Middle East and North Africa

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It is the advance of settlements on occupied land that makes the return to negotiations in the middle east peace process so urgent. Those settlements are illegal, as well as creating many anomalies, including the kind that the right hon. Gentleman describes. On my recent visit to the west bank, I visited families whose homes had been demolished. I went to see the E1 area, which is of enormous importance in determining whether a viable, contiguous Palestinian state can be created. I think our views in this House on this issue are well expressed, and that is how we have also expressed them at the United Nations Security Council, which underlines the urgency of getting both parties into negotiations.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What hopes does my right hon. Friend have that the Syrian opposition, especially the al-Nusra Front, can achieve its aim of providing a “free, democratic and pluralistic” Syria that defends the rights of all Syrians after the demise of the Assad regime?

[Mr Hague]

We cannot look to the al-Nusra Front to provide a free, democratic or pluralistic Syria. There are extremist forces, but they are not the majority of people who are fighting for the opposition and certainly not of the people who simply want to see peace, dignity and prosperity for their country and a change of Government in Damascus. I think my hon. Friend should be able to trust the sincerity of the National Coalition, now with its expanded membership and new leadership, which includes many secular figures and minorities from across Syria. I have found in all my meetings with them that their commitment to a democratic, non-sectarian Syria is credible and sincere.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davidson]

No, no; if you offer it to one, then you have to—Anyway, I will be having consultations in Room 220 in Portcullis house for those who wish to see me privately.

As we all know, it is really UKIP that has to be congratulated on this Bill. This would not be coming forward in this way if the Conservatives were not under pressure from UKIP. My side should not be unduly enjoying what is happening with the Conservatives and UKIP, because UKIP is also entirely capable of eating into our vote, as voting for UKIP is a vote against leadership and government by an elite that is seen to be out of touch. It is a revolt, in a sense, by those who see themselves as little people ignored by the existing system. While Europe has been the particular issue around which it has coagulated, that is not necessarily the only issue on which it sees itself as divorced from politics. However, the Conservatives have reacted to UKIP almost solely on this issue.

The Government’s position is much weaker than it appears. I was appalled to hear the Prime Minister say before the negotiations had started that he was going to be voting for Britain to stay in. That grossly undermines the Government’s negotiating position. Who goes into negotiations and says, “We will vote to accept the terms we are offered” before the negotiations have started? That seems to me to be an incredibly weak position.

After today’s votes and discussions, we ought to enter into a period of serious discussion of the terms on which we wish to seek renegotiation. What is it that we want to see? I want to spell out a number of points I think we ought to discuss, because, knockabout apart—and snivellers apart—these are serious issues that we have got to debate.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Clearly that discussion is going to start now and go on for four years until 2017. If there was a vote now, I would vote to come out, but now we are going to have this alternative plan. It is good that we have four years to try and get it right, so the British people can then say, “Actually we like the end result that the Prime Minister has negotiated”—or they say that they do not and we leave. In my view, this makes a pretty good fist of dealing with this problem.

[Mr Davidson]

I have considerable sympathy with that point of view, but it is grossly undermined by the fact that the Prime Minister has already indicated he intends to vote for the terms that are offered after renegotiation, irrespective of what those terms are. That is an absurd negotiating position, and the silence now among Members on the Government Benches speaks eloquently to their support for my position.

What points for renegotiation should we be focusing on? The first is the question of ever-closer union. It is clear to me that we have to make it clear—absolutely clear, crystal clear—that we reject totally the concept of ever-closer union and the idea that the EU is a ratchet which only ever turns in one direction. I support devolution for Scotland on the principle that I believe powers should be moved downwards. I support the concept of subsidiarity, too, as I believe that in principle we ought to say that all powers held at any given level should be moved to the level below, unless a very strong case can be made for retaining them where they are. The onus ought to be on those who wish to hold them centrally to justify that position, rather than the converse. That has not been the position of successive British Governments up until now, and it should be, and I think we ought to make it absolutely clear that that is our position going forward, so that the inexorable expansion of the EU’s powers—like the Blob in the science fiction films that used to replicate itself every 24 hours and expand into new areas—is halted and constrained.

NATO

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I, too, thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for a debate on NATO in the main Chamber.

My first real awareness of NATO came when I was interviewed to join the Royal Air Force in the 1980s. I was asked how many countries were in NATO and who was the Secretary-General. Of course, all Members will know that there were 16 member countries at that time and that the noble Lord Carrington was Secretary-General. NATO has now grown to 28 member nations, with former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as Secretary-General. Like previous speakers, I now serve on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which brings together parliamentarians from the Atlantic alliance and contains 257 delegates from the 28 nations. I serve on one of the five committees, the defence and security committee. I am proud that a UK member, the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), is the current president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and is well into the first year of his two-year term. Congratulations, el Presidente.

NATO’s essential core tasks and principles are summed up in the strategic concept, and I will run through them. The cornerstone of the alliance, of course, is collective defence. NATO members will always assist each other against attack in accordance with article 5 of the Washington treaty. That commitment remains firm and binding.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I ask my hon. Friend’s opinion of whether French Guiana, in south America, might be defended under that collective security umbrella if it were attacked by Brazil?

[Jason McCartney]

My hon. and gallant Friend makes a good point. There are a number of anomalies, such as the situation of the dependency of the Falklands Islands and the tensions between Greece and Turkey, which of course are both member nations, in Cyprus. There are certain cases, of which he gave a prime example, in which article 5 perhaps has a little leeway.

Crisis management is another core task of NATO, and it has a unique and robust set of political and military capabilities to address the full spectrum of crises before, during and after conflicts. Of course, my hon. and gallant Friend was involved in one such conflict in Bosnia.

Another task is co-operative security. The alliance engages actively to enhance international security, through partnerships and by contributing actively to arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament. Other recently added facets of NATO’s work are cyber-security, which has been much in the news in the past fortnight, energy security and the threat posed by climate change.

NATO has been at the heart, and at the head, of command and control for current and recent western military interventions and operations. In many ways, it now delivers the military aspects of the United Nations’ work. I will highlight three examples. First, as we have heard, there is the international security assistance force, the NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan that the UN Security Council established in December 2001 under resolution 1386. Secondly, there was Operation Unified Protector, the NATO operation enforcing UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973, concerning the Libyan civil war. Those resolutions imposed sanctions on key members of the Gaddafi Government and authorised NATO to implement an arms embargo and a no-fly zone and to use all necessary means, short of foreign occupation, to protect Libyan civilians and civilian-populated areas.

Thirdly, there is Operation Ocean Shield, which was referred to earlier. It is NATO’s contribution to the anti-piracy campaign off the coast of the horn of Africa, following the earlier Operation Allied Protector. Naval operations began early in 2009, having been approved by the North Atlantic Council, and primarily involve warships from the UK and the United States, although vessels from many other nations are also included.

That brings me to some of the challenges facing NATO, a big one of which is duplication. The operation against Somali piracy is a good example. I have been with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly to Djibouti, which is strategically placed on the horn of Africa, and there are clear signs of overlap and mission repeat. We have not only the NATO-led mission but an EU-led operation called Operation Atalanta, also known as European Union Naval Force Somalia. There is also an independent French air base, a US army camp and a Japanese air base. Time and time again, I ask the commanding officers how much liaison there is between the different operations, and I have never got a satisfactory answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

Of course the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has outlined a minority perspective, but that shows the value of this Chamber in allowing those perspectives to be aired.

I disagreed fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman on a number of points. First, he said that NATO was looking for a role in the early 1990s and was therefore keen to latch on to Bosnia and Kosovo, whereas at the time NATO commanders were very reluctant to get involved in those conflicts. It was the international community, through institutions that I am sure the hon. Gentleman supports, that was looking for a mechanism to deliver its collective will on the ground. The only mechanism available to the international community at the time was NATO.

[Bob Stewart]

May I just confirm what my hon. Friend is saying? At the time, I was the chief of policy at Supreme Allied Commander Europe’s headquarters. It was my job to try to avoid getting involved in Bosnia and places like it, but I was given political instructions that we had to start thinking about it. What my hon. Friend says is absolutely accurate; the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is wrong.

[Stephen Gilbert]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am pleased that he has been more successful in some of his more recent endeavours than he was in getting NATO to stay out of the Balkans. It was the international community looking for a vehicle to deliver its will on the ground that led to the NATO involvement in south-east Europe, which shows the benefits of an alliance that brings together collective action in support of common values.

I do not entirely share the view of the hon. Member for Islington North on Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands of people are now going to school there in a way that they did not before. There is now a freedom for women that has not been felt recently. There is also the beginning of self-determination. NATO has helped to bring an end to a religious dictatorship there and my hope is that, as the negotiations go forward, it will continue to protect the newly won rights for people there.

I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) for securing this very important debate. My hon. Friend talked about the danger of unnecessary duplication—we may see that in some of the remarks today—but that in itself pays tribute to the work of the Parliamentary Assembly and to its British delegation, which works on a cross-party basis, putting the British national security interest first. The delegation is able to come back to this House and to the country and share a fairly coherent and joined-up criticism of NATO where there are criticisms to be made. We also play a key role in advocating the benefits of the alliance for everybody.

We all recognise that the world has changed. NATO was born into a Europe that was divided, and it formed the bedrock of our security for 60 years. The world was split between two diametrically opposed systems of government that were forged out of the second world war, the largest conflict in history. For much of its existence, NATO has been preoccupied, rightly, with conflicts between states, but as hon. Members on both sides have said, that has now shifted. It is no longer simply about interstate warfare. In Bosnia and in Kosovo, NATO has involved itself with civilians as well as states and this new role has been cemented in Afghanistan and, more recently, under the right to protect mandate delivered by the UN in Libya. That latter conflict displayed a strong example of how NATO, in accordance with international will and international agreement, was able to deliver effective military capabilities to prevent, I believe, the escalation of that conflict and to hasten the end of hostilities.

Humanitarian-led intervention is only one part of the changing landscape. There has been a paradigm shift towards focusing on international terrorism and piracy, as we have heard, and UK forces are highly active alongside NATO and EU allies in these regards. Cyber-security is also a new frontier for NATO. The unrelenting computerisation of our society and our reliance on the internet bring many opportunities for NATO Governments and citizens, but it brings significant dangers too. The scale of such infrastructure is something that no state could have anticipated in 1949. It requires a completely different approach that, through common endeavour, is better delivered within the alliance.

The power structures of the world have shifted far more rapidly than many predicted. We now live in a world where China is the world’s second largest economy, and it looks set to overtake the United States this century. This, coupled with the relative demise of the Russian economy and the break-up of the Soviet Union, has seen the attention of the United States shift firmly to the Pacific. That poses fundamental questions for NATO, an organisation that remains embedded in the regional geopolitics of Europe and the Atlantic.

The US remains by far the largest contributor of money and matériel for NATO. In 2011, the US spent 4.8% of its GDP on defence. Germany, Italy and France failed to contribute even 2% of their respective GDP. Like many hon. Members, I think it is deeply unfair that our European NATO allies expect the US and the UK to bankroll European defence. It is right to expect our allies in NATO to contribute fairly to the upkeep of NATO forces, and I call on Ministers not to be shy in their discourse with our European counterparts. Calling for member states to contribute fairly is one part of ensuring that the organisation remains effective. For NATO to be effective, we do not just need a willingness to deploy military force when necessary, but for our European allies to be willing to fund that resource, so we have the ability to deploy when the time is right.

On procurement, we can and should do things differently. There are many ways to work more closely with our European allies. We must ensure that the sum total of a country’s specific specialised contribution exceeds its individual parts. By procuring equipment and weapon systems together, we can create the flexibility essential to meeting the array of challenges in the 21st century. For example, it is wasteful to buy planes that cannot land on another country’s aircraft carriers, to have to supply different types of bullets for different countries, or to have radio systems that cannot be integrated or talk to each other. We must ensure that our armed forces can operate as effectively as possible with troops from other countries. That underscores the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) about how unlikely it is for this country to go to war by itself. The more likely scenario is that we will always be acting as part of a coalition, so it is important to make that coalition effective—very basic stuff that NATO continues to get wrong.

Let us be clear: Britain should always be able to retain control over the deployment of its forces. We must do so wisely and with appreciation of the consequences of engaging our men and women in armed conflict. However, the EU can play a role in developing institutions and structures that allow humanitarian access and peacekeeping missions in partnership with NATO where possible. As I and other hon. Members have said, the gaze of the United States is now firmly on the Pacific. Having EU structures, where appropriate and necessary, to help plug the gaps left by the Americans, who are now more concerned with Beijing than Berlin, will be in the UK’s national interest. Deeper EU defence co-operation makes economic sense for the same reasons that it does within NATO. We are stronger together, and if we are smart, it will not be an additional burden to the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am going to return to the theme that the vice-president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly started us on: why NATO? By the end of next year, we will be out of combat in Afghanistan. Clearly, there will be a period of readjustment for western armed forces. The British Army is being reduced by 20%. The other armed forces—the Air Force and the Navy—are being reduced by a similar amount. The Americans are already declaring that sequestration will take $50 billion a year out of their $550 billion budget, which is a lot. Therefore, fundamentally, there will be big changes.

When NATO started in 1949, General Lord Ismay said that its purpose was

“to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Obviously, the situation has changed a lot. The Warsaw pact was formed in 1955 as a reaction to NATO. We could not have had NATO without German rearmament.

I and other members in the House spent most of our military careers preparing for what we loosely called the third world war, hoping it would not happen. Thank goodness it did not happen on the north German plain. When the Berlin wall fell, everything changed and NATO had to change. As I have explained to the House on previous occasions, after I came back from Bosnia, in my last two years in the Army, I was a member of the planning team at Supreme Allied Commander Europe. We most definitely were not seeking a new role outside Europe; it was largely thrust upon us. Therefore, doubts remain about NATO and its solidarity. I agree that we must keep banging on about NATO’s target of spending 2% of GDP on defence. We must keep it. The problem is that some people, particularly in France, suggest that the alliance is

“an alliance of the unable and unwilling”.

A French academic said that. I put it to the House that NATO has a good future.

Twenty years ago, who would have thought that Russia would be resurgent? Russian military spending is now increasing by three quarters of a billion dollars; it will have increased by 53% by 2015. Russia still possesses more than 1 million troops and it has 20 million in the reserve. However, the Russians have big problems. Russian military prosecutors recently said that about a fifth of the budget had been embezzled, so they are trying to sort that out. However, look at the Russian navy. We have talked about the high north. That navy has been transformed in the last eight years: 45% of the ships in the Russian navy will be replaced by 2015. By 2007, Russia was building as many ships every year as the Soviets did at the height of their power.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made an excellent speech on the nuclear deterrent. The Russians certainly think in terms of flexible response. They envisage using tactical nuclear weapons in their exercises; a recent exercise that they undertook in the Baltic states suggested exactly that. Part of their war-fighting ability is to use nuclear weapons. That is one of the reasons that we must retain our nuclear deterrent.

[Mr Jenkin]

Not only do the Russians exercise that capability, but they talk about it, have not renounced first use and have said that they would use their nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict against their neighbours.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He puts it better than I could write it.

In China, Xi Jinping has consolidated his power. He talks of fighting to win wars. There has been a 10.7% increase in the Chinese military budget. The strategic forces of China now have 3,000 miles of tunnels. They have 850 nuclear warheads ready to launch. They are almost at strategic parity with the United States. They are also building globally deployable forces, which are now edging into the Mediterranean, as we have heard, and coming through the high Arctic. They are challenging western strategic military superiority.

Something else is new, and we have touched on it in the debate: cyber-warfare. The Defence Committee has just completed a report on that. It is a new form of war. It is invidious and evolving at unimaginable speed, with serious consequences. Cyber-space is an aspect of asymmetric warfare. It is very difficult to identify sometimes where these attacks are coming from. State actors such as China, North Korea, Iran and Syria are devoting resources to it. Hacking can be more deadly than the gun. The targets are government, industry and the military. There is great concern in the west about how disruptive cyber-attacks can be. For example, on 23 April, in seconds, the United States stock market dropped 1%, losing $136.5 billion, because of a false tweet put into the system, possibly from Syria.

The United States is changing some of the focus of its direction. Its strategy now, as the Defence Committee heard when we were in the US, is to concentrate on trying to avoid war much more. The Americans do not want any war that is not short term. They are looking at Asia. Sequestration will cost an enormous amount in military terms. The Americans consider that Russia is not a great threat at the moment—although its military spending is increasing, as I have mentioned—but that China is and it is growing in power. However, as one American academic put it to the Committee, “Going to war with China would be like going to war with your bank if you are an American.” Thankfully, since 2001, there have been huge improvements in US intervention power: there has been a two thirds increase in its intervention power capability.

The lesson of European, and world, history is that surprise is normal. The unexpected should always be expected, so we should expect to be surprised. Therefore, whatever we do within NATO, we must try to work in such a way that our armed forces can deal with as many envisaged eventualities as possible while also expecting that we will still be surprised. NATO gives us more combat power, by collaboration with others.

I am about to conclude Mr Deputy Speaker—I think you might be looking at your watch. The problem is that our potential enemies remain our potential enemies. Symmetric warfare between states is not dead. We may think it is. We have not had a war for 70 years, when Europe historically had six or seven each century, and thus the public ask, “Why do we have to spend money on defence?” The problem is that that has not gone away and we may well be surprised.

Defence is an insurance policy, therefore. We want to deter the possibility of war. We do not want to use nuclear weapons. The point of possessing nuclear weapons is to avoid using them by avoiding threats. The aim is to help our country be left alone and not be attacked, and, in NATO terms, the aim is to avoid all NATO countries being attacked.

I believe very strongly that we must remain part of NATO as I believe it has a big future. I disagree with those who say its purpose, in Lord Ismay’s definition, is gone. No, NATO is required because it helps us, as a medium-sized nation, to combine with other nations—the French, the Germans, the Spanish and other nations that are not members of NATO—and form a coalition of the willing to deal with problems in the world.

We must have the resilience to adapt, to deter and to deal with the unexpected, and we should try to do that as cheaply as possible of course. The days of huge military budgets are over; they are long gone. The best way is for us to collaborate and work with like-minded states, and NATO is most certainly the best means to that end.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

The Government have assured us that there will be no more impunity for servicemen, and I discussed this with both the vice defence Minister, Jorge Bedoya, during his visit here in March and subsequently with the constitutional court judge, Vargas Silva, who was here on 30 April. I will continue to discuss these matters. We are against impunity for the military, and we make our position on that very clear.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The Government of Colombia are making extensive efforts to counter the dreadful trade in narcotics. Will the Minister assure us that we will give that Government as much support for counter-narcotics as is possible?

[Mr Speaker]

With reference to human rights, which is what the question is about.

Sudan and South Sudan

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support in securing this debate and I absolutely accept his point. Signals given by the international community, and promises made in various peace agreements by those in Sudan and South Sudan, were not always followed through. It is important that we take time to address this issue in the Chamber.

The previous debate on Sudan and South Sudan took place in spring 2011, in the countdown to South Sudan’s independence. At that time, there was some hope about the new country’s prospects. There was hope that more of the comprehensive peace agreement would come to fruition if it had a framework or context in which to work. The hopes and goodwill of NGOs and others in the international community were tragically dashed. The effect on the lives of so many people in both countries was cruel.

We sought this debate because we are coming up to the second anniversary of South Sudan’s independence and because we recently marked the 10th anniversary of the conflict in Darfur. Hon. Members from all parties wrote to the Foreign Secretary, the US Secretary of State and the Australian Foreign Minister to raise concerns about policy drift on Darfur. Perhaps we have been remiss as parliamentarians in not addressing this issue in this Chamber, but we know why that has happened. Other events have caught our attention: the Arab spring and its complex aftermath and the situations in Mali and Syria have taken our focus. The danger is that the international community is giving a signal that what is happening in Darfur is par for the course and there is not a lot more that we can do about it beyond the commitments we have previously made.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The sadness is that this situation has been going on for so long. Some 20 years ago, my wife worked in southern Sudan for the International Committee of the Red Cross, and it was a basket case then. It is about time the world got together and sorted out this dreadful situation, so that the people there can live peacefully and bring up their children properly.

[Mark Durkan]

I recognise the passion of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and that is exactly why this debate is necessary. There is a danger that because South Sudan has been established, we think it can make its merry way forward, but it is a fragile state—the world’s youngest. It lacks serious governmental and administrative infrastructure, and there is a gross disparity in the position of women and girls in its society. For decades now, these people have suffered from the effects of conflict, and they are still suffering. Even now, seven of the 10 states in South Sudan display features of conflict and the depredations that come with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Mosley]

The question of aerial bombardment features large across all the problem areas in Sudan. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) mentioned the situation in Blue Nile state, and there have been regular bombing incidents in South Kordofan and Darfur. The Sudanese Government are also laying landmines, which is another concern. Both those things are contrary to international conventions, and both of them are classified as war crimes: deliberately targeting civilians is classified as a war crime. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that four members of the Sudanese Government, including President Omar al-Bashir, are wanted by the international courts on war crime charges.

I would put South Sudan’s problems into two categories: they involve the relationship between South Sudan and north Sudan, but they also involve the internal problems facing South Sudan. There are many unresolved issues between Juba and Khartoum at present. We have talked about oil, so I will not dwell on that subject. There are also the problems over South Kordofan and Blue Nile, and the questions about their future. There was meant to be a consultation on the future of those two states, but it has not happened.

We have for years been promised a referendum in Abyei, so people in Abyei can decide whether they want to be part of the south or the north. Because many of the farmers in that area are migratory, there has been wrangling over the electoral roll for years; no decision can be reached, so there can be no agreement on a referendum. We have been promised that there will be a referendum this autumn, but we have been promised a referendum before, so we will have to wait and see whether it takes place.

There are also issues about support for rebel groups. Both the Sudanese Government and the South Sudanese Government are supporting rebel groups in each other’s territory. There are issues to do with the migration paths of pastoralists, too, who travel across the border on a seasonal basis. There are not just cross-border issues, however. South Sudan faces internal problems. There is conflict in seven of the 10 South Sudanese states. There is ethnic and tribal violence. South Sudan is not an elected democracy. Broad powers are given to the Executive, and we see high levels of corruption.

There is also a huge problem of lack of state capacity and infrastructure. South Sudan is one of the hardest places in the world to reach, and once there, it is incredibly difficult to travel about the country and reach some of the more isolated states.

[Bob Stewart]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. My wife was a delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross in South Sudan. Indeed, she was taken hostage there by rebel groups. She set up a camp from scratch for 100,000 people. She firmly believes that one of the problems now is that we have set up these camps in inhospitable places, where we have to resupply them and keep them going. By doing that, we have caused a problem in an area that cannot sustain such a large population. These camps attract people. Hard as it would have been, perhaps we should not have done so much.

[Stephen Mosley]

I do not know that I agree with that, but my hon. Friend is right that many of the camps are very isolated and difficult to reach. There is some good news, however. A new camp has recently been completed at Ajoung Thok, and it has a very good reputation. The agencies are gradually moving people there from more isolated camps. They can supply them with food and water there, and allow them to start making the long-term decisions that will enable them to set down roots and start to develop livelihoods in those areas, because that is also a problem with humanitarian aid, and we have faced it in Sudan in the past. People are quick to supply food and emergency aid, but we are not so quick in providing more long-term solutions that allow people to survive and live on their own over time.

The hon. Member for Foyle mentioned non-governmental organisations, and while preparing for this debate we met representatives of a number of them. Normally when we speak to NGOs, we find that they are desperate for MPs to stand up in this Chamber to sing their praises and tell Members of this House about the good work they are doing. On Sudan and South Sudan the NGOs deliberately said, “No, we don’t want you to say what we’re doing. We don’t want you to say where we are doing it.” They face so many problems that they are afraid that if they highlight their situation, they may face repercussions. They have told us that they already face restrictions on visas, and the cost of permits is going through the roof. They are finding that it is becoming more restrictive to operate in both Sudan and South Sudan, and they asked us to make sure that when we talk about their situation, we talk in general terms rather than in specifics.

What we do know is that 1 million people remain displaced by the fighting, with more than 300,000 having been displaced since January—that is more than for the whole of last year. The problems in Sudan and South Sudan have not gone away; they are in a real mess. There is continued armed conflict and human rights abuse, and hundreds of thousands of people have fled and are living in camps.

This is a debate on the UK Government’s response to Sudan, so I wish briefly to mention the Sudan Humanitarian Assistance and Resilience Programme—SHARP—which the Department for International Development is running. The idea is to spend £67 million over three years, with half of that being in Darfur and the rest in the Blue Nile and South Kordofan states. The idea is to build household and community resilience, and to allow people to move on from aid dependence. It is a long-term project, and I congratulate the Minister and the Department on the work they are doing to ensure long-term success.

Sudan and South Sudan are not a problem that can be solved on its own by this country or by themselves; it needs all the international community to work together to help resolve the conflicts they face.

GCHQ

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the draft Communications Data Bill, which I have already mentioned in earlier answers. Two parliamentary Committees have considered the draft Bill and concluded that there is a need for legislation in this area, and the Government are committed to bringing forward proposals on that in the near future.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

We are actually at cyber-war at the moment. Since 2000, the cyber-attacks on this country have multiplied some twentyfold. The Chinese held an exercise last week that they called a digital technology exercise at divisional level, involving men in uniform who are designed specifically to attack the west. Hacking can be far more deadly than a gun. May I encourage the Foreign Secretary and all his colleagues to ensure that GCHQ is as close to the National Security Agency as possible in the future?

[Mr Hague]

As I have said, GCHQ has a unique relationship with the National Security Agency. My hon. Friend is right to say that cyber-attack is an increasing threat in many different areas of government and of life in general. That is why the Government decided, in the strategic defence and security review three years ago, to invest an additional £650 million in our cyber-capabilities over a four-year period. The United Kingdom is one of the world leaders in cyber-defence and cyber-capabilities, and we are determined that we will remain in that position.

Mau Mau Claims (Settlement)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I support what we have done. However, when I was a little boy my father was a soldier operating in Aden, and I remember being absolutely petrified by the stories of British-origin settlers and farmers being chopped to bits by the Mau Mau. I note that we are going to subsidise and help to build a memorial to the Mau Mau, but may I make a suggestion? Given that not only were 200 British soldiers and policemen killed, but 1,800 civilians perished as a result of Mau Mau activities, I think that it would be very appropriate for a memorial to be erected to them—both Kenyans and those of British origin.

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that terrible acts were committed on both sides over a long period, between 1952 and 1963. Thirty-two European settlers were murdered in horrific circumstances, and many actions that can only be categorised as terrorist actions were undertaken by people who were part of the Mau Mau insurgency.

Equally, however, it is important for us to recognise—as we do, across the House—that torture and inhuman and degrading treatment can never, and should never, be part of our response to any outrage, however terrible. That is because we uphold our own high standards of human rights, and also because it is not an effective way in which to respond to any such outrages. It is very important that we express our own regret and acknowledge mistakes that were made, even though terrible acts were carried out on both sides.

As my hon. Friend will have noted, I recognised in my statement the service done by those employed by the colonial administration, who did so much work to build the institutions that underpin Kenya today. My statement was about the recognition of people engaged in the Mau Mau insurgency or accused of being so engaged, and I think that questions about other memorials and recognition of other people are for a different occasion, but I take full account of the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Persecution of Christians

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lidington]

I agree completely that there is more to do. As I hope to have time to explain, we seek to do things multilaterally and in our bilateral relationships with various countries.

The hon. Member for Belfast East asked what the FCO was doing in practical terms and how we monitor the trends in religious discrimination. We require our embassies and high commissions around the world to monitor violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief. We are clear that that freedom involves not only the right to hold personal thoughts, but to manifest them individually and collectively. We provide our missions overseas with what in the jargon we call a toolkit—a set of detailed monitoring criteria—to help staff at our embassies and high commissions to analyse in detail the many potential manifestations of discrimination on the grounds of freedom of religion or belief, including discrimination in access to education and employment, or other administrative or legal restrictions on groups, buildings or individuals.

I shall move on from that general point to some of the countries to which the hon. Lady alluded. I apologise to hon. Members that I will not have time to go through them all, but I will write to her about the other countries that she mentioned and will place a copy of the letter in the Library.

The hon. Lady spoke particularly about Egypt for much of her speech. We have been clear that we need to speak up in public comments and private conversations with the Egyptian Government about the importance of religious toleration and mutual respect. When my noble Friend Baroness Warsi visited Cairo in February, she met both Pope Tawadros II, leader of the Coptic Church, and the Sheikh Al-Azhar, Dr Ahmed el-Tayeb, to discuss minorities in Egypt.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), spoke out strongly condemning the violent clashes that took place outside St Mark’s Coptic cathedral on 7 April. He also commented that freedom of religion and belief is a vital component of a democratic society and that the security forces should act effectively to uphold those freedoms to express and practise religious belief. My hon. Friend went to Egypt in January and discussed our concerns about the protection of minorities, including Christians and women, when he met the Muslim Brotherhood’s political party, the Freedom and Justice party. When he went to Egypt again in March, he met the Anglican bishop and representatives of both local and international human rights groups there to hear their concerns and to ask what more the UK could do to support their activities.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is there any link between aid and this problem?

[Mr Lidington]

Most of our aid is directed not Government to Government, but through non-governmental organisations and charities. The Department for International Development, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, has published a set of principles about the partnership that exists between DFID and faith groups both in the United Kingdom and worldwide. That sets out a number of principles for co-operation in delivering aid, sometimes through faith groups that are really close to the people in greatest need in developing countries, and to ensure that aid is distributed in a way that takes no account of religious belief and is not affected by discrimination of the sort the House would condemn.

The hon. Member for Belfast East mentioned Kenya. We recognise that there has been an increase in attacks against churches, but I caution the House that although the conflict in Somalia has of course a religious dimension, it might be argued that what we saw in Kenya was an attack prompted by political concern at the intervention of Kenyan troops in Somalia rather than purely sectarian terrorist attacks. It is not only churches that have been attacked, but many secular locations from bus stations to bars. There has been a spate of grenade and armed attacks in Nairobi suburbs, Mombasa and the north-east province of Garissa. We are working with the Kenyan authorities to respond effectively to those security challenges and the threat of terrorism from extremist groups in Somalia.

In Syria, we are increasing our support to the Syrian National Coalition and other opposition groups that are opposed to extremism. We want to support moderate opposition groups to boost their appeal and effectiveness over extremists. We have encouraged opposition groups, especially the National Coalition, to ensure that their policies for a future Syria are genuinely inclusive and cover the interests of all Syrian minorities, including Christians. John Wilkes, the UK special representative to the Syrian opposition, is in regular touch with the Syrian Churches and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office here.

European Council

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

We continue to discuss everything with the Syrian opposition Government. We continue to support them and we continue to believe that they are the only viable alternative to Assad for the reasons that I outlined to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman).

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

We have reached the 10th anniversary of the second Iraq war. It was perhaps with good reason that we involved ourselves in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, but it cost us a lot and people now in power blame us quite a lot. Did the European Council consider what more the Arab world can do, rather than just asking us again to help out?

[Mr Swire]

This is something not just to be discussed at a European Council; we believe, particularly on the humanitarian side, that there is plenty more that the Arab world can do. Also, we would urge all countries in that part of the world to look very closely at where they are putting their support. We believe that the official Syrian opposition is best placed to provide a transitional Government to replace the brutal dictatorship of Assad.

My hon. and gallant Friend is showing a certain nervousness about what is going on in Syria, understandably, but I hope he would agree that as of today we are in the right place on this. I believe the Government are not getting ahead of themselves. But we do have a very serious situation, which is deteriorating by the minute, and it is only right that we should be flexible in our approach to how we help bring it to a speedy and long-overdue end.

Syria

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. If regional powers were able to agree among themselves about the situation and about a solution, that would be an enormous step forward, just as it would be a vital step forward if we, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, were able to agree among ourselves. There have been some attempts. Last autumn, the Egyptian Government convened a group consisting of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey to consider the situation together and to see if they could agree on a way forward. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that they did not reach an agreement, but that is not to say that such a group could not be revived in the future. We have absolutely no problem with that. It did not succeed before—the reason it did not succeed is that Iran has not been prepared to agree on a way forward with other countries in the region—but that does not mean that it should not be tried again.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In this civil war, it seems that there is a military stalemate between two sides that have military forces. In those circumstances, and given that each side claims that it wants to negotiate, is there any chance that we can put all our efforts into securing a ceasefire, so that when the guns stop and civilians stop being killed, we may actually be able to use politics to resolve the situation?

[Mr Hague]

That is a very good thought. That too has been tried before, but it should be tried again. In any negotiated way forward, a ceasefire would be a very important element of the early part of the negotiations. My hon. Friend may recall that last summer the United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, proposed a ceasefire to coincide with Eid. For a short time there was some hope that the proposal would be implemented, and there were many efforts to implement it in parts of Syria, but within days the ceasefire had completely broken down. Again, that does not mean that a ceasefire should not be at the top of the agenda for negotiations, but as my hon. Friend will have gathered, we do not have successful negotiations at the moment—much as we will discuss that with Mr Brahimi this afternoon.