UK Government National Action Plan (Women, Peace and Security)

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

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

I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing a revised British Government national action plan on UNSCR 1325 women, peace and security. This national action plan is fully integrated with the work of the Minister for Equalities, who is the ministerial champion on violence against women and girls.

I wanted to announce publication to coincide with the start of the British presidency of the UN Security Council in March, given the lead role that the UK takes on the Council, for the women, peace and security agenda.

Since the national action plan was last revised in November 2010, the Government have been active in promoting the women, peace and security agenda through multilateral bodies, including: a significant financial contribution to UN women; encouraging more states to develop national action plans; and promoting the inclusion of gender issues within doctrine and practice for peace missions.

Across Whitehall, further efforts have been made to expand awareness of women, peace and security, issues, including through revised conflict, security and human rights training programmes that include significant elements covering gender issues; the deployment of female engagement teams on UK military operations overseas; and the dissemination of a 1325 toolkit to all of our embassies and Government offices overseas.

We have also continued to deliver gender based programmes in our three priority countries. For example, DFID has invested £60 million in a security sector accountability and police reform programme in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which will include the development of sexual and gender-based violence focused police units. The FCO is funding a multi-donor project to strengthen the capacity of the National Human Rights Commission in Nepal, to help develop a responsive and accessible justice system that will promote gender equality. In addition to a wide range of gender focused programme activity in Afghanistan, we are supporting the Afghan development of a 1325 national action plan, ensuring wide ranging consultation, including with women’s groups.

In October 2011,1 published a review of the Government’s performance against the national action plan. The revised plan that I am announcing today learns from that review and outlines new commitments for action over the coming year.

It also reflects new challenges on women, peace and security, in particular following the Arab spring. The national action plan has been expanded to include, for the first time, a regional action plan for the middle east and north Africa.

We are grateful to the associate parliamentary group on women, peace and security (APG WPS) for their active engagement on this important issue, and would in particular like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who chairs that group. I should also like to thank the civil society organisation Gender Action on Peace and Security (GAPS), for the contribution they have made to the process of revising the plan.

We will continue to consult with Parliament and civil society, including in the run up to a review of the Government’s progress against the revised national action plan in the autumn. As the national action plan expires in November 2013, a full evaluation will take place in 2013, and make recommendations on how the plan should be refreshed or replaced.

I have deposited a copy of the revised national action plan in the Libraries of both Houses. It is also available on the FCO website at: www.fco.gov.uk.

South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Marine Protected Area

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Written Statements

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

We would like to draw the attention of the House to the announcement yesterday by the Government of the overseas territory of South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, declaring a sustainable use marine protected area (MPA), covering over 1 million square kilometres of the territory’s maritime zone. The Government very much welcome this announcement, which means that waters around South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are now one of the largest sustainably managed areas of ocean in the world.

The sustainable use marine protected area enshrines in legislation new and existing policies to ensure the highest standards of sustainable fisheries management. The declaration includes over 20,000 square kilometres of no-take zones, alongside a prohibition on commercial bottom trawling and depth limits on the use of commercial bottom longlining. These measures will provide protection for the sensitive biologically diverse seabed and support the protection of the fish stocks around each of the islands within the territory.

The South Georgia toothfish fishery has already been certified as sustainable and well managed by the Marine Stewardship Council. The MPA designation further underpins the sustainable management and environmental stewardship of South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, as well as contributing to the UK’s wider commitment to the conservation of the southern ocean, through its leading role within the Commission for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. The Government of South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands has also indicated its intention to undertake further scientific work during 2012 to identify whether further additional protection measures should be incorporated into the MPA designation in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

4. What representations he has made to the Hungarian Government on state control of the judiciary in that country.

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

An independent judiciary is necessary for the preservation of democracy and fundamental freedoms. We have urged Hungary to consider the implications of its new laws and to continue working with the European Commission to ensure that those laws are consistent with EU norms.

[Andrew Miller]

I welcome that response from the Minister. There have been suggestions in the media over the past few days that progress is being made at the EU level. Will he spell out what that progress is? Will he give the House an assurance that this and the other outstanding issues with Hungary’s new constitution will be pursued vigorously by this Government?

[Mr Bellingham]

On 17 January, the European Commission released its analysis of the incompatibility of specific elements of the new Hungarian constitution with EU treaty obligations. Letters of formal notice were sent to the Hungarian Government as the first stage of EU infringement proceedings.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Notwithstanding the EU’s concerns, is it not the case that the vast majority of Hungarians voted for Fidesz at the last election? We should remember that that party is led by a man who was at the forefront of the battle against the socialist dictatorship in Hungary, a country in which I have a great personal interest.

[Mr Bellingham]

I certainly respect the will of the Hungarian electorate. However, we strongly urge the Hungarian authorities to consider the implications of the new laws for political balance and to work with the Commission to ensure that the laws are consistent with EU norms.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of economic conditions in the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

10. What his priorities are for the 56th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

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

My hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities is currently in New York attending the commission. She will be pressing for more progress on meeting the millennium development goals, tackling violence and discrimination against women, and challenging the way women are represented by the global media.

[Diana Johnson]

Given that the UN Commission on the Status of Women is focusing on the rights of women in rural areas, will the Minister say what action his Government are taking to encourage the participation of women in rural Afghanistan?

[Mr Bellingham]

We are publishing our national action plan today, and Ministers at the Department for International Development have made it clear, in DFID’s “Strategic vision for girls and women”, that stressing the importance of empowering rural girls and women is essential for global prosperity, achieving the MDGs and ensuring safer and more stable rural communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the likely progress on human rights issues at (a) the next meeting of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee and (b) the 56th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

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

The advisory committee sat from 20 to 24 February, and we shall assess its recommendations when they are presented to the Human Rights Council. I said in an earlier reply that my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities was currently in New York pressing for progress on ending discrimination and violence against women.

[Sandra Osborne]

I thank the Minister for that response. What action are the Government taking to call on the Government of Sri Lanka to bring to justice those who are responsible for human rights abuses—particularly the many acts of violence against women—within a reasonable time scale?

[Mr Bellingham]

We obviously want the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the HRC recommendations, and we will be pushing them as hard as we can to do so. We will certainly ensure that the hon. Lady’s strong representations on the subject are passed on.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

14. What recent reports he has received on settlement activity in the west bank; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

17. What steps he is taking to encourage the use of the UK's embassies and high commissions to support the promotion of UK exports.

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

Supporting UK firms is at the heart of our diplomacy. Our missions overseas are taking a leading role in campaigns to win new business. We have a dynamic Trade Minister in my noble Friend Lord Green and a highly focused prosperity directorate at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We are determined to play our part in driving up British exports.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Under the previous Government, the number of embassies we had overseas was reduced and exports flatlined as a proportion of gross domestic product, whereas in Germany exports have increased as a proportion of GDP—up to 50% now. What steps are the Government taking to open more embassies to help firms like Herbert Engineering in South West Norfolk, which plans to export 65% of all its goods next year to countries as far away as China and Dubai?

[Mr Bellingham]

My hon. Friend is spot on. Our exports in 2011 were up 10.7%, while our trade deficit fell from £36.7 billion in 2010 to £28 billion in 2011. It is, of course, our intention to get into surplus. That is one reason why we are opening new missions around the world, including five in Africa. I am glad that my hon. Friend highlighted the excellent engineering business, R J Herbert Engineering, which is a superb example of a medium-sized engineering company succeeding in tough export markets.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

18. What reports he has received on humanitarian access to conflict areas in Burma.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Ministers will know that there is a sizeable Somali community in Leicester, many of whom followed the deliberations of the recent conference with great interest. I am keen to find out how Ministers plan to continue to engage with that community. In addition, to what extent was the role of children discussed at the conference? What more can be done internationally to protect children in that part of the world?

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

There has been a huge amount of engagement with the Somali diaspora in this country, both on the part of FCO Ministers and from the Prime Minister downwards. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met Somali diaspora groups on a number of occasions, and I have had five such meetings and have visited the Finsbury Park mosque as a result of an invitation from the local MP. We will carry on that engagement, because understanding the views of these groups and their vision for the future, including that of their children, is incredibly important.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

T6. Will the Foreign Secretary assure us that the UK will give no support, militarily or diplomatically, to Israel if it launches an armed attack on Iran?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

T10. The Minister will be aware of the shocking murder of Christians in Borno state, northern Nigeria, by Boko Haram. Will he outline what steps the British Government might be able to take to assist the Nigerian Government in dealing with that problem?

[Mr Bellingham]

I certainly share my hon. Friend’s outrage at these attacks on both Christians and Muslim groups in northern Nigeria. The Prime Minister met President Goodluck Jonathan last week and the UK has offered to share experience on counter-terrorism policy, doctrine and legal frameworks. We have also offered to promote more bridge-building initiatives between Christians and Muslims.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

In view of the fact that the Argentines are economically blockading the Falkland Islands and threatening the self-determination of the Falkland Islanders, will the Foreign Secretary make representations to his right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary to ensure that the UK votes differently at the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank and instead supports American efforts to galvanise a coalition among G20 countries to deny such loans to Argentina? In fact, will he make representations that we should stop making contributions to those loans?

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Building on the success of the marine protected area in the British Indian ocean, may I ask the Minister what recent assessment he has made of the merits of establishing marine protected areas in Pitcairn, Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands?

[Mr Bellingham]

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that 90% of Britain’s biodiversity lies in the overseas territories, which is why a very important part of the forthcoming White Paper on the overseas territories will be devoted to how we manage that habitat and its biodiversity. Of course, the territories he has mentioned will play an important part in that exercise.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Somalia

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for his remarks. I may be a dogged opening batsman, but when we played together for the Lords and Commons at Lord’s about four years ago, I was out for four and he made, I think, 38 not out—at the headquarters of cricket.

We have had a really excellent bipartisan debate, with a lot of experience being brought to the table and to the House. As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) pointed out, this is a debate of huge significance and importance, because it is probably the first time that Members have debated Somalia on the Floor of the House for a very long time indeed.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained, the time is now right for action to be taken. Mogadishu has fallen, other areas of stability in Somalia have now developed, al-Shabaab is undoubtedly on the back foot and the pirates are under pressure, so we have an opportunity to make the most of the transition by putting in place a new political process. We as a Government were absolutely right to seize the opportunity, and my right hon. Friend explained why he felt that that was the case.

My right hon. Friend explained also that we are realistic about the conference. We are not setting up a new, parallel process. We want to enrich the existing process and to act as a catalyst to drive international action: on security, with more sustainable funding for AMISOM; on the political process, by building on the local stability that I have just mentioned; by breaking the business model for piracy; and by making a renewed commitment to tackle the humanitarian crisis and to bring about better international co-ordination.

Over the next few weeks, it will become apparent how we plan to deliver on all that, but one of the most important areas that has been discussed today is the political process because it is incredibly important that we build on local stability. There are areas, such as Puntland, Galmudug, those controlled by the ASWJ and those being opened up in the west and the south, where people deserve to have their voices heard, and that is why we need a more inclusive and representative political process. We need a constituent assembly that really does represent those people, and to prepare us for transition we need a more credible authority and Government.

Several right hon. and hon. Members asked about the political process. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary asked about civil society and NGOs, and it is important to involve them. A number of hon. Members were very critical of the transitional federal Government, particularly the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who noted that 96% of all the aid that has been given to the TFG has gone missing. That is why we are setting up a new financial management board, which is incredibly important.

[Mr Leigh]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) asked me what the source was for the statistic that 96% of direct bilateral aid to the TFG was going astray. I am sorry that I did not have that information with me then, but it is important to put it on the record. It comes from the investigative report for 2009-10 by the TFG’s public finance management unit. The TFG’s own internal report shows that 96% of the bilateral aid going to them goes into the hands of corrupt officials.

[Mr Bellingham]

I point out that we have never given aid directly to the TFG. Of course, a lot of aid has gone into Mogadishu. That is why it is important that we have a new financial management board.

The hon. Members for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Islington North and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) mentioned women and children, and the role of the TFG in ensuring that issues relating to them are addressed. We will certainly look at the language in the communiqué on that.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) that it is essential that after the transition we build more capacity and administrative ability into the structures of the Administration and Government in Mogadishu.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke eloquently about Somaliland. Indeed, my hon. Friend gave a brilliant history lesson to us all. He told us about his visit to Hargeisa a few years back, when the red carpet was rolled out and there were crowds 20 deep on the streets into the city. I visited Hargeisa last July. I was met by the President at the airport and I was received with a red carpet, but the crowds were certainly not 20 deep on the drive into the city centre. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for their knowledge.

This is an important conference for President Silanyo. He has been invited to take part. We feel strongly that this is a conference to which the Somalilanders can contribute. They can tell the rest of Somalia what they have done to build stability, what has worked in their free and fair elections, and why they are a good development partner for the UK. His decision is a brave one and the right one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked me whether Somaliland’s position will be enhanced by attending. I believe that it will. President Silanyo will have a chance to speak. He will talk not about independence for Somaliland, but about what Somaliland can do to enhance the peace process in Somalia and about what is happening on his doorstep. By coming on to the international stage, he will meet a large number of international statesmen and Heads of State. He will be able to explain to them what he has done that has worked in Somaliland and why it has been so successful. I take on board what my hon. Friend said about the Somaliland Development Corporation and the role of the private sector.

In the meantime, we will work with Somaliland, particularly on the agreement with the Seychelles to allow convicted pirates in the Seychelles to return to Somaliland to serve their sentences. Obviously, we are urging President Silanyo to pass his draft piracy law and prisoner transfer law, which are essential to allowing the transfer of prisoners back to Somaliland, in time for the conference.

[Alun Michael]

This may seem like a minor point, but the Minister referred to pirates returning to Somaliland. By and large, the pirates are not from Somaliland, but will go there to serve their sentences as part of the assistance that Somaliland is giving to the international community.

[Mr Bellingham]

That is a very good point. Some of the pirates may well originate from tribes in Somaliland, but others will be from tribes in Puntland or further south. It is a sign of Somaliland’s commitment to solving the scourge of piracy that it is prepared to enter into this important memorandum of understanding.

A number of right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned AMISOM. I pay tribute to the brave and courageous young Ugandans and Burundians who put their lives on the line to secure the space in Mogadishu for the TFG to move in and, we hope, provide better services. We have supported AMISOM. We are the biggest contributor to its trust fund on a non-caveated basis.

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) that AMISOM is looking at its command and control configuration and considering sector sub-commands. As a peace enforcement mission, it is doing things that I do not believe a normal UN peacekeeping mission would be able to do. It contains brave troops from the countries that I mentioned, who have worked incredibly hard. However, there is no substitute for building up the capacity of the TFG’s Somali national forces. AMISOM is a short-term solution, and we need to build the capacity of the Somali police and national forces.

The right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) mentioned the scale of the threat from al-Shabaab and asked what we were going to do about it. I can tell him that we want to galvanise the international community to support the countries in the region, so that they can improve their capacity to investigate and disrupt the immediate terrorist threat.

A number of hon. Members mentioned piracy, including my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, and for Portsmouth (Penny Mordaunt)—I congratulate them on the work that they have done in their constituencies to support the Royal Navy—and for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that we will reply to his report in detail in the near future.

My hon. Friend asked whether private armed security guards would be licensed. Yes, companies need to apply to the Home Office for a section 5 licence in advance of deploying to a high-risk area, and so far five companies have applied for licences. As far as the rules of engagement are concerned, the Department for Transport has already provided guidance to the industry on the use of force, and negotiations with the Home Office are ongoing. I hope that we are moving into the right place in our policy on the matter, which has been widely welcomed.

The co-ordination of the international navies has been excellent, but piracy obviously has to be solved on the land. We are dealing with the problem at sea because we have to, but if we can build political progress in Somalia, particularly in Puntland, Galmudug and the south, we will be able to solve the problem on the land. I am really keen to ensure that when communities chase out the pirates, development aid from the donor community and the private sector goes to those communities to build new fish markets, schools and medical centres.

In the meantime, we are trying to get memorandums of understanding in place so that pirates who are detained can be taken for trial in the region and then taken to serve their prison terms in Somaliland. We are working on MOUs with the Seychelles, Mauritius, Kenya—there is already an MOU there and we want to get it reactivated—Tanzania and Mozambique. Although we cannot be complacent, we are making progress.

On the humanitarian front, I underline the fact that the Department for International Development has done a quite superb job. However, we must now move from aid to development—I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester South and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) that that is the way forward. It is incredibly important that we bear in mind the fact that the Somalis are entrepreneurs and business people, and DFID’s emphasis on the private sector is very relevant to Somalia. Combined with the remittances going back into Somalia, which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out were worth roughly $1 billion, I believe that means the situation is much more promising for young people in Somalia. Rather than looking to extremism and possibly terrorism, they can look to businesses and to helping to rebuild Somalia through the private sector, entrepreneurial drive, enterprise and initiative. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) also made that point.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we are determined to have a reinvigorated and focused international approach to Somalia. We feel that the time is absolutely right for that. The international community has worked on Somalia over the years, but there has been a lack of a really co-ordinated approach. I have been to a number of international contact group meetings on Somalia, and although a great many positive things have been spoken about, we have not had really well developed work groups or work streams. The UN has also now been brought in, with its serious expertise, along with the African Union and European Union.

Momentum has built up towards the conference, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are very encouraged by the number of countries that have accepted the invitation to come. It will not be a one-off. We want it to kick-start a reinvigorated and imaginative international approach. There is a very important role for the diaspora, and we have undertaken outreach with it.

Somalia is at a crossroads. There is no shortage of good will, but ultimately it is up to the Somali people themselves to rebuild their country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of how to build a stable and peaceful Somalia.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T9. What progress is being made on the forthcoming constitutional referendum in Zimbabwe, which will be a prerequisite for free and fair elections in a country that has had more than its fair share of violence and intimidation in elections in the past.

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

I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concern about continuing persecution, particularly of Movement for Democratic Reform MPs. There was the dreadful case of the recent arrest of Lynette Karenyi allegedly for insulting the President. Obviously, the immediate priority for Zimbabwe is preparation for the referendum on the constitution and making sure that the road map to credible free and fair elections is in place.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

T7. What steps are the Government taking in the coming year further to strengthen the parliamentary systems in our overseas territories?

[Mr Bellingham]

I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) for participating in the mission to observe the British Virgin Islands elections in November. We believe that having observers is good practice for open democracies like ours and the overseas territories. This is highly relevant to the Turks and Caicos Islands where we hope to have elections later this year if the milestones continue to be met.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Has the Foreign Secretary had a chance to read the reports from the Carter Centre, the European Union, the United Nations and the Catholic Church of the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the recent conduct of the presidential elections there and the barely credible reports of a 100% turnout in some areas, which led to President Kabila being declared the winner and the British ambassador attending his inauguration? What representations is the right hon. Gentleman making to the DRC Government concerning those elections and the future of democratic elections in that country?

[Mr Bellingham]

On the positive side, there was far less violence in these elections than there was in 2006. Furthermore, most voters who wanted to vote could and did vote. I agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman that there were a number of serious irregularities throughout the electoral process. That is why we called on the DRC authorities to investigate them properly and fairly. It is vital that lessons are learned.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

As we discovered during events surrounding the invasion of Iraq, it is essential for states to act only on hard evidence. In relation to Iran, will the Secretary of State encourage not only Iran itself but the whole international community to listen carefully to the International Atomic Energy Agency this time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I know that the Foreign Secretary will share my disappointment at the news that the overseas territories have been refused permission to enter a vessel in the diamond jubilee river pageant in June. Will he assure the House that they will be granted full recognition and participation in the diamond jubilee celebrations?

[Mr Bellingham]

I want to praise my hon. Friend for his indefatigable support for the overseas territories. As he knows, we will shortly publish a White Paper which will discuss how we can reinvigorate our relationship with them, and obviously we want them to participate fully in Her Majesty’s jubilee celebrations.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations can play an important role in encouraging the Burmese to maintain the progress that he described earlier?

Sergei Magnitsky

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) on securing this very important debate. The high-profile case of Sergei Magnitsky is of serious concern to Her Majesty’s Government and one in which there is a clear need for Russia to act. As the right hon. Gentleman made clear, Mr Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer, went into pre-trial detention and died in state custody nearly a year later. Before his arrest, he had been working to uncover an alleged tax fraud against the Russian state by certain Russian law enforcement officials, a number of whom are alleged to have been involved in the investigation and detention of Mr Magnitsky.

In July 2011, the Russian presidential council on human rights published a report that found that Mr Magnitsky had been denied medical treatment and had been beaten while in detention, which directly contributed to his death, yet no one has been held to account by the Russian authorities. It is deeply disappointing that the Russian investigative committee appears to have made little progress. The publication of its findings in relation to Magnitsky’s death was postponed a number of times during 2011. They are currently due to be issued on 24 January. It is vital that the Russian authorities complete a thorough and transparent investigation into his death without further delay, as the case has wider implications for the rule of law and respect for human rights in Russia.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

What confidence does the Minister have that the Russian authorities will be able to complete that kind of transparent, thorough and fair investigation in this case?

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening. Of course, it is disappointing that the Russian investigative committee has made so little progress. It is also very disappointing that its report has been postponed on three occasions, but we are putting on all the pressure that we can and understand that the report will be issued on 24 January. We will keep up the pressure and look forward to publication on that date.

On HMG action, we have made our concerns very clear to the Russian Government. I should like to point out to the right hon. Member for Rotherham that the Prime Minister discussed this case with the President during his visit to Moscow in September, when he also outlined the need for confidence in the rule of law in Russia. This case is an unfortunate reminder that Mr Magnitsky’s death in pre-trial detention is not an isolated incident in Russia: approximately 50 to 60 people die in pre-trial detention facilities annually.

Our embassy in Moscow is providing financial support to the important work of the Social Partnership Foundation—a human rights non-governmental organisation—to look at the underlying causes of such cases and to help prevent further cases occurring.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Government subjecting Russian officials allegedly implicated in Magnitsky’s death to punitive measures in the form of visa bans. He will be aware that the immigration rules enable us to refuse a visa where information on an individual’s character, conduct or associations makes entry into the UK undesirable. However, the UK has a long established global practice, which has been followed by all recent Governments, including the one of which he was a member, of not commenting routinely on individual cases.

The right hon. Gentleman named a number of individuals whom he says were involved in the case. The Home Office and I will look into the cases of those individuals and will write to the right hon. Gentleman in due course.

[Chris Bryant]

I hope the word “routinely” was important in that sentence. The Minister for Immigration has, on several occasions, done a nudge, nudge, wink, wink to me to say, “Look, these people aren’t going to be coming into the country.” Frankly, though, we need more than that. If the Minister was prepared to provide a list of people who would not be welcome in this country, that would be a significant step forward.

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is not something on which I can give a guarantee this afternoon, but we will be in a better position to do so once the investigative committee has issued its report on 24 January.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

There is nothing routine about a murder closely connected with a British enterprise. Although Mr Magnitsky was not a British citizen, this case really is on a par with the Litvinenko murder. The reason why these things keep happening is well known: these people are crossing the Russian state. If the Russian state does not want to be seen as a gangster, surely it should stop killing journalists, lawyers and dissidents.

[Mr Bellingham]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point in his own inimitable way. I would not want anyone to have the impression that I was describing this case as routine, because obviously it is not. What I said was that the Government have a policy of not commenting routinely on individual cases. Obviously, this is an incredibly serious case, and I take on board what he has said.

On visa action taken by other countries, we are aware of media reports that the US has imposed sanctions on implicated officials and added them to a visa application watch list. Although Bills have been introduced in the US Congress and some other countries’ Parliaments, such as in the Netherlands and Canada, and motions have been passed in support of visa bans against Russian officials allegedly implicated in Mr Magnitsky’s death, we are not aware that those states have taken such action.

What we ultimately want—as all Members will agree, I believe—is the Russian Government to take the initiative in ensuring that justice is achieved in this case and in putting in place measures to prevent further such cases occurring. To that end, we are urging the Russian Government to conduct a full and transparent investigation into Mr Magnitsky’s death, and we continue to raise the case at the highest levels.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for what he says about the action that the Foreign Office is taking and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) for raising the issue in the first place. This case is of the utmost importance. Will the Minister act in concert with his European colleagues, so that all the nations of the European Union can show their anger at the way in which this lawyer has been treated and at the abuse and violation of human rights in Russia today?

[Mr Bellingham]

I will certainly make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s strong comments are passed on to the Minister for Europe, so that he will speak to his European counterparts about this case at the next appropriate Council. He has already raised it with them, and similar action has been taken by other European countries. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman says, we will ensure that the case is raised again.

I should like to say a few words about the wider situation in Russia. The FCO’s annual human rights report makes it clear that we remain concerned about the rights afforded to Russian citizens and the strength of democracy. The Russian Government’s support for human rights often appears ambivalent. As President Medvedev has acknowledged, there is a pressing need to strengthen the rule of law in Russia. Legislative changes to reduce corruption represent a tentative step in the right direction. Reports of grave human rights abuses in the north Caucasus continue, and Russian human rights defenders and journalists remain at high risk. In some cases, though, we have seen some minor positive developments.

The state Duma parliamentary elections have been the key recent test of Russia’s democratic credentials. The conduct of those elections confirmed our concerns about human rights and democracy in Russia. Before the elections, NGOs and media organisations were routinely harassed. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe was permitted to observe the elections. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that they had been

“slanted in favour of the ruling party”.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said on 6 December, those conclusions underline the need for alleged electoral violations to be investigated rapidly and transparently and to ensure that all democratic institutions, including the media, civil society and opposition political groups, can operate freely in Russia.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I apologise for being slightly late. I very much appreciate this debate. Does the Minister acknowledge that it is not just the conduct of the elections but the whole functioning of democracy in Russia that prevents anyone who could challenge the system from getting nominated, never mind elected, as a presidential candidate? Will Her Majesty’s Government not make it clear that pluralism requires a much more open access to democracy than is currently available in Russia?

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that strong point. In light of what he says, I can tell him that our wider work on human rights in Russia focuses on a number of key areas: democratic rights, including supporting free and fair elections, freedom of expression and freedom of the media; support for those seeking to resolve conflict in the north Caucasus; support for those seeking to increase monitoring, reporting and prosecution of human rights abuses; better support and protection for human rights defenders; support for those seeking a stronger rule of law with improved access to justice; and making progress towards greater equality and reduced discrimination.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. In early 2010, I visited Chechnya with Lord Judd to investigate the human rights situation. Will the Minister, in his discussions with Russian colleagues and his ministerial colleagues, impress upon the Russian Government that this is also an issue of security? It was clear from our trip to Chechnya that, without the proper upholding of human rights, the security situation and the terrorism issues faced there would not be resolved.

[Mr Bellingham]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I agree with what she says, and we will ensure that that is taken up at the highest level.

In addition to the Magnitsky case, it is important that the Russian Government fully investigate the unresolved murders of journalists and human rights defenders. We remain concerned at the lack of progress in prosecuting those responsible for the 2009 murder of Natalya Estemirova. The murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya remains one of the most worrying cases of recent years. More than five years after her tragic death, the case still remains to be concluded. In October, Russian prosecutors announced new charges against suspects allegedly involved in organising her murder. The Prime Minister raised this case with President Medvedev during his recent visit to Moscow, calling on the Russian authorities to take further steps to bring all perpetrators to justice. There is a low success rate in investigating and prosecuting these crimes, thus perpetuating the perception of impunity, which undermines freedom of expression and human rights in Russia.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is eloquently making the case for the kind of legislation that the US wants to enact. He mentioned the Bill that has gone through Congress. It looks likely to become law and is unlikely to be vetoed by the President. Given the evidence that he has adduced here before us today, would he be open to that kind of Bill being introduced in the House of Commons?

[Mr Bellingham]

If that Bill gets through Congress, we will certainly look at it very carefully. We will look at whether there are any appropriate lessons for this country, and we will consult parliamentary colleagues from all parts of the House. I cannot give any guarantees, but we need to watch very carefully to see whether the Bill becomes law in the US.

In conclusion, I hope that what I have covered today illustrates the Government’s concern and action, both on the wider issue of human rights in Russia and on the specific case of ensuring justice for Sergei Magnitsky. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:

“Human rights are part of our national DNA and will be woven deeply into the decision-making processes of our foreign policy at every stage”.

That applies to our dealings with Russia as much as with any country. We will continue to engage Russia on human rights through bilateral contacts, including our annual human rights dialogue, which will take place in London this year—in the summer, we hope—as well as through multilateral channels, such as the EU, the UN and the Council of Europe.

I thank the right hon. Member for Rotherham for bringing Parliament’s attention to this issue and giving me the chance to explain the Government’s position. We will continue to push for the respect of human rights and the rule of law in Russia and achieving justice for Sergei Magnitsky.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Andrew Rosindell]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which flag or flags are routinely displayed outside each of his Department's overseas (a) posts and (b) residences.

[Official Report, 7 December 2011, Vol. 537, c. 307-8W.]

Letter of correction from Henry Bellingham:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on 7 December 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Bellingham]

The information requested is as follows:

(a) The general rule is that the relevant flag—as follows—should be flown at post on all working days during office hours, depending on which country the posts are located in and the type:

Diplomatic flag—this is the Union flag with the Royal Arms in the centre surrounded by a green garland.

Consular flag—this is the Union flag with the St Edward's Crown in the centre on a white disc . It is only flown at consular posts in foreign countries.

Union flag—this is flown in Commonwealth countries.

European flag—the display of the European flag is a courtesy rather than a requirement. On Europe day (9 May), posts in EU and EU-applicant countries should display the European flag. Other posts may also display the flag on Europe day where this is normal local practice. UKREP Brussels displays the European flag at all times. All posts may display the flag at other times where this is normal local practice.

In all cases, the European flag is displayed alongside, not instead of, the British Diplomatic, Consular or in Commonwealth countries the Union flag, with the British flag having precedence.

Overseas Territories—The personal flag of an Officer Administering the Government (OAG) in an Overseas Territory is the Union flag, superimposed in the centre with the approved arms or badge of the Territory on a white disc surrounded by a green garland. It is flown from sunrise to sunset at Government House when the OAG is in residence: if he/she is not, the flag is flown wherever he/she is in the Territory.

The Union flag is flown from sunrise to sunset at Government House when the OAG is not in residence. It is also flown there if he/she has placed the residence entirely at the disposal of an important visitor, e.g. a member of the royal family.

UK national flags—three of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom have their own national flags: the St Andrew's, St David's, and St George's flags. (Northern Ireland is currently without a national flag, pending a new design.) These flags may be flown on the appropriate national day. Posts also have discretion to fly them when special circumstances/events dictate, e.g. the visit of a Minister from a devolved Administration.

London 2012—The International Olympic Committee and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games gave permission for posts overseas to fly the London 2012 host country flag on key dates in 2012 and for the duration of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, which the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), has supported. The dates in question are as follows:

9 January 2012: 200 days to go—Olympics

11 February 2012: 200 days to go—Paralympics

18 April 2012: 100 days to go—Olympics

10 May 2012: Lighting of the Olympic flame

17 May 2012: Handover of the Olympic flame

18 May 2012: Arrival in the UK of the Olympic flame

21 May 2012: 100 days to go—Paralympics

27 July to 12 August 2012 inclusive: Olympic Games

29 August to 9 September 2012 inclusive: Paralympic Games.

Posts are only permitted to fly the 2012 flag on those agreed dates above, but can display it in their reception areas at other times. Again the British Diplomatic, Consular or the Union flag, will take precedence.

(b) The general rule for flying the relevant flags listed above at Residencies is that they should be flown on the following British anniversaries, during the visit of one of Her Majesty's ships or on days of local celebration or mourning.

British Anniversaries:

20 January: birthday of HRH the Countess of Wessex

6 February: Her Majesty's Accession

19 February: birthday of HRH the Duke of York

1 March: St David's day

10 March: birthday of HRH the Earl of Wessex

17 March: St Patrick's day

March (second Monday): Commonwealth day

21 April: birthday of Her Majesty

23 April: St George's day

9 May: Europe day¹

2 June: Coronation day

10 June: birthday of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh

June (second Saturday): official celebration of Her Majesty's birthday

17 July: birthday of HRH the Duchess of Cornwall

15 August: birthday of HRH the Princess Royal

November (second Sunday):Remembrance day

14 November: birthday of HRH the Prince of Wales

20 November: Her Majesty's wedding anniversary

30 November: St Andrew's day.

¹ The Union flag should fly alongside the European flag. On Government buildings that only have one flagpole, the Union flag should take precedence.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Bellingham]

The information requested is as follows:

(a) The general rule is that the relevant flag—as follows—should be flown at post on all working days during office hours, depending on which country the posts are located in and the type:

Diplomatic flag—this is the Union flag with the Royal Arms in the centre surrounded by a green garland.

Consular flag—this is the Union flag with the St Edward's Crown in the centre on a white disc . It is only flown at consular posts in foreign countries.

Union flag—this is flown in Commonwealth countries.

European flag—the display of the European flag is a courtesy rather than a requirement. On Europe day (9 May), posts in EU and EU-applicant countries should display the European flag. Other posts may also display the flag on Europe day where this is normal local practice. UKREP Brussels displays the European flag at all times. All posts may display the flag at other times where this is normal local practice.

In all cases, the European flag is displayed alongside, not instead of, the British Diplomatic, Consular or in Commonwealth countries the Union flag, with the British flag having precedence.

Overseas Territories—The personal flag of an Officer Administering the Government (OAG) in an Overseas Territory is the Union flag, superimposed in the centre with the approved arms or badge of the Territory on a white disc surrounded by a green garland. It is flown from sunrise to sunset at Government House when the OAG is in residence: if he/she is not, the flag is flown wherever he/she is in the Territory.

The Union flag is flown from sunrise to sunset at Government House when the OAG is not in residence. It is also flown there if he/she has placed the residence entirely at the disposal of an important visitor, e.g. a member of the royal family.

UK national flags—three of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom have their own national flags: the St Andrew's, Y Ddraig Goch “The Red Dragon”, and St George's Cross flags. (Northern Ireland is currently without a national flag, pending a new design.) These flags may be flown on the appropriate national day. Posts also have discretion to fly them when special circumstances/events dictate, e.g. the visit of a Minister from a devolved Administration.

London 2012—The International Olympic Committee and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games gave permission for posts overseas to fly the London 2012 host country flag on key dates in 2012 and for the duration of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, which the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), has supported. The dates in question are as follows:

9 January 2012: 200 days to go—Olympics

11 February 2012: 200 days to go—Paralympics

18 April 2012: 100 days to go—Olympics

10 May 2012: Lighting of the Olympic flame

17 May 2012: Handover of the Olympic flame

18 May 2012: Arrival in the UK of the Olympic flame

21 May 2012: 100 days to go—Paralympics

27 July to 12 August 2012 inclusive: Olympic Games

29 August to 9 September 2012 inclusive: Paralympic Games.

Posts are only permitted to fly the 2012 flag on those agreed dates above, but can display it in their reception areas at other times. Again the British Diplomatic, Consular or the Union flag, will take precedence.

(b) The general rule for flying the relevant flags listed above at Residencies is that they should be flown on the following British anniversaries, during the visit of one of Her Majesty's ships or on days of local celebration or mourning.

British Anniversaries:

20 January: birthday of HRH the Countess of Wessex

6 February: Her Majesty's Accession

19 February: birthday of HRH the Duke of York

1 March: St David's day

10 March: birthday of HRH the Earl of Wessex

17 March: St Patrick's day

March (second Monday): Commonwealth day

21 April: birthday of Her Majesty

23 April: St George's day

9 May: Europe day¹

2 June: Coronation day

10 June: birthday of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh

June (second Saturday): official celebration of Her Majesty's birthday

17 July: birthday of HRH the Duchess of Cornwall

15 August: birthday of HRH the Princess Royal

November (second Sunday):Remembrance day

14 November: birthday of HRH the Prince of Wales

20 November: Her Majesty's wedding anniversary

30 November: St Andrew's day.

¹ The Union flag should fly alongside the European flag. On Government buildings that only have one flagpole, the Union flag should take precedence.

European Union

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate our friends in the Democratic Unionist party on securing this debate on the Prime Minister’s decision last Friday to protect the national interest. They are true allies in these challenging times. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for their speeches.

As the Prime Minister explained to the House yesterday, we went to the European Council in good faith, seeking to reach an agreement acceptable to all 27 members of the European Union. In doing so, we were clear on the need to have the necessary safeguards in place to protect our national interests on the single market as a whole and on financial services. We did not seek special treatment or carve-out for the UK, but safeguards that would ensure a level playing field. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said, those safeguards were modest, reasonable and highly relevant. As he also pointed out, it was a question of protecting not just the City of London, but financial services across the whole of Europe. As it was not possible to reach agreement on satisfactory safeguards, we were not able to agree to a treaty at 27. That was clearly the responsible course for us to take in order to protect the United Kingdom’s national interest.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) asked whether the Government had been properly prepared, and concluded that they had been ill prepared. She said that we had asked for too much, too late. Where has the hon. Lady been for the last month? The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister talked to most leaders and visited key capitals during that period. The Prime Minister saw Chancellor Merkel three weeks before the Council, and met President Sarkozy a week before it. The Prime Minister was clear about the position on safeguards, and made it crystal clear that the safeguards he wanted were moderate and reasonable. As was pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), the position was well understood.

[Emma Reynolds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Bellingham]

I will not, because I must cover as much ground as possible.

The course taken by the Prime Minister allowed eurozone countries and others to proceed with a separate treaty in which they could pool their sovereignty on an intergovernmental basis with the aim of implementing tighter fiscal discipline in the eurozone as part of the process of restoring market confidence. It is right and important for eurozone countries to take the action that they deem necessary to deal with the crisis in the eurozone. We want and need the eurozone to sort out its problems. That is in Britain’s national interest, as it is clear that a crisis in the eurozone is having a negative effect on the UK economy.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Bellingham]

No, I will not.

Let me say something about the UK’s influence in Europe. The decision not to proceed with a treaty at 27 has no impact on our status in the European Union. Our role in the EU is safeguarded by the existing treaties. Britain remains a full member of the EU. Our membership is vital to our national interest. We are a great trading nation, and we need the single market for trade, investment and jobs. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East, we will remain active and influential in the EU. The European Council does not in any way diminish our role. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) in a wise and sensible speech, this week there will be meetings of the Councils on Transport, Telecommunications and Energy, and Agriculture and Fisheries, and we will be present as full, active members in each of those Council meetings.

I am trying to respond to speeches made by a large number of Members on both sides of the House. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), and for Upper Bann (David Simpson), the decision not to be part of the treaty that will be agreed by the eurozone and others does not in any way reduce our influence. The EU is not a monolithic block, and it already contains flexible arrangements.

As the right hon. Member for Belfast North observed, the United Kingdom is not part of the single currency or the Schengen no-borders agreement, but that has not prevented us from leading the way in the EU on a range of issues, from an activist foreign policy to the completion of the single market. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe pointed out, our position is incredibly important in terms of not just the single market but foreign direct investment, 50% of which comes from the EU. As he also pointed out, much foreign direct investment from other parts of the world, such as the BRIC nations—Brazil, Russia, India and China—is due to our membership of the EU.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Stroud referred to the EU institutions. We want the new treaty to work in stabilising the euro. That is in our national interest, because our economy is closely tied to that of our EU partners. I understand why the eurozone member states would want to use the institutions to help to ensure fiscal discipline. We will look constructively at proposals to use the EU institutions with an open mind, but this is new territory which raises important issues.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North was spot on when he said that nothing must be done through the back door. We must ensure that institutions built for 27 continue to operate fairly for all member states, including the UK, and in particular we must ensure that the role played by the EU institutions in safeguarding the single market is not affected. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that we will continue to intensify bilateral relations with many different EU countries. Let me assure the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) that we will not take the isolationist route.

On the repatriation of powers and the balance of competences, the Government are committed, under the coalition agreement, to examining “the balance” of competences between Britain and the EU. There is a case for doing that—as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) pointed out, it is a very strong one. The work on the review has begun and is in its early stages. In taking it forward, we will look at how to engage with our EU partners on individual competences. A change in the balance of competences would require the agreement of all 27 member states on the basis of negotiation and agreement.

I wish to say a few quick words about the working time directive, because it is important at a time of economic uncertainty that we remain focused on job creation and growth. That will require all of Europe to improve its competitive position, including in respect of labour markets. A key part of that will be limiting the barriers to flexibility in the working time directive. The Government are committed in the coalition agreement to limiting

“the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.”

Our priority is that the working time directive keeps a secure economy-wide opt-out; working people should be able to work the hours that they choose. We will also be looking to secure more flexibility in the areas of on-call time and compensatory rest.

I pay tribute, once again, to our friends in the Democratic Unionist party, because this very good debate has come at a crucial time for Europe and, throughout, the contributions of DUP Members have been incredibly consistent, solid and reliable. What can we say about the Opposition? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) that we have heard nothing but carping and criticism. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East did not tell us whether Labour would have signed the treaty. She said nothing at all in response to two interventions, including one from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), asking why Labour gave up Britain’s £7 billion EU rebate when the now shadow Foreign Secretary was Minister for Europe? She also made no attempt to answer the question about why Labour signed the UK up to a euro bail-out mechanism after the general election—on 8 and 9 May 2010, before the coalition agreement was completed. She also failed completely to answer the questions put to her about her leader, who first—

[Mr Dodds]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

Sudan and South Sudan

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Westminster Hall

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

This has been a fascinating and well informed debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) on securing it. I praise him for his well informed and compelling speech, and pay tribute to him for his work. I also congratulate him on his election to the chair of the all-party group on Sudan and South Sudan, and I look forward to working with him in that capacity.

The House will know that I follow the situation in Sudan and South Sudan very closely. I was fortunate to visit Sudan in July, and was the first UK Minister to do so after secession of South Sudan. While I was there, I met a number of Cabinet Ministers, and impressed on them the UK’s continued commitment to Sudan. I made clear our hopes that they could work with their southern neighbours and international partners for a peaceful and prosperous future. Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Juba for its day of independence on 9 July. When addressing the people of the newest country in the world, he was sincere when he stated that the UK would stand by the people of South Sudan as they sought a future of stability, prosperity and lasting peace, particularly peace with its most immediate neighbours.

We should not downplay—the hon. Member for Glasgow North East made this point—the achievement of South Sudan’s peaceful secession on 9 July, which was the result of leadership in both countries, or the important role of the international community. Since then, we have seen positive developments in some areas of both countries. South Sudan has taken its place on the international stage, and has joined major international organisations such as the UN, the African Union and UNESCO. The signing ceremony of its accession to UNESCO was held recently at the Foreign Office. South Sudan has also applied to join the Commonwealth, a move which the Government strongly support. The application process will be an important means of ensuring that South Sudan entrenches our shared values of democracy and human rights. Commonwealth countries, including several of South Sudan’s neighbours, can provide important assistance in those areas.

Sudan has also shown some welcome signs of becoming a more constructive voice in regional issues—for example, in its support of the new Government in Libya, and the leading role it has played in the Arab League’s recent action against the Syrian regime. I will come to the Arab League in a moment. However, it is extremely unfortunate that there have been some worrying developments that lead us to believe the elusive goal of peace is still far from the reach of the Sudanese people.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East and other hon. Members mentioned the states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile. Conflict continues in those states in Sudan, causing a humanitarian emergency. Neither national nor international organisations are being granted access to provide support to civilians affected by the conflict. We are supporting the efforts of the UN to negotiate access, and I hope that the visit of my noble Friend, Baroness Amos, UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, later this month will lead to some progress.

We are very worried about reports of new offensives in the past few days around Jau and Talodi in South Kordofan. That escalation and spread of the conflict are putting civilians—those who remain in South Kordofan and the estimated 16,000 who have been displaced to Yida in Unity state—in even greater danger. We continue to make it clear to the Government of Sudan, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement North, and the Government of South Sudan that there cannot be a military solution to the conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. We condemn indiscriminate aerial bombardment by the Sudanese armed forces, and we are calling on those who are fighting to cease hostilities immediately, to allow unfettered humanitarian access to all populations, and to engage in inclusive political dialogue that addresses the root causes of conflict. We urge the Governments in Khartoum and Juba to respect each other’s problems, and to refrain from unilateral action and inflammatory statements.

Some hon. Members referred to nationality and southerners in the north. We are worried about the lack of progress in resolving nationality issues, which threatens to leave stateless thousands of southerners who have been resident in the north for many years. We are urging both Governments to extend the deadline, and to put in place administrative arrangements to address the problem.

There is a significant humanitarian issue for returnees to the south who are awaiting transport, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development recently visited the way station at Kosti to draw attention to the plight of thousands of returnees who have been waiting months to take barges south. We are working with the UN to ensure that their needs are addressed, and we are urging both Governments to assume responsibility for the returnees.

It is also worrying that there has been conflict across the international boundary between the two states, and the recent cross-border bombings by the Sudanese air force at Yida and Quffa are particularly worrying. I issued a statement at the time—on 10 November—condemning any action that puts civilian lives at risk. We are calling on all parties to exercise restraint, and to cease actions that provoke conflict within each other’s territory. It is totally unacceptable for either Government to provide support to proxy armed groups that contribute to conflict in their neighbour’s territory. There are worrying signs that both sides are doing just that.

I stressed the importance of non-interference to South Sudan’s Foreign Minister, Nhial Deng Nhial, when I met him on 24 September, and I repeated that message last week to a special envoy who had been sent to the UK by President Salva Kiir. I will make exactly the same point next week to the Sudanese presidential adviser, Dr Ghazi Salaheldin, when he visits London, and I will emphasise the critical necessity of allowing humanitarian needs to be addressed urgently.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East made clear, those latest events make it all the more important that both sides allow a border monitoring mission to deploy quickly. We will pursue a resolution at the UN Security Council in the next few weeks to ensure that UN peacekeepers can take on that important task in support of the two Governments. Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and, in an intervention, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as well as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), asked about how to engage the Arab League and the African Union. I agree that it is important to engage as many important regional organisations as possible. The region is engaged. Ethiopia supplied troops to go to Abyei. There will be an AU summit in January, and I hope that Sudan will be a key issue on its agenda. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said, and as the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) emphasised, the regionalisation of the conflict could be very damaging to the entire area.

I want to speak about the unimplemented areas of the comprehensive peace agreement. It is incredibly important that decisions on oil, citizenship, border demarcation and Abyei are given urgent attention. We have been particularly concerned about the failure to reach agreement on an equitable sharing of oil revenue, and I am worried that the Sudan Government have recently raised the temperature by threatening to halt the trans-shipment of oil from South Sudan, as well as by making an unrealistic royalty demand for $32 a barrel, which is way over the going rate.

We welcome the constructive role being played by the AU’s high level implementation panel, which is mediating between the parties on these issues. Talks that it facilitated in Addis Ababa on 25 to 30 November reached no agreement, but some constructive proposals were placed on the table, including on the level at which compensation should be paid to Sudan for the loss of oil revenue. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in a joint statement with his Norwegian and US colleagues, it is vital that the two parties return to the table as soon as possible to find equitable solutions. Sorting out oil revenue is crucial to both countries’ economies and to both currencies.

A number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), referred to whether there could be a pipeline to South Sudan, which is a fair point. The proposal has been reported in the media on a number of occasions. Indeed, it has been suggested that a Japanese company could be contracted to build a pipeline to Kenya. We take the view that it does not make a huge amount of commercial sense, because peak production has already been reached and it would take a long time to build. The only sensible short-term way forward is to ensure that there is agreement between the two countries on this important issue. As I said, it is absolutely vital for both their economies.

I mentioned the importance of Abyei as one of the outstanding CPA issues. Obviously, we are concerned that neither the Sudanese armed forces nor the Sudan People’s Liberation Army has withdrawn fully from the Abyei area, despite the presence of the United Nations interim security force. We fully support UNISFA in its efforts to secure the Abyei area and to monitor the withdrawal of both parties’ troops. We are calling on the Governments of Sudan and South Sudan to co-operate fully with the mission so that it can deliver on its mandate.

Several hon. Members mentioned Darfur. There has been significant progress there, and I am pleased that the UK’s Special Representative for Sudan participated in a conference in Washington earlier this month, which saw discussions between the Liberation and Justice Movement, which has signed the agreement, and other groups that currently remain outside the peace process, about how they might be brought in.

The right hon. Member for Warley mentioned the LRA. I agree that one of the concerning developments recently has been the statement by a number of armed groups that they want to come together in a new umbrella organisation to work to overthrow the Government of Sudan. We want to see peaceful political change in Sudan. We are therefore greatly concerned about any talk of further incitement and use of violence.

Development assistance has been mentioned by several hon. Members. Despite the ongoing conflicts and the political difficulties that face both countries, it remains a priority for the UK to support the peoples of the two Sudans in building a more prosperous future. Our development programmes are based on the provision of substantial assistance to both countries. As well as humanitarian assistance, DFID’s support is focused on delivering basic services to those who need them most, and to building accountability of the Governments on both sides of the border.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East reminded us, we are providing £50 million a year to Sudan over the next four years. Alongside many other donors, we are contributing to its humanitarian needs. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development recently announced additional support for the World Food Programme that will enable it to meet the humanitarian food needs of approximately 315,000 people who have been particularly affected by conflict in South Kordofan, Blue Nile and Abyei. DFID is also seeking to address longer-term development needs. Its programmes will improve education, ensure provision of clean water and sanitation, encourage better access to justice and support the demand for improved governance in Sudan.

We all know that the needs faced by South Sudan are absolutely huge. We are talking not about reconstruction, but the construction of a new country. There is virtually no infrastructure. I believe there are only 25 kilometres of tarmacked road, so the needs are huge. We will be providing £90 million a year for the next four years to help the people of South Sudan. We will be working closely with others, including the US, UN and EU, and our programmes will support accountable, inclusive and transparent government, economic growth and improved security and access to justice. In particular, the UK through DFID aims to help 240,000 children to get through primary school; enable 4 million people to receive life-saving health care and nutrition; help 1 million people get enough food to eat; provide more than 750,000 people with malaria prevention and treatment; and give more than 500,000 people access to clean water and sanitation.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned the global fund, AIDS and the lack of support from other countries. I can assure him that, as far as the UK is concerned, we will be doing all we can to keep up the pressure on other donor countries. We have influence within the global fund, and I can assure him that we will be delivering on our commitment and working with other countries to ensure that they also deliver. I will certainly raise the specific ideas that he mentioned with the DFID Minister. We need to work in many other areas as well.

As the right hon. Member for Warley said, we must not forget about the silent majority of people who stayed outside the different militia and guerrilla forces. I agree entirely with what he said about agriculture. South Sudan has the most phenomenal potential to build its agricultural sector and put in place total food security. I was in South Sudan a year ago, and as I flew into Juba, I was struck by the incredibly verdant countryside on either side of the Nile, yet, after a mile or so, the ground became arid and rugged. Obviously, irrigation, modern farming techniques and irrigation are needed. Of course, there was irrigation in the past, before the conflict. The country was able to provide food for most of its people before the war started all those years ago. Food security is incredibly important, but we cannot have food security without infrastructure.

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the Olympics. We are in discussions with the Government of South Sudan to see how we can support their wish to participate in 2012. They have to join international sports federations and we are offering any help that we can. That matter has certainly been taken on board.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of debt. They will know that Sudan assumed responsibility for the entire £38 billion of international debt outstanding at the time of independence. Agreement was reached and based on an assumption that Sudan would be granted debt relief by the international community within two years of secession, failing which the two parties would have to renegotiate.

We have taken a leading role on the issue of debt relief for Sudan, including though the establishment of an international technical working group, to address the progress that will be required. I have raised debt relief with a number of key partners, including China. I can tell the hon. Member for Strangford that China is a key player, because it holds a great deal of that debt. We are committed to supporting Sudan in making progress towards debt relief. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham. Sudan needs to understand the importance to its creditors of real and continued progress in resolving outstanding CPA issues and in ending the ongoing conflicts. He asked whether there is any other leverage that we can bring to bear. We do not have any arguments or disputes with the Sudanese people in the north. In our view, trade will create wealth and bring prosperity. We want to see the creation of jobs and cross-border trade between the two countries. Cross-border trade is one way to create wealth, but we will not see such trade if a war is going on.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is leverage here. We are not going to advance trade at the expense of human rights; we have made that very clear. When I was in Sudan earlier this year, I went to Port Sudan in the east, where there has been a successful peace process. We made it clear that, where there has been a successful peace process, we will reinforce that with trade. Indeed, that is why we were pleased to see the Kuwait investment conference for eastern Sudan held last year. Where there is a successful peace process taking place in north Sudan, we will certainly do what we can to encourage UK companies to go there and invest. Obviously, there are obstacles as things stand at the moment with the different conflicts going on.

It has been an interesting and full debate with a huge amount of cross-party agreement. It has now been five months since the successful birth of South Sudan. As these new countries adjust to life as neighbours, we too have to adjust to dealing with two sovereign states. The CPA foresaw the possibility of two states co-existing peacefully and prosperously, maintaining the strong economic and personal ties that continue to bind people across the international boundary. For that to succeed, both countries must draw back from interfering in each other’s affairs, address the issues left unfinished from the CPA, and focus on resolving the conflicts within their own borders through inclusive governance and promoting economic and social development.

Our Government will continue to deliver, both in public and in private, tough messages about the work that both sides need to do. The urgency of such messages should be apparent at the heart of a region where the winds of the Arab spring are blowing, and it is vital that the international community, through the UN and regional organisations such as the African Union and the Arab League, does not reduce its efforts to resolve the outstanding problems of Sudan and South Sudan. We should also acknowledge the enormously positive work that is being done by many non-governmental organisations and civil society groups in addressing the needs of the Sudanese people—I highlight in particular the work of the Churches in Sudan and South Sudan and their humanitarian support and work for community reconciliation.

I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East for raising this issue and for giving me the chance to explain the Government’s position, and it is heartening that so many constructive, positive and imaginative suggestions have been made this morning. It is a crucial moment for Sudan and South Sudan; there is a lot to gain but, as the right hon. Member for Warley pointed out, a huge amount to lose. I hope that, with the focused attention of the international community, we can steer the path of those countries towards peace and prosperity for all their peoples. After decades of conflict and appalling, dreadful suffering, they deserve nothing less.

Tibet

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Westminster Hall

On resuming—

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

On a point of order, Mr Gale, what time will this debate finish?

[Mr Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

At 4.45 pm.

[Mr Bellingham]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to him for a committed, well researched and well informed speech. I also thank the hon. Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for their contributions.

The Government are seriously concerned about recent reports of self-immolations among nuns in the Tibetan areas of Sichuan province. We have closely followed those reports and other developments in the region. Let me describe the situation as it stands today. We are aware of 11 confirmed instances of monks and nuns in the Tibetan areas of Sichuan province who have self-immolated since March, and we know that four of those people died. We are aware of reports of a number of other attempted self-immolations, including one within the Tibetan autonomous region on 1 December, although those have not yet been confirmed.

The incidents began with the self-immolation on 16 March of Phuntsok, a monk at the Kirti monastery in Aba county, Sichuan. His immolation sparked a number of demonstrations and protests in the area, which by 12 April had led to a stand-off at the Kirti monastery between locals and monks on the one hand and Chinese security forces on the other. That ended on 21 April, when about 300 monks were removed from the monastery by the security forces. Their location and legal status has not been confirmed by the Chinese Government. Six of the 10 subsequent immolations have been by monks, or former monks, linked to the Kirti monastery.

We understand that there continues to be a high security presence at the monastery, and that a significant number of its monks have been dispersed away from the monastery grounds. The other immolations have been by two nuns, one in Aba county and the other in Daofu county, and two monks, one in Daofu county and one in Ganzi county—all in Sichuan province.

The Dalai Lama has made several public statements about the immolations, which he has said are the result of human rights violations caused by discriminatory Chinese policies in the region. The Chinese Government, on the other hand, have stated that the immolations are “politically motivated”, and that the Tibetan community in exile should be held responsible.

I assure my right hon. Friend, and other hon. Members, that the Government have been following developments closely. In terms of making a strong statement, as recently as 29 November my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that we should urge the Chinese Government to work with local monasteries and communities to resolve the grievances that have led to these self-immolations.

Furthermore, during his visit to China in November, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), the Minister of State, raised his concern about the immolations with Fu Ying, the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister. He also wrote to the Chinese ambassador about the situation at the Kirti monastery, asking for information and calling for restraint. Officials have raised their concerns with the Chinese embassy in London and with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing.

At the 17th session of the UN Human Rights Council in June this year, the EU issued a statement calling on the Chinese authorities to refrain from the use of force in dealing with the situation at the Kirti monastery, and to allow independent observers on to the site. British embassy officials have kept in frequent contact with the Foreign Affairs office in Sichuan and with local public security bureau offices, regarding access to those areas.

British diplomats were able to access neighbouring Tibetan areas in October, but we understand that access to the Kirti monastery remains severely limited. I assure my right hon. Friend that we will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to allow access to Tibetan areas for foreign diplomats and journalists, just as we will continue on a regular basis to raise the case of the Panchen Lama.

I wish to say something about the dialogue between China and the Dalai Lama. Let me be explicit: the UK regards Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China and, as my right hon. Friend recognised, this Government’s position is consistent with and identical to that of the previous Government. All our international partners adopt a similar stance. Our interest, however, is in long-term stability for Tibet, and we believe that that is best achieved through respect for the universal principles of human rights, and genuine autonomy for Tibet within the framework of the Chinese constitution. We believe strongly that meaningful dialogue between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and the Chinese authorities is the best way to resolve those issues.

The last round of talks was held in January last year. No substantive progress has been made for several years. We appreciate that reaching a compromise is not easy and is likely to require sacrifices and risks on both sides. UK Ministers and officials have regularly encouraged both parties to engage in meaningful direct dialogue without preconditions. I certainly agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and other hon. Members that the people of Tibet are peaceful. They preach non-violence and they want dialogue above all else.

I should like to say a few words about the wider situation in Tibet. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office online human rights Command Paper, updated quarterly, provides regular updates on the situation in Tibet and makes it clear that we remain concerned about the rights and freedoms afforded to the Tibetan people.

I should like to begin this part of my speech by discussing political prisoners in Tibet. It goes without saying that the imprisonment of people for exercising their political, cultural and religious rights is completely unacceptable. The Government have lobbied the Chinese Government regarding a number of individuals, including Dhondup Wangchen, who was arrested in 2008 for filming a documentary recording the reactions of ordinary Tibetans to the Olympic games. We have serious concerns about the health and treatment of Dhondup in prison.

Those individuals also include the brothers Karma Samdrup and Rinchen Samdrup, imprisoned in 2009 and 2010. We have very serious concerns about the manner in which charges were brought against those men and about the reports that they have suffered serious mistreatment and torture while in detention. We are committed to supporting efforts to prevent torture around the world. We will continue to advocate the view that independent oversight of prisons is important to maintain prison standards and to prevent the mistreatment of prisoners.

Freedom of religion in Tibet is a particular concern. We believe very strongly that ordinary Tibetans must enjoy the right to live according to their traditions and customs. Political controls and restrictions should not be placed on normal religious practice. Monks, nuns and lay people should be completely free to manifest their beliefs without interference from the state.

We also believe that the languages of minority groups should be actively provided for, particularly in education and employment policy. China’s laws make it clear that its minority groups should have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken languages. However, given the lack of qualified teachers and appropriate teaching materials, access to education in the Tibetan language can be severely limited, particularly at secondary and tertiary levels. Those issues were a focus of the UK-China human rights dialogue earlier this year. My right hon. Friend referred to that dialogue, and we regard it as a very important part of our bilateral relationship.

Of course, we welcome the huge investments that the Chinese Government have made in Tibetan areas—they amount to many billions of dollars a year—but we hope that everything possible can be done to ensure that the economic development of Tibet benefits the native population. Education is part of that; so, too, is ensuring that rural communities benefit as much as urban ones. Consultation and dialogue with local groups is also vital.

Let me say a few words about Tibet’s environment. Tibet has a unique natural environment, which should be carefully protected. We hope that the Chinese Government will respect the knowledge and livelihood of local herdsmen and farmers within that protection, rather than trying to move them away from their ancestral homes. Those groups have managed the land for generations and have a real contribution to make in ensuring that development in Tibet is sustainable.

In addition to the actions that I have mentioned, Ministers have regularly raised with China at the highest political levels our concerns about aspects of the human rights situation in Tibet. We have raised individual cases of concern with the Chinese Government. We have pursued the discussions through our bilateral dialogue with China on human rights and through programmes funded through non-governmental organisations and research institutions. The last round of our human rights dialogue included, for example, an expert workshop on minority rights and languages—an area of particular relevance to Tibet. I make the commitment that, following this debate, the Government will write again to the Chinese authorities to express our concerns about the issues raised here and to urge a return to negotiations with the Dalai Lama’s envoys.

To sum up, the Government are actively engaged both on the issue of immolations in Tibet and on the broader issue of human rights there. The Foreign Secretary has recently said that

“human rights…are part of our national DNA”.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark for raising this issue and giving me the chance to explain the Government’s position. I hope that he accepts that we are actively engaged and will continue to push for the respect of Tibetan human rights and the protection of the culture, natural environment and dignity of the people of Tibet. They deserve nothing less.