World War Two: Polish Contribution

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing the debate and on his excellent and moving speech. It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and his wonderful speech.

I want to contribute for two reasons. First, because RAF Tangmere in my constituency played such a pivotal role during the Battle of Britain, and secondly, to thank the Polish pilots, many of whom took to the skies to defend our country and fight for theirs. Their efforts in the second world war were vital and must never be forgotten.

RAF Tangmere and Westhampnett was the most southerly RAF fighter command base during the battle of Britain. It played an historic role in the defence of our country during our darkest hour over the summer of 1940. Many of “the few”, as they became known, including revered pilots such as Douglas Bader and Billy Fiske, flew from Tangmere. The Polish 302 and 303 Squadrons did not fly from Tangmere, but today their contribution has been marked by the Tangmere Military Aviation Museum, which stands on the site of the old RAF airfield.

Last summer the museum held an exhibition focused solely on the contribution made by Polish and Czech air crews: their pilots and their highly skilled crews who came to our country to fight the Nazis after their homelands had been invaded and occupied. More than 4,000 people visited the exhibition over a six-week period, and I was very pleased to meet veterans who had served, and several young people from Poland who were keen to research the roles that their grandfathers and uncles had played in world war two.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady refers to young people attending, but does she agree with me that although it is exceptionally important that the generations would we represent here are made aware and reminded of the bravery and sacrifices that were made, it is even more important that future generations remember it so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated?

[Gillian Keegan]

I completely agree, and that means that this debate and the continuation of memorials, exhibitions, museums and celebrations will always be important for future generations.

The Imperial War Museum records that 145 Polish men fought alongside our pilots during that fateful time, and that period they destroyed 204 enemy aircraft. The people of Britain owe their liberty in part to their heroism. I am proud that in Chichester we play our part in continuing to remember them. As many Members have mentioned, Poland’s contribution to our war effort goes far beyond the battle of Britain. The Nazi occupation of Poland was one of the most brutal of the war. Poland was carved up with Stalin under the German-Soviet non-aggression pact and the German-occupied zone became known as the General Government, which was placed under the control of Hitler’s lawyer, a ruthless Nazi called Hans Frank, who was later hanged at Nuremberg.

Although divided, occupied, brutalised and stripped of their identity, the Poles fought on and continued to resist, and 1943 saw the heroic Warsaw uprising by the Jewish community. Later in 1944, the entire population of Warsaw did the same in a heroic effort to liberate their capital city from the Nazi tyranny.

International Humanitarian Law: Protecting Civilians in Conflict

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Ann Clwyd]

My hon. Friend obviously knows that I totally agree with her. In fact, I have joined in the argument on that particular point at various stages. I am a member of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, and that is an issue that we certainly continue to discuss.

Last month, the UN Secretary-General published his annual report on this subject. Why, as he set out, do

“civilians continue to account for the vast majority of casualties in conflict”,

and suffer from a variety of “short and long-term” impacts, “including forced displacement”, forcible

“starvation…unlawful denial of humanitarian access; attacks on humanitarian and medical personnel, hospitals, and other medical facilities; sexual and gender-based violence; and intentional damage and unlawful destruction of civilian infrastructure, property and livelihoods”?

The first thing to recognise is that armed conflict has changed in many ways, some of which have put civilians in greater danger, such as a massive increase in armed groups, including non-state armed actors. Research by the International Committee of the Red Cross shows that more armed groups have emerged in the past six years than in the previous 60 years. The proliferation of armed groups, backed by a variety of partners, allies and arms providers, often leads to a dilution of responsibility, fragmentation of chains of command, an unchecked flow of weapons, and longer and more intractable armed conflicts. All that results in greater danger to civilians. In addition, there is increased use of explosive weapons in urban areas, where populations are highly concentrated, and of so-called precision weaponry which is not precise enough.

I argue, however, that the changes in the way that armed conflicts are carried out do not mean that international humanitarian law is no longer fit for purpose, but that greater efforts must be made on three fronts: to adhere to IHL; to interpret it with civilian protection at the forefront; and to ensure that those responsible for serious violations are held to account. I cannot emphasise that last one enough. As one who collected evidence on Iraqi war crimes over a period of years, I know how important it is to document such crimes, because a time will come when it is possible to prosecute people for those crimes.

There continue to be too many instances of IHL not being respected and, worryingly, a determination at times to flout legal obligations to protect civilian populations.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing this debate and on her continuing interest in this matter over many years. Does she agree that one of the issues that comes up frequently in the civilian population is particular to children? Some of those involved in conflict situations across the globe make forcible use of child soldiers. That is another transgression that must be highlighted and, I hope, resolved in the near future.

[Ann Clwyd]

I absolutely agree. To my knowledge we have raised that issue in this Parliament on many occasions, but we still have not come to any resolution apart from to condemn it.

We can all think of armed conflicts where armed parties have deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure to try to terrorise the population into submission, such as in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. Other hon. Members will no doubt highlight such shocking and despicable crimes in their contributions. It is important to keep in mind that it is not just non-state armed actors such as IS that carry out such crimes; IHL violations are committed equally by state and non-state armed actors. In addition, states always have the primary responsibility for protecting and meeting the basic needs of the civil population.

The second failing putting civilians at greater risk is armed parties not prioritising the protection of civilians when implementing IHL. IHL leaves room for interpretation, particularly as regards its application, as while it sets out what armed actors are supposed to do, it does not necessarily detail how those responsibilities are to be exercised. I have visited armed conflicts in various parts of the world, but in Iraq in particular I remember talking to American military personnel and emphasising to them the importance of the Geneva conventions, but being met with a blank look because they had no idea what those were. That was a great difficulty when trying to persuade them to do something differently.

All armed actors must incorporate the protection of civilians into their core military missions and strategies and must actively seek to do everything possible during military operations to ensure civilians are properly protected. They should do that in recognition that success in armed conflict is not just about fighting to control territory but about the need to ensure the safety, dignity and wellbeing of affected populations, so they are not driven to support radical and extremist ideologies and groups, further fuelling conflict, and so they are better able to contribute to sustainable peace-building and reconciliation efforts when the armed conflict is over. To do that requires a much better understanding by armed actors of how their operations could and have had an impact on civilians, as well as much more investment in more accurate recording of civilian casualties and tracking of civilian harm.

I must highlight my concern about the Ministry of Defence’s ludicrous claim that there was only one civilian casualty resulting from its operations in Mosul and Raqqa in the fight against IS, despite the RAF dropping over 4,000 munitions, of which over 70% were 500 lb bombs, primarily in urban areas. That figure indicates the UK’s inability to accurately record civilian casualties and track civilian harm, and the lack of a baseline for assessing civilian harm.

The UK wants to be a global champion on civilian protection—obviously, we would all commend that. We will not, however, be credible on the international stage until and unless we are first accountable for our own operations. We therefore need a dedicated civilian casualty mitigation and investigation team with proper resources, to understand the impact of our operations and accurately record civilian harm. We need to appoint a dedicated military chief of staff to co-ordinate civil-military issues, and a civil-military focus in all major military headquarters with a centralised role in planning and decision making, to represent the interests of civilians.

In addition, the UK must do more to uphold our positive responsibilities under IHL and clarify the British position when assisting and working with partners, whether sharing intelligence and assets, providing weapons and materiel support or training and giving advice to local forces. We sometimes still fall short, so I urge the Government yet again to rethink our support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) mentioned, to ensure that any support provided is, at the very least, more explicitly conditional on a proactive policy of adherence to civilian protection.

More generally, the Government should adopt a dedicated process of operational end-use monitoring—again, in the Committees on Arms Export Controls we have had in-depth discussions about end-use monitoring, taking examples from other countries, to analyse the operational outcomes of UK assistance, work with partners through training and education to build a foundation for civilian protection before conflict begins, and build capacity in all relevant areas, including security sector reform, neutrality of humanitarian actors and targeting. I emphasise the need for more vigilance in preserving the space for, and enabling the capacity of, neutral dedicated humanitarian actors, who work hard in extremely difficult circumstances to fill the gaps in civilian protection. We must ensure that their neutrality is not repeatedly compromised, as that opens them up to attacks; counter-terrorism measures must not risk criminalising their essential activities; their funding must remain adequate and not be tied to unreasonable or overly bureaucratic conditions; and they and their facilities must not be targeted.

Last but not least, we need to do more to address the accountability crisis. Impunity for serious IHL violations simply fuels further violations and puts civilians at even greater risk. The UK needs to support referrals to the International Criminal Court, champion ad hoc fact-finding mechanisms—including commissions of inquiry and the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission —and the establishment of local courts and transitional justice mechanisms, and it must consider adopting targeted measures against those who commit such atrocities.

All Governments need to step up their efforts to protect civilians in armed conflict and recognise and adopt best practice, such as that of NATO, which is making significant efforts to make civilian protection a key element of operational planning. That is essential if we are to see a dramatic reduction in civilian casualties and harm in the next decades.

For the UK really to make its mark on the global stage, I urge the Government not only to take the action I have called for, but to ensure the current review of its protection of civilians strategy is the beginning of a longer term process to adopt a cross-departmental strategy and whole of Government approach, so the protection of civilians is formalised as a top-line priority in UK operations and UK assistance to partners. The Government should also appoint a dedicated ambassador to champion protection of civilians on the global stage, to better utilise the UK’s position as chair of the informal expert group on protection of civilians and to work with the broadest possible range of states and relevant actors, as well as increase our influence in the UN, including through increased support and involvement with peacekeeping operations, UN missions and relevant UN agencies, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Now more than ever, armed conflicts in other parts of the world can no longer be, to paraphrase slightly, quarrels in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing. We need to care about how civilians are affected by armed conflicts, because the horrific violations carried out against them are a stain on all humanity, and their effects are long lasting and widespread.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Let me explain to the hon. Lady what those rules are that Robin Cook introduced in 2001. They are stricter than the European guidelines and say that we do not give arms export licences if there is a risk of a breach of international humanitarian law. That judgment is made by someone at arm’s length, not by a politician, and the Foreign Secretary and Trade Secretary then take that assessment into account when they make the decisions. That is a better system than one that politicises these decisions. It is a Labour process that we are sticking to and the hon. Lady should be proud of it.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Given the continuing crisis in the Mediterranean sea, with many hundreds still fleeing and making the perilous journey across that seascape, what issues are the Government raising with Saudi Arabia to try to ensure that it offers some practical and sensible help for people in the Mediterranean?

[Mr Hunt]

We do have discussions on that issue, particularly in respect of Libya. In fact, I met the Libyan Prime Minister at the end of last week, and Saudi Arabia has made generous offers when it comes to financial assistance to try to stabilise the situation in both Libya and Yemen. That is another example of the benefits of having a practical relationship with a country like Saudi Arabia.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am delighted to hear an Opposition Member raise the topics of the abuse of human rights and freedom, on which we have been speaking very loudly and on which we are working very deeply with the Lima Group. The fundamental issue is Venezuela’s poverty. People cannot get basic goods, and the fact that President Maduro is blocking aid from getting into his own country is so contemptible that, on both sides of the House, we should all speak with one voice in condemning it.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Given the continuing humanitarian and political crisis in Venezuela, does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that both the Lima Group and other Government agencies in both North America and South America additionally press President Maduro to ensure that food supplies are delivered to the people of Venezuela?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Yes, indeed. All countries across the world have to do their bit. Canada and the European Union international contact group are doing a lot. We all have to work together, and one of the most concerning developments at the moment is that President Maduro is trying to strip Juan Guaidó of the immunity he enjoys as a member of the National Assembly. We in this House should send out a very clear message today that that would be utterly unacceptable and that Juan Guaidó is the interim President we recognise.

Forced Live Organ Extraction

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for attending this morning. I know he is attending a Select Committee later, but he contributed early to this debate, which I appreciate.

All that evidence has been reviewed by many different organisations across the world including parliamentary bodies, or Parliaments themselves, in Italy, Spain, Canada, Israel, Taiwan, Ireland, the Czech Republic and the United States, as well as non-parliamentary bodies such as the UK Conservative Party Human Rights Commission— the hon. Member for Congleton is involved with that—and the China tribunal. I am here because of my interest in human rights, and because I wish, as we all do, to stand up for people across the world who are being persecuted because of their faith, or because they have no faith.

It would be much easier politically—and it would make it easier to sleep at night—to remain sceptical in the face of the evidence and be reluctant to accept it, and to push for absolute certainty before reaching any definitive conclusions, yet despite that natural inclination, all those bodies, on examining the evidence, could not help but arrive at the view that forced organ extraction is taking place in China. Indeed, the ongoing China tribunal, which is being led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, went as far as saying, in an interim judgment, that

“the tribunal members, are all certain, unanimously, beyond reasonable doubt, that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practised for a substantial period of time, involving a very substantial number of victims...by state organised or approved organisations or individuals”.

The evidence must be remarkably convincing to have drawn such a strong statement from an esteemed body of impartial investigators. Indeed, it is so convincing that several countries have passed or introduced legislation to make travelling to China for organ transplants illegal.

I carry an organ donation card. We have a different system in Northern Ireland. I am glad that legislation is coming through for change here at Westminster. I totally support that and I would be pleased to know that my organs might save a life if I were to pass. That would be good. However, where else in the world other than China is it possible to get an organ almost on demand?

The UK still claims that, because the World Health Organisation has declared China’s transplant system ethical, all the evidence can be ignored. How has the WHO arrived at such a different conclusion? Has it assessed all the same evidence? If not, why? If it has, why has it not produced an explanation of why the evidence is unsatisfactory? What investigations has it carried out? Has it been to military and prison hospitals in China? Has it asked to go to them? Has it been free to examine those hospitals independently, or were its representatives taken on show tours by Chinese authorities? My principal request of the Minister today is that he formally write to the WHO and ask it to assess all the evidence and, if it deems that it is not accurate and does not reflect the situation, to produce a report to demonstrate clearly why that is so. Surely that would not be too burdensome for the WHO if it has already collected the evidence to show that there is nothing suspicious about China’s transplant system.

It is worth noting that there will be further public hearings of the China tribunal on 6 and 7 April. The tribunal has issued a public call for evidence and is open to receiving further evidence on China’s past and present transplant practices from Chinese officials, as well as from organisations such as the Transplantation Society, the Declaration of Istanbul Custodian Group and the WHO. I thank the Minister for sending FCO officials to attend the previous hearings. It shows commitment. I ask him to encourage the WHO to participate in the process. The truth is that we all sincerely, desperately hope that the allegations against the Chinese Government are false. If they are, is it not in everyone’s interest for China and the WHO quickly to demonstrate that they are false so that we can all focus on other pressing issues?

That brings to me one of my key points. The allegations have been around for years. If there is no truth to them, have not the Chinese Government had ample time to prove that they are false? They have not done so. Would it not be a simple thing for them just to open their doors and allow the world in to investigate? They have not done that. The WHO itself has said it has concerns about the transparency of China’s transplant system. What reason could there be for secrecy about the programme if it is clearly and demonstrably operating in line with international standards? Surely if the WHO has evaluated the system, it is a simple matter to point to the evidence that shows that there are no problems. Perhaps there is a perfectly genuine, straightforward reason why it is possible to get a kidney in two weeks in Beijing, as opposed to two years in the United Kingdom. Surely that in itself tells a story. Does it not raise a question in people’s minds? Perhaps not, but we should honestly ask how it is possible. It seems that China has an organ transplant system that is the envy of the entire world. What possible reason could there be for hiding it?

Moreover, should not the Chinese Government want to stop the allegations? If the UK were for years to be incorrectly accused of killing religious minority groups to provide the rest of the population with organs, and if countries the world over were passing legislation against us, we would be doing everything in our power to present the evidence showing that the allegations were false, yet for some reason China has been utterly unable or unwilling to do so.

Why should that be? One might argue that China would not want to dignify the rumours with a response because they are so ludicrous. That might be the logic. However, the Chinese Government have already admitted to taking organs from executed prisoners without their consent in the past. There is an evidential basis, and it is hardly as if the allegations are so beyond the realm of possibility that they are not worth responding to, yet the Chinese Government continue to claim that their transplant system is ethical, while maintaining its shroud of secrecy, and the UK Government continue to accept the claim at face value despite all evidence to the contrary. I refer the Minister again to the evidence available through the forum of the inquiry led by Sir Geoffrey Nice.

What we are talking about in this debate is organ harvesting—crimes against humanity, and a regime that is responsible for the greatest mass incarceration of a religious group since the Nazis in the second world war, as the hon. Member for Burton said in his intervention. I am afraid that simply to accept the Chinese Government’s flimsy narrative because it is convenient is a total and utter abdication of our responsibility to all those who have suffered at the hands of tyrannical regimes. How will history judge us? The hon. Gentleman is right: now is the time to draw the line and stop live organ transplantation, and transplantation without permission of the people whose organs are removed. We say “Never again”, but we do not, with our next breath, do something to make that brave declaration reality and ask the tough questions—although we are trying to do so in the Chamber today. We would rather bury our heads in the sand than deal with the harsh light of the truth that radiates all around us. The evidence has been gathered, presented, analysed and judged countless times by countless different institutions. It has repeatedly been found to be wholly credible and convincing. Meanwhile, the Chinese Government have offered nothing substantial by way of rebuttal, despite the fact that it would be easy to do so if they were telling the truth. The absence of comment from them reinforces what I am saying.

I ask the Minister, therefore, to act on the findings of the China tribunal and to take appropriate action, including potentially following in the footsteps of many other countries and banning organ tourism to China from the UK. Over the years I have put down a number of questions. It is wrong that people should travel from here to China for what is almost a live organ on demand to suit themselves. It is hard to take in what that means —it leaves one incredulous. It means someone can sit in London or in Newtownards and order an organ to be provided on demand. Within a month they can have the operation. We need to control that, structurally, as other countries have, not simply because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is necessary to protect UK citizens from unwittingly playing a role in the horrifying suffering of religious or belief groups in China.

If, however, the Government are not willing to do that, I ask the Minister at the very least to be a friend to the Chinese Government and ask them and the WHO to engage with the China tribunal process in their own interests. Will he ask them to present clear evidence that shows that the Chinese transplant system is ethical, and that makes all the sceptical investigators, human rights organisations and legislatures feel very silly indeed? Perhaps there is some issue I am not seeing, but I simply cannot fathom why that would be a controversial or difficult request. It seems to be logical and sensible and absolutely what we should be doing morally. If China is operating an ethical transplant system, it should be jumping for joy to have opportunities to present the proof, or at least to relay it to the Minister to present to the House. If the Chinese Government are doing nothing wrong, there is absolutely no reason why the issue should be a sensitive one, or even require private diplomacy.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Although much of what we are rightly talking about concerns external pressure on the Chinese authorities to do what is right in the face of mounting evidence, does he agree that internal pressure could well be added to that? If the tens of thousands of Chinese tourists who come here and the Chinese students who study in further education colleges in the United Kingdom became aware of the extent of the problem, they could add to the pressure when they returned to the Chinese mainland. We know how Chinese authorities respond to internal pressure, but it would add to the external pressure and hopefully bring a satisfactory conclusion.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for his salient and appropriate words.

I will quote the comments in the report, particularly the words of Sir Geoffrey Nice QC in the last paragraph:

“China’s totalitarian approach of exerting absolute control over its citizens often causes widespread criticism and concern while leaving many serious unanswered questions. Many of the linked concerns stem from the climate of religious intolerance that prevails throughout China. This has also been documented as being a key element of the campaigns currently being inflicted on multiple faiths and ethnic groups. These campaigns would, under most analyses, be described as bearing the hallmarks of genocidal intent.”

That is the seriousness of what we are saying here today. The report continues:

“The growing evidence of forced organ extraction in China, and the expert analysis of China’s transplant system is hard to refute or ignore. As, too, is the gravity of the threat of live forced organ extraction faced by prisoners of conscience in China. This is demonstrated by the China Tribunal making the unusual decision to issue an Interim Judgement.”

I referred to that earlier, and it is impossible to think otherwise. Sir Geoffrey Nice says:

“We should all, perhaps, reflect on how the oxygen of publicity given to the allegations made and supported to the extent they are by our interim judgment, may allow the real oxygen of life to continue life itself in some who might otherwise be killed. Such a conceivable outcome—slight as a probability, arguably remote but certainly possible—makes it not only appropriate for us to record our present certainty about the…forced organ harvesting practices but a duty publicly to do so. Doing so now may possibly save innocents from harm.”

In conclusion, when we add all those things together, they confirm why this debate is so important and express the viewpoint of Westminster Hall, our Minister and how we all collectively think. Let us give the Chinese Government a chance to clear its name proudly and publicly, and, if it should refuse that opportunity, let us not simply shrug our shoulders and move on, as others have said. We need to do something now.

Let us question this reluctance from China. Let us finally accept what all the evidence is telling us: that when it comes to organ transplants in China something is deeply, horrifyingly, morally not right. I put the issue before Westminster Hall for consideration and I look forward to contributions from right hon. and hon. Members; in particular, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

That is a graphic description. Anyone who has seen an indication of these buildings has to be concerned about the scale of what is going on, and about the number of people disappearing. What is happening to those people?

Indications suggest that prisoners of conscience routinely have their blood type and DNA assessed, so that they can be made available for this tragic and sinister practice of forced organ removal. Indications suggest that specific groups are being targeted, such as prisoners of conscience and people of certain faiths, including Falun Gong, Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and House Christians. This is religious persecution and a crime against humanity —the crime of crimes.

Witnesses have testified to the China tribunal that they have seen Falun Gong practitioners examined by doctors while other prisoners are not, then often disappearing from the prison without a trace. One witness, a Falun Gong practitioner herself, suggested that she was subject to the same thorough medical examinations as others but was diagnosed with a heart condition, so did not face the same fate. Presumably, because of her heart condition, she was deemed to be unfit to become an organ donor.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

The hon. Lady is outlining in very graphic terms the extent of some of the problems. Does she agree that, for issues such as this, a huge amount of emphasis and onus rests on bodies regarded as reputable and reliable, such as the World Health Organisation? A considerable degree of responsibility rests on bodies such as those to respond to this emphatically, and to do their homework and research to ensure that they give a more accurate picture.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I raised that very point in a meeting with the Minister in Portcullis House. That must have been well over a year ago, yet nothing has been done to raise it with the WHO, as far as I am aware.

The China tribunal published an interim judgment confirming that it had identified several human rights violations, including breaches of the right to life under article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights, the right not to be subject to arbitrary arrest under article 9 and the right to be free from torture under article 5.

Future of DFID

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I had only reached 2003, and was coming gradually to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), but he makes a valid point. That is why I congratulate the coalition Government on their tremendous decision to keep DFID as a separate Department.

DFID works in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Iraq, Malawi, Nepal, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Sierra Leone, Syria, Tanzania, Yemen and Zimbabwe, to name but a handful. It tackles gender inequality, helps to build health and education systems, and works with communities shattered by war, genocide or famine. It is respected and admired in all the places that it operates, some of which are the hardest places to reach for other organisations.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has quite rightly drawn attention to the good work that has been done, with our 0.7% commitment, in the countries that he listed. Does he agree that we must continue to be extremely vigilant? In a small number of those countries—particularly on the continent of Africa—corruption is rife, and many people in the United Kingdom have concerns that some of that money is not going to those who would benefit most from it.

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. We must ensure that aid reaches those who need it most and that it is not siphoned away by corrupt individuals in Governments, whether in Africa or in other parts of the world.

DFID is respected and admired in all the places where it operates. Wherever the UK aid logo appears, it shows the world how much the British public care. Since the passage of the International Development Act 2002, all overseas aid must be spent with the explicit purpose of reducing global poverty. That is an important piece of legislation, because it makes clear the distinction between aid and trade: one is not a quid pro quo for the other. The Pergau dam scandal showed that some aid in the 1980s and 1990s was being linked to trade deals. In that instance, despite clear objections from civil servants, there was a link between British aid for building the dam and British arms sales to Malaysia.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady will, of course, want to raise that case with Home Office colleagues, but my understanding is that each case is taken on its merits, and that neither the UK Government nor our courts would deport someone unless it was widely agreed by the courts that it was safe to do so.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the Minister not agree that much more direct liaison is needed between the nation states in the south of Africa to ensure that greater pressure is applied for efforts to impose additional sanctions that will produce the desired result in Zimbabwe?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I do not think we can particularly count on the southern area nations for support for sanctions; in fact their public statements have been critical of the sanctions that the EU has put in place. However, the UK believes there is a role for very specifically targeted sanctions on individuals and Zimbabwe defence industries, and we believe that those sanctions do not have a wider economic impact that harms the people of Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the situation in Zimbabwe.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. May I say how pleased I was to secure the debate at this particular time? I welcome the fact that the present Minister for Africa, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin); the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes); and a former Minister for Africa, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) are here.

Most people will remember the euphoria—we saw it—in Zimbabwe just over a year ago, in 2017, when the long-serving President Mugabe was ousted in what can only be called a form of military coup. There was such hope then that after the years of oppression, unemployment and fear, real change was coming. At the time, some of us did point out that Mnangagwa had been very much part of the Mugabe regime and, indeed, had played quite a sinister role in the horrendous slaughter of thousands of people in Matabeleland back in the period from 1983 to 1987. Of course, he was joined by Chiwenga as vice-president. He had been the head of the combined defence forces and also played a very important role in the terrible situation in Matabeleland. But all of us who love Zimbabwe and know the potential of that beautiful country still hoped that change was going to happen.

The elections held last summer were another crucial milestone. It is worth remembering that elections in Zimbabwe since 2002 had been both violent and rigged. In 2008, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission took more than five weeks to declare the result, and more than 270 activists, almost all belonging to the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, were killed. The polls in 2013 were relatively peaceful, but regarded internationally as rigged. The electoral voting rolls were grossly manipulated in favour of voters in rural areas, where ZANU-PF had the greatest support.

Shortly before last year’s elections, the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and I visited Zimbabwe to get a feeling for what was happening there before the elections and to report back to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on the possibilities of a free and fair election and how, if there were free and fair elections, we in this Parliament might engage with Zimbabwe’s Parliament. We met a whole range of people, from Government, political parties, business and civil society.

We reported back on the very different atmosphere—certainly compared with what I had seen on my many visits during the worst of the troubles in Zimbabwe—the open presence of troops, police having disappeared from the streets, and the roadblocks where police used to demand money having disappeared. We did query a number of issues that were seen during the electoral process and particularly the fact that the new constitution that had been signed up to was not being adhered to. Access to the media was not being honoured. There were still problems with the electoral rolls. And we felt that the electoral commission was not showing a strong enough and openly transparent view that it was determined to have free elections. We warned in our report that although there would not be the violence around the election that there had been in the past, there was a real danger of its being another stolen election, and that the bar for a free and fair election was actually set very low.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady not just for securing this debate, but for her courage and tenacity in pursuing the issues that she has. Does she agree that because there is no violence in situations such as the one that she describes, there is very often an assumption in the international consciousness that elections have been free and fair when in fact, on many occasions, including the one that she is outlining, they are anything but?

[Kate Hoey]

Yes; the hon. Gentleman is right. The absence of violence specifically at the polling stations and so on was remarkable—there was not any—but that does not mean that the election was free and fair. Very often elections are rigged before election day, and then there is what happens afterwards. Of course, it was what happened after the election that night, literally, that made people feel that it was not free and fair.

Mnangagwa was declared the winner by the electoral commission, which was severely criticised for its way of dealing with the count and the delay, again, in making the announcement of the presidential result. We had in the country two Members of the House of Lords, Baroness Jay and Lord Hayward, who I am very pleased is here observing today’s debate. They went to the elections formally, to represent the Commonwealth —as part of the Commonwealth delegation—because of course Zimbabwe has applied to be a member of the Commonwealth again. It was very important that the Commonwealth was there. In fact, both Lord Hayward and Baroness Jay saw some of the trouble that happened immediately afterwards. Baroness Jay was in the hotel when the soldiers came in to stop an MDC press conference. Later, some totally innocent Zimbabweans were gunned down in the street by the army—some people were shot in the back. The international community, on the whole—I think that this applies to all the observers—made the point that the election was slightly freer and fairer, but there was not an overwhelming feeling that it was a wonderful Zimbabwean election and democracy was really back at its best.

Of course, since the election, the economy has got even worse. Mnangagwa made a great issue of the fact that Zimbabwe was open for business—the world could come and invest again; there was going to be this absolute change. That did not actually happen. There are huge shortages of food and other important goods. More recently, on 12 January this year, Mnangagwa announced a huge—200%—increase in the price of fuel. That was in a country in which very few people could afford the fuel price as it was, and it led to Zimbabwe, of all countries in the world, having the highest fuel prices. It was just not tenable, and people reacted. The trade unions, which have shown great courage throughout all of this, called for a countrywide “stay away” in protest, and there were demonstrations. There is no doubt that some of the younger people, unemployed people, were very angry, and probably some looting did go on in parts of Bulawayo and Harare, but what the army and the Government did was to respond immediately with huge, excessive force, which left 12 people dead and up to 100 with gunshot wounds, and hundreds of people were lifted in the middle of the night, imprisoned and denied bail.

Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen pretty horrific images showing what has been happening to people on the ground: not just MDC activists, although that is bad enough—it is shocking that many of them have been lifted in the middle of the night, taken away and still are not getting legal representation or any support—but “ordinary” Zimbabweans who were seen to be in areas where there was support for the opposition.

What was also done—it was a very clever move, because all of us know just how much social media has changed the nature of reporting in Africa—was that the internet was closed down, shut down, and was out of action for some three days. That made a huge difference because, as is shown in all the letters that have come out and the reports that we have seen, people felt absolutely isolated in their homes. They were in the dark; there was no electricity. Roads were closed, transport had stopped, schools were closed—everything was closed—and there was no social media, no way to contact people. That was, I believe, a deliberate strategy to cut down the information getting out of the country, and of course that leads to more worry, more concern, and a feeling that everybody has abandoned them. We saw the numbers involved.

Sky News had a very good film, which again showed the army acting, in uniform and with absolute impunity, against innocent passers-by.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

In any discussions that the Government might have with the Spanish Government, and indeed Governments across the EU, would the Minister be assured that each of those Governments are respectful of the national economic and political integrity of sovereign states across Europe?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view and am very grateful to him for expressing it so clearly, so cogently and so sensibly.

Traidcraft and Fair Trade

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree. The hon. Gentleman brings wisdom and knowledge to this type of debate—to every debate, but to this one in particular. I thank him for that.

Unfortunately, that school of thinking has been somewhat lost, as some of the big companies look to the dividends of their shareholders and do not concern themselves with how suppliers lower the bottom line to meet their profit margin need. It is good that some companies have realised that they have to adhere to a moral compass. That is why Fairtrade and Traidcraft exist. I thank everyone who works in those wonderful organisations and takes part in what they do.

I am given to understand that there has to be a cut in staff numbers. That is unfortunate, and I encourage the venture to hold fast and keep doing good. There is a verse in scripture that always encouraged me: it says that we should not be weary in doing good, for we shall reap what we diligently sow. It is my belief that there are countless families in communities throughout the world who are reaping the benefits of what these organisations sow in fairness, respect, hard work and honesty.

Before making this contribution, I was thinking of the advert on TV for Fairtrade coffee, which tells the story of the young boys in the fields. If they were not doing that farming and that work, the alternative would be to go into criminal activity. By buying Fairtrade and Traidcraft goods, we enable people in other parts of the world to gain a wage, to have families and to grow, and we also keep them away from criminality.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend is taking about the short-term difficulties that Traidcraft faces. The decline in the pound has hit Traidcraft for obvious reasons, but does he agree that, beyond the next 12 to 18 months, there should be more stability in the economy and the financial markets? It is essential that, in the interim, we keep supporting organisations such as Traidcraft through this type of debate and our physical support on the ground, as we buy their products?

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should not be inhibited in supporting Fairtrade and Traidcraft. I was going to say at the end of my speech —he may have gone through my notes—that even if it means paying an extra 50p or £1 for a product just to keep it all going while the pound strengthens again, we should do that. I thank him for that comment. As always, he brings knowledge and wisdom to the debate.

I read a briefing by Traidcraft that said that, as Traidcraft plc goes forward, it will be striving to offer consumers ever greater levels of transparency about where its products come from and where its money goes. Hon. Members in this Chamber probably know where the products come from and the benefits of them, but it is important that others see that too. Fair trade is increasingly seen as the norm for all businesses. Traidcraft Exchange is also encouraging mainstream businesses, through its “Who picked my tea?” campaign, to know and make public information about their suppliers. There are small things we can do to assist that. I believe that that is vital in providing workers and community groups in supplier companies with the information and opportunity to hold companies to account for the standards that are expected in their supply chains—for example, with reference to working conditions and vulnerability to modern slavery.

There is a real need to ensure that workers’ conditions are at a good standard. Traidcraft has said:

“We urge Government as part of the review of the Modern Slavery Act to update the official guidance to encourage companies, as part of their reporting, to publish where they buy their goods from and the wages of their supply chain workers. We also encourage Government to consider legislation that would make Human Rights Due Diligence mandatory.”

I am my party’s human rights spokesperson, so like all hon. Members in this Chamber and others outside it, I have a deep interest in this issue. Therefore, the issue of fair wages and good working conditions are important to me.

I am pleased that, in this debate, we have a shadow Minister who has a deep interest in this issue and a Minister who understands it better than most. I know that both their contributions will be worth listening to, and that they will respond to our concerns. I have no doubt that they will both reply very positively and supportively.

I support Traidcraft in what it is asking the Government to do. There is an onus on us to ensure that we do not support the trafficking and ill-treatment of children or adults throughout the world. I sincerely believe that we must do more and be more for those who have no voices and no one willing to stand up for them. As often happens in this House, we are the voice of the voiceless. This debate gives us the opportunity to do just that.

I say well done to all in Traidcraft and Fairtrade for how far they have brought us. It heartens me that my own grandchildren—those who have children and grandchildren have probably found the same—already know what the Fairtrade symbol is. It is encouraging that grandchildren remind people of what the Fairtrade symbol is and what it means. Perhaps their parents or grandparents do not know, but it is good to know that the children of today—in both primary school and secondary school—know about the Fairtrade symbol. That encourages us to buy things with the symbol. That needs to continue. We need to teach a generation to be cognisant of the fact that an extra 50p or £1 on an item could make the difference between a child slave and a paid wage. That is the importance of what we are doing. We encourage people to purchase Traidcraft and Fairtrade items.

I offer my full support to those who wish simply to do the right thing, and to do all in their power to ensure that the people they buy from also do the right thing. We need to make people aware legislatively that “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” in the process of their purchases will no longer be possible or, indeed, acceptable.

I again apologise, Mr Hollobone. I have asked your permission to leave early, because I have a meeting with a Minister. I apologise that I will not be here at the end of the debate for the contributions of the shadow Minister, the Minister and the mover of the debate.