Israel: Meetings

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I am sorry. I thought I said clearly what I understood the sequence of events to have been. The meetings were set up by Lord Polak through his contacts and interests with Israel, which are widely known.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

This appears to have been a gross breach of the code of ministerial conduct—certainly every code I have ever seen—and, as a Minister of nine years’ standing in previous Governments, I would have thought that this was a resigning matter. The Minister, for whom I have a lot of respect, has said that no officials attended the meetings. Has the Secretary of State provided a full minute to the Department, the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister of the content of the meetings, which she appears to have attended alone, without any officials, so as to fill this appalling gap that she has created?

[Alistair Burt]

My right hon. Friend supplied in her statement yesterday a list of the meetings and the subjects covered—nobody would expect a verbatim account of those meetings—and has spoken to the FCO and the Prime Minister about them. I again draw the House’s attention to these meetings, however, with parties ranging from the Foreign Ministry, the Prime Minister of the State of Israel and the Minister for Public Security, Information and Strategic Affairs to several charities. There is nothing in this programme that anyone interested in Israel and the middle east would quibble with. The difficulty was that they were not spoken about in advance, as my right hon. Friend recognises, but none of these meetings themselves would be considered untoward. That is why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office are satisfied they were in the UK’s interests and that nothing has happened that is detrimental to the UK’s interests.

Aleppo

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

A motion was put forward with British support, if not with Britain leading on it, at the United Nations Security Council to slide the matter across to the International Criminal Court, and guess what? It was vetoed by Russia. We are collecting the necessary evidence to make it possible in due course—it may take some time, as I mentioned earlier—to hold to account in the longer term those who are perpetrating the damage and causing the atrocities.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Minister set out in some detail the difficulties that he and his colleagues face in dealing with this very difficult situation, and I appreciate that. He said, however, that the Government were considering a number of options. Given that 100,000 children are on the point of starving and 250,000 people in total are enduring the conditions in Aleppo, will he undertake to come back to the House with a statement next week about the options that the Government are considering and set out what the Government propose to do? The situation is incredibly urgent.

[Mr Ellwood]

I agree with what the hon. Lady says. It is important that we keep the House updated. I, the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for International Development will endeavour to do that on a regular basis.

In Amenas Hostages

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Rosie Cooper]

To recap, I should be grateful if the Minister could provide an explanation of the facts, particularly the motivating factors for the attack and its purpose. We really need an answer to the most fundamental of all the questions, which is how, despite the Foreign Office and BP, independent assessments and local intelligence, were Garry Barlow and the other foreign workers at the plant left in harm’s way? How could that happen, when the Foreign Office issues travel advice, companies are paid to provide strategic risk assessments and advice on areas throughout the world, including Africa, major multinational companies running those projects employ on-site security advisers, and employees on the ground feed back information to their companies?

In November, the Foreign Office amended its travel advice to increase the threat level in Algeria. An article in the Financial Times on 24 January stated:

“‘there were no known specific threats to the site’”.

Yet previously, in July 2012, a report by Executive Analysis named the In Amenas plant as a potential target for a terrorist attack. In the same article, BP is referenced as arguing

“that there was no need for private guards in In Amenas”,

owing to

“large numbers of Algerian security forces”

located nearby, with a full arsenal, including helicopters and tanks. Alongside that,

“access to the complex was controlled by Algerian gendarmerie.”

Yet somehow, 40 heavily armed gunmen travelled unnoticed across the desert, according to reports, and took control of the plant.

The uncorrected transcript of the Foreign Affairs Committee sitting on 21 May contains interesting evidence from Jon Marks, an associate fellow at Chatham House. He says that

“the plant was being softened up for such an attack, at least as far as we understand at present.”

The most damning critique of the official picture is in Garry Barlow’s own words, in an e-mail to his sister on 30 November 2012. He wrote:

“situation is getting dodgy here, local drivers have been on strike for 6 months, they are now on hunger strike, place is practically crippled and can’t go on much longer.

Government would normally step in and shoot them, however they belong to the Tuareg tribe. The Tuareg are nomadic and occupy a large area of the Sahara crossing many borders. They recently staged a coup in Mali and took control, as they are militant Islamists. Al Qaeda are now starting to settle in Mali, this is making the Algerian Government very nervous and they have sent a few battalions to the southern region. They have not intervened in the strike as they don’t want to inflame the situation.

Local Tuareg have said that if any of the hunger strikers die then they will kill 30 expats at the In Amenas gas plant. As most expats have been demobbed, there are only 10 of us left, they must be planning to kill us all three times over, ha ha. Don’t start any candle lit services yet.

Due on Wednesday…not sure if there will be a job when I am back on site though.”

Somehow, somewhere, between the information available and what was being communicated by the companies to their staff there was a disconnect, which cost lives and needs to be explained.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Garry Barlow was my constituent, and his widow and their two children are still trying to find out precisely what happened to Garry. Mrs Barlow recently sought my further assistance, to try to get more and better information about what happened to Garry, because she feels that that has not been advanced at all since his death. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in responding.

[Rosie Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister satisfied that the companies employing British staff at the In Amenas plant provided the correct advice and assurances to ensure those workers were safe? What is his evidence for being satisfied of that, beyond the companies’ verbal assurances?

In the light of Garry Barlow’s e-mail, does the Minister believe that the Foreign Office failed to react to the changing circumstances on the ground in Algeria? Can he explain why so many foreign workers had been demobbed, as Garry stated in his e-mail? Was that related to the security situation? If so, why were not all the foreign workers removed? Did the FCO have any conversations with BP or the Algerian authorities about the situation within the region and about any developing threats to the safety of foreign workers?

I am sorry that I have such a series of questions, but there is a mountain of unanswered questions. Does the Minister believe that the companies employing British workers, or the Algerian authorities as the host nation, fulfilled their duty of care to the staff at or returning to the In Amenas plant in January? British citizens working abroad need to be confident that the Government play an active role in monitoring the security provisions of multinational companies with British interests such as BP. It is really important that there are such assurances.

I will now turn to the Government’s response during and after the hostage situation. On 17 January 2013, the Prime Minister made a statement saying that the families should expect “bad news”. The families learned that information like everyone else, as it was being broadcast through the TV in their living rooms. Even the police liaison teams had not been informed that a statement was to be made, much less the content.

All the Barlow family have ever sought was to be told information before it was given to the media so that they were able to prepare and protect their family, especially the children. I know how badly affected Mrs Barlow was. The whole family were affected, but I have seen Mrs Barlow and my heart goes out to her. Mrs Barlow Sr is in a dreadful state.

That one aspect of control in the whole situation was taken away from the family, and I have been asked to convey their deep disappointment at the Prime Minister’s failure to make personal contact with them; there was not even a telephone call to offer condolences to Mrs Barlow on the loss of her son. That is in contrast to the Norwegian Prime Minister, who personally met the families of the Norwegian victims of the terrorist attack. Anyone who has suffered the loss of a loved one understands that such words of condolence do not take away the pain of that loss, yet there is the smallest comfort in those simple words, which are respectful and demonstrate that the human life lost is valued. Public statements such as laying wreaths, as the Prime Minister did in Algeria, have their place, but care and compassion in communicating with the families should have been paramount.

I acknowledge the work of the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), in trying to keep the families informed, but the Prime Minister told the families via TV and radio that their relatives were in mortal danger, which is a very sad indictment of his priorities. I urge the Minister to review the manner in which his Department and the Government as a whole handled communications with the family and to resolve any issues.

Finally, I turn to the investigation that is currently being conducted by SO15 officers and the effectiveness of that investigation. At the time of the attack, an SO15 officer was sent to Algeria. Between Algiers and In Amenas, the officer was accompanied by a BP representative. During his time in Algeria, the investigating officer was prevented from gaining access to the In Amenas site not once but twice, despite the British Prime Minister having sought assurances on access from the Algerian Prime Minister. Even the media were allowed access. SO15 was not allowed access, but the media were. On the last occasion the SO15 officer spoke to my constituents, he still had not managed to gain access to the In Amenas plant, where operations are already back up and running.

How can the families have confidence that that investigation will offer any real answers when the crime scene has been compromised and vital forensic information from the site and the bodies have been lost? Why does there appear to be little or no co-operation from the Algerian authorities on allowing British investigators access to the site? Can the Minister explain the efficacy of BP’s involvement with the investigating team given that BP has not conducted its own investigation, unlike its partner Statoil? Is it not appropriate that, rather than joining the investigation, BP be considered as a body to be investigated? Will the Minister comment on the appropriateness of the investigating officers speaking at conferences on the situation when the families have been given little or no information on the current progress of the investigation?

I thank the Minister in advance for responding to my questions, and I hope he is able to restore some of the Barlow family’s faith and confidence that the Government are on their side, with care, compassion and feeling for all members of the family being paramount.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point. She was right to emphasise in her initial remarks the assurances that the United Kingdom Prime Minister received, but I am sure she also understands that the Algerians are leading the judicial investigation. They have allowed some access to the site for the repatriation of personal property and possessions, which the UK took a lead on. I assure her that we will continue to press for the appropriate level of access for the UK investigative team in support of the Algerian and coroner’s inquests. I assure all hon. Members that the Government will continue to do all they can to support the families in their search for answers to their very appropriate questions.

[Maria Eagle]

Is the Minister aware that the relatives of Garry Barlow know no more now than they did in January about when and how Garry died? They are becoming distressed at the passage of time, without any commensurate increase in the amount of information they have.

[Mark Simmonds]

That was one of the first questions I asked my officials. I prefer not to put the response on the record, but I am happy to talk privately to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for West Lancashire to give them a more accurate assessment as to why that situation is the case. Perhaps we can find a moment to do that.

I also want to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire about travel advice, which was integral to the thrust of her initial remarks. I assure her that we did not have advance warning about the attack or about specific threats that would have warranted further changes to our travel advice. As I am sure she is aware, our advice already made it clear that western interests were specific targets for terrorism in Algeria.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office closely monitors and keeps under constant review travel advice around the world, including for Algeria, and the advice was updated several times in the months before that appalling attack. It needs to be said, however, that travel advice is what it says—advice. It is up to companies and individuals to heed that advice, or to follow their course of action in the full knowledge that the advice is there.

The advice noted the increased risks following the French military intervention in Mali. Having reviewed our advice once again, I am confident that it accurately reflected what we knew at the time. Had we had any specific information relating directly to In Amenas, it would have been passed to the company immediately. Protecting our citizens is a priority. We try to establish as much information about terrorist activity as we can, and to communicate it both to relevant companies and to the public. The tragic reality is that sometimes there is no warning.

From the outset, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided support to those caught up in the attack and their families, and we will continue to assist in any way we can. Police family liaison officers remain appointed to each family and are in regular contact.

The hon. Lady mentioned concerns about BP. Companies, ultimately, are responsible for the security of their staff and assets. As investigations continue, however, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the security arrangements at the site, or on how BP and the other companies used the information that was available about the threat. Any specific questions on those issues must be addressed to them. Nevertheless, looking ahead, we are doing everything we can by engaging closely with industry representatives to ensure that we are aware of their concerns and that we take steps to give them the best support we can in keeping their staff and assets safe.

To that end, since the In Amenas attacks, we have actively engaged with UK industry in the region and the extractive industries sector to review and refine how we work together on crisis and threat management: first, to ensure that Her Majesty’s Government and industry understand each other’s crisis management mechanisms through information sharing, exercising and using lessons learned from this and other crises; and, secondly, on threat management, to ensure the most effective channels between industry and Government on threat contact, informing our bilateral engagement with partners such as Algeria on their response. I assure the hon. Lady that that work is ongoing.

I also assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to provide the best information possible through our travel advice, and we will work with countries in the region to reduce the risk to British nationals in Algeria and elsewhere in the Sahel and north and west Africa. As the Prime Minister said, we are determined to root out and defeat the terrorist scourge and those who encourage it anywhere in the world, including in north Africa. That issue will be debated at the G8 meeting next week.

In conclusion, the In Amenas attack was a stark reminder of the threat we face throughout the world, and of the importance of a global response to terrorism, not only over months, but over years. I hope that the Algerian investigation and the coroner’s inquest will help to answer some of the questions asked by the hon. Lady this afternoon, and that families in West Lancashire and elsewhere, whose lives were changed for ever by those terrible events, will get responses to their questions. Through the police liaison officers, we will continue to inform them of progress. Finally, I offer again my sincere condolences and those of the Government to the families who lost loved ones in that terrible atrocity.

Question put and agreed to.