Sudan

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cox]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the conflict in Southern Kordofan and of the continuing problems in the other marginalised areas of the Abyei and Blue Nile regions of the Republic of Sudan.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the conflict in Southern Kordofan continues. Despite the announcement of a two-week ceasefire in Southern Kordofan by President al-Bashir, we have continued to receive reports of fighting and human rights abuses, and humanitarian access remains extremely limited. The outbreak of violence in Blue Nile state on 2 September marks a further deterioration in the ongoing pattern of conflict. We continue to work closely with our international partners to push for an immediate cessation of hostilities. In Abyei, deployment of the UN Interim Security Force for Abyei continues, under UN Resolution 1990. We are concerned that the Sudanese armed forces and Sudan People’s Liberation Movement troops are not withdrawing as agreed, and call for both sides to start the withdrawal process immediately.

[Baroness Cox]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but I fear it seems to imply symmetry in the culpability for aggression between President al-Bashir’s government of Sudan forces and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement. Is he aware that in the recent conflict in Blue Nile, civilians have suffered aerial bombardment from government of Sudan forces? At least 50,000 civilians have had to flee, 20,000 into Ethiopia. Al-Bashir has denied access to UN and other aid organisations to civilians in need and dismissed the democratically elected governor, Malik Agar. What specific actions are Her Majesty’s Government taking in response to the sustained aggression that has been initiated and maintained by al-Bashir against the civilians, not only in Blue Nile but in Southern Kordofan and Abyei?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think that symmetry is the wrong word, because we are under no illusions about the ferocity of the attacks by the Sudan armed forces, ordered apparently by President al-Bashir, and by the Sudan armed air force as well. Nevertheless, the truth is that these are disputed areas outside South Sudan. Many of them wanted to be in that but they have been left out. There is bitterness and both sides blame each other. That is a fact.

What are we doing? We are pushing for a strong line at the United Nations, where the matter is being discussed this very day at the Security Council. Our defence attaché is working hard in Addis Ababa, supporting the African Union implementation panel. We are, of course, putting strong DfID funds into South Sudan. The resources are already in the disputed areas, although it is very hard to get access to them, and we are backing the EU special representative, Rosalind Marsden, who is also very active in pressing Khartoum to halt the violence. Pressure is going on but it is not easy. The access is difficult and not all the parties concerned seem to recognise the awfulness of what is happening, but we are doing our very best.

[Lord Chidgey]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s earlier Statement condemning the bombardments of civilians in the area. However, is he aware that the reports of Amnesty International and human rights groups on the ground confirm the UN’s concerns over the possibilities of war crimes through the bombing of civilians and villagers in that area? We are the lead member of the troika in the north of Sudan. Will we also take the lead in pursuing the investigations into these alleged war crimes of the bombing of civilians?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The short answer is: yes, we are aware of this. We support the recommendation of the report by Navi Pillay that there should be an independent inquiry into these atrocity allegations. This will be pushed ahead as fast as possible.

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, I was grateful to read the Ministerial Statement earlier in the week. I have just read a Ministerial Statement issued today by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this very serious area. Does the Minister have a prognosis of the African Union discussions under Thabo Mbeki, and what hopes does he have for that agency to influence for good a very difficult situation?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right. We have issued a Written Statement today trying to bring colleagues up to date with the very ugly, and, I am afraid, deteriorating, situation. The official leading the African Union implementation panel has, of course, been Mr Mbeki. However, there is increasing activity as well from President Meles of Ethiopia, who is taking a lead in trying to get the aims of the panel and all the untied-up ends of the comprehensive peace agreement carried forward. There is more involvement locally. The whole process is very much alive.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, does the Minister recall the letter that I sent him on 22 June about the events in Kadugli, where 7,000 refugees were escorted away by members of the northern Sudan military? They included women and children and they disappeared. There have been reports in the area since then of mass graves. Is this not like an unfolding Jacobean tragedy, as we hear day by day of aerial bombardment, arson attacks on villages, rape and looting and the events that were described by my noble friend? In the discussions at the Security Council today will we be pressing for these crimes against humanity to be referred to the International Criminal Court?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We shall certainly be discussing them. I hope the noble Lord will believe me when I say that I do recall the letter that he sent me. As he knows, he sends me quite a few letters, which are very informative. However, as I say, I recall that particular letter. The atrocities that have apparently happened, which he described, are appalling, as is the general refugee problem of homeless people milling around in all three areas that we are discussing. That is causing enormous suffering, hatred and bitterness, which, I am afraid, will take a long time to eradicate. However, as to the role of the International Criminal Court, it is, of course, independent and will decide, probably on the recommendation or the nature of the debate in the UN, what charges to press further. As the noble Lord knows, it has already pressed some charges. These matters are very much on the table.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, will the Minister clarify exactly what the United Kingdom is doing to help secure unimpeded access for humanitarian workers? Is not the silence of the UN co-ordinator in Khartoum somewhat baffling? What pressure is the UK putting on the UN to be more vocal and more effective on this issue of humanitarian access? Secondly, what are the Government doing to help facilitate credible mediation efforts between the NCP and the SPLM in the north?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The answer in a very confused and difficult situation is that we are doing our best. As I said earlier, access for humanitarian activity is extremely difficult, particularly in Blue Nile state. The Government, through DfID, have put in resources and supplies almost in grim anticipation of things getting more difficult so that resources and supplies are accessible within Blue Nile state and in Southern Kordofan, but access to find out what is happening is difficult. The Government in Khartoum have been extremely unconstructive, as the noble Baroness knows, and she knows this area very well. They have constantly resisted the renewal of the UNMIS mandate in the north, although just recently I understand that a high Khartoum official did not rule out the idea of an international presence in Blue Nile state. If it is proved to be true, that could be a change from the previous totally unconstructive attitude. However, access is really difficult, so it is very hard to give the precise answers that the noble Baroness rightly seeks.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, I cannot disguise my pleasure for this occasion this afternoon, or do anything to reduce or diminish my very warm gratitude to my noble friend Lady Hooper for initiating the debate. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that this is a happy day when we have heard so much skill, expertise and insights about the possibilities of the future, not about the baggage of the past—although some of the baggage of the past, not all of it of course, one is proud enough to carry—that have made this a terrific debate. I know that that is the normal phraseology, but in this case I really mean it.

Let me start with the comments of my noble friend Lady Hooper, who launched us into the debate. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which she focused on to begin with, is a marvellous example of the non-governmental Commonwealth network that is really at the heart of what makes the Commonwealth unlike other multinational organisations and more attuned to the 21st century than many of the organisations that we inherited from the 20th century.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association celebrated its centenary this year. That in July 1911 it was called the Empire Parliamentary Association is a reminder of its historical links, but July’s conference here, which I attended, showed how far it has come from that. We talked about Commonwealth mark 1, mark 2 and mark 3, and we are moving into a new pattern altogether. The more than 600 participants demonstrated the staggering diversity and yet unity of the Commonwealth, covering a huge range of cultures, religions and races with every country, as one of your Lordships rightly reminded us, on an equal footing—large and small, richer and not so rich, mighty and developing and holding back for the time being.

Of course, there is a very long way to go; your Lordships have all recognised that. The Commonwealth needs to have a more forceful role, as my noble friend Lord Black, one of the final contributors to the debate, has just reminded us, especially in the field of human rights, in matters such as sexual differentiation, and in other issues and the rights of minorities. Indeed, only last week I attended an amazing gathering at the Commonwealth Advisory Bureau, which was also attended by Justice Albie Sachs, who lost an arm when it was blown off by a bomb planted in his car. He has campaigned brilliantly down the years for homosexual rights in South Africa and throughout the Commonwealth.

All this sums up why the Government have made a powerful commitment to upgrading the UK’s relationships with the Commonwealth network, and strengthening it as a focus for democracy, development and prosperity. Next month’s Heads of Government meeting at Perth—the so-called CHOGM; I do not like the sound of that word, but that is what they call it—at which these recommendations will be discussed, has the potential to be a defining moment for the future of the Commonwealth. It provides an opportunity for this organisation to take its rightful place on the global platform and in the 21st century global system.

I would go a little further even than that and say that I think that from the point of view of Britain and this Government, of which I am a member, the Commonwealth marks out our country with a degree of exceptionalism. We have links, developed in the past from our own experience and from the way we have handled the unwinding of the old Empire and old Commonwealth while yet developing new friendships, and this gives the UK an exceptionalism that I think many people are looking for in a world in which we are constantly threatened by homogenisation and unification, and being submerged in the greater blocs that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, rightly suggested were a thing of the past.

When one thinks about the millions of people in our own country with Commonwealth connections, Commonwealth origins, Commonwealth relatives, Commonwealth links and Commonwealth memories, it is probable that this could be the unifying national narrative that many people feel we need in this country at the moment. Many people argued during the stormy days of August here that this was a necessary or missing part of our own social culture. Dare I even say that one could see the Commonwealth—something that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said reminded me of this—as the big society writ large. I hope I am not pushing too much of a line of thought representing one party or another, because of course this whole matter stretches right across our parties, our Parliament and our institutions.

We must not get carried away. It is of course true that the Commonwealth has its faults and problems. It does not have the executive power or the resources of many other multinational institutions. In consequence, I am afraid, it is from time to time sneered at by ill-informed columnists. I should hasten to say that we have some very good columnists, but alas we have an ample supply of the ill-informed. They do not understand that in this age of citizen empowerment it is the voluntarily and grass-roots-supported nature of the Commonwealth network, with its enormous latticework of trans-Commonwealth linkages not just at government level but at sub-governmental level—on the professional, social, cultural, scientific, judicial, and educational levels, mentioned by several of your Lordships, as well as business, agricultural and technical levels—which makes the Commonwealth such an amazingly relevant organisation for this information age and such a huge pool of potential opportunities for all who belong to it, not least our own country, the United Kingdom. That is what gives the Commonwealth its deep-rooted power and influence, such as no other international institution can offer its members, and it explains why today so many nations are anxious to be associated with it, or are indeed queuing up to join it, a point which too many members of our own media seem to comprehend only dimly, if at all. The marvellous thing this afternoon is that your Lordships comprehend it, which must give some people at any rate very great encouragement.

Let me turn to a number of the specific points that have been made. I shall try to comment on almost everybody’s arguments, but I shall not be able to cover all the points that were made. My noble friend who opened the debate referred to the CPA and to the educational element that binds the Commonwealth together. There is much more to do, and the right reverend Prelate emphasised the tasks ahead in bringing the young people of the Commonwealth into closer linkages through links between Commonwealth schools and so on; I will say a word about that in a moment. We are expanding the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan and it is my hope that we have more to come on that front, so I can assure noble Lords that the crucial importance of education, at primary, secondary, higher and postgraduate levels, is not for a moment lost from sight.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, expressed—and I think it was a valuable input to the debate—some scepticism about putting too much emphasis on what the Commonwealth network stands for and can achieve. As he rightly said, soft power is the thing. Several of your Lordships mentioned the nature of the emotional and reputational value of soft power in the new landscape of this completely changed world, and the way in which soft power can bring in hard cash—by people turning to this nation, a trading nation, for our services, our goods and our exports—if we handle the soft power side of things in the right way.

The noble Lord talked about the need to beef up the human rights element, and the need for a new commissioner. That, of course, is one of the proposals of the Eminent Persons Groups, which has been much mentioned in the debate, that there should be a new commissioner for human rights, democracy and good governance. That EPG proposal is one that Her Majesty’s Government will back. The question then arises: will it happen? I cannot answer that. We are going to Perth to argue through these things with 53 other nations, many of which have very firm views on how the EPG ideas should be processed. We will push them very hard indeed and put our full backing behind them, but it is a democratic organisation and I cannot guarantee that all members will come out in this way. Nevertheless, we are hopeful that the general aims of the EPG—to upgrade and reinvigorate the Commonwealth and bring it to its own standards of strong commitment to human rights, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and good governance—will be seen to be the values of the future that make the Commonwealth what it is.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, also mentioned another matter that I am hesitant to mention as it is not really my business: the position of the Republic of Ireland. I refer to it only because I think no less than three or four of your Lordships all referred to the Republic of Ireland and the Commonwealth. I would have to say from this Dispatch Box that it is of course entirely a matter for the Government in Dublin and the Republic of Ireland to decide their attitudes towards these matters, but I put down a marker that there is obviously a strong consciousness and interest in this House about that matter. It is a rather fascinating thought when one puts it in its historical perspective.

My noble friend Lord Chidgey, who is very active in all these fields, mentioned the need to commit ourselves to the EPG aims. We do. The establishment of a commissioner is just one of them; the charter is another. There is a whole string of ideas and proposals for upgrading the Commonwealth, for giving the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group—CMAG—more teeth and making it more proactive, and for bringing home to everyone in the Commonwealth the idea that reform of the Commonwealth will help.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and several others, pointed out that these are two sides of the same thing: more democracy and more commitment to values and the rule of law equals more attraction for investment, more trust, more trade, more people ready to commit their resources to a country where they know there will be no knock on the door from the police in the middle of the night or some corrupt device removing investments and assets from the person who owns them.

Trust is the key to this. There was some derision of the new language in talking about badges and brands for the Commonwealth, but in this transparent age that is really what is needed. There should be trust among business investors as to which countries they can safely operate in and which less so. With high standards, the Commonwealth becomes a sort of brand—dare I say, a sort of kitemark—for investment, which alone will be the main driver in lifting nations out of poverty and low-income.

The right reverend Prelate was the first to raise the big theme of young people in the Commonwealth. Half the Commonwealth are very young people. The case for more linkages and even involvement in the national curricula of the Commonwealth is a very good one, which I have made to the Department for Education here myself. He also mentioned, as did many others, the climate and energy issues. That is a fascinating area, because many smaller Commonwealth members face a hideous dilemma: how do you find the energy and power—electricity, if you like—to start the development that lifts villages in remote areas out of poverty in a low-carbon way? It has to be an inexpensive way, as they cannot afford the expensive diesel and other fossil fuels that they are having to import. They need low-carbon green electricity, but of course green power is very expensive. There is a gap to be filled there and the Commonwealth can play a part in that. I think it will be on the agenda at Perth.

My noble and learned friend Lord Howe told us about yet another fascinating element of his glittering career, when he led an African military operational unit. He then turned to the issue of Somaliland, which my noble friend Lord Luce also mentioned. There is a difficulty. First, Somaliland is obviously not a nation at present, so even if the 54 nations of the Commonwealth were to consider it, it would not qualify. The question then arises about the recognition of Somaliland as separate from the whole Somalia complex. I ask noble Lords to consider the dangers that if one goes for fragmentation in that area, plenty of other bits and pieces there would also fragment with very great dangers, possibly with bloodshed pursuing.

Meanwhile, to put a positive note into this, there is just a chance that the new Transitional Federal Government in Mogadishu is at last getting established. The al-Shabaab terrorist groups have withdrawn from Mogadishu. There is a possibility that Somaliland would be able to find the right relationship of reasonable autonomy within the Somalia complex. It would be a pity at this very moment to turn things in another direction, so one has to be very careful about encouraging any fragmentation trends in that area.

Fiji, and the attack on the Methodist community there, was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. We are working with Commonwealth colleagues. I was personally involved in these matters down in Vanuatu last year at the Pacific Islands Forum. My colleague Jeremy Browne is down there this year, at this moment, trying to see how we can get ways of getting better dialogue and bringing home to the Fijians that their pattern of government really must be less dictatorial. It is not at all easy, but the pressure is there and is organised. Both we and Australia, and other countries in the area including New Zealand, are very much involved in seeing how this can be carried forward constructively.

My noble friend Lord Roberts mentioned that he was the second Welshman to speak in this debate. Well, I can tell him that here is the third Welshman speaking now. The carnival of Commonwealth music sounds a terrific idea and I hope I get the chance to visit it.

I have a number of comments on the very interesting ideas from the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, about unifying health education and health training for graduates throughout the Commonwealth. I am advised that the Commonwealth scholarship system provides for UK medical professionals, while the Commonwealth Health Ministers meeting gets support from the Commonwealth Secretariat for its dialogue on medical issues. That does not quite meet what I think the noble Lord was saying and I would like to write to him on his interesting and precise details. I am very glad that my noble friend Lady Gardner is here. She described the ways in which that was a little precarious at times, but it has come out the right way and we enormously value her contributions on the Commonwealth, of which she is such a distinguished member. The Commonwealth Foundation came into the debate from my noble friend Lord Luce. That is being reset. There are new ideas, which will be brought forward at Perth, about how that foundation, which has been through some difficult times, can be strengthened. He also mentioned the Somaliland issues, which I have dealt with.

My noble friend Lord Sheikh, who stands on a marvellous platform on these issues, mentioned Sri Lanka. We want to see Sri Lanka come up to Commonwealth standards and to position itself so that it can be a responsible host for a future CHOGM in two years’ time. However, there are of course difficulties and we are trying to develop a much better dialogue than we have had in the past. On South Sudan, yes, we support its membership. It is of course up to the whole Commonwealth, all 54 members, but we think it is a good idea and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said so in terms.

Is there a loud enough voice in the Commonwealth, asked my noble friend Lord Glenarthur? No, I do not think that there is; the Secretariat must speak up. The Commonwealth is emerging as a major force in dealing with global trends, of which one is the Chinese developing their interests all over the Indian Ocean. What is the alternative to that Chinese interest? It is no longer America or the Atlantic but possibly the great Commonwealth unity of nations. We need a stronger voice in the Commonwealth for what we stand for, and for how we can bring the stability and relief from poverty to this modern world more effectively.

I mentioned agriculture, which my noble friend Lord Gardiner quite rightly referred to. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, was right to emphasise the rule of law. My noble friend Lord Flight talked about Hong Kong, which is very interesting. It is a gateway to China and a former member of the Commonwealth. Some of its members still turn up on an informal basis at Commonwealth meetings, which is a very good linkage to have to the great Chinese markets. Generally, I agree with my noble friend that there is ahead a vast expansion of intra-Commonwealth trade and that some of the figures mentioned may not be so wide of the mark. New trade routes are opening up all the time, criss-crossing between members of the Commonwealth. They are not necessarily coming through London but developing an entirely new pattern of development, trade and investment in capital flows.

My noble friend Lady Benjamin talked about celebrations outside London. These already happen in Cardiff on Commonwealth Day and should happen elsewhere so that other cities can be encouraged to participate. She mentioned the vexed question of passenger duty. I can tell her that a process of consultation on the structure was launched and is under way and that the APD has been frozen for this year, so the Government are looking at this and are well aware of the feelings of unfairness about the structure.

My noble friend Lord Lexden asked whether this was a turning point for the whole Commonwealth. I believe that it is and that we are going into an entirely new pattern that is much more associated with the fabric of international relations than in the past. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, the Commonwealth has a powerful future and it could, as my noble friend Lord Popat said, be a driver for economic development and for liberalising trade. The Foreign Secretary has emphasised those points.

Action is needed and not just words, said the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, quite rightly, reminding us again of the link between democracy and rule of law on the one hand and economic development on the other—the two go together. There is also the support of the Commonwealth for gender equality and other social aims, which are sometimes not given enough prominence in international or United Nations circles.

The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, gave us his unique historical perspective, as he often does, and reminded us about the criss-cross nature of trade within the Commonwealth. I have already mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Black, but he made some very powerful points about human rights. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked questions about young people. Half the people of the Commonwealth are young. We have to deliver real Commonwealth gains, and not just rhetoric and high-sounding speeches, for young people in employment, education, opportunities and travel.

We have mentioned the climate issues, which are very important for the smaller nations. There is a whole organisation focused entirely on migration problems throughout the Commonwealth, which are considerable but which I do not have the time to go into. He raised the issue of Somaliland again and what sanctions we can bring to bear on the miscreants—the Zimbabweans, who walked out in a huff but would have been sacked anyway—and Fiji, which is suspended. These are problem areas that can be addressed by careful Commonwealth co-operation and subtle dialogue and pressures. They are matters that will all be on the agenda at Perth.

Perth could be a defining moment for the Commonwealth. Heads will need to take bold and vital decisions in response to the EPG recommendations, which will shape the role of this unique organisation, so that it may have more impact in the future. None of us should shy away from the difficulties that will be involved in the EPG proposals when they come to be discussed by 54 nations; we should be quite frank about this. Alongside the Heads of Government Meeting there will be a meeting of the Commonwealth business forum and a number of other meetings of Commonwealth organisations, all of which will help to reinforce the realisation that the Commonwealth has a powerful role and place in the future.

I repeat that the CPA has an integral role in reinvigorating the Commonwealth and helping to put the Commonwealth and its networks on a firmer footing for the future. My right honourable friend, the Foreign Secretary, said the other day:

“The Commonwealth not only occupies a special place in our affections and our history here in Britain; it is a cornerstone of our foreign policy, alongside our role in the EU”—

which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned—

“our membership of NATO and our Special Relationship with the United States of America. It plays a key role in our thinking as we adjust to the new international landscape and the rise of the emerging economic titans of Asia, Africa and Latin America”.

As Her Majesty the Queen said, the Commonwealth is,

“in lots of ways the face of the future”.

The Government share Her Majesty’s ambition that the Commonwealth becomes a central platform of the international landscape, representing an enlightened and responsible association that plays an active role in shaping the direction that our world is moving in and the destinies of this nation as well.

Indonesia: West Papua

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage the government of Indonesia to enter into dialogue with representative leaders of the West Papuan opposition.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom has long encouraged the use of constructive dialogue to resolve differences between the Government of Indonesia and the credible representatives of the Papuan and West Papuan people. We welcome the Papuan peace conference held in Jayapura from 5 to 7 July, which included discussions between Indonesian government Ministers and Papuan community leaders addressing political differences over regional governance and possible avenues for further dialogue.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am particularly glad that he has drawn the attention of the House to the recent peace conference, when more than 500 representatives of different aspects of West Papuan society gathered in order to call for serious negotiations with the Indonesian Government and to appoint five people to negotiate on behalf of the West Papuan people. Will the Minister ask the Indonesian Government to respond to this initiative?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord for his question. We are discussing these matters with the Indonesian Government. We know they are committed to trying to carry this process forward. It is a matter of them putting their money where their mouth is because Papua and West Papua receive by far the largest chunk of the regional funds from the central government. They want to carry this forward. I think the message of the noble and right reverend Lord is the correct one and we shall continue to encourage a constructive dialogue, as I have described.

[Lord Avebury]

Considering that, after many years of struggle and destruction of the economic potential, the Government of Indonesia came to an agreement with the people of Aceh on devolution, will the Foreign Office ask Jakarta to refrain from arresting and imprisoning dozens of people in West Papua for so-called subversion and at least have discussions with the OPM to see how the benefits of mineral exploitation, including BP’s LNG project in Bintuni Bay, could be more widely shared with the people?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

On my noble friend’s final point, my understanding is that not only BP but Rio Tinto and other major investors are determined to work out ways in which the benefits can indeed be shared more widely with the people. My noble friend is absolutely right about that. We have raised queries about some of the arrests—there was one over displaying the wrong flag or something like that—and the size of the sentences seemed disproportionate. We are aware of these worries and we shall continue to raise them with the Government.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that Indonesian policy in West Papua and Papua—I declare an interest as a regular business visitor there for eight years between 2001 and 2009—is a rather disturbing mixture of generosity—as the noble Lord has explained, those provinces are the biggest aid recipients of transfers of resources within Indonesia—and repression? It must surely be in the interest of the Indonesian Government to strengthen that generous strand and to reduce the repression and, above all, to allow the international press free access to Papua and West Papua so that they can see what is really going on.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is not only in the interests of Indonesia—wherever there is repression, it is not the right way forward—but in our national interest as well. It may seem far away, but the reality is that we are talking about an area mid-way between the Pacific rim and the Indian Ocean, where all the world’s growth, dynamism and accumulation of wealth and influence will be. It is very important that we are constructively and helpfully involved there.

The matter of journalists' access to Papua and West Papua was discussed at the EU human rights partnership meeting with the Indonesians in Indonesia on 5 May. It is one that we continue to raise, because clearly access for balanced reporting would be of benefit to the situation.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, in terms of human rights, it is normally best for representations to be made on behalf of the European Union as a whole so that individual countries are not picked off. What is the position here? Have there been representations by the European Union? Are we fully behind them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes. I described in my answer to the previous question that on 5 May there was an EU meeting that discussed a number of aspects of repression, including a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quite often and rightly raises—the question of the apparent persecution of, and violence against, the Ahmadiyya community and other Christian communities. All these matters are indeed discussed and were discussed at that very helpful forum between the European Union and the Indonesian Government on 5 May.

[Lord Liddle]

The whole House will welcome the progress—uneven progress—being made on human rights in West Papua, and on human rights in the rest of Indonesia, and will welcome Indonesia’s joining of the UN Human Rights Council, but what positive progress is being made under the EU-Indonesia dialogue? What active support are the British Government giving, particularly in terms of ministerial visits such as that of Mr Jeremy Browne last year to Indonesia? How do the Government balance their proper concern for human rights with their present emphasis on expanding UK trade in emerging markets such as Indonesia?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The answer to the noble Lord’s general question is that we do balance. In many cases, one would argue that the two go together. If we can get expanded commercial and economic activity, effective inward investment and the expansion of trade, this will pave the way for a more open society and a more effective policing of human rights.

Results are a bit difficult to measure. All that can be said is that there is a human rights dialogue between the European Union and Indonesia. We support it fully. Our evidence in this increasingly transparent world is: first, that it is getting more difficult for any country that wishes to oppose and repress human rights to do so; secondly, that we intend to try to make it more difficult for them to do so; and thirdly, that the Indonesian state, whose territorial integrity we fully support, is anxious to carry forward and sensibly settle this and other human rights issues in a good and constructive way.

South Sudan

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the current situation in Abyei, South Kordofan and Blue Nile provinces in the context of the Republic of South Sudan’s independence.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, we remain deeply concerned by the continuing violence and humanitarian situation in Southern Kordofan. We call for an immediate cessation of hostilities and full humanitarian access. We fully welcome the Framework Agreement on Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan, signed in Addis Ababa under African Union auspices, as a step in the right direction, but this needs to be implemented and followed up. We also welcome the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1990 which, together with the signing of an Abyei interim agreement, paves the way for a swift withdrawal of Sudanese armed forces from Abyei and the deployment of Ethiopian peacekeeping troops under a UN mandate.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, my noble friend did not mention the UNMIS report, which has not been published, on the regime’s devastating attacks on the Nuba people in these three territories and, particularly, in South Kordofan where Ahmed Haroun, the governor after a disputed election, is wanted by the ICC for war crimes. Does my noble friend agree that the UN decision to send a mere 4,200 troops to Abyei and none to South Kordofan is woefully inadequate in the face of an incipient genocide of the Nuba people in the whole region? Will the UK remind the Security Council that the responsibility to protect applies in these territories to a far greater extent than it did in Libya?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is right to point to the reports of atrocities. I think he is referring to the report initiated by the UN Mission in South Sudan and these regions, which makes very grim reading indeed. As far as we understand its contents, it is extremely worrying. In fact, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State, Mr Bellingham, who, incidentally, is in Sudan at this moment, was at the United Nations a few days ago and urged that the report should be put to the UN Security Council for full consideration. We are fully aware of that aspect of things. As to sending more troops, the problem at the moment is, as my noble friend knows, that the Khartoum Government are trying to veto any further extension of the UN troop mandate of the UNMIS mandate. That has to be overcome, and it is not easy for the United Nations to begin to meet the security needs through adequate troop provision by the UN over and above the Ethiopian mission I have already mentioned.

[Baroness Cox]

My Lords, when I was in Juba last week for the joyful celebrations of the independence of the peoples of the south, I had the opportunity to meet leaders from Abyei, South Kordofan and Blue Nile. They all expressed grave concern over President al-Bashir’s stated policy of turning the Republic of Sudan into an Arab Islamic state. What is Her Majesty's Government’s assessment of al-Bashir’s policies with regard to the ethnic and religious minorities in those areas of the Republic of Sudan and, indeed, in all the Republic of Sudan?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The assessment we have is based on the wisdom and experience of the noble Baroness and on the visit of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to Juba 10 days ago for the independence celebrations. Our assessment is not at all encouraging. There is a clear attempt to use extremely violent methods and to carry them out in South Kordofan, the Blue Nile area and the Nuba mountains where some horrific things have gone on. This is not at all encouraging. President al-Bashir has already been indicted by the International Criminal Court. The pattern that has been pursued is a mixture. At least he did turn up at the celebrations in Juba, which was a positive act, and one hopes that more positive aspects will appear, but at the moment, there is not much sign of them.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

I wish to return to the leaked UN documents. The report states that 73,000 people have been displaced and that 7,000 people who were not taken into the compound have disappeared. The situation has been described as resembling Srebrenica. There are aerial photographs of mass graves. So why has the UN remained silent about such disturbing evidence? As a member of the Security Council, what exactly is the United Kingdom doing when a sovereign Government in Khartoum are refusing to allow anyone to investigate what is happening and are continuing to obstruct essential humanitarian aid to the very needy people of South Kordofan?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness is right and reinforces what I was saying a moment ago. This report is extremely worrying and full of evidence of really serious atrocities. She has further elaborated and underlined that. The question is what the UN agencies, UNMIS itself and the reporting authorities are going to do about it. I have to tell the noble Baroness that as far as the British Government and my honourable friend Mr Bellingham, who was at the United Nations, are concerned, our urging has been that this report should go forward to the Security Council and be fully discussed in the light of the grim and terrible reports that it contains. That is the position so far. I cannot tell the noble Baroness exactly what is going to happen next or how it will be handled, but that is HMG’s position on the matter.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, on the report that the noble Lord has referred to and which I sent him a copy of yesterday, he will recall that two weeks ago I sent him a report from Kadugli where UNMIS soldiers themselves were responsible for handing over people who were seeking refuge in the refugee camp there—“like lambs to the slaughter”, according to a witness. What does this tell us about the nature of peacekeeping in Southern Sudan and of the UNMIS force itself? Are we intending to refer these crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court, not least because of the thousands of people who are trapped in the Nuba mountains and suffering from aerial bombardment?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I can only repeat what I said earlier. The noble Lord very kindly sent me a copy of this report, as did a number of other people. As I have already said twice, it makes very grim reading. The noble Lord has rightly raised the quality and behaviour of existing UN troops a number of times. Of course we are worried that there was inadequate behaviour or that troops stood aside while people were dragged from their cars and shot, and so on. We have encouraged the Under-Secretary-General at the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to examine these claims very carefully and to bear them very strongly in mind when and—I regret to say—if a new mandate can be agreed and established for UN forces after independence, the original UNMIS mandate having finished. This is a very serious issue and one which we are watching very closely indeed.

East Jerusalem and the West Bank

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hylton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will ask the Government of Israel to return to its original owners expropriated land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank which has not been developed or is used only for military training.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will know from my reply on 16 June, we are very concerned about Israel’s policies on developing settlements. It is Britain’s long-standing policy that settlements are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. During his recent visit to Israel and the Occupied Territories, my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Alistair Burt, stressed the need for the parties to return to negotiations on the basis of parameters set out by President Obama in his speech on 19 May—that is, the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, as well as security arrangements that protect Israel and respect Palestinian sovereignty.

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does he accept that my Question is a modest attempt to prevent new facts on the ground being created in the West Bank and East Jerusalem which are bound to pre-empt the negotiations that he mentions? Are we not already faced with a single-state situation, with Bantustans in Ramallah and Gaza, and will the quartet act positively to redress the most unequal balance?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The quartet, alas, in its recent meetings found itself unable to establish even enough agreement for a statement, so this indicates the continuing difficulty, tensions and disagreements underlying this whole scene. The noble Lord is absolutely right about the creation of facts on the ground, which are obviously an obstacle to a return to negotiations and a serious impediment to the long-term prospects for peace. It is particularly concerning that the building of settlements and these demolition programmes in East Jerusalem, which are illegal, are continuing, particularly the very provocative building and demolition operations going on in the Sheikh Jarrah district. I have to agree with the noble Lord, but these are matters that we keep raising with the Israeli authorities. These are not just UK matters; they concern all countries that want to advance the peace process, including of course the United States.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that Mr Burt raised the hope of the United Kingdom Government that there would be negotiations, but he was not explicit about how the Israelis responded. He has implied negativity but has not been explicit. Can he explicitly tell your Lordships’ House what the Israelis did say in response, and, if it was negative, does the noble Lord really believe that there is any realistic possibility of negotiations with a Netanyahu-led Government?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I was not explicit because, as the noble Baroness will know—she is better equipped than most of us in these sorts of areas—what one often gets when making representations that are not welcome to the recipients is a shrug of the shoulders and a polite nodding of the head but no action. I am afraid that the most visible action is of the opposite kind—buildings have continued to be demolished, which gives rise to a question about the prospects for progress.

No one can disguise the fact that most of the responsible world—the Arab world, the western world, the European Union, the United States, the UN—believes that the present fluidity and turmoil in the region provides an opportunity for Israel and a Palestine that we hope is moving towards a united Government, although it is not there yet, to start serious negotiations. That is what we want, but it has to be said that this has appeared not to be the opinion of the Israeli authorities at the moment. Their inclination appears to be just to hunker down and hope that something else will turn up.

It is not a situation in which we are optimistic. None the less, we think that continual pressure and the continuing presentation of the realities of the destructive path on which an Israel that refused to negotiate would set itself will eventually move things, but I cannot pretend that it will happen tomorrow morning.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, my noble friend made much of the fact that the Minister declared that the settlements were illegal under international law, but is my noble friend aware that if the Minister had gone further and said that there might therefore be a case for materials produced in those settlements to be boycotted, he would be in breach of the new anti-boycott law which the Knesset introduced on 11 July? What is Her Majesty's Government’s response to the introduction of that law? Does my noble friend agree that it seriously undermines not only freedom of speech in Israel but even Israel’s credentials as an open, free and democratic society?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I myself—and I think this would be a government view—do not very much like the shape of the boycott law, which seems to intrude very greatly on the freedom even of speech about what can be traded and developed in the relevant areas. However, I understand that the matter will come before the Israeli Supreme Court and has been challenged, so maybe it is premature to make final judgments on it. Generally, we think that boycotts are not the way forward—they impede the sensible development of trade—and we should perhaps not forget that, although much of what I have had to say is gloomy, trade and activity, not in Jerusalem but elsewhere on the West Bank, are developing really rather well, and many people, including in your Lordships' House, are well aware of some of the remarkable enterprises that are springing up in places such as Ramallah and elsewhere.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government believe that there should be no return of land until there is a final settlement? The noble Lord will know that that statement was made back in 1967. Is that still the view of Her Majesty's Government today?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think the noble and learned Baroness is aware that this question has come up very recently in discussion. I believe that that statement was made by a former Foreign Secretary, George Brown MP, many years ago after the 1967 war and the Israelis’ occupation of the West Bank after they were attacked. I do not believe that it forms part of the entirely new and fluid situation that has developed long since then, or of the new realities that we have to face in moving to negotiation. I will check the precise legal status of that statement, which was valid all those years ago, but I do not think it is at all relevant to the way in which we want to go now.

[Lord Eden of Winton]

My Lords, are not the attitude and policy of the Administration of the United States of America key to a resolution of these matters? Can my noble friend say whether they are pressing as hard as Her Majesty's Government are?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is right to say that the influence of the United States on the situation is major, although it may not be absolutely as final as it is sometimes argued. The European Union has its role and individual nations have theirs. The United Kingdom continues to be able to play an influential role and maybe could do even more. But obviously if the United States is not, as it were, on side, little progress will be made. We all hope that the very fine speech made by President Obama indicates the way he wants to go and that he is allowed to go that way. However, we would be blind if we did not recognise that there are formidable political forces in the United States which seem to stand in the way of sensible progress on this issue.

Democratic Republic of Congo

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Chidgey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the preparations for the forthcoming elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, we are closely following the DRC elections. Despite delays, there has been considerable progress. The election calendar has been published, the electoral law passed, and over 30 million Congolese have registered to vote. There have been reports of harassment of political activists and demonstrations in Kinshasa earlier this month led to violence. However, so far we have seen no sign of systematic attempts to undermine the process. The Department for International Development is providing significant support.

[Lord Chidgey]

I thank my noble friend for that response. Is he aware that, during a recent visit to the DRC, we found that CENI’s electoral calendar was unrealistic and unworkable? For example, in spite of a completion date for voter registration at the end of June, by July only four out of 11 provinces had been signed off. Is he also aware that, perhaps more worryingly, the most serious threat to forthcoming elections is the increase in LRA activities, with numbers back at 2008 levels; and that MONUSCO, with just 5 per cent of its peacekeepers active in the LRA-controlled areas, is deeply frustrated by the lack of resources to utilise the intelligence gathered for DDRRR purposes?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I was aware of my noble friend’s recent visit to the DRC and I appreciate his concerns about the timing of the election. We reckon that the independent national electoral commission, to which he referred, CENI, is going reasonably well with its operations. Of course the timetable is tight, but we think that it is just realistic and that it is managing to get wider participation and better registration than some feared earlier. The Lord’s Resistance Army is a plague, as it were, a trouble which affects both the DRC and other countries in the region. Our aim is to get the African Union to support and work with MONUSCO, the UN force, in meeting this continuing threat. I fully recognise that it is a problem but if we can get the African Union fully engaged, as we are trying to, we believe that we can create the conditions in which the problem can be addressed effectively.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, was right to direct the Minister towards the depredations of the Lord’s Resistance Army, in a country where, after all, between 5 million and 6 million people have died in the last 25 years, mainly as a result of marauding militias. Has the Minister seen the report in today’s Telegraph online about Makombo, where 321 civilians died and 250 were abducted at the end of last year, and where 26 died and 53 were abducted in another raid on 6 July? Given that in 2005 the International Criminal Court issued indictments against Joseph Kony, the leader of the LRA, and two of his lieutenants, why has MONUSCO been so inadequate in gathering the necessary intelligence to bring these people to justice?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is quite right to deplore the endless slaughter and activities which are associated with the Lord’s Resistance Army. It seems to be a negative force both in this country and in many others. As I said earlier to my noble friend, it is our aim to get the African Union to work very closely with MONUSCO, the second largest UN mission in existence, in meeting this problem. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked me why it has not been so effective so far; I cannot answer that precisely, but I can only say that we are working extremely hard with other countries, with the EU and with our colleagues and allies, to reinforce the determination of MONUSCO and the African Union to meet the problem. This is the way forward that we think will be most effective.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, does the Minister share concerns about what is clearly the international community’s Congo fatigue, and the consequent much lower level of engagement in the November 2011 election process compared to what occurred in 2006? Is the Minister aware that, contrary to what we heard from him, there are predictions that as things stand we risk a situation in Congo such as we saw in Côte d'Ivoire, which also had a deeply flawed election?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I hope that on this matter the pessimism of the noble Baroness, who follows these things very closely, is unfounded. Our information is that 31 million people have been registered and that the organisation of the whole election is going reasonably well. Obviously there are bad examples: there were disturbances in Kinshasa earlier this month, as I mentioned. No doubt there have been some instances of irregularity, but overall we believe it is going reasonably well. As for the level of participation compared with 2006, she is right that the donor support for the election this time, as a percentage of the total costs of the election, is down somewhat from the 2006 levels. However, it is still a substantial amount at $176 million, of which we have contributed £31 million. I hope that she is wrong, if she does not mind me putting it bluntly, but her warning that this needs watching very closely is very apposite and well taken.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, if the electoral timetable is not achieved, what plan B is in place to avoid a constitutional vacuum? Considering the large sums of money that we and others have invested in these elections, have representations been made to the Government of the DRC to rescind the ban on Radio Lisanga Télévision and to refrain from taking any other extra-legal measures against freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in the run-up to the elections?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We have certainly played our part, again with international colleagues, allies and the European Union, to urge that there should be proper freedom of expression and freedom of access, as well as opportunity for the media and the printed press to have full say in the election; that is a very important aspect. We have pressed on that, as well as on other aspects such as observing human rights, maintaining regularities, getting full registration and wider participation of women, and all the other necessary requirements to ensure that this is a free and fair election.

European Union Bill

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

This is an example of the fact that it is not enough to dismiss the proposals as if they were superficial and politically driven. It is clear in one area after another that the issue of thresholds is alive and relevant, and that already, in other spheres of legislation, there are very strong arguments that thresholds must be seriously considered. I advise the House to be a little careful about simply dismissing the argument for some kind of threshold.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I hesitate to enter again into the whole great debate on referendums, which really moves us away from the issues of the European Union Bill. My noble friend Lady Williams has again put forward some strong arguments. These are matters that have been debated over the years. When we come to a Bill of this nature, the issues are similar to when one comes to legislation about local elections or elections to the European Parliament. Indeed, I believe there is even a parliamentary election on record in this country where the vote has been below 40 per cent but no one has suggested it should be invalid.

I suspect this debate will continue, but it is the view of the Government that in these circumstances such a threshold would create a charter for the abstentionists. It would be extremely attractive to those who were anxious not to vote and to promote the desire not to vote. It would undermine the whole purpose lying behind the structure of the Bill, which is to check the haemorrhaging of confidence and popular support for the European Union’s development and to reinforce the case for the European Union’s development. That is why I am a little sad to hear those who have dedicated their lives and efforts to promoting an effective and fit for purpose European Union not supporting it. However, I understand the alternative views and I leave the matter there.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but it is a pity that he has to caricature what the original amendment said. It did not suggest that a vote with a turnout under 40 per cent would be invalid. It suggested that it would be advisory and not mandatory—that is completely different. Frankly, some of the arguments that were adduced about the level of participation in the European Parliament elections are not transposable whatever to the area we are currently discussing, which is a national referendum.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Perhaps I should have hesitated longer before speaking because we are opening up the whole issue again. The invalidity I am applying is that the referendum would then become advisory, whereas the whole requirement and central thrust of the Bill is that the referendum is mandatory on Governments, not on Parliaments—you cannot be mandatory on Parliaments. That is what I intended to say, so I am sorry if I did not convey it accurately. We have had the debate, so I beg to press the Motion.

Motion agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

That question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, earlier in the debate. The answer is: just as they vote in elections. They have to decide on five or six issues in an election. In the past, there were referendums in other countries on treaties in which they had to decide on a series of questions raised by those treaties. I repeat my point that where a veto exists, it is not necessarily just at Britain's insistence but because other countries, too, wanted it.

Thirdly, I think we will have referendums only where a British Minister agrees with the proposition that will be put to the people of this country, and where the Government believe that they can win the referendum. For that reason, and with great respect, I do not agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that our flexibility in negotiations will be impeded because a certain area is covered by the possibility of a referendum being held on it. If a Minister wishes to argue in favour of something, presumably he is confident that he can sell it to the public. If he cannot sell it to the public, and they are going to disagree with it, perhaps he should think carefully about whether it should be advanced at all. Therefore, although I agree with the general proposition that we do not want to go down the road of having a massive extension of plebiscitary democracy, I do not think that that will be the consequence of the Bill. That assertion has been repeated many times, but the argument is not convincing and I urge my noble friend to support the Government on this.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, I hope that I will be forgiven if I say that I have a faint feeling of having been here before—and forgiven also for not responding to every strongly held view and argument put forward in this debate that was put forward again and again in the past. The Government and I regard some of these arguments as deeply flawed and consider that they do not understand or come to grips with the realities of political life today, either here or in the rest of the European Union. I will also deal briefly, as is the custom, with the Motion—it is not the custom to make long second speeches on a Motion—and with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, which goes very much further than anything standing against the Government’s Motion that the amendments be resisted.

On the decisions involved in Clause 6, none is in the grey or insignificant category. They are all there for very strongly established reasons that are largely supported by many other countries. Many vetoes are maintained because the signatories to the Lisbon treaty did not want them to go into the QMV category. They are there because their use could only ever provide for a transfer of competence and power from the UK to the European Union—for reasons that we have explained from this Dispatch Box and that many of my noble friends have explained again and again—and so should be subject to the referendum requirement.

It is difficult to accept that any of the decisions in Clause 6 would not be significant in constitutional or economic terms. Those who say that it stretches their imagination to understand the significance of the measures listed in Clause 6, or Schedule 1, which springs from it, surprise me. Surely a decision on whether to give up our vetoes on, for instance, the multiannual financial framework, border controls or joining the single currency—I refer now to the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Triesman, not to the main one that accepts them—would all fall, under Amendment 13B, into the bracket of something that had to be judged according to whether or not it was significant. This is a completely unnecessary process. Clearly they are of the most profound significance.

I know that the shadow Minister for Europe said on Monday that he considered other items in Clause 6 to be not so important. He exempted the important three—border controls, the European currency and one other—but dismissed the others as paperclips and minutiae. We do not accept that analysis. We firmly believe that the other issues are also of great significance and, when understood in terms of their impact on jobs, work and the processes by which our law system operates, certainly could be subjects of conversation in the pub in Burton-on-Trent, where the noble Lord, Lord Lea, has been listening to conversations.

On the European public prosecutor, I know that it is regarded by some of my noble friends, and by some noble Lords opposite, as not being of constitutional or economic significance. However, it is because it involves affording a supranational body the ability to prosecute citizens of this country within the scope of its own criminal justice system in respect of alleged crimes affecting the EU's financial interests. Someone must decide what that financial interest is and whether the crime has been committed. Is that a paperclip or minutiae issue?

What about the vetoes listed in Schedule 1? Why are they not significant when they all relate—that is why they are there—to the red lines adopted by successive Governments, fought for very hard by the previous Government and sustained by this Government, covering foreign affairs, security and defence policy, economic and tax policy, including issues of the EU's budget, which all of us admit is a red-hot issue, social security, employment policy, justice and home affairs policy, and citizenship and elections? Are these all minutiae, paperclip decisions and things that are never discussed in any pub? I have to ask where some of my noble friends, and some noble Lords, have been if they think that these matters are of no significance, because they include not only domestic issues, where after all Parliament can make and unmake laws, but transfers of power, sovereignty and competence that would almost certainly be irrevocable—in fact, they would be irrevocable.

The amendment before us would, for instance, allow the British Government to relinquish their veto over decisions relating to the multiannual financial framework without first getting the consent of the British people. That is a hugely important decision that Members in the other place were particularly concerned with, and rightly so. The Minister for Europe rightly pointed out that the forthcoming decision on that framework will in effect set budgetary decisions and ceilings for the next five to seven years of the EU's life and development. Are these minutiae, paperclip decisions or matters that people will not understand? I ask my noble friends and noble Lords who think that these matters are insignificant to think again. Their significance is obvious.

It is vital that these matters remain subject to unanimity and that whichever British Government are in office—this matter should be above party—continue to have the right of veto. Similar views are taken in almost every other country in the European Union. We all know what happens when one gets casual about the veto and lets it go. This was the case in the surrender of the veto on Article 122 of the TFEU, which opened the way to fearsome, huge and titanic new financial commitments to the funding of Europe in its present financial difficulties.

The amendment before us would reduce precisely the clarity that we all seek. It would also risk the possibility of judicial review on a decision by the Minister not to consider one of these clear-cut decisions to be significant. The so-called pragmatic flexibility that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, keeps reminding us about and seeks could well be impeded by his own amendment. He would end up in a quagmire of pragmatic flexibility of his own making. It was too much of this pragmatic flexibility approach in the past that caused antagonism—the turn-off, if you like, of popular support for the European Union and for Ministers’ actions. The ministerial discretion that some of my noble friends and noble Lords call for has become the ministerial indiscretion and undermining of trust and support for the European Union that we are trying to correct.

[Lord Goodhart]

Would my noble friend accept that it is impossible for a court to make decisions on what is done in the Houses of Parliament? If the Minister declares, therefore, that he believes something to be—or not to be—a matter of importance, it is not a matter that could then go to the courts. It would be settled by the House itself.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Ministerial decisions are open to judicial review. That is not a matter that we discussed much in Committee or one that we would necessarily want to see operate very fully in this or any other area of ministerial decisions on any aspect of policy. However, judicial review is there and ministerial decisions can be challenged.

The House of Commons has twice approved the scope and operation of Clause 6 following a clear exposition from the shadow Europe minister and his views on party policy on Amendments 6 to 13.

I do not want to take further time meeting the marginalisation argument. Frankly, it is a chestnut, as there is absolutely no impact on Ministers’ discretion and flexibility merely because they have sanctions behind them. Most European member states’ Ministers have sanctions of various sorts lying behind them on the decisions that they reach.

The plebiscitary democracy issue, frankly, belongs to the pre-internet age, before the web and the internet system. We see all around the world the wider public’s insistence on having a say where major issues about the transfers of power and competence away from their sovereign control are involved. That is exactly what would happen here. The idea that there would be 56 different referenda coming along is pure fantasy and does not relate to the actual way in which these issues would arise. There would be no great frequency of referenda; this is not the pattern for the future. It will not be the result of this Bill and it certainly would not be the outcome of the way in which the European Union has operated, is operating, or is likely to operate in the future. It is not in the interests of the 27—maybe soon 28—members to proceed in that way.

I think that the noble Lord would be wise to accept the Motion and the view taken in the other place. He would be wise to reject the amendment and therefore I ask him to withdraw it and accept the Motion so ably moved by my noble friend.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, we have had a full debate, and I do not want to take up the time of the House. I just want to make one comment on what the Minister has said. As you know, I believe in the noble Lord’s integrity in putting this Bill forward. I do not believe he is putting it forward for anti-European reasons. I do not think that that is what he thinks, but the truth is that the list of referendum locks contained in this Bill far exceed any reasonable person’s definition of issues of fundamental constitutional significance. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15A.

15A: Because Part 1 and Schedule 1 are not provisions to which it is appropriate to apply a sunset provision.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

This is the issue of the sunset clause. I believe there is another amendment to be moved which is related but with a slightly different emphasis. We debated this proposition at considerable length throughout your Lordships’ consideration of the legislation. We know there are a number of sunset clauses in a number of pieces of legislation, for the most part for specific operational reasons. The Lords has expressed concern over the granting of new extraordinary powers for the Executive, such as in response to the firefighters’ dispute eight years ago. In all these sorts of cases, Parliament has sought to ensure that these powers were retained for only as long as was necessary.

With the Bill there has been a rather different line of argument. There are those who have a general dislike of the Bill, which they are perfectly entitled to have, and there have been arguments put forward in favour of a sunset clause because, it is claimed, this legislation seeks to bind future Parliaments. I repeat what was observed in another place—I perhaps have not comprehended the value of any counterarguments to it—that all legislation by a Government can bind future Governments, and maybe the Government of the day wish it would. All legislation is reversible. The need for additional provisions in the Bill seems weak.

Instead of repeating my arguments, I will simply quote from the European Scrutiny Committee, which put the matter very clearly:

“All Parliaments legislate for the future. Laws passed by one Parliament do not contain a sunset clause at the Dissolution. The real point is whether a government can, in law, make it difficult for a future Parliament to amend or repeal the legislation it has passed; in our view it cannot. Our conclusion therefore is straightforward—that an Act of Parliament applies until it is repealed”.

Again and again there has been the proposition that somehow this type of legislation weakens Parliament, but Parliament remains central to the whole pattern of agreeing by Act of Parliament whether there should be referenda. The argument for the sunset clause is that each Parliament should be given the chance to decide whether its sovereignty has been curtailed by the Bill. We do not accept that case. As the Minister for Europe said in another place:

“The Bill does not substitute the British people for Parliament, for Parliament will continue to have a central and strengthened role”. —[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/11; col. 74.]

Parliament would have the opportunity on each occasion to approve a transfer of competence or power and to approve the holding of a referendum. In contrast this provision would actually reduce the control that Parliament would have on treaty changes and passerelles until the Government of the day decided whether to revive Part 1 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill. It would actually have the counter-effect of that, which I believe is the intention of those who put it forward. In any case, we have a system that is designed precisely to review how all Acts of Parliament are used once they are enacted. The previous Government introduced a system of post-legislative scrutiny. Well done them, because under that the Government of the day are required to publish a memorandum to Parliament on the operation of each Act of Parliament up to five years after the commencement of the Act. This is considered by relevant parliamentary committees, which can decide whether to conduct a detailed examination of that legislation. I ask again: what is the point of this additional proposed provision?

I am happy to repeat the commitment of my friend the Minister for Europe and say that this Government agree that this system is a useful tool that should be exploited and that a future Government must publish a full report on how the Bill has been used within five years of this legislation becoming law. This will result in the clarity and the reflection that colleagues in the other place rightly seek, but without arbitrarily depriving the British people of their say at the end of this Parliament.

This has now been considered by the other place, which has disagreed with your Lordships’ amendment by a very substantial majority of 89 votes. Therefore, it falls to your Lordships’ House to consider whether to insist on the amendment or accept the clear and considered view of the other place; and whether to accept, in the light of what I have said, that this is a necessary amendment or challenge to the Government’s Motion that needs go forward. I personally doubt that it need go forward and I urge your Lordships to let the Motion stand.

Human Rights: Kashmir

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hussain]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the human rights situation in Kashmir.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, we recognise that there are human rights concerns in both Indian and Pakistan-administered Kashmir and we followed the widely reported violent unrest in lndian-administered Kashmir last year. Indian Prime Minister Singh has since said that human rights abuses by security forces in Kashmir would not be tolerated. We are following the work of the three interlocutors appointed to help resolve the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir.

[Lord Hussain]

I thank my noble friend for his response. Is he aware of the Amnesty International report, A Lawless Law, which gives horrific accounts of human rights abuses committed by the Indian forces in Kashmir? Draconian laws such as the Public Safety Act allow the authorities to arrest and detain people for up to two years, and in some cases up to 20 years. According to the report, some 16,000 people have been arrested under the Public Safety Act in Kashmir so far. Will the Minister or the Foreign Secretary raise the human rights abuses in Kashmir with their Indian counterparts at their next meeting?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We are of course aware of the Amnesty International report. As with human rights questions in any part of the world, we are concerned, as would be all responsible citizens and responsible countries. Our high commission officials have visited Kashmir and discussed the issue with human rights groups but I have to emphasise that it is not for the United Kingdom to prescribe solutions to these matters. That is for the Indian-administered authorities to deal with and it is for India and Pakistan together to find a lasting solution to the overarching issue of the Kashmir situation.

[Lord Ahmed]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that a US-based international people’s tribunal on human rights and justice in Indian-administered Kashmir uncovered hundreds of mass graves and thousands of unidentified graves? Will Her Majesty’s Government support Amnesty International in its call for an independent and impartial inquiry into these mass graves? Will Her Majesty’s Government encourage both India and Pakistan in a dialogue where Kashmiris can also take part to resolve this outstanding issue?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We take the view that the three investigators appointed to help resolve the situation and look into these details must proceed with their work. We will clearly follow this very carefully and closely but it is a matter for investigation by the three appointees. That is what is now occurring.

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, will the Government with our Commonwealth friends encourage as a background to the Kashmir dispute the maximum possible détente between Pakistan and India, for example, over land crossings and exchanges of all kinds between the two countries?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

That is of course something that we want to see but I repeat that it is really not for the UK to prescribe on the situation or to prescribe solutions. It is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution. Any support, help and encouragement from outside that the United Kingdom, or any other country, can give, we will certainly be ready to offer, but that lasting solution must come from the two countries concerned.

[Lord Tomlinson]

My Lords, the Minister has expressed his concern for breaches of human rights wherever they occur. Will he once again turn to the problems of the European Court of Human Rights, which has a backlog of more than 100,000 cases, and take the opportunity of the British presidency of the Committee of Ministers to do something about this appalling neglect of the symbol of human rights in Europe?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord has boldly and bravely raised this question a number of times. It is one that I am ready to call to the attention of my colleagues and it has been noted. There is clearly a backlog problem; there may be other problems as well. Those are a matter for close concern.

[Lord Naseby]

Will my noble friend confirm that Her Majesty’s Government will resist the temptation to put pressure on the three who have been appointed to investigate and give them sufficient time, without external pressure, to come up with their findings?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the rule of law is completely within the ambit of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, alongside democracy, and while Her Majesty’s Government may not have the leverage they seek through bilateral talks, they are able to address the issue through the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting? Will my noble friend therefore seek to do so as he has great interest in the Commonwealth and leverage within it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The precise agenda will be governed by CMAG collectively and by our Australian hosts at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, but all aspects of human rights abuse around the world are the concern of the Commonwealth, particularly those occurring in Commonwealth member countries. While I cannot guarantee that these matters will come to the fore, they are certainly something that we would like to see, along with all human rights issues, examined in an understanding way, recognising the sensitivities of particular situations such as this one, which is very sensitive indeed.

[Baroness Tonge]

My Lords, the noble Lord will, I am sure, remember that many decades ago the people of Kashmir on both sides of the line of control were promised a referendum on self-determination. Can he tell us what has happened to that and whether any progress has been made?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not think that there has been progress. This is again a matter for the Indian and Pakistani authorities. My understanding is that, at the moment, there is no progress on that front. If I am wrong about that I will write to my noble friend.

Sudan: Framework Agreement

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in advance of Southern Sudan’s independence on 9 July, what is their assessment of the likely impact of the Framework Agreement signed at Addis Ababa on 28 June on securing peace and security in the region.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, we fully support the ongoing discussions in Addis Ababa led by President Mbeki. We assess that for it to secure peace and security in the region, the framework agreement must be used by both sides as a basis for the immediate cessation of hostilities.

We continue to urge north and south to negotiate to resolve all outstanding comprehensive peace agreement issues.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he accept that for any of us who travelled in Southern Sudan during the war there, when some 2 million people died and 4 million others were displaced, any celebration of Southern Sudan’s landmark independence this coming weekend is tempered by these terrible atrocities which have been committed in recent days on the basis of ethnicity and political affiliation, and by the dire failure of the ceasefire to stop the violence or displacements?

As the comprehensive peace agreement expires this weekend, and given the United Kingdom’s role as guarantor and as one of the brokers of that agreement, will the Minister say whether we have raised, in the UN Security Council, the importance of sustaining, rather than withdrawing, a continuing UN peacekeeping presence in the area, and the importance of a robust Chapter 6 mandate? Will the Minister also comment on the bleak warning given by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury last weekend that he could see another Darfur beginning to unfold in southern Kordofan, Abyei, and the areas to which I have alluded?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Naturally, on the last point, we hope that this warning, which no doubt is justified by the long history of atrocities, is not fulfilled. As to the noble Lord’s question on the comprehensive peace agreement, in theory it ends on 9 July with the independence of Southern Sudan, but it has been recognised that key issues are yet to be resolved and must be talked about.

As for our role with the United Nations, the UN Security Council, as the noble Lord knows, has extended the remit of UNMIS until 9 July and has signalled that it wants the remit to continue beyond then despite the continued strong opposition of Khartoum, which says that UNMIS must remove itself. As well as that, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1990 empowers the Ethiopians to move into Abyei. They are on their way, although they have not yet arrived. Those are the activities of the United Nations and we continue to play a full and central part in them.

[Lord Chidgey]

Is my noble friend aware that the chair of the Sudan Disarmament Immobilisation and Reintegration Committee has estimated that with the current level of resources, when the conflict ends it will take at least six years to assimilate 150,000 surplus soldiers back into civilian life? What assistance do the Government plan to provide to speed up this DDR process and reduce the risk of what is a major security threat to the region?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Clearly, this is one more problem on top of the problems of refugees, resettlement, basic development and provision of infrastructure in the two countries; notably, in Southern Sudan, which is a very poor country, and in the north. I can give my noble friend only the general answer that my right honourable friend the DfID Secretary of State has indicated that our substantial and detailed programmes to meet these and future problems will continue and will be administered in a very detailed and hands-on way.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, the Minister will be well aware of the enormous needs of the new country soon to become a reality on Saturday. Those needs include health, education, infrastructure and huge gender disparities—92 per cent of women in Southern Sudan are illiterate. Will the Minister comment on the heavy criticism now regularly made of the slow disbursement of aid through the pooled donor fund which is being used? Will he further comment on the need for long-term, predictable funding, rather than the unpredictable, short-term financing that is currently happening?

Other post-conflict countries, such as Mozambique, Rwanda and Sierra Leone received long-term funding after the conflict ended, and Afghanistan still receives long-term predictable funding. Will the UK push for a five or 10-year commitment to funding for essential services, such as health and education, in the new Southern Sudan?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

All that the noble Baroness says is correct. The model followed elsewhere is that which should be followed in the division of Sudan. It is very difficult. A lot of the activities are unco-ordinated and need better co-ordination. However, it is very hard to see beyond the present pattern of continuing an ugly conflict. As soon as we can see beyond it, these post-conflict arrangements should be put in place. For the moment, I can only say that these are the right ideas. We are moving towards them but there are some ugly, immediate problems that have got to be overcome in order for peace to break out and for these very poor countries to begin to move on the long-term pattern to development with suitably arranged financial funding behind them.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the efforts made by the former South African President, Thabo Mbeki, in brokering the framework agreement demonstrate the viability and stability of both states of the Sudan, will to a large extent remain dependent on the continued support and assistance of the international community in helping both sides to resolve the outstanding issues? In the light of the report of the European Union Committee of this House, what steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking with their European partners to hold the Khartoum Government to the agreement?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

For a start, as the right reverent Prelate surely knows, we are backing and funding to a substantial degree the African Union implementation panel, over which President Mbeki presides and into which he is putting enormous efforts. That is our expression of support for the continuing work of the panel and of the products of the panel, including the framework agreement signed on 28 June, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already referred. We hope that will stay in place and will secure the beginnings of some order, particularly in South Kordofan where a whole confused range of Arab and non-Arab forces—some allegedly belonging to the south but in the north, and some in the north but belonging to the south—are fighting each other. We are backing the Mbeki implementation panel and, through that, many African Union people think that the best solutions will come.

There is an argument, which I only put before your Lordships, that while we must support the humanitarian efforts and do everything we can to support peace, the African Union itself is anxious that it and not outside powers should solve its problems.

[Lord Luce]

My Lords, since Southern Sudan is proceeding this week towards independence—in what we all agree is a very dangerous and very precarious situation which could lead to further disasters—may I reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Alton that, as a sponsor of the comprehensive peace agreement and with all our responsibilities over 60 years with the Sudan, we should pull out all the stops to persuade the international community, particularly the African community, to help hold the ring in that part of the world?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord will recognise, I am sure, that we are doing so. Enormous efforts are being made on the diplomatic front, both in the UN and with the African Union and with all other parties involved. On top of that, the UK is one of the chief funders and backers of development—medium, short and long-term—in both Khartoum Sudan and Southern Sudan. We are not merely talking and making pleas for the ceasefire, of course we have to do that, but we are putting our money where our mouth is and making very substantial and solid commitments to a better future for these countries, which we hope will begin after 9 July.

[Baroness Tonge]

My Lords, the Minister will know that, sadly, oil reserves play a very great part in the troubles of Southern Sudan and indeed in the government of Sudan generally. The Chinese are very involved with oil extraction in Sudan. Will the Minister tell us whether our Government had any conversations about the Sudan with the Chinese when they visited?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am very glad that my noble friend raised that issue. We tend to overlook the fact that the Chinese nowadays not only have a commercial involvement in many regions—particularly this region—but need to match their commercial involvement with some diplomatic responsibility. I am happy to say in the Sudan situation that is beginning to be evident. Our own envoy has had contact with the Chinese envoy and the Chinese have made some extremely helpful statements in support of calming the situation and overcoming the difficulties in the disputed areas of Abyei and South Kordofan. We are finding that Beijing’s old stance of not wanting anything to do with anybody else’s foreign policy is in this area beginning to give way to a more realistic and responsible attitude. That can only be helpful and we intend to work with it.

Sri Lanka

Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support calls for an international inquiry into events in Sri Lanka during 2009.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, since the end of the military conflict, the United Kingdom and other members of the international community have consistently called for an independent, thorough and credible investigation into the allegations that war crimes were committed by both sides. We expect to see progress from the Sri Lankan Government by the end of the year. If there is no response, we will support the international community in considering the options available.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that the report of 40,000 civilians killed in the last month of the war and reports of other atrocities indicate that the position of the Sri Lankan Government is just not tenable and that these allegations need to be investigated fully and, if proven, the perpetrators brought to justice?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I certainly agree that hideous atrocities and crimes were committed. The UN panel report is very revealing, as are other reports. It is the view not just of the United Kingdom but, I think, of the whole international community that there is an essential need for the Sri Lankan Government and others to be open and prepared to examine the past in an open and unbiased way in order to find at least a basis on which better unity can be created in the future. The noble Lord is absolutely right that to try and bury these things in the past will lead to more suspicion and difficulty, and that is not the way forward.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, the previous Government are to be commended on appointing the right honourable Paul Murphy and Mr Chris McCabe, a former Northern Ireland Office official. It is hard to imagine a more diplomatic, courteous or experienced team. Despite that, President Rajapaksa and his Government showed no interest in engaging with them. Can my noble friend tell the House whether there is any improvement in relations between the Government of Sri Lanka and Her Majesty’s Government? If not, is it likely that we will be able to achieve any engagement and understanding, either directly or through Commonwealth colleagues, or will we have to resort to pressure from the international community, including the United Nations? How will we deliver the kind of inquiry that the noble Lord mentioned earlier in his reply?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We all very much hope that it will not go that way and that there will be an improvement in relations, which have not been good thanks to an attitude which seems determined to try to put up a wall, as it were, rather than embrace the opportunity that the UN panel report offers. Clearly we do need a clear inquiry. The so-called Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission is at work and maybe it will be able to contribute to more openness. However, the pattern is not good, and I would be misleading my noble friend if I said that there had been much improvement recently; there has not.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about wanting substantial progress by the end of the year. If substantial progress has not been made, what is Her Majesty’s Government’s position on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting taking place in Sri Lanka in 2013? Is the Minister in conversation with other Commonwealth members about whether that should then take place?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Of course, this is a matter for discussion among Commonwealth members because it will come up for decision at the Heads of Government Meeting 2011 in Perth at the end of October. It is a concern. Our aim is to see that the Sri Lankan Government in Colombo live up to and reinforce the ideals and shared values of the Commonwealth and therefore prepare themselves for being a suitable host for the CHOGM in 2013. There is a long way to go, but that is what we are going to work for.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the Government have no jurisdiction over Sri Lanka, that there are many awful things that happen all over the world over which we have no jurisdiction, and that it might be more appropriate if Her Majesty’s Government dealt more effectively with the things that are going wrong within their jurisdiction rather than going on endlessly—as do other noble Lords—about matters that are outside the Government’s jurisdiction?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I see the theoretical and perfect logic of what my noble friend is saying, but the facts are the facts, and the facts are that there are large populations in London and elsewhere in this country that are intimately and politically concerned with this issue. If it goes badly wrong, it affects us all in our domestic arrangement as well. To debate whether it is inside or outside the jurisdiction is fine in theory but in practice, if that wonderful country of Sri Lanka continues to be deeply divided and is not able to heal the wounds of the past, that will directly affect us and our interests in a very precise way, regardless of whether we are juridically in charge or not.

[Lord Liddle]

Does the Minister agree that the recent decision of the UN Human Rights Council to block the recommendation of its commissioner to press for an international inquiry into Sri Lanka was disappointing if not shameful? Does he agree that we have a problem when so many of the world's most powerful emerging nations—here I am in contradiction to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—put protection of the principle of sovereignty above any state's duty to protect its citizens; and that we in the United Kingdom should use whatever influence we have as a nation to persuade these nations that sovereignty is not absolute and that all countries of the world share a common obligation of humanity to uphold human rights?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Those are very splendid sentiments with which I could not possibly disagree. There are a few practical issues to resolve before we can rise to those heights, but I fully appreciate what the noble Lord magnificently aspires to. The decision of the UN human rights commission was disappointing. The commission is not always able to meet the aspirations of those of us throughout the world who are concerned with human rights and the advance of civilisation.