Deep Sea Mining Bill (Ways and Means)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I had hoped to intervene on the Minister before he sat down. I shall keep closely to the parameters you have outlined, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have a question about the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Bill will extend to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Has there been any interest from companies in Northern Ireland to obtain licences for deep sea mining and will there be close control from the Northern Ireland Assembly?

[Mr Swire]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman but I fear that I would be under the same injunction from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were I to debate exploration around the sea in Northern Ireland. There will be an opportunity to explore these matters further in Committee; the motion is about allowing the Bill to proceed in Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Mr Shannon, if you could stand up and thank the Minister for his intervention and clarification, that would help us.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his clarification on those matters and stand graciously admonished.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you for your assistance, Mr Shannon, as the Minister would otherwise have spoken twice.

Question put and agreed to.

International Criminal Court (Kenya)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Ind)]

I am conscious that some hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber know quite a lot about this subject and have shown great interest in Africa, particularly Kenya, over the years. Some of what I say will not be news to them, and will be well known to the Minister, but it is important to set the scene and to say a few things that may seem obvious to some, but not to others observing what is going on at the moment. Today, I am particularly concerned about the nature of the ongoing action by the International Criminal Court against President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto, and that is, primarily, the context in which I will speak. I will make a few comments about the ICC, but they will be entirely contextual and legitimate, and I will be careful not to stray too far, Mr Caton.

On Monday 13 October, the African Union will meet to discuss the possibility of African ICC member states withdrawing from the ICC en masse. That meeting will take place in Addis Ababa and was precipitated by the ICC’s treatment of President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto, but the crux has been a long time coming. There is nothing inherently unreasonable in holding people to account in front of the ICC, but the nature of the present action against President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto is of particular concern.

Some nations, particularly African nations, that are signatories to the treaty of Rome are placing the future of the ICC in question. There is a risk that Africans in the UK—I speak to many of them in diasporas of all sorts—and particularly Kenyans will see it as the African criminal court, rather than the International Criminal Court. I want to set out how and why that has happened. I am not critical in any sense of the Government’s position on Kenya over the past year or so; they have handled the situation not elegantly—that may be putting too fine a point on it—but rather well earlier in the year, when President Kenyatta won the election. The Prime Minister encouraged him to come to the UK and met him soon after his election, which sent a significant message. Nevertheless, there is a strange and strained diplomatic relationship, in that we still support the ICC and its ongoing action to bring the President to court.

Kenya is one of our most important allies on the African continent. One of our largest foreign training bases is there, and the UK and Kenya host each other’s large diasporas. Trade with Kenya through Nairobi has been increasing almost exponentially for some years. We have the strongest of historical links, too. I will not go into whether the empire was good or bad. There were many good things about it, although we tend to remember the bad things, but the long view shows benefits that accrued on both sides.

Sometimes our relationship with Kenya has been fraught, to put it mildly, notably during the Mau Mau uprising. It is to the Government’s credit that at the beginning of the summer they recognised that crimes that were broadly described as being against humanity took place when we were running the show, and reparation has been made to Kenyans who were affected. Some people are ambivalent about that, because some Kenyans were fighting against British soldiers at the time, but the Government’s general view—I am not sure what the Opposition’s position is—was that it was right to make reparation. Soldiers who behaved abominably, as some did, cannot be held to account now because they are dead, and we should remember that, but we should also remember the context in which the Mau Mau uprising took place, and the nature of the deployment that our troops faced. However, we bear in mind that we are making reparation for what can today be described as war crimes.

I will not rehearse the democratic period in Kenya, but will fast forward to 2007, when there was bad violence just before the election. There is no question about that, and no one doubts it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the Chamber for consideration. Some 600,000 people were displaced and 1,100 were killed, including 30 women and children who were burned alive in a church. Does he believe that now is the time—time is going by fast—for the International Criminal Court to try those who were responsible for those crimes?

[Eric Joyce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important intervention, which goes to the crux of the debate. I will explore some aspects of the decision that sits with the ICC, but it is becoming a political issue. Of course it is right to hold people to account, but things happen in the world, in Africa and, historically, closer to home, and sometimes a choice must be made between justice and peace. That is not to say that standards are lower, but as my argument develops it will be seen that this is one such case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Joyce]

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

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman referred to the ICC and its credibility. The fact is that the Kenyan Government have decided to withdraw from the ICC and that there are cases pending at the court. How does he see the role for Government in trying to ensure that there will still be prosecutions, now that Kenya is no longer—at least on paper—part of the ICC?

[Eric Joyce]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think that the technical situation is that the case will continue even if Kenya withdraws, although my instinct is that it will be difficult to do anything in that situation. I suppose the ICC may criticise the President’s absence and then carry on with the trial. Theoretically, and it is pretty theoretical, the African nations that are considering withdrawing—I hope that they do not withdraw—would still be subject to any current cases involving them, although not to any future cases. So, for the moment the case against the President would continue. In a sense, therefore, it is academic whether Kenya has chosen to withdraw from the ICC or not, although I hope that it will come back in. I think that Kenya is making a very powerful statement, just as some other African states that are supporting Kenya’s cause at the moment are making a similarly powerful statement.

I will start to draw to a conclusion. I visited the ICC’s former chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, in The Hague a couple of years ago, regarding a particular case; it is pertinent to this debate, so I hope that you will bear with me, Mr Caton. My concern at the time was that all these people being indicted were Africans, and I was concerned about one particular case. I was concerned about President al-Bashir, as a head of state, being indicted, but in particular I was concerned about a chap called Bemba, who was a Congolese leader indicted for an alleged crime in the Central African Republic. I spoke to Luis Moreno-Ocampo and I was with him for much of the day—strangely. He gave me a tutorial in how the ICC operated, and convinced me that he was doing his best and that the ICC was doing its best. It was taking a long time to get a prosecution. It has now had one successful prosecution, that of Thomas Lubanga of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Mr Moreno-Ocampo was very convincing and he convinced me that the ICC is indeed a good thing. There are clear difficulties, which the ICC recognises, in pursuing cases in the orbits of nations that do not fancy having the ICC in their own backyard, as I have described before.

Then, however, Mr Moreno-Ocampo was gone, and he has been replaced by the former Gambian Justice Minister. My instinct, although it is harsh to say it, is that, although I have no doubt she will be a very fine lawyer, that appointment in itself was a political nod—“We are only indicting Africans, so we will have an African in charge”. However, just to show the difficulty, she herself—I will not be critical of her personally but contextually—was the Justice Minister in Gambia. Gambia is not the most pure place on the planet. The last time that I was in Gambia, as we were driving to the airport there was lots of security around and we discovered that the President had just shot a whole bunch of prisoners, some of whom were political prisoners essentially. Gambia has its issues, so it seems to me that a political nod in a particular direction may have had the opposite effect to that intended. I think that the ICC recognised the need to make a political gesture, and to some degree therefore it accepts that the whole thing is a political process.

It seems to me that at the moment we tend, right across the board, to apply values straight from our desks and pop them straight down on to the desks of politicians and other leading folk in African states, without really considering the period of development that those countries are going through right now, as we speak. Just as I walked across here to Westminster Hall, I was reflecting—I am not quite sure why—on the fact that most of us would put our hands up and say, “Chemical weapons—bad thing.” However, as far as I can remember, we were developing chemical weapons into the ’80s. Chemical weapons became a bad thing in the ’90s, but I think it was still British military doctrine to use chemical weapons until just a few years before then. I remember that when I was a private soldier, troops alongside me volunteered to go to Porton Down to have chemicals put on their hands—I do not think that Porton Down was looking for a solution to the common cold—and that was in the ’80s.

We have now moved forward and we say that chemical weapons are a horror; Winston Churchill was a fan of chemical weapons, but now we say that they are a horror and it has taken us 15 or 20 years for us to get to that point. Now we say, “Here is a democracy in Africa and we expect you to uphold the same standards that we do here in all the same ways”, without trying to contextualise things. That is a tough gig, as the Africans become increasingly nationalistic, and pan-African nationalistic, if that is not too grand a phrase to use; I am not harking back to a slightly different phenomenon from 60 years ago. However, if Africans are in that zone and in many cases looking towards China rather than looking towards us, it is because there is a very strong taint of a kind of imperialist attitude.

My understanding—what I am about to say may be wrong, but I do not think that it is—is that the Kenyans have refused to accredit three diplomats; the would-be ambassadors from France, Germany and Belgium. I understand that that happened just a few days ago, and I also understand that the Tanzanians refused to accredit the new German ambassador, on account of the fact that she had invited—probably unwisely, because it was clearly a gesture on her part—the former Prime Minister, Raila Odinga, as a guest of honour for a wee party before she left. That was a clear statement, so the Tanzanians went, “That was a nice statement. Here’s another one—off you go.” So that was a neat political statement by a daft German ambassador—a former German ambassador to Kenya—but there is a lot of that going on.

During the election in Kenya, the American ambassador—everyone will have heard references to the British ambassador, which are not true—allegedly said, “Choices have consequences.” And the Kenyans went, “OK, then, so we will choose to do the thing you don’t want us to do, obviously.” The consequence was that the Americans got the person they did not want, ironically just as we got Jomo Kenyatta, who was originally not the guy we wanted. There it is—we handled it then and we handle it now.

To conclude—I have been going on rather a long time—I know that it is a difficult situation for the Government. They have to support the ICC; I have no question about that. I know that the Government are seized of the importance of maintaining the rule of law—as far as we can—but also of the importance of maintaining a strong relationship with a really important ally, for all the reasons that we all know; I will not rehearse them again. However, the fact is that there is a crux and if the crux is not properly climbed then the ICC will fall off and it will no longer be an effective and meaningful international force.

Just as a slight digression, I will say that it is possible for someone to spend five years in the ICC and then get found not guilty, as one Congolese chap did at the end of last year. So we suspend certain rules and assumptions—reasonably, because it is very hard to gather evidence—but we should remember that Jean-Pierre Bemba remains there. His trial is now in its third year and he has been there for almost six years, with no end in sight. If he is found not guilty, he will have spent seven or eight years in custody. If anyone tried to do that anywhere else, we would say that that country was a dictator state. We have made allowances and allowed that to happen at the ICC. I am concerned about how long the process takes but I am not critical per se, because I know that it is very hard to gather evidence and to argue the case when we are talking about certain countries, such as the Central African Republic. In this case, it is for the politicians to make a political decision to take the matter out of the hands of administrators and to put the case against President Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto. That would give the Kenyans a fair crack of the whip at a time when they really need our support.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This is an interesting and important debate. I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary groups on Kenya and on Uganda and, as chairman or secretary of various other all-party groups, I have been much involved in all matters relating to east Africa since the 1980s. I have a strong sense that that part of the world is extremely important both in its own right and in relation not only to the United Kingdom but to the world as a whole. Economically, it is one of the fastest-growing areas in the world and, as with all countries—and I exclude none—there is a process of evolution and a necessity to ensure that justice and fairness prevail.

At the heart of all this lies the question whether domestic matters should be adjudicated by a methodology applicable through international law when the better route could well be to have them dealt with in the country in question. That important issue is illustrated by the fact that in many, many countries in the world—I do not need to set them all out, but Vietnam is a case in point—terrible things happen. There are civil wars. We had a civil war, as did the United States, and there are times when innocent people get caught up. We have a vast range of civil wars going on all over the middle east; it is a very disturbing picture. Not unnaturally, people will attribute blame to individuals who have been involved in the process, but it is an unwise person who makes assumptions about who was responsible for any particular causal event or incident.

[Jim Shannon]

One concern is that if the ICC case collapses, and there is every possibility that it might, the credibility, security and safety of the witnesses who have been called come into question. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about those independent witnesses who may feel under threat if the case collapses?

[Mr Cash]

I certainly do. There must be a significant review of the methodology that is applied in relation to the ICC process, which can be encapsulated in an expression from Maine’s “Ancient Law” that says that justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure. It sounds grandiloquent, but it is extremely important given the incredible number of events that are taking place. We have to look at not just what is happening in countries such as Syria, where people from both sides commit atrocities all the time, but the motivation for such atrocities and the extent to which they are politically driven. Some would argue that the use of atomic weapons or chemical weapons is a matter where distinctions need to be drawn. It could also be said that all weapons of mass destruction should automatically be regarded as of one kind, which they are not.

In relation to the terrible events that took place in Kenya some years ago, the methodology that was applied in the prosecution and indictment is a matter that requires very careful consideration. There are good grounds, I believe, for taking a step back and looking at the matter again, taking into consideration the evidence and who is responsible for the conduct of the prosecution and the manner in which it is being deployed. It is also extremely important to bear in mind that the most incredible sensitivities will arise, and have arisen, which may lead to the African Union and other individual countries, many of which I am familiar with, withdrawing from the ICC.

There are several issues to be considered. One relates to justice, fairness and the question of procedures and methodology. Another relates to the impact of what is being done in relation to the African Union and individual countries there, and the extent to which they are taking a position, which, to say the least, is radical. Then there is the question whether the matter should really be dealt with in domestic courts. Is there the political impetus to prosecute a Head of State or one or two people when the evidence could as well be addressed in a domestic arena?

I was shadow Attorney-General for several years, and have always had certain reservations, to say the least, about the assumptions that lie behind some human rights trials. I will not enlarge on that, but what I will say is that with the massive number of conflicts and potential conflicts in the middle east—in countries such as Egypt, Libya, Syria and Tunisia—Somalia and elsewhere in Africa, a complete analysis of the whole matter is required. In addition, some of the most significant countries, not only numerically but in terms of power and influence, are not members of the ICC. How can we have a system of justice that is based on differentiation between those countries that are not involved in the process because they have not signed up, and others that are? There are so many interwoven complexities that it makes me seriously wonder about the whole question of justiciability and the methodology that lies at the heart not only of the procedures but of the underlying consequences of the ICC system.

I do not want to say any more, because I want everyone to stand back and ask themselves some central questions. The Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, has a very difficult task here. I have raised the matter with the Foreign Office, both after and in the run-up to elections, because I was concerned about the politicisation of what could be regarded as a matter of domestic legal process. Justice and fairness are key, and how we arrive at that, and whether the ICC can do so in this case and in many others, is a very big question. I will rest my argument there, but I shall continue to pursue such questions, because I believe that fundamental issues arise for not only us, but many other countries.

Burma

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, may I start by thanking you, on behalf of my colleagues the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for granting us this debate, which seeks to place on the record details of our recent Speaker’s delegation visit to Burma? I want to set out the background to the visit, what we saw on the visit and points of action to influence Government policy on Burma. I am sure that we can, between us, cover the events of what was a remarkable experience.

Mr Speaker, you have been most gracious in inviting me to accompany you. Of course, I also have to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), because her not being available to make the visit enabled me to take her place. Following your invitation to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to speak to both Houses, you made it clear that, on behalf of Parliament, you wanted to leave a lasting legacy of help and support to Burma, particularly as you have had a long-standing interest in Burma. You said that you did not just want to have a visit and leave, but you wanted to fulfil your promise to Daw Suu to help in a practical way. At this stage, I want to thank the embassy in Burma and all its staff, your office and others in the House service who were involved in setting up the visit, organising and accompanying us to the meetings.

Mr Speaker, you said on many occasions at our meetings that we were not in Burma to tell the Burmese how to run their country, but that we were there to show them how we do our work here and how they can perhaps learn from us and adapt it for their use. So what did we see? May I pay tribute to you, again, Mr Speaker, for holding together and being the focus of the 24 meetings we had over eight days, and acknowledge your courageous speech at Yangon university, which may be a topic for a Speaker’s lecture?

We all appeared on our trip with the book by Benedict Rogers “Burma: a Nation at the Crossroads”, which was launched at the Speaker’s House. We note from the book that progress has been made. Despite the elections in 1990, the results of which have not been recognized, Daw Suu now sits in the Burmese Parliament, along with many other MPs and also the generals. At the Parliament in Nay Pyi Taw, we met both Speakers of the upper and lower Houses, the President, Minsters from the presidential office and committee chairs. The delegation managed to raise the issue of the release of political prisoners and I know that you, Mr Speaker, have already sent a list to the President’s office. The President had already agreed that the United Nations could set up an office for the human rights commissioner, but he was no clearer about when that would take place. I am pleased that the embassy now has a human rights post.

It seems to me that we can have influence on two levels: the political level and service level. Daw Suu said that she wants active parliamentarians and to give all MPs the tools to be effective MPs. We can help and are helping to set up a library. I explained that our Library provides research facilities for all Members on an independent and confidential basis. The right hon. Member for Gordon led the session on how Select Committees work, and as all the delegation had served on Select Committees we could show MPs that we can work together for the good of the country.

The non-governmental organisations we met told us that arbitrary arrests and detention had worsened over the past few months, which was something we also heard from members of the “88 Generation” who are still being arrested, having to pay fines and having their cases regularly adjourned. Getting permits to allow humanitarian aid is difficult, particularly in Kachin state. We also heard that the rice federation regulates itself and is headed by someone close to the Government. A major census was under way that would provide useful information in 2014, such as how many girls were getting equal education, or an education at all. An MP from Kachin state told me that displaced people could not return to their villages as there were landmines; we have the technology to help them move out of those camps.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving the House a chance to recognise the contribution that has been made. At the release of the Nobel prize laureate, there was a perception that democracy had returned. The House, Mr Speaker, the hon. Lady and her colleagues and many other Members have contributed to trying to help that move forward. Unfortunately, in Kachin province we have seen the persecution of the Christian minority and other groups. Human rights deprivations are rampant. Burma is now in the top 10 countries in records of human rights abuse. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister and our Government need to play a more effective role in stopping that happening and giving freedom to the people of Kachin province?

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and absolutely agree with him. That is a still a big issue, which forms part of my 10-point plan. It is also a key point, as I was about to move on to the ethnic and religious differences.

Such differences are enshrined in everyday use: ethnic regions are states and Burmese areas are divisions. I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, that one of the many highlights were our meetings with Rakhine and Rohingya representatives and representatives of the different faiths.

What of aid? When we give aid we give the gift of life, and Britain should be proud of its aid-giving programme. We saw the malaria clinic from which within 15 minutes they can find and treat a person who might have malaria. That is important for migrant workers because they tap rubber between 10 pm and 2 am when the mosquito is active. There was the HIV clinic, and the school we visited where we saw lively children singing and learning. There was a legal advice centre staffed with mainly women lawyers. We need to provide them with some of our legislation and books on administrative law.

What are my points of action? Many other countries are offering help. We know that the Foreign Minister from Poland has already hosted people from Burma to work on the United States Institute of Peace’s strategic economic needs and security exercise—SENSE—programme, which simulates government; and so has the Indian Parliament.

Here are my 10 suggestions. First, one person should co-ordinate or keep track of what work Britain is doing, based in either the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Department for International Development. Secondly, the work on setting up the library and research facilities for MPs should have a time limit.

Thirdly, there should perhaps be an induction course like the one we had for new Members in 2010. We already have the blueprint, so that could be done now. We could also offer work with the Select Committee structure. I do not know whether you recall, Mr Speaker, but one person asked, “How do we clone these officials?”

Fourthly, will the FCO or DFID work with the Burmese Government to ensure that humanitarian aid workers do not have to keep applying for a permit for different areas? The international organisations should be able to negotiate that. We also heard that Médecins sans Frontières doctors cannot work alongside Burmese doctors—why not?

Fifthly, there needs to be constitutional reform before the elections in 2015, not least to lower the age of MPs. Although age is quite rightly revered, many young people we met were ready to serve and want to be MPs. Importantly, Daw Suu should not be excluded from taking part in the presidential elections, but she currently is.

Sixthly, there should be regular discussions on the release of political prisoners. Can the Minister say what has become of those on Mr Speaker’s list? But might we also look to others who, you will recall, Mr Speaker, we heard may have committed serious crimes? Perhaps an international lawyer could review those cases.

Seventhly, progress must be made on setting up the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Eighthly, on the ethnic issue, there should be a new Panglong conference—along the lines of the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement.

UK-US Bilateral Relations

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Dobbin, to be here under your chairmanship. My previous debate was on High Speed 2 and ancient woodlands, and was a little controversial; I hope that this one will be more of a love-in. Its title is “UK-US Bilateral Relations”, but the context is: “Whither goest the special relationship between the UK and the US?” Having said that, I share the view held by a friend in the US Department of State, Daniel McNicholas, that the special relationship is a given, and that it is pointless to worry about its ebbs and flows over days and weeks. I do not feel guilty about mentioning Daniel McNicholas, because back in the days when I was in opposition and he served in the US embassy in London, he and I used to meet up. A few months after I had spoken to him about various issues concerning the Conservative party in opposition, I got an urgent phone call from him to say that everything I had told him had appeared in WikiLeaks. Daniel McNicholas, you have been named.

I want to name someone else: may I say what a pleasure it is that the US ambassador is in the Chamber for this debate? I believe that it is the first time that the ambassador has visited the United Kingdom Parliament.

In recent weeks, the special relationship has been put under scrutiny following the House of Commons vote on action in Syria. The Sun ran the dramatic headline, “Death Notice: The Special Relationship”. At the time, commentators on both sides of the Atlantic saw the vote as a turning point with regard to the United Kingdom’s place in the world. Some even saw Secretary Kerry’s remarks about France being the United States’ oldest ally—technically, it is—as a public kick in the teeth from the Obama Administration, but it is not. Let us be clear: the special relationship is special because of the one fact that there is no other international relationship like it in the world.

Some people in the UK may panic at anything that can be even remotely taken as a slight from the Americans. A few weeks ago, it was Secretary of State Kerry’s remarks about France. Before that, it was President Obama’s populist remarks about BP and the spill in the gulf of Mexico. Some years ago, it was Gordon Brown’s bungled meeting with President Obama in a New York kitchen—let me say to my friend, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), that that is the only party political point I will make today. Before that, it was Tony Blair’s so-called poodle-like behaviour—I did not think it was poodle-like—towards the Bush Administration.

Some people in our media revel, whenever a press conference is called, in analysing the language used, dissecting every comma, and looking for even the remotest possibility that we are no longer America’s golden ally. It is all nonsense, of course. American officials know the facts, and the British should be a bit braver in accepting them. As someone once said, “It’s the economy, stupid”, so let us follow the money: British businesses employ around 1 million people in the United States, and American companies employ around 1 million people in the UK, making our two countries by far each other’s largest foreign job supporters. The United Kingdom and the United States have almost $1 trillion invested in each other’s economies. British-American trade was worth $214 billion in 2012. That is the biggest bilateral trade relationship between any two countries on the planet.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the issue of the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States to the House for consideration. The Minister will be aware that in Northern Ireland, that relationship is worth £1.06 billion in investment commitments, with 7,700 new jobs having been secured by Invest Northern Ireland from US companies. That represents one third of all inward investment secured by Invest Northern Ireland. The US is the largest export market for Northern Ireland manufacturing companies after the Republic of Ireland, with more than $750 million of export business secured by Northern Ireland companies in the market in 2011-12. Its importance to the United Kingdom is great, but I suggest that its importance for Northern Ireland is even greater.

[Michael Fabricant]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which reinforces my point. Having worked with the BBC in Northern Ireland many years ago, I well understand his points. At state level, New York trades more with the United Kingdom than with any other US state. New York and the UK are inextricably bound together. If we believe that that is important for our economy, the Americans know how important it is for theirs, too. Let us not forget that the United States is the world’s largest economy, even after the economic crisis, and that British business is its biggest investor. UK investment in the US is 116 times greater than China’s investment in the US, 90 times greater than India’s, and 88 times greater than Brazil’s. We are almost back to 2008 levels, having suffered a global economic crisis, and we have overtaken Germany to become the US’s fifth largest trading partner.

If a special relationship were based on trade alone, the relationship between the UK and the US would be more than special, given those figures, but we know that the relationship enjoyed by our two countries is about more than just trade. Something pushes that trade. The figures I quoted should be shouted from the rooftops. We are not some minor mid-Atlantic island, as President Putin’s spokesman said, that the US flatters occasionally; we are its biggest investor and it is our biggest investor. That has happened not by accident, but because we are friends, because business and entrepreneurial endeavour thrive in our shared culture, and because we use a shared language, have a shared history, and use a shared common law. Those are not bygone assets of a long-forgotten empire or age, but real assets that we share, and which our people use to their advantage every second of every day.

Throughout the US, local radio stations and national public radio rebroadcast live BBC news for US listeners. The BBC’s news is considered to be as reliable, if not more reliable, than that of some domestic news broadcasters. Where else in the world would a nation routinely rebroadcast live news, which cannot be edited, from a so-called foreign power? Only the US does that with the BBC news.

Even the US national anthem owes much to Britain—perhaps more to Britain than to the US. That is not just because the words were written by an American, Francis Scott Key, as he witnessed, from the deck of a Royal Navy ship, the British bombardment of Baltimore—we all know that—but because the very tune of the “Star-Spangled Banner” was, in fact, a bawdy and popular London drinking song written by a Brit, John Stafford Smith, from Gloucester, and I mean Gloucester, England, not Gloucester, Massachusetts.

Here in the UK Parliament, we have tiles made by Minton in Stoke-on-Trent, and the US Congress has identical tiles. I was told that 20 or 30 years ago, when the tiles in the US Congress needed to be replaced, it contacted Minton. The people there said, “The order is not big enough for us to set up a manufacturing plant for the special manufacturing needed for the tiles,” so the Serjeants at Arms of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US Congress contacted the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Commons and Black Rod, as we archaically call him, in the House of Lords, and said, “Can we place a joint order for the tiles?” That was duly done. Of course, we must not forget that the US Congress and the new Palace of Westminster, as it is officially known, were built roughly at the same time, although in rather different styles.

As I say, the relationship is not only about history; there is the travel between the two countries. The routes between London Heathrow and John F. Kennedy international airport and Newark, serving New York, are the busiest air links between any two cities in the world, with close to 3 million people a year travelling between the two.

The alliance, however, goes way beyond being just financial and cultural: it extends to the protection of British and American citizens. The United Kingdom and the United States are the closest of allies militarily. Where else in the world would a country allow another to test its nuclear weapons on its territory? I am not talking about the UK allowing the United States to do so, but about the United States allowing Britain to test its Trident missiles in the Nevada desert.

British and American troops have fought side by side in almost every theatre for the past century, for the same cause and in the same spirit. British territory welcomes American servicemen as though they are our own—not as foreign soldiers, but as kindred spirits. When foot and mouth disease prevented the Royal Marine Corps performing exercises in the United Kingdom, the US Marine Corps invited its counterparts to train in Virginia. Those regular visits continue, and I am told that the Post Exchange is a darn sight cheaper than the NAAFI. Our network of intelligence sharing, military co-operation and joint diplomacy in the United Nations and elsewhere never ceases.

Perhaps the vote on Syria was surprising for those who question whether the special relationship is right, but the vote demonstrated, actually, just how close we are, and that we do not often take different decisions, because we have similar goals and a similar global view and aspirations. In the end, what did President Obama do? He followed in the footsteps of David Cameron and referred the matter to the US Congress. Despite the US having the constitution that Britain did in the 18th century, in which the President is Head of State, with what we would call the royal prerogative—the right to wage war—he, too, went to Congress seeking a vote, and he delayed it when he saw that Congress might well echo the will of Parliament across the ocean.

In conclusion, at every level of co-operation, the relationship that the United Kingdom shares with the United States is unprecedented between two countries. President Obama remarked, on a visit to Britain, that the relationship is the “essential” one, and do you know something? He is right. A million jobs on both sides of the Atlantic depend on it. The special relationship is economically, socially and historically beyond single events.

What I have aimed to do today is demonstrate that our two countries are as interlinked and as co-dependent as any the world has ever seen. Both countries benefit from that, and we should aim to build on that. The Prime Minister has shown his dedication to pushing for an EU-US free trade deal as soon as possible. That would increase trade by at least a further $100 billion, and even the US Congress has speculated on the many benefits to the United States if the UK were to enter the North American Free Trade Agreement—even if it meant that the UK would have to leave the EU. Sometimes, when people talk about these things, they think it is just madness on the British side. Actually, I do not think it is madness at all; I think it is a view of the future.

As a prop, Mr Dobbin, I raise this weighty document, which was published by the US Treasury in 2000, outlining the benefits to NAFTA if the United Kingdom were to join, and the effect on the UK if it meant that the UK would have to leave the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I had not intended to speak, but I was greatly encouraged by the comments of the hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and I felt that I should at least make a contribution. I want to refer to my constituency and to the special relationship that we have with the United States of America by being part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which makes us part of the debate.

When President Obama came to Northern Ireland for the G8 conference, I took note of some of his comments. The G8 conference was a showpiece for Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom. President Obama was proud to pinpoint his roots in the Republic of Ireland via his eighth cousin, and I believe that Northern Ireland has an important role to play as well. At the Waterfront hall in Belfast, President Obama spoke the following inspirational words, which emphasised the feeling of relationship between Northern Ireland and the United States of America:

“So our histories are bound by blood and belief, by culture and by commerce. And our futures are equally, inextricably linked.”

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

Is it not the case that the majority of American presidents who claim descent from Irishmen are, in fact, descended from Ulstermen?

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister must have read my notes. That is absolutely true: 17 of the 44 presidents of the United States of America can trace their ancestry to Northern Ireland, and four presidents who have Ulster Scots ancestry are still living. I am proud to be able to reiterate that fact.

As an Ulster Scot, I am proud of my ancestry and history. The hon. Member for Lichfield referred to culture, and I would like to touch on that point. I have visited the United States several times on holiday, but this year I visited in a different capacity, namely to speak at the Milwaukee Irish Fest. What is an Ulster Scot doing at Irish Fest? The event brings together different cultures and traditions, and Ulster Scots is very much part of that. I had the opportunity to advance the Unionist viewpoint and the Ulster Scots viewpoint.

When we look through the whole history of the United States, we in that wee province of ours within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can make that proud ancestral claim to 17 of the 44 presidents. Through the history of our relationship with the United States, we can claim many things, such as that some US musical interests largely came from Northern Ireland. The ancestors of Elvis Presley were Ulster Scots, so we as Ulster Scots can claim part of the musical cultural history in the United States. The NASCAR—National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing—car championships that we can sometimes watch on television was started by another Ulster Scot, although it probably began at a certain whisky-running time, which might be why the cars were so fast. Ulster Scots therefore have that ancestry and historical contact with the United States.

Some of the greatest US writers can also claim to be Ulster Scots and therefore part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as can be shown by their ancestry and history. The Ulster Scots—or the Scots-Irish, as they are often known in America—had generals in the armies of both sides in the American civil war. Ulster Scots, who are very much a fighting breed, contributed greatly to the United States through their pioneering traits, such as exploring and setting up cities and towns across the US. The relationship is therefore very strong.

The hon. Member for New Forest East commented that there was a difference in strategy on Syria, but that there was no difference on the need to do something. It is on record that I voted against going to war, because I felt that people were not ready for it and no longer had any appetite for it, but also that the best approach was what we are now doing. As the hon. Member for Lichfield said, it is interesting that what the Prime Minister decided to do is what the United States Government and the United Nations are doing. It is important that, in a way, we have arrived at the right place, although perhaps by taking a wee bit longer to get there.

As I said earlier, trade links with Northern Ireland and the United States have produced some 7,700 jobs for Northern Ireland in the past 10 years and are worth $750 million to our economy, so Northern Ireland’s industrial dependence and economic relationship with the United States is very important.

Other Members have mentioned the special relationship from having fought wars together. I never fail to put on the record my thanks to the United States of America, and its Government and people, for its contribution as, dare I say, the world’s policeman, taking its stand on many issues. On many occasions—indeed, on almost every occasion—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has stood alongside it in those battles, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the past couple of years, I have had opportunities to meet some American soldiers, and I always thank them, as well as our British soldiers, for what they do and have done all over the world, with their sacrifices in terms of life and energy, including by those physically and mentally injured and those traumatised by what they have seen. We thank the United States of America and its Government for taking such a stand and fighting on those issues.

John Kerry, the Secretary of State, has been referred to, but I think it is important to conclude with one of his comments:

“At its heart, the UK/US special relationship is an alliance of values of freedom and maintaining international peace and security, of making sure that we live in a rules-based world.”

He has therefore clearly put the special relationship on the record. He has also said that the

“US has no better partner than UK”.

We, too, should say that and put it on the record. It has been a pleasure to speak in the debate and to put on the record our thanks for the special relationship. We in Northern Ireland are very pleased to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to have that special relationship with the United States.

[Jim Dobbin (in the Chair)]

Not to be left out of the debate, I want to say that I, too, have some American cousins who live in Los Angeles.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on securing this debate on our bilateral relationship with the United States. It is an excellent topic, and one that is particularly relevant to me, as I have just returned from New York, where the world gathered the week before last for the UN General Assembly.

Mr Dobbin, I know that it is not customary to draw attention to those who may be in the Chamber’s Public Gallery, but I hope that you will indulge me and allow me to welcome His Excellency Matthew Barzun, if he is present, to the House of Commons; I understand that it is the first time he has been here. As my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), have pointed out, this is a morning debate, held on the day on which the House is returning from a lengthy recess for the party conferences, and the main Chamber does not sit until this afternoon, hence the poor attendance at this debate. I just say to the American ambassador, if he is attending this debate or listening to it in any way, that that is no reflection of parliamentarians’ interest in the US; nor is it an indication of complacency about the relationship. It is purely a question of timing and logistics. My hon. Friends were absolutely right to say that if the debate had taken place this afternoon, the chairs in Westminster Hall would have been filled, with Members making points that ranged far more widely than those that we have covered this morning.

Attendance or non-attendance by colleagues notwithstanding, it is true to say that the US remains our single most important bilateral ally. As we have heard this morning, we work as essential and valued partners in taking forward our shared objectives on a vast range of issues around the world. The relationship is crucial to our national security, our prosperity and our defence capability. It is a relationship from which the UK continues to benefit. We have heard historical allusions to the pre-war, first-world-war and post-war periods—my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East can always be relied on to educate and illuminate—and to Bevin. This alliance has been built up over a time stretching way beyond those periods, over generations.

There are few areas of activity in our national lives where we are not beneficially influenced by each other. Our histories are intertwined, and time and again, we have worked together in facing some of the world’s greatest challenges. We have stood side by side over the years, in good times and bad. Our diplomats and intelligence agencies are working together; our soldiers are serving together; our scientists are collaborating; and our businesses are trading together. The values of democracy, the rule of law and free markets have shaped our approach, and we continue to defend those values and advance our shared interests.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has previously characterised the relationship between the US and the UK as “solid but not slavish”. At its heart, the US-UK relationship is based on extensive historical, cultural and people-to-people links through our common language, our shared spirit of innovation and creativity and our popular culture and sport. Indeed, we have even heard about the increased exchange of television programmes. We have sent them “Downton Abbey” and, personally, I think we benefit from “Homeland”, but that is just my view. For followers of parliamentary proceedings I recommend the American version of “House of Cards” with Kevin Spacey, which I saw on a plane the other day; it is absolutely fantastic. The UK and US share much popular culture and sport, and our nations have always had a special affinity, which continues to grow.

An estimated 829,000 British citizens live in the United States, with some 180,000 US citizens living in the UK. More than 3.7 million Britons visited the US last year, and an estimated 2.8 million Americans visited the UK. Those incredible figures underline how ingrained the bond between our two countries is.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on his visit to Washington in May this year, the US-UK relationship is a “partnership without parallel.” During the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Washington in June, the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, characterised the bond between our countries as

“without question, an essential, if not the essential relationship”.

I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did not allude to the no doubt Irish antecedence of Secretary Kerry.

Our objectives have always been closely aligned, but as we have heard this morning, there will inevitably be occasions when the UK and the US do not agree. That does not mean that we defer to the US in a slavish, poodle-type way, though that is sometimes the charge. Indeed, the key to our relationship is our ability to maintain frank and open dialogue even when we disagree. That is rare among international partners, and I believe it is valued by both sides.

We work closely with the United States on the full spectrum of our foreign, defence and prosperity priorities. It would be impossible to list all the areas where we are working together, but I will highlight a few of them. On foreign policy, the United States and the United Kingdom have been at the forefront of international efforts to address the crisis in Syria. We are focused on getting the international community to unite to bring all sides together to achieve the political solution that is needed to end the conflict. We worked closely with the United States and others to ensure the passage of the recent groundbreaking Security Council resolution. Both the United Kingdom and the United States are also at the forefront of international efforts to alleviate the human suffering in Syria and the wider region in response to the more than 6 million people who have been displaced.

On the middle east peace process, negotiating a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an urgent foreign policy priority for both the United Kingdom and the United States. We welcome the United States-led efforts to revive the peace process, and particularly the focus that Secretary Kerry has brought to bear on the issues in recent months. We very much welcome his knowledge of and commitment to the area. We have given our full backing to those efforts, including through support for the economic package that will form part of any solution.

More broadly, we continue to work with the United States to play a leading role in international institutions. We co-ordinate positions at every level, including in the United Nations Security Council as members of the P5 group of permanent members, and within the G8, the G20 and NATO. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently announced that the United Kingdom will host the NATO summit in 2014—incidentally, a year when the people of Scotland will have a chance to vote on whether they wish to stay part of the United Kingdom, a decision that will have huge implications for the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent and the location thereof. The Scottish people need to be apprised of the implications of that vote, and they need to think very carefully about them when they vote in the referendum.

Earlier this year, we worked closely on the outcomes of our presidency of the G8, which I am glad to say was down on the beautiful shores in Fermanagh. We focused on the “three Ts” agenda—trade, tax and transparency. The United States was particularly supportive of the transparency element, and vocally backed the UK’s proposal in G8 discussions at official and political level. Within the G20, there is also excellent contact between the UK and US sherpa offices.

As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East concentrated the majority of his speech on intelligence and defence matters—subjects on which he has an almost unequalled reputation in this House. As he said, the defence relationship has for decades been one of the foundations of the UK-US partnership. We have fought together in six major campaigns over the past 20 years. Much has been made of Winston Churchill, and I suppose it does not need to be said that if there was ever an embodiment of the special relationship it is he, not least because half of him was most decidedly American. He brought to British politics an American angle and perspective that other politicians at the time certainly lacked, and we were the beneficiaries.

The strategies, policies and plans of the United Kingdom and the United States are well aligned. UK and US forces are now more interoperable than ever, and we have worked effectively together to find solutions to the challenges that we face in our operational environments. We are focused on sustaining that close bilateral defence relationship as we plan the draw-down in Afghanistan.

The threats we face today require a much broader security relationship. Through our unique and indispensible relationship in the fields of intelligence, cyber and counter-terrorism, we work together to protect the people of our countries and their prosperity. The counter-terrorism relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is vital to the protection of UK interests at home and overseas from the threats posed by al-Qaeda and allied terrorist groups. The United States remains our most important partner in that field.

On prosperity, I am grateful for the fact that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) has established an all-party group on European Union-United States trade and investment. He led a Back-Bench debate on the importance of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership back in July. Simply, the US is our primary partner on prosperity; we have heard various figures bandied around this morning. Our close collaboration in the wake of the financial crisis has been important in supporting the progress we have made since 2010 to address the deficit and debt and to support economic recovery, jobs and growth. As we have heard, the United States remains the largest investor in the UK, and the UK is the US’s No. 1 investment destination in Europe.

The relationship will be further strengthened as the EU and the US embark on the largest and most significant free-trade deal in history—the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. A comprehensive deal could be worth up to £10 billion to the UK economy and will reinvigorate the global free-trade agenda. A deal that boosts the economies of both the EU and the US, as our biggest trading network, is strongly in our interests. As announced by the Deputy Prime Minister when he was in Washington on 24 September, a recent study shows that every US state, including New York, would benefit from EU-US free-trade agreements, and that is not to be dismissed lightly.

The hon. Member for Shannon—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Strangford talked about US investment in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

I am happy to be the Member for Strangford, and I have no wish to be the Member for Shannon in the Republic of Ireland.

[Mr Swire]

Indeed. We were having a cross-border discussion earlier, so I got confused between Strangford, Shannon and the hon. Gentleman’s name. He knows me well and I know him well, as I served as the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office for two and a half years.

I am glad to say that I understand that His Excellency the American ambassador has already visited Northern Ireland. We very much welcome the interest shown in the Northern Ireland peace process by successive American Presidents alongside British Prime Ministers. Equally, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister not long ago had a successful trip to the United States to attract inward investment. That relationship is incredibly important, too.

Achieving all those objectives in and with the United States is important. We have a high-performing network of posts across the United States. As well as the embassy in Washington, we have nine consulates-general, one consulate and a UK Government office in Seattle.

Syria

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

As the Prime Minister made very clear at the time, because we wanted to consult the House at the earliest opportunity about a huge crisis. We did consult the House and the House gave an answer to that in not approving the Government motion, but that is why the House was recalled. Hon. Members have often advocated recalling the House in order to debate something at an early opportunity. Despite being new, the hon. Gentleman might find that he is doing that at some stage in the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Prior to any action taking place, what discussion has he had with other Governments in the region, in particular Israel, who have serious concerns about chemical weapons?

[Mr Hague]

We will want to consult all nations in the region. Israel has long-standing concerns, of course, about Syria’s chemical weapons stocks, and for very good reason. I believe that it and, I hope, all nations in the region would be supportive of a reliable, credible agreement for the securing and destruction of those weapons stocks, but it will be important for the permanent members of the Security Council and others to consult all the nations in the region.

Colombia

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate, which follows on from the point of order that I made exactly two weeks ago. I also point out that today is the three-year anniversary of the imprisonment of human rights defender, David Rabelo.

While the global community has understandably been focused on the horrific events in Syria, the actions of the Government of Colombia sadly continue to go unnoticed, despite an escalation in their oppression of the Colombian people in recent weeks.

In letters and meetings, we are asked to believe that the Colombian Government have changed for the better and that Colombia has a President who wants to end the war with the guerrillas, bring peace to his country and move his nation forward. I welcome and wholeheartedly support the peace talks. However, I am disappointed to see that in recent months, President Santos and his Ministers have reverted to the tactics used under former President Uribe’s Government of accusing any opposition groups of being linked to terrorism and brutally repressing social protest. Following the public relations campaign of the past year or so, during which President Santos has travelled around to meet world leaders, many of us are afraid that the mask has slipped and that we are seeing the real President Santos.

The ambassador to the UK, Mauricio Rodriguez Munera, has tried to convince me that things are getting better in Colombia: that one fewer death means progress and that one fewer disappearance is a good thing. Despite the positive rhetoric, more than 250 civil society activists have been murdered since President Santos came to power and countless people have been imprisoned by the Colombian authorities on the weakest or indeed non-existent evidence. Questions were raised about the Colombian Government’s commitment to justice for victims when we saw the recent military justice reforms, which led to further impunity for military crimes and about which the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have raised concerns.

I believe President Santos when he says that he wants to succeed in the peace talks. However, there is a contradiction in negotiating with the FARC, which is on the point of political participation, while at the same time denouncing trade unionists and civil rights activists as terrorists. That does not create a political climate that is conducive to democracy and peace. I know that there are serious opponents to the Government’s peace process, not least former President Uribe, but instead of appeasing those extremists, a strong commitment to peace and democracy needs to be shown.

The ambassador and the Colombian Government should not be surprised at our scepticism. After all, President Santos was the Secretary of State for Defence under President Uribe. As Defence Secretary, he presided over the perverse and sickening incentive scheme that was designed to reward military personnel for the guerrilla body count. My scepticism was reinforced when President Santos responded to the so-called “false positives” scandal by changing the law to give immunity to military personnel. That was just incredible. Yes, it can confound our scepticism when we see President Santos negotiating with the FARC to find a peaceful end to the conflict, but he undoes that good by eradicating any opposition by denouncing trade unionists and civil rights activists as terrorists.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a very important issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Colombian Government’s policy of land grabs and removing land from the peasant population is further inflaming the situation in Colombia?

[Robert Flello]

The hon. Gentleman is correct that that causes further problems. I know that indigenous people are still having their lands taken.

The politicians, trade unionists, activists and media commentators that President Santos denounces are not terrorists, but he knows beyond doubt that it is effectively a death sentence to say that they are. Yet still he does it. Is it any wonder that I and others are sceptical?

I will turn my attention to the events of recent weeks. As a result of the west’s unending drive towards profit without conscience, the US-Colombia and EU-Colombia trade agreements have been put in place with very weak labour and human rights conditions. Trade agreements already disadvantage poor peasant farmers in Colombia, so it is not surprising that they have been protesting. It is estimated that approximately 250,000 peasant farmers have protested, despite the dangers they know they face.

How have President Santos’s Government responded in recent weeks? At least 10 people are dead, more than 800 are wounded and 512 people have been arrested, including 45 children. A curfew was imposed and 50,000 troops were put on to the streets of the country to crack down on strike action. The social movements have said that this amounts to an undeclared state of siege, with demobilised right-wing paramilitaries used to attack demonstrators. However, the peasant farmers have been joined in their protests by health workers and students. Video evidence shows horrific beatings, torture, systematic vandalism and theft of the few possessions and food owned by the peasant farmers by the police. Human rights organisations have catalogued sexual abuse, torture, degrading treatment, beatings, indiscriminate use of tear gas and rubber bullets, and intimidation. As a result of this unchecked state violence, the people of Bogota came out on to the streets in their thousands.

On 29 August, President Santos made a speech putting the blame on the protesters, and sent in the ESMAD riot police. In the same speech, he smeared the Patriotic March movement, knowing full well that it would put them in danger. This followed his public statements about the June protest in Catatumbo, which lead to four protesters being killed.

NIZKOR, a collective of high profile and respected human rights organisations in Colombia, has catalogued the appalling behaviour of the riot police. It reported that ESMAD has been acting in the Boyaca department as an occupying army that has supplanted civilian authority and committed systematic, generalised and indiscriminate violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, as well as acts of vandalism and the excessive use of force. The following are just some issues it has reported: indiscriminate shooting of police-issue weapons against the population; sexual abuse of youths by police agents, as well as repeated threats to sexually abuse women, partners and daughters of the peasants; acts of torture and other mistreatment that involve the arbitrary use of tear gas in enclosed spaces, including in nurseries with 3 to 6-year-old children inside, as well as the use of elements projected or applied to the bodies of the inhabitants; attacks against helpless youths and minors, who are taken from the demonstrations and assaulted while alone; the indiscriminate firing of tear gas from helicopters over gatherings of people; the arbitrary invasion of homes of peasants and the destruction of their property; the identification, false accusation, persecution and threatening of leaders of the agriculture strike in Boyaca; mass arbitrary arrests of demonstrators; looting, theft of money and other common crimes committed by the security forces while accompanied by the investigative police, even in the capital of the department; the occupation of institutions protected under international humanitarian law such as the Pan-American Educational Institute, the New Bolivarian school and the Paloblanco school, all in Boyaca; and the use of ambulances for the transport of members of ESMAD, the riot police, which in itself constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

The Government have assured us that there will be no impunity for servicemen. I raised this with the deputy Defence Minister, Jorge Bedoya, during his visit to the UK in March and we will continue to press the case.

The UK is fully engaged on a range of human rights issues on the ground. Our embassy works with local NGOs and the Colombian Government on a number of projects, whose aims have ranged from increasing access to protection measures for human rights defenders to raising awareness of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. Our embassy in Bogota will support a project to analyse risks around next year’s parliamentary and presidential elections and to increase transparency.

Our engagement with Colombia on these issues forms part of a rich and diverse bilateral relationship.

[Jim Shannon]

On the elections, is the Minister aware of any independent observers who will be monitoring the elections to ensure that they are free, democratic and without restrictions?

[Mr Swire]

My default position on elections, wherever they are, is that there should be international observers. In my role as Commonwealth Minister and Minister with responsibility for Latin America, Asia and south-east Asia, I am constantly arguing that where there are questions of transparency, people who are respected should be invited from the international community to observe elections. If there is nothing to hide, all that does is validate the elections. So I would suggest to anyone that they invite in election observers. It is a good rule.

Colombia is an increasingly important commercial partner, offering real opportunities for British companies. We are working with UK industry and the Colombian Government to ensure that British businesses are in a strong position to win contracts. We make no apology for that at all. Unlike the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, we regard trade agreements, such as the EU-Andean free trade agreement with Colombia and Peru, as important for economic growth and prosperity in developed and developing countries. I believe that these free trade agreements will eventually benefit all the people, including those living in the most remote areas, the farmers and so on. It takes a little time and it is painful, but that is where we disagree philosophically about free trade.

The UK pushed hard for a legally binding human rights clause in the agreement, which is consistent with our policy to have a frank dialogue with Colombia and Peru on human rights. We strongly encourage British companies to respect human rights in places where they do business. That applies internationally. The UK’s action plan on business and human rights, launched by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 4 September, sends a clear message to British firms about the standards expected of them overseas. In May, we part-funded a major event in Colombia on implementing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and we are now working with the Colombian Government as they create a national strategy of their own.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for securing today’s debate.

Human Rights (Commonwealth)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on bringing the matter of human rights before us for consideration in the Chamber. It is a great privilege to be able to comment on it in the time I have. I specifically want to focus on the right to religious freedom and liberty, which has increasingly been denied to those who profess the Christian faith throughout the world. Members have referred to the Commonwealth charter. Words mean nothing without action, and this debate is all about action to follow the words of many people on the matter. In introducing the debate, the hon. Lady referred to religious liberties, as others have, and I want to focus on that issue.

The national director of Aid to the Church in Need UK, Neville Kyrke-Smith, has cited research stating that 75% of all religious hatred in the world is directed against Christians. He has referred to 200 million Christians facing discrimination and 100,000 being killed each year for their faith. I am aware, Mr Gray—you will keep me right on this one—that “Human Rights in the Commonwealth” is the title of the debate, so I shall focus my contribution on the Commonwealth and its countries. There certainly continues to be a denial of the right to religious freedom, and subsequent persecution of Christians, in those countries, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be more proactive in addressing that. The Open Doors 2013 world watch list is shocking. Nine out of the top 50 persecuted areas are Commonwealth countries, so clearly, Commonwealth countries have a job to do. I find the situation disturbing in the extreme.

In the top 10, there is the Maldives, which is well known as a holiday destination. I shall not mention the person’s name, but one of my constituents is in the Maldives this week. He is a Christian who goes to my church, and if he reads his Bible in the Maldives and people know about it, he will be arrested. He will be deported, and probably thrown in prison, and have all sorts of actions taken against him. Open Doors records:

“This is the only country in the world which requires all citizens to be Muslim. Conversion to another faith is prohibited by law and converts face extreme pressure from family and society—often having to leave the country. The authorities exert extensive control on the people to correct any deviation from Islam. There are no church gatherings or buildings. Religion is moving towards Deobandi Islam—the religion of the Taliban, whose mission is to cleanse Islam of all other influences. There are very few indigenous believers.”

Will the Minister tell us what has been done, from his office, to influence Commonwealth countries and specifically the Maldives to allow the basic right to religious freedom? What protection is given to people, and what action and responses have there been?

Referring to Nigeria and particularly Nigeria north, Open Doors said:

“The Islamist agenda to bring Nigeria under the ‘House of Islam’ versus the election of a southern Christian as President has caused much unrest. The Islamist group, Boko Haram, has claimed the lives of at least 800 Christians”—

we cannot deny the extremity and brutality of the violence there has been.

“The decisions of local government, especially in the twelve northern Sharia states, mean that Christians experience restrictions in schooling, threats of abduction, forced marriage”—

there has been violence against women, as hon. Ladies have referred to in their contributions—

“as well as denial of employment, clean water and health care. It is dangerous to convert and for churches to integrate new converts.”

Some of the stories that have come from that country are awful and abhorrent.

What has Great Britain done to influence the situation? Have we given any support on the ground to Christians in the area? I hope that we have, through the Foreign Office and through Ministers. If we have not, what are we doing? Have we advocated religious freedom? If we have not so far, why not? If I sign my name to something in the House, I always intend, as other Members do, to take it right through to the end. I am keen to find out what we have done, as a Government and a nation, on behalf of Christians, who are the silent minority in many countries. We cannot remain silent, and I ask the Minister to begin to address the issue through whatever means are diplomatically permissible.

Time does not permit me to go on too long. However, I would like to take the time to highlight the fact that of the seven countries that are applying for Commonwealth status, three are in the watch list of the top 50 countries for Christian persecution—Algeria, Sudan and the Yemen. Will the Minister pledge today that those applications will not succeed unless each country takes major steps to see an end to the persecution of Christians and to allow complete religious freedom for all?

When I look at Commonwealth countries and understand that they make up almost a third of the population of the world, at 2.2 billion people, I am reminded of my history lessons. History was one of the subjects at school that I liked—it was probably the only one that I excelled at, to be honest. I am interested in history, and particularly the history of the Victorian era. Under Queen Victoria, Britain ruled a third of the world. It was said that the sun never set on the British empire, because of the vastness of what Britain controlled. Although I am fully aware that membership of the Commonwealth does not equate to that in any way, it does equate to some form of influence. I believe that we must step up and use our influence to ensure that there are human rights and religious freedom for all, in every area of the Commonwealth.

When Queen Victoria was asked the secret of the empire’s success, she said:

“Tell your prince that this book is the secret of England’s greatness.”

She was referring to the Bible. I believe that the freedom to worship will also be what the success of the Commonwealth is about, and I fully support the views that other Members have put forward today.

Charitable Support Work Romanian Orphanages)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House an issue that has, surprisingly, been subject to very few debates over the years, namely the plight of Romanian orphans, children and young adults living in institutions and, in particular, the charitable support work for them over many years.

Few of us will ever forget the awful images in the 1990s of the horrors of Romanian orphanages, which were exposed following the collapse of the Ceausescu regime in 1989. The world was stunned by the television and newspaper images of half-starved, abandoned children tied to their beds. Aid agencies rushed to help and Governments throughout the world condemned what they saw. I am sure that many Members will know someone who answered the call to offer help to those children and young adults. One such person was a constituent of mine, a lady called Linda Barr.

Although we called the institutions in the images orphanages, the reality was that most of the children in them had parents, but those parents were simply not able to afford to feed and care for their large families. The aim of the Ceausescu regime had been to increase the population of Romania to 30 million by 2000, with women required by law to have at least four children—a number that was later increased to five. Families who had fewer than three children were taxed heavily. That policy weighed heavily on the Romanian nation, and the long-lasting consequences of such a policy cannot easily be rectified.

The orphanages were staffed by the minimum number of people required to keep the institution operational, but no consideration was given to the developmental needs of the children. Children in the institutions grew up without any mental stimulation or physical activity, without any loving human touch and often without sufficient food, clothing or health care.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I spoke to him earlier about my intervention. He has mentioned the number of charitable organisations. Does he recognise the good work done by churches in my constituency, such as my own Baptist church in Newtownards, and many others across the United Kingdom, which made immense contributions to help the Romanian children?

[Mr Brown]

Absolutely. I fully recognise that. That is not really a debate I wish to have this evening, but I recognise everything that was done by communities throughout the UK and further afield. Charities from other countries wanted to help the plight of Romanian children and young people at the time and they still do that work.

For the young adults, the consequence of growing up in state institutions has been an even more difficult adult life. Upon reaching adulthood, most of them were unprepared for jobs or higher education. Some former orphans joined the military or entered the secret service and some attempted to fit into society, but most found themselves homeless. It should be recognised that post-Ceausescu, great improvements were made by the authorities and support for the children and young adults came from many parts. The improvements were made possible in no small measure by the work of the many organisations and charities that developed within Romania and across the world, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned.

In my area, Linda Barr, who has worked with children and young adults in Romania for more than 20 years, along with her colleagues in the health service, set up the Dumfries Hospitals Romanian Support Group and then established the RAP Foundation. I know that the Minister is very much aware of the work of the foundation. It has successfully developed direct working links with colleagues in Romania to advance the education of children and young people with disabilities in the country, particularly in Bucharest, and to relieve their suffering and distress.

In July 2007, the foundation officially opened its first supported accommodation apartment, providing a family-style home for four young people: Aurel, Florin, Razvan and Virgil. The foundation works with its project partner, the Romanian Angel Appeal, and other agencies to support the apartment and to develop similar projects.

For 17 years, the foundation has arranged for children and young adults from Bucharest to go on seaside holidays of a lifetime on the Black sea coast. However, as the Minister is aware from the correspondence that I have sent him, this year’s holiday was in danger of not going ahead. It would appear that because concern was expressed by members of the foundation and others over the treatment of a number of young people with disabilities in the Gheorghe Serban district of Bucharest, the general directorate of social assistance and child protection of sector 2 sought to put in place what can only be described as a number of hurdles to prevent this year’s holiday from taking place. It delayed agreeing to the holiday to the extent that the original bookings had to be cancelled. It demanded that the RAP Foundation be registered as a “provider of social assistance”, even though its work as a sponsor does not require such registration and despite its long-standing collaboration with the Romanian Angel Appeal, which is a well-known non-governmental organisation working in Romania that is registered as a “provider of social assistance”. The general directorate also sought to block members of the RAP Foundation from attending the holiday as volunteers.

Due to the foundation’s persistence and, I have no doubt, the work of the British embassy in Romania after I raised the issue with the Minister, a way was found to allow the holiday to go ahead this year. I place on the record my thanks to the Minister and the British ambassador and his staff for their assistance. This year’s holiday was another major success for the young people, but it was not without its difficulties. Sadly, this is the second year in which the RAP Foundation has found the authorities in Sector 2 unwilling to be co-operative. It saddens me to say that when the young people eventually set off on this year’s holiday, the comment was made that it seemed as if it was the first time that many of the young people had been out in the fresh air since the previous year’s holiday.

I recognise that the mayor and the director general of sector 2 are upset and angry at the documentary shown on Romanian Antena 3, “The Irrecuperable Romania – Bucharest”, which was broadcast on national television in May of this year, but there was absolutely no need for them to accuse members of the RAP Foundation, through media releases, of having “occult intentions” or to say that

“the Scots should go home and look after their own sick people”.

I do not know many of those involved with the RAP Foundation, but I assure the Minister that I would trust those I do know implicitly. Two local people, Linda Barr and John Glover, have both received awards through the honours system for their charitable work.

Former employees of one of the homes told members of the foundation that severely disabled young people are kept tied to their beds, and many are showing signs of severe malnutrition. Beatings and other forms of physical and mental abuse were also described—I really thought we had got past what we witnessed under Ceausescu. Examples are given of residents lying on their backs and being force fed by nurses. Patients’ mouths are open while food is stuffed in so quickly that they try desperately to resist. Two female residents have recently died of pneumonia in the institution after allegedly being denied emergency medical care.

After having viewed what was televised, Professor Michael Kerr, professor of learning disability, psychiatry and honorary consultant in neuropsychiatry at Cardiff university, provided his independent professional opinion:

“All the individuals with a disability seen on camera appear to be seriously, most probably dangerously, underweight. Such a degree of underweight needs urgent assessment as it is associated with a very high mortality. As all the individuals show such underweight there must be serious concerns that the cause is systemic. That is related to dietary practices or environmental stress.”

Professor Kerr recommended an urgent assessment be made by specialists outside the current care team and said:

“In fact, refusal of entry to such assessors would simply increase the gravity of my concern”.

The RAP Foundation has funded all the work it has undertaken in Romania over these years, and has never at any time sought financial support from the authorities in Romania. It is funded through charitable donations raised from people of all ages who live in Scotland and south Wales. What is so distressing is that after the Ceausescu regime, the country made significant progress, so much so that in September 2005, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, the European Parliament’s rapporteur for Romania, went so far as to claim:

“Romania has profoundly reformed—”

from top to bottom—

“its child protection system and has evolved from one of the worst systems in Europe to one of the best.”

In an accession report published prior to November 2005, European Union observers were positive regarding the child care system in Romania.

The Minister has indicated that he would be prepared to meet representatives of the RAP Foundation, and I suspect they would wish to take up such an offer if it is made. The foundation is delighted at the progress that it and so many other charities have been part of over the years, to bring a better quality of life to children and young people resident in those orphanages and institutions. It is worrying, however, that after all the progress, excellent work and support experienced in other parts of Romania, the Gheorghe Serban sector is not being as open as many organisations would wish it to be.

This debate was secured by me with a degree of reluctance, and I recognise that our Government have no control over what happens in institutions in any other country. I hope, however, that the Minister will recognise that all that is being requested by many charities, and the RAP Foundation in particular, of authorities in the Gheorghe Serban sector of Bucharest, is for them to be open and allow an independent team to look at what is happening within the facilities under their control. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope he will be in a position to report back to the House on this matter in the coming months.

National Parliaments and the EU

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ms Stuart]

I fear to tread on the subject of the European Scrutiny Committee in the hon. Gentleman’s presence, because I know I would get it wrong. I would also rather rely on his intervening to tell the Chamber about the Committee’s work. It is significant that last night it was agreed that the negotiating positions had to be brought back to Parliament, but we all know that we are still only talking to each other in Committee Rooms rather than on the Floor of the House.

What would really improve national Parliaments? I am caught between a rock and a hard place, because I do not want national Parliaments to become separate institutions within the architectural framework of the EU. The EU has the Commission and the Council, but national Parliaments provide the majorities to form the Governments that send Ministers to the Council. There is, however, a little-known organisation that is known only to those who have been to some of its meetings—COSAC, which is the conference of European scrutiny committees.

Ten years ago, I was trying to broker a deal in that working group between national Parliaments so that COSAC would be strengthened in the red and yellow card system, but for that the MEPs would have had to leave COSAC. It is difficult for COSAC to arrive at a decision, because there are, say, four representatives from each country, two from the Government and two from the Opposition. If there is a coalition Government, in our case the representatives could be a Tory, a Lib Dem and two Labour Members, so there are probably three views among the four representatives. Consensus then has to be reached across 27 or 28 countries within extremely tight time limits. What then happens is that MEPs are the only people who are sufficiently united in their view and who caucus—they are usually united in the view that the European Parliament is good and national Parliaments are bad. The card system will not work unless the national Parliaments that exercise the veto have a network to talk to each other. If that network has an in-built number of MEPs who can outvote the national parliamentarians, it simply will not work. I do not know whether it is possible to change the job that COSAC does in such a way, but we will see.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am following the hon. Lady’s remarks carefully. She refers to scrutiny as a key issue, but in Strangford, which has an agricultural and fishing base, it is not scrutiny that we want but changes in legislation to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. Does she feel that we can change things through the scrutiny that she refers to? If we cannot change things, scrutiny is no good.

[Ms Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman has gone to the nub of the matter. We need to decide what we think the role of national Parliaments is. Is it only to scrutinise? If so, we need to widen the base so that more Members take part more regularly. Or is it to get Governments to change their decisions at times? I think that it needs to be the latter, but a number of things have to happen to allow that. Early information is key.

We also need information about how people actually act in the Council of Ministers. I have sat in the Council of Ministers, and I know that there is rarely a vote. If there is, it is seen as a failure by the civil servants that they have allowed the situation to arise. They do a head count to see whether they have a qualified majority, and if they do not think they will get the decision they want, they give in gracefully.

That takes me to what really needs to change. We need a proper Europe Minister. That is not to cast any aspersions on the current Europe Minister, but the position is a fallacy. Why are matters involving the European Union, which deals essentially with domestic legislation, placed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Numerous Governments have tried at times to get the Europe function out of the Foreign Office. From what I gather, the trade union of Foreign Office Ministers usually gets together and it does not happen, but there is a question to be addressed there.

If the Europe Minister is in the Foreign Office and makes decisions and strikes bargains regularly, they might say, “There’s an idea here that affects agriculture on which we want some compromise”, or it might be on cigarette advertising, the working hours of junior doctors or any number of issues on which we can get a deal. Such deals are struck across various Departments. At that level of political bargaining, the House has no ability to scrutinise, take a role or even know what happens. We are simply given the end results. A Europe Minister should have accountability for our permanent representative in Brussels, UKRep, which does all those dealings, and be answerable to the House of Commons for the bargains struck. There was a stage when a previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, seriously envisaged such a role, but for whatever reason it did not happen.

I can hear the outcry: “You can’t politicise UKRep!” I am not saying that I would do it the way that the Finns do it, for example—they call their civil servant before them every Friday morning—but Select Committees can call civil servants. There could be a regular slot for UKRep representatives when they come on a Friday to brief Whitehall Departments about what they have done. They could stay until the Monday morning or come on the Thursday afternoon to give evidence. If we do not want to do it at the civil service level—actually, I would rather do it at the political level—there should be a Minister who is answerable to the House across Whitehall Departments for negotiations, compromises and deals struck in Brussels. It would be such a far-reaching brief that the Minister would almost function as a Deputy Prime Minister.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady makes a very important and fundamental point. That is why this Bill is so significant and deserves the widespread support of Members of this House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Dodds]

I will not give way any more because I want to make progress. I am conscious that others still wish to speak.

We are here on a Friday having to go through this process for all the reasons that we understand. One of the reasons is that the promises and pledges that have been made in the past by Front Benchers of the main parties have not been followed through on. Therefore, people are looking not just for a promise or a pledge but for some kind of guarantee enshrined in legislation. Of course we know that this Parliament cannot bind a successor Parliament, but that applies to every aspect of legislation—to every Act that is ever passed. However, a guarantee enshrined in legislation will make it a lot harder for any incoming Prime Minister of whatever party to have—I was going to say the courage—the audacity to come before the House and say, “We’re going to repeal the right of the people to have a referendum under the Act that was passed”, as I hope that it will be as a result of this initiative.

In 1975, 67% of voters in this country chose to remain within the Common Market—a union which we were told at that time was more about co-operation between European nations on trade. However, today we view an EU landscape that is vastly changed—so much so that, as a senior Labour peer recently noted, the mandate secured by the Government in 1975

“belongs to another time and another generation.”

Over the past three decades, there has been a steady transfer of powers from our sovereign Parliament here at Westminster to the corridors and back alleys of Brussels—a process that still continues on a weekly and monthly basis, inexorably and inevitably, in the pursuit of the goal of ever-closer political union.

This change has not been abstract. It is not detached from the day-to-day realities of everyday life; it has been hard felt by people living in every region of the United Kingdom. How often do business people come to us complaining about the red tape and regulations that emanate from the EU? How many times do we hear complaints about untrammelled immigration from EU countries as we no longer have the power effectively to control our own borders? I could mention a number of other policy areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman is right. If passed, the Bill will trigger a debate throughout the nation and give the British public an opportunity to make that informed decision. The debate has already started in this Chamber today. Millions of people across the country will be watching and listening, and will have heard valuable and critical contributions, such as the speech from the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).

[Jim Shannon]

On the subject of giving people choice, the fishing industry has felt the brunt of EU legislation and red tape—more so than other sectors. As European bureaucracy continues to strangle and choke the fishing industry, my constituents in Strangford, particularly in the fishing port of Portavogie, will want the chance to say no in a referendum—this is what we want to see.