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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, of course the dialogue will be kept up, as will the maximum pressure in the form of the sanctions coming into place. The commitment to a second round of negotiations includes a commitment to discussions between officials between now and then in order to prepare those discussions in Baghdad.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

15. The last nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference supported the concept of a nuclear-free middle east. Could the Foreign Secretary say what is being done to promote that and when the conference involving all countries in that region including Israel is due to take place as a way of promoting a nuclear-free and therefore peaceful region?

[Mr Hague]

We are in favour of such a conference and we were one of the countries that promoted the idea. It was due to take place in 2012, although agreement on its taking place has not yet been reached. I stress, however, that we have no chance of achieving a nuclear-free middle east as long as Iran persists in a programme that the world suspects is a nuclear military programme.

Israel and the Peace Process

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I say what an unexpected pleasure it is, Mr Walker, to be serving under your chairmanship for the first time today and how delighted I am to have secured this important debate? It is pleasing to see such a good attendance today, especially as the House is about to rise for the Easter recess. I will try to be brief, as many Members wish to speak.

The best political debates are often driven by simple arguments. The Member whose debate it is rises and cuts through a confusing mass of factors and statistics, and then sits down. Everyone then wonders why they have not considered such an obvious and compelling solution before. I am afraid that we will not have one of those debates today.

A false sense of clarity and simplicity risks holding back the international community from making the most positive contribution that it can to the middle east. Over the next 90 minutes, I hope that we can draw out some of the hidden complexity of a situation that is all too often portrayed in black and white terms over here. Many Members will want to set out their own experiences of visiting the region and give their own perspective on the prospects for peace. That was one of the principal reasons that drove me and my hon. Friends to call for this debate today.

First, it is important to set Israel’s place in the middle east, and thus the importance of the peace process, in its proper context. We often hear two polar positions, often simultaneously, and they are both wrong. Both are fuelled by a two-dimensional view of the region that gets filtered through the media here.

On the one hand, we hear that the lack of lasting peace in Israel is inextricably linked to everything else in the middle east and has been the central catalyst of all the unrest in the region for decades. That view has led to the belief that if only the Israelis and Palestinians could agree, all other troubles in the region would melt away. That view was always hard to justify in a region that saw an eight-year war between Iran and Iraq and where regional minorities such as the Kurds have been consistently marginalised and oppressed. The Arab spring surely, finally, explodes the myth of the ubiquity and centrality of Israel in middle east affairs.

On the other hand, there is the view that Israel is an impregnable island that is prosperous, supported by the west and secure in its own borders. It is the plucky hard man to its sympathisers and the oppressor state to its detractors.

However, after a visit to the region, we can appreciate that this is a tiny nation that is bordered on all sides by states that are at best ambivalent and at worst hostile to its very existence. The existential threat to Israel consists not only of the rockets that are fired daily across its southern borders, but of the nuclear ambitions of Iran. It is not a country that is secure within its own borders. Certainly, if that level of threat were posed to the UK, we would not ignore it.

Israel has reached out to its neighbours where it could. Anxiety over the events of the Arab spring led not to a reaction against the welcome prospect of greater democracy across the middle east, but to an uneasiness that the fragile accommodation with its neighbours could be lost in the chaos and uncertainty of those months. It is a country that is focused on reaching out now. In 2011, Israel exported goods worth some $6 billion to its neighbours in the middle east and north Africa. It joined in a campaign with the Palestinian Authority and the Jordanian Government to have the Dead sea declared as one of the seven wonders of the natural world. Such examples show that, at its best, it can work constructively with its neighbours.

Conversely, although Israel is acutely aware of its deep connection to the countries that surround it, it is not prepared to subcontract its basic need for security to anyone. Above all, its innate quest for security has gone hand in hand—from its inception to the present day—with a deep commitment to the progressive values that we hold dear in this country, especially on the Opposition Benches. It is a country where women enjoy equality; the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community flourishes; there is a free press; the powerless are protected from the powerful by an independent judiciary; trade unions are well-organised and strong; educational excellence and scientific innovation are pursued; religious minorities are free to practise their creeds; a welfare state supports the poor and marginalised; and there is a fully functioning, vibrant, participatory democracy.

It would be absurd to suggest that Israel is loved across the middle east. Yet as we look at the hope and uncertainty generated by the Arab spring, the freedoms enjoyed by Israelis are inescapable to anyone in the region with access to the internet and social media. When millions across the middle east are desperate for leaders they can hold to account, Israel’s robust media and the tough stance it regularly takes to senior figures is a genuine beacon for those values.

Alongside the threat of rocket attacks still experienced by Israeli citizens, there is, of course, a real sense of injustice among many Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank. There is grinding economic hardship and rampant unemployment across huge swathes of the population. The genuine fear that the advancing settlements could prove permanent, the claims to return and concerns about integration for Israeli Arabs fuel the frustration at the lack of progress in the peace process. The Palestinians’ suffering and sense of injustice are prolonged with every passing month in which their dream of statehood is not realised.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

In my hon. Friend’s discussion about the injustices towards the Palestinians, what does he say to the accusation against Israel of the imprisonment of Palestinian elected parliamentarians and the continued denial of their right to travel to the west bank to take part in the parliamentary democracy of Palestine?

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend raises a valid point. Israel has taken measures to protect its security in several areas, which has caused deep discomfort to many people in Israel and here. What I am trying to set out in this speech is the context in which some of these decisions are taken.

Viewing from a distance often gives the impression that the principal blockage to lasting justice for both Palestinians and Israelis has been the intransigence of a dominant state, secure in its borders and willing to let every opportunity for peace limp by. If we are to promote peace effectively rather than act as a drag on it, we need to expose that analysis as flawed on every count.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I will be brief, Mr Walker, so that the Front-Bench representatives have time to respond. I am grateful for this debate and hope that it will lead to a full day’s debate on the Floor of the main Chamber, because enormous issues are involved.

I have visited Palestine and Israel on many occasions and would characterise Palestinians as under occupation, under siege or in exile. Having visited many Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere, I have felt the sense of anger, hopelessness and depression that people who, along with their grandparents, parents and now their own children—great-great grandchildren—have spent 60 years in refugee camps thirsting for the right to go home. They have been living in poverty, under oppression and with a sense that, for many generations, whole lives have been lived in limbo.

I recall meeting those who were removed from Palestine in 1948 and who went to the Gulf states and Iraq. They were eventually moved out of Iraq into Syria, and I met them languishing on the border between Iraq and Syria. Have a thought for how they feel, think and look at the world. Have a thought for the plight of the 1.5 million people in Gaza who are effectively in imprisonment and cannot travel to the west bank or Jerusalem. Some are elected parliamentarians who cannot go anywhere. Have a think about them and about what the situation does to the psyche of young people growing up in imprisonment, unable to do anything other than watch the world on TV and computer screens. That is the reality for many Palestinians.

Some talk blithely about the need for negotiations and for promoting a two-state solution, which is fine, but look at the criss-cross roads all over the west bank, and look at the settlements and at the water that has gone. I applaud what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has said about the need for an ecological approach to the River Jordan. We could start by not abstracting all the water from it, a practice that is leading to the Dead sea disappearing, literally, before our very eyes.

The march for Jerusalem will take place this month. The campaign is calling on the British Government to do a number of things and I would be grateful if the Minister said what support they can give it. The campaign wants to stop the systematic demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem; stop the building of illegal settlements and their structures; stop the granting of discriminatory and insecure residency rights to Palestinians and their arbitrary expulsion from that city; and stop the expulsion of many from Jerusalem. Homes in Silwan have been destroyed to make way for the city of David.

[Mr McCann]

Will my hon. Friend ask for those who are firing missiles into southern Israel to stop? His list will be incomplete if he does not put that part of the picture in place.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have never supported anybody who fires rockets at someone, but I ask my hon. Friend to get a sense of reality and to compare rockets with the 1,500 people who were killed during Operation Cast Lead, when F16 jets using phosphorous bombs killed innocent women and children. I am not in favour of rockets or bombing. We will achieve peace only if there is real recognition of the rights of and injustices suffered by the Palestinian people. That includes ending the settlement policy, ending the occupation of East Jerusalem, and ending the whole policy of the expulsion of Palestinians from East Jerusalem.

Israel is a very rich and very powerful nuclear-armed state situated in a region where it is in a position to threaten any of its neighbours at any time. I suggest that the way forward in the region is to end the injustice suffered by the Palestinian people, end the occupation of the west bank and the imprisonment of the people of Gaza, and allow those who have been stuck in refugee camps for so long to return home.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

No, I will not.

Britain was involved in the original partition and in the Balfour declaration, so we have a duty to help promote peace. That means suggesting to Israel that leaving the United Nations Human Rights Council, running away from international institutions and opposing Palestinian membership of the UN are hardly an indication of a process of peace, or of recognition of or respect for international law. They are very much the opposite.

If Israel cannot abide by international law and if it continues to abuse human rights and imprison Palestinians, why is the European Union-Israel trade agreement carrying on as normal, as though there is nothing wrong? That agreement has a human rights clause and that clause should be respected. We should, therefore, enter negotiations and tell Israel that if it cannot abide by the trade agreement’s human rights clause, the agreement itself will be suspended.

[John Woodcock]

rose—

Somalia

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

They will be integrated. I have discussed that a couple of times with my Turkish counterpart. In recognition of our conference in February, the Turks have moved their conference back a little to later in the year. Both Turkey and the UK hope that that will follow on from the progress we make in London. The conference in London is largely at Head of State level—it will be hosted by the Prime Minister, and many Heads of State and Heads of Government will be coming—and will address the whole range of issues affecting Somalia. It is therefore one of the most ambitious conferences that has been held internationally on Somalia. I believe it will help to establish momentum for all the conferences that will follow, including the one in Istanbul.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way on that point and I welcome the conference and all discussions that take place on Somalia. It is past time that there was detailed involvement. Can he envisage a day when a conference on the future of Somalia will be held in Somalia, which would show real movement and a real advance?

[Mr Hague]

I can envisage that day, but we are not there yet. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) said, there are stable areas in Somalia and some stable regional and local Governments. Based on what I saw on my visit last week, I would not say that the conditions are right to hold an international conference there yet, but the improvement has been great in the last year—I could not have visited at all a year ago. I can envisage that time if we do all the things that I shall describe.

It is because of that moment of opportunity that I mentioned that we have appointed a new ambassador to Somalia for the first time since 1991—I took him to present his credentials to the President of Somalia last week—and we are working to reopen our embassy in Mogadishu. All of that is consistent with our interests in Somalia and the increased emphasis that we place on conflict prevention as a priority in British foreign policy.

We do not take on that task lightly or without humility. The international community has not succeeded in turning Somalia around, but that is not for a lack of effort by other Governments and this one in recent years. We supported the important initiatives of the previous Labour Government, but we have not succeeded so far largely because the problems are so vast and complex, and because international policy is fragmented.

We must always be clear-sighted and realistic in setting our expectations for what we can achieve. We cannot transform any of Somalia’s problems overnight or impose a political solution on it. Britain cannot achieve any of the goals I am discussing without working with a broad range of countries across the world and Somalis themselves, but we can aim for the long-term goal of a Somalia that is more stable; that is able to meet the basic needs of its population; that can begin to build its economy with international support; that is able to govern its territory; and that can work with us to prevent terrorism flourishing on its soil. To do that we must try to change the dynamic in Somalia, from the trends of recent years of inexorable decline to an upwards trajectory of gradually increasing stability and security.

To achieve even that is an immense challenge. Our recent experiences of rebuilding states after conflict are that the international community has a tendency to set unrealistic goals that are not fulfilled, disappointing the expectations of the people we are trying to help and weakening the impact of our efforts. We must not make the same mistake with Somalia. We have a responsibility to match ambition with resources, our expectations with a good understanding of realities, and our hopes for quick results with the likely need for patient and long-term engagement.

Somalia today is a nation still at war with itself and without a sustainable peace. Its conflict has taken many forms over the past 20 years, from clan-based regional insurgencies, which overthrew the ruling regime in 1991, through warlordism, to the current violent insurgency of al-Shabaab. There have been 14 peace processes in that time, culminating in the current UN-led Djibouti peace process. Somalia’s problems are compounded and fuelled by geography, such as the fact that it has the longest coastline in Africa—it is more than 3,000 km long—and yet has no functioning coastguard or navy.

The scale of the human suffering is unimaginable and the number of victims so large as to be hard to fathom by people in this country. To put it in terms that would hit home here in Britain, more people in Somalia are dependent on emergency assistance than the entire populations of Edinburgh, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Liverpool put together; the number of people displaced in Somalia is seven times the population of Nottingham; and the average life expectancy in the 21st century is 48, which is roughly the same as life expectancy in Britain in 1880. An entire generation of children in Somalia has grown up with guns, not school books, knowing nothing other than insecurity and deprivation.

Even against that sober background, however, we can see a glimmer of hope for Somalia today. There are three compelling reasons why the time is right for a major push on Somalia, the first of which is that Mogadishu has been liberated by African Union Mission in Somalia forces, thanks to the skill and courage of the Ugandan and Burundian troops that form the backbone of the African Union contingent in Somalia. I saw that myself when I visited Mogadishu a week ago today. It was encouraging to see people going to the shops and markets. The road to the airport was crowded and some were looking forward to going to the beach on Friday. Those are semblances of normal life compared with what they have experienced in the past few years.

Nevertheless, it is hard to see many buildings that have no bullet holes in them, or that are not scarred by the effect of war. Today, almost all of Mogadishu is controlled by AMISOM and the transitional federal Government forces, and other regions are more stable, making it possible to make progress on Somali governance. Djibouti has sent troops further to strengthen AMISOM, and Sierra Leone is expected to provide a battalion in July, making further progress a possibility.

The second reason for optimism is that those operations and successful counter-terrorism work are putting pressure on al-Shabaab. We need to seize the opportunity to intensify that pressure and not allow al-Shabaab to regroup. Its guerrilla tactics inflict huge suffering on ordinary Somalis and it harbours foreign extremists, as I have described.

Related to that, the international community has made progress in diminishing the pirate activity that is a symptom of, and contributor to, Somalia’s conflict. There have been no successful hijacks in the gulf of Aden since November 2010. The number of vessels and crews currently held by pirate groups is at its lowest since 2009. Twenty-two ships were hijacked off the coast of Somalia between November 2010 and January 2011, but in the same period in the past year only two ships were hijacked.

The third reason for optimism is that there is an opportunity to create a broader and more representative political arrangement when the transitional federal Government’s mandate expires this summer. That gives an opening to launch a broader political process that embraces all Somalis, and that places emphasis on supporting regional governance as well as better and more representative government from the centre.

I pay tribute to the Governments and parties that have played a part in bringing that about; to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who has made two visits to Somalia this year; and to staff from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, who have all played an important role.

Those changes on the ground give the international community a window of opportunity to unite behind a clear strategy; to support a new political process that has greater legitimacy in the eyes of the Somali people than the current elite does; to help people to return to Mogadishu and rebuild their lives there; to strengthen the African Union forces in Somalia; to put in place a plan to build up Somalia’s own security and justice sectors; to introduce more effective arrangements to tackle piracy and terrorism; and to work better to support the pockets of stability that are now emerging in parts of the country.

That is what the Somalia conference will aim to do. We have invited Government and multilateral organisations that are active and influential on Somalia; representatives from Somalia, including the transitional federal institutions; the Presidents of Puntland and Galmudug; and representatives of Aluh Sunnah wal Jamaah. We welcome the participation of the President of Somaliland, with the experience that Somaliland can provide of peacebuilding in the region.

We have secured senior attendance from the region, including from Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda, as well as from the United States, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Sweden, the United Nations, the African Union and the European Union. I am delighted to say that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will attend the conference.

We hope to agree practical measures in seven key areas, all of which I discussed on my visit to Mogadishu and Kenya last week, and which are the subject of extensive discussion with our partners all around the world ahead of the conference.

On the political track, the current transitional institutions in Mogadishu run out in August. They must not be extended. The Somali political process must become broader and more representative. That might involve a constitutional assembly drawn from all of Somalia’s communities.

On security, African Union forces have pushed al-Shabaab out of Mogadishu to create political space there, and Kenyan action has put al-Shabaab on the back foot. However, African forces have insufficient funding for UN Security Council-mandated actions. We therefore hope that the conference will consider how funding can be made sustainable for African troops willing to put their lives on the line.

The success stories in Somalia are in the regions. Puntland and Galmudug have established local peace deals and set up administrations. The conference should agree a co-ordinated international package of support to Somalia’s regions that complements work on peace and stability at the national level.

Piracy off the Somali coast is the affront to the rule of international law that I described. We must break the piracy business cycle. We hope the conference will strengthen arrangements to catch, try and imprison pirates, and continue to develop regional maritime capacity in Somalia and across the region.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth]

Indeed.

In my Leicester constituency I represent a significant Somali diaspora community, many of whose members will be watching the debate with great interest. I am sure that I speak for a large number of them when I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary for the tone of his opening remarks, and welcome the fact that there is a degree of bipartisanship in the debate.

Many Members have described the situation facing Somalia extremely well. It is a country with no effective central Government, notwithstanding those in Somaliland and Puntland, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) pointed out; a country where the terrorist group al-Shabaab occupies much of the centre and south; and a country which, for all the reasons mentioned, has been one of the largest generators of refugees and internally displaced persons in the world. A symptom of that instability is the piracy off the coast of Somalia, of which the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), spoke with great knowledge. Let me develop some of the points that he made.

Even after the United Nations Security Council resolutions and the various multi-naval operations, piracy has increased over the last five years or so. In 2010, 4,185 seafarers were attacked by Somali pirates and 1,432 were on ships boarded by pirates. Estimates suggest that the ransom take has increased significantly: in 2006 the average ransom was $150,000, whereas in 2011 it was $4.5 million. According to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, the total ransom amount has reached $135 million. I understand the UK’s position on ransoms, and I think that it is right, but perhaps the Minister could tell us whether other nation states think that they should be made illegal. I believe that the United States has been considering that. I agree with the Committee that it is not a good idea, but I should be interested to hear the Minister’s view.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) talked about the economic development of parts of Somalia near where piracy is prevalent. Those areas may well have developed economically, but inflation has been stoked and commodity prices are increasing hugely, which brings all kinds of social problems. Then there is the tragic humanitarian crisis in Somalia, which many Members have spoken about. In 2011 it experienced the worst drought for 60 years and the worst food crisis for 20 years. Four million people are living in crisis conditions, and child malnutrition rates are the highest in the world.

I welcome the fact that the Government are convening this conference, which meets at a time when there are signs of progress. The UN Secretary-General has said that

“the prospects for positive change appear greater than they have been for many years.”

The transitional federal Government are arguably in their strongest position for some time. Al-Shabaab has been driven out of Mogadishu almost entirely, and as the Foreign Secretary said, the photos of Somalis enjoying Lido beach in Mogadishu in recent weeks contrast hugely with the photos we are all used to seeing of burnt-out buildings.

Such progress has been recognised internationally. The Foreign Secretary visited Mogadishu a few days ago, and yesterday the EU special envoy for the horn of Africa was there. However, we should remember last year’s suicide bomb, which killed 70 teenagers. Just yesterday a café was bombed, and guerrilla warfare continues. So although it is right for us to be ambitious and to have high hopes for this conference, that backdrop—along with 15 failed peace processes in 20 years—is the sobering reality against which the conference is convened.

The international community should try to find a solution not only because that is the right thing for Somalia, but, as the Foreign Secretary said, because it is in our national security interest. Finding that political settlement is very important, but I am well aware that the conference is only part of the process. I should be interested to hear how the Minister expects things to develop, and what he sees as the Foreign Office’s role, post-conference.

There are a couple of issues that I hope the conference will turn its attention to in detail, the first of which is the humanitarian situation. Somalia’s humanitarian needs will never be fully met until the violence, political instability and insecurity are addressed. We can all agree that the drought and the famine were a total tragedy, and that the international community’s response was perhaps too slow, although I do praise the work of the International Development Secretary and DFID. We can all agree that al-Shabaab’s banning late last year of a number of aid agencies has not helped matters. Thankfully, the rainfall this winter has been the best in years. However, it could be argued that the humanitarian situation is deteriorating in parts of southern Somalia as a result of increased military intervention in support of the transitional federal Government.

I hope the conference discusses and explicitly promotes the protection of citizens and compliance with international humanitarian law, and that the role of children is considered. We know that, too often, children are recruited to fight in these conflicts. Although we should welcome the TFG’s commitment to working with the UN on this matter, more needs to be done to convince them properly to monitor the use of children in their forces. Perhaps the Minister can touch on that issue.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am sure my hon. Friend, like me, will have read of Amnesty International’s concerns about child soldiers in Somalia. Does he not think that a very useful outcome of this conference would be a specific, in-terms declaration, signed up to by all parties, that no more children will be involved in any conflicts by any party?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I absolutely agree, and I hope that the use of children in these conflicts will be explicitly referred to in any communiqué resulting from the conference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

We live in a time when one can feel the tectonic plates of geopolitics move. In and out of this Chamber, Parliament is rightly engaged in debates about our nation’s role in the world. The demands on our armed services in Afghanistan, where we are working with our allies, and in countries around the world are increasing. Our diplomatic and humanitarian effort is being stretched even further. With so much going on, it would be all too easy to forget Somalia, and to think it less important than it is.

I think that it is essential to work with nations around the world to continue to provide support for Somalia. Many of my constituents ask me why that is so. Fundamentally, it is because it matters to the security of the UK. More than 350,000 Somalis live in the UK and we ignore Somalia’s problems at our peril. We should heed the words of the mayor of Mogadishu, who said to the BBC that disaffected young British Somalis were leaving to train in the al-Shabaab terror camps before returning to the UK with “revenge in their hearts”. In 2010, the MI5 director, Jonathan Evans, warned that it was

“only a matter of time”

before terrorists trained in Somali camps inspired acts of violence on the streets of the UK.

Points have been made about the importance of keeping our shipping routes open and free from pirates.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying about the Somali community in Britain. She is correct that there are at least 350,000 Somalis living here. Will she for a moment pause and reflect on the hard work and contributions of that community in developing businesses and opportunities, and on the positive role that a lot of young Somalis play within their community and the education system? We should not allow a message to go out that denigrates an entire community of ambitious and hard-working young people.

[Sarah Newton]

I do not believe that my point reflected negatively on the vast majority of Somalis living in our country, who make a very positive contribution. That point has been made well by Members this afternoon and I concur with it. However, we must not put our heads in the sand and ignore professionals who are accountable to this Parliament and the professional advice that they give us.

I welcome what the Government are doing to re-establish an embassy in Somalia and the efforts of the UN to re-establish its base in Mogadishu.

In the weeks around the forthcoming major conference on Somalia, hosted by the Prime Minister, I hope that our media play their part in helping people up and down the country—especially people in places such as my constituency, who do not have day-to-day contact with the Somali community—to understand why it is important that they support Britain’s continued involvement in Somalia. As we are all in the Chamber today, it is clear that all parties understand that, but a large percentage of the people who have sent us here do not really understand it and have reservations about why we are continuing our support. That is quite understandable, because people are often susceptible to compassion fatigue, especially when their standard of living is being squeezed and some people are losing their jobs. Many fear that good money is being wasted. With so many conflicts erupting around the world, they might tire of even trying to keep up with what is going on. As taxpayers’ money is being spent, it is vital that we all do our bit to make the case for support. I believe that people will want to support our efforts in Somalia if they understand the risks to our national security and believe that we are really making a positive difference on the ground.

Today, I want to share with colleagues the positive difference that humanitarian aid is making to thousands of people in Somalia, who, we must not forget, are among the poorest and longest-suffering on the planet. I have mentioned ShelterBox in the House before. It is a great Cornish emergency humanitarian aid charity that provides boxes containing shelter, basic cooking equipment, water sanitisation equipment and tools. Its ingenuity in responding to different situations has enabled it to deliver a remarkable array of services in Somalia in its sturdy boxes. The boxes are all packed in and distributed from Cornwall, and enabled by donations and volunteers. Over the past few years, several thousand boxes have been sent to Somalia, and nearly a further 500 boxes, including 50 classroom boxes, are currently en route. That shipment of direct aid is enough to provide shelter for about 1,000 families.

Due to the security risks of working in Somalia at the moment, ShelterBox does not actually have any volunteers on the ground there. It is instead working with a partner agency, a French medical charity called Women and Health Alliance International, which has a long history of working in Somalia. At the main displacement camp in Mogadishu, it has already set up a health centre, where there is a hospitalisation facility using the disaster relief tents donated by ShelterBox. It is providing primary health care consultation rooms, a delivery suite and even a small hospital. The ShelterBox tents not only provide a clean, sterile area for the medical staff to work in but allow patients to be hospitalised while staying with their families rather than being separated. Pregnant women also have privacy while they are having their antenatal consultations and giving birth. The facility has been described by the doctors on the ground as having made

“a dramatic difference to the well-being of hundreds of Somali families in dire need of assistance in Mogadishu.”

ShelterBox’s success in helping people in Somalia is a result of having worked around the world for many years building effective working relationships with local organisations that do not have the bureaucracy and inefficiency of some of the multinational agencies. Wherever it works in the world, it works with locals and, in doing so, it tries to build capacity in those nations to deal with future disasters.

Working in partnership with other countries’ aid efforts and with people in the countries that we are supporting, so that they can develop their own capacity, is rightly at the heart of the Government’s humanitarian aid response. That theme was echoed in a recent report published by Oxfam, which stated that the UN and international non-governmental organisations provided only part of the answer to crises from Haiti to the horn of Africa.

When the Minister responds to the debate, I would appreciate his reassurance that the Government’s admirable plans to publish information on how taxpayers’ money is spent in Somalia will be implemented so that all can see it, just as donors to ShelterBox can go online and see how their money is being spent so well. Publishing that information would go some way towards reassuring my constituents that their money was being well spent and, as a result, build public support for the essential work that Britain needs to continue to do in Somalia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that we are having this debate on Somalia. It is the first debate on this subject for a long time—if not, the first ever—on the Floor of the House, although there have been Adjournment debates. It is a major step forward and I welcome it.

There is a clear need for peace, reconciliation and social justice, which I hope the London conference will help to provide. As I said in my intervention on the Foreign Secretary, I hope that instead of lots of international conferences all over the world, we will witness, observe and hear reports of proper, open political dialogue in Somalia by all sections of the community, indicating the development of a democratic and free society. That is what we want.

I represent Islington North, which includes the Finsbury Park area, where a large number of Somali people have made their homes. They have a strong, vibrant and hard-working community, with ambitious groups of young people trying to achieve. My intervention on the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) was not intended to be critical of the points she was making; it was intended to ensure that we get the message out that there is a big Somali community in Britain that is making a great contribution to our society, with young people—just like young people anywhere else—who want to achieve the best in life. We should support them and applaud what they do, rather than allow an entire community to be denigrated, which is what some of the media have unfortunately done to Somali people over a considerable period.

This morning I chaired a large meeting at the Finsbury Park mosque that, I am delighted to say, the Minister attended as the guest speaker. We had more than 70 people present, with many questions asked about what will happen at the conference and how things will develop from there, and also about support and recognition for the community in Britain. I thank the Minister very much for being prepared to come along. It was much appreciated by the mosque and by the community that we had that open dialogue and debate. I hope that such dialogue and debate can be held in other communities, because the point that we all made this morning was that there is a big diaspora community and a lot of links between the communities in Britain and in Somalia. Much money is sent home, and also people go back and forth, to exercise their skills and pursue their wish to see the development of their society. We should see that as an asset and a contribution for the future. Also, the local community in my area has raised a great deal of money for famine support. Interestingly, One True Voice, the Somali women’s organisation, organised an evening concert for famine support in a Catholic church, to emphasise that participation in the local community, which is something we should all applaud.

We are dealing with the consequences of a colonial past, the cold war and, in many ways, the history of Africa—all those straight lines between countries drawn on the map to describe boundaries that were utterly meaningless to the communities, except that in Somalia things are slightly different, because it is the only country in Africa that is linguistically unified and where only one language is spoken. Every other country in Africa has a multiplicity of languages—[Interruption]—although I am about to be corrected by many Government Members. However, if they can just contain themselves, I will be brief and then they can speak. Let us say “one of the few countries in Africa”, okay?

Saferworld has sent an interesting briefing for today’s debate, which says that

“it will only be through addressing the factors that underlie Somalia’s conflicts that the country will ever move from repeated crises towards lasting peace and prosperity.”

Saferworld outlines a whole lot of issues surrounding that instability—lack of political cohesion, corruption, the power of warlords, the fear that many people feel, and, of course, the ready supply of arms and guns—and the inability of any effective civil society in much of the country, although not all of it, to do anything about it.

I have also received an interesting briefing from the National Union of Journalists about the killing of journalists. Indeed, I tabled early-day motion 2638 on the issue. The latest to be killed was Abdisalan Sheik Hassan, who was shot dead on 18 December 2011, although I listed a number of other journalists who were killed in 2011. “Lives and Rights of Journalists Under Threat”, a report by the National Union of Somali Journalists, goes through, in gruesome detail, the number of journalists who have been killed for trying to report what was going on or have been harassed by officialdom, in all parts of Somalia, for trying to report the “unreportable”—the things that it did not wish to be reported. We want to know what is going on in Somalia, so I hope the Minister will assure us that one outcome of the conference will be a reference to the right to know and protection for those who are reporting, because if authorities of any sort—I am talking of illicit authorities, as well as legitimate authorities—kill journalists, they do it for a reason: they do not want the news to get out. We have to recognise that and be as supportive of journalists as we can be.

The issues of children’s rights and child soldiers were raised earlier. Amnesty International’s recommendations on those matters are important. They state that all elements should verify that children are not among the Government forces and that no person under 18 is recruited into any such forces. They also stress the importance of the demobilisation and reintegration of child soldiers. This is not some esoteric liberal argument being pursued from afar; if we do not do anything, or encourage something to be done, about the use of child soldiers and the brutalisation of children in that conflict, they will grow up, post-conflict, into adults who know nothing other than the use of a gun and the assertion of force to get their way. That would result in all the horrors of criminal gang cultures such as those experienced in post-conflict societies in Guatemala and El Salvador, and in parts of South Africa after the end of apartheid. It is in everyone’s interests to ensure that the rights of children are respected. I fully endorse the point made earlier that the United Nations convention on the rights of the child should be recognised by the conference; I hope that it will be.

The conference is being held in a former colonial capital. There are some awful European traditions, and one involved the congress of Berlin in 1884, which decided most of the borders in Africa. I hope that this is the last time that this kind of thing happens. I want to see progress in Somalia and the development of an open and democratic society. I also want to see a recognition of the poverty among many of the people there, and of the deaths from wholly preventable conditions and illnesses. I also want to see a recognition of the way in which a great deal of aid does not reach the people that it should, because gangs, corrupt officials and others get hold of it, so that no benefit whatever is derived from it.

In a briefing that I have received, I note that the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has published an assessment of the situation in Somalia. That assessment is a couple of months old, but I suspect that the situation is not very different now. It echoes what the Foreign Secretary said. Based on food supply figures, it is estimated that 4 million people—53% of the Somali population—are in crisis, countrywide. Of those 4 million people, 3 million are in the southern region of Somalia, which represents an increase from last summer, and 750,000 are seriously suffering in the famine, which has worsened.

Yes, we must provide food aid and support for those people who are suffering, and let us also recognise that the situation has become very bad in Somalia. The rest of the world has finally woken up to that fact, and to the need for aid and recognition. Fortunately, so far in this debate and the others that I have heard, no one is talking about an Iraq-type or Afghanistan-type western military intervention. People are talking about a process to bring about political change, recognition and respect for all the different traditions in Somalia.

I am proud to represent a large Somali community in Britain. It breaks my heart when I hear about my constituents’ relatives being stuck in refugee camps for years on end, or about people being killed on the streets of Mogadishu and their relatives here being unable to go home to attend their funeral. That is not the future that my constituents want for Somalia; they want a Somalia that is based on political recognition and democratic institutions, and on an understanding that we have a responsibility to do our very best to end this crisis and help the people to realise the dreams that we all have, for a long life, for fulfilment for our children and for a fair and secure society. That, surely, is what the aim of the conference should be.

Syria

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I absolutely agree. This is an important consideration for the Russian authorities and it is not in Russia’s national interests to take the position it has taken. There will be a future Government in Syria who will remember what Russia has done. Its actions are causing outrage in the Arab world, which is deeply frustrated with Russia’s position, as the secretary-general of the Arab League said to me earlier this afternoon, so we will certainly employ the arguments cited by my hon. Friend.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The killings, murders and disorder in Syria are obviously dreadful and must be condemned. Notwithstanding the Foreign Secretary’s understandable anger with Russia at present, does he not think that it would be appropriate to have further negotiations with the Russian Foreign Minister and the Government of Iran, who are a near neighbour and in whose interests it cannot be for further disorder to spread to their country? Also, is he confident of the democratic and inclusive credentials of all the Syrian opposition? Surely we can learn from the example, given by many colleagues, of what happened in Libya, where in some quarters the abuse of human rights unfortunately continues, despite assurances given by the opposition there before the intervention.

Human Rights

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the first time with you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. As you are a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in your own right, I can think of no one more appropriate to chair this debate.

The Committee has published its report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s 2010-11 human rights report. I am delighted that we have the chance to debate it today. Human rights are under the spotlight around the globe, so nothing else could be more important to debate. I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench, having seen him in other incarnations today; he is obviously having a busy day. I pat the Foreign Office on the back for its decision to honour its election pledge to continue publishing its annual report on human rights, albeit in a more cost-effective form.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee was not here for the earlier debate on India, which lasted for one and a half hours. Apparently, we now have only one and a half hours to debate human rights. Will he use his good offices as Chairman to ensure that, in future years, we have a full day’s debate on international human rights? It is simply not good enough for the British Parliament to spend one and a half hours a year on international human rights.

[Richard Ottaway]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I suspect that that point may be made by other hon. Members today, and I agree completely with the sentiment. For that reason, I do not intend to speak for too long, to allow others to speak.

I welcome the fact that the Government are still publishing human rights reports, although in a more modest form than in the past. I am delighted that Amnesty International welcomes that as well and has said:

“It is something that we value enormously…we have real respect for this report”.

I also welcome the fact that the Government continue to update the list of countries of concern online on a quarterly basis and that they have established an advisory group on human rights that includes practising lawyers, academics and representatives of non-governmental organisations, many of whom have eminent positions in the human rights system. Again, Amnesty welcomes that, for the obvious reason that, if experts talk to the FCO, it can produce a more informed report.

The report was based mainly on the period from January to December 2010. Much has happened since then in the human rights field, with the Arab spring, Bahrain, Syria, Russia and numerous other important events. On the Arab spring, the Foreign Affairs Committee will go to Egypt, Tunisia and Libya in two or three weeks’ time. The role of the Foreign Office in recognising and promoting human rights there will be a part of our inquiry as it develops.

I will touch on a couple of countries of concern. The first is Bahrain, about which I suspect we may hear more and where there have been many developments. I will not go through them now, as colleagues will be well aware of them, but it was our view that Bahrain should have been included in the report’s list of countries of concern. In response to the Select Committee’s requests for an update on the situation in Bahrain, the Secretary of State wrote to me saying:

“We do not hesitate to express disagreement with the Bahraini authorities. Although we do not agree on everything, Bahrain is a key ally of the UK and this close relationship allows us to have the frank discussions that often are necessary. We have, therefore, made it clear to the Bahraini Government that the civil rights of peaceful opposition figures, along with the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, must be respected.”

I support that approach. I recognise the Bahraini regime’s dignified response and its establishment of the independent commission of inquiry, but I encourage the Foreign Office to keep on the button as far as Bahrain is concerned, to follow through on the commission’s work and to ensure that the Bahraini Government implement the necessary reforms.

The second area of concern is Libya. Again, I need not remind the House of the developments there, but it is worth quoting the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, who addressed the UN Security Council recently. She raised concerns about the detainees being held by revolutionary forces, saying that some 8,500 prisoners were being held in about 60 centres. She said:

“The lack of oversight by the central authority creates an environment conducive to torture and ill treatment.”

The Minister responded by confirming that the Government

“do not lose sight of the victims of this conflict. The conditions of those in detention have been raised by Ministers on visits, and directly with the Libyan Government.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 609.]

The situation at the moment is pretty dire. Militias are free to roam around, and unlimited weapons are available. We need basic adherence to the fundamental human rights that we consider important. Again, the Committee will consider that.

However, it is not all bad news. Across the globe in Burma, distinct improvements have been made. I like to think that that is a result of pressure by the international community. Changes have been made to the electoral law that allow Aung San Suu Kyi’s party to register for the forthcoming by-elections, political prisoners have been released and moves have been made towards greater media freedom, all of which are important human rights advances that we recognise, welcome and accept. We must work to secure more critical resolutions in the UN and make our concerns known at the highest level with Burma’s neighbours, as well as our expectation that continuing pressure will be kept on the country. I urge the Foreign Office to remain vigilant and press for further reform, but we should recognise that the improvements have come about partly as a result of the Government’s influence.

The next report will consider some cross-cutting issues, subject to the Committee’s agreement. We will be considering involvement in rendition, and we welcome the fact that the UK has examined its own human rights practices in that area. We are looking forward to hearing in more detail why the detainee inquiry chaired by Sir Peter Gibson has been brought to an end. From what I hear, it was clearly the right decision, and I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary has kept open the intention to hold an independent, judge-led inquiry after all police investigations have been concluded. That is obviously the right way forward. I hope that the Minister can confirm that.

The Minister’s colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for soft power, wrote to us in November to say that Ministers have commissioned further work on the strategy and that a final version of the paper has still to be published, but did not include a date. Can the Minister update us on what is causing the delay and what exactly will be published? We touched in our report on the public diplomacy aspects of the Olympic games, so our dialogue with the Foreign Office on that matter has been ongoing.

I shall briefly touch on programme funding and official development assistance for human rights. There seems to be a bit of a dichotomy in that one has to be eligible for ODA funding to qualify for a human rights funding programme. It is conceivable that a country that at first sight may not qualify for ODA funding—the Chair of the Select Committee on International Development has gone now—has a human rights aspect that needs funding. That seems a little odd.

In conclusion, I should like to raise the fact that the World Service is being jammed by Iran and that there are problems with the BBC Persian TV output, which is particularly important in this area. Independent research shows that, in that part of the word, the service is the most trusted, impartial and objective international radio programme, which is probably why the regime is jamming it. I understand that Iran is a member of the International Telecommunication Union, which is a United Nations body. As such, it has committed itself to the free exchange of information and data for the benefit of all. Iran is therefore in breach of its obligations under that treaty. Again, I hope that the Foreign Office can take that up with the regimes.

I will now leave it to other hon. Members to express a view on our report, which we think is particularly important. We will publish another such report this year. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I have four minutes in which to deal with the world’s human rights, so I will do my best. There is a message in that comment—this situation is ludicrous. Allowing one and a half hours to discuss the human rights of the whole planet, in what is apparently the first debate on this subject since 2008, is ludicrous. I appeal to the powers that be to ensure that something changes in that regard.

Very quickly, there are several points that I want to make. The first is about participation in the UN Human Rights Council. Britain is a full participant in that council, which I frequently attend on behalf of a non-governmental organisation called Liberation. The council has greatly reformed its ways, and the in-country peer group review that takes place every three years is a valuable tool, which we should use to the full. The British Government appear to have broken with the tradition of allowing the European Union to represent us at the council, and they make regular contributions, particularly on the death penalty. I hope that that extremely important new tradition continues. If we allowed ourselves to be represented solely through the European Union, an awful lot of cases would simply never be raised, such as the treatment of Roma people in Hungary and other places, so it is important to maintain an independent representation.

My first point is about human rights in Europe. I was present, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who presided over it, at the launch of Human Rights Watch’s “World Report 2012”. In the report is a fascinating essay by Benjamin Ward of that organisation, part of which states:

“At first glance, the idea of a human rights crisis in Europe might seem farfetched. But scratch beneath the surface and the trends are truly worrying. Four developments stand out: the rollback of civil liberties in state responses to terrorist attacks; the debate around the place of minorities and migrants in Europe, a debate too often laced with xenophobia; the rise of populist extremist parties and their baleful influence on public policy; and the diminishing effectiveness of traditional human rights institutions and tools. Unless governments wake up to the scale of the threat, the next generation of Europeans may see human rights as an optional extra instead of a core value.”

Those are very tough words, and very well put.

The narrative that has been developed by the popular press of constant attack on the European Court of Human Rights and its processes and potential judgments, is very unfortunate and misplaced, and it is damaging and dangerous to our own human rights. I regret the way in which the Prime Minister decided to go to the Court, and how it has been presented as an inefficient, incompetent organisation. Yes, there is a very large number of outstanding cases. Most of them are inadmissible. The issue, however, is one of resources for the court rather than of criticism of it. The Chagos islanders have a case before the Court’s grand jury, and I look forward to the result. I hope that the Government accept and abide by whatever decision the court takes, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that they will.

We attack the institutions of human rights at our peril, and I hope that the Minister will say that the British Government intend to continue their participation in the European Court of Human Rights, and to continue with their acceptance of the European convention on human rights and its place in British law. The convention is an instrument of defence. Roma people in Hungary, and Travellers in other countries, have nowhere else to go, and victims of racist attacks across Europe are in part protected by the judgments made. We do well to state our strong view that we believe in human rights, and in the UN and European conventions. We should be proud of that, not afraid of it, frightened by it or intimidated by it.

EU Sanctions (Iran)

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The verification of any agreement with Iran would be very important, and the presence of IAEA inspectors there is crucial. I referred earlier to the enrichment of uranium to 20% at the underground facility that Iran has built in Qom, which my hon. Friend will remember Iran kept secret for a long time. It was exposed by western nations including the United Kingdom, and if that had not happened, Iran would probably have kept it secret to this day. The level of trust is not very high.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Iran remains a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and the last review conference called for a nuclear-free middle east. There is, however, one nation in the middle east that does have nuclear weapons, and that is Israel. Does the Foreign Secretary not think that it would be useful if we took up the suggestion of the NPT review conference to convene a denuclearisation conference of all nations in the region, in order that there could be direct talks? Iran would then be in a position to give assurances that it had no intention or wish to develop nuclear weapons.

[Mr Hague]

Indeed, the commitment to have such a conference in 2012 was given at the NPT review conference in 2010, and plans are going ahead for that conference. Of course, it does not help anyone trying to persuade Israel not to have nuclear weapons if Iran continues a nuclear weapons programme that would have the effect, if it were brought to fruition, of many other nations in the middle east pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. That is absolutely the wrong way to go about trying to persuade Israel to adhere to the non-proliferation treaty.