| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The Iraqi Government of national unity are now firmly in place and the business of government has begun in earnest. Prime Minister Maliki and his team are committed to working to a national unity agenda. They have announced a national reconciliation plan and set clear priorities—primarily security, electricity supply, economic reform, and building democratic structures. The hon. Gentleman may know that the Prime Minister announced on 19 June the imminent transfer of security responsibility in Muthanna province, to be followed by other provinces. Iraq will continue to need our support and that of the international community as it works on those priorities.
Mr. Lancaster: I was fortunate to visit Iraq recently with the Defence Committee. The Secretary of State is right that it appears that two or perhaps even three of the provinces that are under British supervision may well soon be handed back to Iraqi control, but the fourth—Basra—will not. Although the Prime Minister’s reconciliation plan is welcome, does the Secretary of State agree that the biggest problem in Basra appears to be a governor whose only interest is self-interest?
Margaret Beckett: We are anxious to ensure that the security plan that has been devised by the Prime Minister—he has already done a good deal to promote it—is followed through effectively and that there is a clear structure of control and command in the hands of the commander of the armed forces in the area. The Prime Minister is well aware of concerns about security in that area and is determined to address them.
Ann
Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab): Is not one of the best
indications of the improving political situation in Iraq the fact that
eight newly-elected Iraqi MPs are visiting the House of Commons today?
They have met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and you, Mr.
Speaker. Clearly, we hope that the MPs will enjoy themselves during
their week. They will be following
individual Members to find out how we do things and see whether they can
translate any of their experiences into their important work in
Iraq.
Margaret Beckett: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I was grateful to her for giving me the opportunity earlier today to meet those new MPs, who, incidentally, are a very impressive bunch. I am also grateful for the work that she is doing to show them various parts of the country and aspects of our parliamentary experience. I hope that you will be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, that I strongly urged them to learn from the many good things about our Parliament, but not necessarily to follow some of our examples of behaviour.
Mr. Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD): The Iraqi Prime Minister’s announcement on Sunday was indeed welcome. Yesterday, the White House confirmed that it was considering a steep reduction in the number of US troops in Iraq. To what extent have British Ministers been involved in those discussions? Does the fact that Italian and Japanese withdrawals are going ahead mean that we can finally expect a statement on a comprehensive strategy to prepare the way for the withdrawal of British forces?
Margaret Beckett: I am always a little nervous when people leap from one important and worthwhile step forward to a whole group of assumptions that are set some time ahead. An unfortunate feature of the discussions is the fact that the media tend to harden up anything said—however tentatively—into some kind of detailed commitment. It is of course the case that the Prime Minister has announced the beginning of a process that is based on the circumstances on the ground and the reality in different areas. We all hope that progress can be made, but the hon. Gentleman will know that there is sometimes a better option of redeployment. In any event, the Iraqi Government will wish—we will want to work with them—to support the handover in al-Muthanna and any other province that is considered for some time. The important process offers considerable hope for the future, but no one should second-guess it at this stage.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): When does the Foreign Secretary expect British and American troops to terminate their tour of duty in Iraq and actually leave?
Margaret Beckett: When they and we believe that the job that they have gone there to do is done, or when and if the Iraqi Government ask them to leave.
Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) (Con): It is well known that the reconciliation plan to which the Foreign Secretary referred arose from informal dialogue that took place over a long time with representatives of the Sunni insurgents. Representatives of the American Government, apparently including the ambassador, were involved in that dialogue. Were representatives of the British Government also involved in the dialogue?
Margaret Beckett: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he has moved on a little from discussions about changes in the provinces. I simply say that of course we are closely involved in all discussions that take place about how circumstances in Iraq can be improved.
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk) (Con): The Foreign Secretary has touched on the proposed national reconciliation plan, as have other Members. She will be aware that one of the proposals is for a form of amnesty—it is an ambiguous proposal—for some of those who have been involved in the insurgency. Does she think that, at this stage, it is acceptable for a British Government to sign up to such an amnesty if it is with people whom the Government know have been responsible for the deaths of British military personnel in Iraq?
Margaret Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I was not talking about the national reconciliation plan; the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) was. However, I will simply say that the Iraqi Prime Minister’s statement was, of course, very carefully worded. He spoke about wanting to draw people into the political process, but he also spoke about people who had not committed crimes. I think that, yet again, people are leaping forward—I do not recall that the word amnesty was used. Although there is clearly a wish to draw people who have been involved in the insurgency into the political process if that is possible and practical, the Iraqi Government are approaching this matter in a very careful way. They have chosen with care the words that they have used, so it would be a mistake for us to be any less cautious in our phraseology.
South Africa
7. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): When the Government became aware of the existence of the former South African regime’s Project Coast. [80217]
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Ian McCartney): The then Conservative Government were aware of the existence of legitimate South African chemical and biological defence programmes from the 1980s. Initial reports indicating offensive chemical and biological weapons activities, later known as Project Coast, were not received until 1993, but they were inconclusive. There were also unsubstantiated claims of chemical weapon use by South African forces in Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe in the 1980s and 1990s. More detailed evidence of previous offensive activities was received in the years leading up to the truth and reconciliation commission hearings in 1998, when further details of the offensive activities emerged. In 1994, we understood that the South African Government had terminated offensive chemical and biological weapons activities.
Andrew
Mackinlay: Has the Minister ever had the
feeling that officials have been less than candid with him? Can I draw
to his attention that, following the submission of a series of
parliamentary questions from me on this matter, there was convened in
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 13 January a strategy
handling meeting to deal with “Mackinlay’s
questions”, which was attended by 13 officials from the FCO, the
Ministry of Defence and the security and intelligence services? Why was
that necessary to deal with my questions, if they are not hiding more
information on this subject? Is it not a fact that
unauthorised— [ Interruption. ]—the
Minister may laugh, but this is a serious matter. There was greater
involvement between Porton Down and the South Africans’ chemical
and biological weapons regime than they now wish to
disclose.
Mr. McCartney: In eight years in Government, I think that I can say with some certainty that no one has pulled the wool over my eyes yet—but one never knows. That meeting was not to handle my hon. Friend, but to handle his questions. He raised 22 questions with specific concerns and allegations, and I am happy to try to answer them, in conjunction with other relevant Departments—although we have already answered20 of the 22.
The meeting was held to discuss the draft answers to my hon. Friend’s parliamentary questions. Representatives of various Departments and agencies attended, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the MOD and the Health Protection Agency.
Andrew Mackinlay: And the spooks.
Mr. McCartney: The issue raised is not current. The United Kingdom investigation took place in the late 1990s and the early 2000s. Officials from the relevant Departments have changed, and Departments want to ensure that we are working with the same information. The allegations made by my hon. Friend have also been made in various books and elsewhere, including on the internet. There is absolutely no evidence of the conspiracy that my hon. Friend suggests.
European Constitution
8. Mr. Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): If she will make a statement on the future of the European constitution. [80218]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Margaret Beckett): There is no consensus among member states on how to proceed with the constitutional treaty. The European Council agreed a twin-track approach based on delivering concrete results under the current treaties and on further consultations between member states. Decisions on how to continue the reform process will be taken by the end of 2008, but with no presumption about the outcome or end date of the process.
Mr. Vara: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that response. Do the Government still support a European Union constitution?
Margaret
Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that we
were part of the negotiations that agreed those proposals, but he is
equally well aware that the circumstances surrounding the
constitutional treaty changed when the French and the Dutch had their
referendums and the answer was no. The Government were part of the
negotiations and we accepted the treaty, but at the moment there seems
little likelihood of it going forward in its present
form.
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Sir Digby Jones, the retiring director general of the CBI, in his valedictory interviews to the media this week, has said both that he supports our membership of the European Union and that he is very strongly in favour of radical reform of its institutions and procedures because such reform is in Britain’s economic self-interest. Does my right hon. Friend agree that urgent reform is needed, and that those who oppose our membership of the EU and such reform are not acting in the best interests of this country?
Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I have not had the opportunity to study what Digby Jones said and the precise reforms that he was suggesting, so I am a little wary of appearing to endorse them. However, I wholeheartedly share my hon. Friend’s view that it is very much in our interests to make a success of our continuing membership of the European Union, with our EU partners, and that there may come a time when some changes will need to be made to help to ensure that continued success.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): As the Foreign Secretary’s colleagues indicated earlier today that the Government are not in favour of exhuming corpses, would not the best thing to do with this one be to leave it under the concrete to which she referred?
Margaret Beckett: I am not sure where the reference to exhumation comes from—
Sir Patrick Cormack: Try the answers on China.
Margaret Beckett: Oh—right. That subject was a little bit of a mystery to me at the time when the answer was given, but it did sound particularly gruesome. The constitutional treaty remains in existence, but it is not being pursued at this time.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) pointed out earlier, it is in the UK’s interest to make sure that the European Union works efficiently and effectively, so may I urge my right hon. Friend to consider introducing, with the other member states, those elements of the treaty that would lead to more efficient and transparent work by the EU? Only those who are against our membership of the EU would be against such proposals.
Margaret
Beckett: As my hon. Friend may know,
there is an agreement that we should continue with a greater degree of
transparency in the European Union’s work, but the precise
proposals put forward at the last European Council will of course be
reviewed to see their practical effect. However, he is absolutely right
to say that we need constructive and good ways of working with our EU
partners. I am not quite sure what process
my hon. Friend was urging on me, but discussions are indeed beginning
on, and some consideration is being given to, whether ideas that were
in the constitutional treaty that do not require a new treaty
base—such as direct transmission of information to national
Parliaments—are steps that could be considered. But equally, and
as he knows, no such decisions have yet been
taken.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): Given that the Government had conceded that there should be a referendum if the constitution were implemented in this country, and given that elements of it are being brought forward—such as the proposal to remove the veto over police and home affairs—can the Foreign Secretary give a clear statement to the House on the circumstances in which she believes that a referendum would still be necessary if parts of the constitution were brought forward?
Margaret Beckett: I repeat what I just said: there is no suggestion that we should try to bring forward something that would require a new treaty base. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, recall that a variety of measures were rolled into the constitutional treaty—if I may put it like that—some of which would not require a new treaty base, such as direct transmissionof information to national Parliaments. However, although the ideas that he referred to concerning the police and justice system have been raised by various individuals and commentators, there are no proposals to that effect. [Interruption.] There are no proposals to that effect before us at the present time, and I do not intend to commit us to a referendum on proposals that have not even been put forward.
Nepal
9. Dr. Ashok Kumar (Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland) (Lab): What recent assessment she has made of the political situation in Nepal; and if she will make a statement. [80219]
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Ian McCartney): The new Government of Nepal face major challenges in securing a fully functioning democracy and a permanent ceasefire, in which the Maoists abandon violence and rejoin the democratic mainstream. I met Nepal's Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in Geneva last week. I am encouraged by the bold steps that have already been taken towards peace and reconciliation, and said so in my speech to the opening high-level session of the first week of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on 20 June. The United Kingdom stands ready to assist in any appropriate way to bring about democratic and peaceful reform in Nepal.
Dr. Kumar: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. After the riots and mass demonstrations, there is now a multi-party Government in Nepal, but there is no democracy and they will need help and support from our Government. What support are we giving to the political parties and other organisations so that Nepal can have a democratically elected Government, inclusive of ethnic minorities, Dalits and women?
Mr. McCartney: I discussed three key matters with the Nepalese Government last week. The first was securing a continuation of the United Nations Human Rights Council interest in Nepal, and the Nepalese have agreed to that. The second was ensuring that we could get discussions going on United Nations involvement in decommissioning arms from the Maoists and keeping the peace process going—they have agreed to that, too. Thirdly, we discussed what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is considering with other donors, namely, how best to respond to the new situation. We have been giving financial and technical support to the peace process through the global conflict prevention pool. It is too soon to make any formal commitments. In 2006-07, we gave only about £30 million through bilateral assistance, but we will have further talks with our colleagues in Nepal.
The Nepalese Minister was pleased with our discussions and I am pleased about their positive nature. What needs to happen now is the second stage of talks with the Maoists, for which the Nepalese are preparing, on how to progress out of conflict and on to the long road back to democracy.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): In the light of China’s intervention in Tibet, what assurance does the Minister have that China is not looking with anxious eyes at events in Nepal, and what representations have we made to China that any intervention by the Chinese in Nepal would be totally unacceptable?
Mr. McCartney: All the Governments in the region—the Governments of India, China and other countries—want progress in Nepal. It is in nobody’s interest that Nepal remains in an unstable state. During the general discussions in Geneva last week, the representatives of every country to whom I spoke all expressed a general acceptance of the need to move forward and to give support where possible. That is precisely what will happen. That is why the involvement of the United Nations is so important.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): One of the factors driving the demand for political change in Nepal is the widespread existence in the country of casteism—discrimination based on work or descent. What recent representations has my right hon. Friend made to the Government of Nepal on the abolition of that pernicious and unacceptable form of discrimination?
Mr. McCartney: I have not been involved in any detailed discussion of that subject, but it is an issue of human rights and their abuse that has to be dealt with, not only in Nepal but in other countries. It will probably form part of the work programme that we will agree over the next two meetings of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. It is one of the matters about which serious reservations have been expressed not only here and in Nepal, but in other countries. I assure my hon. Friend that the matter is one that the Foreign Office raises from time to time and that we will be involved with the international community in efforts to deal with it.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): Ever since the peace talks began, hundreds of women have been demonstrating outside Parliament because not a single woman is included in the draft constitution committee. Will my right hon. Friend use his best offices, in line with Security Council resolution 1325, to ensure that there is proper representation of women in the talks? Will he ask his officials in Kathmandu to meet with Lily Thapa, who leads a 14,000-strong organisation of widows, to see what assistance can be given to those women, who are traditionally shunned in Nepal and who are, after all, probably the most potent symbols of the conflict?
Mr. McCartney: I will write to my hon. Friend and will take up the issue that she raised. Over the past 10 years, more than 14,000 lives have been lost in the conflict. It is to be hoped that the long-term success of the peace agreement will reduce lives lost to nil. We have made it clear to the Nepalese Government, in a proactive and positive way, that their engagement in the new UN Human Rights Council, in which they want to participate, should be effective. I received a clear indication from them that there is nothing that they will not discuss with us. I offer my hon. Friend a meeting at the Foreign Office before I next have discussions with the Nepalese Government so that we can go through these matters to ensure that we get proper representation.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |