospects for a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

4. What steps the Government are taking to secure international agreement on a comprehensive arms trade treaty at the UN conference in March 2013.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

The United Kingdom remains a determined driver towards a robust and effective arms trade treaty, as it has been for many years, particularly in the run-up to the conference in New York later this month. We are actively engaged in lobbying various other states, and we will continue to do that throughout the conference, both in New York and from London.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Just 10 days ago, in a debate in this House, the Foreign Secretary made a powerful speech on tackling sexual violence in conflicts. One way of turning those warm words into action would be by strengthening the draft text of the arms trade treaty, which calls on states only to “consider taking feasible measures” to avoid arms being used in gender violence. Will the Minister make getting those words strengthened in the treaty a priority?

[Alistair Burt]

We are looking actively to strengthen the treaty in a variety of places and to close off whatever loopholes we can. Tackling gender violence remains of exceptional importance to the United Kingdom and wherever there is a possibility of strengthening the text in relation to that, we will do so.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on campaigning for a universal treaty and on ensuring that national reports are declared openly and transparently. But does the Minister agree that in two or three weeks’ time the draft text of the treaty needs to include all arms and weapons transfers?

[Alistair Burt]

The key priority for the United Kingdom is to make sure, first, that we do not lose the strength of the text that was almost agreed last July. We also want to ensure that we can clarify and strengthen the text wherever possible, and transfers is indeed one of the priorities that we will be looking at in seeking to improve the text.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The UK director of Amnesty International has said that there are tighter international controls on the global trade in bananas than there are on arms. Will the Minister confirm that the UK Government will take this opportunity to push very hard for a very effective arms treaty that applies to all weapons and munitions and that ensures proper monitoring and an enhanced end-user certificate system?

[Alistair Burt]

The inclusion of all small arms and light weapons in the treaty is fundamental for us. I have had regular meetings with the director of Amnesty; I know her views and they are very similar to ours. It is vital that we get the broadest and most effective arms trade treaty out of New York. We will not be able to secure everything we would wish and we will not sign something just because it is a piece of paper. We want to ensure that it is robust and effective for those who use it and for end-users, too.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

It is said that around the world someone dies on average every minute as a result of armed violence, including 50,000 people who will have died last July while the arms trade treaty negotiations stalled. What prospect of American support for an international arms trade treaty did the Minister and the Foreign Secretary discern from their talks with Secretary Kerry during his visit last week?

[Alistair Burt]

We very much want the United States to be a party to the agreement, but we know—as is well known—that they have issues with some items. The Secretary of State was made well aware by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of the importance we attach to the arms trade treaty. The United States is, of course, keeping its negotiating position carefully guarded in the run-up to the negotiations, as one would expect. We are very keen that the United States should be able to sign the agreement and, of course, that it should meet our objectives of being robust and effective.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I was a little disappointed to hear that no Minister from our Department for International Development would be attending the arms trade treaty talks later this month. Given that armed violence is estimated to cost Africa $18 billion a year, will the Minister assure me that tackling poverty and the extent to which arms transfers undermine socio-economic development will be at the top of his list of priorities when he goes to New York?

[Alistair Burt]

As the hon. Lady rightly says, I am going to New York. It is not possible for a Minister from DFID to go on this occasion, but they went last July. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, has been determined in all his efforts over the course of the past year to pursue our interests in the treaty and will continue to work the phones even while other people are in New York. There is no lack of engagement from DFID and the Government’s determination, supported, we know, by the whole House, will continue throughout the conference.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the possibility of an intergovernmental conference on EU treaty change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Israel on illegal settlements in the occupied west bank.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

We take regular opportunities to talk to the Government of the state of Israel about settlement policy which, as the House heard earlier, we consider to be illegal and an obstacle to peace. My most recent opportunity was a meeting with the Israeli ambassador last Friday.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Against the worrying echoes of the southern states of the USA 50 years ago and of apartheid South Africa 25 years ago, the Government of Israel introduced segregated buses for Israeli settlers living illegally on the west bank and for the indigenous Palestinian population. Appeasing the racist regime in Israel must stop. Will the Minister, with his European Union colleagues, end our cosy relationship in view of such behaviour?

[Alistair Burt]

As always, recognising the context of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly in relation to some of the hopes expressed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary earlier, means acknowledging how difficult the circumstances are, but also points to the consequences of there not being a settlement and of actions being pursued that continue to place Israel in a difficult position with world opinion. The longer the status quo is believed to be realistic, the more dangerous things become. We must all lend our efforts to the determination expressed by a number of states that this year must be definitive if we wish to see Palestinians and Israelis live in the sort of peace and harmony that we would all expect to bring an effective settlement to that region.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Further to an earlier question, is not the crux of the matter that the Israeli Government, and previous Israeli Governments, do not believe that there will be any serious consequences as a result of what they do? Can one understand the sheer anger, resentment and frustration of the Palestinians who see no political progress at all? What would we do if we were in the same position as the Palestinians in the occupied territories?

[Alistair Burt]

The crux of the matter remains the extraordinary distrust and low levels of confidence between Israelis and Palestinians in relation to security matters and the long effects of the occupation, which has been so immensely damaging to both. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we fear that unless there is effective action this year, the opportunity for a two-state solution is slipping away, the barrier between Israeli and Palestinian that we have all seen growing in our time in the House is getting more and more severe, and the opportunities, therefore, for people to live together in the future are getting more and more remote. The anger is understood. The fear of lack of security on the Israeli side is understood. That is why this year has to be definitive to make serious progress.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

20. Is it not the case that in no other country would we allow large numbers of migrants to occupy its land, denying the land to local people? Why is so much energy put into the likes of Syria after two years, when nothing appears to be done about Palestine’s west bank, and in particular East Jerusalem, after 40 years?

[Alistair Burt]

I cannot accept the premise of the question that nothing is done in relation to this long-standing and deeply divisive issue. The United Kingdom has been a supporter of the Palestinian Authority and of its work towards statehood. We have condemned the possibility of settlements arising in new areas of East Jerusalem, we have condemned settlement building in East Jerusalem, and we continue to take the view that settlements are illegal and an obstruction to peace. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said during the course of these questions, this year must be definitive in making progress on both sides, so that the context of a secure Israel next to a viable Palestinian state becomes a reality before that window is lost and the situation becomes even more grave.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister rightly condemns illegal settlements, administrative detention and the demolition of Palestinian homes, but it appears that he cannot do very much. What he can do something about is the import of illegal goods from those settlements, which are running at eight times the level of imports from all Palestinians, as a recent report called “Trading Away Peace”, with which I believe he is familiar, by 22 non-governmental organisations, said. Will he now take steps to prevent the import of goods from illegal settlements to the UK?

[Alistair Burt]

We continue to work with European partners on the possibility of extending voluntary labelling so that people can make their choices. We do not believe in a boycott of goods, but we believe in clear labelling so that people can see where goods have come from. We are certainly keen to ensure that no goods from settlement areas find their way into the European Union by being labelled as Israeli, and we are determined to ensure that that does not happen.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of the outcome of the recent summit at Chequers attended by the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

T6. I recently visited Gaza as part of a cross-party delegation with Interpal. While there I was alarmed to witness, on three different occasions, the shooting at and intimidation of Palestinian fishing boats that appeared to be clearly inside the six-mile limit agreed by the ceasefire. Earlier, the Secretary of State roundly condemned, as is right and proper, the firing of rockets into Israel, but does he agree that peace depends on both sides sticking to the terms of the ceasefire, including Israeli naval ships?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

Yes indeed; the terms of the ceasefire must be adhered to by all. The opportunity for Gaza to get greater economic independence and a resumption of normal trade to and from Gaza will be of huge benefit. That package needs to hold together. Israel needs to have security in its southern area, but Gaza also deserves an important boost to its economy so that matters can move forward. The ceasefire must certainly hold.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I hope that the Minister sees a continuing important role for the nation state in Europe. Will he do all in his power to protect very small states such as Luxembourg, which has a successful economy, so that they can continue to do things their separate way, without any further loss of sovereign powers in any possible EU treaty change?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Members for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I was on an Interpal delegation to Gaza last week. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what is being done to lift the blockade on Gaza so that the terrible water situation can be addressed. Sewage cannot be processed, fresh water is unobtainable because of the pollution of the aquifer, and the material to set up a desalination plant or something like it cannot be brought in to provide a decent standard of living for the people of Gaza.

[Alistair Burt]

Following the end of the conflict towards the end of last year, there have been renewed efforts to ensure that Gaza progresses towards a normal economic situation and that the resources that are needed to rebuild the infrastructure can go into Gaza. The United Kingdom is clear that unless that happens, the divide between Gaza and Israel will remain. It is essential that that work proceeds and that the UK plays a full part in urging those changes.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

T9. Twice in the past year, the UK has failed to vote at the UN to support the aspiration of Palestinians for their own state as part of a two-state solution. On each occasion, the reason given was that we did not wish to undermine a future US-led peace process. May we have an update on the time scale for that? When do Ministers think they might be able to vote in a different direction?

[Alistair Burt]

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in response to earlier questions, Secretary of State Kerry will visit Israel and Palestine shortly, as will President Obama. It is clear that there is a re-engagement all round with the issues that will affect the middle east peace process. We remain clear that this is a priority for the region and for the world, and we will give every assistance to that process.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Government have set out a clear list of powers that the Government desire to repatriate from the EU? In the light of that, are negotiations going on with our EU colleagues about the process that would be necessary to achieve that end?

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Following the arrest this morning of former President Nasheed in the Maldives, will the Minister update the House on the situation in that country?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, and I had a report from our high commission in Colombo earlier today. We understand that former President Nasheed was rearrested earlier this morning, and he has access to lawyers. At present we remain puzzled about the turn of events. It was widely believed that an arrangement was in place following former President Nasheed leaving the Indian high commission a couple of weeks ago, in relation to his trial and his part in the forthcoming elections. We are watching the situation carefully and have made it clear to the Maldivian authorities that no harm must be oriented towards the former President.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Given earlier references to the regionalisation of fisheries policy, is the Minister hopeful that we will achieve the objective whereby regional advisory councils can make decisions on fish quota allocations and fisheries management?

Kurdish Genocide

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I do not know about other hon. Members or those who are watching this debate, wherever they are around the world, but my goodness, I have found this a tough debate to listen to. As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said, the quality of this debate has been exceptional, as has the knowledge, compassion and honesty with which colleagues have spoken. I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of the Government.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to hold it. Over time, my hon. Friend will have to get used to being congratulated on a regular basis. I found his narrative powerful and compelling, but those of us who have heard him speak previously know there is nothing unusual in that. He has already made a name for himself in the House, and he has further cemented that today. He spoke exceptionally well and we are impressed.

The pain with which my hon. Friend described his background and the circumstances of being a refugee was graphically illustrated in a way that none of us with a more forensic sense about these things could possibly repeat or be able to share. When we occasionally debate who comes across our borders, it should constantly bring a measure of pride to this country to remember the reputation we have had for providing sanctuary to people who have fled conflict and pain that is unimaginable to most of our constituents. My hon. Friend put that point extremely well.

I will mention the contributions of most of those who have spoken in the debate and seek to weave in their remarks. I especially mention the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) who were in the House—as was I—at the times of which we speak. They took part in these events in a way that I did not, and spoke well and effectively about the things going on that, alas, we knew far too little about. Both of them spoke very graphically, and although the details of what happened provided by the right hon. Lady were painful to hear, occasionally such things need to be said to remind us that behind all the figures and the 182,000, there are individual circumstances to be described.

A few years ago I went with colleagues to Rwanda and the genocide memorial at Murambi where some 60,000 people were corralled and killed over a few days. Seeing the places where mass attacks have taken place, and mass graves such as those mentioned by the right hon. Lady, leaves an indelible impression and we cannot help but be changed by what we hear. I commend colleagues for the way they have spoken, and I hope many people get the opportunity to read the debate and consider carefully what we have said.

As many Members have said, the UK’s ties with Iraqi Kurds are significant. Historically, those ties were cemented in 1991 with the United Kingdom’s strong support, led by the then Prime Minister John Major, for protecting the Kurdish people by enforcing no-fly zones. Since then, successive UK Governments have highlighted the need to support the rights of the Kurdish people, as well as those of other minorities in Iraq. I was in that region a couple of years ago and people were looking forward to John Major coming for a commemoration to mark 20 years since the establishment of the no-fly zone and the relief of Kuwait. There was no doubt about the esteem in which Sir John was held, which as a friend it was a pleasure to see. Friends in the other place will also know full well how Sir John is regarded, and others from that time also deserve great credit for the way in which they spoke out on behalf of those who were being persecuted.

In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) confronted honestly the problems that are occasionally thrown up by the twin difficulties of foreign policy and hindsight. He is right to say that sometimes we do not know everything and make decisions as best we can at the time. He asked whether we should have done more and earlier, but I remember the 1991 Gulf war and the arguments at the time. Should forces have pressed on to Baghdad? It is easily forgotten that there was no mandate for that; there was a coalition to free Kuwait, but had a decision been taken to press on to Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein—it became clear subsequently that that might have been the thing to do—there would have been resistance to what would have seemed an intervention too far. Interventions are so much easier in hindsight than they are at the time. The hon. Gentleman and I know that full well in relation to other issues we are dealing with at the moment.

The hon. Member for Islington North mentioned arms fairs in Baghdad and rebuffs from Ministers at the time. Were my colleagues right at that time? I can say from the Dispatch Box that they probably were not right, but what might they have done with the wisdom of hindsight and the knowledge that we have now? That is the spirit in which I confront the difficulties of hindsight and foreign policy.

As a number of hon. Members have made clear, the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein systematically persecuted and oppressed ethnic and religious groups. No group suffered more than Iraq’s Kurds. Saddam Hussein’s regime carried out a number of atrocities against the Kurds over a quarter of a century. As many as 100,000 Kurds were killed in the Anfal attacks, and many more were displaced. This year, we will remember the attack on Halabja in 1988 as we reach its 25th anniversary in March. Iraqi planes bombarded the town with chemical weapons, causing the deaths of 3,500 to 5,000 people, as colleagues have described in the debate.

I shall say more about the appalling crimes committed against Iraq’s Kurds and the need to ensure that no people suffer a similar fate, but, like other colleagues, I would first like to say a few words about the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq and our relationship with them. In remembering the past, it is important to recognise and put on record what has happened since those appalling crimes.

I was able to see the fruits of our relationship first hand during my recent visit to Irbil—the second time I have been able to visit the region. My friend the hon. Member for Wrexham is absolutely right that he should get there as soon as he can. It is a very good place to visit. I am sure his remarks on visiting were heard in all the right quarters. He can look forward to going and seeing the new consulate—the site for it has been identified and it is due to be built. He will be very welcome there. He just needs to let me know and we will see what can be done—[Interruption.] I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), who piped up at that moment, for her indefatigable work on building democracy in many different places, but not least in that region. Efforts are now being made on the building blocks of democracy and the institutions that must be built—perhaps in recognition of so much that has gone wrong. As she said, and as she knows from her work for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, an election is not democracy per se. We must ensure that there is another election and that elections are free and fair, and that institutions support elections and that power changes. Sooner or later, people will realise that power is invested not only in individuals but in institutions. In some of the places where we are working collectively, there is a way to go, but the efforts being made in the Kurdistan region of Iraq make it clear that the work is being done on fertile ground. I therefore pay tribute to her and her hon. Friends.

During my recent visit, I had the pleasure of meeting both President Barzani and Deputy Prime Minister Imad Ahmad. I toured the British-designed airport with the Minister for the Interior, Karim Sinjari, and met several other Cabinet Ministers. With Minister of Planning Dr Ali Sindi, I attended the signing of a contract to expand a major national school of government from London to an international capacity building programme with the KRG.

In October, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that our consulate-general in Irbil should be maintained on a permanent footing. The KRG have generously donated land where a new UK consulate-general will be built. The Head of the Department of Foreign Relations, Falah Bakir, presented me with a letter confirming the donation during my visit.

My visit was rounded off with a tour of the 7,000-year-old citadel, Irbil’s premier tourist location, which claims to be the longest continuously occupied place in the world. I was pleased to note the involvement of British archaeologists in the ongoing programme to restore the citadel—that is another example of the UK’s long-standing ties with the Kurdistan region. Any colleagues looking for tips on being re-elected should simply go around Irbil with the governor. We paid a visit to the market, where the response to him was terrific. I wanted a piece of it to take back to Biggleswade to help me in my next election campaign. It was a genuine and spontaneous outburst of affection for the gentleman as we toured the market, and I thought, “This chap knows what he’s doing.”

Visits are not all one way. Members of the KRG frequently visit the United Kingdom. Earlier this month, President Barzani made his first official visit to Belfast, and had discussions with, among others, Northern Ireland’s First and Deputy First Ministers, as well as the Speaker of the Assembly.

Even as we rightly remember those who lost their lives 25 years ago, we should also think about how far the KRG has come. Those returning to Irbil years later see real changes, and are struck by its relative security and burgeoning economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who made yet another impressive contribution, reflected on how those fleeing persecution as Christians from other parts of Iraq were able to find a home in Irbil and in the Kurdish region. It is a proper distinction to make. As we reflect on Christian flight across the middle east—and the persecution of any religious minority other than the majority in the locality at the time—we realise how important it is that people’s rights are recognised and protected, and that others are prepared to acknowledge them. Tragically, across the region this evening, there are many families camped out in the homes of others, seeking refuge from the conflicts that rage about them. It is not inappropriate to recognise the generosity of the KRG and the Kurdish region in this regard.

Among EU countries, the UK has the largest number of companies registered and operating within the Kurdistan region, while 61 British delegates, representing 39 companies, participated in the Irbil trade fair in October last year. My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) made particular reference to the importance of that trade relationship, and he was right to do so as it provides opportunities for many.

Although the oil and gas sector understandably accounts for significant UK investment in the Kurdish region, it is not the only sector where our companies are actively engaged. We know that more can be done, which is why we are strengthening our commercial team in Irbil to help British companies do business in the region.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I gently remind the Minister that the subject of the debate is genocide? I know that he wants to talk about other areas, but we do want to try to keep within the scope of the debate.

[Alistair Burt]

I will happily do so. I thought that it might be helpful to set the region in context before turning to some of the tougher parts that were described. If I may attempt to relate my remarks to Iraq in general, not forgetting the Kurdish region, we should also take a moment to remember, as the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war approaches, those who died during the war, including 178 British service personnel, and of course many Iraqis and other nationals. That sacrifice has contributed to the relative peace of the region now and our ability to look back and evaluate the circumstances of the time.

The anniversary is also a time to reflect on Iraq’s present, and its future. During my recent visit, I saw both the challenges and the opportunities that Iraq faces. Fundamental political issues remain unresolved. Human rights standards are low, and public services, infrastructure and employment opportunities are inadequate. But Iraq has the chance to be one of the success stories of the coming decade as a stable democracy, with the patient work being done on democracy building throughout the rest of Iraq, the engagements we have with Ministers there, and the efforts they are making to confront some of the very difficult political challenges—I met a range of Ministers, including my good friend Foreign Minister Zebari, who chaired a ministerial trade council with me—and improve the future for all in Iraq. As we remember the past, and consider the challenges of the present, I hope we can also look forward to a future for Iraq that is more stable, democratic and prosperous, and that the UK can play a role in making that a reality in the years ahead.

Turning to today’s motion, I shall set out the Government’s position on whether we should recognise the terrible events of the Anfal campaign as an act of genocide. I am aware of the commendable support of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon for the victims of Saddam’s dreadful campaign against the Kurds and his call for Saddam’s crimes to be recognised as genocide by the international community. I have heard today, as we all have, that this view is shared by many other hon. Members, some of whom could not be present today, and by many members of the public who signed a petition that was submitted to Parliament by my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend and other Members will be aware of the Government’s position on the principle of genocide recognition—indeed, he and the hon. Member for Wrexham stated it. I am greatly sympathetic to the motion. The Government do not in any way oppose it and I have no doubt that Parliament will respond to the views expressed in the motion by my hon. Friend. It is currently the Government’s view, as we stated in responding to my hon. Friend’s e-petition, that it is not for Governments to decide whether genocide has been committed in this case, as there is a complex legal position. The hon. Member for Wrexham was quite right: it has implications for both today and yesterday. An international judicial body finding a crime to have been genocide often plays an important part in whether the United Kingdom recognises one as such. Whether or not the term “genocide” is applicable in this case, it is clear that appalling atrocities were perpetrated under Saddam Hussein against the Iraqi Kurds. His final conviction by the Iraq tribunal was for his crimes against humanity.

[Meg Munn]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I genuinely call him an hon. Friend in this and in many other circumstances. I understand the issues he is raising, and he will have heard the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas). In taking this issue seriously, will he and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office commit to campaigning on this issue and raising it with other people, including international bodies? He knows just how strongly hon. Members feel.

[Alistair Burt]

Let me get a little further.

So many suffered as a result of Saddam’s criminal activities, and we should remember all the victims of the regime. I reiterated that view in my foreword to the programme for the KRG’s recent conference on the issue. It is also a reminder that any use of chemical or biological weapons is abhorrent and that responsible countries consider their ongoing production, stockpiling or use to be completely unacceptable. It is our moral duty to join the international community in its efforts to prevent future atrocities. We will continue to call, at every opportunity, for all countries to respect minority rights and for the full implementation of the chemical weapons conventions.

Of course, these issues form a part of our dialogue with the Kurdistan Regional Government, in particular with the Minister for Martyrs and Anfal Affairs. In May last year, our then consul-general spoke at a ceremony alongside the Minister to mark the reburial of 730 Kurds killed in 1988 by Saddam’s forces as part of the Anfal campaign. More recently, our consul-general in Irbil discussed Saddam’s Anfal campaign with the Minister for Martyrs and Anfal Affairs in November. He will represent the UK at future ceremonies and express the UK’s remembrance of these tragic events. I had the opportunity to speak to the Minister myself when I was there recently.

The Government’s position is therefore clear, but it is not necessarily comfortable or sufficient. To the horror, no doubt, of officials, I have listened very carefully to the debate. In line with the hon. Member for Wrexham, I am sure our briefs said exactly the same thing: be very careful. There are implications and I make no bones about that. This is not a casual decision to be made at the Dispatch Box while listening to a debate with an understandable emotional undertone with all the horrors spelled out, and I am not going to do that. However, I have listened very carefully and I do not think that I would be respecting the mood of the House and the way in which this issue has been debated if I were simply to say, “Look, this is our position, which you all know very well, and that is where we are.” I do not think that that is what the hon. Member for Wrexham said either. I think we both know the implications, but I think we both recognise that we would like to go a bit further.

I have listened carefully, with whatever compassion I may possess, to the case that has been made. I do not doubt that the Foreign Secretary will read the debate with exactly the same sense. I am sure the Government will find the vote of Parliament helpful when further representations are made, as they will be.

The hon. Member for Wrexham resisted an easy hit: he could have simply responded to the motion and said, “This must be done.” Conscious of the obligations on the Opposition, he could not go that far, and neither can I. However, I take on board his view that if there is not an easy way to bring this matter to international judicial tribunals—and there may not be at the moment —we need to consider what more we might be able to do, taking into account the other things that have been said. The hon. Member for Islington North made it clear that others have similar things to consider, so we are dealing with a lot of implications.

Listening to and understanding the case gives one a sense that there might be more we collectively ought to be able to do to recognise the horror and severity of what was done, which was clearly targeted on a group of people just because of who they were. If I may, I will accept the hon. Gentleman’s offer to think collectively about how the United Kingdom might be able to take things forward. There is no change in our policy for now, and we are correct in taking that approach, but the issues that have been mentioned will be raised again, so we may have to think more about them. We will certainly have to talk to other Parliaments and Governments about how things have been done and be fully aware of the concerns. That is a reasonable way for us to respond.

If I may, I will take a couple of minutes to address one or two of the particular points that have been made. It is important that other Parliaments have recognised these events as genocide, but that is a matter of principle for them and, understandably, such decisions cannot be internationally binding. However, we will try to investigate what is behind them. As has been said, we have not been able to recognise the Iraqi criminal tribunal’s decision to see these events as genocide. The Government consider legal judgments by appropriate courts in deciding whether such atrocities should be designated as an act of genocide, but the judgment of the Iraqi criminal tribunal was that of a national tribunal.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Harlow both referred to the Dutch court. We have examined this issue carefully and we are happy to look again at the Dutch court of appeal’s decision in the van Anraat case, but we understand that although the court considered the question, it concluded that there was not a genocide. We understand that Mr van Anraat was convicted for complicity in war crimes. In a sense, that is a detail; the point is made and we need to look at how these matters might be dealt with.

In conclusion, a debate such as this is particularly painful, as we all know that even as we speak someone, somewhere in the world, is being killed, not because of anything that they may have done but simply because of who they are. They are being killed on the basis of their clan, their faith or their ethnicity; above all, this is happening simply because of their otherness. The ability of people to stamp some grotesque caricature of power or superiority over others through violence and torture is an unsated appetite. All too often that is made still worse by the inability of others ever to do enough, or even to do anything, to prevent it.

We may differ on our view of how atrocities such as those visited upon Iraq’s Kurds come to be designated, but I made it clear that I share the view of all hon. Members that Iraq’s Kurds suffered a terrible and prolonged injustice under the previous Iraqi regime. Accordingly, as we approach the 25th anniversary of the appalling atrocities perpetrated against the Kurds at Halabja and elsewhere, it is important that we take a minute to reflect on the suffering caused and to reflect with some shame on that phrase “Never again”. However, we need to find, somewhere in our remembrance and recognition of the past, a more meaningful way to confront the horrors that form the raw material of the senseless killing that occurs throughout the world all too regularly.

Relations with the Arab World

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mrs Brooke. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) for the way in which he introduced the debate. I place on the record my sense that the Stretford end incident, as we shall call it, was certainly one of the finest amateur goals that I have ever seen and the best that I was ever any part of. The hon. Gentleman’s generous notification of that, in publications or this sort of debate, has always been touching. The relationship forged on that common interest has sustained us over the many years during which we have been in Parliament together.

Of course, that is where it all diverges. Although I have always admired the hon. Gentleman’s passion and his rhetorical ability to hold an audience, the gentlest that I can say is that I think, on occasions, his passion and commitment can cloud his judgment. He said a number of things today that I shall endeavour to correct, as I think that he took a particular point and extrapolated it to a position that is genuinely untrue in terms both of fact and of the United Kingdom’s position.

In the short time available, I want to put on the record our interests and relationships in the Arab world, because they are difficult and complex, before dealing with some of the specific points. As the House knows well, it is complex region. Some of the most difficult foreign policy challenges faced by the world—nuclear proliferation, the middle east peace process, the appalling war waged by the Assad regime against its own people, ungoverned spaces providing havens for terrorists and extremists—are found in the region.

The United Kingdom’s security and prosperity are intertwined with the Arab world. A mere nine miles separate Europe from north Africa at the Mediterranean’s narrowest point. Many countries in the region are important partners in tackling terrorist threats. Hundreds of thousands of British jobs are linked to trade and commerce with the wider middle east. It is fundamentally in our national interest that the region becomes more stable, more open, more free and more prosperous over time, and we have a part to play in that.

Our relations with the middle east are designed to further Britain’s security and prosperity, to deliver opportunities that will create jobs in the UK and to ensure the safety of British nationals overseas and at home. That is the heart of our foreign policy, but we seek to do it in a way that upholds and promotes our values—our belief in universal human rights, in justice, and in equality for women and for minorities—at all times. We do so as a matter of principle, but we also know that it reinforces our other interests.

Over the past two years, the region has seen momentous change with the Arab spring. That change has been led at its core by the region’s people in a demand for dignity, a voice and a fair prospect of employment. That change was always going to be a long process, yet much has already been achieved. Tunisia has its democratically elected parliament; Morocco has its free elections; and Yemen is undergoing a political transition. All those are genuine achievements. In a region where almost 60% of the population is under 25, the Arab spring has demonstrated the aspirations of the region’s citizens for a voice and a right to share in the prosperity of the 21st century. They share that aspiration with their peers in other parts of the world. Arab exceptionalism has gone.

The UK has been clear in its support for those strengthening the building blocks on which inclusive, accountable societies are based. We are supporting those who strive to deliver a strengthened rule of law, a thriving civil society, political systems based on genuine citizen participation and a plural, balanced media. Through our Arab partnership initiative in Egypt and Libya, we have supported free and fair elections by assisting domestic observer missions. In Tunisia, we have strengthened legislative protection for the freedom of expression; and in Morocco, we are supporting anti-corruption initiatives.

The support is based both on our values and a clear understanding that, in the long term, a more inclusive, accountable region is more likely to deliver lasting stability and security for the region and for us all. However, bringing together our values and interests can at times be a difficult balancing act. Conflicts sometimes arise. Although we have many mutual values with countries of the region, there are also differences between us. We have different cultures, histories and traditions and we cannot underestimate the significance of that. All that has been done in the past may not have been good, and we are paying a price in the courts and in public opinion.

Where we do not agree on values, however, we need to work that through, dealing with the differences honestly and frankly. We do not see eye to eye on all our values with countries of the middle east or in any part of the world. In an increasingly interconnected world, security concerns pay no regard to borders. We speak of the global economy and British nationals live in all parts of the world. Although we may be an island, isolation and disengagement is not an option. We need to work with countries, in spite of their different beliefs, faiths and value systems, in a way that upholds human rights and values, and that can be difficult.

Dialogue is the most effective way to find common ground on areas where we can work together, to encourage where necessary and to challenge other Governments to policies that are respectful of human rights, justice and equality. That is the approach that we are taking, but I do not pretend for a minute that it is without conflicts and difficulties. Consistency is not an easy aim, and it is not always possible in practice because of the differences in different places.

I will deal with one or two of the specifics that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. On Israel, yes, I have been a Conservative friend of Israel for all the time I have been in Parliament, but it does not preclude being a friend of others in the region as well. When I was last with the president of the Palestinian Authority, he said that he knew of no other politician who was pursuing the case of the young man killed by a tear gas grenade in Nabi Salih at the hands of the Israeli defence force a couple of years ago and that my visits to the family had meant a great deal. I do my best to ensure that our concern for rights and the needs of those in the occupied territories are represented by the United Kingdom.

I am aware of the tensions, and those who know of my past have been perfectly accommodating of it. It enables me to speak toughly to the Israeli Government. It was I who called in the ambassador recently over settlements. It is in my time as Minister holding this job that we were able to support a motion at the United Nations condemning the settlement building, against both the United States and Israel. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not accept from him that my background with Israel leads me into a difficult position. I remind him that the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who held my position some time ago, was no particular noted friend of Israel and was able to do the job as effectively as I am trying to do.

[George Galloway]

Do not be hurt by what I said, because it is a qualification to be the Minister for the middle east. It is not the Minister’s fault. Why did the British Government cowardly abstain in the overwhelming vote to recognise Palestine as a member of the United Nations? Why will they not bring sanctions to bear on Israel—like the sanctions they brought to bear on Iran—for holding illegal nuclear weapons and occupying other people’s territory and refusing to leave it? Why not?

[Alistair Burt]

In my answer, I was indicating that a friendship with Israel is not a requirement for the job, which is what he was indicating. I was pointing out that one of his colleagues had held the job without such a qualification. The reason why we did not support the vote, which was not for membership but to advance the cause of statehood for the Palestinian Authority, was that we had explained that what we believed was most in its interest was not a vote at the United Nations at that time. Our commitment to statehood for the Palestinian people in due course is very clear, however, and I reiterate it again today.

Without wishing to stay on that subject, I will briefly cover the others. On Iran’s nuclear programme, Iran is still acting in defiance of multiple International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions, including the most recent resolution adopted last September, and no fewer than six UN Security Council resolutions. The IAEA has expressed its serious concerns about the possible military dimension to Iran’s programme. Anyone who mistakes what is going on in Iran and believes that it is purely peaceful is missing the point. If it is purely peaceful, that is not difficult for Iran to demonstrate. We still hope that it will take the opportunity to do so this year. The IAEA has made reference to the possible military dimension of that programme.

On Syria, the hon. Gentleman again went too far. It is not true that the United Kingdom is supplying al-Qaeda with either money or weapons. I do not believe that to characterise what is happening in Syria as an attack on the Christian minority is accurate. There are jihadists involved. It is the wish of the United Kingdom and our partners to ensure that they are not supplied with weapons. That is why we are so determined to see the success of the Syrian national opposition coalition, so that it has legitimacy and an opportunity to represent the future of Syria in its political transition. We are more than well aware of the danger of jihadists becoming involved in what was originally a clear expression of reform and opinion against the Assad regime. That has turned into something different, because of the length of time that the situation has been unresolved, which is not through lack of effort by the United Kingdom with the United Nations. We are extremely concerned for the Christian minority and for others, which is why there must be an effective rule of law, but it must cover all.

[Mr Leigh]

Can the Minister give me a categorical assurance that no British taxpayer’s money is finding its way to jihadists through indirect means? Money is being given, but not arms, and it may find its way to them. Will he give me that categorical assurance?

[Alistair Burt]

I can give a categorical assurance that it is not the intention of the United Kingdom, in any efforts being made to support the Syrian people, that any money goes to al-Qaeda or any of its acolytes. It would be logically ridiculous of the United Kingdom to do that, which is why we give our support in the way that we do. No one can be absolutely certain about my hon. Friend’s suggestion, but it is absolutely clear that the United Kingdom has no interest in doing that. It is totally contrary to our interests and is not what we are doing. For him to say that that is clearly what we are doing is simply wrong.

I have to finish, because we are running out of time. It is a complex issue with a complex set of relationships. It is essential that we are able to deal with this issue in a way that examines the facts, and polemics sometimes get in the way. The hon. Member for Bradford West and I share a sense of justice for what must happen in the region. The policy objectives that we have set out are not always simple to achieve, but they are clear. I hope that we can continue to debate in a manner that allows the truth to be got to, even though opinion may vary.

Israel/Palestinian Authority

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

I echo the pleasure of other Members in serving under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin; as long-established friends, it is particularly good to start in such a way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) has secured an important and timely debate, and I appreciate his courtesy in sending me a copy of his speech earlier this afternoon. I welcome this opportunity to reiterate the Government’s position on incitement. We oppose, in all circumstances, the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. We deplore incitement on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including any comments that could stir up hatred and prejudice in a region that, perhaps more than any other, needs a culture of peace and mutual respect, as my hon. Friend and other hon. Members made clear.

We do not hesitate to raise instances of incitement with both the Palestinian Authority and Israel whenever we feel that it is appropriate to do so. I am in regular contact with our colleagues in the consulate general in Jerusalem, and in answer to my hon. Friend’s questions, I can say that we have a regular dialogue with both the PA and the Government of Israel, in which we reiterate the need for both sides to prepare their populations for peaceful co-existence, and we take some of the specific issues that he has raised directly to Palestinian sources through our colleagues in Jerusalem.

By opening my response in this way, I emphasise my concern, which I know the House understands, about incitement, but I will not provide a commentary on all such allegations, not all of which we can verify, and nor can the UK be held responsible for them. As I will make clear, and as my hon. Friend made clear in his remarks, it is not possible to deal with this in isolation from the backdrop of the ongoing issues between the Palestinians and Israel that have beset the region for too long.

I do not fully share the bleakness of the rhetoric with which my hon. Friend began his remarks, particularly his comment that Palestinians have been consistently and unremittingly taught to hate Jews, Israel and the west. I genuinely find that far too wide an expression to cover all Palestinians everywhere in the region. I also feel that to neglect any sense of any activity that may have been perpetrated by Israelis during the occupation as any part of popular anger against Israel misses an important part of the context. That is not to minimise the damage done by incitement, but not to mention that and not to feel that it is part of the context is, in my view, simply wrong.

On the PA’s leadership, it is important to stress that we consider that the track record of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad shows their genuine commitment to non-violence and a negotiated two-state solution. To quote the words of Israeli President Shimon Peres last April:

“President Abbas is constant in his announced position—for peace, against terror, and for a two-state solution. I think we have never had a wider basis to conclude peace than under his leadership.”

The Israeli Government have repeatedly praised the strength of the co-operation between the Palestinian and Israeli security forces in improving security and preventing violence, including violence against Israel. It is for these reasons that we firmly believe that the PA, under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, are indeed firm partners for peace.

[Andrew Percy]

I am a little alarmed at that statement by the Minister, because there are many examples—example after example, indeed—of senior Palestinian officials at the very top levels attending sporting competitions named in honour of people who have murdered innocent Israelis, or of their attending ceremonies to rename squares and streets after people who have murdered innocent Israelis. So while they may say one thing to the west, they may be saying something slightly different in Arabic.

[Alistair Burt]

The Prime Minister was clear in his denunciation of those who set up sporting tournaments or who support activities named in memory of the so-called martyrs and the suicide bombers. Of course, that is the clear position of the UK Government.

Again, however, to neglect the context in which people see the position of prisoners and those who have been engaged in activities against Israel is to fail to understand the context of the issues that we are discussing. It does not make the glorification right—it is not right—but not to understand how that operates in the occupied territories is to miss something fundamental. To place it all in terms of the rhetoric and not to understand the wider context will not help us to get to where we need to be, in our encouragement for all engaged in this issue to find a solution, which—as my hon. Friend made clear—has prime importance this year in particular.

[Gordon Henderson]

May I make it clear that I understand the context in which the incitement takes place?

[Alistair Burt]

You did not say it.

[Gordon Henderson]

I used this debate today particularly to refer to that incitement. I mentioned the fact that Israelis are not blameless in this situation—I understand that—but what is wrong, under any circumstances whatsoever, is some of the practices that have taken place to incite hatred against Israel and Jews, and there is no condoning of those practices whatsoever.

[Alistair Burt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clarification, and given time—in the next eight minutes—I am happy to make our position even clearer. However, he did not spell out the context in his speech as clearly as he has just done, and that is vital. We will condemn the incitement and the naming of events after the so-called martyrs, but not to understand the context is to miss something, and I appreciate what he has just said.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

rose—

[Alistair Burt]

This is perhaps the last intervention that I will take, and then I must deal with some of the issues that have been raised.

[Mr Hollobone]

I appreciate that the Minister condemns the glorification of violence, but the point is that—in effect—that glorification is being part-funded by the UK taxpayer, because British taxpayers are paying £30 million a year to the general budget of the Palestinian Authority, and the state TV and radio broadcaster is pouring out some of this hatred, as shown in some of the evidence that the Minister has heard today. Unless the UK Government get cross about that incitement, it will not stop.

[Alistair Burt]

The Government’s memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority makes it clear that our aid to the PA is intended to contribute towards a peaceful and prosperous Palestinian state and society, by improving fiscal sustainability, improving public satisfaction and lowering fiduciary risk. The memorandum of understanding makes it clear that all funds must be used to deliver against those agreed outcomes.

We engage closely with the PA to ensure our money has maximum effect on achieving the intended goals of the project. We have a number of safeguards in place to ensure that our money is spent as intended—we keep them under constant review—including safeguards to ensure that UK money does not support Hamas or other terrorist organisations, either directly or indirectly.

I am well aware of the allegations surrounding PA financing to Palestinian prisoners, including to those convicted of acts of terrorism. The PA Prime Minister has made it clear, both in public and to the UK Government, that payments to families are intended to sustain families whose primary breadwinner has been imprisoned, while payments to prisoners in Israeli jails are made at the request of Israeli authorities to meet basic living conditions. We have discussed these issues with the PA at the highest levels in recent months, and continue to encourage the PA to ensure that these payments are more transparent, needs-based and affordable. I assure hon. Members that these discussions are current and ongoing.

Although there are genuine issues with nomenclature and translation, it is still vital to make certain that correct payments are being made, which we believe, up to now, have been appropriate. But it is essential to be clear about this. I note the strength of feeling among hon. Members. I will give an assurance that we will continue to press the PA in relation to this issue, and I expect colleagues to raise it in due course.

The issue of textbooks comes up on occasion. There was a recent US-funded study into Palestinian and Israeli textbooks. Allegations of methodological flaws have been raised. I am not sure that they are sufficient to deal with the underlying results of the study, which we have only just been able to glance at. Our sense is that it is in line with previous studies, which have found that incitement and extreme negative characterisations are very rare in both Israeli and Palestinian textbooks. However, also in line with previous studies, the report found a profound need for textbooks on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides to do more to promote a positive portrayal of each other, reflecting the principles of co- existence, tolerance, justice and human dignity. We will continue to engage both the Palestinian Authority and Israeli authorities in relation to the background of that report.

My hon. Friend has a number of issues in his back pocket. I had a briefing on some of the material some weeks ago, through Palestinian Media Watch. There are some tough examples. I think that I was expected to be shocked, but I was not. Hon. Members should not mistake me. Some material was shocking and offensive. It has no place in any political or historical discourse in which any credible democratic authority has a part. But my deep and genuine worry is that this incitement is not simply a cause of separation between peoples and hatred; I am afraid that it is a symptom of it.

My overwhelming feeling in looking at some issues, particularly in relation to children, was sadness that those on both sides of the divide who wish to emphasise difference and separateness are steadily winning that battle. One example, which my hon. Friend may be aware of, is a little girl of about seven years of age reciting with pride a poem about a suicide bomber, or so-called martyr. If we see a child reciting a poem about such a thing, instead of what ought to be filling her mind, how do we react? Anger towards her is clearly not appropriate. Whoever’s fault it is, it is not hers. I felt sadness for her, but anger that those who possess the ability to take down some of the barriers between Palestinians and Israelis simply do not do so, but continue actions that perpetuate the hatred.

The Palestinians should not praise the so-called martyrs and the suicide bombers, and we will rightly condemn this, but progress in the middle east peace process, perhaps, will play an even more effective part in ensuring that what we all wish to see—the growing together of people, without these barriers—comes to pass. Israel must examine its own actions in the occupied territories, to ensure that it does not allow an opportunity to fuel popular anger about Israel, which has not come about solely because of exposure to the media, but by the experiences of occupation of too many in those territories. To neglect that is to miss something of considerable importance.

Accordingly, we believe that the only way to combat violence and incitement is to reach a comprehensive two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We are urgently working with both the US and the European Union to start the peace process. This was a major subject for discussion in talks between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State Kerry yesterday in London. That is the most important way forward. Incitement on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unacceptable and worthy of the condemnation of the House. If we do not get progress in 2013 on the middle east peace process, the context in which incitement and violence takes root will not be truly dealt with. I urge all hon. Members to focus the same determination on that issue as on their rightful condemnation of incitement where they see it.