Draft Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2015
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(8 years, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to appear before you, Mr Gapes; I think that it is for the first time.
It is also, of course, a pleasure to welcome the Minister back to his place. While he has been away, I think a DFID Minister has been covering for him, and many of us would have expected this debate to have been conducted by a DFID Minister. It may well be that such is the synchronicity between the Foreign Office and DFID these days that he has been filling in for the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), who I had expected to see here.
I will just make a couple of points, tempted and seduced as I have been by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, with whom I have sparred and indeed co-operated over the last 30 years, since we entered the House, although in my case I have broken service through an enforced sabbatical.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow West, it is important to note that the appointment of Mr Jin Liqun, which many of us have welcomed, is an operating matter for the bank, and the role of Britain as a core and founder investor in the bank will be set out clearly in the shareholders’ agreement, as it is with the other development banks, in which, as the hon. Gentleman will know very well, Britain takes a leading part. That will be what determines whether or not Britain was consulted. However, the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor decided—rather bravely, I think—to be an early investor in the bank are absolutely the right ones, because this is clearly going to be a major feature on the development landscape. Britain has skills and advantages to bring to the table of what I hope will be one of the most successful of the international development banks.
It is no secret that in the developing world there was irritation when Jim Kim was appointed as head of the World Bank. That was not because there is anything wrong with Jim Kim—he is an excellent leader of the bank—but because it was not open to international meritorious competition. As has already been alluded to, it was part of the stitch-up that means that the Americans appoint the president of the World Bank and the Europeans appoint the president of the IMF. We need to move beyond that now. I cannot reveal the workings of Government over the appointment, but the hon. Member for Harrow West may be certain that there was considerable discussion about that appointment. There was an outstanding deputy head of the World Bank, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who was a candidate, and we need to move beyond that old deal and ensure that the next head of the World Bank is appointed by a full, meritorious trawl of everyone who is available, so that that particular concern is removed.
The Minister is absolutely right to express Britain’s strong support for this bank. It will be part of the architecture from which the poorest people in the world will increasingly benefit, as the work of all these development banks becomes more directly attuned to that core purpose. I very much hope that the Committee will welcome the decision by Britain to be part of this bank. It is part of Britain’s leadership on international development, and it is most welcome on that account.
James Duddridge
First, in summarising the debate, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield for his comments.
James Duddridge
I am terribly sorry to have insulted my right hon. Friend so early in my speech. I apologise profusely. He suggested that I should be working closely with the Department for International Development, which I certainly am. Today I stand here as a Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for protocol. However, I would like to work much more closely across a number of subjects with my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who kindly deputised for me when I was ill for much of the last year.
I will try to deal with all the points that have been raised in this debate in broad themes. I will touch on individual points, mentioning individual Members, as and when. A number of Members brought up social and environmental issues, and the UK has been involved in discussions on those subjects from an early stage. The UK has encouraged the bank, and members of the bank, to consult widely, and Her Majesty’s Government have specifically had discussions with NGOs—those discussions will continue—on how the bank will operate and on the bank’s standards on social and environmental issues. There have not been specific discussions on the projects that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned, but there are wide-ranging discussions encompassing all the issues, including human rights.
The hon. Member for Harrow West asked about the interim appointment. I confirm that Britain was consulted on that, and an election is expected for the full-time appointment. He probed me further on governance more generally, and I confirm that there will be 12 non- resident board members. How they will fit geographically, and the areas they will cover, are still being negotiated. Additionally, there will be a number of vice-presidents, but I remind him that a lot of these development banks have many members—in this case, there are already 57 members. However, Britain is well placed, given the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s early entry.
The policy lead will be through Her Majesty’s Treasury—this issue has been raised by a number of Members—and we will maintain a strong influence, but the exact positions both of the non-executive board and of the vice-presidents are still to be negotiated. However, I note that both in the time of the hon. Member for Harrow West and in current times we have strong experience of multilateral development, and we are well placed to assist the bank.
Civilians in Syria
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Cox
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I will come on to that subject later in the speech.
I shall now turn to the Conservative party’s record. For four years the Government have categorically failed on Syria, and it is not just the UK that should be judged so harshly. The failure to develop and then implement an effective strategy on Syria left this conflict free to create a horrendous European refugee crisis and provide a haven for the barbarism of ISIS to take root, allowed chemical weapons to be used unchallenged and even emboldened Russia. In particular, since the Prime Minister’s mishandling of the 2013 Syria vote, the Government have let this crisis fester on the “too difficult to deal with” pile. There has been no credible strategy, nor courage, nor leadership; instead we have had chaos and incoherence interspersed with the occasional gesture. Indeed, it has been a masterclass in how not to do foreign policy and a stark lesson on what happens when we ignore a crisis of this magnitude. Britain—with our proud tradition in international affairs, our seat on the UN Security Council and one of the best diplomatic, humanitarian and military services in the world—has been a political pygmy in this crisis.
None of us has a proud history in this affair. If we are to put this right, we must put that behind us; we must put party politics to one side and focus on what really matters—the protection of Syrian civilians.
Let me first turn to two of the arguments that do most disservice to a serious discussion of this crisis. First, please let us stop casting the humanitarian, diplomatic and military responses as mutually exclusive alternatives. They are not. If we are serious about addressing this crisis, we need to stop pretending that any one of them offers a panacea and instead weave these strands into a coherent strategy. Secondly, let us not be duped into believing that we need to make a choice between dealing with either Assad or ISIS. On the surface, this may seem appealing, but it is not an option. There is no choice.
We can, and must, address both Assad and ISIS for two principal reasons. First, a sole focus on ISIS will not end the conflict and the threats to our interests. The Assad regime ignited, and continues to drive, the violence in Syria. This year alone, it has killed seven times more civilians than ISIS, so a strategy that only focuses on ISIS will not end the fighting or the threat to regional stability. It will not stem the tide of desperate refugees pouring into Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan, or trying to get into Europe.
Secondly, and crucially, a myopic focus on ISIS will not lead to its defeat. It will not work. Assad is ISIS’s biggest recruiting sergeant, and as long as his tyranny continues, so too will ISIS’s terror. Indeed, a sole focus on ISIS while ignoring the regime’s ongoing bombardment of civilians risks inadvertently strengthening the jihadis’ narrative, which is fuelled by the idea that the west is colluding with Shi’a forces in Tehran and Damascus in a crusade to subjugate Sunni Arabs. That is why, to make good on our past failures, to protect our interests and to live up to our proudest traditions, we need urgently to develop a comprehensive and coherent strategy.
I believe that there are three core elements to such a strategy, none of which is easy and all of which are critical. First, I shall talk about the humanitarian aspect. Four years on from the start of the conflict, there are now 240,000 dead—some credible estimates put the figure at over 330,000—and more than 12 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance. The scale of the human disaster is breathtaking. One area in which the UK Government have shown considerable and commendable leadership is in the regional humanitarian response to the refugee crisis, where we have led the way with the US and our European partners. I now urge the Government to go further.
As the Minister will be aware, the vast majority of Syrian refugees are in the region and those countries are buckling under the strain. The G20 summit in Turkey in November should be marked by the launch of an ambitious plan to meet refugees’ urgent needs, to invest in their education and livelihoods and to support Syria’s neighbours in reconstruction and development. Equally important is the UK’s response to the refugee crisis, which has, to date, been woefully inadequate. Taking 20,000 refugees over five years is simply not good enough; it sends an awful message about how seriously we take civilian protection. Whether it is the response to the drownings in the Mediterranean or our offer to take Syrian refugees, the Prime Minister has been pushed into climbdown after climbdown, embarrassed into action by the humanity of the British public. It is time for him to lead, not follow.
But let us be clear that, no matter what our humanitarian response is to this crisis, it will never be enough. It cannot end the conflict. That is why we also need to invest far more in diplomatic efforts to find a political solution. There are clearly no easy answers, but we can at least be clear on the principles. First, this needs to be a much higher-level conversation. We saw some improvement in that respect at the UN General Assembly last month and in the reopening of the UK’s embassy in Tehran. However, the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister need to make it clear that ending the conflict in Syria is their No.1 international priority, and to challenge other world leaders to match their commitment.
Secondly, we must not let the urgent need to find a political solution cloud our judgment about what a credible one looks like. If four years of continuous vicious conflict have taught us anything, it is that the current regime is no longer capable of bringing peace and stability to Syria. Whatever its exact complexion and character, and whatever the complex negotiations and compromises needed to get there, a credible political solution has to involve a transition to a new Government that represent all Syrians and that enjoy sufficient trust and legitimacy that all but the delusional fanatics of ISIS will be willing to lower their guns and work together to rebuild their country. Russia’s recent intervention makes the route to a political settlement more complicated but it does not change the necessity for one. A political solution is the only way to end the conflict between the regime and the opposition in Syria. Only when that conflict has ended can ISIS and the handful of other extremists allied to al-Qaeda be defeated.
The third element of the strategy has to be military. While I do not believe that there is a purely military solution to this conflict, I do believe that there will be a military component to any viable solution.
The threat from ISIS—to the region, to the west and to Syrian and Iraqi civilians—is real and growing. I do not believe it to be ethical to watch from the sidelines as Syrian villages are overrun by ISIS fighters who make sex slaves of children, terrorise minority groups and slaughter fellow Muslims. In addition, their call for individual sympathisers to attack westerners anywhere and anytime requires a robust response.
The estimated 20,000 foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq, many of whom hold western passports and can therefore travel freely in Europe, present a real and serious threat to us here in the UK. In addition, ISIS’s spread to new havens in Libya, the Sinai peninsula, Afghanistan, Yemen, Nigeria and elsewhere convinces me of the need for active UK involvement—but only if that is part of a comprehensive strategy to protect civilians and end the conflict.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a good and brave speech on this important point. Will she emphasise the point we set out in our joint article over the weekend, which is that the safe havens are not an intervention in the politics of Syria but are strictly a humanitarian measure to ensure safety for those who are fleeing their homes and communities, often under gunfire, and the extreme violence in Syria today? This is the sort of intervention that the United Nations was set up to co-ordinate, and we really must ask why more is not being done by the international community to promote this important initiative, which both of us supported at the weekend.
Jo Cox
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that, and we do share common cause on the need for humanitarian protection for civilians in Syria.
Let me get back to my point about a myopic focus on ISIS being counterproductive. If selective air strikes against ISIS are the only action the west takes in Syria, we will never defeat ISIS—and we could even strengthen it. At least 75% of all civilian deaths in Syria are a result of action by Syrian Government forces; aerial bombardment by the regime is by far the biggest killer, taking around 200 lives every week. It is horrifically indiscriminate; 95% of the victims are civilians. For these reasons, and in the light of the fact that an ISIS-only approach will not protect us from the threat it poses, our objective must be to stop the indiscriminate aerial bombardment in Syria. Not only would that provide much-needed relief to Syria’s embattled population, who are still being bombarded by 50 to 60 barrel bombs a day, but it could help empower Syria’s remaining moderate opposition, who are essential not only to finding a political solution but to holding back and ultimately defeating ISIS.
Stopping the bombs would also take away a significant radicalising factor in the conflict and could breathe new life into the political process, changing Assad’s calculations and forcing him to the negotiating table. As we saw in 2013, the Syrian Government’s response to the credible threat of force was to make a political deal, not to risk escalation. As such, I believe it is time for the Government urgently to consider deterring the indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilians in Syria through the willingness to consider the prudent and limited use of force.
A no-fly zone would be an enormous military undertaking, and would entail significant risks, particularly now that Russia has joined the regime in the Syrian skies. But what I call a no-bombing zone, enforced from maritime assets in the Mediterranean so as to avoid engaging Syrian air defences, would save lives, uphold international humanitarian law and breathe life into the political process.
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way. I have made it very clear that time is short and I am answering the hon. Member for Batley and Spen. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will hang on to his seat and I will be delighted to speak to him after the debate.
It is clear that Russia’s priority is not to defeat ISIL but to prop up Assad. Russia has violated Turkish airspace three times in the past week and the UK strongly condemns these provocative violations of NATO members’ sovereign airspace. It is important that allies show solidarity to ensure the inviolability of NATO airspace is respected, so we call on Russia to stop targeting civilians and opposition groups, which are part of the future of Syria. This is Russia’s biggest air deployment beyond its borders since the cold war, with fast jets, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic warfare and air defence systems propping up an ailing Syrian regime whose military is exhausted, depleted and demoralised.
Russia’s entry, with all its propaganda, will no doubt delay a resolution and the political transition about which the hon. Member for Batley and Spen spoke rather than expediting them. It will also widen the extremism footprint for Russia, as significant numbers of foreign fighters supporting ISIL will no doubt react to Putin’s actions.
The hon. Lady mentioned safe zones, and I have taken a lot of time over the summer to consider the issue in detail. We will continue to look at all options along with our allies to protect civilians in Syria. There has been talk of safe or protected zones, no-fly zones and so on, but history tells us that implementing genuinely safe zones is difficult and must be accompanied by an international mandate that would provide the will, the authority and the full means to ensure that they have a chance of being effective. It would also involve significant military commitment. As we have seen, that can be hard to come by from the various Parliaments across the world.
We should also bear in mind the legal justification for intervention in another country has five means. One is a UN Security Council resolution—
Mr Ellwood
I will not give way. The other legitimate means for engagement include article 51 of the UN Charter, or the right collectively to defend others, or intervention to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, as we saw in Kosovo. The final such means is an invitation by the leader, which is what we saw in Iraq.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen mentioned the humanitarian situation. The UK has been at the forefront of the humanitarian response to the conflict in Syria. I am pleased to say that we have pledged more than £1.1 billion in aid in response to the crisis in Syria and the region. I visited the Zaatari camp in north Jordan in the summer and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is in her place, has just come back from Azraq. I am pleased to say that we are seeing how well British money is spent. It is clear that refugees want to stay in the region where they have family and cultural ties, and the cost of housing one refugee in the UK equates to supporting more than 20 refugees locally. Let me make it clear that the standard of that support is very different, but that just illustrates the difficult decisions people are having to make in every country about how much money we spend domestically and how much we spend in the region.
The Prime Minister also announced on 7 September the expansion of the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme to resettle up to 20,000 Syrians in need of protection during this Parliament. Since the crisis began in 2011, the UK has granted asylum to nearly 5,000 Syrian nationals and their dependants.
In conclusion, we are well aware that Syria remains the greatest humanitarian tragedy of our time. We must support the desire of ordinary Syrians for a future free of the cruelty of Assad and the barbarity of ISIL. I end by apologising to Opposition Members for not being able to take interventions. As they can see from my notes, I have plenty more to say on the matter—
Shaker Aamer
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I do not need to detain the House for long, because the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) gave such an excellent speech and because the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) set out the case with both clarity and conviction.
I wish to make it clear that I yield to no one in my admiration for the work that the British security services and others have done in addressing a very real terrorist threat, the issues of which will take a generation or more to deal with. The point at issue today is a far more fundamental one. I very much hope that the Foreign Office and the diligent Minister who is here today to respond to the debate will note that, although the House may not be particularly packed, it is nevertheless true that here on these Benches are representatives of almost every conceivable opinion that the House of Commons could hold. We are all, I believe, utterly united behind the motion that was moved by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. The hon. Gentleman will know very well that he and I agree on almost nothing in British politics, but on this issue we are shoulder to shoulder; we are as one.
I wish to make a point that was set out by my right hon. Friend, which is that in Britain, we respect the law; we believe in certain universal values. Sometimes, they are said to be British values, but I do not like that term. They are universal values, and the debate on Shaker Aamer gets absolutely to the heart of those values. I had the pleasure, just a fortnight ago, of going to join in Friday prayers at the largest mosque in Europe, the Central Mosque in Birmingham. It is accepted by all of us that there is considerable alarm in the British Muslim community about Islamophobia. Muslims look at this particular case and think that certain rules apply to some people, but not others. The point that this House of Commons should stand up for today is that justice is colour blind and creed blind. It should apply to everyone, but it is not applying to Shaker Aamer, and it is up to us to give voice to this view. The House of Commons must stand up today for justice for all citizens wherever they are from, and never more so than in this particular debate.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Is not the essence of this debate the rule of law and the application of fair rule of law? The absence of proper application of the rule of law is at the heart of this issue.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes the central case that we are discussing.
Let me add a few words to what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said at the start of the debate. Shaker Aamer has been detained for 13 years. He has twice been cleared for release: once in 2007 by the former US President, George Bush, and, more recently, in 2009, by President Obama. Our own Prime Minister has made vigorous representations, if one is to believe the press, in respect of Shaker Aamer, and the United States has made it clear that there is no evidence against him, and yet he is still incarcerated in the conditions that were described by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on another point that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made in his speech: that Shaker is not being released because of what he has seen in Guantanamo, and the authorities do not want that to be known more widely? If there is a mystery here about why he is still being detained, does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is the answer?
Mr Mitchell
That might or might not be so, and it is an important matter, but it is not central to the case I am making, which is this: here is someone whose release has been cleared by two US Presidents, and against whom the US authorities have made it clear there is no evidence, yet he remains incarcerated, after 13 years.
There have been numerous British requests, the most recent of which was made by the Prime Minister during his highly successful visit to America. Jacqui Smith, when Home Secretary, made the request, as did the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), and other Foreign Office Ministers, including my right hon. Friend to my right—geographically, at least—my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who engaged in the case energetically. The failure to make progress fuels the theories referenced in the most recent intervention. Nevertheless, those British requests cannot be treated with apparent arrogance by the American Administration and just cast aside with glib words while that man remains incarcerated with no case against him.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. I am absolutely certain that the advice being given in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office today is the same as that given when I was there, and I know my hon. Friend the Minister is following it diligently. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what unites people of different political opinions on this matter is a sense both that justice for one is justice for all—that is being denied in this case—and that for those who look at it from a very practical point of view on how we deal with some of the difficult issues facing the world, from both a United States and a British perspective, none of that work is being assisted in a case in which someone has been detained for so long without trial or charge?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend makes the case with great eloquence, as he has done in government and from the Back Benches.
I will end by reiterating the points that the mover of the motion made to the Minister. I ask him to be specific in his response and to be clear about what representations on Shaker Aamer’s case have been made and what ongoing representations are being made. If he cannot give the House answers today, will he seek immediately from the American Administration a very clear explanation of why they continue to block Shaker Aamer’s release? Will he make very clear what next steps the British Government intend to take to secure his immediate release to Britain, not to anywhere else? In his discussions with the American Administration, will he press them to confirm a specific timetable for his release and repatriation to Britain?
This is a matter of great importance. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire said, it is about the universality of justice. It is about the signal we send as the House of Commons to all our citizens about the nature of justice and our determination to see that it is pursued. On that basis, I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and other colleagues on securing this important debate, and I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Mr Ellwood
The point has been made time and again about the manner in which many of the detainees ended up in Guantanamo Bay, and about the creation of Camp Delta in the first place. I make no comment on this particular case because it would be wrong for me to do so, but we need to ensure that every person who is processed will not be a danger to the United States or to any other country. It is a complex process, and I must make it very clear that I make no judgment on this particular case. I am about to give some numbers and a timetable, and details of the frequency with which detainees are being processed.
Mr Andrew Mitchell
The Minister is setting out his case, and he says that he does not need to make a judgment, but the United States has made it clear that there is no evidence against Shaker Aamer. Is that not the critical factor? May I encourage the Minister to share with the House, in some detail, the questions that he asked during his lengthy conversation with the American embassy this morning, and the answers that he received?
Mr Ellwood
I want to make some progress. As I shall make clear shortly, I am not privy to the very complicated process, involving six United States Government Departments, that every single detainee will have to undergo before being cleared for release. That is the process that Shaker Aamer must undergo, like everyone else who has been released so far or will be released in the future.
In supporting Mr Aamer’s release, we have emphasised to the United States Government that any individual who engages in terrorist-related activity in the United Kingdom can expect to be dealt with through use of the full range of powers that are available to us. I shall not list them here, but they are extensive, and we remain confident in the ability of our police and security services to deal with any such threats. I think that that partly answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion.
It would be inappropriate to comment on why Mr Aamer is in the Guantanamo Bay facility, especially as we continue to discuss the details of his case with the United States in order to secure his release. This is a sensitive issue and, as the House will understand, it has been the policy of successive Governments not to discuss intelligence matters. However, as Members well know, the United Kingdom does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for any purpose. We remain absolutely committed to ensuring that serious allegations of UK complicity in alleged rendition and mistreatment overseas are examined carefully. If any evidence of that were to come to light, we would take appropriate action. The investigation of, or prosecution of individuals involved in, any alleged torture carried out by the United States is a matter for the United States authorities.
Syria
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
There is strong agreement about everything I said in my statement, judging by what the right hon. Gentleman said, although disagreement about one thing that was not in the statement, which I will come back to.
I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think that there is strong unity across the House on the importance of our humanitarian contribution. He said that everything that we and other countries were doing was necessary but not sufficient to alleviate the suffering. That, sadly, is true, because only the end of the conflict will truly alleviate or give us the opportunity to alleviate the suffering of millions of people. He rightly welcomed the diplomatic efforts that we continue to make on bringing about a second Geneva conference. There is no shortage of discussion in the international community about how to do this. We have regular discussions with all our colleagues on the Security Council, including Russia, about how to bring it about. Ideas are floated about different diplomatic groups that might bring this about, but the essence of the problem remains that we need all appropriate parties to be ready to fulfil what was agreed at Geneva. There is no evidence that the regime is in a position to do that as things stand, but we will continue to work on that.
I take what the right hon. Gentleman said as agreement in the House on the approach to the negotiations now taking place about an international agreement on chemical weapons. He said that a credible plan was needed in an atmosphere of low trust and violent conflict. That is correct, and it strikes the same note as the one that I was striking—that we must take this seriously and make every effort to make it successful, but that to be successful it has to be an enforceable agreement that credibly, reliably and promptly deals with this issue and places the regime’s chemical weapons stocks under international control for destruction.
I need to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about only one thing that he said, which is a rather extraordinary claim that none of this would have come about had the Opposition not voted against the Government motion two weeks ago, which is a rather self-obsessed view of world developments. It is like the story of the cockerel who thought its crowing brought about the dawn. He will remember that the motion we put before the House said that, far from being in a rush, the Government would await the report of the UN inspectors, which has not yet come out, before taking any military action, that they would make every effort to secure a Security Council resolution, and that there would be a second vote. That is the basis on which the United Kingdom was proceeding, and there is no sign at all that this development would have taken place had Governments around the world not been debating those issues and had the United States not been debating whether to take military action.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about what progress is being made at the United Nations to secure a resolution for unfettered cross-border access for the humanitarian agencies? He will be aware that most of the UN aid is going through Damascus. That means that aid is reaching the areas held by the Government but not reaching the areas held by the rebels. As winter comes on, the danger of starvation and a medical emergency will increase unless the situation is resolved.
Mr Hague
This is a very important issue. We are, one way or another, getting aid into all 14 governorates of Syria and into many different parts of Syria. However, the regime has often sought to interfere with that aid and has denied access to some areas. It has even reportedly engaged in removing medical supplies and preventing them from getting to areas where its own people are needing urgent medical attention. The answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is that we have not yet secured agreement on a resolution or action on this at the United Nations Security Council. All attempts so far to agree in the Security Council on statements or resolutions that require the Assad regime to perform any particular actions, including on the humanitarian side, have been opposed by Russia and by China. That does not mean that we should give up on it. At the G20 the Prime Minister discussed with other countries returning to this issue at the United Nations if necessary, and we are standing ready to do so.
Sexual Violence in Conflict
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of preventing sexual violence in conflict.
My favourite ever quote is not particularly erudite, which is not very good for an Oxford MP. It is from “The West Wing”, when Leo tells one of his members of staff:
“Never let the urgent crowd out the important.”
In a nutshell, that is why, with all the domestic pressures crowding in on us at the moment, I still prioritise my work with the all-party associate group on women, peace and security, and why I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to preventing sexual violence in conflict.
Major General Cammaert, the former peacekeeping commander in Democratic Republic of the Congo, said in 2008:
“It is now more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in modern conflict.”
In that year, 14,591 new cases of sexual violence were reported in DRC. Since 1998, it is believed that more than 200,000 Congolese women have been raped. Today, we still hear of widespread sexual violence in DRC, Syria, Sudan and South Sudan. Just last week, there was a report of a Somali woman who spoke up about being gang raped by state security forces only to be sentenced to a year in prison, along with the journalist who reported her story, for daring to speak up. This reflects the exponential growth of conflicts that target civilians, especially women and girls, as a means of intimidation and ethnic cleansing. Films such as “Hotel Rwanda” and “Shooting Dogs” mean that most people now know that the abuses that these women suffer are among the most horrific that any of us can imagine. Nevertheless, as if the failure to prevent this violence in the first place was not bad enough, these women are still routinely denied access to any form of justice, or any engagement with the peace processes that follow.
Male victims, crimes against whom are even more chronically under-reported, face extreme stigma and almost non-existent access to services. It is almost impossible to estimate the scale of an abuse that remains largely unreported and unrecorded. I hope that the House will forgive me, however, given that I am chair of the all-party associate group on women, peace and security, if I focus my remarks on the issues affecting women in conflict. It is meant not to imply that the abuses suffered by male victims are less grave, but only to acknowledge that the protection challenges are different and that it is not my area of expertise. Whether the victims are male or female, however, the unpalatable fact is that the perpetrators prosper with impunity and that there remains little if any deterrent against sexual violence in most fragile and conflict-affected states.
The primary responsibility for prosecuting these crimes must lie with the states themselves, of course, but where the rule of law has collapsed or is failing to enforce domestic and international laws to protect victims, the international community has a constructive and effective role to play in capacity building and challenging those states over the need for justice and accountability. Security Council resolution 1325 is the cornerstone of policy on gender and conflict. It was the first resolution to acknowledge that women experience different impacts from conflict and that this matters for global peace and security.
In 2008-09, further resolutions concluded not only that violence against women was a criminal matter that could be addressed by justice systems once countries had stabilised, but that sexual and gender-based violence was often a deliberately deployed weapon of war, that a failure to stop violence against women was a failure to stop an abuse that catalysed and perpetuated conflict, and that until we started seeing violence against women as a security threat, we would never be able fully to achieve our defence, foreign policy and international development goals of conflict prevention and stabilisation.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend deserves great credit for having tabled this important motion, not least because, as she pointed out, girls and women are at the forefront of violence in the areas she identified. That is why so many of the Department for International Development’s programmes around the world specifically combat violence against women. Does she agree that it is hugely to the Government’s and particularly the Foreign Secretary’s credit that they have put this item squarely on the agenda for the G8 meeting in Britain later this year and that that helps to build on the international agreements that are aimed at tackling this subject and those which she has just mentioned?
Nicola Blackwood
I do indeed, and I thank the former International Development Secretary for his intervention. I know that he was a great champion of women’s rights when he was in that role. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary speaks, he will update us on progress at the G8 on this issue.
All the statistics and stories tell us that women are most vulnerable to the worst human rights abuses imaginable, but they are more than that. Among the women I have met are those such as Jineth Bedoya, a Colombian journalist who will not stop challenging arms dealing in her country, despite being abducted, tortured and raped by paramilitaries and then being told that there would be no prosecutions, but that she could have either bodyguards or a ticket out of the country.
Then there is Ikhlas Mohammed, a Darfuri survivor who speaks out continually about the abuses that women and girls have undergone in her community. The story she told still haunts me and demonstrates that practical solutions such as the preventing sexual violence initiative are not just western follies that tinker at the edges, but exactly what those who survive sexual violence are calling for. She told me this story: “I was in Tawila town when a girl’s primary school was attacked. The little girls in the school were raped, some in front of their families. Many were less than 10 years old. How do you stand being made to watch while someone rapes your daughter, or your mother or your sister? It is better to die than that. They use rape as a weapon. Now the women who were raped are pregnant they are unacceptable in their families. Most of the girls did not tell anyone they had been raped because of the stigma. If there is no justice, if there is no law, then everything has collapsed. We cannot stop women’s violence. We cannot stop rape. We cannot stop any kind of sexual violence towards women. We need justice. I am a representative of Darfurian women and we are looking for justice.”
Those women who speak up after they have survived sexual violence and who challenge it regardless of the risk are not just victims. They are not even primarily victims. Many whom I have met have become exceptional human rights defenders and leaders in their own countries, calling for their right to live free from the fear of all kinds of violence, for their right to access services and, just as importantly, for sustainable stabilisation. They are calling for women to be considered and included in peace processes so that they can hold their own leaders to account. Those women are indomitable agents for change whose determination and strength of purpose is a resource for peace and security that we can ill afford to ignore. They are, in short, a good investment.
I am delighted to welcome the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexual violence initiative. I know from discussions with him and with the PSVI team that tackling sexual violence in conflict is a genuine personal passion of his, and I thank him for his leadership in driving the matter up the international agenda in a way that we have not seen since resolution 1325 was signed in 2000.
Mr Andrew Mitchell
Does my hon. Friend agree that the National Security Council, set up by this Government, has made a huge difference to that cross-departmental co-ordination? In Afghanistan, training the police is enormously important, and that greater co-ordination has had a major impact on the ground.
Nicola Blackwood
I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows much more about this matter than I do, as he speaks from considerable experience. I will say, however, that we should be working to recruit more women to the Afghan police, and ensuring that they can play a role in enabling women to have more secure lives in that country, where they face extreme violence daily.
Whatever role women play, we need to get women involved in making peace, because without them peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation is more difficult and less likely to take into account the central issue of stopping the abuse of women or to be sustainable. There is a direct correlation between more inclusive models of negotiation and a greater chance of keeping the peace. The impact on the ground is clear. Melanne Verveer, who until last Friday was the first ever US ambassador for global women’s issues, noted at the end of 2010 that 31 of the world’s 39 active conflicts were recurrences of conflicts after peace settlements had been concluded, and that in all 31 cases women had been excluded from those peace processes. It is impossible not to conclude that, despite vocal support for the women, peace and security agenda, there has been negligible improvement in women’s participation in peace-building since resolution 1325 was signed in 2000.
I hope the G8 agreements and the preventing sexual violence initiative will lead to a recognition that the protection of women from sexual violence and the participation of women in peace processes are two sides of the same coin. In the quests to end conflict-related sexual violence and to stabilise fragile and conflict-affected states, we do not get one without the other. In order to achieve our goal, we must get a commitment to put into practice the EU guidelines on human rights defenders.
Over the past few years there has been an increase in geopolitical upheaval in the Arab world, which none of us could have anticipated. There has been famine in areas of east Africa and the Sahel, too, which is increasing the pressure on already fragile states, and international economic instability is widespread. As a result, the PSVI and related strategies to tackle violence against women and girls and the BSOS have never been more relevant. As the rate of political change accelerates in so many countries in the Arab world, and as conflict emerges and re-emerges unexpectedly in Mali, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Syria, and as the status of women becomes increasingly uncertain in those countries and many others experiencing instability, I hope we, too, can accelerate our rate of political change and embed the 1325 agenda as a fundamental part of our foreign policy response to fragile and conflict states.
Ms Joy Ogwu, former president of UN Women, has said:
“No one can run fast on one foot.”
A security agenda that fails to prevent sexual violence in conflict, that fails to support women human rights defenders and leaders and that fails to ensure women’s participation has been a limping beast, but I believe that the PSVI and the Foreign Secretary’s personal commitment to championing this issue at the G8 can mark a turning point in the international rhetoric on women in conflict situations, so that we can finally begin to put into practice changes on the ground that will protect these women, who so desperately need it.
Gemma Doyle
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not. I want to make a bit of progress.
Disgracefully, in all those examples, only relatively small numbers of men faced prosecution for their crimes, and most got away with them. The extent to which people can get away with such crimes is illustrated by what was said by Korto Williams, of ActionAid Liberia, in October last year:
“It was routine during Liberia’s war for women to be raped at check points. Men who committed these crimes never faced the law and were allowed to act with impunity. Today we have had reports that at least one even became a Member of Parliament, representing the country, while the women he violated still wait for justice.”
It is no wonder that women have no confidence in their ability to seek justice in the aftermath of such conflicts. Justice for crimes of sexual violence remains far too distant for far too many women, and they are often marginalised during the subsequent process of resolution. In far too many cases, the rights of women have been sacrificed in attempts to secure formal peace deals. In only 18 of more than 300 existing peace agreements is there any mention of sexual, gender-based violence, and even in modern peace agreements, the position and rights of women in society are still being threatened. I agree with ActionAid, which suggests that that is partly because women are not at the table during discussions, and considers that we should make it a priority to seek to guarantee places for them. Organisations such as ActionAid, Amnesty and Oxfam are working around the globe to try to tackle these issues, and I think that we should try to make progress by harnessing their knowledge and their networks on the ground.
Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), the shadow Secretary of State of Defence, made an important speech outlining his ideas on early intervention, emphasising the need to work alongside our NATO colleagues in conflicts, and to monitor fragile states and, when we can, intervene to stop them from falling into conflict. Experience over the years has shown us the mistakes that have been often made in foreign interventions—mistakes that have cost women dearly in, for instance, the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
I think the fact that for the first half of the current Parliament there was not one woman in the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development or the Ministry of Defence was an enormous step backwards. If we argue that women should be sitting around the table in peace negotiations throughout the world, we must surely accept that they should also be sitting around the table in the Departments that make so many decisions that affect women’s lives.
Gemma Doyle
I am sorry; I am about to end my speech.
There was no mention of sexual violence in conflict in the strategic defence and security review, and no recognition of that specific and particular weapon which is most commonly directed towards women. That is not unusual—I suspect that the subject has never been mentioned in a defence review—but it cannot be said that there was no place for it. There are parts of the SDSR in which it would have been entirely appropriate to raise the issue. Sexual violence is a weapon of war. It is about power, and about the abuse of power to humiliate and degrade. It causes untold misery, and it is the most obvious example I can think of that requires preventive work that can and should be done.
Al-Jazeera has reported a 22% increase in crimes of violence against women in Afghanistan. Many people repeat the statement that we did not go into Afghanistan to improve women’s rights. That is true, but it does not negate our responsibility to those women, given that we have been in the country for more than a decade. We have an opportunity to leave a lasting legacy there in the context of women’s rights and, in particular, their basic security, which is the cornerstone of their rights. I do not doubt the sentiment of the Ministers who are involved in the discussions on Afghanistan’s future, but I am sure they will agree that warm words will be of no comfort to those women if the progress that has been made is whipped away.
I have previously asked Foreign Office Ministers if they will support a guaranteed 30% women’s representation at the London 2014 summit on Afghanistan’s future. I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary is to respond to the debate, because that enables me to put the challenge to him again today. I urge Ministers—in fact, I beg them—not to let this issue slip to the bottom of their negotiating list. All of us who enjoy protections and freedom in this country, regardless of our gender, have a responsibility to the women of Afghanistan and to women all over the world.
Foreign Affairs and International Development
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr MacShane
To export, one has to make friends throughout the world, everywhere, but when we look at Europe we find that that is not really the Foreign Secretary’s speciality. He was recently in Vietnam, and since he has been in office the UK’s trade deficit with that country has almost doubled. Whatever else he is achieving, he is a champion of increasing imports to the UK and the Blackburn Rovers in respect of decreasing exports from our nation.
Let me quote just one analysis, which is out today. The author states:
“It is noteworthy that other developed countries have re-orientated their export profiles more effectively than Britain has done, raising doubts about whether we are keeping pace with our EU partners in promoting British commercial interests in the emerging economies.”
That extremely prescient analysis comes from the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) in a new pamphlet published today by Business for New Europe. It is a Conservative condemnation—much like that of his brother, who always condemns whatever the Prime Minister proposes—of the failed key plank in the Foreign Secretary’s policy of promoting trade.
Our genius lies in being Europe’s most open economy. We were creating a niche as the world’s centre of excellence for overseas students. We still have many who came here two or three years ago, as the Foreign Secretary told us in respect of Chinese students, yet the Chinese and Indians are going to other European countries, because they can fill in a simple, short visa application and then travel anywhere in the Schengen zone—while our form is being replaced with the most difficult visa application known to man. We all expect Chinese citizens to complete our visa in English; the Chinese one day might expect us to complete their visa forms in Chinese, and then we will realise just how deeply patronising we have been.
Let us turn to protecting the national interest. Britain has permanent interests not permanent friends—it is an old saying. But our permanent interests are best promoted by making as many friends as possible, and the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister seem to lose friends and dis-influence people whenever they can. The Prime Minister, as we know, snubbed François Hollande when the now President of France came to London in February.
The Government have quietly buried an 80-year-old relationship with Poland through their handling of the current Polish Government and through the Prime Minister’s crude interference in Polish internal affairs, with support orchestrated from No. 10 for the clericalist national right-winger, Jaroslaw Kaczynski. As with the Prime Minister’s ostentatious endorsement of Mr Sarkozy, the curse of Cameron worked its magic and Mr Kaczynski’s opponent was elected.
We should not forget the Deputy Prime Minister’s description of the Prime Minister’s allies in the European Parliament as nationalists, “anti-Semites and homophobes” —a description highlighted by the appalling Waffen-SS commemoration march in Latvia in March, when Jewish people were jostled at an event supported by a party allied to the Conservatives. As with the Prime Minister’s insulting and gratuitous pandering to anti-Israeli Turkish politicians when he called Gaza “a prison camp”, even though it would be more accurate to describe Gaza as a centre of missile attacks aimed at Jews in Israel, the standing of Britain is damaged by such loose-lipped remarks and by the dubious company that the ruling party keeps.
That isolationist approach has been roundly condemned this very week by the Atlantic Council, one of the most prestigious American foreign policy institutes. In a report written by Nick Burns, one of the US’s most experienced diplomats, Mr Burns, who served the George W. Bush Administration with distinction, says:
“Prime Minister Cameron’s coalition government has yet to develop a coherent strategic vision for the United Kingdom’s role in a challenging global landscape.”
The report cites the blunder of the Prime Minister’s veto—the veto that never was—last December, which made Britain a laughing stock among Euro-Atlantic policy makers and opinion formers. It also underlines American dismay at the massive, Treasury-imposed defence cuts, which have left Britain without aircraft carriers at a time when the high seas—from the Strait of Hormuz to the contested Pacific islands where China is ratcheting up the pressure against Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines—are a new zone of tension.
We heard yesterday in the House the Defence Secretary prostrating himself before the smirking Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as the Secretary of State hauled up the white flag of surrender to the Treasury, for which a balanced budget is far more important than a balance of power or Britain’s presence in world affairs.
The Foreign Secretary has also downgraded human rights and democracy promotion. Yes, Britain tailed behind Mr Sarkozy in his Libyan expedition. Gaddafi has gone, but chaos, murder, mass violation of human rights and open warfare in southern Libya now exist. We hear constantly about the end of Gaddafi but nothing about the end of human rights in Libya today.
The FCO human rights report, which was once a printed volume of rigour and authority, has now gone virtual with just a handful of the worst violating nations examined in detail.
The Government are selective in their approach. Syria is condemned, but the torturers of Bahrain are invited to Britain with every honour we can bestow. The Burmese regime was excoriated, but when I repeatedly asked the Prime Minister to raise in public the case of Liu Xiabo, the Chinese Nobel peace prize laureate who now rots in the Chinese gulag, there was only silence. Pakistan is criticised, but the dreadful human rights abuses in Kashmir perpetrated by Indian security forces are downplayed and no pressure is put on India by this Government to change its line on Kashmir.
We have also heard relative silence in the case of Yulia Tymoshenko, although I am glad to say that, thanks to Opposition Members, it was mentioned earlier in the debate. On 12 October last year, when I asked the Prime Minister about Mrs Tymoshenko, he said:
“We completely agree that the treatment of Mrs Tymoshenko, whom I have met on previous occasions, is absolutely disgraceful. The Ukrainians need to know that if they leave the situation as it is, it will severely affect their relationship not only with the UK but with the European Union”.—[Official Report, 12 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 329.]
In fact, the Ukrainians have made the situation worse by denying her medical treatment, although we are glad that she seems to be out of prison at the moment.
Other European leaders have taken a stand on the matter. The Prime Minister’s friends in the Czech Republic, the Czech President, Mrs Merkel, Radek Sikorski, the Polish Foreign Secretary and Carl Bildt, the Prime Minister’s friend in the Swedish Government, have spoken out publicly on it; we had barely a squeak from the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. Britain must stand up for Mrs Tymoshenko—as the Prime Minister pledged to do in this House in October.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr MacShane
I do not think that I have time. Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me? [Interruption.] I am sorry—[Interruption.] Well, very quickly then.
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Ukraine, but he is most unfair to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the matter specifically in his opening remarks.
Mr MacShane
The Foreign Secretary mentioned it en passant. There has been no public statement, and none of the positions, taken by European leaders committed to human rights, about boycotts and having no contact. That is what I—we—want from this Government.
The Foreign Secretary also says that he has to support British nationals overseas. Certainly, the extradition of British nationals to the United States is working in favour of America’s idea of justice. We also have the problem of Mr Neil Heywood, killed in a horrible way at the same time as a Minister of State was visiting China, but it took several months for the truth to emerge.
Members across the House also agreed a resolution that Britain should take action on the case of Sergei Magnitsky by banning named individuals from coming into the UK, but the Foreign Office refuses to implement the will of the House. The names might be mentioned in private bilateral meetings with Russia, but we are not standing up for human rights, as I believe this country wants to do and expects the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister to do.
That is why this foreign policy is not working and will not work until we have a change of Government.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
We live in a complex and multi-dimensional world, and the rate of change is astonishingly quick. In order to deal with that change, it is important that we think carefully about Britain’s role in the world. I believe that the country needs a strategy. I believe the Government—indeed, any Government—need to work out what they want to achieve in the world, and what resources they have available to them to underpin that achievement. When they have done that, they need to work out how they are going to achieve what they want to achieve with the resources available to them. Of course, unforeseen crises will always arise, but the key question is: what is our vision and our strategy?
That is not rocket science—or, at least, it should not be—but that was not apparent in respect of the strategic defence and security review of October 2010. I agree that the politics should be taken out of that process by conducting a review every five years. Governments should conduct a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the world in which we live. From that analysis, they should draw conclusions, having consulted widely. We should never tire of asking this question: what is Britain’s role in the world? We should never tire of ensuring that how we allocate the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money spent on achieving our foreign policy objectives is underpinned by rigorous analysis.
I have spoken before in this House about hard power—the controlled application of military force. Today however, I want to talk about international development and soft power—how the UK can have leverage in the world through employing the influence and diplomatic power we have as a nation, rather than the influence we could exert as a military power.
Inevitably, the balance between hard and soft power will fluctuate. That is not to say that the utility of military force has declined, but instead that the way in which it is likely to be employed in the future will not be the same as the way it is employed now or has been in the recent past. We are currently witnessing the rising influence of emerging economies such as those of the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China—which is reshaping the strategic environment in which our country operates. In this changing geopolitical environment, the way in which the UK and other countries exercise their influence in conflict, in the global markets, in negotiations and in agreements is also changing, and will continue to do so. In part, that reflects the way, and rate at which, countries are developing. Because of rapid developments in technology, the world is a much smaller place than it used to be.
Technological advances and globalisation bring many challenges, but they have also brought many opportunities to those best placed to take advantage of them. We now live in a world where, for some, luxuries such as a flatscreen TV and a DVD player have almost become necessities to ease the burden of our ever-stressful lives. However, for many millions of people in poorer countries a luxury takes the form of a decent meal or the security of knowing that their child has the same chance of survival as a child here in the UK. Although much good work has been done in recent years, much more can and should be done. So I believe this is more than a responsibility for wealthy nations; it is a moral obligation. This is about civilised societies reaching out and protecting the most vulnerable.
The UK has an excellent track record on international development. The previous Labour Government’s commitment to the provision of aid was well known, and we achieved great things, helping countries that were being crippled by debt and enabling them to focus better on domestic issues, rather than pay money to wealthy nations. That work was not perfect, it was not without risks and it was often controversial, but it was the right thing to do.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on aid, but they could and should have gone further by protecting that in law, as the Conservative manifesto and the coalition agreement promised. Legislation would have provided some certainty and a guarantee of funds, and it would have allowed long-term plans to be made, based on the knowledge that the resources would be in place to enable them to be fulfilled. By not including legislative protection for international aid, the Government are pandering to those who are not in favour of it. A global financial crisis is occurring, with recession having an impact on countries around the world. In this economic climate, we will all have heard people being sceptical and cynical about the value and utility of international aid, and suggesting that charity should begin at home. I understand why that is said, but in the context of trying to save a child’s life—any child’s life; ultimately, that is what aid can do—I do not agree with it. This is not just about one child; it is about many millions of children. What could anybody prioritise above them?
Just as a result of the work that has been done over the previous 20 years, 12,000 fewer children died every day in 2010 compared with the figure for 1990. Over the past two decades, the level of stunting, whereby children’s bodies and brains fail to develop properly because of malnutrition, has declined from 45% to 28%. Recent research by Save the Children shows that those countries in sub-Saharan Africa that received the most aid over the past decade also made the most progress on child well-being, so it is vital that aid is guaranteed, because famine rarely creeps up and surprises us. Investing early to prevent developing countries from slipping into famine is far more beneficial and efficient, and it is far cheaper, than responding to emergencies. Right now there is an impending famine in Niger, one than can be prevented if funds are made available in good time. The disastrous famine in east Africa was widely predicted, yet Governments around the world did not release the money in time to prevent it and millions died. The same thing is happening right now in west Africa, and few will notice until the media arrive.
Mr Andrew Mitchell
I make this point simply because the hon. Gentleman is the second hon. Member to make a comment such as that last one. The famine in Somalia was predicted, but the British Government were the first to go to the aid of the hundreds of thousands of people caught in that famine—the rest of the world was slow to do so. Will he at least acknowledge that his own Government and his own country, not least through the Disasters Emergency Committee, rapidly addressed that dreadful situation?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that intervention. The point I am trying to make is that we should not be in the business of waiting until the media arrive before we intervene and provide funding to deliver aid. The more that we can prepare for these situations, as much as we ever can, the more efficient we will be; the best way of investing money is in preventing these things from happening in the first place.
It costs comparatively little to immunise children with the vaccines that our children in the UK rightly have for free. Each year, 7.6 million children in developing countries still die as a result of easily preventable diseases and conditions such as diarrhoea. The removal of the next generation through infant mortality—the rate is still as high as one in 10 in some regions—takes away those who will be educated, who will work and who will bring money into their communities in future years. Small sums can save many lives, and international aid not only helps those who directly receive it, but, in the longer term, has a knock-on effect to those nations that give it. A healthy society is a more prosperous and stable society, and this will bring benefits to global security and to international trade. By helping countries through aid and by ensuring that resources are distributed in a way that minimises corruption, these countries will also build their own capacity to raise money and will be able to improve the lives of their citizens.
So, it is in our longer term national interests to behave in a responsible fashion, but we should not act alone. The G8 has a vital role to play and it is essential that the Prime Minister demonstrates strong leadership on preventive action against famine and disease and on the timely release of funds to prevent predicted disasters and crises, and that he urges immediate action by the other G8 countries in committing to that. The Prime Minister must take the opportunity provided at the G8 this weekend to lead a global push on tackling hunger and malnutrition, the silent killer that is responsible for the deaths of 2.6 million children each year, not just for the benefit of those countries in dire need but for the long-term future benefit of the UK, too.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
This has been a high-quality debate at a time when a strong, intelligent British voice has never been more important, as the world faces a number of complex, high-stakes challenges: the eurozone crisis; the negotiations between E3 plus 3 with Iran aimed at securing Iranian compliance with its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty; enduring poverty and growth inequality in a world where more than 70% of the poorest now live in middle-income, not developing countries; the appalling repression and violence in Syria; the impact of the Arab spring; the lack of political progress towards a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians; continued instability in the horn of Africa; and disappointing global progress on trade and climate change. All these require British foreign, defence and development policies that are joined up and have clear strategic objectives.
It is of serious concern, therefore, that only today the Atlantic Council has criticised the incoherence of the Government’s foreign policy, as well as the complacent approach to key alliances in Europe and the United States. The Government should take seriously criticism that comes from such an independent and widely respected body.
In any foreign affairs debate we should reflect on the tremendous debt of gratitude we owe to the brave men and women who serve on the front line in Afghanistan. Their courage and professionalism represent Britain at its best. We must always remember those who have fallen and their loved ones left to grieve—husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters: every life precious, no life given in vain; we are humbled by their sacrifice.
I want to focus primarily on aid and development—we get few opportunities in this Chamber to do so—but let me first briefly acknowledge the many important contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made. First, as we heard from the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), it is important at this difficult time, in an age of austerity, that Members of this House are willing to make the case for aid at every opportunity. I will talk a little more about that later.
The hon. Members for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) made a really important point about the centrality of the role played by women in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Where there are no women’s rights, we find no progress on development. There is a direct correlation between the two. Gender should be at the heart of development policy, not a “siloed” issue.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) brought his usual knowledge and passion to this debate. He reminded us once again that our relationship with the European Union is central to our economic future. If we are to make any economic progress whatever, we need a policy of being at the heart of Europe, rather than being isolated in Europe. He was also right to make the point that the failure of the strategic defence review was not just a failure to respond to the defence challenges of the future; rather, it amounted to waving the white flag to the Treasury, in terms of the resources available to fulfil our various responsibilities.
The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) talked about the Sahel. I recently visited Chad, and he was absolutely right to raise that part of the world, for two reasons. The first is that we have a food emergency there right now. As we meet in this House this evening, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who are worried about whether their families will be able to have one meal a day. However, the Sahel is also a part of the world that has the potential to be the next breeding ground for terrorism and insecurity. The Secretary of State for International Development has often said that the area is primarily a responsibility for the French, and I do not totally disagree with him. However, we must also understand that, even if we are not going to provide a lot of aid, we should provide political leadership by saying that that part of the world is incredibly important for stability and security, as well as from a humanitarian point of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) raised the question of Tibet. I was privileged to be the first British Minister to be allowed to visit Tibet in 50 years, when I was a Foreign Office Minister. We should use every opportunity to say to the Chinese that we keep a close eye on human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of faith in Tibet, and that we have serious concerns about the human rights abuses that continue to occur.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) rightly talked about the importance of trying to prevent fragile states from falling into worse disrepair. It is important to stress, in a debate such as this, the need strategically to bring together defence, diplomacy and development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) does a tremendous job in fulfilling her role as vice-chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. She rightly pointed out that although we should welcome the tremendous progress made in Burma in recent times—progress that none of us could have expected—we cannot afford to be complacent. There is still a long way to go, and we need to send that message at every opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) brings to these debates a particular, specialist knowledge. He recognises, from a military background, the importance of bringing development, diplomacy and security together in many of the most challenging parts of the world. He also rightly made the point that we need to get much better and smarter at preventing humanitarian crises in the first place, rather than responding to them when the situation has deteriorated.
We must acknowledge the tremendous work that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has done over the years to draw attention to the disgraceful human rights abuses taking place in Zimbabwe. She has often been a lone voice when raising those concerns in the House. I was delighted to hear her praise the work of DFID in Zimbabwe; it has made a real difference there, in incredibly difficult circumstances. I should also like to pay tribute to Dave Fish, the head of the DFID office in Zimbabwe, who is due to resign in the next few weeks—
Mr Lewis
I meant to say retire—although, knowing Dave Fish, now that we have a Tory Government, he might be about to resign. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, that was not a serious suggestion. He has served both Governments with great distinction, as I think the Secretary of State would acknowledge. He has been one of the wisest voices and has a great understanding of the many political dilemmas in Africa. So, seriously, I think that Members on both sides of the House would like to pay tribute to him.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
It is 20 years since I seconded the Loyal Address, standing where my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) is currently sitting. It was the most frightening thing I have ever done. I shall begin today by echoing the Prime Minister’s words at the start of our debate: he began his speech in response to the Loyal Address by making it clear that over the past year Britain has fed more than 2.5 million people facing famine and starvation, vaccinated 1.3 million children against measles in the horn of Africa, and kept livestock alive for 150,000 of the poorest people in that area through vaccination and fodder. Those points were well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. I shall also start by echoing the words of the Foreign Secretary in thanking the men and women of our brilliant armed forces and the diplomatic service, as well as the DFID and humanitarian workers, my own officials and, of course, Dave Fish, who has been much celebrated during the course of this debate.
The Government are clear about Britain’s promise to allocate 0.7% of our national income to development, as confirmed in the Gracious Speech. That is a promise not to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world. At a time when people here in the United Kingdom are feeling the pinch and we are grappling with the economic difficulties imposed on us as the servants of the hard-pressed taxpayer, we also give a commitment to wrest full value from every penny we spend—a point eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). We are doing this because we believe it is the right thing to do, but also because it is hugely in our own national interest, contributing to our security and stability and to our future prosperity, and helping to ensure that in future there are more South Koreas and fewer North Koreas. This is truly aid for Britain, as well as aid from Britain.
Over the course of this Parliament, we are on track to deliver extraordinary transformational change, putting some 11 million children into school at 2.5% of the cost of educating a British child, vaccinating a child every two seconds, and saving the life of a child every two minutes from diseases none of our own children die from. For every citizen of the United Kingdom, we will provide clean water or sanitation for someone in the poor world who does not currently have that, and we will be able to save the lives of 50,000 mothers in childbirth—my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) made that point, about what is a very important topic.
We are also championing the enablers of development, supporting free and fair elections in at least 13 countries, working to promote openness and improvements in financial management, building up taxation systems in 22 countries, ensuring that 18 million women have access to financial services, ensuring that 6 million people who do not currently have property rights gain them, and helping 10 million women access justice through the courts, the police and legal assistance. These are just a few examples of what we are doing on behalf of Britain, and what our taxpayers in the UK will achieve.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
On promoting transparency and democracy, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the deteriorating political situation in Bangladesh, which is one of the largest recipients of aid, and specifically of the disappearance of Mr Elias Ali, the former Member of Parliament for Bishwanath in Sylhet area. What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with the Foreign Office to ensure that DFID and the FCO work together to promote democracy and the safe return of Mr Elias Ali?
Mr Mitchell
I had an opportunity to make those points during a recent visit to Bangladesh, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been directly pursuing the case.
On the results that we will achieve with taxpayer funding, it is interesting to reflect on what the polling shows in Britain. When people are asked how much public expenditure goes on international development, they believe it to be 17.9%. When they are asked what they think the right level of public expenditure on international development should be, they give a figure of 7.9%. What is the actual figure? It is 1.1%, which means that we are achieving these transformational results with one seventeenth of the funding that the public think we are spending and with one seventh of the funding they believe we should be spending. All of us have constituents who would be interested in understanding and hearing those figures.
Mr Mitchell
I will deal directly with that in a moment. The point I seek to make is that we have made changes through the bilateral aid review, which determined that bilateral aid to 16 of the countries supported by Labour under the programme should be wound up, and through the multilateral aid reviews, where we found that 10% of the multilateral agencies that Britain was funding were not delivering value for money. We have made these tough decisions and we have, therefore, been able to refocus the programme and make it far more effective.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, we have made sure that girls and women are at the heart of British development policy; we have set up the independent evaluation of British aid, so that the public can judge for themselves what we are achieving; we have emphasised the building blocks of wealth creation—trade, a vibrant private sector, property rights and a low-carbon climate-resilient economy; we have completely overhauled CDC; and we sold our remaining 40% share in Actis to rectify the shameful deal done by the previous Government, from which the British taxpayer has not seen a single penny.
DFID now plays a full part in the National Security Council and has brought much greater focus to fragile and conflict-affected areas; we have ensured that the British public have a say in how part of the aid budget is spent; and our new UK aid match funding scheme has already made commitments that will directly benefit more than 2.7 million people in some of the world’s poorest countries—we have provided match funding for Sightsavers, Sport Relief, WaterAid and Save the Children.
We have also introduced a wholly new system of support for Britain’s brilliant international charities, which means that we will be able to help smaller non-governmental organisations to reach more people by launching fresh rounds of the global poverty action fund, which in its first year supported 56 charities and organisations that will help nearly 6 million people.
Over the course of this Session, we will host a major global summit this summer, with Melinda Gates, which will bring a renewed international emphasis and much-needed action on family planning. The aim will be to halve the number of women in the poorest parts of the world who want access to contraception but cannot get it.
The Prime Minister has been asked by the United Nations Secretary-General to co-chair, along with the Presidents of Liberia and Indonesia, the high-level panel that will consider what framework might succeed the millennium development goals in 2015. This will be a major issue for the international community over the coming years, and the UK will ensure that it helps to steer an open and consultative process, on which I look forward to engaging with colleagues.
We will continue to work with the rest of Whitehall and the international community to tackle the urgent and long-term issues in Somalia. We are championing the case for more effective resilience and humanitarian reform, especially in the light of the recent crisis in the horn of Africa, about which many colleagues have spoken.
Alec Shelbrooke
My right hon. Friend has outlined the list of achievements by the Government under his stewardship of the Department. Does he take the same umbrage as I do at the suggestion that this is all just a detoxification? This actually is something we believe in, it is a moral obligation and we find it deeply offensive to be told that it is just a detoxification.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend, in his eloquent contribution, brings me directly to the issue of the legislation. Many hon. Members have raised the question of the legislation—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) would stop mumbling from a sedentary position and trying to put me off, he will hear the answer to the question that his colleagues have been asking in respect of the legislation. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I wish that it were just mumbling. It is very much more vocal than mumbling: it is too noisy, it is excessive and it should desist. Let us hear the Secretary of State.
Mr Mitchell
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Many Members have raised the question of the legislation, so let me confirm again today that the Bill is ready and will be introduced when parliamentary time allows. As the Queen set out in her speech, next year the Government will meet our historic aid promise for the first time ever. Our plans are set out in black and white, and the Prime Minister and I have made it clear that the Bill is ready and will proceed. In the Gracious Speech, Her Majesty set out clearly the commitment to 0.7% and the Chancellor has confirmed in his Budget that that will take place. Next year, historically, this Conservative-led coalition Government will reach the commitment that we have all made.
I wish to respond to some of the specific points that were made. Let me start with the contribution by the shadow Foreign Secretary who, as one of my predecessors, deserves special treatment. He said that he agreed with much of what the Government were doing, specifically on the subject of Syria. In addition, he tried to make the case that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was not a strong supporter and user of the multilateral system to pursue Britain’s foreign policy objectives, but that simply will not fly. I mention just four things: the UN work on Syria that has largely been led by my right hon. Friend; the Somalia conference in London; the work as co-chair of the Friends of Yemen; and the work in the World Trade Organisation that Britain has tried to assist with, which gets widespread support from hon. Members in all parts of the House. Those are all areas where Britain is clearly a leader in the multilateral system.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about Government policy on Ministers visiting Ukraine during Euro 2012 and the case of Yulia Tymoshenko. This is a sensitive issue and we need to balance the need to keep politics away from sport with our concerns about the treatment of Yulia Tymoshenko and other opposition politicians. We are keeping potential attendance by the UK under review while we assess how the Ukrainian authorities are responding to our concerns.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about improving relations with Pakistan. He will know that the Prime Minister has just hosted a very successful visit by Prime Minister Gilani to London. We are increasing co-operation on security and defence and we will continue to drive forward our development relationship over the course of this Parliament. Pakistan will be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, recipients of British aid in the world, which will include getting 4 million children into school. I can think of no better way to blunt the fanatic recruiters’ appeal than educating so many children. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the outcomes of the Chicago summit. It is positive that NATO has extended an invitation to President Zardari to attend the summit. We want Pakistan to play a full role in helping to achieve lasting peace and security in Afghanistan and we hope that it will attend the summit and engage fully in the process.
There have been a number of very important and useful speeches. I am thinking in particular of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), who dwelt on the fact that we have been much more targeted in how we have used British aid. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) spoke about the importance of tackling the situation in the middle east, as did the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who had, I think, been on a visit with the Council for Arab-British Understanding and spoke with much passion and conviction on the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) spoke with characteristic robustness about Europe and, having returned from a full day in Brussels this morning, I listened with great attention and more sympathy than I might otherwise have had.
The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) is sadly not in his place. He said that he thought that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had been closing embassies. I have secured the record and the Foreign Office plans to open up to 19 new posts, whereas under the previous Labour Government some 45 posts were closed.
I apologise to those to whom I am not able to respond. I say to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that under this Government funding for the Commonwealth has increased from the 33% figure we inherited from the Labour party to 55% of the budget. The Commonwealth is a big and important priority for the coalition Government. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) for her comments about the Government’s funding for St Helena airport. I know she was a strong supporter of that project in—
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan
Andrew Mitchell Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
This has been an important, timely and wide-ranging debate—a huge mouthful of a debate with a number of very fine speeches, not least from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who speaks for the Opposition. I will address the issue of Libya at the end of my remarks and I will write to hon. Members if I do not cover the issues that they raised.
Let me start with a view of the discussion on the middle east. The transition sweeping the middle east is an historic opportunity for the region, as many hon. Members have pointed out. The Government are working to ensure that the international community rises to the challenge in its support for countries that embark on change. It is in our interests to ensure that those transitions succeed, but significant challenges must be addressed before lasting stability can be achieved. In particular, there must be the political and economic reforms that will support sustainable growth and facilitate the transition to a freer, fairer and more inclusive society. Britain is pushing the international institutions to play a leading role in galvanising support for that process, including by meeting the significant financial needs. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), said, the role of the European Union is critical. We are pressing for the restructuring of European neighbourhood funding for the region to ensure that it backs strong commitments to political and economic reform and to make it easier for countries in the region to trade with Europe. We also plan to fund a “know-how” facility to provide immediate access to expertise on economic reform. The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) raised that issue. The facility will be closely linked to the efforts and expertise of the international financial institutions.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, the European Union has a huge and critical role to play. The right hon. Member for Warley mentioned my right hon. Friend’s announcement of the expansion of the Foreign Office footprint, but said that it was not expanding in the middle east. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we are already represented in all the countries that we are discussing today, and more widely. The mission to Benghazi is an example of the expansion of the Foreign Office in a timely and sensible way.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) spoke with his usual expertise about Tunisia. He spoke wisely about elections and in particular about the importance of opening up markets. The difficult but important subject of the international arms trade was raised by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). I emphasise that there are high British standards for this trade, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) pointed out in an excellent intervention. In the end the answer is for the international community to accept the need for an international arms trade treaty.
On the occupied Palestinian territories, the wave of democratic movements that we are witnessing represents a unique opportunity to take forward the middle east peace process. The violence over the weekend at Israel’s borders underlines the urgency of making progress. With British support, the Palestinian Authority has developed its institutions to the point where the International Monetary Fund, the UN and the World Bank have recognised them as technically ready for statehood. To achieve a two-state solution it is important that this work continues. The recent announcement of a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is a step in the right direction if it leads to a Government who reject violence and pursue a negotiated peace—a point set out eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot).
We heard disparate but firmly held views across the Chamber this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was characteristically forthright, and I thank him for his kind comments about my Department. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), on whose civil partnership the whole House will wish to congratulate him, from the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who entered the House on the same day as I did and whose views have not changed one jot in the past 24 years, from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) in a fine speech, and from the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who touched on Israel in a wide-ranging speech. Everyone was united in the absolute requirement to make progress and to take advantage of the changed circumstances, which were eloquently described.
Mr Mitchell
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for a moment, I turn now to Yemen. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) warned of the continuing crisis. I will consider carefully some of his wider comments. With reference to Yemen, I am concerned that alongside the current political impasse, we are seeing an escalating economic crisis. In particular we are seeing increasing reports of fuel shortages and rises in food prices. Any further deterioration in the economy could prompt a much broader humanitarian crisis, not least because without fuel, much of Yemen cannot be provided with water.
The British Government are working with aid agencies to ensure that they can respond to humanitarian needs in Yemen, and I can announce today that we will be committing additional support to UNICEF and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs under the United Nations humanitarian response plan for Yemen. Through this support we will prevent 11,000 children under five from dying of malnutrition, vaccinate 54,000 children against measles, saving lives and preventing blindness, deafness and brain damage in over 2,000 children, and ensure that agencies have rapid access to funds if Yemen tips into a humanitarian crisis.
Mr Mitchell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I have even greater concerns about the situation in Syria. The current ongoing human rights abuses and lack of access for humanitarian organisations is particularly worrying. If organisations are to compile an accurate picture of need, sustained unhindered humanitarian access is essential. I call on the Syrian Government to allow United Nations humanitarian organisations unfettered access to undertake assessments of the situation across Syria without delay. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, the EU will insist that the violence must stop or additional measures will be taken, and I note that there was strong support across the House for that stance.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) mentioned the importance of international press and humanitarian access in Syria, but I can offer nothing for his or anyone else’s comfort on that point tonight. Finally, with regard to the sensible comments made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, we are watching the humanitarian situation on the borders with great care. I discussed that matter a few days ago with Jakob Kellenberger, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Pakistan, which has been mentioned a great deal in the debate, remains a top priority for the Government. It can meet its enormous potential only if it works to stabilise its economy in the short term and to educate and develop opportunities for its rapidly expanding population in the longer term. A stable and prosperous Pakistan that can meet the needs of its people will benefit regional and global stability and security.
Britain will therefore support Pakistan in achieving this end. As the Prime Minister announced last month, our aim is to help Pakistan to get 4 million children into school, out of a population of 17 million who do not go to school. Pakistan could become Britain’s largest country development programme, but only if we see commitment and progress on reform from its Government, including a fairer approach to taxing its elite.
The people of Pakistan have suffered grievously from terrorism. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, many thousands of civilians have been killed and many more maimed or injured. The right hon. Member for Warley made the same point. Osama bin Laden was no friend to the people of Pakistan; all he brought was a nihilistic message of death and destruction. His death, however, presents an opportunity for a brighter future in Pakistan and the region. Pakistan can make greater strides in its fight against extremism and the way is now clear for the Taliban to make a decisive break from al-Qaeda and join the Afghan political process. The choice is theirs. Peace and security can be improved for Afghan and Pakistan civilians on both sides of their border.
To grasp this opportunity, Pakistan needs to make a clean break with the past. There are serious questions to be answered on bin Laden’s support network in Pakistan, and we welcome Prime Minister Gilani’s announcement of an investigation into the matter. Nevertheless, it is right that we remain steadfast in our support for Pakistan as its democratically elected Government continue their fight against terrorism.
Pakistan matters to us. In an increasingly interconnected world, the UK cannot simply look on from the sidelines. More than 1 million people of Pakistani origin live in this country. We have a long, close and historic relationship with Pakistan. What happens there directly affects us. There is no serious alternative to our continued engagement with Pakistan. Neither the region, nor we, would be safer by leaving a nuclear power that is in danger of extremism and instability to its fate, a point my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) made in an interesting and thoughtful speech.
Our engagement with Pakistan must therefore be both long term and strategic. Increasing access to high-quality education and developing greater economic opportunities will improve the lives of the Pakistani people and help strengthen resilience to terrorism. A stable and prosperous Pakistan that can meet the needs of its people will not only benefit regional stability and security, but directly benefit our own security.
On Afghanistan, the Chair of the International Development Committee noted that we should not concentrate only on military aspects, important though they are, and I join the whole House in paying tribute to Marine Nigel Mead, who recently lost his life. Although the next four years will be critical, 2015 will not be the end of the story. This is why Britain has made a long-term commitment to Afghanistan. It is unrealistic to expect the Afghan Government to become perfect in such a relatively short time, but they must be strong enough to secure the support of their people and defend themselves. To achieve these objectives, the Department for International Development is focusing on three development aims: supporting stability in insecure areas, stimulating growth and building the capability of the Afghan Government to deliver basic services.
I was able to see for myself the very real impact that aid is having on stability when I recently visited Helmand. British assistance has helped to train more than 2,000 policemen and women, built 12 checkpoints, with 16 more in construction, and laid more than 80 km of roads, giving local farmers the access to markets that they badly need.
At the same time, we are helping people to develop the skills that they need to improve their lives. We are developing plans to provide vocational training for 45,000 people, and that will include funding Turquoise Mountain to equip almost 200 men and women with traditional skills and crafts.
Although there is evidence of progress, the scale of Afghanistan’s challenge remains considerable, as the recent disgraceful events relating to the Kabul Bank have illustrated. We are working closely with the International Monetary Fund and the Government of Afghanistan to address the very serious issues that have arisen. They are undoubtedly a setback, but I can reassure the House that we have wasted no time in taking steps to protect British taxpayers’ money.
On the wider economic front, Afghanistan is making good progress. With British support, it has achieved 20% growth in revenue each year since 2002, and economic growth averaged 9% between 2002 and 2010.
The mining sector will be absolutely critical to future growth. I met Minister Shahrani in March and was encouraged to hear about the reforms that he is making—reforms that Britain is supporting. He also told me of his success in letting a number of mining concessions, and the details of the 108 contracts on the departmental website are also welcome evidence of its commitment to transparency and accountability.
Decades of conflict have inevitably left Afghanistan’s civil service ill equipped to do its job. During my visit, I announced funding for the Government-led civilian technical assistance programme, which will provide international and regional expertise to support local and national Government as we train the next generation of Afghan civil servants.
On Libya, I pay tribute to the thoughtful and important speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) and for Salisbury (John Glen), and to the interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). I wish to address directly one of the points that the right hon. Member for Warley made in his opening remarks.
Britain made two important decisions on humanitarian issues early on in the conflict. First, we gave very strong support to the weight of migrant workers moving across the borders into Tunisia and Egypt, and as a result of that support from Britain and others almost 800,000 migrant workers have crossed those borders and tonight fewer than 10,000 are caught on them. That help has prevented a logistical crisis from turning into a humanitarian emergency.
Our second key decision was to announce that we would finance the rescue of 5,000 poor migrant workers who have been caught out on the portside in Misrata and subject to shelling and other attacks in recent weeks. Britain has been able to lift some 4,000 of them out of Misrata, and the final boat to remove the last 1,000 should go in any day now. The House will be aware that Misrata is no longer in Gaddafi’s hands but has been completely taken over by the interim transitional national council.
In addition to that, we are also working closely with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Medical Corps to supply medicines, 30 tonnes of which were recently delivered by boat to Misrata, and to support 100,000 internally displaced persons as well as 3,000 walking wounded.
We will shortly deploy a stabilisation response team, including some 10 stabilisation experts and 20 support and protection officials, to join together with the United States, Italy and the European Union. That team will work on infrastructure demands, basic services, justice, security and a political plan, all of which will be necessary following the ceasing of the conflict and as part of an early recovery.
We will of course work closely with the United Nations. When I saw Michelle Bachelet this morning, I had a chance to discuss with her the very matter that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow raised. All of us believe that the plan that is worked up must be run by the United Nations, owned by the Libyans and supported by the region, the European Union and the international financial institutions.
All of us in the Chamber can draw inspiration from the way in which democracy is beginning to flower throughout the middle east. The Arab spring marks a truly historic moment not only for the middle east itself, but for us here in the United Kingdom. Our own peace and prosperity depend on the stability of the region and on the rights and freedoms that it espouses. Yes, there are challenges, and we will rise to them. The international community—