Report of the Iraq Inquiry

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

We are moving a long way from the lessons that need to be drawn from Chilcot, and if I may, I will return to my speech. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed defence on many occasions. I always enjoy the discussions, and I am quite happy to take his points at another time. However, I do not want to spend the entire afternoon discussing defence, much as I am tempted to. I simply say that if the NSC has brought in outside perspectives from time to time, it has clearly not done so enough to deal with the underlying problem.

Another issue that comes out in Chilcot, and that has not been fixed, is the lack of challenge in Parliament. That was the other potential source of challenge to the Government. Although there were vigorous debates in the House, those debates and the 217 MPs who voted to indicate that the case had not been made were ultimately not enough to stop the march to war. I was not yet in the House; I was on the demonstrations. Although more Labour MPs than MPs from any other political party voted against the war, there were not enough of us to stop it.

Have we moved on since then? Many people have said that the 2013 vote against taking action in Syria was a watershed moment. It cemented the convention that whatever the views of the Executive, this House has the final say. The House was asked to approve a broad mandate for the use of military force without a coherent strategy, clear objectives or a long-term plan. It was all too reminiscent of the approach to Iraq. Members from all parts of the House exercised a healthy degree of scepticism, and they were right to do so.

At the same time, the Government have increasingly taken advantage of loopholes in that convention to intervene in more conflicts with less oversight. They have developed military capability in cyberspace, but they refuse to say in what circumstances it might be used or when Parliament might be informed. They have increased investment in drones and special forces at a time when there have been many cuts to other parts of the armed forces. They have shown a willingness to use both as a means of intervening in conflicts to which the UK is not a party; that has included the use of special forces in quasi-conventional combat roles. In doing so, the Government seek to bypass not only parliamentary support for their interventions but any form of parliamentary oversight. The development of hybrid warfare demands new mechanisms for holding the Executive to account. All parties, on both sides of the House, should be working on developing those mechanisms, because as we all know, hybrid warfare is likely to be the future.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that there is at least an argument that to use the whipping system to secure a parliamentary majority for a predetermined war emasculates the House of Commons rather than empowers it, because it prevents Back-Bench Members of Parliament from thereafter holding the Government to account? Does she agree that there might be an argument in favour of introducing some kind of UK war powers Act to get around that difficulty?

[Emily Thornberry]

There is continuing debate about the matter. As long as we can be confident that a decision made in this House will not need to be taken off to the courts, for the judges, eventually, to decide whether we go to war—that would be entirely inappropriate—and as long as we can keep control of any such legislation so that it ensures that, where possible, the Government will come to Parliament and allow us to express our view, I think that that is right.

I understand that this is the system that we have at the moment, but I am concerned that although the convention continues to develop and strengthen as time goes on, it is still in the gift of the Executive to decide whether they will bring the matter to Parliament. There is an argument for putting the convention on a more formal footing, but there is the danger of court intervention. It is a moot point, and something that we must continue to look at.

EU Referendum Leaflet

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is interesting that the orange card in the Lisbon treaty has been replaced by the red card in the reforms secured by the Prime Minister, which sets a higher bar for reversing or rejecting legislation proposed by the EU.

As we have heard, back in February the Prime Minister ruled nothing out if he did not manage to succeed in securing reforms. Those reforms, meagre as they were, were based mainly on pull factors for migration and avoiding deeper integration. He and the remain campaign have gone as far as saying that we might be risking a war if we vote to leave. Is that really what this debate has been reduced to—cheap holidays or war?

I am pleased to see that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), has taken a more measured view. He worked through the possible effects on our foreign policy of two positive options, in a report agreed unanimously by his Committee, before coming to his decision in favour of Brexit only today.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has done extraordinarily well. Has he seen the article in The Daily Telegraph today by the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who comes out very strongly indeed and says that what the Prime Minister is talking about with regard to war is complete and utter nonsense? Surely the Chairman of the Defence Committee must know better than the Prime Minister.

[Paul Scully]

I will leave my hon. Friend to be the judge of that. There is nothing in the leaflet about the actual option available to voters, which is between a UK able to take its own democratic decisions and an EU emboldened by our thumbs up to further integration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

I call Kate Hoey.

[Mr James Gray]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. Would it not be normal in a debate such as this, having heard from a speaker in favour of the motion, to hear from a speaker opposed to it? Would that not be better? As I understand it, the hon. Lady is on our side. Is there not someone who would advance the opposite case?

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

You have been here long enough, Mr Gray, to know that we go from one side to the other. Kate Hoey caught my eye and therefore Kate Hoey has been selected to speak next. As we go back and forth, if other hon. Members on the Opposition side catch my eye, irrespective of whether they are for or against the motion, I will clearly be in a position to call them.

Aleppo

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I concur with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman says. We took steps to hold Assad to account when he crossed a line by using chemical weapons. We wanted to take action, and we came to this House, but I am afraid that this House decided that that was not the action that was needed. We need to recognise that there are occasions when a few countries in the world can stand up to dictators such as Assad, and the rest of the world looks to countries such as Britain to act. We did not at that juncture.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

As the Minister has said, in particular in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), Russia is absolutely central to finding any kind of long-term solution in Syria. That is absolutely correct. Yet in all our attempts to talk to Russia we discover that there is an absolute brick wall between us.

Last week, members of the House of Commons Defence Committee were in Moscow, but the Russian Government would not speak to us. Lines of communication have broken down. Does the Minister agree that now may be the time to put aside, temporarily, our perfectly reasonable objection to and outrage at the illegal annexation of Crimea, and say to the Russians that we need to talk to them about Syria and that for now we should park our differences on other matters?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am aware that the Defence Committee made efforts to visit Moscow, which would have been an important visit—

[Mr Gray]

We were there last week.

[Mr Ellwood]

What I am trying to say is that what my hon. Friend has put his finger on, in tying the two issues together, is exactly what we should recognise. The sanctions against Putin are coming from the very countries to which the refugees are moving. We need to be a bit more astute in recognising that from Putin’s perspective the issue of Ukraine and the Crimea is linked with what is happening in Syria.

Daesh: Syria/Iraq

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. The training and doctrine of the RAF and other NATO air forces are built around minimising the risk of civilian casualties. I am afraid that that is not the case with all air forces in the world and it is certainly not the case with Daesh.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the broad-spectrum initiatives that the Foreign Secretary has announced, all of which are designed to degrade and eventually destroy Daesh. Outstanding among them is the Saudi Arabian initiative relating to an Islamic military coalition, which seems to me to be the basis for a very good ground force for the future. It is quite right that we should not be involved in that in any shape or form, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we have some capabilities to offer, perhaps in the form of command and control, training or other things which would not involve British troops being on the ground in Syria but which could none the less make a useful military contribution to the success of that coalition?

[Mr Hammond]

We have ruled out the use of UK combat forces in Syria, and indeed in Iraq, but we have not ruled out the provision of UK capabilities in support of combat forces provided by others. UK command and control, logistics, surveillance, and intelligence gathering and analysis could all provide a very substantial reinforcement to any troops that were deployed on the ground.

Middle East

James Gray Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Moon]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. The critical issue is how we engage the Sunni tribes in fighting for their own future, and how we ensure that the Sunni become an integral part of the change that is needed both in Iraq and in Syria. Without them, our intervention is nonsense and a complete waste of time.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I, too, was on the same trip, but I visited the peshmerga in the north of Iraq whereas she and her hon. Friend visited Baghdad. Does she agree that one of the greatest forces we have in Iraq, and potentially in Syria, too, are the peshmerga?

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who serves valiantly on the Defence Select Committee with me. I know how much work he did on that visit, when we really delved deeply into what the capability and the success of the intervention were. Of course, the peshmerga are a tremendous asset and a great fighting force, but they are not going to fight everywhere in Iraq. They want to focus on their own area and on protecting Kurdish lands and Kurdish people. They are not the Iraqi armed forces; they are the Kurdish armed forces.

The Prime Minister told us last week that we are going to regain more territory. I do not want us to transfer our limited intervention capability from Iraq to Syria. In December 2015, our military presence in Iraq outside of the Kurdish regions was three individuals—we met them—yet our missions there are critical to preventing Daesh from spreading across Iraq.

I urge Members to read the Defence Committee report produced in January this year, which outlined the problems we faced in Iraq and the capability we had to intervene there. The report states that we saw no evidence of the UK Government seeking to analyse, question or change the coalition strategy to which they are committed. Ministers, officials and officers failed to set out a clear military strategy for Iraq, or a clear definition of the UK’s role in operations. We saw no evidence of an energised policy debate, reviewing or arguing options for deeper engagement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I would certainly welcome such an investigation, although perhaps it should have taken place before we started to supply the weapons in the first place. It is a bit late to discover afterwards that they have been used for the wrong purpose.

I fear that the international arms trade may have become so entrenched as part of the UK economy that an awful lot of people in the UK, whether they know it or not, or like it or not, have, in effect, a vested financial interest in not finding peaceful resolutions to conflicts the world over. That is not a good position to be in. I accept that we have to be prepared to defend ourselves. I have a problem not with the fact that a business in my constituency is involved in the military industry, but with what that technology is being used for. The willingness sometimes to provide technology without asking too many questions and without getting assurances about what it will and will not be used for has certainly not helped to bring peace to the middle east or to a number of other troubled spots around the world. This debate is clearly primarily about Syria, although it is badged as being about the whole of the middle east.

It is quite likely that within the next few days this Parliament will be asked to take the gravest and most serious decision that any body of people can be asked to take. I am greatly troubled by the idea that a key consideration for some Members might be the impact that that may or may not have on maintaining or undermining individual politicians in this Chamber. The very fact that the media believe that it will be a factor should give us all cause to stop and think. If we genuinely believe that this Parliament is seen as a beacon of integrity and democracy around the world, what kind of message does it send out if we allow for even the possibility that a decision to go to war could be influenced by domestic political considerations back home? I desperately hope that that will not be a consideration for any one of the 650 people who will be charged with making this decision, but I have a horrible feeling that my hopes may not entirely be realised.

[Mr James Gray]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

I will give way once more.

[Mr Gray]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about whether the twists and turns of political fortune in this Chamber should affect what we decide to do about going to war. Does he agree that with the sole exception of the occasion in 2003 when Mr Blair took us illegally to war in Iraq, there has never before been a vote on the matter in the Chamber, and that he is describing a very good reason for returning to the old system, which worked extremely well with regard to Libya, for example, whereby there was no vote at all until after the action had taken place?

[Peter Grant]

My comments are not about whether individual groups of MPs apply a whip or respect a whip that may be applied to them. It is up to the conscience of each and every one of us whether we follow a party whip. I take the view, although it has never been tested in 25 years in party politics, that if the whip contravened a direct instruction of my conscience I would follow my conscience. That is a decision for every Member to take. My concern is that there is a feeling throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere that for some people—and the vote could be close enough that they are a decisive element—considerations about the impact on positions taken in this Chamber will be a factor. A decision to go to war should never, ever be affected by such factors.

In looking at the justification that has been given so far for involvement in an aerial bombardment in Syria, I continue to have very serious concerns. In order for a war to be just, for those who believe that there is such a thing as a just war, one of the absolute requirements is that it must have a reasonable prospect of success. Aerial bombardment cannot achieve its aims without troops on the ground. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) suggested that those troops will eventually have to come from the United Kingdom, despite the fact that the UK Government have said, “Not under any circumstances.” Yet if they do not come from the UK, they have no idea of where they are going to come from. This will not work without a complete ceasefire between all the different warring factions in and around Syria, and there is no indication whatsoever of any ceasefire between any combination of those factions just now.

My fundamental concern about the idea of airborne military action in Syria is simply that it will not achieve its stated objective. To me, military action that has little chance of achieving its stated objective cannot be justified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cameron]

I do congratulate the First Minister and emphasise that diplomacy is important.

Nick Witney, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, has highlighted the fact that:

“The year-long US air campaign against Islamic State…in Syria is now widely acknowledged to have had remarkably little impact—beyond strengthening that organisation’s narrative of oppression by ‘crusaders’, and therefore its recruiting appeal.”

That view is endorsed by Scottish Muslim groups, which highlight the fact that:

“As more innocent people die from the air strikes, the appeal of Daesh will strengthen.”

It is important to remember that many of the recent terrorist attacks that have triggered the consideration of air strikes have been carried out by individuals who were already living in the countries affected. Therefore, the domestic threat is unlikely to be addressed by air strikes.

The Foreign Affairs Committee report emphasised a number of key issues that required further explanation before the House was asked to approve a motion authorising military action. It highlighted important matters such as legality, ground troops and long-term strategies and consequences as being crucial to the success of any military action. The answers that have been provided by the Government to date have not been adequate in addressing those concerns.

[Mr James Gray]

The hon. Lady is making a very interesting point, but was she not here when the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee said that the seven points he had raised had been answered adequately by the Prime Minister in his statement and that he intended to support the Government’s call for strikes against Syria?

Tibet

James Gray Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, if I may call him that, and fellow officer of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet. In May 2006—more than nine years ago—I had occasion to visit Lhasa and the TAR under supervision by the Chinese Government, along with four other members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, to see for myself exactly how much change had taken place.

The Chineseification of Lhasa, through the encouragement of ethnically Han Chinese citizens to settle in Lhasa and other parts of Tibet, was extraordinary. We learned while we were there that Tibetan was not allowed to be the main language in schools in the city of Lhasa. Mandarin had to be spoken first, and Tibetan was, to all intents and purposes, outlawed by the mayor and provincial Government of the TAR. That was sad to see.

Many elements of Tibetan culture were being suppressed by the Administration and the local Communist party. I know that that has continued apace since the opening of the Chengdu to Lhasa railway, which has allowed many more people to travel much more easily to that extremely high city, where those who are there for only a few days suffer from altitude sickness.

I hope to show that events in Tibet have global implications, and that by failing to speak out against the political, environmental and economic oppression in the TAR, we risk allowing a bully to influence world events and undermine our values.

As an example of that bullying process, let us consider that the 14th world summit of Nobel peace laureates was scheduled to convene in South Africa in October 2014 to honour the late Nelson Mandela’s legacy. However, it had to be cancelled when several Nobel peace laureates pulled out after the South African Government failed to issue a visa to one of the laureates, the Dalai Lama. That is just one example of Chinese pressure; in fact, China went on to thank South Africa for not issuing the Dalai Lama a visa. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, said:

“China highly appreciates the support offered by the South African government on issues concerning China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We also believe that South Africa will continue to uphold this correct position and continue to support China in this regard.”

Let us remind ourselves that the Dalai Lama has been in exile since 1959. That a country such as South Africa should be so afraid of losing important Chinese investment that it was willing to renege on the solidarity offered by Nelson Mandela himself when the Dalai Lama visited Cape Town years ago is truly a tragedy.

China has tried such tactics on many Governments, our own included. In May 2012, David Cameron and Nick Clegg privately met the Dalai Lama in London, outside St Paul’s cathedral, where the Dalai Lama was being awarded the Templeton prize for his contribution to human spirituality. The Chinese Government made a formal protest to the British ambassador in Beijing, saying that that meeting had “harmed” China-UK relations and had

“hurt the feelings of the Chinese people”.

In addition, in a public statement, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hong Lei, urged the UK

“to respond to China’s solemn demand and stop conniving and supporting Tibetan separatists”.

The Chinese Government then cancelled the visit to the UK of a top official, Wu Bangguo, Chair of the National People’s Congress.

In April 2013, David Cameron postponed an official trip—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I let it go the first time, but I think the hon. Gentleman means either “the Prime Minister” or “the right hon. Member for Witney”, but not “Mr David Cameron”.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I am so sorry. Thank you for correcting me, Mr Gray. Let me try again.

In April 2013, the Prime Minister postponed an official trip to China after Beijing indicated that senior leaders were unlikely to meet him, yet the Government have been clear on their position. They regard Tibet as

“part of the People’s Republic of China.”

Does that mean that Her Majesty’s Government do not support those Tibetans who call for independence? With their professed support for the right of self-determination and their commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, would it not be more appropriate for the Government explicitly to support the Tibetans’ right to self-determination?

I ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s position on dialogue between Chinese and Tibetan representatives. Without such dialogue, the Dalai Lama’s call for genuine autonomy for Tibet cannot possibly be achieved. The Chinese Government have put obstacles in the path of such dialogue by requiring, in their own latest White Paper on Tibet, that His Holiness the Dalai Lama make a

“public statement that Tibet has been an integral part of China since antiquity”.

In the past, the Chinese maintained that a precondition for talks would be the abandonment by the Dalai Lama of his stance on independence. He has effectively done that, but after every concession made by His Holiness further barriers have been raised by the Chinese Government. I strongly hope that Her Majesty’s Government can and will resist efforts to force the UK to isolate the Dalai Lama.

However, this is not simply a debate about history. The rights of the Tibetan people—both collective rights, and the rights of individuals and families—have been horribly breached. Religious freedoms have been attacked for decades, and religious institutions have been suborned. Along with the call from the political head of the Tibet autonomous region for Buddhist temples to

“become propaganda centres for the ruling Communist Party”,

there are proposed new counter-terrorism laws that will allow sweeping measures to be taken to suppress religious activity. Many rites that are central to the traditional worship of the Tibetan people, such as the lighting of butter candles, will be treated as subversive acts, as they imply support for the Dalai Lama. Have our Government raised concerns about these proposed new counter-terrorism laws, which appear to contravene the protection of religious freedoms enshrined in international and—until now—Chinese law?

The Chinese Government have given themselves the right to interfere in spiritual life and to deny the approval of the reincarnate lamas named by Tibet’s spiritual leaders, all of whom they have forced into exile. A key role of the Dalai Lama is the obligation to select the successor to the Panchen Lama. The selection of His Holiness is Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, who was a six-year-old boy in 1995—20 years ago—when he was hailed as the reincarnation. He was abducted by the Chinese authorities, along with his family. The Chinese authorities will not reveal his whereabouts and say that he is in “protective custody”. The Chinese authorities have decreed that another young man, Gyaltsen Norbu, will be the next Panchen Lama.

If Choekyi Nyima’s custody can be described as protective, he may be much more fortunate than the many other political prisoners being held in Tibet today for a range of offences, from displaying hand-drawn copies of the Tibetan flag to taking part in explicitly religious practices. For example, one monastic leader, Thardoe Gyaltsen, was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment for possessing copies of the Dalai Lama’s religious teachings and another, Geshe Ngawang Jamyang, was beaten to death in jail.

We should also be aware of the case of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, which I have raised with the Minister before. He was sentenced to death for alleged involvement in a bomb plot, for which there was no evidence. His sentence was later commuted to life in jail. He has served seven years and is believed to be in dangerously poor health. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to call for immediate medical parole for him, and to continue to press for answers on the whereabouts and safety of the Panchen Lama.

For these prisoners, as for other political prisoners, justice is very hard to achieve. At present, there are more than 600 known political prisoners in Tibet. Lawyers and human rights campaigners who take up the cases of such prisoners are threatened, and in many cases lose their licence to practise law. How do the Government propose to support their right under international law to a fair trial? Furthermore, with regard to the annual publication of Her Majesty’s Government’s report on human rights, do the Government review their policies in relation to countries of concern? How can the United Kingdom strengthen its policies on Tibet, so as to take a clear stance on the essential issue of human rights?

Tragically, in desperation at their situation, as many as 120 Tibetan activists have sought the ultimate expression of frustration and grief and committed self-immolation. Such actions are certainly not sanctioned by the Dalai Lama, who has spoken of his sadness and questioned the effectiveness of such actions in the face of the Chinese authorities, who treat them as criminal and immoral acts, punish the families of victims and portray such suicides as terrorist acts.

Of course, monks and nuns bear the brunt of Chinese wrath. Many are barred from their monasteries, and almost none can get visas to travel even within their home country. However, it is not only members of religious communities who suffer in Tibet. Other victims of Chinese displeasure include those Tibetans who have worked hard to preserve the country’s linguistic heritage. That falls foul of new regulations issued in many parts of Tibet, such as Rebkong, where new rules criminalising freedom of expression are being reinforced. They include rule No. 4, which prohibits

“establishing illegal organizations… under the pretext of ‘protecting the mother tongue’”

and

“literacy classes”.

Many artists, poets and musicians who have attempted to celebrate ethnic identity are among those who have been arrested, jailed and—in many cases—tortured. Meanwhile, across the world China promotes its own language and culture by interfering with the academic freedoms of universities, in which they have funded so-called Confucius Institutes. Those schools actively undermine western support for Tibet and Taiwan, and control the employment of staff within the institutes, often under employment law that conflicts with that of Europe and the United Kingdom.

What steps will Her Majesty’s Government take to ensure academic freedom and the human rights of staff in those institutes? Although it is hard for western Governments to protect the culture and human rights of minority groups in faraway countries, is it too much to ask that the Government take steps to control the spread of Chinese propaganda in the United Kingdom? The rigid censorship that the Chinese seek to impose on news media and the internet is well known. We must not allow similar restrictions on the freedoms of commentators, educators and students in our own country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, as I have discovered that you were brought up in my constituency. I did not have a lot of time in my maiden speech to sing my constituency’s praises, and I do not intend to detain hon. Members by doing so today. I note that what was Kelvinside parish church next to your childhood home is now the Òran Mór, a tremendously popular and vibrant cultural venue for the city and the country as a whole. Indeed, it contributes much to the local economy and the wider cultural scene.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on bringing this important debate to the Chamber. I commiserate with him on the result of this morning’s ballot, but wish him every success, should he seek to be a member of the International Development Committee. In contributing briefly to the debate, I would like to offer some perspectives from the Scottish National party, the Scottish Parliament and the country more broadly.

Much as there is a system of all-party groups in Westminster, a system of cross-party groups exists in the Scottish Parliament. My colleague, Linda Fabiani, the Member of the Scottish Parliament for East Kilbride, chairs the cross-party group on Tibet. Much like the all-party parliamentary group here, it has shown considerable cross-party interest in and concern over issues affecting the area. It is supported by Aberdeen University’s Scottish Centre for Himalayan Research and in particular by Dr Martin Mills and Dr Sam May.

It is important to recognise the important work of that institute in promoting and researching issues that affect Tibet and the wider Himalayan area. Some of its current topics include tantric medicine, 17th century Scots in the Himalayas—there are similarities between Scotland and Tibet, and I saw an interesting chart comparing the heights of the mountains of the two areas—plant collecting, spirit categories in Afghanistan, and Tibetan divination, which is relevant to this debate. The cross-party group is active, meets regularly and has campaigned on a range of issues. It called, for example, for a portrait of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to be displayed in Holyrood to mark his 80th birthday. Though the conventions in that place unfortunately did not allow for that, I think the suggestion indicates the respect and affection in which the Dalai Lama is held by parliamentarians in Scotland and the wider public.

Tibet was the subject of a debate in Holyrood, which was led by Maureen Watt, the MSP for Aberdeen South and North Kincardine. The debate focused specifically on immolation. By February of last year, there had been 127 reported incidents, and that number is now up to 137. The way Members’ business debates work is not dissimilar to Westminster Hall, only they are debated on a slightly fuller motion than we would have here. The motion said:

“That the Parliament…understands that these actions are largely acts of protest against restrictions on religion, the Tibetan language, access to employment and the degradation of water resources and grazing lands; expresses concern at what it understands has been the state’s attempts to prevent accurate reports of self-immolations reaching the media; condemns what it considers the criminalisation of family members and sometimes witnesses to the incidents; believes that 11 countries urged China to improve the human rights of Tibetans at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on 22 October 2013”.

That demonstrates the consensus. I and my colleagues in this House share the sentiments expressed and put on record our sadness that such numbers of people have felt the need to resort to such dramatic and desperate gestures. The Scottish Government’s response to that debate very clearly condemned human rights abuses, wherever they occur. The Cabinet Secretary for Cultural and Government Affairs said:

“Upholding basic civil and political rights is a core duty of the state, and individuals must be free to celebrate their cultural traditions and demonstrate their faith in any society.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 4 February 2014; c. 27401.]

The Scottish Government recognise the role that China has to play. On a number of occasions when visiting China, Ministers have raised concerns about freedom of religious expression, transparency and access, and the situation in Tibet. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s overall China engagement strategy has four guiding principles: securing sustainable economic growth by building Scotland’s prosperity by strengthening links to China; understanding the culture, including attaching great importance to learning more about the culture through a memorandum of understanding; increasing the influence we can have; and, most relevantly for the debate, respecting human rights and the rule of law, supporting China’s process of modernisation and internal reform, and the need to balance the demands of economic development with social justice.

In Scotland, we are justly proud of our reputation for ethical business practices, human rights and the rule of law. We want to continue to share our experiences wherever we can. Key to “Scotland’s National Action Plan for Human Rights” is ensuring that we all play a part in building a better world, giving effect to our international obligations at home and abroad. That hopefully demonstrates that many of the broad concerns expressed in today’s debate and elsewhere in the House over the years are being taken seriously and acted on by our colleagues north of the border.

I will finish with some personal reflections. As part of a crowd of some 4,000 people in the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre, I saw the Dalai Lama 11 years ago when he visited Scotland. I was struck by how, even with such a vast crowd, he appeared to be addressing each of us individually. It is important to recognise the importance of spiritual leaders to the world. Today, Pope Francis has released an encyclical that includes a radical and prophetic call for environmental justice and care for creation. That is particularly important when we consider pollution and climate change, particularly in the Himalayan region that the hon. Member for Leeds North East spoke about. My maiden speech was on the theme of justice and peace around the world, and peace must be built on respect for human rights and democracy, whether in Tibet or elsewhere. The dignity of human beings and their fundamental right to be agents of their own destiny are hugely important, and that should be the start and ending point of any such debate.

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman was speaking on behalf of the Scottish National party as the third party. Normally, I would now call the spokesman for Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. However, with the leave of the Chamber, I shall call Mr Nic Dakin.