8 Mar 2006 : Column 255WH
Westminster Hall
Wednesday 8 March 2006
[Frank Cook in the Chair]
Human Rights (Central Asia)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Watts.]
9.30 am
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): I am pleased to have obtained this opportunity to debate human rights in central Asia, specifically the former Soviet republics known collectively as the "stans": Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. I acknowledge the valuable assistance that I have received from bodies that have provided briefings for this debate, namely Christian Aid, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Amnesty International.
In many ways, 90 minutes is barely adequate to deal with this subject and the range of human rights concerns regarding this region. Therefore, to allow others to participate in the debate, I shall restrict the focus of my remarks to the situation in Uzbekistan in particular, although I shall touch on Turkmenistan, and on religious freedom, which is of particular concern to me.
I shall try also to put human rights concerns into the broader politics of the region, because it seems that human rights problems common to all these central Asian countries are a symptom rather than the disease itself. They are symptomatic of the problem in countries that do not enjoy a great deal of political stability, because there is a tremendous amount of poverty in such countries, which has given rise to a fairly unpleasant class of despot in the region. When discussing human rights, it is important that we see the issue in its full and proper context and do not try to divorce it from the poverty issues in the region. I hope that in this age of joined-up government the Minister for Europe might convey a few of my concerns in that regard to his colleagues in the Department for International Development.
There are several characters in the region about whom I am inclined to think that Gilbert and Sullivan would be writing comic operas if were they alive and working today. Those characters are—I say this in no spirit of levity—grotesque caricatures of dictators. It is impossible not to find some amusement in a character such as President Niyazov in Turkmenistan, who modestly styles himself as the "father of all Turkmens", and who renamed the months and days after himself, his mother and various folklore heroes of the country. However, it is easy for me to say that it is impossible not to derive some amusement from such a person because my family are not being persecuted by such people, and my religious freedoms are not being curtailed. It is not me who, as a Christian, is being denied the right to visit and associate freely with other Christians, which is, of course, the situation in places such as Turkmenistan.
I move to the situation in Uzbekistan. I have had an interest in that country for several years for a variety of reasons. The Minister may know that I have long been
8 Mar 2006 : Column 256WH
interested in the abolition of the death penalty worldwide; the death penalty has been used as a particularly brutal instrument of oppression in Uzbekistan. It may send shivers down a few spines behind the Minister to know that some of my concerns were first brought to my attention by the former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Mr. Craig Murray, with whom I have been acquainted for 20-odd years since we were both students at different universities in Scotland.
I take as my starting point the Government's helpful annual human rights reports. Uzbekistan featured in the 2005 and 2004 reports as being an area of major concern. I love the Government's human rights reports: they have a real talent for taking the meanest grain of progress and embracing it with an optimism that I, as a Liberal Democrat, find truly heart-warming. Optimism should always be encouraged. They note that "some limited steps" have been taken in implementing the UN convention against torture, and highlight a speech made by President Karimov about his aspirations for democracy, but the bleak and depressing truth is that there is no concrete evidence of improvement and plenty of evidence of the continuation of widespread human rights abuses in that country. Torture and other forms of ill-treatment remain routine for those in custody. Indeed, torture is incentivised because confessions are routinely the basis for convictions in trials that are widely recognised to fall far short of any internationally recognised standards for such matters.
I shall talk about events in Andijan last May. This issue has been fairly well rehearsed in this place, but probably not well enough. The fact that the events of 12 and 13 May 2005 in Andijan have not created more outrage should cause deep embarrassment to all of us in this country. On those nights, a group of armed men attacked an army garrison prison in Andijan, which is part of Uzbekistan's densely populated and impoverished Fergana valley. A number of prisoners were reported to have been released, including 23 men who are currently on trial for belonging to the Akromiya religious movement. Armed men stormed the mayor's office and took police hostages. Reports suggest that a crowd of several thousand gathered in the city on 13 May, initially voicing support for the 23 accused but then calling for jobs, an end to corruption and injustice, and the president's resignation. Eye-witness reports, which have been suppressed by the Uzbek Government and are difficult to come by, suggest that toward the end of the afternoon, Uzbek troops fired indiscriminately on the crowds with live ammunition, using armoured personnel carriers. It has been suggested that about 500 people might have been killed, including women and children. We have no idea how many others might have been wounded.
I say in passing that the Minister might wish to consider, in the context of other legislation going through the House, whether those who originally stormed the prison and garrison in Andijan might be regarded as terrorists, and whether those of us who support their quite legitimate case might, at a later stage, be considered guilty of glorifying terrorism. I do not expect him to answer that point today, but I highlight it as something on which he might wish to ponder on another occasion and in another way.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Whatever one's view of the regime in Uzbekistan, one cannot be
8 Mar 2006 : Column 257WH
but appalled at the points that the hon. Gentleman made in his introductory comments that since Andijan discrimination against Christians has greatly increased, and that they have borne the brunt of the regime's anger about what happened. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr. Carmichael : Yes; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As a Christian, I have been struck by the theme that runs through virtually all the human rights oppressions in the central Asian republics. The Churches—not only the Christian Church but other religious groupings—are at the centre of resistance to the dictatorships. I think back to Malawi in the early 1990s, when the Catholic bishops and the central African Presbyterian Church were instrumental in bringing down Banda.
The flipside of that coin is that the Churches and religious groups suffer the hardest persecution. That has been a hallmark of events since the Andijan massacre. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, it has affected Christian groups, other religious groups, journalists, human rights activists and ordinary citizens of no affiliation at all. Anyone who attracts any suspicion, whether there is any legitimacy to that, seems to be a legitimate target for repression in the eyes of the Uzbek Government. They have tried to close down any discussion or dissemination of information about events in Andijan. State-run media outlets provided limited coverage of the events as they unfolded, and there was no pictorial representation of them.
On 14 May, journalists who had been working for western news agencies, including the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and Reuters, were detained and forced to leave the city. Journalists from Russia's NTV and Ren TV were also detained and had equipment confiscated. Given the current relationship between Uzbekistan and Russia, that is even more remarkable.
Since the events of 13 May, independent journalists and human rights activists have reported a climate of fear in Andijan, with pressure on people not to talk to outsiders. Non-governmental organisations and human rights groups have received reports of detentions and house arrests, including that of Saidjahon Zainabuddinov, the head of Appeal, the human rights non-governmental organisation. He was an eye witness to events in Andijan. We are given to understand that he has been charged with calumny or slander, but again details are difficult to come by. Can the Minister tell us what the current situation is for Saidjahon Zainabuddinov? What progress has been made towards persuading the Uzbek Government to accept an independent international inquiry into the events in Andijan last May?
Further concerns mentioned in the annual report relate to the restriction on access to prisons; the lack of independence in the judicial system, with judges appointed by the president; widespread corruption; and the continued use of the death penalty. In 2004, Uzbekistan executed prisoners on death row whose cases were lodged with the United Nations human rights committee.
Also in 2004, I was privileged to chair a meeting in the House of Commons organised by Reprieve, the death penalty abolition group. Among others represented on
8 Mar 2006 : Column 258WH
that occasion was the Uzbek group Mothers Against the Death Penalty and Torture. In particular, Tamara Chikunova was present and her story was one of the most compelling and heart-rending stories that I have ever heard from someone who has been involved with the death penalty—of course, there are few pleasant ones. Tamara Chikunova's son was arrested, subjected to a mockery of a trial in Uzbekistan and sentenced to death. She visited him regularly in prison. She turned up one day as arranged and was told that she would not be allowed access to him and to come back two days later. She did so and was told that her son had been executed two days earlier—the very day on which she had been outside, waiting for him.
I often think that the appalling inhumanity of the death penalty comes from the prevalence of people remaining on death row for 15 or 20 years, as often happens in the United States. However, to use the death penalty at the other end of the scale, only weeks after conviction, takes inhumanity and barbarism, too. That story highlights the nature of the Uzbek regime.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): Although we have to be careful about labelling all the "stans" and suggesting that all the human rights abuses are on the scale of those in Uzbekistan, does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the worst things in Uzbekistan, in addition to the treatment of prisoners and torture, is the secret trials—trials that the relatives of the accused do not even know are taking place—and the lack of proper access to legal representation for those accused of what are often trumped-up crimes? That is really the worst thing of all.
Mr. Carmichael : I cannot disagree. The hon. Gentleman has described features of a criminal justice system that breaches just about every internationally accepted norm of criminal justice standards. Justice should be done publicly. People should have a right to know the case against them. The judiciary should be properly independent of the Government. We take those things for granted, but the Uzbek Government in particular—I take the point about not labelling every "stan" according to Uzbekistan—almost seem to go out of their way to ignore them.
The Government's annual report mentions problems faced by members of Human Rights Watch with regard to the renewal of their visas, but there is not much of an update. Perhaps the Minister can say what the current situation is for NGOs such as Human Rights Watch that seek to operate in Uzbekistan but find themselves constrained in doing so.
I am aware that time is moving on, so I shall deal with religious freedom briefly; no doubt other hon. Members will do so in more detail. The reports of religious intolerance and persecution in Uzbekistan cause me significant concern. Discrimination, harassment and criminal prosecutions of Muslims and harassment of religious minorities, most notably Protestant Christians, remain commonplace. The trial of 23 men accused of being members of the banned Akromiya group and anti-constitutional activity led to the Andijan massacre. Can the Minister update us on the policy of critical engagement with Uzbekistan in respect of cases such as that?
8 Mar 2006 : Column 259WH
Another concern that I shall touch on, which is not new, is the suggestion that information derived from torture has been used by this country. Again, I bring hon. Members' attention to the work of Craig Murray. He stated clearly that the Government have used information provided by states that practise torture. Steve Crawshaw of Human Rights Watch told the Foreign Affairs Committee that, in one of her submissions when questioned in the House of Lords on the use of information acquired through torture, Eliza Manningham-Buller as much as said, "We're not going to ask, because that would make things difficult." I hope that the Government's approach to the use of information from Uzbekistan has moved on from that rather bleak caricature and that the Minister will assure us that they will not use intelligence derived from the use of torture in Uzbekistan.
I said in my introductory remarks that I wanted to make the link between human rights abuses and poverty in the region. In doing so, I am again indebted to Christian Aid for its briefing. It is important to understand that the oppression of people in the central Asian republics is an economic as well as a human rights oppression. These are, for the most part, highly resource-rich countries, and that makes the fact that there is such poverty in them all the more appalling. The average per capita incomes in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are now lower than in sub-Saharan Africa. The average monthly salary in Tajikistan is $20. Across the region as a whole, life expectancy at birth fell from 68.2 years in 1990 to 64.7 years in 2003. Although some economic progress has been made in the past few years in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, that has not translated into improved living standards for ordinary people. A recent survey suggested that more than half of the poorest households in Tajikistan eat on average only one meal a day. One third of Tajik children are chronically malnourished, and economic migration among the male population of the region is leading to family collapse and increased vulnerability for women and children.
In view of the difficult governance issues in the region, will the Minister tell us how he envisages the UK Government's poverty reduction and political objectives there being met? Also, please will he impress on his ministerial colleagues at the Department for International Development the importance of increasing aid to the region, in line with DFID's increasing support to other developing regions?
Finally, I shall address changes at the United Nations. In August 2005, the UN General Assembly agreed to establish a human rights council to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights; it was said that the human rights council will assume the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights. It will have between 30 and 50 members, each of them elected on a geographical basis and for a period of three years by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. Each member will undertake to fulfil human rights standards and face evaluation under the review mechanism. We are told that the United Kingdom welcomes the establishment of the council, but it is of concern that the US ambassador, John Bolton, has said that he is prepared to vote against it. Is the Minister able to give us any insights in respect of why the United States is opposed, what compromises it might be looking for, and what prospect there is for
8 Mar 2006 : Column 260WH
the introduction of the human rights council? Can the Minister also assure us that the system of monitoring human rights worldwide under the UN special rapporteurs will continue and be properly resourced?
Much more could be said about central Asia and human rights. I am grateful to hon. Members of all parties for attending the debate. I hope that our words and concerns will be heard outwith this Chamber, and that there might be a little hope for the future of the oppressed people in these countries.
9.53 am
Mr. Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this important debate. Like me, he has long had an interest in this part of the world, and I am sure that he would agree that, if anything, the debate is somewhat overdue.
Central Asia is a relatively neglected part of the world—neglected by policy makers, that mythical body called the international community, and, dare I say it, by Her Majesty's Government, and even by the House. There have, I think, been two oral questions on the region and, perhaps, two dozen written questions in the last year, from, for instance, the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland, for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Moray (Angus Robertson), and for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow).
I have been to all five of the countries in question, and to Uzbekistan on various occasions. In a general sense, central Asia is not a happy part of the world, and its nations have certainly underperformed in the past 15 years, compared with other ex-Soviet republics not just in Europe but in Asia. Twenty years ago, Tashkent was more or less on a par with Novosibirsk or Krasnoyarsk. Since then, there has been quite a severe divergence in the wrong direction for Tashkent and other major central Asian cities.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked in detail about some of the economic statistics; those on per capita incomes and life expectancies are truly alarming. There are also some crazy economics in countries such as Uzbekistan. It is one of the few countries where people can still be seen doing their daily shopping with huge wads of cash. I have seen ethnic Russians showing up at travel agencies with large wheeled hold-alls full of cash to buy their one-way ticket to Moscow; it makes me think of the Weimar republic.
One issue that has not been touched on so far is the regrettable out-migration of ethnic Russians. That is partly due to Russia's loss of its previous status as the quasi-colonial power, but it is also due to human rights concerns. Depending on one's view on what is going on in Moscow, that journey might smack a little of being a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. However, that phenomenon is sucking out a lot of the middle classes—such as they exist—from these countries.
Most of the interest that there is in the region in the outside world—and, indeed, in the House—is due to energy interests. I am not against there being such interests, but we need also to consider human rights, which in many of these countries are awful. Uzbekistan is without doubt one of the five most tyrannical regimes in the world at present. Turkmenistan exceeds even
8 Mar 2006 : Column 261WH
North Korea in its rampant Stalinist personality cult. Tajikistan is still in chaos. Kyrgyzstan still has an uncertain future, and the recent Kazakh election was, at best, questionable.
I want to focus briefly on Turkmenistan, before concentrating mainly on Uzbekistan. In describing Turkmenistan, it is a shame that we are not allowed visual aids, because it is difficult to get a feel for the country without having seen it. There is a massive personality cult; the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to it. The leader is Niyazov, the self-styled Turkmenbashi, and his regime is characterised by vanity, control freakery and a habit of fantasy and invention. I have always written him up as TB for short. The phrase "Halk, Watan, Turkmenbashi" can be seen almost everywhere in the country; it means something like, "Praise the leader." All of us have come across occasional snippets about him. I share the view of the hon. Gentleman. In that country, one spends about a third of the time in a state of bizarre amusement, but for two thirds of the time one is appalled at what is going on. In the centre of Ashkabad, there is a neutrality monument. It is an 8 m-high gold statue of Turkmenbashi that revolves on top of a pedestal that is about 70 m high. The leader of the country greets the sun in the morning—the statue faces the sun—and then he revolves during the day and says goodbye to the setting sun in the evening. It is incredible to watch. However, the cruel reality in Turkmenistan is that open expression of alternative views is not possible. It can result in imprisonment or forced institutionalisation in a psychiatric hospital. There is no free media, and even most publications from Russia are banned, and steps are taken to suppress the use of the internet.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly focused much of his speech on Uzbekistan. Human rights abuses in Uzbekistan are not new, but on 13 May last year in the city of Andijan there was the world's biggest peacetime massacre of demonstrators since Tiananmen square. I was delighted recently to meet Muhammed Salih, the last Uzbek opposition leader who dared to speak out. He has written an excellent book called "The Opponent". It starts by describing his unhappy time as a Soviet soldier during the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Mr Salih spoke movingly of the events in Andijan, and, in response to my questioning, he outlined how the opposition in the country was being much maligned by the Government, who seek to paint its members as Islamists and terrorists, both of which are gross distortions.
I commend the work of Human Rights Watch which, despite facing great difficulties and some danger to its own people, has managed to put together a credible account of what happened in Andijan—of tanks rolling through the main square and firing indiscriminately, of snipers picking off their victims, and of soldiers later shooting dead some of the wounded. At the time that they happened, the events of 13 May 2005 were somewhat buried under a glut of other international news. That was just after our election, and the French and the Dutch were in the middle of EU constitution ratification, so the attention of the international community may to some extent have been elsewhere.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 262WH
Over the past nine months, I have tabled more than a dozen questions on the Government's response to the events at Andijan, and on what action the UK and the international community are taking. The first response to my very first question on the subject came not from the Minister for Europe, but from the Uzbek embassy in London; its response actually came before the Government's. The embassy sent me what I am sure it thought was a helpful e-mail, a six-page exposition of what it described as the "terrorist" incidents at Andijan, which it bizarrely blamed on Hizb ut-Tahrir. The e-mail had a sinister tone, demanding to know, for example, where I had learned aspects of idiomatic Uzbek, and so on.
The reaction internationally to the events at Andijan has been very weak, and for no particular reason; there is not even the excuse that Uzbek bases are needed to project coalition power in the region. Energy concerns are not particularly great in Uzbekistan. To the best of my knowledge, Uzbekistan is still a member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and still has a partnership and co-operation agreement with the EU, although I could not ascertain whether that has been suspended. Germany seems quite happy to allow Uzbek Government leaders to receive medical treatment there, claiming that it is being done on humanitarian grounds. I question whether the population of Uzbekistan has the same access to quality medical treatment.
There is an EU arms embargo, although Uzbekistan is a member of the NATO partnership for peace programme. It must be the first time in history that we have a military ally on whom we have an arms embargo. I pointed that out to the Minister at Foreign Office questions in October, but it seems that no action has resulted. Thankfully, the US has been a little tougher than the EU; it has at least pulled out of its military base, although it is slightly unclear whether that was voluntary.
The Economist's excellent editorial of 25 August last year said, with reference to Andijan:
"On few, if any, occasions since the cold war has so little been done by so many in the face of such atrocity."
The article goes on to criticise the EU for
In three months' time, I hope in co-operation with other speakers here, I will be hosting, in Parliament, an anniversary event for 13 May.
In conclusion, we need a much tougher response on Uzbekistan. It is still not too late. I again draw a contrast with the response to Tiananmen square in 1989. Ironically, at the time that response was criticised in many quarters for not being strong enough, but it was actually quite swift and—compared to the response to Andijan—quite strong. Some 17 years on, there are still some sanctions in place against China; yet here we are nine months after Andijan with very little to show.
In my time in the region, I often thought that Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and, to some extent, Kazakhstan were how eastern Europe countries would have been had the Berlin wall not fallen in 1989. One might recall Ceausescu and Honecker in 1989 praising the Chinese authorities after Tiananmen square, and thank God that they were never able to copy those authorities. The regimes that we are talking about,
8 Mar 2006 : Column 263WH
particularly that of Uzbekistan, have copied the Chinese example. Uzbekistan, in particular, and Turkmenistan are worse than the countries of cold war eastern Europe; they are more like the Stalinist days of the early 1950s. Torture is rampant, demonstrators are shot, there are no press freedoms, censorship is complete, and there are roadblocks everywhere on the highways. We need a far tougher response from the western world and from Her Majesty's Government, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers.
10.3 am
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), who is obviously well informed about the situation on the ground in the republics that we are talking about. I commend the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate.
My interest in former Soviet republics is normally about the south Caucasus—Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. It is through my interest in that region and my involvement in the non-governmental organisation sector that I have come to understand how much of human rights work is dependent on funding from the UK Government through the global conflict prevention pool. The last GCPP report, "A joint UK Government approach to reducing conflict", states:
"Activities under the various strategies include . . . .Helping civil society organisations defuse the tensions which can lead to violent conflict. This can include some promotion of human rights."
One NGO involved in the former Soviet republics has outlined its work as consisting of: fostering institutional and legal reform by providing international comparative expertise; engaging in advocacy on a national and international level; the training of key actors—that is, young journalists, lawyers, judges, specialised NGOs and public officials; the monitoring and auditing of the public's access to official information; and raising public awareness about the practical function of freedom of expression and access to information in a democracy. Those are exactly the sort of efforts that are essential to deal with the shortcomings that have been outlined.
It may not be well known to some Members present that the Government have slashed their spending on these important efforts by 20 per cent. as a whole. It may surprise them even more to hear that funding to the former Soviet republics has been almost halved; there is a cut of nearly 50 per cent.
In a Westminster Hall debate last October, to which the Minister responded, I read out a reply that I had received from an NGO, which said that the cuts
"will have negative implications for the democratic transformations in the region. Work cannot be carried out with gaps in time; there should be continuity and an ongoing flow of activities that build on past strengths and existing experiences".
Another NGO said that it would have to
"obviously other pressures on government spending, but nothing has been made clear as to why the money has gone".
Having worked with many NGOs in the south Caucasus, I am passionate about the subject, and I do not think that the cut in spending there is justified. It would seem extraordinary if the UK Government were to cut spending to the central Asian republics.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 264WH
My first specific question to the Minister, together with his colleagues from the Department, is to ask him to run through the cut in spending to Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Will he confirm that there has been a cut in spending through the conflict prevention pools to projects in those republics? Nothing that we have heard today would give anyone confidence to suggest that either the human rights situation or the democratic situation have improved over the past year; if anything, they have become worse.
The Minister and I have a difference of view on the Iraq conflict, but there is an appreciation that funds, including other budget lines from the conflict prevention pools, have gone from central Asia to Iraq. If the Government have cut funding, now is the time for them to explain why, and to say which projects in the central Asian republics will be affected.
My second point is about the UK Government and the domestic reaction to the human rights situation in central Asia. Not many citizens of the republics that we are talking about live in the UK. I happen to have a Turkmen citizen—an ethnic Russian—in my constituency. He is going through some of the difficulties that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham outlined. I have raised his case with the Home Office, and I do not expect the Minister to talk specifically about it, but I would like to give him the correspondence on the subject. In that way, he can liaise with the Home Office so that the matter can be dealt with.
It may not be clear to people outside the region that the Turkmen laws regarding marriage were such that until the beginning of the year $50,000 had to be paid as a fee for registering a marriage with a foreigner. That is extraordinary. I suspect that that was part of the effort to try to stop the ethnic Russian middle classes leaving. Be that as it may, international pressure was put on the Turkmen authorities and changes to the law have been brought about, but it would be a fantasy to think that the problems have disappeared because of that.
My constituent has appealed against a decision to refuse a certificate of approval for the marriage in the UK. She was granted a visa extension to enable her to have her child in the UK, which has happened, and she has been allowed to remain in the UK for several more months, after which her current visa status requires her to return to Turkmenistan before she can apply for a marriage visa. How extraordinary that somebody who is here in safety and has had a child is having to return to that country. We do not have enough time to read the reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, etc., all of which are saying that this is an issue of concern.
For prescience I shall read one paragraph from a document from the Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights, published at the beginning of January. It states:
"yet they were reluctant to offer complete freedom to their citizens, so lists of those who were not allowed to leave Turkmenistan, i.e. 'black lists' appeared in the country. According to various data these lists included between 3 to 5 thousand names. However,
- most of these people only learnt about their status when they were at the airport about to board a plane. When such cases became known to diplomats at foreign embassies, the Turkmen Foreign Ministry had to demonstrate great ingenuity in order to justify the actions of the border officers and special services.
Consequently, a new law was passed which requires all those wishing to exit Turkmenistan irrespective of the aim of the trip to obtain a new document—a passport for the citizens of Turkmenistan for going abroad and entering Turkmenistan—in advance of the trip."
That is not satisfactory. It would be helpful if in time, if not today, the Foreign Office clarified that position. There cannot be hundreds and thousands of Turkmen citizens in the UK; it must be a small group of people. The case has been made by verifiably independent human rights organisations that the current situation is not acceptable. I hope that the Home Office and the Foreign Office will co-ordinate to ensure that people seeking to remain in the UK are treated according to their circumstances and that they are deeply sceptical about the human rights situation in Turkmenistan.
The Government have some work to do on this matter and they have some explanations to give on the funding of projects in various central Asian republics. I am sure that the Minister will say that the UK Government have grave concerns and are doing everything that they can. However, if that is so, are they cutting their funding and, if so, why?
10.13 am
Mr. Jeremy Browne (Taunton) (LD): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this important debate. The last time that I listened to a speech in the House by my hon. Friend, the outcome was a defeat for the Government by one vote. The Government will be pleased that there will not be a vote on this debate. None the less, I hope that the issues raised are treated with the degree of concern that they warrant.
I congratulate also the two speakers who preceded me—the hon. Members for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) and for Moray (Angus Robertson)—particularly the former for making a well-informed and insightful speech based on his experience of visiting all those countries in the region.
I have a degree of sympathy for the Government on such occasions, because it is normal in these debates for everybody to agree that the state of affairs in the given country is deplorable and ask the Government what they are going to do about it. The Government have scope to make headway and progress, otherwise we would have nothing to discuss, but we should not delude ourselves that the Foreign Office or wider Government are able to resolve all the ills of the world from Whitehall. None the less, this is an important debate and I hope that the Foreign Office will not try to be so realpolitik with this region that it will see wider strategic concerns taking too great a precedence over the worrying human rights abuses that have already been chronicled during this debate.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland on his vigilant opposition to the use of the death penalty around the world, which is a form of sanction that debases humanity. It is a laudable aim for
8 Mar 2006 : Column 266WH
all hon. Members—I am pleased that there is now a large degree of consensus across parties in Britain—to say that the death penalty is an inappropriate way to punish people and to send a wider signal to populations of other countries, which is often another of its effects.
We in this country so often take for granted a range of freedoms, including freedom of election, media freedom, freedom of trade union affiliation and religious practice, which has already been touched on, freedom of association and the rule of law and a proper independent criminal justice system. I join those who have already spoken in urging the Minister and the Government not to neglect or too readily forget the events in Andijan only 10 months or so ago. Tiananmen square took place when I was a 19-year-old and a few years have passed since then, but it lingers long in the memory and rightly so, because such events are more likely to be repeated if they are too readily forgotten.
I have four suggestions that are not directly within the remit of the Government but are, none the less, areas where they may have some scope to act. First, this region has a low profile in this country and in western Europe, north America and other parts of the world, and it is easy to neglect it. Few people in this country have ever been there and many of them probably could not locate it accurately on a world map. Few people from the region have visited our country. There is little scope for cultural interchange. As a consequence, countries that are out of sight are often out of mind as well. It would help provoke debate in this country, and raise greater concerns than have already been made apparent by groups such as Amnesty International, if people in Britain had a greater appreciation of the way of life and culture and difficulties faced by people in the region. I do not claim that that is directly in the frame of reference of the Minister, but it is worth bearing it in mind that when opportunities arise to promote understanding of that region, whether through the media or in the House, that is an important factor in bringing international pressure to bear on those who abuse their power in these countries.
Secondly, I should like to talk about poverty, which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned, including widespread hunger, unemployment and reduced life expectancy. Extreme poverty can be a powerful instrument of control for a regime that wishes to use it in that way—Zimbabwe is as graphic an illustration of that as any country. Such poverty also brutalises a society and means that the human rights concerns of the people who live there are relegated, day to day, below the more immediate concerns of keeping body and soul together. It is always difficult to try to maintain a civilised civic society when people live in extreme poverty and feel that they are willing to complain less about their circumstances, in terms of their liberties, as long as they are able to feed and shelter themselves and their families.
As the hon. Member for Moray said, the Government have scope to make progress on that issue and to try to encourage the Governments in the countries that we are discussing—in so far as we have relations with them—to do the same.
My third suggestion is to do with the issue raised about natural resources and energy in the countries of central Asia. Too often, we in the west regard the need to provide for our energy requirements and drive up our
8 Mar 2006 : Column 267WH
standard of living as taking precedence over all forms of foreign relations. I do not wish to be unrealistic; like my constituents, I drive a car and heat a home, and we should guard against being unduly hypocritical. None the less, rather than seeing the need to increase our energy supply as a reason for overlooking human rights, we should regard it more as a lever for change and a way of exercising pressure elsewhere. The Government need to be forceful in that regard.
My final thought is not directly a matter of Government policy, but it is about an issue that they may seek to influence. I do not believe that human rights ever quite come about by Governments signing treaties or forcing them to emerge artificially. The process is more subtle and difficult than that; it is about engendering in people, and those to whom they give their consent to rule, a sense of values that they regard as impossible to violate.
That is more delicate than something that a Foreign Secretary decrees should happen by signing a piece of paper, and it is a worldwide process. I do not regard human rights and civil liberties as the particular preserve of those who happen to be fortunate enough to live in a country in which Government Ministers treat such issues with due concern. That is why I particularly commend the work of Amnesty International, an organisation of which I am a member, and others. They see the issue in a global context, remind us to be vigilant and foster the desire in people throughout the world to live free from tyranny and terror.
I leave those thoughts with the Minister and look forward to hearing his speech and that of the official Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I hope that the Minister will be able to answer many of the concerns raised this morning.
10.22 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): I am grateful for having caught your eye in this debate, Mr. Cook. I apologise to the Chamber as I have just developed a nose bleed. I am sorry if I look unsavoury; that is the reason why.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing this debate. As he says, not enough attention is paid to central Asia. Some appalling human rights abuses are going on in that part of the world, although as I said during my intervention on the hon. Gentleman, it is wrong to brand all five "stans" in the same way. They have very different populations. Some have greater Russian populations—for example, 30 per cent. of Kazakhstan's population is Russian, but only 3.5 per cent. of Tajikistan's is Russian. The countries are very different in make-up; they have different languages, different religious beliefs and consequently different Governments. They have varying human rights records. For the sake of completeness, I shall talk about all five countries. I shall end with Uzbekistan and the problems there following the massacre.
Tajikistan has perhaps the best human rights and democratic record of the lot. It has independent television, allows independent trade unions and permits public assembly, albeit with a licence, and those are all characteristics of the democratic, open state that we would like to see.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 268WH
My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and I saw the Kazakh Foreign Minister yesterday. Although there are concerns about President Nazarbayev's recent re-election, Kazakhstan wants to do business with the west. The Foreign Minister made it absolutely clear that he was here to promote his country and that it wants to move towards democracy and better human rights.
We learned one very interesting fact from the Foreign Minister: within four years, Kazakhstan will become the world's largest exporter of uranium. Recently, it signed a memorandum of understanding with the Russians. This is well outside the scope of this debate, but if we could persuade the Iranians to have a system under which the Russians processed their uranium, that uranium would come from Kazakhstan. That is an interesting possibility. Kazakhstan has rich oil and gas reserves.
Turkmenistan has already been referred to. It is effectively a one-party state; the Democratic party of Turkmenistan is the only registered political party and faces no serious opposition. [Interruption.] Shades of the situation in this country? Perhaps not—the Opposition here are getting stronger, and we do not want a one-party state.
Perhaps more worryingly, Kyrgyzstan faces a possible break-up as a country. An article by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting states:
"Kyrgyzstan has been in constant turmoil in recent months, with protests, confrontations and scandals following one another in close succession."
"When it comes to the basic tasks of government—law and order, resource management, and reform—the authorities are failing badly, and they are also losing out to their critics in the battle for public opinion.
Given all these circumstances, one hears more and more often the view that the country is swiftly moving towards a tragic finale where it becomes patently apparent that Kyrgyzstan has not developed into a fully-fledged nation, and peace-keeping forces are brought in from the outside."
The article states that the greatest pessimists predict that Kyrgyzstan could break into two.
That leads me to Uzbekistan, the last of the five "stans". It will be useful to cite a letter written by the organisation Human Rights Watch that restates the UN's fundamental declaration on human rights, the core principle on which the UN was founded and to which all nations on Earth should adhere. The letter states:
"The United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms sets forth the standards by which the international community assesses states' treatment of rights defenders . . . Article 1 of the declaration states clearly that, 'Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.' Article 2 stipulates that each state has a responsibility and duty to create all conditions necessary to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction, individually and in association with others, are able to enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms in practice."
As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, we often take what we have in this democratic country of ours, and in the west, for granted. It is too easy to forget how possible it is to go about one's daily life in an atmosphere of peace and freedom.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 269WH
So what happened in Uzbekistan? There have been various descriptions, but the best I have read comes from Human Rights Watch. I shall quote it to show how bad what happened in Uzbekistan on 13 May last year was. The description is very telling:
"In the early morning hours of May 13, gunmen attacked government buildings, killed security officials, broke into the city prison, took over the local government building . . . and took hostages. Towards dawn, they began to prepare for a large protest in Bobur Square, in front of the hokimiat, and mobilized people to attend. By 11.00 a.m., as word spread, the protest grew into the thousands, as people came of their own will and vented their grievances about poverty and government repression. When government forces sealed off the square and started shooting indiscriminately, the protesters fled. Hundreds of them were ambushed by government forces, which gunned them down without warning. This stunning use of excessive force has been documented by the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations."
Yet we have heard relatively little about that slaughter in Andijan in this Parliament or in the world's media. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) quoted an article from The Economist. During his excellent, fluent speech, which reflected his knowledge of the area, my hon. Friend told us that Uzbekistan is a member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and has a partnership and co-operation agreement with the European Union, so there is some justification in allowing Europe, with its famous common security policy, to take the lead. He also quoted from an article in The Economist, which continues with a wonderful bit of irony:
"If so, the European Union has risen to the occasion as grandly as it did over Bosnia, Iraq and on so many other occasions: with a display of spinelessness worthy of a sea full of jellyfish."
Like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, my hon. Friend has tabled questions about the visit to Germany of the Uzbek Foreign Minister—there is no reason why he should not be held to account for his country's activities.
I can give many examples from reports on the matters that concern me—torture; secret trials; people who do not have access to proper lawyers; people who are given long sentences without justification; and, perhaps worst of all, the case of Mutabar Tojibaeva. An article from Human Rights Watch dated 7 March quotes Holly Cartner, its Europe and Central Asia director, who says:
"The trial that led to the sentence of Tojibaeva is so unsound that her conviction cannot be allowed to stand . . . We view Tojibaeva's conviction as part of a pattern of persecution against independent voices and critics within civil society since the Andijan massacre. The ferocity of this pattern is unprecedented even when judged against Uzbekistan's 14-year history of repression since independence from the Soviet Union."
Uzbekistan is a real pariah state, and the world should focus on it.
In closing, I have a few questions for the Minister. No doubt he will run through all the "stans". Perhaps he will say a little about what Government representation we have in each. As the Government are in embassy-closing mode, can he reassure us that, in view of the problems in these countries, none of our embassies or consulates
8 Mar 2006 : Column 270WH
there will close. Yesterday we were told by the Foreign Secretary that we recently opened a second consulate in Kazakhstan. That is a good sign; we want to see British representation maintained at the highest level in these countries.
There have been alarming reports from Ukraine and other countries that are sending refugees back to Uzbekistan. One can only imagine the fate of such people. In particular, I refer to a report from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, on Ukraine's decision to return Uzbek asylum seekers. It says that Mr De Gucht, the OSCE's current Chairman-in-Office, has expressed his consternation at the decision taken by the Ukraine authorities to extradite 11 Uzbek asylum seekers back to Uzbekistan. What representations are the British Government making to Governments who propose to send refugees back to Ukbekistan? They are in grave danger of being persecuted, if not executed, if sent back.
Mr. Carmichael : I am mindful of the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments about the dangers of applying common standards across the five "stans", which were perfectly legitimate. In this context, does he share my concern that there have been instances of the four other "stans" sending back to Uzbekistan people who have subsequently been the subject of unfair trials and have been sentenced to death? It is all very well to say that there are good human rights practices within some of the countries, but they should not be allowed to be blind to the poor practices of their neighbour, Uzbekistan.
Mr. Clifton-Brown : I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no recognition in each of the countries—at least in public; there might be in private—of the conditions in the others. Again, the British Government could make some useful representations to each country about the conditions in the others, and the fact that we expect to see articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations conventions upheld by every single country. A fundamental aspect of those articles is that refugees should not be returned to countries where they are likely to be persecuted or, worse, executed. One of the worst consequences of refugees going back to Uzbekistan is that a number of them have simply disappeared. Their families do not know where they are or what has happened to them; that is reminiscent of some of the dark days of the Peron regime, and it is very unsatisfactory.
In conclusion, this is an interesting but potentially unstable region. The western world can do it a great deal of good through unilateral, bilateral and multilateral contact with its countries as they emerge from the shadows of the Soviet Union. We have been engaged in the democratic process for 400 or 500 years; they have not. They are learning all the time, and they can learn a great deal from the west, particularly from the United Kingdom Government who have a worldwide perspective on freedom and proper recognition of human rights. I hope that we will hear from the Minister that the British Government are doing a great deal in that respect.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 271WH
10.36 am
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Douglas Alexander) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on having secured the debate. Its merit was already proven before I rose to my feet, and I hope that I shall strengthen hon. Members' convictions that the debate is worth while by the remarks that I am able to offer.
I welcome the opportunity to underline our commitment to improving human rights in central Asia. I also pay tribute—I would be remiss to do anything else—to the longstanding interest in these matters, in particular the abolition of the death penalty, of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and acknowledge the important work undertaken by non-governmental organisations such as those, including Amnesty International, that he generously recognised at the beginning of his speech. I shall ensure that the terms of this debate are shared with my ministerial colleagues in the Department for International Development, as he requested in the course of his remarks.
It is already clear, on the basis of our discussion this morning, that the House is united in its profound concern about the continuing negative trend on human rights in central Asia. Let me assure hon. Members that the Government continue to place a high priority on trying to bring about improvements. We remain committed to encouraging, cajoling and, where possible, co-operating with the countries in the region, to help to bring about greater freedoms and the development of civil society. We also remain focused on the difficult question, which has been honestly recognised, of how, in practice, the United Kingdom, acting in concert with the European Union and other international partners, can best effect positive change, not least in countries with a record of repression.
The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), urged me to set out the level of representation at our posts in central Asia. Essentially, we have embassies in all except Kyrgyztan; I shall write to him for the sake of completeness. On the matter of the Uzbek refugees, we have made representations to the Kyrgys, Kazakhs, Russian and Ukrainian authorities to allow the United Nations high commissioner for refugees to fulfil its procedures before decisions are taken on extradition. The Government have urged the relevant authorities to continue to abide by their commitments to the United Nations conventions on refugees and against torture, and the Uzbek authorities to treat any returned refugees according to their international commitments. I raised the issue directly with the Kyrgys Foreign Minister when I met him last month.
Mr. Carmichael : The Minister has referred to the importance of co-operating with the different agencies that work in the region as well as with the Governments. Normally, the benefit of debates such as this is that they allow us to put matters on record. Can I say to the Minister that I have deliberately not placed on record today a number of significant matters of concern to NGOs because I am concerned, as are others, about affecting the work of the NGOs in those areas. Would the Minister undertake to join me as part of a cross-party delegation to meet NGOs such as Amnesty International, Christian Aid and others involved in the
8 Mar 2006 : Column 272WH
region to hear from them about their concerns and to consider how Government and NGO might work effectively together in the area?
Mr. Alexander : I am, of course, sensitive to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and to the sensitivities of the important, brave work that some of the NGOs undertake. I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and those who represent the NGOs to address these questions. Given my background with these organisations, it would be bizarre if I were unwilling to meet them. I am happy to give that undertaking.
Mr. Clifton-Brown : The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has raised an extremely important point, which I also meant to raise. Would the Minister wholeheartedly condemn the Governments, such as those of Russia and Uzbekistan, who make it extremely difficult for NGOs? Russia wants to ban NGOs, and Uzbekistan is thinking about following those lines. Would he wholeheartedly condemn any Government who seek to ban the work of NGOs in their country?
Mr. Alexander : The hon. Gentleman raises a timely issue. I was in Moscow only last week, and at my request I met a cross-section of the NGOs, particularly those dealing with human rights in Russia, and heard directly from some genuinely inspiring individuals the difficulties and concerns that they fear in the light of the passage of the NGO law through the state Duma. It is a matter of record that through our embassy in Moscow we have raised such concerns directly with the Russian Government and members of the Duma.
Given my conversations with the NGOs, our responsibility is to follow closely the implementation of the NGO law. It has been moderated from the original proposals. None the less, I am clear that we will focus considerably on the human rights record and the treatment of NGOs in Russia not only in the immediate weeks and months ahead in anticipation of the G8 meeting in St. Petersburg in July, but after July as well. One of the points put to me by the NGOs was that they were aware that there would be a great deal of international scrutiny in the immediate months ahead, but that their concern was to ensure that that scrutiny would continue once the international focus moved away from the Russian Government's efforts for the G8.
Mr. Hands : On the subject of the Minister's constructive-sounding talks with Russia, what specific representations has he made about the situation in Uzbekistan? My experience to date has been that the Russians appear wholeheartedly to back the official Uzbek line. What specific things has he been pressing Russia, as a country with great influence in the regions, to do?
Mr. Alexander : I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have bilateral conversations with the Russians about the central Asian republics and Uzbekistan as part of that area. My discussions in Moscow focused principally and directly on the situation with human rights and NGOs in Russia, given the bilateral focus of that visit. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will
8 Mar 2006 : Column 273WH
continue to address the other issues, including engagement with the central Asian republics, with Russian interlocutors on a regular basis.
I want also to address one or two specific points raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, before I move on to some of the specific countries that have understandably featured prominently in our debate. The hon. Gentleman has long campaigned on the death penalty, and I am pleased to note that Turkmenistan has abolished the death penalty, while Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have introduced moratoriums. However, it is regrettable that the Uzbek authorities have not introduced a moratorium pending the planned abolition of the death penalty in 2008. No death penalties appear to have been passed since the decision to abolish them was taken last August, according to the information that I have seen. I would strongly urge all central Asian countries to abolish the death penalty as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the human rights council of the United Nations, and in particularly the approach of the United States towards the evolution of that organisation in light of the comments made by John Bolton, the US representative to the United Nations. It is with some relief that I address the Chamber as a representative of the British Government, rather than on behalf of any other sovereign Government. I want to make a substantive point, which bears on our earlier discussion on how we can exercise influence rather than—with the greatest respect to the earnest and sincere speeches made today—simply make speeches about the difficult challenges we face in advancing the global agenda on human rights.
I was privileged to travel to the United Nations General Assembly in New York last year, in our capacity as president of the European Union, for a number of third country meetings. I took the opportunity to meet the United Kingdom's permanent representative, a distinguished and able diplomat, and discuss the progress that had been made in anticipation of the millennium review summit, which had taken place the previous week and where the issues of institutional reform in the UN were discussed. I left with a clear sense of how central the role of the United Kingdom had been in securing the albeit limited progress on UN reform based on the report by the high-level panel and the Secretary-General.
It was clear to me in the course of my conversations with the permanent representative that but for the language that had been secured in the Gleneagles communiqué the previous July, with a number of commitments from a range of countries that included the United States, it would have been a more difficult endeavour to secure the changes that we were looking for and from some of the amendments that had originally been proposed by other partners, including the United States. That is a practical example of where, far away from the scrutiny of the media and from newspaper headlines, important and vital work is being taken forward by British diplomats in pursuit of the goals that all Members would share, I am sure.
Mr. Clifton-Brown : The Minister's remarks call for a comment. He may be aware that I was part of the
8 Mar 2006 : Column 274WH
all-party delegation that recently went to the UN. We met Emyr Jones Parry, our permanent representative, for whom we all had the highest regard. Many reforms are going on in the UN at the moment, of which the human rights council is only one. Will the Minister assure us that that reform will be one of the highest priorities for the British Government when pressing the UN for reform?
Mr. Alexander : I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we continue to work on the issue. The emphasis that Emyr Jones Parry was able to stress when I met him last year was part of a continuity of approach, which unlike the focus and scrutiny secured by the millennium review summit is a matter of continuing work for the United Kingdom's mission in the United Nations.
I will write to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on the issues that he has raised about torture and its use in intelligence. However, I want to place a clear statement on the record, as he suggested. The United Kingdom unreservedly condemns the use of torture and has worked hard with international partners to eradicate the practice. The British Government, including the intelligence and security agencies, never use torture for any purpose, including obtaining information, and nor would we instigate others to do so. I would be happy to set out a fuller response to the hon. Gentleman's direct question, so that it is a matter of public record.
Mr. Carmichael : When the Minister sets out the Government's position, which I look forward to receiving, will he take care to outline their position not only on his unambiguous statement today but on the attention that is given to the provenance of intelligence from other countries? To use a hypothetical example, if the United States obtained information from Uzbekistan, which was passed on to us, would the roots of that intelligence be available to the UK Government and would they bear that in mind in its use?
Mr. Alexander : That has understandably been a matter of concern, and I will be happy to set out the British Government's position when I write directly to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the treatment of religious minorities, in particular those of the Christian faith in central Asia. It is right to acknowledge that Christians are discriminated against across the region, as are other religions. Just this week, the last synagogue in Tajikistan was pulled down. Our embassies throughout the region meet frequently with members of all faiths and lobby their host Governments, both in individual cases and more generally on the importance of freedom of religion. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will be a continued focus of our work in the months and years ahead.
Uzbekistan featured prominently in several contributions to the debate. The Foreign Affairs Committee has this year recognised that human rights are at the forefront of our relationship with Uzbekistan. That is a welcome reflection of the work of our ambassador David Moran and his team in Tashkent, who have been pursuing our agenda with the Uzbeks in increasingly difficult circumstances.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 275WH
Ten months ago, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) described in his wide-ranging speech, the world learned of a place called Andijan in Uzbekistan, for all the wrong reasons. We have recognised the criminal nature of armed attacks on the prison, which acted as the catalyst for the ensuing events. But that element of criminality cannot begin to excuse the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by the Uzbek security forces in Andijan.
Mr. Hands : I appreciate the Minister's continued condemnation in this context and the answers that have been given to various written parliamentary questions, but will he explain why Uzbekistan, for example, is still a member of the NATO partnership for peace? He has answered me on that point that it is up to Britain and our NATO allies; but has Britain put it to our NATO allies that it is unacceptable for Uzbekistan to be part of an organisation called a partnership for peace?
Mr. Alexander : Let me address the hon. Gentleman's specific point in the course of my remarks about what steps the European Union is taking; I shall indeed also answer his point about NATO.
As all Members of the House are aware, the Uzbek authorities have consistently rejected calls for an independent inquiry into the tragic events that we have discussed this morning, despite claiming to be committed to the standards of both the United Nations and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Instead, since May last year we have witnessed a programme of detention and harassment of those, including human rights defenders, journalists and others, who have questioned the authorities' version of events in Andijan on the days in question. Embassies have not been immune from the Government's drive to prevent those with concerns about human rights in Uzbekistan from expressing them.
As to the specific matter of what action has been taken, I shall speak first about the European Union and then deal with the question of NATO. On 3 October 2005, under the United Kingdom's presidency, the European Union Foreign Ministers, at the General Affairs and External Relations Council, decided to implement first an arms embargo and secondly visa restrictions on those deemed responsible for the disproportionate use of force at Andijan.
During the debate I was asked why the Uzbek interior Minister was able to secure medical treatment in Germany. My understanding is that Almatov's visa was issued before the visa ban came into force. Germany checked that the medical case for the visa was urgent before deciding to issue it. However, I understand that the visa ban is now fully in force.
The third aspect of work that progressed at the General Affairs Council of 3 October concerned a suspension of all technical meetings under the partnership and co-operation agreement with Uzbekistan. The co-operation council that was due to take place in February has been postponed indefinitely. A fourth decision was the reorientation of the Commission's funding programme in Uzbekistan, which was worth €9.2 million in 2005–06, to support an increased focus on poverty reduction and the promotion of democracy, human rights and civil society.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 276WH
The NATO Secretary-General has also supported the call of the United Nations for an independent inquiry, to which I have already referred. The United Kingdom believes that NATO co-operation with Uzbekistan should focus on those areas that will promote adherence to our shared values: specifically, democratic control of the armed forces and respect for human rights. NATO is currently reviewing training programmes case by case, on the basis that I have just set out—to consider whether the areas in question will promote adherence to the shared values that I mentioned.
Angus Robertson : What is the reason for the apparent inconsistency in the European Union and NATO approaches? If it is right for the EU to suspend meetings, why should not the United Kingdom Government within NATO pursue a suspension of Uzbekistan's membership of partnership for peace?
Mr. Alexander : There is no categoric answer that can always be offered to the challenge of dealing with repressive regimes with bad human rights records. I would not pretend before the House that policy-making is that straightforward. Instead, it is necessary to consider both what influence can be exerted and what instruments are available for exercising that influence. The question how best to secure such influence is a reasonable one. It is a matter that we keep under review, in relation to the international organisations of which we are a part—such as the European Union and NATO—but it is simply a fact that the EU is a distinct international organisation from NATO.
The views that we express within those organisations do not necessarily differ in accordance with the responses that are then agreed within them. It is a logical fallacy to suggest that differing approaches taken by NATO and the EU show a disparity in the views that were expressed by the British Government. We take to both those forums a view about how best to advance the interests of human rights. That is the basis on which we conduct our discussions with international partners, and an agreement is then reached.
I am glad to say that our concerns are shared throughout the European Union and the wider international community. Seventy-three countries supported the United Nations resolution that called for an independent inquiry into events in Andijan and for the Uzbek authorities to deal with numerous other areas of concern, including freedom of expression and freedom of religion. A stable, prosperous and democratic Uzbekistan would have an important role to play in the development of central Asia. We continue to be interested in a meaningful dialogue with the Uzbeks, both bilaterally and within the EU, on co-operation on broader political and economic reforms. However, that will be possible only against a backdrop of progress on human rights, democratic reform and the development of civil society. [Interruption.]
The Chairman : Order. The Minister is responding to the debate and has the Floor. Hon. Members will please observe parliamentary protocol.
Mr. Alexander : Thank you, Mr. Cook. I assure hon. Members that the issue of Andijan and human rights in Uzbekistan remains a focus of our work. Genuine,
8 Mar 2006 : Column 277WH
positive progress must be made. The EU has kept channels for dialogue open, including through its special representative for central Asia, Jan Kubis. I discussed with him only yesterday his plans to engage with the Uzbek Government at the highest levels to encourage them to act. We agreed, as do all our European Union partners, that it is the clear responsibility of the Uzbek authorities to address the concerns of the EU and the international community at large, by allowing an element of external scrutiny of Andijan and by demonstrating a genuine willingness to reform.
Angus Robertson : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Alexander : With the greatest of respect, I have been very generous in giving way and I am conscious of the time. I think that it would be inappropriate, given the range of countries that have been covered in the debate, if I responded solely on the issue of Uzbekistan, significant and important though it is.
I have dwelt, necessarily, on Uzbekistan, and the restrictive measures introduced in the wake of the terrible events in Andijan, but the overall human rights situation in Turkmenistan remains arguably worse. In the past three years the EU has co-sponsored three resolutions on Turkmenistan before the UN General Assembly and two before the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
There are a few precious positives to recognise. The death penalty has been abolished in Turkmenistan, legislation was passed last year banning the use of child labour, and an increased number of religious minorities have now been registered. However, as a report by the UN Secretary-General noted last September, there is a lack of overall improvement in addressing serious human rights violations.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 278WH
Our embassy in Ashgabat does invaluable work both raising individual cases and lobbying over broader human rights concerns with the Turkmen authorities. It runs projects aimed at opening Turkmenistan to the outside world, including internet projects and scholarships. It also supports the embryonic civil society, for example through resource centres and capacity training. The EU and OSCE also continue to engage with the Turkmen authorities to bring about improvements on basic human rights and freedoms.
On the specific consular case that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) put to me, I shall of course be content to pass on the correspondence directly to my colleagues in the Home Office, given the points that he raised about his constituents. More generally, when dealing with an essentially isolationist regime such as that of Turkmenistan, engagement—where necessary critical engagement—is exceedingly important. However, in calibrating that we should always be careful to avoid taking action that might rebound on the people that it is meant to help.
Our policy is to ensure that the Turkmen Government are in no doubt about our position and to maximise the leverage that we have by acting closely with the wider international community. Bringing about even small, incremental change in a largely closed country such as Turkmenistan is not easy, but the Turkmen Government take heed, for example, of the United Nations. We shall continue to make constructive use of all the levers at our disposal to encourage positive reform in Turkmenistan.
Later this year, the Tajiks will go to the polls to elect their president. That is a country that even in its own short history of independence since 1991 has experienced at first hand the dire consequences of a protracted and bloody civil war.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 277WH
8 Mar 2006 : Column 279WH
Greener Fuels (Taxation)
11 am
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister, because he can sustain an intelligent and thoughtful dialogue on any subject and particularly one such as this. The debate gives a pre-Budget airing to what is, to some extent, a perennial topic in the House. I shall talk largely about the transport element of biofuel and not allow myself to venture onto other aspects of green fuel.
The fiscal system for biofuel and for greener fuel in general poses the Treasury with a dilemma. The Treasury's traditional role is to raise money in an acceptable and efficient way—that is the old rule by which the Treasury has abided for century after century. In recent times, however, the Treasury has had a new mission and has imposed taxes to change, penalise and encourage certain behaviour. As a result, we have the concept of environmental taxation, and therein lies the dilemma. If the Treasury succeeds manifestly in changing behaviour, it almost simultaneously succeeds in reducing the revenue that it would normally receive. I sometimes think that it should, in its own interests, allow us to pursue our own path to perdition, by letting us carry on smoking, drinking, gambling and polluting, thus providing itself with a stable income base, or that it should adopt the philosophy of sad resignation.
In recent times, however, the Treasury has had a much wider policy objective. The Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Paul Boateng, emphatically set out the Treasury's commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions and achieve other desirable environmental effects through taxation. None the less, one might suspect that some in the Treasury harbour residual doubts about the sanity of that procedure. There must, therefore, always be doubts about the sincerity of the Treasury's efforts.
We must none the less confront the fact that there are differential tax rates on bioethanol, biodiesel, liquid petroleum gas and ultra-low sulphur fuels. However, the effect of that tax regime is not exactly magnificent. Since 2000–05, the number of LPG vehicles has increased by a factor of five. That is not a massive increase, because the number of vehicles has increased only from 20,000 to 120,000. The number of outlets where one can obtain LPG has increased from 130 to about 490. The tax take has gone up to about £10 million, although that pales into insignificance compared with the £12 billion obtained from petrol. For LPG, therefore, the results are relatively modest.
Nor has there been massive success with bioethanol and biofuels in general, which are covered by the renewable fuels obligation. In a recent debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), stated quite categorically that they represent about 0.3 per cent. of the fuel used.
Mr. Christopher Fraser (South-West Norfolk) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the construction of the country's first bioethanol plant by British Sugar at
8 Mar 2006 : Column 280WH
Wissington in my constituency is a good thing? Does he also agree that the development of the biofuels industry in this country is long overdue?
Dr. Pugh : Yes, that is a very timely intervention, as I was about to say that we have no facility, but we shall shortly have one, and that will be entirely desirable. We are bound to import some bioethanol, but doing so does a degree of environmental damage because it is shipped from places such as Brazil.
At the European level, biodiesel makes up about 0.2 per cent. of fuel sales. In England, there is one biodiesel plant, Argent Energy in Glasgow, which says that there is enough capacity for it to have other facilities and to develop far further.
A previous Westminster Hall debate, which involved my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), established that the Department for Transport is engaged in fairly intensive discussions on how further to incentivise biofuels and what to incentivise. However, it is not unfair to observe that progress has not been good enough, and everybody would acknowledge that. That is not entirely the Treasury's fault, because other variables are at play. Those include the technology, the availability of resources and incorrigible factors such as consumer preferences, which are not as easily changed by a fiscal system as we might imagine.
However, there is clearly significant scope for further development. At the moment, we have a £3 billion wheat surplus, and wheat is eminently convertible into biofuels. We also have the potential to convert sugar into biofuels. On biodiesel, I mentioned Argent Energy in Glasgow, which reckons that it would need six other facilities similar to its present one simply to meet the renewable fuel obligation. We had a golden opportunity to make significant progress by reusing quantities of waste products such as tallow, used oil and food industry by-products. We also have significant hopes and aspirations that Government bodies will increasingly procure more environmentally friendly vehicles than they have hitherto.
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point about procurement policy in general. Does he agree that there is perhaps a leadership role for local authorities and local government in that regard? Many councils, including Stockport metropolitan borough council in my area, have moved their fleets of vehicles specially into LPG and other more socially useful fuels.
Dr. Pugh : My hon. Friend emphasises a point that I wanted to make. Exemplary efforts have been made by local government, occasionally by big firms and even by central Government. In the previous Westminster Hall debate on this issue, which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Halton, pointed to a number of cases of Government bodies converting their fleet to LPG or biofuel. That clearly indicates that there is considerable potential, although that potential is, by and large, unrealised.
The key question is how we can improve things, given that we all want to do so. We have to differentiate a little between LPG and biofuels. As I understand it, LPG has
8 Mar 2006 : Column 281WH
a 20 per cent. advantage over biofuels. As the maths and the finances stack up, there is every chance that somebody who converts a standard two to three-year-old vehicle to LPG will recover their costs within about two to three years. It would be a blissful day if most of the vehicles that passed us on the roads were LPG powered.
However, there are clearly availability issues as regards supply and technology, and there are also technical issues. Therefore, we must look not only at LPG, but at the prospects for biofuels. In one way, biofuels are the easiest things to encourage. Bioethanol can be added to petrol, with no substantial technological modification of the vehicle required. That is the easiest route by which to pursue cleaner and greener fuel. In many parts of the world, bioethanol is commonly added to petrol, and up to about 10 per cent. can be added with no real damage. As hon. Members probably know, the quantities of biofuel used in Brazil are absolutely enormous, and vehicles are modified to run almost totally on biofuels, with little petrol ingredient.
If I were in the Treasury, there are two strategies that I would pursue to encourage biofuels. One might be regarded as more laid back than the other and would simply involve relying on the renewables fuel obligation and on finding a mechanism effectively to enforce it so that we hit our 5.7 per cent. target by 2010. If the Treasury did that, I guess that it might relax, and ethanol could go into the mix at about 5 per cent., or perhaps even 10 per cent. or more, and the world would not change markedly. We could visualise a day on which non-ethanol-added fuels had been gradually phased out, in the same way that leaded fuels were phased out. Indeed, I am informed that some supermarkets are already quietly adding ethanol to the fuel pumps and the customers are not noticing any substantial effect.
If that was all that happened, there would not be a long-term effect on Treasury revenue, because taxation could gradually change from one sort of fuel to another, almost seamlessly. However, that is not necessarily the most obvious way to make progress. Technological issues may need to bottom out and supply-side issues may need to be addressed. We must accept the point that the Department made in a previous debate on the issue that not all biofuels are equally virtuous. Some are developed at the cost of rain forest, which is intrinsically undesirable. Some biofuels are not as efficient as others and, as was previously mentioned, some have to travel an appreciable distance before they reach us, and not, of course, in vehicles powered by biofuels.
A more likely scenario is that ethanol competes head to head—or pump to pump—with other sorts of fuel for some time. That is, biofuels will compete with standard fuel and consumers will need to be tempted by a sustained price differential. According to the producers, the current price differential of about 20p is not sufficient to cover their costs or barely does so, although I guess that perhaps they would say that. One could argue that a further, more substantial cut is required. However, if that cut is made and the consumers are tempted to fill up with biofuel rather than other kinds of fuel, a large slice of the £23 billion revenue that the Treasury currently receives from those of us who drive our cars from place to place will be cut.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 282WH
If a further cut was made, there would be another dilemma. Who would be rewarded best and how could the Treasury ensure that they were the right people? Would they be the virtuous consumers who chose to move from one pump to another at the forecourt, or would the oil companies benefit, simply by leaving their prices much the same and welcoming the fact that their profit margins had increased a little more? That is a dilemma for the Treasury that I am sure it will think through fairly carefully.
None the less, there is a case for maintaining a price differential between biofuels and other fuels, in tandem with enforcing the renewable fuels obligation, rather than dramatically phasing out the differential, when we simply coerce the petrol companies into providing biofuels or as we approach the target that we wish them to achieve. There is a sound case for saying that a cliff-edge withdrawal of the price differential would not deliver the environmental benefits that we want and would lead to targets being missed.
There is also a case for keeping and perhaps developing the system of capital allowances for those who wish to develop a plant necessary to produce the fuel. That point was underlined recently in a radio programme by the managing director of Argent, who said that without such support we might not have biofuels on a proper commercial basis. I should like the Treasury to respond to that point, because in the previous debate on the issue it was mentioned—not by the Treasury spokesman, obviously—that the Treasury was giving the matter some appreciable thought.
I suspect that to have a truly virtuous outcome we need a combination of carrots and sticks. We need the downward thrust of the renewable fuels obligation and we need the message to go out, loud and clear, to the oil companies. However, we also need the carrot—the differential tax rates, capital grants and allowances—to ensure that supply can meet what we hope is the expected demand.
There is a holy grail being sought. The ideal scenario from the Treasury's point of view is to secure all the environmental benefits without a slump in the tax revenue, and at the same time not suffer any other adverse economic effects, such as an effect on the balance of payments. The proposal that the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser) made, to develop our own bioethanol industry, has an economic benefit as well as an environmental one. As we are going to use the stuff, we might as well home produce it as well. Discovering the holy grail, which I am sure is keenly sought in the Treasury, of securing environmental benefits without a consequent massive slump in revenue will take a degree of clever judgment or a Baldrick-like cunning plan. That is what I would like the Minister to address in this debate.
However, I conclude on a slightly techie point that I have raised with the Minister before—I apologise to hon. Members for being almost wilfully obscure. The process of producing biofuel is known as esterification—I am glad that I do not have to say that too many times in this debate—but some manufacturers use a process called filtration to make biodiesel. Nothing in the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 explicitly states that esterification needs to be employed. Producers who use filtration argue that their product satisfies the conditions laid down in the Act and is therefore entitled
8 Mar 2006 : Column 283WH
to the same fiscal benefits. However, the Minister contradicted that in a written answer to me, but did not provide a wholly satisfactory explanation of why biodiesel produced through filtration should be treated differently from biodiesel produced through esterification.
I shall leave the Minister adequate time to respond, but I appreciate that the Government have a difficult problem to address. They depend to a great extent on the duty that they receive from fuels and at the same time they have voluntarily embraced the path of environmental virtue. They must pursue both paths—fiscal probity and environmental virtue—simultaneously. That probably can be done but, without sharing Treasury modelling, it is not easy to see exactly how. However, if the Minister has a Baldrick-like cunning plan that will do the job, I would certainly like to hear about it.
11.18 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing this debate and on the tone with which he has dealt with the issues. He appreciates that the Treasury has some difficult decisions to make in this territory. I also pay tribute to him, as I know that he has a long-standing interest in the issue, both before coming to the House, on the council on which he served, and since, as a member of the Transport Committee. I am glad to see that he is still a transport spokesperson for the Liberals, after the changes at the top of his party, at the start of the Ming dynasty.
The hon. Gentleman draws our attention to the role of transport and the potential use of transport taxation to deal with climate change, which is one of the most serious problems facing the world and one of the most prominent areas of policy debate. As he would expect, the Government are giving the issue serious attention as we prepare for the Budget and the spending review—I shall take his contribution to this debate as Budget representations if he wishes. Beyond that, the Government are preparing to publish the review of the climate change programme. We are also preparing for the comprehensive spending review, in part through the work on reviewing the economics of climate change that Sir Nick Stern is doing at the behest of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Such things are part of the essential preparations for making the big, long-term decisions that face us as a Government and as a nation in the comprehensive spending review.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to transport, which is a central sector in meeting the challenge of controlling and reducing the United Kingdom's climate change emissions.
I welcome the interventions made by the hon. Members for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser) and for Cheadle (Mark Hunter). The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk is fortunate to have British Sugar and the Wissington plant development in his constituency. For the past two or three years, British Sugar has been discussing the plant with me and I am delighted that the construction is under way. It will be the first bioethanol plant in Britain, but I am sure it will not be the last. British Sugar is clearly blazing a trail in the hon. Gentleman's constituency for others to follow.
The hon. Member for Cheadle paid tribute to his council, Stockport metropolitan borough, for its use of procurement, and in particular for making its fleet of
8 Mar 2006 : Column 284WH
council vehicles LPG-driven. I, too, pay tribute to it, as I do to my own Rotherham metropolitan borough council, which was one of the first local authorities to use its position as a significant procurer and purchaser in the area to turn to green energy sources in its buying of energy.
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the two new European Union procurement directives that came into force in this country at the end of January and the guidance that has been produced by the Office of Government Commerce. I encourage him to examine their provisions. The guidance is designed specifically to help procurers in the public sector see how they can use their position in the overall objective and imperative to secure good value for money to achieve some of the environmental aims that he and his council share.
There is no doubt that climate change is one of the most serious global challenges facing us. We need to act at the domestic level to reduce climate change emissions in the UK, but we must recognise that UK emissions form only 2 per cent. of the world's emissions. Therefore, the imperative is to act internationally. The problem is a global one, and it requires co-ordinated global efforts and action. That is why the UK put action to take forward efforts to tackle climate change at the forefront of its G8 and EU presidencies last year.
Since 1997, this Government have taken a different approach from the one that the hon. Member for Southport not unfairly described as the traditional Treasury preoccupation with raising finances through taxation. Within two months of first being elected in 1997—in July—we set out a statement of intent. It detailed the clear intention of the Treasury, at the heart of Government, to use tax and other economic instruments to deliver important environmental objectives, and in particular to support economic growth that was both stable and environmentally sustainable.
The strategy was developed further in the pre-Budget report in November 2002, when we published "Tax and the environment: using economic instruments". It set out the framework of interventions that are open to Government in this area, the economic and principled case that any such policy measures should meet, and the process through which we would develop policy on the use of fiscal and other economic policies to achieve environmental goals.
Specifically on fuels, particularly transport fuels, we developed things further the following year by setting out the alternative fuels framework. It established the rationale for decisions on Government support for alternative fuels that can help to meet environmental objectives, which are at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Developed directly from the principles in "Tax and the environment: using economic instruments", the framework aimed, in part, to confirm the principal priority of the environment and the benefits to it in such policy decisions. It also aimed, in part, to provide clarity and certainty for investors in those markets. Therefore, the alternative fuels framework commits the Government to guaranteeing fuel duty differentials for at least three years ahead.
I appreciate the progress that the hon. Gentleman recognises, but in many ways transport taxation is a model of a policy area in which the Government have
8 Mar 2006 : Column 285WH
taken innovative and reforming action to make markets, consumer behaviour and technological developments greener, while balancing concerns about economic growth, incomes and the tax revenues necessary to fund essential public services.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated on biofuels, so I will deal with the points that he raised in the remaining time available.
Dr. Pugh : I welcome everything the Minister said about frameworks, policies and things of that nature. Something is not entirely clear to me, perhaps because of ignorance on my part. When a policy is embraced, put forward and said to have certain effects, the Treasury must have a process by which, after a period of time, an assessment is made as to whether the fiscal or environmental effect is as expected or whether it disappoints and does not achieve the desired end. How is that done specifically? Are any data published to indicate whether the fiscal measure has been a success or a failure?
John Healey : There is indeed such a process. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of "Tax and the environment: using economic instruments" and the alternative fuels framework. They set out the criteria and the methodologies that we use and the process that we go through in trying to weigh up these sorts of decisions. If he looks at chapter 7, particularly in the pre-Budget and Budget reports, he will see that where we assess the impact of any tax changes that we make—we do that as a matter of course—we publish the results. I think that he will find those useful.
Tax is a potentially potent policy tool, but it is often relatively blunt. It is usually most useful alongside other measures such as information, regulation or public spending programmes. Biofuels are a leading example of such a policy area. The introduction of the duty discounts to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the 20p per litre duty incentive for both biodiesel and bioethanol—has clearly given a kick-start to an industry and a market in Britain that was starting from a low base. The biofuels industry in the UK grew from virtually nothing to producing about 11 million litres per month by last October; in 2005, there was an eightfold increase from the start of that year.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 286WH
Industry has consistently told us that the best way to deliver investment in renewable fuels in the longer term is through a framework that goes even further—in other words, one that is not just concentrated on duty discounts. Such a framework would give industry additional certainty for its investment and planning. That is where the renewable transport fuels obligation comes in.
Mr. Fraser : Will the Minister give way?
John Healey : I will, but I am conscious of the time and I want to respond to some of the other points.
Mr. Fraser : This is a quick point. Following the EU sugar regime, will the Minister use the Budget to put forward plans to stimulate further the bioethanol industry and to ensure that sugar beet farmers have the incentive to grow beet?
John Healey : The hon. Gentleman anticipates the remarks that I am going to make about the Budget and some of the key decisions that we take. I would caution him that the reform of the common agricultural policy, and the sugar regime in particular, aimed to move away from production subsidies of one kind. We must be careful about moving into a realm where we replace one set of production subsidies with another.
The renewable transport fuels obligation will give the biofuels industry further certainty and will deliver carbon savings of 1 million tonnes per year once the obligation reaches 5 per cent. of road fuel sales. We have examined other instruments to create incentives for the development of biofuels. We will, subject to state aids approval, introduce the 100 per cent. first-year capital allowance, in which the hon. Member for Southport is interested, for biofuels plant that meet certain qualifying criteria. That will work alongside the RTFO to encourage development. At the Budget, we will set the level of the obligation for 2008–09 and—
Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until half-past Two o'clock.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 285WH
Venezuela
2.30 pm
Frank Cook (in the Chair): I have just had a semaphore message asking whether jackets can be removed. I should explain that this is a parallel Chamber, so the situation is the same as on the Floor of the House. It is therefore quite contrary to standard protocol for hon. Members to remove their jackets. We have made representations to the Speaker, and once the weather gets sunnier and hotter, it may be permissible for hon. Members to remove their jackets.
Six hon. Members have given prior notice that they want to contribute to the debate. The mover of the debate has indicted that he will take about 15 minutes, which means that other hon. Members who have given notice that they want to speak will get no more than seven and a half minutes each on average. I should therefore be grateful if hon. Members would bear in mind the time when they make their contributions or accept and respond to interventions.
Colin Burgon (Elmet) (Lab): Mr. Cook, I hear your wise words about the coming warm weather and about the length of our speeches. Bearing that in mind, I shall take no interventions during my speech, in the hope that hon. Members will be able to speak later.
The debate is about the changes in Latin America. In this country, we talk about Africa and AIDS, about the middle east and about the growth of economic power in India and China, but Latin America is the one continent that seems to have disappeared from our radar. In talking about Latin America, the word that we should use is change, and that is the central issue of the debate. I am pleased to say that that change reflects a move to the left; Opposition Members might not share my feelings, but there we are. That left movement has many variants in countries such as Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia and, of course, Venezuela. Indeed, I was delighted to hear the President of Brazil speak to us this morning. The content of his speech was brilliant, and I shall try to deal with it later.
Latin America is a huge continent, which has always been considered to be part of the United States' backyard, and it is important that the United Kingdom does not neglect it. If we look at American history, we come across the practice of the Monroe doctrine and the idea of manifest destiny. Prior to the civil war, the southern states tried to expand the slave empire into the Caribbean and Latin America to perpetuate slavery. I am pleased to say that Lincoln and the Republicans opposed that, although Lincoln would turn in his grave if he could see his party's performance in the current context.
My desire to highlight the changes in Latin America and to seek a positive response recently motivated me to ask the Prime Minister for his perspective on events in Latin America, but my diplomatic response to his answer is that I found it somewhat disappointing. Indeed, some people in Latin America found it more than disappointing, and it created a minor political tsunami. I am told that, as a result of my question, I am more famous in Latin America than in Leeds. However, like you, Mr. Cook, I am an eternal optimist and I
8 Mar 2006 : Column 288WH
requested this debate to enable the Government to clarify their policy towards Venezuela and clear up any confusion. That is especially relevant given what can only be described as the excruciatingly embarrassing remarks by a junior Foreign Office Minister in the columns of The Times on 13 April 2002. He welcomed the overthrow of Chavez in a coup but, unfortunately for him and fortunately for the people of Venezuela, the coup collapsed one day later, when Chavez was restored to his presidency thanks to popular support. My first question to the Minister, therefore, is what efforts have been made since April 2002 to repair the damage that that comment would obviously have caused? Will he, if possible, clarify the Prime Minister's comments about the international agreements that Venezuela has supposedly not upheld?
In a general sense, it is worth asking why we should welcome good relations with Venezuela; indeed, that is the question that we are asking today. For those who like to inhabit the world of realpolitik, there is a straightforward answer. Venezuela has the largest proven conventional oil reserves in south America and the sixth largest in the world, at about 77 billion barrels. Only Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iran have larger proven reserves. Even in the simplistic sense of having good relations with people who have something that we need, we should encourage the relationship with Venezuela.
Venezuela also possesses huge reserves of heavy crude oil. During the second half of the 1990s, it was the fifth largest oil producer in the world, behind Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the US. It is also a significant producer of gas and has about 3 per cent. of the world's total reserves. Interestingly, those sizeable offshore reserves are being exploited at the moment, and licences are being given to foreign companies. Contrary to the situation with oil companies, the law permits 100 per cent. foreign ownership of projects to exploit non-associated natural gas, so there is an interesting opening for people who are interested in gas, and I am sure that there are a few in this room.
Venezuela is also a significant trading partner for the UK. It is our third largest export market in south America and was worth £187 million in 2004. In the same year, the UK imported £213 million of goods from Venezuela. Several leading British companies have investments in the Venezuelan energy sector, and in tourism, pharmaceuticals, agriculture and finance. My second question to the Minister, therefore, is, bearing all that in mind, can he outline the Government's strategy for enhancing British commercial interests in Venezuela, particularly given the strength of competition from countries such as China in the Venezuelan and wider regional market?
I would argue, however, that a Labour Government's foreign policy should be driven not just by considerations of economic self-interest, but by a shared system of political values. As I am sure you would agree, Mr. Cook, the Labour party has a long and honourable record of supporting progressive Governments around the world and of siding with movements that seek to govern in the interests of the majority and to involve the masses of people who, historically, have been ignored. Interestingly, Venezuela was the first country in Latin America to begin the process of rejecting the domination of what we call neo-liberal ideas and the
8 Mar 2006 : Column 289WH
Washington consensus and to experiment with ideas of anti-globalisation. Some historians take the view that the upsurge of discontent in Caracas in February 1989, which resulted in the death of roughly 1,000 people, was as important for Latin America as the fall of the Berlin wall in the same year was for Europe.
Whatever the international significance of those events in Caracas, there can be no doubt that they marked the beginning of a domestic political process that eventually led to the victory of Hugo Chavez in December 1998 and catapulted Venezuela into the limelight in Latin America. That was a novel place for Venezuela, because it had previously attracted little interest in terms of its history or politics, other than as the birthplace of Simon Bolivar, although that is fairly important. According to people to whom I spoke at the Foreign Office, Venezuela was never considered an attractive diplomatic posting. The usual take was that Venezuela was an oil-rich country run by a white, Americanised elite, with nearly 70 per cent. of its 24 million people living on the edge of hunger and poverty.
What was the platform on which Chavez came to power and which has caused such ructions on the continent? Given Opposition and US claims about Chavez's democratic legitimacy, it is interesting to note that he had faced the electorate eight times in six years by the end of 2004—a record that has been matched nowhere else in Latin America and which none of us would like to match. The three central themes of his programme were, first, a radical reform of the economy and, surprisingly, an emphasis on following a third way that was inspired by a certain Tony Blair. That approach was based on what Chavez called a middle road between savage neo-liberalism and failed communism. The second plank was the need to overhaul the country's institutions politically and constitutionally. The third element was the importance of diversifying trading relations away from the dependence on the United States that inevitably and unduly shaped Venezuela's development.
The domestic impact of Chavez's politics is clear. After the dramatic rise in oil prices in 2002 following the failed coup, the Venezuelan Government invested more than $3 billion in social policy reforms in 2005. A series of social investment programmes called missions cover such matters as pre-school education, primary education and literacy, secondary education, vocational worker training, primary health care in the most deprived neighbourhoods and a food distribution programme that covers 60 per cent. of the population. It is estimated that just over 1 million people have acquired literacy skills as a result of those programmes. The poorest in that country have access to medical assistance for the first time ever, thanks partly to the 17,000 medics provided by Cuba.
At international level, President Chavez has attempted to build and broaden links with other countries on the continent. The oil wealth of Venezuela has enabled him to develop regional energy accords with his Caribbean and Latin American neighbours to help with debt problems facing countries such as Argentina and Ecuador, and thereby reduce the influence of the International Monetary Fund in the region. He has even
8 Mar 2006 : Column 290WH
been able to fund regional social programmes such as mission miracle, which enables poor Latin Americans to receive free eye treatment in Venezuela and Cuba.
Venezuela's increasingly active role has met with outright hostility on the part of the right-wing Republican Administration in Washington. As recently as 16 February, Condoleezza Rice called for an "international united front" against Venezuela. In what can only be described as an extremely condescending comment, she said that the State Department was
"working with responsible governments, even responsible governments of the left, like the Brazilian government or the Chilean government, to try and counter these"—
Fortunately, both those Governments have strongly rebutted Ms Rice's statements.
There is great danger in the American attempt to isolate Venezuela. The issue that is playing on America's mind at the moment is links with Iran. There is no future in links with a fundamentalist Islamic regime such as Iran. It is up to the UK to use its position to argue for secular politics that unites us all. It would be bad news if Venezuela was influenced by Islamic fundamentalism coming out of Tehran, just as it would be if it was influenced by Christian fundamentalism coming out of Washington.
Central to the debate is the question of who determines our foreign policy on that huge and changing continent. Can the Minister reassure me that our policy is not being subcontracted out to right-wing elements in the US, and will he show me evidence of how our policy is clearly different in this respect? Does he share my view and that of almost 100 of my parliamentary colleagues—I refer to early-day motion 1644—that all elected Governments in the region should be treated with equal respect and that the US right-wing fundamentalists should desist from efforts to destabilise the democratically elected Chavez Government?
Having listened to President Lula of Brazil this morning, I believe it is clear that fundamental and welcome change is under way in Latin America. Venezuela is at the forefront of that process. How we determine our policy towards that nation will say much about this country. I hope that friendship, solidarity and mutual respect will mark that relationship.
Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I see seven hon. Members seeking to catch my eye. I am required to start the first of the three winding-up speeches at 3.30 pm, which gives us 46 minutes. Will hon. Members please bear that in mind when making their contributions? I call Daniel Kawczynski.
2.44 pm
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con): Thank you, Mr. Cook. I have visited Venezuela. I had the opportunity to visit Caracas and some of the outlying towns, and it is a beautiful country with a remarkable people, so I am pleased that the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) secured the debate. I find myself agreeing with much of what he said. Hugo
8 Mar 2006 : Column 291WH
Chavez, because he has been democratically elected as the Head of State of Venezuela, deserves a certain respect that some other leaders around the world do not, because they came to power through military coups or other non-democratic methods. We certainly need to improve relations with Venezuela. I remember the hon. Gentleman asking his question of the Prime Minister and the furore that followed in the media.
One thing that the hon. Gentleman did not say is that a senior member of the Republican party in the United States—I cannot remember who exactly—called last year for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. That troubled me greatly. The idea that we could call for democratically elected Heads of State to be assassinated is very worrying. I dissociate myself from that and I hope that the Minister will do so.
American allies, wherever they are around the world, sometimes disagree with America and they do not suffer as a result. One such country is Canada. Canada has great relations with America, yet it sometimes goes out of its way to have a different policy from the United States. An example is the relations and the trade that it has with Cuba. I hope that the Minister will say that we are prepared at times to deviate slightly from the American position and that we must pursue first and foremost our own interests, rather than just complying with what the Americans suggest to us.
As the hon. Member for Elmet mentioned, there are many British oil companies in Venezuela, and they generate a great deal of revenue for this country. I am talking about oil and gas production. I am sure that a company such as BP will be grateful that the debate has been secured and that we have an opportunity to discuss the issues. Venezuela is the third largest economy in Latin America, so it provides the United Kingdom with a tremendous opportunity for direct foreign investment. That might be more difficult if we are deliberately provocative and antagonistic to its leaders.
I will be brief, because I am well aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I want to make two other points. Venezuela has a shoreline that meets the Caribbean sea, and we have a vessel in the Caribbean. I was meant to be going on it, as I am on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, with the Navy. It is patrolling for drugs in the Caribbean.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): Parachute him in.
Daniel Kawczynski : Venezuela has an important role to play in dealing with the narcotics trade across the Caribbean. I hope that we can work closely with the Venezuelan Government on narcotics issues to deal with the growing problem that they present. Of course, that issue affects not only the United States, but the United Kingdom.
Next to Venezuela is British Guyana. That former British colony is very important to us. It is a member of the Commonwealth, and obviously we want to do everything that we can to safeguard its position. In the past, Guyana has had small territorial disputes with Venezuela, and I am keen that we enter a dialogue with Venezuela to ensure that those disputes do not erupt again. The Minister is very capable and I urge him to redouble his efforts to improve our relations with
8 Mar 2006 : Column 292WH
Venezuela, and not to denigrate the elected President of that country. I have my own feelings on him as an individual, but he was democratically elected and we must work with him.
Frank Cook (in the Chair): There are 41 minutes left and seven hon. Members are bidding to speak. I call Jon Trickett.
2.49 pm
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab): Thank you, Mr. Cook; I will try to be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) on securing this debate on an issue that is important strategically for the part of south America that we are discussing. It is also important in terms of the way that the world is developing, given the globalisation that we are all experiencing.
The American Administration's position might be more nuanced than is reflected in some of the more extreme and bellicose statements that emerge from time to time. Not so long ago, there were discussions that seemed to be positive between parts of that Administration and representatives of the Venezuelan Government. However, it is also true that many bellicose statements are coming out of Washington, and from very senior sources. The statement about assassinating Chavez came not from someone in the Administration, but from someone on the Republican right—I think it was Pat Robertson—but many statements have been made that lead one to be very troubled about what the American Administration's intentions are. This debate provides our Government with an opportunity to clarify their role.
I recently read a document produced by an organisation called the Centre for Security Policy in Washington. It is doing some of the outriding—or some of the more outrageous thinking, some Members might think—in respect of Venezuela. It states that Venezuela
"must change. It can change on its own, or it can invite hemispheric forces with the help of Venezuela's broad democratic opposition, to impose the changes. Either way U.S. strategy must be to help Venezuela accomplish peaceful change"
this year. It is clear that there are extreme right-wing forces in the American Administration that will not tolerate the direction of travel of the Venezuelan Government and the international linkages that they are bringing about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet referred to the Washington consensus. I think it is true that one can perceive a world view coming out of the neo-conservative establishment. Many such neo-conservatives are closely associated with George Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their colleagues. The Washington consensus implies a world in which the trade is so-called "free", capital markets are entirely liberalised, property rights are secured, there is market deregulation, there is a major transfer of assets from the public to the private sectors, the state has a minimal role, and the international alliances that are created are grouped around a Washington hegemonic presence—a unipolar world. It has been explicitly stated that that is what America aspires to create. The Washington
8 Mar 2006 : Column 293WH
consensus also implies that America has the right to impose what it would describe as a pax Americana on the world—that it has the right to conduct unilateral and pre-emptive wars, should that be necessary. In respect of building a foreign policy on Venezuela, the question is whether our Government want to construct a set of bilateral relations that are built on the Washington consensus, or whether they will develop, with the European Union and others, a more nuanced approach.
One problem with what Washington wants to impose on the world is that it produces an extremely divided form of development for those in what we call the third world—the developing countries. In Latin America, the richest 10 per cent. control 48 per cent. of the income, and the poorest 10 per cent. share 1.6 per cent. of the income. The Washington consensus—the neo-liberal project—produces the most divided societies imaginable. Chavez has attempted to demonstrate that there is an alternative model for development that can tackle poverty, and which, through microcredits and other detailed Government initiatives, can begin to share the wealth. In doing that, Venezuela has been able to take advantage of its oil wealth, but it has also begun to develop a set of international alliances that do not easily fit into the Washington model of a world grouped around a single pole of power—American power, based on Republican Administration. Washington regards that as particularly threatening, and that explains the bellicose statements that have come out of elements of the Administration.
Chavez and the Venezuelan Government are demonstrating that it is possible to develop a set of international relationships that do not fit into the Washington consensus. What will the UK Government and the EU do? How will they respond to that? I hope that the UK Government are able to establish a line that does not simply support the idea of an unipolar world—of a single economic and military interest—and that instead they will develop a much more complex approach to Venezuela and the Latin American continent. I hope that we can play a positive role by sitting alongside Venezuela and the other nations in that region that are following a different strategy for developing and spreading out the wealth than the one that Washington seeks to impose on the world.
I notice that I have been speaking for six minutes and 18 seconds, so I shall now sit down.
Frank Cook (in the Chair): We have 34 remaining minutes, and six hon. Members are bidding to speak. I call Mark Pritchard.
2.56 pm
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): Clearly we are in agreement that President Chavez is democratically elected, but we all know from our history that there have been other characters throughout the generations who have also been democratically elected but who have not necessarily had the best record on human rights and looking after their own people. I will not list them now, because they are too numerous to list.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 294WH
There is no doubt that there is a democratic mandate, and I hope that the wealth that Venezuela has as a result of its oil reserves and the recent rises in crude oil prices will cascade down to the poorest and most vulnerable in Venezuelan society. Some hon. Members have said that they think that that is happening. They might wish to speak to organisations such as the Department for International Development and CARE and other non-governmental and charitable organisations. Unfortunately, there is a sorry tale of poverty and deprivation not only in large parts of Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, but throughout the country. I think that the wealth that President Chavez currently has would be better spent on addressing that, rather than on mobilising 2 million civilians and training them in the basic techniques of how to handle an AK47. I think also that addressing that would be a better way of spending money than procuring Russian helicopters for some bogus threat. It is, of course, very convenient for the president to have a phoney war with the United States. I agree with those Members who say that the rhetoric from Washington should be cautious. The American Administration—both the Department of Defence and the Department of State—should not play into President Chavez's hands on this issue. But even if they do, that does not mean that President Chavez should put military equipment before his own people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made an excellent point when he said that the Government of Venezuela need to put more effort into dealing with the drugs trade. Many of those drugs end up on the streets of London and in other parts of our nation.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. Would he not agree that the example set by President Lula of Brazil, who has adopted—if I dare say so—a third-way approach to economic development in south America offers better long-term prospects for that continent than the route being followed by Hugo Chavez?
Mark Pritchard : Those are helpful remarks. President Lula rose from very humble beginnings; he was a shoeshine boy, so he knows the pressures of poverty. President Chavez is a former paratrooper. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) made a comment about parachuting in one of my colleagues; President Chavez would know how to parachute into another location.
Latin America needs leaders who send out clear signals to the investment community that their countries are safe, secure and stable and a good place in which to do business. One of the unfortunate things about President Chavez is his rhetoric, which seems to be ratcheting up week by week. In the past week or so there have been comments about imperial enemies; there has been the so-called crusade against capitalism—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—and there is the axis between Cuba, which has a terrible human rights record, and President Chavez. If Labour Members wish to put in jeopardy their constituents' pension funds, which may be in investments in companies such as British Gas, they can carry on cheering President Chavez and President Castro of Cuba. We cannot have a divestment of British
8 Mar 2006 : Column 295WH
interests in Venezuela; those interests cannot be put at risk by a president who is sending out entirely the wrong signals to the investment community.
Of course, the situation has a negative halo effect on the rest of Latin America. There are many success stories in Latin America, and it would be most unfortunate if, as a result of one rogue president, the investment community decides to invest elsewhere. There are good examples, such as President Lula. I was in Peru a few weeks ago, and presidential elections are coming up there in the next two or three weeks. I had the privilege of meeting several of the presidential candidates. One in particular, Lourdes Flores, is very impressive. I hope that President Chavez will be far more responsible in his rhetoric.
Of course, the issue affects UK relations directly. We know that President Chavez has been encouraging Argentina to look again at the Falkland Islands, and to make yet more protests at the United Nations. That is disturbing to me and, no doubt, to others who fought to bring the Falkland Islands back under the Union flag.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that there has been anti-American rhetoric in this House yet again; indeed, we hear it all the time. It is not the Washington model that is causing President Chavez to threaten neighbours and use anti-American and anti-British rhetoric; it is an International Monetary Fund model, and a World Bank model, that Latin American countries have been following. It is an international model with international consensus, in which Britain plays a part, that Latin American countries have been asked to follow in relation to their fiscal and borrowing policies.
I hope that the Minister will confirm today that there will be no more closure of UK diplomatic missions and embassies in Latin America, given that it is becoming increasingly important in our own foreign policy. I hope also that he will confirm that we will continue to have a commercial presence, through our embassies, in as many Latin American countries as we currently do, so that British interests are protected, and so that we can take the opportunities available in the region.
Frank Cook (in the Chair): There are 27 minutes available and five bidders. I call John McDonnell.
3.3 pm
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): I apologise to the Front-Bench spokesmen, because I am chairing a meeting on the Company Law Reform Bill at 3.30 pm and so cannot be here for the winding-up speeches, although I did not want to miss this debate because I am chair of the "Hands Off Venezuela" campaign.
Today is international women's day, and I want to place on the record our respect for, and celebration of, the role of women in the Venezuelan revolution—and it is a revolution. For most of us, revolution conjures up images of armed struggle and blood-spilling, but Venezuela makes us reconsider that stereotype. Since 1998, when Hugo Chavez was elected President, and especially since 2002 and 2003, the unarmed population of Venezuela have defeated first a coup and then a sabotage of the oil industry, both backed by the US
8 Mar 2006 : Column 296WH
Administration. Those major events launched a process of dramatic change in the country, which was supported by the Venezuelan people, particularly the women.
The women of Venezuela have constituted the vast majority of participants in every Government campaign to eradicate poverty and raise the population's quality of life. President Chavez has pointed out that it is mostly women at the grass roots who have run the education and health missions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) referred, the literacy, primary, secondary and university programmes, and the health committees that manage the 20,000 mainly Cuban doctors who live and work in the community. Those missions have transformed the country. Venezuela was declared free of illiteracy in 2005. More than a million more children are now attending school and getting three free meals a day. Everyone now has access to free health care.
The women whose labour has enabled those vital services have been transformed themselves. It is women who formed land committees in both rural and urban areas, so that families who migrated from the countryside to the city after the oil boom of the 1960s, and who ended up on squatted land, now have the deeds to their homes. Idle land in the countryside is being distributed. Co-operatives are encouraged, so that Venezuela can stop being dependent on imports for 65 per cent. of its basic foods and so that food security can be ensured. A network of state markets, also run mostly by women, make subsidised food available throughout the country, and soup kitchens ensure that street children and others without income receive the nutrition that they need.
No one is left out of the community's concern. Women's knowledge of the community and their eagerness to work for the benefit of all have been central to the spread of the revolution in care. It was largely women who mobilised the electorate during the 2004 presidential referendum that ratified President Chavez's election to power with a 60/40 majority. That shows how determined women are not to lose their elected leader and what they have gained as a result of his work.
Again, on international women's day it is appropriate to highlight President Chavez's recent announcement that the poorest housewives, mainly single mothers, will receive a payment of about $180 a month—equivalent to 85 per cent. of the minimum wage—not as charity, but as recognition of the fact that raising children is a social and economic contribution to the whole of society, and of the fact that they are workers in the home. The minimum wage was in turn raised by 15 per cent., and there have been increases in pensions and other low wages. The first 100,000 women will benefit in June, and another 100,000 will benefit from July. Up to 500,000 women will eventually get that wage for their vital, unwaged work.
The president has repeatedly said that women are the poorest and work the hardest. He has told them:
"They work so hard raising their children . . . This was never recognised as work yet it is such hard work . . . Now the revolution puts you first, you too are workers, you housewives, workers in the home."
That was recognised in the constitution; article 88 recognises the economic and social contribution of women's work in the home and on that basis grants
8 Mar 2006 : Column 297WH
housewives a pension. That has been hailed worldwide as a breakthrough, not least because it is bound to raise all women's wages, as at least some women will now have the power to refuse the lowest pay. Article 88 still needs legislation to put it into practice, but rather than wait for that, Chavez has put together the recognition in article 88 of caring work and recent legislation aimed at lifting the poorest out of poverty, and has redirected some of the oil revenues to women.
All over the world, women have been campaigning for economic recognition for unwaged caring work in order to underline women's poverty in both unwaged and waged workplaces. In 1995, the UK-based Global Women's Strike got the UN to agree that unwaged work should be measured and valued in national accounts. In fact, a ten-minute Bill was introduced in the House on that issue. In 2005, Global Women's Strike organised a speaking tour for Nora Castaneda, president of the Women's Development Bank of Venezuela, to let people outside Venezuela know about the far-reaching article 88. Global Women's Strike has just published a book, "Creating a Caring Economy", in which Nora Castaneda explains how that micro-credit bank is helping to build a movement that is
The people of Venezuela believe that their oil and natural resources belong to the people themselves. Today, women are marching to the US embassy in Caracas to deliver a petition demanding an end to the occupation of Iraq. They have also spoken out against intervention in Haiti by the US. They will not tolerate any intervention intent on depriving them of the wealth from the oil revenues of their own country. The task of all democrats and progressives throughout the world is to support the revolution, and in particular the struggle of the Venezuelan women.
Frank Cook (in the Chair): There are 21 minutes remaining and four hon. Members bidding. I call David Taylor.
3.9 pm
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) wants us to deviate somewhat from the American position on Venezuela—I paraphrase a little—and that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) seemed sceptical of some American rhetoric. I am happy to fall in line with that, because much of the shape of UK relations with Venezuela is due to American attitudes to that country.
I shall try, in my five minutes, to summarise and give a considered response to sundry allegations. The first allegation, from the USA and the anti-Chavez lobby in Venezuela, is that the Venezuelan Government have used electoral fraud and manipulation to retain power and free and fair elections in the country cannot be guaranteed by the Chavez-controlled CNE. That common line of argument is central to the attempt to portray Chavez as authoritarian and despotic.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 298WH
As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) said, there have been many electoral processes in the country during the Chavez Government. In fact, there have been 11 since 1998, which have been passed by international election observers who have played a prominent, visible role in every election. That authenticates the election of Chavez and rebuts the arguments of the United States of America, which has financed and supported an Opposition-identified civil society organisation, Sumate, which campaigns for so-called free and fair elections. The leaders of that organisation will go on trial shortly for receiving foreign support for their activities, which is against Venezuelan law. That will be a serious test for US-Venezuelan relations. If Sumate's leaders are found guilty of treason, bilateral relations between the US and Venezuela will worsen.
The United States of America often argues that the Venezuelan Government are illegitimate and have undermined democracy in Venezuela. That is based on the claim that the abstention rate has been high in every election and referendum process, so the President only represents a minority in Venezuelan society and the Bolivarian revolution is illegitimate. However, the problem is that abstention has traditionally been high in Venezuela; it has declined a little under the Chavez Government, but it is still too high for a Government committed to creating a model of protagonistic, participatory democracy. This has been linked to voter fatigue, with a constant cycle of elections, wasted-vote syndrome, and so on.
There are three other main accusations, which I shall just list without responding to them. First, it has been said that the Chavez Government are engaged in the suppression, torture and abuse of their opponents and have undermined freedom of speech. Secondly, it is alleged that they have armed their supporters. In fact, during the build-up to the 2002 coup attempt, it was alleged that the Government were arming the Bolivarian circles, but no evidence was ever brought forward to substantiate that claim. Such a development would have been resisted by the Venezuelan armed forces, because it would have undermined their monopoly of arms. Thirdly, the final charge that is routinely made by American diplomats, and others in the Administration, is that the Venezuelan Government are channelling financial support to terrorist organisations and undermining democracy and democratic government in the region.
In the one minute and 20 seconds that I have left, I should like to ask some questions of the Minister, who I greatly respect. In September 2005, the US State Department condemned Venezuela, along with Myanmar, for non-compliance in the global war on drugs. Can the Minister provide an assessment of the status of the UK relationship with Venezuela on narcotic drug enforcement matters?
The US State Department has also claimed that the Chavez Government are supporting, harbouring and financing terrorist and anti-US rebel groups across the region. Frequent allusions of ties to Islamic terrorism have been made and reported in the US media. Does the Minister have any information or intelligence that he can share that could shed light on those allegations, which remain unsubstantiated by the United States?
8 Mar 2006 : Column 299WH
The US Government strategy of isolating Chavez and distinguishing between so-called good and bad left-of-centre Governments in south America has been totally counter-productive. Do our Government take the view that all elected Governments in the region should be treated with equal respect and that the US should desist from efforts to stabilise the democratically elected Government of Venezuela?
Finally, in the context of all the comments that have been made, does the Minister not think that it is time for a wider international debate on the legitimacy and legality of the United States' so-called democracy promotion efforts, through institutions such as the National Endowment for Democracy? I am lacking time, but the Minister is good at delivering when he says he will write to hon. Members and I am sure that he will do so today.
Frank Cook (in the Chair): There are 16 minutes for three hon. Members.
3.14 pm
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): The speech-to-minute rate is getting better all the time and I shall do my best to improve it.
It is hard to start without mentioning the remarks and comments of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). Why does he think that there is such a disparity of wealth and poverty and land ownership in Venezuela? Why does he think that the people of Venezuela are overwhelmingly behind a President who promises to use the nation's wealth to conquer the poverty, rather than hand the money to the richest in the country, which is basically what has been happening for the past 100 years?
Jeremy Corbyn : No, I will not give way, because I have just five minutes.
The Bolivarian revolution of the 1820s got independence from Spain, which was a tremendous achievement. Bolivar himself led independence throughout the continent. The problem is that he did not live long enough. After his death, the independence movement essentially fell into the hands of the landowning aristocracies in country after country. The landowning pattern in Venezuela was no different from many others in that continent, because of the unfairness of land distribution.
The discovery of oil in Venezuela in the 1920s did not lead to a liberation of the livelihoods of the people of Venezuela, but to a decline in agriculture and a continuation of unfairness and fabulous wealth for a small proportion of the population as a result. The Bolivarian revolution—the second one, led by Hugo Chavez—is righting the wrongs of the last two centuries. That cannot all be done in five years, or 10, but it has made a good start and has inspired a large number of people throughout the continent.
Recently, a number of the hon. Members who are taking part in this debate attended a seminar about Venezuela and Latin America as a whole, during which lots of issues were raised about British and other investments. I gently say to the hon. Member for The
8 Mar 2006 : Column 300WH
Wrekin that many companies in the City of London have made a fantastic amount of money from Latin America during the past 200 years, one of them being the Vestey Corporation, which the hon. Gentleman should know plenty about, because it has funded the Conservative party over the past 100 years and assisted it in its endeavours. The Vestey Corporation is a major landowner in Venezuela, along with many others, and it should think about returning some of its profits to assist the conquering of poverty in that country, rather than having the hon. Gentleman blathering on about defending its investments there at the present time.
Jeremy Corbyn : No, I am not giving way, because I only have five minutes, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. He took more than his five minutes, I have to say.
What is happening in Venezuela is important in the context of Latin America. The right-wing commentators in the US and Britain say, "It's all individuals and Chavez is some kind of idiosyncratic nutter who is on his own." However, talk to people in Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Mexico or any country in the region, and they will say different; they see what is happening in Venezuela and Bolivia as, at last, the beginning of the fair distribution of resources for the benefit of the majority of people in the continent, rather than a small number.
The United States seeks to lecture other countries on democracy and human rights, but there is one part of Cuba where there is a gross abuse of human rights: it is called Guantanamo Bay and it should be shut down. Until George Bush gets around to closing down Guantanamo Bay, he should tone down the rhetoric concerning human rights anywhere else in the continent.
Large numbers of people attended the recent World Social Forum in Venezuela, including a delegation from my constituency comprising two people—Gary Heather and Tricia Clarke—who brought back an interesting report on what they had observed about how the poor people had not just been helped by the revolution, but felt empowered by it. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I quote from Tricia Clarke's comment:
"Women play an important part in the social revolution that is taking place in Venezuela. Women are participating in all the projects in the barrios and speak proudly of Chavez and the changes that are taking place."
That is an example of how many people around the world feel inspired by visiting Venezuela and seeing the huge changes taking place there.
What the British Government need to do is not make the kind of remarks that the Prime Minister made to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) in the House, but understand that the people of Latin America feel that they have had enough of the Monroe doctrine and the lectures from above—from the north. What happened at the Buenos Aires trade summit is an example of the growing unity of the poorest people across the region to demand their place in the sun, their share of resources and their escape from the poverty that they have lived in for too long.
Frank Cook (in the Chair): There are 11 minutes for the two speakers remaining.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 301WH
3.20 pm
Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): Thank you, Mr. Cook. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) on securing this debate and on his commitment to what Venezuela represents in the modern world.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made a valuable point when he said that Venezuela is a beautiful country with beautiful people. Anybody who has visited rural Venezuela will know how spectacularly beautiful it can be and anybody who has seen the Venezuelan people will know how fine and beautiful they are. However, someone who has visited the country will also know that as one travels from the airport to Caracas, one passes through some of the worst slums on the planet. That is sadly typical of large parts of the large cities of Latin America. Those slums are dire in their poverty and, historically, living conditions for the ordinary people have been abject. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) talked about the concept of wealth cascading down. However, one of Venezuela's problems has been that, in the oil years, the wealth certainly did cascade—but not down to the poorest people, who were denied and who were probably harmed by the curse of oil.
I should like to recall some individual human moments. I remember walking through one of the poorer parts of Caracas some years ago. I talked to a young woman. She did not look old enough even to be a mother, but a toddler was holding her hand and she was heavily pregnant with her next child. I asked her what she wanted for the future. She said, "I would like my son to get an education and become a lawyer. I would like my unborn baby to become a doctor." I remember walking away from that woman—who was another tragedy, another statistic of Venezuela's poverty—thinking that no way could those children aspire to such things. That woman was another victim of Latin America's poverty, in a land where there could be plenty.
The Venezuelan Government are committed to pro-poor policies that look to advance educational opportunities for the poorest people. We have heard the statistics about the eradication of illiteracy among some in Venezuela and about the opportunities in respect of health care, income support and security. Those kinds of policies can begin to transform the lives of some of those who, historically, have been among the most destitute.
I say to hon. Members who talk about a good investment climate that we should talk about a good climate for the ordinary people of Venezuela. Let us talk about the young woman I mentioned and what she needs. She needs stability and some share in the wealth and asset base of her country, and at last there is a Government committed to doing such things. That is why President Chavez has been remarkably popular every time he has had to face an electoral test.
I turn to Britain's national interest. We can talk about that; it is legitimate that we should. Of course we want a good climate. I also want BP to operate successfully in Venezuela. I have seen its operations there, and they are good for Venezuela as long as the resource base goes to those entitled to it. I suppose that it is also good for world energy supplies in so far as we are oil-dependent.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 302WH
What BP wants is a stable country; we need to work towards an investment climate in which there is stability for Venezuela. However, that will not be achieved through a lecturing tone from anywhere.
We do not often find western European countries adopting such a tone, although every now and again there are lapses. However, from Washington there is all the classic foolishness of the north American approach to Latin America that we have seen over the years. Some time ago, I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) that I knew too well that when Vice-President Nixon visited Caracas in 1958, he was spat at by the crowds.
The north Americans were unpopular then, and they are doing their best to make themselves unpopular now through their hectoring, language and rhetoric and through the real threat that seems implied by that kind of rhetoric—a threat that north America might want to act in some tangible way to destroy what the Venezuelan Government are trying to do. That is not the right way forward for our national interest, nor for our Government's real commitment to international partnership and development. We do not need such things from north America and should give a strong signal that it is not the Government of Hugo Chavez who are on trial, but the policy of the United States on Latin America that is under test.
In the final few moments of my contribution, I shall say simply this: I do not know where the young woman I talked about went to and I do not know about the children who sleep rough in Caracas; many thousands will do so tonight. However, I do know that we ought to be supporting—although not uncritically—a Government who are driving against the evils in a city such as Caracas and a country such as Venezuela. We ought to say that we celebrate the pro-poor policies of the Government in Venezuela, who are moving the agenda.
3.26 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford) (LD): Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Cook. I have just spent the past hour cutting back my speech from the allotted 10 minutes to give more time for the Minister to reply. I shall be brief—some important issues have been raised, and the Minister ought to have time to reply to them in what has been a good and well balanced debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) on securing this debate. When he and I visited the United States in the summer of 1997, I remember hearing about his interest in south America—particularly in its civil war issues—and he demonstrated some of those interests today. There have been valuable contributions. I particularly enjoyed that of my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). The comments made by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) were also particularly good. The history lesson we received from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) set much of today's debate in context.
It is well known that many countries in south America are and have been hostile to the current and previous US Administrations and have a purported belief that the United States is an imperial power seeking to dominate their region. Much of that is perfectly understandable.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 303WH
I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) that the policy of the United States in the region does it enormous harm.
Speaking as one who regards himself as a friend of America, I wish that America would understand how some of its comments and perceptions are seen overseas. We all know the statistics about how few US Congressmen hold passports and how little they travel. If they travelled more overseas, as many of us do, perhaps they would understand some of the damage they do. Given that issues such as Guantanamo Bay are still going on, it is clear why there is great suspicion.
Relations between Britain and Venezuela have undoubtedly suffered in recent weeks, since the intervention of the hon. Member for Elmet at Prime Minister's questions. Today's debate is about Venezuelan-British relations, and there is much to celebrate about them. I should like to consider some of the things to be celebrated before coming to those that we should not necessarily celebrate.
For example, trade and investment between the UK and Venezuela have shown that both countries can benefit from a decent trading relationship. The United Kingdom is the fifth largest investor in Venezuela. I shall not repeat the figures given by the hon. Member for Elmet, but they show that the UK and Venezuela have strong trade and investment relations, which should be nurtured in the future to the benefit of both countries. My first question to the Minister is whether there has been any noticeable decline in our trade interests as a result of the spat of the past few weeks. If that has been the case, it is unfortunate for us and for the kind of trickle-down of wealth that we would all like to see in Venezuela.
There are also strong cultural links that show a rewarding relationship between our two countries. The British Council, for example, runs many cultural programmes covering the arts, English language training and education, and there are several opportunities for Venezuelan postgraduate students to study in the United Kingdom; since those schemes began in the mid-1980s, more than 300 scholarships have been awarded. Cultural ties between the UK and Venezuela are vital and I hope that whatever our differences about the Falkland Islands, and about what Condy Rice may or may not have said, we shall continue to encourage such contacts.
As has been said today, there are reasons why we should welcome the Government of Hugo Chavez and why he should be admired. Not only has he sought to broaden health care and education provisions, but he has used the oil revenues in a way that previous Administrations in his country did not. Many residents in the poorest areas of Venezuela now have access to basic health care, whereas before they had nothing.
I remember my visit to Venezuela some 15 years ago. I saw the slums that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central referred to, but I was also astonished at the huge wealth of the country. In one district through which I drove, on one side of the mountain there were slums—people were literally living in cardboard boxes—and on the other people were living in armoured houses with security guards, dogs and barbed wire. The disparity between rich and poor was amazing, and we should support anything that can be done to reduce it.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 304WH
There is another side to the matter. I am worried, for example, about the human rights agenda in Venezuela. In the tenth world democracy audit covering 2004, Venezuela came 126th out of 210 countries, with the same score as Côte d'Ivoire and Iraq. Since winning the national referendum on his presidency in 2004, President Chavez and his majority coalition in Congress have tried to undermine the independence of the judiciary by trying to pack the supreme court with their supporters. They learned that from Washington; it is not unusual in the Americas for that to happen. However, it is a matter for concern.
The Administration have enacted legislation that could seriously threaten press freedoms and freedom of expression. For example, one amazing clampdown that has occurred has been the banning of pot clanging—a popular way of protesting against the Government. That was highlighted in the Foreign Office's human rights report. In addition, Amnesty International has expressed concern about
and we are aware that there have been some very ugly scenes on both sides in confrontations between the supporters of the Opposition and the security forces.
Today's debate is about the future of UK-Venezuela relations. I want to make sure that the Minister has plenty of time to answer the very real concerns that have been expressed by me and by colleagues from across the House. Undoubtedly, the Government of President Chavez has, perhaps for the first time in Venezuela's history, tried to tackle the huge disparity between wealth and poverty in that country. He has tried to use the oil revenues that he is lucky enough to preside over to help the people of his country in a way that no previous leader has done, and his task has been made more difficult by some of the comments that have emanated from the right wing of the Republican party in the United States. Nevertheless, there are concerns about human rights. It is not, as is always the case in such countries, a black and white issue as I hope that the Minister's response will show.
3.32 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): I am glad to respond for the official Opposition for the second time today in this Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) on securing the debate. There have been some excellent contributions, and I hope that the message that comes out of this debate will be that this House is not too polarised about Venezuela. It is clearly in this country's interests to have excellent relations with Venezuela. It is the world's fifth largest oil producer, as we have already heard, there is huge potential for export there—to which I shall allude in a minute—and we have a great many imports from it, too.
Indeed we have had good relations with Venezuela for a considerable time—after all, Simon Bolivar visited this country as Venezuela's liberator as long ago as 1810, and President Chavez visited the UK as the guest of the British Government in October 2001. In return, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), when he was a Foreign Office Minister, visited Venezuela in 2004, and the Venezuelan Minister for Energy and Mines visited the UK in that same year. It is very much in our interests to maintain those good relations.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 305WH
I am going to pull the leg of the hon. Member for Elmet slightly, because I want to refer to his 17 February article in The Guardian. He referred to the Prime Minister's answer during Prime Minister's questions by saying:
"The Prime Minister's response surprised many of us on the Labour benches. Skilled diplomat that he undoubtedly is, Blair's response seemingly lacked any nuance of diplomacy."
We would all say "amen" to that. It was clearly listened to in Caracas, and the unfortunate comments that came from there in response have not been helpful to UK-Venezuelan relations.
I almost agreed entirely with the final paragraph of the article. The hon. Member for Elmet stated:
"It is time that the UK re-engaged with Latin America and offered moral support to regimes intent on social justice and"—
the one bit that I do not agree with—
"redistribution of wealth. In light of our participation in the invasion of Iraq and global perception of UK foreign policy, I believe it is highly advisable to employ constructive language and diplomacy"
—which is what I hope we have achieved in this debate—
"so that this country can interact with other sovereign states with an independent, open and progressive agenda. UK foreign policy should not be allowed to be hijacked by other states acting in their own interests, which may not be compatible with our own."
Perhaps, therefore, some of the comments that have come out of Washington are not helpful either. We obtain—I learned from a parliamentary answer—only some 2.2 to 2.4 per cent. of our oil imports from Venezuela, but the United States imports a million barrels a day, so it is a very big customer of that country.
David Taylor : May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that in the Venezuelan context, the objective of having social justice without redistribution of wealth is rather like having an egg without the yolk? Do the two things not go inextricably together?
Mr. Clifton-Brown : If the hon. Gentleman will just contain himself for a little while, perhaps he will see where I am coming from on that.
As has been said, exports to Venezuela were worth £187 million in 2004—principally in the sectors of chemicals, beverages, medicine and pharmaceutical products. Venezuela is the UK's third largest export market in Latin America, after Brazil and Mexico. Imports from Venezuela, worth £213 million in 2004, were mainly in petroleum and petroleum products, and the main UK investors in Venezuela are BP, Shell, Wood group, BOC Gases, Anglo-American Mining, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Diageo, Unilever and BAT. My briefing note must be out of date because it also mentions the Vestey group, which has had most of
8 Mar 2006 : Column 306WH
its land seized by the Chavez Government. That, of course, is not helping with inward investment into Venezuela; it does not create a good climate.
Jeremy Corbyn : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown : I will happily give way, but before I do, I should perhaps declare a slight interest in the subject: I am closely related to the Vestey family.
Jeremy Corbyn : Then the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer my question. How much of the land that was seized was lying idle at the time of its seizure?
Mr. Clifton-Brown : That was complete propaganda put about by the Chavez Government. The Vestey family had been in Venezuela for about 70 years and had farmed that land in a way that was well in advance technologically of that used for most of the rest of the land in Venezuela.
Mark Pritchard : Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be absolutely wrong for those on the Opposition Benches to encourage or condone nationalisation of British interests paid for by British companies and British taxpayers in Venezuela?
Mr. Clifton-Brown : I would simply say that I hope that all countries—particularly oil-rich countries such as Venezuela—will encourage a climate in which inward investment from foreign countries is welcome. If I have time, I should like to show that inward investment in the Venezuelan oil industry is desperately needed. It could be much more effective if it had such investment, and it would then produce more revenues for the people of Venezuela. What President Chavez did was not necessarily helpful.
A lot of comments have been made in this debate about the economy, and it is difficult to know whether it is performing well. With high oil prices, it could do much better. An article in The Economist of 16 February stated:
"Higher prices have quadrupled Venezuela's annual revenue from oil exports since 1998. Nevertheless, the country's Catholic bishops claimed last month that poverty was 'accelerating rapidly'. Not so, replied Mr Chavez. It has 'begun to decrease slowly and progressively'."
So we can choose whom we wish to believe. The article goes on to say:
The chart does tend to indicate that the oil price has gone up, yet poverty has also increased, so there is something slightly wrong there.
"The proportion of households below the poverty line increased by more than 11 percentage points. By 2003, a quarter of Venezuelans were living in 'extreme poverty', unable even to feed themselves adequately. It was the first time since data were collected that poverty rose even as the oil price did too."
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has described the so-called missions, which are President Chavez's personal missions to engage in emergency health, education and welfare programmes. There are conflicting stories about those programmes,
8 Mar 2006 : Column 307WH
but they certainly are not democratically accountable. They do not appear to be as effective as they might be. Indeed, the article went on to say:
"Whatever the merits of the missions as emergency programmes, they stress quantity over quality. Meanwhile, Venezuela's public infrastructure, such as roads and hospitals, is crumbling. A deficit of 1.5 million housing units is widening. Only a quarter of the 11,000 new houses needed each year are being built, because of the public sector's incompetence and its unwillingness to involve the private sector."
That may well be. I respect The Economist; it is one of the most respected journals for producing balanced articles. It may be that the person who wrote that had a biased view, but there is no doubt in my mind that the Venezuelan economy could perform better.
Another article in The Economist—it might be by the same author; I do not know—on 31 January 2006 stated:
"Most non-oil investment will continue to be put off by the uncertain legal and regulatory regimes and by price and exchange controls . . . The Ministry of Finance has been overborrowing in recent months, and has built up substantial Treasury cash balances".
As has been mentioned, President Chavez has taken on other south American countries' debts. For example, Venezuela has taken on £538 million of Argentine debt. The same pertains to Ecuador.
The President is trying to use the oil wealth to buy influence. That is not unprecedented elsewhere, provided it is done in a benign way. I hope that we can see that it is done in a benign way. We can see from this constructive debate that it is important that south America should be brought to the fore in this Parliament more often and more positively. We have always had good trading relationships with south America and they are, on the whole, friends of ours. We should maintain good trading and diplomatic links, and the debate has been a helpful and positive step. I hope that we can now reach more normal relations after the unfortunate remarks made in past months.
3.42 pm
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells) : May I say what a pleasure it is to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook? You have long experience in diplomacy and foreign affairs and I am sure that you have enjoyed this debate as much as I have. It has been a good debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) on securing the debate, which I am answering on behalf of our noble Friend Lord Triesman, who has responsibility for Latin America in the Foreign Office. I welcome the opportunity to discuss Venezuela and the points raised in today's debate. Venezuela is an important country, and I shall try to explain why we believe that. We have heard some of the reasons already. Venezuela is important regionally and globally, which is reflected in the importance we attach to our bilateral relationship with it. That is why the debate is important. It gives us the opportunity to put that on the record. I will come to the points raised by my hon. Friend in a moment, but we have heard a great number of interesting points.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 308WH
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) stressed the importance of the fight against drugs, which I shall deal with in the body of my reply. He is quite right. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) spoke, and I am glad he did, about the eyeball-swivelling right-wingers on the fringes of American politics who assume that they have a divine right to decide how people should vote and that it is possible to react in any way they want to the decision of the democratic expression of the people in south America and Latin America.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) warned us about the scale of the task facing the Venezuelan Government in tackling the dreadful poverty that is evident in the country. It was a good warning. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has gone now, paid tribute to the women of Venezuela—quite properly, in my view—and listed some of the achievements of the Government in tackling poverty and its social consequences, especially as they affect women. It was important to put that on the record.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) reminded us how important co-operation with Venezuela is, especially in the field of drugs. It is a huge problem. I will try to expand on the subject in a moment. His question about a wider debate about American foreign policy is for another occasion and another venue. I seem to spend half my life dealing with that question, but that is for another place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) gave us an enlightening speech on the historical context, and sketched out some of the reasons why, despite the fact that oil has been around in Venezuela for a long time, it remains a poor country when it ought to be one of the richest in the world, not just in south America. That has ramifications elsewhere as well. My hon. Friend hinted at many reasons why that should be so. He mentioned one that, I think, is the most important. The capacity to govern ought to flow naturally from a democratic election and the decision of the people. If we try to undermine that for partisan reasons, whether they are political, economic or anything else, that is dangerous. That is one of the reasons why Venezuela has for so long had a reputation for instability, when it had democratic elections back in 1947. Since 1958, it has been a reasonably stable democracy by south American standards, although there have been some intervals when that has not been the case. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) has great experience in these matters. He boiled the importance of the changes that President Chavez and his Government are attempting to implement down to the specific example of a young woman who he met in Venezuela. It is important that we remind ourselves that we are talking not about abstract, high-political notions, but about people and the changes that ought to be happening in such countries. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend do that.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) has visited Venezuela and seen it for himself. I cannot see any sign that our business relations with Venezuela have cooled as a consequence of statements that have been
8 Mar 2006 : Column 309WH
made over the past few weeks. I am glad to say that. As I will try to argue, it is an important country for us and for the world.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted some important worries about human rights in Venezuela. It is not pro-American to say that one is worried about human rights in any country. It shows a concern about human rights and about how we promote and protect them. No matter which country we look at, that concern ought to be at the heart of foreign policy in any democracy. That is the case in this country, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the subject. It is very encouraging that there is a free press in Venezuela as well as vibrant news media that are not afraid to reflect the concerns of people from all parts of society. We must rejoice in that and do our best to protect it.
I was very glad that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made the speech that he did. I have always been a believer in Gramsci's dictum—I never get it right but I think it is about optimism of the spirit and pessimism of the intellect. It is right that we should cast a sceptical eye across any country when we attempt to analyse where it is likely to move. Of course there are problems in Venezuela, as in many other places. The hon. Gentleman expressed a different view from that of some of my hon. Friends about how those issues, including poverty, might best be addressed, but I respect the fact that he has cast a sceptical eye over the question. I know that he feels passionately that Venezuela and its democratic system should be helped whenever that is possible.
The relationship between the United Kingdom and Venezuela is an active one. We work effectively together in several fields, including crime, counter-narcotics and energy. We have an important commercial relationship, as hon. Members have explained. Indeed, UK companies hold large investments in Venezuela. It is the third biggest market for the United Kingdom in Latin America, and it accounts for almost 10 per cent. of our exports in that area of the world—a figure surpassed, I believe, only by Brazil and Mexico.
We work with the Venezuelan authorities in tackling crime and corruption, which are a major impediment to social and economic development throughout Latin America. Recently we sponsored a conference in Venezuela on the role of the police in Latin America and 14 countries from across the region were represented. The event provided a useful space for debate and for the sharing of experiences from the region on transformation and the restructuring of the police.
Our embassy in Caracas is currently running a project aimed at helping Venezuela to develop its national capacity in the energy sector. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire reminded us that there is a world beyond the most immediate of concerns. One thing that worries me as a former Education Minister is that we do not do enough to export the marvellous skills and abilities of this country's further education sector and universities. They do sterling work that is of relevance in this context. I think that the hon. Member for Cotswold raised the point, and the hon. Member for Hereford certainly did, that the economy could be doing better.
8 Mar 2006 : Column 310WH
Probably, upskilling—to use that awful term—is the most immediate way to achieve an improvement in that regard. We want the Venezuelan economy to improve. It will help if we can work closely with Venezuela on that: it will promote the transfer of knowledge and skills in several key areas. We have close links with the state oil company in Venezuela and with Venezuelan universities and the appropriate Ministries, as well as other public and private organisations that are involved in providing, supporting and developing education and training to the energy sector in Venezuela. Shell, BP and the Wood group are also making efforts to share their expertise to the benefit of Venezuela, as a reflection of their policies of social responsibility, so that they can work as partners in the development of the country's main natural resources.
Those resources are very extensive. We have heard about only one of them today: oil. However, in fact there are extensive and large deposits of other minerals, such as coal, iron ore, bauxite and gold. The country has remarkable natural resources. It is to be hoped that those resources will help to transform the life of the young woman about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central spoke. If the economy could be tailored to make real use of those minerals, that should and could happen.
I do not know whether we need reminding, but in a world of rapidly depleting resources, Venezuela is a great natural resource for the whole world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North hinted, it is also a very fertile country. It should have much stronger agriculture, to feed itself and its neighbours, and to enable it to export around the world. My hon. Friend is right to point out that issue. I have talked about the potential for mining precious minerals—coal is a precious mineral these days—but we need to be careful; many agricultural economies have been destroyed by a sudden rush for mineral wealth. We should be able to help the Venezuelans with that issue, and we ought to do it.
As for the vexed question of drugs, under our EU presidency and in co-operation with the Venezuelan authorities—it was good co-operation—we ran the first meeting of drugs observatories of Latin America and the Caribbean and the EU in Caracas. The meeting reaffirmed the principle of shared responsibility, as well as the role that drugs observatories can play in informing the formulation of policies to carry out effective drug strategies.
I shall not have time to expand on that matter as I wanted to, but as we have had greater success against the go-fast boats in the Caribbean that take cocaine to America and the Caribbean islands the drug traffickers have switched their attention. Venezuela is suffering as a consequence of the transhipping of drugs across Venezuela towards Guyana and down to Brazil. The drugs go to the ports in those countries, where they are shipped to west Africa. They then come up through west Africa and into Europe. The people involved are endlessly resourceful. They are well financed. They are having a tremendously corrosive effect in the northern part of south America, and we must work closely with the Venezuelans on that.
Jeremy Corbyn : Will the Minister confirm, for the record, that there has been tremendous co-operation
8 Mar 2006 : Column 311WH
from both Cuba and Venezuela in attempts to end the drugs trade in the region and protect the lives of many poor people in Europe and north America?
Dr. Howells : I know that we have co-operated closely with the Venezuelans, and I have a little knowledge about co-operation with Cuba, but I am sure that my hon. Friend, who knows a lot about the subject, is right on that score. It is important. Addiction to crack cocaine and the poison that young people in Europe stick into their veins and up their noses does not just affect communities in Europe, such as his constituency and mine and those of other hon. Members present. It has a corrosive effect also in Venezuela and Colombia.
Tony Lloyd : I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that co-operation is vital in this matter, because we shall not resolve the damage that is done in this country without good partners in Latin America. It is also in Venezuela's interest, as it becomes the victim of drug trafficking of the kind that my hon. Friend has described. So does north America, in the end. We all need partnership on those issues, not confrontation.
Dr. Howells : I could not have expressed it better. The problem is a serious one for all of us, and my hon. Friend is right. I am confident that we can work in partnership with Venezuela and other countries in the region. If we do not, we shall all suffer as a consequence.
Mark Pritchard : Is the Minister aware that drug enforcement officers from this country, who currently help in Latin American countries, are being withdrawn because of changes to budgets? If he is not aware of that, will he undertake to investigate the matter and ensure that we put more, not fewer, drugs officers in those countries?
Dr. Howells : I will undertake to give the hon. Gentleman a reply on that. I know that our drugs liaison officers around the world do a superb job, and I shall try to find out about that for him.
In conclusion, I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to remain engaged with the region. That is why the debate in which my hon. Friend has brought the issue to our attention is so important. What happens in Latin America, including Venezuela, matters a great deal to us all. We shall not always see eye to eye with some its Governments; nor will we shy away from criticism when we judge it to be necessary, but our policy remains to seek constructive engagement with Venezuela. We have much to gain from working together.
Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. Before we commence the next debate, let me ensure that everyone understands that there is a two-minute discrepancy between the analogue timepiece on the wall and the electronic ones by which we determine our timing.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |