---

Conflict Prevention

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing the debate, on his very thoughtful contribution, and on his long-standing work on conflict issues. I also want to pay tribute to the all-party group on conflict issues for quite rightly raising the profile of conflict issues in Parliament. I am certainly willing to take the idea of an annual debate on conflict prevention to relevant colleagues and ask them to give it serious consideration. I shall also say at the outset that I do not think that I will have enough time to do justice to all the contributions that have been made to the debate. Therefore, I want to offer to attend a meeting of the all-party group on conflict issues so that we have the opportunity for a more in-depth and serious discussion. However, I will do my best to try to answer some of the questions that have been put. I do not think that hon. Members will be surprised to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who made a thoughtful contribution to the debate, has not been delegated responsibility for writing our party's manifesto for the forthcoming election. However, if he wants to appoint me to the position of ““Minister for Peace””, I think that that would be a really exciting opportunity. I want to make the serious point that the all-party and consensual nature of the debate has been very healthy and positive. However, there was one discordant note. I say to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) that any party that is unable to get above 40 per cent. of the vote at this stage of the electoral cycle should not be so sure of assuming power at any general election. I will move on to the issues that have been raised in the debate. I want to deal with why conflict prevention matters and how we are responding to conflict issues, as well as trying to respond to some of the points that have been made. Why does conflict prevention matter so much? Every day, the terrible effects of armed conflict are felt by ordinary people around the world. Although human beings who are killed, wounded or have to flee for their lives might be the most visible and emotive consequences of conflict, the effects of conflict go far wider and deeper. Conflicts devastate economies, promote instability, impede development, promote illegal migration, contravene human rights and frequently fuel terrorism. Conflict prevention is therefore of direct relevance to our national interest. As well as the moral imperative of reducing the suffering caused by conflict, concerted action to prevent and resolve conflict is essential to allow the benefits of economic prosperity to spread, to allow democracy and good governance to take root and flourish, and to allow the rule of law to be established and promoted. Conflict prevention is at the heart of what we regard as an integrated cross-government approach. Joint policy making and programmes have enabled us to strengthen our civilian capabilities, including on the ground, and we are working with international partners and organisations to deliver earlier and more effective international responses to crises and conflicts. In a difficult and challenging fiscal environment, we have had no option but to prioritise activities. We have preserved funding for a range of conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peace-building activities, but it is right to focus our efforts where the risk and impact of conflict is greatest and where our activities add most value. Defence and military spending supports defence diplomacy and security co-operation, which make a significant contribution to conflict prevention and peace-building. Whitehall Departments are identifying options for further investment in those activities. Following the Prime Minister's announcement in March 2008 that we would create a pool of 1,000 trained UK civilians who would be readily deployable overseas, we are today—very appropriately—launching the new civilian stabilisation group at the Royal Geographical Society. We will continue to deploy the right people to the right place at the right time to help to rebuild countries recovering from conflict. There are a number of ways in which we seek to prevent conflict. We do so through the conflict pool, which several hon. Members mentioned, and through working with international institutions such as the United Nations, which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) asked about. In response to his question, we think that the UN is getting better, but there is a long, long way to go. Regarding the Commonwealth, which he also mentioned, we work alongside Commonwealth countries when it is appropriate to do so. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we should consider whether there is more that can be done regarding the Commonwealth. I also agree entirely that, with regard to conflict in Africa, the long-term sustainable peace that we seek in Africa depends on building institutions within that continent, so strengthening the capacity of the African Union in the future will be crucially important. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), during his very thoughtful and well-informed speech, raised the issue of improved or early warning, which is another important issue—arguably the most important issue—in conflict prevention. We need to intervene as early as we can and we require the capacity to make such assessments. There is also a responsibility to protect, to build capacity and to ensure that we, as the United Kingdom, have adequate capability in the area of conflict prevention, so there is a range of ways in which we seek to respond to this challenging agenda. I now want to turn specifically to the points that have been made by hon. Members during the debate. First, the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey raised a number of issues related to resources. I will try to address some of them, but if I do not address them all, I will write to him. It is true that we set aside increased resources for conflict activity in 2009-10, which is a significant symbol of how much importance we attach to this issue. However, it is also true that we are faced with competing demands. We do not have the resources to fund everything that we would like to fund. A projected rise in the UK's assessed contributions—they are obligatory contributions—to international peacekeeping missions means that we must rigorously prioritise our discretionary budgets. We have an international legal obligation to pay our bills for international peacekeeping. Unfortunately, that means that there is sometimes less money available to pay for other important activity. As for 2010-11, we are continuing to assess the amount of resources that we will have available, and I assure hon. Members that we will make an announcement to Parliament in due course on that specific issue. Several hon. Members raised the link between conflict and development. A very important step forward in the 2009 cross-government White Paper ““Building our Common Future””, which was led by the Department for International Development, is that it recognises the importance of peace-building and state-building in countries affected by conflict and instability. I think that the tangible important change in that White Paper is that it commits to spending at least 50 per cent. of new bilateral country spending in those states that are identified as ““fragile””. That is a very important recognition of where we increasingly need to shift our resources to. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey also raised the issue of effectiveness, asking how effective our efforts in preventing violent conflict are and how we measure their effectiveness. It is not easy to measure their effectiveness. As several hon. Members have said, conflict prevention is a long-term and major challenge—there are no quick fixes. However, we review progress against delivery on public service agreement 30 targets on a six-monthly basis, using both statistical data and qualitative reporting from posts. We therefore attempt to assess impact and effectiveness, and I can provide hon. Members with further information on that issue in writing. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) will know that I have visited eastern Congo on two occasions. He is absolutely right about the importance of MONUC and ensuring that we get its mandate renewed. However, it is also important that we ensure that MONUC, working with FRDC and others, is as effective as it needs to be. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) who made the point that in situations such as that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the role of development is very important. There has to be a peace dividend alongside security solutions, and where there has been conflict for a long time, people have to see economic and social progress as quickly as possible, after moving in with a civilian response. That is absolutely crucial. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), raised the issue of women in conflict prevention. I have two things to say about that. First, in those countries that come out of conflict, it is often women who play the most important role. They do not sign the peace treaties, but it is often women, both in local communities and at a national level, who are the biggest and most powerful advocates for peace. However, it is also women who are often the greatest victims of the dreadful violence that occurs in places such as eastern Congo, so the role of women must be central, not an add-on or marginal issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also raised the important issue of our diplomats and the tremendous contribution that they make. In short, we need to bring together security with governance and development, if we are to tackle these issues effectively.