Sudan
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Bob Stewart(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about Sudan and these matters from his time in office, may be even more up to date than I am. I thought that I was pretty up to date in reporting the African Union meeting, which finished in the last few minutes. South Sudan is involved as one of the three parts of IGAD. It is heavily engaged. The President of South Sudan has been working hard to try to effect a ceasefire. That is what South Sudan is doing, and we very much welcome it. I hope that, in due course, the right hon. Gentleman will be proven correct on the additional seven days of ceasefire that he mentions, and that we can build on it to achieve what the African Union has called for in the last few minutes.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said. I supervised ceasefires and organised safe corridors, and there cannot be one without the other. Does he agree that we are incredibly lucky to have such a jewel in our crown as the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, which are strategically and tactically important for operating in the eastern Mediterranean and areas around there?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right about the strategic importance of RAF Akrotiri and the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, which I know all too well from my brief and long ago military service with the United Nations forces in Cyprus.
Ukraine
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Bob Stewart
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my outside interests as set out in the register.
It is a huge pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and the very sensible speech she has just made, which underlines the unity across the House in facing this extraordinary and unjustifiable aggression by a member of the permanent five at the United Nations, tearing up 75 years of the international rules-based system and in contravention of everything that the UN has said and stood for and of the growth of international law.
Everyone in the House and the country will be haunted by the plight of the refugees. It is impossible to find words to set that out or explain it, but for many of us it will be the little girl, aged 10, terrified, her eyes wide with fear, clutching her cat as she came over the border from Ukraine. We must hope, as William Hague so eloquently said in The Times today, that
“a hollow structure…will lose its reputation and respect very quickly when its thieving and selfish reality is revealed to its own people. That may take months or years, but Putin’s henchmen would be well advised to start thinking about their escape route to Pyongyang.”
The whole House will agree with our former colleague. The Chinese today referred to the invasion as an “irreversible mistake”, and many of us this afternoon have saluted the extraordinary bravery within Russia of ordinary people standing up to this bullying maniac. I strongly support and congratulate the Government, particularly the Ministry of Defence, on giving the Ukrainians hope and some military muscle without starting world war three and on co-ordinating economic sanctions and the economic isolation of Russia across the western world and across European states.
I mainly want to talk about the humanitarian position, on which there is no need to look in our crystal ball; we can read the book of what happened in Syria. The House may recall that Jo Cox and I co-chaired the all-party parliamentary group for friends of Syria and held more than two emergency debates in the House.
If we want to know what the Russians will do to those cities in great peril in Ukraine, we need look no further than what they did in Aleppo, one of the great cities of the world, which, as the Nazis did in Guernica in 1937, they bombed back to the stone age. There were also indiscriminate attacks on hospitals. Let us imagine the bravery of the men and women, doctors and clinicians, who are working in hospitals in Ukraine and who know from Syria exactly what fate may await them. There were also massive breaches of the rules of war and of international humanitarian law.
Let us make no mistake about the danger of the use of chemical weapons, which was greatly enhanced when President Obama told the Russians that, if they used chemical weapons, they would cross a red line and action would be taken yet, when they did cross that line, no action was taken. Let us also remember the sheer numbers of people who were on the move. In Syria, 5 million people were internally displaced and 5 million people were outside in the surrounding countries—that is 10 million people out of a population of 20 million. That shows the scale of what may now face us.
The critical thing in humanitarian terms is that there should be a seamless approach where all of Europe and NATO share the burden fairly with the frontline states, whether they are in or out of the European Union.
Bob Stewart
Speaking as someone who has dealt practically with refugees and displaced persons, we should put our bureaux and our offices right at the border with Ukraine, perhaps in Poland. As people come across, we should be guiding them, helping them, protecting them and perhaps giving them some help to get to the UK or elsewhere. The European Union should be doing that—we should all be doing that—with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UNHCR.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. and gallant Friend, who made such a great speech earlier, is absolutely right. There should be total solidarity with the frontline states and our European friends and partners in tackling this extraordinary crisis.
My second point on the humanitarian position is that we must also underline that there will be no impunity. I remember that, in a National Security Council meeting on Syria, the Foreign Office committed to collecting evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity by individual Russian and Syrian soldiers inside Syria. We must go after all those not only who fire on civilians but who give the order to fire on civilians, no matter how long it takes and wherever they hide. In Bosnia, we showed that we could go after those murderous people. They must be caught and put before due process. The use of social media, of course, will make it much easier to get the evidence that will then defy impunity and to get the message across to ordinary Russian conscripts serving there—those who give the command and those who exercise the command—of the deep jeopardy that they will be in, no matter how long it takes, when this is all over.
My final point is to caution the House against any sense that the humanitarian corridors are likely to be much of an answer. I am afraid that, too often, they are not what they appear. There are huge dangers in apparently separating humanitarian from non-humanitarian space. By definition, they are geographically limited and they undermine obligations under international humanitarian law to allow civilians to reach safety from areas of fighting and the ability of aid to reach those in need.
We learned in Syria that Russia uses humanitarian corridors to advance its military strategy: it uses them cynically to distract and manipulate, and to empty an area for military gain rather than for humanitarian support. They create an illusory sense of security and should, in any event, be run by the ICRC. They are used as an instrument of public relations and not of humanitarian support. I caution hon. Members that they are not safe and are only a very small part of the answer.
We have heard calls this afternoon for NATO to be rejuvenated, and it is being. We have heard about the increased necessity of defence expenditure, which I entirely endorse. The words of the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), at the weekend were absolutely right. This is a terrible crisis. We must stand together on the economic sanctions and on the support for the Ukrainians, and we must hope that our former colleague, William Hague, is correct.
Holocaust Memorial Day
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Bob Stewart(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who shared with the House such powerful and important emotional experiences. We respect him greatly for having had the courage to do that today.
I draw the House’s attention to my interests, as set out in the register, and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on launching this important debate for the House of Commons and the country so eloquently today. I echo the comments he made about our very good friend, the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who sadly cannot be with us today but with whom I have worked extremely closely for many years on issues of economic crime and dirty money. Any cause that she supports and to which she brings her formidable powers is one worthy of the House’s greatest attention.
Every year, we convene in this Chamber and in venues around the country to proclaim, “Never again”—never again will we stay silent in the face of hatred, never again will we stand by as people are murdered because of who they are, never again will a holocaust be allowed to happen. Yet, around the world, these things are happening again and again. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), with very direct experience, once again impressed the House hugely with his knowledge and understanding of these things, but the words of his mother—that we have a duty in our generation, a duty that cannot be shirked—were particularly powerful.
We have shamefully borne witness to genocides in Bosnia. I have stood among the gravestones at Srebrenica, not many hundreds of miles from here, in Europe, marvelling at what took place there. I have stood in Darfur and heard testimony and witness, particularly from women, about the brutality of what George Bush, the President of the United States, described as a genocide. We have seen these things in Burma too, and in Rwanda, where in 1994 nearly 1 million people, predominantly Tutsis, were murdered by their Hutu neighbours over 90 days.
I would like to focus my comments on Rwanda and the genocide there because the UK now has a connection to it, although it is not widely known. Once the killing stopped, those allegedly responsible for these appalling events fled far and wide, some to neighbouring countries, others to Europe, North America and Canada. I regret to say that, in the UK today, five people suspected of taking part in the genocide are living freely among us.
Over the years, many countries, such as Sweden and Canada, which initially harboured the suspects, went on to extradite them to Rwanda to face trial in the gacaca courts. Other countries, notably Germany, prosecuted the suspects in their own domestic courts. Britain has done neither, even though, extraordinarily, the arrest warrants were issued as long ago as 2006. In 2015 and 2017, a British district judge and our own High Court ruled that, even though the evidence was compelling, none of the suspects could be sent back to Rwanda, because such action could breach their human rights. While I did not agree with that assessment, given that Rwanda had long abolished the death penalty and constructed a justice system that was considered progressive, I had faith that Britain would none the less deliver justice by placing the suspects on trial here. This country has comprehensive legislation that allows for the prosecution of suspects accused of war crimes, irrespective of their nationality or the countries in which the crimes took place. With no statute of limitations, there is no legitimate reason why justice should not be expedited. I was a Member of this House when that legislation was passed.
Bob Stewart
I thank my right hon. and very good Friend for making that point. I have given evidence in four war crimes trials in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. I also formed an organisation in 2000 to chase war criminals—it did not last long, but we tried. May I entirely endorse the last comments my right hon. Friend made, about us in this country chasing war criminals until they die?
Mr Mitchell
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said.
As to the circumstances I described, we are, alas, still waiting. Last March, a group of senior Members of Parliament and peers, including no fewer than three former distinguished Law Officers, decided it was time to act. Firm in the belief that the UK should be no safe haven for war criminals, we set up the all-party parliamentary group on war crimes, with the sole purpose of seeing what could be done to accelerate the investigations and legal proceedings. I have the honour of co-chairing this group with Lord Jon Mendelsohn, former secretary of the original war crimes group, which was instrumental in passing the legislation to which I referred. That legislation is available, and is relevant to the Rwanda case I mentioned. In the last 10 days, we have sent a letter to the Home Secretary, and copied it to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Mayor of London, the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor, because we want a specific, proper response, with dates and details of the legal process that must now take place in respect of the people concerned.
The job of the new war crimes group is not to presuppose the guilt or innocence of the suspects. We simply want to ensure that due process is followed, and that justice, already excessively long delayed, is not denied. After all, it would be wrong to have these serious allegations hanging over the five suspects for 16 years if they turn out to be untrue. The apparent inertia—the lack of grip, concern or urgency—shames us all.
I would like to say that the APPG has made progress in getting answers to the questions that we have posed to the investigating authorities, but alas, the answer is a flat no. One of the problems that we have identified is that the UK’s former dedicated war crimes unit, set up in the 1990s to investigate suspected Nazi criminals, no longer exists. In its absence, there is a sub-group operating under the auspices of SO15, the Met police’s counter-terrorism command. That group has neither the budget nor the manpower to bring the matter to a conclusion; and aside from that, terrorism and war crimes are two quite separate things, each requiring its own specialised skillset.
Germany’s war crimes unit is able to draw on the full panoply of state support. Only a few weeks ago, we heard that a Syrian war criminal was tried and convicted in a German court under the principle of universal jurisdiction. That arrest took place only in 2019, yet Britain is struggling to complete a process that started 16 years ago. The main problem is that we simply do not have the resolve or the political will demonstrated by other countries to ensure the availability of necessary resources. Denmark does; the Netherlands do; and clearly Germany does. Why are we so far behind?
Britain has the rule of law and accountability—values that we should cherish, uphold and promote at all times. The situation is inexcusable. We must demonstrate the same sense of resolve and urgency when it comes to Rwanda as we rightly did with regard to suspected Nazi war criminals. Failure to do so would send the very dangerous and damaging message that the UK could become a refuge for war criminals. We may not always have the power to prevent atrocities, but if we truly care about the victims of genocide, the least we can do is offer the survivors justice. The souls of those murdered in the Rwandan genocide cry out for justice, but from Britain they hear only a deafening silence.
Christmas Adjournment
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Bob Stewart(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), whose predecessor was of course a friend of many of us on both sides of the House. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I support his suggestion that the next set of Adjournment debates, in the summer, should take place in memory of our great friend Sir David Amess, who, although he was not my geographical parliamentary neighbour, was my parliamentary neighbour at 1 Parliament Street for nearly a decade.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great importance to us in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, which has caused the deepest possible sadness. My young constituent Louis Watkiss, aged 12, tragically died at the Snow Dome on the indoor ski slope in Tamworth on 24 September this year. Louis’s brave parents, Natalie and Chris, are here with us in the Gallery to hear what I am going to say. They are bravely working tirelessly to promote the wearing of helmets to ensure that no other family suffers as they are suffering today.
On 24 September, Louis attended a friend’s birthday party to go tobogganing. A terrible collision occurred on the slope. The full extent of Louis’s injuries was not apparent until his dad Chris arrived at the scene. He saw Louis still receiving treatment from the paramedics, but he was pronounced dead shortly afterwards. Both parents had 20 minutes to lie with Louis at the bottom of the indoor ski slope. I am not going to rehearse the details; the torment of those last moments will live with Louis’s parents, and other relations, for the rest of their lives.
The coroner’s post-mortem report states that Louis suffered a head injury with fractures involving the base of his skull which caused his death instantly. Although such deaths from tobogganing and sledging activities are rare in the United Kingdom, research has shown that children are more vulnerable to brain injury and even death from collisions. That is because their skulls are still developing and strengthening, and are not fully protective of the brain within until they reach the age of 17 or 18. Research referenced in Louis’s report from the coroner states that the most prevalent method for reducing traumatic brain injuries is the use of a helmet. Helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head, neck or face injuries in skiers, particularly those under the age of 13, as well as the severity of injuries.
There is clearly a case here for mandating the use of helmets for snow sports activities in the United Kingdom. To my surprise, although the issue of cycling helmets for minors has been raised in the House—most recently, with great eloquence, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) when he introduced a private Member’s Bill last year—I believe this is the first time that this particular issue has been raised.
In recent years, some indoor snow sports venues have made it obligatory for participants to wear helmets, but it is entirely voluntary, and there is currently no guidance or legislation in place for operators. Looking abroad for guidance and relevant examples, we see that in New Jersey, in the United States, it has been compulsory since 2011 for minors under the age of 17 to wear a helmet if participating in such sports. In Europe the debate about the use of helmets is certainly active, and I submit that it is time for, at the least, a serious discussion in the United Kingdom. There is little doubt that a helmet would have saved Louis’s life. His death was not only tragic, but wholly avoidable.
It is clear that Louis was a remarkable young man, talented, bright and intellectually curious. He was in his second year at Plantsbrook School in my constituency, and among his many interests and skills was playing the saxophone, reaching grade 5. That included playing in a jazz ensemble at Symphony Hall in Birmingham.
I believe the House should consider whether or not we now take the significant step of changing the law to insist that in these and similar circumstances children’s heads should be protected by a protective helmet. If there are issues with either introducing legislation, or bringing forward an amendment to a Home Office measure or other relevant Bill to provide for this change, perhaps it may be possible to secure rather more rapidly a code of practice entered into by all operators of indoor snow sports and similar activities, which would mean that operators insist on such protective headgear when people are taking part in these activities.
Bob Stewart
This is appalling. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Tamworth ski slope now insists on children wearing a helmet when they operate there?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. My understanding is that it does, which shows the House and, in particular, those in my constituency who are now campaigning for this move, how quickly such as measure could be introduced.
As we gather for Christmas, I am deeply conscious of this tragedy, and of the suffering of a lovely family, of a wider school and music community and of Louis’s friends and relatives, who will be remembering his life and mourning his loss at this terrible time. I know that the House and the Minister will want to send Louis’s parents, Chris and Natalie, George and Louis’s grandparents our deepest sympathies. They have every right to expect and believe that this House can be relied upon to look seriously and speedily at a safety measure that the family so bravely and so compellingly want to secure, which will stop other families from facing the grief and misery that they are suffering at this awful time for them.
Bob Stewart
The hon. Gentleman, who should not be called an hon. Friend but is, is right. I am going to come to that.
In the fighting around Gornji Vakuf, no quarter was given to man, woman or child. I recall watching tank fire destroying house after house. I remember watching people being mown down.
I tried for several weeks to stop the fighting, often by trying to get ceasefires. All day I sat in rooms trying to get ceasefires, often by putting my wonderful soldiers in the middle of a battle between two sides, which is a very dangerous thing to do. As an aside, may I pay tribute to my escort driver, Lance Corporal Wayne Edwards, who lost his life on 13 January 1993 in the fighting around Gornji Vakuf? I had agreed to him being used to escort three women through the fighting—through the town—and I still feel guilty, because I had the responsibility of giving him the order to do that. Wayne was shot dead through the front of his vehicle while trying to get three women who needed to get hospital to a place of safety. Truly, Wayne Edwards gave his life so that others could live. That is about as noble a soldier’s death as there can be.
The main lesson of my tour in Bosnia was that it cannot be split up and it must remain a coherent state. My time there occurred in perhaps the most torrid period of the Balkans war, but I left the country two years before an appalling genocide. This was without doubt the foulest atrocity of the war. It occurred in July 1995 at Srebrenica, a small town in eastern Bosnia, where 8,372—as far as we know—men and boys were murdered by the Bosnian Serb army in what was undoubtedly one of the worst acts of genocide since the second world war.
Mr Mitchell
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is making an extremely compelling speech. I have been in the recent past to Srebrenica, and I stood in stunned amazement at the extraordinary example of man’s inhumanity to man. Will he emphasise to those on the Front Bench that this is a region of the world where Britain has deep roots, real knowledge and the ability to help move the dial with many of the disputatious parties? Will he take this opportunity to emphasise that to the Foreign Office? There is a big role for Britain to play at this point.
Bob Stewart
My right hon. Friend is so right; we can make a really big difference here. In my time in Bosnia two years before Srebrenica, we managed to get to Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia. It took us four days. The only reason I went there was because I heard people pleading on commercial radio for someone to come and help them and stop them being killed. The Bosnian Serb army had just about surrounded Srebrenica and Konjević Polje. We got there. I recall about 20 people killed around us. A couple of my soldiers were wounded, but no one was killed. After a few weeks, when we got about 2,000 people out, mainly women and children, we were ordered to withdraw. I did not want to withdraw, but we were ordered to withdraw. Now, is it not weird that if Republika Srpska splits away, Srebrenica will be in that part of Republika Srpska?
Yemen
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Bob Stewart(6 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I was under the impression that the Government had opened the ports, including Hodeidah, but that the rebels still have not opened ports. Obviously, we want all the ports in Yemen to be opened as fast as possible. Right now, my understanding is that the Government and the Saudis have opened up the ports that they control. Am I wrong?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is partially wrong. The two critical ports are Hodeidah and Saleef, for the reasons that I have explained. Shipping is not being allowed to enter those ports in an unfettered way.
I want to be very clear about this. Humanitarian support without commercial imports coming into the country—especially food, fuel and medicine—will condemn millions of Yemenis to certain death. So what does this mean on the ground? Every hour 27 children are diagnosed as acutely malnourished. That is 600 more starving children every day. According to the World Food Programme, as things stand, 150,000 malnourished children could starve to death in the coming months and 17 million people do not know from where their next meal is coming. As of today, at least 400,000 children are suffering from severe acute malnutrition, as medically defined.
When children have severe malnutrition, they reach a critical point at which they are no longer able to eat for themselves and need to be fed by naso-gastric tubes. Prior to that point, we can assist them: we can revive them quickly with nutritional biscuits such as Plumpy’Nut at a cost of a few pence per child. But once they are so starved of nutrition that they require medical assistance and their organs begin to fail, they cannot play and they cannot smile. Parents have to be told that their children still love them, but they are just too weak to show it.
I repeat that malnutrition in Yemen today is threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. The imagery on our television screens, captured by only the most intrepid of journalists due to Saudi restrictions on media access, seem to be from a bygone era—emaciated children and tiny babies in incubators, their tenuous hold on life dependent on fuel for hospital generators that is fast running out. Nawal al-Maghafi’s award-winning reporting for the BBC showed shocking and heart-breaking images of famine and shattering health systems, even before the current blockade.
Aleppo and Syria
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Bob Stewart(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
The Foreign Secretary has recently been in Turkey. I am sure that the House will be interested in his comments.
My third question for the Foreign Secretary is, what work has been done to catalogue and record human rights abuses—both individual and collective—in Syria? Will he update the House on the work of the Foreign Office, which was started and commissioned by the National Security Council in 2011, to collect evidence that can be used in the future to hold human rights abusers to account no matter how long it takes?
Fourthly, what steps has the Foreign Secretary taken with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to explore the feasibility of imposing and enforcing a no-fly zone over specific areas in Syria? Does he agree that, with the use of naval and air assets in the eastern Mediterranean, it is entirely possible both to monitor and enforce a no-fly zone with our allies? What steps will he take to make it clear to the international community that a no-fly zone is a matter of will and not of practicality?
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have operated under a no-fly zone. It is practical and it can work, but it is quite difficult at a low level. That requires us to have seriously good surveillance over the target areas. If we have that, we can deal with it. We cannot have just a no-fly zone; we need good surveillance as well.
Mr Mitchell
I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary will want to comment on those remarks, to which my hon. Friend brings his expert knowledge and understanding.
Debate on the Address
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Bob Stewart(10 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is relevant to those who try to fill the pot when a humanitarian crisis occurs and support from Governments and taxpayers is essential. The answer is that we do it best by publishing whether people have stood by their promises. Sunlight is always the best disinfectant, and we need to be transparent and open so that we can show people whether their Governments stand by the commitments they have made.
Thirdly, we need much greater leadership by the United States. Nothing will happen to address this issue without a far greater commitment from the US. There are signs that the new Secretary of State is addressing this point, but the US’s allies need to accept that progress will be made only if we are able to persuade the US to provide the leadership that only it can. That is not just about the US, but the United Nations. The fact that the permanent five do not agree on Syria is not a barrier to the UN continuing to strive in every way and stretching every sinew to try to make progress in this desperate situation, which will pollute a far wider area than just Syria if it continues to develop as it is.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
On my right hon. Friend’s point about evidence against potential war criminals, I have been involved in the chasing of war criminals and given evidence in five trials. One of the ways in which we can help is to educate journalists in how they can make their films and reports so that the evidence can be used later by the International Criminal Court. That is a positive move that the Government could make to help the future of justice.
Mr Mitchell
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. He has direct experience of this issue, and we need to tackle the culture of impunity that grows up in such situations. It is important to use every possible mechanism —he eloquently described one such mechanism—and I hope that he will ensure that Foreign Office Ministers can gather from his experience the extent of what can be done to tackle that culture.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Bob Stewart(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
One of the problems is that of piracy. In Puntland, I was able to see the importance of tackling piracy by arresting pirates and putting them through the judicial system, as well as the other measures that, given some stability, the international community would be able to use to tackle the problem directly. We hope that this subject will also be addressed at the London conference.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in South Sudan.
Humanitarian Emergency Response Review
Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Bob Stewart(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
All three reviews to which the hon. Gentleman refers focus directly on the results that we are achieving, not only in delivering real value for money to British taxpayers, whose money we are deploying, but for those whom we are trying to help. Whereas the Ashdown review was a review given to the Government, to which I am responding today, the first two were reviews by the Government. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at all three, he will find that they are seamlessly joined by the common interest of ensuring that international development work from Britain is more effective and buys yet greater results.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I cannot think of anyone better than Lord Ashdown to have produced such a report, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on commissioning it. The real lead on humanitarian responses is, properly, the United Nations. We have a first-class person for emergency co-ordination in the UN, in Baroness Amos. However, above her in the UN is the Security Council, which too often makes decisions at the speed of a striking slug. Is there any way in which we, as a permanent member of the Security Council, can encourage other members and ourselves to make a special case for emergency responses, so that we are not constrained by the requirements of veto, unanimity or majority voting?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about these issues, tempts me to stray beyond my areas of competence. However, I can tell him that the Foreign Secretary has been ceaselessly engaged over the last week in precisely that way in respect of a new resolution on Syria.
I am conscious of my hon. Friend’s point, and I agree that it was absolutely right to appoint Lord Ashdown, whose peculiar combination of talent and experience has led to this extremely good, wise and sensible report. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to prioritise the UN, and to understand that at the end of the day, only the UN can be the chief co-ordinator. The UN is essential if we are to have an effective response on the ground.