G8 Foreign Ministers

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The bombs of Korea and Syria understandably dominate many of the headlines, but the G8 is absolutely right to focus also on the more subtle dangers of cyber attack, not only to the digital realm, but to wider economies, societies and infrastructure. Is the Foreign Secretary confident that the UK and the G8 are devoting sufficient resources to countering this growing global threat?

[Mr Hague]

We in the UK are certainly devoting substantially increased resources. As my hon. Friend will know, we allocated in the strategic defence and security review an additional £650 million to developing our capabilities in the cyber area. One of the things that I discussed with my G8 colleagues is the setting up of our own cyber capability centre, which they can take part in and contribute to. I am satisfied that we are devoting the necessary resources. I think that, around the world, countries are in different stages of waking up to the scale of this threat. I discussed it with the South Korean Foreign Minister this morning and I welcome the fact that, later this year, they will hold the next international cyber conference, following on from the series that I started in 2011, to raise our awareness and co-operation on the issue.

Government Policy (Kenya)

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I apologise to you and other Members, because I must leave before the end of the debate. I commend the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) on securing the debate and on the well-informed way in which he introduced it. He was right to warn in his closing remarks against a patronising neo-colonial attitude, and yet it is right to praise Kenya for being, in many respects, a model of stability over many decades, a sometimes patchy but none the less committed democracy in east Africa, and for the stability it has helped and attempted to bring to the rest of the region. He was right to refer in his opening remarks to Kenya’s important contribution in relation to Somalia, both in African Union forces on the ground and in anti-piracy operations, for which the whole international community has good cause to be grateful.

Kenya is an important and overwhelmingly democratic member of the Commonwealth of nations. It has strong cultural, political and other links to this country. I am probably not alone in having strong constituency links to Kenya; Cheltenham is twinned with Kisumu. The strong civic, educational and voluntary organisation links between Kisumu and Cheltenham extend to youth conferences, through the charity Global Footsteps, which operates in both Kenya and the UK, and are an example of the strong links between the two countries. Nevertheless, Kenya has faced challenges, many of which the Department for International Development has highlighted.

Although absolute poverty has declined somewhat, it remains high in Kenya. DFID figures show a decline from 52% in 1997 to 46% in 2006, which is progress, but not great progress. They also highlight the fact that inequality remains high, that about 25% of Kenyans do not have enough income to meet their basic food needs, and that progress on the millennium development goals has been patchy and especially weak on issues such as maternal and child health. New approaches to providing basic services, such as health and education, are needed if the millions of poor Kenyans are to prosper. I entirely endorse that view.

DFID also highlights the political risks. Kenya’s image as a stable democracy faced great challenge at the time of the previous elections. The violence and issues with the ICC that followed pose a risk to not only Kenya’s reputation, but its progress. It is striking that the one year in which an otherwise incredibly impressive economic growth rate was not achieved was that which followed the election violence.

Kenya’s level of corruption and transparency, and the impunity that still exists, are difficulties. It is sad to note that Kenya is ranked 154 out of 182 countries on the Transparency International corruption perception index. Important parts of British Government policy towards Kenya are directed towards what might be termed the more traditional forms of aid and development support, but strong emphasis is also rightly placed on governance. The DFID programme stretches to work on health—HIV/AIDS, in particular—education, humanitarian aid and social protection, but it also includes trade growth, private sector development and a deliberate programme on governance.

That programme has included making people aware of the importance of their right to vote and how to register, which resulted in 12.7 million voters, 49% of whom were women, registering for the referendum not long ago on Kenya’s constitution. UK aid has also been used to increase the transparency and accountability of Parliament by opening parliamentary committees to the public and showing live debates on TV—something to which I am sure we can all relate. It has also provided support for organisations independent of Government that investigate corruption and monitor how taxpayers’ money is spent. For example, the National Taxpayers Association monitors Government use of taxpayers’ money. That emphasis on governance is absolutely right and important.

We have just seen a presidential election, and I suppose that it is absolutely right to congratulate Mr Kenyatta on his victory, but at the same time it is right to point out that he has in the past bravely said that he will comply with the International Criminal Court process. His commitment is welcome, and I hope very much that he maintains it. Kenya is a party to the International Criminal Court, and that is a matter of pride for Kenya. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Falkirk was implying criticism of the International Criminal Court process—a process I consider extremely important—but he mentioned that it sometimes seems to go light on countries such as China. Unfortunately, and regrettably, China is not a party to the International Criminal Court.

[Eric Joyce]

I do not intend to be critical of the ICC per se. I referred to the fact that the ICC’s remit effectively covers the whole world, because permanent members of the Security Council can refer cases to it whether or not the country involved is a member. Technically, therefore, the ICC covers China, Russia and anywhere else, but those countries might not consider it in their interest, and I can understand that.

[Martin Horwood]

I take that point. It is important that, as far as possible, all countries comply with, take part in and support the International Criminal Court process. It is a matter of pride for this country and for Kenya that we have been parties to the International Criminal Court system and that we support it, and I hope that Mr Kenyatta continues to support his country’s participation in the process.

Some interesting comments were made during the election campaign, particularly the references to the British high commissioner and the implication that there was undue influence on behalf of the British Government in the election. That was an unwise accusation, which I am sure is rejected absolutely by the British high commissioner, Christian Turner, who has a very high reputation. We ought, perhaps, to approach that with humility; we all sometimes say things in election campaigns that we regret. Once in a position of responsibility, however, we need to move on, and the same should apply to Mr Kenyatta. He should now swiftly bury the hatchet and move on to building much better relations with the British Government, because there is a potential benefit for both parties.

I have referred to Kenya’s growth rate. It has achieved a rate of 5% over most years in the past decade, which is something I suspect the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his eye teeth to be able to report about the UK later today. Kenya’s economy is the largest and most diverse in east Africa, and the country is potentially a very valuable economic, trading and political partner for this country. I think that we would all want to see a process whereby Kenya moved from being an aid recipient, and came out of that post-colonial mentality and relationship entirely, into a relationship in which Britain and Kenya regarded each other as friends, and economic and political partners. That should be the future for Kenya, and I hope that British Government policy towards Kenya will do its utmost to make that a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to be here and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

May I begin with an apology to colleagues? One is never quite sure with an aeroplane malfunction—in the case of my flight from New York last night, a back-up generator on the starboard engine of the aeroplane was not working—whether to be annoyed at the loss of three fairly vital hours, or grateful at the skill of the pilots and engineers in recognising something that might have caused the passengers harm. On balance, I think it is best that I say that I am very appreciative of being here, but I am also very grateful for your courtesy, Mr Bone, and that of all colleagues in the Chamber for appreciating my dilemma.

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

It was, however, not very long after the start of the debate that I got to the Chamber, so I was able to hear the majority of the speech made by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce). I thank him for securing the debate, for his continued interest in Africa, which he has demonstrated on a number of occasions, and for his courtesy in informing my office of the general topics that he wanted to raise today. That enabled the preparation of advance briefing that I could read while I was in the US and on my way back, which proved to be fairly beneficial.

I thank all hon. Members who participated in the debate for their contributions. The tone of the debate—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was kind enough to mention that I sometimes pick this up—has been very much one of support and encouragement. We have heard of personal knowledge from visits and a sense of moving on, with hon. Members recognising that few states are completely free of difficulties and political clashes. However, it is important to move on, and all the opportunities are there for Kenya, with which we have a deep and abiding relationship. If hon. Members will allow me, I will take a little extra time to say a bit about that relationship and to reflect on the comments that they made.

This is an historic moment for Kenya, as it prepares for only its fourth President since independence, so this is a timely moment for the House to take stock of how the UK’s relationship with Kenya has changed since independence. At the outset, let me be clear about the United Kingdom’s perspective on the relationship. Although we are often still thought of as the former colonial power, the modern-day relationship between the United Kingdom and Kenya is one of partnership. We are bound together by strong commercial, security and personal links that benefit both our countries, not least of which, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said, is our growing parliamentary link through the IPU, the CPA and the parliamentary armed forces scheme. From my work around various countries, I have seen how valued those parliamentary links are by people who are building democracy, who are always searching for ideas. Equally, I have seen how we benefit, as the hon. Gentleman said, from swapping ideas with newer democracies, some of which are doing innovative work that it is more difficult to do in a more established Parliament such as ours. We all benefit from that.

Let me say a little about the general relationship before turning to the specifics that the hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned, particularly the elections and the ICC. The United Kingdom is the largest commercial investor in Kenya and home to half the top 10 tax-paying companies in the country. More than 200,000 British nationals visit Kenya every year—the largest number of visitors from any country. As colleagues have mentioned, the tourism industry is vital. A similar number of Kenyans live in the United Kingdom, and the benefits include the remittances sent back to the Kenyan economy. We are the second largest bilateral donor to Kenya, contributing more than £100 million a year, and I will say a little more later about the development matters that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned.

The British Army trains 10,000 British soldiers in Kenya every year, to the benefit of the Kenyan armed forces, as well as the wider local economy. Let me say a little more about that because it was mentioned, in particular by the hon. Member for Strangford. The British military has trained in Kenya for decades, and we have an excellent, long-standing relationship with the Kenyan armed forces and the local communities surrounding the training areas. Kenyan troops are also trained at the MOD base, and Kenyans are routinely welcomed to attend training courses at staff colleges in the United Kingdom. The relationship is a partnership, and it is governed by a memorandum of understanding that was signed by both sides in 2010. When issues arise, we always seek to resolve them through discussion. We will continue to have a strong shared interest in working together on important security issues, starting with Somalia, which a number of colleagues mentioned, where Kenyan troops still play an important role in pushing back al-Shabaab.

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned piracy off the east coast. Kenya is, indeed, an important partner in dealing with piracy. I recently had the opportunity to visit Northwood, where all the east coast of Africa’s maritime operations, involving 27 countries, are co- ordinated. I also recently had the opportunity to visit the area to see some of the work being done. All states in the region play a vital part in that work, which is partly political and partly military. There have been no successful hijackings over the past year or so of vessels carrying an armed guard, and we now have 80% fewer hijacking cases, although four ships and 108 hostages are still being held. That dramatic success has been due to a lot of hard work by the various countries involved, skilled leadership, in which the United Kingdom has been heavily involved, and the application of resources. We must continue that work so that the piracy issue does not arise again, because it is far from solved. Of course, development efforts on the ground are also crucial in giving some of the young people sent by the ringleaders to do the hijacking at least the possibility of an alternative occupation.

I was recently in the Seychelles to open the new criminal prosecution centre, which the United Kingdom has paid for. It will deliberately target the ringleaders—there are expected to be about a dozen in the area—who cause so much damage to so many people. That is a measure of the commitment to dealing with this issue, and Kenya is, indeed, a key player. Dealing with piracy is a priority for our Nairobi mission and our Somalia embassy, and their work is well resourced. However, I will look at the issue again, as the hon. Gentleman asked me to, just in case there is anything further that can be done.

It is clear that Britain and Kenya matter significantly to each other. The Government therefore look forward to building on our substantial shared agenda in our partnership with the next Kenyan Government.

The March elections were a key aspect of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Falkirk. As Members will have seen, the Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), made a statement following the announcement of the results by the Kenyan electoral commission. Two things stand out for us. The first, which colleagues have mentioned, is the determination of the Kenyan people to express their sovereign will, as was demonstrated by the impressive turnout and the way in which many Kenyans waited patiently for hours to vote. The second is the largely peaceful conduct of the elections, which was in stark contrast to the violence of 2007-08.

Kenyans everywhere, including civil society, religious groups and Kenya’s youth, have spoken out for peace. We welcome the important role played by Kenya’s leaders, from all parties, in urging their supporters to exercise their democratic right peacefully, to show restraint and, above all, to refrain from violence. We welcome, too, the way in which those who have been unsuccessful in the various elections have accepted defeat or, in some cases, taken their disputes to court for peaceful resolution. That is the clearest sign that Kenya has learned lessons from the appalling violence that followed the elections in December 2007, which led to more than 1,000 deaths and to hundreds of thousands people being displaced. The Kenyan people should be proud of the message they have sent to the world about their determination to exercise their democratic right peacefully.

I am proud, too, that the UK has played a role in supporting the democratic process in Kenya, including by providing £16 million in funding to support free and peaceful elections, much of which was delivered through the United Nations Development Programme’s election basket fund. Our support helped to put in place a more accurate voter register and an independent parallel vote-counting system, and thus to ensure that more than 14 million Kenyans were registered to vote and had greater confidence that their vote counted.

However, the election process is not yet complete. The Coalition for Reform and Democracy has challenged the presidential result, and its petition is being considered by the Kenyan Supreme Court. That is an important part of the checks and balances put in place by the new constitution to ensure that disputes are taken to the courts, not the streets. We continue to urge all sides to show restraint and to wait patiently for the court’s ruling. The United Kingdom’s position is consistent and clear: it is for the Kenyan people to elect their leaders and for the Kenyan courts to resolve any disputes. In that context, we need to be even more careful than usual in our public statements that we do not unintentionally influence or prejudge what the courts will say.

The hon. Member for Wrexham mentioned the EU, but it is too soon for us to have received its report. We are collating the information. We will observe the challenge in the Supreme Court, but it is a little too soon to say anything further. However, my remarks about the way in which we have been able to play a part in the election process, and the way in which that has been received in Kenya, suggest that the influence of supporters from outside has helped the Kenyan people in their determination to ensure that the election process is good and strong.

We utterly reject any allegations of interference by the British Government or the British high commissioner. I am grateful to hon. Members for their comments made in relation to Christian Turner. We have always said that this election is a choice for Kenyans; it is for them alone to decide. We did not endorse any one candidate over another. It is for the electoral commission and courts to resolve any disputes.

Looking ahead, some people have expressed concern that the UK will reduce its co-operation with Kenya because of the charges pending against President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta at the International Criminal Court. That assertion is not based on facts. We are motivated by a desire to respect Kenya’s sovereignty and to ensure that the Kenyan court is able to do its work free from interference. We are confident that it will adjudicate swiftly and fairly, and we call on all sides to respect its independence. Irrespective of who emerges as the confirmed winner, I am confident that the UK will want to continue working with the next Government in Kenya; to continue supporting a reduction in poverty; to continue helping UK companies looking to invest in Kenya in support of Kenya’s Vision 2030; and to continue working together on security and stability in Somalia. Fundamentally, both our nations have a strong interest in working in partnership in pursuit of these shared goals.

The International Criminal Court proceedings regarding Kenya are, of course, a controversial topic, on which I am happy to clarify the UK’s position. Kenya and the UK share the same values of justice and peace. As the Foreign Secretary said in July last year,

“We have learnt from history that you cannot have lasting peace without justice, accountability and reconciliation.”

That is why we continue strongly to support the International Criminal Court’s work around the world, including its efforts to provide justice for the victims of the 2007-08 violence and to help Kenya move on from the past.

The ICC is an impartial, independent court. Alongside Kenya, 121 other countries are states that are party to its founding Rome statute, and there are more states that are party from Africa than from any other region. To respond to the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Falkirk about whether there is unfair bias against Africa, and whether the ICC pitches its cases against the less powerful rather than the more powerful, I have to say that we reject that suggestion. The ICC, an international independent organisation, is a court of last resort providing for the primacy of national jurisdiction. It steps in only when a country cannot or will not investigate and, when necessary, prosecutes fairly the most serious crimes in the international community. It puts victims at the centre of its work. Accusations to the effect that the ICC has focused solely on Africa are understandable, as all 15 cases formally under investigation are from the African continent, but the ICC itself is conducting preliminary examinations outside Africa, including in Afghanistan and Colombia.

We understand that civil society in Africa strongly supports the work of the ICC and the justice that it can and will deliver for many Africans. In every African situation in which the court has been involved, either the country in question—or, when relevant, all African states on the United Nations Security Council—have supported its involvement. Fatou Bensouda’s appointment as prosecutor, by consensus of all states that are party to the agreement, is a clear indication of Africa’s important role in the court. We hope that that will go some way to addressing the concern expressed by some African states that their voices are not being heard.

[Martin Horwood]

Does the Minister agree that there are other international judicial processes, such as those relating to the former Yugoslavia, where the ICC has not been necessary, because an effective international judicial process has been available and has been rigorously pursued?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point.

The focus on Africa is due to the number of cases, as has been mentioned, but it is unfair to infer from that that there is an unfair bias. The support of African nations and states for this work, which adds an essential element of transparency and accountability for some of the issues of the past, should not be neglected. It is important, as hon. Members have said, that the net is spread fairly and widely to catch those who have been most active contrary to the law.

Polls have consistently shown a strong desire for justice among the Kenyan people. In Kenya, the ICC became involved only after the Kenyan Parliament’s decision not to establish a special tribunal. We judge that that has helped to challenge the culture of impunity and to show there is no place for hate speech or incitement to violence in the new Kenya. Consequently, we continue to urge the Kenyan Government and all those facing charges to co-operate with the ICC. We welcome the co-operation that has already been provided, which marks Kenya out as a country that wishes to respect its international obligations. We are equally clear that a defendant is innocent unless proven guilty by a court of law. It is not for the UK, nor anyone other than the court, to pass judgement.

European Council

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

No, I do not think we can. Cyprus was not on the agenda but, if you will allow me, Mr Speaker, I will make this point. This question was answered extensively by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) —yesterday, I think—and everything is being done to protect British servicemen and those working for the diplomatic service who are exposed to what is going on in Cyprus. The fact that it is happening in Cyprus, however, does not necessarily mean that it is going to happen elsewhere. Indeed, we very much hope that it will not.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

European Ministers have rightly considered broadening support for the Syrian National Coalition, given that it is opposed to the murderous Assad regime and to the equally undesirable alternative of a jihadi state, but is it not Russia to whom the Syrian National Coalition needs urgently to speak? Will the Minister update us on any progress that we have made on promoting dialogue between the Syrian National Coalition and Russia, which is, after all, arming the regime very freely?

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Like Russia, we want to see an end to the violence, to create space for discussions on a Syrian-led, inclusive political transition. We encourage Russia to persuade the Assad regime, which is still in place, to enter into discussions with the Syrian opposition to bring forward political transition. Russia has a key role to play.

FCO: Human Rights Work

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and the Committee on securing this debate; it is important that we have it. Perhaps it would be better done at a more popular time of the week and on the Floor of the House, as it raises important issues regarding human rights and other Government policies and Departments that affect human rights around the world. That is one of the themes I will pick up on today.

I first want to congratulate the coalition Government, of whom the Liberal Democrats form a part, on how they have been prepared to take up human rights issues. There are easy targets in the human rights report—such as North Korea, Sudan and Iran—but, significantly, it also covers countries that are potentially embarrassing for the UK to talk about, because of their economic importance. Such countries raise the kind of conflicts talked about by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), between our diplomatic and perceived economic interests, and the importance of speaking out about human rights.

It is therefore important that Saudi Arabia is mentioned in the report, that China is covered in detail and that such very sensitive areas as Israel and the Palestinian territories are also included. It is notable that the Foreign Secretary has been increasingly robust and assertive in his comments on Israel. He has talked about Israel not just generally, but specifically in relation to the settlements. He has also spoken about the potential for the European Union to take further steps in its relationship with Israel—that is very beneficial economically—and the consequences that might flow from Israel simply not abiding by the international community’s expectations about respecting Palestinian human rights. My right hon. Friend remarked on the complete unacceptability of targeting Israeli civilians by organisations such as Hamas, and those remarks were obviously very well made.

I want to get across to the Minister my theme about human rights in respect of other Departments in addition to the FCO. The FCO has a very proud record of speaking out on human rights and of raising human rights even when it is difficult to do so. However, many interrelated areas—such as trade, security and energy—involve other Departments.

The arms trade has been mentioned. The coalition was quite right to revoke a whole series of 170 or more arms licences across north Africa and the middle east. The licences were inherited from the Labour Government, as we have sometimes pointed out, but even the coalition did not act on them quickly. It was only the Arab awakening that highlighted the importance of revoking those licences, because arms were being supplied to almost every regime, of whatever record on human rights, right across north Africa and the middle east, including Syria, Libya and other dictatorial regimes then in place.

In that respect, it is important to highlight the arms trade treaty negotiations that will soon resume in New York. The Minister who represents us at those talks, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), has a very strong record of arguing for a robust treaty. However, we must not allow the qualms expressed by the United States last year at those negotiations to scupper that important global process and the progress that is being made towards a robust arms trade treaty. Last year, when the American election was imminent, its position was understandable, but we must not allow domestic American politics to jeopardise a massively significant international initiative that I hope will help to protect human rights all over the world and save millions of lives.

On security policy, the well-established building security overseas strategy, which has been mentioned, is an area of co-operation between the Ministry of Defence, the Department for International Development and FCO. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how the strategy is developing. We have heard less about it in recent months than we did earlier in the coalition Government, but if anything, it has become more important.

For example, it would have been much better if the UK, and perhaps the French, had put pressure on the Malian Government many years ago more clearly to recognise the human rights of the Tuareg and of other peoples in the north of Mali, and had not provided the breeding ground first for the civil war and then for the incursion by foreign al-Qaeda fighters and others. That has made the situation in Mali so much more difficult to resolve now, so that it has had to involve military intervention. The building security overseas strategy ought to look at the whole of the middle east and north Africa region and other countries round the world to see where we can use human rights to prevent instability arising in the first place and prevent even a discussion of military intervention.

Energy policy also has an impact. We think of it as completely unrelated to human rights, but if, for example, we decide to accept European biofuel targets, that will impact on the likelihood of illegal incursions into rain forest areas in countries such as Brazil. In turn, that will impact on the human rights—particularly, the collective rights to the land—of tribal peoples around the world who have very few people to speak out for them. On that front, I lobbied the Government very hard to sign or ratify International Labour Organisation convention 169, which helps to defend tribal peoples’ rights around the world. I very much regret that the Government decided not to sign or ratify it, and I very much hope that the decision will be reconsidered.

In the closing minutes of my speech, I want to second and welcome some of the comments made by other Members. Those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling about China are very important. The issue is significant not only in relation to human rights within China’s borders—where those borders lie is arguable; it is now accepted that Tibet is part of China, but the ongoing human rights situation there is very serious—but in relation to the influence, support and friendship that China has given to some quite odious regimes over the years, from Burma to North Korea, Sudan and Zimbabwe. If China is to become a responsible member of the family of nations, I am afraid that it really needs a responsible record on human rights around the world. Unfortunately, the current example in Syria shows that it is another country to add to the list, alongside Russia. Both Russia and China need to step up to the plate and to support the international community in taking on the murderous Assad regime.

I welcome the comments made by the Select Committee in its report, particularly on the need for a more open and objective approach to the definition of countries of concern, and the points about Bahrain were well made.

The Committee was right to raise the issue of the removal and deportation processes. High-profile cases, such as the case of Abu Qatada, have coloured the whole public debate. We must not return people to countries where they are at risk of torture and there is a risk that human rights are abused. In a way, it was important that it was not the dreaded European Court of Human Rights, but the British Special Immigration Appeals Commission, that eventually kept Abu Qatada in the country. That case is still to be resolved, and we should probably not discuss its details in this Chamber. It is important, however, that our approach to such issues is not dictated by the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, but by a real concern for human rights.

Finally, it is important to have a robust arms trade treaty, and Britain should play a strong part in that. We should not only preach and produce reports about human rights, but act in international forums in a way that reinforces human rights. That is sometimes a difficult balance to strike. It was difficult for Robin Cook, with his ethical foreign policy. It was probably quite difficult for the former right hon. Member for Midlothian, the proud Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone, all the way back in 1876, with his Midlothian campaign, when he was the first politician to make human rights absolutely central to British politics. I am very proud to stand in that tradition. I am also proud to support the coalition Government when they have raised human rights, but they must act as well as speak.

Commonwealth Day

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on securing and leading the debate and on his work at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which he serves with great distinction.

The Commonwealth is an extraordinary organisation and family of nations, bringing together shared values, often a shared language and shared culture, with sporting links and many other dimensions of what I suppose these days we call soft relations or soft power. It is important to emphasise the importance of the Commonwealth as an avenue for the exercise of soft power, in contrast to many much more formalised, rigid and confrontational international arenas. The Commonwealth is enormously important in that.

Some Commonwealth members deserve particular attention; the one probably most at risk in terms of the shared values and international relations is Pakistan. The Commonwealth and the British Government should certainly be doing their utmost to support the traditions of democracy, freedom, peace, security and human rights in that country, while not underestimating the threats posed to it by internal and external forces. The terrible but inspiring case of Malala Yousafzai, who had to struggle first for her education and then for her very life against some of those forces, is instructive. Perhaps it has started to shift some of the political forces within Pakistan. The more that we can celebrate the courage of people such as Malala through the Commonwealth and other arenas, the more that we can support Pakistan in protecting those traditions.

Reference has been made to Sri Lanka as the host of the next Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. The Queen, as head of the Commonwealth, must attend the meeting, but her health has been frail lately and it is conceivable that she might be unable to attend. The reasons would be purely innocent, as we understand that her personal commitment to the Commonwealth is strong. If she attends, it will be difficult for the British Government not to attend, because we would not want to embarrass Her Majesty. If she does not attend for other reasons, it might provide an opportunity to reflect on whether Britain should attend the meeting. At the moment, only the Canadian Government are saying that they will not attend, but we must reflect on the situation in Sri Lanka and make a stand if we can.

The Government in Sri Lanka stand accused of war crimes, a politically motivated impeachment process and dismissal of their own chief justice this January. They are also accused of continuing human rights abuses in the form of disappearances, a culture of impunity and a misuse of security laws. In its 2012 annual report, Amnesty said of Sri Lanka:

“The government continued to arbitrarily detain, torture or ill-treat people and subject people to enforced disappearance. It failed to address most instances of impunity for violations of human rights and humanitarian law. The government rejected repeated allegations of war crimes committed by both sides of the conflict that ended in 2009, prompting Amnesty International to reiterate calls for an independent international investigation.”

I am afraid—this is beginning to sound a little critical—that there are other examples of the Commonwealth sometimes not living up to all its values. I accept, as the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden said in his introduction, that we cannot expect every nation to proceed in step with us through the democratic reforms and the expansion of human rights that we have experienced, but it is something of a matter of shame that no fewer than 36 of the 58 countries where capital punishment is still lawful are Commonwealth countries and that many of those countries still criminalise homosexuality and have a hostile response to gay rights. When the Prime Minister called for Commonwealth countries to reconsider the criminalisation of homosexuality, some countries responded positively—Malawi began to repeal legislation—but others, such as Uganda, went in the opposite direction. It is important to emphasise the totality of human rights for all Commonwealth citizens.

Zimbabwe is not currently a member of the Commonwealth, but I think that many people would still regard it as part of the family of Commonwealth nations. Again, if the Commonwealth can do anything to support the conduct of the forthcoming elections in Zimbabwe, so that they are free and fair, and to support the people there trying to establish Zimbabwe as a thorough democracy once again, that would be valuable.

The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden referred briefly to the Commonwealth ministerial action group. Such groups and the secretary-general’s office need to be a bit more active and assertive in giving the Commonwealth teeth to promote in various countries the shared values expressed brilliantly in the charter. There is room for domestic effort as well. The Foreign Affairs Committee referred to the BBC World Service, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) rightly referred to student visas. Student links are part of what makes soft cultural relationships valuable, and we must reinforce them at all opportunities.

Syria

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

As I said in my statement, we are increasingly concerned about the regime’s possible use, or possible willingness to use, chemical weapons, and we are always concerned about any transfer of those weapons to other groups or other countries in the region, as are many of those countries. We send the strong message that I conveyed in my statement—and the President of the United States himself has conveyed a similar strong message—about the use of chemical weapons by anyone, including the Syrian regime.

It is important for the Syrian regime to hear the message that the world will be determined that the individuals responsible are held to account if chemical weapons are used.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I strongly support the Foreign Secretary’s stand on this very difficult issue. Will he tell Mr Bogdanov this afternoon that, with 1 million fled and as many as 100,000 dead, the Syrian catastrophe now stands comparison with the Rwandan genocide, which led the international community to adopt the responsibility-to-protect doctrine in the first place, and that Russia should engage with coalition forces or face the prospect of a jihadist regime, which neither we nor it would want?

[Mr Hague]

Basically, I will tell him that—yes. That is part of the argument I stated earlier: Russia is rightly concerned about international terrorism—Russians have experience of that themselves—and if this situation goes on for many more months or years, we will see a much greater opening for such international terrorism. This is becoming a human catastrophe of immense proportions, so my hon. Friend can be confident that I will make this argument to my Russian counterpart in the robust terms he would want.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I would say to businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency that I hope that they will warmly welcome the efforts the Government are making to strengthen the single market in Europe, to promote free trade with the rest of the world and to cut the cost of European regulation on businesses of all sizes.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will the Minister embrace collaboration rather than confrontation in Europe and welcome last week’s call for smarter regulation, more cost-efficiency, more free trade agreements and many other European reforms that are possible with or without a treaty issued by the Deputy Prime Minister and Liberals in government in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Romania and the UK?

Syria: anti-Government Forces

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I wish only that President Assad showed any interest in international law, any law, or any kind of human decency—a decency that the EU and the countries that are trying to help the people of Syria are currently showing.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s cautious yet well-informed replies. In the case of Syria, should we abide by the rule of three used by the Foreign Secretary with regard to Libya, which is that no state should intervene militarily except where there is a strong humanitarian and legal case, regional support and explicit UN sanction—three things notably absent 10 years ago in Iraq?

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I just want to put on the record the Liberal Democrats’ support for the Bill. The various measures it introduces, which we have rehearsed at length on Second Reading—the multi-annual framework for the Agency for Fundamental Rights, the deal on the number of commissioners, and the e-publication of the European Parliament journal, on which we had an important debate—demonstrate the belt-and-braces approach the coalition has now brought to European scrutiny in this place.

As should be noted, this is an historic first use of the European Union Act 2011. I congratulate the Minister and his whole team on steering the Bill through the House of Commons. Although its course was not exactly perilous, one or two rocks and stones had to be overcome.

Hazara Community (Pakistan)

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

That is a good idea. If my hon. Friend had asked me for such a meeting, I should have been able to say yes straight away. I can say, however— without committing my noble Friend—that I am sure I shall be able to convey to her both my hon. Friend’s comment and the general feeling of the House that a meeting with a group of colleagues who understand the issue well would be particularly welcome to them, and, no doubt, welcome to those whom they represent. I shall make that point very clearly.

Since our last debate, the position of the Hazara community in Pakistan has remained extremely difficult. Human Rights Watch estimates that at least 320 members of the Shi’a community were killed in targeted attacks in 2012, including many from the Hazara community. As has was mentioned earlier, only last month—on 10 January—twin bomb attacks in Quetta tragically killed nearly 100 people and injured over 200 more in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. Most of those who were killed were members of the Hazara community.

Those horrendous acts of sectarian violence showed an appalling contempt for human life. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi publicly expressed the UK’s strong condemnation of the attacks, and their concern about the persecution that had been suffered. My right hon. Friend said:

“I was extremely saddened to hear of the brutal terrorist and sectarian attacks in Quetta and Swat yesterday.”

He sent his sincere condolences to the bereaved families, and added:

“I wish all those injured in the attacks a swift recovery. The United Kingdom strongly condemns these senseless attacks and the persecution of the Shia population. It was a tragic day for Pakistan. We will continue to stand with the people of Pakistan in their fight against terror and violent extremism.”

The latest bombings, described as one of the worst attacks on the Shi’a community, resulted in nationwide protests. The families of the bomb victims refused to bury their dead until they were given assurances that the Army would take administrative control of the province. As the House will know, late in the evening on Sunday 13 January, Sardar Aslam Raisani, the Chief Minister of Balochistan, was dismissed by Prime Minister Ashraf for failing to prevent the escalating sectarian violence in the province. Zulfiqar Ali Magsi, the Governor of Balochistan and the most senior official in the province, has now been temporarily put in charge.

Balochistan’s problems are deep-rooted and require long-term solutions, which was well understood by those who spoke this evening. Although some members of the Hazara community have called for military rule to protect their rights, the position of the United Kingdom Government is that it is in Pakistan’s long-term interests for all groups to enjoy meaningful political representation to ensure effective political engagement and a peaceful means of protecting their interests. Any solution must stay within the parameters of Pakistan’s constitution.

We remain deeply concerned about the violent persecution faced by all minority groups in Pakistan. We raise their plight with the Government of Pakistan regularly. My noble Friend Baroness Warsi spoke about it with Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar at the UN General Assembly in September, and, most recently, during her visit to Pakistan in November, when she urged Pakistani Ministers to protect and guarantee the fundamental rights of all Pakistani citizens.

Additionally, at Pakistan’s recent universal periodic review at the UN in October, the UK raised the importance of ensuring the ability of all minorities groups to vote freely in the upcoming elections. We also encouraged Pakistan to implement the international covenant on civil and political rights to ensure the equal and absolute rights of all its citizens.

The UK and Pakistan have a long history and a strong relationship founded on mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual benefit. Our respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is absolute. I must make it clear to the House that the security of Baluchistan is, as with all provinces of Pakistan, a matter for the people and Government of Pakistan. Persecution of the Shi’a Hazaras is not limited to Balochistan; across Pakistan, Sunni and Shi’a alike have suffered from the scourge of sectarian violence. In the past year, Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city and financial nerve centre, has seen an increase in sectarianism, which has led to a 28% rise in violence-related deaths.

Before I make any more general remarks, let me deal with the specific questions that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen put, as he was good enough to give me some notice of them. The new question, however, was the one raised by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) relating to the chief justice and the possibility of a judicial inquiry, and I will draw Baroness Warsi’s attention to that as a potential idea. At the end of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman raised a point about recognising the importance of dealing with all groups that suffer persecution in Pakistan and elsewhere in a generic manner. That does not, however, mean that their individual histories or problems are not recognised as singular issues in the overall context of the importance of the rule of law being enforced everywhere, which is the best way of protecting everyone. Even within that, we should recognise that particular circumstances should be prominent and I will return to that important point in a moment.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the position of the Hazaras has been raised with the President of Pakistan or with members of the delegation over the past couple of days. It did not form part of the general conversation in the past couple of days in relation to the regional issue, but it is very much a part of a recognition of the overall settlement in Afghanistan that the rights of minorities, including those of the Hazara, need to be taken into account.

As we have been generously gifted a little more time by the time fairies of the Commons doing their work earlier today—I could name my hon. Friends, but I shall not on this occasion—let me say a bit about the position of Hazaras in Afghanistan. The UK Government are very aware of the challenging circumstances faced by the Hazaras in Afghanistan. Article 22 of the Afghan constitution makes clear provision for the equal rights of all Afghan citizens, and we will continue to remind the Afghan Government of the need to ensure those rights. We have also made it clear that a political settlement should be inclusive and should address the needs of all Afghan citizens.

Since 2001, the situation has improved for Hazaras in Afghanistan, with Hazaras now in senior Afghan Government positions. They include the second vice-President, the acting higher education Minister and the governor of Bamiyan province—the first female provincial governor—Habiba Sarabi, whom I have met. We welcome that progress and we will continue to remind the Afghan Government of the need to ensure the equal rights of all citizens. In the regional context, any settlement in Afghanistan that makes sense will have to include proper attention being given to human rights. That was a key part of what the international community stressed in the agreements signed last year and it will be a key part of what happens post-2014. As we all know, the need for the closest relationship possible between Afghanistan and Pakistan in a future settlement is emphasised by the trilateral meetings taking place today. Again, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that although the specific position of the Hazaras is unlikely to constitute a specific part of those conversations, there is a recognition that the future of both Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot be assured unless serious attention is paid to the rule of law and ensuring the enforcement of human rights protection right across both states. Without that, neither state will have security and stability, which is going to be of prime importance.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would ensure that the plight of the Hazaras will be explicitly raised when the conditions of aid to Pakistan are discussed. Taking advice from the Department for International Development, I would say that all UK aid to any country is based on three shared commitments with partner Governments: poverty reduction and meeting the millennium development goals; respecting human rights and other international obligations; and strengthening financial management and accountability. We do not use those conditions to impose specific policy choices on countries. In Pakistan, our aid will support the Pakistan authorities in making progress in the relevant areas, including through concrete measures to improve the economy, reform education and devote proper attention to human rights. So although these things are an important part of the bargain made with any particular country, we do not make our aid conditional on specific issues.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the remarks the Minister has made so far, and the way in which the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and other hon. Members have educated me and the whole House about the plight of the Hazara community. Does the Minister agree that we should not extend that idea of conditionality too far in relation to British aid? Under both this Government and the previous Labour Government, aid has been focused on helping those in greatest need, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, including those in conflict-afflicted and fragile states such as Pakistan. It would be regrettable if we departed too far from that principle.