Government Policy (Kenya)

Debate between Alistair Burt and Martin Horwood

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.

Hazara Community (Pakistan)

Debate between Alistair Burt and Martin Horwood

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

That is a good idea. If my hon. Friend had asked me for such a meeting, I should have been able to say yes straight away. I can say, however— without committing my noble Friend—that I am sure I shall be able to convey to her both my hon. Friend’s comment and the general feeling of the House that a meeting with a group of colleagues who understand the issue well would be particularly welcome to them, and, no doubt, welcome to those whom they represent. I shall make that point very clearly.

Since our last debate, the position of the Hazara community in Pakistan has remained extremely difficult. Human Rights Watch estimates that at least 320 members of the Shi’a community were killed in targeted attacks in 2012, including many from the Hazara community. As has was mentioned earlier, only last month—on 10 January—twin bomb attacks in Quetta tragically killed nearly 100 people and injured over 200 more in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. Most of those who were killed were members of the Hazara community.

Those horrendous acts of sectarian violence showed an appalling contempt for human life. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi publicly expressed the UK’s strong condemnation of the attacks, and their concern about the persecution that had been suffered. My right hon. Friend said:

“I was extremely saddened to hear of the brutal terrorist and sectarian attacks in Quetta and Swat yesterday.”

He sent his sincere condolences to the bereaved families, and added:

“I wish all those injured in the attacks a swift recovery. The United Kingdom strongly condemns these senseless attacks and the persecution of the Shia population. It was a tragic day for Pakistan. We will continue to stand with the people of Pakistan in their fight against terror and violent extremism.”

The latest bombings, described as one of the worst attacks on the Shi’a community, resulted in nationwide protests. The families of the bomb victims refused to bury their dead until they were given assurances that the Army would take administrative control of the province. As the House will know, late in the evening on Sunday 13 January, Sardar Aslam Raisani, the Chief Minister of Balochistan, was dismissed by Prime Minister Ashraf for failing to prevent the escalating sectarian violence in the province. Zulfiqar Ali Magsi, the Governor of Balochistan and the most senior official in the province, has now been temporarily put in charge.

Balochistan’s problems are deep-rooted and require long-term solutions, which was well understood by those who spoke this evening. Although some members of the Hazara community have called for military rule to protect their rights, the position of the United Kingdom Government is that it is in Pakistan’s long-term interests for all groups to enjoy meaningful political representation to ensure effective political engagement and a peaceful means of protecting their interests. Any solution must stay within the parameters of Pakistan’s constitution.

We remain deeply concerned about the violent persecution faced by all minority groups in Pakistan. We raise their plight with the Government of Pakistan regularly. My noble Friend Baroness Warsi spoke about it with Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar at the UN General Assembly in September, and, most recently, during her visit to Pakistan in November, when she urged Pakistani Ministers to protect and guarantee the fundamental rights of all Pakistani citizens.

Additionally, at Pakistan’s recent universal periodic review at the UN in October, the UK raised the importance of ensuring the ability of all minorities groups to vote freely in the upcoming elections. We also encouraged Pakistan to implement the international covenant on civil and political rights to ensure the equal and absolute rights of all its citizens.

The UK and Pakistan have a long history and a strong relationship founded on mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual benefit. Our respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is absolute. I must make it clear to the House that the security of Baluchistan is, as with all provinces of Pakistan, a matter for the people and Government of Pakistan. Persecution of the Shi’a Hazaras is not limited to Balochistan; across Pakistan, Sunni and Shi’a alike have suffered from the scourge of sectarian violence. In the past year, Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city and financial nerve centre, has seen an increase in sectarianism, which has led to a 28% rise in violence-related deaths.

Before I make any more general remarks, let me deal with the specific questions that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen put, as he was good enough to give me some notice of them. The new question, however, was the one raised by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) relating to the chief justice and the possibility of a judicial inquiry, and I will draw Baroness Warsi’s attention to that as a potential idea. At the end of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman raised a point about recognising the importance of dealing with all groups that suffer persecution in Pakistan and elsewhere in a generic manner. That does not, however, mean that their individual histories or problems are not recognised as singular issues in the overall context of the importance of the rule of law being enforced everywhere, which is the best way of protecting everyone. Even within that, we should recognise that particular circumstances should be prominent and I will return to that important point in a moment.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the position of the Hazaras has been raised with the President of Pakistan or with members of the delegation over the past couple of days. It did not form part of the general conversation in the past couple of days in relation to the regional issue, but it is very much a part of a recognition of the overall settlement in Afghanistan that the rights of minorities, including those of the Hazara, need to be taken into account.

As we have been generously gifted a little more time by the time fairies of the Commons doing their work earlier today—I could name my hon. Friends, but I shall not on this occasion—let me say a bit about the position of Hazaras in Afghanistan. The UK Government are very aware of the challenging circumstances faced by the Hazaras in Afghanistan. Article 22 of the Afghan constitution makes clear provision for the equal rights of all Afghan citizens, and we will continue to remind the Afghan Government of the need to ensure those rights. We have also made it clear that a political settlement should be inclusive and should address the needs of all Afghan citizens.

Since 2001, the situation has improved for Hazaras in Afghanistan, with Hazaras now in senior Afghan Government positions. They include the second vice-President, the acting higher education Minister and the governor of Bamiyan province—the first female provincial governor—Habiba Sarabi, whom I have met. We welcome that progress and we will continue to remind the Afghan Government of the need to ensure the equal rights of all citizens. In the regional context, any settlement in Afghanistan that makes sense will have to include proper attention being given to human rights. That was a key part of what the international community stressed in the agreements signed last year and it will be a key part of what happens post-2014. As we all know, the need for the closest relationship possible between Afghanistan and Pakistan in a future settlement is emphasised by the trilateral meetings taking place today. Again, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that although the specific position of the Hazaras is unlikely to constitute a specific part of those conversations, there is a recognition that the future of both Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot be assured unless serious attention is paid to the rule of law and ensuring the enforcement of human rights protection right across both states. Without that, neither state will have security and stability, which is going to be of prime importance.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would ensure that the plight of the Hazaras will be explicitly raised when the conditions of aid to Pakistan are discussed. Taking advice from the Department for International Development, I would say that all UK aid to any country is based on three shared commitments with partner Governments: poverty reduction and meeting the millennium development goals; respecting human rights and other international obligations; and strengthening financial management and accountability. We do not use those conditions to impose specific policy choices on countries. In Pakistan, our aid will support the Pakistan authorities in making progress in the relevant areas, including through concrete measures to improve the economy, reform education and devote proper attention to human rights. So although these things are an important part of the bargain made with any particular country, we do not make our aid conditional on specific issues.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the remarks the Minister has made so far, and the way in which the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and other hon. Members have educated me and the whole House about the plight of the Hazara community. Does the Minister agree that we should not extend that idea of conditionality too far in relation to British aid? Under both this Government and the previous Labour Government, aid has been focused on helping those in greatest need, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, including those in conflict-afflicted and fragile states such as Pakistan. It would be regrettable if we departed too far from that principle.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alistair Burt and Martin Horwood

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Gentleman puts his case well. I expect to have straightforward private conversations with the Sri Lankan authorities. I will make the point that if reconciliation is to mean anything, a straightforward gesture such as converting the current triumphal expressions following the end of the war into a day of national reconciliation, as recommended by the lessons learned and reconciliation committee, would be a good step forward and perhaps start to defuse the tension, an increase of which would be very unwelcome.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Commonwealth Heads of Government are due to meet in Sri Lanka this November, with Australia in the chair. Have concerns about human rights been raised in the Minister’s preparatory conversations with the secretary-general and the Australian and Sri Lankan Governments?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka are raised among those who have the interests of all Sri Lankans at heart. The United Kingdom has made no decision yet as to the level of its attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that relations between Yemen and ourselves are extremely good, and we continue to be in contact about its national dialogue and progress towards further elections in a couple of years. The security situation remains the most important condition on whether direct flights are reintroduced. The scanners are now in place, but a decision on direct flights depends on training and the overall security situation.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

My former constituent Lindsay Sandiford was sentenced to death in Indonesia this morning for drug trafficking. Whatever our abhorrence of that evil trade, does the Foreign Secretary agree that this is out of keeping with Indonesia’s historic progress towards democracy and human rights? Will he ensure that Mrs Sandiford, who has struggled with legal representation, receives the best possible consular support?

Attacks on Civilians (Burma)

Debate between Alistair Burt and Martin Horwood

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, which covered a range of areas that obviously concern the House significantly. We share with him and the House a sense of condemnation following the deaths of civilians, as well as their concern about the resurgence of hostilities. We have indeed made it clear to the Burmese authorities that there should be an immediate ceasefire and that hostilities should stop. There is no possibility of the political reconciliation process being able to take place until that happens. We therefore continue to make representations to both sides, because this is a complex issue that has many sides and we want to make representations to ensure that they play their part and that, when hostilities cease, there is a proper opportunity for the necessary political dialogue.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there had been sufficient political persuasion by the United Kingdom over the past year. My sense of the evidence of the progress that has been made comes from the visit of the Minister of State and the contacts that he has, as well as from the obvious progress that has been made in Burma in a variety of ways to ease the situation in different areas. However, as soon as one situation flares up again, we have to question that progress, and the House can be assured that we will continue to exert pressure.

It is obvious that progress must continue to be made if Burma is to resume its place among the rest of the nations. It understands that very well, and the forthcoming Foreign Affairs Council in April will accordingly be of huge significance. We will certainly expect to see further progress by then. In relation to that, contact is of course constantly maintained with partners in the European Union and the United Nations, and we certainly supported the calls made by the Secretary-General at the beginning of the year for a rapid end to hostilities. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the claims made by the KIA. I have received no details of their verification at this stage. He also asked about the preparations for a military attack, and that does indeed form a vital part of the consideration about humanitarian relief and assistance in those circumstances. That matter has indeed been raised.

As I said in answer to a previous question, we are well aware that China has been returning refugees because it classes them as economic migrants, rather than as people fleeing conflict, which would appear to the United Kingdom to be the more obvious way of classing those who are fleeing across the borders. We do indeed make representations to China that it should act responsibly and provide proper humanitarian care to those who are seeking relief from the violence and conflict. None of that will have any impact, however, unless work is done between the KIA and the Burmese Government to settle the issue. We will continue to make representations to the Chinese, but settling the issue is very much the most important thing.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the prospects for a ceasefire. We would hope that, following the international pressure that has been brought to bear as a result of the incidents of recent weeks, and particularly those that took place over the weekend, the Burmese Government will take note of how seriously those incidents are being seen in foreign capitals around the world, notwithstanding the fact that the greatest tragedy is that being inflicted on those who are suffering the violence. That violence must cease so that a proper political process can take place.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

European sanctions on Burma remain in place, but it is welcome that reconsideration of the suspension in April will take into account these worrying reports from Kachin state. The arms embargo also remains in place. Does the Minister agree that, for the foreseeable future, that should remain the case?

[Alistair Burt]

Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alistair Burt and Martin Horwood

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are glad to hear it. A beautiful relationship. We are grateful to the Minister. I call Martin Horwood.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I do not want to intrude on the love-in!

Last minute blocking tactics by the United States and then by Russia prevented the signature of a robust treaty in July. What assurances has the Minister had from the American Government that the international community will be able to pick up where it left off, perhaps after any distracting events in November are out of the way, and that the treaty will not be watered down in the meantime?

[Alistair Burt]

“Assurances” is not necessarily the right word. The conversations between us and those we expect to be major signatories, such as the United States, go on all the time. Time scales might have an impact on the negotiations that are going on, but it is important that we use the time that has been given to build on the good things in the treaty and do our best to ensure that those are not lost as we take the process forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alistair Burt and Martin Horwood

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

We continue to make representations on all examples of activities that we believe will damage the economy of the occupied Palestinian territories. The hon. Gentleman’s point about agricultural produce is a good one. Agricultural exports from the Palestinian territories were 10 times greater in 2010 than in 2009, but one tenth of what they were in 2006. That gives a measure of the problem. We do indeed raise the matter, and we ask both sides to continue their efforts towards negotiations on a final settlement that would, of course, ultimately be in the economic interest of both.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The prisoner exchange involving Gilad Shalit has been presented by Hamas in Gaza as a victory. Does the Minister agree that the cause of moderate Palestinian opinion, and perhaps even the Palestinian economy, could receive a boost from a successful bid for recognition of its statehood at the United Nations?

[Alistair Burt]

There are two issues there. First, the unconscionable detention of Gilad Shalit by Hamas was no cause for any victory celebration. We certainly welcome the fact that he has been released and hope that it indicates at least some degree of movement between the two parties. Ultimately, of course, what will benefit all is a negotiated settlement that leads to an independent Palestine side by side with a sovereign and recognised Israel. All the work that the United Kingdom does is to ensure that that is the most likely outcome of the various discussions that are taking place through the Quartet and the UN alike.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alistair Burt and Martin Horwood

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question; we have spoken about this over the weekend. The ambassador to Libya, Richard Northern, is working on all available contacts, including the relatives of the gentleman whom the hon. Lady has mentioned. We will make sure not only that contact is made as best as possible but that information is passed back to her constituent.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the act of inviting in troops from militarily superior neighbours has evil precedents in the crushing of human rights in 20th-century Europe? If so, as a good historian, will he share that view with the Bahraini and Saudi Governments?