| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Uganda
6. Valerie Davey (Bristol, West): What plans he has for the United Kingdom to have a mediation role in resolving the conflict in northern Uganda. [132003]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): We do not consider that there is a role for UK mediation at this stage, nor has the Ugandan Government requested it. We are, however, providing support to a number of civil society groups engaged on peace issues, including the Acholi religious leaders, who we believe are best placed to act as mediators. We will continue to work with our development partners in urging both the Government and Lord's Resistance Army to demonstrate their commitment to dialogue. We welcome President Museveni's reaffirmation of his readiness for dialogue during his independence day speech on 9 October.
Valerie Davey: May I thank my hon. Friend for his and the Government's commitment to northern Uganda? In the light of the increasingly violent and volatile situation reported again only this week, can he say what opportunity remains for the international community to take some action?
Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to what is an extremely serious situation in northern Uganda. The prospect of peace in Sudan, which the LRA often uses as a safe haven, will make it easier to put pressure on that organisation. We are also anxious to encourage dialogue between the Government of Uganda and the LRA, which is rather difficult given that the LRA does not have negotiable demands. That is the only way forward, however, because, as my hon. Friend knows, a military solution has been tried, and it has not worked—it has only led to a great deal more suffering. We continue to remain closely engaged with both the Ugandan Government and the Acholi leaders, and our high commissioner is in northern Uganda today.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South): Does the Minister agree that, in effect, the conflict in northern Uganda is between the Islamic values of the Sudan and the Christian values of Uganda? What we are seeing there is a microcosm of the conflict between the two religions that we find elsewhere in the world.
Mr. Mullin: I had not heard that explanation of the difficulties in northern Uganda. It is a very serious and complex situation, but it would be difficult for followers of any religion to justify the terrible atrocities that the LRA has been carrying out against innocent people in northern Uganda.
Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston): I have just returned from a visit with the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention, and I declare the appropriate interest. May I say that there was a great regard for the role of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in seeking to influence Uganda
and Rwanda in particular towards peace? That influence was never more necessary if genocide and conflict is to be avoided.
Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We all understand that a great deal more work remains to be done before we see peace and the rule of law restored to that area, but there has been some progress.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): The Minister is right, of course, to condemn the LRA. He will be aware that it has abducted something of the order of 20,000 children in northern Uganda over the last five years. He will also be aware, however, that President Museveni has requested that signals intelligence and other intelligence aid be provided to the Government and army of Uganda to assist them in their fight to protect the people of Uganda from that terrible terrorist organisation. What precisely are the Government doing, or what will they do, to assist President Museveni and the people of Uganda?
Mr. Mullin: We have already done a great deal as regards helping Uganda to recover from the dreadful situation that President Museveni inherited when he took office some years ago, and he is the first to acknowledge that. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will expect me to get involved with the precise details of any military assistance that we are giving to Uganda, but I repeat what I said earlier: ultimately, there is no military solution. Some way will have to be found of establishing contact with the LRA and of putting an end to this dreadful rebellion. The military solution has been tried, but it has not worked.
Afghanistan
8. David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde): What assessment he has made of the size of this year's poppy harvest in Afghanistan. [132005]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has not yet published the results of its 2003 poppy cultivation survey in Afghanistan. However, we would expect the results to be broadly similar to last year, with a small increase in both production and cultivation likely. That is in line with expectations based on previous experience in Thailand and Pakistan and our own expectations. We want to do more, however, to engage the international community in countering narcotics in Afghanistan. To that end, we will be organising a major international conference in Kabul in early 2004.
David Cairns: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer and look forward to the publication of that report later this month. Does he agree that two things need to happen? First, there must be targeted assistance to Afghan farmers to wean them off this horrible crop, and secondly—and more importantly—ISAF's mandate must now be extended beyond Kabul, which, as we have heard, is relatively secure, and out to the provinces and regions of Afghanistan, which is where the poppies are actually grown and where the will of the
warlords, not that of the international community, holds sway? We can only smash the trade once and for all if we do that.
Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and pay tribute to his long-standing work in this area. He is absolutely right that, as well as the other activities that we undertake, we need to pursue the matter of alternative livelihoods. If we are to persuade farmers in Afghanistan to move away from poppy production, they will need an alternative source of livelihood, so we need to work on that. I also agree with my hon. Friend about the security situation beyond Kabul. Clearly, the security situation has been better in Kabul, and yesterday's announcement at the Security Council, for which we pushed strongly, to extend ISAF's remit beyond Kabul to the outlying regions is significant, and indicative of a step change in our efforts that will undoubtedly help to beef up our counter-narcotics activity.
Bob Spink (Castle Point): What help will the Government give to neighbouring countries such as Kazakhstan to cut off the supply route of the drugs?
Mr. Rammell: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point because we have a 10-year strategy to eradicate poppy production in Afghanistan, but if that simply results in cultivation in other countries, we need to address that issue. The matter is being examined in great detail by the cross-departmental Whitehall international drugs taskforce. We are also committing significant funding to some neighbouring countries to help the effort.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence (Preseli Pembrokeshire): The Minister will be aware that one of the main drug smuggling routes is north through Osh in the Kyrgyz Republic. At the conference that he mentioned, will he discuss ways in which the UK could help the Kyrgyz Republic to tackle its border security problems and give advice, help, training and assistance with its communications system to help the Kyrgyz Government to close their border to drug smuggling, which inevitably has an impact on Europe and the UK?
Mr. Rammell: My hon. Friend raises a valid and interesting point. We clearly need not only to tackle poppy cultivation in Afghanistan but to consider carefully how drugs are taken abroad and what the trafficking routes are. Interdiction at border areas—the Kyrgyz Republic is a key area—is important and we need to do more to cut off those routes.
European Constitution
9. Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East): What the Government's policy is on the proposed incorporation of the European charter of fundamental rights in the draft European constitution. [132006]
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The draft EU constitutional treaty explicitly states that the charter does not extend EU competences and makes it clear that the charter applies primarily to the EU institutions. The charter would apply to member states
only when they are implementing EU law. The Government will reach a final decision about incorporation of the charter in the context of the intergovernmental conference.
Mr. Atkinson : Does the Minister recall that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), told the House that the EU charter of fundamental rights would have no more legal significance than a copy of the Beano? Why does it now form article 6 of the EU draft constitution and threaten to undermine the Human Rights Act 1998 in this country and the authority of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the European convention on human rights? Will Britain veto the EU charter of fundamental rights at the intergovernmental conference?
Mr. MacShane: I read the Beano many years ago—I especially read about the character Dennis the Menace. However, I must say that Desperate Dave—or Desperate Dan—from Bournemouth is at the end of his wits. Article 9 of the charter of fundamental rights supports the family, article 10 supports the right to religion, article 16 supports the right to conduct a business and article 17 supports the right to own property. When I was reading the Beano, the Conservative party supported property, believed in business, loved the family and went to church. Now that we have European rules to introduce that into our law, it should support the sound and conservative charter. Conservative Members have been overtaken by malevolent forces that have driven them toward a fanatical anti-European position, which does them no credit at all.
Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill): But given that it is more than two years since Members drew the Government's attention to the risk of conflicting judgments by two courts based on the same facts affecting human rights, when will they get to grips with the issue?
Mr. MacShane: My right hon. Friend, who refers to the European Court of Human Rights and who plays a distinguished role at the Council of Europe, is right to draw attention to the fact that there are now three ways in which such law is declared: in the European Court of Human Rights, by our incorporation of the European convention on human rights into British law and as a result of the charter of fundamental rights. It is important to realise that the charter applies to EU institutions. It will not replace the French or German constitution. It is clear that the horizontal articles—this is technical language—under articles 51 and 52 maintain the rights of countries to carry on their own business in terms of national law. I am certainly not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and condemn an important set of principles that the vast majority of European citizens—except perhaps those on the Conservative Benches—will welcome and support.
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): Does not the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights constitute a fundamental change to the relationship between the European Union and its member states? By
the Government's own criteria, should not its inevitable incorporation, which they now appear to support, trigger a referendum to secure the consent of the British people before it is ratified?
Mr. Ancram: I am astounded by that answer from someone who proclaims himself a European. Why cannot the Minister agree with French Premier Raffarin, who this week said:
- "a real European cannot not want a referendum",
- "would be the only legitimate way",
Mr. MacShane: It is a pleasure to hear the right hon. Gentleman pray in aid France in an argument for the first time during his tenure of office as shadow Foreign Secretary. President Chirac has not made up his mind. The majority of EU nations do not intend to hold referendums at the moment. However, there is a fundamental divide between those of us who will defend the right of Parliament and the House of Commons to debate and ratify international treaties and those who want to tear up 500 years of British parliamentary history to hold their populist plebiscite. The right hon. Gentleman can splutter as much as he wants, but until he removes the malevolent forces that have made the Conservative party a byword for hostility to Europe—even if today he praises France in passing—his party will not be taken seriously ever again.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): Surely everyone, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, should welcome the extension of human rights provision to the United Kingdom, especially for those who are being persecuted? Will the Minister admit, however, that that will offer no protection for Tory MPs invited by their Chief Whip for career development interviews?
Mr. MacShane: Article II.52.4 says:
- "Insofar as this Charter recognises fundamental rights . . . these rights shall be interpreted in harmony with those traditions."
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): But there is a serious point, which the Minister touched on, concerning the competence of the European Court of Human Rights, as opposed to judgments that will be
made on the European constitution's charter of fundamental rights. Which one will prevail when it comes to the areas of direct conflict of competence?
Mr. MacShane: That point was well raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). To anyone who knows how Europe works, the answer is fairly clear. The European Court of Human Rights hands down its judgments from Strasbourg. The European Court of Justice will be charged with implementing and upholding European Union law. As I said, the charter of fundamental rights applies to EU institutions. It will not tear up domestic constitutions, domestic law and so on. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that France, Germany or almost any EU member state with its own constitution will allow those to be overridden or abolished, he does not understand how Europe works. We want a charter of fundamental rights incorporated on terms that we are happy with, in a way that upholds the principles and values that the House has always held dear.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston): The charter of fundamental rights will protect religious institutions and the relationship between church and state. Assuming that the IGC can find a formulation that would allow the British Government to accept the incorporation of the charter, can my hon. Friend confirm that we would consequently and subsequently see no further reference to God or Christianity in the preamble? That would be not only inappropriate, but unnecessary.
Mr. MacShane: There is no reference to God or Christianity in the preamble. There is a reference, I think, to the important religious and humanist traditions that have shaped our common European home. The Government believe that we should leave it at that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |