Rohingya Crisis

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call Mr Philip Hollobone to speak next, but there is obviously considerable interest in the debate. As a result, in order to give sufficient time to the Front-Bench spokespersons of the Labour and Scottish National parties and the Government, I am cutting the time immediately to three minutes per speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) on securing this debate and on her leadership role as a senior member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I thank her for her great kindness and support for me and all other members of the delegation who visited the camp in Kutupalong. It was a lifetime experience—certainly the worst sight that I have ever seen in my life, and I have visited many refugee camps over the years.

There is a feeling of desperation and impotence when we see the scale of this problem—when we look, human being to human being, at a young child carrying an even younger child who is hopelessly paralysed, and when we imagine the depth of suffering of people who have gone through the worst experiences that life has to offer. We cannot see ourselves as having any facile solution to this issue; it is not easy. There is no future in Bangladesh for a million people. We cannot allow the camp to continue, let alone grow, yet that is one of the alternatives. Another alternative—all alternatives are unpalatable—is for people to return to Myanmar. Can that be done? I believe that we should not dismiss it, but we have seen in the eyes of people in the refugee camp their fear about going back. Who could not understand that?

I believe we have a record with our services of brilliant work in creating, defending and protecting peace. That work has been going on for decades. If people do go back, and that is the only practical solution to this crisis, we must guarantee support and be generous enough to provide resources in great quantities, so as to solve this enormous series of tragedies.

What sticks in the mind is not just the individuals, but standing on a high point in the camp and looking out over hills into the distance, and as far as the eye can see, it is all refugee camps. All that many of the refugees have is a piece of tarpaulin and a stick to protect themselves. The horrors are there. This country deserves great credit for the aid that we have given, but despite all the heroic, herculean tasks that we have performed, it is inadequate—pitiful—given the scale of the problem. There is not enough food. The water is contaminated. There is no serious police service there. The dangers of fire and of disease breaking out are ever present.

Although the status quo is intolerable and offends humanity, we must look with intelligence and care towards practical solutions. I am afraid that means considering the return of the Rohingyas, if they wish to return and if we can provide adequate protection for them—

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. I must call the first Opposition spokesperson, Hannah Bardell.

International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and to follow the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). Like everybody who has spoken, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. We all know that, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, he is a tenacious campaigner for these rights. He always makes a thoughtful and extremely knowledgeable contribution to these debates, and I thank him for that.

The hon. Gentleman secured a similar debate earlier this year on the persecution of Christians and the role of embassies. Many issues raised today were raised in that important debate, including violence against the Rohingya Muslims, which the United Nations has described as “ethnic cleansing”, and the subsequent refugee crisis in Bangladesh—a very current issue that we have had many debates on. In this debate, hon. Members have talked about our words becoming actions, and we have to keep up the pressure on Bangladesh to provide aid to the refugees and to allow international aid agencies into the country. We need to do whatever is in our power to help the plight of the Rohingya Muslims. It is a real issue.

Other issues raised in the previous debate included: the persecution of Christians in Syria and Iraq; the restrictions on freedom of religion or belief in Russia, which have led to the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses; and the attacks by Daesh on Coptic Christians in Egypt. The hon. Member for Strangford raised the issue of a new law in Nepal, which creates a caste system whereby Christians are relegated to the status of second-class citizens.

[Ian Paisley in the Chair]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, while on a visit to Jerusalem earlier this year, spoke of the persecution of Christians in the middle east. He said that in the conflict zones of the middle east, every part of life was dominated by suffering:

“That is true whether you are a Christian or not but in this region in addition to the suffering of war, conflict and the tragedies of death and injustice, Christians especially are experiencing persecution, are especially threatened.”

Many hon. Members raised the issue of religious intolerance within the UK. In London alone the number of hate crimes against Muslims has increased from 343 in 2013 to 1,260 in 2016—the number of incidents has almost quadrupled in three years.

As has already been referred to, the APPG has produced a report on freedom of religion or belief, which I read with great interest. It is obviously timely that we should be discussing the report on the eve of International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day. The report states that

“acts of intolerance involving religion or belief are on the rise globally. A climate of intolerance is being fostered in many nations by xenophobic and nativist narratives, which are also de-sensitising the general public to dangerous practices such as stigmatisation and incitement to hostility against those with different beliefs.”

The report centres on article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights—on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion—and many hon. Members have rightly referred to that today. Despite 243 states signing international human rights provisions on freedom of religious belief, violations still go on and, as has been said, nearly 80% of the world’s population live in countries with high or very high levels of restrictions on and hostility towards certain beliefs.

The report makes 14 recommendations, which I hope the Minister will address when he sums up. Of particular interest to me are recommendations 1 and 2, which call for freedom of religious belief to be identified as a political priority for the Foreign Secretary and as a strategic priority in the work of the Department for International Development. The report asks about funding, and calls for funding to be transferred from DFID to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in order to establish a freedom of religious belief funding stream within the FCO. I would be interested to hear his views on that recommendation.

I would also like to press the Minister on recommendation 12, which calls for the FCO to recognise the role of freedom of religious belief within prevention of violent extremism measures across the UK Government. It recommends that the extremism analysis unit should carry out research to analyse the role of religion as a driver of extremism and provide evidence that promoting tolerance on the basis of religion or belief helps build societies that are resilient to extremism. Interesting and far-reaching suggestions are made throughout the report, including about sharing best practice internationally. I hope that the Minister can comment on its ambitious recommendations.

We in the UK must do everything in our power to ensure that people of faith or no faith the world over have the freedom to pursue their beliefs without fear of harassment or victimisation. Where there are humanitarian issues and breaches of human rights, the UK should use all diplomatic means available to ensure that international law is adhered to, including bilateral relations and multilateral forums such as the UN Human Rights Council.

The all-party parliamentary group’s report is to be commended and noted for its recommendations on initiatives to tackle violations of freedom of religious belief at the international level, including the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief. Finally, the support of the new UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, is also vital in tackling incitement to violence on the basis of religion or belief.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

So that the Minister does not have to rush the fences, I inform him that he will have sufficient time to make all the points that he wishes in responding to this detailed debate. The Chairman of Ways and Means has given us permission, if we desire or require it, to extend these proceedings by a further 12 minutes. The hon. Member for Strangford will also want to respond, and we will have sufficient time for that.

Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Offord]

I can only agree with that sentiment. Once again, I will come on to that in my speech.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I am someone who comes from a divided society and a place that has had its own conflict resolution issues and, indeed, successes. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the double problem Israel faces is not only internal divisions but the fact that it lives in a very bad neighbourhood, which adds to and accentuates its problems? It is up to Israel’s neighbours to help Israel by acknowledging its right to exist. If we are to have a peace process, people must accept the fundamental principle that they have to stop killing and attacking Israelis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

Without a doubt; I have had the opportunity to meet people on both sides of the debate in Israel—and, indeed, outside it—and I do not think that the assistance of those who would term themselves Palestinian refugees, who live in places such as St John’s Wood, is always productive. Sometimes I just wish that they would keep out of the problem and let others who are actually affected by this issue on a day-to-day basis find their own resolution. We do not need assistance from outside people.

As I said, the Government should be proud of their announcement this year to invest an unprecedented £3 million in peaceful co-existence projects, bringing Israelis and Palestinians together. Alongside honourable colleagues here, I have seen some of those projects, so I know how they plant the seeds for peace and understanding. It is hugely symbolic to have made that important contribution this year through that financial remuneration. I could ask the Minister whether he will seek more funding to go further and achieve more good things in the country.

Although a unified Palestinian leadership is an essential component in the successful outcome of any peace process, I have severe doubts about recent developments between Hamas and Fatah. Hamas is, and remains, a terror group committed to the destruction of Israel. The group must be obliged to accept the Quartet principles in full and unconditionally, including full disarmament. Israel cannot realistically be expected to enter into peace negotiations without Hamas taking that crucial step. Does the Minister agree that Israel’s measured response to the unity agreement is laudable and that its continued co-operation with the Palestinian Authority is an important source of stability at this sensitive juncture? I would be grateful if he could address that in his summing-up.

[Ian Paisley]

Those are the principles that led to the successful conclusion of the struggle and the troubles in Northern Ireland—that violence had to be given up and there then had to be the recognition of mutual respect to have talks. What followed from that was the destruction of weapons. If those principles are good enough for a part of the United Kingdom, they are good enough for a part of the world that we believe in.

[Dr Offord]

I am sure that the Minister heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments and will take them on board.

In conclusion, when Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent his letter to Lord Rothschild in 1917, I doubt he would have imagined that we would still be debating it 100 years later. With his short letter, he initiated a process that both granted international legitimacy to the Zionist dream for a return to the homeland and gave it the prerequisite legal grounding in international treaties. The legal legitimacy of the state of Israel is simply not up for debate. The Palestinian people, Israel and the wider international community continue to live with the consequences of the Arab leadership rejecting the internationally endorsed UN partition plan in 1947. The establishment of a Palestinian state is long overdue. I hope that we can see some progress in peace talks; that would be a fitting tribute for this centenary.

Israel has achieved so much in the less than 70 years since it was created. I hope that we will take this landmark moment to reflect on the many successes of Israel and commit to further strengthening our relationship with such a key ally. As the Prime Minister said only today at Prime Minister’s Question Time, we should be “proud” to do so.

UK Relations with Taiwan

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I should inform Members that I intend to call the first opposition spokesperson at approximately 10.30 am. Given the number of people who have stood up this morning or who are down to speak, I do not need to put a time restriction on contributions. However, I ask Members to bear in mind that speeches should be about six minutes long, as I am sure there will be other interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I do not see any other hon. Members standing, so I will call the first Front-Bench spokesman.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the chance to begin summing up the debate. I also welcome you to what I believe is your first outing as Chair here—

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

indicated dissent.

[Peter Grant]

You are shaking your head. I apologise. I must have misheard. I should have realised that you were showing an extremely experienced hand throughout proceedings; I congratulate you on that.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

That’s better.

[Peter Grant]

We do not have to be here long to realise that we have to learn to think quickly on our feet.

Mention has been made of the important place that Taiwan has as a trading partner for the United Kingdom. That applies in particular to Scotland. Taiwan is our third or fourth biggest export partner. I heard one hon. Member say “third”, so I will say “fourth”. Perhaps it depends on what we count as exports, but they are about 10% of the UK’s total exports to Taiwan. Beverages are the single biggest export from the UK to Taiwan. The vast majority, of course, is proper whisky made in the only place in the world that has the right to call anything whisky. We allow them to import some cheap imitations from other parts of the United Kingdom, but we make sure that quality and quantity go together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Field]

It is kind of my hon. Friend to tempt me in that direction. I could of course argue that I have already been to the country to which he refers—we recognise the People’s Republic of China—but perhaps that would be a bit mischievous.

In conclusion, Taiwan has—as has been pointed out—a thriving democratic system and a healthy economy. Its authorities are eager to play a responsible role in continuing to tackle global challenges. I hope that within the context of our restricting but certain policy we will be able to play our part to ensure that Taiwan’s voice is heard, in particular in those global bodies where its co-operation is important, transcending many of the other international disputes. The British Government will continue to strengthen our already close ties with the people of Taiwan, because so doing will best serve the interests of the United Kingdom.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I call Bob Blackman to wind up but, before I do, I remind him that I will want to put the Question, rather than letting the debate just peter out. If you could bear that in mind, Mr Blackman, you have a few minutes.

Syria and North Korea

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

Of course.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate the statement from the Foreign Secretary, and extend my sympathy and thoughts to the Bevington and Bladon families. He mentioned that his Government have to deal with odious devils. Of course some of those devils are home grown, and this Government have been able to deal with them in the past. It may seem attractive to remove one leader from power in terms of regime change, but does he accept that the real lynchpin in Syria is Russia? What is the true state of his relationship with Russian officials and of the relationship between Her Majesty’s Government and the Putin regime?

[Boris Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In the end, it was the Russian intervention that saved Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The Russians have it in their hands to change the outcome in Syria for the benefit of not just the Syrian people, but Russia as well.

Sri Lanka: UN Human Rights Council

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[James Berry]

The reports by Freedom from Torture, whose No. 1 referral group is Tamils in Sri Lanka, are shocking. I know that the Government of Sri Lanka dispute what Freedom from Torture says, but even if we do not necessarily consider that, we must consider the recent report by the UN special rapporteur on torture, which was critical of how the Sri Lankan Government handle torture and the fact that the impunity of the security services allows it to continue. I hope that the UN special rapporteur’s report will be considered at this session.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

As somebody who has been part of a post-conflict society, I remind hon. Members that building a peace process is incredibly difficult, slow and arduous. Significant progress has been made—admittedly not as much as some Members would like, but we should recognise that slow progress has been made towards a new, changed and beneficial society.

[James Berry]

As I just outlined, the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils has indeed recognised the progress that has been made, but it is right to scrutinise the areas in which there has been a lack of progress and, as I will explain, a clear policy by the Government of Sri Lanka to undermine one of the key tenets of the resolution. I will come to that in a moment.

We also highlighted areas in which there had not been progress, including the demilitarisation of the north and east and the torture on which the UN special rapporteur has reported in the last few months, but of most concern was the lack of progress on truth-seeking, justice and reparations. In resolution 30/1, the Government of Sri Lanka agreed to a clause that included the words

“the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the Special Counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers, and authorised prosecutors and investigators”.

There been scant progress towards the establishment of that tribunal—the judicial mechanism. I take the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that these things take time. Our own child sex abuse inquiry took two years from announcement to set-up. I accept that it takes time to set up a tribunal, and I do not necessarily criticise the Sri Lankan Government for not yet having started to hold hearings; what I criticise them for is not having a timetable for setting up the judicial mechanism. Most importantly, the Government of Sri Lanka—the President, the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers—have made clear comments that they do not intend to involve foreign and Commonwealth judges, prosecutors and defence counsel. They want it to be a purely domestic tribunal. Senior Ministers have also commented that the military will be protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Berry]

I entirely agree. The last pronouncement made on the issue by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), when he held the ministerial brief that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West now holds, was that Sri Lanka had not yet met its commitments to the international community. Not only does that remain the case, but we are concerned that the Sri Lankan Government have demonstrated a clear intention to defy their commitments to the international community. That cannot be allowed to happen.

[Ian Paisley]

On international oversight, we in this country have to be careful not to be accused of hypocrisy. The Government rightly resisted all calls to make the Bloody Sunday and Iraq inquiries international in any way, because they were domestic inquiries into events that had an international impact. We need to be careful not to tell another country that it must now have an international inquiry on a domestic issue.

[James Berry]

I would agree with the hon. Gentleman, were it not that in this case we are not demanding anything of the Sri Lankan Government that the UN Human Rights Council has not already demanded and that they have not already agreed to. We are only trying to get them to deliver what they have already agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Berry]

I entirely agree. As I have already outlined, resolution 30/1 was very much a consensual resolution. It fell well short of what many members of the Tamil community, who undoubtedly suffered terribly throughout the civil war, actually wanted—a fully independent international inquiry. The limited element of international involvement that the Sri Lankan Government have agreed to must be fulfilled.

The UN’s 2011 panel of inquiry—not a Tamil rights group, but the UN’s own commission of inquiry—found credible allegations that, if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law were committed by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, the prosecution of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during war and peace. There can be no question but that violations of that kind, of which evidence was found by the UN, must be investigated in a thorough, impartial and timely way.

Resolution 30/1 does not provide the independent international inquiry that many called for and that I think there was a watertight case for, but it does provide a mechanism that could enjoy the confidence both of survivors and of alleged perpetrators if set up and run in the right way to give people the confidence that justice will be done.

[Ian Paisley]

The atrocities that the hon. Gentleman has outlined are almost legend now, in terms of how serious those allegations are, but does he accept that there are equally serious allegations, which also have to be investigated, that Tamils used the people of Sri Lanka as human shields in that war, especially in its closing days?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

I have listened with care to what my hon. Friend the Member for, Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) has said, and I find myself mostly in agreement. I thank him for reminding me of what I said when I was the Minister.

I have read again, with interest, the remarks made by the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, Mangala Samaraweera, at the Royal Institute of International Affairs—Chatham House—back in January. He ended his comments by saying:

“Festina lente; slowly but surely Sri Lanka is making haste towards a new beginning.”

Having been to the UN Human Rights Council, spoken on Sri Lanka a number of times, worked closely with Prince Zeid al-Hussein on the matter, and witnessed and argued for and against the postponements we had, I look upon this as something that now needs to be driven forward. I repeat my earlier remarks: we must pay tribute to the progress that has been made in Sri Lanka. It is a delicate political balance between the two parties: the Sri Lanka Freedom party, headed by President Sirisena, and the United National party, headed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. It is worth remembering that if the two parties are not in coalition the alternative is probably a return to the days of former President Rajapaksa, under whose presidency many of the atrocities were committed, on both sides.

Regarding what the Sri Lankan Government have achieved, they are quick to point out that they have reintroduced a two-term limit to the presidency, reduced the term itself from six to five years, established a constitutional council, restored independent commissions, recognised the right to information as a fundamental right and recognised the promotion of national reconciliation and integration as duties of the President. All those things are good, but they are not good enough.

On land restitution, I am aware that much of the land, particularly in the north, has been returned to the local community, but a lot of it has not been and we need to see greater progress on that. The Government have said that they are setting up an office of missing persons, which is absolutely key, but to date there is no evidence that it has been done. I hope that, in Geneva, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), will congratulate the Sri Lankan Government on what they have achieved to date but also point out that the commitments they have made on which, by and large, they are falling short. They still have tremendous good will from the international community.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

I would be really grateful if we did not prolong this speech because the Minister has just a few minutes left to respond. Although Sir Hugo has permission to speak, he is not speaking on behalf of the Government. I want the Government to have the opportunity to speak and I would therefore be grateful if there were no interventions and we came to the Minister as soon as possible.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I must say that I do believe the point that has been made: the best way to resolve this apparently intractable problem is the same way as peace processes around the world have resolved problems—through face-to-face negotiations between people on the ground, and not through grandiose schemes that play to certain galleries and certain outside influences. That is an important starting point for any peace process ultimately to work.

[Ian Austin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Paisley]

I will not at the moment.

Settlements are a symptom of the conflict in Israel; they are not the cause. If anyone thinks they are the cause of the conflict, they do not understand what has happened in that land. History shows that the unilateral removal and evacuation of settlements did not generate peace at all, but inspired more rocket attacks and the deaths of more innocents in other settlements—that is what it actually did. Instead of being part of a peace process, the unilateral removal of settlements would be a piece-by-piece process—a step-by-step process towards more attacks on innocent people. So let us stop the hand-wringing and the pretence that a unilateral move on settlements will make peace—it will not. For some—not in this Chamber—it is a cover for more aggression, and for most it reflects a misguided view of what is happening on the ground. You cannot negotiate away settlements in advance.

[Mrs Ellman]

I support the point the hon. Gentleman is making. Would he like to contrast the failure of Israel’s unilateral decision to remove settlements and to withdraw from Gaza to secure peace with the agreement that was made with Egypt in 1979, when Israel withdrew and demolished its settlements as part of an agreement that has lasted until this day?

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady, who has much experience and knowledge of the area, makes a vital point. If we look at the history of the area, we see that Israel has a very good track record of agreeing concessions on territory whenever peace is made. That was the history in 1979 between Sadat and Begin. When they made an agreement, what did Israel do? It gave up critical Sinai—91% of the territory it won in 1967—once peace was agreed. As part of that peace, Begin completely destroyed the Yamit settlement in Sinai. With Jordan, what was the attitude of the Israelis? When they got a settlement, both sides redeployed to their respective sides and agreed to the international boundaries.

The point made by the hon. Lady is supported by facts on the ground at the end of a peace process. I have been part of a peace process, and you cannot make a major concession at the beginning of a peace process and think that it starts at that point; you make the concessions at the end, on the basis of an agreement. That is what needs to take place.

[Rushanara Ali]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he agrees that Israeli settlements are illegal? While that is not the only factor, it is critical that we address and acknowledge it. Secondly, in relation to Gaza, 800,000 children are living in what the former Prime Minister described as one of the world’s biggest open prisons. These are major humanitarian issues, which we need to confront and address.

[Ian Paisley]

To be absolutely clear, I am not dismissing any of the major humanitarian issues. I have absolute sympathy, concern and passion for the needs of Israeli and Palestinian children, men and women. I hope that they can live in new, harmonious, peaceful countries, but we have to get to the point of understanding how we get to that solution. The terms of reference for any negotiation should be the starting point that we want to get to a peaceful, secure Israel side by side with a sovereign Palestine. That is how we have to try to get a two-state solution, and the only way we will achieve that is through face-to-face negotiations between the practitioners on the ground.

Most Members will have had the opportunity in the last day or so to see the Women’s International Zionist Organisation project on Upper Committee corridor. Women of different races, creeds and backgrounds from across Israel and Palestine were asked to do one thing: to paint an olive tree. All those different women have given very different perspectives, but they have painted the same thing in all its glory. The important point about that experiment is that if we put people together on the ground and allow them to negotiate and do something face to face, they will ultimately get to a solution.

The message we should send out today is clear and unequivocal: only Israelis and Palestinians, sitting down together face to face, can sort this out and achieve peace in a much tortured and embattled region.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

US Immigration Policy

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

May I just say something in defence of that great democracy, the United States of America? If we look at all the migrants in the world—all those who are living in a country other than that in which they were born—fully 20% of them are in the US. Some 45 million people in the US were not born in that country. I do not think that it is possible to say credibly that that country is hostile to those from overseas. Of course, it is vital that we work with the United States in combating terror and that we deepen our relationship, as we are doing.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

May I congratulate the Government on a very successful visit to the United States of America, and on putting the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the front of the queue? Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a touch of a double standard here? People from Ulster have been told for decades that they must talk to, and work and be in government with, the most objectionable people, yet they are now being told by the same people that the President of the most democratic country in the world should not come to this country. May I encourage the Secretary of State to ensure that the state visit proceeds? Could he also advise Northern Ireland citizens who hold Irish passports but who are entitled to full British passports on whether they should apply for British passports for ease of travel to the United States?

[Boris Johnson]

I completely agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly makes. President Trump and his Administration have not, to the best of my knowledge, been engaged in terrorist offences on mainland Britain, unlike those with whom the hon. Gentleman and his party were asked to negotiate.

Chagos Islands

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, I call Ian Paisley.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister’s statement about no right to self-determination will have much wider implications and will be listened to by many people on other islands and rocks around the world. Will he make it clear to those people who may have felt a shiver down their spine when they heard that statement that Her Majesty’s Government do not intend to roll back self-determination anywhere else?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My interpretation of the hon. Gentleman’s question—I think that this will be to his satisfaction—is that he is implicitly also referring to sovereignty. May I make it absolutely clear that questions as to the existence or presence of a population on the British Indian Ocean Territory do not affect our position on sovereignty? We have no doubt whatsoever about our sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.

Victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism: Compensation

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I commend the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for bringing this matter to the House. It is good that when fresh eyes come to look at a subject, they see the same injustice that other people who have looked at it before see. That encourages us, and the hon. Gentleman has certainly encouraged Members in the House today. His words will serve as a real fillip to the people of Northern Ireland and to the victims across the whole of the United Kingdom.

It is encouraging that as more and more people look at this situation, they see the inequitable treatment and injustice and they want to see fairness meted out to the victims. I also add my words of support for those who have for many years demonstrated steadfastness in their support for this case. Some are in the Public Gallery; my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has already been mentioned; and there are many others who, year in and decade out, have supported this case and worked very hard.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who has rightly introduced this matter to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, has said that there are difficulties in dealing with the Libyan Government. There certainly are, but let me also place it on the record that there have been difficulties in dealing with successive Governments of Her Majesty.

I do not know, Ms Ryan, whether you have ever tried to fish eels from a bucket of water, but it is an incredibly difficult task. Trying to get one’s hands on some people in the FCO and on the Government—successive Governments—to get them to give a straight answer to many of the questions that victims have genuinely put on the table is like putting one’s hand into that bucket and trying to catch a slippery eel; it is practically impossible to get straight answers. I think that today’s debate starts to get us to the right point. Victims have waited long enough for answers. They are sick and tired of the dilly-dallying and delays. Many of them are coming to, let us face it, the latter years of their lives and they need answers before they pass the immortal tide. We need to face up to that, and pretty darn fast.

There have been several efforts to address some of these issues, but I want to put two matters to the Minister and I hope that in his summing-up he will address them. First, I hope that he agrees with me that life-changing injuries require life-changing levels of compensation—not the paltry sums mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), but compensation that really addresses, for the generation of people injured, their needs, the impact that terror has had on them, their loss and their sense of loss.

Secondly, I want the Minister to talk about how we get compensation paid. I must commend him. He has been incredibly diligent. He reports regularly, privately and publicly, to Members of Parliament. He comes to the Select Committee and he has indicated to us the numerous conversations and efforts that are taking place with the new Government of national unity in Libya. I thank him for that, but there comes a point when we are told, “Look, we have to wait for this Government to be established and then we will put to them—we believe that they will be very compliant—the subject of compensation. At that point, compensation can more than likely be taken from the seized assets that are currently held by the Government here.” I can see why anyone who works in the City would oppose taking the assets and spending them in advance of that Government being established—because it would damage the City and the reputation of banking here. I understand all the reasons. It does not sound logical to a victim, but I understand the points that have been made. Therefore, I want to turn the subject round and present to the Minister a solution that I hope he will pick up and run with, or introduce as a Government amendment to the legislation.

My proposal is that the Government pay the victims in lieu, from British money. Given that they are confident that one day they will get an agreement with the new Government of national unity in Libya, when the agreement is in place they will take that money back. That will allow us to expedite compensation to resolve this matter, allow the victims to move on, allow us to put this situation, thankfully, behind us once and for all. It will also allow the Government to concentrate on helping to set up the new Government in Libya. On that basis, the Government will have solved the issue. They will not be spending the seized assets, but they will be recognising that one day those seized assets will be spent on the victims. I hope that the Minister will consider that and bring it forward.

Finally, I will put this on the table. For decades during our peace process, we were told, “Take a risk for peace.” I am saying to the Minister, “Your Government need to take that risk for peace now.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

It is not for me to do that. I am the Minister in the Foreign Office. When I visited Northern Ireland, it became apparent to me that there were cases in which those subject to violence and terrorism there by the IRA were perhaps not receiving as much compensation as they should. I pass on such matters, but they are not for me as a Foreign Minister to pursue. I am helping with the link with Libya.

There are various schemes in place. I am involved in supporting those affected by the Sousse terrorist attacks to ensure that they receive the necessary compensation. There is a criminal injuries compensation scheme, as well as one tailored to Northern Ireland. If they do not meet the support needs of those affected, that is a domestic matter that must be pursued, and I will encourage that, but it is not for me to pursue it. However, I will discuss it with the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

[Ian Paisley]

To be frank, it is a bit of a red herring to be arguing in this debate about dipping in. That is part of the drive of the Bill in the other place. We argued for something very separate: Her Majesty’s Government should make a payment in lieu. That would involve the Minister at the Foreign Office having a discussion with Her Majesty’s Treasury and coming up with some way to underwrite that payment. Is that a possibility?

[Mr Ellwood]

Again, time is limited. There is a Bill coming through, and it will have its Second Reading on the Floor of this House. We can have that debate then; it would be the most appropriate time to do so. The frozen assets do not belong to the Gaddafi family; they belong to the state and the people of Libya. That is the international law by which we abide. We can release, unfreeze or touch those frozen assets only when there is a secure and stable state to return them to. To do anything else would be unlawful. I want to make that clear.

Moving on to some of the other points made, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) covered the issue of frozen assets, but also spoke about the strategy. Let me make it clear: if we go down the road of using frozen assets, we are basically saying that we do not want to have the conversations with Libya that we are about to embark on. We must be clear about where to focus our energy. We have made it clear that the Government will not espouse individual claims, but I will lead a delegation to knock on the Justice Minister’s door to pursue compensation. If Libya and Tripoli are not safe enough, let us ask them to come to London so we can have those conversations here. That is my commitment to ensuring that we pursue and continue the dialogue. I think and hope that that strategy will meet with the agreement of all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford also spoke about comparing the aid budget, as is often done in such cases, suggesting that we should hold it back to encourage compensation to be paid. Again, that would have huge consequences. He will be aware, as are others here, of what is happening on the Libyan sea front. Criminal gangs are using rickety boats to bring people across the sea. Our aid budget assists in preventing that from happening. There would be direct consequences for other aspects of Libya, including support for the fight against terrorism, so it might be unhelpful from that perspective. However, I absolutely agree that there should be a quid pro quo to encourage things to happen. I am being careful while saying this, because there are civil servants looking at me with big eyes, but our genuine further commitment should be based on what progress we see, not least on this particular issue. I will leave it at that for the moment.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) talked about justice and accountability, which are an important part of this issue. It is about ensuring that Libya not only recognises the need for compensation but puts up its hands, in the way that we have seen with the United States. I am conscious of the time, so I will just touch on the United States. That was a political agreement, not a financial package of compensation. It was about bringing Gaddafi in from the cold. That is why, in my earlier intervention, I suggested inviting Tony Blair to make a statement on the matter. Clarity is needed on what happened in 2008 and why we did not pursue something similar. That was our opportunity, and I believe that that opportunity was missed.

I will wind up my speech, if I may, because there were many more questions to be answered. In my usual style, I will write to hon. Members with more details on the questions they have asked, but I hope that I have exhibited some passion and determination in saying that I absolutely want to ensure that this Government do what we can to hold Libya to account and give it the opportunity to do the right thing by recognising the case for compensation. Perhaps it can be tied to when the assets are released. That would be a major step forward in strengthening the bond between our two countries. Much hinges on the progress made in Libya. It has been very slow indeed, much to the frustration of everyone.