Dog Meat (South Korea)

Alan Meale Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Dowden]

It is absolutely right to highlight that long-held view about the properties of dog meat. That point is also relevant to some of the barbaric methods of slaughter.

[Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Everyone recognises that the trade is a cruel one, but surely the main problem—and the reason for highlighting South Korea—is that it is not simply a question of the tradition of eating dog meat; it is the scale. More than 5 million animals are killed every year, and nearly 3 million of those are farmed on puppy farms for that explicit purpose. It is not surprising that people highlight the case of South Korea.

[Oliver Dowden]

I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the scale of what happens in South Korea; I was merely making the point that the practice in question is also prevalent in other countries. For example, there are fairs for dog meat consumption in China. Indeed, it is important to contextualise the points that have been made by the hon. Gentleman and by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), in relation to the countries in question.

It is certainly a more traditional belief that people should eat dog meat; even in countries where that is very prevalent, such as South Korea, it is very much a minority belief. Most younger people do not eat dog meat. Equally, there are strong campaign groups in the countries where it happens, which oppose it. The Governments of those countries have taken steps against it to varying degrees, although of course much more should be done.

I am also very much aware that we should not try to impose our own cultural standards unquestioningly. There are intense forms of industrial meat production in, for example, the pig industry, and if we are aware of that we should look to our own consciences; certainly some meat that we consume from other European countries is produced in pretty barbaric circumstances. I just wanted to give that overall context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) for introducing this debate. I am also pleased to see the Foreign Office Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), in their places.

I was the shadow Foreign Office Minister covering this part of the world for four years, until about a year ago. I also had the human rights brief. The ongoing frustration is that it is always so difficult to get people to listen to arguments about human rights issues in our relationships with other countries, let alone get them to consider the animal welfare issues. I was rather disappointed when I asked a question last Thursday of the new Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), about the Government’s action plan on business and human rights that was launched with much fanfare three years ago. I asked where the action plan fits into the new Department for International Trade—when going out to other countries to negotiate trade agreements, will we be aware of the attempt by the former Foreign Secretary, William Hague, to meld the desire to trade with companies and to talk about human rights? The answer I got was pretty much, “That’s a completely separate issue. It’s something for the Foreign Office and nothing to do with us.”

If we cannot even persuade that Department that human rights should be on the agenda when we are negotiating trade agreements, we will have difficulty making the argument that animal welfare should be on there too. I hope that the Foreign Office Minister takes that back to his colleagues and starts talking to the new Ministers in the Department for International Trade about the importance of this issue and the strength of feeling about it.

I had the pleasure of visiting South Korea a few years ago with the UK-Korea Forum for the Future. Every two years, some UK parliamentarians go out to South Korea, and every other year, people from the South Korean Parliament come over here. South Korea is not only a major trading ally of the UK; it is also our friend, but that should not stop us at times being a critical friend. It is interesting to note in the Library briefing that the consumption of dog meat in South Korea did not become commonplace until the Korean war in the 1950s. It is easy to forget what an incredibly poor country South Korea was back then, lagging well behind its neighbour to the north. Of course, now the situation has been reversed, and we hear reports that Kim Jong-un’s people are on the verge of starvation. Obviously, the human rights situation is dreadful there too.

One of the fascinating things about my visit to South Korea was seeing how the country had transformed itself from abject post-war poverty into an economic export-led powerhouse, albeit not always under the most democratic leadership. Seoul now presents as a very modern, high-tech city, with gleaming skyscrapers and excellent transport, but as we have heard, some of the old ways remain, including the dog meat trade. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) mentioned, 5 million dogs are involved in the trade every year. I have seen figures that show that more than 2 million dogs are factory farmed in South Korea for human consumption. They are kept in terrible conditions in tiny cages, exposed to extreme heat and cold, before being cruelly killed, often via electrocution.

[Sir Alan Meale]

In terms of the two figures I referred to, one is the overall figure for the whole country, but my hon. Friend is right; 2.5 million to 3 million puppies are factory farmed for the trade.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification.

The fact that the petition so easily reached 100,000 signatures, and the number of emails Members have received from constituents, remind us that Britain is a nation of dog lovers, as we saw in the public response to other campaigns, such as Pup Aid’s campaign against puppy farms. That serves as a reminder that we ourselves are not above criticism and that much can be done to improve animal welfare in this country.

In the past, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), has told me that the UK has the best record on animal welfare of any country in the world. After our last exchange, she sent me some evidence in support of that. Whether we are the best is a moot point, but we are clearly better than most. However, we still regularly see terrible footage of conditions in some slaughterhouses and factory farms here, with millions of birds shot in the name of sport and some truly appalling cases of ill treatment of pets. We discussed the cruelty of snares in the main Chamber just before the summer recess.

I am pleased to have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) to sponsor her ten-minute rule Bill calling for tougher sentences for animal cruelty, following the dreadful case of the Frankish brothers in her constituency, who filmed themselves torturing their bulldog by throwing her down the stairs, stamping on her head, swinging her around and headbutting her. We certainly should not be too complacent or congratulate ourselves too much about conditions here in the UK. Today is about making the case against the dog meat trade in South Korea, which is the only country to intensively farm dogs for food. As petitioners have told us, there is a good chance of making progress with the South Korean Government on this issue, not least because the eyes of the world will be on South Korea in the run-up to the winter Olympics.

It was interesting to read in the Library briefing the article by Jill Robinson, the founder and CEO of Animals Asia, which has long campaigned on these issues and says that because the laws in South Korea are stronger than in countries such as China, there is less criminality in the dog meat trade, with fewer dogs mysteriously disappearing from the streets. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for the speech he made in last year’s Backbench Business debate on the wider dog meat trade in countries such as China, in which he outlined in distressing detail the immense cruelty and suffering involved in the theft, transportation, caging and slaughter of millions of dogs each year.

The Yulin dog meat festival is a particularly hideous example of that. Animals Asia has said there is less criminality in South Korea, but Jill Robinson argues that that in fact means there is more cruelty, because there is no way to make dog farming profitable without cutting every corner imaginable. She says that Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines have made dog meat eating illegal, largely because there is no humane way to breed dogs for meat.

In last year’s debate, my former colleague in the shadow DEFRA team, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), said:

“Although the Korea Food and Drug Administration recognises all edible products as food, other than drugs, Seoul has passed a regulation classifying dog meat as a ‘repugnant food’. However, as in other parts of the world, such regulatory oversight has not been effective in curbing the demand for dog meat.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 1223.]

There is a law in place in South Korea—the Animal Protection Amendment Act 2007—which prohibits some of the cruel methods used to slaughter dogs, but it is widely ignored, as we have heard. According to charities involved in campaigning on this issue, many South Koreans believe that the more a dog suffers before it dies, the better the meat will taste, as adrenaline in the system makes the meat taste better. Dogs are therefore often subjected to cruelty before being slaughtered. There is an issue of enforcing the current law as well as making the case for stronger laws and, indeed, trying to outlaw the dog trade altogether.

It is encouraging to hear that cultural attitudes in South Korea are changing and that many more people are speaking out. There is always a danger of being seen to preach to other countries where the cultural norms do not coincide with the practices in this country, and it is best if change can be encouraged to come from within. Some might argue that we are guilty of sentimentality, double standards or hypocrisy in condemning the dog meat trade when so many other animals are killed for food every day around the world, with many kept and killed in equally cruel conditions.

Some of us are of the school of thought that says, “Why eat a cow or a pig if you wouldn’t eat a dog or a cat?” We saw that in the horse meat scandal, when consumers here were appalled to learn that they might be eating horse when they thought they were eating beef or lamb. Of course consumers have the right to know what they are eating and to choose whether that is an animal they wish to eat. I make the point simply that we are discussing the dog meat trade, but there are many other debates to be had about slaughter conditions, the transportation of animals and other practices around the world that we do not focus on quite so much.

In last year’s debate, there was much discussion about the extent to which we should seek to impose our cultural norms on other countries. As the Government said in their written response to the petition, selling and eating dog meat is a legal and culturally normal practice in South Korea, as it is in a number of other countries. They went on to say:

“In the absence of international norms, laws or agreements governing the trade and consumption of cat and dog meat, the United Kingdom has no legal grounds to intervene or take trade measures against those countries”.

I accept that there are no legal grounds for intervening in the actual practice of eating cats and dogs, but I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere and I, as well as the many Members who will follow us, will make the case today that there are certainly moral and ethical grounds for intervening against the immense cruelty involved in the trade. I hope that the UK Government do not hide behind the reasoning they originally gave in response to the petition as an excuse for inaction. We should be doing all we can to continue to raise this issue during our bilateral discussions and to support activists in South Korea who seek to outlaw this terrible trade.

Bangladesh

Alan Meale Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Simon Danczuk]

I completely agree that politics runs passionately high in the country, but it is getting unbearable. Some of the points that I will touch on show that things are moving towards a serious situation of civil unrest, and that needs to be addressed. Tensions are perhaps more heightened than when the hon. Gentleman was in the country.

I met Oli Ullah Numan, who came to the UK for the very reasons I described. He was a journalist who wrote disparagingly about the current Government. He soon started feeling that his life was under threat. Talking to him in Rochdale, I could see the stress and fear that his experience had caused him. Most upsetting for him was not that he was now separated from his wife and children, but that he feared for their lives because they remained in the country. Reporters Without Borders rates Bangladesh at 144th out of 180 countries on its world press freedom index and talks about how journalists there have to be very careful about criticising the Government or religion.

If all that was not bad enough, on 4 May, the Bangladesh Government announced the setting up of a media monitoring centre. They are also taking steps to bring social media under similar forms of regulation to those for print and television. Indeed, the draft Digital Security Act provides for sentences of life imprisonment for anyone spreading negative propaganda about the 1971 war of independence or Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s father. The Act also provides for the sentencing of anybody who deliberately defames someone or hurts their religious sentiment via digital media to two years in prison, replicating existing provisions in law. Another draft law, the Liberation War Denial Crimes Act, makes similar provisions.

All that is restricting a free press and attempting to quash any criticism of the Government. In addition, we are now seeing attacks on secular bloggers. In 2015, four were murdered: a gentleman called Roy in February, Rahman Babu in March, Bijoy Das in May and Chakrabarti in August. While al-Qaeda takes responsibility for some of the attacks, a group called Ansarullah Bangla Team also takes some responsibility. It has published a hit list that includes UK-based bloggers. On 6 April, a law student and blogger was murdered by a group linked to al-Qaeda. The Awami League Home Office Minister’s response was simply to tell bloggers to be careful what they wrote about. On 23 April, a university professor was hacked to death and Daesh claimed responsibility. On 25 April, two people were hacked to death, including the editor of a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender magazine, and again an al-Qaeda affiliate took responsibility. Then, on 30 April, a Hindu man was murdered and Daesh claimed responsibility. Those from the tiny Shi’a Muslim minority have also become prominent targets, with processions and their mosques facing attack. Last month, an elderly Buddhist monk was hacked to death. Religious minorities, writers, bloggers and publishers have continued to be attacked and murdered, and that has had a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Bangladesh.

The breakdown in law and order continues with the gross violation of human rights. Amnesty International regularly reports on what it calls enforced disappearances, and it clearly holds the security forces responsible. It talks of officers in plain clothes arresting dozens of people but then denying any knowledge of their whereabouts. A survey of national newspapers conducted by the human rights organisation, Ain o Salish Kendra, indicated the enforced disappearance of at least 43 individuals, including two women, between January and September 2015. Of the 43, six were later found dead, four were released after their abduction and five were found in police custody. The fate and whereabouts of the other 28 is unknown. Human Rights Watch has also criticised the authorities’ use of excessive force, which includes the extra-judicial killings of opposition supporters. In particular, the Rapid Action Battalion is singled out as being involved in the extra-judicial killings and disappearances. Mass arrests are taking place, with experts stating that they are aimed not so much at Islamic extremists or terrorists but more at political opponents.

If all that were not bad enough, the justice system is seen as biased and is being used to silence the Government’s political opponents, not least through what is called the International Crimes Tribunal. The tribunal has been condemned by the United Nations because it does not meet international standards. It is clearly politicised and is being used not to serve justice for crimes against humanity during the 1971 war of independence but to provide political results. That is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that both Jamaat-e-Islami and Bangladesh National party leaders have faced the death penalty following flawed trials at the tribunal.

Besides that, allegations are regularly made by the current Government against political opponents, tying them down in legal battles and constraining them through threats of police action and prison. As we steadily move towards the next general election in Bangladesh, the Government appear to be making more allegations, particularly against those political opponents who are particularly popular. Attempts are being made to use the judicial process to thwart the electoral chances of opponents such as Tarique Rahman and Khaleda Zia. It is as though the Awami League is trying to choose its opponents for the next general election. Indeed, the next general election could well be more corrupt and fraudulent than the last. We are observing Bangladesh collapse into chaos. As a consequence, we are also seeing a rise in Islamist extremism. The erosion of civic space, the demolition of democracy and the reduction of human rights are all causing a void that is being filled by fundamentalists.

Unhelpfully, the Bangladesh Government often deny that Daesh has a presence in the country and have criticised foreign intelligence agencies and independent commentators who have suggested otherwise. Such a “head in the sand” mentality helps nobody, but neither does the mentality of Bangladesh’s high commissioner to Britain, who recently went on the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme and claimed, to the astonishment and disbelief of the presenter and audience, that some of the extremist murders are being committed by the Bangladesh Nationalist party. That can be bettered only by Bangladesh’s Minister of Home Affairs, who recently blamed Israel for some of the attacks. Let me be clear: it helps nobody to deny that there is a problem with extremism in Bangladesh, but it is deeply corrosive and haunting to play party politics with Islamist terrorism, as the high commissioner did.

Britain and Bangladesh have very strong ties. We trade heavily with each other. We rely heavily on the Bangladesh garment industry. We have the largest Bangladeshi diaspora in Europe. We enjoy the cultural experience that Bangladeshis bring to Britain—indeed, we rely heavily on Bangladeshi chefs to cook our national dish, chicken tikka masala. Bangladesh relies on aid from Britain, and on the remittances that are still being sent home. We share space and understanding within that great institution, the Commonwealth. I have grave concerns for the people of Bangladesh. The problems seem to be escalating. Human rights abuses are increasing dramatically. State violence is becoming extreme. I am worried that the country is steadily slipping towards civil unrest and, potentially, civil war, which is why I suggest that our Government take further action.

What more does the Minister think can be done? I accept that the Foreign Office has recently designated Bangladesh a human rights priority country, but more pressure needs to be applied. What more can the British Government do to press Sheikh Hasina’s regime to start holding free and fair elections and to move towards a free and fair general election? Do the Government believe that some of our aid budget for Bangladesh is going into institutions, such as the Election Commission Bangladesh, that are clearly politicised and favour one party over another? If so, what should be done? Does the Minister have any concerns that weapons or equipment from the UK may be used by the security forces to suppress political activists, restrain political liberty and reduce freedom of expression? Does the Minister agree that it is now appropriate to consider sanctions against Bangladesh? Perhaps we should at least refuse entry to the UK for those in Bangladesh who are clearly responsible for some of the abuses we are discussing.

I know that there will always remain a very strong bond between Britain and Bangladesh. Indeed, our relationship allows us to be critical friends. The time has now come for the British Government to be a little more critical and a little less friendly to the current Bangladesh regime.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

I shall call any other Members who wish to participate, but I should indicate to them that there are only around three to four minutes before I call the Minister to respond to the mover of the motion, who will wind up the debate at the end. If more than one Member wishes to speak, they should understand that if they are to be fair, there is limited time for them to make a representation. I call Rupa Huq.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Sir Alan, it was my intention only to make an intervention about the bloggers and the fact that the Charter of the Commonwealth, by which the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association abides, ensures the fundamental freedom of association. I am particularly interested to hear from the Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government are making representations to the Government in Bangladesh to ensure that fundamental right when the conference takes place in September.

As you have given me the floor, Sir Alan, I would like to echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) about the Bangladeshi diaspora. I am one of three Members of Parliament of Bangladeshi origin in this House. My hon. Friend painted a rather depressing portrait. I believe it was George Harrison who wrote a song about Bangladesh being a terrible mess. Some of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend seem to give weight to that opinion, although it was expressed only in popular song. It is a country that has been monitored on many fronts: democracy, human rights and freedom of association. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s speech.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Of course the hon. Lady is a senior politician in this place and she knows the rules. Debates in Westminster Hall operate under strict timetables. The mover of the motion has indicated that he wants the Minister to reply to the questions he posed. If any time is left, it can be granted to other Members, but we now have to move on because we are approaching the witching hour, when the Minister has to be called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Danczuk]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions and interventions, and I thank the Minister for his response to the issues that I have raised. Without doubt, we all want to see solutions to the problems that are obviously occurring in Bangladesh, and I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister spoke to Sheikh Hasina as recently as last month.

I still have some concerns. We are fast approaching CHOGM, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, which will be held in London in a year or two. I hope that more progress will be made in Bangladesh before we get to that stage. Finally, we are left with three questions that the Minister still needs to answer: first, is any British aid being used in a partisan way; secondly, is there use of any weapons or equipment to suppress political opposition; and, thirdly, at what stage would Britain consider sanctions against Bangladesh, if the situation does not improve?

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, when he goes over his deliberations in Hansard tomorrow, that he might take the view expressed by Ms Huq and contact the CPA to warn it that this matter came up in the course of his debate? He could ask the CPA to ensure that all precautions are taken in the event of the conference taking place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bangladesh

Alan Meale Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we proceed with the debate, I would like to make one or two announcements. First, I told Jim Fitzpatrick before the debate that I thought it was getting a little warm and that it would be fine by me if Members or the Minister wanted to take off their jackets—I apologise for not making that announcement a little earlier.

We have a full list of speakers, and I hope that everyone can participate in some way. That means we are fairly restricted on time. I intend to call the three Front Benchers —from the official Opposition, the Government and the Scottish National party—from 3.30 pm, and before that we will have the debate among Back Benchers, which means about eight or 10 minutes per speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Parents may see marriage as a way of securing a better life for their daughters, but too often they suffer abuse in marriages. Even where that is not the case, the physical risks of giving birth at such a young age can be bad indeed. Child marriage is illegal in Bangladesh and the Prime Minister made some encouraging commitments at the girl summit in London last year. Reports indicate, however, that there has been little progress on her pledges. There has even been some discussion about the legal age for marriage being reduced in Bangladesh. The UK Government were rightly lauded for hosting the summit, so I hope the Minister can update us on how they have been trying to maintain that momentum and get Bangladesh to deliver on the commitments made there.

As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned, there is serious concern about the persecution of Hindu communities and the decline of the Hindu population in Bangladesh. Freedom of religion and expression are a grave concern. Earlier this year, three secular bloggers were hacked to death on Bangladesh’s streets. Those responsible for such horrendous acts must be brought to justice, and the Government must protect the rights of religious minorities and atheists in Bangladesh, as well as the majority Muslim population. We have seen bloggers, Facebook users and human rights organisation officials arrested because of what they have put online. The FCO listed freedom of expression on the internet as one of its six human rights priorities, so perhaps the Minister can advise us on whether the new Government continue to have those six priorities. How have they been working with Bangladesh to support reform in this area? Abolition of the death penalty was another of the FCO’s priorities, and the UK must continue to push for a moratorium in Bangladesh, as we do elsewhere.

Finally, one area where Bangladesh has been less proactive is the boat crisis with Burmese and Bangladesh migrants. We have previously discussed our concerns that Bangladesh has returned Rohingya fleeing persecution in Burma and blocked aid agencies from accessing Rakhine state. The international community is horrified by the discovery of mass graves and scenes of migrants from Burma and Bangladesh packed on board ships and risking their lives in search of a new home in Malaysia, Thailand or Indonesia. I know that the Minister responded to an Adjournment debate in the Chamber only last week or the week before on the situation in Burma, but Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has dismissed the Rohingya as economic migrants who are “mentally sick”, and said they should be punished, as they were

“tainting the image of the country”.

Will the Minister comment on the situation from the Bangladesh perspective?

I hope the Minister will agree that the international community needs to address not only the immediate crisis in the Andaman sea, but the underlying issues forcing people to flee their homes in Burma and Bangladesh. Bangladesh is of course part of the discussions about Rohingya citizenship and whether they can eventually be given rights of citizenship in Burma.

I regret that my remarks may appear rather negative; I started by saying that there was much in Bangladesh’s future to be positive about, but it is important, as other Members have said, to highlight some of the issues, in a spirit of friendship, so that we can, with our common shared history and our role in the Commonwealth, work with Bangladesh to address them.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister to speak, I remind him that there are approximately 15 minutes to go. It would be helpful if at the end he could find a little time for Mrs Main to respond to the debate and thank Members for their participation.

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

I shall certainly try to do as you suggest, Sir Alan. On that subject, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing the debate and on the almost universal acclaim from all parts of the House for her work as chair of the all-party group on Bangladesh. I commend the commitment that she and all the group’s members, some of whom are with us this afternoon, have shown over the years to strengthening and deepening our relations with Bangladesh, as well as to encouraging progress in many areas, from human rights and economic and social development to educational and trade links.

In January 2014—more than 16 months ago—the House had a debate on Bangladesh immediately after its 10th parliamentary elections. Those taking part in that debate expressed concerns about: the high levels of violence and disruption; the removal from Bangladesh’s constitution of the provision for a caretaker Government, following the annulment of that provision by the Supreme Court; and the consequent lack of participation by some of Bangladesh’s political parties in the elections. Indeed, as we know, before a single vote was cast, just more than half of all seats were declared, meaning that 46 million out of 92 million voters were deprived of choice at the ballot box. While that was deeply disappointing, the UK recognised that elections had been held, in accordance with Bangladesh’s constitution, which was amended by its Parliament in 2011. While it is not for the UK to prescribe the constitutional provisions of other countries, I add that the caretaker Government system was not without its flaws and was open to criticisms of manipulation and abuse. It is certainly not the panacea or path to participatory democracy that some have claimed.

Since then, alongside our international partners, we have encouraged Bangladesh’s political parties to take bold steps towards building much-needed confidence, mutual understanding and co-operation as the only way for the country to remain on a strong democratic path with full political participation, so that its people continue to have political choices. That is a message I have conveyed personally in my engagements with Bangladeshi Ministers.

It was therefore deeply concerning when the situation deteriorated in Bangladesh earlier this year. There have been: restrictions on public gatherings around the first anniversary of the 2014 elections; nationwide transport blockades and enforced labour strikes declared by the Bangladesh Nationalist party; outbreaks of violence and disruption; more than 100 deaths, horrific arson attacks and many more injuries; and opposition and activist arrests, which a tough law and order response that saw a number of fatalities. On 5 March, I issued a statement calling for a peaceful way forward. Preparations for city corporation elections in Chittagong and Dhaka in April presented a real opportunity for Bangladesh to focus on democratic processes once more, but that opportunity was lost after the BNP withdrew part way through, citing widespread irregularities. The Election Working Group—an umbrella non-governmental organisation that the UK, among others, supports—found election day to be marred by significant levels of electoral fraud and violence, and judged the elections not to have been credible.

We and many other international partners called for all allegations of irregularity to be investigated swiftly and impartially. Sadly, that does not yet seem to have happened. The UK cares deeply about Bangladesh, so we continue to urge the political parties to do the right thing by Bangladesh’s future. Like any modern, vibrant democracy, Bangladesh must protect and promote civil society and human rights, and not least freedom of expression, whether through allowing peaceful protests on the streets, media commentary or digital expression. No one should fear reprisals if they express a view. I associate myself closely with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) about the importance of a secular society.

The recent horrifying and brutal murders of three bloggers in Bangladesh caused consternation around the world. The perpetrators must be brought to justice and the Bangladeshi Government must be unequivocal in protecting those who speak up. We are also deeply concerned about allegations of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Again, where allegations are credible, we call on the Bangladeshi Government to hold the perpetrators to account through impartial, transparent investigations.

I should note the final verdict yesterday in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh’s appellate division, confirming the death sentence against Jamaat secretary-general Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid, for crimes committed during the 1971 liberation war. Although I fully understand the strong desire finally to bring those who committed terrible atrocities to account, the UK remains strongly opposed to use of the death penalty in any circumstances.

Bangladesh has a strong network of non-governmental organisations, all contributing to Bangladesh’s future in a range of sectors, from supporting women’s and children’s issues, to food security and poverty alleviation. We regularly engage with the Bangladeshi Government to ensure that they support the vital work of these organisations and address legitimate concerns, including revisions to new legislation governing NGOs.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) commented on the Human Rights Watch report, “Marry Before Your House is Swept Away”, and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred to passages in that report about girls being married off so that others can eat or be educated. We welcome Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s commitment at the girl summit last year to ending marriage for under-15s by 2021, and for under-18s by 2041. With two thirds of women in Bangladesh currently married before they are 18, it is hugely important that the new Child Marriage Restraint Act sets the minimum age for marriage at 18, with no exceptions. We continue to discuss with the Bangladeshi Government our concerns about the proposed legislation to lower the legal age for marriage.

We invest heavily in Bangladesh’s development. UK aid currently stands at £191 million a year. That support aims to lift 1.5 million Bangladeshi citizens out of extreme poverty, provide access to safe water for 1.3 million people, and ensure that 500,000 boys and girls complete primary school education. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans asked how the UK aid schemes are audited; the situation is complicated. I will ask my colleagues at the Department for International Development to write to her. Nevertheless, I can assure her that none of our aid is paid as direct budget support to the Bangladeshi Government.

Climate change is of course hugely important to Bangladesh. I remind the House that the Government set up the international climate fund to provide £3.87 billion between April 2011 and March 2016 to help the world’s poorest to adapt to climate change and promote cleaner and greener growth.

Hon. Members rightly mentioned the devastating collapse of Rana Plaza two years ago, which resulted in the loss of more than 1,000 innocent lives, many of them women’s. We welcomed the all-party group’s report and recommendations. The garment industry in Bangladesh has played a pivotal role in Bangladesh’s development by helping to reduce poverty and empower women. Significant steps have been taken to improve building safety and working conditions, but there is still more to be done. All the parties involved in the supply chain, including Government agencies, building owners, factory owners, and the international brands, need to share responsibility for ensuring that change happens.

The UK is providing £7.4 million to fund factory inspections, train new inspectors, strengthen factory health and safety, help garment workers to understand their rights and help survivors of Rana Plaza to find new jobs or start their own businesses. We are pleased that the $30 million Rana Plaza fund has now been met in full. Primark’s contribution of an additional $13 million, on top of its $1 million donation to the fund, is particularly noteworthy and will help to ensure that victims and their families are properly supported.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), mentioned the migrant crisis in the bay of Bengal and Andaman sea. I recently discussed the matter with the permanent under-secretary from the Bangladeshi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and urged Bangladesh to take steps to improve border security and address the root causes of the crisis. He invited me to go with him to Cox’s Bazar and Chittagong to see for myself what is going on there. I very much hope to take him up on that offer. In parallel, UK aid is providing £4.79 million for food security, livelihoods and relief co-ordination for the Rohingya and host communities in Bangladesh, in addition to the significant existing UK aid programmes in Rakhine.

Before I draw my remarks to a close, it is worth reflecting on Indian Prime Minister Modi’s recent visit to Bangladesh. It is important that countries in the region collaborate to ensure the region’s long-term stability and prosperity. We therefore welcome the Indian Parliament’s long overdue ratification of the 1974 India-Bangladesh land boundary agreement and the 2011 protocol. That will make a significant difference to the lives of tens of thousands of citizens living in enclaves on either side of the border. We hope that this historic agreement, along with other Bangladesh-India bilateral agreements made during Mr Modi’s visit, paves the way for even more—for example, on Teesta water sharing. Incidentally, the boundary realignments have already unleashed a whole tranche of long-overdue Indian investment in infrastructure—I think my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans alluded to that earlier.

It is important that all countries in south Asia continue to play a role in tackling the threats of terrorism, extremism and radicalisation. I therefore welcome Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s commitment to eradicating terrorism, although it is important that, when countering risks, law enforcement agencies do so transparently, fairly and within the bounds of the law.

To conclude, the United Kingdom values its relationship with Bangladesh deeply. The 440,000-plus people of Bangladeshi origin in the UK make an enormous contribution to British society. That is why the Government will continue to work closely with Bangladesh on its democratic path and as it grows to be a strong and more prosperous nation that benefits all its people. On behalf of the whole House, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans for her work and for the opportunity to debate these important issues, and I thank other Members for their continuing interest in furthering the relationship between the UK and Bangladesh.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Before I call Mrs Main, may I point out that a vote is due at 4 pm? Please make your summing up short.

[Mrs Main]

Thank you for that guidance, Sir Alan. I shall do so.

I thank all Members who have participated for their contributions. This has been a model debate in terms of the friendliness expressed by Members from all parties. I thank the Minister for his response. He gave us his thoughts about the election irregularities that he has asked be investigated. I really hope that they are, because such helpful pressure, which we are putting on all political parties in Bangladesh, will move things forward.

The all-party group expressed a desire at its inaugural meeting to look at flooding—the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) really wants to look into that. Infrastructure resilience is hugely important in Bangladesh. If the country is to grow, it is critical that it moves itself forward with the infrastructure upgrades that it so desperately needs.

I again thank the Minister. I am sure we will be asking for further updates.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

That concludes the debate. I must point out that, although a Division has not yet been called, one is expected in a few seconds’ time at 4 pm. If that is the case, the next debate will not start until 4.15 pm.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Russian Membership of the Council of Europe

Alan Meale Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Chope]

I will go on to explain exactly why. It is not just the view of all the UK delegation’s members that the Russian Federation has seriously violated article 3; it is also the view of a substantial majority of the Parliamentary Assembly, as evidenced by the decision in January this year to impose sanctions against representatives of Russia, and of the European Conservatives group in the Assembly, which I have the privilege of chairing. It also must be the opinion of the Committee of Ministers, which has made various declarations calling on the Russian Federation to do this, that and the other, all of which have been ignored.

[Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I confirm that that is also the view of the majority of the Socialist group in the Council of Europe.

[Mr Chope]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. I know that within the Socialist group, strong, differing views have been expressed, but the UK delegation in the Socialist group has been solidly supporting the notion that we must have application of the rules of law to the Russian Federation’s membership of the Council of Europe.

What has the Russian Federation done to put itself in fundamental breach of its obligations? First, it has illegally annexed the territory of another member country of the Council of Europe through the use of armed aggression. To make that worse, its President this week finally admitted that he ordered that annexation, and that there was no free will involved on the part of those living in Crimea. However, as recently as January this year, Mr Putin’s poodles in the Russian state Duma were trying to equate Crimea’s referendum with that the one that took place in Scotland last year and to say that the annexation was equivalent to the Federal Republic of Germany’s annexation of East Germany in 1989.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South asked what is new, and I have here an article from a Russian newspaper, dated 28 January 2015, with the headline “Russian lawmakers to consider declaration on 1989 ‘annexation of East Germany’”. It states:

“Sergei Naryshkin, the speaker of Russia’s lower house of parliament, has asked the parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs to look into the possibility of adopting a declaration which denounces the reunification of Germany in 1989”.

He goes on to say that the Parliamentary Assembly’s reference to the events in Crimea was unlawful and that

“‘97% of Crimean residents voted for reunification with their motherland’”.

The article continues:

“Following the logic of those who call this historical event an annexation, the Federal Republic of Germany annexed East Germany, Naryshkin stated.”

We now know, from Putin’s words a year later, that he ordered that, so all the subsequent bluff and bluster were lies, as we knew they were at the time, and as most of us on the Parliamentary Assembly realised.

The second thing that I hold against the Russian Federation is that it has deployed Russian troops across the border in eastern Ukraine who have used and continued to use heavy weapons against the Ukrainian people. I ask the hon. Gentleman, is that not enough?

Thirdly, Russia has brazenly defied the rule of law by harbouring Andrei Lugovoy, one of its own MPs, who was involved in the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006. As has become clear at the public inquiry currently taking place, Lugovoy achieved a score of minus 2 when asked during a polygraph test in Moscow in April 2012 whether he had handled polonium, yet at the time Russia claimed that the test had emphatically established his innocence. To add insult to injury, on Monday this week, President Putin awarded a state honour to Mr Lugovoy for what was described as “services to the fatherland”. That is putting the proverbial two fingers up to all the other members of the Council of Europe. What are those members doing in response?

The fourth charge that I levy against the Russian Federation is that it has refused to honour its obligations under international law to release from custody Nadiya Savchenko, who was an elected Member of the Ukrainian Parliament and a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. She was illegally abducted from Ukraine last July.

Then there is the Magnitsky case. That is a case of the Russians exercising impunity in relation to the killers of Sergei Magnitsky. A recently published book by Bill Browder, “Red Notice: How I Became Putin’s No. 1 Enemy”, is, according to the inside cover,

“a searing exposé of the wholesale whitewash by Russian authorities of Magnitsky’s imprisonment and murder, slicing deep into the shadowy heart of the Kremlin to uncover its sordid truths… With fraud, bribery, corruption and torture exposed at every turn, Red Notice is a shocking but true political roller-coaster that plays out in the highest echelons of Western power.”

On the back of the book, which, not surprisingly, has been banned in Russia, there is a quote from Bill Browder:

“I have to assume that there is a very real chance that Putin or members of his regime will have me killed some day… If I’m killed, you will know who did it.”

That is, sadly, rather reminiscent of what Boris Nemtsov’s mother said before his assassination in Russia last month.

In addition to all that, there have been multiple breaches of the accession document that Russia signed when it joined the Council of Europe. As Russia is still in deliberate breach of its obligations under article 3, why is nothing being done by the United Kingdom Government to trigger action against Russia under article 8? Indeed, one might ask what the purpose is of belonging to an organisation that manifestly shows so little respect for the values espoused in its founding statute.

There are precedents for suspension or expulsion from international organisations, and I want to touch on what happens in the Commonwealth. On Monday, Her Majesty the Queen, as head of the Commonwealth, attended the annual service at Westminster abbey, and her message for Commonwealth day was that the organisation’s values are

“more important and worthy of protection than perhaps at any other time in the Commonwealth’s existence.”

The same is true of the values of the Council of Europe. The principles of the Commonwealth were set out in the Singapore declaration of 1971 and restated in the Harare declaration of 1991. In essence, they talk about peace, democracy, liberty and the rule of law.

Nigeria was suspended from the Commonwealth in 1995 for breaching the Commonwealth principles. It was reinstated in 1999, when it had a democratically elected President. Fiji was suspended in September 2009 for being in breach of the principles and is still suspended. Indeed, I think it has now left the organisation. Zimbabwe was suspended in March 2002. That resulted in its leaving the Commonwealth in December 2003. There are well established precedents for exercising the power of suspension from an international organisation when a member of that organisation is manifestly in breach of the principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and he presented his case extraordinarily well. I have no doubt about the merits of that case, but there is this other argument, which other Members have alluded to, that it is better to have people inside the organisation.

Would the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe have the same facilities offered to them in Russia if Russia was out of the Assembly? I think not. Would people in Russia, who make up nearly two thirds of all the applicants to the European Court of Human Rights, have any access to redress if Russia was out of the Assembly? I think not. If the £24 million that the Russians put in, as a grand payer along with the UK, was removed from the Council of Europe, what would that do for the Court in Strasbourg?

[Sir Alan Meale]

The hon. Gentleman said that the members of the Russian delegation to the Assembly do not really care whether they have voting rights, so why do they continually campaign to get the votes back and why do they threaten in discussions in the Duma that, if they do not get their votes back, they will seek to leave the Council of Europe? Surely, voting rights are important and, as the hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) said, the strength of the push towards getting the negotiation to the Council of Ministers, or to the UN or wherever, is the important factor here.

[Mr Hancock]

The simple answer to that is that the Council of Europe needs Russia more than Russia needs the Council of Europe. That is the real issue for the Russian Duma Members and I have read with interest some of the comments they have made in the Russian press since the issue in January; they make interesting reading. Those Duma Members genuinely believe that the threat to suspend Russia is a bluff, because they know that the track record of the Council of Europe on taking forceful action is pretty abysmal and they have a lot of evidence to support that line.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) raised the issue of Latvia. Interestingly, the 300,000 ethnic Russians in Latvia are classed as non-citizens. If the Council of Europe believes in anything to do with human rights, how can it allow that situation to persist? It is ridiculous.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I echo the comments of my colleagues who welcomed you to the Chair, Mrs Brooke, and I wish you well after you step down from the House of Commons at the forthcoming election. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing and leading what has been throughout an extremely serious-minded and thoughtful debate about not only Ukraine, but the more general relationship between the United Kingdom and the west and Russia and how we should address the challenges that we currently face.

I rather agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) when he said that there has been a tendency in the west to underestimate the extent to which people in Russia see the era of Gorbachev and Yeltsin as a national humiliation. Nevertheless, I do not believe that that suggests that the west has provoked President Putin and the current Russian Government in the way that he sometimes tries to claim. When looking back over the past 10 years or so, we see an effort by western countries to try to involve Russia in those international organisations that are the core of a rules-based international order. We have seen Russia brought into the G7, which became the G8; into the World Trade Organisation and the OECD; and into organisations such as the Council of Europe, which has been at the heart of today’s debate.

The right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) was correct to remind the House that we are looking not only at Ukraine, nor even only at Ukraine and Georgia, but at a number of areas where, in recent years, Russia has demonstrated a more aggressive pursuit of its national interests and posed a greater challenge to a rules-based international system—or at least, a system that we had hoped was rules-based. He mentioned cyber attacks and the increase in air and naval activity. I could add to that list the abduction of an Estonian official from Estonian soil. He is still in prison in Moscow, where he has been for six months without evidence being brought against him. I could also add the use of energy and strategic investments as a weapon of Russian power, the 2007 suspension of Russian participation in the conventional forces in Europe treaty and the fact that, only yesterday, Russia announced that it would suspend its participation in the Joint Consultative Group, the committee in Vienna that monitors the CFE treaty.

[Sir Alan Meale]

Perhaps the Minister could add to that list trade with Armenia. Recently, Armenia agreed to move closer to the European Union, resulting in a direct threat from Russia that if it continued to move away from the Commonwealth of Independent States, Russia would instead trade with nearby partners.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman puts the point well, and one could add other items to that list.

We face not only a crisis over Ukraine, but an issue of principle. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the international community, including the Russian Federation, recognised the republics that then became independent states as sovereign and entitled to determine their own future. The question now is whether we believe that that is an important principle that should be upheld for both legal and political reasons, or that Russia is justified in trying to exert some kind of informal imperium over those countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union.

Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)

Alan Meale Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way one last time, and then I must make progress.

[Sir Alan Meale]

Will the Minister confirm a bit of information? As he touched on earlier, there are about 800 million people, comprising 47 nations, in the greater European area. I hope that he will confirm for Members on both sides of the House that, on all the judgments that the Court has made so far, this country has never refused to endorse the Court’s findings.

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right.

The convention played an important role after the second world war in re-establishing democracy and the rule of law across western Europe. It played a vital role after the cold war in leading the former states of the Soviet Union and its satellites to start adopting the principles of democratic liberalism. The convention remains crucial in tackling the murder of journalists in Russia, for example, or questions of religious freedom in Turkey. There are also telling recent examples of its relevance here at home—for example, in preventing the misuse of stop-and-search powers.

The problem is not with the fundamental principles of human rights expressed through the convention, but there are real issues that rightly cause concern in this House and more widely—issues that, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pointed out, matter to all countries that are party to the convention and members of the Council of Europe. Those relate to the operation of the Court in Strasbourg. The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of the Court and recognises its important role, but it is not working as it should, for at least two reasons.

First, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds rightly said, it is struggling under a huge workload, and drowning under a backlog of more than 150,000 cases, which is growing by roughly 20,000 additional cases each year. The eightfold increase in case loads since 2001 shows that a sensible refocusing on what really matters is not a subject that can simply be deferred for another day; it is an urgent priority.

That urgency is illustrated further by the fact that more than 90% of cases before the Court, when they finally get to the top of the queue and are properly considered, or found to be inadmissible, simply do not come within the scope of the convention, or the procedural rules are found not to have been observed. For cases involving the United Kingdom that figure is higher. Roughly 97% of cases brought against the United Kingdom are found to be inadmissible—and that is before we get on to whether in the other cases—the minority—the finding is for or against the country alleged to have broken the terms of the convention. The backlog is the first reason why there is an urgent need to reform the court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

With respect, I may correct the hon. Gentleman, because the chairmanship proceeds in alphabetical sequence, so the Albanians will take over from us. I can certainly assure him, however, that the Foreign Secretary and I remain completely committed to doing all that lies within our power to work for an outcome in Cyprus that brings about the creation of a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation, with equal rights for all communities, and in compliance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. It is not for the United Kingdom to determine what happens in Cyprus, because the process has to be Cypriot led if it is to work and if there is to be an enduring accord, but we give what support we can to the communities in Cyprus and to the work of the UN Secretary-General and his special envoy, Alexander Downer.

[Sir Alan Meale]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, because he has had one bite of the cherry and I want to make progress. I do not want to be sidetracked into a further debate about Cyprus, which I am sure the House will have an opportunity to discuss in the future.

We have a unique opportunity to secure improvements to the Court, to enhance its credibility, the rule of law and the protection of human rights and to ensure that the legitimate decisions and traditions of national courts and legal systems are properly respected.

Hon. Members will be only too aware of the domestic backdrop to the programme, about which there is great interest abroad. The House will know, too, that the Government have established an independent commission with a remit to investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights, which would incorporate and build on all our obligations under the convention. I hope that the commission’s work will assist in bringing clarity to an area of contentious debate, and indeed it has already advised the Government very usefully on Court reform, but to avoid any doubt let me reaffirm that in the Government’s mind there is no question of the UK leaving the European convention on human rights. The coalition’s programme for government makes very clear our commitment to the convention and to the values it embodies.

The Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), commented on this subject very eloquently on Monday just gone, saying:

“The United Kingdom signed the Convention on the first day it was open for signature...The United Kingdom was the first country to ratify the Convention the following year. The United Kingdom will not be the first country to leave the Convention.”

I have spoken at length about Court reform, but our goals for our chairmanship touch on other significant matters, and I would like to close by turning briefly to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I join the hon. Gentleman in that view. I recognise that Members across this House have played very important roles in the Council of Europe at different times.

Despite the fact that a Conservative Government were the driving force behind the European convention on human rights, a Labour Government put those rights into UK law in 1999, and we are proud of that. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives British citizens the right to bring cases before British courts rather than having to petition European judges directly. Although we remain committed to the European convention and the European Court, we also recognise that the Court needs reform. The Government have said today that its reform should be a priority for our forthcoming chairmanship, and I support that.

As has been mentioned, the Government set up an independent commission that has presented interim recommendations concerning that reform. The commission highlighted three areas that need to be addressed: the need substantially to reduce the number of cases brought before the Court; the need to consider the remedies that the Court may grant; and the need to improve the process of selecting high-quality judges.

[Sir Alan Meale]

At the moment, the judges are elected in the Assembly by all Members of the Assembly, but the Interlaken process proposes to diminish that democratic selection mechanism. The current process involves not just the election of the judges but the interviewing of the candidates, in which two criteria must be fulfilled: first, they have to be fully qualified to stand for election; and secondly, there must be at least one woman among the three candidates. I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that we should move away from those principles.

[Emma Reynolds]

I am a great supporter of gender equality, but the selection process needs to be improved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walter]

My hon. Friend makes a very significant point about the sovereignty of member states, whether they be members of the European Union or of the Council of Europe. I believe that the sovereignty of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe should be absolute in the case of a Council of Europe convention.

[Sir Alan Meale]

Like the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, I pay tribute to him for his work at the Council of Europe over many years. Members of all parties will agree that he does a fine job. I apologise, but I will have to leave the debate shortly to chair the sitting in Westminster Hall.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the sovereignty of nations, what about Turkey? It has refused to accept the outcome of the Louzides case on the confiscation of property—it has paid up, but it has never accepted it. What about its current threat that if Cyprus is given the presidency of the Council of Ministers, it will leave the Council of Europe and not pursue any path towards entry into the European Union?

[Mr Walter]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I am an avowed supporter of Turkish membership of the European Union, but that does not mean that I will in any way make excuses for the Turkish Government’s non-compliance with their international obligations. I also regret the Turkish Prime Minister’s statement that Turkey would not participate in any discussions with the EU should Cyprus take on the presidency of the Council of Ministers. That is a wrong decision, as I have said to many Turkish colleagues.

To return to the question of EU accession, I wish to refer for a moment to the role of the European Parliament. It has been conceded that when it comes to the question of the election of judges, the European Parliament will have the same rights as the largest member states. We are one of those five largest member states. However, the draft arrangements go on to give the European Parliament special treatment, which I think is unjustified. It will have an ex officio place on the sub-committee that interviews the candidates for the post of judge in the European Court of Human Rights. As the leader of one of the other large delegations, I ask why I cannot appoint an ex officio member to that sub-committee on the basis that I should have the same voting rights as the European Parliament.

Under its internal mechanisms, the European Parliament will have the power to veto the three candidates who are on the shortlist. No other Parliament has that power. It will also have the power to be on the sub-committee that interviews the candidates. I contend that that will create an uneven playing field, and I hope we will resist it when we come to debate EU accession.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I said that I was not going to be able to speak in the debate, but I managed to get somebody else to chair a meeting in this building in time to come back to the Chamber.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on her persistence and endeavour in securing this debate, although I suspect our agreement on and understanding of each other’s politics ceases there. She has not grasped at all what the Council of Europe is about, which is human rights, the rule of law and democracy. They are all intertwined; they are not simple little solutions set aside from each other and never the twain shall meet. They are interlinked so that we can get policies that cross national boundaries.

The hon. Lady cites one or two examples that everybody in this Chamber, including the Minister and Labour Members, agree on, but they are minor cases where things have to be cleared up. That is all part of the agenda for change, which the Council of Ministers and the Council of Europe are undertaking. Let us deal with the big issues, one of which is capital punishment. Countries are not allowed to become members of the Council of Europe if they carry out capital punishment. We must remember that there are 800 million people in these 47 countries in greater Europe, and we cannot singly deal with one or two issues such as the ones she raised.

[Mr Binley]

Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that many of the decisions by the European Court of Human Rights that gain the headlines in our newspapers actually diminish the role of justice and therefore are very important?

[Sir Alan Meale]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I apologise if I have led him up the path of thinking that these minor matters in relation to the very big issues that the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights deal with are in some way not important. They are all very important, and they are very important to the people involved. As the Minister rightly pointed out, Members on both sides of the House are seriously of a mind for change and reform as far as the Court is concerned, because of the huge catalogue of outstanding cases, many of which could and should be dealt with in the courts of the individual countries. We should accept responsibility for our failure to act to make the courts deal with them. As the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) said, the problem of the courts and the outstanding cases in the European Court is caused by failures in individual nations and their court systems.

I said in an intervention that we have a very democratic system, which could be reformed in some way, for choosing judges. The three candidates that are submitted by all member countries have to be fully experienced in such matters before their names are even put forward and there has to be a gender balance. Those people are then examined by a committee in full before recommendations are made to the Assembly, which then decides. I have been there on a number of occasions over the years, as have other hon. Members who are present today, when time and again we have sent back the names of candidates and said, “They are not qualified,” “They do not come up to the standard,” or, in a number of cases, “No gender choice whatever has been given.” A few years ago, some countries refused to submit the name of a female candidate. The system is well-tested and I do not think that talking about “sleepwalking” away from accountability is the best way forward.

The Minister gave us the best way forward, which has been accepted by all parties. We need reform. We have to wake up the courts and the Governments of member countries and say, “You have to take responsibility for and deal with these issues; the European Court is for bigger things.” The example I gave of where such instances might apply involved a failure by two members of the Council of Europe area and, indeed, Britain—so three countries in all—in respect of seized assets in the northern area of Cyprus. An individual citizen went through all the courses for legal redress in their own country, Cyprus, and then went to the guarantor powers of Greece and the United Kingdom, but the case failed and there was no other domestic court for that case to go to. Members might ask, “What does a person’s ownership of their home have to do with the European Court of Human Rights?” Well, it has a lot to do with it if someone’s country has been invaded, they have been marshalled out of their home and local area into another country, and the return of the assets in the house, and the house itself, has been refused.

The Loizidou case went to the Court, which took a number of years to deal with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) rightly pointed out, it was then sent back to Turkey and the regime in the northern area of Cyprus, which were told, “You must deal with this matter. What you have done is illegal—you have illegally invaded, you have illegally occupied and you have illegally kept rightful owners away from their homes.” The judgment that came down in the end was that reparation to the tune of nearly £1 million in costs and compensation should be paid to the family not for the home they had lost but for the loss of use of their home over that 30-odd year period. That case could not have been dealt with in any other court.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important case regarding the human rights of the people of Cyprus. Is it not the case that this issue of human rights goes further and affects not just loss of property but loss of people? There is also an issue of missing relatives and people who still do not know where their loved ones have gone since the conflicts. They have called on Turkey to release basic information giving them a right to know where their relatives are. Does he agree that there has been a breach of those fundamental rights which must be answered and that we could take the opportunity, as chair of the Council of Europe, to make that case?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We are not discussing the issue of Turkey per se and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bring the debate back to the question of the chairmanship of the Council of Europe and its priorities.

[Sir Alan Meale]

Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. To give a very short reply to the question, let me just point out to the hon. Member for Witham that there has been involvement in that particular case and many other cases of breaches of human rights by the British Government as a guarantor power. Those issues will be taken up yet again in the course of the six-month chairmanship. Indeed, quite recently the European Minister met the Commissioner for Human Rights, who is an employee elected by the Council of Europe members in its Assembly. As my colleague the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) alluded to, 1,619 Greek Cypriots and 684 Turkish Cypriots remain missing from those periods. I know there will be contact on that subject during our chairmanship.

The Minister outlined the primary policies that we shall take up during our chairmanship. One key area is local and regional government. Next week or the week after, the Minister will be present at talks in Kiev. I hope he will give a guarantee in his summing-up that he will fall behind all the magnificent work on local government reform by Kivinemi, the Minister from Finland, which was picked up and improved upon by Chavez, the Spanish Minister. That is very important.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham on her persistence in obtaining the debate, but I ask her to think about some of the Council of Europe’s other roles that will be debated during our chairmanship. We send people on peace missions or monitoring missions. Two or three Members who are currently in the Chamber take part in those missions and put themselves at risk. At this minute there are people on monitoring missions in some outlying areas of greater Europe, where they have to receive military protection in order to fulfil their role. In the forthcoming weeks and months, Members from both sides of the Chamber will be undertaking such missions, and they risk their lives in doing so. In the Georgian conflict, the Chechnyan conflict, the Bosnian conflict and the Kosovan-Serbia conflict, Members of the House, as members of the Council of Europe, went in as peace monitors and election monitors, trying to achieve a democratic purpose. The Council is not just a small organisation in that respect.

I shall refer briefly to the work of the eight committees of the Council of Europe. Britain’s membership of the Assembly, from both sides of this Chamber, is a worthwhile and leading part of the work of the Council of Europe. We have a number of vice-chairmen. We have the chairmen of the monitoring committee, the health committee and the environment committee; the list goes on and on. I mentioned the committee that examines and gives initial interviews to those who wish to become judges of the European Court of Human Rights. We hold the chairmanship and leading positions on that committee. I pay tribute to a previous Conservative Member of this place: John Greenway was the chair of the Council’s committee on rules of procedure, and did a magnificent job in the years that he held that position.

I also pay tribute to the British ambassador in Strasbourg. I have seen many ambassadors in different countries who treat it as a fine profession and a life indeed, but this woman works night and day. If committees meet early in the morning, she is there; she is there throughout the day and into the late evenings, attending meetings and so on. I pay tribute to her and her staff, as I do to Secretary-General Jagland. He is comparatively new to his role, but I am pleased that I and others on both sides of this Chamber voted for him, because he has done a magnificent job and brought a stature to the Council of Europe and its work, with his background as Speaker and Prime Minister of his own country’s Government. His sense of purpose in the reform process has been very good indeed.

Last but not least, I pay tribute to the staff of this place. We have a small number of staff who run the Overseas Office. They fix up all the travel arrangements and arrange the accommodation, which I acknowledge is not salubrious—I wish it was—but for which they get the best value they can. They have to make those arrangements for 30-odd Members of Parliament, including arrangements to enable them to participate in all the committees that emanate from the work of the Council of Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Heald]

The hon. Gentleman made his speech, and I have disagreed with several points that he made, so we will probably have to leave it at that.

The Government are right to make Court reform a priority, however. With a backlog of 162,000 cases, there is a need for a filter to provide some way of getting through them, and we are right to try to introduce more subsidiarity. I agree with our delegation leader, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), that we should have a system in which one needs leave to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights, although personally I think that one would need also the right, if leave were refused, to apply directly to the Court. That would not open a great floodgate of cases; it would just mean that, if a particular case were decided for political reasons, which is what can happen in some countries, there would be a further way through.

On the Human Rights Act, I have mentioned my support for a British Bill of Rights, but the other issue is the quality of the judges. I have been a member of the Council’s Parliamentary Assembly for only two-and-a-half years, or perhaps three now, but that problem has been raised in the Assembly throughout that period. Some judges just do not know the Court’s law base, and there is a concern that some countries’ candidates are just not adequate. We should find ways to improve the quality.

[Sir Alan Meale]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, so that the House is not left with the wrong impression, that we refuse candidates at every session? If they do not meet the language, experience and gender balance criteria, we do not appoint them. We send them back, time and time again to some countries.

[Oliver Heald]

Yes, and of course the answer is not to find a way of letting unsatisfactory candidates through; it is to secure an improvement in the quality of candidates. Knowledge of the Court’s key languages is vital; otherwise it is not possible for the judges to interact with it.

My impression of the European Court of Human Rights is that it takes a slightly diplomatic approach to its cases and almost sprays round the judgments a bit. There is a need to act entirely on the basis of serious human rights abuses and not to feel that every country of the 47 must have a judgment against it. More focus on serious abuses of human rights would meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and other hon. Friends.

I support Secretary-General Jagland’s programme of reform, which will save money—the hon. Member for Bassetlaw will be pleased about that—and streamline the organisation, reducing the number of committees. It is worth giving credit to Mr Mignon, who is rapporteur of the committee on rules of procedure, immunities and institutional affairs, and involved with the Assembly’s bureau. He has played a major part, and his report on changing the rules is a major piece of work. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset played a big part in that. Those changes will improve how the Assembly works.

The rule of law is an important priority for the Government, and I want to mention two issues. The first is migration. If we are to tackle migration, it is important to follow the approach that the committee on migration, refugees and population set out in its recent report, when my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) was the rapporteur. That involves sticking by the Dublin agreement. Asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in; otherwise they may be sent back to that country. There is talk in the Council of Europe about flexibility and shared responsibility, which suggests that some people who apply for asylum could be waved through to other countries for their case to be dealt with, but that would drive a coach and horses through the regulation of migration in Europe. Many people already cross external borders illegally. It is important to stick by the Dublin agreement. We should also have better arrangements for patrolling the Mediterranean, and I know that the Government are supporting moves in that direction. I support the idea that our Government could send officials to help to deal with immigration cases in Greece and Italy, rather than going for the shared responsibility, wave-them-through approach. I hope that the Government will continue to offer that support to our southern neighbours in the hope that there will be no weakening of the Dublin agreement.

On extraordinary rendition, Dick Marty, the Swiss parliamentarian, recently produced “Abuse of State Secrecy and National Security: Obstacles to Parliamentary and Judicial Scrutiny of Human Rights Violations”. It is his last report, because he is standing down from the Council of Europe. I pay tribute to his long-standing commitment to human rights, and his campaign against extraordinary rendition. In his latest report, he pays tribute to the all-party group in the House that deals with the issue, and describes its efforts as untiring. It is right to pay tribute also to the all-party group.

The key point about Mr Marty’s report is that it builds on what we have been doing in this country. He says that legislation should not be a cloak for wrongdoing and highlights the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the work of secret services, as we do here—although, obviously, there may room for improvement in that. He points to the need for courts to develop procedures where secret information can be used without damaging state security. He also addresses the settling of the cases that arose out of Guantanamo and the report that is being produced by the special inquiry led by Sir Peter Gibson. In doing so, he acknowledges that this Government are taking the issue seriously and approaching it in a way that could be a model for other parts of Europe.

The committee on culture, science and education is in the process of producing a report on internet governance. There has been and continues to be a good deal of argument about exactly what the report should contain. I am glad that the Government are making the issue one of their priorities. I hope that when the report comes out, assuming my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) gets his way on exactly what is in it, the Government will take it seriously and use it as part of their approach.

Finally, I welcome the Government’s concentration on tackling discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. What we do in this country is very seen much as the model for the rest of Europe. Some other countries are way behind—examples have been given with which I agree. It is good that our Government are going to build on the work that has been done in this country and try to spread it across the 47 countries of the Council of Europe.

In conclusion, it is very wise of the Government to have reached agreement with Ukraine and Albania—the countries whose periods of chairmanship are on either side of ours—because that means that, over an extended period of 18 months, the chairmanship can concentrate on some issues and get a result. I wish the Government well and hope that the Interlaken process is the success that it should be. The fact that 47 countries are involved, the largeness of the geographical area covered, and the way in which the organisation is led mean that if something is done right in one country, best practice can be spread right across Europe.

Missing Persons (Cyprus)

Alan Meale Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is not specifically about the politics of the negotiations over the reunification of Cyprus. Both sides in that negotiation are looking to build confidence. There could be no better confidence-building measure than the return of the remains of the 1,500 missing people or information on what happened to them.

[Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on acquiring this debate. He has shown by his knowledge of the Cypriot problem and by his advocacy on this matter, which is heard in the House time and time again, how good a representative he is for the area. I have known about the case of the Georgiou boy for many years. As the hon. Gentleman has said, he is just one of many people who are missing, more than 500 of whom are the relatives of British citizens. Will he comment on how difficult it seems to be for the President of Cyprus to obtain regular meetings in the UK with the British Government? For the life of me, I cannot understand why that should be so difficult, particularly because we are a guarantor power and have bases there and because more than 70,000 British citizens live on the island.

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely strong point. It is disappointing that the Foreign Office, in seeking to be even-handed, has forgotten that on this particular issue we cannot be even-handed. We wish to see equal treatment, but we have a duty to British citizens and the descendants of British citizens lost in the conflict. Indeed, the issue also affects hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly), who has apologised for not being able to attend today’s debate, wanted to speak, because his mother lost four cousins in the conflict. I urge the Minister to take the cross-party views very seriously and try to apply further pressure to resolve this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

I was talking about the decision in the European Court of Human Rights case of Cyprus against Turkey of 10 May 2001. In fact, the Court’s judgment stated:

“The Court cannot but note that the authorities of the respondent State”—

that is, Turkey—

“have never undertaken any investigation into the claims made by the relatives of the missing persons that the latter had disappeared after being detained in circumstances in which there was real cause to fear for their welfare.”

[Sir Alan Meale]

Bearing that in mind and the fact that Cyprus has the presidency of the Council of Ministers, would it not be appropriate to ask the Minister if he would ask—in his good time—for this issue to be pushed back on to the agenda of the Council of Ministers, to give it more force than it has had in recent times?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am sure the Minister heard his intervention and will seek to address that point in his remarks.

I want to return to the role—or lack of—of the Turkish forces. The ECHR judgment continued:

“No attempt was made to identify the names of the persons who were reportedly released from Turkish custody into the hands of Turkish-Cypriot paramilitaries or to inquire into the whereabouts of the places where the bodies were disposed of. It does not appear either that any official inquiry was made into the claim that Greek-Cypriot prisoners were transferred to Turkey.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

I have heard the point the hon. Gentleman has made, and I will undertake to see what representations we can make to further the objectives I have just outlined. It is the position of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Government as a whole that we wish to bring the process to a conclusion that will be satisfactory to the families involved.

[Sir Alan Meale]

Perhaps I can help the Minister slightly. He said a few moments ago that he would call on the Turkish authorities in the north of Cyprus and on the Turkish military to give access to all sites that might contain the remains of people who were killed. Perhaps one way is for the Foreign Office to approach the Turkish Government regarding allowing the CMP to access sites on the Turkish mainland, rather than on the island. That might be a way to express our view that the matter should be cleared up.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful for the intervention. I underline again the point that the British Government wish this unhappy period of history to be resolved to the satisfaction of the families involved. In our view, barriers to that resolution ought to be removed. Where there are obstacles to exhumations and proper investigations, we wish to see progress made.

As a sign of our support, the UK has made four donations to the committee in the last seven years, totalling more than £100,000. The United Kingdom also donates to the committee’s annual budget through the European Union and recognises that contribution as both important and necessary. The UK will continue to support the work of the committee. It is an excellent example of bi-communal co-operation on the island, as Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots work side by side in the laboratory and on the sites being excavated.

I express again my gratitude to everybody who has contributed to this debate and make an open offer. If Members wish to raise concerns about the issue, the Minister for Europe, who leads on the subject in the Foreign Office, will be more than happy to receive those representations as the British Government try to play our part in bringing the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Cyprus

Alan Meale Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab)]

This is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate you, Mr Brady, on your exalted position—I trust that it is the result of a lack of available positions on the Front Bench given the poor coalition that is now in government. Hopefully, you will one day tread the boards in that direction.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Order. I did not seek such a position, and I am very happy to be here chairing the debate.

[Mr Meale]

I am pleased to hear it, Mr Brady, and I trust that you will continue to exercise your great degree of independence on political matters from such a prime position.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) for securing this excellent opportunity to discuss what is a very serious subject. I should at the outset declare an interest: I have a small Cypriot community in my constituency, which my hon. Friend failed to mention in his list. As a result, I was invited to visit Cyprus in September for a day and a half—travelling by second-class air fare—to speak at the Morphou rally in the south of the republic.

It is important that we are having the debate at the start of a week in which, as we all know, serious talks will take place in New York. I must say to Members present, and to others who will read the pages of Hansard, that the whole question of Cyprus is expressed as a problem for Cyprus, but—as I keep saying again and again—it is also a problem for Europe and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) said, for Turkey itself.

Let us look at why Cyprus was allowed to join the European Union, a move that was led by Britain. A British Government argued that Cyprus should be in Europe because it would have been ridiculous and folly to keep it out of Europe. We all know what Cyprus was at the time of its entry. It was being treated as an offshore island by many, with 7,500 companies on its shores. It had its own stock exchange and an independent link into the European banking system. It was probably best placed for trade with the old eastern bloc, which most of Europe was not. It had a fine relationship with areas of the middle east and an outstanding trading relationship with China and Africa, which many EU countries did not have. As I understand from scientific texts, Cyprus is one of only four places on the planet that have windows into space, and, communications being so important for the future, it was important that that was kept in the European sphere, rather than being independent outside it. If anyone has any doubt about that, they will recall that it is for that reason that Britain’s listening and searching stations are still situated on the island.

Last, but not least, there is the importance of oil and gas, not only for Europe, but for the rest of the world. People will have to consider the importance of the European oil and gas pipeline, which is now being driven down to the shores of Greece, where further pipelines will be fixed that go across to Limassol in the republic. Similarly, pipelines will be coming down to join the central European pipeline from the Caspian sea, and they will link in to guarantee oil and gas for Europe. Cyprus will shortly become the gas station of Europe, and possibly the world, which is another reason why it was important that it came into the EU.

The talks that will take place this week in New York are very important. Although I praise greatly my colleague, the chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, those who argue in favour of the Annan plan should be asked which Annan plan they favour. Annan 1 had some important aspects that people might have used for the basis of negotiation, but after time there came Annan 2, Annan 3, Annan 4 and Annan 5, and each one was worse than the one before.

In this week before the talks commence, we have had a deliberate provocation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)—a colleague from this side of the House, in this place—which was an attempt not only to influence the talks in New York, but to set in motion a political dialogue in Europe that would call for partition. No one with whom I have discussed the issue of Cyprus has argued such a case. I trust those of my colleagues who say that the announcement by that individual two weeks earlier that he would take the opportunity to speak freely around the world, and possibly be paid for doing so, was not one of the reasons that he tip-toed in such a sordid manner into that area of political discussion—I hope not. I met him last night in this place and left him in no shadow of a doubt about what I thought of his position. I fervently countered each of his arguments, and we accepted that we would continue to disagree.

Let us look at why there needs to be a conclusion to the sordid affair of Turkey’s involvement in the independent country of Cyprus. Turkey has no right whatever to be there. Anyone who has any doubt about that should look back only 100 years in history. They will find that the Turkish state sold the island to Britain for 110 pieces of gold—that is the reality. Turkey sold it many years ago and gave up its interest in it.

Since that time, successive British Governments have participated in the life of Cyprus in a positive way. They built good institutions and mechanisms that are still alive on the island today—there was good purpose in those people. As I said earlier, that is one of the main reasons why we have supported the case for Cyprus to enter the European Union.

However, Cyprus is still left in the abyss of division, and we cannot agree that that should continue. I say to this British Government, as I said to the previous Government, who were of my political persuasion, that they cannot and should not stand idly by while individuals take advantage of the situation in Cyprus. British citizens take advantage of it—wrongly, in my opinion—but no action is taken against them. I refer, of course, to British citizens who foolishly invest vast sums of money to get properties and land on the cheap and then seek to put them on the market to make money. That has to be stopped. Rather than actions to try to stop freedom in Cyprus, perhaps some action should be undertaken by the British Government against British citizens who act in that way.

[Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I refer hon. Members to my interests in respect of Cyprus. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when an agreement is reached, those people who decided to invest in or purchase property in northern Cyprus should not be recompensed by either the Greek Cypriot people or the British Government?

[Mr Meale]

All I can say is, “Well said.” I agree with every sinew of that argument and would take it even further. The hon. Gentleman may recall that the European Court of Justice recently made a decision in the Loizidou case, in which a property had been taken over in the north and used for 27 or 28 years. The ECJ said that a large sum of money should be given in compensation just for use of the property and then, whenever the stage is reached at which property is handed back, no price should be paid for that property portfolio. The same thing should apply to others, and I say that in the knowledge that a handful of my constituents have been foolhardy enough to invest in Cyprus. They were told clearly and repeatedly, time and again, by the British Government—and I said this in local papers when the issue came up—that they would be foolish to invest in such a way, but greed and avarice took over and they foolishly did so. They had one sole objective, which was to make money for themselves.

To conclude—I know that several other people wish to speak—there can be no veto on full EU membership for the Republic of Cyprus, or on its recognition by the United Nations as an individual nation. I doubt that there would be any support in this or any future British Government for partition of the island. We have fought for years to try to get a solution to the problem. We fought in Germany to get what we thought was the last remaining wall in Europe pulled down, and I do not believe that we would go for partition in Cyprus.

In the course of achieving freedom for Cyprus, there are projects that are trying to identify the remains of people who were killed, but we must insist that work is done on other areas of concern. Many people are still missing, and we must work with the Turkish Government and insist that they provide the knowledge that they have of the whereabouts of missing persons. They should perhaps also suggest that leading religious figures and bodies—Greek and Turk, Muslim and Christian—appeal to their leadership to reveal any information they have.

As any of us who have lost loved ones in the past know, if there is any shade of doubt about what occurred, we think about it all the time. If individuals are missing, we live with that on a daily basis. It is no different for the hundreds of thousands of people—not just mothers and fathers but brothers, sisters, cousins and nieces—who have missing relatives in Cyprus.

The free world must also make certain demands about the kind of solution that is achieved. It cannot be right that 180,000 settlers have been moved from the mainland of Turkey into Cyprus and told that the property on which they live is now their own, when they have no right to it whatever. Those people have to return.

Last but not least—most important of all—the tens of thousands of troops who illegally occupy the north of the island have to be taken back to the mainland. There can be no peaceful solution in Europe while troops from a country that is not a member of the European family reside on European shores. That is the reality. They have to go back, and I ask this Government to plead with Turkey to start that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Offord]

It certainly is a great shame that the right hon. Gentleman did not attend today. [Interruption.] I am informed that he was, in fact, invited to come along. Perhaps he had something else to do in the House, I do not know, but it would have been useful if he had come along and clarified his comments, particularly as a former Minister.

For the first time in history, the people of Cyprus have been left, de facto, separated into homogenous racial, religious and geographical areas. That continues to happen, despite the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations and other organisations adopting resolutions that condemn the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and support the independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus.

The division planned by Ankara was strengthened in 1983 by the unilateral declaration of independence by the Turkish Cypriot leadership, with Turkey’s encouragement and support, and the establishment of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. It is worth stating that the international community directly and categorically condemned this secessionist action. The Security Council stated that the act was “legally invalid” and demanded the revocation of the “unilateral declaration of independence”. As a result, the illegal occupying regime has not been recognised by any state other than Turkey, the occupying power.

In addition to the human tragedy, I have seen for myself the cultural and religious destruction that is taking place. Hon. Members have spoken about recent political issues and the talks, which I welcome, but I shall focus on the continuing destruction of the history and culture of the island. The occupying force in the north appears to be working to erase any reference to anything Greek or to Christianity in the north part of the island. The Turkish occupying force has replaced all Greek names of towns, villages and roads with Turkish names. At the same time, I am concerned that Neolithic settlements are being destroyed, such as the one at Apostolos Andreas-Kastros, which, for those who cannot understand my poor Greek, is on the eastern tip of the island. Prehistoric and historical towns, such as the famous site of Enkomi and the ancient city states of Salamina and Soloi, are being left to the ravages of time.

Clear and undeniable desecration is occurring in churches. This year, when I took the opportunity to cross the line, I visited the occupied town of Morphou and saw for myself churches being used for so-called alternative activities—for example, we saw one church being used as a dance studio and another being used as a warehouse. Some churches are derelict and left dilapidated. What shocked me most was desecration of the churchyards: I saw one being used by the fire service, which parked fire trucks on graveyards; the second was not only left in a desecrated state, but was being used as an army base. I cannot understand how an occupying force could allow its army to do that.

Cyprus is often referred to as the crossroads of civilisation. What I witnessed there were not the actions of a civilised nation, but shocking and disrespectful behaviour by an invading force.

[Mr Meale]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s accurate descriptions. Other descriptions have been given by Members of Parliament who have crossed over, including of former churches being used for animal husbandry. Does the hon. Gentleman know that the Leventis Foundation, which conducted an examination of stolen artefacts—my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North mentioned that more than 1,500 have been stolen and shipped abroad—found that many were found in huge numbers, including in the walls of churches, with references dating back as far as St Paul? All had been stolen. Whole walls were stolen and exported to the United States and other places for sale.

[Mr Offord]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting, useful point. I am aware of some of the artefacts that have been removed from the island. In a judgment of the United States Court of Appeal in 1990, the judge ordered the return of the Kanakaria mosaics to Cyprus. The president of the Court Appeal, Chief Judge Bauer, mentioned a characteristic quotation from Lord Byron, which I think the hon. Gentleman will find interesting, describing the Turkish invasion of Corinth in 1715. Of the many churches and monuments that lie today in ruins on Cyprus, Bauer says:

“As Byron laments, war can reduce our grandest and most sacred temples to mere ‘fragments of stone’. Only the lowest of scoundrels attempt to reap personal gain from this collective loss. Those who plunder the churches and monuments of war-torn Cyprus hoarded their relics away, and are now smuggling and selling them for large sums, are just blackguards.”

That description could apply to people who are continuing in that fashion today.

I say to the British coalition Government that in the talks about the accession of Turkey to the EU, there are red lines on which hon. Members here today will insist. First, land and property must be returned to its rightful owners without compensation being paid to those people who decided, through greed and avarice to invest their moneys in the northern part of Cyprus. Secondly, the people who are missing need to be identified and returned to their loved ones, so that they can start the grieving process. Thirdly and finally, I urge the British Government to secure an agreement that is acceptable to all the islanders—not just the Greek Cypriots, but the Turkish Cypriots as well. We want to be even-handed and open with all islanders and to remove the only divided island left in Europe, so that we can have the peace and security in Europe that we want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

No, it does not. The hon. Gentleman draws me on to comments that I was about to make.

Far be it from me to criticise a distinguished elder statesman such as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), but I am happy to make it clear that the Government’s position is to support a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality for a united Cyprus. We do not support partition. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck has said, as one of the guarantor powers, we are bound by treaty not only to resist but to prohibit any step that would lead either to the partition of Cyprus or to its unification with any other country. The new British Government remain in support of that position on the present and future status of Cyprus.

[Mr Meale]

Does the Minister agree that there would be a great danger if Britain’s policy moved away from the one that he has expressed? If we break the treaty signed in the ‘60s that gave independence to Cyprus, it would break all other parts of the treaty. That could affect the British bases on the island.

[Mr Lidington]

As a general principle, if one signs and ratifies a treaty, one should stick by its obligations. That is what we intend to do.

Important British interests are at stake in the search for a settlement in Cyprus. The amount of human misery in Cyprus, whichever community we are talking about, would in itself justify making the search for a settlement a political priority; but there are also hard-headed British national interests at stake. Although a peaceful and lasting settlement in Cyprus would not, as others have said, remove all obstacles to Turkish accession to the European Union, it would remove one of the most significant blocks to that process. I believe and the Government believe that Turkish membership of the European Union is in the interests not just of the UK, but of Europe as a whole. A settlement would also make possible the effective co-operation between NATO and the European Union that has been impossible for so many years, because of the stand-off between Turkey and Cyprus over the events of 1974 and what has happened since.

I hope that both sides in the negotiations and especially at the forthcoming meeting in New York can continue to show both flexibility and leadership. The leaders have the full support of the international community and they need to grasp the opportunity to find a solution before that window closes.