Rohingya Community (Burma)
Anne Main Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) is in his position and the Minister has also returned from the Division, so we will go ahead with the debate, which will now finish at five minutes past 10—10 minutes past 5. Oh dear, it has been a long day.
Jonathan Ashworth
As I was saying, when I last secured a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall in September 2012, it was on the back of ugly sectarian violence in Rakhine between the Buddhist community and the Muslim Rohingya people. At that time, tens of thousands of the Rohingya community were being displaced. In Sittwe, for example, the Rohingya people were driven out of their homes, and there were reports at the time of mobs burning down houses. Indeed, various non-governmental organisations, such as Human Rights Watch, reported that the police and other paramilitary forces had opened fire with live ammunition on members of the Rohingya community.
I am sure that Members will recall that the tensions at that time were exacerbated by the suggestion by the Burmese President at the height of the crisis about handing over the Rohingya community to the UN high commissioner for refugees until they could be resettled in some third country.
As I remember, in that earlier debate all Members who contributed spoke out against the Burmese regime and we all would have hoped for some progress. However, today in Rakhine there are still 140,000 Rohingya living in squalid temporary camps, which are routinely described by agencies as being among the worst refugee camps in the world. Basic necessities such as food, clean water and health care are scarce; job opportunities for the Rohingya are virtually non-existent; and often the Rohingya are banned from leaving the camps by security services. Those Rohingya who leave those camps illegally often travel to Thailand and Malaysia, but they often end up as the victims of human traffickers. The Arakan Project found that in November alone, nearly 12,000 Rohingyas fled Rakhine state. Since 2012, a total of around 80,000 Rohingyas have fled Burma by boat.
The picture remains depressing for that part of the world. I will cite a few more statistics that I came across while doing my research for this debate. Today, 70% of the Rohingya still have no access to safe water or sanitation services; in some Rohingya districts, there is just one doctor per 160,000 people; only 2% of Rohingya women give birth in a hospital; and 44% of the population of Rakhine state live below the poverty line, which is almost 20% higher than the average figure in most parts of Burma.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Anne Main Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Neill
The hon. Lady, whom I have known for many years as a fellow London MP, is infinitely better in touch with her voters than the leadership of her party. I have to say—and I do not mean any discourtesy here—that I am rather glad she is not part of the leadership of her party, because she would be a much greater threat to us than the current leadership is. She is absolutely right. What I find, representing a London constituency, is that people often forget that Londoners, who are part of a cosmopolitan, diverse and open city, none the less believe it is time for us to look again at our relationship with our European neighbours. The hon. Lady is absolutely right; her analysis is spot-on.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree—he said this earlier—that many people say, “I might have voted for the EC, but I would not vote for this”? I think that people are entitled to say that they would like to have a vote again, because they may well have changed their opinions. They may not, but we should at least offer them the choice because what is now on the table is a very different animal.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I voted previously, I had campaigned to stay in what was then the European Community. I think that many people who voted for membership then would say that the world is very different now, the consequences are very different, and the pressures that have been placed on British business and a raft of our institutions are entirely different, and it is fair and legitimate to ask again. The greatest danger to our long-term relationship with the EU and to long-term business investment would be if we were in a construct that did not preserve our fundamental interests—the fundamental interests of our businesses and, for example, of London as the great world financial pole—and that did not preserve our right to develop our trade links with developing markets in China, India and Brazil, areas where, interestingly, the EU has singularly failed, as yet, to establish proper free-trading agreements. If we did not have a situation recognising the particular circumstances of the UK—rather than pretending all is happy and well in the garden—that would damage long-term legitimacy and would damage business investment and confidence over the long term.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on achieving third place in the ballot and on introducing this Bill to the Chamber again.
Labour believes that any judgment about a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union has to be based on what is in the national interest. We do not believe that a Bill calling for an in/out referendum in 2017 on an arbitrary date unrelated to the likely timetable of major treaty change, putting jobs and investment in Britain at risk, is in our national interest. That is why Labour does not support this Bill. Instead, Labour will legislate in government for a lock that guarantees that there cannot be any transfer of powers from Britain to the European Union without an in/out referendum.
The promoter of the Bill answered the question from the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) by saying that the Bill is about trust. Let us deal with that issue directly. This Bill has not been brought before the House because the Prime Minister suddenly woke up with a democratic impulse or because Conservative Back Benchers trust the public; it is being debated because Conservative Back Benchers do not trust the Prime Minister.
Mrs Main
If the right hon. Gentleman does not support the Bill, and given that with some Liberal Democrat colleagues Labour Members could defeat it, why are they abstaining and allowing their cronies in the House of Lords to do their dirty work? Why do they not put their vote where their mouth is on this question?
Mr Alexander
With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, she has never been my lodestar of political judgment, and I therefore think that Labour Members shall make the judgments in relation to the legislative passage of any Bill.
This Bill is being presented for a second time.
Mr Alexander
I want to make some progress.
Earlier this year, Sir Richard Branson said, in no uncertain terms, that
“the last thing the UK should do is leave”
the EU,
“as it would then have no say on how to improve it and make it more productive for all countries involved.”
Mrs Main
I hope so, too: I will take your guidance on that, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are talking about whether we should have a choice, not about the nuances of what businesses think would happen if we were to leave the EU. Nobody is proposing to leave today. Is it in order for the shadow Foreign Secretary to major on the debate in that way?
Mr Deputy Speaker
It is for the Chair, as you, as a member of the Panel of Chairs well know, to make that decision. That is not a point of order.
Mr Alexander
I have been generous in giving way, so let me make a little progress.
Since we debated the last version of this Bill, the European context has altered. First, the prospect that the Prime Minister hoped for rather forlornly at the time of his speech to Bloomberg—that major treaty change by 2017 would be inevitable—has receded. That is an uncomfortable truth. Secondly, the economic concerns that have been expressed by John Cridland, Sir Richard Branson and many others across the British business community have endured. Thirdly, we have to have the humility to recognise, as was pointed out in an earlier intervention, that there is politics at work in the Bill, and the politics has moved on since the Bill was last debated as well.
Since we last debated the Bill, the Prime Minister has lost a Foreign Secretary who was apparently deemed by his Back Benchers to have gone native in the Foreign Office, to be replaced by a Foreign Secretary—I welcome him to his position on the Front Bench—who, on hearing the news that the then Secretary of State for Education, the current Chief Whip, had suggested that he would vote to leave the EU today, rushed to the television studios to match that Eurosceptic pledge. One would almost think that they were worrying about an election beyond the general election in May 2015. The truth is that one of the reasons why we are once again debating the Bill is that the centre of gravity of the Conservative party has shifted and continues to shift. The Bill is all about internal leadership challenges and external electoral challenges.
I do not want to intrude too much on private grief, although I could probably be tempted, but what has also changed is that the Conservative party has lost two Members of Parliament to UKIP in just the last two months. Who knows how many more will follow? Who knows how many more are now saying, “Never say never.”? That is the real reason for the Bill.
Damian Green
It is true that it covers part of Europe, but I would gently make the point that at the time of the previous referendum there were six members and there are now 28. A considerably larger proportion of the European continent is covered by the European Union now. That is hugely to the benefit of the people living in those countries that were not in the European Union in 1975, and who will be living in the European Union when the referendum happens, as I hope it does, in 2017. The slightly crude characterisation of the Conservative party by the shadow Foreign Secretary was wrong. It is clearly, from his point of view, designed to damage the party, and I think it would damage the Conservative party if that canard was allowed to go unchallenged.
One of the interests that my party has represented very strongly is the business interest in this country. It has been one of the observable facts of the current leadership of the Labour party that, after years of Tony Blair attempting to make Labour a more business-friendly party, all of that has been thrown away. It seems perverse of it to do that, but in partisan terms I am quite happy for it to do it. It is very important that the Conservative party maintains close relations with business interests, both for its own sake and for the wider prosperity of the country. I agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) that the serious voices in British business want us to stay in a reformed Europe. It is not just the CBI, as he quoted, but the Engineering Employers Federation and many big companies. Ford, BAE Systems, Unilever, Citibank and Siemens have all warned of the damage that will be caused to their businesses if we pull out. Of course, that would affect not just their businesses but tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of their workers. We all need to listen to that voice, because it is a very important one.
Damian Green
I absolutely agree. As I said at the outset, I am strongly in favour of the Bill and will be voting for it for the second time in two years. Given my general stance on European issues, one reason I am in favour of it is because I am in favour of democracy and this is an important historic decision that ought to be put to the British people. At the same time, I am confident that the view that we should stay in a reformed Europe will appeal to the British people, and that those who think as I do will win the referendum vote. So from that point of view, bring it on! There are a number of economic reasons for that: the capacity to negotiate on trade benefits that millions of people in this country get from the single market, and the seriousness with which we are taken in other parts of the world. This debate is not the time to rehearse those arguments—the referendum campaign may well be the time to do that—but there are other arguments as well, arguments of idealism.
The other point I would put, in particular to my own right hon. and hon. Friends who may well believe that Britain would be “better off out”, to coin a phrase, relates to Britain’s voice in the world. It seems to me unarguable that if we pulled out, the rest of the world would, first of all, be completely bemused that here was an advanced prosperous democracy telling 27 friendly democratic neighbour countries that we no longer want to act or be in an organisation with them. Not only would that have a damaging effect on our relationship with those 27 other friendly democracies, it would have a seriously damaging effect on our relationship with the other great powers of the world. It is not credible that an American President, a Chinese leader or an Indian business person would take Britain as seriously if we pulled out of the European Union as they would if we stayed in and played a leading and constructive role in it. Britain’s ability to have a strong voice and, in the words of our former Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd, to punch above our weight in the world depends partly on our playing a leading role in the European Union and in Europe more widely. That is one more reason why our staying in the EU should appeal to Conservatives.
Many people have mentioned the lessons that we should learn from the Scottish referendum. One lesson I learned is that, although it is vital to win the economic argument, as the Better Together campaign did, it is also important to win the emotional arguments. In a referendum campaign, we will need to engage heads and hearts. For all the current travails of the eurozone, which desperately need sorting out, I believe that an idealistic vision remains.
We live in a continent that has spent centuries tearing itself apart with wars that destroyed communities and whole countries, leading up to the terrible slaughter in the first half of the 20th century. In the past 70 years, that continent has become a haven of peace and prosperity in an increasingly dangerous world, and it has built that peace and prosperity in countries that had previously known nothing but occupation and oppression. Go to Cracow, to Bucharest and to Vilnius and see what people there think. They are proud to be members of a democratic European Union, and we in Britain should be proud of our part in building this peaceful and prosperous continent.
I am very much in favour of letting the British people hear these arguments and of putting them to them in a referendum. I am also proud to be a member of the only party in this House that is wholeheartedly in favour of that—[Interruption.] I am being heckled from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), whom I sort of welcome to his new place. Shockingly, I have had private conversations with senior people in UKIP over the past few days. Before the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), falls off her chair, I should explain that those conversations were held entirely on the basis of policy. I was assured that UKIP’s position was that it would prefer the House of Commons to vote to pull Britain out of Europe without consulting the British people in a referendum. To be fair, that conversation took place last Monday and today is Friday, so UKIP could well have held several positions since then. I very much look forward to the hon. Gentleman catching your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that he can clarify exactly what UKIP’s position on a referendum is this morning.
I want to end by quoting some wise words from the 1975 referendum campaign:
“The choice is clear. We can play a role in developing Europe or we can turn our backs on the Community. By turning our backs we forfeit our right to influence what happens in the Community. But what happens in the Community will inevitably affect us.”
That was right when Margaret Thatcher first said it in 1975, and it is still right today. For Britain’s sake, we need to make that argument and to trust the people to listen to it. Most of all, we need to pass this Bill with all speed.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I want to set out the settled view of British businesses that we should remain in membership of the European Union. I find it puzzling that so few Conservative Members are willing to set out those arguments today, and why it falls to Labour Members to do so. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who started to set out the case a moment ago, but his is a very rare voice on his side of the House.
Mrs Main
With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that he is completely missing the point. That is not what the Bill is about. When the Bill is passed and the decision is made to have a referendum, we will listen to the voices of everyone, not just business, and an informed choice will be made. It could be “in” or it could be “out”, but the choice will be with the people. It will not be a case of listening beforehand to businesses which say “Do not give them a choice.”
Stephen Timms
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.
“Do I want an in/out referendum? No, I don’t, because I don’t think we should leave.”
That is my position, but, in fact, all that I am doing is quoting to the hon. Lady what the leader of her party said on 5 January 2010, when he was Leader of the Opposition. When he was setting out his case for becoming Prime Minister he rightly identified the question of whether we should remain in membership of the European Union as being central to the determination of whether we should have an in/out referendum. He was speaking at an event called “Cameron Direct” in Hammersmith. Voters were given an opportunity to see what sort of person he was, and to put questions to him. He drew attention to the central connection between question A, “Should we remain in membership of the European Union?” and question B, “Should we have an in/out referendum?” , and he made his view absolutely clear: because he did not think that we should leave the EU, he did not think that we should have an in/out referendum. I am simply setting out the view that he took then. Of course his view has since changed, and we may well want to discuss in this debate why the Prime Minister’s position has changed so radically, as it undoubtedly has. Perhaps the lack of trust among his Back Benchers has led to that change.
Mrs Main
We do not know whether Labour Members are in favour of an in/out referendum, because they are not going to vote on it today—they have said they are not—but those of us on the Government Benches would like to give the people the choice. We do not care if there are different views—and there are different views on the right hon. Gentleman’s side, too—because we all have one vote, and the public will decide.
Stephen Timms
Well, I want to defend the view set out by the leader of the hon. Lady’s party. On 5 January 2010 in Hammersmith, shortly before he became Prime Minister and when he was leading the efforts of her and her hon. and right hon. Friends to be elected in the general election. He said:
“Do I want an in/out referendum? No, I don’t, because I don’t think we should leave”.
I think he was absolutely right.
Douglas Carswell
The reason I changed my mind was because I came to realise that the promises on Europe of the Administration that the hon. Gentleman defends have all the credibility of a Greek Government bond, and like a Greek Government bond they can be redeemed only on the say so of a German Chancellor. Because I now see that, and many of my former colleagues now see that too, I recognise that the promises are literally incredible. Now that I have realised that, I have done something about it. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to resolve that dilemma for himself.
Mrs Main
I wonder when the damascene conversion came about, because in The Daily Telegraph in April 2014 the hon. Gentleman said:
“In order to exit the EU, we need David Cameron to be Prime Minister in 2017—the year when we will get the In/Out referendum, our chance to vote to leave the EU.”
So obviously it was between April and sometime recently.
Douglas Carswell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for once again pointing out that when the facts change, I change my mind. I wonder what she does. When the leader of my party announced at Bloomberg that he was serious and wanted change, no one cheered more loudly or tweeted more joyously than I did. But I came to realise, as many of my former colleagues and those sitting next to the hon. Lady on those Government Benches now realise, it was merely smoke and mirrors. He was not serious about change. The game plan was to secure the illusion of a new deal in the hope that voters would vote to stay in. It is all about not changing. Once I realised that, I did something about it.
Thomas Docherty
I have already given way twice to my hon. Friend, who has spoken at some length. I want to make some progress because other Members want to get in.
Another problem with the timetable is that it assumes that the Prime Minister will be able to renegotiate by the end of 2017. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) spoke eloquently about the Prime Minister’s track record of not being the strongest at winning friends and influencing people, not just in his own party, but in 27 countries. [Interruption.] I appreciate that it is difficult for the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) to stand up sometimes, but he should just get up and say it rather than sledge from a sedentary position. He just wants to chunter away and that is fine.
The Prime Minister has failed repeatedly to win in Europe. Do we really think that the other 27 nations are going to allow the United Kingdom unilaterally to have a series of opt-outs from Europe?
Mrs Main
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to infer anything from what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but would he like to explain why my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) has trouble getting up occasionally? I think that was an unfortunate and ill-judged remark.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Lady will appreciate that that is not a point of order. We will not take time in this debate discussing the hon. Gentleman’s athleticism or otherwise.
Mike Gapes
I shall not be repetitive at all, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend.
Many companies in Korea, China, the United States and elsewhere around the world wish to invest in Europe. They will be looking closely at whether to invest in this country when there is uncertainty over our staying in the single market. This is a vital issue, and it is time the Conservatives understood that their proposal poses a threat to inward investment, jobs and prosperity. Millions of people in this country work for foreign companies that have come here to invest and to gain access to the European single market. This country is outward looking and global; it has a stable society and the rule of law. It is also involved in the largest single market in the world, on a continent of 500 million people. Half our trade is with the European Union. The Bill represents a threat to that and to the jobs and prosperity of our people. That is a flaw in the Bill.
I have talked about the proposed date, and I will say more about that another time.
Mike Gapes
The hon. Lady will have to wait and see whether there is a vote. I am waiting to see what happens. She will not have long to wait.
There are many flaws in the Bill, and it needs to be significantly improved if it is to be in the interests of our people and our country. I have already mentioned the House of Lords vote earlier this year to change the wording of the question that will be asked in the referendum back to the original wording proposed by the Electoral Commission. I was going to mention the original Government proposal put forward by the Conservative party, but of course it was not a Government proposal; it was a Conservative proposal. I have to keep reminding myself that we are in the bizarre position of having a private Member’s Bill being used as a device for introducing what ought to be a Government Bill. I agree that it should be a Government Bill. We should not be abusing the private Members’ Bill procedure by doing things like this. Many Conservative MPs have been forced to come here today. They have been whipped to come here on a Friday morning and eat bacon butties when they should be out campaigning in Rochester and Strood. Instead, they have to be here because they have been whipped to come and vote on a private Member’s Bill. That is absurd.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
If every single Opposition Member who spoke about the awfulness of this Bill does not reinforce that with their vote today, the public can conclude that they are prepared to let the unelected House at the other end of this Building do their dirty work for them. I have heard from them today nothing good about this small Bill, which simply reinforces the public’s ability to make up their own mind when they have heard all the arguments, whether from business or politicians. Therefore, if those Opposition Members who desperately oppose this Bill do not vote today, they will show the hypocrisy of the Opposition, who prefer to let the other end do their dirty work for them.
Robert Neill
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly: That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 0.
Palestine and Israel
Anne Main Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
In the past, my problem with fully supporting Palestinian statehood has been the fact that Hamas—designated a terrorist organisation by the UK, as well as the United States, the European Union and other countries such as Australia—is so closely linked with the Government there. I remain concerned by the indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel from Gaza, as well as the support given to other terrorist activities.
Article 57 of the Geneva convention, which I studied when I was the commander in Bosnia, is the key. It states that constant care must be taken to spare civilians from being hurt. It stresses that those who plan or decide on any attack must do everything feasible to verify that the objectives attacked are not close to civilians. It is absolutely clear that the military wing of Hamas, by its rocket attacks on Israeli territory and its association with west bank terrorism, such as the abduction and murder of three Israeli teenagers in August this year, pays scant attention to that fundamental humanitarian law.
I have criticised, too, Israeli military actions in south Lebanon, the west bank and Gaza for quite a few years —even before I was a Member. In my view, the Israeli defence force, whatever the reason or military requirement, has breached article 57 on occasion, too. After all, it is indisputable that large numbers of civilians have been killed as a result of IDF operations in Gaza this summer.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I hope that my hon. Friend shares my view that one can condemn Hamas and the atrocities that it commits while still recognising that Palestine should have the right to be an independent state.
Bob Stewart
I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says.
I have had to deal with terrorist organisations of one form or other, whether the Provisional IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army, Protestant extremist groups or even terrorist gangs in the Balkans. Too many soldiers under my command have been killed by fanatics for me not to be very serious about this problem. I loathe the way that terrorists act, and their politics of guns, explosives and rockets.
Now if Hamas was to renounce violence and stop attacking innocent people in Israel, which in fairness, for a while, it did a few years ago, I would be much less vexed. Like so many in the Chamber, I have very mixed feelings about the motion. We all want to see a state called Palestine, but can I support a Government linked to terrorism? In theory, I should not, but in practice can I? After all, I can think of several well established states that support terrorism—away from their own territory, of course—which our Government already fully recognise and, indeed, support, despite this knowledge. So I wonder, why should we not support the Palestinians, too? Despite my aversion to the terrorism practised by elements of Hamas, I have decided that it is time that this Parliament should fully endorse the move to Palestinian statehood. I will be voting for the motion in the hope that it brings closer a peaceful settlement in the wonderful Levant.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who, like other Members, touched on the human realities of people whose lives are afflicted in this conflict. The question for this House is: where do we stand on the basic, core question that constantly runs through this problem?
Every time there is violence and every time the attempts at a peace process fail, fall into a lull and are followed by more violence—whether it is from Hamas or the excessive efforts of the Israeli defence forces, as we have seen this summer—people ask what the western world is doing about it. Where does the international community stand when human rights are sacrificed again and again, and what is its will when international law is violated again and again? Of course, we hear from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere that the Israeli Government are told not to be disproportionate and warned against occupations, and yet the situation continues.
People are increasingly fed up with this screensaver politics, where shapes are thrown, images projected and impressions generated, but nothing real goes on in relation to the substantive issue. People in our constituencies find it frustrating, but the people for whom it must be most frustrating are those moderate people in the middle east, including those in Israel who know that their security will never come from drenching people in Gaza with bombs, and those in Palestine who know that their peace, rights and liberation will not come through lobbing rockets into Israel. They want a peace process and they know that at the heart of that peace process there has to be a two-state solution, and that two-state solution has a better chance of happening if there is at least a semblance of a two-state process. When there is no two-state process, we are wasting our time talking about a two-state solution.
The Minister told us today, once again, that the British Government will recognise the state of Palestine at a time when it is most beneficial to the peace process, but then he went on to say that a negotiated end of occupation is the most effective way of having the Palestinian aspiration for statehood realised on the ground. Is he telling us that the British Government will move on recognising the state of Palestine only when there is a negotiated end to the occupation, whenever that is? If he is, that is no argument against the motion, and nobody could accept it as a reason for voting against the motion or the amendment.
Mark Durkan
That may well be, and it may add to people’s frustrations. We will see whether it happens. We want to flush out a proper declaration, because there should be no obfuscation. There is a clear choice. One of the beauties of the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) is that it is clear—for the purposes of providing absolute clarity, there is the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)—and the issues have been well distilled in a very good debate.
A couple of attempts have been made to cloud some of the issues, including by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). He tried to suggest that the experience of the Northern Ireland peace process somehow means that we should not recognise the state of Palestine now, but leave everybody to sort everything out and then recognise it. The truth is that he and his party opposed the peace process throughout and did so shrilly. They said that the sky would fall in. They opposed American involvement. They opposed what the British and Irish Governments did to create the framework for a solution, and they opposed building a solution based on three sets of relationships—institutions in Northern Ireland, institutions in Ireland and institutions between Ireland and Britain.
The point is that people outside a conflict sometimes have to help to create some of the givens in a process. In the give and take that we expect in a negotiated process, particularly in a historic conflict, it is not in the parties’ gift to do all the giving; that is where responsible international input can create some givens and new realities.
Bangladesh
Anne Main Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the current situation in Bangladesh.
I am pleased to see that this debate will be well attended despite the fact that it was arranged at very short notice. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who originally tabled it, with my support, at the Backbench Business Committee, but cannot lead it because of previous commitments. I am pleased to share the debate with him, and I know how actively he takes an interest in the subject.
We could not possibly look at the current political situation and sense of instability in Bangladesh without briefly revisiting what has happened in the past, which has helped to form the situation. I was in Dhaka in 2006 when the previous Government led by Khaleda Zia, the Bangladesh Nationalist party and various coalition parties were proceeding with an election in which the Awami League was not participating and which was deemed unfair and undemocratic. The non-participation and civil unrest that ensued led to a takeover by the army. Dhaka was under curfew and chaos ensued as a result.
There has now been another election that both parties came back and contested having spent two years out of the country and out of political engagement while the caretaker Government led by the military were in place. The Awami League won a landslide victory. That was not disputed; the voting was considered to be perfectly within the rules of the electoral process. However, it appears that nothing was learned from those two years in the wilderness or from the grievances expressed against the previous Government. The Government led by the Awami League carried on with an election but there was not full voter participation, to put it mildly—it was about 30%—and there was non-participation by the leading opposition. There were all the similar complaints of non-engagement in Parliament because microphones were switched off, and so on.
I am sorry to say that the democratic process improved by nothing between 2006 and the latest election in 2013. That is deeply disappointing given the amount of the British aid budget that goes into supporting the strengthening of democracy in Bangladesh, such as the training of civil servants.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
All of us who have Bangladesh close to our hearts are deeply worried by the situation, particularly, as my hon. Friend rightly says, over the past seven years. There seems to be a sense that that country is again plummeting towards the prospect of some military takeover and martial law. Does she agree that while one inevitably has to look at the history, going back as far as partition in 1971, it is also important that there is a responsibility in the hands of today’s Bangladeshi politicians to draw a line under the past and look with a firm eye to the future?
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that others will touch on that matter. On 12 December, before the election, Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State in the other place, went to try to encourage the leaders—Begum Khaleda Zia and the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina—to put aside their differences, to park the acrimony and bitter disputes that they have as a historical political narrative, and to continue the process of dialogue.
Our Government, I am proud to say, continue to urge all parties to work together and to strengthen democratic accountability, but unfortunately it is not bearing a lot of fruit. The parliamentary model over there does not reflect ours. There are no shadow teams, so any new Government coming in will not have been actively involved in shadow responsibilities in a Parliament that is regularly empty—I have sat in there.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On having confidence in the caretaker system and an Opposition to shadow the Government, a key element for many years was that Bangladesh had caretaker Governments before elections—as in other countries, such as Pakistan—to ensure that the election process was fair and transparent and that all political parties could have confidence in it. It was completely and utterly wrong that that did not happen this time.
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point that has been raised many times with the all-party group on Bangladesh and other Members with an active interest in the issue. The reason the caretaker Government were introduced was that neither party trusted each other. During the 2006 election, the then Opposition—the Awami League—hotly disputed the fairness of the caretaker system and accused the BNP-led Government of stuffing it with their own supporters and people with influence over, or who owed their jobs to, them.
It was not a perfect system. The Awami League Government had a right under the constitution to alter it and they did so. I completely accept that many of the public disagreed with that decision, but it was recognised internationally that, given that they were elected in an 87% landslide victory, it was within their electoral mandate to make it.
Since the decision was made, I am sorry to say that the country has been in turmoil. Members of the all-party group—some of whom are present—visited the country in September to investigate the collapse of the Rana Plaza and other infrastructure deficits associated with the Tazreen fire and other garment factory fires and collapses. We raised the issue with both leaders and with businesses, asking them what their concerns were about the current unhappiness, debate and instability surrounding the change from the caretaker system—which, despite the fact that it was regularly disputed, was understood—to the leap into a future without such a system. People can have confidence in one system over another only if they truly believe that a caretaker is neutral. I believe that towards the end of the process, as the election loomed, Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League suggested a move towards a version of a caretaker system with Ministers from both sides, but it was not accepted
This is always a matter of dispute. The Bangladeshi Prime Minister told the all-party group—I found this poignant but, oh, so true—that an election has never taken place in Bangladesh without blood and dispute. That has been the case since the birth of the country. The people who suffer are the poor and those whose livelihoods rest on whether the international garment industry, which is dragging Bangladesh—if only it could get its act together—to the fore of a tiger economy, will get fed up.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
May I press my hon. Friend on the important point she is making? During our visit to investigate the collapse of the Rana Plaza, was not the clear message from those businesses that perform to ethically high standards that, unless the infrastructure, stability and future of Bangladesh were secure, they could not pledge their continuing support?
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend accompanied the team and did a very able job, along with the hon. Members for Rochdale, for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). We managed to prise out of businesses—some of which did not wish to be identified—their concerns and they are reflected in our report, which we submitted to the Department for International Development. It says that we
“were concerned about the complacent belief in Bangladesh that”
the ready-made garment industry
“will continue to invest in the country for the foreseeable future”,
and that businesses were concerned about the infrastructure problems.
Every building in Bangladesh is liable to collapse in an earthquake, apart from—I am pleased to say that at least our staff will be safe—the high commission building. Many of the buildings that have been turned into garment factories are unsafe in their construction, were never designed for the purposes for which they are being used and are poorly inspected and poorly built, which is threatening this vital economy.
We have suggested that other markets, such as Morocco, Ethiopia and Burma, would be viable alternatives. Political instability, disruption caused in the provision of power and gas and failing infrastructure are all key factors in the slow down of an undeniably excellent growth record.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work as chair of the all-party group. I agree with her points about the garment industry. Will she comment on the disturbing reports of attacks on religious minorities, particularly Hindus and Christians, over the past few weeks that have resulted in a large number of deaths?
Mrs Main
The hon. Gentleman is another member of the all-party group to whom I pay tribute for his sterling work in raising concerns about this issue. We had a presentation from religious minority groups on how persecuted they are. Unfortunately, it is a failing of any democracy when people are not free to express their religion and belief. Bangladesh is a secular country that has many Muslim believers, but many other religions as well. In 1971, it had the proud aim that it would remain secular. It is also a proud member of the Commonwealth. It is a disservice to that country that people from minority religions now feel so oppressed and intimated, with their temples being daubed and disrupted.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is speaking eloquently, and she is a distinguished chair of the all-party group. I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I might be wrong, but I think, statistically, that Bangladesh has the second-largest Hindu population in the world. We are all supporters of Bangladesh—I have a huge Bengali community—but the message we should send from this Chamber is that it must respect the human rights of religious minorities.
Mrs Main
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have met Amnesty International and other groups that watch the human rights situation, and I know that that situation has, sadly, been a major source of concern over the years.
When I was in Bangladesh in 2006, I was pretty depressed to read comments in the press about the BNP Government, who were then limping along, giving undertakings to introduce sharia law as part of a coalition deal. That was before the army stepped in. A legal system based on sharia law would certainly disadvantage communities that do not follow that law. The belief espoused in the constitution that Bangladesh should be a secular country and respect other religions was a fantastic aim. It is just sad that on many occasions it has not been delivered.
The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned that people are in fear of their lives. There has been significant violence on the streets, with petrol bombings, and the leaders of opposition parties have felt intimidated since the election, while the poor are suffering. According to The Guardian, the recent data are that more than 500 people have died and 20,000 people have been injured in the past 12 months, and that more than 100 people have died since the election.
Other issues are intimidation, disappearances, crossfire and whether the rapid action battalion is out of control. I went to pay my respects to the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, who gave firm assurances that such issues would be investigated. Whoever leads the Government in Bangladesh needs to take them seriously. When we were there, the members of the all-party group made it clear that we do not have any truck with or particular preference about how the election was conducted, so long as it was fair, or about who is in power, so long as they represent the people and do the best for the people, which is not happening at the moment.
Mark Field
I very much agree with most of what my hon. Friend is saying, but will she put it in context, because many people may wonder why we are talking about Bangladesh? It is a member of the Commonwealth and there is a big Bangladeshi diaspora in this country, but we also spend more than £150 million a year of DFID money on Bangladesh, much of which is handled very well by Bangladeshis on the ground in Sylhet and Dhaka. Will she tell us more about that and about this country’s commitment to the long-term stability of Bangladesh?
Mrs Main
I will not speak for too long, because other people want to take part in this important debate. I am sure that we will all have second bites of the cherry during other Members’ contributions.
A parliamentary answer that I received this week stated:
“Violence and instability are damaging to Bangladesh’s reputation, economy, and to people’s livelihoods. As the largest cumulative investor in Bangladesh, and the largest bilateral grant donor, the UK supports the people of Bangladesh in their aspirations for a more stable, democratic and prosperous future.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 525W.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) is therefore right that we are a hugely important partner for Bangladesh. That is why we are hearing the views of so many hon. Members, even on a day when many Members, and particularly Opposition Members, have an important event to attend after the death of their colleague. Bangladesh really must take this matter seriously. These are not idle concerns.
There was a report in The Daily Telegraph last Saturday about aid budgets being under threat of being curtailed, cancelled or put on hold. From talking to the Minister of State, Department for International Development, I understand that that is a total misrepresentation. I am glad to have that assurance. Some 70% of our aid to Bangladesh goes to non-governmental organisations, many of which do a fabulous job. The APPG saw some of the projects when we went to Bangladesh. However, the British public, who are also facing tough times, will find it questionable that 30% of our aid goes, in various forms, to the Government. If the Government do not show that they will speak up for and do what is right for all the people of Bangladesh, I do not believe that we should be giving them 30% of the aid. We should give it to the charities and NGOs that are doing a great job and that are accountable. I do not think that we, as one of the largest aid donors, should continue to send money directly to a Government who were elected on 22% of voter participation—some voters felt too intimidated to participate and others that they had no choice—until there is a return of democratic accountability.
Rehman Chishti
Does my hon. Friend agree that Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia should put aside their venomous personal differences, which go back decades, and put the interests of Bangladesh first so that the country can move forward?
Mrs Main
I absolutely agree.—[Interruption.] I can hear the chuckles that are going around the House because we have had these conversations many times.
The APPG has received many representations about how the other side—I will put it in that way, because there is the churn of a wheel and next time it will be a different political group—feels deeply that it is kept out of Parliament, that it does not have an opportunity to speak, that the microphones are switched off and so on. We have been to the Parliament as part of a fact-finding group. The participation in debates is virtually zero because people see no point in participating. Whichever party or coalition is in power has to acknowledge that. We do not have a perfect system here, but we have a system in which strong opposition makes for better governance. By going there in September, the APPG hoped to show that, despite the fact that we may lob political differences across this Chamber, we can work together in an apolitical fashion to discuss what is in the best interests of Bangladesh. We hoped that the unity that we showed would provide a good example.
I am sorry to say that the election and the level of non-participation are plunging the country into disarray. We are expecting a big rally by the BNP on 20 January. More people will be injured and suffer violence on that day. It is depressing to think that we cannot get the parties in a room and around a table to hammer out a way forward before the country dissolves into anarchy.
Rushanara Ali
Members from both sides of the House have on a number of occasions raised the need for interim measures to secure and guarantee free and fair elections. Some raised the need for caretaker Governments, which have served the country well in the past. As the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) mentioned, other countries such as Pakistan have followed that lead and have expressed their disappointment that the system has been removed.
Simon Danczuk
That issue did not come up during my visit, so far as I can recall, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that this could be viewed as a healthy aspect of Bangladesh’s politics.
My third and final worry concerns economic development. In recent years, as has been pointed out, the country has made great strides forward in that respect. Gross domestic product growth has been at 6.1% and Bangladesh is on track to meet the goal of halving income poverty by 2015. Despite that, Bangladesh is not a rich country. As I have seen for myself, millions live in desperate poverty.
Mrs Main
The hon. Gentleman will recall that when we were in Bangladesh, we saw some excellent factories that were internationally run but, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) said, we also saw sweatshops. If Bangladesh does not want to go back to being an immensely poor country full of sweatshops, it needs international buyers, but they are being scared off by all these problems.
Simon Danczuk
The hon. Lady is exactly right. I was coming on to make the point that if this political instability continues, there will be real concerns for Bangladesh’s economic development. The constant strikes, boycotts, violence and sabotage will cost the country literally millions of pounds in lost productivity.
So what next? The first thing that needs to happen is an end to the violence by both sides and the reopening of dialogue, at least between the two major parties, which need to agree on a way forward to end the current uncertainty. Hon. Members will be aware that other countries in the international community—the United States, Canada and the European Union—have already called for fresh elections. I would urge our Government to take a similar view and to press for that to happen. International observers should be present at elections and I believe that there should be an interim caretaker Government.
Whatever route is taken, it is clear that the welfare of the people of Bangladesh must be the top priority. Bangladesh can be a model for other countries to follow, but it must first leave behind the factionalism and the division that have haunted its politics. Most ordinary people in Bangladesh are tired of the bickering and the violence; what they want is a better life for themselves and their families. I believe that it is time for the voices of those people to be heard. Bangladesh must focus on the future, and not dwell on the past.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my attention. I think that it emphasises the need for accountability on the part of the Bangladesh Government, and the need for them to bring that force under control.
The second instance in which decisions were made and actions were required involves the sequence of political disappearances in Bangladesh. That, too, has been continuing for a number of years under different political parties. However, when a series of what might be called junior political operators—people who have just become involved in politics—start to disappear, it is the responsibility of any Government to take that very seriously indeed. It is their responsibility to use all the resources at their disposal to try to identify the circumstances that led to those disappearances, to find out who was responsible for them, and to bring whoever was responsible to justice.
This issue has particular poignancy for me because of the disappearance of Ilias Ali, the former Member of Parliament for Bishwanath. I met him in 2011 when he visited Bedford and brought to my attention the growing problem of political disappearances in Bangladesh. I listened to him intently. I was getting to know him and I thought that he was an interesting fellow, but I sort of thought, “Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you, because you are from the political opposition.” I wish that I had listened to him more. Then, in 2012, I saw him in Sylhet. He said “Richard, I am worried about the disappearance of one of my student political leaders.” I was a bit more concerned on that occasion, but I wish that I had listened to him then, because two weeks later, he himself disappeared.
Even now, no one knows what has happened to Ilias Ali. I do not believe that the Bangladeshi Government are wantonly trying to avoid bringing people to justice, but I do hold the Government of the day accountable for continuing political disappearances in a state that they are supposed to be governing.
Let me now give my third example. We have talked a little about the war crimes trials in Bangladesh. They, too, were begun with the best of intentions, with the aim of bringing about reconciliation; indeed, the international community was very happy with the structures that were established. It has taken a long time for the people involved in the wars of liberation in Bangladesh to be brought to trial.
I consider any system of justice that ends in the death penalty to be inherently flawed, because I do not believe in the death penalty as any form of justice. Notwithstanding the potential death penalty, however, the war crimes trials went from auspicious beginnings to become a very tainted process. Indeed, The Economist reported that the chief justice, Mohammed Huq, had to resign after he had
“prohibited contact with the prosecution and Government officials.”
The process was further tainted when the rules of trial, which permitted providing for a life sentence, were rewritten so that a death penalty could be imposed on someone, who was subsequently hanged. That undermines people’s faith that, when they are looking for justice, the Government of the day are on their side.
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend is making a hugely powerful speech. War crimes were carried out on all sides, in effect, and there have been major accusations about retaliations and retributions, and that only certain people are being pursued for their crimes, rather than there being a process of looking at the crimes as a whole and holding people to account regardless of the party they happen to be involved in. That is not justice either.
Richard Fuller
The chair of the all-party group makes a powerful point that adds to this picture of a sequence of actions that were impacting on political and everyday society in Bangladesh. It was the responsibility of the Government of the day to handle and manage that, but they failed to do so. With the elections and the situation in Bangladesh, a clear thread can be drawn through all activities and actions up to the present day.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who has a long, distinguished history with the people of Bangladesh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on initiating the debate through the Backbench Business Committee, and on giving Members an opportunity to express their views on this important matter.
I start from the principle that we should exercise caution when commenting on another country unless we have had a chance to visit it and see the situation on the ground at first hand. I had the good fortune to visit Bangladesh some 18 months ago, as part of a trip organised by the Conservative Friends of Bangladesh. My hon. Friends the Members for St Albans and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and I saw at first hand many of the issues that have been raised today. I have to say that the Parliament in Bangladesh was bizarre. We three Members were greeted almost like visiting royalty. We were presented to the Parliament, which was half empty, and witnessed its Prime Minister’s question time. It was a far cry from what we experience in this House each week. Questions to Government Ministers were scripted and delivered by Government Back Benchers only. No members of the Opposition asked any questions whatever of the Prime Minister, because they were not there—
Bob Blackman
Indeed. Clearly, a fledgling democracy that has not yet established itself into a proper parliamentary democracy had taken adversarial politics to the extreme.
We had the opportunity of meeting all three party leaders, and it was clear to me that there is bitter hatred between them and no sense of co-operation between the parties, which is a problem for a parliamentary democracy. It can work in a military dictatorship because it does not matter there, but the proper orders of priority are needed in a parliamentary democracy.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder.
I also think there was complacency from the Government of the day. I remember their Chief Whip telling us, “Don’t worry, when we come to those elections the BNP will not boycott them because they fear losing their seats.” That Government believed that they could bend and twist things but everything would be all right and there would be an election. They expected not only that they would win that election, but that the BNP would bow and participate fully in it. Clearly, that view was misguided and wrong, and it has led directly to the current impasse.
Other hon. Members have referred to the violent history of Bangladesh—how it began and what has happened—and I do not intend to dwell on that because it has been well covered. Although Bangladesh has advanced economically, the bitter poverty that exists there must be addressed. We were able to see children from the slums attending a school, and the only clothes they had were those donated by British non-governmental organisations—
Bob Blackman
Indeed. It was a great thing to see those children being educated, to give them a chance of a better life, but the poverty in the whole of the country is extreme and must be addressed.
We also witnessed the problems caused by the risk of earthquakes, and I will never forget my hon. Friend being winched down the outside of a building in a rehearsal of what could happen in an earthquake. It took great courage for her to carry out that act—I am not sure she was aware of what was going to happen when she was put into the winch in the first place. That demonstrated to us that the Bangladesh Government are making preparations to deal with natural crises that could occur.
Bangladesh’s infrastructure, however, is horrendous. Dhaka’s traffic is probably the worst in the world, as the city is permanently gridlocked, and the condition of the roads is a disgrace. I cannot forget the 12-hour trip we took by rutted road from Sylhet to Dhaka—my body has not recovered since. The key point to make is that there is a great opportunity for investment in the country’s infrastructure, which will improve the ability of farmers and industrialists to produce the goods that will drive forward the country’s major economy.
DFID funding must be at centre of our thoughts, because it is where we can bring pressure to bear. We saw how DFID and Government funding has enabled cataracts to be treated in the outlying communities in a way that shamed our national health service. People who have the first signs of blindness as a result of cataracts can be spotted and then treated quickly for the princely sum of £27 per eye. That shows that when a good project is implemented it can be done properly and effectively, and is a demonstrable example of what can be done elsewhere.
However, DFID funding—to the tune of £5 million a year, I believe—has also gone towards community workshops to build community capability. Clearly that has not worked, because if it had the parliamentary elections and democracy in Bangladesh would have been far better. I hope that DFID will review that funding. When we returned 18 months ago, we questioned whether the money was being used in the best way possible, given that other projects could clearly be organised through NGOs to provide a better future for the people of Bangladesh. Those issues must be addressed and the funding needs to be reviewed, so that we bring pressure to bear on the Government in Bangladesh. We need to say, “If you do not make sure that the rights of minorities in the country are protected, we will have to reconsider whether that funding continues.” I must add a word of caution, because the money that goes to the NGOs is being spent extremely wisely, well and effectively; it is the money given to the Government to spend that is of great cause for concern, for not only our taxpayers, but the people of Bangladesh.
The current persecution of minorities, with the murders of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and other minorities, is an absolute disgrace. We should condemn those murders outright. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take up the issue, and make sure and demonstrate to the Government of Bangladesh that these things cannot be allowed to continue, in any shape or form. Any representations should be made through our Foreign Secretary and our embassy. The rights of those individuals are paramount and they must be allowed to continue to celebrate their religion, their ethnicity, their background and their history.
Finally, I think that there is a potential way forward for the future. I was a bit disturbed to receive an e-mail from the BNP about the situation in Bangladesh—I differentiate the BNP of Bangladesh from the pernicious, evil organisation that exists in this country, but I was not sure at the time which had sent me this e-mail. The leaders of two major political parties in Bangladesh hate each other and will not co-operate in any shape or form, but surely there is an opportunity for the Commonwealth and for the British Government to play a role in bringing together the disparate parties in Bangladesh and hammering out a deal. Such a deal would allow a caretaker Government to proceed; and it would allow us to move towards free and fair elections in the near, but not necessarily immediate, future, in order to allow the fledgling democracy of Bangladesh to flourish and to encourage and promote a Parliament in Bangladesh that mirrors how we operate in this country. That would entail free and frank exchanges, an opportunity for the Opposition the criticise the Government and the opportunity of saying, “That will be done in a fair way”. It would also entail the freedom of the press.
At the moment, press freedom is seriously threatened, because politicians and journalists disappear and nobody knows where they have gone, whether they have been arrested or whether they are still alive. A situation of fear breeds uncertainty and the worst-case scenario. I ask our Foreign Secretary and our Ministers to make representations to the Bangladeshi Government, asking them to come to their senses and reach a negotiated settlement, so that there can be a bright and prosperous future for the people of Bangladesh, because the young people there deserve it.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Along with others, I welcome this debate, and pay tribute to those who applied for it and to the all-party group on Bangladesh. I have a substantial, but not huge, Bangladeshi community in my constituency, and I have had close relationships with them and with the wider Bangladesh community for all the time I have been an MP.
I agree that we cannot change the tragedy of the history of Bangladesh, but it is worth recalling a couple of highly significant points in its history. It was originally created as East Pakistan during the tragedy of partition in 1947, and there was a tragic loss of so many lives in the wars that followed. To divide a country called Pakistan by 1,000 miles of another country was inevitably going to lead to an unstable relationship and problems. The many uprisings in what later became Bangladesh against Pakistani rule and the abuse of power by the authorities in East Pakistan led to the war in 1971, and eventually the success of the Mukti Bahini forces, which brought about the independence and recognition of Bangladesh.
It is true that disgraceful atrocities were committed during that war and that very large numbers of people died. It is also absolutely correct that those who commit atrocities should be brought to justice however long that takes. That surely is what we believe in when we hold international war crimes tribunals. In that sense, it is right that the Government of Bangladesh, led by Sheikh Hasina, set up the war crimes tribunal. My concern, and that of many others, was over the difficulties that international observers faced in observing those trials. Concerns were expressed about them and the execution of one very prominent person that followed the tribunal. Apparently, there was indifference by the Government of Bangladesh to universal concerns around the world about the use of the death penalty. Let me reiterate that I for one cannot accept the death penalty in any circumstances or on any occasion. The message has to be that justice and the judicial system must be seen to be independent. However, I endorse the point that Governments are entitled to operate a war crimes tribunal and use their judiciary to look at atrocities that have been committed. They should also ensure that all witnesses and legal representatives are secure and safe, that there are international observers and that international norms are followed.
The more recent history of Bangladesh is about the economic problems that the country faces. It has a large population and is one of the largest countries in the world. It faces enormous environmental challenges from water supply—either over-supply or under-supply of fresh water—and the problems of managing a river system that emanates from a neighbouring country and of rising sea levels and the dangerous floods that occur as a result.
Bangladesh also has an economic model that is difficult to sustain. It wants to become part of the world trade system by exporting garments, and I applaud that, but the problem is that with the beggar thy neighbour policies of the World Trade Organisation, the garment industry quickly moves itself from one low-wage economy to another, to another and so on. We now have the prospect of Chinese companies opening factories in Bangladesh because wages in China, while very low, are relatively high compared with those in Bangladesh. If Bangladesh then raises its wages to any decent level, the danger is that the garment industry will up sticks and go somewhere else. We have to think about the cheap clothes that we buy on the high streets of this country, and indeed of the United States and the rest of Europe, and the appalling working conditions that are behind all that.
Mrs Main
That was the focus of the all-party report. The few extra dollars or pence that would be needed to give a fair wage was not an issue to those who were involved in the garment industry. It was the whole infrastructure deficit that was more likely to drive businesses away. The problem is not in paying the workers in Bangladesh but in the Government not tackling the infrastructure deficit, which is making businesses question their presence there.
Jeremy Corbyn
To their credit, the Government of Bangladesh did increase the basic minimum wage, and that was welcome. None the less, I have attended meetings with the International Labour Organisation and trade unions from this country and Bangladesh about the abominable working conditions and safety of buildings, to which the hon. Lady rightly drew our attention, and the loss of life as a result of fire. We must bear all that in mind.
Before I conclude, let me turn to the violence that has been committed against human rights activists and religious and ethnic minorities, and to the numbers of people who have disappeared over the last few months and years. There can be no acceptance anywhere in the world that it is legitimate to persecute people. In the case of Bangladesh, the persecuted happen to be Christians or Hindus, but it would be no more correct for any other society to pursue and persecute people because they are Muslims. Surely the norm of the United Nations universal declaration of 1948 was that one accepts and respects religious and ethnic diversity in any and every society. I welcome the fact that Bangladesh’s constitution of 1971 is a secular one and guarantees rights of religious assembly and religious freedom, but the reality is that forces and gangs—in some cases funded elsewhere, and in some cases parastatal—have been killing and persecuting religious minorities, which is simply not acceptable. We must send out a strong message to that effect.
My final point is about how a democracy works. A democracy works if there is an open, free and fair electoral system. It also requires an independent judiciary, an independent media, security for those who are reporting, and the right of assembly and of free speech. All those things have been challenged in Bangladesh, and the violence and the deaths that we have seen are simply not acceptable.
When the election took place, the Awami League was inevitably going to win it, because the Opposition simply did not participate. I have read the Awami League report on the elections, and I can kind of see the point that it is making, but it hardly confers legitimacy on a Government when the Opposition do not take part, so we can hardly say that it was a democratic representation of the will of the people. Indeed, I have had it said to me by people in the London Bangladeshi community that the BNP might well have won the election had it taken part. I do not know whether that is the case, but we do know that the current impasse has to be broken in some way. There have to be talks with all the parties and there has to be freedom of movement of all political leaders and an acceptance that what has happened is really not a credible way for the Government of Bangladesh to continue to behave. It is not for us to say what should happen, but if there are to be legitimate talks with all political parties and representatives, there is likely to be a call for fresh elections.
Human rights, peace and democracy are at stake. Sadly, many of the very poorest people in Bangladesh live in disgraceful and appalling conditions. Working conditions are appalling and we look to a strong democracy in Bangladesh and support from the rest of the world to conquer that poverty and bring about a decent life for the people of Bangladesh. That is what the war of 1971 was about. It was not about the discrimination and the killing of people because of their views.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate all Members who have taken part in the debate on their well-informed contributions, many of which result from personal visits to Bangladesh. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk)—he has made his apologies for having to leave the debate early—for stepping in at short notice to secure the debate, which is timely, given that the elections took place on 5 January.
I also want to say briefly that I am sure that we are all mindful of the reason why the debate on child neglect that had been scheduled for today was cancelled. My thoughts are with the family, friends and many colleagues of Paul Goggins who are paying their final respects to him today.
As several hon. Members have said, Bangladesh has long been a valued partner of the UK. Obviously it is a young country, but our historical links with the region and its people go back long before its formation. We also have a sizeable diaspora community in the UK. Indeed, Bristol has the pleasure of having not only its first Muslim lord mayor, but its first lord mayor of Bangladeshi origin, Councillor Faruk Choudhury, who has made a real impact as a role model for younger people in the community.
As I said, the elections were held on 5 January. We have heard already about the widespread concern that has been expressed by the international community and the condemnation of shocking acts of violence and intimidation. I want to focus my remarks mostly on the elections, given that they are so recent. As we have heard, more than half the 300 seats were uncontested. Some candidates from other parties, I understand, tried to withdraw their names from the ballot paper. Some from smaller parties were elected, but more than 100 candidates from the ruling Awami League were elected unopposed, and 48 million registered voters out of 92 million could not vote. Indeed, it is reported that people could vote in just two of the 20 constituencies in Dhaka, so it is no surprise that the turnout was disappointingly low. The Government’s official turnout figure was 39% to 40%, but that has been queried, given that there was no turnout at all in many parts of the country because the seats were uncontested.
Furthermore, election day and the weeks preceding it saw deplorable acts of violence. There were arson attacks on polling stations, including more than 120 schools. There were reports that an election officer was beaten to death on polling day, and that 440 polling stations closed early owing to security concerns. Human Rights Watch reported that 120 people lost their lives in pre-election violence, and at least 18 people died on election day. Media reports have said that many were shot by police.
The reasons for the violence and the failure of the elections to proceed as we would have hoped are varied and complex. The Bangladesh Nationalist party, along with several of the smaller parties, decided to boycott the election in protest against the Government’s decision not to allow a neutral caretaker Government to take charge in the run-up to the elections. As we heard from the hon. Member for St Albans and others, such a practice had been in place since the 1996 elections. Meanwhile, there was a court order preventing the Jamaat-e-Islami party from participating. There were also reports that some candidates tried to withdraw, but were prevented from doing so, and that party representatives were arrested or forced to leave Bangladesh. After the BNP’s leader called for a march for democracy in late December, hundreds of opposition supporters were arrested, and demonstrators were prevented from reaching Dhaka. There were reports of arbitrary arrests and the indiscriminate use of force. Ms Zia was, in effect, placed under house arrest, with security forces preventing her from leaving her home. Those are all deeply troubling human rights violations.
We believe that the European Union, the United States, the Commonwealth and others were right not to send election observers, given concerns about the election arrangements, and the associated violence and intimidation. We support the remarks by the EU High Representative, Cathy Ashton, condemning the violence and highlighting the concern that some of the attacks targeted women and children, and religious and ethnic groups. Many of our international partners support her conclusion that conditions were not met for transparent, inclusive and credible elections.
It is hoped that the dialogue everyone—particularly the UK, the EU, the UN and the Commonwealth—is calling for will enable all people in Bangladesh to participate in transparent and credible elections in the future. We have heard calls today for fresh elections, with differing views about whether they should take place within the next few months, or whether more time is needed to put the appropriate mechanisms in place. I know that it is early days, but I would be keen to hear from the Minister what discussions the Government have had with the parties in Bangladesh and what role we could play in ensuring that elections that are satisfactory to the majority of the people in Bangladesh happen in the near future, no matter what the outcome.
The hon. Member for St Albans talked about the troubled history of elections in Bangladesh. She also discussed the persecution of religious minorities, which is a matter of great concern to hon. Members—it has been raised on a number of occasions, and it is important that it is flagged up. She talked about the all-party group’s visit to Bangladesh last September, which sounds very successful. Members of Parliament get criticised quite a lot for going on such overseas visits, but Members who took part in that visit feel that they are now informed about the situation so that they can take part in this debate. There is no substitute for being on the ground in a country and witnessing at first hand what is happening there.
The hon. Lady spoke about the garment industry, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The role of consumer power in flagging up these issues is something that we have not really mobilised. There are brilliant campaigns such as Labour Behind the Label, a Bristol-based organisation, and groups such as War on Want have campaigned on the matter in the past. We need to do more to flag up the ethics of our high street and what we are actually buying.
Kerry McCarthy
Given that the report has been submitted to DFID, it would not be my place to respond on its behalf, but my colleagues in the shadow DFID team, my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), are doing a lot of work on how we can make the high street more ethical. I am sure that we can work on that on a cross-party basis and with the support of those such as the all-party group.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) spoke from her unique perspective as the sole Member of the House of Bangladeshi origin—indeed, she was born in the country. She spoke eloquently about the frustration that is felt by members of the community over here. No matter which political party they may be aligned with or which party they may want to win the election, they all have a desire to see political stability and order restored in Bangladesh, not least because the current situation is putting at risk the economic investment that is lifting the country out of poverty. She made a powerful plea for people in power to put their political differences behind them in the country’s interests and said that the country’s politics is holding it back. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale echoed those sentiments, as did the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).
I thought at one point that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) was after a free meal in one of the curry houses in his constituency. I hope that he name-checked all of them and did not leave anyone out or he will be given a cold welcome next time he visits. He talked about the impact of aid and the contribution made by the diaspora, as did the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South, who speaks as someone with not just a significant Bangladeshi diaspora in his community, but in his role as a shadow DFID spokesman, talked about the Department. The last thing we want to do is to abandon a country just because the democratic process is not perfect, but we need to see how FCO and DFID funding, and the work taking place in the country, can be pulled together so that it is about supporting better political engagement and strengthening governance to ensure that aid money for poverty projects is well delivered, going into the right hands and benefiting the people. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) was entirely right to raise concerns about extra-judicial killings and the Rapid Action Battalion, about which I was talking to somebody only the other day.
Let me turn to the human rights situation. Last year, as a result of political violence, Bangladesh was added to the FCO’s human rights report as a case study. It is estimated that 500 Bangladeshis were killed in political violence in 2013, with injury caused to thousands of others, predominantly associated with the international crimes tribunal’s investigations into the 1971 war. I have seen harrowing reports. Human Rights Watch has documented evidence that the security forces were responsible for some of the deaths during the protests. It is imperative that those responsible are held to account. The incidents provided further evidence of the need to promote freedom of expression and association in Bangladesh. People in Bangladesh and some external observers have argued that the tribunal process is flawed, and there are troubling reports that at least one witness has been attacked and killed.
The verdicts have led to the death penalty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said, most of us are united across this House in condemning the use of capital punishment in all cases. I know that that is not a unanimous view, but I think I am right in saying that it is probably a majority view. Labour Members regard the death penalty as inhumane. As in the case of the execution of Abdul Quader Molla of the Jamaat-e-Islami party last month, it serves only to heighten tensions and spark further violence. The Government therefore have our full support in calling on Bangladesh to implement a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and to uphold the international covenant on civil and political rights. It is important, especially now that we are members of the Human Rights Council, that the abolition of the death penalty continues to be raised at the council and with our Commonwealth partners.
As has already been mentioned, the people of Bangladesh had our deepest sympathies following the Rana Plaza factory disaster last April, in which 1,100 people lost their lives and 2,500 were injured. We have discussed the protection of ILO standards within the garment industry and the hidden human costs associated with the ability to buy high street products in the UK at such a low price. I commend the TUC, among others, for its work with retailers to secure support for an accord to fund an independent and much-needed health and safety inspection body for Bangladeshi factories.
Mrs Main
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate at such short notice. The slot became available because of the unfortunate circumstances of the death of Mr Paul Goggins.
Although they are participating at short notice, many hon. Members and colleagues from the all-party group have spoken with great knowledge and depth. If the debate shows the world outside this Chamber anything, it is the House of Commons at its best. We are completely at one in our disappointment at Bangladesh’s situation and in our hope that some solution and way forward can be found even at this late stage.
The reason the interim period lasted for two years, despite that being far longer than is allowed for under the constitution, was that the 2006 to 2008 interim Government had to fix so many problems that had been left unfixed. For example, a credible voter list was needed, because millions had been left disfranchised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, when such a voter list was brought in, hopes were high that the country would be led by a party with a true democratic mandate, because so many people were enfranchised who had previously been left off a voter list that could in no way be considered free of corruption.
Given the hopes expressed at the 2008 election, which the Awami League won with a landslide vote and a true democratic mandate, it is a shame that in such a short time Bangladesh should find itself in its current position. So many colleagues who care so much about the country and who have spoken so knowledgeably—indeed, some have a large Bangladeshi diaspora in their constituencies—are united across the House and across parties in saying that the country must do better.
I concur with the shadow Minister that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) will probably have curry for life. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) did not break into the mother tongue of Bangladesh that he seems to speak so well, albeit with something of an accent. His wife runs the Sreepur street project, to which he referred, admirably. She has presented the good work that that charity does to the APPG.
To the people who ask what APPGs do, I say that this debate shows what they do at their best. They take an interest in a niche subject and unite colleagues in the House across party lines. I am truly grateful that this debate has been participated in so fully. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) could not take the limelight, as he was going to do, because of pressing engagements that meant he could not stay until the end. He would have done a brilliant job of opening and closing the debate, but I have had to fulfil that role. I am sorry if I have coughed throughout, but I have watched all of it.
I honestly hope that those who are watching this debate—some of whom are very close to us—have taken on board our earnest hope that they will go back and say, “Put your differences aside.” The two-lady solution that was being talked about in 2006 would have been a disaster because there can be no way to run a country through violence. We want Bangladesh’s political leaders to keep their arguments and debates within their Chamber, and to allow their electorate to come forward freely with a strong voice and say who they would like to represent them. The people should then be able to hold them to account. That is what this House does. We hold the Government of the day to account. Every Government who are in power must feel that they have to deal with the issues and that they cannot just keep looking back and blaming the Opposition, saying, “It all happened then.” [Interruption.] That goes right the way back to 1971. Let us end on that note of consensus—don’t spoil it. We can look back at the history, but if people focus only on that and lose sight of the bigger picture, to which we have all alluded, it will be a tragedy for Bangladesh.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the current situation in Bangladesh.
Syria
Anne Main Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
Yes, that is also true. The hon. Gentleman is looking ahead a bit, however. We are not yet in a situation where people can go back to their homes or be resettled, or where assurances can be given about the position of different communities in Syria. In a way, that would be a good problem to have. It is the next stage that we will need to move on to. Our overwhelming emphasis now is on staunching the bloodshed, but we will have to move on to those issues and he is quite right to raise them.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment not to provide any lethal support to the so-called moderate rebels. When thinking about a transitional Government, may I also urge him to learn the lessons from places such as Bangladesh? It had a transitional Government put in place but they did not consider the outcomes in regard to the delivery of democracy for those people who were not part of that Government.
UK Relations with China
Anne Main Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Stewart Jackson
Before my hon. Friend moves on to animal welfare, I want to address Tibet. He talks about the international community being minded to take a tough approach, but as we speak there are human rights abuses in Tibet. There is self-immolation, and dissidents are being driven into the Dharamsala mountains. There is collective punishment and an attempt to eradicate the culture and language of Tibet. Is that not something on which the international community should be taking a tough stance, rather than kowtowing and acquiescing in the bullying of China when, for instance, the Dalai Lama visits various international communities?
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. The interventions are getting longer and longer. I hope there might be a bit of discipline. The frequency is fine, but the length is getting a tad like a speech.
Mark Pritchard
If my speech becomes long, I am sure you will tell me, Mrs Main. The quality of the interventions has been so high that I have not noticed their length, but I am grateful for that reminder for later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) makes an important point. I will address Tibet in detail later. If I do not answer his specific points, I know that he will remind me. I do not appear to have that particular page in my notes, but there is no need to worry because I can talk about Tibet right now.
I have met the Dalai Lama twice, for which I am glad. I am proud to have had the privilege of meeting him, and what the Chinese Government are doing in Tibet is completely unacceptable. There has been suppression of the Buddhist religion and oppression of the Tibetan people. There has been burning—since the late 1940s probably 6,000 monasteries and churches have been destroyed. From memory, there are some 300,000 Chinese troops currently in Tibet, which is unacceptable. There needs to be a peaceful resolution to the Tibet question, and human rights in Tibet must be recognised.
My hon. Friend used the term “kowtowing.” I am a subject of Her Majesty the Queen. I am a UK citizen, and I will meet whomever I want to meet. I will not kowtow to anyone from any other country. The Chinese must stop bullying individuals; they must stop bullying Tibet; and they must stop bullying other Governments, too.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Anne Main Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Wharton
I thank my hon. Friend. He has made clearer the position of the Labour party than the Leader of the Opposition has yet managed to do. There may be a vacancy there for him soon if he were to choose to apply for it.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It may help my hon. Friend, who is doing a wonderful job here, if I could just refer to something that was put out by the Liberal Democrats at the last election, which said that the reason for giving a real referendum was that it was over 30 years since the British people last voted, and although they wanted to campaign to stay in, they firmly believed that length of time justified having the referendum.
James Wharton
I thank my hon. Friend. That leads me neatly on to my next point, which is that I have no objection in a referendum to those who would want to campaign to stay in, just as I could have no objection to those who would want to fight to come out. I do wonder, though, at a democratically elected Member of Parliament who would seek to deny the British people that choice. That is the fundamental area of disagreement, and beyond that I am sure we can reach across parties to find agreement and deliver a Bill that is so important and long overdue.
Mr Alexander
I will give way in a moment or two, but let me make a little progress.
Only this week, the hon. Member for Stockton South faced criticism from none other than one of his own Conservative councillors, who called it
“a cynical, pointless stunt, nothing more”.
The Conservative councillor for Yarm and Kirklevington went on to say:
“I think it should have been something to get the economy moving or to speed up help to get women into work.”
I could not have put it better myself.
Mrs Main
Surely the right hon. Gentleman and his party must accept some responsibility for this uncertainty. In 2012 they cheated the British public with a tidying-up exercise on the Lisbon treaty, and now, again, there has been a broken contract with the British public. This Bill is a full contract with the British public that they have confidence in. I hope that he would at least go back and establish a bit of trust with the public on this matter.
Mr Alexander
I sense that the hon. Lady is so used to attacking the Government of 2012 that she has forgotten it was a Conservative Government.
Mr Denham
I am not one of those who have been accused of abusing the courtesies of this House, but there is no requirement in the courtesies of this House to vote on a motion that is ridiculous, so I will not be voting on it.
There was a time, not so long ago, when private Members’ Bills were used for matters of great social reform, such as homosexual law reform and gay marriage. Issues of great constitutional importance were seen as the responsibilities of the Government. That may have changed. Gay marriage is an important social reform, so perhaps making it a Government proposal is progress—the Government’s gay marriage proposals certainly had many Government Members beside themselves. However, constitutional reforms, such as the Great Reform Act, the devolution referendum and the initial referendum on the European Union, which were the responsibilities of Government, have now been devolved by this weak and hopeless Prime Minister to private Members’ business. That is one great oddity.
Mr Denham
No, I will make a little more progress.
Why has this situation come about? Why has supposedly the most powerful politician in the land come begging his MPs to support a private Member’s Bill? The Prime Minister’s position on the issue seems clear enough. He made a speech in January in which he said that after the next election, if there is a Conservative Government, he would aim to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, with an in/out referendum by 2017, come what may in those negotiations. That might not be wise—there is absolutely no guarantee of any negotiations being clear by 2017—but it is certainly a clear position, and it came from the Prime Minister.
Why was that not good enough for the Conservative Members who have turned up today? Of course, many of them just want to leave the EU. They do not care when, as long as it is as soon as possible, and they do not trust their own Prime Minister. As soon as the Queen’s Speech was published, they were after him. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) was first off the mark, moving an amendment regretting the failure to mention a referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech. He was very clear why one was needed. He wrote in The Daily Telegraph:
“The Prime Minister made a historic pledge to the British people during his January speech,”
but
“where the Prime Minister’s pledge falls down is its believability.”
Let me repeat that:
“where the Prime Minister’s pledge falls down”—
this “historic pledge”, let us remember—
“is its believability.”
What an extraordinary statement! The reason we are here today is because the majority of Tory MPs do not believe that a historic pledge made by their own leader is believed by the British people. That is the only reason we are here, and that is why the Prime Minister is humiliated by these proceedings today.
Mr Cash
I have made my position entirely clear on a number of occasions. We need to have something in the nature of a European Free Trade Association arrangement. We need an association of nation states. I am off to Lithuania the day after tomorrow to discuss these matters with the other 27 chairmen. The main topic of conversation now is democratic legitimacy, and it is not just in this country, it is not just in this Chamber, it is not just in the opinion polls, it is not just in the Eurobarometer, which has shown that trust in Europe has completely evaporated all over Europe. Wake up, I say. This is the fact, and it is happening. That is why we need to have a renegotiation. This is about trust. It is about allowing people to have government of a kind that responds to their own wishes, as expressed in general elections. That is why we cannot have two Governments and two Parliaments covering the same subject matter. It is complete, incoherent, absurd nonsense.
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend has been tempted on numerous occasions by Opposition Members to debate the merits of in and out, but that is not what today is about. They will not say whether or not they will have a referendum. Today is about whether we will debate that with the public—not in here among ourselves, but take it out to the public. The Opposition want to turn today’s debate into a debate about the merits. I caution my hon. Friend about being seduced by Opposition Members. Make them answer whether they will vote for a referendum.
Mr Cash
I think my hon. Friend can be certain that I am not likely to be seduced, either by the Opposition or anybody else, for that matter. I simply say this: this is about the principle of a referendum.
I conclude with a simple statement: this is about trust. It is about trust in people. Because we are doing it through a Bill, as is required, we will give authority through Parliament to have a referendum. That is what this is all about. It is to give the British people their right to have their say. There is no question but that the Bill must pass, but it needs to be secured by a vote on both sides of the House. I am afraid that Opposition Members are neglecting their duty to their constituents if they continue to refuse to support the Bill.
Mr Dodds
Yes, I agree. That is why it is not enough merely to have it enshrined in law that there will be a referendum at some future point if there is some new treaty or whatever. There is a continuing erosion of sovereignty and it is therefore important that the matter is brought to a head sooner rather than later.
Mrs Main
Is it not a fact that any referendum that was held would be on the treaty change, not on in or out? We have never had a promise of an in/out referendum, only a “no more change to a particular treaty” referendum. We need to make that point very clear. This is our one opportunity to do this.
Bangladesh (Escalation of Violence)
Anne Main Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Riordan. I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate, which will focus on the recent escalation of violence in Bangladesh and which I know hon. Members from all parties are concerned about. First, I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives in the violence that has taken place over recent weeks, particularly following the International Crimes Tribunal—a domestic court that tries people for alleged international crimes, including the genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity that were committed during the 1971 war of independence. The war, as many people will be aware, lasted nine months and cost the lives of some 3 million people.
I deplore the escalation of violence and the recent attacks on places of worship and private property in Bangladesh. Recent developments are of great concern not only to people in Bangladesh, but to the British Bangladeshi community and of course to those who have friends in Bangladesh.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. As she knows, I am chair of the all-party group on Bangladesh. I have been contacted by numerous Members of Parliament, as well as British Bangladeshis, asking for an emergency debate. Sadly, although the high commissioner is here today, we will not be able to facilitate such a debate with him present, so I am glad he is here to listen to the hon. Lady’s comments today.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the hon. Lady and commend her for her work as the chair of the all-party group. I agree that there should be more focus on what is happening. We must ensure that we in the British Parliament play our part in supporting countries such as Bangladesh, so that early action can be taken. We can apply the appropriate pressure as friends of Bangladesh to try to make sure such situations do not escalate and become more grave. I hope that after the Minister has heard today’s discussions he will make the appropriate representations. I have a series of questions that I will come on to.
Many British Bangladeshis have raised concerns about the escalation of violence. A third of my constituents are of British Bangladeshi origin and 500,000 people here in the UK have Bangladeshi heritage. Many have made representations to me, particularly regarding consular issues. For instance, constituents have contacted me about the safety and security of family members who visit Bangladesh. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is unable to join us today owing to a family funeral, asked me to raise the issue of her constituent. She has been working hard to support her constituent, Sheikh Noor-e-Alom Hamidi—a British national of Bangladeshi origin who unfortunately got caught up in the violence, while attending Friday prayers. He sustained injuries during his arrest and was subsequently taken into custody. There have been particular concerns as Mr Hamidi, the director of a charity, suffers from ill health. Will the Minister update us on the advice and support that his consular department is offering to my hon. Friend’s constituent? There is grave concern across the board for his safety. I want to thank the Minister in advance for any assistance that his officials are providing.
On business and investment, many in the UK Bangladeshi community have business interests. Britain is the top investor in Bangladesh; our economic connections are very strong. If the unrest and instability continues, it will damage business and investment in that country. Many business leaders in my constituency have already made representations to the UK Government and to their counterparts in Bangladesh to convey their concerns and to try to bring the major leaders of the parties towards dialogue, so that they take responsibility and action to bring an end to the unrest.
Rushanara Ali
Bangladesh is a country that was founded on the idea of standing up for the rights of minorities. The majority Muslim population in Bangladesh is all too aware of what it is like to face persecution; they fought a war of independence for that reason. I am a British Bangladeshi, but I was born in Bangladesh, and it is absolutely right that people are constantly reminded of the values and principles on which Bangladesh was founded. In fact, the nation was founded by Muslims and Hindus, by those with faith and those without faith—by people across the board. That is Bangladesh’s great strength as a country. Where there is rising intolerance, that intolerance must be dealt with.
I would emphasise, however, that there are concerns about religious freedoms across the board. Within a liberal framework—I believe that Bangladesh has a strong liberal tradition—the rights of people to peacefully practise their religious beliefs, whatever religion they practise, should be observed, along with their other civil rights. So I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we need to ensure that we encourage the Government of Bangladesh and other political leaders in the country to set the tone and to try to ensure that they stand up not only against any kind of oppression towards any minority group, but for religious freedoms within a peaceful context. The concern is that violence is increasing—some of it sadly through the prism of religion—and that is deeply unhelpful.
Rushanara Ali
I want to make a bit more progress.
There have been reports of police officers losing their lives. However, people have raised their concerns about reports of the disproportionate use of force by law enforcement agencies. Frequent nationwide strikes have caused considerable volatility and led to businesses suffering and to ordinary people being unable to go about their daily lives in safety, or at least without having concerns about their safety even if they are not directly affected by violence. Of course, the country risks reputational damage in the eyes of the international community, not to mention damage to its economy.
As we look forward to the elections that are set to take place in Bangladesh in 2014, there are of course grave concerns about political violence and unrest ahead of them. So I hope that the Minister will be able to provide an update on what assurances the British Government are seeking from the Bangladesh Government, on what representations they are making ahead of the 2014 elections and on any dialogue that he and his Department are having with the main opposition party in Bangladesh, to ensure that the country can move towards, first, security and safety and then free and fair elections next year.
I remind Members of the progress that Bangladesh has made in its 42 years of history. The country started off facing huge challenges, but the growth rate in Bangladesh is now at 6%, according to the World Bank. According to Goldman Sachs, Bangladesh is projected to be one of the next 11 countries that could reach middle-income status. Bangladesh has made considerable attempts to address poverty, to improve girls’ education and to achieve many of the millennium development goals, particularly those on girls’ education.
Those are important achievements, but Bangladesh still faces grinding poverty and it is the second most vulnerable country to climate change. So I hope that we can work together with our friends in Bangladesh to ensure that people focus on the big challenges facing the country. Only when the governance of the country is genuinely focused on the future needs of its population and on the challenges that it faces will Bangladesh be truly able to meet its aspirations of reaching middle-income status and achieving economic and social prosperity.
We all have a vested interest in seeing countries such as Bangladesh progress, and there is no reason why Bangladesh should not progress if the issues that I have outlined are addressed and if we can encourage the major political parties in the country to work towards peace and stability. However, that requires political will and courage from all sides. I hope that the Minister will highlight what his Department is doing to try to encourage dialogue in Bangladesh.
I will end by asking the Minister a few questions; I will be very quick in doing so. First, can he provide an update on the representation that his Department has made about the rising violence in Bangladesh? What efforts are being made to try to bring an end to that rising violence? Can he update the House on whether he has had discussions with the main political parties in Bangladesh and, if so, what progress has been made? What representations have been made and what consular assistance has been provided to UK nationals in Bangladesh, such as Mr Hamidi, who have found themselves caught up in the current difficulties? Finally, has the Minister discussed with his international colleagues, including his European counterparts, what action we can take together to support Bangladesh in this very difficult period? I very much look forward to hearing his response to the debate, and I thank him for taking the time to respond to my questions.
Commission Work Programme 2013
Anne Main Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend displays his usual prescience in these matters, because I was about to refer to the list that he recited. The Government welcome the inclusion in the work programme of a list of simplification measures, but we need to be vigilant to ensure that they deliver genuine savings for business. The list of 14 withdrawn proposals that the Commission has published is disappointing, because those measures are obsolete already or are due to be replaced by further proposals. The Commission needs to do much better than that to remove unnecessary or excessive legislation from the statute book, and not only the Government of the United Kingdom but the Governments of a significant number of other like-minded member states are committed to achieving that.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
On the commitment to reducing the burden of these legislative measures, does the Minister have any idea of how many we would like to get rid of? Are we suggesting that anything is dropped instead of just waiting for the Commission to show us what it is proposing?
Mr Lidington
Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills keeps returning to this point. The working time directive is one example that the Prime Minister mentioned again in his television interview on Sunday. The best thing I can do for my hon. Friend is to undertake that I or one of my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will write to her with more detail on this point.
A third important theme for the Government is safeguarding the United Kingdom’s interests as a sovereign state. As set out in the coalition agreement, we will not participate in the establishment of a European public prosecutor and the UK will not exercise its opt-in for this measure, which is proposed in the Commission’s work programme. Several other measures in the area of justice and home affairs will also trigger opt-in decisions. These will be considered on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting civil liberties, preserving the integrity of our criminal justice and common law systems, and controlling immigration.
We also have concerns about subsidiarity in relation to a small number of items in the work programme, such as those with regard to standardising VAT forms throughout the EU. Parliament, of course, has an important role to play in this regard, not least in deploying the additional powers that it has under the Lisbon treaty to issue a reasoned opinion when it considers that a proposal is not consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
I hope that today’s debate will set the tone for close consultation between Parliament and Government on European Union issues in 2013 and beyond. We consider Parliament’s role to be vital in strengthening democratic oversight of EU activity and, more broadly, in improving trust in the decision-making process between citizens, Parliament and Government, and fuelling a well-informed public debate on EU matters.
Of course, responsibility for most of the measures in the work programme lies with other Government Departments and not the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I will be happy to discuss further, both with the European Scrutiny Committee and departmental Select Committees, how best to engage in a deeper dialogue about EU issues during all stages of their development. The scrutiny of EU legislation by Parliament is vital to the robust functioning of democracy.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no manifesto; nobody stands for the European Commission saying what they want to do and the programme they wish to propose. No, no—it comes down from on high. Is it not interesting that that which has the appearance of power has none whereas that which has the reality of power uses it as far as possible by stealth?
Annex I contains 58 recommendations, 38 of which are legislative—including some elements that are non-legislative in bits of them. One rather splendidly requires “soft law”, a term that I have not heard before. I wonder whether when up before a judge one could say, “I am not sure whether I broke the law, because it was only soft law—does it have to be hard law?” Another is a negotiating directive that is not law by first degree but becomes law a little later.
Annex II is on simplifications and 17 out of the 18 proposals are legislative. Is it not interesting that when the European Union simplifies, it has to pass more law? It does not just repeal things—not a bit of it—but passes more laws. It reminds me of that quip: “Big fleas have smaller fleas upon their backs to bite ’em, and little fleas have lesser fleas and so ad infinitum.” We go on and on legislating, apparently making things simpler, but it seems to me that we are just being bitten by the fleas of the European Union.
I know that time is short, so I want to go to the absolute heart of the matter, which, as so often, is in the introduction, which refers to the state of the Union speech by Mr Barroso—that reference is wonderfully grandiloquent and makes it sound as if he is President of the United States and a democratically elected and important figure rather than a minor panjandrum—and states:
“The State of the Union speech launched ambitious ideas for the long term framing of the EU—a deep and genuine economic union, based on a political union. This vision must be translated into practice through concrete steps, if it is to address the lingering crisis that continues to engulf Europe, and the Euro Area in particular.”
These are concrete steps about creating an economic union based on a political union; they are not in the interests of the United Kingdom.
Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance
Anne Main Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), and I strongly endorse the sentiments he uttered throughout his speech, including those at the end. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on securing this debate.
I heard the comments made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on Europe and does so consistently. He suggested that my hon. Friend is being technical or difficult in raising these matters for debate, but he had the House’s support for an emergency debate. My memory of events in this House goes back a long time, and I recall that similar comments were made when my hon. Friend was raising concerns about the Maastricht treaty and about the single European currency. Yet a very wide body of opinion in this House now suggests that the Maastricht treaty should never have been signed and that the single European currency is not a self-evident good. The hon. Member for Cheltenham would do well to remember that. When my hon. Friend the Member for Stone rings the alarm bells, we should all prepare to man the barricades.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that mission creep over the years means that we are right to be sceptical now?
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the debate. I have to leave at 3.30 pm, as I have advised you, but I have been here for the entire debate. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) but must say that I disagree with just about every word that he said. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on securing the debate, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud observed, we have had only a day’s notice of it. That was because my hon. Friend the Member for Stone was so fleet-footed and secured it through Standing Order No. 24. Should we not have had that emergency measure, we would have had no discussion whatsoever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said that we had not had enough time to contemplate the matter, but we should contemplate the impact of this form of legislation even if we do not get debates on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), who is not here at the moment, have spent many long years studying the implications of what goes on in Europe for our economy and our legislature. It is extremely important that we do so. This is not about navel gazing.
I was somewhat disappointed in my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who seemed to feel that by studying the matter we are somehow being disloyal. It is not disloyalty. We are doing just service to our constituents, because although there may be the political will or ambition in Europe, the impact will be very much on us as a democratically elected Parliament. I, like many other colleagues, have been extremely disappointed by the mission creep throughout Europe, which has in effect led to imposition on a democratic country—such as Greece—by people who were never elected by that country but who now make decisions about it.
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to correct a misapprehension. I apologise if I created the impression to which she refers, because it was not my intention at all. I think that we are all patriots in this House—we should be—and that although we may agree on the ends, we may differ on the means by which we achieve them. I should not for a moment question my hon. Friend’s integrity or her sincere devotion to her country.
Mrs Main
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I end this part of the debate on that conciliatory note.
I have sincere concerns, however, that the mission creep that I mentioned in an intervention has led us to the point at which a democratic country can have something imposed upon it, leading to riots and civil unrest, because it is not willing to take the necessary pain that the EU must inflict on it. Although we are not today debating whether Greece should leave the EU, we all should heed the warning that when Greece signed up to being a full member of the EU it did not sign up to have something imposed upon it, as it has had.
Mrs Main
No; the hon. Gentleman has made many speeches and many interventions, and I am sure that as the lone representative of the Liberal Democrats today he has had more than his fair share of the debate. I shall not take interventions from him.
I am extremely concerned that we will find ourselves dancing on the head of the same pin as we did in the previous Parliament. The hon. Gentleman was a Member then, so he will remember the Liberal Democrats saying, “We need to have a full EU in/out vote on this, and we will give you a genuine vote,” whereas the Conservatives, in opposition at the time, said that we needed to have a vote because there was a treaty. We were assured, “Oh, no, no, it is not a treaty. It is just something we don’t need to have a referendum on.” Such dancing on the head of a pin is what most of us on the more Eurosceptic side of our party find worrying about this particular treaty-that-is-not-a-treaty, into which we supposedly do not need to have any form of input.
Mark Reckless
Does my hon. Friend accept that the difference between our commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and the Liberal Democrat commitment to an in/out referendum is that theirs is still possible?
Martin Horwood
Will the hon. Lady give way, as she is attacking us directly?
Mrs Main
No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I have made my views clear about why I will not. He has had plenty of opportunity.
I am extremely concerned also that the package under discussion could be incorporated into EU law within five years, because this situation is very much like our bleating about the Lisbon treaty, when we kept saying, “It does have a big effect, it does have a big effect,” and we were constantly told that it did not. The treaty under discussion has a potentially big effect, and that is why I offer encouragement to the Minister, which I am sure he has been offered by many hon. Members today, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). The Minister has the huge support of the House and the political will of this Parliament, and the Prime Minister had the support of the majority of the House in using the veto. He had robust support, which I believe he has also among the public, for exercising the veto, but, despite the fact that we are not ultimately part of the process, what we do not want is to become a part of it because of mission creep.
So I say to the Minister, who is going along to discuss those matters, that we could be affected by them, despite the fact that they are not designed to affect us. They are designed to affect those countries that are happily allowing themselves to be influenced in that way, but my fear is that, like all the other treaties that have come our way over the years, including Maastricht, ultimately five years down the line, when this one is incorporated, we will somehow feel its chilling effects.
I felt the need to jump up and down when my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said, “What does the EU make us do that we don’t wish to do?” Well, I should like to deport Abu Qatada, but I cannot. I should like not to be fined or pursued in the European Court of Justice for trying to introduce a means of not allowing people who have never paid into our benefits pot to claim—a habitual residence test—which was overturned on the ground that we were somehow being discriminatory. Those are just two examples of our regularly being made to feel that we must do something, and, what is more, the European courts now have a punitive nature, whereby they routinely fine countries that are non-compliant and say, “If you don’t do so we will place people in your country to deliver whatever we want delivered.”
The European courts are intent on getting their own way, and they have found a new method of getting around the rather difficult matter of our veto. They have decided to ignore us, inasmuch as they have said, “This agreement isn’t to do with you,” but ultimately it will be because we will feel its effects. So I encourage the Minister to go along to the discussions with a truly sceptical mind, based on his long and distinguished career in the House, during which time he has seen these arguments made again and again, and seen how in reality the situation has translated into something very different further down the line.