Yemen

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar). We share a border in Leicestershire and now we share a cause, and it is good to see someone who was elected only last year become passionate about an overseas country and become such an expert on it. I know that his interest in Yemen preceded his election, and I am glad to see him as a strong and effective vice-chair of the all-party group on Yemen. I speak not just as a Yemeni by birth, but as the chair of the all-party group for the past 27 years. I must rival President Saleh with the years that I have spent in office—that is not a good comparison, I know. It has been a huge honour to serve in that capacity and to be joined recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), both of whom are Yemenis by birth.

We now have three Yemenis sitting in the House of Commons. That should help everyone to understand that for us this is not just business; it is very personal. The situation matters greatly. My fondest memories of my childhood were watching the boats coming in. They went past Steamer Point as they were about to enter the Suez canal. Indeed, only Leicester beating Liverpool last Tuesday could match that kind of warm feeling that I had as a child. Sadly, those wonderful memories of our childhood have gone, and we face in Yemen a roll call of catastrophe, which was set out so eloquently by the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for Charnwood.

I know that the Chairman of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), will have more horrifying statistics that we will struggle to understand—some 21 million in need of aid, millions of children without food and people starving to death. We hear such figures as if this is a piece of fiction, but it is fact.

I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) who came on one of the all-party group’s last visits to Yemen. He caused us a lot of worry. He had been told to stay in the Sheba hotel, but, as everybody knows—especially the Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State who worked with him in Government—he cannot be told what to do. When we got up one morning and found that he was missing, we thought that he had been kidnapped. In fact, he was out in Sana’a, a world heritage centre, taking photographs. Like all visitors to Yemen, he had fallen in love with the country.

What is this country now? It is a country in poverty; a country facing the possibility of civil war; and a country that is being fought over by other foreign powers. It is not the people of Yemen who want this conflict. The conflict arises because those from outside want to topple the democratically elected Government of President Hadi, and because of that there is outside intervention.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I was touched by the care that the right hon. Gentleman showed for my welfare. It was indeed an extraordinary trip. Talking about children, at the time, the British Council was matching 1,000 schools in the middle east with schools over here. On our journey, I was able to twin a school in Worthing with a school in Aden. Does he agree that, as well as the killings and the injuries, one of the biggest tragedies is the fact that about half of all children in Yemen are not in education? So much is being done to ensure that Syrian children have some continuity in their education, but the situation in Yemen is so much worse. If we do not have the future in mind for those children, the future of the whole country will be in peril.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He is the House’s expert on education. When he talks about the need for education, he is absolutely right, because it offers a life chance. Some 1,500 people have died, and 9.9 million people are in poverty. The fact that the children cannot go to school will affect the rest of their lives, and childhood passes so quickly. They will not have the advantages of education, and we need to concentrate on that.

I join the hon. Member for Charnwood in praising the Minister—Members on the Opposition Benches do not tend to do that very often—because he deeply cares about the situation in Yemen. Whenever the all-party group has asked him to address us, whenever we have made suggestions, and whenever the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) has made suggestions, which I am sure that he does on a daily basis, the Minister responds. If he had half a chance, he would be on a plane via Dubai to Sana’a international airport to try to stitch together the patchwork of international diplomacy that now exists.

Much mention was rightly made by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire of the involvement of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia’s involvement has been important; had that not happened, I believe that the country would have been overrun and that President Hadi would not have returned to Aden. We now need to pause. The all-party group, individual Members and the Minister have been clear that there has to be a ceasefire. The airstrikes have to stop, and we have to find other methods of trying to secure the country without the scenes that have taken place. Civilians may not have been targeted, but they have died. We need to make sure that we work with the Saudis, who are the regional power—we cannot do this without them—to make sure that we get peace in Yemen. They have a big responsibility to ensure that that happens. If Yemen falls, that will affect every other country in the middle east.

As the Prime Minister has said on numerous occasions, the frontline in Sana’a is the frontline in London. Many of the terrorist plots that I have come across as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee have come from people plotting in places such as Yemen. Indeed, many of the Paris bombers were involved in some way with what was happening in Yemen; I think one of them was trained there. We are not talking about a country far away that we do not need to care about; it really matters to our future, not just because of the humanitarian crisis but, more importantly, because of how it will affect Britain and the rest of Europe.

I thank this Minister and the Minister of State, Department for International Development, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), who has also listened carefully to what we have said. One of the great things about how the Government have approached Yemen is that they have continued what was started by the previous Government. There is no party politics in this; the whole House is united, as were the previous Prime Ministers, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, in ensuring a focus on Yemen. The current Prime Minister is also very focused on it. I have written to him on numerous occasions and his responses are detailed and relevant. He wants to make sure that peace is restored. We are all on the same side.

As I conclude, I have a few asks. First, as he also supports the ceasefire, will the Minister give a commitment to intensify the support of the UN to try to bring peace to Yemen and to ensure that we continue the dialogue with all sides, especially with Saudi Arabia? There has been a lot of criticism about the use of British weapons by the Saudis in this conflict. That will go on, of course; we live in a parliamentary democracy and we have to raise these issues. The Government have to respond, and they have.

However, we need to work with the Saudis and the Omanis. Oman has not been mentioned enough in these debates, but the Sultan in particular has a big role to play. Here is a border in the Arab world: to the north, Oman is as peaceful as a country can be but to the south is the turmoil in Yemen. The Gulf Co-operation Council also needs to be involved. It cannot be absent from the table.

It is not the Minister’s job to chase up debts, but I remind him of the great donor conference in London before the last but one general election. Billions were pledged but very few countries have paid up. We should go back to the countries that pledged and make sure that something is done.

Let me end by saying this. We still have a lot of friends in Yemen. My two children were very friendly with the son of one of the Yemeni ambassadors who came here. His name was Salman, and we have lost touch with him. The last time we saw him, he had come up to Leicester to see a football match with my young son. I think of that bright young boy and his sisters, who came to this country for a short time as the children of diplomats, and the bond of friendship that we formed with them. To think of them in a house in Sana’a without electricity, schooling or food is terrible. I hope that, if Salman is listening to this debate or hears about it in some way, he will contact us so that we know that he and his family are safe.

My real worry is that Yemen is bleeding to death. Unless we are prepared to stop the bleeding, the consequences will be horrendous.

From the bottom of my heart I beg the Minister to continue doing what he is doing, to make sure that this issue is centre stage. I thank parliamentary colleagues from all over the country, who have so much on their agendas, for coming here in such numbers to think and talk about Yemen. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who has just joined the Front-Bench team, for coming. He will be a wonderful shadow Minister. I hope he makes this issue a priority. I know we talk about the big countries, but Yemen matters to us. Please let us not allow Yemen to bleed to death.

EU Membership (UK Renegotiation)

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

Yes, I think the two main factors behind the massive wave of immigration are, first, our membership of the European Union and the principle of free movement within it, and secondly, the Human Rights Act 1998, both of which mean that we are effectively unable to control our borders. If we want to control our borders, however, leaving the EU is an absolute prerequisite. We now have the farcical situation in which an unskilled Romanian immigrant can come to this country without our being able to do anything about it at all, and they get a job perhaps as a cleaner, but a skilled migrant from India who has a degree in astrophysics will find it very difficult to come to this country. We are going to get a sensible immigration policy back only if we leave the EU and get rid of the Human Rights Act.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point, but there is another point to add. Take the example of Poland—there are something like 15 million Poles living outside Poland. It has one of the best education systems in Europe and yet it is exporting people to work in jobs well below their skill level in the UK and other countries like it. Is not the point that getting control of immigration is good for countries such as Poland, so that they can make sure that more of their people want to stay at home and contribute to their economies? This is about what is good not just for Britain, but for eastern Europe and other countries from which many people are coming to the UK.

[Mr Hollobone]

As always, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I think we want to allow into this country Polish people who have the skills that our economy needs, and we do not need in this country Polish people who do not have the skills that we need. At the moment, because of our EU membership, we are unable to control that and that will have implications, as he rightly said, for the Polish economy as well as for ours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the correction. Based on that, will the Minister tell us on which side he will be campaigning in the forthcoming referendum? Similarly, I do not want to be too hard on Labour Members. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) will be with us on the European portfolio by the end of today. I know how committed he is to the European perspective.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about what Ministers might be able to do. What will SNP spokesmen be able to do, and is it the policy of every single SNP Member that they are in favour of our continued membership of the EU?

[Stephen Gethins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which leads me nicely on to the position of the only party in this House that is united on the European Union—[Interruption.]—notwithstanding our colleagues in Northern Ireland. The SNP has set out its position clearly. First, we are against a referendum, because we do not think that it would bring substantial change; Conservative Members seem to agree. The other reason, and a smaller point, is that it was in our manifesto not to have a referendum on the European Union. Since we won the election—it was the worst election result for the Conservatives in Scotland since 1865, 150 years ago—we have stuck to our manifesto commitments, revolutionary as that might seem, by voting against a referendum.

The SNP Government, joined by their partners here in London, have set out their position. The First Minister made a very good case in a speech on 2 June to the European Policy Centre. At the moment we see an opportunity for renegotiation, but as many Members have said, we think that the Government are doing a great job of losing friends and influence throughout Europe. Areas for renegotiation set out by the Scottish Government include public health; the Scottish Government have so far been unable to implement minimum pricing for alcohol. Whether or not others agree with it, it is the democratically elected Scottish Government’s way of tackling a specific public health issue.

Another area is fishing; obviously, although the Minister can confirm this, there will be no treaty change. Scottish fishermen can tell of the failings of the common fisheries policy; they were of course described by the UK Government when we entered the European Union as expendable in the pursuit of the UK’s broader interests, so they are well aware of the impact of UK membership of the European Union.

China (Human Rights)

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

We do speak out without fear or favour. The United States is responsible for making its own comments on various matters. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier comment that we supported an EU statement on 15 July on the detentions in Zhejiang. We believe that that is the right place for us to do that, along with our bilateral discussions with the Chinese themselves.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

As we have heard yet again, freedom of speech and dissent in China are being brutally repressed, not least in Tibet, where the mere possession of a photograph of the Dalai Lama can result in imprisonment or worse. In the UK, our democracy is built on the principle of free speech, so can the Minister tell me why protesters in the Mall exercising their right to draw attention to human rights abuses in Tibet were this week corralled behind barricades at the back while Chinese state-sponsored cheerleaders were given “Love China” T-shirts, Chinese diplomatic bags and a prime position at the front?

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner for Tibet and he will know that, after the death of the senior Tibetan Buddhist, Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, in July, we supported an EU statement and the remarks of a Foreign Office spokesman were carried in the media. Prior to Tenzin’s death, I continued to call for his release, including in parliamentary debates on Tibet in June and in December 2014.

Tibet

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Tibet.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am delighted that we have the opportunity so early in this Parliament to debate a subject that is close to my heart and, I know, to the hearts of many Members of the House. When we last debated Tibet in Westminster Hall, about six months ago, it was for an hour and a half. I seem to remember that it was over-subscribed; there were far too many Members who wished to speak and far too little time for them to do so. That is why I asked the Backbench Business Committee, before the end of the last Parliament, for a three-hour debate, and I hope that we will have one now.

This week, as all Members present will know, we celebrated the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta. Commentators here in Parliament and around the world have been eager to remind us of the importance of our tradition of democracy and the rule of law. Speaking about the anniversary, the Foreign Secretary said:

“The UK will continue to defend the values of the rules-based international system which can trace its origins to this landmark document.”

Addressing the United Nations Human Rights Council on 15 June, just three days ago, the Foreign Office Minister of State, Baroness Anelay, said:

“It is our solemn duty to give voice to those whose rights have been violated and abused, to call for accountability and to work with those who want a different future—a future where universal values are not simply words in a UN treaty but a reality of everyday life… So in this year of anniversaries, eight centuries after Magna Carta, let us give a voice to all those whose views and fears are not heard. Let us ensure that our voice goes beyond words to action. Let us remember that universal values need to be truly universal, for everyone everywhere.”

Those are fine words, and I am sure that every Member in this debate and in Parliament would endorse them fully.

It is timely at the beginning of a Parliament to remind ourselves of the practical applications of those values and to illustrate our commitment by considering closely the position of one group of people whose rights have been violated and abused, and who might expect this Parliament, this country and our Government to speak out for them, to give them the voice that they are systematically denied. They are the people of Tibet.

Many Members present will have had a long involvement in the issue of Tibet, and I have no doubt are well informed about its history and the oppressions suffered by its people since the Chinese invasion in 1951, but many new Members who are just as interested might be less well informed, so I make no apology for giving an overview of the historical situation of Tibet and of the Dalai Lama, who will celebrate his 80th birthday—his 56th in exile—on 6 July, just two and a half weeks from now.

Tibet has had a tumultuous history, during which it has spent long periods functioning as an independent nation. An early example of British involvement in Tibet is the short-lived treaty of Lhasa, signed after a British colonialist excursion into that country under the leadership of Francis Younghusband in 1904. It is worth mentioning as evidence that, at least during that period, Britain regarded Tibet as an independent state with which it was legally possible to treat. That contradicts the view promoted by the Chinese Government that Tibet has never been more than a province or collection of provinces forming part of China. Indeed, Chinese official histories refer to the exchange of envoys between the Tang dynasty, which ruled China between the seventh and 10th centuries, and the Tubo kingdom, the ancient name for Tibet, suggesting that they were separate nations at the time.

What is not in question are Tibet’s unique cultural traditions. Ethnic Tibetans have a four centuries-long allegiance to the Buddhist tradition of which the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is the spiritual leader. In the years before the Communist party came to power in China, Tibet was governed by a priestly caste and was a separate, independent state. When the Communist party came to power, the Chinese army invaded Tibet and attempted, but failed, to force the young Dalai Lama to act as a client ruler. However, after a popular uprising against Chinese rule, the Dalai Lama and his supporters were driven into exile in India following an alleged threat to his life. The Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, welcomed the exiled Tibetans to Dharamshala in Himachal Pradesh, where they established a Parliament and Government in exile.

In May 2011, the Dalai Lama announced his retirement as the political leader of his people, but he will of course always remain the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism. However, that step by the Dalai Lama has in no way diminished the fear and loathing with which the Chinese Government regard His Holiness. They describe him as a separatist, a supporter of terrorism, and—maybe worst of all in the lexicon of communist China—a splittist. Since the 1980s, the Dalai Lama has not pursued the aim of full independence for Tibet, but has sought only what he calls a middle way—full autonomy for the people of Tibet—although many Tibetan activists still believe in the possibility of a truly independent Tibet.

Meanwhile, the Chinese, having created what they describe as the Tibet autonomous region, or TAR, have done everything in their power to undermine that autonomy and to destroy the ethnic and cultural identity of Tibet. They have sought to isolate the Dalai Lama and have used their political and economic influence to bully the Governments and parties that support him. I aim to outline some of the ways in which they have done so and to explain why I believe that we have a moral obligation to support those suffering under the oppression that has resulted from the “Chineseification” of Tibetan culture.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am grateful to my fellow officer of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet for giving way. I am sorry that I will not be able to stay for the whole debate and make a full contribution. Is it not ironic that the Chinese constitution recognises the diverse culture and heritage of the various peoples who make up the People’s Republic of China? Whatever arguments we may have about the politics of it, China is clearly failing to recognise and protect the culture, heritage and, indeed, language of the Tibetan people, which is being destroyed at the hands of the Chinese Government.

[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—

[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.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as he always does on this subject. I have made representations to the Home Secretary on this issue, but does he share my concern that His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who is visiting this country at the end of the month and again in September, has been afforded no police protection? During recent visits to other countries people have tried to disrupt his peaceful meetings and conferences, so there is the threat that many of his meetings may have to be abandoned.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Dalai Lama’s free speech is being put at risk? What message will be sent to the Chinese people if the British Government do not afford him the protection that is normally afforded a dignitary of his stature?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I will mention that issue at the end of my speech. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am very concerned. People in the Tibetan community, supporters of the Tibetan community in the UK, supporters of the Dalai Lama, and Buddhists and non-Buddhists throughout Britain who love to hear the Dalai Lama’s words are extremely concerned that there is a threat to his personal safety. So far, the Government have offered no security for His Holiness’ visits to the United Kingdom. I thank my hon. Friend for taking up the issue with the Home Secretary. We need to put more pressure on the Government to ensure that the personal security of His Holiness is protected by our security services, especially as it is under threat.

Events in Tibet and our response to them have global implications that cannot be ignored. Many of those who have been shot at, arrested and intimidated in Tibet have been campaigning against the environmental exploitation of and damage to the fragile ecosystem of that beautiful country. That damage must certainly have global consequences. Almost half the world’s population depends on water from Tibet, and about 1.3 billion people directly depend on its major rivers.

The Chinese have increased the number of dams in the Tibetan plateau region, and further planned works will deprive millions of water in the downstream regions. In addition, unchecked mining operations in Tibet have been a major cause of environmental degradation and pollution of the water systems. Tibet’s glaciers are the fastest melting in the world, and many scientists regard Tibet as an environmental barometer. The opening of the Gormo-Lhasa railway, which I mentioned earlier, has not only sped up the Chineseification of Tibet by allowing a massive influx of ethnically Han Chinese, but enabled the swifter and more voracious exploitation of Tibet’s natural resources. Many rare native species of plants and animals will have to take their chances in a landscape that is at serious risk of destruction.

Protests against such pollution, exploitation and destruction—many of them by members of traditional nomadic groups that depend on the country’s grasslands and the purity of its waters—have been among those crushed by the Chinese. Many nomadic groups have been forcibly resettled, as I saw for myself in 2006. The US Special Co-ordinator for Tibetan Issues, Sarah Sewall, has said:

“Tibetans have an inalienable right to be stewards of their own cultural, religious and linguistic heritage”.

Will Her Majesty’s Government add their support to that of the US in encouraging the Chinese to live up to their international obligation to respect that right?

Many will ask what we in the UK can do to help the Tibetans in their attempts to preserve their language and culture, defend their spiritual freedom and traditions, and save their country from physical exploitation and damage. We should not underestimate our authority and resources. In China, a new law—the foreign non-governmental organisation management law—is being drafted, which seeks to restrict the activities of foreign NGOs and give the Chinese police the authority to enter their premises and seize documents and property. Those powers may have a massive impact on the work of groups that are working to promote health education and develop civil society in China as a whole and Tibet in particular. How will Her Majesty’s Government respond to those proposals, and what steps will they take to support the work of NGOs?

Many thousands of Tibetans now live in exile as refugees who depend on the welcome and support of host Governments and of campaigning and fundraising groups. We must continue to work with the groups representing Tibetans abroad. Will the United Kingdom Government continue to explore the possibility of cultural exchanges with Tibetans, whether from within Tibet itself or from the communities living in places such as India and Nepal? Programmes such as the Chevening scholarship, excellent as they are, have only a limited availability to Tibetans living within Tibet and are not available to refugees. If the UK Government were to extend that scheme and help refugees to take up degree and postgraduate courses in Britain, they would be better able to contribute to their host societies and help build civil society on their eventual and much desired return to Tibet.

The promotion and survival of the Tibetan language depend on it continuing to be heard. Will Her Majesty’s Government call on the BBC Trust to consider including Tibetan as one of the languages in which the World Service is broadcast?

The mention of those refugee communities brings me to my final, most topical, point. The terrible earthquakes in Nepal in April and May had a horrific impact on the Nepalese people, who are some of the poorest in the world. In the past, they have extended generous hospitality to their Tibetan neighbours who have continued to flee from the oppression in their homeland. At this time of crisis, it has become more difficult for them to do so. The catastrophe has heavily affected the Tibetan refugees in particular, as they are effectively stateless citizens. Many of them survive by making traditional Tibetan handicrafts, and many of the small factories in which they work have been destroyed.

There is grave concern, as recently expressed by Amnesty International, that the Tibetans’ lack of status within Nepalese society will make it hard for them to access the aid that is being provided by international communities. I recently had a case in my constituency of a British man of Tibetan origin, whose wife and child were made homeless by the earthquake in Kathmandu, but were having serious problems trying to obtain a visa to come to the United Kingdom because my constituent does not earn enough to support them. Meanwhile, over the border inside Tibet, there is some evidence that the Chinese authorities are using the earthquake as a pretext to redevelop parts of Tingri county against the wishes of local people, who are being forcibly relocated.

Finally, will the Government ensure the personal safety of His Holiness the Dalai Lama when he visits the UK at the end of this month to lecture at a Nepalese Buddhist temple? Sadly, one of the world’s foremost proponents of peace and compassion is the subject of threats from groups opposed to what he stands for. It is essential that when His Holiness comes to the UK we guarantee that he will be safe and secure. His message has huge resonance throughout this country and in every country in the world. We should value it more, and stand up more strongly to the bullying tactics of those who continue to oppress the Tibetan people and vilify His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

European Union Referendum Bill

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, for three reasons. First, I congratulate you on your rightful elevation to the Deputy Speakership. Secondly, I congratulate the makers of three excellent maiden speeches, my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and for Havant (Alan Mak) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott). They have certainly set the bar for quality high. Thirdly, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who is not a Johnny-come-lately to the referendum campaign but has consistently been in favour of giving the people the vote and seems to be the only person who has spoken in this House today who voted no back in 1975.

Who remembers the words of the failed UK Independence party candidate for South Thanet, Nigel Farage, in the run-up to the general election, when he constantly hoodwinked the British public with his grandstanding with lines such as

“it is infuriating how the Conservative Party can string the British public along and constantly make claims over holding an EU Referendum when it was clear from day one that it would never happen”?

Not only is the European Union Referendum Bill already under way within days of the state opening of this new Parliament, but the Prime Minister has hit the ground running and toured EU capitals to start the serious business of renegotiating our terms of membership and the whole future of the EU, and the main Opposition party has belatedly come round to our way of thinking. Barring an affront to the democratic will of the people, in the upper House there will be a referendum on our future membership of the European Union, with a straight in or out vote, before the end of 2017 at the latest.

The only broken promises and stringing along of the public came from UKIP. Indeed, the biggest threat to a meaningful referendum came from UKIP. If we had listened to its siren voice and held a referendum immediately, all the polls suggest that it would have resulted in a yes vote to stay in before we had achieved any reform. It would probably have brought the nightmare scenario of the UK staying in a reformed EU, so that when the PM went to summits in search of reform in the future he would be met with a frosty “Forget it, chum, you voted to stay in the club. Like it or lump it.”

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

My hon. Friend’s point reinforces why it will be so important that the facts are clearly laid before our constituents. Will he welcome the Church of England’s initiative to provide hustings so that our constituents can hear clearly and objectively both sides of the argument?

[Tim Loughton]

I absolutely welcome that, and I hope that one thing that will come out of this referendum is a full, frank and long debate engaging as many members of the electorate as possible, as was the case in Scotland, so that at last we can discuss the situation and familiarise ourselves with the facts.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this should not be an in/out referendum but a referendum on whether we want further and closer political union or a common European market for all our goods and services?

[Tim Loughton]

The argument about an ever-closer union has been won. That movement is dead, certainly as far as this country is involved. It will be a question of whether we can make the EU work not just for the UK but for the sustainability of the whole EU, or whether we are better going it alone. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to achieve genuine, lasting and sustainable reform of the EU, not just in our interests but in the interests of the whole EU.

Many of us believe that the EU in its current form is not working. It cannot survive in an increasingly globally competitive world. The status quo is just not sustainable. If one statistic tells that story, it is the fact that within five years the EU’s share of world GDP will be just 60% of the levels that we enjoyed back in 1990. We are shrinking while the rest of the world gets bigger, and we are not getting a slice of that cake.

Some of us have waited a long time for this moment. Many constituency Fridays were brutally sacrificed in vain in support of the valiant efforts of my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South (James Wharton) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). I am co-chair of the Fresh Start group, which was set up with the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). We have produced with Open Europe detailed work on the amount of change that it is possible to achieve. We have had scores of meetings with European Ministers and Members of Parliament from across EU countries. One thing that we need to appreciate is that the 28 members of the EU all have their own reasons for wanting to be part of the EU.

Finland shares a 1,500 km border with Russia. Poland and the Czech Republic talk about the relationship with Russia. They want a bulwark against Russia, which is why the EU is so important to them. Other countries want the agricultural and trading links. The reasons are all different, and we have gone wrong in the past by assuming that all countries have one reason for becoming and staying members of Europe. The scenario has completely changed. We have a clear and present prospect of a referendum by 2017, in which the British people could vote, if they choose, to leave the EU. The dynamics of EU reform have changed drastically.

Inevitably, this debate is less about the Bill itself—goodness knows, its progenitors were scrutinised exhaustively in this place. I support the detail of the Bill. I do not support extending the franchise in the actual vote, which has become a recent talking point. The main issue will be how the next months and years pan out up to the referendum, and how its passing will change the dynamics of the debate in Europe.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Loughton]

I will not, because I have given way twice.

I have a few words of advice for the Prime Minister. We have made a great start. Go for maximum reform. Take it to the wire all the way to 2017. It will be a long, hard slog. He will find many detractors along the way and also many allies, but the major players in Europe who will shape its future—like Germany—desperately need the UK to be part of it, shaping it along with them. We will achieve some things that we want, and other things that we had not expected. That is how negotiation works, and we will inevitably have to compromise. As the Finnish Prime Minister said:

“The EU without Britain is pretty much the same as fish without chips. It’s not a meal any more.”

This is not just about a better deal for the United Kingdom, important though that is. It is about a sustainable future for the whole of the EU. There are encouraging signs already. The “ever-closer union” mantra of Monnet is dead. The French Economy Minister said this month that it was time to accept the idea of a two-speed Europe. The Prime Minister’s notion that we need the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a bloc, is gaining traction.

We need to remember why we joined the EEC in the first place and in particular the advantages of the single market that so attracted Mrs Thatcher, despite the warnings from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). Yet the single market is far from complete, especially in services. Services account for 71% of the EU GDP, yet only 22% of this is from intra-EU trade; there are still some 800 professions in Europe that are subject to country regulation; and only 11% of internet shopping across Europe is cross-border. There is still lots to do, yet we seem to spend too much time sitting around the table in Brussels, working out ways of making regulations more complicated for our businesses and citizens, rather than looking beyond Europe to see how, working together, we can secure a larger slice of the global economy for all 28 members, for our mutual benefit.

I could talk about a shopping list of what we want, but now is not the time to do so. Now is not the time to hamper the Prime Minister’s negotiation with emotional and artificial red lines. Now is the time to pass a Bill that will trigger a referendum, which will change the mindset of our EU partners to achieve sustainable reform for the whole of Europe. The Prime Minister’s every waking conversation, discussion, breakfast, lunch and dinner with EU leaders must focus on getting the best possible reform package for us and our European partners. This Bill, at last, is an essential part of achieving that and some sort of cross-channel state of nirvana.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Britain in the World

Tim Loughton Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I have to make some progress, because many Members wish to speak this afternoon.

We are clear that to be successful in the future the EU has to change course. It has to become more outward looking, more competitive and less bureaucratic. I am confident that that vision is increasingly shared across the continent. Through the renegotiation process, which the Prime Minister has now started, we have the opportunity to deliver change that will benefit all EU citizens, as well as addressing the long-standing concerns of the British people.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern at the forecast that in the next five years the share of world GDP by the EU will be just 60% of the level it was back in 1990? It is not just in the interests of the United Kingdom that we reach a settlement; it is in the best interests of the sustainability of the whole EU that it is reformed.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two parts to this agenda: reform of the European Union to make it more competitive, more accountable, more effective and more outward looking, which is in the interests of all of us; and Britain’s specific requirements for its relationship with the European Union. We will negotiate a package that embraces both those concepts, and crucially it is in everyone’s interests that we settle the issue of Britain’s relationship with the EU once and for all, and that it is the British people who make that important decision in 2017.