Security of Women in Afghanistan

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Smith]

Yes, the lack of security presents a huge challenge for human rights defenders. That makes it even more important to have in place as effective a strategy as possible among the agencies that will continue to work in Afghanistan.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Having been involved with human rights in the field in Bosnia, and having heard my hon. Friend’s litany of appalling crimes against women, I am really concerned about how once we have gone we will be able to reduce those numbers. It will have to be done by the security forces of Afghanistan, and that is a huge commitment. I am not quite sure how we can help.

[Sir Robert Smith]

We can help by maintaining our engagement in Afghanistan through DFID and the Foreign Office and through NGOs. We can also help by highlighting our values and the importance of women to society there, and by engaging in debate with Afghanistan. But yes, the security is going to be delivered by the Afghan forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) for securing this timely debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to happen. I feel privileged to be taking part.

As important as this debate is—and it is very important —we should not overestimate our ability to influence cultural change within Afghanistan just by speaking in this Chamber; the challenge is much bigger than that. Fundamentally, the change will have to come from people within Afghanistan whom we can support.

In January, Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch said:

“Afghan women are all too well aware that international donors are walking away from Afghanistan.”

As the Secretary of State is in her place, I am sure that she will want to make it clear that that is not the case with Britain. Indeed, the longer and deeper our commitment is, and the more that we talk about it, the better we will be able to support those in Afghanistan who are working for change.

Reference has been made to the visit the International Development Committee made to the country in 2007—we also visited it 18 months ago—in which we had a robust meeting with President Karzai. He was challenged on the rights of women. Specifically, we talked about the fact that more than 80% were beaten by their husbands and other male family members, and that those who fled violent relationships were jailed while the perpetrators of the violence had immunity from any sanction.

At the end of the exchange, Mr Karzai said that we had to understand that Afghanistan was a conservative country with its own values. He said that the last ruler who challenged those values was the king who was assassinated in 1929, and Mr Karzai did not want to repeat that example.

In an article in The Guardian last month, Nushin Arbadzadah warned of the challenges. She said that

“the idea that we could empower Afghan women by making them aware of their individual rights was preposterous and bound to fail from the inception. Anyone who has spent even two days in Afghanistan knows that individualism as a concept does not exist there. The idea that we could treat women as a separate entity, legal or political, and disconnected from their family was flawed from the start.”

She said that those who fought for those values were likely to do so perpetually and in isolation. In her conclusion, she said:

“Afghanistan’s patriarchal clans have survived leftist coups and rightwing wars, becoming the only source of stability in a society constantly in turmoil. To dismantle their power would amount to freedom not only for women but also for men. But to reach that end, we need more than the rhetoric of individual rights imported from the other side of the planet.”

That is a sobering article. We feel angry and we state our case, but we must realise what we are up against. Very often, it is women, and not just men, who are oppressing women, and not supporting them when they stand up, which is why I agree with my hon. Friend that the role of men is important too and that we need to be part of it.

[Bob Stewart]

It is not only the role of men that is important, but the men themselves. They are the people who drive the change, and we must put all our efforts into making them understand and be more enlightened, in our way of thinking, towards their women.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

Of course I accept that, but we should not underestimate the challenge. That is why we need to work with local women and women’s groups and accept the way in which they want to achieve change and support them.

Our second report on Afghanistan, which was published 18 months ago, said:

“The treatment of women in Afghanistan after troops pull out in 2014 will be the litmus test of whether we have succeeded in improving the lives of ordinary Afghans over the last ten years.”

We urged the Government to prioritise women in their programmes, especially on education, supporting shelters and providing legal advice. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to give us some insight about how that is being done under the DFID programme.

Like others, we have met articulate women MPs and civil rights campaigners who were fearful that there would be push back on the gains, but were determined to protect and advance the progress that had been made. We all recognise that educating girls and women is an essential part of that.

Everyone knows that Afghanistan has an uncertain future. We do not know what the next Government will look like or who will be President, although the candidates are now lining up. The idea that the whole country will quickly fall back into the arms of the Taliban seems unlikely. Many of the people who suffered under the Taliban have gained under the current situation and will not readily succumb to that again. Furthermore, the Taliban are not a single, coherent entity.

I note that Zalmai Rassoul, one of the frontrunners for the presidency, has chosen a woman as one of his running mates. Habiba Sarabi was the former governor of Bamiyan Province. Some members of the Committee visited the province briefly in 2012. Having suffered at the hands of the Taliban, not only through the destruction of the famous Buddhas but through much more serious infringements of lives and livelihoods, the people of the predominantly Shi’ite Hazara province of Bamiyan clearly told us that they were determined to pursue their own destiny and will at all odds resist any re-incursion by the Taliban. The principal of the university told us that fathers and husbands were actively encouraging their daughters and wives to go to university and that a third of the students there are now female.

I must also say, however, that I and a number of other members of the Committee met a young woman in Kabul. She was a highly educated and very articulate postgraduate, but when I asked her about her personal circumstances she said that she would of course have to marry whoever her brother, who was the head of her household, chose for her. I asked whether her brother would consult her, to which she replied, “How on earth would my brother have any idea what kind of man I want anyway?” I asked what she would do if she did not like that person or if she suffered violence and she said, “I am used to violence; I can accept it.” She is an intelligent, educated and articulate woman, more or less saying that she must succumb to her fate.

We have made progress. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine rightly referred to girls’ education. The front cover of our first report in 2007 was a photograph of girls in school because we thought that was symptomatic of how Afghanistan was changing. My hon. Friend rightly said that 2001 was a moment of destiny, but I think that Afghanistan is a country in which the UK would be engaged regardless of that because it is one of the poorest countries on the planet and because we make a commitment to try to lift people out of absolute poverty. It is a poor country seeking to develop and exactly the kind of country that we want to help.

The Taliban are against development of all kinds, but many Afghans have experienced the benefits that development can bring. They have glimpsed the opportunities and will not, in my view, simply allow themselves to be pushed back. I suggest that our job is to stand by those who seek to move forward on their own terms. We must do everything we can to support those women who are campaigning to secure progress, but we must follow their leadership and not impose our own. They will understand how to make that change better than anything we can do. Although there are absolute rights and values that we stand by, we must accept that change will be brought about by people inside the community who understand how to do it. We must stand by them and say that we are here to help them in any way we can to secure progress.

I am grateful that the Secretary of State is replying to the debate and hope that she will be able to say that we are there to stand by Afghan women for as long as it takes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and the Backbench Business Committee on granting this timely debate, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development for her ongoing commitment to the rights of women and girls. As chair of the all-party group on women, peace and security, I have had the opportunity over the years to meet many female Afghan parliamentarians and civil society campaigners to discuss their hopes, but mainly fears, for the future of Afghanistan.

My first point is that those women whom I have met have not just been victims. They have not even primarily been victims. They have been the most inspiring agents for change. One woman, whom I will not name for her own protection, started up a television show, “Niqab”, which sought to combat the traditional taboo on talking openly about domestic abuse by allowing women victims of domestic abuse to sit in a television show, properly covered, and openly talk about it. That led to increased reporting and openness about domestic abuse in Afghan society. Those are practical steps by Afghan women to improve women’s rights in Afghanistan, but they do so in the face of the most extraordinary challenge.

As has been said, 87% of women have experienced violence against them. Reported cases of violence against women increased by 28% between 2012 and 2013 and, as was said in the opening speech, there have been nine high-profile victims of assassination in the last six months, but we know that many more victims have not reached the headlines, especially victims in education and health care.

We must acknowledge that there have been gains since 2001. The constitution now grants equal rights to women, and more girls are in school in Afghanistan than ever before in its history. More than a quarter of Afghanistan’s parliamentarians are female, and of course the elimination of violence against women Act criminalised rape in 2009. However, these gains are fragile, and they are set against a rock-bottom base and a backdrop of poverty, injustice, early enforced marriage, and appalling violence that includes some of the most terrible sexual violence that can be imagined. In practice, for the majority of Afghan women, equality must still seem a lifetime away.

The statistics can seem overwhelming—like a mountain to climb which, with the drawdown approaching ever faster, is out of reach for us. I am reminded of the man who drowned in two inches of water. Statistics can be misleading, because there are practical steps that we can take. If the extraordinary men and women I have met, who are willing to pursue women’s rights in the face of the most appalling abuses, are not willing to give up, then we should not be willing to give up either.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

After 2014 ends, one of the crucial ways in which we can help Afghan society is by people such as members of the International Development Committee—as well as, of course, the Secretary of State and diplomats—repeatedly going in-country and engaging with the politicians in saying, “This is what we want.” In going out there, parliamentarians are probably being about as effective as we can be.

[Nicola Blackwood]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The recent reports by the IDC have been exceptionally valuable in highlighting not only areas of weakness in Government response but areas of strength that could be expanded and extended, and I do not doubt that the Committee will continue that very good work.

May I press the Secretary of State on some practical steps that the Government can continue to take? In particular, will they ensure that they take all steps possible that will lead to full representation of women in the peace process? Evidence shows extremely clearly that there is a direct correlation between inclusive peace negotiations and a more sustainable peace. So far, we have not seen a very successful effort in this area, and I would like to know exactly what she would like to do to ensure that it can be progressed. Will she update the House on what progress she has made with her commitment to a strategic priority on violence against women and girls in the Afghan operational plan? Will she also update the House on what effect the implementation of the preventing sexual violence initiative could have in Afghanistan after the drawdown? What progress has been made with the gender marker for spending to enable us to track spending by gender throughout future spending in Afghanistan as we move away from Ministry of Defence spending and on to a DFID lead?

Will the Secretary of State once more consider the benefits of having a UK strategy for protecting women human rights defenders? I know that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office believes that co-operation within the EU process is the right way forward, but I believe that our skill and expertise in the field of gender security makes it natural for the UK to lead on women’s human rights defence and protection measures. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position on that.

The Afghan men and women I have met who campaign for women’s rights in Parliament and in civil society face some of the gravest threats imaginable, including slander, sexual violence and assassination. In this House, we simply cannot imagine having to face such consequences for our decision to stand for public life. They are incredibly brave and incredibly effective agents for change, and they are our most effective resource for achieving our goals for peace and development in Afghanistan. They deserve to know that the United Kingdom will stand by them as they strive for women’s social and economic empowerment in Afghanistan.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

It is a pleasure to be able to respond to the debate. I would also like to start by paying tribute to the soldier from the 32 Engineer Regiment who lost his life recently. It is a reminder of the huge sacrifice that our armed forces make not only towards keeping our country safe, but, in this case, in helping another country—Afghanistan—develop. I also want to say, on behalf of not only Foreign Office staff, but in particular my own DFID staff who work in Afghanistan, a big thank you to all Members present for their kind words about the work that our civil servants do in Afghanistan. In many respects, it is often forgotten in comparison with the amazing work that our armed forces do, but I meet many of these people and have telecoms with them on a day-to-day basis. They put a huge part of their lives into the service they give to both Departments and I thank them on behalf of the Government.

[Bob Stewart]

May I reiterate exactly what my right hon. Friend has just said? Soldiers operate in a much more protected area and they can protect themselves with their weapons. Some of the bravest of the brave are the people who work in places such as Kabul and go to villages on their own to look after the people of that country. I am thinking specifically of young men and women from my right hon. Friend’s Department and non-governmental organisations. They are incredibly brave.

[Justine Greening]

I could not agree more. I very much appreciate those comments and I know they will be appreciated by DFID and Foreign Office staff.

We have heard many insightful speeches today. Having this debate sends out a message to people, leaders and would-be leaders in Afghanistan about the priority that this Government and this Parliament place on the issue of women’s rights overall, particularly the way in which that relates to Afghanistan. That is absolutely right.

As many Members have said, Afghanistan has made significant progress over the past decade, but it continues to face considerable challenges. There are huge levels of poverty and after three decades of conflict, girls and women in Afghanistan are among the most marginalised and poorest in the world: just 17% of women are literate; they often have very restricted mobility, as we have heard; they are subject to violence on a routine basis; and in many respects they have very little decision-making power over their own lives. Afghanistan remains one of the hardest and worst countries in the world in which to be a woman.

As we have heard, no country can develop if it leaves half its population behind. I assure Members that this Government and I are committed to making sure that these girls and women have the chance to build a better future for themselves and for their country.

As the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) has eloquently pointed out, the situation that many of them face on a day-to-day basis is terrible. She referred to the issue of early enforced marriage, which I raised in a speech earlier this week, in which I set out the UK Government’s determination to play a leading role in combating it.

I have met many of the human rights defenders whom Members have mentioned. They make one feel humble through the work and dangers that they face every single day of their lives and that their families face as a result of their work. They put their lives on the line for their communities and their country. They know that the process of improving human and women’s rights in particular in Afghanistan will take a very long time, yet they are willing to be part of it. We owe it to them to stick with them for the long term, which is precisely what this Government plan to do. I assure the House that our Government will be committed to Afghanistan in the long term. We are going to provide about £180 million in development assistance annually until at least 2017.

The right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) talked about how his Committee has identified this issue as a priority. I could not agree more. It is one of the reasons why, when I came into this role, I made tackling violence against women a strategic priority for our country programme in Afghanistan. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) referred to the need for the UK to show leadership on this topic, and I agree, which is why the work that DFID carries out in Afghanistan has been elevated to a real priority.

Let me briefly tell the House the things we are doing. They focus on making sure that Afghan women can not only have choice in employment, but have a voice. Many Members have spoken about the need for and importance of women being part of the political process in Afghanistan, and that is incredibly important. We are supporting the Afghan electoral commission, particularly in its work to ensure that women are signed up for elections, and we are undertaking additional work to help female candidates be part of the electoral process in Afghanistan.

I assure the House that we will continue to play our role in lobbying the Afghan Government, where necessary, when worrying issues, such as stoning, suddenly come back on to the agenda. I was in Afghanistan when that issue arose again, and I raised it with President Karzai, who quickly assured me that he had no intention of seeing stoning return to Afghanistan.

The hon. Member for North West Durham quite rightly raised her concerns, which I share, about the recent Afghan criminal procedure code, which seemed to suggest that it would be almost impossible for women to give evidence in court or to bring charges in relation to violence against women. We are very pleased that President Karzai has issued a decree to amend the criminal procedure code, and that it has been returned to Parliament for approval. We, along with our international partners, will closely monitor the situation, because we certainly do not want such provisions. I am pleased that President Karzai is taking action, but such an approach needs to continue in practice.

I know that you are keen to ensure that we move on to the next debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I want briefly to speak about some of the progress that is being made. We are focusing not just on making sure that women in Afghanistan can be part of the political process, but on the grass-roots Tawanmandi programme, which is all about working with the many human rights defenders on the ground, particularly the community groups focused on violence against women in the domestic situation. I had a chance to meet some of those amazing women during my last visit to Afghanistan at the end of last year, and I talked to them about their personal lives, as well as about the work that they are trying to carry out. They had some inspiring stories, but most of all, they were determined to keep going and to keep working in this area, and we will continue to support them in doing so.

I want briefly to pay tribute to the work done by the Afghan national army. As many Members will know, we have helped it to set up an academy. I can tell the House that, with our help, female trainers are now in place in the academy, and that the first female trainees will join it by June. We will therefore start to see women taking up a role in the security agenda in Afghanistan.

On the Afghan national police, I met the Minister of the Interior when I was in Afghanistan at the end of last year. We are providing his Department with technical assistance to help it make sure that women can not only join the Afghan national police safely, but have a career in that organisation and steadily move through the ranks. I know that the Interior Ministry recognises that that is a real issue to work on, and I very much welcome the chance for DFID to continue working with it over the coming months and years. At the moment, only 1% of the 157,000 Afghan national police officers are female. If the police force is to be able to police the whole of Afghanistan, its make-up clearly needs to represent Afghanistan more effectively.

Education has not been mentioned as much as it might have been—this has been a short debate—but it really is an Afghan success story. As we have heard, at the time of the Taliban, virtually no girls were in school in Afghanistan. Well over 2 million girls now go to school, which is up from virtually zero, and the UK Government are playing a major role in making sure that there are the necessary schools, teachers and tools to allow them to stay in school over the coming years.

We will play our role in making sure that the Afghan Government are held to account for the pledges that they have made to ensure the protection of women’s rights, such as in the Tokyo mutual accountability framework. As has been said, the UK will co-chair the first ministerial review of progress against the commitments made in Tokyo.

We all know that there is a huge amount more to do. Even in the UK, our suffragette movement started in the 1870s, but it took until 1918 for women to get the vote for the first time, which is nearly 50 years. We recognise that the challenges in Afghanistan are absolutely huge, but that does not mean we as a country should not try to meet them or should not be prepared to participate in efforts to improve women’s rights over the long term.

We will do so by supporting women in having their say at the ballot box; by supporting girls in getting into school; by supporting the work on eliminating violence against girls and women and making sure that that law is implemented on the ground; and, crucially, by supporting Afghanistan’s defenders of human rights and civil society. We can help girls and women in Afghanistan to build a better future for themselves and their country, and we can best ensure that the important gains made in recent years are not lost, but are further built on as Afghanistan moves into its future.

Afghanistan

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

At the heart of all this is the work we have done to staff up and help to improve the Afghan national security force, which includes not only the army and the police but latterly the air force as well. As I said in my statement, they are now conducting 93% of operations and 90% of their own training. The draw-down takes place against the backdrop of our continuing work to ensure that they can play the role that my hon. Friend describes in the coming years. That role is vital, because as I said earlier, without security Afghanistan will not develop in the way that the people there and we want it to.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In my experience of being on operations in Bosnia and working with aid workers, it was crucial that they were able to work in a secure environment. After December 2014, it will be much more difficult. May I ask for my right hon. Friend’s assurance that as much effort as possible is made in DFID to ensure the security of the large number of our aid workers left in Afghanistan when British soldiers are largely withdrawn?

[Justine Greening]

I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is a constant preoccupation of mine, not just in Afghanistan but in all our country programmes where DFID staff are working. As we have seen in a different place, with the kidnap and, luckily, the subsequent release of Red Crescent workers in Syria recently, we often carry out work in dangerous places. We should never forget that when we put in the resources to keep our staff safe, and I can assure my hon. Friend that that is uppermost in our minds.

Mobile Army Surgical Hospital

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

I was going to come to that. I see it as being a reserve force, not part of the regular Army, although I suspect that there will be some logistics staff maintaining the kit and the facility.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I had a field surgical team under my command in Bosnia in 1992-93. It was absolutely vital, and it was operated by a mixture of regulars and territorials. We must not think that this is necessarily soft power, because it needs security and it needs to be guarded.

[Dr Lee]

I thank my hon. Friend, who of course has a wealth of experience in the field in this matter. I was also going to come to the need for security. In the discussions I have had since I first mentioned this at Defence questions, there has been some disagreement about the level of security required.

The broader point is that this is about the re-tasking of our armed forces. Clearly a lot of change is going on at the Ministry of Defence and there are some cuts to regiments and to forces, but there is also a need to reconfigure forces so that they are interested in delivering not just hard power but softer power. Ultimately, in any response to a crisis—it could be a natural catastrophe such as an earthquake as well as the civil war in Syria—there needs to be joined-up thinking across all the parts of Government that would be involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lee]

Yes, I do. In fact, the last American MASH unit was deployed in response to the 2006 earthquake in Pakistan and it was then given to the Pakistanis. I would hope that the facility would be used less for military purposes. There are likely to be future crises and I think it should be used in response to them.

[Bob Stewart]

I am sorry to intervene a second time, but it strikes me that, if this facility is going to work, the way to demilitarise it would be for it to be connected to the British Red Cross or the International Committee of the Red Cross. That way it would certainly get some kind of international protection in terms of security.

[Dr Lee]

I have detected in conversations that there are difficulties with non-governmental organisations being associated with military assets, so that needs some thought.

[Bob Stewart]

We did it.

[Dr Lee]

I am personally not against it, but I gather that there are difficulties.

Why do we not have such a facility? I wonder about that. DFID has global respect and does good work. There are issues with DFID funding—I am thinking of audit trails in sub-Saharan Africa and the like—and concerns have been expressed on where the money eventually ends up. In this situation, we can spend the money here at home for humanitarian aid. As I understand the definition of international development funding, that is acceptable. Indeed, we could use Marshall of Cambridge—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) has joined us in the Chamber. We could buy the facility new at home, and DFID money could, as I understand it, be used for such a humanitarian purpose.

Why is that not happening? Is it silo thinking? Is it to do with DFID not talking to the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office? If that is the case, we have a responsibility to try to overcome such bureaucratic hurdles. I recognise that the MOD has concerns about the long-term liability of cost and staffing. I am sure the NHS will have questions, such as, “You’re taking my orthopaedic consultant. Who’s going to do his list?” There are problems, and I have not come to the Chamber with a perfect project outlined and ready to go, but I see no reason whatever why the project cannot be brought about. If we could establish a British MASH unit with a Union Jack on the side of it, it would be fantastic for this country. Our reputation would be enhanced, and such a facility is clearly desperately needed in Syria and the surrounding countries. We are dealing with a significant humanitarian crisis. I know the Minister and his Department are responding in a good way, but that added capability would be much valued. We can do it and do it well.

I shall conclude with a quote which, of course, has to be from “MASH”—I was expecting to turn up in the Chamber to hear hon. Members humming the tune. The quote is from Hawkeye Pierce, the primary character in the series.

“I’m very impressed now with the terrible fragility of the human body and the unbelievable resiliency of the human spirit.”

By creating such a capability, we would display the best facets of that human spirit—we are all human beings. The quote comes from an episode titled, “Our Finest Hour”. If we were to bring that capability about, it would play a part in creating a further finest hour in the history of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan]

Spending on humanitarian matters is official development assistance, so in that respect my hon. Friend is right. However, we must also show that there is value for money and we must know that the assets can be appropriately deployed. I will discuss that issue further.

DFID has worked on the ground alongside UK forces in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. DFID has also used Royal Air Force aircraft and helicopters in earthquake and flood relief in Pakistan, and in sending search and rescue teams to Indonesia. The Royal Navy was able to make its Royal Fleet Auxiliary Largs Bay ships available to help with relief after the Haiti earthquake.

So far, UK military field hospitals have not been deployed under the auspices of DFID. However, the way it would work is that DFID would request the support of the MOD in response to a natural disaster, in accordance with United Nations guidelines known as the Oslo guidelines. Those guidelines stipulate that support should be provided in line with the humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality, humanity and independence. They also state that military assets should be requested only where there is no comparable civilian alternative. That implies that the military asset must be the only way of meeting the particular need and that its use should be a last resort.

DFID has to design its humanitarian responses carefully according to the specific humanitarian needs that they face and based on what responses are best provided by the UK and by other donors. Very often, what works best is help to restore and rebuild an afflicted country’s own health system. If a field hospital is needed, there are already well established civilian organisations that are used to providing such hospitals in humanitarian crises, notably the International Red Cross, which has been mentioned.

A civilian response will usually be what is needed in a delicate and complex situation, rather than a foreign military presence which, however well intentioned, is still military and may not be welcomed. For example, in Pakistan, which has also been mentioned, it was a difficult, finely balanced, decision to include RAF aircraft in the NATO relief airlift, when extremists had explicitly threatened the foreign relief effort and relief workers if NATO were to operate in that country. Like other international donors, therefore, while we are glad to have military field hospitals available, we will use them as a last resort, when it is too difficult or dangerous to use civilian measures and if the circumstances permit a military medical unit to be deployed.

DFID has also been building a UK civilian medical response capability. UK surgeons and other medical staff performed heroically in Haiti after the earthquake in 2010, saving lives and limbs which might otherwise have been lost. Building on that experience, DFID is supporting a programme of training and regional workshops for NHS doctors and other medical staff to equip them to deal with the additional challenges of surgery in a conflict zone. That is underpinned by an arrangement with the Department of Health and the national health service to deploy surgical trauma teams drawn from the British health service. Many of those personnel will also be military reservists, thus further exemplifying good civilian/military co-operation across Government.

My hon. Friend specifically mentioned the Syria crisis. As the House is aware, the UK Government’s relief response is considerable. The UK has so far pledged £500 million, making us the second largest donor. Much of that relief is to provide health and medical care. Through our funding we are supporting vital medical help on civilian channels and with civilian medical personnel, not all details of which can be openly revealed. I can say, however, that the range of services provided by DFID is wide and big. It includes ensuring the running, supply and necessary specialist training for a large number of emergency surgical facilities, including in remote areas. For example, we are supporting primary health care centres to help look after vulnerable groups such as women and children, as well as the elderly, who often have chronic unmet health needs. In Syria’s neighbouring countries, which now host more than 2 million refugees between them, DFID-supported health programmes provide medical evacuations and ambulance services, widespread primary health care facilities, mental health and psycho-social services, and highly specialised facilities for victims of sexual and gender-based violence.

We provide specialist training courses for health professionals, many of whom are specialist staff seconded into emergency departments to reinforce their capacity and specialist care. We provide health services for refugees, as well as for vulnerable resident populations that are hosting huge numbers of refugees in their communities. DFID and MOD officials are in frequent touch in London and the region, and the need for and suitability of mobile field hospitals is often discussed. While options remain open, it is agreed that deploying a mobile field hospital at the moment would not be the most effective way to reach the diverse needs faced by so many people in so many different locations.

DFID’s new civilian surgical trauma facility also remains an option, but so far it has not been necessary to deploy a surgical team in any of the refugee-hosting countries. Inside Syria, the level of conflict makes access to health care difficult in many areas, and unfortunately the security challenges also prevent the deployment of a field hospital or a civilian UK surgical team. DFID will therefore continue to support existing health facilities on the ground, and constantly review the situation.

[Bob Stewart]

Does DFID have the capacity to deploy not just a surgical team, but the equipment and some primary buildings in support of that team? Is that what my right hon. Friend is referring to?

Post-2015 Development Agenda

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) on securing this important debate and his contribution to the whole issue, which I and many of our other colleagues on the International Development Committee value. I am still a newish member of that Committee, so I am on a learning curve with regard to these issues, which I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind as I make my contribution.

I shall concentrate on one of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised: job creation. MDG target 1.B was:

“Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people”.

However, in evidence to the Select Committee, Michael Anderson, the special envoy to the Prime Minister on the UN development goals, said that one of the points that the Prime Minister had made was that

“that goal has probably not captured the collective imagination. Part of the task is to get the goals right, but also to get a narrative so that the world mobilises around that with the same passion that they mobilise around maternal mortality and infant mortality.”

I think that the whole Committee would agree with that.

We took evidence on the subject and were informed that employment, whether salaried employment or self-employment, is critical for development. The issue is of fundamental importance to poor people. After they have a road, a school, a health centre and, of course, sufficient to eat, a job is what people want. That is based on household survey data from sub-Saharan Africa, east Asia and Latin America that were reported to us by the organisation ONE.

One of the International Development Committee’s recommendations was therefore:

“Job creation is one of the most crucial of all development challenges. Whilst the issue of employment was included in the original MDG framework, it was insufficiently prominent and failed to capture the public imagination. In the post-2015 framework, the task will be to design an employment ‘goal’ which captures the imagination of people around the world.”

That is critical, difficult as it is. If we are to facilitate developing countries to get out of, or at least to reduce, their donor dependency, as so many of them aspire to do, the only way we can do so is to help them to develop their own private sectors, and we must do that in a way that enables them to move from micro to SME—and then even larger—from informal to formal sectors, and from individuals who are self-employed to those who employ people in their local community. All those businesses can then contribute to not only their local communities, but the revenues of their national Governments through tax receipts.

It is essential that we prioritise working with the private sector in these countries, and that we involve our private sector and the expertise of the private sector in those developing nations in doing so. I know that that might not be a familiar relationship for many of those in the aid community—it is not one that they are used to—but I congratulate DFID on now being a pioneer in this. There are now individuals working in DFID who have a private sector background. I think that we have started, just within the last week, a DFID private sector project in Ethiopia that will examine how to strengthen certain sectors in that country, such as textiles, horticulture and leather, and try to unlock the problems to ensure that businesses there can strengthen and develop. We need to look at such projects.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I utterly reinforce what my hon. Friend says? My wife, who, as an International Committee of the Red Cross delegate, started a camp for 100,000 people in South Sudan—and ran it from scratch—has told me repeatedly that the biggest problem arises if we give aid and thus just make a problem, because people are attracted to it. She pleaded with me, saying, “If you are a Member of Parliament, ask repeatedly for us to set up businesses so that people can get the means for employment, rather than setting up camps, which attract people, and then there is nothing for them to do but exist on aid from outside, because that is an appalling model.”

[Fiona Bruce]

I entirely agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

One of the first things that I think we need to do—I reiterate that I am very much feeling my way here—is to ensure that there is joined-up thinking on the other millennium development goals. For example, I have been involved with a school in Tanzania for some 10 years. At the start, there were five primary school children, but today there are 400 children in the school, which now has both a primary and a secondary element. The real challenge now is that it is saying, “We have spent years educating these young people, but where are they going to work? What employment will they go into?” We must consider tertiary education in developing nations and work so that there is a progression from the education that we are providing. I totally applaud the support that DFID is giving in many countries, such as through teachers’ salaries, but unless we consider what will happen when young people come out of their school environments, we will be failing them and, indeed, the communities in which they live.

These children have aspirations. During our recent trip to Ethiopia, we found that many young children in remote villages wanted to be doctors—they wanted to contribute to their communities and they had ambition. Many of the young people I have met, for example in Rwanda, are aspiring entrepreneurs. They want to develop businesses, but we need to give them the tools to do that so that they can run with the idea. At the moment, only 5% of Africans are educated at tertiary level, although the global average is 25%, so we need to consider, in the post-2015 MDG framework, the importance of tertiary education.

Also with regard to Rwanda, I would like to talk about building entrepreneurs’ capacity to do business. I shall relay an experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and I had when we first went to Rwanda in 2010, under the Conservative party’s Umubano project, to teach entrepreneurs how to run their businesses. We went for a week: on Monday, we taught how to write a business plan; on Tuesday, we taught how to write a marketing plan; on Wednesday, we taught how to set a budget; on Thursday, we taught how to recruit and interview staff; and on Friday, we taught how to review it all. No self-respecting management consultant would have entertained doing that in a week. We taught 14 businesses, and after day one, we thought, “If they’re interested, they’ll come back.” They all came back day after day.

At the end of the week, the head of the Rwandan chamber of commerce came to see us and said, “This has really been of interest. Could you come back next year to teach some more businesses?” We said, “How many more would be interested?” She looked at us and said, “About 74,000.” They could not get basic help in Rwanda about how to develop businesses, so there is real potential for people in this country’s private sector to help to build business capacity. People with experience of developing businesses—perhaps those who are semi-retired or have taken early retirement—could be matched with businesses in developing countries and give them mentoring and support. Perhaps they could use technology so that they do not need to go out there to visit. There is a hunger for that kind of help, however.

Businesses that want to create jobs in the developing world have problems accessing finance. For example, on the International Development Committee’s recent visit to Ethiopia, we met the Nile Edible Oil Manufacturing Industry plc, which is a co-operative of about 32 small companies that produce edible cooking oil, often in little more than backstreet shacks. The group got together with some support from the UN. It produced an action plan, formed a business association and found a site where it wanted to build a business park, which would have involved individual units and a central processing plant. The plan was very exciting. Through the co-operative, the farmers had been helped to produce better crop yields and the producers were enhancing their productivity with better machinery and better technological support, and they were all delivering to markets at a better price. The group has a site for a business park and a plan, but it cannot get funding. I am sure that that situation is typical of many companies, organisations and associations in the developing world that cannot access finance. We think that accessing finance it is difficult here, but imagine how much harder it is there. As part of our job creation aspiration and prioritisation for the developing world, can we look at access to finance?

I wish to make a few additional points before I conclude. It is right that there are many aspects to enabling businesses to work. For example, there needs to be better land registration and security of land tenure for businesses. If someone is setting up a business, they want to feel secure, and we can help with that. Good community governance is also important, because when a local community understands that if local businesses flourish, local rates will improve, it is a win-win for the community’s support for local businesses. That understanding still needs to be developed.

Aid conditionality with regard to transparency, such as tax transparency and so forth, would be helpful, as would support for developing a “Companies House” in some developing countries. Businesses could then be registered and they would deliver annual accounts, which would lead to some sort of recognition in the business community to help them to move from an informal to a formal footing. Businesses should be given incentives to do that—whether through advice, or access to funding or grants—to ensure that the business community in developing countries has structural support.

I was encouraged when I read a communication from the European Commission—I do not often say that—to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions about the post-2015 discussions. The communication was called “A Decent Life for All”, and I shall read some brief excerpts to hon. Members because they articulate what I have been talking about better than I can. The document refers to the need for an “overarching framework” for millennium development goals, which would cover, among other things

“drivers for sustainable and inclusive growth and development that are necessary for structural transformation of the economy, needed to ensure the creation of productive capacities and employment”

It goes on to say:

“Goals should provide incentives for cooperation and partnerships among governments, civil society, including the private sector, and the global community at large”

Implementing the framework would involve “domestic resource mobilisation” within each country,

“legal and fiscal regulations and institutions supporting the development of the private sector, investment, decent job creation and export competitiveness”,

which are essential to making the ambition of developing strong economies achievable for all countries. Interestingly, that is true of all countries at all levels of development.

The Commission held a public consultation in summer 2012 to which around 120 organisations and individuals contributed. There was a consensus that although the MDGs had rallied many and different actors behind the same development objectives, there needed to be common views on future priorities. There are six views, and it is interesting that several highlight the importance of sustainable economic development. In particular, one says that priorities must

“Foster the drivers for economic growth and job creation including by engaging with the private sector”.

I hope that I have contributed to highlighting the hunger for, and opportunities to support, economic development in developing countries, particularly through the involvement of the private sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Hillier]

Of course, that process it is not very green, either. To go back to my comments about climate change, we should be shortening the food chain when it is sensible to do so.

DFID has done some good since it was established, but we need more joined-up government. The post-2015 agenda must not just be regarded as just DFID’s responsibility. The whole of the Government needs to engage in it—whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on agribusiness, or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

[Bob Stewart]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady. It seems to me that DFID almost has to be a mini skills agency for all Departments. Rather than just distributing things, as in the past, and checking that things have happened, DFID now has to illustrate the skills of the whole of the Government, which of course the Minister ably does.

[Meg Hillier]

I will leave it to the Minister to take up that challenge.

Even the Home Office could have a role, because immigration policy has an impact on all sorts of development issues. We want people to come to this country with skills that they can contribute. That is part of the development agenda.

On that controversial note, I shall conclude my remarks. I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on securing this debate, and I wish the Prime Minister the best of luck in his negotiations.

UK’s Development Work (Girls and Women)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. We are funding programmes in Nigeria, for example, which do just that. Part of the research that we are conducting on violence against girls and women and how it can be tackled relates to how we can change attitudes and involve boys and men in the eradication of such violence.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is very sad that some people are suggesting that there are more slaves in the world than there have ever been before. As a delegate to the International Committee of the Red Cross, my wife watched slavers moving across south Sudan towards the middle east with girls, boys, women—mainly—and a few men. What measures can my right hon. Friend take to try to stop this abominable trade?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. It is 180 years since the House passed an Act abolishing slavery, but in reality, as he says, that is the day-to-day life that many people face. I assure him that I work tirelessly with the Foreign Secretary to combat it.

We must tackle the problem at national and international levels and at the grass roots, but if we are to tackle some of the root causes, we must also enable people to be more valuable if they stay where they are, which means ensuring that they are educated and have skills. The biggest value that they have should lie in their staying put and doing a job domestically. In future, the economic development aspect of what DIFD does will need to constitute a far bigger part of its overall work than it has in the past. Ultimately, trafficking and slavery are about money, so we need to change the money argument if we are to see a real change in outcomes.

Syria (Humanitarian Response)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

We know that several thousand refugees have fled across the border into Iraq. In fact, the British Government have directly provided about £2 million of support to refugees who have fled into Iraq. That is a good example of some of the challenges that we face. Iraq is itself in a reconstruction phase, yet it is now also having to cope with additional refugees fleeing from Syria. That is precisely why we should never forget just how important it is for the region to ensure that neighbouring countries that are having to take in refugees are provided with the support that they need to cope.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I understand the real dangers faced by people trying to get humanitarian aid to those inside Syria, which my right hon. Friend has mentioned. In my experience, the only way in which that can be done safely in such circumstances is for some kind of security organisation to be set up on the ground. I totally understand why a mandate from the Security Council is not possible, given the Chinese and Russian attitude, but would it be possible for a grouping from the region to get together and put troops on the ground, to provide security for the brave people who are trying to get to parts of Syria where others do not want them to get? Are we working towards that?

[Justine Greening]

The short answer is that we do not anticipate that at this point. We are focused on ensuring that the humanitarian agencies that we are using to help to get support into Syria have unimpeded access and channels to get support through. It is absolutely clear-cut in international law that humanitarian actors should be allowed access, and that is the route that we are using.

Afghanistan

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

Obviously we are playing a leading role in this area. The most important thing we are doing is supporting Afghan departments to be effective. We have funded advisers helping them not just to work on policy, but to do very straightforward tasks such as planning budgets, executing budgets and monitoring financial spend. All those things are relatively straightforward, but they are the key ingredients that need to be in place for public services to be delivered well. When public services are delivered well in Afghanistan, that will lead to increasing buy-in among the Afghan people, as they see their country moving in the right direction. If we can do that, it will create, I hope, a more virtuous circle, so that we see more and more development continuing in future.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Post-2014 there are likely to be diplomats, military personnel and British contractors left in Afghanistan to help the country. When the planning is done, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ensure that the post-2014 medical arrangements are good, particularly for casualty evacuation? It does not end when the military leave.

[Justine Greening]

I hope that I will be able to provide my hon. Friend with that assurance. I will pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, and perhaps he will then receive a fuller reply about the work that the Ministry of Defence is doing in that regard. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to ensure that the safety of troops is paramount. That has been a focus for this Government, and that will continue going forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O’Brien)]

The situation in South Sudan remains somewhat bleak, in the absence of agreement on the outstanding issues between the two Sudans. Humanitarian needs in South Sudan remain pressing, due to continuing inter-communal violence in Jonglei and elsewhere, and to the influx of refugees and returnees from Sudan. The United Kingdom continues to play a lead role in supporting an effective and co-ordinated humanitarian response. I will be giving oral evidence on South Sudan to the International Development Committee later today.

[Bob Stewart]

Would the Minister care to give us his assessment of the dangers being faced by displaced persons and refugees in South Sudan?

[Mr O’Brien]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question; his knowledge of that part of the world is indeed deep, not least because of the tremendous contribution that his wife made to supporting the people of South Sudan some years ago. More than 85,000 refugees have arrived in South Sudan, fleeing the conflict over the border. There are 25,000 in Unity, and 61,000 in Maban. In Warrup county, the humanitarian community is supporting 110,000 people who have been displaced from Abyei since 2011. In addition, 360,000 have already been assisted in coming down from Sudan, with a potential 700,000 still to come. This is placing enormous strain on the emergency and humanitarian response, but the UK is playing a lead role and, in December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a two-year package of support for the humanitarian funds. [Interruption.]

Food Security and Famine Prevention (Africa)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, which shows the value of having Back-Bench debates in which there is perhaps more to agree on than divides us. We have heard some moving speeches and contributions from people who have seen first hand what is happening in the crisis-hit areas. That is important. I do not think that anyone who has seen the images on our television screens could fail to be moved by them.

As other hon. Members have pointed out, at this time of stringency and belt-tightening, it is important to convince the public that it is right to continue to protect—and, indeed, to look at how to increase—aid budgets. I recognise that the Government have listened to Parliament on this issue. I recognise, too, the generosity of the public, many of whom are, like many of my constituents, on low incomes themselves, yet they continue to give generously to the various appeals. Initiatives like the “Give a Day’s Pay” campaign, which was supported by The Independent, provide a welcome addition to the organisations appealing for aid. There was also the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, to which the public contributed about £57 million in just eight weeks.

Members have spoken about the famine problems in Somalia. The UN estimates that a quarter of its population, 1.8 million people, have been displaced. Such figures easily trip off the tongue, but as hon. Members have pointed out, we are talking about real people, real lives and real human tragedies. No one could fail to be moved by the images of mothers who have lost their children on the long march to find food or who must watch their children die in front of them from lack of food.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As someone who has worked in such countries—and my wife has worked in the horn of Africa as an International Committee of the Red Cross delegate—may I point out that the problem is that the region has historically not been able to sustain those who live there? Perhaps now we should think about moving people to a better place that can sustain them, rather than building up camps that attract people who are then trapped, and whom we must feed for years. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Although we are short of time, I do want to move on to the issue of sustainability. Some of the organisations that briefed us were worried about people being displaced from their natural areas and ways of life, and about the process whereby people come to sit outside the camps and are screened before they come in, with all the associated difficulties. I accept that the problem is complex. The political situation in countries such as Somalia can easily discourage those involved in dealing with the issues, but we ought to continue to deal with them none the less.

I pay tribute to those in the aid agencies who have risked—and, indeed, have lost—their lives trying to ensure that aid is delivered in sometimes very difficult situations. I also recognise the work of a Scottish charity, Mary’s Meals, which has launched an emergency relief response in Somalia as part of its latest effort to support starving people affected by the food crisis across east Africa. It is providing 100 tonnes of food aid to Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, to which tens of thousands of people have fled in search of food. It is estimated that the charity’s efforts will provide about 900,000 meals in famine-hit Somalia. The organisation has already been feeding more than 24,000 children with a daily life-saving meal in northern Kenya. As we approach the weekend, when many of us may be thinking about going out for a meal or having our favourite takeaway, it is worth noting that the cost of one life-saving Mary’s meal is 4p, so perhaps we could skip one of our meals out or takeaways this weekend and make a donation to that worthy cause instead.

We must learn from the various crises about how best to avoid such situations happening again. Many of the organisations who spoke to me said that warnings of the crisis were there, and that although they are well geared up to coping with crises when they occur, they are not as good at preventing them. The warning bells were ringing loud and clear, but the current systems made it hard to intervene and to get everyone to move together. I am sure that Ministers will comment on that issue, which I know they take very seriously.

Several Members have referred to food crises being caused not simply by a failure of food production or lack of food, but by some people not being able to access it. I am sure that the Minister will comment on that too.

We have also heard several good contributions about resilience. With the best will in the world, there are still occasions when we do not spend aid money on the right things. I have been told of instances in which irrigation schemes, introduced with the best of intentions, led to the displacement of some pastoral communities, who were forced to move into other areas because they could no longer keep their livestock alive as they had in the past.

When I was in Rwanda I saw some examples of how aid had helped local farmers to produce more indigenous crops. However, one of them told me that, having traditionally grown cassava, he was now being encouraged—with the best will in the world—to grow mandarin oranges, which he did not like very much, and that he did not find it helpful. That example reinforces the point that we must always work with people in those communities and listen to what they say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being present for the whole debate. I wanted to be but could not. I was not going to speak—I was going to listen—but I have decided to say something.

Africa is one of the richest continents in the world, and if the conditions were right it could feed itself properly. I speak as someone whose wife started an International Committee of the Red Cross camp in south Sudan for 100,000 people. She was often shelled by the Government there, and because of that she slept most of her six months at the camp in a slit trench.

That brings me to the point that I want to make, and forgive me if it has been made already, but in so many countries it is the authorities that are the big obstacle. In so many countries in Africa, it is the leaders who tend to think that, because they are the president, the prime minister or whoever, they own that country and everything that goes on in it; and, of course, so much that goes in goes out somewhere else—to offshore bank accounts, on Mercedes cars or whatever—and does not get through. I do not know how we are going to correct that problem, but I do know that that is largely the problem. The Department for International Development is under this Government, and was under the previous Government, fully aware of it, and is doing its very best to make sure that the money that we give, either as a Government or through our wonderful charities, some of which we have mentioned today, gets all the way through.

Personally, I think that the forum of the world, the United Nations, should get a grip and somehow come up with a plan to make sure that people in Africa are fed properly, either by moving them to a place where they can be sustained or by getting some sort of arrangement with authorities whereby they do not interfere and we do not have to pay a levy—like I had to, not in Africa but in Bosnia, where we stopped the practice—to get food through to the people who need it. That is disgraceful. I very much hope that the United Nations, which is the highest authority in the world, can somehow get its act together to make sure that the people of Africa get fed properly and are not prevented from receiving proper aid by the authorities, either locally or nationally.

I hope the House will forgive me for speaking.

Humanitarian Emergency Response Review

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.