ConservativeHome's Parliament Page

Mark Pritchard on Belarus's forthcoming elections

Mark Pritchard MP leads a Westminster Hall debate on Belarus, where he visited recently and which has elections in September.

"I should first like to condemn the recent spate of bomb attacks in Minsk. Whether they were motivated by extreme hooliganism, terrorism or other factors, they are to be condemned, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the 50 or so people who were injured, many seriously. I hope not only that the perpetrators will soon be brought before the courts and the necessary justice dispensed, but that the police investigation will not be used as a pretext for curbing the freedoms of civic society and those religious, political and media organisations that espouse only peace.

Belarus stands at an important juncture in its history. The choice could not be more stark: the parliamentary elections in September will either provide a continuance of the status quo or an opportunity for a new dawn in which all the people of Belarus will be able to realise their full potential, and fulfil their dreams and those of their families.

For too long, political discussions inside and outside Belarus have been unhelpfully trapped in silos, too often accompanied by the outdated rhetoric of yesterday rather than the lexicon of the future and the language of hope. It is a false dichotomy to talk of Belarus choosing between east and west, for Belarus is strategically and geographically positioned to take advantage of both relationships, as it should—it is in its national interest to do so. One relationship does not have to suffer because of the desire to deepen ties with other partners. Belarus can be politically polygamous.

Hague urges Miliband to send a strong message to South Africa that Mugabe's government is illegitimate

William Hague responds to David Miliband's update on Zimbabwe: "There will be much common ground on many of the matters that the Foreign Secretary has mentioned, not least the thoughts and good wishes that he extended to the President of Zambia. We are united in this House in our horror that over the last decade the world has witnessed the Mugabe regime’s relentless abuse of the Zimbabwean people and the systematic destruction of their country.

The humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe is probably the worst anywhere in the world outside a war zone. One in four Zimbabweans have become refugees, and those who remain are at the mercy of a regime that beats, kills and tortures with impunity. Allowing Mugabe to cling to power is to consign the people of Zimbabwe to years, possibly, of further depredation and hopelessness. That is why the international community’s response to the situation matters so much and why today’s all-too-short debate is so important.

There will be general agreement in the House about much of the response, although I wish to press the Foreign Secretary on some points. I expect that we all agree that the European Union should widen its sanctions, as he mentioned; that it was right to issue a presidential statement to the UN and to seek a strong Security Council resolution now; and that African countries should join in not recognising the legitimacy of the Mugabe Government, although regrettably some have. 

Gerald Howarth MP suggests a role for the SAS in removing Mugabe

Questions from four Conservative MPs regarding Zimbabwe in Parliament yesterday.

A ROLE FOR THE SAS?

Gerald Howarth MP: "Many people find it morally repugnant that the international community has fiddled so ineffectively as Zimbabwe has literally burned. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House how many British subjects there are in Zimbabwe, and what sort of plans are in place in the event of civil war, which many correspondents are now suggesting might happen? What contingency plans are there to remove those British citizens to safety? I say to the Foreign Secretary that the Almighty is not the only person who could remove Mr. Mugabe; the Special Air Service could also do a pretty good job."

David Miliband, Foreign Secretary: "Whatever the degree of frustration that the hon. Gentleman feels, I do not think that he really wants me to pursue the latter part of his question. The best thing to say about British nationals is to refer back to my earlier statement on the issue, which recorded that there are 12,000 British nationals in Zimbabwe, many of whom are elderly, and there is no evidence of them being subject to intimidation or attack thus far. They are supported by a well-developed wardens network, and by some very brave non-governmental organisations. The best thing to say is that they remain the subject of continued engagement, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to have a word with me afterwards, I could say a bit more to him about that."

SOUTH AFRICA'S ROLE

Nicholas Soames MP: "Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House to what he attributes Mr. Mbeki’s pathetically inadequate response to this terrible tragedy?"

David Miliband: "In respect of the first question, I do not want to put myself into the mind of the leader of South Africa. As I said earlier, the burden borne by South Africa from the 2 million-plus refugees from Zimbabwe who are there is reason enough for any country—from self-interest, never mind moral interest—to speak out on the issue. We have debated before the role of President Mbeki in securing the rounds of the election. Obviously, however, the fact that those elections have not been able to take place in anything other than grotesque circumstances has rendered that null and void."

Iain Duncan Smith MP: "Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), I served in Rhodesia, as it was called in those days, in 1979 in order to bring universal suffrage to that country. I was proud of our position then, but I am not particularly proud of ours or Europe’s right now. Does not the secret to providing a solution lie in Pretoria and Beijing? Is it not time that we said in no uncertain terms to the Chinese that if they wish to be accepted as a decent nation, they should stop supporting violent regimes such as Mugabe’s? If we also said to President Mbeki, who is almost alone in South Africa in supporting that man, that if he pulled out the stops, made Zimbabwe a pariah state, cut off all support and said to Mugabe, “Go or we will finish you”, he would be gone in a week."

The Prime Minister: "I understand the knowledge of the situation that the right hon. Gentleman has given that he was in the country many years ago. I have to say to him that the UN Security Council will meet this afternoon and I believe that there will be a presidential statement. That will require the countries that are part of the UN Security Council and that play a part in its affairs, including the ones he has mentioned, to be able to support that statement. I hope that they will support a statement that says in the strongest terms that the violence is unacceptable. What has led to the opposition leader pulling out of the election is perfectly understandable and a way forward has to be found for the Zimbabwean people, but that will be discussed by the UN Security Council later this afternoon.  I talked to President Mbeki before I came to the House this afternoon and urged it upon him that there had to be a solution and a way forward found, but he, too, will in my view join the statement that will be made  by the UN later this afternoon, which shows that South Africa, too, wants an end to the violence and a solution to the problems we face."

THE UN AND ZIMBABWE

Douglas Hogg MP: "The right hon. Gentleman said that the full force of international law should be felt. Does that mean to say that as a matter of principle he accepts that the International Criminal Court should have jurisdiction over what is going on in Zimbabwe? If that is his position, and it is mine, will he start taking action within the Security Council to mobilise support for a resolution that would subject Mr. Mugabe and his immediate supporters to the full rigour of the International Criminal Court?"

David Miliband: "When I said “the full force of international law” earlier, I did not say it lightly but because I believe it. However, we have been trying to mobilise support to get Zimbabwe on to the Security Council agenda. That has been the blockage, and I would fail in my duty if I pretended to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we were at a stage yet when we could start mobilising support for something greater than a standing item on the agenda. However, I assure him that, from my two conversations with our permanent representative at the UN yesterday and previous conversations, there is no lack of clarity on the part of all members of the Security Council about the importance of the issue. Its discussion last week and the fact that Burkina Faso became the ninth country to support its debate at the Security Council is significant. I hope that we can build on that—it is certainly our priority."

HANSARD.

Hague says Brown has "simultaneously disappointed the Americans, upset the Europeans and handed Iran a publicity coup'

At the Joint Press Conference with President Bush on Monday, Gordon Brown announced that:

"Today Britain will urge Europe and Europe will agree to take further sanctions against Iran. First of all, we will take action today that will freeze the overseas assets of the biggest bank in Iran, the bank Melli. And second, action will start today for a new phase of sanctions on oil and gas.”

But no action has been taken by the EU or by Britain to freeze the assets of Bank Melli or impose sanctions on Iranian oil and gas. Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague asked Miliband to explain this in the Commons today:

"The steps the Prime Minister announced have not been taken. According to press reports, the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, explicitly denied that any agreement on sanctions had been reached.

The Financial Times today points out that Bank Melli is working in exactly the same way today as it worked yesterday. Its offices in London are open, it can use its assets in whatever way it likes, and indeed may be in the process of moving a lot of them to Dubai.

The FT also quotes a US diplomat who said that Mr Brown was ‘wrong’. ‘He made an incorrect statement’. ‘The problem is that the US delegation and the US press believed him’. He said ‘On the scale of diplomatic blunders, this is a seven out of 10’.

The Iranian Foreign Minister, quoted in the Iranian press today, said that “The European officials have rejected Brown’s statements and have announced that there is no new decision for intensifying sanctions against Iran.

There may be an explanation for these event of which the public is not aware. However the government appears to have simultaneously disappointed the Americans, upset the Europeans and handed Iran a publicity coup.”

If it is indeed the case, the Government will have taken the conduct of the foreign policy of this country to a whole new level of blundering incompetence. We expect a full explanation about what has happened, and I will be writing to the Foreign Secretary today to seek this."

Nigel Evans and Peter Bottomley sign EDM opposing gay Iranian's extradition

On the day that seventeen peers sign a letter calling for action to stop deportations to Iran we highlight the two Conservative MPs who have identified themselves with the cause of Mehdi Kazemi through this EDM:

"That this House is concerned by the case of Iranian teenager Mehdi Kazemi who is currently living in Holland; notes reports that Mr Kazemi's boyfriend was forced by Iranian authorities to denounce other gay men, including Mr Kazemi himself; is appalled at reports that Mr Kazemi's boyfriend was then hanged for the offence of homosexuality; believes that Mr Kazemi's life is in serious danger if he were returned to Iran; further notes that the Dutch authorities have rejected Mr Kazemi's appeal for asylum in Holland and are likely to deport him to the UK; believes that the Home Office view that Iran is safe for homosexuals as long as they hide their sexuality is contrary to human rights standards on sexual freedom; and calls on the Government to uphold its asserted position as a supporter of human rights by refraining from sending Mr Kazemi back to Iran and near-certain human rights abuses."

Source here.

William Hague makes the case for an inquiry into the Iraq war

The Shadow Foreign Secretary led an Opposition debate calling for an inquiry into the Iraq war.  The Government successfully defeated Mr Hague's motion but twelve Labour MPs voted with the Conservatives.  Highlights of Mr Hague's contribution and David Lidington MP's closing remarks are pasted below.

There are signs of things improving in Iraq: "For those of us who supported the invasion of March 2003, recent signs of hope in Iraq are welcome indeed. The security situation has improved, the Iraqi economy is growing, stumbling but genuine steps towards political reconciliation have taken place and optimism among the people of the country has risen. But we all have to recognise that the path to this renewal of hope has lain through a painful trauma, including the deaths of 175 members of our armed forces. While the 23 days of the initial military campaign to overthrow Saddam were astonishingly successful, the constant theme of those who have written about their involvement in subsequent events is that things went seriously wrong in the preparation for, and execution of, the occupation of the country."

An inquiry into the Iraq war will be less useful the more it is delayed: "As it enters its sixth year, the conflict in Iraq will soon have lasted as long as the second world war. The formative decisions—about the occupation of Iraq, the disbandment of the army, de-Ba’athification and the overall manner in which the military occupation was conducted—were made either in the immediate aftermath of the invasion five years ago, or in some cases well before it. Decisions and analyses relating to the origins of the war and its planning were therefore made up to six or seven years ago.  Any inquiry would presumably take many months to hear and assemble evidence; so even if the Foreign Secretary were to announce an inquiry at the Dispatch Box today, it would entail key participants of those early decisions trying to give a crystal clear recollection, by the time they gave evidence, of events of perhaps seven or eight years earlier. An inquiry announced next year or the year after would require those recollections to stretch back anything up to a decade, with accompanying documents, e-mails and files intact. With the best will in the world, that is going to be difficult for those involved. A continuing delay of months or years—for all we know, the Prime Minister may well mean years—is not merely the postponement of an inquiry, but the diminishing of its value. Its task at a later date would be more difficult, and the accurate and detailed picture of important moments and key meetings would necessarily be more difficult to assemble."

America has conducted searching inquiries without undermining the morale of troops: "There have been far more searching investigations and discussions in the US Congress—and, indeed, in the Iraq study group, as far as we can see—about the nature of the United States’ involvement in Iraq than anything that we have seen in this country. Indeed, there are far more regular reports to Congress—General Petraeus is about to testify to Congress again—than anything that we see here. This is a separate point that the Government should attend to. There should be regular quarterly reports about progress in any theatre of war."

Our soldiers are hardy enough not to be undermined by an Iraq inquiry: "I often speak to soldiers and senior officers who have returned from Iraq, and the notion that their morale would be in any way undermined by our commencing an inquiry into the origins and conduct of the Iraq war is one that most of them would consider truly laughable. The morale of those wonderful people is made of far sturdier stuff than that. It depends on their training, their colleagues, their leadership and their equipment. Far from their being undermined by an inquiry, there are few who would not welcome it, for they above all others want to know that all of us politicians have learned from mistakes for which some of their colleagues paid with their lives."

The Government has launched reviews into fifty other areas of policy: "Since the current Prime Minister took office, the Government have announced at least 50 separate reviews of different areas of policy, all presumably designed better to inform future policy making. They cover a vast range of subjects, from casinos to 24-hour drinking to the promotion of tourism and to sunbeds... Many of these reviews are in the military area, such as the review of support for the armed forces, the armed personnel review and the review of the role of the military. It defies credibility that there should be time and resources to review a vast range of subjects, including many in the field of defence, but that any review or inquiry into probably the most important events of the decade is too much of a distraction from the matters in hand."

Closing the debate David Lidington MP offered the following:

"I want to believe that the Government of my country, whichever party happens to be in government at any one time, measure the advice given to them by their professionals in the diplomatic service, the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces. I want to be confident that the Prime Minister and the full Cabinet have access to all the information, including the dissenting opinions, available in Whitehall and from outside advisers. I also want to be confident that the Government will be straight with Parliament and the public about the decisions that they recommend on the nation’s behalf.  The debate has shown that the Government are bereft of any plausible reason to resist an inquiry. It is in our national and democratic interest to press ahead with one, and I hope that hon. Members of all parties will feel able to support the motion this evening."

More from Hansard.

David Cameron questions Gordon Brown on 'talking to The Taliban'

Extracts from exchanges during the Prime Minister's statement on Afghanistan.

David Cameron: "May I ask the Prime Minister about the reports in today’s newspapers? Press headlines say clearly that the Government plan to talk to the Taliban, but the Prime Minister said in his statement that “we will not” talk to “these people”. Does that not demonstrate once again the error of briefing the press in advance of making statements in this House? But is it not more serious than that? These appear to be completely conflicting messages, and they really could undermine our forces in what they are doing. In his reply, can the Prime Minister clear this up and tell us what he will do to investigate how this took place?"

Gordon Brown: "Let me repeat what I said in my statement—that our aim is to isolate and eradicate the Taliban insurgency and to isolate the leadership. We are not negotiating with the leadership and we do not propose to do so. However, we want to support President Karzai in his efforts at reconciliation. If he is successful in bringing across members of the previous insurgency, who then declare that they will give up fighting, support democracy and be part of the system, that will show that the efforts to achieve reconciliation will have been important to the whole country’s future."

Foreign Affairs & Defence debate on the Queen's speech: William Hague's response

William Hague: "It will be no surprise to the Foreign Secretary that I agree with the tone and general direction of much of what he had to say, although one would never have thought that it was the speech of someone who thought we talked too much about Europe. Like him, we recognise that these are important days for the long-stalled middle east peace process. We support, as he does, the vision set out in the road map of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, both at peace, both prosperous and neither threatening the other’s security. The conference in Annapolis later this month is the best opportunity in years to relaunch negotiations on a final settlement and we trust the Government will use British standing and relationships to the full to urge the fullest possible support of, and attendance at, the conference.

We await with interest the Prime Minister’s speech on international affairs this evening. The Foreign Secretary will forgive my hon. Friends and me for waiting to see whether all the varied comments of Lord Malloch Brown have been incorporated into the text. The noble Lord has described himself, modestly of course, as the “wise eminence behind the young Foreign Secretary.”

It must be so comforting to the Foreign Secretary to have that presence. He has said today in defence of his colleague that we must judge him by his actions rather than his words, which is what we all say about people who have made a string of verbal blunders. Unfortunately, according to The Sunday Times “Gordon” will not be brave enough to sack him, which is all too believable after all the other things the Prime Minister has not been brave enough to do over the last few weeks, including calling a general election."

More from Hansard here.

Conservatives dominate parliamentary debate on Burma

William Hague: As we watched the ruthlessness with which the protests were crushed, we witnessed not only the junta’s repression but in some measure the outcome of 17 years of inactivity by the international community. Seventeen years have been lost. During that time the Security Council has not passed a single resolution condemning the situation in Burma or applying pressure on its leaders.

I want to raise three sets of issues: first, our immediate diplomatic response to the recent crises; secondly, what has been done to build an effective diplomatic coalition since then; and thirdly, the Government’s strategy going forward, on which the Secretary of State said some words.[...]

Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what typifies this hideous regime is the imprisonment of a good friend of many of us in the House, James Mawdsley, for the crime of distributing Bibles when he visited Burma? Trying to repress the distribution of Bibles and lock away people involved in such an act shows how hideous it is.

William Hague: Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I remember hearing James Mawdsley describe his experiences. It brings home the tyrannical nature of the regime and its determination to suppress the freedom of thought and religion that he was trying to encourage.

[...]

Mike Gapes: I very strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—I hope that I have pronounced the name of her constituency correctly—who talked so strongly about the situation with regard to parliamentarians.

Julian Lewis: Little Englander.

Mike Gapes: The members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs are not little Englanders; we visited the United Nations in New York two weeks ago, and we had useful discussions with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon about the situation in Burma, as well as meeting some of the exiled groups that are working in the UN to try to get democracy and human rights in their country.

[...]

John Bercow:

In the past three years, I have twice visited the Thai-Burma border and, in September this year, I returned from a week-long visit to the India-Burma border. Those visits left indelible impressions on my mind. I will never forget hearing testimony about a man who was dangled over a hot fire as part of his punishment. I will never forget speaking to a man who had been incarcerated and beaten throughout the night, and who had suffered the humiliation and agony of having his body swung repeatedly against a pillar. I will never forget hearing testimony about a man in Insein prison who was so malnourished, so ravaged, and so painfully thin that, in the words of my interlocutor, it was possible to see his intestines moving like worms.

[...]

Daniel Kawczynski: I looked at BBC coverage from 1988 and compared it with the 2007 media coverage —my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred to the role of the media. I found a vast improvement in the coverage by the BBC, and other channels, of the brutality of what is happening in Burma. That is partly because viewers are more interested in what is going on and consequently the BBC and others are making sure that they report on it. I applaud the BBC’s coverage of the past few weeks, and I urge it to do whatever it can to ensure that British citizens are kept abreast of what is happening in this brutal dictatorship, to show great support for our Burmese friends who are struggling in this campaign.

[...]

Andrew Mitchell: This regime will not be able to put the cork back into the bottle. Protest might not come back on the streets in quite the same way in the next few weeks, but the junta has done huge damage to its power structure by attacking Buddhism. So many monks have been locked up and beaten that as, inevitably, they are released and trickle back into their community, there will be fury at how they have been treated. Indeed, over the past weekend, graffiti has been appearing on the walls in Rangoon saying “Than Shwe killer”. That is an example of the change that is taking place in Burmese society. Let the whole international community determine that this time things in Burma will be different.

More from Hansard here.

Michael Gove and Paul Goodman call for film-maker Ayaan Hirsi Ali to enjoy continuing protection

"This House, recognising that freedom of speech within the law and freedom from violence and intimidation are indispensable preconditions of a free society, deeply regrets the decision of the Dutch Parliament and Government to withdraw protection abroad from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the author, film-maker and former politician, and urges both bodies to reverse this decision forthwith."

James Forsyth has more over at The Spectator.

Baroness Neville-Jones sets out the challenges facing British forces in Afghanistan

Baroness Neville-Jones of Hutton Roof made her maiden speech in the Lords yesterday.  Like Baroness Warsi, she focused on the situation in Afghanistan:

"Public discussion of the British commitment has tended to focus on three issues: whether we should be in Afghanistan at all; whether our forces have been properly equipped to carry out the mission entrusted to them; and whether they are succeeding. In this short intervention, I am not going to deal in detail with the second of these issues. Suffice it to say just two things. The recent decision announced by the Government to supply, off the shelf, a more rugged vehicle to our troops is sensible, though not before time, and we must hope that those vehicles will be delivered soon. The better armour of a Mastiff, compared with a Land Rover, will help to save lives. No Government are entitled to expose our serving men and women to unnecessary risk. Furthermore, when our service men and women are injured, they should be able to expect the best medical treatment that we, a technologically advanced and wealthy country, are able to provide.

During our visit, we were shown the medical facilities at Camp Bastion, which are also available to the local population. They are impressive, as is the commitment of the medical staff. Injured personnel, of course, need to reach those facilities quickly from the field and shortage of helicopters can be a problem. Moreover, when servicepeople return to the UK for further medical treatment, we need to ensure that not just the medicine but also their hospital environment are conducive to speedy recovery.

As to whether the UK should be in Afghanistan, although our presence there has not been attended by anything like the controversy surrounding our presence in Iraq, it has not been free from it.

Baroness Warsi of Dewsbury uses her maiden speech to highlight the plight of women in Afghanistan

Yesterday, Sayeeda Hussain Warsi made her maiden speech in the House of Lords.  Like Baroness Neville-Jones, she focused on the plight of women in Afghanistan:

"In June 2001, Saira Shah, a British journalist, revealed the horrific lives of many ordinary Afghani women. She was assisted in her efforts by RAWA, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. She exposed an Afghanistan where women were excluded from jobs and medical care, where education was denied them and where war widows were forced to beg on the streets of Kabul. This was Afghanistan under Taliban rule. On International Women’s Day in 2007, some six years after our invasion, RAWA said that,

“the world came into motion in the name of liberating Afghan women and our country was invaded, but the sorrows and deprivation of Afghan women has not just failed to reduce but has actually increased the level of oppression and brutality”.

UNIFEM, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have many statistics on Afghanistan, and I will share some of them. Some 86 per cent of Afghani women are illiterate; 87 per cent of the Afghan population still believe that a woman needs male authorisation to vote; every 29 minutes a woman dies in childbirth; and 50,000 war widows live in Kabul alone, and many still beg on the streets. The number of girls in secondary school is decreasing; 80 per cent of women face forced marriages; nearly 60 per cent are married before the legal age of 16, despite the 2005 protocol to,

“eliminate child and forced marriage by 2008”.

Sadly, that honourable aim is unlikely to be met by then or at any time in the near future.

I acknowledge that some progress has been made. As we know, 27 per cent of Members of the National Assembly are women, but only one serves in the Cabinet and, sadly, too many are ineffective and subdued. Indeed, in recent provincial council elections, not enough women came forward to take up the women’s quota, resulting in some of the reserved women’s seats reverting to men. I pay tribute to Malalai Joya, a brave and determined young Afghani parliamentarian who more than deserves the international accolades that follow her, but whose life is under constant threat.

Amnesty International writes that,

“women continue to face severe violence both within and outside the house”.

John Bercow uses EDM to highlight the plight of Darfuris forcibly deported to Sudan

"That this House deplores the continued use of arbitrary detention, beatings, mock executions and torture inflicted by the Sudanese security services upon Darfuris forcibly returned to Khartoum by UK immigration officials, as highlighted in the report Lives We Throw Away, produced by international genocide prevention organisation the Aegis Trust, which draws attention to five separate incidents of torture of Darfuris in the last three years; notes that on at least two occasions deportees were beaten in Khartoum airport even before UK immigration officials had left to return to the UK; further notes that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, in its latest position paper on Sudanese Asylum Seekers from Darfur, states that `no non-Arab Sudanese originating from Darfur should be forcibly returned until such time as there is a significant improvement in the security situation in Darfur' and that `where internal displacement is a result of ethnic cleansing policies, denying refugee status on the basis of the internal flight or relocation concept could be interpreted as condoning the resulting situation on the ground'; notes as applicable the precedent set by the Government during the Kosovo conflict in 1999 where Kosovan Muslims were not deported to Belgrade but returned directly to their homes only when it was safe for them to return; and calls on the Government immediately to suspend its policy of deporting Darfuri asylum seekers until it is safe for them to return directly to Darfur."

Source here.

David Lidington highlights China, Burma and Zimbabwe in Westminster Hall debate on human rights

David Lidington MP, Conservative Foreign Affairs: "I want to talk briefly about three specific countries. China has been mentioned a lot, and it would be wrong of me to omit it because I had the opportunity to go to Beijing and Lhasa last month as part of a cross-party delegation led by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman). We had some frank conversations in both cities about human rights and what struck me was that although the Chinese officials to whom we spoke firmly defended the policy of the Chinese state, they were prepared to engage in discussion and argument. We saw some evidence that life had improved considerably—particularly in terms of freedom to pray in Tibet and in Xining, where we visited a mosque—from what used to be the case, especially during the cultural revolution. As other hon. Members have said, there are still massive problems such as the denial of routine internet access, the blocking of sites such as the BBC’s, the difficulties and persecution faced by unlicensed religious groups and the re-education through labour campaign that, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) pointed out, amounts to full detention without trial.

The prospect of the Olympics in 2008 provides an opportunity for Britain and the EU to accelerate the human rights dialogue with China. Clearly, we are dealing with a country that represents a quarter of the world’s population, is a permanent member of the Security Council and without which it will be impossible to tackle many serious global challenges, such as climate change or international terrorism. There are important reasons for Britain to have a constructive relationship with China, but I hope that the Minister will agree that we do not serve our own interests if we ignore the question of human rights. Frankly, I think that the Chinese would be astonished if we were to do so. I hope that we will see that dialogue pressed forward with greater urgency.

My impression is that the Chinese Government want, at the time of the Olympics, to showcase the history, culture and tremendous modern economic achievements of the Chinese people. They know that they will be subjected to unprecedented international scrutiny and that a lot of that scrutiny will be critical. It is opportune to keep reminding the Chinese Government of the commitment to ratify the international convention on civil and political rights and to bring forward the changes to the criminal justice code that have often been promised but have not been fully delivered.

Keith Simpson calls for tougher line on Zimbabwe

Meg Munn MP, Foreign Office Minister: "Chancellor Merkel was clear that all African countries should be invited to the summit, and we agree. However, we have always said that Zimbabwe should be represented, but not by President Mugabe."

Keith Simpson MP, Shadow Foreign Minister: "We welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and I am glad that we have moved on from our debate in July, when the Under-Secretary was unable to give us the guarantee that the Prime Minister would not go to the EU-Africa conference. Following the comments of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) about Chancellor Merkel, do the Government believe that we need to generate additional EU sanctions against Zimbabwe? In particular, does she believe that the EU could go much further and home in on some of the more obnoxious members of the Zimbabwean regime, such as Reserve Bank governor Gideon Gono, who is a leading friend of President Mugabe and helps finance the regime? Does she agree that it is disgraceful that he can still travel abroad and that we cannot impose sanctions on him?"

Meg Munn MP: "It is important to examine sanctions carefully. European Union targeted measures are there precisely to ensure that they do not further hurt ordinary Zimbabweans. On the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, we have already argued for Gideon Gono to be added to the EU list. We will continue to do that, and the Home Secretary has excluded him from the United Kingdom."

More from Hansard here.

Economic sanctions against Iran

Sir Malcolm Rifkind: "Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if military action against Iran is to be discouraged, it is crucial for there to be a robust and effective alternative that cannot be scuppered by Russian or Chinese vetoes? As President Sarkozy of France—along with the United States—is enthusiastically calling for financial and banking sanctions against Iran, and as Deutsche Bank, UBS, HBSC and other banks are already responding, will the Foreign Secretary do all in his power to encourage other European Union countries, particularly Germany, Italy and Spain, to support such a policy?"

David Miliband, Foreign Secretary: "The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s general point about the importance of the diplomatic route having proper teeth is absolutely correct. He could have added Standard Chartered to the list of banks that he mentioned.  The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be interested to know that in the year to May 2007, EU trade with Iran fell by 34 per cent., which constitutes a significant tightening of the sanctions. We are exploring all avenues. I will of course discuss the matter with EU colleagues next week, and will continue to monitor it at an international level."

More from Hansard here.

David Cameron questions Gordon Brown's Iraq visit

"On reflection does the Prime Minister agree that the way in which he made the announcement about troop withdrawals last week and the way it was briefed to the press were mistakes? He promised to make such announcements to the House of Commons, but he did not. He promised that 1,000 of our troops would be brought back before Christmas, yet is it not the case that 500 had already been announced and 270 were already back in the country?

I have to say to the Prime Minister that this is of a different order of magnitude from what we have had from him over the past decade. This is not double counting of Government spending. This is not just spinning the good bits of a Budget. This is about dealing with people’s lives and the families of our brave servicemen, and does he agree that this is not an acceptable way for a Prime Minister to behave?"

More from Hansard here.