European Union (Referendum) Bill (Money)

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wish to speak on the money resolution. This is not the speech that I was not called to give in the debate on 5 July, nor is it the single transferable speech I would have given, had I been chosen to be a member of the Committee, on various amendments that I have tabled. I cannot understand why I was not chosen, given that I am so keen to debate these issues. Perhaps it is because there is a view out there—I had an e-mail this afternoon claiming this—that I am trying to wreck the Bill. I am not trying to do that, and I wish to focus these remarks on some of its expenditure implications.

The Minister talked about the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. However, the Bill makes no reference to that Act, so we must consider the nature of the question that would be put in a referendum. The original draft Bill, which was published by the Conservative party on 14 May, proposed the question:

“Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?”

However, the European Union (Referendum) Bill sets out a different question:

“Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?”

The Daily Mail suggested that Eurosceptic Conservative Members were unhappy about the original wording and that it had been changed because

“anti-Brussels MPs privately protested that the word ‘remain’ would prompt voters to stay in”.

As the Bill proceeds through Committee, I hope that that change will be explored further.

My hon. Friend the shadow Minister referred to the timing of the proposed referendum. The date that is chosen will have implications for the referendum. As the Minister said, if a referendum were held on the same day as local or European Parliament elections, the costs could be minimised and turnout would probably be significantly higher. Perhaps we should consider whether we should have a threshold for turnout, as was the case for the Scottish referendum in the 1970s, but that is not a matter for today.

If we were to hold the referendum on the same day as next year’s European Parliament elections—22 May 2014—expenditure on the referendum and its associated literature would be greatly reduced. Those arguing for leaving the European Union could then presumably vote for the UK Independence party, or perhaps the Conservatives, while voting to leave in the referendum. The cost of the literature put out by the respective parties would then be considerably smaller, although I am not entirely sure what the Conservative party’s literature would say about such a referendum.

The referendum could be held on the same day as the next general election, which will take place on the first Thursday in May 2015. Such an approach would similarly minimise the cost, as well as giving at least one of the coalition parties, or perhaps both, more time to clarify their attitude to the in-or-out question on the European Union.

There are implications of holding the referendum after the 2015 general election, given the rule that a Parliament cannot bind its successor. We are presumably being asked to vote for the money resolution on the basis that a commitment is being made for the future, but it might not be carried through if a different Government are elected at the next general election and they want to take a different approach.

If we are to hold the referendum by 31 December 2017, as is proposed, there might be implications for the British presidency of the European Union, which is due to begin on 1 July 2017. We could hold the referendum on the same day that the United Kingdom takes over the presidency, which might minimise costs because the literature published about the programme for the British presidency could refer to the referendum. If we held the referendum later that year—during the British presidency —it would help to publicise the various events that would be held to celebrate Britain’s contribution to the European Union, so I would look forward to that. The Bill does not deal with those options, but I hope that they will be explored in Committee.

We could minimise costs, and give the Conservative part of the Government more time to renegotiate the special arrangements that they wish to put in place, by holding a referendum on the same day as the 2020 general election. Based on the same arguments as I used before about the 2015 election, that too would be a way to minimise the cost that would be incurred.

The Prime Minister has said that he wants to reduce the cost of politics. It seems a strange way to go about reducing the cost of politics to bring in a referendum which, as the Minister said, will cost millions of pounds, and at the same time try to reduce the number of Members of the House of Commons, but increase the number of Members in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

Main Question again proposed.

[Mike Gapes]

I do not wish to detain the House too long because I wish to celebrate later the passing of the equal marriage Bill. I hope that along with all my colleagues on the Opposition Benches and many on the Government Benches—or most of those on the Opposition Benches and some on the Government Benches—we will be able to celebrate the equal marriage Bill. Therefore it is not my intention to divide the House this evening.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

May I correct the hon. Gentleman? It is not an equal marriage Bill because it does not provide for non-consummation or adultery. Therefore it cannot be described as equal marriage.

[Mike Gapes]

I suspect, Mr Speaker, that you would not wish me to get into the next debate so I shall not be tempted to go down that route. [Interruption.] But we could, of course, discuss wider issues—the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is shouting at me from a sedentary position, but I will not be tempted. I remember our exchanges over the Maastricht treaty in the early 1990s and I would much rather debate the referendum with him now.

These are important issues. The Bill needs proper scrutiny. It therefore needs to be considered carefully in Committee, and when it comes out of Committee—whenever that is—in several months, it will need to be properly considered in the House on Report and before it gets, or if it gets, a Third Reading. There are too many important questions to be considered for it to be assumed that the Bill should be pushed through without proper scrutiny and debate. The future of our country in Europe is at stake. Therefore the House and the country expect nothing less than the proper parliamentary scrutiny appropriate for a parliamentary democracy, not a democracy that is undermined by what a former Labour Prime Minister called a device of demagogues and dictators, which was quoted favourably by Margaret Thatcher when she was Leader of the Opposition in the debate in 1975. In that debate she said, and I conclude on this—[Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members were frustrated when they were unable to get their Margaret Thatcher day. At least I will quote Margaret Thatcher—

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Gapes]

Yes, I will, before I quote her.

[Tim Loughton]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He might like to take the opportunity, before he ends, to mention the money resolution which is supposed to be the subject of this debate. So far he has not done so.

[Mr Speaker]

It is not necessary to repeat the refrain “money resolution” so long as the content of the remarks of an hon. Member relates clearly to the purpose of the resolution. I have been attending closely to the hon. Gentleman’s expatiations and so far he has met the criterion. I do not want him to depart from the path of virtue as he nears his end.

[Mike Gapes]

I would never intend to depart from the path of virtue, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Thatcher said that the 1975 referendum had been introduced as

“a tactical device to get over a split in their own party.”—[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 306.]

Those are the words she used to describe the policy put forward by the then Labour Government, and I believe that they are completely appropriate to describe the policy now being put forward by the split part of this split Government—the Conservative part of the coalition.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I am in broad sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but since he is now repeating things I said on Second Reading, I wonder, given the historic vote on equal marriage that we are waiting to cast, whether it would not be better to stop banging on about Europe just for a bit.

[Mike Gapes]

Yes, of course. Had I not taken the previous two interventions, I would have finished by now. I was just about the give the House the benefits of Margaret Thatcher’s words of wisdom in 1975, but I was faced with two interventions, and now I have taken three. I am happy to conclude my remarks and hope to return to these issues later in the year if the Bill reaches consideration on Report.

Arms to Syria

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend says. That is why I think it is important that we focus on the practical and moral implications of such a policy.

In answer to colleagues’ points about doing nothing, I think that history provides a guide to what we should do. The last decade would suggest that trying to promote democracy and human rights, which is the Government’s stated objective, by force of arms can often be counter-productive. If we look at north Africa and parts of the middle east, we see the seeds of democracy stuttering into life where we have committed relatively few resources. If we look at Iraq and Afghanistan, however, it is not such a rosy picture, despite the huge cost in lives and treasure.

If we wanted to go back further, we could look at our interventions since the second world war. They have had a tendency to have an embedding effect—to reinforce the existing regimes. It is no coincidence, I put it to the House, that communism has survived longest in those countries where the west actually intervened—Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, even China. We have to be careful about our interventions.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned North Korea. Could we for the record confirm as a matter of fact that it was not the west that intervened in North Korea? It was actually the United Nations that was involved in defending the Koreans against aggression from the north and from China.

[Mr Baron]

To a certain extent, but the hon. Gentleman well knows that both sides put in forces up to the 38th parallel. Yes, the northern forces attacked, but the bottom line is that both sides—including the UN—put in forces initially. Putting that to one side, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not detract from the point that interventions have tended to have an embedding effect, particularly in the other examples I provided. We have to be very careful about intervention.

As an aside, I certainly believe that we need to make greater use of soft power—the ability to coerce and persuade by non-violent means—which can often be more effective and cost-effective than conventional hard power. It saddens me to say this, although I will do so while the Minister is in his place, that we are making cuts to our soft power capability, including the BBC World Service, the British Council and, indeed, the Foreign Office itself. We need to ensure that our military are up to the mark—one is not saying anything else—but the emphasis in the past was too much on hard power. We should better nuance our approach to foreign policy, particularly in this information age.

In conclusion, I am conscious that the debate has been over-subscribed and I look forward to hearing the contributions from hon. Members. It is terribly important that we put a marker in the sand, saying that Parliament must be consulted and that no lethal interventions can take place

“without the explicit prior consent of Parliament”.

That is not to prejudge the decision itself, but the principle is there. I welcome the fact that the Government have in recent months been on a little bit of a journey on this, particularly given the indications they gave at the start, which contained no conclusive confirmation that a vote would take place before any arming of the rebels. I welcome the development and I welcome the efforts of colleagues of all parties—and indeed this debate—in helping to crystallise that fact. I very much look forward to hearing the debate that follows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, because it has been part of Assad’s tactics from the very beginning to try to force his own people and the wider international community to believe that there is a stark choice between the Assad regime and jihadi extremists such as Jabhat al-Nusra and to ignore the fact that the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian secular forces and moderate Islamic forces, represent between them the overwhelming majority of the Syrian public, and to suggest that they are somehow irrelevant to this debate.

Let me share with the House why I changed my view over the past year. I did so for two reasons, the first of which is the humanitarian situation. More than 100,000 people have died so far. We are not talking about soldiers, militia or rebels; the vast majority of them were innocent men, women and children. All the analysis by human rights organisations—by Amnesty International and others—says not that every one of them was killed by the Assad regime, but that the vast majority were killed and slaughtered because of indiscriminate bombing by the Assad regime throughout Syria, particularly in the urban areas, where the opposition was active.

[Mike Gapes]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that it would be much more effective and better to provide a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridor to help the humanitarian situation than to give weaponry to people who might pass it on to other elements of the opposition that we might not wish to have it?

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not think that a no-fly zone is practical. It could not be legitimised by the Security Council and would involve massive attacks on Syrian air defences, which would essentially mean Britain, America and other countries going to war. That would not be appropriate or justified.

On a humanitarian basis, quite apart from any other argument, the Syrian opposition deserve weapons to protect their own communities. This time next year, 200,000 men, women and children will have been slaughtered in Homs, Aleppo and the various other centres that the Assad regime is trying to recontrol. From that point of view, such an approach is a consideration.

My second point goes straight to the comments made by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). I hope that we are all agreed that a political solution will ultimately end the conflict, but to have a political solution requires getting people to Geneva who are willing to make the compromises required. On what possible basis should Assad contemplate such an approach when he has refused all along to contemplate not just his own demise but any transitional Government or any new Government involving the Syrian opposition? He has ruled that out entirely. At this moment, he is even less likely to be interested in that argument.

The hon. Gentleman talked about escalating new arms supplies from Russia or Iran, but the one thing the Syrian Government and Assad regime do not need is more arms. They are satiated with arms and they have been supplied with them for the past two years. Assad knows that supply from Russia and Iran will continue for as long as he needs them, but on top of that he has Hezbollah militia fighting with his forces. That is foreign intervention and, incidentally, it shows the weakness of the Assad regime that it could not recapture the small town of Qusair by itself a few weeks ago but had to get several thousand Lebanese Hezbollah militia—

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

The reason we need Parliament to be supreme, and not the Government acting under royal prerogative, is the bitter experience we have had. In 2003, this House was bribed, bullied and bamboozled into voting for the war in Iraq.

[Mike Gapes]

I am very sorry, but some of us voted the way we did because we believed that it was right to protect the Kurds in Iraq and for the Iraqi people to be liberated from fascism. I do not feel that I was bamboozled or bribed and I hope that my hon. Friend is not impugning my integrity.

[Paul Flynn]

My hon. Friend is referring to Parliament and the majority here: 139 Labour Members voted against. Nearly 50 Labour Members who had already signed motions against the war and who were already opposed, were pressurised into changing their minds and abstaining or voting for the war. That is the truth of what happened then. It was on the basis of what was probably a lie or a misunderstanding. It was certainly untrue. We went there to defend our country against non-existent weapons of mass destruction allegedly held by Saddam Hussein. We proceeded to the second greatest error that we have made in recent times. That was in 2006 when we went into Helmand province, as has been said. The hope was that not a shot would be fired and we would be out in three years, having cleared up the drug trade. We now know what happened. At that time only two British soldiers had been killed in combat. The number is now 444. What were they doing in Helmand province? Defending the country against a non-existent Taliban terrorist threat to this country.

Around 52 terrorists have been convicted for actions within the United Kingdom. Not one of them is from Afghanistan. They are mostly people who were born and brought up in this country. So we have had two wars on which we embarked on a false premise, and it is right that we should ensure that the decisions are taken by the House on the best information that is available. While people are rehearsing what the argument should be in the future, we have to escape from the influences on this House. There are many influences, including the influences on politicians.

We know what happens to those in Government of all parties when the prospect of war is heard—with the drumbeats banging away, they adopt a Napoleonic posture, dig out the Churchillian language and try to write their page in history. We know the pressure from people in the arms industry. Frederick and Kimberly Kagan were at the side of General Petraeus in Afghanistan. They were at every secret meeting. They wrote part of his report to the Secretary of State in America and they constantly put pressure on to keep the war going and to discourage any peace initiatives. The Kagans were not employed by Petraeus. They were not employed by the American Government or the military. They were employed by the arms contractors in America.

There is a pressure for perpetual war. We know that millions were made in Iraq by the firms there after the Iraq war. We know that they will have contracts in the Syrian conflict. After those two great errors, pressure is on us now to prepare ourselves for war in Iran to protect ourselves from non-existent long-range Iranian missiles carrying non-existent Iranian nuclear bombs. We have to look to all these pressures, which have sent 623 of our brave soldiers to their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those decisions are made here. We take them, we should be responsible, and there certainly should not be any Government pressure that settles those decisions. We should do it in future in free debate.

There should be alterations to our constitution. We have conventions now—the one going back to 2003. That should be our model for the way we face every armed conflict in which our troops might be employed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), because I recall that he and I went to Sierra Leone together when we were both members of the Defence Committee when our Government had, rightly, intervened to defend democracy against people who were practising a form of terrorism against the population.

I am, by instinct and nature, a humanitarian interventionist. I support the responsibility to protect. I believe—I still say it, and it will get me criticised in some quarters—that voting for the intervention in Iraq in 2003 was the right thing to do, and I will not apologise for it. I believe that there are sometimes circumstances where it is right to take action without a United Nations Security Council resolution. For example, when John Major’s Government introduced a no-fly zone they did so without a UN resolution.

[Mr Winnick]

And there was Kosovo.

[Mike Gapes]

I will come to Kosovo, but I do not want to get diverted into the Balkans at the moment.

I also believe, though, that we have to look to the consequences of our actions and make judgments. I am not persuaded about suggestions that we provide sophisticated weaponry to opposition groups in Syria; in fact, I am very concerned about them. I am a member of the Committees on Arms Export Controls. We have accountability through the House and its Select Committees, and we monitor the transfer and sale of arms to states. However, the Government seem to be preparing to adopt a position that is not about transferring weaponry to states, but about providing weaponry to factions within a state. We might say that the National Coalition is the sole legitimate representative, although I do not hear that phrase being used quite so forcefully now, but it is certainly not the Government. Our Government would therefore be taking a decision to supply weaponry to a faction within a wider faction, within a state that still has a Government who control part of the territory, while other areas are controlled by warlords and tribal clans—the Kurdish people have almost total autonomy in one part of the country, as was the case for the Iraqi Kurds. Fundamental questions are being raised, so there would need to be an explicit vote in the House if such an action were taken, because it would set a lot of precedents. We all remember things such as arms to the Contras in the United States.

I will support the motion not simply because it is time to assert parliamentary sovereignty once more, but because there would be wider implications of such a decision by the Government. I am also worried that arms would be given to neighbouring states and then passed on, which raises additional problems. We need to explore issues such as end-use agreements, but any proposal will require an explicit vote of support.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. All of us in this place know that the great British public’s level of trust in politicians of all parties is not at its highest level. We need to restore that trust by engaging with them and giving them that choice—

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that it is a point of order, rather than a point of frustration.

[Mike Gapes]

It is. In answer to an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) said that Members of this House who propose amendments to the Bill would be misusing parliamentary procedure; he said that to do so would be a “misuse.” I seek clarification, Mr Speaker: would it not be perfectly in order for any Member of this House to propose many amendments to the Bill if it gets a Second Reading?

[Mr Speaker]

The situation the hon. Gentleman describes in his point of order will arise if the Bill gets a Second Reading. I heard what the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) said and think, if I may say so—and I may—that it is a point of debate. The hon. Gentleman was making a point of debate to which others can respond if they wish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

There is no difficulty in identifying a substantial group of Labour MPs who are in favour of a referendum—the issue is about the timing and the terms of the referendum, and I want to discuss that point now. A strong case has been advanced for a referendum now, before the election, but I wish to make it clear that I am completely opposed to that. An in/out referendum now would give us two choices, neither of which I find acceptable. Staying in on the existing terms would give the green light to those who wish to continue their spendthrift ways and want to continue the process towards ever-closer union. Getting out is simply a retreat and a surrender to separatism. I am opposed to that in Scotland, so I am also opposed to it in the United Kingdom.

There is, however, a case for a referendum now on giving the Government the power to renegotiate the terms of membership. A referendum now on allowing the Government to renegotiate—or on demanding that they start renegotiating—would send a signal to our European colleagues that we are serious about this. They, like us, must be doubting how serious the Government are about driving this forward, given that the Prime Minister has already said that he intends to accept whatever terms are on offer.

[Mike Gapes]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government do not need a referendum decision by this House, because they can go ahead and start renegotiating tomorrow if they wished to do so, and come up with proposals? The problem is that the Government do not have a negotiating position and, as the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Foreign Affairs Committee when we asked him about this, they do not intend to do this until after the next general election.

[Mr Davidson]

To be fair, I covered some of those points earlier. I am conscious that others wish to speak, so may I just say that we do need to have an agenda for change, and I think we need to wait for a crisis? I do not understand—this is why I am not supportive of the proposed wording—the point of saying that this has to be done by 31 December 2017. No rationale has been advanced as to why the chosen date should be 2017 rather than 2016 or 2018—or even why it should be 31 December. If we commit ourselves to having a renegotiation, the best way of achieving success is to act when the EU has its next crisis, which cannot be all that far off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

My point is simply that we have seen a gradual extension of the powers of the European Union. That is just one of the many reasons why an increasing number of people are reaching the conclusion that I have reached: our country would be better off out of the European Union.

I want us to trade with our European neighbours, but I do not see why we should have to pay billions of pounds every year for the privilege of doing so, particularly when we buy more goods from them than they buy from us.

[Mike Gapes]

The hon. Gentleman says that he wants out. Does he accept that Norway, which has not joined the European Union, has to pay billions of pounds to get access to the European Union’s single market?

[Mr Nuttall]

That is an interesting point, but I do not want to get drawn down the road of talking about the merits of our membership of the European Union. The Bill is not about the merits of our membership of the European Union, but about whether our constituents should have a say. It is because the Bill will give the people of Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington in my constituency the historic opportunity to vote for their freedom from the European Union that it has my wholehearted support. I wish it a speedy passage through this House.

NATO

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Bayley]

If we go back to the time of the cold war, we can see why it was relatively easy to explain why we needed collective security.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not wish to delay my hon. Friend, but I thought it important to intervene following the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) to point out that one of the sub-committees of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly will visit Greenland in September, which shows NATO’s interest. British Members of this House, including me, will participate in that visit.

[Hugh Bayley]

I am glad that my hon. Friend will be on that visit, discussing the matter with colleagues from other NATO countries. I look forward to hearing from him when he reports back.

During the cold war, it was fairly easy to explain why we had NATO and why we needed to work jointly with allies to defend ourselves. Europe was divided by an iron curtain. We in democratic states to the west wanted to preserve our freedom, our human rights, trade union rights, property rights, freedom of speech and freedom to protest while the states in the east—the USSR and its fellow travellers in satellite states—did not share those values. The Soviet Union was well armed with conventional and nuclear weapons and demonstrated that it was prepared to use those military assets to crush the Hungarian uprising in 1956, to blockade Berlin, to invade Czecho- slovakia in 1968 and to try to destroy the Solidarity movement in Poland. It was quite clear to most of the public why we needed military assets to protect ourselves and why we needed to co-operate with other countries to do so.

That was long ago. We still have foreign policy differences with Russia—for instance, over Syria.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mike Gapes]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at Northwood, in this country, there is close co-operation between the NATO and EU activities, and there is also UN discussion about anti-piracy activity. I do not think we should be quite as pessimistic as he implies.

[Jason McCartney]

I guess that the hon. Gentleman is a bit more pro-EU than I am. That is probably what is behind his comments. I will give another example of what duplication does. It can confuse command and control, and further evidence of that is the EU force headquarters being set up in Belgium, in a similar location to NATO’s headquarters on the outskirts of Brussels. That is more costly duplication of command and control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Of course piracy off the coast of Somalia is not a good thing. Instability in Somalia is very bad, but surely one solves that problem by political support for changes in Somalia—to some extent that is happening and considerable changes are taking place. I sometimes get the feeling that NATO spent the 1990s and early 2000s looking for something to do, and that it was more than pleased to get involved in Afghanistan and present itself as the armed wing of the United Nations. It may be that the UN should have its own force, and that is a matter for consideration and debate. However, when NATO calls itself the arm of the UN, what does that say to countries that are not in or aligned to NATO, or indeed are deeply suspicious of NATO and its activities? Members who talk about NATO as being the effective arm of the UN should think carefully about the implications of what they are saying.

The costs of NATO membership are considerable—probably far greater than those of membership of the European Union, which seems to excite massive debate on the Government Benches. NATO requires 2% of our gross national product to be spent on defence, and Members complain that other countries do not meet those demands. Presumably, NATO membership requires a level of expenditure that many countries simply cannot afford, yet they are required to make that expenditure and, for the most part, to buy those arms from the United States or approved suppliers that produce NATO-issue equipment. We must think far more seriously about why we are in NATO and what it is achieving.

Let us consider Afghanistan from 2001 onwards. Yes, 9/11 was a dreadful event and an act of murder against civilians, but was it an appropriate response to invade Afghanistan? Twelve years later, 400 British soldiers, a larger number of American soldiers, and a very much larger number of Afghan civilians, and others, are dead. Drone aircraft are operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there is a real threat to the civil liberties of everyone in the world from Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition and anti-terror legislation. That has not made the world a safer or more secure place.

[Mike Gapes]

Does my hon. Friend accept that in 2001, an estimated 10,000 terrorists came out of training camps in Afghanistan from areas that the state had effectively handed over for al-Qaeda to operate in? Was there not a need to protect communities around the world by removing those terrorist bases from Afghanistan?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I question the figure of 10,000 and I would take my Friend back a little further. In 1979, Soviet support for the then Afghan Government provoked a massive US response and arming of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. Massive amounts of US money went into Afghanistan from 1979 onwards and—hey presto!—the Taliban were formed with US weapons. Al-Qaeda was founded by US trainers. What goes around comes around and we should think more carefully about instant information and instant sending of vast amounts of weapons to opposition groups. The same may happen if we decide to send arms to one group in Syria. Where will those arms end up? A little bit of historical analysis might be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), who, like me, is a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I want to pick up on a reference he made—it has come up in other contributions too—to Kosovo.

During the Whit recess, I went with a NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation to Serbia and Kosovo. We went by road from Belgrade through north Mitrovica and south Mitrovica down to Pristina. We visited a Serbian orthodox monastery in Kosovo, which is now in an area overwhelmingly populated by Kosovo Albanians, rather than Kosovo Serbs. One interesting development is that in Belgrade, Mitrovica and Pristina everybody unanimously praised the work of KFOR, the NATO-led force doing the vital job of providing stability and protection to the minority Serbian communities and religious places in Kosovo, as well as acting to prevent conflict in north Mitrovica.

KFOR divided Kosovo into five areas of operations, and its commanding officer is German. The most difficult area covers north Mitrovica, in which approximately 80,000 Serbs live. Many do not accept that they live in Kosovo—they still identify with Belgrade. Significantly, the KFOR commander for this area does not come from a NATO country—he is from the neutral country of Switzerland. Through its structure, infrastructure and continuity, NATO enables partner countries and others to participate and play important roles in NATO structures.

There is a similar situation in Afghanistan, with an alliance of 28 countries—or 43 countries, I am not sure what the actual figure is now—that participate in international operations. NATO has played an essential part in providing the framework for that to happen. Similarly, EU co-operation is happening in different places. Wearing my Foreign Affairs Committee hat, I was in Mali last month. I was pleased to meet and talk to the EU’s training mission, led by French officers who are doing a fantastic job, which includes 46 British forces personnel. Interestingly, for the first time British officers will be in charge of Irish soldiers, from the Royal Irish Regiment. The two flags will be working together for the first time since the 1930s. That is a symbol of international co-operation. That work is done under an EU initiative, so that Ireland, Sweden and other EU countries that are not in NATO can nevertheless contribute and work with NATO countries. Often, the assets and resources of NATO are used in that way to enhance our European defence and security.

[Hugh Bayley]

rose—

[Mike Gapes]

I give way to the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

[Hugh Bayley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the new military co-operation between Britain and the Irish Republic. When I was in Mali, just a week or two before him, I saw a training unit led by a British major and, from the Irish Republic, an Irish captain. However, my hon. Friend made a slip of the tongue: he referred to the Royal Irish Regiment, but of course those forces were from the Republic of Ireland.

[Mike Gapes]

I am grateful for that intervention.

Let me turn to some of the other issues that have been raised. An important point was made about the internet and cyber-warfare. NATO has a facility in Estonia—I have visited it with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and I know that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has also visited it—to bring together best practice for dealing with cyber-warfare. As we have seen from the media headlines in the last few days, we will face significant challenges, not just from states but, I suspect, over the coming decades from private interests and private companies spying and stealing data and commercially sensitive material. We also know of reports—I am not in a position to say whether they are true—that the Iranian nuclear weapons programme was seriously set back because of the activities of some countries and the so-called Stuxnet, and there are other areas where these matters are also of great importance.

International security is enhanced by co-operation, not just in hardware and personnel but in intelligence and security sharing. We need to be honest: these are not issues that can be dealt with by simplistic headlines in The Guardian or any other newspaper. They have to be looked at seriously. There needs to be international co-operation to deal with threats to our security, which might come not from terrorist bombs but from somebody sabotaging a banking system or undermining the supply of electricity or water to our major cities by making a minor change to a software programme, albeit one with potentially disastrous consequences. We need to look at those issues. I believe that NATO has a role in that respect.

My final point relates to the United States, which has already been referred to several times. We have heard about the so-called pivot towards Asia, President Obama’s strategy of leading from behind and all the other concerns that we have as Europeans. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly provides one of the few forums for members of the US House of Representatives and the Canadian Parliament to come to meetings at which we can have regular discussions with them. Sadly, given the nature of the insane political system in the United States and two-year elections to the House of Representatives, it is difficult for its members to get abroad very often, because they have to spend all their time raising election campaign money or fighting re-elections, normally in their primaries.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is important, because it means that there is a group of Americans from the Republicans and the Democrats who have had contact with and learnt about European politics. In the same way, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly provides a way for people from European countries to understand the politics of other countries better. The current President of Turkey, Abdullah Gul, was a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for many years. I am sure that that was important, given that he comes from the AK party, which comes out of an Islamist tradition. He has clearly learnt a great deal and built confidence and understanding with other European parliamentarians and those from across the Atlantic.

The forum that is provided, the specialist committees and the reports that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly publishes provide members of Parliaments in different countries with vital information that they would not always get from their own Ministries of Defence—I am glad that the Minister is in his place to hear this. In the more than 10 years that I have been attending meetings of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I have found that the access we get to high-level meetings and the information we get in those meetings is often far superior to the level of information I used to get as a member of the Select Committee on Defence or the Foreign Affairs Committee. That is not something to be proud of.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Can my hon. Friend say—I am genuinely interested in this—what degree of influence over NATO policy and strategy the Parliamentary Assembly has?

[Mike Gapes]

Without straying too far from what I was going to say, I can say that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly produces reports which are published online and are published in draft form before final versions are produced. Every year the NATO Secretary-General produces a response to the points made. It is a bit like the relationship between Select Committees and the Government. Recommendations are made, reports are published and then the NATO bureaucracy—the Secretary-General, on behalf of NATO as an institution—responds to the assembly’s recommendations. The Secretary-General and other senior NATO figures come before our meetings. We hold them to account, whether at the February session in Brussels or the autumn meeting, which rotates among different countries.

There is therefore a level of connection and accountability, although NATO is not a democratic parliamentary structure. It works through a consensus arrangement between the different member Governments. In a sense, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly is far less democratic than other bodies—there is no qualifying majority voting, like in the European Union—while the European Parliament has a lot more powers. Nevertheless, the work we do as parliamentarians, representing our national Parliaments but also understanding and working in co-operation with others, is vital. Under my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), the president of the assembly, I believe we will have a much higher profile in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Parliaments of countries that are applying the rules of the European Union in order to gain access to the single market, such as Norway and Switzerland, have absolutely no influence on decisions in the EU?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Certainly, Norwegian and Swiss leaders have consistently told me that they think the UK is in a better position to gets its own way in EU negotiations than they are.

Iran

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That would be a good thing to know. As I remarked earlier, we must be careful about how we interpret election results in other countries. There is no doubt that sanctions on Iran are having a major impact on the country, and that that is felt in the country, so I want to make it clear again that if we cannot resolve the nuclear issue, sanctions will be intensified. Iran faces a choice on this. I cannot divine the exact feelings of the Iranian people, but I know that they would be much better off if they resolved the nuclear issue.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Iranian people are overwhelmingly young and want to engage with the rest of the world. They are controlled by a conservative theocratic group. The President who has just been elected comes from that conservative group, but he has been chosen because the young people want change. How can we get across, to the young people of Iran in particular, that we are not the enemy and that we also want change in Iran?

[Mr Hague]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have no quarrel with the people of Iran and we are not their enemy. We do try to get that message across.

Of course, it is not easy to broadcast into Iran but we make every effort to do so. The BBC makes very good efforts to do so; I have done a number of interviews on BBC Persian that directly address the issues, so that the people of Iran can hear what we say and how we argue about those issues.

It is possible, in a world much more connected and with so many social media, to convey the messages in many new ways. We are taking every opportunity to do that, and for private individuals to do that is extremely healthy. We can get the messages across. Perhaps—without, as I say, over-analysing the result—we are seeing a wish among the young people of Iran to have better relations with the rest of the world.

Syria (EU Restrictive Measures)

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the House can be proud of the part that the UK has already played, not only in making it clear that there will be that accountability, but in providing the means to ensure that that accountability happens. Providing the opportunity for training, collecting material, instructing people on what evidence to look for and the like have been an important part of what we have contributed up to now. He is correct, however, that without fear or favour those who take part in atrocities, no matter on which side they range themselves during this conflict, should be subject to the rule of law and international justice.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

If we are concerned about the civilian deaths from air attacks by the regime, would it not be better to do something about stopping the regime using aircraft and helicopters to attack civilian areas, rather than give sophisticated weaponry to people who might then hand it on to others to use against us in the future?

[Alistair Burt]

I repeat again, at the risk of riling the House, that we are not discussing whether the UK is providing weaponry. That point has been well made. The question of air cover has been discussed before. As the House knows, the Syrian air defences are not weak, and up till now no one has considered there to be a practical way of dealing with them, but part of what I will say is about all options being open. Lifting the arms embargo will increase the flexibility available to those who might need to protect civilians, or supply those who are protecting them, in the future. It offers that necessary flexibility, but no such decision has been taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee on his contribution. I agree with everything he said, with one exception. I do not support the lifting of the EU arms embargo, and it is very important that we recognise that Britain and France are outliers in the European Union. Many other countries have been resisting moves by the UK and French Governments over recent months and there will be a decisive split in the European Union on this issue if the Government persist in the approach that they are taking. Perhaps that is what the coalition Government want, or perhaps it is what part of the coalition Government want, but it is not in our long-term interests or in the interests of future European co-operation on this issue.

I have enormous sympathy for the Minister. He is a good man and he has been put up today to defend an extremely difficult position. He has to justify a very bad policy. It is a bad policy, because the prospect of our Government providing sophisticated weaponry at some point in the future, which is the intention and which is what this is all about and has been about incrementally over the past few weeks, means that surface-to-air missiles could be used to shoot down civilian aircraft in the region—missiles which might ultimately be found to have been supplied by the UK and France to elements in the Syrian opposition, and which might then have been sold, captured or handed over by people who defected from one faction to another.

If we are going to put sophisticated weaponry into the region to deal with the brutality of the Assad regime, that sophisticated weaponry should be in the hands of people, first, who are trained to use it, and secondly, who will operate according to the laws of war and who are ultimately controlled by NATO powers—either through Turkey, our NATO ally, or through the UK, the French and the United States working collectively to bring in a no-fly zone.

Two years ago, because of the threat to Benghazi, the coalition Government said that we needed to intervene with a no-fly zone. I supported them, as did most Members in the House. Now we have seen the deaths of tens of thousands or perhaps 100,000 people in Syria already and all the other consequences—the millions of displaced people and the refugees—yet we are not prepared to act. We are, of course, waiting for Obama, and Obama is not coming. He is not prepared to move. I asked the Foreign Secretary yesterday what his understanding was of the position of the US Government with regard to arming the opposition or a no-fly zone, and I got no answer.

The real tragedy in this situation is that countries that could make a difference to end the conflict relatively quickly are sitting back, while other countries, particularly the Qataris, and Hezbollah supported by Iran, are fuelling the process—and Russia, because it wants to keep the Tartus naval base, is prepared to do almost anything to back the Assad regime. I am not holding my breath for success at the forthcoming conference. Either there will be no agreement on who will participate, or agreement will not be reached unless it is a Dayton-style process and everybody is put in a room and kept there, with international forces putting pressure on them until an agreement is reached.

The prospect is that we will perhaps start arming elements in the opposition, but the conflict will continue for a very long time, with the sponsors of the Assad regime continuing to provide more and more weaponry. Russia will strengthen the air defences and the whole outcome will be a disaster. We need to be trying not to give arms to the Syrian opposition, and instead to be battering on the doors of the White House and the Kremlin and doing far more to get the countries that really can make a difference to stop the process before it is too late.

Syria

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is getting ahead of where we have reached in our policy making. We could supply arms only in carefully controlled circumstances, and with very clear commitments from the opposition side. I cannot at this stage go into what arrangements could be made—some of them would necessarily be confidential—but we would want to be able to assure the House and the country that we had confidence in any such arrangements. That is a subject that we might have to return to.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Foreign Secretary said that he was in constant contact with US Secretary of State John Kerry. As a result of those constant contacts, is he in any position to ascertain exactly the US Administration’s position? Why have they failed to act on President Obama’s so-called red line? Does the US support arming of the rebels or will it consider a no-fly zone?

[Mr Hague]

There is no mystery about the position of the United States. In public as well as in private, the US is driving the initiative put together with Russia on 8 May to have the Geneva conference. Secretary Kerry is therefore working very hard on the diplomatic side of all this work. The US is very sympathetic to any means of putting greater pressure on the regime ahead of the conference, including the European Union matters I have been talking about, while fully recognising that it is for EU states to decide on that. It is the view in America, as it is our view, that it is important for the facts on chemical weapons to be established in the eyes of the world. We have sent our evidence to the UN team, and particularly after what happened in the last decade it is important for our claims about the existence or misuse of weapons to be established, preferably by the United Nations.

G8 Foreign Ministers

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I do. The official number of refugees now in Jordan is 424,000. To put that into perspective, that would, on a rough calculation, be equivalent to about 8 million or 9 million people arriving in the United Kingdom—that is the scale of the addition to the population there. We can all imagine the strain that that would impose on any country.

The House is clear, strong and united on the subject of countries’ meeting pledges. The additional dimension to this matter is that if it is so difficult to come up with the $1.5 billion agreed in January at Kuwait, how difficult will it be to come up with the $1.5 billion every few weeks or couple of months that we are going to need if the crisis goes on and the numbers get much bigger? That is why I say again that our policy cannot be static. There is only a choice between the lesser of evils in how we pursue our policy on this subject, but that underlines the fact that we cannot ignore the crisis.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Governments of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan armed the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, with unforeseen and terrible long-term consequences. Rather than giving to elements of the Syrian opposition surface-to-air missiles that can shoot down civilian aircraft, would it not be better to consider again whether a no-fly zone, controlled by us, is a better option?

[Mr Hague]

All options have to be considered. The hon. Gentleman has asked about the issue several times and has been pursuing it wholly legitimately. My answer is quite similar to the one I gave him last time. To enforce a no-fly zone, there are, again, international legal considerations. It would also require the participation of aircraft on a very large scale, so the decision would essentially be one for the United States, given the scale required. No such decision by the United States has been taken. We are working in an environment where we do not have a no-fly zone and we have to consider the options available to us in the light of that.

FCO: Human Rights Work

Mike Gapes Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to be called early, Mr Havard. I begin by taking up the question on Russia, which my friend the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) left us with. The chairman of the Duma international relations committee, Alexei Pushkov, was on “Newsnight” yesterday, and I am sure the Minister will have been shown a transcript of what he had to say. He said—I am paraphrasing, because I do not have a transcript—that Blair and Brown were hostile to Russia and raised questions on human rights and other matters, but that David Cameron’s attitude was different and the British Government have a new approach. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position, given that there have been discussions with the Russian Foreign Minister and Defence Minister in London in the past week?

Is there a new approach that downgrades human rights concerns about events in Russia and ignores the murder by polonium on the streets of London of a man with connections with Russia and the UK? We also have outstanding issues, which date back to the harassment of our ambassador in Moscow, and I understand that harassment of British diplomats is ongoing. There are also issues relating to the British Council. To coin a phrase, has there been a reset of relations with Russia, such that human rights and concerns of a bilateral nature are no longer on the agenda, or is Mr Pushkov mistaken? I hope he is, but it would be interesting to hear from the Government whether that is the case.

The second thing I will talk about is Sri Lanka. I have a long-standing constituency interest in Sri Lanka, because many of my constituents fled from the terrible violence of the Sri Lanka civil war. I also have many constituents who came to Britain several decades ago and did not flee from that war. They are happily settled in the UK and have a different narrative to tell. I am increasingly concerned that there is a policy to remove people back to Sri Lanka following the civil war’s end when we do not have the necessary guarantees about the human rights situation and the treatment of those individuals on their return. In our Select Committee report on the matter, we referred to concerns of that kind, as well as to the policy and relationship of the FCO and the UK Border Agency on decisions about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and the forced removal of Tamil people living in the UK. The Government have recently had to respond to a freedom of information request from an organisation called Freedom from Torture, which I understand raised some further concerns.

When the Select Committee raised the issue, we were told that there are no credible allegations on the torture of individuals who have been returned to Sri Lanka. We were also told that the Government do not yet have substantiated evidence that people who have been returned have been mistreated. We asked about the processes they go through, how they check, who they speak to and how they gather information. A substantial section of the Government response refers in passing to those issues, but I will not quote it now. Do the Government still believe that there are no credible allegations? Are there still no substantiated cases where there is evidence of mistreatment?

I understand that in response to a freedom of information request, which was issued on 6 February this year, it was suggested that a number of people who had been forcibly returned to Sri Lanka have been subsequently given asylum, or at least a leave to remain of some kind, in this country. How many of those are Tamils who were returned due to concerns about their mistreatment? I have been told—I do not know whether it is correct—that there are either 13 or 15 people in that category. It would be helpful to know how many of those allegations of torture were found to be credible, because that information is not in the public domain.

Given that we have concerns about what is happening in Sri Lanka—about the treatment of opposition figures and journalists, and about the very large military presence in the north of the island—is our Government’s position still the same, as regards the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that is supposed to be held this year in Colombo? Some other Commonwealth countries —no doubt this will be debated later this afternoon—have said that they will not send their Prime Ministers or leaders at a higher level. Canada has made its position on that clear. Is it still the British Government’s position that it is too early to judge? If so, what criteria will need to be met before our Prime Minister attends that Commonwealth meeting?

Finally, I want to raise a general point about the need for human rights issues to be at the centre of the approach to such matters internationally. I was concerned when the UK Border Agency and the Home Office started to have a lead role on some of these issues. Potentially, there is a downgrading of the concerns that are expressed by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other organisations that look at those matters worldwide. If the approach in Government is that policy priority is given to economic benefits—or other matters, but that human rights issues are subservient—and if we have a policy that is driven by the desire to keep down the number of foreign nationals coming to the UK, that raises concerns about how we will deal with people who are at risk of persecution, torture, and even their lives, because other criteria are being given priority by the Government. I hope that that is not the case, and I will be grateful to hear the Government’s response.

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the present Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), and his predecessor, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). I very much endorse the comments of my hon. Friend, when he said that the Government would do well to acknowledge that there is an inherent conflict between the Government pursuing their legitimate commercial interests, on one hand, and also standing up fearlessly for human rights on the other. The same point and representations have been made by the Committees on Arms Export Controls, which I chair, and the Government would do well to acknowledge that inherent conflict, rather than expressing a position of trying to pretend that no such conflict exists.

I say to the Minister that I shall raise a number of points, and I entirely understand that he may not have the time or information to reply to them immediately at the end of the debate. I will be very glad to receive replies subsequently in writing, if he so wishes.

I want to start with China, which remains a one-party, totalitarian, police state. Rightly and necessarily, it continues to feature in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s list of countries of concern with regards to human rights. As the FCO’s human rights report reminds us, when there were calls in China for a “Jasmine Revolution” to follow the Arab spring:

“Public order and security bodies detained and harassed lawyers, bloggers, human rights campaigners and other activists, without allowing them recourse to their legal rights.”

Very considerable numbers of human rights activists are in jail, including, of course, the immensely courageous Nobel peace prize winner, Liu Xiaobo, who is still in prison serving an intolerable sentence for the so-called, catch-all offence of “subversion”.

I want to raise a particular aspect of human rights in the context of China, and it concerns the Government’s policy on arms exports. China is rightly subject to an arms embargo. However, in the latest figures published by the Government on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills website, for the third quarter of 2012, the Government have stated that they approved arms export licences for components for military electronic equipment; equipment for the use of military communications equipment; military communications equipment; military electronic equipment; and technology for military communications equipment. Will the Minister explain how it is that when the British Government have signed up to the EU arms embargo on China, they are still none the less approving military arms export licences to China for the type of equipment that, on the face of it, could be used for internal repression and the violation of human rights?

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South and the hon. Member for Ilford South, I want to discuss Russia, which is rightly listed as a country of concern by the FCO. From my perspective and that of most, if not all, in the House, under President Putin, human rights in Russia are going backwards, not forwards—particularly in the area of the freedom to express, the freedom to criticise and the right of peaceful protest. The laws that are now being put through the Duma, which is controlled effectively by those who support President Putin, are particularly concerning. The laws include, for example, fines for unsanctioned demonstrations and measures to oblige NGOs to register as “foreign agents”.

I noted with interest and concern what the mould-breaking former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said about the new Putin laws in a recent BBC interview:

“The common thread running through all of them is an attack on the rights of citizens.”

In the face of those new laws being passed and an increasingly hostile environment to basic human rights in Russia, will the Minister, in his reply, give us any assurance that the British Government will do all they can to protect British nationals in Russia, and, in particular, locally employed staff of organisations such as the British embassy, the British Council and those who are working for international human rights NGOs in Russia?

The country that probably has the worst human rights record in the world—indeed, this is stated in the Foreign Office’s human rights report—is North Korea. The previous Labour Government took what I considered to be an entirely justified step—we were one of the first European countries to do so—to re-establish a diplomatic presence in Pyongyang in order to give us the possibility to exercise some degree of leverage on human rights issues, among other things, in the capital, and also to provide a point of contact for human rights and humanitarian NGOs working in North Korea. With the arrival of Kim Jong-un as the “supreme leader” of North Korea—that is how he styles himself—we have in recent weeks and days seen an alarming escalation of hostile actions and statements. We have seen a ballistic missile test. We have seen a nuclear explosion. We have seen the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea claiming nullification of the armistice that ended the Korean war in 1953. We have seen the cutting of the hotline to Seoul. Very recently, a public statement was made that North Korea was ready for “all-out war”.

In light of the dismal and concerning developments that I have set out, are the British diplomatic staff reporting a reduction in their ability to further the human rights agenda and objectives of the British Government in North Korea? Can the Minister assure us that the Government will do all that they can to support our embassy and NGOs in North Korea in the extraordinarily important and difficult human rights and humanitarian work that they do?

I now come, with considerable regret but absolutely no apology, to an area that I think that I have raised in every one of these debates since they were first initiated—Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As with my previous contributions, I emphatically do not do so in any one-sided or partial manner. The Hamas rocket attacks into Israel—I have been to the communities in Israel where those rockets have landed—are wholly unacceptable and totally intolerable. Indeed, I regard Hamas as a disgrace to the Palestinian cause and a very serious impediment to the Palestinian wish to achieve proper democratic progress towards an independent and viable Palestinian state.

That said, the Israeli Government cannot escape the criticism that they encounter, both within Israel to some extent and more widely internationally, for the relentless and continuing violation of basic Palestinian rights. I consider the FCO to be entirely correct in including Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a country of concern in its human rights report.

[Mike Gapes]

Does my friend agree with me that the formation of a Government in Israel today is a chance for a renewed emphasis on and impetus for the restarting of negotiations that will lead to the two-state solution that is the only viable way to deal with this conflict?

[Sir John Stanley]

I agree with my friend that that is an opportunity, but to be wholly frank and honest, I have grave doubts about whether it will be seized, because I fear that since the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, there simply has not been a majority in the Knesset that is really willing to embrace the concept of creating a separate, independent, viable Palestinian state.

In recent years, we have seen the Israeli Government ending the movement of Palestinians between Gaza and Israel, turning Gaza into one of the biggest prisons, de facto, in the world. We have seen the relentless and continuing removal of Palestinian families from East Jerusalem, with the clear political objective of preventing East Jerusalem from ever becoming the capital of a Palestinian state. We see the continuation of the intolerable violation of Palestinian human rights on the west bank. To expose that, we need go no further than the Israeli NGO—I stress that it is an Israeli NGO—B’Tselem in its last annual report. It said:

“In the West Bank, two and a half million Palestinians live under Israeli military occupation while settlers live in enclaves of Israeli law within the same territory. Individual acts of violence by extremist settlers periodically capture the headlines, and discriminatory and inadequate law enforcement is indeed a concern. However, the major human rights violations result from the settlements themselves: their extensive exploitation of land and water, the massive military presence to protect them, the road network paved to serve them and the invasive route of the Separation Barrier, which was largely dictated by the settlements.”

Having made many visits to the British consulate-general in Jerusalem, I am well aware of the sterling and excellent work that is done by the Foreign Office from the consulate- general in trying to support and uphold Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories. However, in my view, a step change will be needed in the Israeli Government’s policy towards the Palestinians and towards the occupied territories if we are to see a genuine improvement in human rights. Does the Minister see any such prospect? From where I sit, and having seen the human rights deterioration taking place over so many years, I fear that we are moving to a position in which Gaza continues for the foreseeable future as one gigantic prison, East Jerusalem becomes an area where house after house belonging to a Palestinian family is taken over by the Israelis and, sadly, the west bank loses the possibility of becoming the core of an independent Palestinian state and becomes what I can only describe as a middle-eastern version of a Bantustan. Perhaps I am being too gloomy. I hope that I am, but I fear that I am not, given the progress of events.

I now come to a different part of the world and a different human right. I want to raise the case of Colonel Kumar Lama, a Nepalese citizen who came temporarily to the UK and who has now been arrested in the UK on the grounds of allegations of torture, committed not in Britain but in Nepal and committed not against British nationals but against Nepalese nationals. I wish to inform the House that although I have no registered interest to declare, I am the chairman of the all-party Britain-Nepal group.

I am raising this issue not because I want to take any position or make any comment on Colonel Lama’s specific case, but because it calls into question some very important human rights policy issues for the Government. In his letter to me this week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that the arrest of Colonel Lama has been carried out to fulfil the UK’s obligations under the UN convention against torture. I cannot believe that Colonel Lama’s case is an isolated one. I cannot believe that Colonel Lama is the only foreign national in the UK against whom allegations have been made of torture committed against non-British nationals in foreign countries. Surely there must be scores and possibly even hundreds of others in the same category, so the key policy issue that I have to put to the Minister is this. Will he now confirm that, in the light of the Colonel Lama case, the British prosecuting authorities and the police will now arrest, in fulfilment of the UK Government’s obligations under the UN convention against torture, all other foreign nationals in Britain against whom there are allegations of torture committed against non-British nationals in foreign countries? That is the central policy question the Colonel Lama case raises. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

The key human right of freedom of expression embraces, in my view, freedom of speech, a free media and freedom to demonstrate peacefully. Freedom of expression is becoming ever more important in this electronic age, which gives Governments who are so minded greater and greater ability to suppress human rights and human rights activists. It enables Governments to combine unprecedented access to information acquired electronically with an unprecedented ability to carry out surveillance electronically.

I shall turn from freedom of expression generally to developments in that key human right in the Commonwealth. I am glad to say that we seem to have achieved a breakthrough on freedom of expression as far as Commonwealth countries are concerned. The first declaration of Commonwealth principles, made in Singapore in 1971 and followed by a repeated declaration of the principles 20 years later in the 1991 Harare declaration, was a major step forward in human rights for the Commonwealth, but in neither the Singapore declaration nor the Harare declaration were Commonwealth countries able to agree on including freedom of expression as a key Commonwealth principle and human right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

Yes, I can confirm that I have been doing a lot of work on that issue. I was the first Minister from Europe to go to Rakhine; I went to Sittwe and five different camps, and ever since then I have been raising the issue of the Rohingya people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, asked a number of questions about Burma, including about the sanctions against Burma. The EU Foreign Affairs Council will review the sanctions against Burma in April. We have always said that the outcome of that review will depend on the progress that the Burmese Government have made against the benchmarks set out in the council’s conclusions of 12 January, including the need for meaningful progress on reconciliation with armed ethnic groups.

My hon. Friend also asked about political prisoners in Burma, which is another issue I have raised repeatedly with the Burmese. Independent experts estimate that there remain about 240 political prisoners in Burma, and we welcomed the announcement by the Burmese Government that the International Committee of the Red Cross has access to all jails and prisoners. We also welcomed President Thein Sein’s announcement on 7 February that the prisoner review mechanism will contain civil society leaders and Members of Parliament. We really want to see that happen.

On the issue of Rakhine, which was mentioned earlier, I have just told the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about my work there.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) raised the issue of Russia and the whole question of Mr Magnitsky. Yesterday both my Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe met the Russians and raised these issues with them repeatedly. As is well known—my right hon. Friend will know it if he has read the papers today—the Foreign Secretary met Russia’s Foreign Secretary Lavrov yesterday, and we will continue to raise these issues and bring those responsible for Sergei Magnitsky’s death to account. We also raised concern over the new measures restricting freedom of expression and putting pressure on civil society. It is worth saying that we fund a number of projects to support Russian civil society, and we continue to meet and provide support to those who are subject to harassment. I give an assurance that we will continue to do all we can to protect British nationals and our staff in Russia, as my right hon. Friend asked us to do.

[Mike Gapes]

On the issue of Russia, will the Minister give way?

[Mr Swire]

I must continue. All right, I will give way.

[Mike Gapes]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he just say on the record that the remarks by the chairman of the Russian Duma’s international relations committee on “Newsnight” yesterday were wrong?

[Mr Swire]

I did not see those remarks, so I will go and study them and then get back to the hon. Gentleman.

The 2011 report also highlighted the progress that we have made against our six specific human rights priorities. These priorities are: torture prevention; the death penalty; women’s rights; freedom of religion or belief; freedom of expression online; and business and human rights. In 2011, we saw significant strengthening of our focus on torture prevention through the publication of torture and mistreatment reporting guidance and the strategy for the prevention of torture, which we understand is the first such national strategy in the world.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling raised the issue of Colonel Lama of Nepal. As the Minister with responsibility for Nepal, I know about the particular incident and I just say that the Government are very mindful of our obligations under the UN convention against torture, and every case will of course be subject to the due process of the law.

In 2011, we also reviewed our death penalty strategy, and we continue to pursue abolition, restriction, or—at the least—adherence to international minimum standards. The long-term trend is positive and we judge that the number of countries now carrying out executions has dropped by half since the mid-1990s.

Since publication of the 2011 report, the Foreign Secretary has launched the preventing sexual violence initiative to strengthen and co-ordinate international efforts to prevent and respond to atrocities involving sexual violence, and to break down the culture of impunity around such crimes. As I speak, the UN Commission on the Status of Women meeting is in its final sessions and we hope for a more positive outcome this year. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development and other ministerial colleagues have been active in lobbying for a strong set of agreed conclusions. Incidentally, I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s campaigning work to end female genital mutilation.

As the Minister with responsibility for human rights, Baroness Warsi has made freedom of religion or belief a personal priority. She hosted a cross-regional meeting of Ministers in London in January to build political momentum to combat discrimination against people based on their religion or belief. We also remain a strong supporter of freedom of opinion and expression, not least on the internet. We speak out on countries that oppose or abuse this right, pressing them to uphold their international obligations. As the Committee knows, we played a leading role in supporting the development of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, which were endorsed by the UN in June 2011. We have developed a strategy to implement and promote those principles.

In February 2012, we published our updated national action plan on UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, which highlighted work in Afghanistan, Iraq and the middle east, as well as in the UK’s own security operations. We became the first country to publish human rights guidance for our overseas security and justice sector work, and we reviewed and improved our already robust arms export controls.

In April last year, the Foreign Secretary announced an additional £1.5 million in funding for human rights projects, with particular emphasis on the countries of concern covered in the 2011 report. We have also made changes to the ways in which we bring in external expertise, which I think was one of the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to inform and challenge our policy formulation.

The Foreign Secretary’s human rights advisory group has met twice yearly since it was first established in December 2010. This group of experts has brought valuable challenges to us on many human rights issues. We consulted the group on criteria for deciding the countries of concern for the 2012 report. We intend to report fully on the methodology used in the coming report. The report will be published in April and we look forward to the Committee’s response. I hope that the report will be published in hard copy too; I shall ensure that the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling are taken on board.

We should never be complacent about human rights. No matter what progress is made, there remain huge challenges all over the world. We shall remain steadfast in support of human rights and democracy in the middle east and north Africa as difficult transitions take place. The Arab partnership initiative will help us to do that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, the hon. Member for Islington North and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South raised a number of issues involving Bahrain. I am well aware of the Committee’s interest in Bahrain and the middle east. We welcome the national consensus dialogue that has begun and encourage all parties to remain engaged. However, the ongoing tensions are of concern, particularly the events around the 14 February anniversary. We condemn violent acts by any side, which will only hinder efforts towards reform and reconciliation. We remain supportive of the reforms underway and encourage Bahrain’s Government to show renewed energy in implementing them.

We will continue to focus on countries where we have not seen any improvement in human rights and democracy, such as Iran, where the regime continues to violate human rights with impunity.

Hon. Members mentioned North Korea, and we are concerned about the situation there. We take every opportunity to try and influence North Korea’s Government and work to improve the lives of vulnerable groups. However, given the lack of progress, we will co-sponsor a resolution in the current session of the Human Rights Council to recommend that the UN establishes a commission of inquiry into human rights abuses there.

We share the Committee’s concern, particularly that of the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), about human rights in Sri Lanka—we might discuss that in the debate following this one—not least relating to disappearances, political violence, free expression and judicial independence. More needs to be done, particularly on political settlement, accountability and reconciliation. It is worth putting on the record again that the Government have yet to make a decision about attending this year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. We look to Sri Lanka, as with any other CHOGM host, to show its commitment to upholding the Commonwealth’s values. All Commonwealth member states have agreed the Commonwealth charter setting out these values, which was signed by Her Majesty the Queen, as Head of the Commonwealth, earlier this week. I look forward to debating these and other issues later this afternoon.

We acknowledge the Committee’s strong interest in deportations with assurances. We firmly believe that we should be able to deport foreign nationals who are engaged in terrorist-related activities, but we will not deport someone if there are substantial grounds for believing they will face a real risk of torture in their home country, or where the death penalty will be applied. We recognise the considerable interest in the House in our DWA arrangements. Although there is no statutory requirement to lay memorandums of understanding before the House, the Government will, of course, continue to notify Parliament by written ministerial statement when new MOUs are signed and to place copies in the Library.

Both Syria and the Sahel, mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), remain high on the Government’s agenda. We condemn the ongoing human rights violations and abuse in Syria in the strongest terms. We call on all sides to put an immediate end to the violence, to respect international humanitarian and human rights laws, and to pursue a genuine Syrian-led political transition. We will continue to do all we can to help bring to account those responsible for human rights violations and abuses. The International Criminal Court should play a role in this.

We are encouraging partners in the Sahel region to build their capacity to tackle terrorism in a human rights-compliant manner. Allegations of human rights violations by members of the Malian armed forces are of concern. In line with Security Council resolution 2085, those responsible for violations and abuses must be held accountable. The UK has pledged 40 trainers for the EU training mission to the Malian armed forces, three of whom are civilians who will provide human rights training.

This has been a constructive debate. I have left a number of issues that I would dearly love to address, not least the situation in Israel and with the Palestinian authority, and the hope we all have in President Obama’s visit there shortly. However, there is a time limit in this debate. If any questions remain unanswered, I will be happy to write to hon. Members who asked them.