Conflict Prevention

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) on securing this very important debate and the other hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber who participated in it. I refer the House to my relevant entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I congratulate the all-party group on conflict issues on its work, which has been discussed during the debate. From the Labour Front Bench, I very much support the suggestion of an annual debate in the House on conflict issues and conflict prevention and I welcome the suggestion of a seminar organised by the Foreign Office, which was made by a number of hon. Members.

I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said about the current crisis in Sudan. After decades of conflict in that country, the comprehensive peace agreement—Britain played a central part in bringing that about—was designed to bring an end to the civil war and to prevent a return to conflict. As my hon. Friend graphically described, we have seen in recent weeks reports of up to 500,000 people being displaced as a result of fighting between the Sudanese armed forces and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army and rebel groups in South Kordofan. That is a real and pressing example of the issues that we are dealing with in the debate. I will return to the issue of Sudan at the end of my speech.

The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark referred to the responsibility to protect. That is a very important principle, and we should remind ourselves where it came from. It came out of the horror of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. The concept was developed by Roméo Dallaire, who was the UN commander in Rwanda in 1994. He is now a Liberal Senator in Canada, and Canada was at the forefront of the move for the UN to adopt that principle. A great deal of further work needs to be done to turn what is a fine principle in theory into something that can be made to work by the institutions of the world today.

As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, the Government will soon announce their building security overseas strategy. Today’s debate gives us an opportunity to consider some of the challenges and opportunities and to discuss the requirements of that pending strategy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke about the causes of conflict. He rightly placed poverty and inequality at the heart of those causes. Therefore, development is clearly a central way in which we can prevent conflicts. I am very proud of the record of the previous, Labour Government in setting up the Department for International Development and starting us on the path towards finally achieving the 0.7% requirement. I welcome the present Government’s reaffirmation of that commitment. It is clearly vital that we all make the case for it in the face of the onslaught from sections of the media opposing that very important commitment, of which we as a country can be proud.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North spoke about the Congo. Last month, I had the opportunity to visit the Democratic Republic of the Congo for the first time and also to visit Rwanda with the all-party group on the great lakes region of Africa. The aim was to learn more about some of the challenges that my hon. Friend described. A feature of our growing aid programme is that the United Kingdom is an increasingly important contributor in that country. Some of the work that DFID is doing there is exactly the type of work that should prevent conflict in the future. It involves reconciliation and disarmament; addressing some of the horrific tales of rape and gender-based violence to which my hon. Friend referred; and dealing with the challenges in relation to natural resources. It also relates to how we can promote women’s participation. One of the most striking features of how we deal with conflict issues is that women need to be at the centre of the solutions, because women have so often been the victims of some of the worst extremes in the conflicts to which hon. Members have referred.

Others have described the importance of the conflict prevention pool, which the previous Labour Government created in 2009. I welcome the fact that the present Government have maintained it and, indeed, given a commitment despite cuts elsewhere to increase spending from £229 million—the figure for the previous financial year—to more than £300 million by the end of this Parliament.

The other place recently debated soft power, and the concept is clearly of central relevance if we are to prevent conflicts in the future. I am keen to hear from the Minister what role the Government see institutions such as the British Council and the BBC World Service playing in the promotion of conflict prevention tools. In February, I visited Jerusalem as part of a visit to Israel and the west bank, and I learned of the excellent work that the British Council is supporting with the Palestinian Authority to promote English language training throughout the west bank. I also met the brilliant organisation OneVoice and talked to young Palestinians in Nablus and young Israelis in Tel Aviv who were working together to build the two-state solution to which this country is committed, but which seems such a distant prospect.

Another important innovation in recent years has been the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, whose work I have seen in a number of countries. The foundation grew out of the end of the cold war and the need to support the development of democracy in central and eastern Europe. The Foreign Secretary has spoken about the foundation’s important role in supporting the development of democracy and human rights in the Arab world, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister what plans there are for the foundation in terms of preventing future conflicts.

One issue that has not been addressed is the importance of international justice in preventing conflict. The creation of the International Criminal Court has been an important achievement in recent years. Pursuing prosecutions at an international level of those accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide can send a strong deterrent signal and prevent such acts from happening in the future. In Sudan, ICC indictments are currently directed at the current President, al-Bashir, as well as at Ahmad Harun and Ali Abd al-Rahman, who have so far evaded trial. What are the Government doing to support the indictment process so that a real emphasis can be placed on prosecution as a conflict prevention tool?

Is the Minister aware of the gap in the international legal system in terms of the prosecution of suspects accused of crimes against humanity? I would like to draw hon. Members’ attention to the work of the crimes against humanity initiative at the Whitney R Harris World Law Institute at Washington university, which seeks to address that gap. Currently, only 55 countries have domestic legislation covering prosecution for crimes against humanity, compared with more than 140 countries that have domestic laws against genocide and torture. Although the ICC is important, it has a narrow remit and it is limited by the number of countries that have not signed up to it. Will the Minister set out the Government’s thinking on the proposal to adopt an international convention on crimes against humanity?

Several hon. Members have emphasised the importance of arms control, and I support what they said. The hon. Member for Cheltenham rightly highlighted the serious shortcomings in the UK’s export licensing policy, which have been exposed by events in the middle east and north Africa. I welcome the Government’s decision to review arms export licensing policy, and I look forward to seeing the results shortly. What discussions have the Government had, however, on replicating that review at European level and, most importantly, globally? We can do a lot through domestic and European Union controls, but as my hon. Friends have said, we need global progress. The then Foreign Secretary under the previous Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), lobbied vigorously for commitments to a binding and comprehensive arms trade treaty. Since taking office, the present Government have sent delegations to the UN’s preparatory committee on the treaty. Will the Minister update us on the progress that has been made towards securing the goal of a binding and effective treaty?

Finally, I return to the issue that I started with: the crisis in the Nuba region of Sudan. In the past 24 hours, we have heard that the leaders of the north and south struck an agreement in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, yesterday, and I cautiously welcome that. The agreement allows for the demilitarisation of Abyei and proposes a contingent of Ethiopian peacekeepers. Will the Minister outline the Government’s response to this latest development and their strategy for addressing the deep-rooted crisis in South Kordofan? On the basis of our experience in Darfur, there are real questions about the commitment of the al-Bashir regime in Khartoum to a genuine peace and reconciliation process. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, there are immediate and pressing concerns about humanitarian access to the region. There is a fear that we find it hard to concentrate on a number of different crises at the same time. The Arab spring has rightly focused our attention, but the international community has perhaps taken its eye off the ball in Sudan. Let us hope that the agreement in Addis Ababa signals a positive move forward, but we need some serious reassurances if we are to accept that that is the case.

Again, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark on securing this important and wide-ranging debate. I echo what colleagues on both sides have said: clearly, it is better to prevent conflict than to end up spending large amounts dealing with its consequences. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points raised in the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend will know what the President of the United States has said about 1967 borders. We have always said that we mean 1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps of land. I therefore do not think that we can be as categoric as my right hon. and learned Friend, but based on those borders, subject to agreement, there will be a good deal of latitude.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the moves towards Palestinian unity? Does the reconciliation process between Fatah and Hamas make it more or less likely that the United Kingdom will support UN membership for Palestine?

[Mr Hague]

Our stance on that, if it comes to that point in September, will depend on many things, including the issues that I have commented on. It is important that the reformed Palestinian Authority—we still await many of the appointments to that body—uphold non-violence, are committed to a negotiated two-state solution, and uphold the previous agreements of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Those are the factors by which we will judge the Palestinian approach.

Treatment of Christians

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on securing this timely and very important debate, and extend support from the Labour Benches for the principles that he set out so powerfully and eloquently in his opening speech.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the impact, throughout history, of various forms of fundamentalism, the horrors of which have been touched upon in the debate. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) reminded us of the articles on religious freedom in the United Nations declaration of human rights, and that issue lies at the heart of the debate. We are still learning lessons from events of the past four or five months in north Africa and the middle east, but a lesson for our own policy surely must be that we need a clear consistency of approach to the defence of human rights, including religious freedom, and that favouritism towards certain regimes has undermined our moral credibility on some of these issues, in ways that Members have set out today.

A depressingly large number of countries have been mentioned, and it is difficult in 10 minutes to do justice to all the different horrors that we have heard about. All I can really do is echo some of the things that Members have said about Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, China, North Korea and Sri Lanka, for example, and say a bit more.

Regarding Iraq, I think that we are all deeply alarmed at the incidents of sectarian violence that have been described today. As a country, we need to use the influence that for obvious reasons we have in Iraq, to promote tolerance and interfaith dialogue. I would like to take this opportunity to echo what the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said about the Kurdish regional government. The Kurdish part of Iraq provides us with some important human rights lessons, and we should especially pay tribute to it for providing a refuge for Christians escaping from other parts of Iraq. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) rightly said that those people should not be displaced but be able to stay in their family homes and practise their religion freely, and we should seek to achieve that. I echo what he said about Andrew White—“the vicar of Baghdad” at St George’s Anglican church—who has done such amazing, heroic, courageous work in standing up for the principle of religious freedom for people of all faiths in that city. I also draw Members’ attention to the work of the House of Love run by Mother Teresa’s Sisters of Charity in Baghdad. The house was initially set up to serve orphans left disabled by Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime, and the sisters, who typically come from India and Bangladesh, provide their services to acutely vulnerable children. That is a moving example of the very positive role that religion can play in conflict situations.

A number of Members have talked about Pakistan. I absolutely share their anger at the blasphemy laws and at how they are used and abused, and I pay tribute, as have other Members, to Shahbaz Bhatti, who was the only Christian serving in the Pakistani Government. As such a major donor to Pakistan, we clearly have a responsibility to do more to stand up for human rights in general in that country, and in particular to use our aid and our political and diplomatic relationships to put pressure on Pakistan to defend religious freedom.

The same applies to India. We heard again today about the appalling catalogue of horrors in Orissa. Several hon. Members referred to Iran, a country that we know abuses the human rights of large sections of its population, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, women and minority ethnic communities, including Kurds. The treatment of the Baha’i community in that country is also appalling. Iran targets Christians in the same way that it targets other minorities.

I mentioned the Arab spring. Several hon. Members have expressed concern that one consequence of an opening up in some north African and middle eastern countries is that it is easier for extremists to target Christian minorities. I agree with those who have said that the situation in Egypt is of particular concern, as is the role of Salafists and others in attacking Coptic Christians and other Christian communities in that country. I ask the Minister to update the House on the situation in Egypt. What are the UK Government doing to assist the promotion and consolidation of human rights in that country, including the right to religious freedom?

Tunisia might offer a more positive example. I was in Tunisia relatively recently, and it seemed to have a strong commitment to protecting minority rights, including religious freedom, as the country moves towards writing a new constitution and elections to the Constituent Assembly in July. However, it is vital that we maintain a clear watching brief on the Tunisian situation as it develops.

I take this opportunity to draw the House’s attention to some organisations doing positive work in the field, both here in the UK and internationally. I am pleased to be acting as a mentor to three students who are part of an interfaith dialogue programme being run by the Three Faiths Forum. Talia, Philip and Sultana are Jewish, Christian and Muslim respectively, and they recently organised a thought-provoking photographic exhibition at University college London on the awful practice and prevalence of human trafficking. I hope that we can showcase the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall of the House later this year. It demonstrates that interfaith dialogue can promote the positive values associated with religion and a commitment to universal human rights.

Last week, I returned from a visit, with Christian Aid and the all-party group on the great lakes region of Africa, to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I put on record the positive role played by the Churches and Christian charities such as Christian Aid and CAFOD in those countries, where such horrors have been committed over the past decade or so.

The hon. Member for Harlow asked what role the United Kingdom would play. We must use every lever to promote religious freedom and protect Christians from the increasing violence that we have heard described in this debate. Will the Minister inform us what progress the human rights advisory group established by the Foreign Secretary last year has made on addressing the human rights of Christians and other religious minority and majority groups around the world?

Will the Minister also update the House on the work that the British Government are doing through a range of multilateral institutions to voice the concerns raised in this debate? It strikes me, given that north Africa is part of the Mediterranean region, that Europe has a responsibility to fulfil the values for which it stands by protecting minority rights. The United Nations clearly has a role to play, and we must address the Commonwealth’s potential to be much more proactive in promoting the rights of Christians and other religious groups. Many of the countries whose appalling records have been highlighted today, such as Nigeria and Pakistan, are Commonwealth members, and the Commonwealth could do more. The Department for International Development also has an increasingly influential role in many such countries as British aid increases, at a time when many other countries’ aid programmes are being cut. What more can DFID do to use its influence to ensure that human rights and religious freedom are protected?

I think that all of us in the House, across parties, have a responsibility to use the institutions of Parliament—the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Select Committees, all-party parliamentary groups—to promote religious freedom. This debate has been an excellent opportunity to demonstrate our strong cross-party commitment to religious freedom. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, we must not pass by on the other side. I congratulate him on securing this debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

We have no plans to change our position on Hamas. The Quartet principles that my hon. Friend sets out remain the benchmark towards which Hamas should move—that is, a rejection of violence, a recognition of the state of Israel and an acceptance of previous agreements.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is real concern about the continuing lack of progress towards peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact of last week’s reconciliation talks between Fatah and Hamas on the prospects of a peaceful transition to a two-state solution, and what role do they see for the European Union in this crucial period?

[Alistair Burt]

It is difficult to see the impact at this stage, because not all the details are available. It must always have been the case that at some stage there must be Palestinian unity, because there cannot be a sensible two-state solution unless all parts of what is deemed to be Palestine are involved. Therefore, the fact that Fatah and Hamas have come to some agreement is something that might provide a step forward. However, it is crucial that that should lead to progress and to both Palestinian wings continuing to reject violence, continuing with the peace process and recognising the state of Israel. As yet, Hamas has not made any move in that direction. We hope that the reconciliation will eventually lead to progress towards a democratic Palestinian state that will indeed reject violence and wish to live in peace and security with its neighbour, but we must judge it by its actions.

Zimbabwe

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Colvile]

I thoroughly agree, and I will come to one or two points about that in the next few moments.

There is a real danger that Zimbabwe, sitting on South African borders, could become a Chinese-compliant nation. It should be noted that the Chinese are now South Africa’s largest trading partners. Unless we are careful, the Chinese could easily have access to the submarine base in Simon’s Town and therefore have an opportunity to control the all-important cape routes, which we need to send our trade to the far east. That is why what happens in Zimbabwe matters, and why it is important that there are free and fair elections.

Fairly soon after my colleagues and I arrived, we grasped the fact that two campaigns were going on in Zimbabwe: the air war to place pressure on SADC and President Zuma to encourage peaceful, free and fair elections; and a ground war to ensure that the MDC and other Opposition parties can campaign on a level playing field in the general election expected this autumn. The first process, which is intended to encourage SADC and the African Union to support the efforts of President Zuma and his facilitation team to plan and implement a road map towards credible and internationally recognised elections, will be much easier said than done.

It is part of African culture always to be deferential to leaders, who are seen as heroes and warriors. Whatever else we might feel and think, I am afraid that President Mugabe is seen as one such warrior and as someone who successfully fought for Zimbabwe’s independence after years of colonial rule. During his recent visit to a South African football stadium, he gained a standing ovation from the general public. Jacob Zuma’s desire to find ways of returning the 2 million Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa is being hindered by the fact that he faces local council elections in the summer and is likely to suffer some fairly heavy defeats, especially in some of the urban conurbations.

If we are serious about creating an environment for fair and peaceful elections, we must provide Mugabe and his supporters with a face-saving solution. Mugabe’s disappearance as President will not be the end of the matter, as too many people around him, especially those in the army, including senior army officials, have too much invested in his presidency. ZANU-PF sees him as its greatest asset in the forthcoming election. Whatever happens, the role of the army and the high command will be important, because they will be keen to hold on to their investment, especially their farms and other assets. They want to use Mugabe to secure their future for a few more years.

Within minutes of arriving in Harare, my colleagues and I were astonished to learn that 26 MDC MPs had been arrested, that the Speaker, Lovemore Moyo, was being forced to face re-election, and that beatings had started again in rural communities in the run-up to the general election expected later this year. Hon. Members can imagine what the outcry in this country would be if 27% of MPs from one political party were arrested, placed in prison and forced to raise funds to pay their bail. That would be the equivalent of 83 Conservative MPs or nearly 60 Labour MPs being arrested. I have no doubt that there would be an absolute outcry about that in this country and throughout the world—and rightly so.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

It would depend on which MPs were arrested.

[Oliver Colvile]

I recognise that some in the Chamber might wish a number of those 83 Conservative MPs to be arrested, and that some of my hon. Friends might want some of those 60 Labour MPs to be arrested.

Little international attention is being paid to the plight of those Zimbabwean MPs, to the beatings or to how the proceeds from the Marange diamond fields, which are said to be the largest in the world, are being managed. Some 97% of those diamond fields are under the military’s direct control, and it is thought—I say it no more strongly than that—that the proceeds are being used to fund ZANU-PF’s political activities.

On preparing for the elections, many of those whom my colleagues and I met during our brief stay made it clear that there is a real need to allow outside observers into the country to follow the registration process at an early stage. The need for a new list of electors was underlined by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, which reckons that 27% of the names on the existing list are those of dead people.

Overseeing the elections will cost money, and the EU and the UK will be asked to make a significant contribution. I quite understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office feels that it cannot observe the elections unless it has received an invitation. However, the Mugabe Government have been keen to drive a wedge between themselves and the MDC so that the MDC will walk out and the Government can say, “There we go. They couldn’t stomach it.” We need to encourage SADC and President Zuma to place pressure on President Mugabe and ZANU-PF to begin registration soon and to allow our observers in. Observers must be allowed into the country at the start of the process, not in the last few weeks of the campaign. If European and British observers are allowed in only at the end of the election campaign, the damage and intimidation will already have taken place.

There are, however, other practical things that we in Britain can do through our established political parties or the highly respected Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter). During our visit, my colleagues and I talked to a number of MDC MPs and looked at the equipment in their constituency offices and at what they can spend on campaigning. We also met moderate ZANU-PF MPs, who may well be needed in a future MDC-led Government. When visiting Paul Madzore’s Glen View South constituency on the outskirts of Harare, we were struck by the lack of duplicators to produce leaflets and by the lack of access to broadband. During a visit to one of the markets, however, I was fortunate to be able to liberate one or two of the ZANU-PF leaflets lying around.

We need to impress on SADC that if it is serious about credible elections, something must be done to make sure that, during the campaign, ZANU-PF is not allowed to deploy state resources, as well as the proceeds of illegal diamond sales and illegally seized commercial assets, while the MDC is under-resourced and unable to produce leaflets and to inform the electorate of a country in which 97% of children can read and write. Is not that statistic a fantastic result? It is certainly something about which there should be great pride, and perhaps we can learn some lessons from it.

We need to ensure that there is balance in the electronic media and that the non-ZANU-PF Opposition have the opportunity to broadcast their message via radio. Although there has been some freedom in parts of the written press, there is no freedom on television or radio. Perhaps the Department for International Development could consider funding a transmitter in a neighbouring state, such as Botswana or Mozambique, to provide balance.

I hope that our useful debate has done much to raise the profile of some of the issues that face a country that was once the breadbasket of Africa. I urge the Minister to consider further ways to encourage SADC to bring about fair and free elections, and to ensure that there is a level playing field for all the political parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you very much, Mr Robertson, for calling me to speak. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on securing this important and timely debate. I pay tribute to her tenacity and long-standing involvement in this cause, in her role as chair of the all-party group on Zimbabwe. She and other Members have spoken eloquently today about the tragedy of what has happened in recent years in Zimbabwe, and about the courage of those in the country who have stood up to Mugabe. She mentioned the Movement for Democratic Change, the trade union movement in Zimbabwe and Zimbabwean civil society.

Debates such as this are an important opportunity for Parliament to demonstrate on a cross-party basis our commitment to and solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe in these difficult times. On 10 March there was a debate in the other place, secured by Lord Avebury, in which a number of important contributions were made, again on a cross-party basis. One was from Lord Chidgey, who placed great emphasis on the importance of security sector reform in Zimbabwe, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall this morning. In that debate, Baroness Kinnock, a former Minister with responsibility for Africa, placed great emphasis on the important role that the European Union can play, a point echoed in a number of this morning’s speeches.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to the tendency of ZANU-PF to smear the MDC and other critics and opponents. In February, I had the opportunity to meet Zimbabwe’s Deputy Prime Minister, Thokozani Khupe, and the Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, Jameson Timba, here in London. Both are members of the MDC and, like my hon. Friend, I was very impressed by their dedication and professionalism, which give the lie to the smears against them that she described.

I also want to put on the record my appreciation for the work of a number of organisations in and around Zimbabwe, such as the Open Society Foundation. Here in the UK there is Action for Southern Africa, which arose out of the former Anti-Apartheid Movement, and the British Trades Union Congress. I also echo the thanks and appreciation that my hon. Friend expressed to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I support her in saying that we look forward to the eventual return of Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth.

I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who is the Minister with responsibility for Africa, is in Africa today, and I welcome the Minister for Europe to his place in Westminster Hall to respond to the debate. Last month, I tabled a question to the Under-Secretary asking him what recent discussions he had had on the role of the Southern African Development Community in monitoring progress towards the 24 goals in the global political agreement. I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his response and to put on the record on the Opposition’s behalf that we absolutely share the Government’s concerns about the situation in Zimbabwe, and that we appreciate the strong and real personal commitment to Africa that he has demonstrated since he took office almost a year ago.

I also want to put on the record that we welcome the statement in February by the Foreign Secretary supporting the European Union’s rolling over of restrictive measures—travel restrictions and asset freezes—for those who have perpetuated human rights abuses and political oppression in Zimbabwe, and of course the continuation of the arms embargo on Zimbabwe. These measures from the EU offer an important bargaining tool with which we can apply pressure on Mugabe’s regime. As a number of hon. Members have said during the debate, we cannot and must not leave unchallenged ZANU-PF’s claims that the EU’s targeted measures are in any way undermining the humanitarian aid that is needed to assist the people of Zimbabwe. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) said, those measures are only needed because of the policies of Mugabe.

As the hon. Gentleman also said, Zimbabwe was formerly the bread basket of Africa, but in recent years we have seen a very significant increase in the UK’s bilateral aid to Zimbabwe. I am pleased that the previous Labour Government increased that aid to £67 million in the last financial year—2009-10—and I very much welcome the fact that this Government have decided to maintain that bilateral aid. However, I agree with hon. Members, from all parties, who have said that that aid should be an opportunity for us to exert more leverage on Zimbabwe in this crucial period. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall made the very important point that, in the case of Zimbabwe, consulting officials rather than elected politicians is perhaps not the best route, and certainly should not be the only route in terms of the implementation of aid; and that we should also consider consulting elected members of Parliament and councillors in Zimbabwe on a cross-party basis.

[Martin Horwood]

We need to treat the conditionality of aid very cautiously. The hon. Gentleman’s Government —the last Labour Government—were right to grant aid to Zimbabwe through the UN and NGOs exclusively, rather than giving aid from Government to Government, and we have been right to follow that policy. It is important to understand that point.

[Stephen Twigg]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. What I sought to do was to echo an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall about the specific circumstances right now in Zimbabwe. An approach that relies on officials, which may well make sense in the vast majority of countries, does not make sense in the case of Zimbabwe, for the reasons my hon. Friend set out earlier.

I echo what a number of hon. Members have said about the robust approach of President Zuma, which, as my hon. Friend has said, stands in stark contrast to the lamentable record of his predecessor. I also agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I happened to be in South Africa in 2003 when Walter Sisulu had just died, and I saw the pictures of Mugabe at Sisulu’s funeral. Mugabe got exactly the sort of response then that the hon. Gentleman described in his speech today, and we need to remember that public opinion in Africa, particularly southern Africa, is a challenge, and that we should give whatever support we can to President Zuma and to other Governments in the region who are now prepared to stand up to Mugabe’s thuggery.

We have seen some progress in recent years towards economic improvements in Zimbabwe—my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to visiting shops that were full of produce—but clearly, as this debate has demonstrated, political developments have fallen well short of what we would expect. Targeted measures remain an essential lever at our disposal, but we also need to press a number of issues that require immediate and intensive political and diplomatic pressure.

First, there is the need for a new constitution that is endorsed by the people of Zimbabwe, and I press the Minister to respond to the points made by almost all this morning’s speakers about the vital importance of getting election monitors on the ground as soon as possible. Secondly, there is the importance of opening space for a free media to publish. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport spoke about access to balanced radio and the possibility of securing Department for International Development funding for that. Thirdly, there is the crucial importance of an independently verified electoral register. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about people who are on the register but are no longer with us, and about fairness in the electoral register being important in there being a free and fair election. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) spoke about the experience of manipulation of the register in Zimbabwean elections. Fourthly, there is the crucial role that we can play in securing the root-and-branch reform of the security sector.

Progress, as this debate has demonstrated, has been painfully slow. I welcome the establishment of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, Human Rights Commission and Media Commission, but it is demonstrable that those bodies do not have sufficient resources to operate effectively, and there is a real danger that what should be independent bodies might serve no purpose other than the objectives of Mugabe and his supporters. Any election that is held ahead of an agreement to a new constitution, the opening of space for free media, an independently verified electoral register and security sector reforms will not be acceptable, and it is vital to restate that throughout this debate.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) spoke about the escalation of abuse in the run-up to elections, and I want to highlight the very concerning recent escalation of violence in Zimbabwe, and to refer to an excellent but disturbing report from Human Rights Watch, “Perpetual Fear: Impunity and Cycles of Violence in Zimbabwe”, which documents the context of impunity within which ZANU-PF activists have perpetrated systematic violence against other Zimbabweans, whose only aspirations are for a free and democratic Zimbabwe. Human Rights Watch has observed the active and passive forms of impunity that are fostered by the democratic deficit in Zimbabwe, and as long as fear and intimidation are either encouraged or ignored by the state apparatus, democratic developments will not be achieved.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said, SADC has an increasingly important role to play. She said that there are reasons to be hopeful, but the situation is fragile. What today’s debate has demonstrated once again is the very real cross-party agreement in this House in standing up for the people of Zimbabwe. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked about the important role that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy could play, and I echo those words.

A number of hon. Members have referred to events elsewhere in Africa and the middle east, and there is clearly a danger that the world, and the UK in particular, will take its eye off the ball. We have a unique influence and we need to use it, as has been said, both directly with South Africa and with the other SADC countries, the wider African Union, which has its own responsibilities, and our European Union partners. I am keen to hear the Minister’s current assessment, as the Minister for Europe, of the perspective at a European level, and also at an African level, with the role that SADC and the African Union have to play.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall paid tribute to Mike Campbell, and said that we must hope that his death was not in vain. Too many lives have been lost in Zimbabwe; too many people have suffered through the tyranny and thuggishness of the Mugabe regime. We must not take our eye off the ball. I again congratulate my hon. Friend and the other members of the all-party group, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, which I am sure will demonstrate that the Government maintain their absolute commitment to the people of Zimbabwe, and the absolute commitment of the British people to securing a democratic future for the country.

North Africa and the Middle East

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Winnick]

Yes, of course there are differences, and no matter how non-democratic Bahrain is, I am not suggesting that it is on the same level as Gaddafi’s regime, but there has already been a foreign intervention in Bahrain. What I am saying—and I do not see how it could be contradicted—is that if we were to intervene in Libya, there would be no less of an argument for doing so in the case of Bahrain. However, if the United Nations Security Council agreed to a no-fly zone, it should be supported by the international community at large. That would give legitimacy if any intervention was to take place, but without such a resolution, there would be no legitimacy whatever.

One or two hon. Members who have spoken—including the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who spoke a few moments ago—have rightly deplored arms sales to Libya, but there was an arms fair in Libya last November. I am not making a party point now—if my side had been in government, that arms fair would obviously have taken place and we would have participated as a country—but is it not deplorable? We read of France and other countries deploring what is happening, but information published by the Library shows that

“Bombs, torpedoes, rockets, missiles…other explosives”

were all sold to Libya by France and Germany, including some no doubt sold by us. They are being used now against the Libyan people, so I ask the question: when we sold that ammunition, who did we believe it was going to be used against? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Let me say a few words in the time I have left about the Israel-Palestine dispute. My remarks will be somewhat different in tone from those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). It goes without saying that I deplore the murder of the Fogel family which occurred last week. There could be absolutely no justification, no matter what policies Israel had pursued, for that murder, which was absolutely deplorable. I totally agree with every single word that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside said about anti-Semitism, whether from Hamas or sources in this country. I recently had a letter in a newspaper where I again made it clear that there should be total condemnation of every aspect of anti-Semitism, and I doubt whether anyone here would disagree.

Similarly, what I am about to say should in no way be interpreted as any kind of justification for the murders, but some 1,355 Palestinian children have been killed as a result of Israeli military action in the occupied territories since 2000. There is obviously a difference. However much we deplore the military action, there is a difference between what I have just described and the deliberate murders that took place last weekend, but can anyone imagine what the parents of those Palestinian children must have gone through as they watched their children being killed? A book has been published recently about a Palestinian surgeon whose three daughters were killed. He has no desire for revenge; he wants reconciliation and a settlement. This is all part of the ongoing tragedy of a dispute that continues year after year. At the end of October last year, 256 Palestinian children were in Israeli detention, including 34 between the ages of 12 and 15.

I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, and I respect the way in which she defends Israel at every opportunity, but I did not hear one single word of criticism of Israel in her speech. I have already said that I endorse her condemnation of anti-Semitism. As far as the occupied territories are concerned, however, there seems to be no recognition by Israel that the settlements are completely illegal under international law. Such settlements now occupy 42% of the land area of the west bank. Indeed, that was the figure last June; a large amount of construction has taken place since then. What justification exists for that? It is being done in defiance of international law.

I am very pleased indeed that the British Government supported the resolution deploring such settlements, although the resolution was unfortunately vetoed by the United States. I am not in the habit of congratulating this Government, but I am also very pleased that the Palestinian delegation here has now been upgraded to a mission. That is the right course of action, and I am sure that it is fully supported by those on my Front Bench.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Winnick]

Israel, and those who support it, often refer to their wish for two states, but I do not see how that can be taken to be genuine if, at the same time, they use every opportunity to build further settlements in such a way that makes it almost impossible for a viable Palestinian state to come into existence.

If, as we all now recognise, there is a wish in the Arab world for a new life, for dignity, for the rule of law and for being able to work and to hold a similar position to those in the western world, why cannot the Palestinians have those things too? Do they deserve any less? How long must they remain under almost military colonial occupation? The Palestinian people have a right to a land and a state of their own, and I only hope that that will come about in my lifetime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last month I visited Israel and the west bank, and I refer hon. Members to my relevant entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

We have had an excellent and wide-ranging debate, with a number of powerful speeches, in particular from the hon. Members for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I found myself in pretty much complete agreement with what both had to say. We have also had a number of interesting speeches from Opposition Members, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the previous Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. However, I should apologise to the hon. Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) for not being in the Chamber for their speeches.

Members in all parts of the House have addressed the practical challenges that we as British politicians face in providing the support to build democracy in the middle east and north Africa. I want to echo what a number of hon. Members have said about the importance of the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. There has been some discussion about the appropriateness or otherwise of drawing parallels with previous periods of our history. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy was born out of the collapse of the iron curtain and the Berlin wall, and it has done some important work in central and eastern Europe, Africa, Lebanon and other parts of the world. We in the Opposition applaud that work and see an opportunity for the foundation, working with similar European, American and other foundations in north Africa and the middle east, to provide practical support in building democracy, not just for elections, but for all the other aspects of democracy that hon. Members have described.

Quite understandably, hon. Members have referred to the history of the region and the mistakes that we and others have made. Let me say that because we have got things wrong in the past—and we have—that does not mean that we should not try to get things right in the future. It is not about the external imposition of democracy; it is about how we respond most appropriately to the demands of the people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) made an important point about Parliament’s role as an institution in supporting democracy, both in discussions such as today’s debate and in all the practical ways that we can support the development of democracy in other parts of the world.

Crucial to that is the point that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) made about the failure of multilateral institutions in the past few weeks, and in particular the slow response of the United Nations and the European Union. There are significant lessons that we need to learn from these crises, both now, as a matter of urgency, and moving forward. The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, spoke about the responsibility to protect. The crisis in Libya demonstrates that a great deal more work needs to be done to make policy on the responsibility to protect fully operational, otherwise it is, frankly, meaningless.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) challenged us to consider the grounds on which intervention should be made. She was absolutely right to remind us of the need for rigour in deciding when we should and should not intervene. We all have perspectives shaped by our own experience. For me personally, the failures of the international community in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 1990s shaped my outlook on many of the challenging issues that we now face. As I think the hon. Member for Beckenham said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East: where we can, we should. That is absolutely right. What we actually do is a whole other matter, and it will not necessarily involve military intervention. The discussions on intervention on both sides of the House have tended to focus purely on the military, which has relevance, but it also involves broader diplomatic, economic and other forms of engagement.

Another important point made by a number of speakers was that there is no one-size-fits-all response to what is happening. The countries involved are very different from each other, with different histories, different political systems and different levels of development in their civil society. No two countries will require the same response.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The one thing that most of those countries do have in common is that they have been the recipient of large amounts of arms sales. Most of them have trade agreements with the European Union, all of which contain human rights clauses. Those clauses have all been universally ignored. Does my hon. Friend not think that we need to be a bit more proactive on the legal front, particularly on human rights and arms sales?

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. Members on both sides of the House have referred to this matter today, and my simple answer to him is yes, we do need to have that debate. We need to look at how we can strengthen the existing codes, which, as he rightly says, refer on paper to human rights and other considerations. Those terms do not always seem to be kept to when arms sales are taking place.

Let me focus now on the middle east peace process. Several Members have referred to the appalling murders last weekend of the Fogel family in Itamar. I join them in deploring those wicked acts. As the Foreign Secretary said in questions earlier this week, we must respond to that appalling act by stepping up our efforts to reach out to the moderate majority of Israelis and Palestinians who really do want to see the two-state solution to which speakers on both sides of the House have referred today. This week, in Gaza and on the west bank, we have seen thousands of young people protesting for peace and national unity in Palestine.

I welcome the Government’s decision to upgrade the status of the Palestinian delegation here in London to that of a mission. I echo the view expressed by a number of hon. Members that it is vital that Israel place an immediate moratorium on the building and expansion of settlements. It is equally vital that Gilad Shalit be released. These are the conditions that can create reconciliation and peace. I echo the views expressed by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex on the Arab peace initiative in his powerful speech, and I want to say to the Government that we see that initiative as central to the prospects of moving forward in this crucial period for the middle east peace process.

It is difficult in 15 minutes to do justice to all the elements of today’s debate, but let me say something about Iran. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) reminded us of the threat of Iran’s nuclear programme, and invited the Minister to update the House on what work the Government were doing, with international partners, to increase the legitimate pressure on Iran to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. A number of hon. Members referred to Iran’s negative role in exploiting Sunni-Shi’a divisions in the region and in supporting terrorism. Its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and for the Taliban in Afghanistan were mentioned, and we must not forget the appalling domestic human rights position in Iran itself. That must remain high on our agenda.

On Libya, everyone who has spoken today has shared the feeling of revulsion at what Gaddafi has done and what we have seen on our television screens over the past few weeks. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South asked a number of questions, to which I hope the Minister will respond, about the possible military, diplomatic and economic measures that could be put in place to make a difference to the situation on the ground in Libya.

These events since January—in Tunisia, through events in Egypt, Libya and parts of the Gulf—remind us, as a number of hon. Members have said, that democracy, human rights and freedoms are universal aspirations. We have witnessed the enormous courage of people across the middle east and north Africa in standing up against dictatorships. Ordinary people in the Arab world value democracy just as much as we do.

When I was in Israel and Palestine last month, I met young people in Nablus and Tel Aviv, whose passion for justice and freedom matched that of the young people we have seen on the streets of Cairo, Tunis and now Benghazi. For the Palestinian people, justice must mean a viable state based on 1967 borders with equivalent land swaps, appropriate security arrangements, Jerusalem as the capital of both Israel and Palestine and a just solution for Palestinian refugees. For the people of Israel, justice must mean true security, an acceptance that security is a real challenge for them and recognition by the Arab countries of the middle east of Israel’s right to exist. I hope and trust that a democratic Egypt will reaffirm the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

What today’s debate has demonstrated is the profound sense of solidarity felt by us in Parliament but, more importantly, by the people we are sent here to represent. Yet it is a solidarity, I would argue, that is tempered by a frustration at the weakness and inertia of international institutions. Almost 20 years on from the genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations has again been too slow to act. Two decades on from Bosnia, Europe has again been hesitant and divided. I would say to the Minister and to the Foreign Secretary as a matter of some urgency, that the British Government have an opportunity to lead a debate on making the responsibility to protect a practical, operational reality. Otherwise, it will simply be fine words on paper. We must also press our European partners to give practical support to help achieve democracy and self-determination across the region.

As a number of Members have said, stability has been the cornerstone of our policy in the middle east for decades; stability based on the suppression of freedom, however, is no genuine stability. It is in our national interest, as well as being morally right, for us to support democracy, strong civil societies and the protection of minorities across the middle east and north Africa. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham made the point that this House has an important part to play in promoting these shared values. Today’s debate has demonstrated that we are rising to that challenge.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I join the Secretary of State in condemning the appalling murder of the Fogel family last Friday, and associate the Opposition Front Bench with what he said on the implications for the middle east peace process?

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that lasting peace requires reconciliation between citizens as well as agreements between their Governments? Will he therefore join me in praising the brilliant work of OneVoice Palestine and OneVoice Israel—brave local citizens who are making the case in parallel for a two-state solution?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman underlines what I said—that the condemnation of the killings at the weekend is shared across the House—and he makes the powerful point that peace in the middle east will be built on contact between citizens and civil society as well as on the decisions of political leaders. I certainly join him in congratulating those organisations on their work. We also urge Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make the most of that work and to seize the opportunities in the coming weeks to advance the peace process.

David Kato

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

In late January, millions of people around the world were deeply saddened to receive news of the horrific murder of David Kisule, better known as David Kato, the prominent human rights activist best known for his brave campaigning on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. David had been beaten to death in his home near Kampala. The shock at the killing was felt in this House particularly by colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns), who is not able to be here today. He had met David Kato in his celebrated campaigning role for Sexual Minorities Uganda just before his death.

Since then, the Ugandan police have made a number of arrests and one individual has been charged with the murder; in fact, the trial begins tomorrow. However, the trial must not signal an end to David Kato’s case and all that it stands for, as some in Ugandan public life would, frankly, like. That is because the wider cultural and political backdrop in present-day Uganda is characterised by open and often vile homophobia. Uganda is hardly the only place where that is the case, but it is a country which, for the best part of a couple of decades, has had a broadly positive trajectory on democracy and human rights. It has not been perfect, and in some years people might have said that President Museveni had taken his foot off the pedal somewhat, but it is unquestionably the case that Uganda has been one of the better success stories in Africa.

When countries, particularly developing countries, skew their developmental trajectories, we should sit up and take careful notice, particularly when it is a country such as Uganda—there are others—of which, on the whole, we have had a good view. I have a personal record of involvement with politicians in Uganda. It is places such as Uganda that catch our eye. And so it is with human rights: we know which countries routinely abuse human rights and have done so for many years, and we try to do our best through campaigning, relationships with other countries and so on to change that, but when a country does not on the whole have a reputation for treating its population badly, it worries us when the quality of governance suddenly slips back.

The essence of the problem in Uganda, which David Kato’s death has thrown into sharp relief, is that some people in Ugandan public life—politicians, journalists, business people and others—have for some time been seeking personal gain through pandering to and even encouraging homophobia. Prominent among them is David Bahati, the Ugandan MP, who tabled a private Member’s Bill calling for homosexuals to face the death penalty. His name is ironic: I understand that “Bahati” means “peace.” He wants peace for most people, but he wants to kill those who are gay. The Bill whipped up a fervour of enthusiasm among some newspapers, and the oddly named Rolling Stone—a new newspaper, not the famous American counterpart, I do not hesitate to add—eventually published pictures of known members and campaigners in the LGBT communities and urged people to kill them. Not that long afterwards, and perhaps tragically unsurprisingly, David Kato was killed.

David Bahati and Rolling Stone are both a disgrace, of course, but even more worrying at the time was the slow initial response of the Ugandan Government. Some Members and politicians stoked the fire with gusto. Bahati’s private Member’s Bill proposed, among other things, a widening of the definition of homosexual acts and a toughening up of penalties. It called for fines or imprisonment for anyone found to be promoting homosexuality, and the death penalty as punishment for serial homosexuality—the mind boggles.

Some agencies in the developed world chose to view the debate that raged around Bahati’s Bill as providing an opportunity to present Africa through an African prism. In a sense, that is a noble, sound journalistic intent, but they used completely the wrong subject—again, the mind boggles. The BBC asked on its discussion forum whether homosexuals should face execution. That lent international legitimacy to the many people in Uganda and elsewhere who think that the answer is yes. I was reading the responses on my iPhone in the Chamber as they came out, and I was struck by the fact that no one who put a comment on the board was from Uganda. In effect, the BBC had stimulated a debate about whether homosexuals in the UK should be executed. There were people who said, “It is up to Uganda what is done in Uganda but we should probably do that here.” That was the level of debate that that completely insane question stoked. It was most unfortunate, and I subsequently spoke to the head of World Service-Africa. I believe there is an understanding that that question and that particular treatment should not be repeated.

That said, the forum was an indicator of how people sometimes confuse a perfectly noble intent to understand developing world countries and say, “It is not for us to impose our values”—we all know about the tricky relationship that we sometimes have with China in respect of democratic values and so on—with what was, in this case, a universal value. I believe we can all accept that what David Bahati is doing is entirely monstrous.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that proposed measures such as David Bahati’s Bill and some of the public and media debate in Uganda to which he referred provide exactly the right environment for people to be physically attacked and, in the most extreme cases, murdered?

[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.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) on securing this important debate, and I thank the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), and for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) for their contributions.

The hon. Member for Falkirk raises an important issue, on which the Government have been closely engaged for some time. Indeed, I welcome this timely opportunity to discuss an important and difficult issue in Uganda, across Africa, and elsewhere in the world. Today, I want to talk in as much detail as I can about the deeply worrying death of David Kato. I would also like to take the opportunity to discuss issues relating to the human rights of sexual minorities more broadly in Uganda today. In doing so, I intend to set out the Government’s position on the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender issue in Uganda, and to discuss our work in that area.

First, let me address the tragic death of David Kato on 26 January this year. He was well known to several hon. Members, and his killing saw the loss of one of Uganda’s foremost human rights activists. He was widely respected by both domestic and international colleagues, and his valiant efforts, especially his work as an LGBT activist and a Christian activist, was important in defending the human rights of all Ugandans. His death, unfortunately, represents a backward step for human rights in Uganda, and I am sure that his loss will be felt by many in Uganda and around the world.

It is vital, as the hon. Member for Falkirk suggests, that the Ugandan police force thoroughly investigates Mr Kato’s death. In my statement at the time, I urged the authorities to do that, and to bring the perpetrators to justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire said, it was a particularly vile, vicious and unpleasant killing. Our high commission in Kampala has reinforced the importance of this in subsequent representations to the inspector general of police in Uganda.

I am advised that the Ugandan police investigation has so far resulted in two arrests. One suspect was released without charge due to lack of evidence. The second, Enock Nsubuga, remains on remand in Mukono prison awaiting a recommendation from the magistrates court for the case to be heard in the High Court, which is a legal requirement when an offence is potentially punishable by death. I understand that in a statement to the police on 2 February, Mr Nsubuga, a convicted criminal who was apparently employed by Mr Kato, confessed to robbing and killing his benefactor. Our high commission will continue to monitor the case closely, and plans to be present in court during the next hearing. In the meantime, the coalition Government will continue to support the rights of LGBT people in Uganda, as we do elsewhere.

I want to say a few words about our policy more generally in Uganda. We are committed to combating violence and discrimination against LGBT people as an integral part of our international human rights work. We realise that sexual orientation is a sensitive issue in many communities, but we firmly believe that any illegality of consenting same-sex relations is incompatible with international human rights law, including the international covenant on civil and political rights. Laws should guarantee the same rights to everyone regardless of sexuality, and if LGBT people choose to exercise those rights, they should be free do to so.

The Foreign Office has a clear programme for promoting the human rights of LGBT people that focuses on the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the fight against discrimination. It includes taking action on individual cases where discrimination has occurred, lobbying for changes in discriminatory practices and laws, and helping individuals on a case-by-case basis. Although the debate focuses on Uganda, similar prejudices against LGBT people unfortunately exist in many parts of Africa, and in many other places around the world.

Although we fully recognise and respect cultural and religious sensitivities, we intend to be active about LGBT rights in Uganda in various ways. On a number of occasions, we have made clear to the Government of Uganda that the UK position on respect for the rights of LGBT people is not something from which we will deviate. We are opposed to any actions that have a negative impact on the human rights of Ugandans. The high commission in Kampala has regularly raised the issue with the Ugandan Government, including with the Prime Minister and other Ministers. I was in Uganda in July and I had a meeting with President Museveni. Among other things, I raised the issue of human rights and the proposed legislation and Bill, which I will speak about in a moment. I made our concerns plain and clear.

[Stephen Twigg]

I welcome the strength of what the Minister has said in restating the Government’s policy, and I offer the full support of the Labour party for that. Does he see value in taking the policy further and working alongside our European Union colleagues? If he does, has he had the opportunity to discuss with his European counterparts the ways in which the European Union can put pressure on Uganda to guarantee human rights for LGBT communities?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bellingham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, because we are working very closely with the Government of Sudan. We made it clear to President Bashir’s Government that his requirements for debt relief are conditional not just on making progress on the CPA and achieving an inclusive peace with justice in Darfur, but on having a policy that respects the rights of all parts of that country.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome what the Minister said about south Sudan and, particularly, Darfur. Last week, Human Rights Watch said:

“There are clear signs that the situation in Darfur is getting worse”

and

“the international community is failing to monitor and respond properly to what is happening”.

Does he agree that now is the time to give real priority to resolving the long-running and tragic crisis in Darfur?

[Mr Bellingham]

I agree with the shadow Minister on that, because we must not take our eye off Darfur and there have been some worrying concerns recently—for example, three Bulgarian humanitarian pilots were captured, and we are demanding their immediate release—but I am pleased that significant progress has been made in the recent negotiations under the chief mediator, Djibril Bassolé, in Doha. In fact, two parts of the rebel forces—the Justice and Equality Movement and the Liberation and Justice Movement—have been engaged in the peace process. It is very important indeed that the Sudan Liberation Army now comes to the table and that every possible effort is made to build peace in that troubled province. Unless that peace is secured, there really cannot be a way forward and a future for Sudan.

Egypt

Stephen Twigg Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the situation in Egypt. First, may I apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State for his absence? The House may be aware that he is attending a Foreign Affairs Council today, where this issue is at the top of the agenda.

The calls for political reform in Egypt have been peaceful, but the general unrest has become increasingly dangerous, with elements of violence leading to lawlessness in some areas of major cities such as Cairo, Alexandria and Suez. Severe restrictions on freedom of expression, including the closure of internet access and mobile phone services, have only fuelled the anger of demonstrators. We have called on the Egyptian authorities to lift those restrictions urgently.

I am sure that the House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathies to all those affected by the unrest in Egypt, including the families and friends of those who have been killed and injured. Casualty figures remain unclear, but it is estimated that at least 100 people have died. On Saturday, the army took over responsibility for security in Cairo, and its role has so far been welcomed by protestors. Our aim throughout these events has been to ensure the safety of British nationals in Egypt and to support Egypt in making a stable transition to a more open, democratic society.

I turn first to consular issues. There are an estimated 20,000 British tourists in Egypt, the majority of whom are in the Red sea resort of Sharm el Sheikh, where, according to our latest information, the situation remains calm. We estimate that there are a further 10,000 British nationals in the rest of Egypt.

On Friday 28 January we changed our travel advice to advise against “all but essential travel” to the cities of Cairo, Alexandria, Suez and Luxor due to the severity of demonstrations there. On Saturday 29 January, we heightened our travel advice further to recommend that those without a pressing need to be in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez leave by commercial means where it was safe to do so. Those in Luxor are advised to stay indoors wherever possible. A daily curfew remains in place throughout Egypt from 3 pm to 8 am.

Cairo airport is open, but has been operating under considerable difficulties. The situation was particularly difficult yesterday, but our ambassador in Cairo reports that it has eased a little today. Flights are operating but are subject to delays or cancellation. The majority of British nationals have been able to leave Cairo airport today. We estimate that about 30 British nationals will remain at the airport overnight, to depart on scheduled flights tomorrow. The situation also appears to be improving in Alexandria, with road access to the airport now secure. We have staff at Cairo airport working around the clock to provide assistance to any British nationals who require it. We also have staff in Alexandria, Luxor and Sharm el Sheikh, who are providing regular updates about the situation on the ground in those parts of Egypt and staying in close touch with tour operators and British companies on the ground.

Additional staff reinforcements from London and the region have been sent to Egypt to help embassy staff maintain essential services in these difficult circumstances. A 24-hour hotline is available for British nationals to call if they need assistance or advice, and help is also available around the clock from the crisis resource centre at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am sure the House will join me in recognising the hard work and dedication shown by all our staff, in both Egypt and London, in responding quickly and professionally to the unfolding events.

I turn to the political situation in Egypt. The UK has major strategic interests in Egypt, which has played an important role as a regional leader, including in the middle east peace process, and we are the largest single foreign investor. The scale of the protests is unprecedented in Egypt in the past 30 years. We have called on President Mubarak to avoid at all costs the use of violence against unarmed civilians, and on the demonstrators to exercise their rights peacefully.

In response to the growing protests, President Mubarak announced on 28 January that he had asked the Government to resign. On 29 January, he appointed the head of the Egyptian intelligence services, Omar Suleiman, as his vice-president and Ahmed Shafiq, most recently Minister for Civil Aviation, as Prime Minister. Further Cabinet appointments have been made today. However, demonstrations have continued and are now focused on a demand for President Mubarak to resign.

It is not for us to decide who governs Egypt. However, we believe that the pathway to stability in Egypt is through a process of political change that reflects the wishes of the Egyptian people. That should include an orderly transition to a more democratic system, including through the holding of free and fair elections and the introduction of measures to safeguard human rights. Such reform is essential to show people in Egypt that their concerns and aspirations are being listened to.

We continue to urge President Mubarak to appoint a broad-based Government who include opposition figures, and to embark on an urgent programme of peaceful political reform. We are also working with our international partners to ensure that those messages are given consistently and that technical and financial support for reform is available. The Prime Minister has spoken to President Mubarak and President Obama. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and EU High Representative Baroness Ashton over the weekend, and he will also be discussing the situation in Egypt with EU colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council today.

The situation in Egypt is still very uncertain. The safety of our citizens is our top priority, and we are putting in place contingency plans to ensure that we are prepared for all eventualities. I commend this statement to the House.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing a copy in advance.

The House is united today in expressing our concern at the loss of life in Egypt since last Wednesday. As the Minister said, it has been reported that more than 100 lives have been lost, and I join him in expressing condolences to the families and friends of all those who have been killed or injured. Thousands of courageous Egyptian citizens have taken to the streets to demonstrate for the basic political freedoms that we in the United Kingdom can take for granted. We welcome what the Minister has said today in support of an orderly transition to a broad-based Government who will address the legitimate grievances of the Egyptian people.

Two weeks ago, we expressed concern about the speed at which the Government were offering support to British nationals who were stranded in Tunisia. We welcome the lessons that have clearly been learned since then, as this has ensured a swift response in getting the information and guidance that the Minister has described to British nationals in Egypt. As he said, the Foreign Office has issued travel advice urging British nationals not to travel to Cairo, Alexandria, Luxor or Suez, and to leave by commercial means when it is safe to do so. I thank the Minister for updating the House today on the assistance that is being given to those British nationals trying to leave Egypt, and I join him in commending the hard work and dedication of the FCO’s staff in Egypt and here in London. I also welcome his announcement of additional staff. Can he assure the House that the Government have contingency plans in place to cover every eventuality, and that they now have enough consular officials on the ground to provide the necessary advice and assistance to UK nationals in Egypt?

The European Union has an important role to play in promoting regional stability and security in the middle east and north Africa, and it is encouraging to hear that Egypt is at the top of the agenda for today’s European Foreign Affairs Council. Does the Minister agree that the European Union should place greater emphasis on supporting the development of democracy, pluralism and human rights throughout the middle east and north Africa?

Over the past 30 years, Egypt has played a crucial role in fostering steps towards the middle east peace process. There are legitimate concerns that a political vacuum in Cairo could undermine the already precarious prospects for peace. Can the Minister update the House on discussions with Egypt’s neighbours, including Israel and the Palestinian Authority, who have important concerns for the peace process and for the stability and security of the wider region? The Minister told us that the Prime Minister had spoken to President Obama about events in Egypt. Could the Minister update the House on the progress of those discussions with the US Administration?

A disturbing feature of the past week’s events has been the regime’s censorship of independent media. I join the Minister in calling for an urgent end to restrictions on internet access and television broadcasting across Egypt. As he said, it is not for the United Kingdom to decide Egypt’s future path; that is a matter for the people of Egypt. Does he agree, however, that the United Kingdom has a responsibility to those people to support their demands for freedom and to encourage an orderly transition to a more open, democratic and pluralist Egypt?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone and content of his remarks, and particularly for his appreciation of the work of our consular staff in London and Egypt. I think that he and I see the political situation there in very similar terms.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question on consular staff, we have 20 members of staff at Cairo airport. They are very visible, because they are wearing orange bibs so that people can see them. I understand that we are the only Government who have staff there. Indeed, a number of them slept there last night in order to be on hand constantly to deal with any issues and to show a degree of solidarity with the British citizens who were required to spend the night at the airport because of the curfew restrictions. We hope we have enough people in place to do the job of answering all the questions.

In terms of EU support over a period of time, Egypt has an association agreement with the EU, which is implemented through a jointly agreed action plan. Although Egypt has implemented some of its commitments on economic reform, progress has been more limited on political and social reform. Indeed, the engagement with the EU contains vital steps on political and social reform—those are pressed on all nations that wish for such relationships. It is only to be hoped that reform ideas will be further implemented as a result of the events that we have seen taking place.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the middle east peace process. He is right that this situation has come at a very difficult point in that process. An awful lot of work is being done to try to get the parties closer together. Egypt has been an ally in terms of moderate Arab opinion, and of course made its own arrangements—a peace agreement—with Israel some time ago. Clearly, whatever Government emerge in Egypt, and whether the president continues or something else happens in due course, our strategic interests remain the same. We clearly hope for a Government in Egypt who see the middle east peace process as the absolute bulwark to the solutions that are needed in that whole region, and who see that it is crucial to proceed with the process. I know that those concerns are shared in Israel.

I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about media restrictions, and we are pressing Egypt extremely hard on those matters. Egypt has international commitments to freedom of expression, which has been severely curtailed by restrictions on the internet and electronic media. Our sense is that that actually does no good at all, because of the way in which information spreads these days. Clamping down on one media simply squeezes the bubble and more information appears elsewhere. For all sorts of reasons, not least in respect of getting information to people when there are security difficulties, which we need to do, it would be best not to stop information spreading.

The Prime Minister has had conversations with US President Obama, as the Foreign Secretary has with Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Again, there is a common feeling that the demands of the people in Egypt for political reform have been long-standing, and that they are not going to go away, whether they are suppressed or repressed. The only way forward is to look for a proper political process that will give an orderly transition to a state of government of which political reform, free and fair elections, and an acknowledgment and acceptance of free expression, are key parts. On that, the US and UK are absolutely agreed.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned support for the people of Egypt. As I indicated earlier, it is not for this country to decide what Government there might be, but there are principles that underpin a stable society. Openness, transparency, accountability and a free political system are, in fact, not agents of dangerous change, but the foundations of political stability. The Government share that view with all in the House. We hope that there is an orderly and peaceful transition towards such a future for the people of Egypt.