Somalia (Security Assistance)

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Written Statements

[The Minister for Africa (Rory Stewart)]

The UK remains committed to building a stable, peaceful and prosperous future for Somalia. Instability in Somalia affects stability across east Africa—fuelling irregular migration and providing a foothold for terrorist groups such as al-Shabaab and Daesh. It is important that we maintain our support in order to tackle these shared threats to both the UK and the Somali people. This is why the British Government have announced a further £21 million of support for security work in Somalia, and helped to agree the security pact at the London Somalia conference earlier this year.

In the shorter term, with the support of the Somali Government, the UK has funded the construction of a police training facility in Mogadishu at a cost of £1,767,016 which will shortly be handed over to the Somali police force. This facility has been funded by FCO policy programme funding. The development of security partners and counter-terrorism (CT) policing in Somalia is vital to help ensure that the Somali authorities have the right tools to deploy in their ongoing fight against terrorism.

The provision of this facility is fully in line with the Government’s strategic CT objectives for east and south Africa. Using the overseas security and justice assistance guidance, FCO officials have also assessed the project for human rights risks, and concluded that the risk of such violations arising from the project’s delivery may be mitigated.

[HCWS91]

International Development

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the reply by the Minister for Africa, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), to the Westminster Hall debate on Yemen: Political and Humanitarian Situation on 5 July 2017.

[Rory Stewart]

The British Government are doing an enormous amount—probably more than we are being given credit for in this Chamber—but clearly all the things we are doing are not sufficient to solve this crisis. The problem is—the hon. Member for Leeds North East pointed this out—although it is true that we are spending only about £180 million in Yemen, we have to bear it in mind that, unfortunately, the situation in Yemen is not the only situation in the world.

[Official Report, 5 July 2017, Vol. 626, c. 169WH.]

Letter of correction from Rory Stewart:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the Westminster Hall debate on Yemen: Political and Humanitarian Situation.

The correct response should have been:

[Rory Stewart]

The British Government are doing an enormous amount—probably more than we are being given credit for in this Chamber—but clearly all the things we are doing are not sufficient to solve this crisis. The problem is—the hon. Member for Leeds North East pointed this out—although it is true that we are spending only about £139 million in Yemen, we have to bear it in mind that, unfortunately, the situation in Yemen is not the only situation in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the political and economic situation in Zimbabwe.

[The Minister for Africa (Rory Stewart)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s long campaign on this subject. Our policy on Zimbabwe continues to be to try to balance our deep distaste at the horrifying record of the Mugabe regime with a genuine concern for the humanitarian needs of the Zimbabwean people, who have suffered terribly over the past 40 years.

[Kate Hoey]

I welcome the Minister to his position and wish him every success.

Mugabe spent $53 million on private travel overseas last year. At the same time, the United Kingdom is paying proportionately more in aid to that country than to any other country in Africa. Does the Minister think that, with the elections coming next year and Mugabe refusing to implement the 2013 constitution, now is the time to put some of that money into helping voter education in those rural areas controlled by ZANU-PF, or we will not have free and fair elections?

[Rory Stewart]

I agree. We are trying to balance a very difficult thing, which, as the hon. Lady says, is the terrible performance of the Mugabe regime with the fact that people in that country have been dying of cholera and suffering extreme humanitarian need. The hon. Lady is absolutely correct that focusing on free and fair elections is one of the most important things we can do in a country such as Zimbabwe.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

The policy of incremental engagement with Zimbabwe is obviously the best—sometimes an unpalatable best—policy, but will the Minister consider visiting Zimbabwe in the near term, as that would be a great step forward and would perhaps put the UK in a better position for the relationship in the longer term?

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend has huge expertise as a former Africa Minister. The decision on whether or not I, as the Minister, visit Zimbabwe depends a great deal on the genuine commitment to reform of the Zimbabwean Government, and I will be guided by the ambassador in the country on when such a visit would be necessary and possible.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

8. What discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the breakdown in the rule of law in Venezuela.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of proposed reductions to US financial contributions to the UN budget on the delivery of UN peacekeeping operations.

[The Minister for Africa (Rory Stewart)]

We should pay tribute to what the United States has done with its peacekeeping budget. It provides well over a quarter of the global peacekeeping budget: over $2 billion a year, which is largely not “odable”. We need to pay tribute to the US and to encourage it to continue to play a role, as it is a central part of peacekeeping worldwide. Its sticking to the congressional limit of 25% is vital for UN peacekeeping operations.

[Mr Cunningham]

Does the Minister agree that the loss of financial support from the US will be devastating for UN agencies such as the World Food Programme and the UN Refugee Agency? Will he therefore urge the Trump Administration to reconsider their planned cuts?

[Rory Stewart]

It is absolutely right, of course, that in the current global situation UN peacekeeping operations are vital, but reforms can be introduced. The move in Cote d’Ivoire to close down the peacekeeping operation and the changes in Darfur are welcome. We can reduce peacekeeping costs, but it is vital that the United States and others continue to play a strong role. American financial support has been vital for the past 50 years, and we hope that it will continue to be over the next 50.

[Mr Speaker]

May I remind colleagues that topical questions are supposed to be short? If Members insist on asking long questions they will be cut off, as it is not fair on colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

It is striking that Commonwealth countries trade 25% more with each other at a cost that is 90% lower than with non-Commonwealth countries. Does the Minister agree that, as we leave the EU, we have a great opportunity to boost our mutual trade and security interests by enhancing our diplomatic relations with Ghana and other Commonwealth countries?

[The Minister for Africa (Rory Stewart)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is our trade envoy to Ghana. Ghana is one of the most impressive recent developments in Africa, with three recent transitions of democratic power and a rapidly growing economy. It is a huge example of how the Commonwealth can become one of the great success stories of Britain’s next five years, as we move towards the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

T8. The Paralympic games in Rio were a great success, showcasing inspirational talent and the importance of sports inclusion worldwide. What discussions has the Foreign Office had with Japanese counterparts to lend our full support to the Tokyo Paralympic games?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

With 250,000 people from Burundi now refugees as a result of the repression and human rights abuses in that country, what is the Foreign Secretary doing to stimulate dialogue to resolve the political impasse there?

[Rory Stewart]

The situation in Burundi is very disturbing. We call, above all, on the Burundian President to respect the Arusha accords and to give proper space to the former Tanzanian Prime Minister in leading the peace talks. In Burundi, as in so many countries in the world, the only long-term solution is a political solution to a humanitarian crisis.

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

Will the Foreign Secretary meet the members of the all-party group for friends of Syria to discuss the desperate need to get more aid to the hundreds of thousands being starved to death by al-Assad in Syria?

Global Education: G20 Summit

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Twigg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. He is my long-standing friend, and represents the constituency that I represented in the House between 1997 and 2005. I welcome him to the House. His point is extremely powerful. In a moment, I will refer briefly to the work that the International Development Committee was doing in the previous Parliament.

I am delighted that the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) are here. They are both in different roles. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is now the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State—I congratulate her on her appointment—and my good friend the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, represents DFID’s offices in Scotland, but is speaking for the Scottish National party from the Front Bench today. They know that the International Development Committee did a lot of work in the previous Parliament on education, and earlier this year we visited east Africa.

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) makes is absolutely pertinent, because we saw real issues with the ability of teachers to get themselves to work. Their levels of pay are such that they often have to work other jobs, and teacher absenteeism is often as big or a bigger challenge than pupil absenteeism in some of the poorer communities of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. My hon. Friend makes a very good and powerful point.

DFID has a world-class team of technical staff who deliver the bilateral education programmes and lend support to some of the key multilateral bodies, such as the Global Partnership for Education and Education Cannot Wait. When the Select Committee visited east Africa and the middle east in the previous Parliament, we saw the fruits of UK aid for education. In particular, when we went to Jordan and Lebanon last year, we saw the amazing impact that aid has had on the refugee population, who came particularly from Syria but also from other conflicts in that region. I want to say once again that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Governments and the people of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, in particular, which have taken so many Syrian refugees. We can also be proud of our record and that of others on ensuring that many of the children from the conflict in Syria have access to education.

In east Africa, we saw some great examples of UK aid being invested. In Kenya, we visited a truly brilliant project, run by Leonard Cheshire in Kisumu, about identifying children with disabilities or special educational needs—I will return to disability later in my speech. That was a fine example of a very positive programme. In Uganda, we visited a frankly inspiring Saturday school in Kampala, which is funded by DFID and educates child refugees from conflicts elsewhere in Africa who have escaped to Uganda for their own safety, in particular from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The UK, via DFID, does many things in education of which we can be proud. As a result, DFID has significant political capital and influence among donors and non-governmental actors, which gives the United Kingdom a responsibility to act as a leader and global advocate on education—including, most immediately, at this weekend’s G20. I urge the Government to use their voice to encourage other donors to allocate more funding to education, and to ensure that existing funding is allocated to areas that most need it.

I also believe—the previous International Development Committee felt this strongly—that DFID can use its influence more with Governments in recipient countries to encourage them to allocate a greater proportion of their domestic budgets to education. Aid alone cannot solve the challenges. Aid has an important role to play, but Governments in some of the poorer countries have a responsibility to spend more of their domestic budgets on education.

Internationally, education is underfunded. To achieve SDG 4—

“Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”—

an enormous increase in funding is needed. The Education Commission, led by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, estimates that annual spending on education will need to more than double, from a global level of US $1.3 trillion to about $3 trillion by 2030, if we are to have any hope of achieving global goal 4.

In recent years, however, the sad reality is that we have seen a decline in levels of international aid spending on education. In our own overseas development assistance spending, the amount spent on education is lower than the amounts we spend on health, government and civil society, and infrastructure. The UK remains one of the biggest donors internationally, but the figures show that DFID dedicates only 7.56% of its budget to education.

Over the past 15 years, we have seen spectacular improvements in global health. Those advances are clear evidence that the international community, working together, can bring about genuine transformation if the will is there. Innovative partnerships such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, have helped to reset global health financing standards, saving tens of millions of lives. We have the opportunity to learn from that experience and to do the same for education.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Rory Stewart)]

In the spirit of this debate and given the hon. Gentleman’s view that we should increase the percentage of the funding we spend on education, may I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? If he wishes to see a 2% increase, what should we decrease spending on in the DFID budget?

[Stephen Twigg]

The Minister asks a very reasonable question, which I was going to come on to, but I will answer now.

The previous International Development Committee, which I chaired, was looking at education. In April, we wrote to the Secretary of State with a proposal that I will refer to in a moment. The solution that we identified is one with which the Minister may or may not agree: we should slow down the shift of ODA spending from DFID to other Government Departments. We want to have a good evidence base for additional spending, and the money saved by that slowing down would enable our proposed increase in spending on education. I will come to that in more detail now.

Before the general election, the Committee was taking evidence on education. As I have just said, I wrote to the Secretary of State in April, urging DFID to increase the percentage of its annual spend on education to no less than 10% of its budget, which would represent an additional 2.5% on the current spend of 7.5%. Many organisations, such as the Malala Fund, RESULTS and others, have urged the Government to go much further and commit 15% of the DFID budget to education.

Since we made our recommendation, the latest DFID figures for the budget spent on education have fallen slightly from that 7.56%, so in the first instance the Government need to reverse that decline and then to head to at least 10%. I would be grateful if the Minister—perhaps not in the debate today, but afterwards—provided me with a complete breakdown of all UK ODA spent on education, including that from other Departments as well as DFID.

I now move on to some of the multilateral organisations, which are more directly relevant to the G20 summit. The Global Partnership for Education supports 65 developing countries to ensure that every child receives a quality basic education, giving priority to the poorest, the most vulnerable and those living in countries affected by fragility and conflict. Along with Education Cannot Wait, the GPE forms an essential part of the multilateral landscape on education, with its focus on low-income countries and basic education, where support is most needed. The GPE has been through significant reform in recent years and, as pointed out by DFID’s multilateral development review, it now aligns well with UK priorities.

The view reached by the previous IDC—I am delighted to welcome to his place my friend, the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), an assiduous Committee member since 2010—was that the United Kingdom needs to take a lead during the Global Partnership for Education replenishment round for 2018 to 2020. A substantial contribution from the UK to that replenishment would ensure that the GPE continues to achieve results and, we hope, would act as a lever to encourage and press other Governments to commit their support to funding the work of the GPE.

I also take the opportunity to urge the Government to push for this weekend’s G20 leaders’ communiqué to include a reference to the importance of fully funding the key multilateral bodies, the Global Partnership for Education, Education Cannot Wait and the international finance facility for education.

One of the greatest challenges to face the world in achieving global goal 4 is tackling inequality in education. The theme of “Leaving no one behind” is indeed at the heart of the sustainable development goals. The most marginalised children, including girls, disabled children and refugees, are those most at risk of missing out. A very large proportion of the world’s children are clearly being left behind, and reaching them will be a critical challenge for DFID in the years ahead.

The education of girls is essential, and DFID has rightly made it a priority in recent years. Breaking down the barriers that prevent girls from getting access to education is a huge challenge. I welcome the innovative approach of the Girls’ Education Challenge and recognise that the lessons learned from its programmes could be vital in finding out what works in supporting more girls to receive an education. The G20 rightly has a focus on female economic empowerment. Education is clearly a crucial component of the economic empowerment of women and of economic opportunity for other marginalised sections of society. I urge the Government and the G20 to recognise the vital role that education performs in the economic empowerment of women, especially in the developing world. This summit is an opportune moment for them to do so.

UNICEF estimates that 90% of disabled children in the developing world—nine out of 10 disabled children in the world’s poorest countries—are out of school. That is an extraordinary statistic. The British Council highlighted that although DFID has had a strong focus on girls’ education, it

“has had less focus on children with disabilities and special educational needs”.

The Secretary of State has acknowledged that. She said in March:

“Disability is shamefully the most under-prioritised, under-resourced area in development.”

I agree, as did the last International Development Committee. We recommended in our letter that DFID should place a greater emphasis, akin to its focus on girls’ education, on working to ensure that disabled children have access to appropriate high-quality education. I mentioned the remarkable programme run by Leonard Cheshire that we witnessed in Kisumu in Kenya. That is the sort of programme that I hope DFID not only continues to fund but increases support for, where there is a proven case for doing so.

Let me say something about early childhood education. We know from academic evidence that, by the age of five, a child’s brain is around 90% developed. Early childhood education is crucial for cognitive development and learning outcomes, so investing in pre-primary education can make a real difference to children’s life chances and thereby help to reduce inequality and, indeed, deliver excellent value for money.

It is estimated that, for every dollar invested in early childhood education, the return can be as high as $17 for the most disadvantaged children. Despite that, a new report by Theirworld shows that 85% of children in low-income countries do not have access to pre-primary education. Theirworld states that more than 200 million children under the age of five risk failing to reach their potential.

[Stephen Twigg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The example that he gave from Tanzania and my example from Uganda demonstrate that DFID is supporting some brilliant programmes for disabled children and for early childhood. If DFID is able to find the funds to increase its education spending, those are the sorts of programmes that should be protected and, where the evidence is there, expanded—either into other countries or in the countries where they already exist.

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. He raises a vital question: what does one do in a poor country with a stretched education budget that is finding it difficult to provide decent primary education or any secondary education at all? How does he envisage the conversation with the Education Minister in such a country about setting up the entire pre-primary education and early learning structure, and about the competing priorities that that involves? Has he seen any examples of that actually working on a systematic basis in a poor developing country?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a relaxed debate—it is not over-subscribed—but can Members please keep interventions relatively short?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Rory Stewart)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As always, we have had a very good debate. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for initiating the debate. He is a real inspiration, as are the other hon. Members in the Chamber. It is quite unusual in politics—it sometimes feels unusual, anyway—to have people who seem so sincere, so committed to an issue and so interested in the detail, rather than simply being interested in posturing, and that really comes across. One reason why the whole House feels strongly that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby has been an excellent Chair of his Committee is precisely that he approached the role in a very fair, objective and ethical fashion. It is therefore a great pleasure to be involved in this debate.

An enormous number of things have been touched on today. The basic message that I would like to get across is that the real problem in this field is not the big ideas, but the implementation. The really big problem, underneath all the very good contributions and really good points made by hon. Members, is that the situation on the ground in many developing countries is an absolute disgrace. Very sadly, what is happening even in those schools that exist is really depressing. I will try to touch on some of the points that have been made, but the scale of the problem is the central issue.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) made a series of really good points—points that it is easy to relate to. They were points about disability, about schools that she has seen in which there are no windows and children are wearing gloves and—I am imagining the Shatila camp in south Lebanon, where there are real problems—about electricity. Very good points were also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby about issues such as pre-school education. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), made a very strong statement about refugees in Uganda, and others have made statements about disability.

The fundamental underlying problem is that before we start talking about all those things, we have to acknowledge that the basic primary education in most of the countries that we are discussing is not even beginning to be good enough. Nearly 67% of children coming out of primary schools in the developing world basically cannot read or write. One of the tragic choices that an international development agency faces is how to get the balance right between making sure that the schools and teachers that already exist are teaching something of value to their children and a dozen really good ideas about how we can improve things by bringing new people into schools, getting girls into secondary school, improving vocational education or addressing the crisis in classrooms.

Money is one of the aspects of this problem. This excellent report, “The Learning Generation: Investing in education for a changing world”, put together by the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, estimates that $3 trillion needs to be spent on education annually within a pretty short period. We can have a discussion about whether DFID should spend 8%, 10% or 12%, but the amount it currently spends on education is one five-thousandth of the amount that would be needed to address global education. Even if we took up the challenge from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, ramped that up and spent 100% of the entire British aid budget on education, that would still be only one five-hundredth, or 0.2%, of the global need.

Huge theoretical problems underlie this endless debate. One of the challenges is what kind of jobs or employment opportunities are available to children in the developing world when they come out of school. One of the challenges around vocational education is working out what jobs there are at the end of it. Like the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, I was in a vocational training centre in Nigeria last week. I was in Kaduna. I do not know whether we were looking at the same centre, but in the centre I was at the carpentry and construction schools were indeed dominated by men; the women were largely in the hospitality and sewing schools.

The fundamental problem underlying that issue is that it is not clear that there are any jobs in Kaduna for people who sew, cook, make buildings or do carpentry—the skills that those people emerge with at the end. At the end of a six or twelve-month course, are they skilled enough as carpenters or construction workers to be valuable to a business? Many of the employers we talked to in Kaduna in northern Nigeria are much less interested in those hard vocational skills than they are in soft skills—someone’s ability to engage with customers and their work ethic, discipline and desire to turn up to school.

There are huge questions in the report around family planning. All of us can see the correlation between investment in girls going into secondary education and girls having smaller families, which is very good for their health. But what exactly is that relationship? Is it that what they learn in school makes them less likely to have children or is it simply about the fact that they are in school? If it is the latter—if the fact that someone stays in high school means they are less likely to have children—will the social pressures that drive people into early marriage simply mean, conversely, that those same girls are removed from school?

The claim is made that if someone in the developing world goes to primary school, their income over their lifetime will be five times higher than that of their parents. But if we got everybody into primary school, would that be true? We would effectively be claiming that we could guarantee to quintuple the GDP per capita of these countries by getting 100% primary education. That, presumably, is not true.

Above all, we have to start from a position of realism. We agree violently with everybody in this room that education matters, but we must get a clear sense about why it matters and the unexpected ways in which it does. There are ways in which it might matter for family planning, but exactly why does it? How does it work for skills? Imagine a craftsperson in central Asia. What exactly are they learning in school that will allow them to supply calligraphy to a Saudi hotel or get carpets into a London market? Is it their literacy and numeracy skills or their confidence? What kind of emphasis are we putting on opportunity, empowerment or getting people into a digital world? What kind of jobs are we trying to prepare people for?

Ethiopia famously believes in a policy of agricultural-led industrialisation, but is the industrialisation envisaged in 1991 going to be an option in 2020? Or will—as Larry Summers, one of the co-authors of the report, suggests—increased automation mean that the shoe factories we were hoping for are increasingly located close to markets such as Britain and the United States because the shoes will largely be made by robots? These are big questions underlying what we are trying to do in the education system.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am following what the Minister says extremely carefully and entirely agree with the thrust of his argument. In his work has he seen good examples of where this work preparedness and soft skills, which will be vital for young people if they are to have the jobs and livelihoods they need in the future, are happening, either in DFID’s programmes or elsewhere?

[Rory Stewart]

The honest answer is that I have seen them, but they are easier to identify in schools where a great deal of investment is going in to individual children. I have a particular case study in mind of a vocational training school that does a three-year course that includes literacy, numeracy and English along with vocational skills, has a business incubation process at the end of it, links people into an industrial park, helps to create the markets and then moves away. But that requires an enormous amount of investment in the individual and is very difficult to replicate at scale.

One of the challenges is that that gold standard, which really does get extraordinary successes—at that particular vocational school, 95% of graduates find their way into employment in those sectors—is being achieved for an expenditure of about $1,200 per person per year. How is that going to be achievable with investment down at $50 to $60?

As I move on with the argument, the key is the very detailed work done by DFID education advisers—looking critically at what goes on on the ground, for example. One of the striking things we see from this conversation going back and forth is the real differences that exist between Kenya and Uganda, or Tanzania and Lebanon, and the different ways in which people are approaching this issue.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby has focused a great deal on spending. We will reply to the hon. Gentleman by letter, having taken on board the overall ODA expenditure on education; the plea for the excellent global partnership, which we do believe in; and the request on the G20 communiqué. All that is fully lodged in the brain. Fundamentally, however, my argument is that, although spending is very important, the big question is not about expenditure but about what we actually do. It is not the “how much”, but the “how”.

How do we sort out teacher training in the developing world? How do we deal with the issue of ghost teachers? How do we deal with the fact that in many cases we are paying the salaries of teachers who do not exist? A survey found that in Ghor province in Afghanistan 3,500 teachers on the Afghan Government payroll were not teachers at all—they were just ordinary people sitting at home and receiving a teacher’s salary. That is replicated again and again across the developing world.

How do we deal with political resistance? How do we deal with a country where a particular political party has taken over the teachers’ union? How hard can the teachers’ union be pushed? How do we deal with the fact that many of the teachers being dealt with are spending most of their time teaching in private schools and only part of their time teaching in the public schools for which they were originally employed?

We all agree that education matters. We are really proud in DFID of what we have done. We are proud that we have achieved this 43% change in the number of people going into primary education. It is extraordinary. Countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan now see primary school registration rates, theoretically, of 88% or 90% of children. If we look back 15 or 20 years, in Afghanistan, famously, no girl was going to school at all. These are incredible changes, but there is so much more to do.

If I may for a second, I wish to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who has, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow pointed out, put a lot of emphasis on disability. She has also put a lot of emphasis on some of the issues that are raised by Gordon Brown’s Education Commission. One that we have not discussed today is testing and standards—all the grisly stuff that, in the British context, gets everybody overheated about Ofsted. That is a critical question: how much emphasis do we put on testing? More than 50% of the countries concerned have no testing in place.

I am aware that I am trespassing on your patience, Mr Stringer, so I will move toward the end of my speech. I do not wish to continue for too long, but I will make two main points. One, before we all give up in despair, is that there are places where progress has been made. Ethiopia is a striking example of a place that has gone from one in five children in school to four in five. How has that been achieved? Largely through the leadership of the Ethiopian Government, who are genuinely committed to education, teacher training, getting people into remote areas and access for marginalised communities such as disabled people, women and others.

We have had other kinds of experiences in other countries. One question is how to deal with the particular context. In Afghanistan, education is community-based, and Save the Children, CARE and the Aga Khan Development Network work in remote rural villages in Hazarajat. That is quite different from what reform means in Jordan, where USAID has been working with the Jordanian Government on education for nearly 40 years; in the Education Minister’s office, reports are piled up almost to the ceiling. There is almost nothing in one of those reports from 1987 with which we would disagree today, but the challenge has traditionally been implementation, particularly on difficult issues such as how to deal with teachers’ unions—to drop a grenade into the middle of this room.

Dealing with teachers’ unions is not as easy as it might sound in a British context. In Jordan, the issue has famously been dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. We can discuss the political contexts in other countries, and what they mean for the curriculum and for what goes on in the classroom. In conclusion—to reassure you, Mr Stringer, that I will not remain on my hind feet forever—

[Dr Cameron]

I am listening intently to the Minister’s comprehensive speech. One practical thing that could be done is to give advice and support to those becoming primary school teachers, so that they have the ability, skills and experience to teach disabled children and so that education at that level can be inclusive. In the countries that we visited, some secondary school teachers have had those skills, but they do not reach primary school children.

[Rory Stewart]

I could not agree more. Teacher training is vital, especially teacher training on how to deal with children with disabilities and, in a refugee context, how to deal with children suffering from trauma. One impressive thing that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow might have seen in Jordan is the learning centres run by Save the Children and UNICEF, where psycho-social counselling is a strong element of the teaching.

However, there is a more fundamental challenge, which is that in some countries, around 50% to 60% of teachers are illiterate—they cannot read or write. In many other countries, 80% of teachers are educated only one grade above their students: that is, if they are teaching second grade, they have a third grade education. While thinking about how to ensure that teachers can deal with disabled children, we must begin by ensuring that teachers can read and write. If they cannot, it does not matter how good the textbook is or how fancy the internet provision is; the teacher lacks the most basic skills to communicate. We are all a bit polite in this business. At the moment, those kinds of facts—and the fact that more than 60% of the children leaving such schools cannot themselves read or write—are not being mentioned enough in this debate.

To finish with the shadow Minister’s challenge, yes, we will produce an education strategy, which I hope will address many of these issues and more that Mr Stringer has not given me time to address in this debate. Those will include the seriousness of Governments’ commitments to education. What do we do when the national Government are not committed and do not care very much? What do we do in a conflict situation where there is no state in place and almost nobody to work with to drive through education? How do we think about classrooms? In particular, what is the point of a classroom if affordability is a challenge and if uniform or food costs make it impossible for a child to go to school, or if the opportunity costs of that child not being at home to look after livestock or a baby prevent the parents from sending them to school? What do we do with the digital revolution?

Above all, how do we challenge business as usual? How do we move beyond this excellent report and all the wonderful things that we hope will follow from organisations such as the G20 and the UN to realising that there is an enormous, fatal, terrifying gap between rhetoric and reality in this, as in so much else in international development?

Yemen: Political and Humanitarian Situation

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Rory Stewart)]

First, I pay tribute to the extraordinary range and passion of these debates. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is a doughty, redoubtable opponent. He knows an enormous amount about this subject. I was privileged to work with him on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill Committee, where I developed an enormous respect for his eye for detail and his ability to discover the most vulnerable and important points in an argument.

It will be difficult to touch on everyone’s points in 10 minutes, but I will run through them quickly. The hon. Gentleman produced a large overview of the context of the problems and pushed hard a strong moral line on what he felt the solution should be. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who has been probably the greatest champion for Yemen in the House of Commons since he entered the House—he was born in Aden, like his sister—has kept a focus in endless forums on one of the most horrifying situations in the contemporary world, and strongly on the UN resolution. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) showed her own focus on this issue and in particular on technical issues around Hodeidah port.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) wanted to focus on specific questions about additional support on human rights. I very much hope he will again be the Chair of the International Development Committee, and I agree with the challenge that came from my friend the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) about the importance of setting up the Committees on Arms Export Controls as quickly as possible. The answer is that we are focused on providing additional support to the Human Rights Commission and have made that clear on a number of occasions—indeed we are already producing support.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) brought us into the discussion about the role of the Houthi-Saleh alliance and its culpability in these affairs. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth focused on that as well. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) posed a big moral challenge to the Government, and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) brought us back to questions that touch in particular on arms sales.

I will try to address those questions in total—they are very deep and important questions. Of course, the honest answer is that we do not have all the solutions to those problems. The British Government are doing an enormous amount—probably more than we are being given credit for in this Chamber—but clearly all the things we are doing are not sufficient to solve this crisis. The problem is—the hon. Member for Leeds North East pointed this out—although it is true that we are spending only about £180 million[Official Report, 20 July 2017, Vol. 627, c. 1-2MC.] in Yemen, we have to bear it in mind that, unfortunately, the situation in Yemen is not the only situation in the world. We are spending 0.7% of our GDP on international development and we have to make some difficult choices, because—this is the main point—the situation we face in Yemen has similarities with situations we are struggling with all over the world.

Whatever solutions are proposed here—and whatever belief there is from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central that it is within the power of the United Kingdom to sort the situation out—need to be addressed also to the problems in north-east Nigeria, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, Syria, Iraq and Ukraine. I raise that because the fundamental problems on the ground in Yemen are driven by the region and the internal politics of Yemen. Those are fundamentally political problems. Some of their roots stretch back to the original formation of the Yemeni state.

I have not been to Yemen since March 2014. If any Member in the Chamber has been to Yemen more recently, I would love to hear from them. None of us in the Chamber has been to Yemen in the past three years. That is an important fact to bear in mind when we talk about the situation, and it is important because the situation is changing very quickly. Even since my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) visited, the situation has changed again and again.

[Keith Vaz]

Members of the APPG are very keen to go to Yemen in order to get the kind of information we need; the problem is that Saudi Arabia has to agree to it, because it is Saudi Arabia that allows aircraft into Yemen. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) went in under his cloak; the rest of us would love to go, but we cannot. If the Minister can help us to get there, that would be great.

[Rory Stewart]

That is a challenge for me, and I would love to take it on. Let me try to touch on some things in the remaining five minutes. The one thing that I unfortunately cannot touch on—the elephant in the room—is arms sales. There is a serious legal proceeding looking exactly at the question that has been posed by everybody here: whether the UK Government were, as we believe, in compliance with our international humanitarian obligations. A judge and some expert lawyers will very soon be able to resolve whether Philippe Sands is correct or we as the British Government are correct.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister rightly states that he cannot do that, and I do not disagree with his wider analysis of the roots of this conflict and the wider dynamics in the region. However, can he explain why we are not using the full width of our diplomatic apparatus to put pressure on the Saudis and other parties in the conflict? Why did the Prime Minister not raise it in her call with the new Crown Prince, and why have we not called Saudi Arabia out on its repeated failure to give answers to the investigations into the allegations that have been made? The Minister said that they were running out of time and that we are getting frustrated, but we have not called them out on it.

[Rory Stewart]

The Prime Minister raised it directly on her April visit to Saudi Arabia, Ministers have raised it repeatedly and we have had senior military staff on the ground.

The overall picture, which I will try to touch on, is how we combine those political levers and our influence on Saudi Arabia with the influence that can be exercised by others. What influence could we exercise on, for example, the United Arab Emirates, in order to influence Saudi Arabia? What influence can we exercise on the United States? The hon. Member for Glasgow Central raised the issue of the Hodeidah port. One of the most important things that happened in changing our fears around that port was General Mattis’s intervention on the question of a military intervention there, which made a huge difference.

It is really important to understand that, along with those political and diplomatic approaches, we have to combine our humanitarian approach, which I do not think we have talked about enough, and we have to think about a long-term political solution. In terms of that humanitarian approach, we are doing an enormous amount. We are putting in people to focus on cholera and we have a huge focus on food delivery and shelter.

We are also doing an enormous number of smaller things, for which we are not getting credit. We are working with the UN specifically on the crane issue, on funding UN Humanitarian Air Service flights and on specifically funding the office of Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, who is the UN envoy to Yemen. Those are smaller, million-pound projects that are all trying to identify weaknesses in the system that we can then plug. We are also working on financial flows and on trying to make sure that wheat gets in.

However, the overall solution to this situation has to be political. That is where we need to get to—but what does it look like? It is fine for me to stand up here and spout jargon. In theory, that political solution involves a genuinely inclusive answer. It has to include not only the regional powers but, above all, without fear or favour —as identified by Simon Shercliff, our really good ambassador to Yemen—all the warring parties. It cannot be a military solution, and it must include other people.

The solution must include people in Hadramaut, who have not been included in conversations to date, and it must also really think about how we include women. That is not a trivial point. One of the real strengths of what happened in 2013-14 was the genuine inclusion of Yemeni civil society. That made a huge difference, because although Yemen is now being presented to us as though it is nothing but some medieval tribal cockpit of violence, it is in fact a highly sophisticated society with a very active civil society, and the inclusion of women in civil society groups will be central to getting a lasting solution. It will also mean that we, the British Government, will have to be honest with Parliament about the real problems that we face.

There is a huge emphasis on the security side, huge diplomatic pressure and a lot of humanitarian spending. However, above all, these are the questions I will pose to finish on: first, where is the UN going to go on this? One problem is that it will be extremely difficult, in the current context, to get a new UN Security Council resolution through, because some members of the Security Council will oppose it. Secondly, what is the current relationship between Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed and the Houthi? He was shot at when he last went into Sana’a. Thirdly, what is the UAE’s position? Fourthly, how will it be possible to integrate other groups? Finally, what is the long-term position of President Hadi? Those critical, detailed questions will determine our success or failure.

[Graham Jones]

Is the Minister not missing two final points: the rising threat of al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula and the rise of ISIS? It is across all of the UN reports that ISIS is moving into ungoverned spaces. Because of the aggression of the Houthis in threatening Sunni communities, they are responding by raising the black flag.

[Rory Stewart]

I will finish on this. What are the interests of the Yemeni—

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I too read the reports that my hon. Friend mentions. Clearly, those who have committed terrorist acts must be held accountable for their actions; there can be no general amnesty. Obviously, the Home Secretary will want to look carefully at the situation that we are facing. I suggest that she will have noted what he said and might be able to respond further when she winds up the debate.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

[Mr Hammond]

I will give way once more at this stage.

[Rory Stewart]

As I understand it, the Foreign Secretary is saying that our policy is dependent on having a credible, inclusive Government in Baghdad. On what criteria will the Foreign Office assess that Government? What does he make of the appointment of Ibrahim al-Jafari? What about the Interior Ministry? What about the Defence Ministry? What about the position of Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian revolutionary guard commander, in Baghdad? What possible reason do we have at the moment to believe that this Government are inclusive?

[Mr Hammond]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s gentle scepticism, shall I call it? Many figures within the newly announced Government are not new faces. However, the programme set out by Dr al-Abadi does represent, on the face of it, an approach that is far more inclusive and far more willing to recognise the aspirations of the separate communities within Iraq than that of the previous Iraqi Government. Of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We will be looking at this very closely and providing every support we can. We and other allies will be applying all pressure that we can on the Iraqi Government to pursue diligently the course that they have set out in that programme, and we very much hope they will deliver on those commitments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for the remarks with which he opened the debate. This is our first exchange on the Floor of the House since his appointment, so may I take this opportunity to warmly welcome him and the Secretary of State for Defence to their vital roles for our country? The Foreign Secretary comes to the post to help us navigate a time of very real risks and rising uncertainties for the United Kingdom. In these difficult times, I know that the whole House will wish him well in carrying out his duties in the months ahead.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that Members from all parts of the House have been calling on the Government to grant a full day’s debate on foreign affairs. I welcome the opportunity to discuss Ukraine, the middle east, north Africa and security today. This debate undoubtedly takes place at a time of significant global upheaval and significant challenge for the United Kingdom. The conflicts in the middle east and north Africa, the threat of ISIL, the destabilisation of eastern Europe by Russia and the new challenges facing NATO have created a palpable anxiety that the future may be less certain than many in the west had previously anticipated.

Given the scale and the pace of change, any Government must seek to approach the challenges with appropriate humility. However, as I and others across the House have argued, that must not give way to passivity in international affairs. For Britain to retreat from the world would be as foolish as it would be futile. Growing interdependence and the rise of cross-border threats mean that co-operating and collaborating with international partners is more vital in promoting our national interests than ever before. Today, the alliances that have helped to keep half a century of peace in Europe—the transatlantic bond, NATO and our co-operation with EU allies—are essential to Britain’s security and prosperity, perhaps more so than for many years.

Nowhere is that more evident than in the middle east. That region is experiencing some of the darkest days of its tumultuous and violent history. The Arab uprisings that began in December 2010 fleetingly seemed to herald a new beginning, yet they precipitated a period of unprecedented turmoil in Syria, Egypt and Libya, the spill-over effect of which has brought to the fore historical sectarian and religious tensions across the region.

ISIL is the latest and possibly the most brutal manifestation of this period of regional upheaval. Labour is clear that that threat cannot and must not be ignored. It cannot be ignored, because of our sense of conscience towards those who immediately face ISIL’s terror, because ISIL threatens the democratic Iraqi state and seeks to establish a state—a caliphate—of its own, and because of the danger that the export of ISIL’s ideology causes here in the United Kingdom.

The discussions at last week’s NATO summit highlighted the need to build the widest possible consensus in the pursuit of any strategy to combat ISIL. As the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, embarks on his tour of regional capitals today, it is clear that a broad partnership across the region, alongside a genuinely multilateral political, diplomatic and humanitarian alliance, is vital as we chart a way ahead.

Of course, any international strategy for combating ISIL in Iraq must ultimately be led by Baghdad. The formation of the new Iraqi Government this week was a much needed step forward. Prime Minister Abadi has a duty to his citizens and a responsibility in his Government to advance a more inclusive power-sharing form of working within the capital of Iraq—a subject about which there has already been some discussion on the Floor of the House. The progress that has been made so far shows that there is the possibility of further progress. With crucial posts such as Defence Secretary still to be filled, there is more that can and must be done to establish an inclusive Government who can earn the critical trust of Sunnis and Kurds across Iraq.

The threat that ISIL poses stretches across borders, so a strategy for combating ISIL cannot be confined within the borders of Iraq.

[Rory Stewart]

Would the right hon. Gentleman like to define what an inclusive Government in Baghdad would look like? What kind of offer needs to be made to the Sunni people in terms of autonomy, who should be in the Cabinet, and how would he judge whether the Government are or are not inclusive?

[Mr Alexander]

In asking his question, the hon. Gentleman anticipates my answer, which is that, frankly, it is not for the shadow Foreign Secretary to make that judgment. The critical judgment will be that of the Sunni community within Iraq. It is vital that there is a dialogue ahead of appointment, so that we do not have a situation in which those outside Iraq presume that a degree of unity has been achieved but, alas, it proves to be illusive within the country. The point that he makes is fair, but it only reinforces the vitality of there being inclusivity preceding the appointment, rather than assertions of inclusivity after the appointment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hain]

It is not about befriending Assad; it is about the reality of moving forward. If we do not recognise the reality, we will not move forward, but will continue to shout and scream and oppose to no effect at all.

[Rory Stewart]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that Bashar al-Assad’s main incentive for working with us is the fact that we are worried about terrorism on his eastern frontier. Why would he co-operate rather than leaving those terrorists there, given that they now provide the main underpinning legitimacy of his regime? Why would he work with us on this, sincerely?

[Mr Hain]

Let me come to that, and explain.

The Prime Minister has described President Assad as “illegitimate”, implying that Britain and the United States could act in Syria with impunity. Surely that position is legally questionable, given that Assad won recent—admittedly highly manipulated— elections, and given that the divided rebel factions do not constitute an alternative Government. Russia, Assad’s ally, would be likely to veto any attempt to gain United Nations authority for air strikes, and Assad can deploy sophisticated Russian-made air defence systems and fighter planes. His air capacity may have been degraded, especially over the parts of Syria that he no longer controls, but it is still formidable. I simply do not see how we could mount air strikes—as I believe we must in Syria if we are to degrade and help to defeat ISIL—without engaging with the regime in some way. That does not mean befriending Assad, and it does not mean legitimising his regime in any way. It could mean back-channel contact. But whatever the means, a way must be found to clear the path for air strikes. We should also have to engage with Iran, and with Russia—which, again, will be difficult, especially given Putin’s behaviour in Ukraine, but which is, in my view, essential.

The Government know full well that I have been a consistent critic of their Syria policy. I have described it as ill-conceived and ultimately counter-productive, as, indeed, I believe events have proved it to be. However, we do not have to agree on that to find common ground over the urgent need for us to act in order to tackle the barbarous mediaeval threat of ISIL, and to act now.

As for Ukraine, I think that Europe’s and NATO’s further push right up to Russia’s front door is ill-advised. Western political bluster, military bombast and tit-for-tat sanctions will not resolve the problem. Why not instead press for a negotiated agreement, however difficult? Under such an agreement, Ukraine would be militarily neutral, which would mean no membership of NATO, and certainly no Russian military pact. Ukraine’s status would be comparable to that of Finland, but, obviously, without membership of the European Union. It would be guaranteed by Moscow and Washington. There would be no further NATO encirclement or enlargement around Russia’s borders, in return for no illegal or aggressive moves by Russia in Ukraine, Moldova or any of its other neighbours. I think that that should be part of a geopolitical deal with the European Union too, in which it, like NATO, would recognise limits to its eastward expansion. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am now being cheered by the Eurosceptics whom I continually oppose, as a pro-European, but I still believe that that is the right policy.

Europe’s March 2014 agreement with Ukraine should be revisited, to offer a reciprocal agreement between Russia and Ukraine with guarantees for Moscow on both trade and political co-operation. Trade and co-operation agreements with those countries—including Ukraine—is desirable, but not full European Union membership. I believe that such a strategy offers a far more promising route to ending the current mutually damaging conflict that has engulfed Ukraine; but, again, it does not mean treating Putin as a buddy. It does not mean endorsing his nakedly manipulative aggression, his authoritarianism or his shameful human rights record. It simply means acknowledging that Russia’s backyard matters greatly to it, just as ours does to us. Then we might be able to build stability and peace in that region.

As will be apparent, I have big areas of agreement with the Government’s approach but big areas of disagreement as well, especially on Syria and the whole approach to the middle east region, and also in terms of Russia and Ukraine. I do hope the Government will think again about these matters. I think there is a prospect of moving forward in both areas. It is going to be very difficult, and there will be all sorts of setbacks, but I am confident—I am absolutely certain—that pursuing the policy we are currently pursuing will bring no practical and positive results at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

We gather here today on the eve of a vote in Scotland that could tear the United Kingdom apart after 300 years together, and the question for us—whether in Scotland or in foreign policy—is: are we proud of ourselves? Are we serious?

We look around the world, from Kabul to Tripoli, from Damascus to Baghdad to Kiev, and we see the wreck of international foreign policy over the last 20 years. So lamentable is that wreck that it is hardly worth holding the House’s attention to list the fiascos that we see today. The Afghan economy has gone into a 40% contraction since January this year, and the two Presidents are in a stand-off on the basis of ethnic divisions, and it has not even been raised seriously in this House. In Tripoli, the Misrata militia have been dabbling their toes in the American embassy swimming pool three years after our intervention. In Iraq, following a surge on which the US Government spent $420 billion and deployed over 100,000 troops a year, we are now confronted with the re-emergence of something even worse than General Petraeus confronted in 2007. And people have spoken much more eloquently than myself about the fiasco we currently face in Ukraine.

So lamentable is this problem that we should not do what it would be tempting to do, which is to learn the lessons of this and talk about our mistakes, look at the limits of our knowledge, our power and our legitimacy, and confront the fact that we are not good enough in this country at seeing what we cannot do, what we do not know and what, frankly, people do not want us to do. So lamentable is the situation that instead of emphasising humility, we in fact need to rediscover our confidence and our energy. A time has come, in fact, to rebuild, and rebuilding the seriousness of this country means acknowledging failure and regaining public trust by showing people that we have learned the lessons of where we went wrong, and then investing in our institutions.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) pointed out that on the National Security Council it is quite difficult to know what is happening in the world, and that is not very surprising because, despite our grand protestations about how we are going to remodel the world from Mali to central Africa, in fact our capacity—the number of people in defence intelligence within the Foreign Office—is pathetically poor. The entire extra capacity committed to Syria was a single SMS1 officer, a D7 and a D6. When the crisis broke out in Russia and Ukraine, we discovered that the United Kingdom had cancelled its Russian analysis section in the defence intelligence service and we had to move the South Caucasus officer over to Crimea. When I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) turned up in Kurdistan two weeks ago, we discovered a single consul general who did not have the staff or the resources to visit any of the refugee camps or make it to the front line.

We need to get out of a situation in which only three of our 15 ambassadors in the middle east speak Arabic. We need to understand that our Foreign Office has a budget half that of the French Foreign Office and considerably smaller than the amount we commit to the winter fuel allowance. Before any of us go around talking about our brilliant strategy for Ukraine or Iraq, we should begin rebuilding those basic institutions: we should challenge the Government, and challenge the Opposition, to commit immediately more resources towards policy and analysis and understanding of what is going on on the ground, because there are no options for Ministers and there are no scenarios we can discuss in this House unless we understand the situation on the ground.

[Mr Hain]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s point about resourcing the Foreign Office—and the Foreign Secretary may agree on that, too. The budget cuts, which started under the Labour Government, have been remorselessly pursued under the hon. Gentleman’s Government. For a lot of other Whitehall Departments the Foreign Office budget is not even petty cash, but the cuts have been disastrous in their effect on the Foreign Office’s capabilities.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for his intervention. As he knows, this is not simply a question of resources; it is also a question of the priority we put on policy analysis and challenge. It is about the people we promote and the people we hold accountable when they fail, and it is about a seriousness within the institution about getting to grips with these issues.

We all roughly understand what a solution to ISIL in Iraq would look like in theory—a regional solution, which people have talked about, and a political solution on the ground using the Sunni tribes against ISIL—but these are not things that can be resolved here on a whiteboard. They are things that entirely depend on being on the ground. There is the question of exactly what Qatar’s role is in this and how we can shift its position, the question of what we can get from Saudi Arabia, and the question of how we deal with the fact that foreign fighters are coming out of Turkey and oil is going back into Turkey. Those elements of the regional solution are not theory; they are practice. They are the practice of defence attachés and diplomats on the ground working day in, day out. The question of how to use the Sunni tribes against ISIL is, again, no theory; it is about this Sunni tribe or sheikh, that Sunni tribe or sheikh, this weapon, that money, this long-term strategy. The question of what the Iraqi Government are is not about generic statements about legitimacy or inclusiveness; it is about questions such as, “What is the role of Ibrahim Jaafari in this Government, and are any of these Sunnis who are currently standing for the Iraqi Government actually credible?”

The questions in Ukraine are the same kinds of questions. We can create the theoretical framework, but in the end we need some moral principles behind us. What do we make of this man Putin? Such questions can only be answered by looking at our own values. What kind of moral obligation do we feel we have to the Ukrainian people? What kind of obligation do we feel we have to the international order or the international system? How much risk are we prepared to take? How many sacrifices are we really prepared to make to confront Putin over Ukraine?

Unless we rediscover the ability to focus on what we can do and what we ought to do, this foreign policy, which should be a theatre of heroism, will instead be a narrow stage for impotence, self-flattery and oblivion.

Human Rights

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Chope. Last October, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs published its annual critique of the human rights work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign Office responded in December, and I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate the report.

In today’s unpredictable world, striking the right balance between protecting our national interests and holding true to our values, on domestic shores as well as abroad, is a tough call, but what is certain is that we live in an age of unparalleled transparency and instant global dissemination of news and analysis. To win an argument credibly in this fast-paced environment, consistency is key. The Foreign Secretary’s speech to the Royal United Services Institute on human rights and counter-terrorism last year sums up that dichotomy. He talked of sharing intelligence with countries that do not always share our values, to keep our citizens safe, but added that Britain must build a series of

“justice and human rights partnerships”

with such countries. That is a better alternative than boycotting regimes that are on a very different page where human rights and law enforcement are concerned.

We must not underestimate Ministers’ accountability to Parliament and the wider public. That is particularly true in the case of deportation with assurances, when we collaborate with countries that have little regard for human rights. Human rights organisations have raised concerns that assurances from countries where torture is widespread are inherently unreliable. David Mepham of Human Rights Watch, which published an excellent report this week providing summaries of principal human rights concerns in more than 90 countries worldwide, described the system as “lacking in credibility”.

We think that the provisions for monitoring the welfare of those returned under deportation with assurances, or DWA, arrangements could be strengthened. Some of the bodies supposed to be carrying out that monitoring do not instil universal confidence, such as the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission. The UK Court of Appeal found that it could not be trusted to report deliberate breaches by the Ethiopian Government, yet the Foreign Office says in its response that it is satisfied that the commission is fit for purpose. With regard to other countries, our agreement with Algeria makes no provision for formal post-return monitoring; British embassy staff do it. We want to be sure that embassy staff have the training that they need, and I am pleased that the Government have given that reassurance in their response.

We risk the accusation of double standards if we allow UK commercial interests to proceed without restraint in developing and exporting equipment that has the capacity to inhibit free speech on the internet. Two years ago, Amnesty International highlighted credible allegations that businesses were supplying technology to countries that were stifling free speech, including Egypt, Libya, China and Iran. We welcome the Government’s response, which confirms that they are working towards an internationally agreed and implemented list of controlled equipment and guidance for officials in carrying out due diligence when developing Government-led commercial and security relationships overseas. Working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Foreign Office should be ready to intervene by controlling exports if there is obvious potential for abuse by end users.

In that spirit of greater accountability, we welcome the Foreign Office’s decision to define more clearly the criteria for countries of concern. Its authoritative analysis of conditions in those countries is to be congratulated, but the Committee questions why the extent of our engagement in a particular country, or the impact of the human rights situation there on our interests, should be regarded as factors in evaluating human rights standards.

Our report considers more closely three countries on the list: Sri Lanka, Burma and Russia. Sri Lanka courted particular controversy as the venue for the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary attended, as well as His Royal Highness Prince Charles. The Committee felt that the previous Government displayed a striking lack of consistency in 2009 by objecting to the proposal that Sri Lanka might host the 2011 meetings on human rights grounds but not to the proposal that it might host the 2013 meetings. That appears timid.

The Foreign Office should have taken a more principled stance in 2009 and, to be fair to my Opposition colleagues, a more robust stand after 2011. However, in the circumstances, I believe that the Prime Minister was right to attend, but only on the condition that he press the authorities relentlessly on human rights and seek assurances that people who spoke out on human rights were not harassed by security forces. Will the Minister confirm that assurances were indeed given and observed?

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

Having spoken about Sri Lanka, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reflect a little on the situation in Burma?

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will come to Burma shortly.

More disappointing was the Government’s answer to the question whether they still hold the view that there is no substantiated evidence of Sri Lankans returned home from the UK being tortured or maltreated. Simply stating that the Foreign Office is not aware of any new evidence since the original answer was submitted ducks the issue. Will the Minister clarify what is meant by “the original answer”? Can he give us an assurance about cases that occurred before that time?

I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). Burma, like Sri Lanka, attracted widespread media coverage following the historic visit of Aung San Suu Kyi in summer 2012. We believe that the EU’s decision to lift economic sanctions the following year was the right one, given the remarkable progress made in that country. However, that comes with a caveat.

The UK should not hesitate to advocate the reimposition of sanctions if undertakings on human rights are not followed through. Serious reservations remain about the continued incarceration of political prisoners and the failure to bring those responsible for intercommunal violence to justice. Will the Minister update us on the release of political prisoners and accountability for the shocking crimes in Rakhine state?

On Russia, with less than a month to go before the 2014 winter Olympics in Sochi, the Committee, which did not support a boycott, hopes that the UK will use the occasion as a platform for voicing concerns about human rights abuses. The recent release of high-profile prisoners in Russia, including Pussy Riot, the Greenpeace activists and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, suggests that Russia is receptive—cynically, perhaps—to cases that damage its reputation internationally. Khodorkovsky said himself that his release could not symbolise that there were no political prisoners left in Russia, as much of the Government’s crackdown on human rights continues unabated. I welcome the decision this morning to release Platon Lebedev, but the financial claim of 17.5 million roubles against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev effectively blocks their return to Russia.

It is clear to us, from Russia’s example in particular, that public opinion matters, and public opinion is informed largely by the media through broadcasts and the internet. As we on the Committee have pointed out several times, the BBC World Service makes a huge contribution to the projection of the UK’s values and strengths around the globe, which is why the evidence presented to us about levels of disruption of media freedom not seen since the cold war is extremely worrying.

Of the 47 countries examined by Freedom House in its survey on internet freedom, 20 had experienced a negative trajectory since January 2011. Bahrain, Pakistan and Ethiopia showed the greatest declines, but the countries making the most comprehensive efforts to frustrate the BBC World Service’s overseas broadcasts were Iran and China. We believe that it would be astonishing if the services were to be diminished because of a lack of resources to protect broadcasts from interference. The BBC says that it will review the plans once the licence fee funding begins.

Providers of satellite services also have an interest: if they cannot provide a service to the broadcaster they risk losing out financially. In our opinion, satellite providers, and not only those directly affected by jamming, should invest in the necessary technology. Given that national interests are at stake, the Government should be encouraging them to do so.

I would like to end on a high note. The championing of women’s rights across the globe is a major success story for the British Government. We join others in commending the Foreign Secretary for driving the prevention of sexual violence in conflict initiative and for committing millions to fund human rights projects last year. We strongly welcome the team of UK experts ready to be deployed in conflict areas. We support their work in helping to build national capacity in investigating allegations of sexual violence and gathering evidence to help victims. We are pleased that the Government say they will encourage other countries to contribute personnel and funding as demand increases.

However, legislation in Afghanistan outlawing violence against women is not a big step forward if it is not implemented. As a Committee, we are not as optimistic as the Foreign Office that progress will be made once international security assistance force troops have withdrawn. We believe that a reversal is possible. The emphasis should now be on ensuring that the gains made are not reversed.

Safeguarding democracy and human rights is a thread that runs through every aspect of this country’s external relations, whether political, humanitarian, commercial, or security-based. The Foreign Office is doing an excellent job in trying circumstances, whether it is communicating its values through the media, standing up for women’s rights internationally or ensuring that UK companies incorporate human rights into their deals.

However, with every step that the Foreign Office makes in the right direction, increasingly sophisticated threats are pushing the other way. Just like viruses that become resistant to antibiotics, terrorists are constantly finding ways to undermine safeguards that we put in place to keep our people from harm. As the challenges grow tougher, the Foreign Office would do well to remember the sentiment expressed by our Foreign Secretary in his RUSI address: through the good times and the bad times, we must never lose sight of our values.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) on his speech and on his work as Chair of our Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I agree with him on some things and, as he will not be surprised to hear, disagree on others.

I chair the all-party parliamentary human rights group, which closely monitors and works with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on a number of related issues. I welcome the many programmes and policies that the FCO continues to undertake around the world to protect and promote human rights, including fundamental political and civil rights, good governance, the rule of law and accountability for violations, as well as the protection of women’s rights, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and minority rights.

The first thing I would like to say is that despite the FCO’s having previously agreed with the Foreign Affairs Committee that evaluation is important, the 2012 FCO human rights report does not appear to reflect a more analytical approach. Overall, I feel that human rights reports are too focused on detailing activities being undertaken or funded by the FCO in the field of human rights and reciting current priorities, without going that step further. I would particularly like to see more evaluation of what has worked in terms of policies and programmes, and of how and why they have worked.

For instance, the FCO details its capacity-building programme in countries and with Government institutions whose human rights records are wanting—for example, in relation to police training in Afghanistan; police training in Baghdad to develop a more effective police response to incidents involving violence against women; the multi-year UK-led programme to strengthen capacity to tackle terrorism through the criminal justice system in Pakistan; and the police and prison reform project in Uzbekistan. It would be useful to know what precise impact those projects have had in those countries.

I would also like the FCO to do more to explain what policies and measures it is adopting to prevent potential future crises, particularly in countries where there are long-standing human rights violations that are not being addressed. Many are particularly concerned about the situation in Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, central Asia and Eritrea becoming much worse. I think the FCO should, in the first instance, look at whether lessons can be learned from the fall-out from the Arab spring and explore whether transition and consolidation activities and strategies are sufficiently incorporated in country business plans. Are there any lessons to be learned from the Arab spring about how the UK deals with authoritarian regimes more generally?

I would also like there to be further analysis of how competing foreign policy interests are prioritised and when they can and cannot be reconciled. The FCO seems to believe that human rights, geopolitical and strategic considerations, energy security and trade promotion can all be pursued simultaneously, maintaining that

“We cannot achieve long-term security and prosperity unless we uphold our values”,

when that quite clearly is not always the case.

That is even reflected in the FCO human rights report. Although the chapter on Saudi Arabia was beefed up in comparison with the previous year’s report, it still contains numerous qualifications to tone criticism down, such as references to “cultural sensitivities”, which are mentioned nowhere else in the report. It is also incomprehensible to me why no mention is made of the complete lack of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in Saudi; such a lack is mentioned in the chapter on Iran. If the FCO wants to take a more conciliatory approach in the report in relation to some countries, it should explain why.

[Rory Stewart]

I am interested in the observation that it is very difficult to square the circle and simultaneously do security, human rights and economic development. Nevertheless, there is clearly an issue there. Does the right hon. Lady have her own way of expressing that? Perhaps she has a better formulation that she would prefer the Foreign Office to have to square that circle. Is there some other way of describing foreign policy, other than in those terms?

[Ann Clwyd]

Mr Chope, will you explain whether, when somebody makes an intervention, that is taken off the speaking time? I see that the clock kept running.

Syria

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I hope the hon. Gentleman heard the statement I gave a moment ago because I do not know how he could have got any impression that it was about anything other than diplomatic success and, through diplomacy, making sure the crisis is addressed as best we can. On the chemical weapons, I think we have had this disagreement before. There was a very important change of policy by Russia and by Damascus on chemical weapons in September, but I believe the origin of that was the fact that military action was being considered and debated in the United States, so sometimes diplomacy benefits from the soft power having some hard power behind it.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

As the Foreign Secretary knows well, the reason the moderate opposition are weak is unfortunately not only that they lack weapons. It would be extremely difficult and very dangerous for the west to try to micro-manage the balance of forces on the ground. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore please concentrate on ensuring that our humanitarian assistance is more focused, in particular in relation to Jordan? Refugees in Jordan are currently unable to work. Could we work with the Jordanian Government to ensure employment and livelihoods for refugees in Jordan?

[Mr Hague]

This is also a very good point because we are now seeing people who have been displaced for the long term: children who have been away from their schools for two or three years; people who have been without work for that amount of time. That is reflected in our redefinition of some of our aid priorities, so we are trying to help in more ways than just feeding people when they are in refugee camps. We will have to shift increasingly in that direction and my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary can speak about this in greater detail and with greater authority when she returns from Kuwait, but I very much take on board the point my hon. Friend makes.

Middle East Peace Process/Syria and Iran

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I do not have any evidence of the transfer of chemical weapons to Hezbollah. Clearly, Hezbollah has received supplies of weapons over a long period, and such weapons have been maintained in Lebanon in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. We all have every right to suspect that those weapons have often come from Iran via Syria. On the issue of chemical weapons, however, I do not have any evidence of their transfer to any other nation or grouping in the region. I hope that the destruction of these weapons can take place verifiably—before there is any risk of that happening.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I, too, want to praise my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for the extraordinary patience, intelligence and careful understanding that he brought to his role.

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on progress made in re-engaging with Iran and on his constructive engagement with the issue of chemical weapons in Syria. I encourage my right hon. Friend, however, to use the opportunity presented by Syria to lead a genuine global campaign against chemical weapons and to devote the resources and staff necessary to make the elimination of chemical weapons one of the key priorities of the British Government.

[Mr Hague]

Britain has a strong history of working to prohibit chemical weapons and of encouraging other countries to sign the chemical weapons convention. Syria’s decision, if verifiably implemented, will of course be a major advance; as it could easily be the largest arsenal of chemical weapons in the world, its destruction would be a major advance. My hon. Friend is quite right that that should lead us only to redouble our efforts to make sure that other stocks of chemical weapons in the world are destroyed.

Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Rory Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this debate, and it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who made an extremely moving speech.

I was not in the House for the 2003 vote, and I certainly do not want to focus on it today; I am far from sure that I would have made the right decision. In fact, I think I would have been on the wrong side in 2003. It was not until I was stuck in Iraq in 2003 that I saw what a mess it was. I want to reflect briefly, therefore, on the lessons we might be able to draw, not so much from the decision to intervene, but from the questions about how we got stuck there and why we find it so difficult to acknowledge our failure.

The starting point for any discussion of Iraq has to be an acknowledgment that it was a failure and a scandal. However we look at the costs and benefits of what happened there, it was probably the worst British foreign policy decision since the Boer war or the first Anglo-Afghan war of 1839. Never have the British Government made a worse decision. By that, I do not mean that had I been in the House I would have voted differently. In fact, I suspect that I would have voted in favour of the war, wrongly. I hope, however, that this is an opportunity to reflect on what Parliament is, what the Foreign Office is, what the military is and how Britain as a whole—or at least the British policy establishment—could get something so wrong.

This matters because there are many similarities between what we did in Iraq and what we are doing in Afghanistan, and many similarities between those things and what we occasionally think of doing in Mali or Syria. At the base of the problem is our refusal to acknowledge failure, to acknowledge just what a catastrophe it was, and the House’s refusal to acknowledge how bewildering it was, how little we know and how complicated countries such as Iraq are. Sitting in Iraq for 18 months from the middle of 2003 to 2005, I found myself facing, in a small provincial town called al-Amara, 52 new political parties, many of them swarming across the border from Iran and many of them armed.

Nobody in the Foreign Office or the military, and certainly nobody in the House, would have been able to distinguish between Hizb-e-Dawa, Harakat-Dawa, Majlis Ahla, Hezbollah—which turned out in the Iraqi context to consist of two men with a briefcase—or any of the other Shi’a Islamist groups that emerged. None of us in the British policy machine predicted in January 2005 that 90% of the votes in the south of Iraq would go to only three Shi’a Islamist parties. Everybody in the foreign policy machine then predicted that it would be different at the end of 2005, and we were all wrong again. Why were we wrong? We were wrong because we did not have the right relationship between politicians, diplomats, soldiers and the local reality of these countries. We have not got it right yet.

We have not got it right because it is not realistic today—as it was not realistic at the time of the Boer war or the first Anglo-Afghan war—to expect people in Parliament to be experts on the internal politics of Iraq. What really began to go wrong after the invasion, beyond the decision about WMD, was all to do with micro-relationships in Nasiriyah and al-Amara and in the relationships between the different grand ayatollahs in Najaf. These are not things that anyone in the Chamber, however well briefed, can pretend to understand or judge. Instead, we have to rely on the military, the Foreign Office and the intelligence agencies, and there the problem starts. The problem starts because the entire structure of our organisations—their incentives, their promotions, their recruitment, how they interact with policy makers, politicians and Ministers—does not help us ever to acknowledge failure. In fact, these institutions are designed to trap us in these countries.

Careers are made by people going out for short tours. I remind the House and those in the Foreign Office that the initial tours in Iraq were for six weeks, extended to three months, then to six months. The idea—that people living in heavily defended compounds, moving around in armoured vehicles, generally unable to speak a word of any local language, unable to interact with an Iraqi for more than half an hour or an hour at a time, except if surrounded by heavily armed men and operating through translators, could really get a sense of whether Iraq was stabilising or what, to use the Minister’s words, Iraq would be like in 10 years—was of course misleading. The advice and challenge that they could provide to the Government, therefore, was not good enough.

It is not good enough that not a single senior British diplomat formally recorded on paper their opposition to what was happening in Iraq. Many of those who were inside the system now say that they made private comments, that they were worried, but nobody, from the political director downwards, formally objected on paper to the Prime Minister.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

Was that not compounded even further by the American Administration, where if someone questioned what was going on, either strategically or tactically, they were sent back to the states, their future career very much in question?

[Rory Stewart]

That is a very good point, and perhaps it is a way for me to wrap up my analysis of the Foreign Office. Of course, this is not a uniquely American problem. Within any British civil service Department, there is no great incentive to admit failure. When I look back at the reports I wrote stuck in al-Amara and Nasiriyah, I find it extraordinary how every week, I claimed great success. Every week, I would write, “We’ve hired another 300 people into the police. We’ve held a new sub-district election. I’ve just created 3,000 jobs. We’ve just refurbished another set of clinics and schools.” To read report after report, week after week, it looks as if the whole thing is getting better and better. In retrospect, I know differently, of course. When I began, I could go into the bazaar to get an ice cream, but by the end, I was stuck in my compound with 140 rocket and mortar-propelled grenades flying at the compound, and we had to abandon it and retreat back to a military base, essentially surrendering Nasiriyah, a city of 600,000 people, to the insurgents.

The situation is not helped by the way we talk about it in Britain today. We do not really think very much about Iraq. We do not think very much about what exactly Iraq is doing with Iran or Syria at the moment, why exactly Iraq got involved in dubious banking transactions to bust sanctions on behalf of the Iranian Government or why exactly our great ally, al-Maliki, appears to have been allowing trans-shipment of weapons from Iran into Syria. Why do we not think about these things? It is because we are not very serious. At some level, this country is no longer being as serious as it should be about foreign policy. Our newspapers are not writing enough about Iraq. The Foreign Office is not thinking enough about the failure. The military is not thinking enough about these things. Unless we acknowledge that something went wrong in Iraq and that something went deeply wrong in Afghanistan, we will get ourselves stuck again.

What do we do about it? We need to reform. It cannot be business as usual. We cannot just go around pretending it was all fine. We cannot simply blame Blair and Bush.

[Pete Wishart]

Is not the reason for us going to war in Iraq actually quite simple? Prime Minister Tony Blair had some perverse obligation to George Bush, and that is why we went in.

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman has raised exactly the point that we need to talk about. We believe that somehow it is all the fault of Blair and Bush—this is the myth that has entered the national consciousness. My experience as someone inside the system is that we have to look much more deeply at ourselves. We need to look at the Foreign Office, the military, the intelligence services and Parliament. These people, Blair and Bush, do not operate in a vacuum; they operate in a culture that did not challenge and shape the debate sufficiently. It is not realistic for Blair or Bush to know deeply about these situations and it is simply a constitutional convention, of course, that the people who make the decision are the Blairs and the Bushes. However, if we look at what got us trapped on the ground in Iraq—at why, for example, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) found it difficult to get out of Iraq or why President Obama found it difficult to say no to the surge—it is because these people are part of a much bigger system.

The reform of that system is threefold. First, we need radically to reform the way in which the Foreign Office operates. The Foreign Secretary has begun; we need to go much further, thinking all the time about the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to focus on people with deep linguistic and cultural expertise. We need to ensure that we change all the bureaucratic mechanisms. The core competency framework for promotion in the Foreign Office needs to be changed. The amount that people are paid for learning languages in the Foreign Office needs to be changed. The posting lengths need to be changed. The security conditions for the Foreign Office need to be changed, because unless we begin to understand deeply and rigorously what is happening on the ground, it is difficult to challenge the Blairs and the Bushes.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making such a powerful speech, but when it comes to whether it is right or wrong to blame Bush and Blair, I think he is being a little too generous in his assessment of them. He is giving the impression that they were sitting waiting to hear what the evidence was, when it seems clear—certainly in the case of Bush and maybe in the case of Blair—that they had already made up their minds. They already had an agenda.

[Rory Stewart]

I am sure that much of that is true. I am not here to defend that decision—it was a terrible, catastrophic decision—but I think it is dangerous to put the whole blame simply on Blair and Bush, because the implication is that if we do not have Blair and Bush around, we will never get in these messes again. We will get in these messes again because we have not created the proper Government policy structures required to think these things through—not just to avoid the decision to invade, but above all to get out more rapidly once we have made a bad decision.

Military reforms—you have very kindly given me some time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do not have enough to talk about this today—involve accepting that the military have too much power in the policy debate. That is not the military’s fault: they are filling a vacuum. The military feel that the Foreign Office is not taking the lead and that somebody needs to do something. I saw that all the time on the ground in Iraq. I remember a major-general saying to me, “The diplomats and aid workers aren’t doing anything, so we”—the military—“need to take those things over,” but that is not the military’s job. It is extremely dangerous, because its puts generals in positions where they make optimistic predictions about their capacity to sort things out, albeit without a detailed understanding of the politics or the reality of those aspects of governance or diplomacy.

We in Parliament need to look at ourselves—it is on this that we need to conclude. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was exactly right to ask us to look hard at how the Select Committee on Defence, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Intelligence and Security Committee got this wrong. What reforms have we introduced to those Committees to ensure that we do not get it wrong again? How do we as Members of Parliament operate in a very complicated world? It is not realistic for any of us in this Chamber to understand exactly what the difference is between Harakat-Dawa, Hizb-e-Dawa and Hizb-e-Dawa Islamiya. Everybody is learning desperately from briefs, trying to sound plausible, but there are 200 nations in the world. Ministers are busy. Politicians are busy; they are worrying about their constituents. They are not deep experts on these issues. We therefore need to create a system that we can rely on in the Foreign Office, the military and the intelligence services. We in Parliament need to know how to question those people, how to listen to them and how to promote people who disagree with us. We need in Parliament to learn how to look at which civil servants got it wrong and hold them accountable, rather than promoting, as we did, almost everybody who was implicated in the Iraq decisions.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Rory Stewart]

I am coming to the end.

Finally, we need above all to learn—I feel, as a new Member of Parliament, and with all deference to this House—a lesson of humility.