(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the security and humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Recent fighting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has further worsened a dire humanitarian situation. The displacement of an additional 55,000 people in North Kivu in the past week compounds the suffering that has continued for years. Access to food, sanitation and shelter is urgently needed. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary saw the suffering caused by the violence at first hand when he visited DRC on 1 November. We are determined that that suffering should be effectively addressed. The UK has increased its commitment to provide humanitarian aid, and we are supporting flights to help meet the immediate needs of displaced people in the region. We urge all parties to observe the current ceasefire and allow humanitarian access to those affected by the fighting. Contingency planning is under way to strengthen the provision of aid to those who need it.

The issues underlying the violence are political. The leaders of DRC and Rwanda need to co-operate to reach political solutions to those issues, and in that regard I welcome the appointment by the UN Secretary-General of former President Obasanjo of Nigeria as his special envoy to facilitate this process. I also commend the action taken by the chairman of the commission of the African Union in appointing an emissary, who will travel to Kinshasa tomorrow. It is right that regional partners should play a role in the efforts to stabilise this volatile region and encourage stronger relations between neighbours. We will continue to do everything possible to bring peace to the region.

I thank the Minister for providing that answer in the Foreign Secretary’s absence.

In view of the precarious humanitarian situation in DRC, including the loss of life, the risk of the spread of violence and the danger to peace, and the possible deployment of British forces, which has been mentioned, I hope that the Minister agrees that it is important that the Government continue to update the House as the situation develops. The Opposition are pleased that the Foreign Secretary visited the region quickly at the weekend. We support the work that he has done, his close co-operation with the French Foreign Minister and the product of that mission.

I would like to question the Minister on four matters: the first is the scale of the humanitarian problem. It is said that 500,000 people are on the move without camps or fixed locations to go to. That is a fairly desperate situation. Does he have any more information about that?

The second matter is the continuing role of United Nations troops. The House will be aware that the largest UN deployment in the world is in DRC; it involves 16 countries. What is the disposition of those forces? Where and how are they deployed? Can the Minister comment on their strength and effectiveness? The head of UN peacekeeping operations is in the Congo assessing the situation. When will he report to the UN Security Council? Five thousand UN troops are meant to be providing protection for aid. Is the Minister satisfied that those troops have the organisation and capability to do that effectively, especially given that the commander of the UN forces has resigned?

The third matter is the involvement of UK troops. Last night—I think—the Foreign Secretary said:

“We are not ruling out sending British troops to back up the UN force”.

A few days previously, the Minister for the Middle East and Africa, Lord Malloch-Brown, said that that option had to be

“developed and on the table”.

How developed and on the table is it?

Fourthly, on the politics of the situation, the joint ministerial statement between the Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Minister rightly stated that the first priority was that the DRC Government

“Should take proper command of its forces, honour its obligations under the Nairobi Accords and establish channels of communications with all communities in the country and its neighbours”.

In the Government’s opinion, are those things beginning to happen? Is the Minister satisfied that all possible pressure is being exerted on General Nkunda to ensure that his forces lay down their arms?

The Foreign Secretary and French Foreign Minister have warned both the Congolese and Rwandan leaders that they will be held to account for any further fighting. Can the Minister say more about how it is proposed that they will be held to account? Has he raised that matter with the International Criminal Court, which is already involved in the Congo?

Finally, in welcoming the impending visit by the UN Secretary-General to the region, and other initiatives, including those of the African Union, how confident is the Minister that the Congolese and Rwandan leaders will be persuaded to pursue existing road maps on disarmament, integration, transitional justice, resource sharing, institution building and so on? Does he agree that, if the responsibility to protect is to mean anything, the UN has to demonstrate how it will assert its collective responsibility never to allow anything like the 1994 Rwandan catastrophe to occur again?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those questions and the tone in which they were put. It is certainly imperative that the Government keep the House up to date. Like him, I think that the Foreign Secretary’s visit at the weekend was exceedingly timely and constructive.

The humanitarian situation is bleak: 55,000 people have been displaced in the last week, which makes the figure 250,000 since August and 850,000 in total. That is very concerning.

On troop levels, the right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the MONUC force—the UN force in DRC—comprises 17,000 troops and is, therefore, the largest peacekeeping force in the world. Some 85 per cent. of the force is located in the eastern part of DRC. However, the first and overriding priority of the international community is to ensure that MONUC is effectively deployed. We are pressing, even today, to ensure that the troops are deployed in the right places for the maximum impact.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the involvement of British troops. We have made it clear that that is on the table as a last-case contingency provision, but even if we were to consider that, it is certainly not our immediate priority. Our immediate priority is to ensure that the MONUC force works effectively, because it is a substantial force. Were we to consider a contribution of further troops, we would do that in conjunction with our international partners on a contingency basis. We would need to be very clear about how any additional forces could supplement MONUC’s efforts. A hasty, poorly planned deployment could complicate the situation further, which is why we are focusing all our efforts on ensuring that MONUC, which has the troops on the ground, operates effectively.

The key to the situation is a political solution. It is welcome that President Kikwete has given a commitment to bring the two leaders together within the region. As the shadow Foreign Secretary pointed out, there are road-map commitments and a potential solution in place. We all need to use all our efforts to ensure that those solutions are taken forward.

The Minister will be aware that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a vast country with 60 million people, most of whom earn less than half a dollar a day. It is very poor, yet very wealthy in resources. Does he agree that this long-standing problem will not be solved in Kinshasa but through its neighbours and by addressing the conflict between the Tutsi and Hutu peoples of the area around the lakes? An intensive political effort, particularly involving Rwanda, is required to get the political solution that is called for.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the situation requires a political solution. I know that he has taken a strong interest in the issue. It requires a political process between Tutsis and Hutus, as well as political engagement between the DRC and Rwanda. There is also an important key role to be undertaken by the AU. In that regard, I was pleased by the announcement that the AU will send its own envoy, Ibrahima Fall, to contribute to the process.

The Foreign Secretary is to be commended for his action in recent days, working with his French counterparts. The Liberal Democrats strongly support the urgent and courageous humanitarian efforts that are now under way. He has rightly been cautious in promising British troops, given the appalling overstretch suffered by our forces in Iraq and elsewhere. The proposal for an EU force to back the UN mission that was discussed in the other place yesterday would have our support.

Is there not a strong case for Britain and the EU to do more to offer cash, know-how and logistical support to any reinforcements that AU countries are prepared to offer to MONUC? Is it not also vital to clarify the mandate of the UN mission to ensure that it can operate independently of the Congolese army, given its involvement in human rights abuses?

The Foreign Secretary has rightly stressed the roles of Presidents Kabila and Kagame in finding a lasting political peace, but does the Minister accept that a sustainable solution has an economic dimension, which will also require better control of the vast mineral resources that attract and fund the militias? Will the Minister assure the House that all UK companies involved in the illegal mining and minerals trading that is fuelling the conflict will be investigated and that this summer’s welcome action against DAS Air and Afrimex was not a one-off?

Finally, given that large parts of the global electronic consumer industry are mostly dependent on minerals primarily found in the eastern Congo, will the Minister take action to press for such industries to be forced to explain their sourcing policies and procedures?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those questions. Cash certainly has a role to play, and we are one of the biggest bilateral aid donors to both DRC and Rwanda. It is clear that the UN mission has a role both to monitor and to enforce the accords that are being put in place. Ultimately, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there needs to be a negotiated, political solution based on the commitments in place already. There is an economic driver for the present situation, in that the region has economic resources. We have been at the forefront of pressing, at international level through the UN, for the extractive industries transparency initiative as a way to ensure that there is effective governance and so that corruption and killing are not driven by a desire for economic profit.

I agree with my hon. Friend that a political solution is the key, but does he accept that there can be no long-term solution until the DRC army—the FARDC—has sufficient capacity?

That is why it is critically important that the MONUC force—which is on the ground and which, as I have said on a number of occasions, is the largest peacekeeping force anywhere in the world—operates effectively and is deployed in the right places. That is the argument that we are making, and the process needs to be taken forward.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that there has been a religious emphasis in some of the deaths that have taken place. I myself have lost my dearest friend, a missionary who was murdered along with his wife and four children. That had nothing to do with anything that he was doing but, in the midst of the terrible rebellion, there was terrible killing. I trust that the Minister and our Government will do their best to ensure that people whose work has a religious content have adequate protection.

I can certainly give the commitment that we are seeking to do everything that we possibly can in that regard. There has been a religious element to the killing, but fundamentally it has been driven by a conflict of interests in respect of economics, politics and land ownership. That is why we need a political solution, and that is what we are pushing for very strongly.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went to the Congo at the weekend, with his French counterpart. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say whether they had discussions about the need for reinforcements for peacekeeping troops? If so, did they discuss whether it would be better to have an EU force to supplement the existing UN force, or for EU countries to contribute directly to a UN force?

Obviously, our contingency planning has to take account of all eventualities, but I repeat that we have the largest peacekeeping force anywhere in the world on the ground in DRC. That force has to operate effectively, which means that the troops have to be deployed in the right places and the mandate needs to be clear. That is the focus of our efforts at the moment, in conjunction with providing humanitarian support.

The Foreign Secretary deserves support for his diplomatic initiative, and there is no doubt that further humanitarian, economic and political initiatives can be taken. However, do the Government accept that it would be very unwise to create expectations that cannot be realised, and in particular to create ambiguity about the possibility of any significant military contribution by Britain? Will the Minister acknowledge that the UK’s other commitments in Afghanistan and elsewhere mean that it is not in a position to make more than a purely symbolic contribution? In the circumstances, does he agree that it would be much more honest and wise, and in the best interests of all those involved, to make that clear at this stage rather than to dwell in ambiguity?

I respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his experience and knowledge in these areas, but I do not think that there has been ambiguity in our position. In everything that I have said today, and in everything that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister have said, it has been made abundantly clear that the focus of our efforts is to maximise the opportunity for the UN force on the ground to do its work effectively. That is what we are focused on, and I think that that is the right way forward.

It is not just the number of troops that MONUC has that is important, but how they are commanded and controlled. What can developed-country militaries—such as ours, NATO’s and the EU’s—provide to strengthen MONUC’s ability to use the forces that it has at its disposal?

We already have advisory support in place, and that will be part of our thinking as we go forward. A number of partner nations contribute to the troop levels of the MONUC force, but in addition there is advisory support, and we will keep that under review.

While the immediate need is to try to mitigate the appalling suffering of the refugees, may I ask the Minister whether, in future, even more serious and urgent consideration, above that which he has already mentioned, will be given to one of the root causes of the problem, which is the scramble by foreign firms for the control and exploitation of the mineral wealth of the Congo? That leads to the funding of the so-called warlords, who buy a great deal of weaponry, with which they dominate and terrify the civilian population.

I acknowledge that there is an economic dimension to the conflict, and that is why, as I say, we have strongly supported the extractive industries transparency initiative at UN level. We are fooling ourselves if we do not acknowledge that there is a significant political, ethnic conflict taking place. That has to be addressed, but it can only be done through a political solution. In particular, it means that the Presidents of DRC and Rwanda have to come together, with regional partners and international support, to make political progress.

Although the Congo is a vast country, the area in which the chaos has occurred is relatively small—not much larger than Sierra Leone. Given the disorganised nature of all the armed groups in the area, it is a place where a relatively small but well-disciplined and well-organised outside military force, under the command of MONUC or whoever, could make a difference, as the French demonstrated with Operation Artemis some years ago. One recognises the constraints, given our commitments elsewhere, but I hope that my hon. Friend and the Government will not rule out our making a contribution to whatever force eventually restores order there. Enforcing whatever political agreement is reached will have to be done by outsiders, because the internal forces are absolutely incapable of doing it.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; I know from having worked with him at the Foreign Office that he has enormous experience on this issue. He is right to stress that we are talking about a relatively small part of DRC. That is why our efforts are focused on ensuring that the MONUC force on the ground is appropriately and adequately deployed in the area. We do have some challenges, in that some of the international partners that form part of the MONUC force have caveats relating to their deployment. We are seeking to remove those caveats, so that we can deploy as effectively as possible.

Britain has become one of the biggest donors in DRC precisely because we wanted the country not to move back into a conflict situation, as most post-conflict countries sadly do within five years. Will the Minister acknowledge that, in the short run, we must have international forces to deal with the crisis, but in the long run we have to develop the capability of a well-disciplined army and police force to enable the Government of the Congo to govern the country? EU countries have been noticeably reticent about providing the support and training for which they have been asked. What can we do to ensure that they play their full part?

The right hon. Gentleman is certainly correct to identify that we are, and have been, a very substantial aid donor. Through the Department for International Development, we are committing £300 million over three years, and that is making a difference. The £5 million that was announced by the Secretary of State for International Development last Friday is already helping to facilitate aid missions from UNICEF and others in beginning to make progress. In the longer term, as he says, increasing the capacity for self-governance of DRC and others is critically important. We are making a contribution; we need to ensure that all states are making the contribution as effectively as possible.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the steps that have been taken. May I press him on the role of children, who are recruited by those on all sides? May we have absolute clarification that MONUC and UNICEF will be empowered to identify and remove children who are involved with the warring factions? The Congo has an appalling record on children’s rights. One in five children dies before they reach their fifth birthday. May I also ask him for clarification of the UN’s role, and whether it is allowed to enforce civilian protection to allow humanitarian aid to get through? Finally, may I ask him—

Order.

I will leave it there, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members should ask one supplementary question; I have given the hon. Lady two.

I thank my hon. Friend, who I know takes a real interest in these issues. Certainly, here and elsewhere in the world, her concern about the plight of children involved in conflict is critical, and the issue will be at the forefront of our thinking and planning. MONUC has not only a monitoring role but, importantly, an enforcement role—to enforce the accords that are already in place and, in particular, the zones of separation, which were announced through the UN. Ultimately, it has to be one of the building blocks for our substantive progress.

May I reiterate the point—I think it is a strong feeling in the House—that our armed forces are already doing enough, if not too much? It really would be intolerable if British armed forces were called on once again to stretch themselves even further when so few of our European allies contribute significantly to current operations.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I think that our troops are doing a superb job in many parts of the world. It would be irresponsible to rule out contingencies, given what is a very difficult situation, but all our efforts and statements have made it clear that our overriding priority is to ensure that MONUC operates effectively and is deployed effectively. It is the biggest peacekeeping force anywhere in the world, and we want it to succeed.

When one goes and sees the MONUC force, it is actually very impressive, but we know that too often in the past troops have either been badly led, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, or, more particularly, not been paid, which has led to ill discipline and problems on the ground. Will the Government ensure that, at the very least, the UN and all those who contribute to the force pay up front to make sure that it is equipped and able to do the work that it has set out to do?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. We have a need, through the United Nations, for international peacekeeping forces, and given that need, it is critical that the troops in place are led effectively and properly paid. It has always been a priority for the Government, and it will continue to be the case here and elsewhere.

Further to the Minister’s response to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) about British aid to DRC, and in light of speculative reports about the less than wholly helpful attitude that the Government of Rwanda have taken thus far, reports about which the Minister will probably wish to be suitably circumspect, will the Foreign Secretary nevertheless remind the Rwandans of our strong aid relationship with them, including the relevant memorandum of understanding?

The hon. Gentleman is right to caution against irresponsible language in a fast-moving situation. He is right also to point out that this year we are committing £46 million to Rwanda. In this debate, it is important to make it clear that, even in this very difficult situation, some progress is being made. The military situation overnight in Goma town remains calm and under control; efforts are under way to reinforce troops in Goma; and humanitarian activity is slowly improving as access slowly improves. That is one of the key fundamentals in the situation. We must ensure that the non-governmental organisations and aid agencies gain access to the most acutely affected areas.

Another key fundamental is respect for the rule of law. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will press General Nkunda to hand over his military chief of staff, Bosco Ntaganda, for whom I understand there is an International Criminal Court warrant outstanding?

Those individuals who have committed such crimes need to be brought to book. That has certainly been a key part of our focus. Indeed, the Nairobi agreement was a clear political process that was negotiated between the two countries and saw a way forward on this issue. That still remains on the table, and we are pushing very strongly to ensure that it happens.

I noted the Minister’s response to the concerns raised earlier about the role of commercial interests. However, may I draw his attention to the UN panel of experts report, which specifically listed companies and individuals implicated in what it described as a multi-billion-dollar theft of the country’s natural resources? The report also described the role that that played in sustaining the conflict. Yet none of those interests—none of those individuals or companies—was ever brought to justice. Is there not a need for an international system to ensure that when companies or individuals are found to have breached fundamental rules, they are brought to justice?

As I said, there is an economic dimension. We have called and argued for transparency initiatives at an international level to help and facilitate the process. However, we are deluding ourselves if we think that the economic dimension is the sole driver of the conflict. There is a serious ethnic-political conflict, which needs to be addressed through a political solution in the region.

May I reinforce the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)? British forces are heavily engaged— indeed, overstretched—in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any significant deployment to the Congo would seriously dilute the resources available to British forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. That must not happen.

We are in danger of repetition on this issue. However, I understand the concerns being put forward. We would be irresponsible to rule out contingencies, but our overriding priority, in the United Kingdom and the international community, is that MONUC forces should be deployed as effectively and appropriately as possible. That is where our thinking is at the moment.

Although it is good to get some measure of clarification from the Minister about the deployment of our already overstretched troops, will he confirm that he will do what he can, with his colleagues, to make it clear to our European allies that any participation in central Africa should not be at the cost of a full and proper engagement in Afghanistan?

We have certainly made the case that a number of partners should commit more effort to the situation in Afghanistan, and we will continue to make those arguments. Notwithstanding the desire for that, some genuine progress is being made in Afghanistan and we need to reinforce that.

If there is the slightest possibility of our overstretched troops being sent to the Congo, pre-deployment training and the ability to get ready will be the most important things. How many troops are likely to be sent, and when will the units be told? They will need to get the pre-deployment in place.

With respect, the hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of himself. As the Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown and I have made clear, we would be wrong to rule out contingencies. However, the overriding priority for us and the international community is to ensure that the MONUC force, which I state again is the largest peacekeeping force anywhere in the world, acts and operates effectively.

There is another angle to this issue. In 2005, every member of the Security Council and of the General Assembly signed up to the concept of the responsibility to protect, which, if need be, involves peacekeepers and peace enforcement. At present, disproportionately few members of the United Nations are contributing to UN peacekeeping. It is one thing for all those countries to sign up in New York to concepts such as the responsibility to protect, but they then have to deliver to the Secretary-General by being willing to contribute peacekeepers. Other UN member states do not have enough peacekeepers in Darfur, let alone in the Congo. When will we see the countries that subscribe to the responsibility to protect contributing to the UN by way of peacekeepers?

I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a real interest in this issue, and I agree with a lot of what he has said. We do need international peacekeeping forces. If we are to ensure that policing the world—for want of a better phrase—is not to be left to one or two superpowers, others have to step up to the plate. We make the argument in respect of that political challenge, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for it.

Notwithstanding the possibility that the Minister will accuse me of repetition, is it not essential that the House should send a clear message to our European partners that if European Union troops are needed, as I suspect they might be, they should come from nations that failed to deploy in Iraq and Afghanistan? That message should go out loud and clear this afternoon.

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but the other important point to make is that there is no military solution to the situation in eastern DRC without a political solution. That is why the efforts of the Secretary-General, who is sending an envoy to the region, are particularly important. The agreement from the African Union to convene the two leaders is important, as is the appointment of an emissary from the African Union. That political process needs to start being developed.

The price being paid by the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a graphic demonstration of the fact that conflict is the most lethal way of demolishing our nation’s development objectives for the relief of poverty in other parts of the world. The Minister responded positively to two other hon. Members about the importance of the army of DRC, if it were properly trained, being an instrument to help to prevent conflict in DRC. Presumably training that army is a proper objective of British development policy.

The national forces in DRC play a key role in this respect. We must do everything possible to ensure that those troops can operate effectively, and that remains our thinking.

I thank the Minister for paying tribute to His Excellency Jakaya Kikwete, the President of Tanzania. I, and the other members of the all-party group on Tanzania, wish to do everything that we can to support those good offices in helping to broker dialogue.

I declare an interest as chairman of the Malaria Consortium—we have people of our own out in the area at the moment. I hope that the Minister can give an extra assurance that MONUC and the other forces that are out there, including those in Uganda and Rwanda, can help to protect the aid workers and to ensure that they have access, as they require. We must also ensure, as a priority, that the World Food Programme is mobilising to supply through those countries, and that we do not hear further stories about the need first to count the people. We know that there are 500,000 people on the move; now we need to start getting the supplies to them and for those forces to be protected.

The hon. Gentleman is right: there are various elements to this process, and the political one is key. However, given the acute humanitarian concern—in the past week, 55,000 people have been displaced—we absolutely have to ensure that the aid agencies and non-governmental organisations have the access to ensure that they can get the support through. That remains a fundamental objective and priority. Our recent commitment of extra aid on top of that which was already being given is helping to facilitate that process. The push for a political settlement is at the top of our agenda.