Egypt

Dai Havard Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Before Mr Kwarteng introduces the debate, may I make a couple of comments? I think that people should know that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on defence and diplomacy in the middle east and north Africa, which I run in association with the Royal United Services Institute. In addition, I would like to report that I visited the Egyptian embassy in London on 13 December for a meeting and lunch with both the Egyptian ambassador and the strategic adviser to the current Adminstration, Dr El Mostafa Higazy. I say that simply for the record, and I now ask Mr Kwarteng to kick us off on our subject, which is the political and economic situation in Egypt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

In the Sinai peninsula, which has generally been, for the past 40 years, under Egyptian control, the situation is one of relative anarchy. In that context, it would be asking a lot to expect any Egyptian Government to open the border. I cannot see such a development taking place, given where we are today. The army has a real job on its hands in trying to introduce some element of rule of law in the Sinai peninsula.

I conclude by making one or two remarks about our response. We went to our embassy in Cairo, where we received generous hospitality, and we encountered some hard-working and committed diplomats. The feeling that we received from people to whom we spoke in Egypt, at all levels, was that the west had failed Egypt and that we, as one of Egypt’s longest-standing partners, had not fully grasped the nature of the situation. That might be a misrepresentation, but I can only report what I was told. There was a perception that we had been slightly wrong-footed by events. In a fast-changing environment it is easy to back the wrong horse and then find that the winning horse is suspicious of people who have not fully supported it.

For decades to come, we will have to question the operation of the multi-party system. Over the past four years, secular parties have not emerged. The two power blocs of the army and the Muslim Brotherhood are the dominant forces in Egypt, and they may well be for some time to come. The Al-Nour party, which won a quarter of the parliamentary seats, is a Salafist party inspired by political Islam. It is difficult to see how a multi-party secular democracy can emerge in a country in which the army and political Islam, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, play such dominant roles.

In Westminster and across western capitals, we will have to come to terms with that. We will have to reassess the somewhat naive idea that Egypt might become a multi-party system like Australia, for example. If anyone thought in 2011 that that might happen, it was a rather naive assumption. We simply have to describe what we see on the ground and how popular will is expressed. Secular parties have not developed as many of us anticipated, and it is an open question whether we should try to encourage their growth or simply focus our attention on the humanitarian and economic situation in Egypt.

I am grateful for the care and attention with which Members of the House have listened to my remarks, and I look forward to listening to and participating in the subsequent debate.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Four Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and I want to start the wind-ups at about 10.30 am. About 15 minutes from each speaker with interventions will probably take us there.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Havard, and I thank you for your declaration of interests. I suspect in common with many other hon. Members, I always find it reassuring to have someone in the Chair who knows something about the subject. It is good to see you here. I know that it is customary in the House not to acknowledge people in the Strangers Gallery but, I am sure on behalf of everyone here, I pay tribute to the work of the Egyptian ambassador in London and his staff. He is a charming and well-informed representative of his country. I am sure we all want to put on record our gratitude for his work.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for securing a debate on this important issue of the political and economic situation in Egypt. It would be sensible to say at once and on the record that I am sure I speak for everyone in condemning the violence in Egypt over the weekend, when more than 60 people were killed and many were injured. All our thoughts are with the families of those affected. If the report in this morning’s press that the police chief in Cairo was shot overnight is correct, I am sure that again I speak for everyone here in saying that our thoughts are very much with his family and his colleagues in the Egyptian police. As came through in every contribution this morning, everyone wants all Egyptians to resolve their differences peacefully and to refrain from violence.

Egypt is in the middle of a political transition, which began three years ago in January 2011, in Tahrir square. Since then, the Egyptian people have seen three Governments: the military-led Supreme Council of the Armed Forces; a year of Muslim Brotherhood rule; and, since July 2013, an interim Government. This is a crucial time for Egypt’s future and long-term stability. As many have said, the referendum on the draft constitution that was held on 14 and 15 January was an important milestone on the political road map and allowed millions of Egyptians to express their opinion through the ballot box. Egyptians are now looking ahead to see what kind of political process will take shape over the next six months. We expect the presidential election to proceed, followed by parliamentary elections in the summer. Both will be crucial to Egypt’s transition and to the country’s political and economic trajectory for years to come.

I will go through the various contributions and respond, if I can, to the points that have been made My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne—I am delighted that CMEC still takes people to countries throughout the middle east—made a fair and balanced speech. He is absolutely right that the situation is very nuanced and that there is no easy right or wrong. Crucially, he made it clear how important Egypt is to us as a country and to the region. It has an unparalleled place in history, which was a point also made by the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). Egypt is vital to the security of the region, as the major Sunni state in that part of the world.

This country is Egypt’s largest direct foreign investor. At the height of the tourism boom, in about 2008, some 1.5 million British tourists went to visit Egypt. This country and Egypt have many areas of mutual interest. As many Members have said, Egypt has a young and emerging population, and many of them want to learn English, which is crucial to their economic future. We have also just seen a London football club in the premier league sign a young Egyptian starlet, so I am sure that many more Egyptian fans will be watching English football.

The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), who has left the Chamber, was right to talk about the importance of an inclusive process. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) made a good point, which came out when I was in Egypt in the week before Christmas: the problem with the Muslim Brotherhood Government was not one of ideology, but that they were simply incompetent, as a number of people said to me. They almost brought the country to its knees. I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s hope that a democratic Government will emerge.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned something that I will certainly take up. I have not yet seen the letter from the NUJ, but we will look for it when we get back to the office, and I will read it and ensure that those matters are taken up by our embassy in Cairo. I shall come on to the issue of religious and ethnic minorities in a minute, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman was right about the Muslim Brotherhood—he may find it strange my agreeing with him—because by sheer force of numbers it will be an important force in Egypt for many years to come, as it has been for many years already. Finding an accommodation with it will be crucial to the long-term political stability of Egypt. By the same token, however, the Muslim Brotherhood must commit to a democratic process. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that. Until it does, that makes it very difficult for the Government of Egypt.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I often talk about religious things. He is absolutely correct to draw the attention of the House to the plight of Christians. When I was in Cairo in the week before Christmas, we specifically asked to see the Copts. We do not have the facility to ask everyone in the Chamber, but I suspect that if I asked Members how many Copts there were in Egypt they would probably pick a reasonably small number. I was amazed to find, however, that the answer is 10 million to 12 million, which is a considerable number.

The Coptic pope was away from Cairo on travels, but I met a couple of the bishops. We had a positive, delightful, informed and structured talk on the political situation in Egypt. I have to report to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that they were enthusiastic about the new constitution and thought that it was a step forward. As is often the case with senior bishops, the bishop I met was sensitive about the previous Government, but it was clear that life for the Copts had not been easy under the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, I heard that evening how the Ministry of Tourism in Cairo traditionally issues licences for Christmas celebrations, but when it tried to license the first Christmas celebrations under the Muslim Brotherhood Government it was told not to do so. It was therefore unable to license Christmas celebrations over that period. This year alone, 94 or 97 licences—I cannot remember the figure—were issued, so licences are being issued once again. For all the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman correctly drew attention, it was clear from my conversation that the Copts felt that they were in a much better place now than was the case a year before.

The right hon. Member for Warley again made a good and well-balanced speech. I do not worry about the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), because we have tried to ensure that he has a valuable week in Beirut by helping him to get the right briefing. I hope that that is worth while. I join the right hon. Member for Warley in paying tribute to the work of the United States Secretary of State in seeking a wider peace agreement throughout the middle east. The energy and commitment that he has put into that initiative has been second to none and we support those efforts. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to the importance of capacity building. I used to be a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in a previous life, and it and many other organisations will play a crucial role.

If there are no other questions, I will conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne again for securing this valuable and timely debate. For the record, this country’s relationship with Egypt is a long-standing one, and I want that relationship to be constructive and positive. We will continue to do everything that we can to support the Egyptian people in their country’s ongoing political and economic transition, although on occasion we will need to express our concerns about human rights and democratic principles. It is important that the political process is inclusive, and that is what the people of Egypt were looking for three years ago. We continue to believe that that will be the best route to long-term stability, security and economic success in the area.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Minister and Members, for your considered behaviour and opinions. While the changeover to the next debate is taking place, I remind people who have entered the Chamber, if they have any electronic equipment that might make noises or otherwise disturb us, to turn it off or put it on silent running. The next debate is on Ofsted and standards in education.

UK Relations with Ukraine

Dai Havard Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

I will not start the clock at the moment, because I would like to say something before we begin. I have the Minister and the hon. Gentleman in place. May I appeal to anyone with any electronic gadgets who entered the Chamber since I started to please ensure that they are on silent, because I do not want any interruptions from those devices? May I also make how we will conduct the debate and how I will chair it very clear? The debate is between a Member and the Minister in a very short space of time. There is great interest in the discussion from the public. I am determined to protect the Minister’s time and the Member’s time, to ensure that we have the debate properly and without interference from the Public Gallery or elsewhere. I have agreed that Ms Latham can take part of Mr Whittingdale’s time and speak in the debate. I appeal to other Members to make interventions cogent and short, should you wish to make them. I intend to give the Minister at least 10 minutes to reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—anyone who has orchestrated any sort of violence in contravention of the basic norms and human rights should be held to account publicly, with the full weight of the law holding them to account for their actions.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for his continued interest in Ukraine and the surrounding region, and other Members of the House for their contributions today.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Before we finish, may I say thank you very much for the way in which the debate has been conducted? It is being broadcast and webcast, and the fact that it was conducted with dignity and quality gives it an additional power. So thank you very much for your co-operation. With all the disruption, I intend to allow the next debate to run until 5.10 pm. We will see how the discourse takes us.

FCO: Human Rights Work

Dai Havard Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Stanley]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. In some countries to which he refers, national law conspicuously contradicts the Commonwealth charter that has just been announced.

I am glad to say that we now seem to have had a significant breakthrough as far as Commonwealth countries are concerned. In the text of the Commonwealth charter, which the Foreign Secretary has just laid before the House as a Command Paper, we were all glad to see, for the first time, a statement that freedom of expression is an essential Commonwealth principle. I must say that the wording of the paragraph is not entirely as I would have wished. It contains no reference to the right of peaceful demonstration or protest and instead of referring to “a free media” refers to “a free and responsible media,” which will of course provide grounds for countries that regard any form of criticism of the Government of the day as irresponsible to snuff out freedom of expression. We have made a significant step forward however. Freedom of expression is now within the Commonwealth charter—something we have never achieved before.

In conclusion, I wish to add my congratulations to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on producing this substantial report—all 388 pages, all well worth the publication cost. I have said before, but I want to put on record again, that we owe the initiative entirely to the late Robin Cook, who began these particular FCO annual reports. I consider it imperative that the FCO continues to produce these annual human rights reports—and produces them in hard copy, please. It is equally imperative that they should be scrutinised annually by the Foreign Affairs Committee and that the Committee’s scrutiny comes annually before the House.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Before I call the other speakers, may I advise hon. Members of the time? I would like to give the two Front Benchers and Mr Ottaway a few minutes to respond and I have two speakers on my list, so it would be helpful if, between the two of you, you kept to eight to 10 minutes, with interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

He is utterly inscrutable. He and I had an interesting debate in Cambridge two weeks ago, and he was less inscrutable then.

I wanted to raise many issues, but I shall try to be brief to take on the points you made, Mr Havard, about the length of the debate. We should consider the fact that the parliamentary process of human rights monitoring is complex. We have the Human Rights Act 1998, which applies to UK law. I am a strong supporter of it and our participation in the European convention on human rights and the European Court Of Human Rights. You, Mr Havard, chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which the 1998 Act set up. I welcome the Joint Committee and its work. It has been a valuable way to monitor what has gone on, but I remain to be persuaded that, with all the other responsibilities the Foreign Affairs Committee has, it would not be better to have an international human rights Committee of the UK Parliament to deal with international human rights issues and to put forward the strong cases that many Members make on many occasions about human rights issues around the world.

Things have moved on, in that Britain is a signatory to the International Criminal Court and our courts have pronounced a universal jurisdiction for human rights offenders and potential war criminals where there is prima facie evidence against them. That was a huge step forward. We have spent a lot of time raising human rights in Chile and the need to put General Pinochet and others on trial for what they did there, so I welcome the universal jurisdiction declaration. Much less welcome however is that Parliament has reduced its applicability by limiting the arrest warrant to an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than an application from an individual citizen to Westminster magistrates court. That has not done our reputation much good.

When the Minister responds to the debate—obviously there are many issues and I guess he will not be able to reply to all of them—I would be grateful if he could answer this narrative issue. I welcome the way in which our representatives at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, which I quite often attend on behalf of a non-governmental organisation, regularly and effectively take up the issue of the death penalty; they are to be commended on that. It is quite noticeable that on every single report that comes up from a country that retains the death penalty, the UK representative gets up and objects to its use in that jurisdiction; I absolutely welcome that.

I am interested in taking international human rights and human rights law further. The International Criminal Court is an enormous step forward—there is no question about that—but the non-participation of certain countries in it, particularly the United States, obviously weakens it. Since the first world war, the US has had mixed feelings about involvement in any international organisation. What pressure was the Minister able to bring to bear on the United States regarding its participation, or indeed on the many other countries that still need to participate?

I am an officer of the all-party group on human rights, and a vast number of human rights abuse issues are brought to our attention. We try to take them up in the best way we can with our very limited resources. I want to bring up a general issue, but I will first deal with some specific countries.

I notice how rapidly human rights issues can change. In the “Human Rights and Democracy: The 2011 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report”, one country that has not been listed for particular attention is Bangladesh. Yesterday, there was a demonstration outside this building concerning the current wave of attacks on minorities and the conduct of the war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh. Amnesty International reported last week:

“A wave of violent attacks against Bangladesh’s minority Hindu community shows the urgent need for authorities to provide them with better protection…Over the past week, individuals taking part in strikes called for by Islamic parties have vandalised more than 40 Hindu temples across Bangladesh.”

The report goes on to describe the attacks against religious minorities. To the credit of those who attended the small demonstration yesterday in Parliament square, there were representatives from Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and Muslim organisations. They wanted to see the retention of the secular constitution in Bangladesh and to question the conduct of the war crimes tribunal.

I have no problem whatever with any country deciding to investigate what were the most abominable abuses of human rights and the war crimes committed during the independence war of 1971. However, the case would be strengthened if international observers were specifically appointed to attend all the sessions, to give it a degree of support and approval, which was done in war crimes tribunals in other parts of the world. It is not to say that the war crimes tribunal is a bad thing—I think it is a good thing—but observer presence should be strengthened.

While I understand the deep anger that many people feel and the terrible sense of loss that many have suffered, I cannot, under any circumstance, support the death penalty for anything; indeed, that is now a narrative of our policies. I hope that we will make that clear, and also make it clear that the mobs that are attacking minority communities or anyone who is not seen to approve what they want are totally unacceptable. We should be saying that clearly to the Bangladeshi Government. I do not blame the Bangladeshi Government for the activities of the mobs, because those activities are largely directed against the Government, but all Governments have a responsibility to protect minorities and people in what is an extremely difficult situation. There is a large Bangladeshi community in this country.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling rightly drew attention to the situation in Palestine. I was in Gaza three weeks ago, on a delegation with colleagues from the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties, organised by Interpal. The issue of human rights and the treatment of prisoners are very current. Issues such as Palestinian parliamentarians still being held in prison, the frequent use of executive detention and the hunger strikes that have taken place, and continue to take place, among the prisoners are not going to go away.

Effectively, 1.7 million people are in a prison called Gaza, with very limited access to Israel and no access whatever, as far as I can see, to the west bank through Israel. The population is imprisoned unless Egypt can be persuaded to open the Rafah crossing fully, which would in turn make Gaza part of Egypt rather than part of Palestine. That may well be the intention of some, but we must be firm that the continued corralling of people in Gaza is an abuse of their human rights on a collective scale.

There is something tragic in talking to brilliant young people in Gaza. Some 55% of the population are university graduates—the best educated population in the whole region—but unemployment is at 70%. Their life chances and career possibilities are limited. It is a cauldron, of course, that explodes from time to time, and unless the fundamental issues are addressed, that cauldron will continue to explode.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) said about Sri Lanka and the treatment of Tamil people. I hope that the Government will continue to put all the pressure they can on the Sri Lankan Government. Above all, I hope that the embassy and particularly the Home Office will follow up cases in which someone is forcibly removed to another jurisdiction.

My final general points are about thematic issues. Dalit people in India and many other countries suffer a collective abuse of human rights because of a perverted view of Hinduism. Hundreds of millions of people suffer from that. We have an opportunity to support what the House of Lords has done and defend its amendment to our legislation that would mean that it will be illegal to discriminate by caste and descent in this country. That is illegal in the Indian constitution, but collective discrimination takes place on a massive scale. While the Department for International Development has done well in targeting aid programmes, which ensures that that does not happen in any project that we fund, we must be as tough as possible with the Indian Government and other Governments in whose territory discrimination by caste and descent takes place.

Around the world, there are individual and collective abuses of the human rights of people in the circumstances that we have outlined. There is also an appalling lack of human rights, dignity and access to democracy for large numbers of desperately poor migrants around the world. They are the people who are exploited in big cities and who die when they try to cross the Mediterranean, get to the Canary islands in the Atlantic or travel through Mexico to get to the United States, where they hope to gain some kind of economic salvation. We must address the collective human rights issues of millions of people around the world who suffer the most appalling privations and often death while trying to find a place of economic and political sanctuary. It is up to us to be more alert and aware of the causes. That is surely what being in a democratic Parliament is about.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

I must correct Mr Corbyn: it is not my Committee. The good work is down to Dr Hywel Francis who is the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, not me. It is probably because we are both Welsh that we have a great interest in human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was about to mention the fact that the Minister did, but the Prime Minister did not, despite India’s recent resumption of the use of the death penalty, and the abolition of the death penalty being included among the priorities of the Foreign Secretary’s human rights advisory group. As the Minister has just advised me from a sedentary position—I was going to mention it anyway—he discussed the death penalty with representatives in India, but if

“the promotion and protection of human rights”

really is at the heart of UK foreign policy, as the Foreign Secretary states in his foreword to the 2011 report, does the Minister not think that that should be the case at every level of Government and that it should not be given to—if the Minister will forgive me for saying so—a junior Minister in the Department rather than the Secretary of State to raise such issues?

Similarly, when I asked the Prime Minister about what discussion there was of human rights when he visited the UAE and Saudi Arabia, he would say only that

“no subject is off limits”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 143W.]

That rather gave the impression that human rights had not been discussed in detail with the Government. Will the Minister advise us on whether human rights were discussed and, given that Saudi Arabia is listed as a country of concern, will he tell us what the Government’s policy is on ministerial and prime ministerial visits to countries of concern, and whether there is clear guidance about whether and when human rights should be included on that list?

The Prime Minister’s visit to Saudi Arabia brings me neatly on to the arms trade. It is deeply concerning that the Committee found that the Minister with responsibility for human rights was not even aware let alone consulted about which countries appeared both on the FCO’s list of countries of concern and as one of the priority markets for arms exports for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Will the Minister assure us that in future there will be more co-ordination between the two Departments, and can he outline the FCO’s guidance on arms exports to countries of concern? With the imminence of the UN conference on the arms trade treaty, will he assure us that the UK will be the champion of a strong treaty and not a broker for a weak one?

Given the short time we have left, I will leave my comments on Sri Lanka for the Commonwealth day debate. None the less, I echo the concerns that have been raised about the human rights situation there.

I was in Burma over the weekend and had the fantastic opportunity to attend the first-ever conference of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy. It had been banned for 25 years from holding a party conference. It gives one such hope to visit a country where there has been progress on both human rights and democracy. We hope that in 2015, there will be democratic elections which will see Aung San Suu Kyi become President of Burma. I wanted to mention my visit because it shows that improvements can happen. Last year, the EU took the decision to suspend sanctions. Given what I have observed of the situation in Burma, I think that that was the correct decision and indeed it is something that the NLD supported as well.

Finally, it was troubling that the Government were so reticent in providing information on the number of staff working full-time on human rights. I know that the Foreign Affairs Committee eventually ascertained that there are 14 staff working across the 28 countries of concern and four case-studies countries. Does the Minister have any plans to increase that number?

To conclude, I welcome the Government’s continuing commitment to their annual human rights report and, as I have already said, I hope that next year we can have a fuller and more public discussion of the 2012 report in the main Chamber.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

May I ask you, Minister, to give Mr Ottaway a couple of minutes at the end of the debate?

[Richard Ottaway]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Mr Ottaway is indicating that he does not need more time.

[Richard Ottaway]

I give my time to the Minister.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Excellent. Thank you very much for that. I call the Minister.

Zimbabwe (Blood Diamonds)

Dai Havard Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure as always to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. It has been a privilege to listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) in this extremely important debate, in which Members have shown their collective experience, knowledge and wisdom. The debate is useful in framing an important period for Zimbabwe. It gives us an opportunity to set some context for the important elections due to take place next year.

I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend, whose knowledge of the issue we all understand. He brings with him the specific experience of having been a Minister for Africa and having been involved in the Kimberley process. We need to use this debate to consider, analyse and assess where the Kimberley process is. If we are to make progress in dealing not just with Zimbabwe but with Africa as a whole, the steps taken by the international community and international institutions to assess the income from the extractive industries in Africa will be a key part of belief in governance and politics in Africa going forward. It is important that we take that into consideration.

I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) for his important observations on the importance of independence in judicial processes, which is still sadly lacking in Zimbabwe. He also made an important point about preparations for next year’s elections. Will the Minister reflect on the contribution that parliamentarians can make in observing elections in countries that are undertaking extremely important consultations on constitutional matters? There is an increasing tendency for parliamentarians to be excluded, ironically, from election observation missions. It is a sorry trend. There are a lot of missions. For example, I went to the Congo last year at a very important time for a very important election—the visit was funded by Christian Aid—and I think that I was the only Member of the House of Commons present, although I was joined by a colleague of mine from the House of Lords. It is important that the House of Commons considers the role of parliamentarians at important elections in countries such as Zimbabwe.

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, however, we have to be careful and think about the context of our relations with Zimbabwe, the way in which the United Kingdom is perceived there, and our connections and imperial past. That is never an excuse for bad behaviour, but, as I will say later, we need to operate from the perspective of principle and ask what the right thing to do is in dealing with the elections. We must try to avoid the lazy accusation that is so often made against the United Kingdom whereby our actions are perceived through the prism of our imperialist past by some in Zimbabwe, particularly the Zimbabwean Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) made an excellent contribution, as I would expect. I promise to read Roy Bennett’s speech, and I am sure that she will give me full details of it following the debate. An overall assessment of the position in Zimbabwe is desperately needed. We have made some progress. Obviously, the involvement of Mr Tsvangirai in government has mitigated some of the dreadful things that were happening earlier in the decade, but it is clearly the case—much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath has said explains why—that some individuals in Zimbabwe are extracting vast wealth and they are using it for their own personal interest. That explains their desperate efforts to retain power and I take on board the scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall about them ever giving it up. We have to do all we can to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe, who have suffered so much in recent years, and who still suffer, have the opportunity at the ballot box to elect a Government who truly represent their interests, and not the partial and corrupt interests of many of those people to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath has referred.

We have also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made the important point that this is not just a matter for the British Government. Obviously, we operate at a European level through the European Union’s institutions, but this process can lead to a positive result only if the international community works together. Institutions need to be developed that can effectively monitor the way in which international trade is conducted and that can ensure that the proceeds of the huge wealth under discussion are used for the benefit of the Zimbabwean people.

On that wealth, transparency in the extractive industries will be key both to effective governance throughout many states in Africa and to dealing with the curse of corruption, which still afflicts so many countries in Africa. We have focused on Zimbabwe and the diamond industry, but the principles of openness and accountability are essential if we are to build credibility and belief in politics in Africa.

Today is an important opportunity for us to reiterate our support for and solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe, following the country’s tragic recent history, and to recognise the bravery of so many of the Zimbabwean people who have stood up to state-sponsored violence and intimidation over so many years. We as the United Kingdom have a responsibility to promote peace and democracy in Zimbabwe, and successive British Governments have been guided by the principle of how best to make it possible for the people of Zimbabwe to decide on the future of their own country. Of course, our own relationship has been perceived through the prism of our historic role, but it is important that our present policy is based on principles of openness and accountability and that it should be seen as such by the Government of Zimbabwe.

To set that relationship in context, the previous Labour Government increased aid to Zimbabwe to £67 million in 2009-10, and I am pleased that the present Government have maintained their own commitment to bilateral support. We want to do all we can to support the people of Zimbabwe, and our own constituents also feel strongly about the issue. The Government of Zimbabwe should recognise that. Our commitment is an historical one and it should continue.

It is extremely important that we pay tribute to the valuable work of a number of organisations in and around Zimbabwe, including Global Witness, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath has referred, the Open Society Foundations, and the British Trades Union Congress Action for Southern Africa, which arose out of the anti-apartheid movement. They have all informed and contributed to the debate.

I note that Members from all parties have started questioning the credibility of the Kimberley process. The evidence produced by my right hon. Friend is extremely important and deeply worrying. What is the UK Government’s present assessment of the credibility of the Kimberley process? Do they think that enough is being done to regulate the diamond industry fully and properly, both generally and specifically in relation to Zimbabwe? We have agreed during this debate that the issues are of international importance and that they need to be dealt with on an international basis. In order to achieve an effective international process, we must have belief in the processes that we have set up. My right hon. Friend has raised some real concerns, and unless they are addressed, it will be difficult to retain the trust required in the process to enable us to participate effectively.

This debate is timely, because just a few weeks ago a group of western ambassadors visited two high-security mining fields in Zimbabwe—the Chinese-owned Anjin and Marange resources. The group was headed by the EU ambassador to Zimbabwe, Aldo Dell’Ariccia; the first visit was by foreign diplomats. The Minister will know that, since the EU ambassador’s return, he has spoken about his doubts about the transparency of the operations. What discussions have the UK Government had with the EU ambassadors who visited the fields, and what were the outcomes of the recent visit?

We have also heard of Members’ concerns about enforcement. Critics believe that the Kimberley process appears to be applying enforcement only to crimes committed by rebel groups, but not to human rights abuses committed by Governments such as Zimbabwe’s. The Kimberley process took the decision in November 2011 to lift a ban on the sale of diamonds from the Marange fields in Zimbabwe. We have heard the evidence today; it is deeply disturbing and specific in content, and without a response to those allegations it is difficult to extend further support and confidence to the Kimberley process. What representations have the Government made to those supervising the Kimberley process on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe’s diamond fields?

As I have said, transparency is crucial in all extraction mining activities, including the diamond sector. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath set out, the Opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, runs the Ministries of Finance, of Education, Sport and Culture, and of Health and Child Welfare, while Mugabe’s ZANU-PF retains other Ministries, including the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Mines and Mining Development. The Finance Minister, Tendai Biti, reports that the Treasury is yet to receive money from the owned Anjin and Marange diamond reserves, and a crucial and simple question must be addressed: where is the money going?

It is essential that funds from diamond reserves go directly to the Treasury of Zimbabwe so that it can support the people of that country and their specific needs. As we have heard, life expectancy remains low, but the Zimbabwean Government are slowly rebuilding the education and health infrastructure. We—the British taxpayer—are trying to help with that process, but we must know and understand that the proceeds of Zimbabwe’s wealth will be spent on Zimbabwe’s real needs: doctors, nurses and teachers.

In a bilateral aid review by the Department for International Development for 2011-12, the Government rightly focused on the UK’s commitment to improving health and education for the people of Zimbabwe, including maternal and child health, water and sanitation. We cannot, however, countenance a situation in which the proceeds of Zimbabwe’s wealth are used for the personal aggrandisement of politicians, or the corrupting or influencing of elections. It has been widely speculated that money is being diverted from the progress that we all want to see, and used instead to supplement and support President Mugabe’s security forces. None of us wants a repeat of the horror and bloodshed that took place in the run-up to the 2008 elections in Zimbabwe, when ZANU-PF supporters and secret policemen killed and tortured hundreds of people. There are reports that Mugabe’s regime has already used diamond money to buy weapons and invest in training to intimidate voters in the elections. Less than a year before Zimbabwe’s next election, can we be confident that diamond assets will not go towards funding ZANU-PF electoral violence?

I look forward to hearing the Minister reiterate the UK’s support for the reform of security forces in Zimbabwe, particularly with regard to preventing ZANU-PF violence and intimidation in the run-up to elections. What discussions have the UK Government had with the Southern Africa Development Community and the African Union to push the issue of security sector reform?

I hope that the Government are working with the international community to ensure the strong presence of electoral observers—including parliamentary observers—both prior to and during the elections in Zimbabwe next year. Reports suggest that the EU is considering removing or suspending some of the targeted sanctions. What discussions have the Minister or his colleagues had with the EU on that issue, and what is the position of the UK in those discussions?

We all know that Zimbabwe has great potential, not only because of its courageous people but because of its past agricultural productivity, resources and the region’s natural advantages. Given our strong historical ties, the UK has a responsibility to do all it can to help to ensure that Zimbabwe becomes a prosperous, stable country. That includes ensuring that the diamond process is transparent, that funds reach the Treasury and that the population benefits. It is our responsibility to exert as much pressure as we can to achieve that end, and I hope that the Minister’s comments will reaffirm that collective goal.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Thank you. I call Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

That is not me.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

I apologise. I should have struck that name off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

May I address that point a little later in my remarks? The right hon. Gentleman anticipates where I am going.

While in principle we welcome the development of a supplement on diamonds to the OECD due diligence guidance for responsible supply chains of minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas, we do not believe that this is the right time to launch such a process, given the risk of undermining ongoing efforts to reform the Kimberley process. An OECD-led process would also be effective only if the diamond industry and diamond producing states agreed to participate, and therefore significant further consultations would be needed before any such process could begin.

That leads me on to the important and live question of the EU’s targeted measures on Zimbabwe. As all are aware, those measures are under discussion in Brussels. In answer to the questions from hon. Members, let me set out our aim. We want to support the process towards a credible referendum ahead of free and fair elections in 2013. In doing so, we need to encourage progress and incentivise reform, which is why we need to use the measures in the right way to effect a change in behaviour. Therefore, we, and our EU partners, are looking at what options exist to best respond to the clear calls from reformers, including the Movement for Democratic Change, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and President Zuma and SADC, for the EU to show flexibility to support the reform process.

I was grateful to the hon. Member for Vauxhall, because she put it correctly when she spoke of mixed feelings about how to proceed, and of the uncertainty. I do not think it would be any surprise to indicate that that is exactly where we all are. It is difficult to get the balance right. However, we believe the best way to support progress is through a shift in the EU approach. We have, therefore, proposed to partners that, if there is a peaceful and credible constitutional referendum, the EU should respond accordingly with a suspension of the ban on direct EU development aid and a suspension of the asset freeze and travel ban on all but a small core of individuals around President Mugabe, particularly those who will have most influence on the potential for violence in the next election. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no prospect of any suspension being applied to President Mugabe himself. The process will demonstrate to reformers across the political spectrum that the EU is serious about responding to concrete progress on the ground, and reflects our confidence in the facilitation process being undertaken by President Zuma and the leaders of SADC. It also puts the onus on to the Zimbabwe Government to live up to their commitments. If the situation deteriorates, we can, of course, respond appropriately.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, all EU partners need to agree a shift in approach, and discussions are ongoing. Alternative approaches have also been suggested, including steps the EU could take in advance of a constitutional referendum.

Within that broad approach, the question of diamonds is particularly acute. We are grateful to Global Witness for its continued effort to shine a light on evidence, and to the right hon. Gentleman for the evidence he set out today. We have listened carefully, and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will do so, too. The militarisation of diamond finance is an issue that has a direct impact on the prospects for free and fair elections, and we are acutely aware of that risk. We are looking very carefully at the evidence and we will share it with partners. Although the dynamic we seek is one of responding to progress, where there is strong evidence we will of course take it seriously and encourage the addition of further names, but hon. Members will understand if I do not go into detail. Ultimately, this decision will be taken by all 27 member states in unanimity, based on the legal arguments.

We have had a very important debate, the consequences of which are long lasting. I hope I have done something to indicate the general approach of the Government, to recognise the evidence raised, and to give an assurance that evidence is taken into account in our discussion with all our partners. We know this is a complex area. We want to see progress and we hope that the deliberations of the Chamber and our own considerations will help that progress to move forward without any suspicion of naivety in our approach to the Government of Zimbabwe.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

I apologise for my senior moment earlier, Mr Burt, and I thank you for the quality of your responses. We now move to the next debate.