Tibet

David Simpson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will go on to detail some of the human rights abuses perpetrated against Tibetans simply for expressing their support for their religious leader or displaying the Tibetan flag, which is something that we can freely do outside Tibet. That is reprehensible.

The middle way approach for genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people was a policy conceived by His Holiness in 1974, in an effort to engage the Chinese Government in dialogue and find a peaceful way to protect the unique Tibetan culture and identity. It is a policy adopted democratically through a series of discussions over many decades between the Central Tibetan Administration and the Tibetan people, and there is no doubt that it is a “win-win” proposition that straddles the middle path between the status quo and full independence—one that categorically rejects the present repressive policies of the Chinese Government towards the Tibetan people without seeking separation from the People’s Republic of China.

The most recent series of talks between Dharamsala and Beijing began in 2002, with a total of nine rounds of talks being held since then. During the seventh round of talks in 2008—the year in which unprecedented and widespread protests broke out across Tibet—the Chinese Government asked the Tibetan leadership to put in writing the nature of the autonomy it sought. The “Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People” was presented during the eighth round of talks in 2008. The Chinese Government expressed a number of concerns and objections to the memorandum. To address those concerns, during the ninth and last round of talks in January 2010 the Tibetan leadership presented the “Note on the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People”.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He gave an answer to a previous question about discussions that were held, and he outlined that there was not much engagement with people. Was there any engagement with the youth of Tibet in particular or with the educationalists, to hear their views?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question; the answer is no, not while we were there. On subsequent visits to Dharamsala we engaged with many young people who had escaped from Tibet to seek refuge and sanctuary in India. They made their views very clear, and how they saw the oppression by the Chinese Communist regime in Lhasa and other parts of Tibet. Sadly, however, while we were in Tibet, we did not have access to anybody outside those who were dictated to by our hosts. Those were the strict rules under which we were allowed to visit Tibet at all. It was a privilege to be in Tibet, but sadly it was not a very enlightening visit as far as learning the views of the people was concerned. Nevertheless, being there and seeing things for ourselves meant a great deal.

As I was saying, the Chinese Government expressed a number of concerns and objections to the memorandum. To address these, the Tibetan leadership presented the “Note on the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People” during the ninth and last round of talks. The memorandum and the note outline how genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people could operate within the framework of the People’s Republic of China—its constitution, its sovereignty and territorial integrity, its “three adherences” and the hierarchy and authority of the Chinese central Government.

Sadly, there has been no dialogue between the Chinese and the exiled Tibetan leadership since 2010. Despite that, however, the Tibetan leadership remains steadfast in its commitment to the middle way approach, and to finding a lasting solution through dialogue between the envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the representatives of the Chinese leadership. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is this. Would the British Government support the resumption of dialogue between the envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the representatives of the Chinese leadership? The Tibetan leadership has reiterated on numerous occasions its commitment to seeking genuine autonomy, not independence, and to finding a resolution to the Tibet issue through peaceful means. The British Government have a particular responsibility, unique among all western Governments, because of the relationship that we had with the Tibetan Government in Lhasa prior to 1959.

EU Reform

David Simpson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman and my party were on same platform—that is good news, and I am glad to hear it.

As we move towards the Westminster election campaign next year, people’s minds are focusing on Europe, not just because of other parties’ stances on the issue, but because it affects their lives, and I want to talk about that.

The hon. Member for Stone is right that we cannot let Germany direct EU strategy or policy. We cannot allow debate on EU reform to be simply about tit-for-tat arguments on ideology. We need a real dose of realism, and today’s debate gives us that realism.

The worst of Europe damages the best of Britain. That is how I feel about the issue, and that is how I believe many others feel about it. The worst of Europe means red tape for businesses, mass immigration and less money for hard-working taxpayers. The May elections proved that the people of the EU are angry. The Government should not need reminding that the message sent loud and clear at our polls was that voters have had enough.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on obtaining the debate. The research notes we received for the debate say Germany wants Britain to remain part of the EU

“because of its economic and political weight”.

If that is the case, Germany and others are surely going to have to change their attitude dramatically.

Western Balkans

David Simpson Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Randall]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, some years ago—as I became lost into the Whips Office, some of the dates have passed me by and have been put to one side, like all the memories I have of who did what to whom and when—I remember being closely involved with a faith organisation that was working in several areas of the Balkans. It still does tremendous work, because there is still incredible deprivation among some Roma populations and in some rural areas.

Since being released from the Whips Office, human trafficking and modern slavery have been of great interest to me. In that context, I visited Albania, which was the only country in the region that I had not visited. When I was a student, I would not have been allowed to go to Albania, because I had a beard and in the days of Enver Hoxha that might have made one appear to be an orthodox priest or something, although I am not sure that I resembled such a priest in any other way. However, I was encouraged, because I suppose that I listened over the years to a lot of the propaganda about what was going on in Albania. It is a poor country, but it is making efforts. However, modern slavery and human trafficking must really be considered across the whole region. I say to all those countries that aspire to join the EU, which may be some way off, that that is something on which they can really show leadership by trying to sort it out. Albania is doing what it can, but they all have a long way to go.

Kosovo is obviously probably the thorniest problem in the area, and some countries within the EU still have not recognised an independent Kosovo. The Serbs and the Kosovans have some form of agreement. It will never be far away from becoming a problem, but Baroness Ashton brought people together in a positive move, which should be encouraged. I do not expect an answer today, as this is not the Minister’s area of responsibility, but he could perhaps look into a question for me. When I last visited Kosovo a few years ago, people were still living in containers in some of the enclaves after being displaced from their homes. I am not sure whether that is the current situation, but I was appalled at the time that people in Europe should still be living like that after many years. Perhaps he could look into the matter. Also, some sacred monuments were still having to be guarded by NATO troops, because, even though they are centuries old, they were seen as indicating that Serbian culture had been on that territory, so I would welcome a note at some stage from his colleagues at the Foreign Office on the current situation.

Macedonia, as I am sure people realise, suffers not only from similar problems, but from a problem that I find incredible in today’s world: an EU country is resisting things because it does not think that Macedonia should use the name “Macedonia”. Now that I have raised that in Parliament, I will get e-mails and hate letters from Greek nationalists, as I did the last time that I mentioned it. I remember that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Macedonia when he was an Opposition shadow Minister. When he came back, he wrote an article in The Guardian—one of his favoured organs, I am sure—asking how people in Greece would like to referred to as living in the “former Ottoman province of Greece”.

That such objections go on these days is incredible, but I am aware of the sensitivities. Greece thinks that Macedonia, by having that name, has its sights on territory further down in Thrace and so forth. If we cannot sort out an agreement on a name in the EU, however, our chance of sorting out some of the finer points is a little worrying. Macedonia still has huge problems, not only between the Macedonians and the Macedonian Albanians, but with a large number of other peoples there.

Montenegro I used to know well. Members may know it still, because it has a beautiful coastline, although it is not all coastline; a lot of it is harsh karst scenery and a tough place to live. Montenegro got its independence, but has a huge problem with law and order. It also has a huge problem with smuggling and has a large amount of Russian investment, although perhaps the Russians are moving that to the Crimea at the moment, who knows, because Montenegro has EU aspirations and will be trying to untie slightly the close links that most of the Slavic countries in the area have with Russia. We need to help, because what is going on in Montenegro is a bit of a blot on the whole process.

Serbia I have spoken about, but I will return to it briefly, because I feel that it is moving forward. A lot is still to be done and the British and the EU can encourage the Serbs. We in the UK have a role to play, because of the traditional alliance that we had with them. The more that we can say that is where we are coming from, the better. I am not always simply being charitable; there is a huge opportunity for British trade in the area. Unfortunately, some of the practices in some of those countries do not encourage British trade. In fact, those who are in the diaspora tend to be the pioneers in the area. I commend an organisation, which I know quite well: the Serbian City Club. Young professionals in the UK of Serbian origin are doing an awful lot to encourage people.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. As he says, there is an opportunity in the area for business and investment. My understanding is that the Germans have invested fairly heavily in the agri-foods sector. What more can we do to encourage British businesses to invest there, and what conditions do we need to make it feasible for them to do so?

[Sir John Randall]

That is a good question. We have to think of ways to give confidence to UK businesses. There have been examples of rather strange practices, such as someone who has signed up an agreement, only to find that the mayor of the local town has changed and that that is no longer the case—company law is not well recognised. Northern Ireland could have huge agricultural possibilities in the Balkans. One of the things that I was looking at with someone, which is still possible, was the organic market and for us to import organic. Given the nature of the situation in those countries over the years, they did not get around to putting all the fertilisers and other things down, so there is huge potential. There are other needs—for example, Serbia would have to get goods through Montenegro on to the coast overland—and such matters would need to be sorted out, because a lot of food, especially fresh food, has to be got out quickly.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is not an area I know well now, although I used to know it well. That is one of the tragedies for me. When I was a student going around Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina seemed to me to be the place where everyone got along together. There was rivalry between Serbia and Croatia, and I could feel the tension in Kosovo between the native Kosovan Albanians and the Serbs living there, but in Bosnia, in spite of the presence of all the different mixes, everyone seemed to get along. The complete and utter tragedy of what happened indicates that we are never far away from disaster—we should never take things for granted. From what I understand, Bosnia still has a long way to go. As someone astutely observed to me, Dayton was a good peace agreement and ceasefire, but it is not a settlement for the country. That is a huge problem, but one we have to deal with.

I have certainly taken up enough time. I can see the relief coming in from Ulster in the Chamber, as always—

[David Simpson]

Coalition!

[Sir John Randall]

We will talk about that later. [Laughter.] I am demonstrating the strength of the Union.

As I might not have the opportunity to raise the subject of the western Balkans again, certainly given the length of time I have left in my parliamentary career, may I say that I was delighted to see that Arminka Helic, a former special adviser to the now Leader of the House, has been elevated to the Lords? She originates from Bosnia and knows much about the area. I am sure that the House of Lords will hear a lot of informed views over the coming years.

I thank Mr Speaker for giving me the opportunity of the debate. Even when I am no longer in Parliament, I will raise the subject of the Balkans, because like so many things—similar to the modern slavery issue, but going back a long way for me, 40 years—once it gets under your skin, however frustrating the Balkans is, it is one of the most fascinating areas of Europe. We should be delighted to have an opportunity to do what we can for it.

Burma (Persecution of Minorities)

David Simpson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

It is good to appear before you today, Mr Howarth. I thank the Minister for also appearing today. His portfolio covers many difficult issues, not least of which is the one we are discussing. I do appreciate that. I also thank other hon. Members who have been involved in raising this issue. I have spoken to some of them this morning. They are genuinely interested in the issue and concerned, and have previously initiated various debates in their own right, which gives an indication of their support for raising the issue, but they could not be here today.

Let me explain why I continue to want to raise this issue. The little secret is that seven or eight years ago, I had to google “Rohingya” to find out what the group was and what its background and history was. That arose when I was approached as a Bradford councillor, which I was then, through a housing association that had been contracted to provide accommodation and support to a group of Rohingya who were coming or wanted to come to Bradford through the Gateway programme, and we did provide a lot of support. There are certainly no votes in this, but there is now an important group of people, whom I consider to be Bradfordians and constituents, who regularly raise with me appalling stories of what is happening. The new arrivals originally came from Bangladesh. We campaigned hard on some of the issues faced by the Rohingyans in the camps in Bangladesh, but obviously in the last few years a new issue has emerged in the public’s awareness—the issue was not new in itself, but it was new in terms of public awareness. I refer to the activities that were taking place in Burma or Myanmar, and those are the ones that I want to talk about today.

The UN special rapporteur, Mr Quintana, produced a report back in April, and I will need to quote from it at some length, because this is someone who knows the issues. He has been to Burma many times—nine times, I think—and has visited some of the most difficult areas in Kachin and Rakhine. He reported back a sombre tale of his time in Myanmar.

The good news, at the beginning of Mr Quintana’s report, was about the release of many prisoners of conscience—more than 1,000—but some of his other comments make pretty worrying reading. In particular, he raised the ongoing issue in Burma of human rights. Despite the release of political prisoners and other reforms that are taking place, he had to conclude that he saw

“no improvements in the human rights situation.”

Indeed, he believed that the situation was getting worse, from what was “an already dire state.” He found that the practice of separating or segregating communities

“continues to have a severe impact on the Muslim populations in Rakhine…and in particular the Rohingya community.”

The discriminatory and really quite strict restrictions on freedom of movement for Muslim populations remain in place, as the Minister is well aware. Mr Quintana concluded that part of the report by saying that that continues to affect

“a range of other human rights including”—

sadly—“the right to life.”

So serious are some of the issues that Mr Quintana identified and experienced that he went on to conclude that the extrajudicial killings, rapes and other forms of sexual violence—

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He will be aware that since 2011 the Christian community in Burma has been persecuted dramatically, with 64 women and girls raped, 66 churches destroyed, 200 villages burnt down and more than 100,000 people displaced. Right up to 2013, there were gang rapes, as he has mentioned. Surely more pressure should be brought to bear on the Burmese Government to stop this horrendous activity.

[Mr Ward]

That is absolutely right. The fact that many of my comments, because of issues raised by my constituents, refer to the Muslim Rohingya in no way minimises the atrocities that are committed against other groups as well.

These issues are very serious. I started to mention some of them. Others include the lack of due process, fair trials and rights; forcible transfers; and the deprivation of liberty for so many people. These are not isolated incidents; they are happening on a large scale and are directed, in many cases, against the Rohingya population. So serious is the situation that the special rapporteur concluded that they amount to “systematic human rights violations”. They are so serious that they should be referred to the International Criminal Court as crimes against humanity. They are crimes against humanity as defined under the Rome statute and need to be elevated to that level in the public consciousness. We are talking about the worst of the worst.

I know that the Minister is aware of the report, and other hon. Members may want to pick out specific points, but it contains a whole series of recommendations, many of which the British Government could contribute to. I will come to specific actions that I and others believe the Government could and should take. More recently—again, the Minister will be aware of this—there has been a report back to the United Nations by the Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Ms Kyung-wha Kang. If anyone has not seen the video of the interview and questioning that took place, I recommend that they watch it. The report back to the UN was made only two weeks ago—I think it was 17 or 18 June; it was very recently. She points out that this is the second anniversary of the inter-communal violence in Rakhine and the third anniversary of the terrible conflict in Kachin.

The UN Assistant Secretary-General found that there were severe issues in providing access to international humanitarian aid. It is restricted, although in different ways, in the two states to which I have referred. In Kachin, there are up to 100,000—the point about the scale of this has already been made—displaced people in camps. Half are in Government camps, where some aid, of a limited nature, is possible and available. However, half are in IDP—internally displaced people—camps, which are under independent army control and where access is simply unobtainable.

The level of suffering is indicated in the comments of the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, who said that in Rakhine she witnessed

“a level of human suffering in IDP camps that I have personally never seen before”.

Men, women and children are living in appalling conditions, with severe restrictions on their freedom of movement, in camps and isolated villages. In Rakhine, there are estimated to be 140,000 displaced people, 90% of whom are Muslims, although there are some of other faiths. The problems are made worse by the fact that Rakhine is the poorest state in Myanmar. We can take it as a common state of existence that there is no electricity, no schools, no toilet facilities and no freedom of movement. Many people have been living in those conditions for years, although such accommodation—if we can call it accommodation—was supposed to be temporary.

In theory, humanitarian aid can be provided in those areas, but in practice it is much more difficult for a whole host of reasons. The first of those is travel; the Minister, who has visited the area, will know far more about that than I do. The UN Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs pointed out that a two-hour boat ride was required to reach one of the camps, let alone to transport any aid. There are also administrative barriers to obtaining authorisation. Often, the local community are at best distrustful and at worst hostile towards aid workers, whom they believe favour the Muslim community. We are talking about people who are in desperate straits. Humanitarian aid workers, who are incredible human beings who risk their own safety and put their lives at risk, are treated with hostility because they are thought to favour a particular group.

The real concern, as the Minister knows, is the continued statelessness of the Rohingya, on which there seems to be very little progress. It is telling that Ms Kang was advised not to refer to the Rohingya as Rohingya, because to do so would be controversial and might trigger tension, which might provoke a violent reaction. Considering the awful past in Burma, it appears that relationships with other states, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, have improved—although they could not really have been much worse. Notwithstanding Ms Kang’s comments about the negative aspects of the situation, to which I have referred to, she pointed out that huge strides had been made in political and economic reform, but little progress seems to have been made on the question of the Rohingya in Rakhine. She echoed Mr Quintana’s comments about the need for a change in culture. Pressure is being applied for constitutional change, but a fundamental reconciliation and a change in culture are the most important things. What is the point of a constitutional change if it is not supported by a change in attitude and culture in the region?

There are some points that I would like the Minister to respond to. Ms Kang refers in her statement to the Government action plan on Rakhine. Does the Minister know anything about that, and what progress is being made on it? There is also an opinion—I would like to know whether the Minister is aware of it—that the UK Government’s criticism of the Myanmar Government is muted because foreign Governments do not want to disrupt the progress being made and are therefore taking a softly, softly approach. We want reforms to continue, but that cannot happen at the cost of providing much-needed support for the Rohingya. Defending the Rohingya cannot be seen as contrary to a desire to support changes and reform in the country.

There is also a view that the reforms to date have simply been a smokescreen—that the President is carrying out limited reforms with a view to trying to get the international community to remove or reduce sanctions. As I understand it, some sanctions have been removed, so the strategy is working. It does not seem to be of any benefit to the Rohingya, however. I am grateful to the Burma Campaign UK, which has supplied me and other Members with briefing material over the last several months. The campaign has raised some specific concerns, to which I would like the Minister to respond. One is the census in Burma, to which the UK contributed £10 million. As the Minister knows, however, the promise that the Rohingya would be allowed to register as Rohingya was not kept. That is a broken promise. There is also a view that the Minister was somewhat snubbed and was banned from making a planned speech at Rangoon university; I do not know whether that is true. In addition, within hours of his visiting Kachin state and calling for peace, the Burmese army attacked two civilian villages.

There is also the issue of the limitations being placed on the numbers of children that Muslims can have and the restrictions on non-Buddhist men that prevent them from marrying Buddhist women. I find the whole question of the Buddhist faith difficult, and it is not something I have a great deal of knowledge about. Some time ago, however, I saw a BBC report—I think it was—of a Buddhist monk who was justifying the slaughter of children. When he was asked how he could possibly justify that and be a Buddhist, his response was: “It’s a bit like weeding a garden: if you want to get rid of the weeds, you have to get right down to the roots.” The killing of children was therefore justified on the basis of destroying the roots of a plant to prevent it from growing and becoming a problem later. It was sickening and appalling, and if that is Buddhism, I have a completely wrong perception of what that religion is.

There is also the question of political prisoners. More than 1,000 political prisoners of conscience have been released, but I understand that the number of political prisoners is increasing again. The number of people being held has doubled this year. Many prisoners were released with the intention of removing sanctions, but we now have another escalation in the persecution of political prisoners. I do not know the details of the Andy Hall case, and I do not know whether the Minister has any comments. Does he know of that case? If Andy Hall is convicted, he could face many years in prison, but I am not too aware of the case.

The other issue is military training, which I and others have raised in parliamentary questions. Military training, like many of the other things to which I have referred, could have been used as a lever to try to bring about improvements, particularly for the Rohingya.

[David Simpson]

I have seen research showing that young Christian adults and teenagers have been threatened with conscription to the army if they do not give up their faith. They are told to shave their head, as the Buddhists do. If not for charities such as Barnabas and others, which provide shoes and clothing to Christians in Burma, they would be in a very bad state.

[Mr Ward]

That echoes the familiar pattern that emerges. Burma is almost like two nations. Good news stories continually come out about the progress that is being made, and on the other side there are horrendous atrocities and abysmal behaviour towards large sections of the ethnic minority communities. It is almost like two parallel worlds that exist alongside each other. I can understand why we want to encourage one side to improve and become part of the international community and—if we want to be cynical—to develop trade. We know the benefits of international trade and how it can bring about political reform, but what about the other side? What about the daily reports of behaviour that would be unacceptable in any other part of the world?

Burma Campaign UK has produced eight steps that it believes the British Government could take to improve human rights in Burma. First, the Government should put human rights—not trade or political reform, but human rights—at the top of the agenda, elevating human rights as the Government’s policy priority in Burma. Secondly, the Government should support an international investigation into human rights violations against the Rohingya. We hear about various internal investigations, but an international investigation is required into what the UN special rapporteur believes to be crimes against humanity.

Thirdly, the Government need to consider the use of aid as a lever. I believe that twice as much aid— £20 million—is spent on building Government capacity and moving towards democracy than is spent on helping civil society and relations between the different ethnic groups across Burma. Is that the right balance? As I said earlier, there seems to be a view that if we can bring about political reform and constitutional change, everything else will follow. That view is contested by those who believe that cultural change is required as well as constitutional change.

Burma Campaign UK also calls for a global summit on countering hate speech. The Minister may want to say something about that, as it has been well documented. Hate speech is becoming a severe problem, and such a summit should not be a talking shop, but should lead to a clear action plan with significant—it would have to be significant—international funding and technical expertise provided to address hate speech. Further, the campaign recommends that the UK Government should make any future training of the Burmese military conditional on the ending of Burma’s tactics in ethnic states. There is clearly a lot for which the Burmese Government are either responsible or to which they turn a blind eye.

Burma Campaign UK also recommends that the UK Government should support the establishment of an international investigation into rape and sexual violence in Burma, which has continued unabated since Thein Sein became President. No steps seem to have been taken and impunity seems to be a major problem. Human rights violations are committed on a regular basis, with impunity for the perpetrators.

The campaign calls for support for an internal, cross-departmental investigation into the decision to fund the census. Again, was that another lost opportunity to provide something that would lever the changes we seek? Finally, the campaign supports a new independent review mechanism for political prisoners in Burma. We welcome the number of prisoners who were released, but it seems that, after the international acclaim and praise for those actions, the Burmese Government simply reverted back to their old ways. The review mechanism has to be lifted out of the internal investigations and appraisals within Burma and be done by the international community.

There are quite a few things there, and I hope others want to contribute, but the main message that I bring to the debate is the frustration felt by everyone who understands the issues, particularly those from within the Rohingya community, which I now know very well. The Rohingya community has fitted into our own community, but it feels totally powerless about what is happening so far away. The Rohingya community believes that its cause is not forgotten, but is not considered a top priority compared with other important international diplomatic measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate and to see the Minister back in his usual spot; as always, we look forward to a very good response from him. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) on securing the debate and giving us this opportunity to participate.

In this House, we are charged with the responsibility of looking after our constituents—in my case, the constituents of Strangford. But the people of Strangford, along with all the other constituents across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have an interest in what happens in the rest of the world. They are interested in what happens to ethnic minorities. They are also interested in those who are being persecuted for their faith, and I would like to comment on that.

The topic of this debate is the situation in Burma and the persecution of the Rohingya and other minorities. I will comment on the Rohingya minority and how they are being persecuted for their faith, and also talk about those who are persecuted because of their Christian faith, which is equally important.

It is very sad that we should again be discussing tragedies in Burma, which concern Members here, those who would have liked to be here and those who have raised the issue in Adjournment debates both in the main Chamber and here in Westminster Hall. Burma, as we all know, is a troubled region with a troubled past. We become aware of that when we read the history and observe what has happened. Decades of military dictatorships have wreaked havoc in the country, and ethnic people, especially those in resource-rich areas and areas of armed conflict, have paid the highest price—with their lives, both in deaths and in injuries. In the past 13 years, more than 3,500 ethnic villages have been destroyed in Burma.

I am conscious of the background information. In particular, I take note of the comments made by United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Kyung-wha Kang. She said that the level of suffering that she saw in Arakan was something she has never seen before anywhere in the world. That puts into context the issue before us. Such devastation and malice are incomprehensible.

The UN listed the crimes by the state of Burma as including forced relocation, forced labour and sexual violence, which both the hon. Member for Bradford East and my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mentioned. The calculated rape and murder of women and young girls are completely unacceptable. That they are being carried out by the Burmese army on some occasions is even more incomprehensible, and that underlines the need to do something about it.

We saw extrajudicial killings, torture and the recruitment of child soldiers on our television screens last week—not in Burma, but in Iraq, where children as young as 10 were carrying weapons. How can that be? It is happening in Burma as well. All that is bad in a conflict zone has taken place in Burma.

I shall quickly comment on the issue of war crimes. Our background information mentions that a massacre of Rohingya Muslims took place in January this year. I am a Christian, but I believe strongly in freedom of religion for everyone. I believe strongly that those who want to practise other religions should be able to. The massacre of Rohingya Muslims occurred in the northern part of the Rakhine state in that month. Some 48 Rohingya men, women and children were brutally murdered and slain in the village of Du Chee Yar Tan, and they included the local police sergeant. The Government have flatly denied that there have been any killings. Thousands of people have been killed and injured, with between 120,000 and 140,000 displaced. There clearly is an issue, and we cannot close our eyes to what is happening around us.

For those people in Rakhine state and the north of Burma, I put this point: what is happening in Burma that we as a Government can respond to? I have every faith in the Minister; I genuinely mean that. I know that when he responds, he will do so in the light of research and with compassion.

[David Simpson]

My hon. Friend may be aware that recently—I think on 27 or 28 May—a draft religious conversion Bill was introduced in Burma. Anyone who wants to marry in to or convert to another faith, or marry inter-faith, would have to ask for permission through some specially set-up local authority. That is an absolute nonsense, but it is how people are being treated over there. Any violator of the legislation could, I understand, receive at least a two-year sentence in Burmese prisons.

Human Rights: Saudi Arabia

David Simpson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray, and to have the opportunity to open this Adjournment debate on human rights in Saudi Arabia. I am very grateful to have been allocated this slot. I am not quite sure how Adjournment debates are chosen, but this is an important subject that requires scrutiny and therefore I am very grateful for this opportunity today.

The UK Government accept that Saudi Arabia has a poor record on democracy and human rights, particularly in relation to women. The country is deemed a “country of concern” by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Indeed, Saudi Arabia has one of the worst records in the world for executions. More than 2,000 people were executed between 1985 and 2013. The most recent Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index listed Saudi Arabia as the fifth most authoritarian Government in the world. Saudi Arabia is ranked equal to Burma and even lower than Iran in that index. However, although other countries with appalling human rights records are criticised and, indeed, action is taken against them, Saudi Arabia is often courted.

The Saudi Arabian authorities react to those pressing for democratic rights or political change with repressive measures. Protesters are held without charge and without access to the outside world for days and, indeed, weeks on end. Some are reported to have been tortured or otherwise badly treated. Many people have been taken to trial simply for taking part in demonstrations. Independent human rights organisations are banned. There are protests in the eastern region by members of the minority Shi’a community who allege long-term discrimination on grounds of faith. The security services are alleged to have used excessive force against those protesters.

Migrant workers comprise about one third of the population and are inadequately protected against exploitation and abuse by their employers. We regularly hear of examples of migrant workers being badly treated and, in particular, women being abused sexually and treated badly in other ways.

Let me give some examples of the treatment of those who take a different view from the Saudi Arabian state. Zakaria Al Safwan, a writer, was sentenced to 10 years in prison last November for writing an article entitled “In Defence of Peaceful Protest”. Waleed Abu al-Khair, who set up the Monitor of Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, has been imprisoned, harassed and banned from travelling outside the country. Similarly, Raif Badawi was imprisoned and sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison on 7 May for setting up a peaceful liberal website. Charges against him included breaking allegiance with the King. New terrorism laws were used against him and have increasingly been used against human rights activists. Another human rights activist, Fadhel al-Manasif, received a 15-year sentence and a 15-year travel ban under the new terrorism laws. That was for charges such as breaking allegiance with the King and being in contact with foreign news agencies in order to exaggerate news and harm the reputation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its people. New terrorism regulations include such offences as calling, participating in, promoting or inciting sit-ins and protests.

Other recent convictions include those of Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Oyouni, who founded the Association for the Protection and Defence of Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia and were sentenced to 10 months in prison and a two-year travel ban after giving food to a Canadian woman who had been left in her house without food supplies by her Saudi-born husband.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Katy Clark]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), as I heard him first.

[David Simpson]

We all know that Saudi Arabia is a very advanced country in many ways, but the persecution of Christians is rife in that country. It allows Christians to enter the country for temporary work, but does not allow them to practise their faith openly, even with Bibles or any Christian symbols. Surely more can be done by the Foreign Office or whatever in London, because we do a lot of business with Saudi Arabia. Surely more pressure can be brought to bear for the defence of Christians and their beliefs.

[Katy Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point and one that has been raised by a number of Members of the House on many occasions. Indeed there is persecution in relation to the Christian community and a number of other religious communities. We need to have a consistent position in relation to the defence of the rights of people to hold religious views and practise their religion and, indeed, to hold no religious views and practise no religion.

Persecution of Christians

David Simpson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We will discuss those aspects as the debate develops. There is clearly a role not just for this House, but for the Commonwealth, for the United Nations and for all the countries where persecution has taken place. They all have a clear role to play to help ease the pain of persecuted Christians. We should all try to achieve that.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend will know that I have an interest in India, where my adopted daughter comes from. In recent times, we have seen kidnappings, forced marriages, 18,000 people injured, 6,000 houses and 296 churches and small places of Christian worship burned and pastors murdered. It is a horrendous situation; something needs to be done about it.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which are harrowing ones. I have them written down here, so I shall not repeat them. My hon. Friend, like many of us here, used to work in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I can remember him speaking on this issue back then. The story was horrific then; it is equally horrific today. The figures and the statistics are overwhelming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). I agree with everything that he said about the Front Benchers’ approach to this debate, as well as about the equivalence of human rights.

Of course all hon. Members from both sides agree that everybody’s human rights should be protected, but it does no good to sit back and pretend that there is no particular problem about the persecution of Christians in the world today. We need to highlight that, and not feel guilty or feel that we must be politically correct all the time. We should say it as it is, and be very clear that there is a real issue, as hon. Members have already highlighted.

I was interviewed about this debate on BBC Radio Ulster this morning. The thrust of the four questions put to me was, “Why on earth are you calling this debate? What’s it about?” The subtext was that the debate is not really that important. I have come to expect that from the BBC, but I have found in my constituency and across Northern Ireland—I am sure that the same goes for many right hon. and hon. Members—that people are concerned when there is suffering.

People are of course concerned about all forms of suffering. We only have to look at the fantastic responses to natural catastrophes, such as the contributions made in relation to the recent typhoon in the Philippines, for which people in my constituency have set out to raise money. The idea that people should not be concerned about what happens in other parts of the world is typical of the liberal media in this country. The fact is that people are concerned, and we are right to raise such issues by highlighting the persecution that Christians face and providing a voice to those oppressed because of their faith.

The persecution of Christians is not new—we know from historical records that there have been persecutions since biblical times—but the staggering fact is that Christianity is the most persecuted faith in the world today, with more than 100,000 Christians killed because of their faith each year, which is one every 11 minutes. According to the World Evangelical Alliance, more than 200 million Christians are denied fundamental human rights because of their faith. Over the past three years, the situation has deteriorated globally.

The Government’s responsibility should be to highlight to other Governments what is going on and to uphold the human rights of everyone suffering persecution for their faith, but particularly Christians, given the severity of the purge now happening in many regions of the world.

To follow on from what the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, it is particularly painful that in Afghanistan, where there has been so much suffering and sacrifice by our troops and where so much aid and assistance has been given, no churches at all are left, and Christians are unable to meet in public because they have been subject to numerous cases of kidnapping, assassinations and abductions.

The same applies in Iraq. Canon Andrew White, who has been mentioned, has said that Christians in Iraq

“are frightened even to walk to church because they might come under attack. All the churches are targets… We used to have 1.5 million Christians, now we have probably only 200,000 left… There are more Iraqi Christians in Chicago than there are here.”

The debate on the persecution of Christians that the hon. Lady initiated in Westminster Hall focused on that area.

The Arab spring, which has been welcomed by so many, has turned out to be a chilling experience for Christians in that region. They are being disproportionately affected by the violence. In Egypt and Syria, Christianity is effectively and systematically being wiped out altogether. In Saudi Arabia—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), mentioned that it is the second country on the Open Doors watch list—there is no provision whatever for religious freedom among its people.

The Senior Minister of State in another place, who has responsibility for faith and communities, recently said that Christians are often targeted for “collective punishment”, as some groups believe that they are responsible for what are perceived as injustices committed by the west. That is particularly striking in communist countries, such as North Korea, which is the first country on the Open Doors watch list, and China.

[David Simpson]

Is it not ironic that we have got to the point in the world, and indeed in Europe, where other religions are admitting that Christianity is under severe pressure and faces severe persecution?

Persecution of Christians (Middle East)

David Simpson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning two of the numerous countries where Christians are suffering. I hope that the debate will highlight many more.

The recently produced evidence-based and measured report by Aid to the Church in Need, which is available in full at www.acnuk.org/persecution, shows that Christians in the middle east are subject to widespread and intense acts of violence motivated at least in part by religious hatred, and that violence and intimidation are now much more serious than in preceding years, and certainly since ACN’s last report in 2011.

The report catalogues a preponderance of anti-Christian violence, including attacks on Christian homes, churches and businesses, and the kidnapping of Christians for reasons connected with their faith; court cases, including those involving blasphemy allegations; key political developments affecting religious freedom, including new or amended constitutions, travel permits for clergy, Government statements, policies causing Christians difficulties; planning regulations, which similarly cause difficulties for church building projects; and Government attitudes towards Christian engagement in political debate and voting rights. Many social changes have resulted in restrictions and limitations on Christians’ access to employment, education and health care, and there is pressure to change religion on pain of death.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Many years ago, Christians in this country were burned at the stake because of their belief and their faith. It is estimated that 130 countries around the world persecute Christians. Every hour, a Christian is tortured and murdered somewhere in the world. Surely, in this day and age, something more can be done to protect people and their faith.

[Fiona Bruce]

I absolutely agree. We should be crying out with the same abhorrence and horror that we feel about the terrible atrocities towards Jews on Kristallnacht and on other occasions in Germany during the second world war.

Analysing 30 countries, the ACN report indicated that in only four had the situation for Christians improved, and in three of those the improvement was only marginal. In six, there was no change, but that was only because the situation was so bad already. Persecution in the middle east region was the greatest concern of all.

International Criminal Court (Kenya)

David Simpson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Eric Joyce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important intervention, which goes to the crux of the debate. I will explore some aspects of the decision that sits with the ICC, but it is becoming a political issue. Of course it is right to hold people to account, but things happen in the world, in Africa and, historically, closer to home, and sometimes a choice must be made between justice and peace. That is not to say that standards are lower, but as my argument develops it will be seen that this is one such case.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Innocent people have been murdered and burned alive in churches, so surely the Government must address the whole issue of corruption in Kenya. Countries donate money to African countries where there is a lot of corruption, and Governments must deal with that.

[Eric Joyce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is true that when we think about Africa, politics and governance, we tend automatically to think about corruption. Corruption in many parts of Africa and of course in Kenya must be dealt with in every possible way. We must encourage the authorities to do that, and I think the authorities in Kenya, as in most African states, are willing to do so. Sometimes we are a little too ready and quick to flag up corruption as a synonym for a nation state’s name, instead of remembering that such states are sometimes making enormous progress. I will not rehearse the arguments about Rwanda, which is perhaps the best example, but Kenya is also a good example of a state that is making bounding progress. That is part of what causes me concern about the ICC action.

We know that there was violence before the 2007 general election, and we know that following the election, presidential candidates came together to form a Government of national unity. President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga were the two primary office-holders, and that coalition held together for a full term of office. Significantly, violence was almost entirely absent at the following election, after the coalition—the election that has just taken place. That suggests that a lasting resolution was achieved with the coalition back in 2007, and Kenyan people understand that.However, part of that coalition agreement was that there would be an inquiry, quite rightly, into the violence that took place during the election.

The inquiry was duly conducted by a Kenyan judge, Justice Philip Waki, who felt that six individuals had committed serious offences, but when the Kenyan Parliament took a vote—it votes on judicial or legal matters in a way that we probably would not—it decided not to refer the matter onwards, so the judge decided to refer it to the United Nations Secretary-General, with a recommendation that it should then be passed on to the ICC. That is why the series of six cases has ended up where it has. It was essentially a quasi-judicial process in Kenya, which has ended up as an administrative and legal process in The Hague.

Following a two-to-one decision in a pre-trial chamber in The Hague, the ICC indicted a number of people. Some of those cases have collapsed, but now, six years later, the cases against President Kenyatta and Vice-President Ruto, who won this year’s election, continue. Both men have been indicted and both have made voluntary appearances, unarrested, at The Hague. We have seen them on our televisions; they have freely attended as required, and they have supported the process up to a point.

The action by the ICC, six years after events on which there is one dissenting opinion, has enormous implications for the Kenyan people. It is true that Mr Kenyatta is not the first Head of State to be indicted by the ICC, and I will come to that shortly, but Kenya is of enormous importance to the UK—that is not to say that Sudan is not, but Kenya is particularly important to the UK and all our allies. Kenya has also successfully come through a period of strife, when other countries have collapsed under the terrible weight of internecine warfare. Kenya is the great economic success story of east and central Africa. It is leading the fight against terrorism in Somalia. We know now, given events over the past few weeks at the Westgate mall, how terrible a price the Kenyan people are paying for being at the front in that ongoing battle, but they have not wilted or split. Kenyans have remained united in the face of all that has been thrown at them by terrorists. It seems to me that we reward them by insisting that the President and Vice-President, who are leading them into what promises to be a very decent future, stand trial at the ICC, accused of hotly disputed offences that took place years ago.

People may well say that the ICC has an important role to play, and I would agree. They may say that it is not for us mere mortals to make judgments about evidence, and that there must be due process. They may say that politics should not play a part. I would say, however, that although it is not ordinary for politicians to intervene in judicial processes, the ICC is inherently political, as are its outcomes. It seems entirely appropriate that, at some points, when there are very significant political implications for a particular nation, it is for politicians and not civil servants to decide. In the same way, the Chancellor does not ask his civil servants to read out his Budget in the Chamber or ask them to lead the whole Budget process. In this case, it is for politicians around the world, including in the UK, fundamentally to make a decision. It is beyond the powers of civil servants, Government servants, or the international Government servants—whatever we call them—who run the ICC’s administration and procedures.

It is significant to note that all 32 indictees of the ICC have come from Africa. Eight African states have been involved, so I guess that is about four each. Initially, they were primarily from the Congo, and now a number are from Kenya. Four of those countries—it says this in Wikipedia, and I have also seen ICC officials saying it—referred cases involving their own people to the ICC. The ICC says, “Come on guv, you can’t blame us for taking action, because they were referred to us,” but that is where it becomes inherently political, because we put great pressure on those states to refer cases to the ICC. We cannot just hold our hands up and say, “Nothing to do with us, guv.” Clearly, we put enormous pressure on those states. Cases involving the Lord’s Resistance Army, for example, in Uganda, remain a cause célèbre—although less than they were, I suppose—and there are other cases.

Enormous pressure was put on those states, and they did what we asked, but now, because they did, they find themselves in a terrible bind. The only place that the ICC is able to act is Africa, and that is a terrible state of affairs. It cannot act in nations that are in the orbit of China—we all understand why—or of Russia, so the “stans” and the far east are out. Sri Lanka is out, obviously. India is out. Anything in the orbit of America is out. Obviously, Europe is out—we are not going to indict ourselves, are we? The United States did not sign up to the ICC originally, because it was concerned that former politicians might be arraigned in front of the ICC. It did not sign up for political reasons, and it still has not signed up for the same reasons. Of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the three most powerful have not signed up for political reasons. That takes out the great majority of the countries of the world, leaving those that are not considered to be strategically important, and—guess what?—are in Africa.

The Africans say, “This is the African criminal court, really, isn’t it? It is not an international criminal court at all.” The ICC says, “We are having a look at other cases,” but we know that it will not take action against FARC or anybody else in Colombia, for obvious reasons—because there is a peace process. It clearly will not take action, nor would I particularly want it to. Therefore, we end up with action being taken only against Africans, and even then only when political implications have been considered. In many cases, action has not been taken because of politics. Therefore, people who say that it is up to ICC officials are missing the point; it is fundamentally a political issue.

I shall not bang on forever, Mr Caton—other Members may wish to jump in—but I will say a little more. I suspect that at least one Government Member will correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that, when I arrived in this place, just before the final stage of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, the then Opposition opposed joining the ICC. It may be that they changed and voted to do so at the end, but I remember that, at the time, the argument in the Chamber was that the then Opposition—now the Government—strongly opposed it. They did so because they were concerned—I voted for and still support the ICC’s existence, but the concern was legitimate at the time—that soldiers, deployed as they are around the world, in all sorts of different places, might find themselves captured, not returned to the UK, and in front of the ICC. There was a deep concern about that.

Those fears were largely allayed, and clearly, the Government are a supporter. The fears have not come to fruition, because we are willing and able to try our own people. We show that and have actually done it, so there does not seem to be a great risk. I notice, however, that the Americans still have not signed up, so they clearly think there is a risk. There is at least one politician, famously—it would not be fair to say his name, but I think most of us know who it is—whom many lawyers have said might well be arraigned in front of the ICC. Even that one case, and the fear that others might happen in future, would stop the Americans signing up.

Such fear is significant. UK citizens are not more likely than anybody else to commit serious offences, but the concern was that it might become political, and indeed, I think that has proven to be the case, almost by default. It has not become political on purpose; it has become political because the ICC has been unable to be even-handed across the world, for strong political reasons.

I will not go through the entire history of the ICC, although I quite rightly could. However, it is worth reflecting on the principle of the ICC. I may have sounded very condemnatory of the ICC before, but the principle is entirely laudable. Obviously, it extends out of our experiences with more than one tribunal in the mid-part of the last century, just after world war two.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

David Simpson Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

There are a number of good reasons why we should remain members of the European Union, and there are more reasons why we should not. But as a number of hon. Members have said, we are not here to discuss those; we are here to discuss the referendum. This debate is about whether we should allow the British public to decide once and for all whether we should remain members.

In many ways it saddens me that the Bill has been introduced. Under normal circumstances, political parties set out their policies at election time, and if elected are expected to deliver those policies. But with Europe it is different, because the British public simply no longer trust politicians to deliver on their promises. The public are cynical, and rightly so. The Bill is designed to show that on this occasion the Conservative party really does mean business and will deliver on its promise to hold an in/out referendum in 2017 if it is elected.

But why are the British public so cynical? It is because they have been denied a say for so long. It is worth remembering that when Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1972, the British people were not consulted. In 1993, the Maastricht treaty changed the name of the EEC to the European Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) reminded us earlier, that represented not just a superficial name change, but a fundamental change in the whole entity of the European beast. The British people were not asked their opinion in a referendum. During the Labour party’s 13 years in government, the treaties of Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon were all ratified. The British people were not asked their opinion in a referendum, despite each of those treaties seeing more powers transferred to the EU.

It is true that in 1975 there was a referendum to determine whether Britain should remain in the EEC. Like many other people I voted yes, believing that Britain had joined an intergovernmental, free-market trading bloc. But then I was young and naive in 1975.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on securing this Bill. He has consulted widely on the Bill’s make-up, which has done him and it credit. I am sure that he will prove that we can address the issue of Europe and still do well, even when representing a marginal seat. Many commentators do not realise that although Europe, as a subject on its own, may rank only 10th or 12th in people’s order of preferences, it is very much entwined with our conversations about the economy or immigration. That is a fact, as we know when we knock on the doors in our constituencies.

The Bill is absolutely right and long overdue. As many hon. Members have said, the public have been waiting for too long to express their view on whether the UK should remain a member of the EU, because the EU has fundamentally changed since we first joined it in 1973. We were told then that the emphasis was on free trade, but it has since morphed, bit by bit, into one of ever-closer political union—a process that has resulted, over a period of time, in the salami-slicing of our sovereignty.

[David Simpson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Baron]

I am going to crack on and be quick. I want to speak for just a couple of minutes because I am conscious that other Members want to speak as well. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

The EU is now seen as too meddlesome in our everyday lives, too burdensome for our businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and too costly for our taxpayers. Yet the political establishment in this country has, in essence, closed ranks over the past 30 years and denied the people their say. That is fundamentally wrong. They have not had a genuine choice about this at any of the general elections of the past 30 years or so. This arrogant and somewhat condescending approach by the political elite has not gone unnoticed by the electorate. I therefore congratulate the Prime Minister on being the first political leader to offer an in/out referendum; I am convinced that other leaders will follow suit. I also thank him for listening to his Back Benchers, the party faithful, and, most importantly, the country as a whole in embracing the idea of a referendum in the next Parliament and legislation in this one. This party has moved closer to the electorate, and it is now up to the other parties to decide whether they are going to step up to the plate.

Legislation is terribly important because it is more believable than election manifesto promises. There is a deep public scepticism when people hear promises being made by politicians about the EU, because too many have been broken in the past. They remember Blair’s promises on the EU constitution and Lisbon, when a referendum never materialised. They remember—or are constantly reminded, I should say—of Liberal Democrat promises at every general election on the need for a real referendum, which, strangely, never materialise even when they share power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on winning the ballot and promoting this Bill? I know that many of his colleagues would have loved to be No. 1—indeed, a few Labour Members would have liked to come first and promote the very same Bill. We might have elicited more support from the Labour Benches if one of us had done that, but I am not sure.

I have heard a lot today about how one party or another is playing politics, but as far as I am concerned, those who suffer when party politics are played on any side are the public. The only people who will suffer if this Bill is not supported will be the public who have wanted a referendum for many years.

[David Simpson]

On that point, does the hon. Lady agree that the general public want a level playing field in Europe? They have not seen that for many years, and this referendum will give them their say.

Commonwealth Trade

David Simpson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell]

I wholeheartedly support what my hon. Friend said. This is not just about population. There is a whole range of factors, as he mentioned, and we must look at all those opportunities if we are to capitalise on parts of the world that we have neglected. We have missed opportunities. We know that if we want a sustainable future for all our people, we have to stretch beyond the European continent, and what more obvious opportunities are there than those offered by countries with which we have so much in common, not least the English language?

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) hit the nail on the head in terms of what we need to concentrate on. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned Australia, whose economy is growing dramatically because of the demand for its natural resources from China. We need to concentrate more on the 53 countries and put money into them, rather than putting tens of billions of pounds into a black hole in the European Union, which is losing us money every year.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman speaks for the majority of the British people in that. Those outside this place cannot understand what on earth Governments have been doing over the past 30-odd years narrowly focusing on a small part of the world, which might be geographically close, but with which we have huge differences, when in other parts of the world, with which we have so much in common, we have neglected such opportunities. We need to unshackle ourselves from this deadweight and forge something new and positive that will sustain us with trade and co-operation in a range of areas in the years to come.