Greenpeace Activists in the Russian Federation

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the balanced presentation that he gave to the House and also the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) on his impassioned plea to the House. I want to add my and my party’s support to the joint approach of all the parties here. Although I do not have a constituent involved in the affair, I want to convey my support to the Members of Parliament who represent the people who are in jail at present.

I believe that we need to drill for oil; it is important that we do so. I would like to get away from relying on fossil fuels—we all know that—but when we produce and use oil, there is a tremendous burden on us to ensure that we do so as environmentally safely as possible. It is incumbent on us all to make sure that every possible measure is taken to ensure that oil is drilled safely and that measures are taken to protect the unique and fragile environment of such areas. Greenpeace, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said, might be a pain at times, but it highlights vital issues. That is why its members were on the Russian oil rig, and accusing them of piracy is absurd and wrong.

I understand why Greenpeace was highlighting Russian oil-drilling techniques. The director of Greenpeace, John Sauven, claims that half the world’s oil spills occur in Russia. He estimated that some 30 million barrels of oil a year are spilt there—six times the 4.9 million barrels thought to have been spilled in the gulf of Mexico. Considering the environment and what Greenpeace was highlighting, that is the issue. For me, that is, in a way, also the injustice of what has happened.

Greenpeace’s thought process behind boarding the rig was clearly to highlight the actions in the Arctic, not to carry out an act of piracy, which is an absurd accusation. Certainly, the fact that the entire ship was seized and everyone on board arrested, including two journalists, shows that the response is less to do with their actions and more to do with the Russian Government making a statement—or, as some suspect, trying to hide the truth. I make those comments as well because I think it is important to do so.

That statement has been made and the world is in no doubt as to the current stance of the Russians. It is past time that the people were released. That is why it is right and proper to highlight the issue in Westminster today. The six UK residents who have been arrested and held—not, according to media outlets, in the most pleasant of conditions, as the two previous speakers have mentioned—are an indication of Russia’s stance. The way in which they have been treated in prison demands that a message is sent from this place, making it clear that we want our citizens released along with the other people on that boat. It is absurd to hold off a trial until November. To deny bail to such people and to hold them, on trumped-up charges, far from their families and from access to loved ones is cruel and must be stopped.

Europe as a whole—indeed, the world—has a role to play. Hillary Clinton, the former US Secretary of State, has made a statement. She said last week that there should be a greater international outcry. The issue goes beyond Europe and as far as the United States.

I am aware that the Netherlands has determined to bring the matter to the international maritime court and that others are considering the same course of action. The situation is more than just arresting people and letting them think about what they are going to do for a night or two; it is an infringement of their rights. As upholder of democracy, this place must make it abundantly clear that we will join other nations and demand that Russia releases those innocent people and puts a stop to whatever statement it is trying to make.

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

My hon. Friend is following through a train of thought about the sequence of events that needs to happen internationally. Does he agree that urgent action is needed? The Minister present and the Prime Minister need to make immediate contacts, so that whatever needs to be done is done in a matter of days rather than months.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will respond positively. We also need the Prime Minister to action it right away. The statement that will come clearly from Westminster Hall and from all hon. Members present will sincerely say that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda on raising the issue. I look forward to hearing other input and even more so to hearing the input and response from the Minister and, ultimately, the Prime Minister. If there is a chance to bring the matter up in Prime Minister’s Question Time today, it should be brought up.

International Criminal Court (Kenya)

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[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.

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

I presume that the hon. Gentleman is about to embark on a discussion of the laudable principles that lie behind the conception of the ICC, and I agree that they are laudable. However, does he agree that principles are one thing but the practical outworking of what we have seen, which he alluded to in the earlier part of his contribution, is quite another, and that what we really need to see is a workable ICC that is trying to get itself divorced from the practical and political considerations that inhibit it from doing much of its work?

[Eric Joyce]

The hon. Member is absolutely bang on. His intervention was very thoughtful and considered, and he is absolutely right. The difficulty at the moment is to get past what is a very dangerous phase for the ICC. If the ICC gets it wrong and if the international community gets it wrong in respect of Kenya, the ICC will fall apart; I do not think that it will continue, in a meaningful sense, in existence. I know that there is concern among NGOs and experts, including lawyers, that if there were to be a discontinuation of the case against the President and Vice-President of Kenya, that would effectively be the end of the ICC. I do not agree with that view. I will not put all the arguments as to why I disagree with it. I simply think that that would not be the case. It would be more practically effective to find a way of dealing with the situation, which effectively means putting a case into abeyance, but I will say more on that at my conclusion. I have one or two more points to make quickly before then.

Points of Order

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is certainly a man of integrity, so I am happy to hear his point and judge whether it is legitimate to continue with it.

[Mr Campbell]

Given what has happened and in the light of the Secretary of State’s response, I wondered whether, within the context of the next 48 hours, she will ensure that the extreme frustration that has been exhibited today—I do not in any way challenge your ruling, Mr Speaker—is not played out on the streets of Belfast and Northern Ireland on Friday. We must maintain the rule of law and respect the integrity of all those involved in talks so that we can try to dissolve and devolve the position in Northern Ireland to a problem-solving exercise in which violence is avoided and people respect each other’s rights.

[Mr Speaker]

This is a very sensitive week leading up to 12 July, and I think that we are all conscious of, and respectful towards, that fact. The hon. Gentleman’s point is on the record, and I know that he will not take offence if I say that it is not a point of order for the Chair. He has registered his concerns and they have been noted.

If the point of order appetite has now been satisfied, perhaps we can proceed with the presentation of a Bill.

Bill Presented

Local Government (Miscellaneous provisions) Act 1982 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Dan Rogerson, supported by Martin Caton, presented a Bill to amend the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 to require those providing a service from a fixed pitch in a designated area to apply for a licence to trade; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September, and to be printed (Bill 89).

Rakhine and Kachin State (Human Rights)

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to open this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. The issues of human rights, equality and justice, and the plight of the persecuted people of Burma, are potent for Members of both Houses and have caused considerable concern to a number of my constituents in Bolton South East who have family and relatives living in Burma. Indeed, a number of them formed a small campaign group called the Burma Action group, which has organised two peaceful vigils in Bolton town centre. I thank both that group for its hard work in raising awareness of human rights abuses in Burma and the London-based charity, Burma Campaign, for its excellent work. I acknowledge and pay tribute to Members who have worked hard to raise the awareness of some of the issues, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali).

The Foreign Secretary once said that the Government of Burma must be judged by their actions and not their words, yet over the past 18 months the UK Government have reversed a decade-long policy of prioritising human rights in Burma and supported the lifting of all European sanctions on the country despite the fact that none of the human rights benchmarks of the European Union has been met. Even The Daily Telegraph described that decision as “deeply embarrassing”. Undoubtedly, there have been some changes in Burma over the past two years, but still more need to be encouraged. However, the policy must be carefully calibrated, taking into account the wide disparity between words and action. Burma still has one of the worst human rights records in the world. Since Thein Sein became president, human rights abuses, which violate international law, have increased.

In June 2011, the Burmese army in Kachin state broke a 17-year ceasefire with the Kachin Independence Organisation, and for the past two years it has pursued a brutal war against the Kachin people, targeting civilians and violating international law. The United Nations special rapporteur has documented widespread abuses, which constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Rape and gang rape, torture, executions, arson, mortar bombing of civilian villages, beatings and the use of child soldiers are commonplace. The UN Human Rights Council resolution on Burma, passed in March 2013, highlighted serious human rights abuses that violate international law, including arbitrary detention, forced displacement, land confiscations, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as well as other violations of international humanitarian law. None the less, the Government of Burma still deny that human rights abuses have taken place, and when asked about the abuses in a recent interview, Lieutenant General Myint Soe said:

“Don’t believe everything you hear.”

Perhaps one of the most disturbing elements of the conflict in Kachin has been the widespread use of rape by the Burmese army. It is reported that more than half the women raped or gang raped by soldiers were also tortured, mutilated and killed. Perhaps the Minister could explain why, in the G8 summit, the Prime Minister decided to leave Burma out of the preventing sexual violence initiative? I would have thought that highlighting the increased use of rape by the Burmese army was of more importance than promoting an inaccurate positive image of Burma, which is what we have seen in recent months. I urge the Minister to press the Burmese Government to enter proper political dialogue on Kachin state to ensure that they address the root causes of the violence instead of constantly delaying such talks.

In Rakhine state—or what is now known as Ankhar state—we see the heartbreaking plight of the Rohingya people, described by the UN as the

“most persecuted group in the world”.

They are a little publicised Muslim people, who are historically located in the coastal Rakhine state, dating their ethnic lineage in the region over centuries. When the military junta under General Ne Win, an ethnic Burmese, came to power in 1962, it implemented a policy of “Burmanisation”, which was based on a nationalist ideology of racial purity. It was a crude attempt to bolster the majority Burmese ethnic identity and to strip the Rohingya of any legitimacy. The Rohingya were declared foreigners in their own native land and labelled illegal Bengali immigrants. By stripping them of citizenship and denying them citizenship, the Government institutionalised discriminatory practices in Rakhine state.

The Rohingya have no rights to own land or property and are unable to travel outside their villages, repair their decaying places of worship, receive education, or even marry and have children without rarely granted Government permission. Although I am sure that hon. Members will recall the events of last summer, I will none the less run through them quickly. In June 2012, deadly violence erupted between the Buddhist Rakhine community and the Rohingya Muslims. Human Rights Watch, a respected and independent international body, reported that state security forces failed to intervene to stop the violence or protect civilians, and in some cases they directly participated. Rather than defuse the situation, President Thein Sein was highly provocative. He called for the “illegal” Rohingya to be sent to a third country. Since most Rohingya, even those whose families have resided in Burma for generations, lack formal legal status, his language implied that the great majority of Burma’s Rohingya did not belong in the country. His comments were eagerly seized on by those who favour the expulsion of all Rohingya from Burma.

In a recent Human Rights Watch report, a copy of which I have with me, it is documented that the violence that resumed in October was a co-ordinated campaign of ethnic cleansing that sought to remove or relocate the state’s Muslim population. The October attacks were organised and carried out by local Rakhine political party officials, Buddhist monks and ordinary Rakhines, often directly supported by state security forces.

The report says that Rohingya men, women and children were killed; some of them were secretly buried in mass graves, and their villages and neighbourhoods were razed. In the months since the violence, the Burmese Government have done little to investigate the killings and abuses or to hold people to account for such crimes.

Along with their complicity in crimes against humanity, the Burmese Government have contributed to the severe humanitarian crisis facing the displaced Rohingya and other Muslim communities. More than 125,000 people are now living in internally displaced persons camps in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, yet the Government have consistently obstructed the delivery of aid to them. The camps are overcrowded and lack adequate food, shelter, water and sanitation, as well as medical care. Unless there is a dramatic improvement in conditions in the camps, including unfettered access for international humanitarian organisations, the situation will almost certainly deteriorate further, especially with the coming monsoon season.

We are faced with considerable evidence of crimes against humanity; ethnic cleansing; mass graves; and the obstruction of humanitarian aid to displaced communities. Those claims should not be taken lightly. There has been a tendency to describe the violence in Rakhine state as communal and a reflection of deep-seated hatred between communities on the ground. However, the findings in the Human Rights Watch report tell a very different story—of extensive state involvement, and planned killings and destruction of property, as well as the forced displacement of a population.

Only last month, the Foreign Secretary congratulated the Burmese Government on their role in leading “remarkable changes” in the country. That upbeat assessment was premature, just as the EU was premature in its haste to lift economic sanctions on Burma. Human Rights Watch, an internationally respected non-governmental organisation, has carried out more work and it has found that ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity have been committed, and that Government forces were involved.

There are some questions that we naturally ask. Why have no steps been taken to hold to account for their actions those who are responsible for organising the violence? It is easy to call on the Burmese Government to investigate themselves when we are fully aware that they will not do so. The Burmese Government-organised Rakhine commission, which was set up to investigate the violence, did not even consider any issues relating to who was responsible.

There needs to be an international investigation into the violence. I urge the Minister to support the establishment of a UN commission of inquiry to examine the allegations of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. After all, we worked with the rest of the international community to set up the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, precisely because there had been ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in those countries. I do not see why there should not be a similar inquiry in Burma; even if there is not a tribunal, at least in the first place there should be an independent inquiry led by the UN, which can investigate and deal with all the issues that have arisen. Obviously it must be an impartial international investigation. Then we will know the truth, and we will be able to hold to account the people responsible. Of course, such an investigation may also provide useful information and act as the basis for future reconciliation.

The Rohingya people have no place on earth to call home; they are a stateless people. The Burmese Government should face international pressure to repeal the discriminatory 1982 citizenship law. All the Rohingya people want is reinstatement of their citizenship in their own land, and the dignity, human rights and opportunities that come with it. Human rights must be the single most defining test for the Burmese Government’s commitment to democratic change and the rule of law. It is a test that they are failing.

I sincerely ask our Government to push for an independent inquiry into what is going on in Burma, because the evidence is clear. These are not just communal riots because different communities do not get on with each other. Since the 1960s, there has been a deliberate policy of effectively trying to drive out people who are not ethnic Burmese Buddhist.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this timely debate on a very important matter. Does she agree that, on occasions such as this, it is international pressure and the embarrassment and shame of the individual Government responsible for many of the actions that will bring the necessary change, and that we all have a part to play in applying pressure and bringing embarrassment and eventually shame to the Government responsible?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. That is why we are asking other Governments to put pressure on the Burmese Government. There have been suggestions that we are almost in haste to have negotiations and win contracts with the Burmese, to increase financial gains or financial stability. That is all very well, but the human rights issue is paramount, and the Burmese Government must be told that what they are doing is wrong.

As I was saying, the issue is not just that different communities are not getting on with each other, as it has been described. Those who have studied the history of Burma, particularly what has been going on since the 1960s, know that there is a deliberate, calculated policy effectively to get rid of people in Burma who are not ethnically Burmese Buddhist. In Kachin state, which I have talked about, most of the people who are persecuted are, in fact, Christians; they are treated badly. The Rohingya people are Muslims. In another state, the Karen people are treated just as badly because they happen to be neither Christian, Burmese Buddhist nor Muslim. It seems that there is a pattern. There is not just one group the Burmese Government are against; there is a very sinister and deep underlying issue. The motive behind most of these actions is to get rid of other communities and other religions in Burma, not only to leave the Burmese Buddhist community as the main community but perhaps to keep Burma almost ethnically pure Burmese and Buddhist.

That is why the state has been completely complicit, as has the army. Yes, Burma held elections last year, which we thought would bring progress, but everybody knows that all that happened was that most of the generals took off their uniforms and got into civilian clothes, and the majority of the people who are involved in Parliament are military people. There is still very much a military dictatorship in every form. The situation should not be seen as conflict between communities who are not getting on; a much worse and far more sinister agenda is being pursued by those in power at the moment in Burma.

In the past, other Governments have gone into various parts of the world on the basis that there were human rights violations. I am not for one minute suggesting a military intervention, but there should be robust sanctions and a robust programme against what the Burmese Government are doing. They should be held to account.

At the G8 summit that is taking place, rape will be looked at in different countries. Burma has been omitted from those countries, yet Burma is the place where most rapes are taking place. As the Minister may be aware, many years ago an international case held that rape is, in fact, a form of genocide, because the idea of carrying out rape—not to get graphic—is effectively to ensure that the women of the population being attacked are impregnated by members of other ethnic groups, and therefore rape is effectively about trying to get rid of that particular generation. There is a high level of rape in Burma, and it is an indicator of what I described earlier, which was not scaremongering or exaggeration; it seems to be part of a ploy to make Burma a Buddhist Burmese country. Surely that cannot be right, when there have been communities made up of different ethnic or religious groups living in Burma for hundreds of years.

I thank the Minister for listening to my speech, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will be able to take this matter further.

Government Policy (Kenya)

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Ind)]

It is difficult to overstate the importance of Kenya to the United Kingdom and, indeed, the wider international community. Perhaps first and foremost, Kenya is at the centre of international efforts to ensure the security of our own citizens. Citizens of Kenya have played a high price for that role and for their pivotal location in the world in recent years, from the US embassy bombing in 1998 through to the al-Shabaab attacks of last year, yet that is rarely reflected in public discourse here in the UK.

It is not necessary to go into detail about the way in which Kenya has co-operated magnificently with her allies, because a good deal of that information is public. However, much of it, by necessity, is unknown by those who are not directly involved. What is a matter of considerable public knowledge is Kenya’s leadership role in stabilising its northern neighbour, Somalia. Authorities, from the UN Secretary-General to the leaders of all the major states involved, have officially recognised that Somalia is where it is today—fragile but, I hope, on the road to recovery—because of the efforts of Kenya’s servicemen and women in defeating al-Shabaab and securing Mogadishu. What is more, Kenya has done that while showing restraint and ensuring the appropriate UN and African Union mandates are complied with, such as by re-hatting Kenyan troops as African Union Mission in Somalia—AMISOM—troops.

Kenya’s role extends well beyond military action, too. Virtually all humanitarian efforts in Somalia are mounted from Kenya, and they have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Somalis. Experts are in universal agreement that Kenya has deployed only appropriate force to assure its territorial integrity and that it has gone far above and beyond the call of national duty to help developed nations, such as the UK, to secure the safety of their citizens—here in the UK and abroad.

Anyone who has served in the British Army knows, like many others, how important Kenya has always been to our military capacity. The unrivalled training facilities that Kenya has always provided so freely have been a fundamental component of the UK’s capacity to launch military operations, including, for example, in our defence of the Falkland Islands just over 30 years ago. Many British servicemen regarded Kenya as the reason why we were able to mount that operation, given the personal and unit training capacity. Anyone who goes on the British Army’s website will read about the UK’s continuing reliance on, and gratitude for, Kenyan facilities, notably in respect of Operation Herrick in Afghanistan, but also in respect of British Army operations around the world.

Beyond military and security considerations, I have recently spoken to private equity investors who are interested in projects in Mogadishu, which is testimony to how astonishingly quickly Governments and investors can act together to build much needed infrastructure and services, following even the direst of civil collapses. That has been made possible by Kenya, first and foremost. It will be some time before we can be sure that Somalia is unstoppably on the road to proper reconstruction, but when it is, we will have Kenya to thank for that.

Communications in Kenya are also fundamental to investment throughout the region. I have visited Africa many times over the past dozen years, and virtually every time, I have travelled through Nairobi. It is a simple fact that Kenya is Africa’s pre-eminent junction for flows of trade and investment, people and, inevitably, information. From a trade and investment perspective, Kenya has many buoyant businesses, and it is the world leader in mobile payment systems. The Minister will be well aware of the UK’s early role in facilitating M-PESA. Off the top of my head, I believe that the former Commonwealth Development Corporation—now the CDC—was involved in seedcorning that project in Kenya.

M-PESA is a payment system that utilises the Safaricom network and harnesses microfinancing principles to deliver a superfast and highly effective means of bill payment. It has been so successful that conventional banking institutions have made significant efforts to become involved, through the Government, in the regulation of such systems. That is because mobile platform providers such as Safaricom enjoy confidence among local consumers at a higher level than that for the banks. Although Kenya, unlike many African states, has a relatively mature local banking system, I understand that almost 20 million Kenyans—it has population of just over 41 million—have M-PESA accounts. That enables them to make payments and transfer cash. It involves trading in what we would view as relatively small amounts, but those amounts fit the size of the domestic markets that small traders are accessing.

M-PESA has also been successfully extended into Tanzania. One of the critical aspects of the system is that in Kenya, and across Africa, the mobile infrastructure is developed, but fixed-line infrastructure is undeveloped, so services are jumping ahead. In the UK, we are looking at 4G and considering how we might be able to access new services through mobile platforms, but people in Africa really have no choice. The sophistication of mobile platforms such as M-PESA is remarkable, and in that way Kenya leads the world.

About 15 or 16 months ago, I attended the Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi, at which many of us were privileged to meet a number of senior Kenyan Government Ministers. It is clear that Kenya takes its role in internet governance very seriously, because it makes an enormous investment in new media technologies.

I said that Kenya is a junction for people and information within Africa. I know people who arrange to meet African colleagues and potential clients from across the continent in Kenya. I know people who go on holiday there, and I also know people who, a few days ago, helped to secure the release of 25 mariners from the Somali pirates who were holding them hostage. Of course, the UK Government are wary of that detail, but I will say a word or two about it, because it is pertinent to Kenya. The whole business of security in relation to piracy off Somalia involves significant reliance on Kenya, and such security is another area of activity that has saved the lives of many people.

Kenya suffers the consequences of—if I can call it this—non-terrorism related piracy. I know that we might call all Somali piracy terrorism, but there is a clear distinction in my mind, because while it is all done for money, some people are highly motivated by simply the commercial gains, whereas others, such as al-Shabaab, are motivated by what they can spend the money on. Nevertheless, piracy continues, and Kenya helps to do everything that it can to help to fix the problem at the macro level and, more significantly, in very practical ways that, for good reason, are rarely discussed.

I should say, perhaps as a side note, that while it is in vogue for some non-governmental organisations to say that they do not negotiate with hostage takers, responsible employers ensure that their employees are properly insured in case they are taken captive, particularly in dangerous areas of the world. That insurance is almost invariably taken out on the London markets, and the unsung people who get on with negotiating and sorting immediate crises are almost invariably British. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of people and companies involved in ship security for anti-piracy work off Somalia are British. Britain has an enormously important role to play, and Kenya sits at the core of things, because during an arrest operation, pirates are often taken to Kenya and then the Kenyan justice system endeavours to deal with the situation, which is clearly a contentious issue in itself. The Kenyan Government have handled things responsibly, and there is clearly a close relationship between the various navies of the developed nations and the Kenyan Government, because invariably such people could end up—and in some cases do end up—on trial in Mombasa.

Having stressed some aspects of our crucial mutual relationship with Kenya, I would like to move on to recent events regarding the Kenyan presidential election and the International Criminal Court. Media reports are still reporting the result of the Kenyan presidential election as “razor-thin”. In fact, President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta won by almost seven points on an 86% turnout in an election that was regarded by observers as fair and free, and was, thank God, peaceful. Prime Minister Raila Odinga, the losing candidate, has observed the law and rules, and lodged a court appeal, which will be considered in due course.

Going into the election, there was a perception in Kenya that the UK and US Governments, as well as some others, were not wholly impartial. It was said that UK diplomats had sought to encourage an Odinga win and that they had made comments during the tallying process that had seemed to work towards enabling a second-round run-off, which might have disbenefited Kenyatta, the first-round winner. I have scoured all the sources I can—as you know, Mr Bone, our resources in this place are very good for scouring the international media—and I also have many contacts and friends in the media across the world and in theatre in Kenya, but I can find no source whatsoever that serves as reasonable evidence of such a public bias. I could find no example whatever of a public comment by a UK diplomat or Minister anywhere. We can draw, in this place at least, our own conclusions about that.

There is a well-known quote by a senior US official that is now said everywhere in Kenya. I do not know the exact context in which he said it—it might have been in a speech—but that comment is “choices have consequences”. It is certain that the comment was made, although I would not wish to put it in the wrong context, and whether it is accurate or not, it did, in itself, have consequences. As I think the Minister will know, the quote was taken by some in Kenya as an implied threat that if Kenya did not vote for the developed world’s preferred candidate, there might be a price to pay in one way or another.

As you will be well aware, Mr Bone, I am not an academic expert. I was not present on the ground during the election period on this occasion, and of course I do not claim the expert knowledge of our diplomats and Ministers. However, I think that it is fair to say that there was a strong perception in Kenya that powerful nations were threatening Kenyans against voting for Kenyatta, who is now the President-elect, but that made them more likely to do just that—why would it not?

Going into the election, analysts were suggesting that Prime Minister Odinga perhaps had a two or three-point lead. I was never particularly convinced of that, and such a lead would be more or less within the margin of error in any case, but the vote was clearly very tight. However, I believe that a significant element of Mr Kenyatta’s margin of victory came in the form of a statement by Kenyans that if they were required to choose between sovereign self-determination and the patronage of foreign powers, they would always choose the former. It seems to me that it would be best if Kenyans did not feel—whether there is any foundation to this or not—that they needed to make that choice ever again.

The situation is ongoing, however, owing to the still-live International Criminal Court indictments of Mr Kenyatta and Deputy President-elect Ruto. I know that the Minister will wish to be measured and careful with his words on that subject, as he is with all his words. Although it is essential that we respect the processes of the ICC—Kenya is doing precisely that at the moment, as are the President-elect and Deputy President-elect—it is important to understand the political nature of the ICC. I am aware that the UK and other international Governments are seized of the situation’s trickiness, to say the least, but it is important to put these matters on record.

Two years ago, I had the privilege of spending several hours discussing the nature and processes of the ICC with its then chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo. He was incredibly generous with his time, and I left his office with a far greater understanding of, and much more good will towards, the ICC than I had had when I entered it. My concern was that although the role of the ICC is of great importance and its writ runs across the world—a country does not need to have signed up to and ratified the ICC, in the admittedly unlikely event that it is referred to it by a full member of the UN Security Council—everyone who had been indicted was African. All 30 people who have been indicted to date are African. At the time, the number was a little less than that—perhaps 15 or 20. However, the fact remains that all 31—I shall come to the one shortly—who have been indicted by the ICC are African.

When I went to see Luis Moreno Ocampo, I was unsure of the sense of indicting a Head of State, in the form of President Bashir of Sudan, and I had doubt about the case of Jean-Pierre Bemba of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who was indicted over allegations regarding incidents in the Central African Republic. However, I was struck by the fact that to the untrained eye, to put it mildly, the ICC was keeping away from countries that might have implications for powerful nations such as China, Russia, the United States and ourselves, and focusing all its efforts on less powerful African states. As Mr Ocampo convinced me, two wrongs do not make a right. There is, of course, evidence that major abuses have taken place in Africa, and the ICC should of course be able to investigate those cases and, if necessary, indict people. Nevertheless, the fact that all 31 indictments to date have been against Africans conveys the clear impression that the likelihood of an ICC indictment depends on a country’s strategic importance.

To cut to the chase, I have no idea—I am not a lawyer, and I am certainly not an international lawyer—about the merits of these cases. I do not even endeavour to look at the legal processes in the ICC. I am not an expert, so I would not wish to argue the merits or otherwise of the indictments in respect of Deputy President-elect Ruto and President-elect Kenyatta. The violence after the 2007 Kenyan election was of course serious, yet none of us can have any doubt that far more serious events have taken place in other parts of the world.

More to the point, there is strong face-value evidence that the ICC acts when it thinks that it can have a benevolent effect—I mean that in the broadest sense. For example, although the cases of Liberia and Sierra Leone were not ICC ones, it is clear that the violence there came to an end, and people were brought to account, because of the combined effect of careful and decisive military intervention followed by a due process of international justice. Indeed, that is the purpose of the ICC, although I stress that the Sierra Leone case and the Liberia case, involving Charles Taylor, were not under the ICC. The principle is very clear. It does follow, however, that sometimes it is more sensible and effective for the ICC to allow other mechanisms to take priority.

In theory, or in practice, the ICC is quasi-independent or quasi-autonomous—call it what you will. Ultimately it can be answerable to the UN Security Council, but its judicial and investigative processes are entirely independent. I am sure, Mr Bone, that you love quasi-autonomous bodies in the UK, and non-departmental bodies in theory act independently—and often, one might say, unaccountably—of Government. The processes of the ICC are robust and must be independent, but in the end it is a political organisation. I believe that the oversight is political, and that political oversight needs some kind of expression.

This week, the ICC has been considering the cases of Mr Kenyatta and Mr Ruto. Although those cases are technically separate, Mr Kenyatta’s co-accused has now been discharged, and many experts say that much of the evidence that there apparently is against Mr Kenyatta comes from a compromised source. Although, of course, the Minister cannot comment on the legal processes of the ICC, I simply flag up to him that it would be unconscionable if, for a considerable period, a cloud or a pall hung over the President of Kenya and the Government of Kenya, and indeed our relationship with Kenya, which is of such fundamental importance. This is not something that we can simply leave to technicalist and—I mean this in the nicest possible way—bureaucratic processes in The Hague that, even if they are legal, are disconnected from a wider political process.

You will be pleased to hear, Mr Bone, that I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion. At the weekend, another alleged war criminal who has been indicted, Bosco Ntaganda, who has been on the run for some time from the eastern Congo, surrendered himself to the Rwandan Government. I do not know the merits of the case against Bosco Ntaganda, although I do know the case quite well. It seems to me that the ICC exists precisely to deal with the fear that is created in places such as the eastern Congo by rampaging bandits and the rape and murder that frequently accompany them, rather than to deal with what are essentially matters of state. However we have arrived at this situation, this really cannot be up to the ICC and its processes. Governments cannot stand by and say, “It’s a process that has nothing to do with us,” when it comes to something as fundamental as our relationship with Kenya.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to distinguish between the ICC process, which he has outlined at length, and what we hope will be the long-term strategic stability of the Kenyan nation in Africa, and its connection and relevance to the UK in terms of our investment and assistance in aiming to ensure that a peaceful, prosperous and corruption-free Kenya is the legacy for the future?

[Eric Joyce]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We all agree with the international rule of law and we see that the ICC has a role, but we also understand that there is an even larger public benefit at play across the world. It is for politicians to fix this. We benefit enormously as a nation from our relationship with Kenya, so this is not entirely altruistic, but those of us who care about African states, as all of us do, and particularly the importance and pivotal significance of Kenya, need to get the balance right. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of particular cases when we have to say, “This is an overall objective.” It is about peace and strong relationships, and ensuring economic growth and development, and the protection and security of our citizens. We somehow have to make international justice work where it can.

There is a degree of symbolism in the ICC. The US and China have not signed up to it and Russia has not ratified the treaty. In each case, I understand why that has happened. I remember vividly our debate in the House 10 or 11 years ago when we passed the Act that implemented the treaty. There was genuine concern on both sides of the House that the ICC could be misused. Those three major states and India stayed out of it because they were concerned that it would not dovetail well with how they saw the world, which I can appreciate—that, in itself, is an indication of the political aspect of the ICC. That is not to be cynical, but apportioning strategic importance to countries, and thereby excluding them from the ambit of the ICC—in effect, that is done by indicting only Africans—is a significant issue. If we choose to do that, we need to recognise that Kenya is far too important to be treated as if it were a minor and strategically unimportant state, although of course the UK Government would not treat anyone as if they were unimportant.

It might be strange if I were to make a speech about President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta without referring to what some might call our post-colonial legacy, although I will not bang on about it—I do not have a PhD in post-colonialism. His father was president of Kenya at an important time. People feel strongly attached to his father’s legacy for the nation of Kenya now. I am of course talking about President Jomo Kenyatta. Britain has played with an entirely straight bat. To be honest, I think that there has been a little bit of hubris because one American diplomat made one unfortunate comment, although it might have gone beyond that—I really do not know.

When it comes to African states, it is always possible that internal politics reflect the possibility of external post-colonial influence by a misguided British Government, and that be can be reflected in the conduct of internal politics, as to some degree has been the case. The current and previous Governments dealt with that well. Frankly, however, President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta saw an opportunity, as any proper politician would, to jump all over it, thinking, “This is an opportunity to establish my own credentials as a defender of the nation and our national integrity.” He is, of course, also his father’s son, which helped enormously. He was already a strong candidate, but that all helped his campaign. Any politician would have done the same in that situation.

The risk for the UK is that it is seen as trying to impose “white man’s justice” by going to Africa to tell those nice black folk how to get on and run their countries. Countries across Africa will rebel immediately against that, and that will become part of their internal politics. We can see it in Zimbabwe. There is a tiny risk in Zimbabwe that we sometimes look as though we are on one side, when we need to be very careful to be right down the middle. That is not to say that we should have the same international detachment to international justice as the Russians and Chinese—I understand why they do it; they have very different political systems. The risk for the UK is that we look as though we are reflecting past traditions, as I am certain that Ministers and officials know.

Britain needs to play the whole Kenyan situation with a straight bat—I am a Scotsman, so I have no idea of the rules of cricket; I just use the metaphor—and to be seen as doing so by the Kenyans. We should do whatever we can from now on to facilitate an absolute normalisation of our relationship with Kenya.

UK Trade & Investment

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) on securing this important debate. We are perhaps now glad that not so many official Opposition Members have turned up, but I am glad that my hon. Friends the Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) are here for the debate.

I shall concentrate on the relationship between UKTI and FCO, and the work of Invest Northern Ireland, with which the Minister will be familiar, given his previous role in the Northern Ireland Office. When he was in that post, he usefully helped with trade delegations and Invest’s work in Northern Ireland, and we appreciated his work.

Northern Ireland has a good story to tell with regard to foreign direct investment. Outside south-east England, Northern Ireland is the top region in the United Kingdom for foreign direct investment. That might be hard for some people to believe, but it is a fact. We have won 7% of UK foreign direct investment, despite having only 3% of the UK population. Invest and the overseas sales teams have done a lot of work over the years to make that happen. We have a good offer, and it is important that UKTI works with Invest to promote opportunities for investment in the Province.

There are areas in which UKTI could do more, working with Invest to attract foreign direct investment and promote trade opportunities. None of the investments that have come to Northern Ireland in the past couple of years were identified or developed through the work of the UKTI network, over and above the work of the Invest teams. To date, there is a lack of project opportunities for Northern Ireland in the UKTI national pipeline of prospective investors, so I ask the Minister to consider, with his colleagues in other Departments, what more can be done. Is it appropriate to set proportionate targets for successful inward investment projects in Northern Ireland? Will he consider setting proportionate targets for inward investment visits to Northern Ireland? Will he commit, with colleagues, to a schedule of regular visits by UKTI overseas staff to Northern Ireland, organised on a sectoral basis, to update UKTI staff on Northern Ireland’s product offering, because that would be significant for providing qualitative feedback?

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

Last week, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland were in Brazil targeting opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises. If UKTI is so minded, as I hope it will be, it can assist similar future projects to enable small businesses in Northern Ireland and throughout the UK to target BRIC countries and ensure that investment comes to the UK, and particularly Northern Ireland.

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister have worked with Invest to visit a lot of the BRIC countries. Indeed, I have noticed criticism of their travelling the world recently, but it is important to visit places such as China, India and Brazil to show the opportunities in those countries and Northern Ireland.

I am conscious of your strictures, Mr Hollobone, so I shall deal quickly with a couple of other points. In recent years, the Prime Minister has led a global investment conference event in London for the chief executive officers of top global companies, and Invest provides input to such events. Communication regarding invitations and attendees is not always as it should be, and access to the events and CEOs is often limited. I ask the Minister to consider how UKTI can help Northern Ireland business leaders to gain greater access to the global CEOs attending such conferences. I am sure that that goes for other regions of the UK as well, because presently the concentration seems to be on London. Will he also have a word with the Prime Minister about the G8 summit? It is in Northern Ireland this year, which is very significant and welcome, and we could build on that opportunity. I suggest that the Prime Minister hosts a G8 investment conference in Northern Ireland, because that would be an opportunity further to maximise the spotlight on the Province.

With the Olympics, we had a very successful 2012. A lot of British companies did a lot of good business, which arose out of the games. The feedback has been positive, because of 40 companies in Northern Ireland, 24 have won £53 million of business, which is excellent. There are issues about marketing rights, however. In January 2013, all London 2012 suppliers were offered the opportunity to apply for licences to allow them to publicise the fact that they had supplied London 2012. Greater access to those licences is important so that people can build on the success.

Northern Ireland was originally excluded from UKTI’s GREAT campaign because, as I keep saying in the House, Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland—it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am glad that progress has now been made, because Northern Ireland was included on the Prime Minister’s recent visit to India, and the strapline and messages now include Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland must not be excluded from United Kingdom initiatives and measures, as we are part of the United Kingdom. It is easy to fall into a lazy way of describing or promoting the country, and Northern Ireland must be included as an equal part with England, Scotland and Wales.

Commonwealth Trade

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes a valid point. We trade and must trade with the whole world. We have focused on one area of the globe in recent decades. I believe that it is time to look to a wider trade relationship, and the Commonwealth is a natural group of countries, with which we have so much in common. That relationship must be developed for trade in the years to come.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the timeliness of the debate. He listed some—obviously not all—of the countries in the Commonwealth. Will he join me in saying that if countries that in the past were in the Commonwealth but had left, such as the Irish Republic, wanted to return, we would welcome them?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s view. I also believe that we must expand the Commonwealth and look to countries with historical links to the Commonwealth that may not have considered joining or that we may not have approached. A more vigorous policy to attract more countries to join the Commonwealth would be very welcome. I would like to see the whole of Ireland in the Commonwealth and I very much look forward to that day.

In addition to the Commonwealth nations, we of course have 21 British overseas territories—parts of the world that my hon. Friend the Minister is becoming more familiar with by the day—which stretch from Gibraltar to the Falkland Islands, Bermuda to the Pitcairn Islands and Montserrat to St Helena, along with five Crown dependencies: the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Australia also has external territories, such as Norfolk Island, and New Zealand has its realm states, such as the Cook Islands. All are part of our extended Commonwealth family. The English-speaking world is, I believe, the most powerful collection of nations on earth today. It is time to harness that power to extend opportunities for trade and to create the wealth that our people need.

UK Constituent Parts (EU)

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am fascinated by the line that has just been taken with respect to the situation of the United Kingdom in relation to the European Union. There are many of us who believe that the time has come not only to have a referendum, but to leave the existing treaties. The reality is that 56% of the British people have recently indicated that that is what they would like, and that raises very interesting and very important questions. It is also highly relevant to what is going on here in this debate today with respect to Scotland. Of course, there is also the question of Northern Ireland and of Wales, neither of which has even been touched on so far in the debate. One thing that we have to remember is that the—

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that, having listened to the very eloquent disquisition on the place of Scotland at the top table, and given this week’s announcement about the G8 coming to Northern Ireland, we can look forward, in the halcyon days in the future of Scotland’s independence, to a G9 coming to Northern Ireland, with Scotland at the top table?

[Mr Cash]

That is an extremely apposite remark, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for it.

One thing that needs to be considered is the implications that would arise for the European Communities Act 1972, which has not yet been mentioned, because of course if we have a referendum and if the vote is yes—at the moment, that seems extremely unlikely, but I will not presume to say that it will not happen—the reality is that that in itself will not create the legal and constitutional consequences that would flow from that political decision. The reality is that we then have to look at the 1972 Act. All the obligations under section 2, through our own enactment here, of which Scotland is currently a part, would have to be dealt with. It will be an extremely complex business to deal with the issues between the United Kingdom and Scotland, let alone between Scotland and the European Union or the United Kingdom and the European Union.

I would like to refer on the record to the extremely good—extremely well written—note from the House of Commons Library. I mention that on the record because I think that many people who will want to consider this question will do well to look at that note if they can get access to it. It draws together a lot of the complications that arise in international law and constitutional law. It includes a lot of discussion about the allegations made against the First Minister; I will not enter that debate, but simply say that there are complex questions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) pointed out, there is no provision in the European treaties for the secession of states. He mentioned article 4.2 and the unanimity of all 27 member states. The European Commission made some comments on that in response to an MEP, but that was on the basis of the thinking then. If I may say, having read all the papers, I do not think that there is a settled view about what would happen.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) is right to say that there would be massive uncertainty. For example, in respect of financial regulation, the jurisdiction has been already transferred, extremely unwisely, to the European institutions, but the consequences are that it is already being done in relation to the City of London with serious consequences, of an unlawful nature, for voting rights between ourselves and member states in the eurozone. There are so many uncertainties that the issue will have to be given much more consideration. There is also the question of the repeal of the Act of Union. None of the legal consequences of the referendum, even if there was a yes vote, are capable of being unravelled until we have got to grips with the constitutional implications of the matters I mention.

Despite the fact that we have one and a half hours, going into all the questions today would be far too complicated, so that is all I want to say. I put down a marker that a yes vote will be monumentally bad for the UK, monumentally bad for Scotland and monumentally bad for the people governed under the Act of Union. I and many others take that view, and I think it will prevail.

There are implications for the European Scrutiny Committee, in that it must look at all the legislation as it applies to the UK, in respect of those matters that apply to it under the Standing Orders. I will leave my contribution at that. The complications regarding Scotland have not been thought through. It is not only an emotional question or even a purely political question, but a question of grave uncertainty. The more the vote tends towards no—the direction that public opinion seems to be going—the better.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, but the Government are putting resources behind their words, and if she waits a little longer she will hear me give some examples of those resources and the Government’s action.

Correcting gender imbalance in conflict resolution is a very effective use of overseas aid and a rightful aspect of our foreign policy, but in some countries a seismic movement in male culture is needed before the empowerment of women can take place and the benefits be fully realised. South Sudan, the world’s newest country, is one such place, as I witnessed for myself on a parliamentary visit during the Easter recess.

Blessed with immense mineral wealth and fed by the waters of the White Nile, South Sudan has the potential to become one of the great breadbaskets of Africa. I saw a truly mammoth UN operation, supported by a raft of foreign aid. It should be a place with a future, but it soon became clear that some of the leaders were more intent on conflict over oil revenues. Tension was everywhere and the smell of catastrophe was in the air, yet throughout many discussions with influential politicians, not once did I have political dialogue with a South Sudanese woman. All such meetings were exclusively populated by men.

If we drill into the culture, the reasons behind that become plain. Under the “bride price” dowry system, women are regarded as the property of their husbands and fathers, turning them into economic objects. They are married off at a very young age and have to leave school, which is why 84% of women are illiterate. They are expected to bear many children, and one in seven women die in pregnancy or childbirth, the highest maternal mortality rate in the world.

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that the issue of literacy among females, which she has just touched on, is crucial, particularly in the mid and southern Sahara region of Africa? The more we can get females educated in the nations there, the more likely it is that we will see the development and emancipation to which she refers.

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I agree with everything that he has said.

Added to all that, in certain areas of South Sudan domestic violence is not just tolerated but expected, driving self-esteem, confidence and aspiration further into the dust. Amid the paucity of respect and consideration, however, there is some official acceptance of the need for change. A quota policy was adopted to ensure that women made up 25% of those on the country’s decision-making bodies. Although I personally dislike quotas, it was noticeable that during the election, 70% of voters were women. They came out to support other women as candidates and achieved an incredible 34% of women in Parliament and 30% in the Executive branch.

On paper, those numbers are encouraging, but I am sceptical about whether many of those elected women yet command real power and influence. One who certainly does is a remarkable lady called Anne Itto, deputy secretary-general of the governing party and Minister for Agriculture. She has bravely taken centre stage, speaking out for peace, economic progress and the inclusion of women in peacemaking. She said:

“The role women play as combatants, supporters of fighting forces, and peacemakers qualifies them to sit at the negotiating table and to assume an active role in implementation.”

Individuals like Anne Itto are capable of galvanising a female political movement—a movement derived from the many women who have taken on the roles and responsibilities of absent men throughout the conflicts of the past.

Those women have outgrown the pre-war social and political order, which was the cause of the fighting. They just need a spark of empowerment to overcome their suppression, seize an education and participate in building their nation. Those are the drivers of DFID’s gender strategy for South Sudan. It targets reproductive health, women’s economic empowerment, girls’ education and the prevention of domestic violence. The Department’s vision recognises the importance of the state’s approach to gender in the wider success of the peacebuilding and state-building effort. It is also a fine example of how our foreign aid is utilised both strategically and surgically.

In addition to all that, bold and visionary male leadership will be needed in South Sudan to enable the change. As I have said before in this place, when courageous women meet enlightened men, there is little that cannot be achieved.

In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to praise the coalition Government, as the first Government in history to set out clear plans to honour a life-saving and life-changing aid pledge, which they will do by 2013. A commitment to legislate was set out in the coalition programme for government. I understand that the Bill is ready, and that there will be legislation when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, we should acknowledge the work that has been done and continues to be done. For example, over the lifetime of this Parliament, the UK will help get 11 million children into school, save the lives of 50,000 mothers in childbirth, and vaccinate a child every two seconds. In the words of Benjamin Franklin:

“Well done is better than well said.”

Iran (Human Rights)

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is more than distressing; it is of extreme concern to anyone who values freedom, liberty and democracy. We are seeing the beginnings of a systematic approach that sometimes prefaces genocide, and our Government—and other Governments—are starting to realise that.

I am mindful that other hon. Members want to speak, so I will make some progress. The Islamic Penal Bill, which would amend the Islamic penal code, is expected to be passed into legislation by the Iranian Parliament this year. The Bill will almost certainly increase the severity of human rights abuses in Iran. The initial approval of the Bill by the Iranian Parliament on 9 September 2008 was a worrying development, as the original draft stipulated the death penalty for male apostates and life-long hard labour or imprisonment for female apostates. In June 2009, Ali Shahrokhi of the Parliament’s legal and judicial committee reportedly told the Iranian state news agency—the Islamic Republic News Agency—that the committee had decided to remove the reference to the death penalty from the Bill as it was not

“in the interest of the regime”.

However, it is possible the death penalty clause may still be in the text. There were fears that, if that was the case, the clause would be implemented in the case of Pastor Nadarkhani without warning at any time and would endanger other Christians.

The persecution of Christians has been accompanied by a proliferation of anti-Christian rhetoric from authority figures in Iran. In October 2010, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei declared from Qom that Christianity was being deliberately spread by Iran’s enemies as a means to weaken Islam within Iranian society. Likewise, on 4 January last year, Mr Morteza Tamaddon, governor of Tehran, made a speech in which he openly threatened further arrests of Christians. He declared that evangelical Christians had inserted themselves into Islam “like a parasite” with the backing of the west. We must think back to the vile propaganda of the Nazis before the war and the way in which Jews and others were characterised when we consider the appalling comments that have been made by leading figures in the Government of Iran.

In August 2011, Ayatollah Hadi Jahangosha echoed this sentiment in a presentation on Mahdivism—belief in the twelfth Imam. He declared that

“the West is trying to devour our youth by publishing and advertising false Gnostic books…our enemies have noticed that Satanism and false Gnosticism are not popular in Iran and because of that they are taking a religious approach to expand Christianity.”

He identified the house-church movement as a deviant sect by stating that

“the ‘real Christians’ do not believe in this distorted Christianity-Protestantism.”

Furthermore, following the seizure of a consignment of 6,500 bibles in Zanjan province in mid-August, Dr Majid Abhari, adviser to the Iranian Parliament’s social issues committee, declared that Christian missionaries were attempting to deceive people, especially the youth, with an expensive western-backed propaganda campaign. In seeking to portray evangelical Christians as part of a foreign conspiracy against Iran, the regime seeks to justify its continuing crackdown on house churches and individual Christians.

I had intended to speak on the Baha’i faith persecution, but it has been covered admirably by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside. I will, however, conclude by way of putting questions to the Minister. Perhaps he will respond by saying what action is necessary by the international community, and by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Government. We should urge the Iranian Government to uphold their obligations under their own constitution and penal code, which do not codify the death penalty for apostasy, and their obligations under international law, including provisions for freedom of religion or belief, contained within the international covenant on civil and political rights, to which Iran is a state party.

We should urge the Iranian Government to ensure the removal of the clause stipulating the death penalty for apostasy from the draft Bill for the amendment of Islamic penal code in light of Iran’s human rights obligations, and to make the amended draft publicly available.

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

On the point about the possible amendment within Iran, I, like others, was lobbied regarding the pastor. Thankfully, the death penalty was not used. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our Government should, at every level possible in the immediate future, in the next weeks and months, ensure, as far as we can, that pressure is applied to the Iranian Government, and that we should not pre-emptively take any action that would endanger the life of the pastor about whom we are all concerned, as well as the lives of other Christians and Baha’is in Iran who could suffer a fate similar to that which has, unfortunately, been hanging over the pastor’s head?

[Mr Jackson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is important to make the point to the Iranian Government and Iranian parliamentarians that the world is watching and that they cannot inflict their vile regime, systemic torture and abuses of human rights without very serious ramifications on the part of the international community. We should urge the Iranian Government immediately to release all Baha’i detainees held on account of their beliefs and to end official discrimination, monitoring intimidation and other hindrances to their freedom of religion.

A comment was made earlier by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) about Mr Ahmed Shaheed, who must to be able to continue and complete his work unmolested. He is newly mandated as the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran. He needs to continue to monitor the regime’s compliance, specifically with respect to international human rights standards, including freedom of religion or belief.

Finally, the motto of Christian Solidarity Worldwide is, “Be a voice for the voiceless”. This debate is vital. Again, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, because at least in this Chamber in our Parliament, the voiceless do have a voice this afternoon.