Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are very concerned not only about the attacks he mentions, but about the new legislation that the Russian Duma has placed on the statute book. Those concerns have been raised directly with the Russians by the Prime Minister, by the Foreign Secretary and by me. It is the Prime Minister’s intention to talk to President Putin about the matter in the context of other human rights conversations this week.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

In seven days’ time, the people of Gibraltar will celebrate their national day. I hope they can do so in a spirit of peace and stability. I welcome the statements that the Secretary of State has made from the Dispatch Box today, but may I make it abundantly clear to the Spanish that, if they continue their hostility towards the British people of Gibraltar, he will tell the Spanish ambassador in London to pack his sombrero, straw donkey and sangria, and go?

[Mr Hague]

The views on both sides of the House on the subject are clear. I am pleased to say that the support for the people of Gibraltar, for constitutional rights and sovereignty, and for our position on sovereignty, is also clear. There have been occasions in recent weeks when we have summoned the Spanish ambassador, but if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we will use slightly more diplomatic language than he is recommending to Her Majesty’s Government.

Sudan and South Sudan

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

May I, too, preface my remarks by congratulating the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on the way in which they introduced the debate? Their contributions were powerful and set out clearly the gravity of the situation and the seriousness of the problems.

It is right to celebrate the fact that South Sudan is the youngest country in the world, but it has had a troubled birth. There is an imperative on us, as a nation that cares, to demonstrate that we care through how we address the situation. This House is slowly but surely being sucked into a debate about and probably an action in another part of the world—Syria. I believe that this Government and this Parliament ought to have, if not more, then certainly equal concern about South Sudan and Sudan.

Since 2010-11, there has been utter silence about the situation in Sudan. That is a worrying trend, because the level of fighting has continued to rise and the humanitarian situation is again deteriorating. That conflict is being waged, but it is being met by total silence. That silence is a condemnation not of this House, but of the international community, who should be speaking out powerfully about the situation. It is a tribute to this House and to the Backbench Business Committee that this matter is the subject of debate today. This year alone, 300,000 people have been displaced in Sudan—another indictment of what is actually happening. If it were happening anywhere else, including parts of the middle east, it would be a matter for urgent questions and all sorts of other activities. I have some questions for the Minister, who I know will do his best to answer them, and I will reiterate some points that have been briefly touched on by other Members, as it is important to address them.

The Government of Sudan continue indiscriminately to target civilians with aerial bombardments. Such attacks are a clear violation of the UN Security Council’s resolution 1591, dated March 2005, which demands an end to such violence. What is the UN is going to do about resolution 1591? Will it insist that action is taken to protect citizens? Hon. Members have mentioned the atrocious attacks on civilians in the village of Jebel Marra, where there are already 500 orphans. The murder of a woman there on 16 June this year meant that two more children have been left without a mother. The Government of Sudan continue to obstruct aid agencies from operating freely within the region, and many of those agencies are struggling to cope with the 1.4 million people living in displaced persons camps with very little amenity—indeed, in many instances, with nothing. New arrivals are arriving practically every day to be faced with the opportunity to live under a tarpaulin shelter and scratch a living from the land.

That has been going on not for months or years but for more than a decade, which again is an indictment. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) was right to say that the UN is doing quite a lot—indeed, I think he said it is doing a good job—but if it has been paid $765 million by this Government and country since 2007, we would expect it to do a good job. The United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur budget has cost an estimated $9.3 billion since 2007; one would have expected the problem to have been solved a long time ago. We are looking at a waste of resources, and I ask the Government to conduct an immediate inquiry into that expenditure to try to paint a picture of where the money is going, so that we can understand how it is being spent. For the life of me, I cannot understand how $9 billion has left a country in such an intolerable mess.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point and it is right to question the cost of UN operations. Does he accept, however, that in some of these examples it is more important to try to build capacity and to offer training and support to improve the effectiveness of UN forces, rather than berate them about the amount of money we have agreed to spend on them?

[Ian Paisley]

I absolutely agree, and believe me, I am not berating. If the hon. Gentleman saw me berating, he would understand what berating actually means. I am simply asking questions, because the amount of money being spent is obscene for the amount of result. That is a fair point that is not that critical of the UN, and I think we have the right to make it.

The Government have a role to support peace, as the motion rightly states. In any country that has emerged from conflict—I speak with some personal experience—when conflict ends, stability starts to take over, and with that flows commercial activity. Capitalism is often accused of being cowardly, but if there is stability, capital and activity will start to flow. The Government must explain how they intend to encourage UK business activity to flow into that country when, as I hope it will, stability slowly but surely starts to make a foundation. What support will they give to British businesses that seek to invest and help develop the structure of that country?

It is also important to ask the Government what security support our nation can give to South Sudan, so that it can protect its people, borders and integrity, and so that we can continue to celebrate the birth of that new nation. What other assistance can our Government give? Can we encourage the UN to give money for the protection of the border, so that oil resources can be properly utilised and so that oil can properly flow, to allow the development of infrastructure and expenditure on South Sudan’s people?

I reiterate that the awful activities that in many instances are generated in Sudan against its neighbour are done not in the name of the ordinary people of Sudan, but in the name of a wrong regime. The regime must be challenged, but we must not penalise the ordinary people of Sudan because of it. As the Minister well knows, that is an incredibly difficult balance to achieve, but it is important that we spell out that principle loud and clear.

Sri Lanka

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that his motivations are entirely good, but he misreads how the Sri Lankan Government interpret representations from foreign Governments. If the Queen were to put her foot on the soil in Colombo it would be regarded as a vindication of the Sri Lankan Government’s actions—and this is at a time when at least 40,000 people are still dying or missing.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I am startled by the view that if Her Majesty were to put her foot on the soil of Sri Lanka it would be an insult to democracy. Recently, Her Majesty had to shake the hand of the leader of the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland in an effort to demonstrate that peace happens through process and progress. Sri Lanka should be hearing the message that we are here to help. We should stretch out our hand to Sri Lanka; we should not step on Sri Lanka. I must say that I am amazed by the hon. Lady’s position.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. As he knows, the process towards reconciliation has taken 600 years in Ireland. It is a struggle with which I am well acquainted because of my own family background. Unlike the Sri Lankan Government, the British Government under different parties accepted that there were things that they could and could not do. I accept that there were atrocities and human rights violations on the part of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Democratically elected Governments are always judged to a higher standard.

Let me continue with what I said to the Prime Minister:

“The international community has admitted it failed to help Tamils before, and cancelling the summit will ensure that mistake is not compounded. I believe it is in the international community’s best interests—and the best interests of the United Kingdom, as well as of Sri Lanka—for there to be an independent international investigation into war crimes in order to bring a lasting peace in Sri Lanka after such a long period of ethnic conflict. However, while this continues not to take place, Sri Lanka should not be hosting the Commonwealth summit.”

The response was weak. The Prime Minister himself did not answer my letter, passing it instead to the Foreign Secretary. The reply was very disappointing. First, instead of supporting an international inquiry into Sri Lanka’s behaviour, he said that the Government

“believe that the process of reconciliation has a greater chance of success if investigations are Sri Lankan-led rather than externally imposed.”

He said that the British Government were concerned about the human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, such as

“disappearances, political violence and reports of torture in custody.”

However, what will the British Government do about them? We have not stopped deporting Tamils who are claiming asylum, even though most reasonable people would think that any Tamil who made a big deal about hating the Sri Lankan Government when they were in the UK might be most at risk of disappearance, violence and torture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On my journey to the House this morning, I drove through the memorial gates near the Mall. The words “Sri Lanka” are carved in granite on those gates to remind us that the Indian subcontinent, during the two great world wars, gave 5 million volunteers to this nation to defend freedom. When we hear the aggression from Argentina over the Falklands this week, we are reminded that the only country that stood with us in the international community in the original attempt to take back the Falklands was Sri Lanka. When a country that has supported us in the past comes under pressure, we should not kick it in the teeth. We stretch out the hand of forbearance and say, “We will help you through the difficult, post-conflict situation that you are clearly in. We will give you our experience and our help. We will not give you our hatred and our anger.” That is an important lesson that we, in a nation part of which is in a post-conflict situation, should recognise.

I have visited Sri Lanka on a number of occasions, both as a private individual and with constituents who had business there, as well as on a cross-party parliamentary trip. My experience was very different from what I have heard from propagandists not in Sri Lanka. The people on the ground gave a very different message from the out-of-touch one that I have heard from the self-appointed diaspora, both in Canada and here in the United Kingdom.

I have visited Jaffna, the most disputed part of Sri Lanka in the north. There I saw new housing settlements, with Tamils living in them. I had tea with some of those families, whose interests are fishing and farming. They did not talk to me about the past, even though they had opportunity to do so. Indeed, when I raised the past—I was with them on my own—they wanted to talk about their future, their children and their new housing settlements, which were supported by money given by our country through the EU to help rebuild their country. They wanted to talk about moving forward. I have met both Tamil and Sinhalese families, and their united wish was to present a picture of hope for their country, not a picture of division. It was a community that wanted to move forward. They did not want to hear the international community talking about what happened in the past; they wanted the international community to help them to move to a better future.

On one occasion, two of my guides were a Tamil gentleman and a Sinhalese gentleman who had been at war with each other. At the end of my visit, in tears they embraced each other, and they spoke about how they were now new brothers in a new land. Whenever I raised with them issues that I had heard in the propaganda in the United Kingdom, they could not understand them. They said that they bore no resemblance to their reality on the ground. In many aspects, Sri Lanka has made more measurable gains post-conflict than Northern Ireland. That is what I have seen on the ground, and we should recognise it and stop the suffocation of a country by its past and help Sri Lanka to move forward to a better future.

I took a day out and spent it with the leader of Tamil National Alliance, Mr Sampanthan. I spoke to him and his party colleagues at length, and I waited for him because I wanted to hear from him at first hand, without his being pushed or prodded into some of the difficult issues about the past. He did not raise with me the issue of the disappeared; he did not take time to raise with me the issue of war crimes; he did not take time to talk about routine torture, in his country, of his people. He had a politician with him from this nation and he did not want to talk about those things. In fact, he actively applauded the Government, whom he opposes. He applauded them on their investment in the country—in parts of the north—and he said that the most effective thing that many of his people required was practical help to get bicycles and other tools to help them to work and run their country. That was the message of the man who is leading the opposition.

If people took the time to speak to the active politicians on the ground who are representatives of their community, they might have a slightly different perspective than that in some of the propaganda that we have seen and heard. I urge the Minister to appeal publicly today to Sampanthan to stop his boycott of the political process, to lead his people and his party, and to join with other parties in the parliamentary select committee of Sri Lanka to find a political solution to the problems. We learnt the lesson the hard way.

People find a political solution by engaging in politics, not by asking for a boycott or for the international community to do their work for them—they do it themselves. I appeal to our Government to say to Sampanthan, “Lead your people and do not boycott the process any longer.” Politics, not a boycott, will work. The international community will not solve Sri Lanka’s problems. It will be the people of Sri Lanka, living in Sri Lanka, who will fix the problems of Sri Lanka, and we should actively encourage them in that. The biggest mistake that this Government could make would be to send the message to Sri Lanka that they were going to pull out of the Commonwealth talks later this year and punish a country that needs help, not more persecution.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If our remaining four speakers take no more than four minutes each, they will all get in. They are James Wharton, Jeremy Corbyn, Aidan Burley and Simon Hughes.

Cross-border Travel (Spain/Gibraltar)

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that wherever we have evidence that border delays are being imposed without good reason, we will take that up with the Spanish authorities at the appropriate level. That may sometimes be at the local, operational level; it may sometimes, as in the most recent case, need to be at a senior level, with the Spanish Government in Madrid.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the strong statement by the Minister today and the equally strong statement from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on the Opposition Front Bench about Gibraltar’s sovereignty. The Minister will know that tobacco smuggling regularly occurs—and to a much greater extent than between Gibraltar and Spain—across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Which way?

[Ian Paisley]

North and south. Yet despite that, there have never been such delays or such an overreaction by the services in Northern Ireland in relation to our trade and the impact on our trade. I hope that the Minister will send the strongest possible signal and, indeed, that he will ask our Prime Minister to represent fairly the people of Gibraltar to the Spanish Prime Minister and tell him to get his hands off this Rock. It’s not going their way.

[Mr Lidington]

The UK Government, from the Prime Minister down, could not have been clearer to our friends and partners in Spain that although we want a good bilateral relationship with them, we will not, and we shall never, agree to any transfer of sovereignty over Gibraltar unless that were the wish of the people of Gibraltar, nor would we enter into any process of sovereignty talks and negotiations unless the people of Gibraltar were content with that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Our view on this is well known: we support the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. For us this is not about territory, but about the rights of those people, who have been settled there for generations. We recently saw the birth of a ninth-generation baby on the Falkland Islands, and some of the families have been settled there since before Argentina existed in its current form. The Falkland Islanders have been there a long time. We uphold their right to self-determination and will always continue to do so.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I know that the Government are appalled at the recent turn of events in the west African state of Guinea-Bissau. Is the Minister in a position to update the House on what has happened in Guinea-Bissau and what efforts can be made to help restore democracy to that beleaguered land?

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in Guinea-Bissau. I gather that he has been there twice, including recently as an election observer. We absolutely deplore the coup d'état. Guinea-Bissau was making really good progress from a failed state towards a functioning democracy, so we support the statement by the Economic Community of West African States that the Prime Minister, Carlos Gomes, and the interim President, Raimundo Pereira, must be released and that the second phase of the election must go ahead on 22 April.

Jerusalem (Humanitarian Issues)

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

There will always be issues associated with Hamas and various other groups, but tonight we are talking about basic human rights within the city of Jerusalem and it is time that some of them were restored.

There are three sensible measures that I am calling on the Government to consider. They should insist on guarantees that products manufactured in Israeli settlements reaching the UK do not benefit from preferential treatment under the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Where there is any doubt that the goods originate from Israel’s side of the green line, they should not benefit. It is astonishing to me that not only do we not financially penalise these settlements of which we disapprove so vehemently, but as taxpayers we subsidise their activities.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Cunningham]

I think I have given way enough.

According to research compiled by the Norwegian Government, Elbit Systems “supplies an electronic surveillance system called Torch for the separation barrier”,

yet Elbit Systems benefits from an EU research programme, FP7, which is the EU’s main research funding project. Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories is partially owned by two illegal settlements and exploits resources from occupied territories. Ahava benefits from three FP7 European projects.

Is the Minister therefore prepared to call publicly on the European Commission to ensure that companies that aid and abet the occupation of East Jerusalem and other occupied territories are barred from benefiting from EU projects? Will the Government work to ensure that the companies are also barred from public contract tendering processes? These measures would go a good deal further to end Israel’s intransigence in East Jerusalem and the occupied territories.

Last summer I took my place with countless Palestinians and others and waited for hours to get through the Rafah crossing to enter Gaza. I saw the indignity that those people suffered waiting to get into their homeland, and once in Gaza learned of the very real challenges for everything from education to the supply of goods being faced by the Palestinian people. I toured the refugee camps and spent time with families and children living needlessly in poverty. I saw the beautiful beaches crying out for a tourist industry, and a people eager to pay their way in the world. But just like their brothers and sisters in Jerusalem, their lives are controlled by the restrictions placed on them by the Israeli nation.

I look forward to the day when I can visit Jerusalem, to make my own pilgrimage to the sites associated with my Christian faith. But the Jerusalem I want to visit is the international city that it should be, free and fair for all residents regardless of their religion or nationhood, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested. It is time to demonstrate that we are not prepared to support or even tolerate the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from East Jerusalem, and that as a nation we in Britain will work to do something about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

rose—

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), and then to my newly acquired Friend, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who is normally on the Benches opposite.

[Mr Browne]

We want people of all faiths to have the right to practise their faith, but we also want a political arrangement in Jerusalem that will enable a two-state solution to become a reality.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way. For the avoidance of doubt, will he make it clear that he will not succumb to or support calls for sanctions against Israel and the 6 million people who need to live and work in that country?

[Mr Browne]

Let me come to the subject in hand, and the hon. Gentleman can draw his conclusions. We are not talking about those measures this evening, but I would like to address the points made by the hon. Member for Stockton North.

First, like hon. Members, the Government are concerned about the threatened and actual demolition of Palestinian homes, particularly in the Silwan district of East Jerusalem. According to the United Nations, 515 structures were demolished in East Jerusalem and the west bank in 2011—a 40 % increase compared with 2010. Such demolitions and evictions are causing unnecessary suffering to ordinary Palestinians. They are harmful to the peace process and they are contrary to international humanitarian law in all but the most limited circumstances.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), raised the issue of demolitions with the Israeli ambassador on 23 February, and again with the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, Dan Meridor, on 19 March. Her Majesty’s ambassador in Tel Aviv and embassy officials have also lobbied the Israelis, at ministerial and municipal level, on this issue. We have received a welcome assurance from the Jerusalem municipality that it has no plans to conduct wide-scale demolitions in Silwan in the immediate future. As hon. Members are aware, evictions and demolitions are also a pressing issue in Area C of the west bank. The United Nations estimated that by the end of 2011 there were more than 3,000 demolition orders outstanding in Area C, including 18 issued to schools. There is also an increasing number of demolition orders against infrastructure projects that have been funded by international co-operation programmes, including those of the European Union.

In East Jerusalem, Palestinians, and indeed international organisations, face severe difficulties in obtaining building permits. On average, only 4% of building permits requested by Palestinians for Area C were approved last year. Together with our European Union partners, we continue to press Israel to address these serious concerns about the planning regime in Area C. More fundamentally, we urge Israel greatly to accelerate the process for transferring authority over Area C to the Palestinian Authority.

Secondly, another significant concern for the British Government, this House and the international community is the continued expansion of Israeli settlements, including in East Jerusalem. The combination of the growing settlements and the separation barrier erected by Israel is increasingly separating East Jerusalem from the west bank, making it increasingly difficult for East Jerusalem to function as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Settlements, including in East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law and an obstacle to peace. They make negotiations more difficult and constitute a growing threat to the feasibility of a two-state solution, a solution supported by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the international community and a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians. Settlement activity has no justification and should cease immediately. We have repeatedly given that message to Israel, including at the most senior levels.

Along with EU colleagues, we are deeply concerned at the agreement recently reached between the Israeli Government to move settlers from the illegal west bank outpost of Migron to a new settlement in the west bank. We note that Israel’s Supreme Court has rejected the Government’s petition to allow settlers to stay until 2015. Had the deal been ratified, it would have set a dangerous precedent, entirely contrary to Israel’s obligations under the Quartet roadmap. Hon. Members will be aware of the statement issued by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, on 16 March calling on the Israeli Government to rescind their decision. We will continue to urge the Israeli Government not to pursue their current approach of legalising such illegal outposts.

European Union

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is right in that regard. We cannot have a bloc of eurozone countries acting collectively by using its voting power at EU level to force through measures to the detriment of the UK’s national interest.

Even the Deputy Prime Minister has warned against the dangers of a club within a club. The new club will have a common interest and act collectively. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pointed that out in a recent article in The Spectator. He said:

“a fiscally united eurozone will spend as a bloc, tax as a bloc…and…vote as a bloc”,

and he is absolutely right.

For that reason and a host of others it is clear, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, that a fundamental reassessment of our relationship with the EU is required. The Prime Minister’s use of the veto is very welcome. Saying no to Europe has been and remains almost unthinkable for some in the political elite, no matter what the cost in terms of our national interests, but the question now is: where do we go from here?

As things stand we are left with all the old familiar problems with the EU that we had before the European Council. We are left with the huge issues of loss of sovereignty and EU control of vast swathes of UK laws and policies. We are still committed as a country, because of the EU treaties, to “ever closer political union”. We remain subject, for instance, to the common fisheries policy, to the plethora of regulations and directives that stifle competitiveness and growth, and to interference in criminal justice and home affairs. Not least, we are still required to contribute almost £10 billion per year net to the EU at a time when domestic budgets are being slashed, and QMV provisions under the Lisbon treaty have reduced the areas where we can say no to EU intrusion.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On that £10 billion net that we contribute each year to the European Community, does my right hon. Friend agree that we would be far better exercised in determining how those resources are spent on our own fishermen, our own farmers, our own industrialists and our own banks, rather than letting bureaucrats and eurocrats determine how it is spent?

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I sometimes hear others, particularly elements of the media, and particularly the BBC—this will not be first time that hon. Members have referred to the BBC in that regard—argue the case for Europe by saying, “But look at the vast amounts of money we get.” That has sometimes been stated about Northern Ireland; my hon. Friends will deal more particularly with the situation there later. We are told, “But you’ve benefited from all these initiatives,” and so on and so forth, but the money involved is a small percentage of what we pay into Europe in the first place. In many cases it comes with so many strings and conditions attached that it would be far better if it were disbursed by our own Government or at a regional level.

The Prime Minister said yesterday in the House that

“the balance of powers between Britain and Europe is not right”—[Official Report, 12 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 530.]

I prefer the use of the term “United Kingdom”, because Northern Ireland is an important part of this, but the Prime Minister is absolutely right. We must therefore build on what has happened.

Many talk about the need to have powers repatriated. I sympathise with their aims and objectives, but repatriation can be limited. We may gain here, but we will lose there. I think we need a more fundamental and simpler approach. We know what the British people want, we know what makes sense for the UK in the long run, and, as we say in our motion before the House, we must rebalance our relationship with our European neighbours.

The relationship must be based on free and mutually beneficial co-operation. It must be about free trade and commerce, to the mutual benefit of businesses and consumers throughout Europe—that is the best way to create growth and prosperity—and it must be about laws being made in this country by democratically elected and accountable representatives of the British people. That is the sort of relationship that people in this country want with Europe. I believe that for too long there has been a determination on the part of the political and diplomatic elites in this country to deny the people of this country any say on Europe. Ultimately, people must be given the opportunity—finally—to have their say through a referendum. I believe that the events of the weekend have brought that day closer, and I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is spot on. The right hon. Gentleman was the Europe Minister when the deal was made, and it cost this country a great deal of money for no gain or reform of the CAP, despite the pledges that we were given at the time.

I want to emphasise that despite the major disagreement at last week’s summit meeting over the proposed new treaty amendment, all 27 Heads of State and Government agreed on further measures to strengthen the single market and to cut the cost of European regulation and red tape on businesses throughout the EU. As part of a long-term campaign to cut unnecessary regulation, the Prime Minister secured agreement from the European Council to endorse actions proposed in the Commission’s report on minimising the regulatory burden for small and medium-sized enterprises. Consequently, from 2012 micro-businesses employing fewer than 10 people will not be subject to European regulation, which stands to benefit 4.3 million businesses in the United Kingdom, including, I understand, about 95% of enterprises in Northern Ireland.

The European Council’s conclusions also emphasised the need to prioritise growth and the single market, and the Commission’s annual growth survey, published just ahead of the Council meeting, reflected this country’s calls for faster action to be taken to promote growth, including through the creation of a single market in the digital economy and energy.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the Minister giving way on this point about business. On the pressures that the Republic of Ireland now faces, it looks like it will be forced to remove its beneficial low corporation tax as a result of this new arrangement. At the same time, however, this nation can extend to our part of the United Kingdom the right to reduce our corporation tax. I know what side of the line I would rather be on.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the risks to any country of giving up control of its tax rates to some supranational body that cannot be guaranteed always to act in the interests of any one of the nations party to the decision. It was no secret at the time of the Irish bail-out last year that the Irish Government came under enormous pressure from other EU member states to raise their corporation tax rates. As he will know, the UK Government were steadfast in supporting the Taoiseach’s resistance to that move.

I recognise what the right hon. Member for Belfast North and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said about it not always being easy to be in the EU. There are plenty of frustrations and occasions when we can see so clearly what is wrong. Any Minister from any party who has sat in European Council meetings will be able to recall times when they wanted to scream with frustration at a piece of what seemed to be unnecessary bureaucracy or expense, or at the complexity and time taken to secure reforms when agreement was needed among a collection of different Governments.

There are many areas where we would like change, but I want to make it clear that the Government’s judgment is that membership of the EU remains very much in the UK national interest. I shall briefly sketch three key areas where we believe that the benefits of our membership far outweigh the difficulties: the single market, the single voice in international trade and diplomatic leverage in foreign policy. There is little doubt that our membership of the single market has allowed us to reap the economic benefits, because the EU comprises the largest single market and most important trading zone in the world. It is bigger than the whole of the United States and Japan combined and gives British business access to 500 million consumers without customs or trade barriers.

In Northern Ireland, EU countries remain key trading partners. Export sales to Europe from Northern Ireland alone amounted to £600 million in 2010, and many Northern Ireland companies have been doing significant business in the EU for many years. The success stories include a broad range of Northern Ireland industries, from engineering to information technology, synthetic fibres, pharmaceuticals, and food and drink. Recognising where additional growth could be achieved by targeting opportunities in EU export markets is one of the keys to improving economic growth prospects for Northern Ireland. That is why for Northern Ireland, as for the whole of the UK, a resumption of growth within the EU would be of immense benefit to our own interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

Yes. This fantasy of a European Union and how it has developed through the existing treaties is the reason we have the crisis in Europe as a whole. That is why we need fundamental change: the existing treaties are the cause of the crisis. It is not just a question of the single markets or, for that matter, the single market—

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

rose—

Sudan and South Sudan

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain)—he has been congratulated before during the debate—on introducing this immensely important subject. As has been rightly said, the debate is very timely given the flashpoints of conflict, some of which are internal and some of which are external. Indeed, as I shall refer to later, there are also great concerns about the interruption of oil flow, which has an enormous effect on the economies, the budgetary position and, indeed, the solvency of both countries.

It is also important—this has come out substantially during the debate—to recognise that we must not simply focus on what these events mean for the countries concerned, for the ruling groups in those countries and, indeed, for those who are the participants in armed conflict. We need to highlight—I will refer to this later, but it has been mentioned several times during the debate—the impact that all this has had on the living standards and the opportunities for life of many of the people, particularly in South Sudan but, wider than that, in parts of Sudan itself.

During the conflict, which has rightly been referred to as one of the longest running conflicts, huge loss of life and devastation has been suffered by communities. It is absolutely right that tribute should be paid to a number of non-governmental organisations, several of which have been mentioned today—some are Church-based, but some are more secular, such as Saferworld. They have monitored the situation and ensured that the often unreported agony and misery of the people of South Sudan—not the sort of issue normally likely to be carried by television cameras, or where CNN is always likely to turn up—has been kept on the world agenda and has been the focus of international attention. That is important. The amount of oil is not hugely significant in terms of world oil supplies, and South Sudan is not an intrinsically strategic area, but it has some importance. It is not irrelevant because, as in so many areas of the world, there is a capacity for instability to spill across borders. We have already seen that to an extent in both this region and in the great lakes region. Conflicts continue in the border areas between Sudan and South Sudan.

According to reports, South Sudan is also witnessing the unwelcome attentions of the Lord’s Resistance Army. The LRA and other organisations have an impact on the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the wider region. In those areas, the outside world, including China, has significant mineral interests. China is involved in Sudan, quite properly, to obtain access to oil. We have to ensure that there is an equal bargain for the people of South Sudan and Sudan. We need to ensure that, given the huge importance of oil revenues to the budgets of both countries, there is an equitable distribution—I realise that that is not easy to calculate—to ensure a win-win situation. That will involve responsible behaviour by production and transportation companies, and by the final client.

It is undoubtedly true, however, that in spite of those revenues, the impact on society has been minimal. Hon. Members have mentioned the appalling figures on maternal mortality and infant mortality per capita income. Approximately 45% of people in Khartoum have access to water. In South Sudan, very few people have access to anything like clean water. We know the impact that that has on health, let alone on the ability to run any sort of modern society. My hon. Friend highlighted the huge impact of AIDS, which is not just confined to South Sudan, but to much of that area of central Africa. Efforts have been made, but it is an ongoing problem. Any breakdown in the provision of support and aid—indeed, any breakdown of society—can only hasten the spread of that disease and prevent the necessary relief, alleviation and medication.

We need to move on from the problems, which have been outlined in debates over a number of years, to the solutions. That requires us to look beyond the simple differences between Sudan and South Sudan. Not only is external reconciliation required between the two states—there is a number of issues still running between them—but some internal reconciliation. One problem is that for years Sudan fostered tribal divisions in the border areas and in South Sudan to undermine the independence movement in South Sudan. That is not unprecedented. British Governments often operated a policy of divide and rule, as did many other countries. However, its legacy might roll on for many years. We ought to be particularly concerned if division is ongoing, if various tribes are being armed and if ordinary criminal issues, such as cattle rustling, escalate into tribal inter-ethnic warfare. The whole cycle of violence and disruption could continue and ultimately affect the oil fields, which will be the basis of the two countries’ income.

Where is the light in all of this? My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) highlighted the positive role being played by the African Union in hosting talks. In Somalia, the African Union is playing a more proactive role than it has in the past. It recognises that such instability can very easily spill over into other countries. In Somalia, problems have not been contained within its borders. We are only too well aware, for example, of the problems of piracy affecting international trade. Indeed, there was an announcement from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), only this week regarding the UK response. The Kenyan Government are having to take action because of the disruption and enormous impact that banditry and piracy are having on the Kenyan economy. Many of its resorts are close to Somalia and the cruise-liner business uses the port of Mombasa. In the first half of 2010, approximately 60 cruise liners stopped at Mombasa; this year only one. That has a substantial impact on the local economy.

The idea, therefore, that such problems can just be contained in one area, and are only a problem for the unfortunate residents of that area, is no longer sustainable. The encouraging thing is that that is recognised as being no longer sustainable. That is why we see a more proactive position from the African Union. The Arab League was also mentioned. It has looked at countries in its region and the difficulties that can flow on. It has not taken the position that it should stand away from such difficulties and that such problems are problems only for the countries concerned. That is encouraging, and I hope there will be some interaction between the African Union and the Arab League. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the religious differences between South Sudan and Sudan. We know about the involvement of al-Qaeda in Sudan and how it was offered safe haven for a considerable period of time. Religious extremism is an additional concern to the mixture of various tribal and ethnic differences.

I have mentioned oil a number of times, because it is so significant: approximately 98% of the revenue of South Sudan. Arguably, oil was the driver for conflict in the past, with the desire of Sudan to keep control of South Sudan and the oil fields, the desire of the South Sudanese to have a greater share, and the vexed question of the transport of oil. It still has potential of course, with arguments about the price at which Sudan should be getting oil from South Sudan or the price of transiting oil through the pipeline, with Sudan wanting to charge what is estimated to be 15 or 20 times as much as transport on other pipelines in Africa, for example.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the greatest investments that the western nations could make in new South Sudan would be in helping it to have a pipeline of its own, so that it could determine its own prices, rather than having to rely on Sudan, or to help it go through Kenya and find a way out in that direction?

[Mr Spellar]

As I used to say in ministerial times, I require notice of that question. However, if one already has a facility, which is a sunk cost, the most desirable outcome is to have a properly negotiated agreement to use that facility. One has to look at the distances, at which areas a pipeline would be running through and their safety and at the time scale involved, because constructing a new pipeline would be taken as an unfriendly act by Sudan. That might exacerbate tensions and could lead, for example, to cutting off the existing pipeline and therefore to no revenue at all—a potentially catastrophic situation for South Sudan. It is always worth examining alternatives—they might be viable—but they are not a real alternative to ensuring through whatever mechanisms, whether the UN, the African Union or the Arab League, that a modus vivendi is obtained between Sudan and South Sudan to ensure that oil, rather than a cause of contention, is a shared benefit.

Zimbabwe

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for getting that on the record.

There were three years of national food deficit in the 20 years from independence to the beginning of the land invasions, and those three years were actually years of severe drought. In the other years, the country maintained an export surplus. Since 2000, when the land invasions started, there have been 11 consecutive years of food deficit.

There are now 1 million AIDS orphans out of a resident population of about 11.5 million. One child in four has lost one or both parents to AIDS. Meanwhile, up to 500,000 of the 1 million farm workers who were removed from white farms have died as a result of a combination of malnutrition and inadequate health services.

Water supply and sewerage systems are wholly inadequate, and one of the largest outbreaks of cholera in world history took place in 2008, infecting 100,000 people and killing more than 4,000.

The country’s jails became concentration camps. For many people, a petty offence of false conviction became a death sentence. Indeed, in 2009, six people starved to death in their cells.

The first major issue I want to concentrate on is the prevention of violence and intimidation in the run-up to the general election. In the 2008 elections, polling station results were used to target areas of Opposition sympathy. Huge groups of militia roamed the countryside, beating, burning and killing people at random. Torture bases were established—nightmarish places where the innocent were afflicted for days at a time.

In this period, more than 200 people were killed, thousands were beaten—hundreds of them now have lifelong disabilities—and tens of thousands were displaced. This was revenge and pre-emptive action rolled into one. The message driven home was that people’s choice in the second round of the vote was literally between President Mugabe or death. Rightly or wrongly, the MDC decided to pull out of the election with a week to go, hoping to spare people further suffering.

The International Crisis Group in southern Africa warns that there is a real danger that ZANU-PF will employ violence again to force people to vote. As we know, there must be an election before 2013. Reports in the independent press and statements by Opposition parties indicate that violence is already escalating significantly across the country.

On 10 November, Southern Africa Report, the South African Development Community’s bulletin of political and economic intelligence, announced that the Zimbabwe Defence Force had taken delivery, via an African intermediary, of the first of several consignments of Chinese small arms and equipment—a deal said to have been negotiated by Defence Minister Emmerson Mnangagwa. The consignment included 20,000 AK47 automatic rifles, uniforms, 12 to 15 trucks and about 21,000 pairs of handcuffs.

Given the escalating pre-election violence and ZANU-PF’s consistent history of initiating country-wide campaigns of violence to force the electorate to vote for President Mugabe, international observers and monitors are essential, and I will press the Minister to respond to that point when he replies. Additionally, a peacekeeping force, which could be deployed in the country at least three months ahead of an election, particularly in rural areas, would help to protect the lives, livelihoods and homes of vulnerable communities. The peacekeeping force should be required to remain in place after the election to prevent violent retribution.

We need to look at reform of the security forces in Zimbabwe, because even under the multi-party Government, the armed forces remain central to all aspects of life. The Joint Operations Committee, which is a non-statutory body, is made up of President Robert Mugabe’s inner circle, and it remains antagonistic to the unity Government with Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC. It is also distrustful of non-military politicians, even in President Mugabe’s own ZANU-PF party.

The security forces’ access to economic opportunities has strengthened their bond with President Mugabe and their willingness to defend the status quo. While conventional military capacity and competence have declined massively since the 1990s, Zimbabwe’s security forces remain a major and arguably the central obstacle to the resolution of the country’s political instability. Unless the security sector is reformed, violence initiated by ZANU-PF is likely to continue, making the holding of free and fair elections problematic at the very least.

On racism, there are further steps that we can take. Is it not a pity that Zimbabwe does not look across the border to Zambia, one of whose vice-presidents, Dr Guy Scott, happens to be white and a democratically elected politician? Would it not be good if Zimbabwe had the same spirit as Zambia and took the same action?

Zimbabwe actually signed the United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination on 13 May 1991. That bound Zimbabwe to allow its people full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the right to property and protection before the law. It also condemned racial propaganda and hate speech. Unfortunately, it does not allow for individuals to activate procedures to get the UN to ensure compliance; it needs a fellow signatory United Nations state to do that.

For more than a decade, the Zimbabwe Government and ZANU-PF have been allowed to get away with demonstrably defying the treaty. No signatory state has called for an investigation. No signatory state has asked for the 18-member sitting committee of independent experts to be activated and to go to Zimbabwe. No signatory state appears to care enough about racial discrimination in Zimbabwe to do anything about it. Frankly, many people find that hypocritical.

What would the benefits be of a signatory state getting the UN committee to investigate under article 11 of the convention? The committee would undoubtedly act as a deterrent for continued acts of abuse in the land programme and the indigenisation programme, just as the habitat investigation acted as a deterrent to stop the further destruction of hundreds of thousands of homes by state bulldozers back in 2005. It would help protect the region’s judiciary, by taking the issue to an independent UN body, and it would provide the west with a defence against the fantastical charges of neo-colonialism when it raises concerns about racial issues. It would provide any future democratic Government with support to resolve the land issue in Zimbabwe. It would also help to restore much needed investor confidence in the country.

I am concerned about the Zimbabwean Government’s consistent refusal and failure to recognise international legal judgments. For example, the international and regional court of the SADC tribunal, which the SADC Heads of State suspended in May due to pressure from President Mugabe and ZANU-PF, needs international support to become a functioning court once more. Individual states must be held accountable in future, so that the rule of law and human rights can be promoted in the SADC region. Pressure needs to be exerted on policy makers, to ensure that the SADC treaty and protocol are not changed in the August 2012 SADC summit, and I hope that the United Kingdom will be active in ensuring that. Without an international regional court, there is little hope of effective accountability or economic development being able to take place in the region. Furthermore, significant economic development cannot take place without respect for property rights, human rights and the rule of law, something with which the UK Government are already properly concerned in their international development policy.

I want to turn to the Marange diamond fields. I am grateful to the hon. Members who have joined me for the debate. They may be aware that participants in the Kimberley process agreed to relax the ban on export sales last month, subject to an adequate verification regime being in place. The European Union, the United States and Canada switched from opposition to the ban to abstention. The human rights group, Global Witness, is leaving the Kimberley process in protest at that decision. It is estimated that last week’s diamond auction could raise about $300 million US dollars. Contacts that I have in Zimbabwe commented earlier this week as follows:

“The situation is worse now than it has even been, the needs are spiralling. The theft of the diamonds has sadly given ZANU-PF a new lease of life and the future looks grim. There is no reason to think that when Mugabe dies the position will improve.”

That gloomy prognosis for Zimbabwe directly relates to the sales of diamonds from the Marange mine.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although the picture may look grim, as the wave of life eventually laps from Mr Mugabe, there is a significant opportunity for that country to re-establish and redevelop itself and put in place the democratic structures that ought to be?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for attending the debate and intervening. Like him, I am an optimist; I think that Zimbabwe can have a fantastic future, given its agricultural productivity, the resources of its people and its natural advantages in the region. The challenge for us is to help the political process to allow that to happen, so I agree with the point that he made.

On the treatment of Zimbabwean Anglicans, hon. Members may know that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was recently accompanied in Zimbabwe by bishops, not only from Zimbabwe, but from South Africa, Tanzania, Botswana and Malawi, all of whom were absolutely horrified at what has been happening to Zimbabwe’s Anglicans. Since 2007, Anglican congregations have suffered systematic harassment and persecution at the hands of the police, often in direct contravention of court rulings. A report, which was handed to President Robert Mugabe, outlined details of that litany of abuses, which include false imprisonment, violence and denial of access to churches, schools, clinics and mission stations.

In the dioceses of Harare and Manicaland, properties belonging to the Anglican province have been misappropriated. It is a matter of the greatest sadness that Zimbabwean Anglicans are being prevented from continuing their work supporting local and often very needy communities with health care and education. Their priests and people are being denied access to their own clinics and schools. Many such institutions have been taken from Zimbabwe’s Anglicans, and are now under corrupt or poor management, being rapidly run into the ground and stripped of their assets. Details of that unwarranted activity and its impact on local communities were presented to President Mugabe in a report by Archbishop Rowan Williams. Every week, tens of thousands of Anglicans are denied their basic right to worship, because of the lies and falsifications propagated by the now excommunicated former bishop, Dr Kunonga, and his associates.

I have concerns about how the sanctions might be being evaded in Zimbabwe, and I ask that the Minister look into that. A glaring issue is that nationals of countries, including the UK, that have applied the sanctions—both individuals and companies—have continued to support the regime and nothing has been done about them. The British Government and others punish ZANU-PF, but fail to police their own citizens and, according to my sources, that includes companies such Old Mutual.

ZANU-PF officials have been able to externalise huge quantities of funds through share swaps between the Zimbabwean and London stock exchanges. Old Mutual has joint ventures with the Government of Zimbabwe that started before the formation of the unity Government, yet nothing is done. Moreover, those investments are directly connected to gross human rights abuses. Old Mutual has shares in a joint venture on the diamond fields where more than 200 panners in rags were gunned down from helicopters to clear the decks for investors. There are numerous reports of ongoing abuses. I understand that Old Mutual claims that any regrettable events predate its involvement.

The Central African Mining and Exploration Company purchased land from the Zimbabwean Government believed to have been extorted from another mining company and, in doing so, poured tens of millions into the pockets of the regime at a time when it needed election resources. What action can the British Government take on those issues?

The final words of my contribution should come from two black Africans, not a white Englishman.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate, and I praise him for his concise and compelling speech. If I do not answer all his points, I shall write to him after the debate.

The timing of the debate is certainly opportune—ZANU-PF is currently holding its conference in Bulawayo, and it has an important few days ahead of it. Next year and early 2013 will be a pivotal time for Zimbabwe. The actions that ZANU-PF and other political parties take in the next 18 months will have a huge impact on the shape of Zimbabwe’s future.

Our policy at such a crucial moment can be summed up simply: we want to do all that we can to support the Zimbabwean people’s aspirations for a more democratic, stable and prosperous country. To set out what that means, it might be useful for me to provide a brief update on the situation on the ground and the role that the UK is playing.

It is important to recognise that the reform process has not stood still. Although movement is slow and can often be obscured by events, progress has been made. The economy, under the stewardship of the quite excellent Finance Minister Tendai Biti, continues to show signs of robust recovery. He forecast an impressive 9.5% growth in 2012 in his budget speech last week. There is a lively media, and newspapers that are openly critical of the Government are sold every day on the street corners of Harare. The provision of basic services has improved out of all recognition, supported by the important contributions of the Department for International Development and others in the donor community. Textbooks are now in every secondary school, medicines are in hospitals, and food is on the shelves. Zimbabwe has come a long way since its nadir in 2008, and we can be proud of the role that we have played.

There has also been progress, but not as much, in the political arena. Constitutional reform is moving forward, and although the process has been tough and slow, there seems to be no doubt on any side that a new constitution will be adopted before the next elections. There will almost certainly be a referendum on the new constitution early next year.

However, despite those green shoots of progress, there are considerable causes for concern. There are still those in Zimbabwe who seek to erode the reform process to retain their personal hold on power. The promising figures of the budget mask an unsustainable over-spend in public sector salaries. Violence and intimidation targeting activists from civil society and both Movements for Democratic Change continue, especially at the hands of the Chipangano militia group in Harare. Partisan political bias within the state security mechanisms threatens to undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic foundation, as has been demonstrated by the cancellation of four Movement for Democratic Change-Tsvangirai rallies by the police last month. A particularly acute illustration of that concern is the recent death threat made by an alleged state security officer to an MDC-T Member of Parliament, in response to points raised about the Marange diamond fields in a parliamentary debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire also gave other examples.

[Ian Paisley]

I would like to put on record my thanks to the Minister for his kindness and his good work and briefing that he has given many of us across the House on Africa and African issues.

Recently I had the opportunity of hosting Roy Bennett here. Will the Minister consider arranging for his officials and himself to receive a briefing from Roy Bennett about some of the ongoing party persecutions in Zimbabwe?

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising his meeting with Roy Bennett. I also had the chance to meet Roy Bennett when he was here, about six weeks ago. He gave us a fairly comprehensive report, which we have seen. We will look at any other report he produces, because we have great admiration and respect for him.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire mentioned Marange diamonds. I would like to touch briefly on the recent Kinshasa agreement of the Kimberley process. It was the result of considerable diplomatic effort by the European Union and our partners, and we played a full role in it. I believe that the outcome, although not perfect, is a reasonable one for both Zimbabwe and the KP. We went into the negotiations with clear red lines on what we would not compromise on, and they remained intact in the final deal.

Under the terms of the agreement, Zimbabwe can export only diamonds from the Marange region that comply with KP standards. We need only to look at Minister Biti’s budget statement to see the importance of that revenue to the Zimbabwean Treasury. Furthermore, the agreement establishes a credible and independent monitoring mechanism to ensure that the standards are respected, which includes a role for civil society. The EU, Canada and other countries were pivotal in driving that forward. The United States abstained, but we were satisfied with the outcome because our red lines were kept in place.

I will say something about the subject of land and the continuing practice of illegal farm invasions. Such abuses are once again increasing in frequency. It causes privation not only to farmers and their workers, who are being forced from their land, but to the entire agricultural sector of Zimbabwe. As my hon. Friend pointed out, tobacco yields are down 38% on 2000 levels, and wheat yields are down a staggering 82%. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, the fact that a country of Zimbabwe’s agricultural potential still requires food aid for its citizens is quite appalling, and it is a result of destructive and vindictive land policies.

It is not only the UK that judges such actions to be illegal and in contravention of the global political agreement; it was also the judgment of a 2008 Southern African Development Community tribunal, which ruled in favour of three Zimbabwean farmers, including the late Mike Campbell. The demise of that tribunal was a retrograde step for regional law, but despite its suspension, the ruling was upheld by a South African court this June.

We have always recognised the central importance of the land question to Zimbabwe, which is why we contributed to a land redistribution programme immediately after independence. While we have never accepted the allegation that the UK alone should fund compensation for land redistribution, we remain willing to engage other donors in a land reform programme in Zimbabwe that is transparent, fair and pro-poor. We regard a land audit, as provided for in the GPA, to be a necessary first step in the process, and the EU made it clear some time ago that it was willing to fund such an exercise.

Continued farm invasions are symptomatic of a wider disregard for human rights, which extends to those of different political and religious persuasions. I welcome the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire on the UN convention, and I will write separately to him. I want to assure the House that the Zimbabwean Government are under no illusions of our strong condemnation of the ongoing abuses.

The enduring uncertainty over the timing of the next elections is at the centre of much of the abuse. Under the terms of the existing constitution, elections must be held by June 2013. What is crucial is that polls, when held, are preceded by the necessary reforms and avoid the devastating levels of violence that were seen in 2008. To that end, the UK fully supports the efforts of SADC, particularly those of South Africa and President Zuma, as they work with all three main Zimbabwean parties to agree a path to the finalisation of the GPA and a road map to elections. I assure my hon. Friend that the road map will include key items, such as provision for proper observers and monitors, a fully independent electoral commission and an electoral roll that is fit for purpose. As he pointed out, it is vital that the police and army stay out of the electoral process.

Regional engagement is essential. No country exists in a vacuum. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the recent Zambian election provides an impressive regional role model to follow. We, as outsiders, have only a secondary role to play, but I assure Members that we have been absolutely explicit in assuring the southern African region of our commitment to and full support for their efforts. We stand ready to do more if called upon, and have made clear, for example, our willingness to participate in the provision of international monitors.

As for the EU’s targeted measures, we have made it crystal-clear—I say this clearly to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—that we stand ready to revisit the measures only in response to concrete changes on the ground.

Zimbabwe is facing an absolutely critical time. Lessons must be learned from what has happened elsewhere in Africa, including northern Africa. A free and fair poll, which respects the will of the democratic majority of Zimbabweans, should follow the example of Zambia—

National Referendum on the European Union

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hood]

I have been here for a few Parliaments now and I have never needed to be strong-armed to support the right causes. It is easier for me to say that because I have always been on the Labour Benches and the causes have been easier to support.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is telling the House of many of his fond memories. Does he remember a certain Tony Blair saying:

“Of course, Britain could survive outside the EU . . . We could probably get access to the Single Market as Norway and Switzerland do”?

[Mr Hood]

It may surprise the hon. Gentleman that I am not very good at remembering Tony Blair’s quotes either, but I do remember Tony Blair winning three elections with massive majorities, and I can remember the good that that Labour Government did for the country, so I have fond memories of Tony Blair.

I conclude my brief contribution by saying that there is a false debate going on in the Chamber today. Those on the Government Benches who are arguing about defending democracy and the right of the people are not talking about democracy and they are not talking about defending the rights of the people; they are talking about getting the UK out of the European Union. Some Members on the Government Benches are honourable and argue that, but some do not. It is all about the nuances and the language, but there is a truism in the House and throughout the country.

The tabloid press is supporting the call for a referendum today. Some are doing it as a good and honourable cause, but there is a side of the tabloid press that supports the right wing on the Government Benches which wants to take the UK out of the European Union. I can remember when we joined the European Union. It was trendy on both sides of the House to be against the European Union. We have moved on, our country has moved on, and we need to be not just in Europe but in the heart of Europe. By doing that, we represent the true sovereignty of this Parliament. For that reason, I will vote against the motion tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

I will give way again in a moment.

It is my view and the Prime Minister’s view, and the position of the Conservative party, that we will use future opportunities to bring further powers back to the United Kingdom—to repatriate powers to the United Kingdom in those areas where we believe European integration has gone too far.

The final part of our approach to the EU is to make the case at every opportunity for it to do effectively what we joined it for: to expand the opportunities for trade both within Europe and beyond. Britain is the leading champion of expanding the single market and concluding more free trade agreements with the rest of the world. Last year’s agreement with South Korea is worth up to £500 million to the British economy—a reminder to all of us, when we discuss these matters, that we are talking about not just politics, but people’s jobs and businesses, which we must never forget.

[Ian Paisley]

The Foreign Secretary has quite rightly tried to outline the savings that the Government are making on European costs, but he must know that by 2018 this nation will have spent £356 billion on enforcing EU regulations. Does he not agree that this Parliament could spend it better—on farming, on health care and on social policy—than the European Community?

[Mr Hague]

I have explained what we are doing to keep the European budget down, and how I believe the European Union has too much power. The hon. Gentleman must be a little careful, because European Union spending has gone disproportionately to Northern Ireland, and he ought to bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

It is good to see the Foreign Secretary still in his place before he dashes off to this urgent, massively crucial and completely unavoidable meeting in Australia that he has to attend. I am sure that this has absolutely nothing to do with avoiding tonight’s vote, and any suggestion that it has is scurrilous. He rightly spoke about scrutiny, but he may recall that when he was an MP under John Major’s premiership the then Government removed European questions and the debates on European orders from the Floor of the House, thus reducing the scrutiny, because things were getting a bit lively at that point. If he will not agree to a referendum, perhaps he will agree to bring European questions and European orders back to the Floor of the House.

Having got that small point over with, may I say that I have never been a great supporter of referendums? They can be divisive, they have to be treated with extreme caution and they have been used by dictatorial Governments in the past. The criterion for having a referendum is that a Government pass measures that seek to change the power of the ballot box—that is the time to seek a referendum and seek the consent of the British people. This should not be done at any time other than when a Government seek to change the power of the ballot box.

Since the last referendum in 1975 which, as has been pointed out, was caused by the Wilson Government, we have had the Single European Act, the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties, the growth and stability pact, and the Lisbon and Nice treaties. All those changed the power of the ballot box, most of them—not all—involving huge shifts of power from the democratically elected Governments of western Europe to Brussels and Strasbourg. The Single European Act gave up the veto, which we had been told at the time of the referendum in 1975 would remain permanently. Since then, many of the treaties have shifted perhaps 30 or 40 areas of responsibility from the veto to quality majority voting. For that reason alone, we need a referendum on future membership of the European Union.

This is not an issue among the political elite of western Europe. There is a justifiable perception among a lot of voters, not only in this country but in other western European countries, that there is a tiny political elite at the apex of the European Union which says, “This doesn’t matter. We don’t want people having their views on Europe tested. We don’t want to have to go out to seek people’s opinions.” That was demonstrated when the Irish people voted against the Nice treaty, as within a day or two the western European Foreign Secretaries issued a communiqué saying, “It’s very nice of you to have made a decision; now go away and make another one. Keep trying until you get it right.” The legislative process in Ireland was actually changed, by a Bill that took a day to get through all the stages in the Dail, in order to gut the process that led to that referendum. They were then able to rig the following referendum and change the view of the Irish people on the Nice treaty.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those antics by our neighbours have increased the cynicism towards Europe and all things European?

[John Cryer]

Yes, I would agree with that. As I believe we all recognise, there is generally a profound cynicism about the political process, not just in Britain but across western Europe. In this country, there are specific reasons for it, but tonight we have the opportunity to restore a bit of trust in the political process. I disagree completely with the three-line Whip being imposed by all the parties. When the leadership of all three parties acts in that way, it tends to foment that cynicism.

One of the great truisms of British politics is that when people move from this side of the House to that side of the House they tend to change their views on Europe pretty rapidly. That has fomented cynicism about the political process. Conservative Members have a chance tonight to restore a bit of face by being consistent in their views on Europe. I was not unanimously loyal during my previous eight years in this place when the Labour party was in government—I voted against my party about 84 times. When I went into the Government Lobby, my then Whip, whom I shall not name, greeted me by saying, “Voting Labour again tonight then, John?” I therefore speak as someone who has rebelled in the past and paid the price for it.

Many Conservatives—I am not talking about the Liberal Democrats because we expect them to be inconsistent—said things about Europe when they went before their selection committees and their electorates and people now expect these things to be upheld tonight. People expect us to be consistent. I suspect that an awful lot of Conservative associations and an awful lot of Conservative voters in those constituencies will applaud Conservative MPs who vote for this motion in the Lobby tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glyn Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am in conflict with many of my colleagues who have spoken today about timing, and I am very disappointed not to be flying the Eurosceptic flag that I should like to be flying. I remember how appalled I was when the last Government reneged on what I saw as a promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. That was the right time, but I believe that it may well come again and in similar circumstances.

Two issues matter greatly to me. One is the type of referendum that we are discussing. I think that if a referendum is to be held and is to engage the public, there should be two options rather than three, as the motion suggests. A “preferendum” would be a mistake because it would not be clear enough, and I therefore cannot support the motion. The second issue is timing. I think that to have a debate on a referendum would be a huge mistake while we in Britain must deal with huge financial and economic issues, along with another massive issue—the social dislocation felt by so many of our young people. A referendum on our future relationship with the European Union would constitute a severe distraction from the two real missions of this coalition Government.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman knows that it would take at least 18 months to reach the point at which a referendum could take place. If this is not the right time, is 18 months from now the right time? As for the questions that would be asked in the referendum, that will be resolved during the negotiation period and in the Bill Committee. All the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman can easily be accommodated, and I appeal to him to change his position.

[Glyn Davies]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think we should be much clearer about both those issues before proceeding with a referendum. We need to know exactly what the position is. We should not say, “We are in favour of this”, as if we were some sixth-form debating society; we should say, “This is what is being proposed”, and then say whether we are in favour of it or not. What we need is a clear-cut question.

Many people have asked when will be the right time, but we cannot say when the right time will be. We have a Foreign Secretary and a Prime Minister who will conduct negotiations with the European Union, hopefully in order to restore powers to the United Kingdom. There may well be another treaty, as there was a Lisbon treaty, and in that event we as a Government would not renege as the last Government did. We would hold a referendum on an issue that the public could clearly understand, at a time when the people were ready to debate it. I hope that this debate will not lead to a referendum, because I do not think its focus would be clear, and clarity is what we need.

There has been a great deal of discussion about a free vote and the involvement of the Whips. I want to make it clear that I made up my mind as soon as I saw the motion. I had been looking forward to a motion on this issue and had been keen to speak in favour of it, but when I saw it, I concluded that it had been a mistake because it divided Eurosceptic opinion. Long before any Whip contacted me I resolved to vote against it, and to try to catch Mr Speaker’s eye. I am glad to say that I did catch Mr Speaker’s eye, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.

I believe that one day, following a serious negotiation, there will be a referendum on our relationship with the European Union, and that that referendum will ask a clear question enabling the public to say yes or no about our relationship with the European Union. I look forward to that day, but I shall be voting against the motion tonight.