Oral Answers to Questions

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend will know that the Swedish prosecutor is, quite rightly, a fiercely independent lady, and independent of the Executive, as she would imagine. These are matters for the prosecutor to decide on, but if she wished to travel here to question Mr Assange in the embassy in London, we would do absolutely everything to facilitate that. Indeed, we would actively welcome it.

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

T9. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on recent actions he has taken to tackle anti-LGBTI legislation, particularly among our Commonwealth friends?

Rwandan Genocide

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I did not think that there would be time for me to speak today, so I did not prepare anything, but I have been to Rwanda. I direct Members to my entry in the register. I also have a family connection there. My step-grandmother is Tutsi and had to flee Rwanda in an earlier wave of violence. Rwanda therefore means a lot to me and my family.

I share the positivity that has been expressed in the House today about the current situation in Rwanda and its future. It has indeed come on in leaps and bounds and that is partly due to the success of the unique truth commission and what has happened subsequently. The empowerment of women, which was mentioned in the debate, has also been pivotal in changing the political outlook. That did not happen by accident. Rwanda has also been helped by—I am sad to use the term—the “guilt money” that flowed in from all over the world when people saw what was happening playing out on their television screens and tried to fill the hole in everyone’s hearts. Money came in from around the world to try to repair some of the pain that had been caused.

Unfortunately, I do not feel that positivity about the situation in other places. As I said in an intervention, I worry that we have not learned all the lessons that we might have done from 1994. I greatly fear that this might happen again, and I urge colleagues of all parties and on both Front Benches to keep that in mind. I hope that I am wrong.

LGBT Rights (Uganda)

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important and timely debate.

While England celebrated its first same-sex marriages over the weekend, including that of a former constituent of mine, Peter McGraith, who was among the first to marry in the early hours of Saturday morning, scenes of jubilation of a different kind in Uganda made me feel physically sick. Parades have been taking place to celebrate the passing of the Anti-Homosexuality Act; to celebrate that the human rights of Ugandans are being undermined because they happen to be gay in a country determined to regress legislation relating to homosexuality. It is almost laughable that those celebrations are continuing in the streets of Kampala in the same week as the Equal Opportunities Tribunal opened in that city to great fanfare. Its launch press release claims:

“The Tribunal will handle complaints related to discrimination and marginalisation to ensure that everybody is treated equally regardless of their sex, age, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, religion, health status, social or economic standing, political opinion and disability.”

While I hope that that new institution does much to eradicate intolerance in Uganda, those of us in the Chamber will notice one glaring omission: sexuality. As hon. Members will know, President Museveni signed the Anti-Homosexuality Act into law five weeks ago, and its impact has already been felt by Ugandans, even before the abhorrent law has been enforced. It has been signed into law by the President, which technically means that it can be fully implemented at any time, although no one has been arrested yet. Convention means that the new law should now be gazetted—or published—in order formally to tell the nation about it, but that is not absolutely, legally necessary, leading to confusion in the country.

A legal petition has been submitted to the constitutional court in Uganda, with MP Fox Odoi-Oywelowo and leading activist Frank Mugisha, who is known to many of us in this House, among the petitioners. The petition states that the Anti-Homosexuality Act is in direct contravention of the Ugandan constitution. Unfortunately the petition cannot delay the enforcement of the law, but the legal challenge is extremely significant and I hope it is successful. In the meantime, LGBT people in Uganda are facing increased risk of violence and persecution every single day.

The brave non-governmental organisation, Sexual Minorities Uganda—or SMUG, as it is widely known—has informed me that it knows of more than 40 violent attacks on LGBT people in Uganda since the law was passed in December, including at least one murder. However, SMUG does not have the resources to monitor that rise adequately. The monitoring and reporting of human rights has been a crucial and integral part of the roles of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development over the years. Will the Government undertake human rights monitoring in Uganda to document the violence and terror that I think constitutes the human rights abuses that LGBT people face every day? If we monitor and publicise such abuses, we might shine a light on them and prevent them from happening at all.

Unfortunately, many people are at serious risk of attack, and one reason for that is the actions of the tabloid newspaper, Red Pepper. It recently published the names of “200 Top Homos”—that was the headline—many with photographs, including of Frank Mugisha. I have already made it clear in a recent Westminster Hall debate that my blood ran cold when I saw that report because I fear that history might repeat itself. Three years ago another awful Ugandan tabloid, Rolling Stone, published a similar list, which included the name of SMUG’s leader at the time, David Kato. Rolling Stone decided to out gay Ugandans, and in the process it deliberately stoked twisted vigilantism that led ultimately to the murder of David Kato.

The David Cairns Foundation, set up in memory of my predecessor chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, has provided immediate financial assistance for a limited number of at-risk individuals to get to a safe place in Uganda following the outbreak of violence. I believe that this could be expanded at a very low cost. It is more than the David Cairns Foundation can afford, but a fund could provide an emergency phone line, transport and safe accommodation to rent in emergencies. SMUG and other LGBT organisations have set up the Defenders Protection Initiative in Uganda, to protect those at immediate risk of violence and abuse.

We are currently drafting a proposal to maintain this potentially life-saving work, and I understand that it will be submitted to the UK Government imminently. It would cost about £200,000 to implement, and would require technical support to maintain as an emergency service. Will the Government consider making available funds to provide emergency security and protection for those at risk? Will they consider seriously supporting the initiative if a full proposal is submitted in the very near future? Will the Minister join me in condemning Red Pepper for publishing names and putting people in direct danger? Will the Government consider a travel ban for the staff of both Red Pepper and Rolling Stone. This was widely called for in recent weeks, as it was when Rolling Stone published names.

There have been calls for travel bans for those actively engaged in promoting hatred of homosexuals in Uganda. I discussed this recently with Fox Odoi-Oywelowo, an MP who has been very brave in speaking out against the Act. He is one of only two Members of the Ugandan Parliament to do so. He said to me:

“Hatemongers shouldn’t roam the world unchecked, unrestrained.”

I completely agree. The UK Government have a good track record in preventing those who preach hatred from having the privilege of visiting our country. For instance, last year Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, the anti-Islamic US bloggers, were excluded from visiting Britain.

In a little more than three months’ time, I will be welcoming visitors from all over the world to my home city of Glasgow for the Commonwealth games. I particularly look forward to welcoming the Ugandan delegation, as the country is so close to my heart. However, I would not be comfortable welcoming people who have been preaching hatred and peddling homophobic nonsense in Uganda, and I think the vast majority of Scots and Brits agree with me. Glasgow will have a Pride House as part of its celebrations of the Commonwealth games, and I am very proud of that. Will the Minister say whether the Government are considering travel bans for those found to be making hate speeches against the LGBT community in Uganda and in other countries? Will the Minister share with the House whether the UK Government are considering any other sanctions following the passing of the anti-homosexuality Act?

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think that the Ugandan law poses a threat to LGBT visitors to Uganda from the UK?

[Pamela Nash]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, which is one of the few not in my speech—I apologise for the length of my speech. I have raised that point with the Government. I agree that there is a risk to LGBT visitors from throughout the world to Uganda. I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has changed its advice to travellers from Britain, but it would be helpful to hear reassurance from the Minister on protection and support in Uganda for British LGBT people visiting or working in the country.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

I apologise for being late, Mr Speaker. I had duties in Westminster Hall.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many Commonwealth countries have dubious laws—to put it mildly—on LGBT rights? Does she agree that the Government should be doing more in relation to the Commonwealth?

[Pamela Nash]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. In a recent Westminster Hall debate to celebrate Commonwealth day, we discussed how we could strengthen our relationship with the Commonwealth and use every lever at our disposal to ensure that we get that message across. A key way of doing that and influencing our friends overseas is by implementing the Commonwealth charter.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I, too, apologise for being a few minutes late for this important debate.

My hon. Friend has mentioned the question of travel to countries such as Uganda which have such a terrible record on LGBT rights. Is not a real issue for businesses that want to trade and engage with those countries having to decide whom to send there? They may either be putting people in danger or discriminating against the LGBT community.

[Pamela Nash]

I agree, and that point has been raised with me by businesses and non-governmental organisations. In recent weeks, I have been speaking to businesses working both in Uganda and more widely. I shall say more later about some other countries that are implementing similar legislation as we speak. I chair a group that is organising visits to certain countries, and we are looking at visa applications and online biographies of Members of both Houses. Given that some of them are gay, we must consider whether they will be at risk if they visit those countries, and we must think about what we should do to protect our own colleagues in such circumstances.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I understand that the World Bank has conducted a study of the economic effects of discrimination in foreign countries. I am told that the sum effect of the discrimination that is driving multinationals away from countries where there are such laws has been a reduction of up to 1.6% in GDP. I do not have the references, but this is a straightforward economic argument: what is being done in Uganda is absolutely not in its own economic interest.

[Pamela Nash]

I do not have the figures to hand either, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman, who is showing great interest, respect and dedication in relation to these issues, is right. I am sure that the public will soon correct us on Twitter if that is not the case.

I should like to hear from the Minister whether the Foreign Secretary intends to raise at the EU-Africa summit in Brussels next week the issue of travel bans, sanctions or any other action against countries and individuals who have shown themselves to be homophobic in recent months, and whether he will be advocating to other Governments travel bans or any other action in relation to those who preach hatred.

I must now put on my all-party group chair hat. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, and I want to say something about the problems that the Ugandan legislation will cause to people with HIV. The HIV epidemic began 30 years ago, and Lake Victoria was its epicentre at that time. It then became the epicentre of the response, and there was great success in preventing HIV transmission in Uganda, but today, sadly, Uganda is the only country in Africa where HIV rates are increasing, and the Anti-Homosexuality Act will not help at all.

Uganda’s health Minister, Dr Rugunda, has claimed that the Act will not affect the fight against HIV and will not prevent men who have sex with men from seeking testing and treatment, but I do not see how that can be the case. The Act criminalises just knowing that someone is taking part in

“homosexual behaviour and related practices”,

It thus threatens to divide or imprison families, and will cause men who have sex with men to fear visiting health professionals in case they are turned over to the authorities. They will not accept that reassurance from a Minister who has just passed such a draconian law against them and their community.

I consider the Act to be, quite simply, a violation of the human rights of the Ugandan people. It contradicts Uganda’s constitution, which states:

“All persons are equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law.”

Unfortunately, the LGBT community in Uganda no longer has equal protection under the law. In fact it is now criminalised. The message being sent out is that LGBT people are worth less than the rest of the population, and this gives licence for all sorts of further discrimination.

I now want to turn to the matter of LGBT Ugandans who are leaving Uganda. Frank Mugisha said in a recent interview that he was one of only about 20 out gay men in Uganda. I find that figure astonishing, but given the information we are hearing about it is not a surprise. The fact, however, that only 20 are out in an entire country and that everyone is leaving is shocking.

I want to raise the case of Jackie Nanyonjo, who sought asylum here in the UK as a Ugandan lesbian. She was deported after the UK Border Agency reportedly told her there was not enough evidence to prove she was gay. It has been reported that during her removal from the UK in January last year she sustained injuries when struggling with four Reliance guards escorting her on a flight to Uganda on behalf of the UKBA. When she was handed over to the Ugandan authorities upon arrival at Entebbe airport, she was detained for hours without medical attention and when her family arrived she was in severe pain and was vomiting blood. Because of the nature of her case with UKBA and her removal and the handing over of her to the authorities, her sexuality was exposed in Uganda and she and her family felt unable to seek medical treatment when she was allowed to go home as that would have put them in serious danger. Jackie died at home two months after this incident. This is not acceptable and it is not unique.

While I obviously understand that the Government will have big concerns about asylum seekers claiming they are gay even though they are not in order to gain leave to remain, I have to ask the Minister what discussions his Department has had with the Home Office on its policy of granting asylum to LGBT people from Uganda and other countries with homophobic legislation, and whether this policy has changed given the real threat to the lives of LGBT activists in Uganda and other countries in which this level of state-sponsored homophobia is rapidly rising?

The final major area I want to cover is the current support for related projects in Uganda. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development said to the House and in private meetings recently that DFID is undertaking a full review of expenditure in Uganda following the passing of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, and I agree that that is necessary. The total expenditure must be protected and must definitely not be cut, but we must ensure it is spent wisely, and perhaps is used for the protection of people who may not be getting protection from anyone else at the moment.

I am concerned that, as far as I am aware, no details of this review have been published. I was also concerned to learn that the only resource that has been dedicated to this important task is 10% of the time of a single civil servant. I do not think that commitment is enough for such an important task. Can the Minister confirm that this is indeed the case, and will he share with us some details about the review and when we might expect its findings to be published?

I was also concerned that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development confirmed to me recently in response to a written question that DFID has been financially contributing to the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda. This organisation has been extremely vocal and public in its support of the Anti-Homosexuality Act. Indeed, Church leaders were out in force at the parades at the weekend and the recent public celebrations of the passing of the Act. I also have concerns about DFID’s financial support for the Ugandan Parliament’s Committee on Human Rights Affairs, which sat back and offered no scrutiny whatsoever of a Bill that was blatantly in breach of the human rights of Ugandan people, and the Members of Parliament on the Committee supported the Bill. Has the Minister discussed this expenditure with his colleagues at DFID? Can he explain how this happened, and what measures are being taken to ensure that never again will UK taxpayers’ money be spent on campaigning against human rights? May we also have a reassurance today that money is not being spent on any other organisations in Uganda that promote this Bill, or on organisations in any other countries that are campaigning against LGBT rights and human rights more generally?

This DFID funding was funnelled through Uganda’s democratic governance facility, which is also funded by the EU and six other European countries. Will the Minister ask the Foreign Secretary to raise this issue with his counterparts at the EU-Africa summit, and review expenditure and support to organisations that have been actively promoting the Anti-Homosexuality Act?

Sadly, Uganda is not the only country with anti- gay legislation, as has been mentioned in interventions. I fear that we are on the brink of many countries intensifying their anti-homosexuality legislation. According to the Human Dignity Trust, as of 2014, more than 80 jurisdictions, including some 80% of the 33 Commonwealth countries, have existing laws criminalising private consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, making the expression of their identity illegal and punishable by imprisonment and sometimes even death. The most notable cases include Nigeria, which signed a new anti-gay law in January modelled on the Uganda Bill. Earlier this month, it was reported that four men aged between 20 and 22 had been convicted of homosexual conduct under sharia law. They were whipped publicly as punishment in an Islamic court in northern Nigeria. They were among dozens caught in a wave of arrests after Nigeria passed the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act in January.

We have also heard reports that the majority leader in Kenya’s national assembly has described homosexuality as a problem in Kenya on the same scale as terrorism, and suggested that it should be handled in the same way. There is also a copycat private member’s Bill of the Uganda Bill making its way through the Kenyan Parliament.

Ethiopia is heading in the same direction. Several sources have reported that legislators there are expecting to pass into law a Bill that would make same-sex acts a non-pardonable offence. Recently, India took the retrograde step of reversing a landmark 2009 Delhi high court order that had decriminalised homosexual acts. This was a major blow to human rights in India and further demonstrates this dangerous trend. The many people who came out as a result of homosexuality being legalised in India now face the prospect of being out in a country where their sexuality has been deemed illegal.

The UK has long been and still is a proud advocate of human rights, and we are strongly pushing the rights of women and girls in our foreign diplomacy and international development programme. I commend the Government for this work and for speaking out on the human rights of LGBT people, but I do not think those rights have been given the same prominence in international relations as those of women and girls. Despite the Foreign Secretary having spoken out repeatedly and strongly against the Anti-Homosexuality Act when it was eventually passed, it appeared that little action was taken. The most obvious action would have been to call the Ugandan high commissioner in London to the Foreign Office, but it took weeks before this was done and it only happened after I raised the issue in a Westminster Hall debate and tabled a written question.

Some Back Benchers and Front Benchers have been cautious about talking about this issue in this place, for fear of being accused of imperialism—of cultural export. However, this is not the west versus the rest of the world: this is good versus ignorance. It is not homosexuality that the west has exported to Uganda, but homophobia.

Friends in Uganda, including Frank Mugisha, have told me that homophobia was not a big issue in Uganda 20 years ago. Being gay was not widely accepted, but it was a part of life there, and hate speech was not. Similarly, campaigning against the LGBT community was not an issue. If we fast-forward to the past five years, we can see that the homophobic elements of the US evangelical movement have been proactively stoking revulsion towards the LGBT community. Pastors including the infamous Scott Lively have toured Uganda and had a major impact on public reaction to homosexuality. They have managed to distort public opinion and have now linked homosexuality to paedophilia, as is made clear in the wording of the Anti-Homosexuality Act.

I am pleading with the Government to protect those at risk of human rights abuses in Uganda by providing security and protection measures, and by undertaking suitable human rights monitoring. I ask them to use every lever in their power to halt this trend towards regressive anti-homosexuality legislation. We have a responsibility to protect those at risk, and I ask the Government to act quickly.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) on securing this debate, and thank her for supporting me when I had a debate on this subject. I further congratulate her on securing a slot that means we can actually debate this matter properly. I am not sure whether you had something to do with that arrangement, Mr Speaker, but I know that you are the president of the Kaleidoscope Trust, an organisation set up to support activists in countries in which LGBT rights are oppressed. I have the privilege of being the chairman of the parliamentary friends of the Kaleidoscope Trust.

I salute our two parliamentary colleagues in Uganda, whom the hon. Lady knows, who have been brave enough to speak out against the Anti-Homosexuality Act. That has been a pretty tough call for them, and it is brave of them to take that position against the overwhelming popular and parliamentary attitude. We should register our support for them and for the position they have taken.

I want to pick up on a couple of the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. I welcome the review that the Home Secretary is now undertaking of our handling of cases in which people have claimed asylum following discrimination on the ground of their homosexuality. That review is long overdue. The commitment to give refuge to LGBT people seeking asylum from oppression in their own country was in my party’s manifesto, as well as in that of the Liberal Democrats. Given that both parts of the coalition supported it, it should have been in the programme for government. It is also the stated position of the United Nations, and there has now been a Supreme Court ruling that people should be able to expect to live their lives as they are. Those are therefore the standards that people expect when they claim asylum and freedom from persecution. The disgraceful stories of how the UK Border Agency has handled some of these cases in the past few years are now, happily, a matter of public record and have caused the Home Secretary to take this extremely welcome action.

I put it to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), that our failure and the wider failure of the global community to prevent this legislation from getting on to the statute book in Uganda will cause a wave of people who are desperate to escape persecution to come here, and that we have a duty to give them refuge, as we have done in the past for people who have been persecuted in other ways. That such people will come to the United Kingdom and other parts of the world to escape persecution will in part be a consequence of our failure as a global community to prevent this legislation from being passed, and of our failure to assist countries that already have such legislation to get rid of it or not to enforce it, as happens in much of the world.

[Pamela Nash]

It is not often I have cause to praise the current Scottish Government in this House, but I would like to make hon. Members aware that they have offered to take any LGBT Ugandans who are claiming asylum and have called on the UK Government to grant them asylum and send them up to Scotland.

[Crispin Blunt]

I am not entirely sure it is within the purview of the Scottish Government to do that. Perhaps they are being a little previous in the powers they think they will have. I anticipate that they will not get such powers in September—at least I hope they will not.

We have had a discussion about the economic impact of this law, and the hon. Lady followed up on the point about how a very small proportion of the work of a civil servant is devoted to this issue. I wish to contrast that with the fact that we appear still to have a prosperity officer sponsored by the UK in Uganda. If the Ugandan Government and Parliament are taking a pistol and blowing their toes off as far as their economy is concerned by passing these kinds of measures, I am slightly puzzled as to why the UK should then think it appropriate to pay for a prosperity officer to be in the country to assist the Ugandan Government in trying to repair some of the damage they have inflicted entirely on themselves.

Let me now deal with the issue of travel bans by repeating to the Minister the message I have already given in this House: at the moment, it looks as if the Government are in absolutely the right position, giving overtly all possible assistance, short of actual help. We are not actually asking for changes to the amount of money that the Department for International Development gives Uganda. We are expecting the money not to go anywhere near the organs of the Ugandan Government and to ensure that it goes to civil society associations that are not associated with this kind of persecution or oppression and that do not support it. The Prime Minister eloquently made the case about the effectiveness of travel bans in respect of Russia’s behaviour over Crimea. Targeted travel bans against people who have been responsible for the promotion of this legislation are exactly the right policy response to bring things home to the individuals who have made it part of their work to get this wretched Act on to the statute book and to create the climate in which it is then enforced. We ought to be in the business of stopping their travel to the United Kingdom and, we hope, to the European Union, and then beginning to examine any assets they may have in the UK.

In the first instance, therefore, we should be considering a travel ban. Mr Deputy Speaker, top of the list for a travel ban is your colleague the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga. She has played a leading role in the passage of this Bill through the Ugandan Parliament and its becoming an Act. The story of how she reacted to advice given in Canada is perhaps a lesson that we ought to learn about how one can have a negative impact through campaigning, but the fact is that even if her mind was changed in a highly negative direction by people imploring her to do the right thing in other parts of the world, that does not mean that she should be allowed to get away from the fact that she has done an absolutely evil and wrong thing to LGBT people in Uganda and to the reputation of her country.

Rebecca Kadaga should be top of the list for a ban on travel to the UK, but she is closely followed by David Bahati, the Ugandan Member of Parliament who proposed the original Bill in 2009—that Bill stipulated the death penalty for homosexual acts. After the passage of the Bill in Parliament, he was quoted in the media as saying:

“I am glad the parliament has voted against evil. Because we are a God-fearing nation, we value life in a holistic way. It is because of those values that members of parliament passed this bill regardless of what the outside world thinks”.

I think we should make it perfectly clear what the outside world thinks, by banning his travel to the United Kingdom.

Then there is Mr Simon Lekodo, the Minister of Ethics and Integrity, which is amusing if one has a black sense of humour. Mr Lekodo was sued by four brave LGBT activists, on behalf of the whole LGBT community in Uganda, for interrupting and closing a capacity-building workshop in Entebbe in February 2012. His extremely homophobic comments are frequently quoted in the media.

Then there is Mr Lekodo’s predecessor, Nsaba Buturo, whose strong support for the anti-homosexuality Bill has also been widely reported. He is apparently of the view that the United Nations has a surreptitious mission to impose on sovereign countries the acceptance of homosexuality.

Then there is the role of Stephen Tashobya, the Chair of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee of the Ugandan Parliament. It was his Committee that chaired and completed the report on the anti-homosexuality Bill for the Parliament, and the Bill was passed on the basis of its findings.

Going wider than Parliament, we have the people, the so-called Christians, who created the climate under which this wretched legislation was passed. I am not sure that the version of Christianity that I would want to understand and recognise is so filled with hatred of other people as it appears to be in Uganda. Pastor Martin Ssempa of the Makerere Christian centre has been on Ugandan television to demonstrate with fruit and vegetables how he believes that gay men and women have sex. I am sure that that must have been particularly enlightening.

Pastor Solomon Male of the coalition for the advancement of moral values is another strong religious voice in favour of the Act. The coalition compiled and distributed to MPs a brief urging them to pass the Act.

Then there is the utterly disgraceful wrong of some of the popular press in Uganda. What possible case can there be for allowing the senior staff of the tabloid Red Pepper to come to the United Kingdom, particularly in the light of their incitement to hatred by the listing of 200 so-called homos in Uganda? Why should Richard Tusiime, the chief executive officer; Arinaitwe Rugyendo, the chief marketing officer; James Mujuni, the chief commercial officer; Patrick Mugumya, the chief operations officer; Johnson Musinguzi, the chief finance officer; Ben Byarabaha, the news editor; or Gazzaman Kodili, the deputy news editor be allowed to come to the United Kingdom? They surely should be subject to a travel ban. As should be the disgraceful Giles Muhame, the editor-in-chief of ChimpReports, but formerly the managing editor of the weekly tabloid newspaper Rolling Stone (Uganda), which was absolutely associated with the incitement to hatred that led to the murder of the Ugandan gay activist, David Kato. His murder was almost certainly a consequence of the climate of opinion that was created by that newspaper, which called for the execution of gay people.

This is an immensely serious issue. The hon. Lady referred to the regrettable tide against what had seemed to be a steady march of progress, enlightenment and decency around the world. That march, which has been in progress in our own country for 50 years, was marked so wonderfully last weekend by the first same-sex marriages. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to deserve its proud reputation of standing up for rights in this area and to find ways to back up our fine words with action.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) for securing this debate. I am aware from having done my research that she has a great affinity with Uganda and has family and friends there, and she has often visited, including as a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association member.

Members on both sides of the House share a commitment to protecting minority rights, not only in Uganda but all around the world. As we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), alas, the lack of such protection it is all too prevalent and widespread around the world.

The depth of feeling on the issue is reflected in the way it has been the subject now of two debates in the House in as many months. Regrettably, other ministerial commitments prevent the Minister with responsibility for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), from being here today. But in the debate on 12 February he emphasised that combating violence and discrimination against LGBT communities forms an integral part of our tireless efforts to protect and promote human rights internationally.

We share the concern about the discriminatory legislation passed by the Ugandan Parliament late last year and signed into law by President Museveni on 24 February. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was clear in his statement that same day that the United Kingdom strongly opposes discrimination on any grounds and questions the compatibility of the anti-homosexuality Act with Uganda’s constitution and international treaty obligations, which I understand are being looked at in that country at the moment.

We have left the Ugandan Government in absolutely no doubt about how strongly we feel about this issue, as well as the significant damage done to Uganda’s reputation internationally. My hon. Friend the Minister for Africa raised the issue with the Ugandan Foreign Minister on 28 January, with the Deputy Foreign Minister on 13 February and with the Ugandan high commissioner on 18 March. He hopes to meet the Ugandan Foreign Minister at the EU-Africa summit in Brussels, which began today. Our high commissioner to Uganda discussed the issue at length with President Museveni on 11 March. In recent weeks she has also met the Ugandan Minister for Justice, the Inspector General of Police, the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Foreign Minister to seek assurances on the protection of individuals and the impact of the legislation.

We are also making representations through the EU. At a political dialogue meeting on 28 March, the EU called on Uganda to repeal the Anti-Homosexuality Act, to reconfirm its commitment to human rights and to ensure protection and equal treatment under the law for citizens. We fully endorse those calls. Ugandan Ministers present included the Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Internal Affairs, Ethics and Integrity and Information.

I join in the condemnation we have heard from hon. Members today of the contemptible journalism, if it can even be described as such, in both Red Pepper and Rolling Stone. At every stage of our contact with the Ugandan authorities, they have given us assurances that their intention is not to undermine the personal security of the LGBT community. When we have informed the police about the persecution of individuals, they have responded immediately to ensure their security. However, I absolutely take the point the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts made. We will certainly want to look at any project designed to protect the LGBT community very closely and in great detail when it is presented to us.

[Pamela Nash]

Is the Minister saying that the UK Government’s advice to LGBT people in Uganda who feel at risk because they are LGBT is to call the police so that they can protect them, because the police will be enforcing a law that means they could be imprisoned because they are gay?

[Mr Swire]

I can only explain what has happened to date. I was responding to the hon. Lady’s request in the second part of what I was saying. I repeat that we will certainly want to look at any project designed to protect the LGBT community very closely and in great detail if it is presented to us. We will continue to hold the authorities to their assurances to investigate any attacks fully and to urge the Ugandan Government to protect all their citizens from discrimination. The hon. Lady also talked about monitoring human rights abuses. We have a human rights report, of course, but we will certainly consider her very relevant point and see what more we can do.

We have listened carefully to calls, in this debate and elsewhere, for us to consider sanctions against those who have supported the anti-homosexuality law. The United Kingdom has already ended budget support payments to the Ugandan Government following concerns about corruption last year. Our development programme to Uganda goes through a variety of channels, including private sector organisations, non-governmental organisations and multilateral agencies. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa said in the debate on 12 February, we do not believe that imposing travel bans or any other sanctions on supporters of the Bill would be effective in promoting a rethink.

It is worth bearing it in mind that there is widespread support for the legislation in Uganda. We must therefore be mindful of the requests made to the international community not to make well-intentioned public statements and threats that many activists in Uganda fear would be counter-productive and likely to worsen the situation of LGBT individuals or harm efforts to promote LGBT rights. That is also our assessment. In that regard, I note that the guidelines issued on 3 March by the Ugandan Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law, which includes LGBT groups, including Sexual Minorities Uganda, do not call for travel bans or other sanctions.

[Mr Swire]

It is certainly not the message that we are receiving. I repeat that the Ugandan Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law, which includes LGBT groups, including SMUG, does not call for travel bans or other sanctions. However, I am happy to discuss this with my hon. Friend, and the door of my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa is open to him if he has other information.

[Pamela Nash]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with time; he is probably here a little later than he expected. Let me clarify this point. There have been calls not to implement travel bans for all Members of Parliament and all Government officials who have been involved, but a very specific list exists—I am sure that the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and I could share it with the Minister—of certain politicians who have actively been promoting the Bill. The hon. Gentleman read out a list of those working for the newspaper, Red Pepper, and several other activists. SMUG had previously asked that not all Government officials and Members of Parliament be given travel bans because that would not be helpful.

[Mr Swire]

I commit my absent hon. Friend the Minister for Africa to having a meeting, at which I shall also want to be present, to go through this and look at the information to which the hon. Lady alludes.

What we should be doing is to continue, first, to make it very clear where we stand on this Bill, and on discrimination and harassment against individuals on any grounds; and, secondly, to engage with NGOs and civil society groups on how best to support their efforts to promote LGBT rights in Uganda—something to which the Government remain committed. For example, on 11 February my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa met the executive director of SMUG, Dr Frank Mugisha, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to hear first hand the challenges faced by the LGBT community in Uganda. Dr Mugisha also met the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). On 12 March, Dr Mugisha met my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble Friend Baroness Warsi to discuss latest developments following the introduction of the law, the LGBT community’s next step, and how we can continue to work closely together in this even more difficult environment. These meetings with, and access to, senior Ministers demonstrate just how seriously the Government take this issue.

Our high commission in Kampala is working extremely closely with Ugandan civil society groups on the ground to promote inclusivity, diversity and tolerance, in co-ordination with our international partners. We have supported training, advocacy, and legal cases related to the protection of LGBT rights, and have recently supported a Kaleidoscope Trust project working with the LGBT community in Uganda. United Kingdom officials have also engaged extensively with UK and Uganda-based NGOs, including Stonewall, the Kaleidoscope Trust and the Human Dignity Trust, to explain our approach.

Our objective is clear: to improve respect for and protection of LGBT rights. That will involve long-term cultural change, not just legislative fixes, important as they are. And our focus is not only on Uganda—we are only too aware of countries of concern elsewhere in the world. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have therefore asked officials across Whitehall to have a fresh look at our global approach on LGBT rights. That review is now under way.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), who is not in her place, raised the issue of the Commonwealth. Speaking as the Minister for the Commonwealth, I am deeply concerned that over 40 of the 53 countries in the Commonwealth continue to criminalise homosexuality, despite signing up to the Commonwealth charter, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, includes language opposing “all forms of discrimination”. He mentioned article 4, which is about promoting mutual understanding and respect. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has also written to the Commonwealth secretary-general to seek his support to address that worrying trend in a number of Commonwealth countries.

Over the past three days I have hosted a conference at Wilton Park on the future of the Commonwealth with politicians, diplomats and civil society groups from across its 53 countries. This morning, we invited the Kaleidoscope Trust to run a session on LGBT rights as an integral part of the values expressed in the Commonwealth charter. My absolutely excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), was also there throughout. The secretary-general’s recent statement calling for Commonwealth values to be upheld in respect of sexual orientation and gender identity is a welcome step.

Let me conclude by saying that I believe the Government’s record on promoting LGBT rights is second to none. This week we have seen the first gay marriages in the UK take place. I am proud that last Saturday I attended one of the first same-sex marriages in the UK, between the excellent mayor of Exmouth, John Humphreys, and his long-term partner, David Marston—in fact, it is possible that I can lay claim to being the first Minister to attend a same-sex marriage.

Before we pat ourselves on the back, however, it has taken us long time to reach this point, and we need to recognise that it will also take time for others. Nevertheless, universal rights, including for LGBT individuals, are something on which we will not compromise. Free, tolerant and inclusive societies are better able to fulfil the aspirations of their people, and are more resilient and forward looking. Some work needs to be done on the claims made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) about the adverse effects on GDP for countries that enact regressive legislation of the sort we are discussing. A country that is accountable—

[Pamela Nash]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Swire]

I was just reaching my peroration. The hon. Lady has ruined it, but of course I will give way.

[Pamela Nash]

My deepest apologies to the Minister, who has said that he was concluding. I asked specific questions about DFID funding. I appreciate that DFID is not his Department but I have serious concerns about its money being spent on organisations that are promoting the Bill in Uganda and doing other such work elsewhere. Will he undertake to have a conversation on that with DFID and ask it to put that expenditure on record with an explanation?

[Mr Swire]

There have been a number of questions to DFID Ministers on that point. The hon. Lady will no doubt have seen those and will want to review them. If she has any remaining specific questions about particular aspects of DFID funding, I would advise her to raise those with colleagues in that Department.

As I was saying, a country that is accountable and treats its people with dignity is more likely to foster creativity, ingenuity, economic opportunity and harmony—all prerequisites for long-term stability and security, not least with regard to neighbouring countries. That is a message that the British Government will continue to carry forcefully and ceaselessly around the world and one that, through her eloquence and by securing tonight’s debate, the hon. Lady has helped to ensure will continue to be heard.

Question put and agreed to.

Commonwealth Day

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Bayley. I congratulate the chair of the CPA, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), on securing today’s important debate. I belatedly wish all of my colleagues a happy Commonwealth day.

I start on the right hon. Gentleman’s idea for a Commonwealth youth parliament, which is a fantastic idea. As a former MSYP—that is a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament for those colleagues from south of the as-yet-non-existent border—I think that that could be a crucial tool in a group of countries with so many under-25s. In some of the recent news from our partner countries in the Commonwealth, we have heard the voices of the past coming forward in their legislation. I cannot think of a better tool to get the voices of young people heard actively across the Commonwealth than what he suggested.

As a Scot, I am proud that we are hosting the Commonwealth games. It is an exciting time for Scotland and for those of us who live around Glasgow. I am looking forward to welcoming friends and athletes from all over the world. It is an exciting opportunity for Brits and Scots not only to make new friends and hear from different cultures but to make our own voices heard and to speak out about the concerns we have. I will concentrate my remarks today on one such issue.

One reason I have been involved in the CPA since I was elected four years ago is the strength of the Commonwealth, as I see it, as laid out in the charter. Although it has had some criticism, it is an extremely worthwhile document. It will help to champion human rights throughout the Commonwealth and we should be wielding it as a weapon at the moment. I want to talk about what has been happening in Uganda recently. In recent meetings I have had with them as chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, Ugandan activists have all had the same war cry, which has been to ask us to cleanse ourselves of our imperial guilt. All Commonwealth member countries should use the charter as much as they can, and all parliamentarians who can use the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to get their views heard should do so.

I include British Members of Parliament in that. Sometimes we have been too quiet about saying what we think when something has gone wrong. The anti-homosexuality law that has recently been passed in Uganda and the anti-pornography law that was passed just before it are good examples of just that situation. We should be calling on the strength of the Commonwealth to stand up to the human rights infringement in Uganda.

Uganda is a country that means a great deal to me. I have spoken often in the House about the fact that I have friends and family there. I have visited Uganda often, as a tourist, as a student worker and as a CPA member. It is very close to my heart and I have been deeply upset by what has happened there recently. I want to use the opportunity that today’s debate offers to speak about that. I hope we can use the CPA to stand up and have our voices counted.

The law in Uganda now threatens life sentences for homosexual behaviour and “aggravated homosexuality”—that is what the law says. It is also a criminal offence for anyone to know that someone is homosexual. The law will therefore divide families and ensure that men who have sex with men are frightened to seek health care. It will cause friction where there should be none. Uganda’s Health Minister has already declared that the law will not breach human rights on access to health care for men who have sex with men, but I cannot see why that will be the case. Men who have sex with men will not seek health care if they think that they might be turned in to the authorities for homosexual behaviour. The law also contains a provision on the promotion of homosexuality, which means that some of the clinics and non-governmental organisations that we as a country support will not be able to operate in Uganda without risk of criminal conviction and jail. All that is happening in the only country in Africa that has rising rates of HIV. For me, the law is simply a violation of human rights.

The issue does not simply concern Uganda, however, and the reason I have raised it in a debate about the Commonwealth is that I have real fears that it will spread throughout other Commonwealth countries. We have already seen evidence of that happening in the two and a half weeks since the Act was signed into law by President Museveni. Just before that, a new anti-gay law was signed in Nigeria. A copycat Bill has been introduced in the Kenyan Parliament and Bills have been introduced in Liberia and Malawi as well.

[Mr Bellingham]

I share the hon. Lady’s concern that since the private Member’s Bill was passed in the Ugandan Parliament other initiatives have been triggered in the countries she has mentioned and in others, including non-Commonwealth countries. Does she agree that aid is a key part of our bilateral relationship with most of those countries and there is therefore a role for the Department for International Development? DFID should have very firm conversations on the matter, probably in private—I have certainly found that speaking to President Museveni in private on the matter was a great deal more effective than doing so publicly. Does she agree that DFID has to look at how it finesses those conversations in the very near future?

[Pamela Nash]

The hon. Gentleman has made two good points. He mentioned private conversations. My work through the CPA has allowed me to have such conversations with Members of Parliament and Government Ministers and officials from some of the countries I mentioned, including Uganda. At the time, I found those private conversations to be most helpful in gaining a better understanding of where the movements are coming from. However, with all due respect, in Uganda it has not worked. We have been hearing all the right things—other Members here today will have had those conversations, particularly with Ugandan parliamentarians, and the President and the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament—but we are now in the situation we are in. Although my fears are mainly about Uganda at the moment, I am incredibly concerned about what will happen across the rest of the Commonwealth.

In terms of the possible knock-on effect, it is not always clear what is happening in those countries. I found it difficult to research exactly what the legislation was in some countries and what the changes were. I will use Malawi as an example. President Joyce Banda, who has been a guest of mine in this House, announced in November that she had suspended all laws criminalising homosexuality, but the Malawian Government have recently denied issuing that statement, and the laws criminalising same-sex acts remain in place. We are stuck in a position where we are hearing one thing in private conversations with legislators, but the reality for people on the ground is something very different.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) also raised the role of DFID as a lever to encourage or discourage partner countries on the ground. Although that is possible, in the case of Uganda we do not, as far as I know, provide any direct Government support, as all our money is directed through NGOs and other projects. There is therefore the difficulty of what levers we can use to influence Uganda. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us about what more the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can do in our conversations with Uganda.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

The hon. Lady is making an important and powerful case. Does she accept that gay rights are not our only area of concern? In a number of countries there are also concerns about the rights of women and the right of access to family planning, and the fundamental issue of unsafe abortions. We do not have the right to impose our view on people. We have to find partners within the country with whom we can engage at all levels. She is right to say that the situation is tricky, because if we start trying to use the DFID budget as a lever, the danger is that those countries will turn round and say, “We do not want your aid.” We have to be careful to find a partner we can work with inside the community and give them the support they need.

[Pamela Nash]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has a lot of experience in international development. It is a tricky balance to strike. We should not be frightened of saying what we think, but we must use the correct levers. We should not wield the DFID budget as a weapon but instead should use it to promote the values and beliefs that we have as a nation, the fundamental one of which is universal human rights.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

My point is similar to that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce). I was at the Commonwealth parliamentary conference with the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend in South Africa in September 2013 and spoke several times on this issue. I urge caution in using the Department for International Development budget because a big challenge for us when Canada, Australia and Gibraltar raise concerns is that our actions can be seen as an attempt to recreate the empire or to preach from our imperialistic past. Perhaps it is better if other nations, such as South Africa, advocate on such issues. We heard a wonderful speech at that conference from the Deputy Speaker of the South African Parliament, and because of history it may be better if South Africa advocates on such issues instead of us, sadly.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He made the great point that we should remember that we are not the only advocates in the Commonwealth for LGBT rights, women’s rights and equality for all. We have strong partners in the Commonwealth, and this is the time when we should come together to ensure that their voices are heard. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that South Africa may be a better advocate at the moment, and I hope that we can work with it on that.

I would like some clarity on the Foreign Office’s position. Has the Minister spoken about the matter to Uganda’s high commissioner in London recently? Are there other diplomatic engagements with Uganda and other Commonwealth Governments, such as Malawi and Nigeria, and countries such as Liberia, about LGBT rights and the recent proposed changes to legislation?

I want to pick up some points that hon. Members have made about DFID’s role and ask the Minister to comment on his Department’s discussions with it on Uganda and the emergency reaction. We have not touched on the fact that the problem is not just the legislation and the threat of arrest but violence. There have been outbreaks of violence over the past few years at every stage of the Bill’s progress in Uganda. Since it was enacted on 24 February, there have been several reports of people being murdered after being outed.

I was horrified to see that the Red Pepper, a tabloid in Uganda, had published the names of 200 people, including photographs and including the name of a dear friend of mine, Frank Mugisha, who runs Sexual Minorities Uganda. His name has probably appeared in Hansard more than mine over the last few years, and it is often taken in vain when this important issue is discussed. I am glad to say that he has rightly been nominated for a Nobel peace prize. He is the successor to David Kato, who was murdered three years ago after his name was published in another tabloid in Uganda. He successfully took the paper to court, but the price he paid was to be murdered. My blood ran cold when I saw that history was repeating itself in the tabloids.

What conversations has the Minister had with DFID about what the Government can do to provide support to those on the ground? I do not ask for protection from a law in another country, but what can we do to protect vulnerable Ugandans who are at increased risk of violence and violation of their human rights? An emergency security funding pool has been established, and I ask the Government to contribute to it quickly.

I have raised this issue today because it is fundamentally a human rights one. The Commonwealth charter, which was signed last year, includes articles on tolerance, respect and understanding, freedom of expression and human rights. I cannot think of a more valuable current issue to address than LGBT rights in Uganda and beyond in the Commonwealth. We should use our position in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Commonwealth to ensure that our voice is heard.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on securing this timely debate on the Commonwealth. I am sure I have the support of the whole House when I pay tribute to his tireless work in his three-year tenure as chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association executive committee. I hope that he will take it in the right spirit when I say that that is one of the great achievements and services he has given Parliament in what I believe is his 35th year of service in the House.

The CPA, as my right hon. Friend has described, makes a valuable and concrete contribution to promoting democratic values throughout the Commonwealth and we should applaud its achievements. I would also like to thank all my hon. Friends and the Opposition Members who have spoken today and outlined eloquently their views on the Commonwealth: both its strengths and the challenges and difficulties it faces.

I should add that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who is the Minister with responsibility for the Commonwealth, regrets that he cannot respond to the debate. He is on a very long-planned ministerial visit elsewhere in the world. As Minister for Europe, however, I am delighted to deal regularly with two members of the Commonwealth as fellow members of the European Union, and—before my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) intervenes to remind me—with Gibraltar, a British overseas territory that is part of the EU and whose position in EU negotiations is something that I and the Foreign Secretary are always on the alert to safeguard.

In talking about the Commonwealth, we understandably focus on Governments and the incredible variety of countries, large and small, represented in this network of 53 nations spread across six continents and oceans. As has come through in the debate, we always need to bear in mind that those countries are home to no fewer than 2 billion citizens. The Commonwealth’s strength lies not solely in the relationships between the Governments of its member states, but in that web of around 100 different Commonwealth civil society organisations: professional, scientific and academic bodies that continue, month after month, usually unremarked and far from the national press headlines in any country, doing their important, constructive work for the good of the people of all those 53 countries.

This week, we marked Commonwealth day. This year’s celebrations have a special significance as we remember those soldiers from across the Commonwealth who fought and died for freedom and democracy during the first world war. Also, in September, we will mark the 75th anniversary of world war two, when we shall have occasion to reflect on the sacrifice of so many people during that conflict from Commonwealth countries and territories throughout the world.

Coincidentally, I was in a meeting earlier today with the Belgian Foreign Minister and one of the subjects we discussed was the work that the United Kingdom and Belgium are doing to commemorate the centenary of the first world war. The place of Commonwealth servicemen and women will be an important part of the British Government’s planning for that. I address this comment in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford): one of the very important events in the Government’s planning for those commemorations over the next four years will be the centenary of the Gallipoli landings next year, which is hugely significant in the collective memory of the people of New Zealand and Australia.

This summer, Glasgow will host the Commonwealth games. Scotland is no stranger to the games, having hosted them in 1970 and 1986. I know that the games organising committee, Glasgow city council, the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government are all working hard to make Glasgow 2014 a triumphant success. The“Team Commonwealth” theme of the 2014 games, is particularly appropriate. One reason the games will be a success is that the whole of the UK is working together at all levels as a team to achieve that.

Sport has a unique power to promote some of the Commonwealth values we cherish: teamwork, fairness, respect and equal treatment. This time last year, Her Majesty the Queen signed the Commonwealth charter, to which every Commonwealth nation has agreed and which sets out the Commonwealth’s core values for the first time in a single document. Those values are important in their own right, as respect for human rights and strong institutions are fundamental building blocks of development and prosperity.

However, as hon. Members have highlighted today, respect for the values set out in the charter is not yet consistent across the Commonwealth. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden said, not every Commonwealth member observes those values fully. During our debate, a number of hon. Members have drawn attention to particular problems in different Commonwealth member states.

I say to my right hon. Friend that member states have agreed to take forward all but 17 of the 106 recommendations that the eminent persons group made at CHOGM. Those include agreement on the Commonwealth charter and a strengthened Commonwealth ministerial action group, known as CMAG. The secretariat is now working on a new strategic plan to take it through to 2016-17. The key is the swift implementation of the recommendations of the eminent persons group, and this country will continue to work closely on that with the secretariat and with other member states.

We must be honest about the fact that the Commonwealth is an organisation that has always proceeded by consensus. There is no provision for majority voting or for a majority of the Commonwealth to mandate any one member to change its practices. It is more a question of the informal influence that can come from peer group pressure, or the advice of candid friends—perhaps it is best put that way. That is what we should rely upon to try to secure the change we want in line with the Commonwealth charter, which every Commonwealth member has undertaken to uphold.

I will respond now to some of the specific issues raised by hon. Members. I will take first the case raised by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I am grateful to her for alerting me to the matter before the start of the debate. We are urgently investigating reports that a British national is facing execution in Malaysia. It is not yet certain that the man in question has kept British citizenship. Some media reports have suggested that he has joint Nigerian and UK citizenship, but we have also heard a suggestion from Amnesty today that the person in question no longer has United Kingdom citizenship. We are investigating that urgently, given what has happened.

Uganda has been mentioned in several speeches, particularly in that of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash). As the House knows, on 24 February this year, the President of Uganda signed into law the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which increases sanctions against homosexuality. Ugandan civil society and human rights institutions have objected to that Bill in the strongest terms. They believe that it is incompatible with Uganda’s constitution and international obligations, and that it will harm human rights in Uganda. We share the concerns expressed by those Ugandan institutions. We have consistently raised, and will continue to raise, our concerns about the Bill with the Ugandan Government at the most senior levels.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), raised this issue with the Foreign Minister of Uganda on 28 December and again on 28 January and, most recently, with the deputy Foreign Minister of Uganda on 13 February.

As the hon. Member for Bristol East rightly said, both the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi met Frank Mugisha, a leading Ugandan LGBT activist, yesterday to discuss the latest developments and to take his advice on how the international community might best support individuals and organisations in Uganda.

Our high commissioner in Kampala met the Ugandan Minister of Justice earlier this week. The high commissioner has also received assurances recently from the inspector general of police on the protection of individuals. I assure the House and the hon. Member for Bristol East in particular that we will continue to follow this issue closely and actively make representations at all appropriate levels of the Ugandan Government and Administration.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I shall ask just one specific question, which I asked in my speech. Have the Government called in the Ugandan high commissioner here in London and if not, why not?

[Mr Lidington]

I will draw the hon. Lady’s question to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for Africa, who is travelling on ministerial duties this week. If we judged that to be the best way of making effective representations, we would not hesitate to do that.

The hon. Lady mentioned various options for action that might be taken. There is a judgment to be made about the right balance in these circumstances, between the megaphone and the candid words in conversation. We try to judge these issues so that we end up with a set of actions that are most likely to help those people who are under threat in Uganda. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi met Mr Mugisha yesterday so that they could hear first hand from somebody living in Uganda who feels that his position is at risk, and find out what he thinks are the most effective ways to try to seek a change in policy in Uganda.

The hon. Lady also mentioned Nigeria. We are disappointed that President Jonathan has given his assent to a Bill that would further criminalise same-sex relationships in Nigeria and infringe on the human rights of LGBT people. The Foreign Secretary made a statement on 15 January that highlighted our concerns and my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa raised these concerns directly with President Jonathan in Abuja, when he visited Nigeria on 27 February. Again, we will continue to lobby at the highest levels on this issue.

I was also asked about the persecution of Christians and other minorities in Pakistan. We continue to urge the Government of Pakistan to guarantee fully the human rights of all people in Pakistan, particularly the most vulnerable: women, minorities and children. These principles are, after all, laid down in the constitution of Pakistan and are in accordance with international standards, to which Pakistan has subscribed.

We regularly raise the issue of Christians and religious freedom more generally at senior level with the authorities in Pakistan, and did so during the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Pakistan in July 2013 and Baroness Warsi’s visit in September 2013. In fairness, the Pakistani authorities have publicly recognised the problems that their countries’ minorities face and the need to bring an end to religious persecution. The British Government remain fully committed to working in partnership with the Government of Pakistan to achieve that, and to tackle both terrorism and violent extremism in all its forms.

We cannot as one country impose change, particularly in public attitudes, which may in some Commonwealth nations be very different from public attitudes in this country, but we can and we will continue to speak out when basic human rights—life, liberty and personal safety—are violated. There can be no justification for infringing such fundamental human rights, which are central to a strong and prosperous society. The consequences of failing to respect human rights are apparent in Sri Lanka. I will give the Chamber the update for which the hon. Member for Bristol East asked.

The Prime Minister used his presence at CHOGM in Colombo in November 2013 to emphasise the United Kingdom’s and indeed the international community’s serious concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka. He made it clear that the Sri Lankan Government should begin a credible independent investigation into violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by both sides during the war by March, when the UN Human Rights Council meets to discuss Sri Lanka. No credible domestic process has yet begun.

Establishing the truth plays an important role in reconciliation. As a result, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon made it clear at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on 3 March that we would now call for an international investigation. I draw the attention of the Chamber to a written ministerial statement that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary published today on Sri Lanka. It is available in the Library and will be printed in tomorrow’s Hansard. That statement says, among other things, that a draft resolution was jointly tabled by the UN Human Rights Council on Monday 3 March by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Mauritius, Macedonia and Montenegro. The draft resolution calls for the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to lead the international investigation and to report back by March 2015. Further discussions on the text will take place this month.

The adoption of the resolution is not a foregone conclusion. Ahead of the vote, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, I, other Foreign Office Ministers and other Ministers across the Government have been in contact with a wide range of UN Human Rights Council member states to encourage them to support a strong resolution that calls for an international investigation. In doing so, we have drawn attention to the assessment of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who points to the need for such an investigation as progress on accountability in Sri Lanka has been, in her words, “limited and piecemeal”. In the days remaining before the vote takes place, we will continue to urge UNHRC members to support this action, and we will maintain our close contact with non-governmental organisations and civil society throughout.

Ugandan Anti-homosexuality Law

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill was passed by the Ugandan Parliament on 20 December 2013. It is now with President Museveni to be signed, returned with amendments or ignored, in which case it will become law automatically.

The law will extend the existing colonial anti-sodomy laws. It threatens maximum life sentences for those who commit a new offence of aggressive homosexuality, which is repeatedly to have homosexual sex, to have homosexual sex when HIV-positive, or with a disabled person or minor. Landlords will face imprisonment for renting to homosexuals or LGBT—lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender—organisations. The promotion of homosexuality will now be banned, which will effectively outlaw LGBT organisations and charities and significantly hamper HIV/AIDS work.

If this law is passed, Uganda will join a club of nations not only committed to the criminalisation of homosexual acts, but determined to expand legal discrimination beyond the normal boundaries of historical bigotry. The year 2013 was a disheartening one for LGBT activists worldwide: Nigeria and Russia passed and enacted their versions of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, India took a step backwards as its Supreme Court re-criminalised the sexual practice of one of the world’s largest LGBT populations, and the Singaporean Supreme Court rejected an appeal against its colonial era sodomy laws.

Those who support international human rights cannot accept that trend with a sense of mute, inert inevitability. Ugandan activists have demanded that we act; let us not fail to hear them. As the Parliamentary Friends of the Kaleidoscope Trust are aware, last week I and colleagues met Dr Frank Mugisha, the director of Sexual Minorities Uganda, which is Uganda’s largest LGBT group. Although we cannot and should not be seen in the developed world as dictating the direction of local LGBT movements and inadvertently making their position even more difficult, Dr Mugisha was unequivocal about the necessity of our support.

The Bill’s supporters have repeatedly labelled homosexuality as alien to Africa, and as yet another element of western cultural imperialism, along with global brand fast-food restaurants, capitalism and secularism. That is a wishful fantasy for the African homophobe. Far from being esoteric or non-existent, the history of African homosexuality is increasingly well documented. In pre-colonial Uganda alone, same-sex relationships existed among the Bahima, Banyoro and Baganda tribes. The Iteso and the Lango tribes sanctioned men of alternative gender status, and the Lango even allowed mukodo dako, as they called them, to marry.

In fact, one western import is notably responsible for the current homophobia that is rife in Uganda—a hateful strand of Christianity, of the sort that prompted British sodomy laws to be enacted throughout the empire that still scar much of the Commonwealth. Those laws have been used as a fig leaf for bigotry. They represent the worst of the repressive colonial inheritance, not the well-intentioned colonial era good Samaritans, and those who wished to love their African neighbours as themselves. This aggressive, authoritarian version of Christianity is now preached by the disgraceful Scott Lively who, having mined the depths of prejudice in his own country, is now seeking to expand this hatred into Uganda.

A Christianity inclusive of homosexuality is not and should not be the exclusive preserve of western theologians. Archbishop Desmond Tutu made his feelings on the issue quite plain earlier this year:

“I would refuse to go to a homophobic Heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place. I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this. I am as passionate about this campaign as I ever was about Apartheid.”

President Museveni has committed himself to signing the Bill if homosexuals can be proven to be made and not born. I believe that he well understands the actual answer, but a group of so-called scientists have duly presented themselves to establish it. These scientists are led by Members of Parliament with scientific backgrounds from Museveni’s own ruling NRM—National Resistance Movement—party. Their lack of independence is not the only issue. One of them, Dr Kenneth Omona, told the The Observer of Uganda:

“In one study [it is] revealed that actually 50 per cent of the homosexuals revert to heterosexuality if rehabilitated in time. This, in itself, reveals a behavioural aspect”.

That unnamed study seems to be the mainstay of Dr Omona’s views on the issue. If only he listened to his former allies in this area. Exodus International, which used to be the largest international gay cure agency, shut down its operations in 2013 and issued a public apology.

More substantively, the views of those scientists conflict with the opinion of the major medical authorities, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the American Psychological Association. The Psychological Society of South Africa wrote an open letter stating as much to President Museveni in 2009. All those bodies confirm that homosexuality is the result of complex environmental and biological factors.

The supposed scientists may be high and dry intellectually and well away from the mainstream of global scientific opinion, but they draw on a rich vein of popular prejudice. If they were truly scientists, they would be ashamed of that. Another member of the commission, Dr Bitekyerezo, reduced the arguments for homosexuality’s biological connections to a belief in a single homosexual gene. Political courage and scientific objectivity seem to be wholly absent.

Another reason that is cited for the Bill is that it will protect the traditional African family unit. Beyond the difficulty of isolating a traditionally heterosexual African family, that claim founders under demographic evidence. The two countries with the highest fertility rates are Niger and Mali. They do not criminalise homosexuality and nor do 40% of the top 10 countries with the highest population growth rates.

A purported aim of the law is to help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and specifically to target those who are HIV-positive. However, the belief that criminalisation decreases the spread of AIDS is a dangerous misconception. UNAIDS, Festus Mogae, the former President of Botswana, and the Zambian First Lady, Christine Kaseba-Sata, are among the many who have called for decriminalisation as a means to halt the spread of infection. The Lancet has even found that:

“The odds of HIV infection in black”

men who have sex with men

“relative to general populations were nearly two times higher in African and Caribbean countries that criminalise homosexual activity than for those living in countries where homosexual behaviour is legal.”

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this extremely important debate. I would have been at the meeting last week, had I not been off with ill health. If the Bill is passed on 24 February, not only will it criminalise sexual acts, but it will mean that if somebody knows that another person is homosexual, they will be expected to report them. Does he agree that that will affect people who need treatment, because they might think that the doctor will be obliged to tell the authorities of their homosexual behaviour?

[Mr Blunt]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I am extremely grateful for her intervention and support. She makes her point extremely well. The consequences of many aspects of the Bill will be simply appalling.

The International HIV/AIDS Alliance has naturally raised fears that the clauses that obstruct promotion will hamper HIV/AIDS charities in working with the LGBT community. HIV/AIDS treatment is dependent on equitable and non-discriminatory access to health care. The grounds on which the Bill is being justified are therefore not only false, but criminally dangerous.

Similarly, the Bill focuses on the protection of minors, thereby conflating homosexuality and child abuse. There is no denying that Uganda has a problem with child abuse. The Ugandan police force reported that it was the second most reported crime in 2011, the vast majority of it being between adult males and young girls. Clearly, what Uganda needs is not further criminalisation of homosexuality, but stronger legal action on child abuse. The confusion of those two separate issues is not only dangerous for the LGBT population; failing to deal with the real problem puts the children of Uganda at risk.

Sexual Minorities Uganda has suggested a range of amendments to the Bill that would better serve the Ugandan people in the effort to prevent child abuse and the spread of HIV. The first is to make the laws on sexual offences gender neutral. The second is to ensure that there is a system of mandated reporting of child abuse. The third is to commit the Government to addressing the risk factors associated with child sexual exploitation. The fourth is to prevent discriminatory access to health care, in line with Uganda’s own HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Bill of 2010.

If President Museveni implements the suggested amendments, or others of similar effect, he will live up to the constitution of Uganda, the Commonwealth Charter and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. They all enshrine the right to freedom from discrimination. He will have bravely stood up for what is scientifically sound and socially decent.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) on securing this important debate, on raising awareness of this subject in his early-day motion tabled on 5 February, and on the articulate, detailed and measured way in which he spoke about this issue. Members across the House share a common commitment to protecting minority rights, not only in Uganda but around the world, and they will, I am sure, be troubled by the situation outlined by my hon. Friend.

Human rights are a significant priority for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the UK Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that all LGBT people are free to live their lives in a safe, just and inclusive environment. Combating violence and discrimination against the LGBT community forms an integral part of our untiring efforts to protect and promote human rights internationally. We therefore share the concern about the legislation passed by the Ugandan Parliament last year.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill was first introduced as a private Member’s Bill back in 2009, but we understand that it does not have the support of the Ugandan Government in its current form. It does, however, have widespread public and parliamentary support in Uganda, and on 20 December, as my hon. Friend outlined, the Ugandan Parliament tabled, debated and passed the Bill, although it requires presidential assent to become law.

In a public statement in response to the passing of the Bill, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) expressed concern that the legislation was incompatible with the protection of minority rights, and that it would result in a rise in persecution, violence and discrimination across Uganda. We value the strong and close partnership between the UK and Uganda, and as friends we discuss areas of disagreement frankly. I have personally raised this issue on a number of occasions with my Ugandan counterparts, including President Museveni and, most recently, with the Ugandan Foreign Minister on 28 January. I hope to have an opportunity to raise it again tomorrow when I meet the Ugandan State Minister for Foreign Affairs.

[Pamela Nash]

Will the discussions on concerns about the Bill extend to the concerns of British companies investing in Uganda?

[Mark Simmonds]

If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come on to that point. What I will say is that we are very aware and conscious of British citizens who work for UK companies that are investing in Africa, and how the Bill might impact on them too.

Only yesterday, I met the executive director of Sexual Minorities Uganda, Frank Mugisha, to hear first hand the challenges that LGBT people in Uganda face, and to understand what steps are being taken to change perceptions of LGBT rights. This follows on from previous meetings I have had with human rights groups and civil society during my visits to Uganda. I can also tell the House that Mr Mugisha was able to meet ministerial colleagues at the Department for International Development and the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

The report by Sexual Minorities Uganda, which my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate cites, highlights the perpetuation of some of the disturbing myths about sexual orientation and gender identity, particularly, but not exclusively, in Africa. The report’s recommendations, as articulated by my hon. Friend, form the basis to take forward efforts to change social attitudes and behaviour towards LGBT people. I agree with the report’s view that the criminalisation of homosexuality will do nothing to address the concerns of child abuse and exploitation. This can only be effectively tackled through non-gender-specific legislation.

I am aware of the role that some sections of the religious community have played in promoting the Bill. I very much welcome the recent letter sent from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the President of Uganda, and to all primates of the Anglican community, recalling the commitment to pastoral care and friendship for all, regardless of sexual orientation. I am also aware that the Papal Nuncio to Uganda expressed concern at the passing of the Bill, and that he would be working with Uganda’s Catholic bishops on this matter. He noted that the matter

“does not pass a test of a Christian caring approach to this issue.”

The Government share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend at the effect the Bill could have on efforts to combat the spread of HIV/Aids. An open letter to President Museveni, from Uganda’s Civil Society Coalition on Human Rights and Constitutional Law, highlighted the risks to public health. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that DFID is providing £16.3 million over four years to support and improve HIV prevention response in Uganda, which will include provision for specifically targeting most at-risk populations.

As with many of our posts across the world, our high commission in Kampala works tirelessly to promote the universal values that are central to British foreign policy: tolerance, respect, equality, fairness and human rights. We believe that the case for tolerance and equality is best made by local voices. Since the Bill was passed by the Ugandan Parliament, we have worked with civil society to raise awareness of the impact the Bill will have on human rights. Our high commissioner in Kampala is supporting these groups to promote inclusivity, diversity and tolerance, working in co-ordination with international partners. We have provided support for training, advocacy and legal cases relating to the protection of LGBT rights. The high commission also supports the Kaleidoscope Trust, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, and its specific project in Uganda to promote strategic communications. My officials have also engaged extensively with UK and Ugandan NGOs, including Stonewall, the Kaleidoscope Trust and the Human Dignity Trust, to explain our approach.

I have listened carefully to calls in the debate to consider sanctions against those promoting the Bill, but I cannot give the commitment that my hon. Friend seeks to impose travel restrictions on those promoting this legislation. I do not believe that imposing travel bans on promoters of the Bill would be in the interests of LGBT minorities in Uganda or indeed those rightly working to defend their rights. The purpose of our development programme is to support poverty reduction and economic growth in Uganda.

Our development programme to Uganda goes through a variety of channels, including private sector organisations, NGOs and multilateral agencies. My hon. Friend may not be aware but budget support to the Government of Uganda was indefinitely suspended back in 2013, following allegations of corruption in the Ugandan Government. A tiny proportion of the UK’s development assistance is provided through financial aid to the Government of Uganda—only 1.1% of the total DFID allocation. That financial aid is specifically used to support public financial management, to strengthen the Government’s systems for managing fiduciary risk and for tackling corruption. There are very rigorous mechanisms in place to ensure that British taxpayers’ money is spent properly and for the purposes for which it was intended. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend to provide more details and to put a copy of that letter in the Library so that all hon. Members who are interested can see it and be reassured.

As is the case for all the countries we work in, financial aid to the Government of Uganda is predicated on fundamental commitments and agreed partnership principles, which include a commitment to poverty reduction, respect for human rights, improving public financial management, good governance, and transparency and the strengthening of domestic accountability. Although the focus of this debate has been on Uganda, I am only too aware that there are other countries of concern in Africa and elsewhere. My hon. Friend mentioned Russia in his opening remarks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the threat that corruption poses both in Uganda and across the African continent. We remain concerned about the situation in Uganda and he may be aware that the Department for International Development temporarily froze all UK aid going through the Ugandan Prime Minister’s office. The UK, along with other donors, is supporting the Government of Uganda’s action plan, which will be reviewed next April.

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

T7. Have the Foreign Secretary or the Foreign Office had any recent discussions with the European Commission about Scotland’s membership of the EU should it choose to leave the UK? If so, will he update the House?

UK Constituent Parts (EU)

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) on securing the debate. I associate myself with the comment by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) when he congratulated her on turning up on time this morning.

Scotland’s membership of the EU has been discussed in pubs up and down Scotland during the past few weeks. That is not, sadly, because it has been in the news, but because of the Scottish Government’s failed attempt to keep secret the fact that the First Minister lied to the Scottish people about seeking advice on the matter. In fact, he did not just lie about seeking legal advice. We know that he was told by his Lord Advocate and Solicitor General that a separate Scotland would not automatically be an EU state. Not only Scottish Government lawyers say that. In the past two weeks, a plethora of expert opinion has confirmed what everyone, including the SNP, already knows—that Scotland would not be guaranteed membership of the European Union.

It was incredibly kind of the hon. Gentleman to give me and the entire world advance notice of his speech today. He did not stray far from what was on his website two weeks ago, when he published even the well-rehearsed bad jokes that we were robbed of the chance of hearing. In publishing that, he single-handedly wiped out any lingering notion of the SNP’s ears being open to the facts. His only intent in this debate has been to propagate his party’s myths. His speech was without substance when he wrote it two weeks ago, and it had not matured well by today. I cannot understand why he still feels that a Scotland separate from the UK would automatically be a member of the EU, when everyone outside his party disagrees.

Most of the people in this room are here because they share my love and concern for Scotland, when we have a Scottish Government who have repeatedly been caught being dishonest about the facts that will inform voters’ choice in 2014. They simply cannot be trusted. Scotland benefits from being in the UK in the EU, and Scottish people deserve to have laid before them the actual facts, rather than the Scottish Government’s version of them. It is their responsibility to provide clarity and evidence about their proposals for the future, not to waste taxpayers’ money on unnecessary court cases. The First Minister misled the Scottish people, but now we are expected to trust him.

In contrast, the UK Government have made it clear that they have received legal advice. They have stated that, in the event of Scotland separating from the UK, the residual UK would be considered by the EU to be the continuing state; and Scotland would legally be a seceded, new state and therefore not a member state. I would appreciate it if the Minister confirmed that he agrees with the President and vice-president of the European Commission that a new state wanting to join the EU has to apply like any other.

[Pete Wishart]

Two new states.

[Pamela Nash]

No, not the residual UK.

Earlier this year, Salmond declared that

“the negotiation on Scotland’s representation would be conducted from within the European Union.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 19 January 2012; c. 5500.]

That is not impossible, but it is not automatic, and it would be a difficult negotiation. There is no need to take only my word for that; notable members of the European political community and academics have said the same over the past few months.

Accession would need to be approved by all 27—soon to be 28—member states. Although Spain has not confirmed that it would block an application from Scotland, it has said that we would need to join the queue. It is difficult to see how the Spanish Government could reconcile their position on Catalonia with a new Scottish state joining the European Union.

There is also the issue of the euro. Contrary to the proclamations of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), all new EU member states have been required to sign up to the eurozone. Sweden joined the EU in 1995, but it is still obliged, when conditions are met, to join the euro.

[Mr Weir]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pamela Nash]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because his colleague, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, did not have the courtesy to give way to any of mine.

The UK is one of only three countries that currently benefit from an opt-out. The SNP has said that a separate Scotland could opt out of the euro, but the evidence suggests otherwise. There is also the small matter of the Schengen agreement, and of many other opt-outs from which Scotland now benefits as part of the UK. The Schengen agreement would involve passport controls at the border with England, as we have heard in the Scottish Affairs Committee. The SNP has simply dismissed that as scaremongering, because that does not fit with its campaign strategy, but the evidence again suggests otherwise.

In conclusion, this issue is too important for the people of Scotland to be continually misled from one side of the debate. I hope that today’s debate helps inform them, and helps them make an important decision in two years’ time.

Uganda (Human Rights)

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to follow the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) in the debate. I was in Uganda for the 2010 elections, and to see the deterioration in the atmosphere in Uganda and the violent acts taking place at the moment was horrific.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing today’s debate. His speech touched on the effect of “Kony 2012”, which was astonishing, mobilising people throughout the world. While there has been some criticism of the film, the intention was clearly to simplify the issue and to communicate it to the masses, which it certainly did. Young people took to the streets in cities throughout the world during the weekend to show solidarity with the victims of the Lord’s Resistance Army in the great lakes region.

Although the LRA has now been driven from Uganda, it is still active in the regions. Tragically, as the hon. Gentleman stated, tens of thousands of people in Uganda are still suffering from the aftermath of Joseph Kony’s terror spree. Families are displaced from their homes and villages. Men, women and children are living with the shame of being raped under Kony’s command, while others have to cope every day with the disabilities forced on them after being mutilated by the LRA. Joseph Kony remains a wanted and indicted war criminal, and I hope that the attention that has shone on him through the campaign will lead ultimately to his capture.

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the many non-governmental organisations that are working in the area to rehabilitate former child soldiers who were captured by the LRA. Voluntary Service Overseas is working with young people in north Uganda to empower them with skills to develop their own businesses. One of those young people is Betty, and a synopsis of her story will provide a good example of the tens of thousands of children that VSO is helping.

Betty was abducted aged just 15 and immediately married to an older man who was a lieutenant in the LRA. She was forced to kill people with an axe. She once tried to escape with a group of other women, but when they were caught, she was beaten with 100 strokes and still has health complications as a result of that attack. When she did finally escape, she discovered that she was HIV positive and had to return to her village with two children as a result of her marriage. She said that she felt stigmatised and was no longer accepted in her village, and she was left on her own to look after her children. With the support of VSO, Betty and other women and children like her have been able to set up their own businesses. Betty now has her own bakery in Gulu in northern Uganda. Help is getting to the area, but I ask the Government to do what they can to support such ventures and help the rehabilitation of victims of that war.

I wish to touch on another subject that has been briefly mentioned today and concerns human rights, which is the situation of homosexuals in Uganda and the abuse and vilification of that community. Last year, shortly after I returned from Uganda, the first man to live openly as a homosexual in Uganda paid the ultimate price—his life—for standing up for the courage of his convictions. His name was David Kato, and he was the executive director of Sexual Minorities Uganda. His brutal murder in his own home shocked people throughout the world, including many Members present in the Chamber today.

As chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, I have been privileged to work with David’s successor, Frank Mugisha, who I am pleased to say was recently awarded the Robert F. Kennedy human rights award. He is respected in the United States and in this country for his work in Uganda, and he is currently risking his life to lead the fight against the anti-homosexuality Bill that is going through the Ugandan Parliament at the moment. As we know, that Bill could introduce the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda. Not only would that be a retrograde step for human rights, but it could be severely damaging for public health in Uganda, given the HIV epidemic that still has hold of the country.

Criminalising a section of the population that is highly at risk of contracting HIV and denying people access to basic services, health care and education about the epidemic undermines individual human rights and could pose a devastating threat to public health in a country where more than 1 million people have been diagnosed as HIV-positive. Such a situation would be further undermined by the Bill on HIV and AIDS control and prevention that threatens not only the confidentiality of clients, but efforts to prevent the spread of the disease.

To make progress against the HIV epidemic we must encourage Uganda to take a pragmatic, public-health orientated approach, much like the one I saw when visiting Kenya, Uganda’s neighbour. There, even though homosexuality remains an offence, reaching out to homosexuals and educating them about the risk of HIV and how to protect themselves is seen as a public health matter and beyond that legislation. What works is to respect human rights, including the human rights of men who have sex with men, to enable to them to get access to HIV prevention and education services.

One of the most challenging aspects of the issue is that myths surrounding homosexuals and their activities are propagated by outsiders in Uganda. They have helped to perpetuate myths associating homosexuality with paedophilia, and politicised an issue that had previously remained underground for many years. When I was in Uganda, I saw publications such as Rolling Stone, which was allowed to out homosexual men in Kampala, leading to horrific violent attacks against them. However, outsiders can make a positive difference, too, and I welcome the strong line that the UK Government have so far taken with countries that impose harsher penalties for men who have sex with men. International pressure played a huge role in the withdrawal of the anti-homosexuality Bill in Uganda last year, and I hope that that will continue.

The issue is a difficult and controversial one to raise. Talking so openly about sex and relationships can be difficult in our own culture and society, never mind in Uganda, but it is imperative that we frame the concerns in the context of human rights abuses, rather than solely talking about gay rights. The things that have happened are human rights abuses. As I have said, I am privileged enough to have visited the beautiful country of Uganda several times, and it is close to my heart. Like many countries, Uganda has a huge diversity of cultures, peoples, attitudes and beliefs. We cannot assume that the intolerance and hatred that are propagated in some sections of the press are reflected in the whole of society in Uganda. As Frank Mugisha has said:

“Still, I continue to hope. There are encouraging times when my fellow activists and I meet people face to face and they realise we aren’t the child-molesting monsters depicted in the media. They realise we are human, we are Ugandan, just like them.”

The right to marry is far from the minds of homosexuals in Uganda. All they are asking for at the moment is the freedom to live their lives without fear and discrimination—or possibly, even, the freedom to live at all. The message that I have from activists for homosexual rights in Uganda is that they do not want our country to withdraw aid from theirs. As they told me, they need to eat, too, and they need health care, too. What they want is for us to use our influence and discuss human rights for everyone in Uganda, as we are doing today. I hope that the Government will continue to use their influence in Uganda to stress that message at the highest level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do, indeed. I remember when I was in Uganda that Kony’s deputy, Vincent—his surname escapes me—was phoning in on Bush radio and taking part in talk shows. It seemed rather strange that although technically they were in hiding, in some ways they were quite visible. Yet, no one had managed to track them down and arrest them. We know that the LRA has been seen in the DRC and in South Sudan, and there is a real fear that it could be regrouping or that atrocities are being carried out in those areas, too.

The UN has also expressed concerns about acts carried out by the Uganda People’s Defence Force. There have been allegations of rape, torture and use of lethal force, especially during political demonstrations. Opposition politicians, their supporters and some journalists have faced harassment, beatings, and arrest. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) listed in some detail the pressure that Opposition politicians have been put under. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) mentioned—I think she was talking about the same incident—that, in January 2011, the police arrested 35 female activists from the inter-party co-operation coalition, who were protesting against the Electoral Commission of Uganda and accusing it of partiality.

There have also been reports—for example, by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women—that violence against women and girls in Uganda remains widespread. There is an inordinately high prevalence of sexual offences and although it is promising to note that Uganda has ratified the protocol to the African charter on the rights of women in Africa, much more needs to be done.

On press freedom, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, last year, Uganda dropped 43 places to 139th position out of 170 countries in the world assessed by Reporters Without Borders. Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda documented 107 cases of attacks on journalists in 2011, up from 58 in 2010 and 38 in 2009. Those incidents include shootings, physical attacks, unlawful arrest and detention, incarceration, denying the media access to news scenes, confiscation of equipment, defective and trumped-up charges and verbal threats. According to Amnesty International, at the end of 2011 up to 30 Ugandan journalists were facing criminal charges for activities that were a legitimate exercise of their right to freedom of expression.

[Katy Clark in the Chair]

Since the general elections in February 2011, a blanket ban has been in place against all forms of public assembly. I understand that President Museveni has been pressing Parliament to approve constitutional amendments that would curtail bail rights for people facing certain charges, including participation in protests. The proposed constitutional law would allow judges to deny bail for at least six months to people arrested for treason, terrorism, rape, economic sabotage and rioting.

It is the case that 56% of Uganda’s prisoners—more than 17,000 people—have not been convicted of a crime and are locked up awaiting resolution of their case, sometimes for years. According to Human Rights Watch, conditions in the prisons are appalling. Limited use of bail and inadequate legal representation contribute to the delays.

In the time left to me, I want to return to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts—the anti-homosexuality laws. I am quite surprised: when this debate on human rights in Uganda was first called, I thought that the issue of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights would be at the top of the agenda, because it has achieved much coverage lately. I hope that when the hon. Member for Strangford quotes, “When they came for the communists”, “When they came for the trade unionists” and “When they came for the Jews”, he also includes in that list “When they came for the homosexuals”.

When I visited Uganda in 2007, the issue had just begun to raise its head. That was because LGBT activists had started campaigning for their rights to be recognised. I was shocked on one occasion when I was walking down the road to see a billboard for a newspaper saying something like “Homos arrested in march”. I had no idea that such language was still used. What was often said to me then was, “If only they’d keep it to themselves, they wouldn’t be bringing this attention on themselves and would be able to just carry on quietly.” That language has been used since time immemorial to stop people asserting their rights against discrimination and persecution.

As was mentioned, the Ugandan tabloid newspaper Rolling Stone published in 2010 the full names, addresses and photographs of 100 prominent and allegedly gay Ugandans, accompanied by a call for their execution. The headline was “Hang Them”. One of those on the list was leading gay rights activist David Kato, who was beaten to death in January 2011. He was murdered shortly after winning a lawsuit against a magazine that had published his name and photograph, identifying him as gay and calling for him to be executed. There was a suggestion that he had been robbed by someone, but most people do not give that allegation much credence.

Then there is the anti-homosexuality Bill currently before the Ugandan Parliament. The Ugandan penal code already prohibits consensual sex between individuals of the same sex. However, the Bill goes much further. It originally called for the death penalty for consensual same-sex acts, but now calls for life imprisonment. However, it still introduces the death penalty for the offence of “aggravated homosexuality”, which is defined as an HIV-positive man having intercourse with a man who is HIV-negative. It also punishes those who do not report within 24 hours violations of the Bill’s provisions. That applies to people who do not accuse others of being involved in homosexual activity if they believe that they have been. The Bill also criminalises the “promotion” of homosexuality.

The Bill has been widely criticised by human rights organisations and Uganda’s diplomatic partners. President Obama called the Bill “odious”. Thankfully, President Museveni publicly distanced himself from the Bill when it was brought before the Parliament in 2010 and 2011.

I was in Ghana recently with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and ended up spending a day with a group of Ugandan MPs, who raised the subject with me. They said, “Whenever we see anyone from your country, all they want to talk about is our anti-homosexuality Bill.” It was disturbing that only one of the group was opposed to the Bill. All the others were supportive in varying degrees, and presented the old idea of predatory homosexuals preying on children as a child protection issue. They said that they did not care what people got up to in private, and that promotion was the real problem, but when I pressed them and asked why they were not just banning promotion, and why they were trying to impose life imprisonment—quite a few supported the death penalty—for consensual acts, they could not answer. That shows that there is still a long way to go.

Although the conversation was polite, it put us in a slightly difficult position. As one MP said, we took religion to them, and encouraged them to believe in certain things. We had a debate about whether it was a human rights issue, or a matter of religious belief, and whether that outweighs other people’s human rights. As they said, we told them that homosexuality was wrong when proselytising Christianity, but we are now saying that they must believe something else that we tell them. The colonialist agenda of trying to impose western values on them became quite an issue.

[Pamela Nash]

I have had similar conversations with Ugandan politicians. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to ensure that we are not seen as promoting a view or way of life on Ugandan people, but that the issue is human rights abuse? We need countries throughout the world to exert the sort of pressure that the UK Government are exerting. We must work with other Governments to ensure that we are not seen as an old colonial power imposing a belief on Ugandan people.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I was in Jordan recently, and was talking to a couple of women political activists from the Islamic Action Front, which is the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. We got on to issues such as gay rights, and alcohol consumption. Parts of Jordan are tourist destinations and women wear bikinis on beaches, and so on. We could not claim that wearing a bikini on a beach is a fundamental human right, but with gay rights there may be certain values, and we should not accept that people’s cultural or religious beliefs allow them to persecute or discriminate against people because of their sexuality.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, of course we take up and express to the Bahraini authorities the need for universal respect for human rights, including for due process, and that is what we look to them to bring about in their judicial process. I have strongly expressed that view to the Crown Prince of Bahrain, and we will continue to make those representations to the Bahraini authorities.

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

6. What representations he has made to the Government of Belarus on standards of governance in that country.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We have made direct representations at ministerial, ambassadorial and senior official level on a number of occasions, and of course we continue to condemn the imprisonment of Opposition politicians in Belarus, as well as the persecution and harassment of civil society leaders and human rights defenders there.

[Pamela Nash]

President Lukashenko’s Administration are responsible for a series of enterprises, the profits from which are kept within the presidential Administration, including the KGB. Owing to clear close financial links between state oppression and such enterprises, is it not time that the UK looked at prohibiting British trade and investment with those companies?

[Mr Lidington]

As the hon. Lady knows, together with our European Union partners we have agreed a set of sanctions targeted against leading members of the Belarusian regime. There is also a review of the possibility of additional economic sanctions. Not every EU country has expressed itself in favour of that course, and we must take account of the need to get the balance right between harming the regime and not trying to impoverish further a people already oppressed. However, I take seriously the point she makes.

David Kato

Pamela Nash Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Eric Joyce]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I believe that everyone I have spoken to in all parts of the House would agree with that. It behoves everyone in the media to reflect on the BBC example, and to separate forcing a post-imperialistic, unacceptable perspective on a developing country from what is actually a perfectly reasonable, universally held value. In this case, the judgment was straightforward. That is something that not just journalists but everyone needs to reflect on when they think about such issues. We are not exercising some kind of imperialistic hegemony just by saying, “Don’t execute homosexuals.”

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

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which deals with a subject that has not been given the time in the public eye that I would have liked. The Rolling Stone publication that he referred to has been covered extensively in the UK media, but it is not always made clear that it was produced solely to out homosexuals and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said, to incite violence against those individuals. It has not been going for a long time—it was created in the past few months.

[Eric Joyce]

That is a profound point. To be honest, I did not know that. I knew that Rolling Stone was a new magazine, but I was not aware of that. When I think about it now, it is obvious. That is a potent point. It has struck me as odd that the proper Rolling Stone, the American magazine, does not sue for breach of copyright, but I am not sure whether the copyright laws would apply in Uganda. My hon. Friend points to part of the general persecution of gay and LGBT communities in Uganda.

It is fair to give President Museveni a bit of credit for establishing a commission to investigate the implications of the Bill. As it is a private Member’s Bill, it seems odd that it should need a commission, to be perfectly honest. The long and short of it is that the commission recommended that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill be withdrawn, although it is important to say that it is still, in fact, pending. It is also important to recognise that Uganda has just had presidential and parliamentary elections, and is now in a period of very little activity. It is possible, although I would hope not probable, that the Bill could go through in a wash-up on a truncated procedure. I suspect that President Museveni would not let that happen, but if the Minister or his diplomats in Kampala get the opportunity, perhaps they could make the point to the Ugandan Government whenever they can that the thing should be withdrawn, the sooner the better.

I shall conclude early so that someone else can speak. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the European Union has developed a set of guidelines for human rights defenders. It is very important, after David Kato’s death, that the issue is fully pressed home not just by our high commission but by representatives of the EU and any EU institutions in Kampala. I am not sure whether the European foreign service—I hesitate to use the name—could also press it home.

The UK is in a position to take a strong lead, as we have a good record on equalities issues. I hope that the Minister will feel able to raise the matter with his Ugandan counterparts when he has the opportunity, and make the strongest case to the Ugandan Government that the UK and perhaps millions of people, and certainly tens of thousands of campaigners throughout the world, will not allow the matter to go away. President Museveni has said that things are done differently there, but he also recognised that there are international standards, and he has openly referred to the UK and US Governments as Governments to which he should pay attention. I conclude on that point, and wait to hear what the Minister says.