Hazaras (Afghanistan and Pakistan)

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and indeed the Backbench Business Committee on bringing this debate forward. You will be glad to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that because the right hon. Gentleman has eloquently outlined the situation that the Hazaras face, I intend to make just one point.

I wish to say that it is the responsibility of every Government on this planet to look after their minorities—whatever they think of them, whatever the background or history. Governments have the responsibility to protect their minorities. We are not necessarily here to dictate political systems or say whether minorities such as the Hazaras should have this or that kind of democracy, but it is a fundamental role of any state to protect and to provide safety and security for all its people, and not to discriminate against any one people because of their faith, creed, colour or whatever else.

That leads precisely on to the point made by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen: it is up to the UK Government, in whatever way they interact with another Government, in Pakistan, Afghanistan or elsewhere around the world, to oppose any discrimination against and persecution of minorities simply because of who they are, and wherever that discrimination and persecution are taking place. It is for the UK Government at each and every opportunity, whether it be through development, military, diplomatic or even economic relations, to make that point. As I say, this does not apply only to Pakistan and Afghanistan, as we could think of dozens of other places where it is happening. It is a duty to protect minority citizens and give them equal rights with others.

In my work on the International Development Committee, I sometimes feel that we do not take up this challenge enough. Let us not forget that Pakistan is the single biggest bilateral recipient of UK aid. We have clout there. When our Committee visited Pakistan a couple of years ago, we could not go anywhere near Quetta or to Balochistan because of the situation there. We could go to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab and we saw some excellent work being done there, but we could not go to a place where all these things were going on at the time. I believe that it is for our Ministers in the Department for International Development and for parliamentarians on the International Development Committee to raise those matters whenever we have the opportunity. We may be ignored and there may be no action, but we could be listened to and it is our responsibility to act as I have suggested.

Protecting Children in Conflict

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Absolutely. Just last night I attended a meeting in the House in which the Finance Minister of Nigeria talked about the campaign to build safer schools. As a fellow Scot, my hon. Friend will remember the awful tragedy of the shooting in Dunblane and the action we had to take to make our children safe in school. Children in Nigeria, and girls attending school, deserve the same protection. Such is the power of education that many people see it as threat.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I return to the hon. Lady’s important point about counselling. Does she recall the Committee’s visit to a centre in Jordan where we met some children who had recently come from Syria? The first things that they drew were AK47s and other terrible things to do with war. Now they are drawing pictures of homes and gardens and other things connected to a much more peaceful way of life.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman both for his intervention and for his comradeship—if he does not mind that term—during that visit to the middle east. He will also recall a visit where we saw children miming the experience of being refugees—how they were turned away from one country and then another before they were given refuge in Lebanon and Jordan, and just how moving that was. We also had a game on a 3G pitch. MPs, who are always competitive, managed to beat the refugee children 2-0. It was good to see the facility being used.

Analysis of the 2013 UN appeal tracking data shows that less than 2% of UN humanitarian appeal funds went to education and that only 40% of requests for funding for education were met. A coalition comprising non-governmental organisations, UN agencies and others under the banner of the “Education Cannot Wait” campaign is calling for education funding to be at least 4%, and I hope that DFID Ministers will support that campaign. Perhaps the Minister will give us an indication today of what he thinks about that.

I am pleased to see colleagues in the Chamber who have a record of defending children’s rights. I am sure that they will focus on individual countries, but I want to ensure that the debate today does not pass without our speaking up for the children of the Central African Republic The UN has reported “unprecedented” levels of brutality against children in the Central African Republic, including mutilation and beheading. Save the Children says that it is not aware of plans to deploy child protection experts on the new UN mission in the CAR, even though there is clear evidence of large-scale recruitment of children to armed groups and of other grave violations, including sexual violence.

The UK could and should be leading on such action by deploying its own experts on the mission or by insisting on pre-deployment training covering things such as how to work with children who have been recruited to armed groups. It should also be championing funding for child protection and education in the CAR. Will the Minister tell us what is being done as part of the preventing sexual violence initiative to ensure that there are experts in child protection in every team and that all staff have some training in child protection issues? Schools need to be safe places in which children can learn.

There is a rapidly growing international consensus in support of the Lucens guidelines, but so far the UK Government have yet to endorse them. By restricting the use of schools by armies in times of conflict, states can directly and substantially reduce the prevalence of violation of girls and boys in wars, and can facilitate the reintegration of survivors into their communities. Earlier this month, the Norwegian Government officially announced that they will lead in promoting the guidelines. Will the Minister commit the UK—and call for other states to do so—to adopting the Lucens guidelines on the military use of schools, amend the military codes of conduct and issue a clear and unambiguous prohibition of attacks on and military use of schools?

A 45% increase in the number of child casualties from explosive weapons use was recorded from 2011 to 2012. In November 2013, a report entitled “Stolen Futures”, which was released by the Oxford Research Group, identified explosive weapons as the primary cause of child casualties in Syria. It showed that of 12,000 then-recorded casualties, more than 70% of children died as a result of explosive weapons, illustrating the devastating impact that such use has on children.

The use of explosive weapons may not result in the killing or injuring of children, but its effects on their everyday lives are incredibly damaging. Such weapons may cause debilitating injury, displacement or long-term psychological scars and block life-saving humanitarian aid. It is time that states, including the UK, publicly recognised the humanitarian impact of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and championed moves toward an intergovernmental political declaration against such practice. Norway is providing leadership, and hosted a meeting last month to build consensus. I am not sure whether the UK was present, but will the Minister today commit the UK to being part of a global campaign to protect the innocent victims of war?

This debate is about not just children’s rights but the hope of a safer, more peaceful world for us and future generations. Children are exposed to high levels of violence in conflict, which can significantly impact on their beliefs, behaviours, future opportunities and aspirations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) said, beliefs, practices and habits that foster violence easily become deeply embedded and can fuel repeated conflict unless addressed. Every civil war since 2003 was a resumption of a previous civil war, and the majority of conflicts re-emerge within 10 years of a ceasefire.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes victims of children on both sides. The Leader of the Opposition was right to highlight the tragedy of Israeli children learning in schools which have to be able to survive rockets attacks from Gaza. What kind of environment is that for children to learn?

I would be grateful if the Minister commented on last year’s UNICEF report which stated that the ill-treatment of Palestinian children in the Israeli military detention system was widespread, systematic and institutionalised. What discussions has his Department had with the Israeli Government and, given the recent loss of young Israeli and Palestinian lives, how is his Department working with the Department for International Development and NGOs to protect children, particularly in Gaza?

I have constituents who have spent time working in the west bank, ensuring that Palestinian children can walk safely to school. Sadly, the people from whom they need to protect the children are all too often other children. Israeli settler children are taught terms of abuse and encouraged to throw stones. That is a tragedy and an abuse not just of the Palestinian children but of the Israeli children. They are all victims. That is why I tabled an early-day motion and wrote to the Foreign Secretary asking him to reintroduce funding for Breaking the Silence so that ordinary Israelis can hear credible voices telling them what is being done in their name. Children’s involvement in violence goes far beyond that kind of activity, however.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who made a particularly important speech about education. I will refer to that as well, but he has covered the ground extensively. I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) for introducing the debate so well and so eloquently, and for her comradeship on International Development Committee trips to the middle east and elsewhere.

Syria, Iraq, the Central African Republic, Nigeria, Somalia, Palestine, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, South Sudan, and many other places: there is a growing list of terrible conflicts, particularly civil conflicts, around the world. In all these, women and children, in particular, are at risk in many different ways: violence, of course; education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough explained; health; and, as the hon. Member for East Lothian said, the way they think about things—their freedom of thought and freedom of faith.

In a powerful article in The Independent, the head of War Child, Rob Williams, wrote:

“Sexual violence in conflict zones includes extreme physical violence, the use of sticks, bats, bottles, the cutting of genitals, and the sexual torture of victims who are left with horrific injuries.”

Against anybody, these would be terrible, terrible acts; against children they are just unspeakable. Yet this kind of thing is going on day in, day out in many countries. It is not just about the violence itself but its consequences—not only the medical consequences that are so severe, but the rejection that can occur within these children’s communities and families because of things that have been done to them that are absolutely no fault of theirs. We hear of stories where girls and women who are raped are prosecuted for adultery. What an upside-down world we live in when that happens.

The article refers to the HEAL hospital in Goma in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Three years ago, the International Development Committee and I had the privilege of visiting that hospital, which was under the admirable leadership of Dr Lusi. Sadly, Dr Lusi passed away not so long ago. She was the subject of an outstanding obituary in The Economist that showed the sort of work that she and all those who worked with her in that place have done. In the first half of 2012, 74% of sexual violence survivors in the hospital were children—I repeat, 74%. We often hear about violence against women, which is absolutely terrible, but this is against children.

Then there is the issue of child soldiers, where I would like to introduce a slight element of hope. Although child soldiers are still recruited pretty much everywhere there is conflict, there can be a life after that. During the Committee’s most recent visit to Sierra Leone and Liberia, we saw two countries where child soldiers were commonplace—children as young as 10 taken and forced to carry arms and to kill members of their own families. Yet now, thanks to the intervention of the international community—in Sierra Leone, particularly the intervention of UK forces—those two countries are at peace, and many of the young children who were forced to be child soldiers are gradually adapting to a more peaceful life. A few years ago, I was involved in setting up a business in Sierra Leone, and some of the young men we were able to take on were former child soldiers. It is absolutely critical that those who have been involved, through no fault of their own, are able to re-engage in normal life afterwards. At the same time—we saw good evidence of this in Sierra Leone—there has to be emphasis on reconciliation: on truth coming out and on making sure that what went on in the past is not just brushed under the carpet. There is hope. There are examples in west Africa of how countries can come out of this, albeit with great pain and grief.

What are the answers? Perhaps “answers” is too trite a word to use. In his admirable work, together with many others, on violence against women in conflict and violence in conflict more generally, the Foreign Secretary has rightly focused on prosecution. War Child mentions volunteer committees, which are a more local solution in helping people to educate their own communities about what is going on and, perhaps, how to prevent it. There are also child safety centres. Last night, I attended the excellent debate on education led by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the former Prime Minister. Focusing in particular on Nigeria, he talked about safe schools where children could be protected in that most vital of all activities, education. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said—I believe I am quoting him—that a central part of the first response to a crisis must be a focus on education. I entirely agree. When the Committee visited Lebanon and Jordan, we saw the work that DFID was doing in supporting education. I congratulate DFID and, indeed, the Foreign Office on their rightful focus on that.

I would like to put on record my admiration for the welcome that Lebanon and Jordan have given to refugees. Let us not forget that Lebanon, with a population of 4 million, now has more than 1 million refugees from Syria. Twenty per cent. of its population are now refugees, yet they were welcomed pretty much with open arms. The same is true of Jordan. Not only that, but those countries have accepted refugee children into their own state education systems. Quite a high percentage of the children being educated in Lebanon’s state system are now Syrian refugees. Let us think about whether we would do the same in similar circumstances. In relative terms, that would mean 12 million refugees coming into the United Kingdom, and probably millions—because a high percentage are children—being educated in our state schools. Would we be prepared to be as hospitable as that? I hope so, but Lebanon is doing it now.

I am glad of the support that DFID is giving those countries in upping their numbers of school places, because that will need to be done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, education is not just a matter of going in and sorting it out for a few weeks or months—it takes a matter of years. The conflict in Syria is not going to go away; it is going to continue, regrettably and painfully. Therefore, our support for the education of those children must continue, wherever they are, including in Syria itself, where DFID is also helping, although obviously our Committee was unable to go there.

There is a serious problem, specifically, with girls’ education. In many countries, as the former Prime Minister said last night, girls are treated very much as second class in education. If there is not enough money to go round, they will be the ones who are not educated, or ideologies will say that it is not worth educating girls and they should not be educated. For Boko Haram, western education is forbidden, specifically education of girls.

Again, I want to introduce an element of hope. When we were in Sierra Leone, we saw examples of second-chance schools supported by DFID—schools for children who have completely missed out on education because of conflict but who are now able, in very difficult circumstances, to receive an education. Often, the buildings used are schools during the day and teachers go there in the evening or late afternoon to provide an education. It was humbling to see children crowding into those dirty classrooms, which had broken desks and no facilities and where white boards were a million miles away, desperate for a second chance at education, because they knew how important it was.

The impact of conflict on health, particularly that of children, is another issue. Worryingly, we are seeing the re-emergence of polio in Syria as a direct consequence of conflict. That is a problem not just for Syria, but for all of us. We had believed that we were close to eradicating polio—a magnificent achievement over the past 20 or 30 years—but its re-emergence in Syria may mean that many of those gains have been lost in that part of the world. Leishmaniasis, which is a terrible, disfiguring disease caused by the sandfly, is also on the increase in Syria. That is another disease that we were perhaps on track to, if not eradicating, certainly minimising around the world.

There are other diseases. In order to reduce the incidence of malaria, people need to sleep under insecticide-treated bed nets. I declare an interest as chairman of the all-party group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases. When people are in a conflict situation and are being driven from pillar to post, it is very unlikely that they will have access to bed nets, so they, and children and pregnant women in particular, will be more liable to catch malaria and possibly die from it.

I pay tribute to those organisations that provide health services in the most incredibly difficult circumstances, including Médecins sans Frontières, Christian and other faith-based hospitals that provide assistance all the way through conflicts, even though they are under desperate pressure, and the committed individuals who sometimes give their lives in the service of their fellow women and men.

I want to touch briefly on the question of thought, belief and freedoms. At a time of conflict, people’s way of life and the way in which they have been brought up can come under tremendous pressure, because sometimes conflicts are driven by ideology. Children are taken away and brainwashed into thinking something completely different, perhaps into hating their parents and their upbringing to the extent that some who have perhaps also been given drugs are prepared to kill their own parents or other members of their family. We sometimes forget that this not just about health, education and violence itself, but about the emotional trauma of conflict and the way in which all the certainties with which a child has been brought up are taken away and replaced by hatred by vile men.

I also want to talk about the United Nations and what the world can do that it is not doing at the moment. The United Nations Security Council has set out six violations against children in conflict: the killing and maiming of children; the recruitment or use of children as soldiers; sexual violence against children; attacks against schools or hospitals; denial of humanitarian access for children; and abduction of children. Sadly, we have read about all those things in our newspapers in recent weeks and months, yet too little is happening at the United Nations.

I am a great believer in the United Nations—it is the only game in town and the only thing we have internationally to work together—but it must do much, much more. First, it must speak up constantly about this issue, which is relevant not just to one, two or three countries, but to dozens of countries across the world. Secondly, as has been said, peacekeepers play a vital role. Personally, having seen peacekeepers in various countries, I do not think we make nearly enough use of them. They are often sitting in camps, just protecting themselves. They do not have a robust enough mandate. That was particularly true in the DRC, where they were not able to go out and deal with the very problems that we as taxpayers believed we were paying them to deal with. Yes, they were there—this is not to take anything away from the peacekeepers themselves—but their mandates were not strong enough, particularly for the protection of children and violence against civilians.

I believe that the UK has a very important, perhaps unique, role to play. We are involved in training peacekeepers in many of the regions affected by conflict. Our armed forces and trainers do a fantastic job, but I believe we could do much more. As we draw down from Afghanistan, I believe our armed forces can play a very important future role in providing training in peacekeeping and the protection of civilians, particularly women and children, and in perhaps more muscular peacekeeping than is the case at present around the world.

We also need to see action from local citizens. We have seen how the great example of Malala Yousafzai and her courageous stand galvanised the world, but we need to see far more of that and we need to protect and endorse such people.

We also need to see more mediators and more women in particular involved in mediation. Far too few women are involved in the reconciliation and mediation that needs to take place in order to bring peace. That is not because of a lack of incredibly capable women, but because they are not thought of or they are not in the right place at the right time. We need an active programme to train and develop women mediators internationally, so that they can go in and help those countries achieve peace.

In conclusion, we face a difficult situation. The situation for children in conflict is, I believe, getting worse, not better. We have seen some encouraging examples of how countries can come out of it, particularly Sierra Leone and Liberia, and what can be done to reintegrate children affected by conflict, whether they have been involved as child soldiers or damaged by conflict. However, current events in Africa and the middle east in particular are throwing the issue into stark relief. We need much, much more robust international action. The United Nations needs to step up to the plate. I hope that in his response the Minister will outline what the UK Government are doing, particularly at the United Nations and with regard to the individual countries suffering from conflict at the moment.

Rwandan Genocide

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and, indeed, everyone who has already spoken. We have heard some excellent and moving speeches.

In April 1994, I and my family lived in Tanzania and our only real contact with the outside world was the BBC World Service. At this point, I pay tribute to the importance of the World Service for broadcasting by and large the best unbiased news around the world. We have already heard how important the service was to many Rwandans. Whenever we talk about the future of the World Service—whether in this Parliament or the next—let us never forget how much it is valued by hundreds of millions, even billions, of people around the world.

I was particularly interested in two things that were going on in April 1994. The first was the remarkable events in South Africa, where a really serious situation that could have resulted in severe civil unrest—possibly even a civil war—was turned around by national reconciliation and international mediation, which resulted in the wonderful election that brought President Nelson Mandela to power. There could have been chaos, but there was not.

At the same time, the opposite was happening in Rwanda, where the Arusha accords—which had given a glimmer of light not just to Rwanda, but to Burundi—were torn apart when the plane carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi crashed on 6 April 1994. I remember that particularly well, because on that very evening someone was waiting at Kigali airport to receive a friend of ours who was going to work in Rwanda for a few weeks before coming to Tanzania. His plane had to be diverted and the man who was meant to meet him at the airport did not survive that night—he was caught up in the genocide.

Since then, as we have been reminded, Rwanda has made enormous progress. This is not just about the economic growth of up to 8% a year on average, but about education. It is investing in higher education and there is recognition, as has been said, that the future of Rwanda is in its human capital. It lacks natural resources other than its beauty and its agriculture. It does not have the minerals, but it does have the people, which is why the President and the Government are absolutely right to invest in higher education.

One example of the progress Rwanda has made is the way in which it is tackling malaria. The President and the Government have now said that they want to eliminate deaths as a result of malaria by 2018. I do not doubt that that is possible, such is the progress they have made with the distribution of bed nets, indoor residual spraying and the improvement of the health service. Other Members have referred to the lack of corruption, and Rwanda is indeed a model of a country that says that corruption is bad for development and for the ordinary people.

The UK has played a major role under both the previous and the current Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire and I had the pleasure of going on an international development trip, during which we saw an excellent programme for the establishment of a land registry and the granting of titles to every single plot—about 10 million of them—in Rwanda. That has already resulted in improvements in investment, productivity and agriculture, particularly smallholder agriculture, which is vital for employment and household incomes in Rwanda and elsewhere. Rwanda also has stability, which is vital and prized and probably the primary reason why President Kagame is so popular.

Instability, however, remains in the region. The people of Burundi, Uganda, Tanzania and particularly the Democratic Republic of Congo have felt the consequences of that instability at various times. Nowhere is that more true than in the DRC, which has seen millions of people die and hundreds of thousands, even millions, of women suffer the brutality of rape and sexual violence. There must be no let-up in the work to bring peace to that region. We cannot focus on Rwanda without focusing on the entire region. We must ensure that those who, for whatever reason, perpetrate this violence are defeated and brought to account.

If there is one lesson that I want the United Kingdom and the international community to learn above all—I hope that we do learn it—it is that when there is prevarication and delay in confronting evil, it consequences will only be worse. The example of the Rwandan genocide was one of prevarication and delay in confronting evil, a word which I do not use lightly. Evil was present in Rwanda at that time, as it has been in other places that have subsequently seen the kind of devastation experienced by Rwanda.

This is a time to remember not just those who perished and their families, but the survivors. I, too, have been very privileged to take part in Project Umubano, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). One organisation we work with in Rwanda is SURF, or the Survivors Fund UK. With tremendous support from the UK—from DFID and Comic Relief, and from individual donors—it is working with local organisations to support survivors, whether widows, young people or orphans, and umbrella organisations. Together, such organisations care for the needs of more than 300,000 survivors and their dependants, who are often some of the poorest. They obviously suffer from disability and unemployment, and they include widows and children who have had to bring up their siblings from a very young age. The work of all the organisations aims to foster self-reliance. I read about a lady called Francine, who said:

“Before I was alone, I never thought about the future of my life. After joining this group”—

a project supported by DFID in Rwanda—

“I can look forward because I share my life experience with others.”

That is so important. We should not forget the survivors, and I am sure that we will not do so.

Survivors have a need not just for food and employment, but for justice. For many of them, justice has still not come. There has been the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, which will close this year. It has cost $1 billion, which is an enormous amount of money. It has done important work, but it has no mandate for reparation, and the Rwandan survivors have received none. In many ways, the Gacaca courts have been much more effective and efficient than the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda—they have a mandate for restitution and have made many thousands of restitution grants, although many of them have not been fulfilled—but even they do not have a mandate for reparation. It is very important to the survivors—or, God forbid, to victims of any future mass killings—that the concept of reparation is implemented and not forgotten, because it is a vital part of justice.

[Mr Newmark]

I thank my hon. Friend for his amazing work in leading Project Umubano, and I commend his excellent Swahili, which I have heard at first hand. Does he agree that, following this terrible tragedy, what was most impressive was the ability of the Government to abolish the death penalty, rather than to use it to seek retribution?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I did not realise that that had happened until my second or third visit to Rwanda, and I was hugely struck by it. If we compare even the reaction of the allied powers after the second world war with what Rwanda has done, I think that it was a very gracious and humble but formidable act that speaks very powerfully and should be much better known.

What lessons can we learn? We have heard much about the responsibility to protect, which is absolutely vital, but I want to draw a few other conclusions. The first is about intelligence. General Dallaire, who has often been mentioned—I have read his excellent book—knew and passed on information at quite an early stage, and certainly several months before the genocide took place, about a potential catastrophe in the country, but it was ignored. We ignore intelligence at our peril in such matters. We may at the moment have intelligence from countries around the world about something serious that is brewing, and we must take note of it and act on it.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my chronic fear that we have not learned the lessons from 1994? He mentioned that similar situations might be brewing around the world. We know about them already, but we are not acting.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am afraid that I do share that concern. I regret to say that, but I do not think that we have learned the lessons. There are serious situations around the world that we are almost turning a blind eye to. I remember hearing at first hand from friends of mine who had gone to work in the refugee camps on the Tanzanian border, when the refugees were flooding over at a rate of thousands or even tens of thousands a day, about the bodies from the genocide floating down the River Ngara. In spite of the evidence in front of our eyes, the world did not call it a genocide at that point and no action was taken.

That leads me to my second point. We can ignore intelligence, but if we ignore what is in front of our own eyes, what hope is there? We have to act much more quickly than we do.

Thirdly, we had the resources. Expatriates were evacuated by well-armed western forces before the very people with whom they worked were slaughtered a few hours or a day or two later. There was the ability to do something, but we simply did not do it. That must never, ever happen again. The first responsibility of our armed forces is to protect this nation, but our responsibility as part of the international community goes wider than that. We must not be afraid to commit our forces to such action to protect people around the world if it is necessary.

Such action is more necessary than ever because of the increase in extremism around the world, whether in religion, politics or nationalism, which leaves minorities everywhere at greater risk. That is true even in democracies, because a democracy is the rule of the majority, unless minorities have the protection of the law—domestic law, ideally, but international law if domestic law is failing.

As we remember what happened 20 years ago, let us not be complacent in any way. Wherever there is conflict or the potential for conflict, there must be no let-up in the efforts to bring peace. We saw the tremendous fruits of that in South Africa, where the international community was engaged, and the devastating consequences in Rwanda when it was not.

Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the most powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is not in his place. I also thank the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) for initiating the debate.

Alongside extreme poverty, growing income inequality and climate change, I rate extremism in relation to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as one of the four most powerful threats to the world in the 21st century. In fact, it could be said that, in some places, extremism is the cause of one or two of the other threats. In the UK, as many speakers have said, we have a responsibility. We can see in our history the suffering caused by religious strife and persecution, as well as the benefits that freedom of speech and of religion can bring. I welcome the Foreign and Commonwealth Office making the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief a key priority. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to Baroness Warsi, to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), to the Minister and to Foreign Office staff for beginning to implement that critical priority.

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to change one’s religion, which is important, and the freedom to manifest it in teaching, practice, worship and observance, all of which are in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, are not options. They are a fundamental requirement of belonging to the family of nations. The universal declaration of human rights was put together following the horrors of the second world war. It is not some kind of optional extra. It is a foundation stone of a civilised and just world. Any state that does not uphold it or pretends to do so must be challenged and challenged again by the international community.

Pakistan has been referred to several times in the debate, and rightly so, but we should also refer to other countries. There is a measure of freedom of religion in Pakistan, because we do see churches and worshippers there, but there are countries where we do not see a single church or a single building of a faith other than the authorised one. We do not hear so much about those countries—Saudi Arabia, for example—simply because there is no freedom at all. Sometimes a little bit of freedom results in persecution, because there is a measure of a presence of one particular faith. We should bear that in mind as we highlight countries in this debate.

We should challenge countries not only on the basis of their people’s fundamental human rights, but because in the long term persecution will severely damage the countries themselves. In order to succeed in today’s world, countries need people who are encouraged to innovate, challenge, inquire and take risks. If they expect that but say that people must believe in God, or cannot believe in God, or can only follow a certain lifestyle, making them into criminals if they do not conform, they should not be surprised if those people take their talents elsewhere, if they have not already imprisoned or executed them.

Take my family origins as an example. I come from a Huguenot background. We were expelled from France more than 400 years ago because of our Protestant faith. Yet the Huguenots brought to Britain the seeds of the industrial revolution, which changed the face of this country for ever—the Courtauld family was perhaps the most prominent—and France lost several decades of economic development as a result. It would be simplistic to correlate the lack of human rights, including freedom of religion, with economic progress. The presence of abundant natural resources can give Governments the ability to buy such progress, but that approach is unsustainable in the long term. The best way to build a state that can stand the test of time is to build one that enables all its people to flourish, that includes and does not exclude, and that celebrates its diversity, rather than being afraid of it.

Of course, there is another side. Freedom of religion and belief also involves exercising that freedom, as with any freedom, with great responsibility. Incitement to violence or any other crime can never be excused by being covered in the cloak of religion. I reiterate the point my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin made about the importance of people of all faiths in this country standing up for such freedoms in countries from which their families might have originally come.

[Rehman Chishti]

I visited Saudi Arabia two years ago with the all-party group. As someone from a Muslim faith, I made it quite clear to its parliamentary Shura Council that it should allow people from the Christian community to build churches there, just as people from the Muslim community who come here from other countries can build mosques. It is only fair that people of other faiths in Saudi Arabia should be able to build their places of worship.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful statement, and I absolutely agree.

As has already been pointed out, there is a global trend of increasing persecution of people of all religions and none. I want to make a few remarks about Tanzania, whose all-party group I chair. I also had the privilege of living there for 11 years. Tanzania has a secular constitution and has been noted for its religious freedom since independence in 1961. It has been a model of harmony, instituted by its first President, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere. Yet recently we have seen a disturbing rise in the incidence of religious attacks, particularly on Christians. That reflects the rise in extremist Islamist action in both the Sahel and further south in sub-Saharan Africa. We need to support Tanzania and other countries, such as Kenya, and indeed Nigeria, in their work to maintain freedom, peace and stability against all those who wish to destroy it.

In my constituency we have an organisation called the Dalit Freedom Network. We must also not forget those peoples who find their rights at risk because of the families and societies into which they were born. I commend all those who, sometimes at the cost of their freedom or their life, stand up for groups around the world who are persecuted not just because of their faith or their political views but simply because of who they were born to.

Queen Elizabeth I is believed to have said that she did not wish to make windows into men’s souls. A country that follows that maxim—that works for and protects all its people, whatever their beliefs, background or lifestyle—rather than waging war on minorities is much more likely to flourish than one that does not.

Persecution of Christians

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

Perhaps I could make little progress, so that I can set out some of the changes that we are making.

We are focusing on the multilateral work at the UN and the OSCE. During the United Nations General Assembly ministerial week at the end of September, we convened a meeting to focus on promoting freedom of religion or belief and fighting religious intolerance in our societies. At the OSCE for the past three years, we have showcased our work on freedom of religion or belief and combating hate crime against religious communities. Moreover, our work to promote the freedom of religion or belief continues to grow, as demonstrated by the creation of a new sub-group of the Foreign Secretary’s advisory group to focus on freedom of religion or belief.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

rose—

[Mark Simmonds]

Let me set this out, then I will happily give way.

We have also introduced new training courses to equip our diplomats to understand the crucial role religion plays in the world today. I should stress that the promotion of the freedom of religion or belief, of which the Christian religion is an important part, of course, remains a priority for all FCO Ministers. Collectively, we have a greater reach and more access to key interlocutors than a stand-alone ambassador on the subject matter would have.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I congratulate the DUP on securing the debate. May I tease out from the Minister what he understands by the phrase “freedom of religion or belief”? Is it merely a matter of being able to worship, a matter of being able to worship publicly, or a matter of being able to worship in a public place, to tell others about one’s faith and to encourage them to join it? What is the exact definition? There seems to be some variance around the world—I am not saying that it is coming from Her Majesty's Government—in what freedom of religion is.

Persecution of Christians (Middle East)

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

I will indeed, time permitting. The suffering of the Copts in Egypt is a critical issue.

Christians in the middle east have suffered from a domino effect of violence that began in Iraq, spread to Syria and overshadows Egypt, leaving the survival of the Church in jeopardy. According to reports, Christians are leaving in droves, ending the presence of the Church in its ancient heartlands. We must remember that Paul’s conversion was on the road to Damascus. That is a key part of the Christian story and heritage. Such countries formerly had large Christian communities—Syria had more than 1.5 million, and a similar number in Iraq is now down to about 300,000—so those are tragic reductions in countries where there are large numbers of the faithful. Persecution is also happening in countries such as Yemen, where the faithful are few in number.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the situation in Syria, one of the greatest tragedies is that it was that country that offered a haven to refugees, Christian and of other faiths, during the civil war in Lebanon from 1975 to 1990, and indeed during the war and civil war in Iraq, and yet, in Syria now, Christians and others are being persecuted.

[Fiona Bruce]

That is absolutely right. Barnabas Aid reports that until 2011, Syria was one of the freest places to be a Christian in the middle east. It was a place of sanctuary for Christians escaping persecution in Iraq. Suddenly, all of that has changed. Christians made up a sizable minority—around 10% of the population—and were allowed to live out their faith without much hostility from Muslims around them. The Patriarch of Antioch, Gregorios III, said that it was often Christians who provided a bridge between disparate Muslim groups in the region. They had a collegiate approach towards living there. However, as clashes between Government forces and opposition fighters escalated into the brutal civil war that the country has experienced, Christians emerged as particular targets for rebels who assumed at times that Christians were Government supporters.

As Islamist bands have become some of the most prominent groups among rebel fighters, Christians are increasingly being targeted. We hear, for example, of one village where the parish priest has to collect $35,000 a month to pay rebel groups to protect the Christians from armed attacks. That is outrageous, but that is what is happening now.

Recent estimates put the number of Christians who have fled Syria at between 450,000 and 600,000—about a third of the Christian population before the atrocities began. Barnabas Aid estimates that about 600 have been martyred for their faith. For those who stay, the picture is bleak. The report that I mentioned states that entire populations of predominantly Christian villagers around Homs fled for their lives in 2012. In February this year, rebel fighters invaded al-Thawrah, seized Christian homes, confiscated possessions and threatened people with death because they did not comply with sharia law. On 27 May this year, rebel fighters massacred almost 40 men, women and children in the Christian village of Dweir on the outskirts of Homs. Some victims were tortured before being murdered.

The report’s authors told of meeting Syrian Christian refugees in Jordan, who had been told while they were in Syria:

“Don’t celebrate Easter or you will be killed like your Christ.”

On 17 August this year, the Christian area of Wadi al-Nasara, called the valley of the Christians, was attacked. Church buildings were targets. In January this year, church attacks were condemned as war crimes by Human Rights Watch. On 4 September, the historic Christian village of Maaloula—one of the few places in the world where Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is still spoken—was attacked. Rebels linked to al-Qaeda went into every Christian home and destroyed evidence of the inhabitants’ faith. At least seven were killed, and most of the village’s residents were forced to flee. Christians who fled said:

“Let history record that Maaloula is crying today.”

A growing trend is the use of rape as a weapon. In early 2013, a fatwa was issued, via YouTube, that called for the rape of women who were not Sunni Muslims. A tragic example is the horrendous ill-treatment of Mariam, a young Christian woman from al-Qusayr. She was forcibly married to a man who raped her on the same day. Later that day, he repudiated the marriage. The next day, another Islamist man did exactly the same. It continued day after day. For 15 days, 15 different men abused her in this way. Finally, when she was showing signs—unsurprisingly—of mental instability, they killed her. She was just 15 years old.

Christian Church leaders are being kidnapped and disappearing, including two senior bishops, Yohanna Ibrahim and Boulous Yazigi. I am informed that they are of the same seniority as the Bishops of Liverpool and of Manchester; if they had been kidnapped and had disappeared, and were possibly dead, there would be an international outcry. We should exhibit the same response.

For many years, Christians in Syria have formed a cohesive part of the community. At the launch of the report that I have referred to, the Patriarch of Antioch, head of one of the largest Christian Churches in the country, said movingly in this place:

“All Syrians are our brothers and sisters—we have no enemies—yet we are victims. We have not asked for weapons and I have told my parishioners, ‘don’t seek arms.’ We are a church of reconciliation and we are seen by many Muslims as the only one—let the rest of Europe hear that. Persecution is not in our history and we have a long history of collegiality in the region. Let us understand our role and mission—both the historic one and one going forward. But you cannot have a role if you are not present.”

In Egypt, we hear that despite the persecution they engender, Egyptian Christians have forgiven their persecutors and are not retaliating. Although it has experienced enormous hardship, the response of the Coptic community has been one of unprecedented non-retaliation. In some areas, they stand hand in hand with Muslims—I pay tribute to the Muslims standing with them—to protect their churches from further damage. Muslim families in lower Egypt have given blankets to Copts who have lost their homes.

Since the fall of the Islamist Government in Egypt, Christians have seen no improvement in their condition. On the contrary, they are suffering one of the worst periods of targeted violence against them in modern history. More than 140 attacks have been documented since the middle of August—a “reign of terror”, as it has been called by Christian Solidarity Worldwide.

As I have said, we bemoan to this day the persecution of the Jews in Germany, but in August 2013, The Times reported ransackings of homes, hospitals and schools similar to those that took place in 1938, when Jewish synagogues and buildings were ransacked and pillaged. It stated:

“Dozens of churches, homes and businesses have been set alight and looted in Egypt, forcing millions of Christians into hiding amid the worst bout of sectarian violence in the country’s modern history. Some Coptic Christian communities are being made to pay bribes as local Islamists exploit the turmoil by seeking to revive a seventh-century tax, called jizya, levied on non-Muslims.”

The morning after the terrible attacks in mid-August, Bishop Kyrillos William Samaan of Assuit told staff of Aid to the Church in Need that, during a spate of violence against Christians, nearly 80 churches and other centres were attacked in less than 48 hours. Fear of attack means that thousands of Christians are now too afraid to leave their homes. He said that in some villages, people were heard crying:

“Save us. We cannot go out of our houses.”

Joe Stork, the acting middle east director of Human Rights Watch, has reported that dozens of churches are in ruins, and that

“Christians throughout the country are hiding in their homes, afraid for their very lives.”

Only last week, a young Christian minister was kidnapped, tortured and killed when his family could not pay a ransom. How long can we remain apparently indifferent to regular reports of the abduction, forced conversion and marriage of Christian girls, and to the accompanying violence, rape, discrimination, beatings and abuse?

I accept that growing militant Islamism is not the only reason why Christians are being attacked—there is also political instability, poverty and desperation resulting from the displacement of refugees—but that issue nevertheless poses a real threat to other societies. As Barnabas Aid reported in mid-September,

“Western Muslims are going to fight alongside jihadists in Syria…returning home to become potential jihadists themselves. Western countries are not fully grappling with this problem.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

We are thinking this morning about those people in the middle east and across the world who will wake up today to the reality of the persecution of their faith. It may be that their children are barred from school, or that they have no hope of securing a job for which they are eminently qualified, simply because they have a faith that they refuse to renounce—which may mean unlawful imprisonment, torture or even death. We have experienced that in this country in the past—the trials were conducted just a few yards from here—but we have learned that that is no way to run a country or build a society.

Some think democracy is the answer. As we have seen in Egypt, democracy may be a necessary condition for the long-term maintenance of human rights, but it is in no way a sufficient condition. Democracy without the rule of law becomes but the tyranny of the majority, and democracy without the rule of law based on universal human rights can be even worse. When we urge countries to embrace democracy and then question why it all goes wrong and many minorities find themselves in a worse position than under an autocrat, let us remember that the rule of law, underpinned by the universal rights and responsibilities of individuals and their enforcement, is a precondition for democracy. We must never forget that in the rush for universal suffrage and majority rule.

The Governments of middle-eastern countries that deliberately persecute Christians and those of other non-Islamic faiths are, by keeping down or driving out Christians, doing their countries a great disservice. Just look at the example of the UK. When my Huguenot ancestors were driven out of France after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, they fled to the low countries, to Germany and to England, and they took their skills with them. Courtauld brought textile manufacturing to this country, and hence, eventually, the industrial revolution. Some estimate that the expulsion of the Protestant Huguenots from France set that country back 100 years, and advanced those countries that welcomed them by a generation or two.

Each wave of immigrants welcomed by our country has brought enterprise and skills as they integrated. Where Christian citizens are driven away or kept down, it is a huge loss to that country, its people and its future, and the same is true for the UK. Let us recognise one of the reasons why Christians are persecuted. They are seen as representative of something alien—a western culture based on individualism and materialism, rather than the collective good of love for one’s neighbour. That, of course, is a travesty of the gospel, but it is understandable that outsiders think that when they see some of the products of western so-called civilisation.

Finally, we must show that religious and political freedom does not necessarily mean a descent into materialism, loss of family and spiritual poverty, which is a challenge to us. It is something we can do as a society, and as Christians, while at all times supporting our persecuted brothers and sisters and urging their countries to change heart.

Rohingya Communities

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) on securing the debate. I will confine my remarks to just three areas, because previous speakers have covered the ground so thoroughly.

Violent conflict between communities, such as we have seen in Arakan state, is a disaster for all concerned, and especially so when the communities include some of the poorest people, who have no means of recovering from the loss of property or livelihood, let alone the harm to, and loss of life in, their families. However, it is particularly hard to bear circumstances in which Government authorities are seen to be either indifferent to the suffering, or to be making it worse, as in this case. Whatever else a Government do or do not do for their people, they must treat them fairly and without discrimination. There are clear reports of arbitrary violence, including rape, looting and torture, by police and security forces. It is also clear that Rohingya who have been displaced are, as a result of their ethnicity, not receiving assistance. That has to stop, and the Burmese Government must allow full access to humanitarian agencies and independent observers.

We are not trying to excuse anyone—everyone who commits violence is at fault here—but behind the conflict lies the pernicious effect of the 1982 citizenship law, under which the Rohingya, who are Muslim, are denied citizenship, even though the land has been their home for generations. Not only that but, as previous speakers have said, the President recently asked the UN for help in resettling the Rohingya in other countries, which is in clear contradiction of the universal declaration on human rights.

In the 21st century, it cannot be the case that a country refuses to recognise as citizens people who have lived there for generations. I urge the UK Government and the European Union to continue making it clear to the Burmese Government that reviewing, reforming or repealing the law is essential to ensuring that there is no discrimination.

Bangladesh, too, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) made clear, needs to provide under international law a safe sanctuary to people who flee persecution and violence in Burma. Indeed, the international community needs to support Bangladesh in doing so and to support all who are displaced. I welcome the work of the Department for International Development on that.

Finally, it is not only the Rohingya in Burma who are suffering as a result of their ethnicity and religion, although, perhaps because of the citizenship law, they have suffered the most. The Christian Chin minority and others have also been under great pressure for decades. State-supported persecution because of people’s religious views, lack of religious views or ethnicity must be confronted wherever it occurs. As a country, we must speak out whenever that happens, whether in a state that is predominantly Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or of no religion.

I applaud the UK Government’s strong stance, the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the United Kingdom’s effort at the United Nations. I welcome DFID’s constant work in Burma over many years, both under the previous Government and the current Government. Working with the poorest people is especially important, whether they suffered the cyclone in 2010, displacement today or, in the east of the country, the real threat that malaria resistant to artemisinin, which is the only effective treatment, could spread unless it is countered on the Burmese-Thai border. That is why DFID’s work in Burma is so important, irrespective of the current policies of the Burmese Government. DFID is there to help the world’s poorest people.

How much pressure should the UK Government place on Burma? The Prime Minister has invited the President of Burma to the UK. As the previous Minister of State, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), wrote in a letter to a colleague of mine in the European Parliament on 10 August, a visit will be

“a valuable opportunity to continue the Prime Minister’s dialogue with the President and to stress the need to resolve the many issues outstanding.”

There have been calls for the invitation to be withdrawn, which I understand, but I believe that, perhaps with the conditions that have already been mentioned, a visit would provide an opportunity to raise very publicly and very strongly the plight of the Rohingya and others in Burma.

As the hon. Member for Leicester South so eloquently put it, this year should have been a year of hope for Burma. Indeed, there have been many welcome moves towards democracy. Above all, given the UK’s history in Burma, we should support those moves, but we cannot simply stand by and ignore what is happening. I urge the Minister to make it clear in the strongest possible terms that the UK Government expect the Burmese Government to take action to protect the Rohingya and other communities in Burma whom they are currently failing to protect.

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

I have been informed that we may start the winding-up speeches at 10.40 am, so there is slightly more time, but I appeal to hon. Members to be to the point.

Arms Trade Treaty

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) on securing this debate on the arms trade treaty. I thank him for his courtesy in letting me and my officials have a copy of his remarks, which will make it easier to respond directly to his questions.

As we can tell from this debate and as I know from my correspondence, this issue commands a great deal of cross-party interest and support. The hon. Gentleman, the other Members who are present and many others feel passionately about this issue and follow it closely. I returned recently from the treaty negotiations in New York, where I had the good fortune to meet the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who is in her place tonight, and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). That emphasises the interest that colleagues have in seeing as much of the process as possible after waiting for so long.

The timing of this debate is opportune, coming as it does at the mid-point of the highly significant negotiations that began in New York last week. It offers an opportunity to take stock of the negotiations and to set out the Government’s priorities for and commitment to a robust and legally binding treaty. I briefed the all-party parliamentary groups on the United Nations, on landmines and unexploded weapons of conflict, and on weapons and protection of civilians at the end of April. I stressed that securing a positive outcome in July would not be easy, but that we would do everything within our power to secure a good result.

Nothing that has happened since I attended the opening day of the conference has led me to change my view. This remains an incredibly complex negotiation, made more difficult by a hard core of countries that would like to derail the negotiations, as the hon. Member for Gower said. I assure the House that the UK’s teams in London and New York—and our embassies and high commissions across the world, because sometimes the decision makers are not in New York, but in their home capitals—are working long and hard to ensure a successful result.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) on securing this debate. Has the Minister spoken with his colleagues at the Department for International Development about how this trade affects the impact of UK development money, given the considerable amount of money that the UK taxpayer is spending in some of the worst affected regions of the world?

[Alistair Burt]

I assure my hon. Friend that I have spoken long and frequently with my colleagues at the Department for International Development, and in particular with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who will be going to the negotiations next week. It is clear that in a number of the countries that are most affected by the misery of an unregulated arms trade, we have deep concerns about all sorts of other issues. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of that element of the negotiations and to the need for joint working. He and the House can be assured that there is exceptional joint working across the Government on this issue.

It is important that we keep in mind why we are having these negotiations and why the UK has led international efforts towards an arms trade treaty for so long. Those efforts started under the last Government, for which we give them great credit, and have continued under the coalition. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions on 27 June that

“we back the arms trade treaty, as we have done for a considerable amount of time, and lobby very vigorously on that issue.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 302.]

The House is genuinely working together on this, recognising the problems that need to be faced.

The problems caused by the unregulated trade in conventional arms need to be addressed. The lack of effective and coherent global regulation fuels conflict, destabilises regions and hampers effective social and economic development. It can also have devastating effects on communities and individuals, with armed violence destroying lives and livelihoods and displacing communities. A lack of regulation means that arms can slip into the hands of those who would use them against our own troops and civilians. That situation has gone on too long, and we need to stop it now.

Those are the reasons why we have placed such a high priority on securing a treaty described as comprehensive, robust and effective. Ministers and senior officials regularly raise the arms trade treaty in our bilateral and multilateral meetings around the world, so that we can both work through particular issues that states may have and encourage positive and constructive engagement in the diplomatic conference in New York. We have used our international networks of posts to lobby in support of an arms trade treaty, and we have provided funding for non-governmental organisations from developing states to attend the conference.

No matter how committed we are to securing an arms trade treaty—I do not think anyone is in any doubt about that commitment—we cannot deliver it on our own. That is why we have put so much emphasis on working with our international partners, NGOs and representatives of the UK defence industry in the run-up to the conference. We have collaborated closely with the treaty’s co-authors, the EU and the P5, and will continue to do so as the negotiations progress, to seek to achieve a successful conclusion.

To get a truly effective treaty, we need standards not only high enough to meet our aims but with the global reach provided by the broadest participation of states, including the major arms exporters. It was always my intention to travel to New York for the start of the diplomatic conference, to signal the UK’s continuing commitment to securing an arms trade treaty. I arrived at the beginning of the first week and saw at first hand the real challenges that our delegation and other treaty supporters will need to overcome to ensure a successful outcome by the end of the month. In fact, the start of the conference was delayed for a couple of days by one such challenge, which threatened the start of the negotiations. The question of Palestine’s status in the United Nations is important, and there are plenty of colleagues in the Chamber tonight who understand that very well, but it cannot and should not be decided by the UN process on the arms trade treaty.

Despite the distraction and the loss of a couple of days, negotiations are now firmly under way, but challenges remain. To answer the first question that the hon. Member for Gower asked me, a particular problem that has dogged the first two weeks has come from a small group of states that continue to try to thwart the will of the vast majority of the international community, using a smokescreen of procedural points to stop substantive engagement on the issues that really matter. Of course, when a country has a real concern about what an arms trade treaty might contain or how it might operate, we will listen to it and work through its concerns, as is only right. However, we will not allow the conference to be railroaded by states that want only to prevent eventual agreement. We have already lost two days to procedural wrangling, and we cannot afford to lose further time.

Despite all that, the process is well under way. Ambassador Moritan continues to steer us towards our eventual goal, despite the choppy waters. Following my visit last week, I spoke to the ambassador on the telephone on Tuesday and offered him the UK’s full support. As I mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for International Development will be in New York next week, helping to sustain the momentum of the process and maintain our leading role at this critical time.

I have seen the engagement of our delegation in negotiations, and I do not think the House can overestimate how effective and useful its members have been, how much they know and how engaged they have been in the process in the many years since it started. A Minister’s presence can add a bit of weight. Whether that comes through my right hon. Friend’s physical presence or through me making the telephone calls that are needed to certain capitals, the House can be assured that our comprehensive effort will continue across Government right until the very end.

A programme of work for the conference has been agreed, and two main committees have been formed to look at different aspects of the treaty. They are being ably chaired by the Netherlands and Morocco and are gathering the views of UN member states quickly and effectively, trying to make up for the time that has been lost.

I regret that agreement on a programme of work has meant that some meetings are closed to the public. Despite that, we still recognise the important part civil society has to play in the ATT negotiations. The UK delegation is in constant touch with non-governmental organisations in New York and meets with them regularly to ensure their views are heard. It is important that we continue to work closely with them at this crucial point. They have been instrumental in the progress we have made on the ATT and we still very much need their help and expertise if we are to be successful.

I tried to remain close to NGOs in the run-up to the negotiations and considered whether they would formally join the delegation. For perfectly understandable reasons— namely, for their independence—they felt that that was not the right thing to do, but we continue to stay close. At the end of this weekend, I intend to speak on the telephone to our ambassador in New York who is dealing with the negotiations. I will probably also call the representatives of Amnesty International and Oxfam on behalf of others to see how they are with the process and to maintain my contact with them. That emphasises how much the Government are trying to keep engaged with NGOs.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Britain’s foreign policy can be summed up in two words: unsplendid isolation. The Foreign Secretary is an observer of world events, rather than a shaper of them. He talked about new embassies being opened, but they will not be staffed by trained British diplomats who come back here after a short term abroad as a young diplomat to help inform our community of foreign policy. Instead, we now have portakabin foreign policy, with small sheds being opened all over the world, but without augmenting our foreign presence. The number of diplomatic posts staffed by British citizens is being cut by up to 250 as a result of the Foreign Secretary’s personnel policies.

The Foreign Secretary set out his world vision in an interview with The Economist last week. It is based on promoting trade, promoting the broad national interest and protecting British citizens overseas, as he confirmed in his speech earlier. I expect that every holder of his great office from Charles James Fox onward would subscribe to those aims. Every one of Her Majesty’s ambassadors promotes trade, but to do so we need an economy that is growing, open and supported by Ministers. Instead, the Foreign Secretary insulted every exporter over the weekend by telling them to work hard. My business friends in his home town of Rotherham, which I have the honour of representing, have worked harder than any generation of business leaders in our history. They do not need to be patronised and told to work hard. What they need is support so that the cuts to the UK trade promotion work, which Lord Digby Jones discussed with the BBC yesterday, are reversed, because every day that the Foreign Secretary has been in office has seen Britain’s trade balance worsen.

The Foreign Secretary makes much of the idea that Britain can turn away from our traditional trading partners and engage with emerging powers, yet we export more to Ireland than we do to China, Russia, India and Brazil combined. He is the leader of the Eurosceptic faction in the Cabinet and never misses an opportunity to make a crack about the EU or the problems of the eurozone, as if the double-dip recession pound zone were an example to follow.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that exports of goods to non-EU countries have increased by almost 30% over the past two years?

[Mr MacShane]

I will be moving on to that.

Our exports to Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain—the so-called PIGS countries—amount to more than 10% of our exports, compared with just 0.7% to Brazil or 1.4% to India, to which even Belgium exports more than we do. In short, the concept of replacing our friends and allies in the Euro-Atlantic trading region with the new so-called emerging powers is not paying off, as the Indian decision to buy French war planes rather than British ones and the view of Indian politicians that they no longer want or need aid from London demonstrate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

At a time of great difficulty, it is always tempting to look inwards. However, it is now more important than ever to look outwards, because it is by engaging constructively with the world that we will see growth in our economy and security for our people, and help others to tackle grinding poverty and the effects of climate change. I therefore welcome the Government’s focus on exports, on inward and outward investment, on expanding the UK’s diplomatic network—I should like to echo the praise for the work of our diplomatic missions around the world—and on well-targeted development aid.

Figures released today show that UK exports—that is, exports of goods and services combined—have increased by 17% since March 2010 to £41.8 billion. Significantly, exports of goods to non-EU countries have risen from £10.8 billion in September 2010 to £13.1 billion in March this year. Almost all the recent increase involves exports of goods to non-EU countries. It is worth pointing out that six of the 10 fastest growing countries in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa—many of them are members of the Commonwealth—and it is to those countries that we should look for our growth in the next two to three decades.

British companies have been working very hard against fierce competition, but we cannot rest there. Britain has a lower percentage of small and medium-sized enterprises involved in exports than our rivals, and we need to help those companies to compete across the globe. Export Credits Guarantee Department cover has improved since last year, but I would urge the Government to ensure that our companies have access to the same cover as that enjoyed by their competitors in Germany and the Netherlands. At the moment, we fall considerably short of that goal.

One factor that is not quantifiable but is nevertheless significant for the UK’s export performance is the UK’s diplomatic network. A recent article in The Economist stated:

“Diplomats have been told to focus on three objectives: defending national security, looking after British citizens abroad and—above all—boosting prosperity by promoting British business. If Britain moves quickly, it can be the first European country to spot the vital need for long-haul, bilateral diplomacy, Mr Hague suggests.”

The Foreign Secretary is right. Too often, we have been complacent or slow off the mark, and lost traditional markets or failed to take the new opportunities, yet Britain is opening eight new embassies in Asia by 2015, at a time when others are cutting back, and despite a smaller budget.

[Meg Munn]

Is not the hon. Gentleman illustrating the fact that there is quite a narrow focus on international issues? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said, there is no overriding theme running through the Foreign Office. Surely our diplomatic efforts should be about more than just trade. Did not the Government come unstuck in that way before, when the Prime Minister went abroad to promote trade at a time when there were real problems in the middle east that needed to be addressed through a much wider diplomatic effort?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I would take a slightly different view, having worked with the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development and served on the International Development Committee. I have seen a joined-up approach between DFID and the Foreign Office; more so than ever before. I also see Foreign Office Ministers taking such issues as human rights and the environment extremely seriously. Perhaps that has not come out in some of the debates so far, but my experience on the ground is slightly different from that of the hon. Lady.

Tackling the trade deficit is not just about increasing exports, however. It is also about doing more at home in areas where we have traditionally been large importers. Let us take food and drink as an example. The trade deficit in 2011 was £17.8 billion on food and drink alone. Ensuring that UK farmers have a fair deal from their customers would give a significant boost to agriculture and horticulture, creating many jobs in the process, which is why producers in my Stafford constituency welcome the legislation to establish an independent adjudicator between supermarkets and their suppliers.

In recent years, we have been told that the UK can no longer compete in standard manufacturing, and that we must concentrate on high value-added products. I disagree. It is not either/or; it is both/and. As wages rise in developing countries and as the cost of transport increases, there is an advantage in being close to our markets and not bringing everything in from the other side of the world.

That brings me to a subject that, as a Conservative, I perhaps should not raise—but I will. As a nation, we need to be prepared to identify strategic areas of business and to back them—not to the exclusion of common sense, but with more than warm words. Germany and France do that, and we can hardly say that their economies are less competitive than ours. As a result, state-backed—perhaps I should say “encouraged”—French and German companies have taken over swaths of British manufacturing and service industries. Many are good businesses that invest heavily in the UK—Alstom and Total are examples in my constituency—and they reap the rewards, but we do not see the reverse happening to nearly the same extent. Is it that our companies are less adventurous, or is it that they have lacked support and encouragement from successive UK Governments and face obstacles at the other end that the single market is supposed to prevent? Sometimes I think that there is a single market in the EU, and that that single market is the UK. I will believe otherwise when I see Severn Trent running the Paris water supply and Virgin Trains operating on Deutsche Bahn.

The UK’s role in helping with security in troubled areas is underplayed. Understandably, we concentrate on Afghanistan, where our forces—including the Tactical Supply Wing, the 22nd Signal Regiment and 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment from my area—have done so much in working for stability for the people of that country and to make our nation safer. However, trainers from the UK armed forces work in many other parts of the world. Recently, several colleagues and I were privileged to see the work of the British Peace Support Team in Kenya. The UK is also involved in training peacekeepers from the Ugandan and Burundian armies who are undertaking the vital and dangerous UN mission in Mogadishu. The question is often asked: what will our armed forces do once operations in Afghanistan are over? One of the answers is that they would do more of the training of peacekeepers, at which they excel. They are the best in the world.

The Gracious Speech states that the Government

“has set out firm plans to spend nought point seven per cent of gross national income as official development assistance from 2013. This will be the first time the United Kingdom has met this agreed international commitment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 3.]

As hon. Members have pointed out, that commitment has been around for 40 years, since the Pearson commission in the late 1960s. The UK’s aid programme makes a huge difference to the lives of millions. As the Prime Minister said:

“The last Session of Parliament also made an impact not just at home but around the world. We fed more than 2.5 million people facing famine and starvation, we supported over 5.5 million children to go to school in the poorest countries of our world and we immunised a child against diseases every 2.5 seconds of the last parliamentary Session.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 17.]

It is a privilege to serve on the International Development Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who I see in his place, and to see the effects of the good use of UK taxpayers’ money on the lives of the poorest: children able to study in classrooms for the first time, and deaths from malaria plummeting when UK Government money supplies bed nets, rapid diagnostic tests and artemesinin in combination drugs. This is a programme that looks to the future, helping growth in the private sector so that jobs are created and income generated, supporting tax authorities so that Government revenues grow and reduce the need for aid.

If I were to highlight one area that has been neglected over the years and is now more important than ever—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) referred to it—it would be agriculture, in particular smallholder agriculture. We are seeing substantial investment in agriculture by large corporations across the developing world. Where this is done alongside and in co-operation with existing landowners, particularly the small ones, it can work very well, as I saw on recent visits to Zambia and Malawi, by increasing production, productivity and employment. Sadly, however, this is sometimes not the case, as we see examples of large land grabs that leave people destitute.

Some have expressed disappointment that the Queen’s Speech does not mention legislating for 0.7%. I have to say that I do not share their disappointment, as I am keen first of all to reach that amount by showing through action that we can achieve it. Perhaps we could legislate afterwards, having shown the way. What has become increasingly clear to me over the past two years on the International Development Committee is that what matters is that we keep our commitment to the amount, that it is well spent on the poorest and, most important of all, that the countries we are helping make every effort to reduce their dependence on aid. Countries such as Zambia and Rwanda have set out their clear intention to eliminate their need for aid. I welcome this and suggest that the Government ask this of every country we work with.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned land grabs, as a serious issue is at stake. Many of the poorest countries in Africa are seeing their land bought up in large amounts by Japan, China and a number of other countries, which grow food that is then exported straight away. This means we have the phenomenon of very poor people starving alongside bounteous crops. Can we do anything about that through our aid programme?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, which concerns me greatly. I much prefer to see large companies working with smallholder farmers, allowing them to keep their land, perhaps leasing it off them for periods of time but with ownership being kept by the nationals. We need to look very seriously at this issue. I know that DFID does not engage in such activity and would not support it, but it is extremely important that we find out what can be done about it. I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s view on that.

Returning to the need to reduce dependence on aid, if a country sets out clearly how it intends to achieve this, it not only shows that the countries themselves are committed to growing their economies and their tax revenues, but gives the British people the confidence that development aid is a partnership with a clear goal.

With exports up, more embassies and other missions open, and a strong development aid programme, the UK is most certainly looking outwards. The key is to maintain this, not just through this Parliament, but for many years thereafter. In that way, Britain will continue to be a reliable partner in trade, in security and in the most vital work of helping the poorest in the world to a better future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who in his short time in this place has brought the experience of his previous work into Parliament. I congratulate him on his speech.

As I wanted to speak in this debate, I had to cancel a meeting with the chief executive of a company just across the river. He sent me an e-mail saying that he hoped I would be called—he does not understand how long we wait to speak—and said, “Could you please encourage the Government to concentrate on growth and not constitutional waffle?” I thought that that was a rather nice way of summing up Lords reform and I hope that we will see sense on that matter and not go forward with any discussion on it at all. It is not something for which any of our constituents are clamouring.

The Gracious Speech included two Bills on the European Union that the Government intend to introduce in this Session and I want to say a quick word about them. Neither Bill is the Bill that the public want to see. We know that the public, like many Members of this House, want a Bill that allows a referendum on our future relationship with the European Union. The public will note that, despite the passage of the European Union Act 2011, the Government propose to pass legislation to approve the creation of the European stability mechanism and to prepare for Croatia to join the EU without a referendum. Many members of the public were told that we did not need an in/out referendum because the Government would put it into law that any changes to our relationship with the EU would have to be approved by them. We can now see that that promise is inadequate because we will not have any say.

It is surprising that the Government are introducing the Croatia accession Bill. Personally—this is a very personal view—I cannot understand why Croatia would want to join the EU, but if it does that is obviously a matter for it. The ongoing expansion of the EU across the continent, well away from the small set of countries it comprised when we joined, shows that the European project is still very much alive in the hearts of the Brussels elite, who are pushing still for deeper and wider union despite the ongoing economic disaster. I believe—and believe that the public would want to see this—that if we are to be asked to pool our national sovereignty with yet another country with the result that in time our voice and our vote count for less in the European Parliament, that changes our relationship and should lead to a referendum.

Preparations for the European stability mechanism might also be premature. Only today we have the meeting between the new President of France and the German Chancellor with the intention of amending the austerity pact which the euro countries signed up to last year. I welcome the fact that eurozone countries should pay to support other countries that are struggling under that currency, but as we wisely did not join, we should not have to contribute a penny. We have already given too much money to propping up the euro through the International Monetary Fund. I remind the Government that the public will not stand for that, as we have seen from the increasing votes for the UK Independence party.

I was disappointed that neither of the Front-Bench spokesmen—I might be mistaken, but I listened very carefully—mentioned the word Commonwealth. Yet that is an association of 54 independent states that work together in the common interests of their citizens for development, democracy and peace. We just need to contrast that with the European Union. The Commonwealth works to uphold democratic rights and nurture constitutional government and parliamentary accountability, whereas the European Union increasingly seeks to thwart and ride roughshod over the democratic will of citizens to such an extent that it wants to install unelected bureaucrats as Prime Ministers of countries.

It is terribly sad that we are not making much more use of the Commonwealth. Despite the size and economic entity of the Commonwealth, the UK Government never talk about it as a huge economic union. We talk about individual countries within it but what about the fact that it accounts for 15% of the world’s gross national income and contains more than 2 billion of the world’s 7 billion population? We have a special link in this year of Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. As the head of the Commonwealth, she is passionately concerned about it and has done so much as a monarch to ensure its importance and to ensure that we remember what it has done. So although the Commonwealth contains 2 billion of the world’s 7 billion people, there was not a single mention of it in the Queen’s Speech or, more importantly, tonight.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that many countries that do not have traditional links with Britain are seeking to join the Commonwealth? Rwanda is already a member, as is Mozambique, and countries such as Burundi want to forge links with the Commonwealth.

[Kate Hoey]

Absolutely, and that shows the strength and power of the relationship, which does not bind countries into a centralised you-will-all-do-the-same-thing approach but welcomes and supports them as individual countries. Let us not forget that the Commonwealth’s membership includes two of the world’s largest 10 economies—the UK and India—and two members of the G7: Canada and the UK. It also includes five members of the G20: the UK, India, Canada, Australia and South Africa. It has huge global significance and huge potential and also has the advantage of being a group of countries that are friendly, in most cases, including many with deep reserves of key natural resources. It is absolutely disgraceful that we in the United Kingdom are not seeing the Commonwealth as somewhere to which we should be reaching out. Ultimately, we should be establishing a Commonwealth free trade area. That would, of course, mean examining our relationship with the European Union, but our relationship with some of the large Commonwealth countries will be much more important in the long term. I therefore ask the Minister to mention the word Commonwealth in his response and say something about it just to show the Commonwealth countries that we care and that in this year of the diamond jubilee Her Majesty and this Parliament consider the Commonwealth to be worthy of discussion.

Having been quite critical, let me now say something nice about the International Development Secretary. The Department for International Development has been doing a very good job indeed and I want to mention in particular the work it has been doing in Zimbabwe, which has been terrifically important and useful. This covers so many of the issues that other Members have been discussing such as getting books into schools and has been a terrific opportunity for us to be sure that we are doing our bit for the education of children in what was once a fantastically well-educated country, despite all the issues there. I hope that until there are free and fair elections there we will continue to do our bit to ensure that primary schoolchildren have the opportunity to read and have an education.

I was very moved by the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who I know had another engagement to attend. I, too, was at St Paul’s yesterday to hear the Dalai Lama. I am a member of the all-party group on Tibet and I was very disappointed that although the thousands of Chinese students in this country were mentioned in the Government’s introduction to the debate, not a word was said about the Chinese Government’s human rights record and the appalling way they have treated not only the Tibetans but people in many other parts of China. The difference between what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford said about Palestine and the terrible things she saw and what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East said about Tibet is that at least the media can still get access to the refugee camps and Palestine. Yes, that is difficult but they and parliamentary delegations can get in, whereas it is incredibly difficult to get into Tibet these days. It has become a closed country to anyone who is not seen as absolutely supporting the Chinese regime.

Our Government should be speaking out more about this issue. We should be forming alliances with other countries and not allowing China to get away with what it is doing just because it is such a huge and economically powerful country.

When China was selected to host the Olympics, everyone said, “It’s going to make such a difference. China is going to change. It will change its human rights record and start freeing prisoners.” Have we seen any changes in China since the Beijing Olympics? I have seen nothing that has made a difference, and the fact that the Olympics were held there has certainly not made any difference to the brave Tibetans who are trying so desperately not just to have a free Tibet, but to be allowed to practise their culture and their religion. What has been happening there is shocking, and I hope that the Minister will make some reference to that.

Our Government have done some very good things through their foreign policy. I am delighted that they are opening up some of our embassies in parts of the world that were closed. I am pleased that they have made a decision that the UK flag must take precedence over the European Union flag. That is just a tiny little change, but it is very important and I welcome it. I pay tribute to our many ambassadors all over the world who do such a good job, trying to ensure that the United Kingdom’s voice is heard in those countries and that we stand up for the values that this country represents.

Finally, please, please would Ministers and shadow Ministers stop referring to Britain, Britain, Britain? We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If I hear the Prime Minister say once more, “Britain is this” and “Britain is that”, I am going to get very cross indeed. We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Britain excludes Northern Ireland; Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.

North Korea

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to have secured this debate at such a momentous time, so soon after the succession of Kim Jong-un, the new leader of North Korea, following the death of his father, Kim Jong-il, last month. It was even more gratifying to hear, only yesterday, of the North Korean Government’s announcement that they will grant an amnesty for prisoners to mark the birthdays of those two leaders. We look forward to hearing more news about the prisoners to be released.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

On that amnesty, does my hon. Friend hope for the release of Dr Oh, who has not seen his wife and daughters for 15 years?

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that very important case, on which a number of my colleague parliamentarians have made representations. I believe that the Minister is aware of that case, and I look forward to hearing his comments. I also hope that further representations can be made to the North Korean Government about the release of Dr Oh’s family as part of the amnesty.

The amnesty announcement emphasises what many see as a fresh opportunity, at the start of a new era, to forge further relationships with the people of North Korea. That is the hope of many people in Britain who have worked often for years to develop relationships, and indeed friendships, with people in North Korea to share knowledge, understanding and support. Several of my parliamentary colleagues from the all-party group on North Korea have visited the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—the DPRK—in recent years, as have many other delegations from the UK. Interestingly, in 2010, that included the Middlesbrough Ladies football team, who apparently attracted a 20,000-strong crowd of spectators.

On a more modest level, but no less importantly, the Speaker of the House of Commons has met the Speaker of the North Korean Assembly, Choe Thae-bok. Mr Speaker was able to raise human rights concerns with his DPRK counterpart in a very constructive discussion. Most recently, the DPRK authorities extended an invitation to the Archbishop of Canterbury to visit their country soon, and I hope that he accepts.

The most recent visit of the all-party parliamentary group was in autumn 2010, after which it produced a report, “Building Bridges Not Walls: the Case for Constructive, Critical Engagement with North Korea”. The report describes a welcome commitment from DPRK officials to dialogue, with particular reference to negotiating a peaceful resolution as regards the relationship between North and South Korea. “Building Bridges Not Walls” also states that the APPG had

“the opportunity to see some encouraging developments, including the establishment of a Russian Orthodox Church in which Russian diplomats freely worship; a Protestant seminary; the work of British Council teachers; English-language teaching at Kim il-Sung University…a newly opened e-Library at Kim il-Sung University; and the establishment of the impressive Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST), with a faculty of teachers from the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. These are welcome developments which we hope will…contribute towards the establishment of a more open and prosperous society for all the people of North Korea.”

I believe that I speak on behalf of many people in this country who fervently hope that the accession to leadership of Kim Jong-un will further pave the way for that.

The APPG delegation also voiced concerns that cannot be batted away with diplomatic niceties about the need to discuss grave human rights issues in North Korea through a process of constructive critical engagement. That should be done in the same way that President Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher established the Helsinki process with the Soviet Union. The APPG reports says:

“It is time for peace, and ‘it is time for Helsinki with a Korean face’.”

In other words, as the human rights researcher David Hawk says, a process is to be encouraged that would

“pursue peace, engagement, and reconciliation in association with the promotion and protection of human rights”.

That sums up more eloquently than I ever could the process that many in Britain desire to see develop in this new era. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on how the British Government can help to facilitate dialogue to that end.

I turn to the protection of human rights, on which it has to be said that North Korea has, by any international standard, a deplorable record. I was stirred to call for this debate by a visit two months ago to the UK Parliament by a remarkable young man who is now in his late 20s, Shin Dong-hyuk. I understand that he is the only person ever to have escaped from a North Korean prison camp. On hearing Shin’s story, I was moved, by compassion for the North Korean people, to highlight their dignified suffering in order to encourage support for them in their plight. May I record that I called for this debate holding no hatred of the people of North Korea? I am motivated by a deep love for the North Korean people, and by concern for their needs and their deep suffering over decades.