UN’s Not Too Young to Run Campaign

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Blair Donaldson]

Absolutely, and I will come on to speak about that. I cannot mention colleagues without mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), who was elected to this place at the age of just 20, edging me out as the youngest Member.

In the wake of the vote to leave the EU and the election of Donald Trump, we saw people taking to the streets to protest against those decisions. It was fantastic to see that passion, but we need to emphasise to young people that politics is not just about protesting against decisions they do not like or having a rant on Facebook. We need to make the case that they should be harnessing that passion and making use of it. The message must go out that “If you think the level of debate in politics is poor, get involved. If you think politicians aren’t representing your views, get involved. And if you think you can do a better job, get involved and run for office.”

I, along with a number of colleagues, would not have run for elected office if it were not for those in elected office encouraging and supporting us to run. Running for office, at whatever age, is not easy, and it is important that those elected at every level, whether council or Parliament, encourage young people to run. I would like to put on the record my thanks to those who encouraged and supported me to run. I would also like to thank those who told me I was too young and inexperienced and that I could not and should not run. Due to my contrary nature, that was as much of a motivator to run and succeed as those telling me that I could do it.

When I was elected, I was surprised to find that the international classification for a young MP is under 45. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] While that may suit some of my hon. Friends, that demonstrates the skewed nature of politics internationally. I am not saying that all our politicians should be under 30, but our politics needs to reflect society better.

It has been a pleasure to raise awareness of the campaign, which is an important step in encouraging young people to consider running for office. Young people will have to live with the consequences of the decisions made by politicians now and will most definitely have to sort out some of the mess that those decisions have left. We need young people to participate in decision making globally so that Governments and other actors take into account the effects of decisions that they may not be around to see. It is crucial that we as parliamentarians do all we can to ensure that our politics reflects our society, whether that be in age, race or gender, and to inspire and encourage young people to run for elected office. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I call the youngest Minister to respond.

Aleppo and Syria

Albert Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend knows far more about such military matters than I do. That is my understanding of the position: that a no-fly zone—and I will say more about this later—is perfectly feasible. It is a question of whether the international community has the political will to face down the Russians and the Syrian helicopters by setting one up.

Fourthly, there was the failure to secure unfettered access for the United Nations. It is unprecedented in recent years for those bent solely on looking after their fellow citizens to be unable to gain unfettered access to very dangerous zones. This gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery of those who work in the humanitarian world, doing nothing other than try to assist their fellow human beings and bring them sustenance, help, medicine and support.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

What roles does the right hon. Gentleman envisage for Syria’s near neighbours and for the west, including Britain, in the protection of people in the safe havens to which he referred earlier?

[Mr Mitchell]

That is an extremely good point, and I shall come to it shortly.

Chibok Schoolgirls

Albert Owen Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), the trade envoy to Nigeria. He is absolutely right to highlight the important point that the new Government were elected to deal with corruption and the economic situation in an oil-rich nation that does not distribute its wealth among its own people.

As a member of the International Development Committee, I want to return to our visit to Nigeria, when we met, in the country’s capital city, the campaigners for the release—the freedom—of the Chibok children. It was a very emotional meeting. Like many colleagues, I have had the pleasure over the years of listening to some prominent speakers, but the tone that those campaigners set and the words that they uttered will remain with me for an awfully long time. I stood there listening to my colleagues speaking alongside the campaigners, and I did so as an uncle and a father, not as a visiting Member of Parliament. I listened to the chanting for the release of these children.

The British Government have a proud record of investing in the human development, through education, of people across the globe, including in Nigeria. On the International Development Committee visit, we visited many educationists. We met politicians, including the vice-president. We met a number of people, and it was stark that there were very few young people under the age of 35 in Parliament—I believe that the constitution does not allow those people to represent their country. There were also very few women in either House of Parliament. We met people from both Houses while we were there.

Education is so important. It is vital that we get educated young people in Nigeria, including women, coming through to represent their people, so it was hard to take the situation in. These young girls had committed no offence whatever other than to attend school to educate themselves. Their brave parents had sent them to the dormitories and have never seen them again. Hundreds of children were abducted by a terrorist organisation. There is no nice way of putting it—it is a terrorist organisation.

I would be abdicating my duty as a parliamentarian if I did not repeat something that some of the fathers said to me: “When you return to your Parliament”—we made this pledge and are honouring it today—“think about this. If there had been children there from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel or other countries that have been involved in working hard on this, would there have been extra effort by the Nigerian Government to release these children?” I know that it is not easy—I understand economics and the terrain and the geography—but these are young human beings. We, the international community and the British Parliament, have a proud tradition of working to release people in such circumstances.

I am sure that the Minister will make an eloquent speech when he winds up this important debate and will tell us about the work that is being done behind the scenes. We understand that, and we understand that the expertise is being used in a positive way, but parents are still without their children. That is the fundamental argument in this debate. These young people were not unlike any young person in this country attending their school. I say to anyone who is an uncle, a father, a mother, a niece or an aunt: just think of how the relatives must be feeling, having been without their children for two years. Then there is the indignation at this terrorist organisation releasing videos and using the children as political pawns on TV in their own country. The international community has to do more to work with the Nigerian Government to get them released.

On the issue of corruption, we met the police, and a new unit is being set up. The new President, Buhari, was elected to eliminate corruption, but he pledged swift action to release these children as well, and the campaigners are angry with their own Government. I am not angry with our Government, because we are doing a lot of work in Nigeria, including on education. We must provide not just basic education for children but basic safety, and we must work with the other members of the international community and with the Nigerian Government to provide a setting for children and young people to become the parliamentarians and businesspeople of the future. They need that basic education and that basic safety.

I will not echo the eloquence of other speakers who have given a breakdown of what has happened in Nigeria, but I do want to echo the sentiments of the campaigners we met in Nigeria. They are honest, decent people whose only sin was to send their children to school. Think about that. I say, in the best British tradition, that this Parliament today stands shoulder to shoulder with those campaigners, and we ask for the release of those schoolchildren today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I now realise why I missed off the last part. The hon. Lady made the astute point that we do not really know what has happened to these girls in the past two years. We absolutely do not know. Anybody who is a parent or who has a sister can only guess what these people are going through and enduring. We need to provide mental support when the girls return because there is no doubt that they have been mentally scarred by what they are going through. That is very important.

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) and I had the opportunity to discuss Nigeria only a couple of days ago, when we had our first meeting in the capacity of inviting trade envoys for Africa to the Foreign Office. It was timely for us to engage on that matter. I join others in paying tribute to his work. He reminded us of some of the underlying causes that must be dealt with, not least the economy. We can try to defeat insurgencies militarily, but ultimately, we must give the people and communities something better to look forward to. They need a way of life that is successful and more attractive than that offered by an extremist organisation. The detailed knowledge that he brings is much appreciated.

My hon. Friend mentioned the huge challenge that the size of the country presents. I will touch on that a little later. The scale for the military combing through the various parts of Borno and east Nigeria is immense, which is why the international community must work together. Once we have done that and created an umbrella of security, that is when an economic strategy needs to kick in. The ingredients are there. Nigeria is a powerful country in Africa. As he highlighted, there is much that we can do on bilateral relationships. He has illustrated clearly that he is the right person for the job, and we will continue to work with him.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), if I have pronounced that correctly, spoke about the value of the Committee’s visit in March. I have underlined why I appreciate its work. He emphasised that there are parents out there who are missing their children. We are debating the issue and highlighting it, and there are people watching and discussing it, but there are also parents who are aware every single moment of the day that their loved ones are missing, and we should be conscious of that.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) underlined the value of this debate. She is right that Thursday afternoon is not always the busiest—there are other things going on across the estate—but it is important that we debate such matters, and I hope that we will have a regular opportunity to discuss the wider issues to do with this part of Africa as well as the plight of these schoolgirls. She is right to remind us of that.

The hon. Lady also discussed the call for increased international assistance. At the UN General Assembly in a couple of weeks, we will hold an event to rally further support for what we are doing to assist Nigerians in defeating extremism and freeing the girls. She also highlighted the importance and value of education. If I may, I will write to her in more detail about the DFID programme that is in place and how we are making huge efforts to provide education, particularly to girls, so they can have the best opportunities in life. I will be in touch with her.

[Albert Owen]

The Minister is making an important point. I am sure that Committee members will join me in paying tribute to the DFID and Foreign Office staff in Nigeria, who took us to meet the campaigners. No stone was left unturned; we saw at first hand exactly what the campaign is about and the programmes to make things better.

[Mr Ellwood]

I absolutely concur. I am grateful that that could happen. Looking through my notes, I can see that we have provided support for more than 300,000 additional girls to attend primary school in Nigeria and that more than 50,000 girls have benefited from safe space interventions, which provide training and support to help their confidence and improve their skills, as well as the opportunity to seek work. DFID is providing a package of measures. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development visited Nigeria only a couple of weeks ago, I understand. I must catch up with him before my own visit there in the next month or so. This debate has been timely, as I will need to raise these matters when I visit the country.

The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) spoke of the international community’s wider requirement to work together. Members have been generous in supporting the Government’s initiatives, but ultimately, the more we can lead by example and encourage other countries to join us, the more leverage we have, not just in the military component but in all the other aspects that we have been discussing.

The hon. Member for Hackney South—I have probably missed a bit of that constituency as well. Have I?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I think we have some momentum there and certainly some ideas that we need to formalise. That is very much appreciated.

At the core of the problem is not only the challenge of a country that has to deal with the corruption and red tape that we see in many countries in Africa, but the blight of extremism in the form of Boko Haram. Unfortunately, as we have seen with al-Shabaab, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis and Daesh itself, extremist organisations take advantage when there is a power vacuum. They offer something else to the local indigenous people. They say, “Believe in me and I can give you something else.” Unless there is something else as an alternative, they will always win. And—dare I say it?—we saw that in Northern Ireland with the IRA when youngsters saw nothing else on their agenda or in front of them but to join a club, extremist though it might be, because they felt part of something and they got cash and status. That is what is happening in the north-east of Nigeria, and that is what we need to change, as it changed in Northern Ireland. It is a challenge that the international community must face. It is the responsibility not only of Nigeria, but the international community, because the consequences are that the trouble bleeds into neighbouring countries, triggering a refugee crisis, which bleeds into other parts of the world and across the Mediterranean, as we have seen.

Boko Haram’s violent insurgency has resulted in more than 20,000 people being killed in Nigeria and caused more than 2 million people to be displaced. I understand from the UN that 9 million people are in need of assistance across the Lake Chad basin. UN reports also confirm that about 250,000 children are suffering from severe acute malnutrition in the Borno state alone.

As has been mentioned, 276 Chibok girls were abducted in April 2014; 57 escaped and one has been confirmed dead, which leaves 218 still missing. It is the figure of 218 missing that has prompted today’s debate.

Boko Haram has been around for some time. It was formed in 2002 as a Sunni fundamentalist sect, but it has developed into a Salafist jihadi group. It seeks to attract people to join it and to take over and push back the legitimate Government. Today Boko Haram officially refers to itself as the Islamic State’s West Africa Province, because it has decided to join Daesh/ISIS. I am afraid that organisations that are not necessarily attractive themselves are joining that international franchise in the hope that they will then get further funding and advice on how to move their extremism agenda forward. That is of interest to all of us because of where it leads. That is why we have to work not only in Nigeria but in Libya, in Sirte, and wherever the black flag has been taken over by a local terrorist group to further its cause. It is why we are joining with others on the military side and providing intelligence as well.

The international community has responded, as we have heard today. In January 2015 a joint multinational force was formed with units from Benin, Cameroon and Chad, and with Nigerian forces as well. We have provided assistance in three forms, which have been mentioned in the debate. The first is in a military capacity. We have more than 300 personnel involved in training and advising the Nigerian armed forces. We are also providing huge levels of intelligence, although I cannot go into too much detail about that here. Thirdly, and of most interest to the International Development Committee, there is the humanitarian support. There is no doubt that the Nigerian military and the international force have made progress, but, as has been outlined, Nigeria is a massive country. It has often been the case that when the forces have been able to clear an area and move forward, they have not been able to hold it, and that has been a problem. We are getting far better, but it is a challenge. Unfortunately, Boko Haram continues. There was not only the event in 2014 that we are discussing; the horrific attack on the UN convoy that took place in August is an illustration that it remains very active indeed.

We are providing a wide range of support, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby outlined articulately. We have provided support in hostage negotiations, for example, as well as financial support, military support and humanitarian aid, which I will touch on in more detail. The UK has increased its support to £32 million over the next three years. It is not my call—it is DFID’s shout—but we are looking to see what more we can do. That will be subject to debates that we will have at the UN General Assembly, but there is a desire to do more, so I am pleased that this debate can help to frame where some of the extra resources can go.

There has been a series of ministerial visits. Baroness Anelay, the Foreign Office Minister in the Lords, visited in February. The former DFID Minister, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), visited prior to the change in Prime Minister. As I mentioned, the current DFID Minister with responsibility for Africa visited a few weeks ago, and I will be going in the next month. That shows Nigeria that we care about what is going on. It also allows us to influence in the best possible way how we can support that country along the three tracks that I mentioned—economic, humanitarian and military. We have pushed back Boko Haram, there is no doubt about it, but we have not completed the job yet.

Clearly, as many hon. Members have illustrated in the debate today, we will not defeat Boko Haram militarily. What we have done is not enough. Boko Haram will simply reform and recruit if something better is not put in place. There needs to be economic development and civilian-led security so that people genuinely feel safe. They want not military people in green uniforms but civilian operators, with gendarmes policing and so forth.

We also need improved governance. We need councils and mayors in place, and for governance to work, we need people who are respected and not corrupted to make the local decisions. We need better delivery of basic services such as education and health, which are the basic pillars for any community to be able to move forward. The Nigerian Government recognise that and have been open and have put their hands up about where support is required. That was outlined in the Abuja regional summit in May, and there will be further big conferences with a focus on that issue. Our support reflects that approach, in the sense that we are placing our focus not just on the military but across the piece. As I mentioned, these matters will be considered at the United Nations General Assembly, and I hope that that will deal with not only Nigeria but the whole Lake Chad basin, because there is a need to see things in context.

This has been an extremely important debate, and I am pleased to have listened to the contributions, because of the depth of knowledge shown in them and because Parliament is demanding a commitment from the Government to continue focusing on the matter and make it a priority for Africa.

[Albert Owen]

The Minister has been very keen to get other people doing extra work—the Select Committee, the envoy and others. Does he intend that after the debate, in the new climate, a Foreign Office statement should be made so that the campaigners who asked for the debate—we are honouring a pledge to them—can hear that the British Government stand in solidarity with them?

[Mr Ellwood]

I should be more than delighted. The hon. Gentleman’s comments are slightly disingenuous, as I was not trying simply to outsource work. I am going to go to Nigeria myself to see what I can do. I like to think that given my close relationship with my DFID counterpart I can again focus on this issue, which the United States is also keen to look at.

Burma

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that I shall call the three Front Benchers for the wind-ups at 10.30 am. The Minister might like to give Mr Scully a couple of minutes to sum up at the end, if possible. A number of Members have indicated that they would like to speak. If they keep their speeches to around six minutes, we can get everyone in. Another Member has asked to speak and will be joining us later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Fifteen minutes remain and three Back-Bench Members are waiting to speak, so you can do the maths.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

Indeed, almost two years—to provide substantial help. I want to recognise that Mr Speaker has stayed true to his word, which he gave on that delegation, that we would provide help.

I am encouraged by the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) on how much constructive help has been given to the MPs in Burma—again much needed. When we were there, they were quite surprised to hear that we went back to our constituencies every week. I remember providing a modest training session on Select Committees—again with the hon. Member for Walsall South—and people were surprised, because in this country Select Committees are not given the subject that they are to look into by the Government and, once they have looked into it, do not submit their report to the Government to be checked before it is published. I am encouraged that there has been a great deal of progress, so I commend my hon. Friend and the others involved.

As we are joyful, so we are cautious. Burma remains a nation in a delicate state. Hate speech, religious intolerance and the powerful remnant of the military still threaten to slow or prevent the next stage of Burma’s growth. As we speak, forces continue to destabilise and halt the hard-won progress to date. The delicate balance of joy and caution is summed up in the words of the moderate Cardinal Bo, who has already been mentioned in the debate. He is a greatly respected and long-standing champion of human rights in Burma. He said:

“My country is emerging from a long night of tears and sadness into a new dawn...But our young democracy is fragile, and human rights continue to be abused and violated.”

We rightly extend our support, therefore, to Aung San Suu Kyi and the new President, U Htin Kyaw, who face the challenge of nurturing the fragile democracy. Even as we speak, nationalists have been protesting against the appointment of Vice-President Henry Van Thio, because he is a Christian and a member of the Chin ethnic group. The ultra-nationalists find it an offence that a member of another religion and of a minority group should be in a position of such authority.

That is an important example to dwell on, because freedom of religion and belief has been under extreme pressure in recent decades in Burma. Minorities of all religions have suffered, as well as Buddhists, who stood up to the state-sponsored interpretations of Buddhism that we have heard about. So we celebrate the appointment of Henry Van Thio, and we hope that he will be a symbol of encouragement to many from the minorities in the country, who to date have been excluded from a voice in government.

Particularly persecuted, as we have heard, have been the Rohingya Muslims of Rakhine state. Previously, the regime promoted an ideology of hate that rejected the idea that Muslims could be fully Burmese, or that the Rohingya people had any right to live in the country. They were grievously targeted by military forces, and hundreds were killed and 140,000 reportedly displaced by violence in 2012. We need to ensure that they are given appropriate support and help.

Of comparable concern are the military offensives still being waged by the Burmese army against civilians in northern Shan and southern Kachin states. Gross violations of human rights have forced tens of thousands to flee, as we have heard. They either live as internally displaced persons, or IDPs, in dire conditions, or eke out a living as refugee migrants in other countries. In that context, I commend in particular the work of Baroness Cox from the other place and of her charity, HART, the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust.

HART has done great work to assist oppressed people in Burma and to bring that oppression and the violations of human rights to the attention of the wider world. I will refer to some of Baroness Cox’s work in more detail. In Burma, HART works to provide lifelines among the Shan, Karen, Chin and Karenni peoples. Shan Women’s Action Network—SWAN—runs health, education and women’s empowerment programmes. HART works only with local people, and through its remarkable work it is transforming in particular women’s perceptions of their roles in their communities—as the hon. Member for Walsall South mentioned, that is much needed—and enabling them to become strong agents of change. I want to extend my best to HART for that vital work in strengthening civil society.

If the good people of Burma are to realise their potential, it is critical that civil society is strengthened and encouraged, particularly at a time when concerns are increasingly being expressed about the shrinking space for it across the globe. I ask the Minister to consider how civil society can be supported. I commend him on his sincere personal commitment to Burma over many years. I know that he is a Foreign Office Minister, but may I request again that DFID looks at how it can support small charitable organisations such as HART? It receives no support from DFID and yet it reaches right to the heart of the issue in Burma, helping women in their local communities to make a real difference. There is much more that I would like to say, but time prevents that.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

David Burrowes will be followed by Mr Shannon. The Front-Bench speeches will start at 10.30 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Absolutely; I do not think anyone in this House or in the other place along the corridor would disagree with a word of that. I would apply the same to Members of Parliament and those elected to high office; we should see ourselves as elected to positions of responsibility rather than positions of power or influence. That, again, may be an example that we will have to continue to present to colleagues who have been elected to serve in the Burmese Parliament.

As has been said, Burma is going into a period of enormous optimism. There will be setbacks and problems. It is not all going to happen peacefully and quietly. I hope that not only the Government but parliamentarians and the rest of civil society in the United Kingdom and elsewhere will offer a helping hand where possible, so that the next generation of Burmese police officers, parliamentarians and soldiers understand that they are there to protect the rights of a flourishing democracy, and not to oppress it.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

There is going to be a minute’s silence at 11 o’clock, at the end of this debate and before the next one begins, for those killed in Brussels. If it is confirmed that the whole House and estate are doing that, Members may stay for it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on securing the debate. I thank him for his personal insight, which always gives flavour to a debate, following his recent and, I think, first visit to the land of his forebears. Many Members of both Houses have close personal connections to, and a close interest in, Burma; he probably has the closest connection to Burma, in many ways. Many Members who have spoken this morning have been following developments in that country for many years, which has provided a good repository of knowledge and understanding in the House—perhaps more than of any other country. I welcome that, as it helps to better inform debate.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) has also just returned, with a number of colleagues, from Naypyidaw. I was not quite sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam meant when he said that every Member of Parliament could have an office in Naypyidaw. Was he suggesting that when we come to refurbish this place, we should model it on Naypyidaw? I do not imagine he was. The chances of having a 20-lane highway while the Mayor of London is around, unless it is for cyclists, are rather small.

This debate comes at a remarkable time for Burma. Last Tuesday, President U Htin Kyaw became the first civilian head of a democratically elected Government there for more than 50 years. Next week, his National League for Democracy Government will finally take power. That is the culmination of a lifetime’s effort by many committed individuals and lobbyists who have worked tirelessly and courageously for democracy. More than 100 of the NLD MPs in the new Parliament have endured long spells in prison. Others who have supported the cause of democracy have not only paid with their freedom; some have paid with their lives.

Clearly, however, the person who has been central in this unfolding drama and in bringing Burma to this point is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. She has consistently shown courage, determination and dignity in the face of challenges that most of us would have found impossible to bear. It is regrettable that a flawed constitution has prevented her from becoming President. We are aware of rumours about what her role will be in the new Government. Such rumours are at present purely speculative until the Cabinet is officially named; we expect that announcement tomorrow.

Credit is also due to the outgoing Administration, who planned and initiated the reforms. Although there is clearly still a very long way to go, their efforts deserve to be recognised, particularly the peaceful and orderly conduct of the elections last November.

At the start of the reform process in 2011, it would have seemed impossibly ambitious to suggest that the political landscape in Burma, and the lives of millions of Burmese citizens, could change so dramatically in just a few years. I am proud of the important role that the United Kingdom has played in that. Through our policy of constructive engagement with the Burmese authorities, we have supported and encouraged positive change in many areas. We have sought to nurture Burma’s growing desire to return to the international community after years of isolation, repression and dictatorship. I very much welcome the moves by Mr Speaker, Clerks and Officers of the House and all the organisations that are helping the democracy-building process, which, as hon. Members have said, is much needed.

Some questioned our policy. Even six months ago, some Burma watchers predicted that the elections would not be allowed to happen, that they would be heavily rigged, or that the NLD would never be allowed to take power. Others dismissed our approach as the path of least resistance, but that, of course, was not the case at all. It has demanded time, effort and resources here in London, in Burma and throughout our diplomatic network, and I very much welcome and appreciate the nice, kind and appropriate comments that have been made about our ambassador and his team in Rangoon. It has required frank conversations in Rangoon and Naypyidaw, and I believe that our policy is now beginning to bear fruit.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) spoke about defence engagement. Our engagement with the Burmese military has quite properly come in for particular scrutiny and comment. Not all of it has been either particularly informed or positive, but given Burma’s history I can understand that. As I have repeatedly said, real and lasting change will only come through engaging the Tatmadaw as they move towards reform and through showing them how modern militaries should operate in a modern democratic state—not by criticising them and isolating them from afar, as we did for so many years previously. Under the NLD Government, the military will still hold a quarter of the seats in Parliament, as has been pointed out. They will continue to control three important Ministries and hold an effective veto on constitutional change, so it will remain vital to continue that engagement—indeed, to step it up—with the full agreement of the new Government.

Our work with the military will continue to focus on their role in a democratic system. We would welcome their participation in civilian-led educational courses, such as with the Royal College of Defence Studies. Our engagement will include vital education on the rule of law and human rights, and particularly on countering the recruitment and use of child soldiers and combating sexual violence in conflict. None of that will increase the combat capacity of the Burmese military.

In a written statement to the House, I said that the parliamentary elections represented

“a victory for the people of Burma.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 25W.]

They were indeed an important victory, but they do not mark the end of Burma’s reform process. The work of transformation continues and will demand our support. That is why the Prime Minister has spoken to Daw Suu since the elections and offered whatever assistance she and her Government need as they set about tackling the many serious challenges that lie ahead—not least, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, that of corruption.

Challenges remain, including consolidating the democratic transition, energising the peace process, reforming the justice and security sectors and managing the economy for the many, not the few. We are already engaging with the incoming Administration as they prepare for office. When the time comes, we will be ready to respond with practical assistance in support of their priorities.

One of the challenges facing the incoming Government will be tackling the issue of Rakhine and addressing the appalling situation of the Rohingya community there, which we have discussed an enormous number of times in the House. Although much of Burma has greatly benefited from the reform process, the same cannot be said of Rakhine’s Rohingya minority. Large numbers of Burmese turned out across the country in November to vote and to signal their desire for future democratic change. However, the Rohingya were disfranchised for the first time in a Burmese general election. That exclusion, in the face of international concern—led not least by the United Kingdom—is a stark symbol of the extent to which they have been stripped of the most basic human rights and freedoms. We do not underestimate the complexity and sensitivity of the Rohingya issue, but we are equally clear that the incoming Government must begin to address the immediate needs of the Rohingya: improved security, relaxation of the restrictions on movement and a pathway to citizenship.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about religious freedom, as he often does. As well as Rakhine, the new Government face a number of other deep-seated human rights issues: dealing with the remaining political prisoners, managing the recent increase in tensions between Muslim and Buddhist communities and, as he pointed out, the growth of nationalist organisations such as Ma Ba Tha. It is also important that they engage in a wide-ranging programme of judicial and legislative reform. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) is meeting Cardinal Bo in May, and I hope to do the same.

The challenges remain significant, and we should not underestimate them. However, Aung San Suu Kyi has consistently championed the rule of law, and with more than 100 former political prisoners now National League for Democracy MPs, the new Government will want to take early action to tackle these issues. We will continue to provide support and encouragement across the human rights agenda. We will do so directly through technical advice, programmes and projects, as well as with international partners and through bodies such as the UN and the EU.

The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) talked about conflict-related sexual violence. We will continue to promote our efforts to tackle that following the visit that we supported last year of Angelina Jolie Pitt, the special envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. When I was in Rangoon on 27 July last year, I was pleased to launch the international protocol on the documentation and investigation of sexual violence in conflict, which is something we care very much about. The hon. Lady also talked about women playing a greater role in Burma—of course they should—and said that their voices should be heard. What better way to start than at the top, with Daw Suu, probably one of the greatest female icons that there has ever been?

The peace process will rightly be another priority for the incoming Government. Outgoing President Thein Sein and his Government can be commended for the progress that they oversaw, which culminated last October in the signing of the nationwide ceasefire agreement by eight ethnic armed groups. However, we are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge facing the Government in reinvigorating that process and achieving a lasting peace. Ensuring that the remaining groups sign up to the process and agree an enduring political settlement will require considerable energy and efforts early in the new Government’s term.

I am conscious that I should leave two minutes for my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, who secured and opened the debate. This is a moment when the United Kingdom can take stock of the situation in Burma. It is not going to be easy from now on. We have come through a very difficult period. The military retain their role, and the new Government are coming in and face many challenges. Managing expectations is going to be incredibly important. We have consistently supported the process and can take some credit for getting them to where they are, but our work has not stopped and now has to be redoubled in all areas.

I am most grateful to hon. Members across the House, because this is not an issue that divides us politically, and I urge them to maintain their vigilance and their support for a country that is in a very difficult period and process.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Mr Scully has a few seconds left to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I invite colleagues to join me in observing a minute’s silence in memory of the victims of the Brussels terrorist attacks.

A one-minute silence was observed.

Britain in the World

Albert Owen Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, because we have heard so many excellent maiden speeches, along with those of other hon. and right hon. Members. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who came into the House on the same occasion as I did in 2001. We did so along with the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). He and I shared accommodation in Norman Shaw North at the time, and I used to joke that I saw more of him on “Have I Got News for You” than I did in Norman Shaw North. But it is good to see him back, and in the meantime I have continued to be the full-time Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn. It is an island community and an outward-looking community at the heart of the British Isles. I am proud to be Welsh, proud to be British and proud to be a member of the European Community and of the international community. Today’s debate sets the scene in that regard. I shall come to the subject of the European Union—I prefer to call it the European Community rather than European Union—and the referendum shortly.

The Queen’s Speech said that the Government would “re-engage” Britain in international affairs. There has been some disengagement in recent years, and I hope that we can once again raise our profile on the international stage. I totally agree with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that the strategic defence review in the last Parliament was not strategic. I understand the reasons the Government have given, but our future direction must be strategic and our defence must be done on strategic grounds. We have a proud record, and, as has been indicated, the Department for International Development does excellent work. I am very proud that the previous Labour Government set up the Department and focused attention on international development, making Britain a leader on that in world affairs. We have been leaders in many areas, not least defending women and children in the world, helping the poorest children in the world get education and tackling Ebola. We have been leaders in all those areas and we must be very proud of our involvement in world affairs. I also welcome the shadow Foreign Secretary to his place and welcome his excellent speech about our place in the world.

I am very pro-European Union and I feel we have a role to play in it. It is not just me saying that, because during the general election I met many small businesses and farmers from my community, and many large businesses that had invested in my constituency, and they wanted Britain to be at the heart of the EU over the next few years. I will support the Prime Minister if he is clear on what kind of reform he wants. It is incumbent on Government Front Benchers in today’s debate—I know the Foreign Secretary cannot be with us, but I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will do this in her wind-up—to make it clear exactly what we want in those reforms. This Parliament needs to know that early on, and I will be supporting a yes vote for Ynys Môn to be at the heart of not just the British Isles but the European Community. Wales, the nation that I am proud to represent, is a net beneficiary from the European Union, to the tune of some £200 million per year. Business benefits from it, and I want to be at the heart of it. Britain deserves to raise its profile and I hope we can all work together to ensure that Britain is the leader in the world, where it belongs: at the top table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the challenges associated with continuing to invest to maintain our defence in future. The Prime Minister has been incredibly clear that we will meet our 2% commitment this coming year—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend knows, we hosted the NATO summit in Wales. We hear chuntering from the Opposition Benches, but we need take no lectures from those whose Government left us with a hole of £38 billion in our defence budget. For that they should be truly ashamed of themselves. We have cleared up that mess. We are living within our means and at the same time we are investing in our military equipment—investing more than inflation and making sure we maintain our troops. We will continue to do that. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) spoke passionately about how important that commitment is.

That requires us all to work effectively across government. Indeed, the days when one could look at the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development as separate Departments that tackle separate issues are over. A long-term, joined-up approach is absolutely essential, as my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said. The good news is that the UK Government have never worked together as seamlessly as we do today. On threats to our security, for example, DFID has worked hand in hand with the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health to combat Ebola in Sierra Leone. Those efforts have not only saved countless lives in west Africa, but helped to prevent a global health crisis that could have been far deadlier than it was and even threatened the UK.

Two weeks ago I had the privilege of seeing at first hand some of our humanitarian work in Nepal. Britain’s outstanding team of diplomats, armed forces servicemen and women and DFID staff are working hand in hand to ensure that aid is reaching the most vulnerable people. I pay tribute to all of them and to the work they are doing. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who did life-saving work when a DFID Minister to ensure that Nepal was better prepared to withstand the impact of the earthquake. That work saved lives across that country, and we should be incredibly proud of that.

On economic opportunities, we have never had a more joined-up approach, with DFID and the Foreign Office launching key prosperity partnerships to strengthen our commercial links with emerging markets in Africa. I very much welcome UK Trade & Investment’s renewed willingness to do more to work alongside the Foreign Office to ensure that UK companies are well placed to do well in these new but fast-growing markets.

[Albert Owen]

Will DFID also work with the devolved Administrations? There have been some good bilateral agreements with African states, for example between the Scottish Parliament and Malawi and Lesotho, and with all-party groups in this House. It is important that those groups are given a bigger audience in international development.

[Justine Greening]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I work very closely with all-party groups, which I think play a key role in this House by enabling so many parliamentarians with an interest in this area not only to express that interest, but to work with Ministers and help inform policy. That goes for the devolved Administrations as well. As we heard in some of the speeches from the SNP Benches, we should be proud of Scotland’s close links with Malawi. I look forward to working with hon. Members from that party, hopefully to pursue a united development strategy for the UK.

Protecting and promoting Britain’s place in the word means more than just working across government; it requires a two-pronged approach that takes action today and future-proofs our prospects for tomorrow. That means action on today’s problems and upstream work to tackle the root causes that drive issues such as migration. It means minimising the risks of instability as far as we reasonably can. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) made some important points about that. It means continuing our work to help the millions of refugees affected by the Syria crisis so that they can cope with the lives they are now leading in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon and Jordan. We are also helping countries such as Somalia and Nigeria to deal with terrorism and instability in their midst.

Future-proofing Britain’s prospects for tomorrow also means market-making. In the end, the best guarantor of stability and prosperity is development. We are working with the Foreign Office and UKTI to ensure that we play that constructive role in the next wave of emerging markets. That frontier economy strategy, led by DFID, is critical not only in helping to tackle poverty, but in securing the UK’s economic prospects for tomorrow.

Finally, all that work is underpinned by values; values that mean we will continue to be a world leader in campaigning for better rights for women and girls, for example. I am proud of the work that this Government have done. We will continue to do that, whether on dealing with female genital mutilation or child marriage. Britain should stand tall in the world not only because of our economic strength and military capacity, but because we have an approach that reflects more about us than just that. Britain has never been a country that buries its head in the sand; we have taken on global problems and made them our own. Others will try to talk us down, but we should never fall into the same trap. I think that today’s debate shows our democracy at its best. We should be proud of the work that this country is doing.

Tibet

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question, which is very pertinent. I have deliberately avoided mentioning Hong Kong, but she makes an important point. My impression, having studied Tibet and Chinese relations with Tibet for the last eight years, is that China is tightening its grip. There is further oppression of the Tibetan people and China is clamping down; there is no doubt about that.

In the eight and a half years since I was in Lhasa, Tibet and its people have come to mean a great deal to me, as they do to so many supporters of a free Tibet, both in this country and throughout the world. In a materialistic consumer society, the teachings of the Dalai Lama and the ideals of Tibetans living in exile provide us with an alternative to the lives we live today. It is not that I have become a kind of Jewish Buddhist—[Interruption.] Well, there might be such a thing. It is not that we should all convert and that the world would then be a better place, but this is an ancient culture with warmth, wisdom and a message of peace and love for all humanity—I do not mean Judaism—and that is a message that we rarely hear in the world today. The 14th Dalai Lama never stops telling anyone who will listen—many millions do listen to him—that we can live in peace and harmony together, without war or conflict. I can never understand why the Chinese Government believe he is such a threat to them, and even call him a terrorist.

Today is not only international human rights day but the 25th anniversary of the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to His Holiness. To quote from the announcement of the Nobel peace prize for 1989, which was made in Oslo on 5 October that year,

“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize to the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, the religious and political leader of the Tibetan people. The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people. The Dalai Lama has developed his philosophy of peace from a great reverence for all things living and upon the concept of universal responsibility embracing all mankind as well as nature. In the opinion of the Committee, the Dalai Lama has come forward with constructive and forward-looking proposals for the solution of international conflicts, human rights issues and global environmental problems.”

Later today, I will attend a ceremony in London to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to the Dalai Lama. It is important that we never forget the contribution that he has made to global peace and understanding. Despite their best efforts, the Chinese Government can never remove the love and respect that the Tibetan people have for him. His message continues to be highly relevant in the modern world.

The cause of Tibet and freedom of expression is important, and not just to Tibetans. Let me outline some of the cases that have been drawn to my attention. One of the earliest cases I became involved in was that of Dhondup Wangchen, the Tibetan film-maker who produced a documentary that was critical of the Chinese Government in the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. For his crime of making a film called “Leaving Fear Behind”, Dhondup was given a six-year prison sentence, and he was only released on 5 June this year. When he was imprisoned, I raised his case in the House with the then Foreign Secretary, and subsequently wrote to the Chinese ambassador and the authorities at the prison where he was incarcerated.

Dhondup’s wife, Lhamo Tso, came to stay with my wife and me in Leeds three years ago while she was on a tour of the UK to raise awareness of her husband’s plight, which had left her and their four children living in extreme poverty in Dharamsala. This family’s story was typical of stories of the families of any Tibetan who dared to speak out against the Chinese Government and the way that Tibetans are routinely treated in their own land. “Leaving Fear Behind” is critical of the Chinese Government and records the feelings and thoughts of ordinary Tibetans about the Olympic games. It does not advocate violence or the overthrow of the state; it is not subversive in any way; and it would be considered quite mild if it had been a documentary about this country’s attitude to what the Chinese Government label an ethnic minority. However, such freedom of expression is forbidden in Tibet, so Dhondup had committed a criminal offence.

The outrageous and severe punishment he received almost took his life, because he contracted hepatitis B while he was in jail. Born in Amdo, Dhondup is now 40. He is free again and will soon be reunited with his wife and children, who are now in the United States. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Students for a Free Tibet took up his case and organised a worldwide protest, but it made no difference to the severity of his sentence; he was not released early.

Let me leave Dhondup’s case by quoting him on why he made the film:

“At a time of great difficulty and a feeling of helplessness”,

the idea of his film was to

“get some meaningful response and results. It is very difficult”—

that is, difficult for Tibetans—

“to go to Beijing and speak out there. So that is why we decided to show the real feelings of Tibetans inside Tibet through this film. Nowadays, China is declaring that they are preserving and improving Tibetan culture and language. That’s what they’re telling the world. Many organisations and offices have been set up for these things. What they say and what they do are totally different, opposites. If they really want to preserve and improve Tibetan culture and language in Tibet then they should withdraw Chinese people living in Tibetan areas. Tibetan culture and language has to be practised in all Tibetan areas. If it’s not practised, how can it be preserved?”

Throughout the ages, music has often been used as a way of expressing protest. A number of Tibetan musicians have written and performed songs and made CDs, for which they have been arrested and severely punished. Lolo, a 30-year-old male Tibetan singer, was first detained on 19 April 2012, shortly after releasing an album with political lyrics. After a brief period of detention he was released but was later re-arrested. In February 2013, Lolo was sentenced to six years in prison by a court in Xining, Qinghai province, on charges of “seditiously splitting the state”, a catch-all offence that allows the Chinese authorities to punish ethnic minorities defending their rights. Lolo’s album, “Raise the Tibetan Flag, Children of the Snowland”, contained 14 songs that called for Tibet’s independence, the unity of the Tibetan people and the return of the Dalai Lama. The title track is a direct challenge to China’s rule.

Other musicians convicted for publishing controversial Tibetan songs include Kalsang Yarphel, who on 27 November, just two weeks ago, was sentenced to four years in prison by a Chinese court in Chengdu, Sichuan province. Pema Rigzin, 44, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison and a severe fine of 50,000 yuan for composing, releasing, and distributing music with alleged political overtones. Among the songs he produced were “In Memory of Tibet” and “Tears”, which have since been banned. Rigzin was detained on 7 May 2013 in Chengdu city, and held incommunicado until the trial. Rigzin’s family were barred from hiring the lawyer of their choice.

Kelsang Yarphel, who is 39, and a popular Tibetan folk singer and composer, was sentenced to four years in prison and given an immense 200,000 yuan fine. He was detained by the authorities in Lhasa on 14 July 2013 on charges that he performed a song with alleged political overtones in a concert. Though some of Yarphel’s music encouraged Tibetan unity, none has been known to express overtly political ideology. Song titles included “We Should Learn Tibetan” and “We Should Unite”. At the Lhasa concert he performed a song called “Fellow Tibetans”, which calls on Tibetans to learn and speak Tibetan and to “build courage” to think about Tibet’s “future path”.

Finally, I draw to the attention of hon. Members and the Minister the case of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, a senior monk sentenced to life imprisonment on false charges. He is not a musician. He was arrested on 3 April 2002 following a bomb blast in Chengdu, along with his student Lobsang Dhondup. In November 2002, both were sentenced to death. At the trial, the main evidence presented against Tenzin Delek was a confession from Lobsang Dhondup, which Lobsang later retracted, claiming that he had been tortured. However, the appeal hearing in January 2003 upheld Lobsang Dhondup’s death sentence and he was executed on the same day. Tenzin Delek Rinpoche’s death sentence was suspended for two years, and then commuted to life imprisonment in 2005.

Tenzin Delek Rinpoche has consistently maintained his innocence. He is now suffering from severe ill health and there are serious concerns for his well-being, so much so that family members and others are calling for the international community to help press the Chinese authorities to grant him medical parole. Tenzin Delek is a highly revered Tibetan Buddhist lama and a community leader from Litang in Sichuan province. He has worked on numerous social, medical and educational projects and campaigned for the protection of Tibet’s fragile environment, working to stop indiscriminate logging and mining activities. I hope that the Minister adds his voice to the international calls for Tenzin Delek’s early release.

There is no doubt that the Chinese Government use a mix of systematic oppressive measures, propaganda and disinformation to stifle free expression and to present a positive image of their actions in Tibet to the outside world. Since peaceful demonstrations spread across Tibet in 2008, the Chinese authorities have adopted a harsher approach to suppressing dissent. In its current approach, which can be more accurately characterised as totalitarian, the state recognises no limits to its authority, imposes a climate of fear, and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life to crush all forms of dissent against Communist party rule. There has been a dramatic expansion of the powers of China’s policing and military apparatus in Tibet. This has created a climate of fear and lack of trust, even among families and close friends. Many Tibetans in exile report that they cannot talk to their families in Tibet on the phone, because of the danger to their families of their having contact with them as exiles.

The Chinese Government have stepped up Communist party presence in Tibet, sending thousands of Chinese officials to carry out surveillance and so-called “political education”, and to disseminate propaganda. The Chinese state media call it a “war against secessionist sabotage”, in which the Chinese Government seek to replace loyalty to the Dalai Lama in Tibetan hearts and minds with allegiance to the Chinese party-state and, in doing so, to obliterate memory and undermine Tibetan national identity at its roots.

Just nine days ago, on 1 December, the Chinese Government announced a programme of sending artists, film-makers and TV personnel to ethnic minority and border areas to help local artists

“form a correct view of art”.

Announcing the programme, the state-run news agency, Xinhua, commented:

“Art and culture cannot develop without political guidance”.

It also congratulated Chinese President Xi Jinping for

“emphasising the integration of ideology and artistic values”.

Since last May, following the killings in Xinjiang, an expansive counter-terrorism drive has been launched by the Chinese Government and has expanded across China, including Tibet. In Tibet, the Chinese authorities have organised large-scale military drills and intensified border security, and are holding training exercises for troops on responding to self-immolation and on dealing with problems in monasteries, in spite of the absence of any violent insurgency in Tibet. Armed responses to protests, including killing with impunity and the torture and imprisonment of individuals, have become the cause of instability and are therefore deeply counter-productive.

In conclusion, I have a number of requests for the Government to consider, which I believe will help the cause of Tibet and allow Tibetans the right to free expression that we in Europe and the west take so much for granted. I hope that the Minister will discuss these points with the Foreign Secretary, and that on this international human rights day of 10 December, the British Government will continue to be proactive in supporting the human rights of Tibetans in Tibet.

My requests are these. First, as a matter of urgency, I urge the British Government to call on China to engage in a broader and more substantive dialogue with Tibetan representatives, and to involve the Dalai Lama in discussions on Tibet’s future. There needs to be a more robust approach, given that the current approach is clearly not achieving anything.

Secondly, I urge the Government to strengthen policies towards China and Tibet, and to be more robust, with a clear stance and directive regarding human rights, civil society and democratic rights. The Government should adhere to their stance that human rights are integral to the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. Thirdly, I want the Government to challenge China’s policies in Tibet, in particular where the Chinese Government are flouting international standards on human rights and civil liberties. Fourthly, the Government should take the lead in the European Union in explicitly calling on the Chinese Government to address the policies in Tibet that threaten Tibetan culture, religion and identity and are the root cause of the crisis. These are the key grievances of the Tibetan people.

Fifthly, I urge the Government to prevail on the Chinese leadership to end the military build-up and to limit the dominance of the security apparatus in Tibet. Sixthly, I want the Government to initiate a scholarship scheme in the UK for Tibetans inside Tibet, as well as for Tibetan refugees. Seventhly, the Government should explore the possibility of cultural exchanges with Tibetans inside Tibet or, if that is not possible, with Tibetan refugee communities in India and Nepal, to help promote and preserve Tibetan culture. Eighthly, I want the Government to provide funding for a BBC Tibetan service. Ninthly, I urge the Government to call for medical parole for Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, who is serving a life sentence and is seriously ill.

Over the past seven years, I have been privileged to meet His Holiness the Dalai Lama no fewer than eight times: twice in India, five times in London, including when he was awarded the Templeton prize at St Paul’s cathedral in May 2012, and once when he came to my home city of Leeds. I am grateful to both the office of the Dalai Lama in London and to the Tibet Society for their help in organising the visits of His Holiness to the UK, and to Mr Speaker for hosting the Dalai Lama in Parliament in 2012, against the advice given to him from certain quarters that such a meeting could damage relations with the People’s Republic of China. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister also deserve praise for agreeing to meet the Dalai Lama in 2012 at St Paul’s cathedral, an event that had repercussions for UK-China relations for many months afterwards.

I thank Philippa Carrick and Paul Golding from the Tibet Society and Chonpel Tsering from the office of the Dalai Lama for all their help in preparing my speech today. Finally, I strongly believe that Tibet and the Tibetan people should be free, and I will never give up my support for their struggle. I give everyone today the traditional Tibetan greeting: tashi delek, or blessings and good luck.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Before I call Mr Loughton, I remind the Chamber that I will call the shadow Minister at 10.40 am. We have 40 minutes and four speakers have indicated that they wish to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), as I am also a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on getting this timely debate. I will not go into the individual cases that he carefully and properly raised. An important aspect of today’s debate is that we get the names of those brave Tibetans who are being held in custody or have been imprisoned for long sentences out to the rest of the world, and that has been done well this morning.

Looking through Tibet Watch’s excellent booklet, “Broken promises”, I was reminded of how we were all were duped—or how many people were; I feel personally that I was not—into feeling that if China got the Olympics, it would make such a difference and China would do all these wonderful things, changing its whole attitude to human rights. We went along with that, but what has happened? Not a single thing has changed in relation to Tibet. Indeed, as has been mentioned, things are getting worse by the day.

I, too, had the privilege of hearing from the gentleman at yesterday’s meeting who had recently been to Tibet. It is clear that the Chinese Government are making a huge attempt to rapidly change the face of Tibet—not just to change civil liberties and human rights, but to change the physical structure of Tibet. Some 13 million Chinese tourists visited Tibet last year, and we are seeing a concentration of Chinese people who are given money to go and settle in Tibet. The Chinese Government want to eliminate every last sign or vestige of Tibetan culture and the history of that wonderful country. We must be clear that none of our warm words about working closely with China seems to be having any effect whatever. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about that.

I want to go into a little more detail about something that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned. I am also concerned about the Confucius institutes, of which I think there are now 24 in the United Kingdom. These are Chinese Government-funded cultural centres that are set up at universities all over the world, although the UK has the second highest number after the United States. Several universities in the United States and Canada—including the university of Chicago, Pennsylvania State university and the Toronto district school board—recently pulled out of relationships with Confucius institutes because of accusations and proof of discriminatory hiring practices and censorship of certain topics. In order for a university to receive Chinese money, the Chinese do not want any mention of Tibet or any criticism of anything that is happening.

I was privileged to hear recently from an American professor at a meeting in Parliament about how China’s influence on an American university is threatening freedom of speech. If we cannot have freedom of speech in our universities, we really are on a slippery slope. It is worrying and sad that one of our most famous universities, the London School of Economics, has been reluctant to give out information on how much money it has been getting from China. It is only through journalists’ use of freedom of information requests that we have discovered the exact amounts given out. It has been revealed that the LSE

“has received £863,537.91 from the Chinese state for housing a Confucian Centre and a further $33,000 for teaching Chinese government officials via BHP Billiton, a mining conglomerate.”

If China has 25 of these cultural outposts right at the hearts of our main universities, that funding will extend to several million pounds. Of course that may sound wonderful—isn’t that great: universities that are suffering from a shortage of resources are getting money directly from China? The danger, however, is that no matter how much the university hierarchies say that that will not influence or affect what they do, the reality on the ground is that it does. In fact, they are taking what could be said to be Chinese gold in return for getting out Chinese propaganda—sometimes subtly, sometimes less subtly. I really believe that our Government should be investigating this and making sure—[Interruption.]

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady’s phone is vibrating and being picked up by the microphones.

[Kate Hoey]

I am sorry. The phone is turned off. I am glad I am not in Tibet, because it would have been monitored.

There is a serious issue. We are seeing Chinese developments coming into this country, into London, and the big money coming in to build tower blocks and hotels. On the subject of hotels, let me say how shocking it was that InterContinental Hotels went ahead and built one in Lhasa that employs Chinese people and is part of efforts there to destroy Tibetan culture. Tibet groups across the world are trying hard to organise some kind of boycott of InterContinental Hotels, because of what the company is doing in that part of Tibet. We must get to the bottom of the money that is coming in

There have also been incidents, such as the ones we heard about only yesterday, which happened recently in Sheffield, where there are substantial numbers of Chinese students. Many of those students are very political indeed, and we heard about the example of a shop owner who had put a Tibetan flag in the window. I do not think it was a huge flag; nevertheless, they were threatened that if they did not take it down, things would happen. In fact, the windows were broken, which was reported to the police, but the attitude was, “Well, this was just students being a bit silly.”

The reality is that this is not students being a little silly. What is happening here is coming from the very top in China. I am very worried indeed that unless we face up to it early, China will do in this country and other parts of Europe what it has done in Africa, which is to go in and simply use its money as a way of getting its message across and its way of doing things. That relates directly to Tibet, in the sense that Tibet is the issue in this country that gets the most publicity in our universities, and yet many of our students are being stopped from getting their message across because of the worry about China.

I would add that South Africa recently refused to give His Holiness the Dalai Lama a visa, which meant that the conference of all Nobel prize winners had to be cancelled—it is now happening in Rome, in Italy, this week. Meanwhile, the Chinese Government, having put pressure on South Africa, immediately thanked the South African Government and more or less said, “We will now do something for you, as you were so kind as to stop the Dalai Lama visiting.”

We are getting to the point where I want to ask our Government, “What dreadful thing would the Chinese Government have to do in order for our Government to start standing up to China?” What would have to happen for us to start calling in the Chinese ambassador and doing things that make a difference, such as saying, “I’m sorry, we might need the money—the investment is great—but you, China, are fundamentally a pariah state and we’re going to treat you as such”? Unless we start standing up to China, as the European Union or as a country, it will not buckle to anything other than force, in terms of what we are saying—I am not suggesting we invade China, but I am suggesting that we start to mean what we say.

Warm words have come out of all Governments, including this one and the previous one. We were the last country not to recognise that Tibet was part of China, but David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary in the previous Government, changed that, telling the House that it would make a great difference and that China would start behaving better. Of course that did not happen.

China has a terrible human rights record not only in Tibet, but all over China. I want the Minister to outline clearly what more the Chinese have to do to people in Tibet and through their influence in this country before we as a British Government say, “Enough is enough.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I am not aware of what the First Minister does, but I suggest that we should have done so and that he needs to do so. Similarly, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned direct contact and using all available opportunities. I know that the Minister who is here today does it, and I am sure that he will outline such issues.

Even children in Tibet face abuses of their freedom and human rights. Tibetans are not free to protest or speak openly about their situation, and even peaceful demonstrations are met with heavy-handed military crackdowns. In 2008, thousands of Tibetans staged the largest protests in Tibet for over 50 years, and demonstrations swept across the entire Tibetan plateau. Chinese authorities arrested an estimated 6,000 protesters; about 1,000 of them are still unaccounted for. Where are they? What questions have the Government asked about those forgotten people and forgotten prisoners—if they are still alive?

We are all aware of the Tibetan monks who, horrifically, have set fire to themselves as a method of protest to highlight these issues. Every one of us can remember those horrific, horrendous stories of people driven to extremes to express themselves and to seek liberty, the democratic process and the right to religious freedom through their deaths.

Prisons in Tibet are full of people detained for simply expressing their desire for freedom. People have been arrested and sentenced to prison for peaceful acts, such as distributing leaflets or sending information abroad about events in Tibet. We take such things for granted in this country because they are part of our democratic right—we are speaking about them democratically here today. Yet those everyday freedoms—those small acts of democracy—that we enjoy, as part of the great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Tibet can lead to imprisonment and even torture. The clear violation of human rights is shocking. As a country, through this debate today and through our Government, we have to take action.

Reporters Without Borders ranked China 175th out of the 180 countries on its press freedom index. There are more foreign journalists in North Korea than in Tibet. Despite what by our own standards we can describe only as atrocities, this week a top Chinese official in Brussels told reporters that China does not need lessons on human rights from the EU; well, actually, it does. Li Junhua—putting a Northern Ireland accent on a Chinese name—a director-general in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, has said that China has its own model of human rights. It does, but that model does not conform to the model that we have in the free west. He claimed that China had a clear understanding of how human rights will be carried out in his country and was confident of its own model.

The US diplomat Sarah Sewall recently claimed that there was

“not a degree of freedom for Tibetans within China”

after meeting Tibetan refugees from Nepal and India and gleaning first-hand information about their lives in the country before they had to flee because of persecution. Clearly the ongoing hardships and crimes against them that Tibetans still face on a daily basis back up Ms Sewall’s point. Tibetans cannot enjoy any freedoms, which in turn means they are denied their basic human rights. That is the issue. The Chinese may well measure their version of human rights differently from those of us in the EU and the USA, but that does not mean that we should simply sit back and accept the situation, because ultimately it is not good enough.

It is not good enough that people are denied their freedoms—freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of speech, to name just a few. People have fought and died to secure those rights; in 2014, Tibetans are either fleeing, being imprisoned or being killed to try to secure them. We must let the Tibetans know that they are not struggling in vain or suffering in silence. We must do all that we can—at Westminster, in Brussels and on the world stage—to persuade China to change its oppressive ways in its bid for political support.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I will be calling the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson at 10.40 am at the latest.

Europe

Albert Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We have already made important reforms to accountability in the House, and when I appear in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee next week, our permanent representative from UKRep will also answer questions. I am open to further innovations.

Our approach is one of reform and referendum, and its alternative is to let the issue drift. Speaking of drift, I must say an additional word about her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Last week, on the day of the Prime Minister’s speech, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), said that a referendum on EU membership was not

“a decision you could or should take now”.

He also said:

“We’ve never ruled out referenda in principle”,

by which I think he meant that he was fairly certain that Labour’s position was uncertain.

The next day, after the Prime Minister had given his speech but before the Leader of the Opposition had pronounced on it, the shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said:

“I can’t tell you what the situation is going to be at the next election”,

by which I think she meant that she was absolutely certain that Labour’s position was uncertain. At Prime Minister’s questions the Leader of the Opposition was unfortunately uncertain that he was meant to be uncertain and said:

“My position is no, we do not want an in/out referendum”—[Official Report, 23 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 305.]

Never has such certainty created such uncertainty so quickly.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hague]

No, this is quite an interesting explanation. Minutes later, on the “Daily Politics” show the shadow Energy Secretary adjusted her position: it was correct, she said, that at the next election the Conservatives would be promising a referendum and Labour would not, but she gave the caveat that that was the position “as it stands today”. More accurately, it was the position as it stood that minute because minutes later journalists were briefed that the Leader of the Opposition had meant to say that Labour did not want an in/out referendum now. Within half an hour, the shadow Foreign Secretary was back on the airwaves—a busy chap—to correct his leader and explain,

“our judgement is that to commit to an in/out referendum now is the wrong choice for the country”

but, he added, “we’ve never said never”.

If we look at the evidence, although we cannot be certain about the Labour party’s position, we can make an educated guess that although Labour will not call for an in/out referendum now, it might do so in future, and it is completely possible—but not certain—that it will be in its next election manifesto. I am waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to nod—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Binley]

I would like to make a little progress, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

No wonder the political classes are held in such low esteem, when politicians prevaricate and refuse to give straight answers in meaningful English.

[Albert Owen]

I do not think the Prime Minister could have been any clearer when he said he was going to give a cast-iron guarantee on the Lisbon treaty—and he failed to do so. Was the hon. Gentleman alluding to the Prime Minister?

[Mr Binley]

In keeping with a tradition first established by Labour—so we will not go too deeply into that question.

I am delighted that the Prime Minister rejected the ploy of not straight-talking last week, and spoke directly to the British people in terms they could understand. He also dealt plainly with the “R” word, and he was right to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The shadow Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to say that the big political news stories from this House last week were the cuts and redundancies in our armed forces, the shrinking of the economy, and the Government’s failure to deal with the economy. However, the Prime Minister and sections of the media wanted to concentrate on Europe.

Europe is an obsession for the Conservative party. Only last Friday I spoke to former Conservative party activist who had agreed with the Prime Minister when he said that it was the “banging on” about Europe that put people off the Conservative party, and why it had not been elected to Government since 1992. That was what some Conservative people were telling me only last Friday. This obsession confuses me, because it was a Conservative Prime Minister who took us into the European Union; it was Mrs Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, who signed the Single European Act which gave away many powers and vetoes; and it was Mr Major who signed the Maastricht treaty. He was very unkind to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and others at that time—I would never be as rude as the former Prime Minister.

[Oliver Colvile]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that John Major was able to negotiate a number of opt-outs? Unfortunately, those opt-outs have been given away by Labour Governments.

[Albert Owen]

The then Prime Minister was very rude to the right hon. Member for Wokingham and doubted his parentage. He was angry and frustrated at being bounced by his Back Benchers, in the same way that the current Prime Minister has been bounced into making his speech. The Prime Minister could never be accused of being consistent on Europe. As recently as October 2011, I joined him in the Lobby to support the view that a referendum would cause all sorts of uncertainty. The Conservative party’s obsession is damaging the British interest.

I want today to make a pro-European speech. Although I totally disagree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham, I respect the fact that he has always been in favour of our leaving the European Union. He has been clear on that point, and he was clear again today. I believe that our strength lies in the EU. The title of today’s debate is “Europe”. We are in Europe; we are part of the continent of Europe. As a Welshman, I am proud of Wales being a part of the United Kingdom. I do not go to the UK and I do not go to Europe—I am in both and I want to remain in both. I believe that the interests of my constituents are better served by our having a strong voice in the United Kingdom in this Parliament, and in the European Union. I trust our representatives to fight for our interests. That is what the Prime Minister should be doing—talking not about our going somewhere closer to the exit of Europe, but about going to the centre of Europe and fighting for the interests of my constituency.

Identity is important. I am proud to be Welsh. I support Wales. Last year, 2012, was a great sporting year—Wales won the grand slam in rugby union, beating England on the way. Our British athletes won gold medals and I was proud to shout for Britain in the Olympics in the same way that I was proud to support the European win in the Ryder cup. The Welsh people are as proud as anybody of being at the centre of events, and Wales has benefited from being there.

I do not believe in an emotional approach towards Europe; I believe in practical, social and economic policies, and we have had good policies for Wales. Being a member of the European Union has been a net benefit to Wales. It is estimated that £40 per person per year extra comes into Wales from our membership of the European Union. We benefit in many other ways. Social and economic regeneration has happened through structural funds. Extra money has come from Europe, on top of what the UK Government have given, for real, social and economic regeneration that is sometimes difficult to quantify because it has built village halls and the structure of social cohesion of Wales and the UK.

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the structural funds, but, because we are net contributors to the EU, all we are doing is getting some of our own money back—it is not extra money we could not otherwise find.

[Albert Owen]

I understand that, but in the ’80s and ’90s, when my community was declining and, as a result, qualified for European structural funds, the British Government were not doing enough to protect such communities. The structural funds, which go directly to my community, are good for Wales and my constituency. I understand the argument about our being a net contributor, but in many ways the UK is not uniform. Many people talk about unemployment falling, but in my constituency it is rising—dangerously—to the levels in the 1980s, and there are job threats today, because a European company, Vion food processers, is pulling out, putting 350 jobs at risk. Jobs have been created as a result of our membership of the EU.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who is no longer in her place, asked why we did not make these arguments in the last Parliament. The truth is, Mr Speaker, that the Speaker before you used only to call the likes of her and members of the Government from our side of the House. Now, however, I have the opportunity, and I am taking it, to say that I am proud to be Welsh and proud to be British—she is right that we should talk about the UK, not just the island of Britain.

I represent a constituency that has been in existence for 450 years—and, thanks to the Liberal Democrats, it will continue to be in existence. The people I represent do not have an island mentality; they are outward-looking patriots, and a patriot can be proud to be Welsh, proud to be British and proud to be European. The agenda does not belong to those who want to move us towards the exit from Europe; it belongs to those who want to be at the centre of Europe.

Jobs matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) was quite right. Like him, I had a meeting with farmers today—I represent a rural community. They know that there are problems in Europe, but they also know the benefits of being in Europe. They run small businesses and local communities, and for them it is not about big or small Europe. They understand that Europe brings real benefits. That is what I am proud to speak about today.

The urban development in my town comes from European structural funds. The near neighbour of mine is not continental Europe, but Ireland. The Chancellor used to boast about how good the Irish economy was. We can have both free trade and good employment laws; they can go hand in hand. I am worried, however, that if we move away from the social chapter, our jobs will become less valuable and our constituents less valued. I am proud to say: Wales, Britain, Europe, we need to be united; we need to be leading in it, not moving away from the centre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)]

A number of Opposition Members have criticised the Prime Minister for announcing that he will campaign in the next general election to renegotiate, hold a referendum and, on the basis of that renegotiation, campaign for a yes vote. It is probably worth reminding them that it was a Labour leader and a Labour Prime Minister who did just that in the general election of 1974. Despite having a number of irreconcilable people on his Benches, including Barbara Castle, Michael Foot and Tony Benn, he succeeded in gaining a two-to-one victory in the subsequent referendum.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman reminds us of the 1970s. Of course, the clamour of the two camps to win out against each other took our eye off the economy at the time, and we went into a very difficult period. Are we in danger of doing exactly the same, and is not the Prime Minister in danger of being not the son of Blair, but the grandson of Harold Wilson?

[Mr Walter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I would remind him—I can remember it—that the economy was already in a difficult situation caused by the energy crisis. We had three-day weeks and other problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter), who has been an isolated and lonely voice of sanity on the Government Benches this afternoon.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), I am fascinated by the modern-day Conservative party’s obsession with Europe. We only have to mention the word “Europe” to send many Conservative Members into an act of communal or self-flagellation. As my hon. Friend said, however, that has not always been the case. The major changes in our relationship with Europe were introduced by Conservative Governments. They took us into Europe, and it was Margaret Thatcher who signed the Single European Act.

Now, however, the Conservative party holds to a little Englander narrative, which goes as follows: Europe is a foreign place that is anti our culture and somehow does things to poor old little Britain. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is true that we are an island off the continent of Europe, but we are part of Europe. For centuries, we spoke French, not English, and we even speak Norman French at the Prorogation of each Parliament. Our royal family has a proud German history and heritage, too. It is therefore plain wrong to argue that Europe is somehow alien to our culture. It is part of our history, and it is in our DNA, too, as the blood of people from Europe who have settled here flows through our veins. All this also influences the decisions we take: if we go down to the Members’ car park, we can see the most fervent anti-Europeans driving French and German-made cars.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said what is important is inward investment and access to the European market. I completely agree. The EU is vital for jobs in my region of the north-east, and also for our future prosperity. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn made a point about structural funds, too. They made a real difference when the last Conservative Government ripped the heart out of the north-east economy. This is not only about manufacturing, however; it is about access to financial markets, too, and liberating the European telecommunications market, which cannot be done from the sidelines.

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend is making a strong argument about our being an English-speaking gateway to Europe, but we are not the only one. There is also the Republic of Ireland, so we must be on our toes and make decisions at the centre of Europe.

[Mr Jones]

That is true, which is why current policies and statements are potentially putting us at a competitive disadvantage.

There are those who argue we would be better off outside Europe, and that we should have an in/out referendum now. I respect that position—although I totally disagree with it—but that is not what is before us. It is worse than that. We will have five or more years of indecision because this Prime Minister has put party advantage ahead of Britain’s national interest. We will have five years of companies looking at Britain and asking themselves, “Should we invest? Can we be sure Britain is going to be part of Europe?” The Prime Minister will not even tell us what the red lines in respect of Europe are going to be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said earlier, they will involve, for example, driving employment rights down to the bottom to try to ensure that we are competitive with the rest of the world.

Europe is our major trading partner and we need to be at the centre of it. We will not achieve that by standing on the sidelines, or, as this Prime Minister seems to do, by threatening to take our bat and ball home if we do not get our own way.

Much has been said about the free movement of people throughout Europe. This is nothing new. I grew up in the region of the north Nottinghamshire coalfields and went to school with people with Italian and Polish names—the children of people who had settled there after the second world war. Conservative Members who represent areas such as Lincolnshire will be aware that many generations of immigrant workers have come there to pick fruit and other agricultural produce. That has added to, not taken away from, this country’s prosperity.