Middle East

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

This is the debate that we entered into earlier, and I have had that discussion with my Egyptian counterpart a couple of times already, understandably. There are wholly legitimate points of view about that. My judgment is that it is important to do whatever is necessary to support a return to negotiations, and that a vote now in the General Assembly does not support that. That is the Government’s considered view. We will continue to discuss with our European partners how we should respond to any actual vote.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Can the Foreign Secretary have a word with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is apparently in Ramallah today, and who visited southern Israel yesterday? Will he suggest to the Under-Secretary that he should go on to visit Gaza, and talk to the people of Gaza and their elected representatives and examine for himself the destruction Israeli war planes have wrought on the people of Gaza? That would be a way of promoting the unity of all the Palestinian people, which is what the Foreign Secretary says he wants. This opportunity should not be missed or wasted.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is very busy in the region today. I am not going to comment on his programme, for security reasons, but he has not only visited southern Israel—he is in the west bank today. He has now had his meeting with President Abbas. I am not going to speculate about where my hon. Friend will go next, but of course we will want to understand the humanitarian needs in Gaza and the extent of the damage that has been caused, as well as to alleviate that problem for people in Gaza and in southern Israel.

Antarctic Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful for that assistance from someone on the Opposition Front Bench. I was intending to celebrate the fact that that merger will not go ahead. That is exceptionally good news for the BAS, and I will discuss it in more detail later.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing this Bill, which I strongly support as it represents a good step forward. I urge him to be positive about the future of Antarctica. There are millions of people around the world who want it to be a zone of peace, and a place for scientific research not mineral exploitation or exploration. There is great support for the preservation of the flora and fauna in the seas around the Antarctic, too, from many people in many countries—some of which may not have close relations with Britain. We must ensure that next year’s Antarctic conference asserts the need to preserve the fish stocks and mammals in the seas around Antarctica as things we can all learn from.

[Neil Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman makes a key point. The current treaty arrangements include agreements that the continent be demilitarised and protected. Both those requirements are still upheld, and they are, of course, triumphs of the British contribution to the Antarctic, because it was our approach that achieved them. We should celebrate that.

I want to talk briefly about my personal interest in the Antarctic and its relevance to the people of my constituency. Sir Peter Scott is the son of Robert Scott. Robert Scott wrote to his wife at the end of his final expedition, expressing the hope that his son, who was two years of age, would later show an interest in the natural environment. Sir Peter Scott did precisely that. He established the Slimbridge wetlands centre and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, as well as Falklands Conservation. There is a direct link between the Antarctic and my constituency, therefore.

Interestingly, this morning I received an e-mail from a constituent, Roderick Rhys Jones, who is from Eastcombe. He reminded me that he was a constituent of mine and also noted that he went to a local school, so he has clearly been living in the area for quite some time. He drew my attention to the fact that 29 men and women have died in Antarctica in pursuit of science since 1944, when the permanent scientific base was set up by Britain. They died in fires, and as a result of falling down crevices and exposure to the appalling conditions. Monuments have been raised in memory of those scientists. The theme of my constituent’s e-mail is that we need to make sure that the people doing such important work on what is a very big, and quite dangerous, continent are protected.

I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. It did a fantastic piece of work on the Arctic. When we were discussing our conclusions, I was able to demonstrate that the “polluter pays” concept and the responsibilities of explorers and others in the Antarctic were also relevant to the Arctic, and our report made those points. I pay tribute to the Chair of the EAC, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley).

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If we want to retain our presence in the region, including the Falklands, we have to do so in a meaningful way, and this Bill addresses that point. The British presence in the region matters to the region as well as to us, and it also matters to the other signatories of the various treaties.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that any military presence in the Antarctic by any nation is illegal within the terms of the Antarctic treaty, and we should not think that the British claim to some of the Antarctic gives us any authority to place any kind of military equipment or people there?

[Neil Carmichael]

I have already noted that the Antarctic is demilitarised as a result of British action. It is recognised as a demilitarised zone by us and every other country and, to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, it will clearly remain so. That should not stop us from addressing the broader issues and mentioning the Falklands, however.

The second anniversary is, of course, that of Robert Scott’s expedition. I wish to emphasise the reputation he has garnered for scientific work—for discovery and real interest in the Antarctic—and why it matters. I remind the House that the discovery of the first hole in the ozone layer was made in 1985 from the Antarctic. That scientific linkage involving issues that are connected with the environment but that are also central to our work on the Antarctic draws substantially from Robert Scott’s expeditions and his emphasis on scientific work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill and strongly support it. I hope it gets its Second Reading today and goes speedily through a Committee that can be quickly arranged so that it can make its way into law.

I have been involved in previous Antarctic legislation in the House and I have dug out my files from the debates on the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, which fortunately was repealed some years later. I was involved with the introduction of the Antarctic Act 1994, which in effect recognised the Antarctic as zone of peace, as it always had been, and as a place where there would be no mineral exploitation or exploration, but where there would be scientific research.

We should think for a moment of the value to humanity of preserving the Antarctic in its natural form. Because it is such a pristine and fragile environment, it is possible to study the history of the world’s pollution. One can take ice samples, examine levels of lead pollution in the atmosphere, and see the point at which lead pollution decreased because of the removal of lead from petrol in many countries around the world. One can look at levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere and, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) pointed out, the British Antarctic Survey discovered the hole in the ozone layer because it was able to carry out that research in the Antarctic and because it is such a pristine environment. We want to be sure that we keep it that way.

I detected from some of the Members who intervened on the hon. Gentleman a slight degree of xenophobia and nationalism in their approach, but that is a totally unwarranted remark for me to make to any of them. Can we be real about the Antarctic? It belongs to the whole world. There is a significant British claim on the Antarctic territories. There are significant claims on every bit of Antarctica by many other countries, and those claims often overlap. Fortunately, sense has prevailed and there has not been a war over the Antarctic. There have not been ludicrous levels of competition for influence over the Antarctic. Indeed, the treaty principle and the co-operation principle have prevailed.

We should approach the subject on the basis that Britain has made a positive contribution through the work of the British Antarctic Survey, and I compliment that institution. I am pleased that it will not be merged with any other body and that it will carry on its very good work. I am sure the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will speak about that later. It has been my privilege in the past to visit the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, and a very impressive institution it is, too.

Sadly, like every other Member who has spoken, I have not had the chance to visit the Antarctic. The nearest I came to it was in 1990, when I was visiting Chile to celebrate the departure of General Pinochet, and I thought I would conclude the celebrations by undertaking a visit to the Antarctic. I was all ready to go there, but unfortunately I was forced to return to the House to be one of a very small minority of Members who voted against the forthcoming Gulf war. My party Whips rather wished that I had gone to the Antarctic rather than come back; they may have had similar inclinations ever since.

We finally repealed the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989, which authorised exploration for—not necessarily exploitation of—mineral reserves, and passed the Antarctic Act 1994. We should pay a great tribute to Greenpeace for the work that it did at that time. Once the Bill had been through the British Parliament, many other national Parliaments were required to legislate on the matter, and Greenpeace was assiduous in its lobbying to the extent that broadly similar legislation went through many other Parliaments, including Russia’s, so that eventually, by 2005, we had reached a situation whereby the environmental protocol could be signed, the secretariat could be established, and environmental protection could go ahead. That was very important and very welcome.

There are massive fish stocks in the Southern ocean. There is an international agreement on the preservation of whales, which is strongly supported by all parties in this House, and has been by successive UK Governments, but is not supported by Norway, Iceland or Japan. There are always difficulties in the International Whaling Commission when the Japanese, in effect, try to buy votes to end the moratorium on whaling. An important spin-off from the changed and developing pro-environmental protection attitude to the Antarctic has been the preservation of fish and fauna stocks all over the Southern ocean in a very large area around Antarctica. It is very important to maintain that preservation, because if fishing is allowed and there is a massive fish take from the Antarctic, that will have a knock-on effect further up the food chain on seals, whales and everything else.

However, environmental protection in the Antarctic is now under threat. Only this morning we had the disappointing news that China and Ukraine are opposed to a new protective zone around the whole continent. I think that the renewal conference on the agreement takes place next year in Berlin, and the British Government have taken a very robust view, as did the previous British Government, on the preservation of fish and mammals within the whole region. I hope that the Minister will comment on the prospects for the conference in 2013 and that we will manage to get international agreement on continuing with the current approach to Antarctica.

As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Stroud, the history of the Antarctic is interesting for many reasons. Obviously, there is the huge narrative in popular British history about the role of Scott and the amazing hardship that his expedition faced—as did other expeditions such as those of Amundsen and many others. There was a form of competitive exploration going on, and there was always a danger that the Antarctic could become a base for military and spying activities, and so on. Indeed, there were suspicions about many of the bases that existed around the Antarctic.

However, things change and move on. The international geophysical year of 1957 began the development the Antarctic as a zone of peace and of research, and that narrative has carried on ever since. I hope that we recognise that the world needs the Antarctic as the Antarctic is. We must learn the lessons of its history and recognise its fragility. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, if we continue to allow our planet’s natural environment to be so damaged and we get a massive melt from the Antarctic, we will, quite simply, all drown as a result—it will be the end. We must not only learn the lessons but carry them through into actions that we take later on.

Throughout the passage of the legislation in 1989 and 1994, and at the time of the environmental protocols, there was concern about the fragility of the environment of the Antarctic and the increasing number of ships that go there and the eco-tourism that takes place. The clean-up following the development of the environmental protocol meant, for example, that non-native species, including dogs, were removed, as were all the other dangers of pollution and contamination. However, if a plane crashed over the Antarctic, which would obviously be a disaster, it would be very hard to extract anyone from it, because the distances are so great and the environment is so hostile.

An even greater danger is that if one of the many tourist vessels crashed into an iceberg or another vessel, or developed a serious fault, the spillage of diesel or other fuel would be catastrophic because it would not disperse or evaporate as quickly as it might in warmer waters, and the pollution would be very serious for a long time afterwards. The quality of vessels that are allowed to go to the Antarctic is subject to conditions and there are strict requirements on the protective measures that they have to undertake. Nevertheless, we must be cautious about the number of visits and the degree of irresponsible tourism that could well develop. I am not accusing the British Government or any of their agents of promoting that, but it is a danger. Importantly, the Bill would place even stricter requirements on British tour operators or anyone else going to the Antarctic.

I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Stroud or the Minister could clarify whether the Bill would apply only to someone from Britain who is in an area of the Antarctic that is not part of the so-called British claim or would apply equally to any part. Likewise, we can pass a Bill in this Parliament only for UK national jurisdictions, or for companies based in or operating in Britain, or for British people using their services, but it is obviously possible that tour operators or other vessels could go to the Antarctic from other jurisdictions. Am I right in assuming that if the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, the legislation will then have to go through the Antarctic environmental protocol process to enable it to become part of the international agreement?

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

For the sake of clarity, the purpose of the Bill and, in particular, the liability annex, which is the key point that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, would come into effect only once all the countries that are part of the Antarctic treaty have gone through the ratification process.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thought that that was the position, and I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying it. I assume that he will tell us later that if the Bill becomes law, the British Government will work very hard for that agreement to happen by lobbying all the other parties to it.

I welcome the Bill, which is a huge step forward. I welcome the work of the British Antarctic Survey. I counsel Members not to get involved in some kind of international rivalry. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Governments who are trying to undermine the environmental protection provisions, but that is not to say that there are not many people in those countries who understand the case for the Antarctic to be for ever a zone of peace, for ever demilitarised, and for ever a world park that we can all appreciate and learn a great deal from. If we in this Parliament pass this Bill, we are giving the signal that we support the work of the British Antarctic Survey, that we support the Act that we passed in 1994, and that we do not wish to be party to the destruction of the Antarctic or, crucially, the natural wildlife that exists all around it.

We have made progress. We in this country no longer exploit whales—that is completely banned, as it is in the majority of countries around the world. However, the commercial pressures of tourism and to exploit the natural resources of the Antarctic and the fish in the whole region are huge. Robust action needs to be taken by national Governments, international treaties and the Antarctic environmental protocol in order to preserve the place for what it is—a wonderful place of beauty. It is, obviously, a risky environment and it is an environment at risk. It is up to us to preserve it for all time, which surely ought to be our main focus in discussing this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I agree. We should pay tribute to all those who pioneered those early expeditions. We now benefit from the progress made by those brave men, so we should acknowledge all involved.

It is our responsibility to protect Antarctica from those who might cause it damage. Indeed, we have a moral duty to ensure that it is adequately protected, which is why the Bill is so important. It is surely right that Her Majesty’s Government should take preventative measures to shield the environment and enhance the conservation of the Antarctic. The Bill will, I believe, enshrine that protection in law so that those who fail to respect the environment when travelling to Antarctica as part of a British operation can be properly held to account in the British courts for any irresponsible behaviour or damage that they may cause. There will be stronger regulations, fines and penalties for operators who break that code. With an increasing number of expeditions to Antarctica from around the globe, now is the time to introduce provisions that would enhance the protection of this amazing region of planet Earth.

There is another reason why we in the United Kingdom should take the lead in the protection of Antarctica. I urge hon. Members to take a look at Parliament square today. They will see displayed opposite the Houses of Parliament the flag of the British Antarctic Territory flying proudly alongside those of the other 15 British overseas territories and the five Crown dependencies. This is the first time that those flags have been displayed in Parliament square, and that, I believe, is a clear indication that Her Majesty’s Government value the contribution that our territories and dependencies make to the overall success of the Great British family. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place, but I would like to pay tribute to the previous Minister with responsibility for the British overseas territories, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who championed the territories’ cause to ensure that they were recognised, as they are today in Parliament square, with your support, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The British Antarctic territory is our responsibility, so we must not only protect the environment, but uphold the territory’s security at all times. We are all too aware of the claims by Argentina to all three British overseas territories in that region, namely the British Antarctic Territory—which is also claimed by Chile—and South Georgia and, of course, the Falkland Islands. Defence of our national interests in the Antarctic and south Atlantic region is vital. I strongly urge Her Majesty’s Government to remember the importance of maintaining our presence in the seas around the region and to be vigilant to any potential threat.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman and I work very well together on the issues facing the British Indian Ocean Territory, but may I gently remind him that both Chile and Argentina are signatories to the Antarctic treaty and the environmental protocol and that they host conferences on the preservation of the Antarctic? As far as I am aware, the Governments of Chile, Argentina and the UK have worked well together on preserving the natural environment of the Antarctic. Could we not approach the debate in that spirit?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have indeed worked very well together on the issue of the Chagos Islands—the British Indian Ocean Territory—which is another policy that I hope the Minister will review. Yes, we will work with Argentina and Chile on the issue of Antarctica—it is our responsibility to work with all the nations that are signatories to the Antarctic treaty—but it would help the cause if they respected the sovereignty of territories that are under the Crown. It is not helpful that countries such as Argentina in particular ignore the democratic wishes of the people of the Falkland Islands and retain an illegal claim over that territory. I hope that they will take the hon. Gentleman’s advice and show respect for the traditions that we all respect, namely democracy and the right to self-determination.

One organisation maintains the British presence in the Antarctic like no other. It is a body with a proud record of scientific research and unparalleled achievements in the field of polar science. It is, of course, the world-class British Antarctic Survey, which, until today, faced a battle for its own survival as the result of a foolhardy proposal by the Natural Environment Research Council to merge BAS with the National Oceanography Centre. I could not have supported that plan in any way whatever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that intervention; it is nice to know that we agree on some things. Although it has been said that I am the only scientist in the House, that is sadly not true. I am one of two Members with a science PhD and I went on to do research, but there are other scientists in the House and it always a great pleasure to have them here. However, that is not relevant to the Bill.

BAS does a fantastic amount of work, and the Bill will help with that. It will give scientists in a hostile and at times dangerous environment the additional support they need, and secure the protected status of the unique place in which they work and often live.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his speech, and the British Antarctic Survey. Will he confirm that BAS works with international institutions all over the world and shares all its research and publications? It makes an important contribution to worldwide efforts to preserve the Antarctic, and does not focus solely on what happens in this country.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman makes, of course, an accurate and important point. BAS works internationally and collaborates with universities around the world, NGOs, and a range of different organisations. It was suggested in some of the discussions with NERC that it could collaborate further with universities and other organisations, and I dare say that it could. I think, however, that it does an extremely good job of leading internationally.

The Antarctic is an incredibly important area. It is often depicted as an empty and lifeless continent, but nothing could be further from the truth. Understanding its wildlife is vital to a deeper understanding of our world, and its effects on the environment and economic stability matter hugely for us all. The demands that are placed on the polar region are changing, and there is concern in the scientific community that a sudden increase in visitor numbers to the region is applying further pressure on local ecosystems. There has also been an increase in the number of privately organised trips, Commercial activity puts pressure and stress on the krill and fish populations, damaging habitats and environments. The ever-present threat of climate change and future projections of weather patterns remain a priority.

The work being done in the Antarctic by researchers is vital in monitoring what could happen. Already, 10 million people each year are affected by coastal flooding, and projections indicate that that number could soon rise to 30 million. Understanding the Antarctic will make a difference to that. A number of fascinating projects are taking place, which I would talk about if we had more time. Work at Lake Ellsworth poses great challenges regarding how we carry out research in an unspoilt area without accidently spoiling it.

This Bill makes a fantastic contribution. I will not go through each part of it as the hon. Member for Stroud has already done so. It will put environmental treaty regulations into British law, and for the first time will guarantee the “polluter pays” principle for damage to the sensitive ecology of the Antarctic. It will further establish Britain’s position as an international leader by ensuring that the continent continues to symbolise all that is good and right about the preservation of a natural reserve devoted to peace and science. The British people have a responsibility to maintain and protect that fragile wilderness. Fittingly, during the centenary of Scott’s voyage to the Antarctic, the Bill will legally and financially guard a region in which Britain has been keenly involved since those courageous first steps upon the ice. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, and ensure that it proceeds into law.

Antarctic Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on introducing the Bill. It is a great pleasure to deal with a genuinely bipartisan Bill. As he rightly said, the Bill follows a consultation on a draft Bill in 2009. I do not propose to detain the House too long on this issue, albeit for possibly a little longer than my 57-second contribution last week.

The Bill would implement a new annex to the Antarctic treaty that was agreed back in 2005 on liability arising from environmental emergencies. It requires anyone undertaking activities in Antarctica to ensure that measures are in place to deal with any environmental damage, together with contingency plans for any damage that might occur. The present Bill was based on the Bill consulted on in 2009 by the previous Government, but it does not contain part 2 of the original Bill covering the requirement for contingency and safety planning by all British operators. In that context, I understand that the Minister’s officials believe that these issues can be addressed through the permit system, so that part of the original Bill is not required. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to be a bit more explicit and to send a clear message to operators—and reassurance to those who have a passionate interest in the Antarctic environment—that that is the case, and that the Bill follows the long line of measures to protect this vital environment. I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue when he winds up.

The Antarctic environmental legislation is a very good example of international co-operation on matters of great concern for the future of the planet. The treaty froze territorial disputes relating to the continent in order to pursue peaceful scientific investigation and conservation. Several hon. Members have referred to examples of that, some of them at considerable length. In the 1991 protocol, stringent measures on environmental protection were introduced, including—importantly—a 50-year moratorium on mineral extraction. The current permit requirements for British expeditions entering the Antarctic were introduced in the Antarctic Act 1994—in another example of the bipartisan nature of these discussions and concerns about the issue—which implemented the treaty’s protocol on environmental protection.

Why is this Bill so important and necessary? The Antarctic, as has been stressed by several hon. Members, is a pristine and highly sensitive environment that is of great significance in the global ecosystem. It contains, for example, 90% of the ice on earth and 60% to 70% of its fresh water. At a time of rising sea levels—mentioned with great concern yesterday by Mayor Bloomberg in New York—the melting of this ice would see a dramatic increase in sea levels. The seasonal growth of sea ice each year is one of earth’s most significant seasonal cycles, covering 19 million sq km at its maximum extent, which is one and half times the area of the Antarctic continent.

The Southern ocean also dominates the global oceans and influences the climates of many countries. In that context, I was pleased and honoured earlier this year to visit the Australian Antarctic division in Hobart, Tasmania. That is a valuable resource, and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) will be well aware of the extensive co-operation with our Commonwealth ally, Australia, on this issue. This is a valuable resource not only for Australia but for the international community. It monitors the impact of climate and environmental change, conservation and ecosystems onshore and near shore, and in the vast Southern ocean.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in hoping that the marine conservation zones are strongly endorsed and supported as a means of protecting fish stocks and the food chain from the larger mammals that inhabit the southern oceans? If the fish stocks are removed and too much krill are taken, long-term damage will be done to the whole ecosystem.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend and fellow allotment holder is exactly right. It is of considerable concern that no proper evaluation has been made of what take of krill in the Southern ocean is sustainable right the way up the food chain. Much more scientific work will need to be done before we understand the matter. Harvesting is right and proper, but we do not want mining of the populations in the Southern ocean, because of the deep long-term effects all the way up the food chain. I understand that even now there is considerable concern about whether there are adequate food supplies for penguins in the area. That demonstrates the enormous importance of the Southern ocean for the ecosystem, although, as I have indicated, it goes much wider than the Southern ocean area. I agree with him about that and with his comments about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Implementation of the treaty is rightly welcomed here, but the FCO should engage actively with other signatories to ensure the more rapid implementation of this important work.

Those measures are extremely welcome, and I am sure that any concerns that hon. Members have can be dealt with in Committee, as the hon. Member for Stroud indicated. The broad thrust, however, has support across the House. It is slightly disturbing and contradictory, then, that alongside these excellent measures we are looking at proposals to merge the British Antarctic Survey and the National Oceanography Centre. As I indicated in an intervention, the decision not to do that was extremely welcome, and I once again place on the record my tribute to the Science and Technology Committee, under its excellent Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), for producing a report that was highly critical of that measure. Its criticism was based not only on the scientific contribution, the excellent work done and the loss of scientific capability but, as hon. Members have mentioned, on a concern about the message it might send in the south Atlantic area.

Our noble colleague Lord West rightly drew attention to another problem that he claimed could lead to us sleepwalking towards another Falklands—a matter of enormous concern to him, obviously, given his heroic record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

I agree that a full-time director of the British Antarctic Survey needs to be appointed as soon as possible, but I do not agree with the suggestion that Ministers should get involved with such an appointment. That is a matter for the BAS and for the other groups and organisations that need to be consulted.

I want to turn to some of the important issues that hon. Members have raised. It is right to put them in context, and also to correct the one or two misunderstandings that have emerged. I want to clarify the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), to ensure that the House is in no doubt about the United Kingdom’s sovereignty of the British Antarctic Territory, which stems from the oldest claim to the territory in Antarctica back in 1908. We have to acknowledge that the sector was subsequently claimed by Chile and Argentina, but, under the terms of the Antarctic treaty, sovereignty issues are held in abeyance and are neither confirmed nor denied. The United Kingdom continues to assert its sovereignty over the territory through the provision of legislation and postal services and the presence of the Royal Navy and the British Antarctic Survey. As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) correctly pointed out, co-operation with Chile and Argentina is good on the ground and in most international settings, and we are keen to maintain that positive good relationship.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The Minister has probably heard the news today that there has been a breakdown at the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources at its meeting in Hobart, because Ukraine, China and Russia appear unwilling to sign up to an agreement on linked marine protection zones. Those zones are clearly important for the protection of the ecosystem and fish stocks. The commission will reconvene in Berlin next year. What lobbying efforts will the Government put in, ahead of that meeting in Germany next summer, to ensure that we can reach an agreement to extend marine conservation all around the Antarctic area? Such agreement is essential, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) has explained.

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that he will be patient, because I will address that issue in a moment. I am going to go through the points that have been raised in a logical, chronological order.

In his well-informed contribution earlier, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked about the military presence in Antarctica, and he was absolutely right to seek clarification on that important point. I can inform the House that the Antarctic treaty prohibits military testing or exercises there. However, military help with the logistics of national programmes is allowed. That is why HMS Protector will be in the Antarctic this year to assist with UK programmes in such areas as hydrographic charting, to give logistical support to the British Antarctic Survey and to provide a search and rescue capability.

The hon. Gentleman just raised the important point about the unfortunate breakdown in the negotiations in Hobart yesterday. It is extremely disappointing that there has been a failure to reach agreement on the new marine protected areas, particularly those in the Ross sea, which I think was the area to which he was referring. The UK has an excellent reputation, under both Governments, for the creation of marine protected areas. We were instrumental in setting up the first one in the Southern ocean around the South Orkneys, and we have announced a new one around South Georgia in the Southern ocean as well. Our commitment to the protection and sustainable use of the Southern ocean is undimmed and undiluted. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will continue to work to persuade other countries to reach an agreement on the creation of appropriate marine protected areas, and that we are pressing hard for an opportunity to bring the process back on track in anticipation, hopefully, of an agreement at the conference next year.

The hon. Gentleman also made a point about whether the Bill’s application is to only part of Antarctica or to the whole of it. I can assure him that it will cover British expeditions and activities anywhere in Antarctica. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), he asked about the time scale for the Bill’s ratification by all members. I can give an assurance that the UK will push for ratification by other members as fast as possible. Indeed, some—including Finland, Peru, Poland, Spain, Sweden and, recently, Australia—have already ratified the protocols before the UK. All 28 consultative parties to this particular liability index have signed article 6 of the environmental protocol. This Bill, along with other national Bills, is merely a ratification of what has already been signed up to, so we anticipate no significant issues or problems there.

In response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) about the EU’s possible interest in British expeditions or other aspects of the Antarctic, I can confirm that the Bill’s amendment to existing legislation reflects the growing international nature of science teams and the necessity for universities—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley—to secure easier recognition of world-class British expeditions, which inevitably have an international flavour nowadays.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone was absolutely right to highlight the importance of clause 15, which provides for orderly regulation and conservation of historic and monumental sites, and of clause 16, which increases the environmental protections of flora and fauna, along with marine plants and invertebrates. He raised the issue of the EU’s application for observer status. I can confirm that it is not for the Antarctic but for the Arctic Council that the EU is trying to gain such status. I can confirm, too, that this has not been agreed and that the EU has no status in the Antarctic treaty system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley gave a very forensic and detailed analysis of the legislative architecture surrounding this Bill. It will not come as a surprise to him to hear me say that many of the points he raised deserve thorough and detailed consideration in Committee. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and I will be interested to discuss these issues to ensure that the Committee is happy with the thought process and detail, supplied by my hon. Friend and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that have gone into the Bill.

It is important to say that the Government are supportive of the Bill. We see it as making a significant contribution to organising Antarctic expeditions and other tours to take preventive measures and establish contingency plans to reduce the risk of environmental emergencies and to secure all-important insurance. The Bill is important, too, for updating existing Antarctic legislation to recognise and respond to the increasingly international flavour of scientific activity and to provide better protection through clauses 15 and 16.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley asked about the liability annex, which mirrors the issue raised by the hon. Member for Islington North. My hon. Friend asked about ratification, too, and I can confirm that once the annex is ratified, we will be able to show leadership, alongside those who have already ratified the environmental protocol, in the Antarctic treaty consultative meetings and actively lobby all countries to ratify at the earliest opportunity.

My hon. Friend raised a series of detailed but very important issues, which I do not intend to go into now unless the House absolutely wants me to. I get the impression that it probably does not. If it would help, I should be happy to write to my hon. Friend in the meantime—especially if he is not here—

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I think that we have to judge the previous Government on the basis of what they actually did while in office. The fact remains that they took decisions that conceded the loss of a quarter of the United Kingdom’s hard-won rebate and left us with a current financial framework for the EU that was £13 billion over what they said in office would be the maximum they would accept. They let our country down, and they let it down badly.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

What contact has the Foreign Secretary had with the Government of Turkey concerning the ongoing hunger strikes of Kurdish political prisoners and the demand for the release of Ocalan so that there can be negotiations on a future for the Kurdish people in Turkey whereby their language and their culture will be fully recognised in accordance with the recommendations of the Council of Europe?

[Mr Lidington]

We always try to make it clear in our conversations with the Turkish Government at both ministerial and official level that it is important that Turkey continues to make progress towards political reform and full implementation of the rule of law measures that we all want to see. I hope that the discussions between the Turkish political parties on a new constitution take us several steps forward. I would be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman further about the particular case that he has described.

Syria

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

There is an important point in my hon. Friend’s question: we could be dealing at some stage with the complete collapse of the Syrian state, a situation of anarchy and the breakdown of all order—there are many anarchic attributes to what is happening now—even in areas that have been less affected, and even in Damascus itself. That is why it is important that we do not to rule out any options for the future. If we come to that point, we must bear in mind his wise advice on this point.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

May I ask the Foreign Secretary to be more specific about the situation facing Palestinian and Kurdish people? There are reports that Palestinian refugees have been prevented from staying for any extended period in either Lebanon or Jordan. In answer to an earlier question he made the point that the Kurdish people are under attack within Turkey by Turkish forces and within Syria itself by some of the opposition groups. Is he confident that the opposition groups in Syria respect minorities and their rights?

EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I said that I wanted to address the concerns expressed by the European Scrutiny Committee and others.

The three issues I have in mind are: first, the need to maintain the rights of member states to determine their foreign policies and to avoid any scope for competence creep towards the EU institutions; secondly, concerns about the balance of responsibilities between the EU institutions themselves and, in particular, the role of the European Parliament; and thirdly—this goes straight to my hon. Friend’s point—the relationship between the EU special representative on human rights and the work of the Council of Europe, particularly its human rights commissioner.

Let me deal first with the question of competence and the rights of member states to determine their foreign policy. Democratic freedoms, universal human rights and respect for the rule of law are at the heart of British diplomacy and policy. I believe that the new EU human rights strategy and in particular the EU special representative on human rights will help us to deliver our national foreign policy objectives better through the EU, by providing a strong and visible face for its external action on human rights.

The EU’s external human rights policy flows from the common defence and security policy, which will provide the operating framework for the special representative. Declaration 13, annexed to the treaties, provides confirmation that the CFSP does

“not affect the responsibilities of the Member States… for the formulation and conduct of their foreign policy”.

Therefore, the new human rights package will not affect our ability to formulate and conduct our own national foreign policy. Furthermore, decisions at European level on CFSP require unanimous approval by the Council, with agreement by every member state. No EU position on external human rights policy or any other aspect of common foreign and security policy can be agreed without the approval of the British Minister or other representative in the room, and of course the same right of veto applies to every other member state. There is no suggestion in these documents or elsewhere that there should be any change to those arrangements.

The Government’s view remains firmly that the EU must act only where it has the competence to do so under the European Union treaties. We will remain vigilant against any threat of competence creep through the actions of the External Action Service. It is essential that the EAS continues to complement and support, not replace, national diplomatic services. That is why, for example, we have been so resolute on the principle that the EAS should have no front-line role in consular services, which would go beyond the supporting role for member states provided for in the treaties.

So far the EAS has delivered best when it has worked closely with member states and capitalised on the resources of member states and EU institutions. I will quickly highlight what I think are a number of genuine achievements from the past year where the EAS has worked well and, in doing so, has helped to deliver important British foreign policy objectives. First, there was the review of the European neighbourhood policy, which has produced an ambitious framework for the EU’s approach to the emerging democracies of north Africa and the middle east. That is now starting to have a practical impact through structures such as the EU-Tunisia taskforce.

Secondly, the EAS and Baroness Ashton personally have worked closely with the E3 plus 3 to engage Iran over its nuclear programme, and the EU recently agreed to the most far-reaching sanctions ever imposed on any other country, working in that case closely and efficiently with the Governments of the individual member states. Thirdly, the sanctions already in place against the Syrian regime—16 rounds already agreed—are still under consideration and may be strengthened further.

The proposed EU special representative will allow us to deliver more such examples of successful EU external action. The role is granted in article 33 of the treaty on European Union, which provides:

“The Council may, on a proposal from the High Representative …appoint a special representative with a mandate in relation to particular policy issues.”

The way in which the mandate is implemented will be critical, and I am glad that the European Scrutiny Committee noted the United Kingdom’s successful efforts to secure an additional layer of member state oversight of the special representative’s activities, in order to guard against any unwelcome or unwarranted expansion of their responsibilities. Article 11 of the mandate provides that

“the EUSR shall work in coordination with the Member states.”

Article 10 requires that he or she

“shall also report to the competent Council working parties”,

and article 4 states that the Council’s

“Political and Security Committee shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR”.

The last provision is common to all EUSR mandates. In practice, that “privileged link” means that the special representative will be able to communicate directly with the Council, bringing together the representatives of the 27 member states, rather than having to go through the High Representative or through other structures. The mandate also ensures that the Political and Security Committee will

“provide the EU special representative with strategic guidance and political direction.”

Given those safeguards, I am confident that the United Kingdom is well placed to play a leading part in giving that direction and guidance to the EUSR and in holding the special representative to account for his or her actions.

The appointment of a special representative will in no way affect the United Kingdom’s ability to speak, as now, on its own behalf in international organisations, including the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. As is the case now, the European Union may speak on our behalf only if there is a shared position to which the United Kingdom has signed up, and which requires unanimity. On the basis of those safeguards, I seek the House’s approval for the establishment of the role.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Having attended many meetings of the UN Human Rights Council, I was consistently disappointed when the member state representative said nothing and left it all to the EU representative. I am pleased that increasingly the UK representative speaks independently, particularly about the death penalty, but can the Minister assure the House that we will continue to have an independent voice at the UN Human Rights Council and will resort to the EU representative to speak on our behalf only in a case of absolute unanimity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I welcome this second opportunity to discuss a European motion, this time on the EU’s role in promoting human rights and democracy and the EU’s external policy. In the context of the Arab spring and with the ongoing crisis in Syria, those issues are highly relevant and the EU’s role is more important than ever.

Three subjects are central to the motion: the new EU human rights strategy; the corresponding action plan; and the appointment of an EU special representative on human rights. The Opposition agree with the Government that the EU should use its collective weight to maximise its influence in promoting human rights and democracy around the world, and that the EU’s new human rights strategy will serve as a multiplier of the UK’s voice. The size of the European economy and the fact that the EU is the world’s largest provider of development aid gives it significant influence and leverage in the promotion of human rights.

We also agree with Baroness Ashton that human rights must be the silver thread running through the EU’s external strategy. For the first time, one document summarises all aspects of EU human rights work. The strategy emphasises the universality of human rights and the importance of making them central to the EU’s external policies. It is vital that promoting and protecting human rights is not considered an add-on to the EU’s external policies, so we welcome the fact that they will be mainstreamed into all EU external policies.

We welcome the strategy’s commitment to include human rights considerations in trade, investment, technology, telecommunications, internet, energy, environment, corporate social responsibility and development policy. The mainstreaming of human rights is further strengthened by the commitment for the geographical working groups in the Council to have responsibility also to fulfil the action plan. The EU will increase its support for freedom of expression, association and assembly. That is important, because, as the strategy says,

“democracy cannot exist without these rights”.

We welcome the increased emphasis on supporting the fair and impartial administration of justice—another important way of promoting the independence of the judiciary. More generally, there is an encouraging emphasis in both the strategy and the action plan on the need for the EU to evaluate the impact of its human rights policies. The EU’s annual human rights report will now evaluate the EU’s progress in meeting its objective as well as the human rights record of third countries. That is welcome in terms of increasing both transparency and accountability. Another positive development is the commitment to develop indicators for human rights dialogues.

The action plan further acknowledges the division of competence between the EU and member states on human rights and recognises that the role of the EU is to complement the work done by member states. Finally, both the strategy and the action plan underline the importance of the EU working even more closely with civil society in its human rights work.

The role of the new EU special representative on human rights will enhance the EU’s effectiveness and visibility in protecting and promoting human rights—this special representative will be the first to have a thematic role. Whoever is appointed will have a broader remit and a more flexible mandate than the existing EU special representatives. We agree with the Government that the person chosen to be representative should have

“an established track record and international experience in human rights”

and that he or she

“should have an excellent ability to maintain diplomatic relations at a senior level”.

The motion refers to the charter of fundamental rights and the Commission’s 2011 report on the application of the charter. The report underlines that progress has been made in ensuring that all EU institutions, bodies and agencies comply with the charter. It also contains a number of observations and recommendations. It notes that positive steps have been taken on, for example, disability rights, child protection and preventing human trafficking.

On disability rights, the EU has joined the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which is a welcome development. On child protection, the EU has adopted an agenda on the rights of the child, which is a prelude to developing new rules on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

The report details the EU directive on the prevention and combating of trafficking human beings and protecting its victims, which came into force in 2011. As the report recounts, the directive took a human rights and gender-specific approach and sought to achieve more effective prosecution of human traffickers by national authorities across borders. The Commission also appointed an EU anti-trafficking co-ordinator.

The report highlighted areas for improvement, namely on gender equality, and to this end the Council of Ministers adopted a European pact for gender equality calling for equal participation of women in decision making and repeating the importance of integrating a gender perspective into all policies, including in the external actions of the EU. Progress has certainly been made, but there remains much to do.

It is important to consider the role of human rights not only in the EU’s external policies but inside EU member states. In that context, I would like to ask the Minister about the situation in Hungary. Last year, the Commission used its legal powers to raise concerns with the Hungarian Government about media law, because the Commission had serious concerns that the law would severely restrict freedom of expression. Fortunately, the Hungarian Government were persuaded to agree to a raft of changes to ensure that those concerns were addressed.

Nevertheless, there remain ongoing concerns about the actions of the Hungarian Government, in particular over the introduction of the new fundamental law, which came into force at the start of the year and replaced the constitution that had transformed Hungary from communist dictatorship to liberal democracy.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the media laws in Hungary, but does she also share my concern about the disgraceful systematic treatment of the Roma in Hungary and the many cases reported at a very high level to human rights organisations? There is a case for the strongest possible statements to be made by both the EU and the Council of Europe.

[Emma Reynolds]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the protection of the human rights of the Roma community is incredibly important and that those rights are at risk in Hungary. Their human rights have been threatened in other member states, too—I will not mention a former President of the French Republic and some of the things he said about that community.

The fundamental law extends the Hungarian Government’s control over various bodies that should be independent, such as the central bank and the courts. In particular, there are concerns about the independence of the judiciary. We believe that an independent judiciary is a vital safeguard of human rights. The European Parliament and the Commission have raised concerns about democracy and the accountability of the Hungarian Government, and it is clear that human rights must be protected within the EU and its member states, if the EU is to have an authoritative voice on human rights in external countries. I would appreciate it, therefore, if the Minister could shed some light on these matters by answering the following questions: does he think that the situation in Hungary weakens the EU’s voice on democracy and human rights in third countries; and will he update the House on what discussions he and his colleagues, including the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, have had with the Hungarian and other EU Governments about the new Hungarian fundamental law and its the implications for the human rights of the Hungarian people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

That is exactly the point. This is almost a jurisprudential question. It is not about fancy philosophy; it is about how we make decisions relating to individual, practical instances. My hon. Friend is entirely right to make that point. It is difficult to imagine that we will be able to make a choice, once the machinery is moving forwards. I shall give the House an instance from among the wide range of activities in the many pages of the strategic framework and action plan that has been adopted by the EU Council. By engaging in this proposal, we are effectively endorsing European creep. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister says that that will not happen, and that we will have the opportunity to exercise the veto, but I just do not see this as a practical way of working.

The Council has adopted the measure, and we have demanded this debate on the matter for very good reasons. We want to examine exactly what the measure contains. There simply is not enough time, in the one and a half hours allotted to us, to go through the incredibly complex questions that arise from the matter or to deal with the interaction of the decisions and the impact that they will have on human rights law in this country or in others.

I shall give the House a flavour of what I am talking about. Anyone listening to or reading the debate might like to look at the range of matters in the action plan. I mentioned that it is divided into outcomes, actions, timings and responsibilities. It is divided into seven chapters, and it sets out a variety of external policy activities. This has been agreed by all member states. Seven headings cover 36 policy areas and 97 potential actions, and that deals with the matter only in the generic sense. When we reduce this to individual cases, we are effectively saying that the EU will have a supervisory responsibility, subject only to the caveat that we will be able to exercise the veto, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said. I do not see that happening, however, once the machinery has been set up.

This is very much like the External Action Service. Indeed, it is very much like the EU itself. I said in 1992, or whenever it was—it seems a very long time ago now—that once the Maastricht treaty had gone through, once the European governmental system had been created with all the qualified majority voting that went with it, once we had created the mechanism and endowed it with resources, and once we had increased and implemented its legislative capacities and functions, we would have constructed an enormous creature that was incapable of being restrained. That is exactly what has happened, with disastrous consequences.

To come back to the main issue, let me provide a few examples. In the first place, the action plan refers to

“Human rights and democracy throughout EU policy”.

For those who are interested, this is taken from a Library note dated 9 July. It is also referred to in the papers before us and it has been looked at by the European Scrutiny Committee. The plan refers to the need to

“Incorporate human rights in all Impact Assessment”,

and to

“Insert human rights in Impact Assessment, as and when it is carried out for legislative and non-legislative proposals, implementing measures and trade agreements that have significant economic, social and environmental impacts, or define future policies.”

I would like to know what is not included in that, and what the opportunity would be for any restraint on the use of such provisions in the strategic plan.

The plan also refers to

“Genuine partnership with civil society”,

and that

“Heads of EU Delegations, Heads of Mission of EU Member States, heads of civilian missions and operation commanders shall work closely with human rights NGOs active in the countries of their posting.”

I would be the first to support NGOs in their individual activities, but this is a mandatory requirement, going beyond what I would describe as voluntary activity. Then there is the need to

“Present EU performance in meeting the objectives of its human rights strategy in the annual report on human rights and democracy in the world.”

I would be on the side of all those campaigners when it comes to individual human rights matters. I see in his place the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who knows that I campaigned with him on issues relating to the Chagos islanders. Going further back, I was also involved with the issue of aboriginal rights in Canada. I could provide a whole list to show that I have been as much at the forefront as anyone else when it comes to campaigning against abuses of human rights. Where I differ, and why I object to these arrangements, is in respect of this overarching determination to get away from specific campaigns into this idea of universality, whereby I think we miss the wood for the trees.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s genuine support for human rights issues in many parts of the world and the fact that he campaigns on them. Does he agree with me, however, that the issue of the Chagos islanders is now before the European Court of Human Rights and that it will take a decision? Both the hon. Gentleman and I want it to go in the same direction. Is this not one possible way of bringing about justice for the people who were treated so abominably in 1982?

[Mr Cash]

I would rather have the hon. Gentleman leading the campaign for the Chagos islanders than the EU representative who is being appointed under these documents. It is the individual commitment that counts. If I may say so, it is rather like John Bright, who campaigned for people’s rights throughout the world—in our colonies and our empire—in the 19th century. It is the individual passion and determination to stand up for people that I look towards. That is what Wilberforce was all about. I doubt whether William Wilberforce would have been deeply impressed by the manner in which this is being done. I really have to ask that question, because in my judgment, it is not desirable to end up creating this universal approach.

The second chapter is

“Promoting the universality of human rights”.

With the outcome of “universal adherence”, it specifies the action:

“Intensify the promotion of ratification and effective implementation of key international human rights treaties, including regional human rights instruments”—

and so it goes on and on, page after page, and I am reading from a tightly compressed printed version. In an intervention, I think I mentioned four pages, but there are seven pages of this. All I need to say is this: is this really the right way to go? Baroness Ashton and the entire External Action Service are, I believe, simply another manifestation of the problem. On the very day we have been told that we are to examine all the workings of the European Union in relation to the United Kingdom —all its competences—the central question is being lost, and a globalising, universal approach is being taken to something that will have to form part of the review announced by the Foreign Secretary.

On the very day we have advocated an analysis of the manner in which the European Union functions, we seem to be effectively endorsing a strategy that goes in exactly the opposite direction to the views of all those Members who support not only the review, but the repatriation of powers and the resolution of the human rights questions that are so bedevilling the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary and the whole question of extradition, the whole question of immigration policy, and the whole question of the application of law in this country on matters pertaining to human rights.

I view this development with grave concern. I do not refer to its individual application to individual cases; I refer to the attempt, through what I consider to be European federalisation or European creep, to convey the concept of a European Union that is acting on behalf of all of us. If a country such as Hungary has made a decision in its own Parliament, I think that that should be respected. Through their electors, through general elections and the democratic will of their own people, individual nation states, or member states, should be allowed to decide these matters, rather than having their decisions overridden by universality of the kind that these documents represent.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I will be brief, so that the remaining Members who wish to speak can do so before the debate has to end.

I support the motion, but I acknowledge what has been said by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). Human rights changes are achieved because people are prepared, very bravely, to stand up for them. We should spare a thought for the role played by human rights defenders throughout the world who often put themselves at huge risk to speak up for other people. Many of them are assassinated or murdered as a result, and they are the ones whom we do not hear about.

Anything we can do to improve the general atmosphere and narrative of human rights is very important. We should not be over-sensitive when we are criticised by people outside this country, for we are not perfect when it comes to human rights. We make many mistakes. For instance, we imprison far too many young people, and I think that our treatment of asylum seekers is highly questionable. We impoverish many people who are legitimately seeking the right of asylum here.

I spent many years campaigning for the rights of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, who were wrongly accused of bombings and murder in this country and were eventually released. I was very pleased by the open declarations of support that were made by many people around the world, including in Australia and the United States of America. I did not see that reaction as an interference in the political system or rights in this country; I saw it as a legitimate and helpful element of political debate.

What I find slightly odd is that we should end up confusing support for human rights with treaty obligations. Every time any country signs a treaty and ratifies it through its own system, it gives up some of its sovereignty. That is what a treaty is about: it gives a country international obligations. When we sign a document such as the universal declaration of human rights, the European convention on human rights or any other convention and incorporate it into UK law, of course that changes things, and of course it limits what we can do in our national law. I think that is fair enough; we should enter into agreements with an open mind, and if we do not agree with certain aspects of them, we should try to change them later. Although I support the Government motion, only a week ago we were debating with great intensity in this House the alleged interference in British law of the operation of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, and the right to family life in the context of the new immigration rules introduced on Monday, which are limited and damaged in that respect. We must be more consistent in such matters, therefore.

Earlier, I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) about the situation in Hungary. I hope that all the member states of both the Council of Europe and the EU will be prepared to stand up and say something about the loss of rights of free expression that is going on and the abominable treatment of the Roma people in Hungary—the systematic discrimination and the brutality against them. During a visit to Brussels, I met a MEP from Hungary who shared my views on that. The people in Hungary who are trying to stand up for the rights of minorities in that country need open declarations of support. They need to know that others are watching what is going on, and that we support them in their efforts.

I would like the Minister to say whether the EU human rights strategy will include generic human rights that are not necessarily specific to any one country. I am thinking about migrant peoples, migrant workers and itinerant asylum seekers across Europe. We are facing a human rights crisis in many parts of the world. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are dying trying to flee to a place of political, military or economic safety: those who die trying to cross from the west African coast to the Canary islands; those who try to cross the Mediterranean to Greece, Spain, Sicily or elsewhere; and those who die in transit. Many of these people will have paid a great deal of very hard-earned money in order to try to get to a place of economic security, yet they die in the process or are subsequently grossly exploited by industrialists, farmers and others all across Europe. Throughout Europe, there is an entire underclass of people who are leading a twilight existence. That is an abuse of their human rights.

Sadly, there is a growing narrative of far-right racist parties across Europe that are prepared to attack these people at every turn, and we need to say that these people deserve, and should get, protection from national and international laws. Worldwide, there are even more such people, such as the poor people who recently died trying to get from Indonesia to Australia. They are the ones we have heard about; there are many others whom we do not hear about at all. I would like to know, therefore, whether there will be a systematic approach to such human rights issues.

Turning to the abuse of human rights in Russia, the decisions on two cases that were before the European Court of Human Rights were announced yesterday. One was that there had been brutal treatment of an individual, which was a welcome decision. The other decision, however, was more than slightly surprising, as it found that it was within Russia’s national competence to suppress demonstrations in the run-up to the recent elections. Without having had the benefit of reading the entire judgment, I have to say I find that more than a little surprising. I would have thought that we, and the European Court of Human Rights, would respect the right to demonstrate peacefully in any circumstances, and that we would agree that to curtail that right is clearly an infringement.

Turkey has had the presidency of the Council of Europe and is bound by the European convention on human rights and decisions of the European Court. There are still significant problems, however. Political parties have to achieve a threshold of 10% of the national vote to be represented in the Turkish Parliament, and there are serious concerns about the conduct of trials of Kurdish people in Diyarbakir and other places in the south-east of Turkey. Although I suppose pretty well everyone in this country supports the Turkish application to be a member of the EU, I hope that there will be some recognition of the fact that there are problems in the treatment of Kurdish people in Turkey.

The last point I wanted to make relates to the international operation, outside both European Union and Council of Europe states, of the proposed new system of an EU human rights representative. The EU has trade agreements with a large number of countries, all of which include a human rights clause. Many of us have raised many times the issue of the human rights clause in the EU trade agreement with Israel and the detention of Palestinian people, including Palestinian parliamentarians and Palestinian children, and a number of associated issues. Is raising such issues going to become the duty of the EU representative? Will the representative be prepared to do so, or will they be bound by a sense of unanimity—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Stone—in raising questions on the ground?

The same things apply to the EU trade arrangements with Morocco, which remains in occupation of the Western Sahara. The EU trade agreements with Morocco continue, but the fishery agreement has been suspended following an EU decision made, as I understand it, because the proceeds of fishing were not evenly spread, particularly among the people who ought to be able to live in the Western Sahara.

If we are to be effective, as the EU representatives sometimes can be, we should say so. I have visited Mexico on a number of occasions and was very impressed with the EU ambassadors working together—all 27 of them—and being prepared to put joint pressure on the Mexican Government to support the decisions of the inter-American human rights court. Such an approach is effective. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and I were part of a delegation when those issues were raised, and we acknowledged that that was an effective representation that made a difference which encourages the Mexican political system to acknowledge that Mexico, too, has responsibilities to the inter-American human rights court.

I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the EU representative is prepared to be robust, particularly where EU trade interests are involved, given that it may sometimes be pointed out by the country concerned that trade relations with the EU are being damaged. We want to see people having the right to speak freely, to demonstrate freely, to organise themselves freely and to join trade unions freely. Just as much as we would want those things for ourselves, we would want them for other people around the world.

Having said that, we have to acknowledge the huge work done by voluntary sector organisations in this country—by Amnesty International, the Bar Human Rights Committee and so many others—in improving human rights around the world. In reality, what we legislate for has often come from the activities of very brave individuals and brave groups all around the world. What we are doing is acknowledging that in legislation by what we are trying to do today.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Arms Trade Treaty

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Martin Caton]

That is absolutely right. As I am sure that the Minister will report, there is a real danger in negotiations at present; some states are trying to reduce various things that should be covered. We want a comprehensive treaty.

The treaty needs to cover all types of conventional weaponry, munitions, armaments and related articles used for potential lethal force in military and law enforcement operations, as well as their parts and accessories, machines and the technologies and expertise for making, developing and maintaining them. It must have strong and effective implementation systems, including a public and transparent reporting mechanism, good monitoring, reporting and verification procedures, and provisions for settling disputes over suspected violations of the treaty. To achieve that, the treaty must also provide institutional support and periodic review for those states that do not have experience of enforcing a high standard of arms transfer control. That will require both resources and technical assistance.

The treaty must create an international framework of legal obligation, but it must be implemented nationally. Arms transfer decisions will still have to be decided by national Governments, but under the treaty they will be obliged to deny any transfer that breaches the arms trade treaty criteria.

When the all-party group decided to prioritise securing the treaty, we set ourselves the task of convincing the UK Government to fight for the sort of robust agreement at the UN that I have just described. We secured a meeting with the Minister, who is leading on the issue, and his diplomatic team, along with the NGOs that I have mentioned. We were very pleased to learn at that meeting that we did not have to convince the Minister or his team; it became apparent that their objectives for a strong, effective treaty mirrored ours pretty well. That has been further confirmed at a joint public meeting in Westminster, at which the Minister spoke, organised by our all-party group and the all-party United Nations group, chaired by Lord Hannay of Chiswick.

The Governments of some other nation states are, however, either opposed to such a comprehensive treaty or, at best, sceptical about it. The objections and reservations vary from state to state, so there is a real and challenging job to be done at the UN in the next couple of weeks if we are to secure our shared, progressive objectives. Given the nature and structure of treaty conferences, it is difficult during the process to get an accurate overview to help to assess the prospect of a successful outcome, but from the reports that I have received, the signs appear to have been positive and less positive so far.

The Control Arms NGOs are pressing for what they describe as a bullet-proof treaty, and they have presented a 600,000-signature petition to Ban Ki-moon. Parliamentarians for Global Action has delivered a petition signed by 2,053 Members of Parliament from 96 countries, including, of course, from this Parliament. However, a small minority of sceptical states have managed to get the NGOs excluded from a substantial part of the conference.

The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, showed appropriate leadership in his opening statement to delegates when he said:

“You will need to agree on robust criteria that would help lessen the risk that transferred weapons are used to commit violations of international humanitarian law or human rights. You will also need to define the scope of the treaty to cover an extensive array of weapons and activities and that leaves no room for loopholes. Our common goal is clear: a robust and legally binding ATT that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence.”

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend on his speech. I share his disappointment that the NGOs were removed from the discussions in New York, because that is completely contrary to the spirit of the UN. Does he agree that they will be needed in the monitoring of the treaty should it finally be achieved, as that is the only way in which we will ensure its success?

[Martin Caton]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The experience from recent treaties, some of them outwith the UN—for example, on landmines and cluster munitions—is not only that we have needed those in civil society to bring them about, but that we need them to watch what is going on afterwards.

Worryingly, the statement by Ban Ki-moon was followed by a discussion paper from the new chair of the conference that fell way short of what he had described. Its stated goals and objectives for the treaty fail to require respect for international human rights law or humanitarian law. Its proposed criteria for identifying circumstances in which a transfer of arms should be denied are over-complex, inconsistent and unworkable. It uses language that has no foundation in international law and would allow weapons transfers with a significant risk that the arms would be used to violate human rights or humanitarian law or to undermine sustainable development. Its scope is far too narrow and unclear, leaving out a range of lethal munitions, technologies and activities.

It appears that the negotiations have started very slowly, with some nations clearly attempting to block progress. In contrast, there have been strong calls for a robust treaty from a number of states, including Norway, Australia and the Caribbean community countries. The UK delegation has similarly called for

“a robust, effective and legally binding”

ATT. Every delegation in such negotiations will have its own red lines beyond which there can be no compromise because fundamental principles would be lost—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I will not ask the Minister to describe, in the middle of negotiations, what his red lines are, but I urge him and his delegation to redouble their efforts to secure the ATT that we in this House all want.

In particular, we need to make it clear that the treaty must require states to refuse transfers with a substantial risk that they will be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law, and there should be no agreement to so-called mitigation measures that would allow transfers even where those risks applied. Similarly, development must be a clear criterion against which to assess transfers.

I should like to ask the Minister some specific questions that I hope he will be able to answer. So far, the process seems to have been dominated by a small minority of countries intent on disrupting and delaying the negotiations. Have he and his team been able to make bilateral contacts to help to speed up progress, and if so, who has the UK identified to work with or influence? On criteria, the new chair’s paper seems to be heavily influenced by the US, with much weaker proposals than those in the previous chair’s draft treaty. How is the UK team going to secure the oft-repeated aim for robust criteria based on international human rights law and humanitarian law?

I congratulate the Minister on the UK’s intervention at the conference that referred to the positive role that the ATT can have in reducing armed violence and gender-based violence. That needs to be addressed in the criteria section. Is that one of the UK’s priorities in the negotiations? If so, what are he and his team doing to encourage other states to support its inclusion in the treaty?

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), I appeal to the Minister not to settle for a weak treaty. It would be better to have a smaller number of signatories and a strong treaty. I am not suggesting that the Minister should be thinking about failure at this time. However, if the only treaty that we can get is a very weak one, we should not sign up to it, but should join with the progressive countries and get agreement at the General Assembly to a strong treaty. I hope that it does not come to that. I wish the Minister and his delegation every success in securing the robust and effective treaty that he wants and that this Parliament supports.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I assure my hon. Friend that I have spoken long and frequently with my colleagues at the Department for International Development, and in particular with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who will be going to the negotiations next week. It is clear that in a number of the countries that are most affected by the misery of an unregulated arms trade, we have deep concerns about all sorts of other issues. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of that element of the negotiations and to the need for joint working. He and the House can be assured that there is exceptional joint working across the Government on this issue.

It is important that we keep in mind why we are having these negotiations and why the UK has led international efforts towards an arms trade treaty for so long. Those efforts started under the last Government, for which we give them great credit, and have continued under the coalition. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions on 27 June that

“we back the arms trade treaty, as we have done for a considerable amount of time, and lobby very vigorously on that issue.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 302.]

The House is genuinely working together on this, recognising the problems that need to be faced.

The problems caused by the unregulated trade in conventional arms need to be addressed. The lack of effective and coherent global regulation fuels conflict, destabilises regions and hampers effective social and economic development. It can also have devastating effects on communities and individuals, with armed violence destroying lives and livelihoods and displacing communities. A lack of regulation means that arms can slip into the hands of those who would use them against our own troops and civilians. That situation has gone on too long, and we need to stop it now.

Those are the reasons why we have placed such a high priority on securing a treaty described as comprehensive, robust and effective. Ministers and senior officials regularly raise the arms trade treaty in our bilateral and multilateral meetings around the world, so that we can both work through particular issues that states may have and encourage positive and constructive engagement in the diplomatic conference in New York. We have used our international networks of posts to lobby in support of an arms trade treaty, and we have provided funding for non-governmental organisations from developing states to attend the conference.

No matter how committed we are to securing an arms trade treaty—I do not think anyone is in any doubt about that commitment—we cannot deliver it on our own. That is why we have put so much emphasis on working with our international partners, NGOs and representatives of the UK defence industry in the run-up to the conference. We have collaborated closely with the treaty’s co-authors, the EU and the P5, and will continue to do so as the negotiations progress, to seek to achieve a successful conclusion.

To get a truly effective treaty, we need standards not only high enough to meet our aims but with the global reach provided by the broadest participation of states, including the major arms exporters. It was always my intention to travel to New York for the start of the diplomatic conference, to signal the UK’s continuing commitment to securing an arms trade treaty. I arrived at the beginning of the first week and saw at first hand the real challenges that our delegation and other treaty supporters will need to overcome to ensure a successful outcome by the end of the month. In fact, the start of the conference was delayed for a couple of days by one such challenge, which threatened the start of the negotiations. The question of Palestine’s status in the United Nations is important, and there are plenty of colleagues in the Chamber tonight who understand that very well, but it cannot and should not be decided by the UN process on the arms trade treaty.

Despite the distraction and the loss of a couple of days, negotiations are now firmly under way, but challenges remain. To answer the first question that the hon. Member for Gower asked me, a particular problem that has dogged the first two weeks has come from a small group of states that continue to try to thwart the will of the vast majority of the international community, using a smokescreen of procedural points to stop substantive engagement on the issues that really matter. Of course, when a country has a real concern about what an arms trade treaty might contain or how it might operate, we will listen to it and work through its concerns, as is only right. However, we will not allow the conference to be railroaded by states that want only to prevent eventual agreement. We have already lost two days to procedural wrangling, and we cannot afford to lose further time.

Despite all that, the process is well under way. Ambassador Moritan continues to steer us towards our eventual goal, despite the choppy waters. Following my visit last week, I spoke to the ambassador on the telephone on Tuesday and offered him the UK’s full support. As I mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for International Development will be in New York next week, helping to sustain the momentum of the process and maintain our leading role at this critical time.

I have seen the engagement of our delegation in negotiations, and I do not think the House can overestimate how effective and useful its members have been, how much they know and how engaged they have been in the process in the many years since it started. A Minister’s presence can add a bit of weight. Whether that comes through my right hon. Friend’s physical presence or through me making the telephone calls that are needed to certain capitals, the House can be assured that our comprehensive effort will continue across Government right until the very end.

A programme of work for the conference has been agreed, and two main committees have been formed to look at different aspects of the treaty. They are being ably chaired by the Netherlands and Morocco and are gathering the views of UN member states quickly and effectively, trying to make up for the time that has been lost.

I regret that agreement on a programme of work has meant that some meetings are closed to the public. Despite that, we still recognise the important part civil society has to play in the ATT negotiations. The UK delegation is in constant touch with non-governmental organisations in New York and meets with them regularly to ensure their views are heard. It is important that we continue to work closely with them at this crucial point. They have been instrumental in the progress we have made on the ATT and we still very much need their help and expertise if we are to be successful.

I tried to remain close to NGOs in the run-up to the negotiations and considered whether they would formally join the delegation. For perfectly understandable reasons— namely, for their independence—they felt that that was not the right thing to do, but we continue to stay close. At the end of this weekend, I intend to speak on the telephone to our ambassador in New York who is dealing with the negotiations. I will probably also call the representatives of Amnesty International and Oxfam on behalf of others to see how they are with the process and to maintain my contact with them. That emphasises how much the Government are trying to keep engaged with NGOs.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Can the Minister give us some good news about the involvement of NGOs in the monitoring process when the protocol is finally agreed, which will hopefully be soon?

[Alistair Burt]

The role of NGOs in monitoring and in the transparency efforts that we are trying to make in the treaty will be vital. They can see an important role for themselves and we will certainly encourage that. I am very keen to keep them involved but practically, not everybody can go to the same meetings. The chair has taken the view that to get things done now—we have lost a bit of time—he has had to produce this programme. Everybody over there understands that, but we will do our best to keep everyone in touch.

It is too early to say how the negotiations will conclude. A lot can change in two weeks in a multilateral negotiation of this sort—I am sure colleagues appreciate that momentum builds either towards success or something different. It is already clear that contentious issues remain, particularly around the treaty’s scope and criteria. As the hon. Member for Gower has noted, and as he said in his second question, a new chair’s paper has issued. The text is a discussion paper based on his consultations with all UN member states. Although the Government believe the paper is a good basis for discussions—we welcome large parts of the document, including, for example, the retention of ammunition in the scope—there are undoubtedly aspects that we believe need further work and strengthening.

One such aspect is the section on criteria. The UK delegation has made it clear in its interventions in New York and its bilateral consultations that the UK would like the language on criteria to be strengthened. The UK supports an ATT containing a mandatory refusal if there is substantial risk that the export would be used to commit a serious violation of international humanitarian or human rights law. Ministers and senior officials are echoing those sentiments in their bilateral and multilateral meetings on the treaty.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly raised in his third question the positive role the ATT could have in reducing armed violence and gender-based violence. Let me assure him and the House that gender-based violence is an important issue for many states, not least the UK. We want it included in the treaty. All groups, whether characterised by age, gender, ethnicity, religion or other, should be afforded protection by an ATT. We will continue to work with like-minded states to ensure we secure the strongest possible ATT.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

It was well worth waiting for that question, Mr Speaker. I can tell my hon. Friend that the FCO and UK Trade and Investment are actively supporting UK businesses throughout southern Africa, including in South Africa and Mozambique. Indeed, recent successes have included assisting Aggreko to secure a $255 million deal to construct a power plant that will supply electricity to both South Africa and Mozambique. That is a big success story.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

T2. Will the Foreign Secretary explain exactly what the Government’s policy is towards the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Very controversial elections were held there last year, which were heavily criticised by the Carter Centre, the European Union and the Churches in the Congo. A great deal of military incursion is occurring, particularly in the east; the treatment of women there is appalling; and huge profits are being made by mining companies. We would be grateful if the House could be told exactly what the British Government’s strategy is in that situation.

[Mr Bellingham]

The EU observers’ report found that the vast majority of people in the DRC were able to vote in relative peace and security, although I entirely accept that there were irregularities in that election. Looking forward, we are very concerned about what is happening in the Kivus, in the eastern DRC. It is essential that the situation there does not deteriorate further, and we urge all parties, including surrounding states, not to use proxies and to stay out of the situation. We urge all sides to work for peace in that troubled region.

Syria

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

As I mentioned, there have been changes of emphasis—one can call them changes of language—from Russia over the past couple of weeks. Russia does support the Annan plan, and Russia voted for UN resolutions 2042 and 2043, so we are agreed on the desirability of the Annan plan. What we are talking about is the insistence on its implementation, which I argue to Moscow, as have others, puts a particular responsibility on Russia because of its links with the Assad regime and the leverage that it has over it. As I indicated earlier, there have been some changes. I think there is increased anxiety in Russia about the situation, and I will be discussing this further with the Russians during the course of this week.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Obviously we all condemn the human rights abuses, wherever they are occurring, all over Syria. Will the Foreign Secretary be more specific about which opposition groups the UK Government are supporting either financially or with logistical equipment or training, and about whether there are any British arms or British special forces in the area, which can only exacerbate what is already a very serious set of divisions within the opposition in Syria?

[Mr Hague]

The groups outside Syria that we are supporting—the kind of groups that I have been meeting in Istanbul—include the Syrian National Council, which is the largest of these groups, although some of the minority ethnic communities are not yet affiliated to it, and we want them to come together. All our support is non-lethal. Our assistance takes the form that I described in my statement—communications equipment, training, and human rights monitoring. No armed intervention is being practised or sanctioned by the United Kingdom at the moment.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, we certainly do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development was in Burma before me last November, and he made that point strongly, as I did in January. Indeed, several hundred more prisoners were released the following week. I had asked that they be released in time to be nominated as candidates for the by-elections on 1 April. We therefore strongly welcome the releases. As I said, there are still human rights concerns, including continuing ethnic conflict in Kachin state, and prisoners whom the Burmese Opposition argue are political prisoners. We are now at the stage of definitions of what constitutes a political prisoner. We and the opposition in Burma may have a differing view from the Government there. However, there have been large-scale releases, and we will continue to ask for the release of all individuals who can be defined as political prisoners.

We also want the EU to play a determined role on Iran’s nuclear programme. Next week, on 23 May, the next round of negotiations between Iran and the E3 plus 3—France, China, Russia, the United States, Germany and the UK—will take place. We welcome the fact that, in the previous talks in Turkey last month, Iran did not try to lay down conditions for negotiations, as it has in the past. However, we have seen no indication yet from Iran that it is willing to take concrete action to address concerns about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear programme—we will look for that in Baghdad. We will take a step-by-step approach, looking for reciprocal actions by both sides. They should start with steps by Iran to build confidence in its nuclear activities. In particular, Iran should take early action to address the concern about its production of 20% enriched uranium.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary knows that Iran is still a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and that a conference is due in Helsinki in December. Will he confirm that that will go ahead, with the idea of promoting a nuclear weapons free middle east, and that Britain, Israel and Iran will all be present?

[Mr Hague]

I certainly hope that that will go ahead. The hon. Gentleman is right; there is a Finnish co-ordinator, which is why we are looking towards a conference in Helsinki. A meeting was held on 8 May about drawing the conference together, so it remains our objective that it will be held in 2012, albeit late in the year, and, of course, we want all relevant nations to participate, although it is up to each of them to decide. We strongly support the Finnish representative’s work on the conference, and we will participate in and support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I find myself echoing the spirit of the Foreign Secretary’s words on that point. Of course, all of us must hope that as broad a degree of support as Prime Minister Netanyahu has now secured in the Knesset can be the foundation on which he takes steps that he has previously chosen not to take.

There needs to be engagement from both sides on the way forward, but I have listened carefully to, and read with interest, the remarks about the opportunity that the inclusion of Kadima members of the Knesset affords the Prime Minister, and I sincerely and genuinely hope that he takes that opportunity, because honestly, as someone who for many years has advocated a two-state solution, I am concerned that time is not on our side.

This situation represents perhaps the greatest diplomatic failure that we have seen in the middle east for many decades, and I am deeply concerned by the number of voices now being heard in the region itself, arguing that a two-state solution is no longer feasible. In that sense, all of us who remain resolute in our view that a two-state solution is the way forward have to ensure, through whatever channels are available to us, that a real sense of urgency is brought to the need to create an effective and credible re-engagement in negotiations.

When we speak in this House of a middle east peace process, we are in denial of the fact that meaningful negotiations are not happening, so I very much hope that Prime Minister Netanyahu, Abu Mazen and others will seize the opportunity afforded by the new Government to advance negotiations.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

To take my right hon. Friend back to the issue of European trade with Israel, does he agree that it would be completely inappropriate to upgrade the EU-Israel trade agreement while Israel continues its settlement policy and the imprisonment of Palestinians, and that there should be no stealth by which any other agreement opens up European markets to, for example, Israeli pharmaceutical companies and others, given that it would undermine the whole resolve behind trying to enforce human rights through the EU-Israel trade agreement?

[Mr Alexander]

I have just spoken of the important role that economic development can play on the west bank, and I genuinely believe that, if we are to offer young Palestinians hope and an opportunity to renounce violence and to build a better future for themselves, economic development and trade will have a key role to play. It would therefore be difficult to argue that part of the solution to the conflict is to encourage development on one side of it while on the other hand saying that the way to secure an advance in the peace process is to deliver greater isolation to the Israelis. Instead, we have to say, “How do we use what political pressure we can to encourage both sides to seize the moment and to recognise,” as I have said, “that time is not on our side?”

Let me turn briefly to an issue that my shadow ministerial colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) will address more extensively in his closing remarks this evening. As a previous Secretary of State for International Development, I know the vital role that aid plays in embodying the values of this country, as well as in securing and protecting our vital interests. That is why I regret the fact that the Government have broken yet another promise by failing to include in this year’s Queen’s Speech legislation on the 0.7% target, despite promising to do so in both the Tory election manifesto and, indeed, in the coalition agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am pleased to hear that, because at the moment it feels like there is real tension in the Government about where climate change sits, as the Chancellor clearly sees it as an obstacle to his economic development plans and there is not much of a fight back.

The absence of such matters in the Queen’s Speech is a tragedy, because there are so many opportunities to pursue a green agenda at the same time as pursuing jobs and a stable economy. Indeed, by investing in a green economy, which is far more labour-intensive than the fossil fuel economy it replaces, we can get those jobs and get the economy stable again.

Hon. Members will know that climate change is already affecting many of the poorest communities around the world, undermining their livelihoods through changes in temperature and rainfall patterns and through the increased frequency and intensity of floods and droughts. It has been estimated that climate change is already responsible for about 300,000 deaths a year and is affecting 300 million people, according to the first comprehensive study of the human impact of global warming from Kofi Annan’s Global Humanitarian Forum.

Although the impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately on the global south, this argument is not just about poorer people in far flung places. Increasingly, extreme weather events are happening much closer to home as well, such as the 2007 floods in Britain, which saw the largest ever civil emergency response since the second world war. From our riverside location at Westminster, we should perhaps take comfort from the fact that the Thames barrier is being prepared to cope with the sea level rise of 1.9 metres that is being projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the full range of its climate scenarios. Frankly, I am alarmed that we are having to consider such a sea level rise and that such measures are not being planned elsewhere.

The truth is that growing recognition of climate change as a serious threat to our national security, our economy and international development is not resulting in commensurate action domestically or internationally. What in the Queen’s Speech could help us? The new energy Bill, if it were significantly more ambitious than proposed, could play a role. Investment in major power infrastructure today will be with us for decades to come, but there is a real risk that rather than the “secure, clean and affordable” electricity system that we have been promised by the Government, we are more likely to end up with an insecure, dirty and expensive one. To avoid that, we need four crucial elements to be introduced into the electricity market reform proposals.

First, and most importantly, the energy Bill must contain a clear and absolute commitment to decarbonising electricity generation by 2030. That is not a radical green proposal, but is based on the advice from the Committee on Climate Change. I hope that the Prime Minister will ensure that that happens, given his own explanation of the crucial role of the committee. He said that it exists to

“take the politics out of climate change and show our intention to get to grips with the problem.”

Here is a perfect opportunity for him to demonstrate exactly that.

The second thing missing from the EMR proposals to date is the vast untapped potential of energy saving. We could argue all night about the various costs of low-carbon technologies, but I think that those on both sides of the House would agree that it is often a lot cheaper to save energy in the first place. The energy Bill must therefore introduce mechanisms to equalise support for demand reduction and energy saving, such as a feed-in tariff for energy efficiency. That should be the priority, not planning to subsidise EDF’s nuclear-generated electricity to the tune of £115 per megawatt hour. That is the level of subsidy that would be necessary based on EDF’s recent announcement of a new £7 billion price tag per nuclear power station. Let us remember too that subsidising nuclear power would fly in the face of the coalition’s promise not to provide taxpayer subsidy for nuclear. As the City analyst Peter Atherton has succinctly concluded, the only way that new nuclear could be built is

“if the construction risk was transferred to the taxpayer”.

I am extremely concerned that that is exactly what the Government will try to do.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point about the costs of new nuclear power stations that are subsidised by the public, but does she not also acknowledge that decommissioning costs often fall heavily on the public purse and are an enormous hidden subsidy to the nuclear industry?

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and that is yet another hidden cost of nuclear. It is not expressed up front and therefore when comparisons are made between different energy sources the price of nuclear, which would be a lot more expensive if the truth were told, is artificially deflated.

Like nuclear, an obsession with gas is another expensive distraction from a decisive and rapid shift to an efficient sustainable power system. The Chancellor has said that gas is cheap, but he is wrong. It might have been cheap 10 years ago but it certainly is not today. His Government’s own figures show that gas has been the main cause of higher energy bills over recent years and organisations such as Ofgem are all saying that gas prices are likely to continue to rise. Yes, gas can be a bridging technology and play a role in meeting peak demand, but the energy Bill must categorically rule out a new dash for gas both to keep energy costs for householders and businesses down and to meet carbon targets.

A strong emissions performance standard is essential, yet what we have so far from the Government is utterly inadequate. The Committee on Climate Change has also warned that allowing unabated gas-fired generation, as this Government plan, from new plant right through to 2045, carries a huge risk that there will be far too much gas-fired generation at the expense of low-carbon investment.

With fracking, huge questions remain over the impacts on groundwater pollution, health and air pollution, as well as earthquakes. Moreover, evidence from the Tyndall Centre indicates that the exploitation of even just a fraction of the UK’s shale gas reserves would simply be incompatible with tackling climate change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), whose knowledge of these matters is renowned. I take issue with his remarks about unsplendid isolation, however, because I struggle to reconcile that with his right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary’s assertion that the Government’s foreign policy has a hint of imperial delusion. One can either be an isolationist or an imperialist; it is very difficult to be both at the same time.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took some time to describe the problems relating to north Africa and the middle east and, in particular, to identify the challenges in the Sahel region. There is a real risk that, with our interest in things going on elsewhere in the world, we could take our eye off the ball in this troubled region, which could easily become a crucible for insurgency, people trafficking, narcotics and terrorism. The countries of north Africa are well apprised of the dangers of the situation and are most keen that the European Union take early action to ensure that the situation in the Sahel does not deteriorate any further.

The Maghreb is a bulwark against the instability that may well issue forth from the ungoverned spaces of that part of Africa. We have watched with some dismay the deteriorating situation in Mali and in Niger, especially the trouble in the north of Mali as Tuareg insurgents return from military duties in Libya to occupy large swathes of that country, and particularly the area around Timbuktu. That could well act as a catalyst for disruption and dismay in the wider region that might easily have knock-on effects, especially for Algeria and Morocco. Many of us hope sincerely that there will be a rapprochement between Algeria and Morocco and that, in particular, the situation in the Tindouf camps will be resolved without too much further delay. Indeed, the stability of the whole region appears to hinge on the nexus between Rabat and Algiers.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

With the renewal of the MINURSO mandate, which has greatly assisted the Western Saharan people, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good idea if it included a human rights monitoring role to assist the human rights of everyone in the Western Sahara and in the refugee camps?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening; I expected him to do so. I have spoken on this subject before in the House, and it would be reasonable to do as he suggests. However, Morocco’s concern would be that there was an implicit assumption that its human rights record is not particularly good. In a region that is troubled with its record in that respect, Morocco is something of a beacon, and I would encourage it in the direction of travel that its new Government, and their predecessors, have taken in improving human rights. I would be very reluctant to see that country held out as failing in some way on its human rights record, although I agree that there is every imperative to ensure that it improves in that respect.

I hold out Morocco as having done a great deal in recent years, particularly last year, to take itself further forward on the path towards constitutional democracy. In the middle of the year, there was the referendum on the new constitution, with elections in November. At a time when we have seen chaos sweep through north Africa and the middle east, Morocco has stood as a beacon of stability and relative calm. That is because it has a multi-party tradition. While its democracy is evolving—some of us have had the opportunity to witness that at first hand—it has had a tradition of nascent democracy for some time, and that is what has kept it free of some of the insurgency and mayhem that has enveloped the wider region. The Moroccan autonomy plan for the Western Sahara is undoubtedly imperfect—most plans are—but it does offer a credible and pragmatic way forward. It is supported by France and the US and, in truth, it is the only show in town. Next year marks the 800th anniversary of the first diplomatic contact between England and Morocco. One of our oldest friends deserves our unequivocal support as it tries to stabilise the region and control the ingress of enemies that we hold in common and must do all we can to defeat.

We have heard a great deal today about international development. Charity begins at home, but it most certainly does not end there. I am very proud that the Government have maintained their commitment to international aid. I am perfectly happy to face down populist demands to have it cut, and more than happy to explain to dissenters how it has helped to eradicate smallpox, reduce polio, tackle malaria, and even assist tax collectors, necessary as they are in state-building. If I had a criticism of this Government, and indeed of their predecessors, it would be that they have been insufficiently willing to present aid as being in the UK’s national self-interest. If it is explained in that way, we are more likely to get buy-in from the voting public. At the end of the day, our views are interesting, of course, but we need to represent the views of the public, and it is certainly the case that they are not entirely signed up to granting aid at a time when they are being expected to tighten their belts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

When we debate foreign affairs, it is difficult to restrict oneself to a limited number of subjects because there are so many things that one wants to talk about. I will cover two matters: general peace issues and the rights of migrant peoples across the world.

We heard a long discussion by the Foreign Secretary, who will go to the NATO summit next week in Chicago, on the future of Afghanistan. We should pause for a moment and hold the narrative. This country has spent £17 billion on the war in Afghanistan, which remains extremely poor, extremely corrupt and, to some extent, dominated by drug users, and the streets of our country have not been made any safer. Like many other countries, we have passed a series of anti-terror laws that are draconian to say the least. We have to learn a lesson about what intervention means and what the war on terror, inspired by George Bush in 2002, means for Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole policy narrative that we are following.

I opposed the war in Afghanistan and strongly opposed the war in Iraq because I could see no good end to them. It was not that I and others who opposed the wars supported the Taliban or Saddam Hussein’s regime. We simply did not believe that western intervention would bring about peace and justice or human rights; it seldom does. Indeed, although the intervention in Libya killed and removed Gaddafi, it has left behind it a series of warring factions, abominable human rights abuses, and lynchings of African people who happened to be living in Libya at the time of the NATO bombardment.

In the discussion about Iran, I recognise a similar process to the one that we went through in the build-up to the war in Iraq. I hope that the conference that took place in Istanbul and the Baghdad meeting that is due to happen in the near future will bring about some resolution and some contact between the west and Iran. We should read the International Atomic Energy Agency inspection reports carefully because they do not confirm that Iran has nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons grade uranium or plutonium. They confirm that, with the exception of the inspections required under the voluntary supplementary protocol to the non-proliferation treaty, the IAEA has been able to inspect nuclear weapons sites. We should be careful about our approach to the issue.

As I said in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian Government remain committed to, and a signatory of, the NPT. Indeed, the last NPT review conference envisaged the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free middle east—I think that we would all support that. However, that cannot be done within the terms of the NPT; it needs a wider convention. That requires the participation of Israel, which has nuclear weapons, 200 warheads and a delivery system. It is quite capable of using that and threatening somebody else. I hope that the Helsinki meeting is successful and that we move some way towards a nuclear weapons-free middle east as a result of it. However, an attack on Iran by Israel, or the continuing assassination of individual scientists in Iran by special forces, are great dangers, just as the deployment of large naval vessels in the strait of Hormuz may spark some sort of conflict.

I am not here to defend the Iranian Government. I deplore their human rights record and the treatment of ethnic and linguistic minorities, trade unions and religious groups. However, a western attack and a war on Iran will not liberate those people. It will kill many people, as has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope that we will not be so stupid as to start yet another war in the middle east, with all the ramifications that that would have.

Instead, I hope that we will put our efforts into peace and justice in the region, particularly for the Palestinian people. We should recognise that the Palestinian prisoners’ hunger strike, which has just ended, is a cri de coeur from those, including children and elected members of parliament, who have been in administrative detention—held without trial—by the Israeli Government. Although it is easy for the friends of Israel to proclaim it to be the only democracy in the whole region, a democracy cannot call itself by that name if it denies the same rights to others through occupation, settlement, the construction of walls or the imprisonment of its elected representatives. I therefore hope that the Government will continue to criticise the settlement policy, and that, above all, the rest of the world recognises what is happening.

We need to consider our approach to world affairs because we are keen to say that Iran should not have nuclear weapons—I do not think that Iran should have nuclear weapons any more than any other country should—but we have them, and we propose to spend £100 billion on replacing Trident. We also spend 2.6% of our GDP—the highest level in Europe—on defence. Perhaps we should think about reordering some of our priorities and looking at things in a slightly different way.

In the three and a half minutes left, I want to consider an issue that has not been raised in the debate and is seldom ever raised: the shocking abuse of the human rights of people who try to escape poverty in the poorest parts of the world. There is a flow of migrants from the poorest countries in central and sub-Saharan Africa across the desert to the Canary islands, Libya, Italy, Greece and other countries, and what happens to them is appalling. The numbers who die en route in the Mediterranean and trying to get across the little bit of ocean towards the Canary Islands are truly shocking, as too are the numbers killed in Libya or deported and left in dangerous and harsh conditions.

It is easy to blame the people traffickers—I have no truck with people traffickers; what they do is absolutely disgusting—and, as a wealthy country in the western world, it is easy for us to condemn migration and see it as a threat, but we are part of the problem. We have allowed the trade policies to develop that have impoverished so much of central and sub-Saharan Africa, and we use xenophobic arguments against people who are merely pleading to survive, to get to a place where they can work and to send resources and money home to their families.

Across the Atlantic, exactly the same thing is happening in parallel. The very poorest people from central America—from El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala—are fleeing through Mexico to the USA. They get across the border into Mexico, they ride freight trains, they are pulled off the freight trains, they are killed or kidnapped, and their families back home are forced to pay a ransom to the gang that did the kidnapping. I shall quote from a report I was given last week from the Campaign for the Right to Migrate Free from Violence, when Bishop Vera of Saltillo in Mexico was visiting this country. I had a long discussion with him. I quote from Daniel, a 20-year-old, who said:

“Eight men came and took us off the train, beat us… right nearby were six agents of the Federal Police, in their patrol cars, who didn’t do anything… we screamed and asked them to help us, but they didn’t do anything… Inside the house”,

in which they were held

“there was blood everywhere and lots of flies; there were about thirty kidnapped people there, six were women and they suffered so much, because from the time we arrived all of the kidnappers raped them, they raped them whenever they wanted, always right in front of us”.

It goes on to describe how people were killed in front of this young man.

These people are also fleeing poverty, and trying to escape violence and to seek justice in the world. We need to give a thought to the plight of migrant people all over the world. When they get to Europe or the USA, they clean our floors and offices, they pick the fruit, they work in the farms and factories, and they sustain the economic wealth of western Europe and north America. They are contributing to our wealth. It is up to us to recognise that they, too, deserve justice and human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I would take a slightly different view, having worked with the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development and served on the International Development Committee. I have seen a joined-up approach between DFID and the Foreign Office; more so than ever before. I also see Foreign Office Ministers taking such issues as human rights and the environment extremely seriously. Perhaps that has not come out in some of the debates so far, but my experience on the ground is slightly different from that of the hon. Lady.

Tackling the trade deficit is not just about increasing exports, however. It is also about doing more at home in areas where we have traditionally been large importers. Let us take food and drink as an example. The trade deficit in 2011 was £17.8 billion on food and drink alone. Ensuring that UK farmers have a fair deal from their customers would give a significant boost to agriculture and horticulture, creating many jobs in the process, which is why producers in my Stafford constituency welcome the legislation to establish an independent adjudicator between supermarkets and their suppliers.

In recent years, we have been told that the UK can no longer compete in standard manufacturing, and that we must concentrate on high value-added products. I disagree. It is not either/or; it is both/and. As wages rise in developing countries and as the cost of transport increases, there is an advantage in being close to our markets and not bringing everything in from the other side of the world.

That brings me to a subject that, as a Conservative, I perhaps should not raise—but I will. As a nation, we need to be prepared to identify strategic areas of business and to back them—not to the exclusion of common sense, but with more than warm words. Germany and France do that, and we can hardly say that their economies are less competitive than ours. As a result, state-backed—perhaps I should say “encouraged”—French and German companies have taken over swaths of British manufacturing and service industries. Many are good businesses that invest heavily in the UK—Alstom and Total are examples in my constituency—and they reap the rewards, but we do not see the reverse happening to nearly the same extent. Is it that our companies are less adventurous, or is it that they have lacked support and encouragement from successive UK Governments and face obstacles at the other end that the single market is supposed to prevent? Sometimes I think that there is a single market in the EU, and that that single market is the UK. I will believe otherwise when I see Severn Trent running the Paris water supply and Virgin Trains operating on Deutsche Bahn.

The UK’s role in helping with security in troubled areas is underplayed. Understandably, we concentrate on Afghanistan, where our forces—including the Tactical Supply Wing, the 22nd Signal Regiment and 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment from my area—have done so much in working for stability for the people of that country and to make our nation safer. However, trainers from the UK armed forces work in many other parts of the world. Recently, several colleagues and I were privileged to see the work of the British Peace Support Team in Kenya. The UK is also involved in training peacekeepers from the Ugandan and Burundian armies who are undertaking the vital and dangerous UN mission in Mogadishu. The question is often asked: what will our armed forces do once operations in Afghanistan are over? One of the answers is that they would do more of the training of peacekeepers, at which they excel. They are the best in the world.

The Gracious Speech states that the Government

“has set out firm plans to spend nought point seven per cent of gross national income as official development assistance from 2013. This will be the first time the United Kingdom has met this agreed international commitment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 3.]

As hon. Members have pointed out, that commitment has been around for 40 years, since the Pearson commission in the late 1960s. The UK’s aid programme makes a huge difference to the lives of millions. As the Prime Minister said:

“The last Session of Parliament also made an impact not just at home but around the world. We fed more than 2.5 million people facing famine and starvation, we supported over 5.5 million children to go to school in the poorest countries of our world and we immunised a child against diseases every 2.5 seconds of the last parliamentary Session.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 17.]

It is a privilege to serve on the International Development Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who I see in his place, and to see the effects of the good use of UK taxpayers’ money on the lives of the poorest: children able to study in classrooms for the first time, and deaths from malaria plummeting when UK Government money supplies bed nets, rapid diagnostic tests and artemesinin in combination drugs. This is a programme that looks to the future, helping growth in the private sector so that jobs are created and income generated, supporting tax authorities so that Government revenues grow and reduce the need for aid.

If I were to highlight one area that has been neglected over the years and is now more important than ever—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) referred to it—it would be agriculture, in particular smallholder agriculture. We are seeing substantial investment in agriculture by large corporations across the developing world. Where this is done alongside and in co-operation with existing landowners, particularly the small ones, it can work very well, as I saw on recent visits to Zambia and Malawi, by increasing production, productivity and employment. Sadly, however, this is sometimes not the case, as we see examples of large land grabs that leave people destitute.

Some have expressed disappointment that the Queen’s Speech does not mention legislating for 0.7%. I have to say that I do not share their disappointment, as I am keen first of all to reach that amount by showing through action that we can achieve it. Perhaps we could legislate afterwards, having shown the way. What has become increasingly clear to me over the past two years on the International Development Committee is that what matters is that we keep our commitment to the amount, that it is well spent on the poorest and, most important of all, that the countries we are helping make every effort to reduce their dependence on aid. Countries such as Zambia and Rwanda have set out their clear intention to eliminate their need for aid. I welcome this and suggest that the Government ask this of every country we work with.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned land grabs, as a serious issue is at stake. Many of the poorest countries in Africa are seeing their land bought up in large amounts by Japan, China and a number of other countries, which grow food that is then exported straight away. This means we have the phenomenon of very poor people starving alongside bounteous crops. Can we do anything about that through our aid programme?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, which concerns me greatly. I much prefer to see large companies working with smallholder farmers, allowing them to keep their land, perhaps leasing it off them for periods of time but with ownership being kept by the nationals. We need to look very seriously at this issue. I know that DFID does not engage in such activity and would not support it, but it is extremely important that we find out what can be done about it. I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s view on that.

Returning to the need to reduce dependence on aid, if a country sets out clearly how it intends to achieve this, it not only shows that the countries themselves are committed to growing their economies and their tax revenues, but gives the British people the confidence that development aid is a partnership with a clear goal.

With exports up, more embassies and other missions open, and a strong development aid programme, the UK is most certainly looking outwards. The key is to maintain this, not just through this Parliament, but for many years thereafter. In that way, Britain will continue to be a reliable partner in trade, in security and in the most vital work of helping the poorest in the world to a better future.