28/02/2018 House of Commons

statesman-like demeanour which

colleagues should seek to imitate.

Order. Urgent question, Emily

Thornberry.

To ask the Secretary of

State for common and -- for

Commonwealth affairs for future

arrangements for border arrangements

for the republican violence.

Where

is he?

Mr Speaker, I have been asked

to reply. This government has been

consistent in its commitments to

Northern Ireland as the United

Kingdom leaves the European Union.

First, we will never accept any

solutions that threaten the economic

or constitutional integrity of the

United Kingdom. Second, we will not

accept a hard border between

Northern Ireland and Ireland which

will reserves the considerable

progress of the political process

over the recent decades. That is

consistent with the Prime Minister's

Article 50 letter through to our

paper published last summer and the

Prime Minister's Florence speech at

last autumn. Most recently, the

government enshrined both of these

commitments quite clearly in the

joint report we agreed with the

European Union in December. I

preserve our commitment to

preserving the integrity of our

internal markets with Northern

Ireland. It also guaranteed an

avoidance of a hard border between

Northern Ireland and Ireland

including any checks and controls.

These agreements were approved

collectively by the entire Cabinet.

Those commitments have not changed

nor will they.

Thank you, Mr

Speaker, for granting the urgent

question. I am always pleased to

hear from the Minister of State, I

have to say it is an absolute

disgrace and a huge discourtesy to

this House that the Foreign

Secretary is not hear himself to

answer the questions of his memo.

Especially as we saw him in London a

few hours ago jogging in the snow

and answering questions from the

media. If he can answer their

questions he really should be

prepared to answer ours. What is he

afraid of? Perhaps it is this, these

questions go to the very heart of

his credibility and the credibility

of previous statements that he is

made in this House. On November the

21st I asked the Foreign Secretary

at this dispatch box whether he

stood by the statements he made in

frippery 2016 that a vote for Brexit

would lead the border arrangements

in Northern Ireland absolutely

unchanged. That is what he told the

House just three months ago. I

repeat exactly that pledge. There

can be no return to a hard border,

that would be unthinkable. It would

be economic and political madness.

Everybody understands the

ramifications of allowing such a

thing to happen. But last night, Mr

Speaker, despite the clear a big

statement from the Foreign

Secretary, we discovered his private

memo to the Prime Minister on the

same subjects. And on that, he

wrote, it is wrong to see the task

as maintaining no border. The

government 's task, he said, is to

stop the border becoming

significantly harder, but even if,

he wrote, a hard border is

reintroduced, we would expect to see

95% plus of goods past the border

without checks. So let us be clear

what this memo reveals. Contrary to

the Foreign Secretary 's previous

statements, he except that there

will have to be changes to the

current border arrangements. He

accepts that there will need to be

border controls that do not exist at

present. The only debate is their

degree of hardness. But surely the

Foreign Secretary has learned by now

that you cannot just be a little bit

pregnant. Either there is a border

or there is not. So my first

question for the Minister is this,

the Foreign Secretary told this

House that there would be no new

border arrangements and no changes

to the status quo but this memo says

the exact opposite. So which is the

truth? What the Foreign Secretary

said three months ago in public what

he said three weeks ago in private?

Now, the Foreign Secretary has

already said what we have heard so

many times on this issue, that there

is some magical, technical solution

which will allow goods to be checks,

smuggling to be prevented and points

of origin proved as easily as paying

the congestion charge. But here is

the truly magical parts, without

even the installation of cameras.

And as I pressed the Foreign

Secretary repeatedly to tell us how

on earth is this possible? Or is it

just another addition to his ever

growing list of fantasy from Boris

Island to the Channel bridge. I

welcome the fact that the Foreign

Secretary has already promised the

media to his leaked memo in full and

I hope that will provide some

answers but can I ask the minister

now for the benefit of this House

and so that's my colleagues can

question him on his answer to spell

out in detail how this proposed

invisible border will actually work

in practice? Because if he cannot

provide that the tell, Mr Speaker,

we are left with the conclusion that

all of us on this side and

increasing number on his side accept

that the only way to avoid a hard

border in Northern Ireland is by

staying in a customs union. The fact

is the government knows that.

We are

extremely grateful to the Shadow

Foreign Secretary but she has now

exceeded her time. We must leave it

there.

I have one further sentence

and I am done.

Well, very well. Or

that! I will be the judge of these

matters. I'm grateful to you for

your offer of services but I feel

able to cope without one. And the

Minister will have suitable time to

respond. One sentence.

The truth of

this memo is that they are saying

one thing in public what they are

preparing for the reality in private

and it is about time that this

deception was ended.

Forgive me. I

don't wish to be discourteous to the

honourable lady and certainly not to

the Minister either, but the

Minister of the Cabinet officer is

not a Minister of State, he is a

member of the Cabinet.

It's so

confusing as to who was going to be

answering to this. I do apologise

for having drafted one script and

they're being somebody else.

That

was a nice try. It was very generous

of me to allow her to make it.

Mr

Speaker, anybody would have thought

that the right Honourable lady was

nervous about facing me across the

dispatch box again. Now, she did

start by just questioning my

credentials to be here. Can I just

say this, since I both have Cabinet

responsibility for Constitutional

affairs, including for the

implementation of devolution

throughout the United Kingdom, and

since I also chair the Cabinet amity

on the domestic implementation of

our Brexit arrangements, it seems to

me perfectly reasonable that I

should be responding to the

questions. She asks about the

position of my right honourable

friend the Foreign Secretary, my

right honourable friend like every

other member of the Cabinet stands

behind our support for the Belfast

agreement and for the December

agreement reached between the United

kingdom and the European Union. We

are now at the very start of a

negotiating period during which we

will be discussing with our partners

in the European Union Howell to give

practical effects of the commitments

that were entered into. Both to

ensure that there was no north -

south border between Northern

Ireland and Ireland is and to ensure

that there is no border customs

between Northern Ireland and the

rest of the United Kingdom. The

Prime Minister and the tsar have

both said publicly that they believe

-- Taoiseach. The ambitious and deep

and special partnership that we are

seeking with the European Union in

the future. My right honourable

friend, the Prime Minister, will be

setting out my details to this on

Friday.

Mr Speaker, we have just heard the

Prime Minister reconfirm her

commitment to keep the Irish border

open.

I didn't wholly understand the

second half of high reply to me.

Does my right honourable friend

really believe it will be possible

to negotiate a position where the

British Government decides what

regulatory convergence it has and

the British Government decides what

regulatory convergence it will not

have and the British Government is

free to change its mind and move

those boundaries at any time? What

does he think the prospects of

agreeing that with 27 other

sovereign governments?

I do not think there is the need for

any misunderstanding about what the

Prime Minister was saying. On the

date when we leave the European

Union, the treaties in the words of

Article 50 cease to apply to the

United Kingdom. The effect of the

withdrawal bill, currently before

the House of Lords, is that the

direct effect of European Union law

and diplomacy of European law in the

United Kingdom will be

distinguished. What we are now

seeking is an agreement for the

future which will take the form of a

treaty governed by international law

between United Kingdom and the

continuing entity of the European

Union. That is what we are seeking

to do. The Prime Minister will be

speaking about this with more detail

on Friday.

We know from leaked

government figures that they will

play fast and loose with jobs and

the economy in trying to prevent

another Tory civil war and there are

concerns they may be doing the same

thing over the Good Friday peace

process to prevent Tory civil war.

Will the Minister tell us, is it

wrong to say the Foreign Secretary

Tasker is maintaining no order? Will

he tell us that if the

implementation BDO is based on the

principles, what impact it will have

on the border? And finally, it is

good to see the minister here, I

enjoy a game of where is Wally, it

is astonishing that the Foreign

Secretary is not yet.

Mr Speaker,

the entire government is committed

to their being no border between

Northern Ireland and Ireland, or

between Northern Ireland and the

rest of the United Kingdom. Both

those elements were central to the

December joint report. Those are

both firm commitments of the entire

United Kingdom Cabinet and

government. I would say to the

honourable gentleman, that I think

his strictures about the

government's approach to jobs and

employment stands somewhat in

contrast to the reality, which is

that within the United Kingdom at

the moment, we have unemployment at

a 40 year low.

Has he seen the

report prepared by the European

Parliament's policy Department first

citizen 's right and Constitutional

affairs which concludes that a

technical solution that will allow

free movement of persons under the

Common travel arrangement is

possible and that we, there is no

reason that we cannot implement it

straightaway?

I haven't had the

pleasure of reading that report from

the European Parliament yet but I

will add to my reading list I think

what my honourable friend has said

is that there is evidence that there

are people both here and in the

Brussels institutions and in the 27

national governments of our EU

partners who are keen to work

constructively together to find an

outcome that actually brings

benefits in the future to resolve.

Instead of complaining that the

draft withdrawal agreement published

this morning proposes to keep

Northern Ireland in the customs

union, subject to the single energy

market and subject to EU rules on

the environment and agriculture, is

it not time that ministers finally

accepted that it is their continuing

failure to explain how they are

going to keep an open border while

leaving the customs union and the

single market that is the cause of

this problem? So will -- when will

ministers explain when the proposed

to achieve this?

I drive the right

honourable gentleman attention that

there were three different options

to ensure that there is no hard

border between Ireland and Northern

Ireland. The first of those, and the

one that the government of Ireland

as well as this government is

strongly committed to and wants to

see as the option we are able to

deliver, is the one that settles

this matter in the context of the

overall future economic partnership

between the UK and the European

Union. We are looking forward to

beginning the negotiating process

which I hope we'll start off the

publication today.

Mr Speaker, we

are coming up to the 20th

anniversary of the Good Friday

Agreement which allowed people of

this nation to have their own

identity and yet be citizens of the

United Kingdom. That agreement also

mocked and three conditions. It

could only change with the agreement

of the citizens of Northern Ireland,

the government had to agree, and

that the United Kingdom had to

agree. Can you agree with me that

this agreement must not be

undermined and those who voted

against it in the past should hang

their heads in shame because it is

an agreement that has kept the peace

for 20 years?

Mr Speaker, I am proud

of what the Belfast agreement has

achieved in making possible a period

of peace and reconciliation with the

Northern Ireland. I think none of us

would claim that process is complete

yet. But I think that the Belfast

agreement was an historic start and

it was attributed to hard work by

successive governments to John Major

and to Tony Leer both. I am happy to

pay tribute to both of them. -- Tony

Blair. I think my honourable friend

made the important point in talking

about the principle of consent. The

principle of consent including the

status of Northern Ireland was also

written into the joint report and

signed up to not just by the UK

Government by the European Union as

well.

Can I welcome what the

Secretary of State has said in this

statement and also what the Prime

Minister said very clearly at Prime

Minister's Questions. It is ironic

is it not that some of those people

who complained Harrod is about

creating a hard border between

Northern Ireland and the Irish

Republic have today welcome proposal

from the EU which would create a

hard brother between Northern

Ireland and the rest of the United

Kingdom. The fact of the marker is

there is a border between North and

South. There are different

currencies, different economic

policies, but it is managed in a way

that is sensible and pragmatic. The

same can be done in relation to the

future relationship. It has already

been spelt out in the government's

paper last August to use the Belfast

agreement, more despicably to use

the peace process to shave it in the

way that some people want is quite

frankly outrageous and disk visible.

Let's back the arrangements that are

in place but let's go forward and

pragmatic and sensible way not

create things that are not there.

I

welcome what the right honourable

member for Belfast has said. Yes,

there is of course a Judas diction

order which gives rise to tax and

other differences as well. -- Judas

diction. Those are managed in a way

that allows people to go about the

lives on either side of that border

without any kind of hindrance or

delay whatsoever. Both we and the

Irish government are determined to

try and ensure that that state of

affairs continues but also

respecting the integrity of the

United Kingdom.

Of all the areas of

the Brexit negotiations which give

rise to high emotion, perhaps the

one that most needs to be treated

calmly, rationally and unemotionally

as the Irish border. Can my right

honourable friend assured me that

they will continue to deal with this

issue in that calm and rational way,

and in doing that, can they perhaps

persuade the commission 's

negotiating side that they should

concentrate, not just on one area of

the December joint report, but on

all three areas that were put

forward by the British government

originally.

I agree wholeheartedly

with what might honourable friend

for Ashford says. His emphasis on

all three strands is correct. It is

important they should be no cherry

picking between the different

elements of the December joint

report and I think it is important

that we tried to approach these

matters in the kind of calm,

pragmatic way that he urged.

The

Foreign Secretary has claimed that

congestion technology is the answer

to border checks outside of a

customs union. We know that the

congestion charge checks fear is not

what is inside them and includes 197

camera sites around London that no

one notices because they are in

built-up areas and no one cares

because the last time I looked there

had been a long history of peace

between inner and no to London. In

Northern Ireland, there were four

attacks on the lives of police

officers. 58 shooting incidents and

the PSN I have warned that any

infrastructure at the Borders is a

threat. So will you confirm that

ministers rule out any physical

infrastructure at the border, that

cameras are physical and tell us, do

they rule out new cameras at the

border, yes or no?

We stand by the

words we committed to ourselves in

December, which includes no physical

infrastructure at the border.

Can I

support everything that has been

said by my right honourable friend

and the comets from my right

honourable friend from Ashford. We

are not going to rip our nation

further apart. We not only have to

have a pragmatic approach to browse

about an honest approach to Brexit.

The only solution to a hard border

is membership to the customs union.

They will get there in the end. My

question is this, does he share my

concern about democratic deficit. We

know that 56% of people in Northern

Ireland voted Remain. I wonder why.

In the absence of the executive,

given the composition of those Right

Honourable members who sit in this

place to represent Northern Ireland,

where is the voice of the 56% in all

of this?

Mr Speaker, it is the

government's hope that the political

parties in Northern Ireland can

agree to reconstitute the executive

and the assembly as soon as

possible. There is agreement across

all the parties in Northern Ireland,

that is what they do want -- that

that is what they want to do. I hope

any differences can be overcome.

Why

does the Secretary of State think

that the Foreign Secretary wrote

this letter? Was it because he did

not know that the government had

committed in paragraph 49 of the

December agreement to its guaranteed

of avoiding a hard border? Or was it

because any commitment can be set

aside in the service of the cause

that the Foreign Secretary really

cares about, which is the

furtherance of his own career? Or

was it something more sinister than

Boris's self-love, which is now

faced with the incompatibility of

red lines around the customs union

and the single market and the

commitment to no hard border. There

is a concerted ideological attack on

that commitment to no hard border.

And indeed to the Good Friday

Agreement itself.

Mr Speaker, I

don't think I could have been

clearer than I have been so far in

these exchanges that the government

is absolutely resolved to stand by

both the Belfast agreement and all

parts of the joint report of last

December.

Can I see how encouraged I

am that everybody seems to want to

avoid a hard border in Northern

Ireland. The only people who seem to

be threatening a hard border are

people who are trying to leveraged

their political advantage in

domestic politics and the Republic

of Ireland, trying to blackmail the

whole of the United Kingdom into

substantially changing the

referendum result. Far more

constituencies voted Leader of the

House than Remain. It would be

politically unsustainable for the

issues around Northern Ireland to

leveraged the whole of the United

Kingdom into some kind of customs

union as to correct any un-wholly

unnecessary infrastructure at the

border at Northern Ireland.

We are

at the start of the negotiations

about the detail of the withdrawal

agreement and then of the creation

of the future, deep and special

partnership we are seeking with a

utopian friends and neighbours. --

European. And the economic

partnership is something the Prime

Minister will talk about on Friday.

This is supposed to be a question

and answer session, not debate. I am

getting is years the Astec nods. --

I am getting enthusiastic nods. What

is required is not an oration, but

enquiry, which will either be

brilliantly exemplified by Lady

Hermon.

What a task and I will keep

to it. May I ask the secretary to

take a few moments to confirm to the

House that the Irish government has

accepted that there will be no hard

border and just as importantly, that

the Irish government has accepted

there will be no border down the

Irish Sea?

The Irish government like the rest

of the EU signs up to and support

its joint report in its entirety of

last December and paragraph 42 of

the joint report commits both

parties, the UK and the EU, to

uphold the totality of relationships

embodied and expressed by the

Belfast agreement. The totality of

relationships embraces East- West,

every bit as much as North- South.

What lies behind the commission's

partial decision to develop the

options?

I'm afraid that is not a

question I can readily answer. I

would just say to my right

honourable friend that I think it is

important that the commission

recognises, as the Prime Minister

said earlier, that's as far as the

government is concerned, which ever

side those of us round the Cabinet

table voted or campaigns for during

the referendum on the EU, our

commitments to the union of the

United Kingdom is absolute. There is

no division whatsoever on this

matter and I hope that our

negotiating partners will understand

that.

I understand the Minister's

clear frustration at the Foreign

Secretary that it is not his task to

try and defend the border but the

Foreign Secretary did say this

morning after his joke that he was

going to publish the memo. When?

We

don't publish internal ministerial

correspondence.

Mr Speaker, can I

congratulate my right honourable

friend are not being provoked by the

ridiculous statements coming from

the European Union on this subject.

Can I commend my right honourable

friend the wise words of the right

honourable member for North Belfast

because that shows that you can have

a border weather is regulatory

divergences as there is at the

moments, and why can't continue in

the future?

We are certainly seeking

no hard border and hopefully the

government of Ireland is committed

to that objective as well. Having

served six years for Minister for

Europe, I'm used to trying to avoid

provocation wherever it comes from.

The Foreign Secretary's absence does

us all we need to know about how

accountable he feels he should be to

this House, so I must ask the

Minister instead, why was the

Foreign Secretary speculating about

the Northern Ireland - Ireland

border becoming more difficult. --

harder. What was he considering on

the border?

The right honourable

gentleman served in the coalition

government. He knows that the way we

do government business is that

ministers right and conversed with

each other all the time but the

policy of the government is the

policy that has been at collectively

agreed by the Cabinet. That is what

I am the promised that set up this

afternoon.

Can I welcome the

Minister's commitment to the joint

report. Can I ask him to confirm

that it is Her Majesty's government

intention to stick by the agreement

that were outlined in paragraph's 49

and 50 of the joint report and there

is no intention to renege on any

part of them?

I can give my right

honourable friend that assurance.

Will the Secretary of State 's

confirm for the benefit of his

backbenchers and perhaps the DUP

that the Northern Irish border

backstop provision embodied in

today's draft EU withdrawal

agreement is exactly what the Prime

Minister agreed to as he backstop in

December 2017? And if he disagrees

with me, if he disagrees with me,

will his government produced an

alternative text explaining what he

did agree?

What we have today is

something that Mr Barnier has

described as not necessarily the

final version because this is a

draft that the commission is not

tabling for negotiation. The

commission is tabling before

discussion amongst the EU 27 Head of

State and the European Parliament.

When text comes to the table for

negotiation, we will obviously

consider that but I think, as the

Prime Minister said earlier, it is

important that there is not cherry

picking and that the text of the

withdrawal agreement when it is

eventually concluded reflects all

the paragraphs of the joint report

equally and, at the moment, my

feeling on the brief reading I've

had so far, is that the current

draft does not do that.

Mr Speaker,

can I welcome what my right

honourable friend has said in

pointing back to the joint report

from just before Christmas which

underlined both the commitments to

the UK and EU to the Belfast Good

Friday Agreement but also the

constitutional settlement of the UK.

In that regard, can he confirm that

the joint report highlighted that

primarily we need to focus on

dealing with the Northern Ireland

border through the broader

negotiations and in that regard that

he will encourage colleagues to

focus on the August reports that the

government published, setting out in

detail how we should do that?

My

right honourable friend give some

very good advice. We are certainly

committed to taking the negotiations

forward in that spirit.

If the

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

really wants a united United Kingdom

as we move forward in a situation

where the nation is facing some of

the most congregated decision it is

hard to make the best part of 100

years, is he not going to have to

build a bigger consensus than just

around the Cabinet table? Does that

not mean he is going to turn round

to his colleagues and say, yes, you

will come to Parliament and explain

to Parliament what your views are

and yes, Prime Minister, just

sometimes you're not going to make a

speech somewhere else, you're going

to make a speech about the European

Union, the most important issue

facing this in this chamber.

Just

before the Minister offers his

replies I should just advise the

House of what I have been advised,

namely that the Prime Minister will

be making a statement on Brexit

policy in this chamber on Monday.

That I think is extremely welcome. I

should just say in the name of the

intelligibility of our proceedings

to people who are not Members of the

House that the decision as to

whether to grant an urgent question

is a matter for me, the Speaker, to

have been granted today because I

judge that they warranted the

attention of the House, but as

colleagues also note and others

might not, the matter of who the

government fields to respond to a

question is a matter for the

government. That is the situation.

Minister for the Cabinet Office.

Mr

Speaker, I am always someone who

will welcome Parliamentary consensus

where that can be built. If the

gentleman looks at the Prime

Minister's records in being here and

giving statements after her main

European meetings and answering

questions at length, he should agree

it is a pretty good one.

Mr Speaker,

does my right honourable friend

agree with me that the European

Union continues to put the cart

before the horse on this aspect?

Surely we cannot know with any

degree of certainty what

arrangements will be needed on the

Ireland border if any at all until

we know what kind of trade agreement

were going to strike.

My honourable

friend makes an important point and

that is precisely why that's not

only the Prime Minister, but the

Taoiseach believe that the best

option is to settle the border in

the context of the overall economic

partnership between ourselves and

the European Union.

By leaving the

European Union we are taking control

of our borders such as that at

Holyhead, the government has also

committed to no border between the

Republic and Northern Ireland. Can

the minister name any pair of

countries that is regulated by two

difference customs regimes?

This is

exactly the point I was making to

the right honourable member for

chicks free. The right way forward

is to resolve these matters on the

future of economic partnership.

It

is rightly the determination of the

government to deliver the openly

effective border with the

qualifications made by the right

Honourable member for North Belfast,

surely all of the people of the

island of Ireland have the right to

that same practical determination to

be shared by the same EU 27 with out

being taking hostage by conditions

that would in effect override the

decision of the British people to

leave the European Union and the

agenda which is quite transparently

on display today.

We are at the

start of a process of negotiation,

not at the end of it. I do think the

Prime Minister could have been

clearer. No Prime Minister of any

party who has served up until now

including her good countenance an

agreement which led to a Customs

border between one part of the

United Kingdom and another.

The

Minister has said he wants no border

between Ireland and Northern Ireland

but he is also said he does not want

the border between the integral part

of the United kingdom and the rest

of Ireland. Well, I tell you this,

Wells has two borders, one with

Northern Ireland through the port of

Holyhead and one with Ireland. What

will happen with that arrangement?

That is precisely why this needs to

be settled when the overall

arrangement. The right honourable

gentleman will have noted in the

endorsements of the continuation of

the Common travel area between the

United Kingdom and Republic of

Ireland and also the fact that

that's commitments was reflected

today's draft text from the

commission.

Would it not be more

sensible and logical if Michel

Barnier focused more on the trade

arrangements on the United Kingdom

and the European Union where they

have a 70 billion pounds surplus

with the united kingdom rather than

focusing just on one part of the

United Kingdom? If they do that we

may only need to focus on one part

of the United Kingdom.

Well, the

trade surplus that the EU 27 enjoy

with the United Kingdom,

particularly in trading goods, is

just one more compelling reason why

it is to our mutual advantage to

negotiate a future economic

partnership which allows trades to

be as frictionless as possible.

The

Secretary of State is doing his

level best to fudge the principal

question, if we go into negotiations

that there will be no hard border

between the Republic and the

Northern Ireland, and no hard border

down the Irish Sea, how do we begin

to negotiate? What is the mechanism?

The mechanism is set out in the

joint report and in the government's

various speeches and publications

over the last 12 months. The latest

of which the Prime Minister will

deliver this Friday.

Thank you, Mr

Speaker. I wonder if my right

honourable friend has pointed out

that the Irish government that the

biggest loser if there is not a

sensible agreement on tariffs are

imposed on Irish goods coming into

the United Kingdom, that the Irish

economy, there will be huge

devastation to the Irish

agricultural economy particularly. I

wonder if he is suggested to their

Prime Minister the question of

whether his is willing to sacrifice

the interest of the Irish economy on

the high altar of European political

integration?

The economies of

Ireland and of the United Kingdom

are indeed intertwines but I would

reassure my honourable friend that

the Irish government and the

Taoiseach are themselves committed

in trying to resolve these matters

an option A in the joint report,

mainly through the means of an

overall economic agreement between

the United Kingdom and the European

Union.

Does he share my astonishment

that is when four years his

leadership and assess watchtowers

and closed roads. Would he not agree

with me that first of all there are

clear practical proposals to avoid a

hard physical border and this

concern about Northern Ireland and

the Irish Republic is more about the

referendum result and keeping them

in the customs union.

The

interventions on the front spent

about this week have been about more

about political opportunities than

principle. The way forward is in a

calm pragmatic spirit to take

forward the negotiations that will

shortly commence.

Given that goods

and services are routinely traded

across land borders elsewhere in the

European Union is it not possible

that given the political will to

achieve the desired outcome that is

always needed? Will my right

honourable friend ensure that we do

not sign up to what the European

Union dictate now but we look at the

creative solution that has been used

elsewhere in EU borders?

Mr Speaker, this House has received

assurance after assurance from the

government that there will be no

hard border in Ireland. Why then did

the Foreign Secretary right in his

memo that there was the possibility

of such a hard border coming about?

The policy of the government is the

policy that has been agreed by the

Cabinet, set out in error agreement

to the joint report last December

and expressed in the speech as the

Prime Minister has given in the last

12 months.

-- in error agreement.

The European Union approach to

sequencing these negotiations means

that the commission at the moment

only has a mandate to negotiate the

implementation phase and therefore

these issues cannot be dealt with

until after the end of March. So as

my honourable friend agree that

during this period, the guiding star

for all of us as to be that the

United Kingdom, the Republic of

Ireland and European Union are

agreed that there will be no art and

physical border and that this debate

is about the Foreign Secretary spar

with our Foreign Secretary more than

anything else.

I think our

honourable friend is spot on.

It

seems the government is happy to

contemplate the hard border with

Ireland, which would be a disaster

for Northern Ireland. Is it clear

now that the government has been

negotiating in bad faith with

Northern Ireland and the other

countries of the EU? I think the

lady's party would be happy with a

hard border. The government... I

don't want her or anyone in the

House to be under any

misapprehension, the government is

absolutely committed to what it

agreed in the joint report and we

have ever since the referendum made

it clear that we are not going to

support our hard border on the

island of Ireland. Can my right

honourable friend confirm that trade

between Northern Ireland and Great

Britain is far greater in volume

than between Northern Ireland and

the Republic of Ireland, Northern

Ireland and the European Union,

Northern Ireland and indeed the rest

of the world?

Not only is that true,

but it is also the case that trade

between Ireland and the great

Britain is more important than trade

from south to north, between Ireland

and Northern Ireland. Which

reinforces the point it is the

mutual interests of all parties to

agree on an ambitious economic

partnership for the future.

Can the

Minister confirm that cameras

counters infrastructure. Can he

point to an example anywhere in the

world of an international border

with no customs union and no border

infrastructure, just one example

anywhere?

The language of the joint

report is very clear, the associated

physical infrastructure is ruled

out.

The success of modern Northern

Ireland can be seen in the fact my

friends whose parents used to dread

the school run can with the kids off

without a second thought. All these

agree that there will be a full

security assessment.

There will be a

proper analysis of security will be

undertaken by the appropriate

agencies in any and all

circumstances where that is

required. My honourable friend is

right to say that one of the great

achievements of constitutional

politics in Northern Ireland, over

the last 25 years, has been to bring

about a measure of peace and

security after decades when people

lived under the threat of terrorism.

And we should welcome and rededicate

ourselves to making sure that

process continues.

He is forgetting

the reason he is in the chamber this

afternoon is because of the memo the

Foreign Secretary wrote and no other

reason. Can you answer the question

and tell us why the Foreign

Secretary wrote the memo to the

Prime Minister?

As I said to the

Right honourable gentleman earlier,

in any government, ministers, write

letters and memoranda, have

conversations from time to time. The

policy of government under our

system is the policy that is agreed

collectively by the Cabinet and the

policy of the Cabinet and government

is what I have set out today.

Can I

also add... Does he agree that the

evidence given that two -- two tier

system could help to avoid the

physical infrastructure we all want

to avoid?

Those where items that

were also mentioned in the

government's position paper that was

published last summer about the

Irish border. And I am not saying

those were necessarily provide a

comparison of solution, but it is

evidence of goodwill in seeking

pragmatic and sizeable ways forward.

It has been deeply irresponsible. I

would like to ask again, the Foreign

Secretary wrote, if a hard border is

introduced. He has been clear about

their foreign -- Cabinet position

was.

Ministers, when they have

private correspondent, engage in all

sorts of speculative thinking to

test out ideas before they are

brought for collective discussion

and decision. The government

collectively is accountable to this

House or the policies that the

government has adopted. The

government has ruled out both a hard

border between Northern Ireland and

Ireland, and border in the Irish

Sea.

How dare the EU propose a

break-up of the United kingdom into

two trading zones. Both levers and

Remainers are increasingly angered

by this stroppy petulant and

unreasonable approach to these

negotiations by the European Union.

Will my honourable friend tell the

EU in these negotiations they have

not got off to a good start?

I think

that... What we learnt at the end of

2017 was that despite all the

predictions about the imminent

collapse of the negotiating process

at that time, that with political

will, both from London and from 27

partners, and the European

Commission, that an agreement could

be reached. And I think that provide

a very good process -- basis from

which to move forward now.

Sir John

Major and Tony Blair warned you in

the EU referendum campaign that this

would be it an issue. What he has

said today in the dispatch box is

simply impossible. We are not

talking about a backbencher or a

backbencher Ora Parliamentary

undersecretary. We are talking about

the Foreign Secretary who has a

central role in the heart of

negotiations, who is entertaining

the prospect of a hard border that

he says that Tasman ruled out. The

only question is, is this the

settled position of the government,

is the Foreign Secretary says he is

going to publish a memo Ireland when

is he going to do it? Is it not the

case that the Foreign Secretary

should have had the guts to come

here and answer for themselves and

clean-up up his own mess if he

cannot answer for him?

The

government was my policy is what I

have set out. What we're doing at

the start of the negotiating process

is to bring forward ideas and

develop those internally in

government about how we would wish

to give practical application to the

commitments we have entered into.

The Prime Minister will see more

about on Friday.

The differences in

tax, economic strategy and currency

has proven to be no hindrance to

that free and open land. We give an

absolute declaration that the UK

will not, under any circumstances,

implement and new Northern Ireland

and Republic border. If the EU

requires a new hard border, it is a

matter for them and the republic to

decide and implement. We,

unilaterally if necessary, will

honour the Belfast agreement and

indeed strengthen our union of the

UK.

I think... My honourable friend

was right to talk about the

resolution of the United Kingdom

government. In fairness, we do need

to acknowledge that the government

of Ireland, too, is committed to try

and make sure that no hard border is

created and the Taoiseach and his

government are committed to working

constructively as part of the EU 27

with us to find a way forward in

terms of a future economic

partnership.

There is a member of

the House that lives closer to the

Northern Ireland border than anyone

else in the chamber. Can I ask this

focus of a hard border, does the

government and all his colleagues in

the government, the Irish government

and the EU negotiators understand

that any top on a principle of a

hard border is irrelevant because it

would be totally impossible to

police 310 crossing points and

everyone locally would how to

circumvent them if they tried!

Particularly conscious that in

County Londonderry people are

commuting to and from work,

businesses are supplying customers,

people are travelling to and from

the doctors across the international

jurisdictional border. It is very

important in terms of people being

able to go about their everyday

lives that we reach the kind of

agreement to which the government

here and the Irish government are

committed.

Would he just define for

the House what the government meant

work he said a guaranteed no hard

border, what does that actually

involved?

It is exactly what we said

in a commitment to the joint report

in December and in the position

papers that we published back last

summer.

Last night in the other

place we had the second reading of

the roads, trailer registration

bill. It is the first piece of

contingency planning. Can he clarify

how the government will make sure no

checks on the registration between

the Republic of Northern Ireland and

Northern Ireland and how this will

be consistent with its current

legislation on holiday?

We do

believe that the bill is completely

compliant with our commitments under

the joint report. But I will as the

Transport Secretary to write to them

with detail.

The Good Friday

Agreement is an international

multiparty agreement, endorsed by

referendums on both sides of the

Irish border. The decision to leave

the customs union and single

market... Does he accept it is the

responsibility of his government to

bring forward detailed workable

proposals as to how his government

unilateral headlines can be made

compatible and can he tell is how

much longer we have to wait until we

see those proposals in print?

We are

at the start of a process of

negotiation. The honourable

gentleman would not want me to go

into entire detail. I hope when he

sees what the Prime Minister says on

Friday and when he has the

opportunity to question her after

her statement last Monday, that he

will feel reassured.

Thank you.

Normally points of order come after.

But this relates to these exchanges

so I will take it now.

Mr Speaker,

would it be in order for it to be

recorded that you quite rightly

acknowledged a number of hours in

that recent session that we had the

urgent question for speaking too

long. And not asking the short

questions of course some honourable

members are good at. But not all of

us. The reason for that and you will

correct me if I am wrong, is because

we have never add a proper

meaningful debate, or indeed a vote,

on this or any other Brexit matter

that would indeed help the

government in its negotiations and

indeed the uniter country. And this

is just one of many examples, Mr

Speaker, where Parliament's voices

profoundly lacking in the whole of

the Brexit process.

There have been

debates in the committee of the

whole House report stage on the

withdrawal bill. But outstayed of

legislation, if memory serves me

correctly, what the right honourable

lady says is factually correct. She

will know that I have an unbridled

enthusiasm for debate, for votes,

and for sitting in the chair for

extended periods, listening to the

intellects of Einstein and the

eloquence of Demosthenes, which are

so regularly on display, from my

colleagues. In all parts of the

House. And I cannot get enough of

it. It may seem eccentric on my

part, but I love listening to my

colleagues. And the more debates,

and the more votes, the better. I am

most grateful to the right

honourable lady on whose point of

order I had only a moment's notice,

but which I enjoyed. If there are no

further points of order at this

stage, we come now to the urgent

question, Stephen Twigg.

Can I ask the Minister of State for

the foreign & Commonwealth Office to

make a statement to the House on the

Burmese government's failure to

issue visas to the members of the

international select committee?

May

I thank the honourable gentleman for

local West Derby for his question,

i:e., like him and deeply

disappointed that the government of

Burma have not granted visas. This

displeasure has been communicated to

the Burmese authorities. I accept

that they do vital work providing

important oversight of UK aid

programme in Burma and beyond. The

aid committee was due to travel on

the 27th and 20th of February, when

no decision on visas was received in

the early morning of yesterday, it's

then cancelled the Burma leg of its

visit. I understand they will

continue at the second part of that

trip, travelling to Bangladesh,

supporting the Rohingya refugees

replace in those facilities. Burmese

officials have indicated three

reasons for the refusal. First,

there is an extended public holiday

in Burma. Secondly, access to rack

kind state is restricted for

security reasons. And finally, they

were unhappy that individual members

had signed a letter calling for the

senior general of the Burmese army

being called to account for the

military's behaviour. It is right, I

think, Mr Speaker, that this House

takes a close interest in this sort

of crisis and I know all members

here will continue to do so. The

government fully supports the work

of the committee. A conference about

in a tree was developed but the

British ambassador in the country

pressed repeatedly for visas to be

approved both in Burma and in the

Burmese embassy in London. I myself

spoke yesterday morning over the

telephone with the Burmese

ambassador to raise the status of

visas demonstrating just how

seriously the FCO takes this matter,

not least, as a courtesy to the

House. I understand you also read to

the Burmese ambassador, Mr Speaker,

and he intends to reply formally

setting out the reasons for the

refusal. Through DFID, ... The first

chance of UK funding is providing

emergency food and safe water and

hygiene for more than 180 thousand

people. The UK's emergency medical

team was deployed to save lives.

This decision to deny visas is

highly regrettable and will prevent

the committee from seeing some of

its work first hand. However, this

government must and will remain

committed to supporting Burma's

poorest and most vulnerable people.

Working with DFID, we will ensure

the committee has all the access

needed.

In democracies,

parliamentarians to criticise

governments. This is a lesson that

the Burmese government will have to

learn.

Thank you for granting this

urgent question. Can I thank the

Minister for his response. First of

all, I would like on behalf of the

entire committee to thank all of

those who have worked incredibly

hard over the last few days to try

and sort this matter out, including

you, Mr Speaker, as the Minister

rightly pointed out, you wrote

personally to the Burmese ambassador

in London. The Minister himself for

his intervention of which I'm very

grateful. And the team in Burma

particularly, the British

ambassador. Sadly, it was all to no

avail. The committee should write

now be on its way to Burma where we

were planning to look at some of the

fantastic work that DFID funds in

that country. We were told last week

that our visas had been approved

here in the United Kingdom, they had

been processed and they were ready

but the Burmese embassy in London

was awaiting final approval from

their government. Yesterday, our

passports were returned to us

without visas and clearly the

failure of the Burmese government to

grant these visas simply prevents us

from doing our job as a select

committee which is to oversee how

overseas developer and assistant is

spent in countries. I have no doubt

that a major part of the reason this

has happened is direct retaliation

for the report that we published

last month on the Rohingya crisis. I

believe there is a direct connection

between our report and these

actions. I thank the Minister for

shedding some light today in his

response to this urgent question

about the reasons that the Burmese

have now given for denying our

visas. I understand, Mr Speaker,

that it was Aung San Suu Kyi herself

who blocked the approval of our

visas. Some will argue and some have

argued this overnight on social

media that as a result of this we

should stop United Kingdom aid to

Burma. I agree with the Minister

that it would be a major mistake to

stop supporting programmes that help

the poorest, health programmes,

education programmes that make a

difference to the very poorest

people. We should not punish them.

However, with the Minister agree

with me that it is now the time for

us as a parliament and for the

government to review the programme

for Democratic change which is

working with the Burnley 's

parliament's? If we as

parliamentarians are not permitted

to go to that country and meet their

political leaders and look at how UK

aid is being sent whether it is

right that our taxpayers resourced

as is being spent on Parliamentary

strengthening in Burma. -- Bernie 's

parliament. Finally, I believe this

is to silence the treatment of the

Burmese government of the Rohingya.

Does he agree that we must double

our efforts on behalf of the

Rohingya people so they get the

justice they deserve?

I thank the

honourable gentleman for his

thoughtful contribution as ever. And

thank you for the kind words about

the intervention of the Foreign

Office. I think it is direct

retaliation, I accept that. I would

not like to speculate whether there

has been a personal interception by

Aung San Suu Kyi but we may learn

more in the days to come and we will

discuss matters then. May I say that

I agree with much of what he has to

say and please rest assured that

particularly my right honourable

friend the Secretary of State for

DFID is working very closely to try

and reorganise programmes that we

have in Burma to take into account

many of the concerns that he has but

above all that we want to keep the

interest of the most vulnerable

closely in our minds. As I mentioned

earlier on, we are one of the

biggest single donors in this

terrible crisis. We have provided

money to both the Red Cross and the

world food programme to provide

assistance in the Burmese side of

the border. To be honest, given the

very severe humanitarian impact that

heavy rain and cyclones could have

on the population, we are heading

into the cyclone season in the next

month, this is something we will

keep under very open review. I would

also say, if I may, Mr Speaker, I

was in Brussels deputising for the

Foreign Secretary on Monday and we

agreed at that point with the EU

Council that the conclusions

initiating an work Sue introduced

targeted sanctions on elements of

the Burmese military. This work is

ongoing. You will appreciate some

difficulties we face, not least

because of the potential veto of

some of the permanent members of the

Security Council but we are doing a

lot at the EU level as well.

Having

seen what is going on in Burma, it

is imperative that we continue to

assist the Rohingya people in their

hour of need. I would urge the

Minister to summon the Burnley 's

ambassador -- their ambassador for

Burma to spell out formally. Mr

Speaker, for those of us that

followed events in that country for

some time now, our policy was to

support Aung San Suu Kyi where we

could and were told that the

problems were with the military. If

it is now the case that she is no

longer part of the solution but is

indeed in some way part of the

problem, I do believe this is a time

to reassess our relationship with

the parliament, with the army in

Burma and the training and

assistance we have tried to give

them to make them a more democratic

military and indeed the range of

bilateral relations where fibre that

country. We simply cannot allow them

to away with this kind of behaviour.

I thank my right honourable friend

and obviously he was the predecessor

in the role that I now hold. And

must, very depressing given the high

hopes he had when he was in office.

I gather given the number of visits

he made to Burma at that time that

we were moving toward some sort of

democracy. In many ways, there are

some lessons we have learned is

perhaps in that time, as a small

amount of democracy, the Rohingya

will not included in the census, not

allowed to vote in elections, in

many ways we are seeing elements of

the consequences of that. Major say

in relation to his initial point

about the Burmese ambassador, we

will of course summon him over the

course of the next week to express

our deep displeasure at his

government's actions.

The refusal of

visas for the international

development committee by the Myanmar

government is obvious the shocking.

It seems to be a response to their

critical report on the treatment of

the Rohingya. It might be on the

tightening of a use sanctions as the

Minister mentions. Banning people is

their stock response to criticism.

They have also banned the UN

fact-finding mission, the special

rapporteur, the UN refugee agency.

The UK has a £100 million aid

programme and significant

development investments. We have our

own Parliamentary strengthening

programme. It is completely

reasonable for the international

double in committee to visit Myanmar

and see how these are going. I think

the chair is right to say we need to

think again about the Parliamentary

strengthening programme but what I

would like to ask the Minister is

what is the Foreign Office going to

do to secure access both for British

parliamentarians and for the United

Nations agencies?

The Right

Honourable lady will appreciate that

these are very difficult issues. We

are doing our best to work both

bilateral and then the international

community to try to secure that sort

of access. We are also working

quietly behind-the-scenes. There are

individuals known to Aung San Suu

Kyi over many years who have paid

visits and at least advise her at

the displeasure and concerns of the

international community. And the

reality is that the truth really is

that the military do have a whip

hand to very large extent on what is

going on in Burma. We will continue

to work tirelessly to and ensure

that we move forward. We want to see

some accountability for the crimes

that have been committed and I hope

that at some point when the UN

fact-finding mission can enter a

report that we will have a statement

in the House setting out our

position about the issue of impunity

for the future.

It is my strong belief that going

back to my initial point and the

point made by a the honourable

gentleman from Liverpool West Derby

we always have to remember that

frustrating though it is and she

rightly points out we have spent 100

win pounds a year on aid within

Burma, that actually the work being

done for the most vulnerable must

continue. It is very easy for us to

walk away. We want to be honest and

try and find within the military in

so far is that I'm more moderate

elements we can begin to work with

and that is why we have stock

programmes of training for the

military but we feel there are

individuals there who we should try

to keep lines of communication open

with and we will continue to do

that. This is one of the

frustrations in many ways of

democracy and diplomacy but we will

continue patiently but with some

urgency for the reasons I have said

that given the humanitarian

catastrophe taking place on the

Bangladeshi side of the border to

continue that.

Mr Speaker, your own

role was instrumental in setting up

the Parliamentary strengthening

programme. The purpose of which is

to make their parliament more like

ours. Therefore it would be folly to

stop it no matter how insulted we

properly feel.

I do share the right

honourable gentleman's concerns on

this and I in a previous ballad I

was on the business foundation for

democracy I played a role in trying

to work together and have integrated

programmes and they think I'm a

cross-party basis we would not I

think to begin desert in the biggest

hour of need some elements within

Burma reveal strongly about this

matter but equally Aphibarnrat

honourable friend will recognise

that there is a deep concern that we

cannot continue as though it is

business as usual in all our

relations with the Burmese

authorities but they very much hope

there will be some individuals who

will be able to work with to make

that country a better and more

democratic place in the years to

come.

It goes without saying how

deeply disappointed I am to be in

this chamber along with my

International Development Committee

colleagues when I am supposed to be

on a plant like to Burma to see the

good work that they are doing in

areas also bitter disappointment

that I find out just now that Aung

San Suu Kyi is personally

responsible for blocking the visas

to give the essential work that we

are providing to her citizens in her

nation who are of the poorest and

most fundable. Difficult as a

substantial aid programme in Burma

and our job is to go out there to

see the good work being done and I

would want to put on record as the

member of Parliament for Dundee city

currently considering whether or not

to withdraw the freedom of the city,

with heavy heart I feel I will be

recommending that withdrawal of the

freedom after hearing what I have

heard today. Can the secretary tell

me that what assurances he would

give or indeed the Minister, what

assurances can be given for future

visits to Burma to see the essential

work being carried out in the

regions which include Bracken state

and can he give us an opportunity to

give a further explanation given the

fact we are a democracy here and

support democracy in Burma in

particular Aung San Suu Kyi and

widely very remarks, I sang that and

I endorse anyone else to sign up

later, if there are war crimes and

mass atrocities being carried out in

Rakhine state, I hope Aung San Suu

Kyi is listening to this message

today because she should also be

speaking out. I would like to hear

there will be further explanation

and if there has been anything we

have lost in this Parliament, is

asked to be rebranded and lastly to

have an apology from the Burmese

authorities.

May I think the

honourable judgment but Andy West we

were able to speak before the

disappointment became apparent the

refusal was in place and I wish him

and the rest of the Committee all

the rest and be able to see is much

as they can in Bangladesh, but I

think it is depressing and it would

be more worthwhile to be able to go

into Rakhine State to sit where I

know is whether intended to be. I

don't want to spend the time, to

defend Aung San Suu Kyi but we have

a bilateral relationship and we want

to try to keep lines of medication

open. The recognition has to be to

the Burmese military who have been

responsible for many of the

atrocities that have taken place in

the aftermath of the 20th of August

and I think we should not forget

that amidst great disappointment

that was shared by many members of

Parliament given the great high

hopes they had with the new regime

when it came into play only a couple

of years ago. That we just say this

about issues of accountability. The

immediate task I think will be to

support those who are building

evidence and testimony. The task of

been ongoing over the past six

months. A number of organisations

will be left collecting that

testimony and we will be considering

how best we can support that range

non-governmental organisations. If

it is Burma is not a party to the

statute of the International

criminal Court, Cosmo see PIC will

not have jurisdiction, or it would

only have jurisdiction over the

alleged crime if Burma was to revert

to accord, an unlikely scenario, or

there was a referral to the UN

Security Council which I think is

unlikely. So we are working and hope

to come back to the hazard some

point before too long and working to

a strategy of how impunity can be

and account ability, can be put to

those to some who have committed

some of these terrible crimes.

As a

member of the Committee I'm a bit

disappointed we are not going.

Mainly because we were trying to see

both sides, but the Burmese side and

the Bangladeshi side, to see how

these terrible -- terribly burnable

people are being treated on either

side and I think the Bangladesh side

were doing a magnificent job --

terribly vulnerable people. We

recognise it was a Bank Holiday, it

was quite dangerous to go up there

but we were prepared if we could

possibly go to go and now we have

been thwarted and I do think, I

don't know whether there was truth

in the fact that Aung San Suu Kyi

did have a hand in it, but I hope

the Minister will ask and find out

and report back to this House

because I think that this incredibly

serious because someone who has her

before, as many millions of people

in this country have, the shine will

definitely have gone off her halo if

that is the case.

I think I

honourable than for what she says we

will do our level best to try to get

the bottom of exactly what has

happened and who is responsible.

That media say this. I know it is

often felt when parliamentarians

visit other countries that they all

get teased by our constituents that

say this is all one big jolly that

we are heading off, I had to sit on

my own part as many know I was

speaking in these notes tragically

in September, it has made a

difference to my understanding to

the situation and the two sides have

happened, and my opportunity to go

visit Bangladesh and I think it is

invaluable work that is done and

gives a real sense of perspective

and certainly a Committee such as

this rightly is holding a government

department to account and needs to

be able to see on the grounds the

work that is being done. May I also

take some tribute, not perhaps for

me to pay tribute, hopefully the

Committee, for my right honourable

friend the Secretary of State, I

think she has expended huge amount

of time and energy and passion on

this particular issue. They think

she is very much on top of the issue

to recognise that we have to have

some fundamental changes in the way

in which we look at programmes

particularly within Burma and I know

that we are much respected across

the globe for the tremendous

contribution we have made since the

row up prices came to pass. --

Rohingya crisis.

This is hugely

disappointing for the Select

Committee and shocking if it is true

what the honourable member the

Liverpool West Derby said that Aung

San Suu Kyi may have been

responsible for blocking the betas

although it will not dampen the

effort and determination to the

Committee to keep the pressure on.

Is it a clear signal that the

diplomatic relationship is breaking

down which is frankly understandable

and in some way even reassuring

because a regime that commit ethnic

cleansing is no ally of hours. The

Minister is absolutely right that we

must continue to help support the

most vulnerable people in May on my

particular the Rohingya but can I

press him for accountability for

those in the military, a discussion

with the security Council for the

possibility to refer those who both

for the responsibilities --

atrocities to the criminal court.

The UK continues to work to maintain

the UN Security Council's focus on

Rakhine State and she will be very

aware that in recent weeks, the

Syrian issue has been very important

and clearly last autumn a lot of

focus on what was happening on the

Korean Pincher but that is not to

say we aren't persistent to try and

get this as high-profile as possible

and our own request the Security

Council held Google briefing on the

13th of to focus on the very

specific issue of returns and the

likelihood of returned happening.

The UN security council statement,

first decade, last year, the UK was

that and focusing attention on what

is happening in Burma. We are

providing a response to the

fact-finding report of the human

rights Council which is due in March

and be co-sponsored the UN human

rights Council General Assembly

resolutions. I have to say to the

honourable lady however that the

notion that we have a headlong rush

to a UN Security Council resolution,

the feeling on the ground from

representatives is that almost

certainly would be vetoed by the

Chinese and probably by the Russians

as well. That is not to say that at

some point we might not test that

further but I believe there are

other avenues that we wish to pursue

and one of the reasons that I have

been so pleased to be able to work

together with our colleagues in the

European Union is that actually to

get sanctions from that quarter as I

think will make some progress

particularly against leading lights

within the military.

I am

pro-pleased that the Minister is in

his place because his work on the

question of Burma has been

impressive over these many months

and the work of the Ambassador

country and has been impressive and

none of this, I am sure he couldn't

have done more. This is a very

distressing scene. I have however

torn between the desire to ensure we

have oversight of the enormous on

the money we're spending and that we

promote cause of democracy and here

I speak with an interest because one

of the clerks who has been to make

the door is the second clerk of the

Foreign Affairs Committee and the

clerk who is going... If they have

learnt 1% of the knowledge that

these two fabulous individuals can

impart it would be a huge blessing

to the Burmese people and a great

blessing to do a Sinjar between the

United Kingdom and Burma.

I thank

him for his insights and I will pass

the message on. It is worth pointing

out a little bit about the bilateral

action that continues to take place.

Many members will be aware the

Foreign Secretary was in Burma

during the most recent recess and

that Aung San Suu Kyi then stressing

refugees must feel to returning home

and need to be supervised at the

UNHCR. Aung San Suu Kyi was spoken

to no fewer than five times since

the crisis began last August. I met

her last September and the Defence

Minister and Deputy First Minister

-- deputy Foreign Minister, in

Ecuador in November. I will, that

work will continue to bring as many

options as possible to be able to

discuss as far as we can but there

is some fantastic expertise that we

need to try to channel into and keep

the pressure on as far as possible.

The United Nations High Commissioner

for human rights has described what

has been happening to the Rohingya

as a textbook case of ethnic

cleansing. Isn't the withholding of

visas from myself and other members

of the International Development

Committee a textbook case and with

an authoritarian regime with