US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement

John Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Might my hon. Friend not want to question why the Liberal Democrats, who seem to be exerting some influence—undesirable, I would say—over the Trident renewal programme, do not seem to have managed, or even tried, to exert that influence to get this issue debated? Nuclear policy has been debated, as I will say later; my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made Labour’s position very clear. Why does my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) think that the Liberal Democrats have not insisted on having a debate?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The shadow Minister invites me into a difficult situation. I cannot speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, nor would they want me to. They apparently wanted a Trident review, with no like-for-like replacement. The review took place, and it is a matter of record and of history.

On the question of this debate, I do not know what pressure was or was not applied by particular Ministers. I know that a number of Back-Bench MPs on both sides of the House believe, as I am sure the hon. Member for New Forest East would agree, that parliamentary scrutiny of all things is important; that is why we are sent here as Members of Parliament. As for the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) on nuclear weapons, he and I have a slightly different history on this matter, and we have debated it.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there was a Trident review. It came to the self-evident conclusion that if we are to maintain the nuclear deterrent, continuous at-sea deterrence is the only way of doing so, in spite of many fanciful schemes that have been dreamt up by the Liberal Democrats. He has a perfectly straightforward, long-standing and honourable position of being opposed, but where does he think that the Liberal Democrats now stand on the issue?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Well, it is—[Interruption.] My friend the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) helps me in this. It is an unfair question. I do not know and I cannot tell, but I hope that the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley will come round to the view that nuclear weapons are unsustainable, expensive, dangerous and immoral, and that the world would be a much safer place if the five declared nuclear weapon states stood up to their obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and took steps towards disarmament. This debate is not solely about Trident; it is about the mutual defence agreement. Nevertheless, there is obviously a close connection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I think it would depend on the extent of the debate that had taken place before the question was asked. I would be confident that if there were to be a debate on the subject, the public would come to share my view that no amount of conventional forces can be adequate to prevent an attack on us by an enemy armed with weapons of mass destruction if we lack the means to retaliate in similar terms.

While I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, let me return to a point that he made earlier in an intervention on the hon. Member for Islington North. He pointed out that nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence had not abolished war, and that wars continued all over the planet. That is not an argument against nuclear deterrence; it is an argument in favour of it. After the second world war, if we had lived through 50 years of hostility between the then Soviet bloc and the west and there had been no conflicts anywhere in the world in which the nuclear balance of terror did not apply, one could indeed make the case that the nuclear balance of terror had had nothing to do with the prevention of war. The reality was that proxy wars were being fought by client states of the superpowers during the cold war, but the one thing that the superpowers never dared to do was to fight against one another directly, because they knew the potential outcome of all-out war between nuclear-armed powers.

Why is it important to have a debate on the matter, even though public opinion is fairly settled and parliamentary opinion is fairly relaxed? There are two reasons.

[Mr Spellar]

The hon. Gentleman says that parliamentary opinion is fairly relaxed, and that may be a proper assessment of the arithmetic. In that case, why does his Prime Minister not put the issue of Trident renewal to a vote of Parliament?

[Dr Lewis]

I wish I knew the answer. I have asked that question many times, and it takes me neatly on to the two reasons why it is important that we have a debate on this subject, even though Parliament seems relatively relaxed about it. There is no doubt that if we look at the arithmetic of the 2007 vote that took us through the first stages of the successor programme to the Vanguard class submarines, it was exactly as the shadow Minister says—virtually every Conservative MP and a substantial majority of Labour MPs voted for continuing the deterrent into the next generation, and a significant minority of Labour unilateralists voted against the measure. The figure was about 80 or 90, if I remember correctly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

The hon. Gentleman refers to wriggling out, but that is exactly what he is doing. It was absolutely clear where the parties stood in the debate on 17 July 2013, when the policies were enunciated perfectly clearly. My party’s policies were endorsed by the national policy forum and the recent Labour party conference. I am not aware of any changes in his party’s view. This debate is therefore not about the position of the parties being enunciated or holding people’s feet to the fire. The fact is that he has not managed to persuade his Prime Minister to do anything, and he ought to come clean about that.

[Dr Lewis]

There is a very good reason why I have not been able to persuade the Prime Minister to do anything, which is that it was evidently part of the negotiations—albeit that they were not made public at the time—on the formation of the coalition Government.

[Mr Spellar]

Secret negotiations.

[Dr Lewis]

Indeed. Evidently as part of the deal an agreement was reached between the Conservative leader and the Liberal Democrat leader that the decisive steps for the renewal of the successor submarines for Trident would be put off until after the next general election.

[Mr Spellar]

rose—

[Dr Lewis]

I will give way one more time, but I want to make some progress.

[Mr Spellar]

I wholly understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to make progress. Let us be clear that what he has said is that, for a squalid deal to get office, the Prime Minister was prepared to damage the defence of this country. That is according to the hon. Gentleman’s own arguments.

[Dr Lewis]

What I am saying is quite clear. If we end up with a hung Parliament and the balance of power is held by a small unilateralist party, it will be able to blackmail one or other of the main parties into not doing what should be done, which is to sign the contracts to make the renewal of Trident for another generation a certainty. I am clear that that was part of the potpourri of things that were negotiated in private. At the time I described it as a love gift to the Liberal Democrats. I thought it was absolutely wrong. It was a shock and a surprise, and it is not something of which any Conservative should be proud. Having said that, I look to my own party’s Front Benchers for an assurance that nothing like that will ever happen again, and I look to the Opposition spokesman for an assurance that no Labour leader will be tempted to conclude such a deal either.

The second reason why it is important to have a debate on this subject at this time is that the terms of trade, as it were, in international relations have changed. When the hon. Member for Islington North and I addressed these matters in January 2013, when we debated the nuclear deterrent, and in June 2013, when we debated the non-proliferation treaty, much of the argument was focused on the fact that the cold war was over and showed no sign of returning and that the nuclear deterrent was therefore irrelevant to the threats that then confronted us. As some of us stated at the time, it was far from certain that we could ever know significantly in advance whether those circumstances were going to change. We all hoped that Russia, having shed communism and started along a more democratic path, would continue to go in that direction, but there could be no guarantee.

Even now, we cannot tell where our relationship with Russia will be in the next 10, 20 or 30 years. Nobody predicted the crisis that has arisen over Ukraine, and some might argue that if Ukraine were a member of NATO, the Russians would not have done what they have done. Conversely, it could also be argued that if Ukraine were a member of NATO and the Russians had done what they have done, we would possibly now be on the brink of an extremely dangerous east-west confrontation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Roger, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this debate, which was secured by the unlikely duo of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

My hon. Friend and I served together for many years on the London Labour party executive; it was probably around the same time that the hon. Member for New Forest East was a member of the Labour party. I have known my hon. Friend a long time and he has been consistent; it is fair to say that I have consistently disagreed with him during that time. However, he has been extremely patient in constantly ploughing his furrow, as I suppose would be true of any allotment-holder in being patient as they wait for things to come around, but I fear that he will not see fruition on this issue too soon.

Of course, the hon. Member for New Forest East has a very different position from that of my hon. Friend. I almost think that his working with my hon. Friend is a sort of diversion therapy from his frustration with his own leader. He vented that frustration very strongly back in 2010, when he wrote about the formation of the coalition. He said:

“It is not in dispute that, when Conservative MPs met at Westminster to endorse the proposed Coalition, we were categorically assured that the Liberals would have to accept the Trident successor programme. As David Cameron gave this guarantee, George Osborne nodded in confirmation. Unfortunately, all these assurances have since been disregarded.”

I hope that the Minister, in his response to the debate, may be able to shed some light on whether the hon. Member for New Forest East was either wilfully self-deluded or woefully misled by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in the assurances that they gave.

However, that situation is also based on a misapprehension that the Liberal Democrats are unilateralist disarmers—the hon. Member for New Forest East said that again today—because the policy that they have been pushing to get the Trident review is not a unilateralist one; it accepts the continuation of a nuclear deterrent. However, to try to provide some differentiation between themselves and others, they went for some rather exotic—as well as more expensive, destabilising and uncertain—alternatives, all of which were appropriately demolished by the review.

[Dr Lewis]

I do not intend to emulate the right hon. Gentleman by making as many interventions on him as he made on me, but I will say that I have never regarded him as a naive politician. Nevertheless, if he really thinks that the undercurrent and the real message of the stance taken by the Liberal Democrats on this matter is that they were really in favour of a nuclear deterrent, he should do what I did, although it might disturb his sleep a bit, and watch the rebroadcasting of the Liberal Democrats’ conference debates on this subject, because—believe me—all they were interested in during those debates was getting rid of Trident. One never heard anything mentioned about the positive case for a nuclear deterrent. It was another indirect way of going for unilateralism, because they knew that overt unilateralism would be too unpopular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

I always say that MPs and Ministers must be responsible for their own words, but if the hon. Gentleman rereads the debate from the time of the Trident review he will see clearly that at one stage the Liberal Democrats argued for the use of nuclear-enabled Cruise missiles. Apart from being a much more expensive option, that is—as I have already said—a far riskier option. I do not mean “risky” in terms of whether or not that option is a credible deterrent, although that is true as well, but in terms of being a destabilising factor, which could lead to much greater tension and—equally importantly—considerable risk of error.

[Dr Lewis]

In the spirit of compromise and convergence, can the two of us at least agree that, since the review of the Trident alternatives, the Liberal Democrat position—sending submarines to sea with no nuclear warheads on them, then waiting for a crisis to arise before sailing them back to port and arming them with nuclear warheads—has to be the most irresponsible fantasy-land thinking in the age of the nuclear deterrent? Furthermore, is it not a shame that no Liberal Democrats are here in Westminster Hall today to defend their decision, or—indeed—to explain it?

[Mr Spellar]

We can draw a veil now over the incoherence and absence of the Liberal Democrats, and get down to the serious and proper debate—it is certainly a proper debate to have—about Britain’s nuclear posture. It is a debate that my party has engaged in for a considerable number of years, in fact ever since the great post-war Attlee and Bevin Government commissioned Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, a policy that, I am pleased to say, continues today.

Having said that, none of us should underestimate the weighty issues—both the hon. Members who have already spoken stressed this point—that should weigh heavily on all those who have to make these decisions or arguments. I say that because it is very clear that there are huge issues. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, nobody underestimates the impact of nuclear weapons nor the potential devastation that they could cause. Nevertheless, nuclear weapons are a fact in our world.

I partly differ from my hon. Friend in this regard. He made passing reference to the non-proliferation treaty conference that is due to take place next year. Clearly, it will be resolved by—we could say by the nuclear weapon states, but frankly the key discussions that need to take place are between the USA and Russia. If agreement can be reached by them, we should rightly be part of the subsequent discussions. However, as I say, the key initial discussions must be between the USA and Russia.

I do not think that any of the participants in this debate about nuclear weapons, including those who have spoken today or in similar parliamentary debates, in any way underestimate the impact of nuclear weapons on those directly affected, on the environment or indeed on the wider world.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Obviously, discussion between the USA and Russia on nuclear weapons would be a good thing; anything that helps nuclear disarmament is a good thing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the last two five-yearly conferences both agreed that there should be a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east, and that at the last review—the preparatory conference last year—every state agreed that that should happen? Therefore, I am sure that he will join me in pushing the Government to do their best to initiate, or bring about, that zone. Otherwise, the danger is of a nuclear arms race in the middle east. There are other countries besides Israel that could develop nuclear weapons if they wanted to.

[Mr Spellar]

I take my hon. Friend back to the Attlee memorandum, and indeed to many other documents by those who have written about this subject. That is because the key issue—as Michael Quinlan, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, who is also a committed Christian and someone who has thought very deeply about these issues, has said—is the removal of the risks of war and instability. That is absolutely crucial in all these circumstances, including in the middle east. That is why it is so important to achieve a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine, although Israel-Palestine is by no means the only source of tension in the middle east. We are seeing so many conflicts taking place in that unhappy region, and that is without any question of nuclear weapons, although, sadly, chemical weapons has been another issue. The resolution of those conflicts and the creation of a stable and peaceful environment is so important.

In the meantime, notwithstanding that, it is also important that the UK plays its part—indeed, it has played its part more than any other country, as I think the hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned—in reducing the proportion of our nuclear armoury. Significantly, that took place under the defence team that I was a member of in 1997 to 2001, but, to be fair I should say that it has been continued by our successors not only in the Labour Government, but in this Conservative Government as well.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

This is positively my last intervention on the right hon. Gentleman, although that is perhaps giving a hostage to fortune. Will he confirm that, when we took those unilateral steps of reducing our nuclear warhead stockpiles, there was no similar response from any of the other existing nuclear powers?

[Mr Spellar]

I think that is right. We had hoped that there would be such a response, but we took that decision in context and reduced to the minimum level necessary to maintain effective deterrence. We have reduced the explosive power of our British deterrent by some 75% since that time. That gives us good credentials and bona fides in those discussions.

I return to the point I made about the NPT. The crucial discussions have to be between the two major nuclear powers, which are still the United States and Russia. That needs to be re-emphasised.

The policy of the Labour party was made clear, as I made clear in previous interventions, by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) in a debate in the main Chamber on 17 July last year. He was explicit about our commitment to continuous at-sea deterrence—in the most cost-effective way possible, of course. I mentioned earlier that that was also the conclusion of the Government’s own review, which systematically and elegantly dismantled the Lib Dems’ excuses, even though the document contained the bizarre disclaimer, which I hope the Minister will touch on, that it was not a statement of Government policy.

Incidentally, I hope that this afternoon we will hear no more nonsense from Ministers, as we have heard previously in the main Chamber, claiming to speak not on behalf of the Government but on behalf of a political party, because I think that I have fairly well established, with rulings from the Speaker, that whoever speaks from the Dispatch Box—from that position and that microphone—actually speaks from the Treasury Bench and is therefore speaking on behalf of the Government. At a time when various Ministers seem to be dissociating themselves from the Government, it would help, particularly on an issue as significant as this, if the Government spoke with a clear voice.

An argument about cost is sometimes made regarding the more general Trident discussion, and we have mainly had that discussion here, rather than discussing the debate subject of the UK-US mutual defence agreement. Indeed, cost was mentioned in an intervention by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech). The question there was, would people rather have the nuclear deterrent or the Army? Would they rather have soldiers or air cover? It is not an appropriate comparison. However, one argument is that this programme costs too much. It therefore seems rather strange, if not perverse, to then argue against an agreement that substantially and significantly reduces the cost of the programme in a number of ways. For example, it reduces the cost of delivering the deterrent, even the design and development costs. It is reckoned that the common design has saved the UK in the region of £500 million and precludes the need to design, develop, manufacture and test our own missile system.

The Trident alternatives review estimated that a new warhead alone would cost £8 billion to £10 billion. I have already mentioned the extra cost of moving to cruise missiles. Regarding a cost-effective system, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham made it clear that our two criteria were maintaining continuous at-sea deterrence and doing so with the minimum possible cost, and the approach I am talking about assists us towards the minimum possible cost.

There was a cross-debate on the independence of the system. The fact that we are buying F-35s, made in the US but with substantial elements made in the UK, does not mean that we do not have an independent Air Force. It is the control of the system, not the sourcing of the weaponry, that is the important test of independence. Therefore we ought to be clear that this is Britain’s independent deterrent, but in a NATO nuclear alliance, as was reaffirmed at the NATO summit. It is slightly odd that our now absent friends from the Scottish National party want to be anti-nuclear but want to join a nuclear alliance. That is a slightly perverse position to take.

I want to be clear, because the hon. Member for New Forest East wanted me to be clear—certainly, clearer than his own Government—about the Opposition’s position. We have made it clear through our policy statement. Labour has said that

“we are committed to a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent…Labour recognises the importance of Britain leading international efforts for multilateral nuclear disarmament”—

I mentioned the NPT—

“and non-proliferation. Following the action we took when in government, Labour would actively work to enhance momentum on global multilateral disarmament efforts and negotiations”.

The NPT conference in 2015 will be a key moment for a Labour Government to show leadership in achieving progress on global disarmament and anti-proliferation measures.

For all those reasons, we will support the reaffirmation of the agreement and the policy initiated by that great Labour Government of Attlee and Bevin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman takes me straight to the point that I was about to make about article I of the NPT, which touches on the transfer of nuclear weapons and devices between countries. The Government regard the MDA as compliant with our obligations under article I for three reasons.

First, nuclear devices or weapons are not transferred to the United Kingdom under the terms of the MDA. As I described earlier, what we receive under the MDA is a certain amount of nuclear technological know-how and some non-lethal elements, such as propulsion systems, that are not prohibited under article I.

Secondly, article V of the original mutual defence agreement—not including the amendments—quite explicitly states that the transfer of nuclear weapons is not permitted.

Thirdly, article I of the NPT refers in particular to transfers from the recognised nuclear weapons states to non-nuclear weapons states. However, the MDA refers to transfers of things other than nuclear weapons or devices from one nuclear weapons state to another, both of which are party to the NPT. I think that that answers the challenge that the MDA is in some way incompatible with article I of the NPT.

The other criticism made is that the mutual defence agreement is at odds with the obligation that we and the other four recognised nuclear weapons states have under article VI of the non-proliferation treaty to work towards multilateral disarmament. I have already described how the United Kingdom has significantly brought down its nuclear arsenal as a contribution to multilateral nuclear disarmament, but we have also been active and continue to be active in a range of multilateral disarmament initiatives.

We remain a strong supporter of the NPT. We signed and ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty as long ago as the 1990s and remain a strong supporter of the treaty both financially and technically, operating our own voluntary moratorium on testing pending the treaty coming into effect. We actively urge the remaining states that have not yet ratified the treaty to do so. We want an early start of negotiations in Geneva on the fissile material cut-off treaty and are an active member of the group of governmental experts that is working on those negotiations, which are currently blocked not by the United Kingdom or any of the recognised nuclear weapons states, but by Pakistan for national reasons.

In addition, we currently chair the forum of the permanent five nuclear weapons states and will be hosting the next annual conference in London in February next year. The purpose of the P5 process is to build transparency and mutual confidence to make it possible for all nuclear weapons states to engage in further rounds of multilateral disarmament. At the same time, we lead an informal working group at the United Nations, discussing the UN’s role in future nuclear security work. This country therefore has a good record of active work on multilateral disarmament that sits perfectly well alongside the arrangements that we have with the United States under the MDA.

[Mr Spellar]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and I want to highlight the fact that these developments have taken place under Governments of both parties. To what extent can we support, encourage or stimulate the key discussions between the United States and Russia on their agreement, to which the agreements of the other nuclear states are secondary, although important?

[Mr Lidington]

First, I happily acknowledge that the multilateral disarmament work that I have described has taken place under Governments of both political colours.

Secondly, I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman that the prime responsibility for leadership in multilateral nuclear disarmament must lie with the two biggest nuclear powers: the United States and Russia. We encouraged the talks that led towards the second strategic arms reduction treaty, which will impose limits for each party of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads from February 2018. We need to see that target fulfilled and would welcome and support its implementation.

One could make a similar point about the talks on an intermediate nuclear forces treaty. There was a bilateral US-Russia treaty back in 1988, but each side now accuses the other of breaching it. For reasons relating to Russia’s conduct in Ukraine, there has been a significant erosion of trust between the US and Russia. It will therefore not be easy to get talks between Washington and Moscow back on course, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is in the interests of all of us that Russia and the United States are able to rebuild a sufficient degree of trust for meaningful negotiations towards multilateral nuclear disarmament to take place.

I want it to be clear that the United Kingdom is not using the amendments to the mutual defence agreement to upgrade its system’s capabilities. There is no move to produce more usable weapons or change our nuclear posture or doctrine. The amendments to the MDA that we are technically debating this afternoon do not in any way provide for an upgrading of the capabilities of the Trident system. That is a decision for 2016.

The hon. Member for Islington North asked a couple of detailed questions about plutonium tests at Aldermaston and the relationship between the mutual defence agreement and the planned replacement of the Vanguard-class submarine fleet. The Atomic Weapons Establishment has conducted sealed hydrodynamic plutonium experiments, which are sub-critical, do not produce nuclear yield and are fully compliant with the non-proliferation treaty. The experiments were described in a published article in the journal Nature in February 2002. Aldermaston and its experiments are also, of course, fully in line with the commitments we have undertaken in agreeing and ratifying the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. I am therefore advised that what has happened at Aldermaston is fully compliant with our international legal obligations.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend’s question illustrates the complexity of the situation. We do require leadership on both sides. From Israel we require a commitment to dialogue and to avoiding all actions that undermine prospects for peace, including settlement activity, while the Palestinian Authority must show leadership in recommitting itself to the dialogue and establishing itself as the authoritative voice in Gaza.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The Arab peace initiative could prove vital in assisting a move towards the essential two-state solution for Israel and the long-suffering Palestinian people. Does the Minister agree that in the light of yesterday’s welcome Tunisian election results, which were good news not only for the Tunisian people but for the wider Arab world, it is right for such regional initiatives to be considered as a matter of urgency?

[Mr Ellwood]

I think that those are wise words. I have congratulated Tunisia on the journey it has made, bearing in mind that it was responsible for the very start of the Arab spring. It is a small ray of hope in a very complex area, and I hope that other nations will take a lead from it.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

John Spellar Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who gave a rare but most welcome dose of common sense from the Opposition Benches on the subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on his speech, on the powerful argument he has made for the Bill and, in particular, on his principled defence of the British people’s right to decide on their future in Europe. We are all grateful to him for taking up the noble cause of getting a referendum on Europe in the next Parliament on to the statute book before the general election.

The hon. Lady speculated in the closing moments of her speech on the Labour party’s tactics on this Bill. Perhaps the Opposition do not know, or perhaps she is just not on the mailing list for such sensitive information. I hope that later the shadow Foreign Secretary will enlighten the House on the Opposition’s precise position. I should make it clear that in making the case for this Bill I am doing so not on behalf of the coalition but as a Conservative. I shall say something about the position of my Liberal Democrat colleagues—although not of the one Liberal Democrat who is in the chamber.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you guide me on this? Is it not the procedure of this House that whoever speaks from the Government Dispatch Box speaks on behalf of the Government?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The Foreign Secretary is speaking as Foreign Secretary today, and is at the Dispatch Box doing so.

Government Strategy Against IS

John Spellar Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said, this is a subject that quite rightly arouses great interest, concern and debate in all parts of the House. The Prime Minister’s statement and subsequent answers to questions on Monday, the Foreign Secretary’s extensive evidence session with the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a distinguished member, on Tuesday and then the Foreign Secretary’s speech and subsequent debate in this House on Wednesday has shown that we take very seriously our responsibility both to keep Parliament informed of the Government’s developing policy and to allow ample opportunity for Members of Parliament, both in the Chamber and in Committee, to question those Ministers responsible and to express their own opinions.

On that particular question about the role of Parliament in respect of any—at the moment hypothetical—military action by British forces, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the position in detail on Monday in answers to questions following his statement. I draw the House’s attention to his words in Hansard, column 663.

We want to see the broadest possible international coalition involving regional partners as well as European and American partners in combating ISIL, which is a threat to all of us, and not just to the United Kingdom and European countries.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear in answer to questions in Berlin that we are not yet at the stage in which decisions about any putative British military action have to be taken. His precise words were:

“We have ruled nothing out. We will look carefully at our options and decide how we will make a contribution but we are clear that we will make a contribution.”

Effective political, humanitarian and possibly military action by a broad-based international coalition will be necessary to meet the very grave threat that is posed to us all by ISIL.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

We welcome this opportunity, given that in recent days questions have been raised about how the Government have gone about setting out their approach to tackling ISIL. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) highlighted yesterday’s comments by the Foreign Secretary in which he ruled out British military action in Syria and the subsequent statement from the Prime Minister’s spokesman that all options remain on the table, so I am sure that the Minister will understand the House’s desire for clarification.

As President Obama continues to set out further detail about his strategy for combating ISIL, it is crucial that the British Government also recognise the need to provide reassurance to the British public about their approach. The Opposition have made it clear that we support the targeted air strikes authorised by President Obama in Iraq and we strongly support the UK Government’s provision of arms and assistance to the Kurdish peshmerga forces that are the effective front line against ISIL. Of course, as the situation develops and the international community agrees its common approach to the threat, we will continue to seek assurances from the Government that if there is any change in their approach to Iraq, Syria or the wider region they will seek the appropriate endorsement of this House.

We welcome the lead taken by French President Hollande in setting up an international conference in Paris on Monday. Will the Minister confirm which regional partners will be attending and will he also set out whether Iran has been invited and what the UK’s position is on that? Given that the United Kingdom currently holds the chair of the United Nations Security Council, what more does the Minister believe that the UK can do to help co-ordinate these efforts?

What assurances can the Minister give that Iraq’s new Government recognise the need for a truly inclusive approach that addresses the needs of all of Iraq’s diverse communities? In addition, what can the Minister tell us about the support that will be provided by the countries in the region, not just the Arab League but Turkey and Iran, and what steps are now being taken to ensure that any international efforts to tackle ISIL are co-ordinated by the international community and that there is a clear regionally led approach to such a strategy? Furthermore, can the Minister now give any further detail about whether there are any discussions about how to restart the Geneva II process, which surely still offers the best hopes of long-term stability in Syria?

President Obama has rightly said that left unchecked ISIL extremists pose a threat not only to security inside Iraq but to countries outside the region, so will the Minister provide the Government’s latest assessment of the number of UK nationals who they believe are currently actively part of ISIL’s campaign?

Finally, will the Minister confirm the commitments made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary about the need for ongoing debate to ensure that this House is kept fully up to date?

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his broad support for the Government’s approach to dealing with ISIL. I shall try to respond to the detailed points that he made. The estimate—one can never be absolutely certain about these things—is that a few hundred have travelled out to the region and my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have explained at length to the House the measures that the Government are taking to deal with the potential threat those people pose. I would add that this is not a challenge that is in any way unique to the United Kingdom. When I attended a meeting of European Foreign Affairs Ministers two weekends ago, this was a theme coming from Ministers representing many Governments within the European Union. This is a challenge that almost every European country faces.

The question of attendance at the Paris meeting is, for self-evident reasons, primarily a matter for the French Government rather than for us. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that 10 Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, have now publicly announced their support for the United States and international efforts so this is by no means an enterprise confined to what one might regard as traditional western allies. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his evidence to the Select Committee on Tuesday, we hope that the Government of Iran will choose to play a constructive role, but I believe that the House will understand why, in the light of Iran's nuclear programme and its history of very active support for the Assad regime and for Hezbollah, we are proceeding cautiously in our relations with Tehran while hoping that we will see the kind of improvement that both the right hon. Gentleman and I would wish to see.

As for the United Nations, I gently correct the right hon. Gentleman: we do not hold the chair of the Security Council at the moment. We had the chair last month and it is held by the United States this month. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken personally to Ban Ki-moon about how the United Nations could be used to shape an effective international response to the challenge posed by ISIL and when the Prime Minister goes to the United Nations General Assembly later this month, he intends to use that opportunity to try to build and widen this international coalition.

Kashmir

John Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Three foreign policy issues are of acute interest to my constituents: Israel and Palestine, Sri Lanka and Kashmir. Members will have spotted that all three have something in common, which is, of course, the legacy of the British Empire. I very much welcome this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) on securing what I think has been an excellent debate so far. It is rather a daunting prospect to try to add to it.

I particularly enjoyed the speech from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who, as ever, by highlighting the suffering of a particular individual, throws into sharp relief some difficulties of discussing these questions impartially, given that the real suffering in people’s lives is so great. I also particularly enjoyed the speech from the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), because he reminded us of our duties. I say to him that I think Edmund Burke’s speech was not very well received at the time by his constituents. The hon. Gentleman put me in mind of Auberon Herbert’s essay, “A Politician in Sight of Haven”, which tries to reconcile the tension between party, individual MP and constituents. That is, of course, one of the most difficult duties that we face.

I would like to try to anticipate the Government line, based on past experience. I have the warning against neo-imperialism given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) very much ringing in my ears. The Government line has tended to be that we should stay out of it, and for good reasons. I can see that it is very important that the Government do not do anything either precipitate or counter-productive, and I certainly recognise that the British Government are very much in a cleft stick—but aren’t we all?

I have well over 10,000 constituents for whom the issue of Kashmir is a very present and important one, for some of the reasons that have been given. We are talking about family members, perhaps at one or two removes, who are directly exposed to the issues at stake. In addition to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Rochdale, I refer back to the previous debate we had, where the key issue I raised was the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act and the various allegations that have been made in the report, “A ‘Lawless Law’” by Amnesty International in relation to that Act. Today, as then, it is with some humility that I approach these issues, knowing about the British Government’s prior conduct in Northern Ireland.

Why, then, should we be discussing this issue? It is not to condemn outright either India or Pakistan; it is to try and be helpful and to do our duty to our constituents. When I visited Kashmir, I was very grateful for the opportunity to do so and particularly to meet people at the highest level, in both the Government of Pakistan and the Government of Azad Kashmir. I particularly remember meeting Hina Rabbani Khar, who explained at a conference that the decisive question for the prosperity of the entire region—billions of people—is this question of Kashmir and making real progress with Kashmir. That, in the end, is what matters: real progress—not debates about who called which debate when and what questions have been asked, but real progress. That is the decisive issue, not only for prosperity but for geopolitical stability and the lives of billions of people.

It is essential that the British Government do not do anything counter-productive. However, the previous line has been inadequate, in my view. It is not enough simply to assert the sovereignty of both nations and then to step back. There are two reasons why. First, it is simply a fact that we represent thousands of British Kashmiris and, indeed, thousands of people of Indian descent and it is in their interests and those of their families that we make a constructive contribution on this question.

Second is the point about historical responsibility. One of the things that I have learned—again, with some humility—in my time as a politician is that not everyone sees the world through the same frameworks, through the same world-view. Although I, as someone of a modern or perhaps post-modern mindset, would perhaps not pay any attention to my responsibility for the actions of my forebears, people from other cultures certainly do expect me, as a British Member of Parliament—I see people nodding—to accept my responsibility for the actions of people who were politicians at the time when my grandparents were ordinary working people. It is with that in mind that I say that the British Government, as a result of our legacy of imperialism, do have a responsibility in all these places.

If we just look at Israel and Palestine for a moment, we see the danger of platitudes combined with inaction. For far too long, it has been possible for the British Government to say that the Israeli settlements in the west bank are illegal and then to do nothing. That double standard has created enormous outrage—great gales of anger. Similarly, it is not good enough for the foreign policy establishment to consider, as I have heard it said, that Kashmir is the graveyard of Foreign Secretaries and then to step back and do nothing. That is not good enough, given what is at stake and the number of people whom we represent.

What do I think could be done, and how? We must, as I said, begin in humility—a humility about our legacy. That includes recognising that India and Pakistan are sovereign nations and that we cannot tell them how to behave. We must be humble about the fact that we played our part in creating a problem that has led to the deaths of thousands. When people turn to terrorism within a democracy, we must be humble and recognise the British Government’s own legacy, within living memory, of human rights abuses. We must be careful in our condemnation of India, in so far as India has been condemned, because we must remember that in Northern Ireland people were disappeared because they were either terrorists or thought to be terrorists. Shocking, shameful things are done by democracies when they face terrorism.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

What shred of evidence is there for that last statement? The IRA disappeared people.

[Steve Baker]

I speak from the experience of my service in the armed forces and people whom I have met who have shared with me their own anecdotes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go any further than that.

Controversy always surrounds these issues of territorial dispute. We should be humble about what has gone before. We should accept this truth—that decent people do terrible things when they lose hope. And we should seek to generate hope among them. We must do something extremely unfashionable: we must insist on some principles and must insist on them consistently.

The first of those principles is to say that one of the origins of peace and security is self-government, self-determination and government by consent, which all decent democracies believe in. That means that, particularly given what was shared earlier about the recent electoral history, the Indian Government should not fear asking the people of Kashmir, in the round, whom they wish to be governed by. The second principle is, of course, non-violence. It does no one any good whatever when people turn to violent means to pursue political ends. Political ends must be pursued by persuasion and through peaceful means.

Finally, these great hooray concepts that politicians talk about often come in pairs, and one of the pairs is justice and mercy, so yes, by all means let us have justice and human rights in Kashmir, but let us have mercy, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) on securing this debate and for distancing himself from his party leader, although I do not know whether he needed to go so far as to sit on the Opposition Benches to do so. I hope his Whips will not take an unkind view of that. I also congratulate those who have spoken for their constituents and for the many communities that live in the beautiful but troubled land of Kashmir.

As has been mentioned by a number of Members, one issue that should focus us is the floods taking place in Kashmir and the devastation that they are causing there, as well as in the surrounding areas in India and Pakistan. The floods reinforce the need, which has been mentioned often in the debate, for co-operation between the two countries. We welcome the news that the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan have offered co-operation. Will the Minister tell us—I have given him notice of this question—what actions Her Majesty’s Government are taking in response? In 2010, the United Kingdom committed some £334 million to the relief and recovery effort, in addition to bringing forward a £10 million bridge project to replace some of those washed away. Private donations from the UK, co-ordinated via the Disasters Emergency Committee, totalled more than £60 million. Interventions included the flying in of 400 metric tonnes of aid—tents, shelters kits, blankets, water containers and food. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales established a major recovery fund to help support projects on health, education, livelihoods and reconstruction. Britain’s role was magnificent in that, and I hope the Government will follow that path.

I am mindful not only of the need for the hon. Member for Bradford East to have time to reply, but of the number of questions put to the Minister, and I hope to leave him sufficient time to reply. First, I will outline the Opposition’s position. The policy of the British Government under both Administrations has been clear, as I am sure the Minister will reinforce. In opposition, we maintain that position: it is not for the UK to prescribe a solution on Kashmir. That is for those parties directly involved to determine through dialogue. We continue, however, to encourage India and Pakistan to seek a lasting resolution for Kashmir that takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We also recognise that the normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan, which are two old and long-standing friends of Britain, as well as the second and sixth most populous countries in the world, is vital for improving regional security—not just in this regard—and resolving conflict.

Through our engagement, we continue to encourage India and Pakistan to establish and maintain that dialogue. With that, there is a concern that sometimes it is one step forward and two steps back. Although we welcome the agreement on a liberalised visa pact, the problem was that that seemed to have been put on hold by the Indian authorities following the killing of Indian soldiers along the line of control. As was mentioned in the debate, we should recognise that other events in the region, particularly the draw-down in Afghanistan, make it even more imperative that India and Pakistan work together, not only on this, but with other countries surrounding Afghanistan, as I said on Monday in the statement on Afghanistan, to ensure its stability and future progress. If that is not achieved, that will destabilise the whole of the surrounding region and impact on Kashmir.

In addition, while in government, Labour, through the conflict prevention programme, funded a number of projects designed to support efforts to facilitate dialogue, to address the causes and impact of conflict and to create improvements in the quality of life experienced by Kashmiris. While we look at the geopolitical issues, it is important—this has been mentioned by a number of Members, and in particular by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood)—to look at the conditions of life of the people from all communities living there. In that context, we supported capacity-building and skills training for non-governmental organisations on both sides of the line of control, funded media projects that bring Indian and Pakistani journalists together and helped with curriculum design that promotes a modern, inclusive approach to education.

Some of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate and in submissions sent to us are familiar to me, as a Member with a constituency where a substantial percentage of the electorate are of Sikh heritage. We have to face up to concerns about widespread impunity for violations of international law, unlawful killings, extra-judicial executions, torture, and, as was mentioned, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), the enforced disappearance of thousands of people since 1989. I know from my Sikh community that those disappearances are the issue that hurts the most. All those issues have to be considered. There has to be some reconciliation and some accountability on those issues, as well as on the numbers of youths shot dead by police during the protests in the summer of 2010 and, as has rightly been mentioned, the impact of the Public Safety Act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) mentioned the suffering of other communities in Kashmir, such as the Pandit Hindus. There was a meeting in the Commons last week, which I was unable to attend, that drew attention to their plight and the substantial exodus in 1990. They left their valley and their communities behind to save themselves from persecution at the hands of terrorists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said, a substantial number of families—not just Hindu families, but Sikh families as well—still live in refugee camps, and they are still looking for justice.

Let me be clear: I am not seeking to construct a balance sheet of suffering or, indeed, of blame. I make clear that the suffering experienced in all the communities of Kashmir is very deep. I stress that, while the world must hope and work for meaningful talks between the parties concerned, we also have to look at what we can do to improve the position of the people in Kashmir. That has been clear in this debate. Everyone is clear, both today and in the debates over many years, about the strong feelings on this issue in this House and in communities across the country. Equally, we should not allow the fierce debate to obscure the sufferings of the people of Kashmir, their deep desire for an end to conflict and their deep desire to be able to achieve better lives for themselves and their children. A number of measures for that have been outlined, and I have mentioned some of them. I spoke about the tragic consequences of the floods. The people look to a future of freedom from fear, freedom to work and freedom to build a future for their children. The people of Kashmir, after all their long sufferings, deserve no less.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I begin, as others have done, by congratulating the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) on securing this important debate. I apologise that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who should be responding to this debate, cannot be here today.

The debate has been not only well-attended, informative and passionate, but constructive, and I am pleased that we have had it. It is our right to debate such matters in this place. India and Pakistan are long-standing and important friends of the United Kingdom, and our unique historical and cultural ties still bind us, as do the important Indian and Pakistani diasporas that have been mentioned. The situation in Kashmir attracts much public and parliamentary interest in the UK, and I welcome the contributions of all hon. Members from both sides of the House.

Before responding to the specific points made during the debate, I will briefly set out the Government’s position on India-Pakistan relations and Kashmir. Before I do that, however, I want to extend, as others have done, the Government’s deepest condolences to all those who have lost family and loved ones in the extensive flooding in Pakistan and in both Indian and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. We particularly note the offers of assistance to each other by the Governments of India and Pakistan to tackle the humanitarian crisis.

The Department for International Development is of course monitoring the situation, but the UK has not received any request for assistance. We will nevertheless continue to monitor the evolving situation in close co-operation with the European Union and the other bilateral and civil society agencies. The British Government stand ready to assist where appropriate. Our travel advice has been updated to take account of the current flooding, and we advise all British nationals in the area to take extreme care and to contact our consular staff in case of emergency.

The UK Government recognise the importance of a strong relationship between India and Pakistan not only for its own sake, but for regional stability. We encourage both sides to maintain dialogue, the pace and scope of which is for the two countries to determine. In that context, we welcome the renewed engagement between India and Pakistan in recent years, including the potential economic benefits that that would bring. We hope that both sides will continue to take further steps to help the growth of both countries’ economies.

As the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), whom I thank for the extra time that he has provided me, highlighted from his position as shadow Minister, we welcomed Prime Minister Modi’s invitation to Prime Minister Sharif for his swearing-in ceremony on 26 May and his statement of 29 August calling for

“peaceful, friendly and co-operative ties with Pakistan.”

We agree with Mr Modi that

“any meaningful bilateral dialogue necessarily requires an environment that is free from terrorism and violence”.

The long-standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, one which takes into account, as the shadow Minister said, the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or to mediate in finding one.

I will now address some of the specific points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Bradford East began his speech describing the water issues. Management of water resources is a global challenge that requires international co-operation. Transparent mechanisms already exist to support Indian and Pakistani water management, but it is for both sides to find ways to optimise their water resources effectively. He also asked about UK aid and development, which is a Department for International Development matter, so I will write to him with more detail. However, the long-standing position is that it is for us to feed our funds for Kashmir through Pakistan and through India, and I will provide him with a breakdown of the numbers in writing.

The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) gave a passionate speech and was the first to mention the right of this place to debate such matters. He mentioned Edmund Burke, who is a hero of mine and all Government Members, as the philosophical founder of conservatism. I think he was a Whig to begin with, but we will gloss over that.

[Mr Spellar]

Early coalition.

[Mr Ellwood]

Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) has written a book on Burke’s contribution and the right of individuals to have their say. The hon. Member for Brent North also spoke of the importance of the historic elections that have taken place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) also gave a passionate speech and reminded the House of the significant diasporas here in the UK that we represent, many of whom are connected with those who have been caught up in the floods.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) spoke passionately about the people who actually live in Kashmir and about the challenges on the ground, which stand in sharp relief to the debates taking place elsewhere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) spoke of the historical ties between the two countries and of the use of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act in Indian-administered Kashmir. It is also worth mentioning the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. It is important that all judicial practices meet international standards.

Afghanistan

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the quarterly statement. Given the scheduling of the statement, as he is aware, I shall be responding on behalf of the shadow Foreign Secretary.

Let me join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the British service personnel who have served and continue to serve in Afghanistan, to their families, who support them every step of the way, and to the 435 killed serving our country. They are in our thoughts every time we meet to discuss Afghanistan in the House. I join him in offering condolences to the families of the two UK personnel who were injured in the attack at the Fahim national defence university, which took place since the last such statement.

This has been a significant week in securing the future of Afghanistan following the ISAF draw-down by 2015, so we welcome the progress made at last week’s NATO summit, as outlined by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. It is clear that Afghanistan is a different country from what it was before operations began, and the whole House will agree that the priority now must be to agree a strategy for consolidating the gains achieved through such sacrifice. That strategy must include a political settlement for Afghanistan, a stable security agreement, support from regional allies, the continued engagement of international partners and the defence of human rights. I shall take each of those in turn.

As the Foreign Secretary indicated, progress in Afghanistan crucially depends on Afghan leaders resolving their post-election differences and agreeing to form a unified leadership for their country. As talks and dialogue between Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani continue, the internationally backed process still holds the promise of being Afghanistan’s first democratic transfer of power, so will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what progress is being made in the negotiations? Does he agree that the process is particularly important given the need, as he mentioned, for a status of forces agreement to be reached with the Afghan Government, for which, of course, an Afghan Head of State is needed? Both candidates are committed to signing the agreement, but disputes about the results of the election have delayed any signature. Does he agree that an agreement is urgently needed so that the non-combat mission can be officially launched and the vital planning work can begin?

Alongside vital political progress, Afghanistan’s future stability will inevitably require a strong and stable Afghan security force. Despite the important pledges made at last week’s NATO summit, which we welcome, there is still a real risk of there being a shortfall in funding for the Afghan security services after the international draw-down. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that more still needs to be done to ensure that continued resources are available to the Afghan security forces in the long term?

What is his assessment of the Government’s confidence in the internal cohesion of those Afghan forces and their capabilities in the face of sustained pressure in the months ahead?

With the end of the ISAF mission by the end of the year, the nature and scope of our engagement with Afghanistan will change. The Foreign Secretary made it clear that Britain’s post-2014 contribution will be focused on the Afghan national army officer academy, but are there any plans for the UK to contribute to broader non-combat missions in Afghanistan? With those forces remaining in a training role in Afghanistan for some time following the 2014 draw-down, can the right hon. Gentleman reassure us about the levels of force protection that are envisaged?

Alongside our armed forces for many years now have been brave and committed British civilians from NGOs and Government officials, who have worked hard as part of an international aid effort to help to build peace and progress in Afghanistan. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that given events in Afghanistan and elsewhere, threats to their safety could become more significant? What steps are being taken to ensure the protection of international aid workers in Afghanistan?

Recent events across the middle east have highlighted to all of us the effect that outside actors can have on the internal dynamics of a state. In Afghanistan it has long been the case that certain regional players, specifically neighbouring countries including Iran, hold the key to securing the long-term peace and stability we all want to see. There is still a real danger, if the neighbouring countries pursue individual agendas leading to instability in Afghanistan, that all of them, as well as the wider international community, will suffer from the fallout. What is being done to ensure the sustained and ongoing engagement of regional partners, in particular Pakistan?

The progress the Foreign Secretary has outlined is welcomed by the whole House, but the continued commitment of NATO allies to the future security and prosperity of Afghanistan is still the key. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the protection of human rights remains a cornerstone of Afghanistan's future stability and security, and that the UK, along with allies, has a vital role to play in promoting this? We welcome the Government's hosting the development conference on Afghanistan in November. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the conference will place a significant emphasis on the protection of girls and women in post-2014 Afghanistan? In particular, will Afghan women's groups and activists be appropriately represented at the conference, and can he assure the House that their voices were also heard at the NATO summit?

The Foreign Secretary described the significant gains made by women and girls since the Taliban lost power, but there remains a very real fear that that could be put at risk by the Taliban’s re-emergence at a political level, so will he act on Amnesty’s call for the UK to improve its support for human rights defenders, especially women, some of whom it was my privilege to meet recently? Will he draw up a country-specific plan, including appointing someone as a focal point in our embassy in Kabul? What assurances has the Foreign Secretary sought to ensure that those gains will be protected as part of any future negotiations over a political settlement with the Taliban and other insurgent groups?

[Mr Hammond]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive tone of his remarks. I am delighted to learn, as I am sure everyone in the House is, that the shadow Foreign Secretary is not abroad somewhere, but working hard in and for the United Kingdom today.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about progress on the presidential negotiation. I think I mentioned in my statement the current state of play there. The audit is complete. I am told that the results of the audit will be made available privately to the candidates on the 11th or 12th of this month; there will then be a 48-hour period in which they can lodge formal complaints with the electoral complaints commission, with a public announcement expected on the 15th of this month. Notwithstanding the result of the audit, we are urging the two candidates to continue to work together on the political process to form a Government of national unity, and that is where we are focusing our effort at the moment.

We have made our commitment on the funding of the ANSF, and many other nations have made commitments. The US, which is leading the funding effort, continues to chase the recalcitrants—those who have not yet signed up. My understanding, though, is that the United States is committed to meeting the funding deficit, if there is one after the hat has returned, having gone around the loop.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Afghan national security forces’ capabilities. From my time as Defence Secretary, I can say to him with complete honesty that everyone I ever spoke to in the UK military had been positively surprised by the progress that the ANSF made in terms of both quality and the speed with which they delivered. They have continued to surprise us by their capabilities, the rapidity with which they have taken overall responsibility and the enthusiasm with which they have embraced the responsibility for defending their own country.

Regarding the UK mission post-2014, our principal military contribution will be the Afghan national army officer academy. I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the level of our personnel contribution there will draw down quite rapidly after 2016, because this is essentially a train the trainer programme: we are building a cadre of Afghan trainers who will be able to staff the academy in the future. I can give him the assurance he seeks that we will maintain adequate force protection levels for our people for as long as they are there. I cannot tell him what that level will be, because to some extent it depends on how many troops other parties, particularly the United States, have in that part of the country, but we will work closely with them. We will also have advisers in Government security ministries—small numbers of high-level people who will exercise a significant influence and help the Afghan security ministries to reform their effort to support the Afghan national army in the field.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about protection for UK aid workers. That is an issue, as we will have a continuing significant aid programme. Most of that will be delivered through Afghan aid intermediaries, but we will have a number of UK aid workers, who will be Kabul-based after the end of this year. We will make sure that proper arrangements are in place for their protection.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that a key factor in the future stability of Afghanistan will be the attitude of its neighbours, particularly Pakistan but also Iran. We have an ongoing and very close dialogue with Pakistan. We are the sponsors of the trilateral dialogue between Afghanistan and Pakistan, mediated by the UK. Both the Afghans and the Pakistanis have made it clear to us that they find this initiative of the Prime Minister extremely helpful and they want it to continue, so we will continue to facilitate that discussion.

On the NATO ISAF commitment, anyone present at the NATO summit will have been struck by the resolute commitment of the ISAF nations to protecting the legacy in which they have invested so heavily, and the measured way in which the Afghan Defence Minister representing the Afghan Government set out his position and the commitments that were made. Of course there is uncertainty about the outcome of the presidential election. The good news is that both candidates are well known to the UK and the ISAF allies, and their positions on the security agenda and foreign policy are almost identical. We expect to be able to work very well with whichever one eventually becomes president.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about human rights and the conference in November. There will be a significant human rights component to the conference. The Afghan Government made significant commitments on both human rights and anti-corruption at Tokyo, and the western and other financial commitments to support Afghanistan’s development were made in response to those. We will want to remind the Afghan Government of the solemn commitments that they have made and to ensure the mechanisms are in place for monitoring delivery. There will be a significant presence at the conference of Afghan non-governmental organisations, including the human rights activists the right hon. Gentleman mentions.

Hazaras (Afghanistan and Pakistan)

John Spellar Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing this short but significant debate. He has had a long history of campaigning for the Hazara community during his time in Parliament, and they will greatly miss his voice when he retires at the next general election, as indeed will his wider constituency in Southampton.

As hon. Members will be very much aware, the persecution of the Hazaras is part of a greater tide of religious and ethnic intolerance and persecution around the world, and of appalling brutalities perpetrated on those of a different faith or community. The barbarities of ISIS are the most recent, graphic and disgusting examples, but, unfortunately, they are by no means unique. Equally reprehensible is the acquiescence, even complicity, of state bodies in actions against minority groups, particularly faith groups, and hon. Members have given examples of that. My right hon. Friend and his parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), drew attention to some of those, particularly the failure to take action against Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. That organisation has proudly claimed responsibility for some of the attacks, yet many of its leaders continue to play command and leadership roles, they avoid prosecution, they escape and they evade accountability. Some of them, having been arrested, have even escaped from military and civil detention in circumstances the authorities have found hard to explain.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The International Criminal Court is the court of next resort which may well prosecute such people, and we should make much greater use of it when states refuse to prosecute individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am sure it has been noted by the Foreign Office Minister. Part of the effectiveness of this debate is in raising this issue in the order of priorities of not only the Foreign Office, but the Department for International Development, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members.

The only redeeming feature at the moment of this situation is the much greater level of public awareness and debate on these issues, and the welcome attention in the political world. Today’s debate is one example of that. In this House there has been a growing interest in the persecution of not only the Hazaras, but of Rohingya Muslims in Burma, of Baha’is in Iran and of the Ahmadiyya community in a number of Muslim countries. Increasingly, we have also seen persecution of various Christian groups in a variety of countries across the world, particularly in the middle east and Indian subcontinent, including Pakistan, to which I will return in a moment. For many people, campaigning on their behalf often seems a lonely road to be travelling, as they try to get a message across about the horrors to a world that is unaware, as many colleagues have rightly indicated. Therefore, this level of interest from Parliament and Government is particularly welcome. As we are seeing tonight and in other debates, these issues unite those on both sides of the House—Government and Opposition alike.

In early July, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), rightly said in a speech to Christians on the Left that

“The first centuries of Christianity are often described as being scarred by blood, violence and brutality. And yet the plight of Christians today could go down in history as one of the most brutal periods of our common history.”

That is being borne out on a daily basis on our television screens. He also rightly stressed that

“wherever Christians are persecuted, the right to religious freedom for all is jeopardized.”

There have been particular concerns about the failure of the state—and even its involvement and that of its institutions—to protect those who practise Christianity in Pakistan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) rightly said, we will be watching carefully for any failure of the state to protect minorities, including the Hazara. We will be watching for any failure of the state in Pakistan, and indeed in Afghanistan, in its duty to provide that protection: where it is failing to protect them from other groups, leaving aside what it is doing in its own right. We also need to be clear that the right to freedom of religion includes the right to change one’s religion, as well as the right not to believe. Those rights are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was agreed in 1948 after the horrors of world war two. In ringing tones, it declared:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

The international community should be working, striving and insisting on those rights.

It is good to see this issue being dealt with in the broader context, but we must also focus on the particular, so that the voices of the persecuted are heard. That is why today’s debate is so welcome. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen said, the position of Hazaras in both Afghanistan and Pakistan is especially hazardous, particularly with the uncertainties that we are anticipating with the end of the NATO military drawdown. There are also continuing uncertainties over the outcome of the presidential election and whether there will be an inclusive Government in Afghanistan. That inclusivity needs to draw in not just all the major actors but all the communities in the country. As I have repeatedly said, it is also vital that there is early involvement by the neighbouring countries, all of which have an interest in stability in Afghanistan, but all of which could lose out if they try to play for sectional advantage, which will contribute to breakdown. Minorities such as the Hazara, which is probably one of the worst treated groups in the region, need to have their rights protected.

It is clear that many extremist groups are still receiving protection from the authorities. Although a ban has been in place since 2002, it has not stopped them from carrying out attacks across Pakistan. Civilian and military security forces deployed in Balochistan have done little to investigate the attacks on the Hazara or to take steps to prevent the next attacks. The head of LEJ has been prosecuted for alleged involvement, but has not been convicted. Now we are seeing some of those who have been involved in the atrocities against the Hazara being released from prison.

Tonight, all parts of the House are calling not only for greater public awareness but for the Foreign Office and Department for International Development and international forums to make the persecution of Hazaras a priority in their discussions with the Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Such a call is not only in our interests but a matter of decency.

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

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) for calling for this debate and for ensuring that it took place on such a busy day in the Chamber. Important contributions have been made by Members from all parts of the House. I will try to touch on some of them, but if I do not get through them all, I will write to hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) mentioned the important role of the International Development Committee and the work of DFID. I hope that they will continue their studies in this area. Britain is committed to providing £70 million for a number of years in Afghanistan, and we are one of the major donors in Pakistan as well.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) spoke about the role of Iran and the responsibility of the Pakistani Government to do more and not turn a blind eye to the various incidents taking place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) spoke about improving knowledge of what is happening with the Hazaras not just in this place but in Britain as a whole. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said how easy it is to identify the Hazaras because of their make up and also spoke about the role of the Afghan Government in addressing some of the issues. It is good to see that the second assistant President is a Hazara and that one fifth of MPs in the Afghan Parliament are Hazaras, too. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said in Pakistan.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke about a report on tackling these issues. This is now the third such debate in as many years and I hope that it will become an annual event. The FCO’s annual human rights report and quarterly updates comprehensively cover persecutions faced by all, including the Hazaras, so perhaps we should have a debate on the report itself to highlight that point.

The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) spoke about the future of the Afghan Government. He is perhaps better aware than most that we are in a bit of a stagnation period at the moment and are waiting for an outcome and for votes to be counted. Once that happens and there is agreement about what Britain’s and the international community’s role can be, we can step forward and start addressing some of the other issues.

The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) spoke about LEJ, the prime persecutor of the Hazaras. We should bear it in mind that it is not the only one, but it is obviously the focus of our attention.

The conflict pool was mentioned by a number of right hon. and hon. Members and has now been replaced by the conflict, security and stability fund, which is a much longer phrase for us to get our heads around. There certainly needs to be more focus on what we can do using that fund. The forthcoming NATO summit was mentioned and I will certainly do my best to have a number of bilaterals on this subject. I had the fortune of speaking to our high commissioner in Pakistan on the matter this evening.

This is an area with which I am familiar. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, who is a bonus to this House, on showing how a constituency matter can be moved forward. He has become very much an expert in the matter and I think the whole House is grateful to him. I am the former co-chair of the all-party group on Afghanistan and I visited the country and the region a number of times, so I am pleased to be able to take on the portfolio and move the agenda forward.

As I have said, this is the third debate since 2012 on the position of the Hazaras and it remains an issue of grave concern for Her Majesty’s Government. Sadly, the difficulties faced by the Hazara community, which the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen raised in this House last year, remain in 2014 and it is a tragedy that people from minority communities across Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the Hazaras, suffer the scourge of sectarian violence, a scourge that should not have a place anywhere in the world in the 21st century.

The appalling acts of sectarian violence are well documented by human rights groups and the FCO’s own quarterly human rights report on Pakistan, which I have mentioned, highlighted that the first three months of 2014 saw no substantial improvements. Our human rights report on Afghanistan continues to view the situation as poor.

In Pakistan and Afghanistan, sectarian violence is not isolated to the Hazara community. We must remember that the former senior Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Baroness Warsi, who has already been mentioned in the debate, highlighted on many occasions how ethnicity, religion, the freedom to have a religion and the right to believe what one chooses to believe extend across sectarian lines. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have laws and constitutional protections for the rights of citizens and minorities, but turning those words and genuine commitment from the Governments into action is where much of the challenge lies. We recognise that Afghanistan and Pakistan face significant internal security challenges that have seen thousands of their citizens of all faiths killed in terrorist and other violence, which is why Her Majesty’s Government are committed to ensuring that both countries understand the need for urgent resolution to the violence faced by the Hazaras as well as by other minority groups facing persecution.

We do not underestimate the difficulty of that challenge, but we will not shy away from urging real commitment to progress. We remain unequivocal in our call for the Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan to address the concerns of all their citizens, regardless of ethnicity, religion or gender, and we continue to raise the issue at both ministerial and senior ministerial level, including Baroness Warsi’s visit to Pakistan last year following her meeting with representatives of the all-party parliamentary group on the Hazara. We will monitor and shine a spotlight on the plight of the Hazara and other minorities in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights report.

Our relationship with Afghanistan and Pakistan on aid remains significant. Of course, we do not make our aid conditional on specific issues, which will remain the case, but UK aid to any country is based on three shared commitments with partner Governments: first, poverty reduction and meeting the millennium development goals; secondly, respecting human rights and other international obligations; and thirdly, strengthening financial management and accountability. In Pakistan, our aid helps the authorities to make progress in those areas, including concrete measures to improve the economy, reform education and devote proper attention to human rights.

[Mr Spellar]

Many of those objectives are undermined by the uncertainty and the terrorism inflicted on the Hazara and other communities, particularly those who are among the most commercially productive and entrepreneurial. Is there not therefore a direct link between the objectives and getting change in behaviour?

[Mr Ellwood]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that. That is why we are focusing on those three areas of education, tackling poverty and confronting the extremist narrative.

I am conscious of the time and wish to allow the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen the opportunity to give us his final thoughts on the subject, so I conclude my remarks by reiterating that the UK is committed to the enduring relationship with Pakistan and Afghanistan and all their peoples, regardless of faith or ethnicity. We will continue to work with the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan to address ethnic and religious persecution. We will remain unwavering in our commitment to frank discussion with them as our friends. We will not shy away from tough messages on the rights of minorities.

Having recently taken the responsibility for Afghanistan and Pakistan within the Foreign Office, I am committed to ensuring that those issues receive the attention they deserve. I look forward to meeting members of the all-party parliamentary group in due course to ensure that I understand the issues fully. Once again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman and others for ensuring that this important issue receives the attention it deserves.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I think we have got better at ensuring that our aid goes to the right places, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise it. Of course, there is an issue. As we have reached 0.7% of GDP going to our aid budget, and as the GDP of this country increases due to the success of the Government’s long-term economic plan, there is more money around to help alleviate poverty around the world. It is up to us to ensure that that money reaches the right target.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The world will have been shocked by the recent attacks on and violent expulsion of Christians in Mosul, but this is only the latest outrage in a rising tide of religious intolerance around the world, largely but by no means exclusively targeted at Christians. The United Nations declaration of human rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In this country, we enjoy that right, but too many around the world are persecuted for their faith. What, if any, substantial initiatives has the FCO taken to advance and protect those rights?

[Mr Swire]

If I might say so, I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have written his question before I answered the first question, because I addressed the issue that he raises. I talked about the work being done by my noble Friend Baroness Warsi in convening high-level groupings at the UN General Assembly in ministerial week in New York, which she will be doing again. I have talked about the FCO’s new advisory group on freedom of religious belief. I have talked about our work with ambassadors and journalists around the world to encourage religious tolerance, which we will continue to do. We continue to take this issue, which is one of the FCO’s six human rights priorities, extraordinarily seriously. In a way, the issue is being addressed today in the girl summit, which follows the preventing sexual violence initiative summit. The Government cannot be accused of not doing our best.

Ukraine

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, you and the Foreign Secretary will, I hope, be aware of the reasons why the shadow Foreign Secretary is regrettably not able to be here to respond to the statement. I thank the Foreign Secretary for it, and for advance sight of it.

Before turning to the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on Ukraine, may I first briefly address the recent horrific events in Nigeria? We welcome yesterday’s written statement and the steps taken by this Government, alongside allies, in support of the Nigerian-led efforts to rescue the captured girls. We note that the EU Foreign Affairs Council’s conclusions make reference to the situation in Nigeria. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that in recent days, Members on both sides of the House have been urging that the opportunity be given to debate the matter in Parliament. I expect that those requests have been noted and that the Government will respond accordingly.

Turning to Ukraine, as the Foreign Secretary stressed, the situation in eastern Ukraine is deeply troubling. The violence continues, the death toll is rising and the situation is increasingly volatile. He is right to condemn unreservedly the offence on 2 May in Odessa, where more than 40 people died. He is also right to condemn the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk on Sunday, which were both illegal and illegitimate. The priority must now be for calm to be restored and further violence to be prevented.

The events over the weekend have created a key moment when the real resolve and intentions of Russia must now be tested. In recent days, President Putin has publicly issued words that some have seen as a sign of possible progress. The international community, however, must judge President Putin not by his words alone but by his actions. He said that the referendum should be postponed. Now, he must condemn the fact that it has taken place. He said that presidential elections might be a step forward. Now, he must help to create the conditions for them to take place peacefully. He said that he has withdrawn troops from the border. He must allow NATO to verify that. He has signed up to the Geneva accord of 17 April. Now, he must help to implement it. If President Putin fails to take the minimum steps required to demonstrate that he is willing to change course, the west must be prepared to increase pressure in the days and weeks ahead.

We welcome the steps agreed at yesterday’s EU Foreign Affairs Council to extend existing targeted measures, including against two Ukrainian companies. On the measures agreed, will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether he expects the expanded criteria to result in the addition of further Russian entities to the list of companies targeted by such actions? Will he confirm whether we are taking steps to secure a further meeting between the signatories as a way of trying to make further progress on implementation? We note the Council’s conclusions in support of a further meeting, but in the light of Russian statements that no such meeting is planned, could he set out the likelihood of it taking place?

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the EU’s preparatory work on possible wider trade and economic sanctions against Russia. Can he provide any further detail on the measures under consideration? Will he confirm that any steps taken by Russia to seek to prevent the peaceful process of presidential elections this month would be deemed a serious escalation, and further evidence of their wilful intention to destabilise the situation in Ukraine further? We welcome the Foreign Secretary’s confirmation that an association agreement is due to be signed with Georgia and Moldova next month, alongside a free trade area.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that many countries in the region, especially those from the former Warsaw pact and former Soviet Union, but also including our Nordic allies, have a deeper concern that Russia’s actions in Ukraine are not an isolated incident but part of a developing and worrying trend—particularly in the light of claims by the Russian Government about their need to protect Russian speakers or ethnic Russians, irrespective of their nationality or the credibility of any real threat against them. It is little wonder that this has caused apprehension and even alarm. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm what discussions he has had with our EU and NATO allies on our response to these developments?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Given that he asked about Nigeria, it may be in order to say one sentence about Nigeria. I issued a written statement yesterday, the matter was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday and I briefed the Cabinet on the situation this morning. Our team was deployed to Nigeria last Friday and has had meetings over the last few days with the Nigerian security authorities, with the President and with representatives of the families of the girls who have been abducted. They are working closely with the US team and we are in close touch with the Nigerians about what more we can provide as additional assistance. That was a long sentence! I hope it briefly keeps the House up to date on how we are responding to this appalling crime.

The right hon. Gentleman expressed through his statement and questions the bipartisan approach we have to the crisis in Ukraine. He was quite right to say that President Putin and Russia should be judged on their actions, not just on words at press conferences, and that we should be prepared to increase the pressure. The decisions we took yesterday in Brussels are clear evidence of our willingness to increase the pressure. Not everybody expected us to agree further sanctions yesterday, but we felt that in the absence of concrete steps from Russia to de-escalate, it was right to add to the sanctions. To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question about whether there could be further extensions to the list of individuals and entities subject to asset freezes and travel bans, yes, absolutely there could be. Because we have substantially widened the criteria, many more individuals and entities can now be added if the circumstances warrant it. There is a real readiness across the whole European Union to do so.

I said in my statement that the wider sanctions—wider economic, trade and financial measures—which we have not yet imposed, are at an advanced stage. I am not able to announce any details, because they would of course have to be agreed in detail at the time. The detailed work has been done by the European Commission in consultation with EU members. It would be desirable to have a further meeting of the parties that took part in the Geneva talks of 17 April. However, it is possible to make progress even without such a meeting, as the work over the last week by the chair of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, President Burkhalter of Switzerland, has demonstrated. We are in close touch with him, and he is working closely with the Ukrainian authorities and is, of course, in regular touch with Moscow to try to make his four-point plan work. I very much welcome his dedication to that task, and I will remain in close touch with him.

On the question of whether the further steps to destabilise the elections represent a serious escalation, yes, that is absolutely right, as was made clear at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday and by Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande in their press conference on Saturday. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to refer to the concerns created, particularly in countries with Russian-speaking minorities, about how Russia has defined its interests and its right, as it sees it, to intervene in other nations in defiance of the UN charter and international law. That is why NATO has made decisions to give greater assurance to our colleagues, particularly in the Baltic states. As he knows, we have reinforced the air policing of the Baltic, including by sending Royal Air Force Typhoon jets, and we will take other steps as necessary.

One of the results of what Russia has done is that at the NATO summit, which we are proud to host in Wales in September, NATO’s responsibilities to ensure the collective and guaranteed defence of its European members, and our readiness to revitalise that and ensure that it remains there in the coming years, will be a topic of great discussion—greater than it would have been without this crisis.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I can only say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments entirely. When the Foreign Office was made aware of this issue in 2010, we attempted then to inform everybody of exactly what had happened and what the consequences would be, and we will continue to do that.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

British civilians working for both the Government and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) stressed, non-governmental organisations have played a crucial role in helping the ordinary people of Afghanistan, especially women, to improve their lot and have a better future, which is why they are targeted by the despicable Taliban. So what are the Government doing to ensure their safety, not only now, but especially after the military draw-down?

[Hugh Robertson]

I suppose the answer to the question of what we are continuing to do now is the British military presence in Afghanistan, the aim of which is to increase security throughout that country. A series of programmes will continue after the draw-down, particularly the training of the Afghan military and police, and the Government will do all they can. I echo the comments the right hon. Gentleman made about the contribution made by so many people in the voluntary sector.