UK Nationals Imprisoned Abroad

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

As far as I understand it, in Ethiopia there is no right of appeal from a death sentence. I stand to be corrected if other hon. Members understand the situation differently, but I see some nodding in the Chamber.

I do not want to interrogate the veracity of the claims against Mr Tsege, but whatever the intricacies of his particular case, we cannot avoid the fact that a UK citizen has, by all accounts, been kidnapped, arrested, rendered and imprisoned, and then tried, convicted and sentenced to death in absentia, in flagrant contravention of the due process of law.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing the debate. Is it not material to this matter for the international community that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention described Mr Tsege’s detention as “illegal” and concluded that an “adequate remedy” would be to release him and afford him “adequate compensation”?

[Fiona Bruce]

That is right. As we have heard, Mr Tsege was convicted in absentia in 2009 while he was at home with his family in London. He was not formally notified of the proceedings brought against him, nor of his ultimate sentence. Obviously, he was not given any opportunity to defend himself and the US State Department has described his 2009 trial as an act of “political retaliation” that was

“lacking in basic elements of due process”.

Mr Tsege was sentenced under Ethiopia’s Anti-Terrorism Proclamation of 2009—a statute that the Foreign Office has noted has been used to

“restrict…opposition and dissent”

by targeting

“members of opposition groups, journalists”

and

“peaceful protesters.”

Mr Tsege was tried alongside scores of other political prisoners including his 82-year-old father. What is very concerning is that the anti-terrorism proclamation under which he was convicted was not introduced until a month after his in absentia trial began in June 2009. I know that many hon. Members share my concern about retrospective legislation, particularly in the case of criminal charges.

During the proceedings, the prosecution amended the charges against Mr Tsege, dropping the initial allegation that he was involved in plotting a coup d’état and introducing instead charges of conspiring to dismantle the constitutional order. I understand that UK authorities have noted that at no point have they been presented with any evidence against Mr Tsege from the Ethiopian authorities that would stand up in a British court, despite the requests made of the Ethiopian Government.

The civil liberties group, Reprieve, which I commend on highlighting the case, said that Mr Tsege was bound, hooded and bundled onto a plane headed for Ethiopia. It should be noted that the circumstances of his abduction, which have been widely publicised, have not been disputed by Ethiopian officials. The fact remains that the Ethiopian Government did not request his lawful extradition while he was living in London, nor have they produced any evidence to back up the claim of an extradition arrangement with Yemen. His kidnap at an overseas airport is a clear breach of the established international legal extradition process.

Further, the UN special rapporteur on torture reported to the United Nations Human Rights Council that Ethiopia’s treatment of Mr Tsege has violated the convention against torture. In addition to the marked difference in Mr Tsege’s physical appearance before and after abduction in his television appearances—it is clearly discernible—a British psychiatrist commissioned by Reprieve, who has assessed his case, has noted his deteriorating mental state. I understand that Ethiopia has not allowed the British Government to have a private consular visit, making it impossible for Mr Tsege to report directly instances of suspected mistreatment.

There have been some consular visits, albeit not private. When Mr Tsege was with the UK ambassador to Ethiopia he stressed that he only ever advocated the conduct of politics “by peaceful means.” That echoes his testimony before the European Parliament in 2006 in which he encouraged Members of the European Parliament to back the

“peaceful, just and fair struggle of the people of Ethiopia for freedom and democracy”.

In the years before his abduction, Mr Tsege mounted a global campaign to draw worldwide attention to concerning developments in Ethiopia. He testified before the European Parliament and the United States Congress, encouraging the latter to introduce legislation to encourage Ethiopia to engage in “democratisation and economic liberalisation”.

Some organisations, such as the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which has investigated the case, have concluded that the only proper solution is for Mr Tsege to be immediately released and returned home. It could well be argued that the UK Government should demand that. If, following his release, the Ethiopian Government then wish to pursue a case against him, they should do so legitimately by seeking his extradition and observing the norms of legal process. What is the Minister’s response to that and what steps have the UK Government taken in that regard? Have they pushed for Mr Tsege’s release from Ethiopia, or have diplomatic efforts been limited, as has been reported, to efforts to try to convince the Ethiopian Government to grant him access to a lawyer, which, as we have heard, will be of limited benefit at this stage? Perhaps the UK Government are aware of information that is not in the public domain; what can the Minister tell us to help us to understand the otherwise inexplicable treatment of Mr Tsege?

In a recent letter to supporters of Andy Tsege, the Foreign Secretary wrote that

“Britain does not interfere in the legal systems of other countries”,

but it is interesting to note that in recent years, two UK citizens who were arbitrarily detained have been released: Lee Po in China and Karl Andree in Saudi Arabia. I understand that, in both cases, their release came about following intervention by the UK.

The question is whether we believe that the circumstances of Mr Tsege’s arrest and subsequent treatment are acceptable. Surely they are not.

Dog Meat (South Korea)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. A number of excellent contributions have been made today, and as ever with many of these Westminster Hall debates, there has been a great deal of consensus across the Chamber.

With over 100,000 individuals signing the petition relating to animal cruelty and dogs, in particular, in South Korea, it has evidently sparked a lot of interest among our constituents, so it is very pleasing to be able to speak in the debate on behalf of Labour and to challenge the Minister to do all he can to put this issue on the record personally and through his offices in the Foreign Office. We have heard a number of excellent contributions, not least from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) who set the debate off and particularly underlined the fact that the 2018 winter Olympics gives us a good opportunity to talk about this issue and our constituents’ concerns about the cruelty of the animal trade.

Several concerns persist about the use of dogs for meat. In particular, many of the dogs are kept in terrible conditions, including in a system similar to that of battery chickens in which dogs are tightly confined in metal cages and subject to long periods in the hot sun of Korean summers and the freezing cold of winters without the ability to move freely around.

The way in which dogs are bred remains an issue in the UK but it is of far greater concern in South Korea given that there is less government regulation there. We have read many briefings about deformities, and fertility and inherited health conditions. Those issues are rightly of great concern to leading charities, constituents and campaigners. Tragic incidents of dogs being fed on other dogs have come to light through briefings. Has the Minister raised those issues with Minister Yun Byung-se?

Tackling the issue must go beyond pressing for legislative reforms. This afternoon, we have heard about some cultural changes, which are very welcome indeed. The fact that many of the older generation are partaking less in the tradition of eating the product and that younger people tend to have chicken soup rather than dog stew is probably a positive culinary development. I am pleased that the Minister and his officers are prepared to tackle some of the cultural norms, and we must not be afraid of doing so. The practice of having a pet is now becoming common in Asia, which is perhaps leading to a greater understanding of the inappropriateness of the treatment of many poor animals.

I will draw briefly on some highlights of the debate. I was interested to hear the reflections of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). The past week has shown that there are, indeed, massive political issues in the Korean peninsula, and it would be remiss of us not to mention that. I have every sympathy for the Minister in organising his priorities when he next meets with Korean colleagues and his opposite number.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made a salient point about the European Union, hoping that our own regulation will not go backwards. Indeed, the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), mentioned that the UK has a wealth of experience because of our traditions and our relationship with the EU. We hope that we do not go backwards in the post-Brexit confusion that we seem to be in, but that we continue to hold those standards as high as we possibly can.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned foxhunting. I am sure that South Korean campaigners feel strongly about that, and they are quite right to raise the issue of such practices in some of our rural and countryside areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has spoken eloquently not just today, but in previous debates, about best practice in animal husbandry. She has a great track record of interest in and love of animal welfare, as well as human rights. She was quite right to hark back to the golden era of Lord Hague, when human rights and such issues were higher up the agenda. At that time, we enjoyed having a sense of peace of mind that such issues were being raised at the highest level. The feeling now is that when Foreign Office Ministers meet with their counterparts abroad, the approach not just to human rights, but to animal welfare, is different. However, I would be happy to be disabused of that notion if the Minister chooses to have that debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East was right to mention that other parts of Asia, including Singapore and other countries, have outlawed dog meat. Will the Minister comment not just on the cultural change, but on the change happening in the region?

My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) made a good point about making a stand and ensuring that, as Members of Parliament, we tell our Government what we would like on the list of priorities and the agenda when the Minister meets with his counterpart in South Korea.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for this late and welcome opportunity to support my hon. Friend’s points and to join all those who want the maximum pressure exerted to stop these appalling practices.

[Catherine West]

We are all aware of the high-profile debate about grammar schools in the Chamber now, which is perhaps why there are not as many hon. Members in Westminster Hall. Nevertheless, we have representation from almost every party, which is great.

Palestine

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

We need to search our conscience and consider how those arms and components have been put to use, and ask ourselves whether that complies with British policies and our sense of decency, if we are to be consistent in how we approach our dealings with Israel and other countries. In my view, if we fail to set clear parameters, targets and consequences, including economic sanctions, for failures to end violations and make progress on the peace process, we are perpetuating the conflict.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a good speech and being generous in giving way. Does he agree that it is crucial as part of that international pressure to get the stranglehold on Gaza lifted so that the people there can properly develop their economy and society? That in itself would contribute to a two-state solution by turning off the tap that feeds extremism.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Absolutely. That is an excellent point. I hope that we will play our part through diplomatic pressure, through our influence with the EU and directly with the Israeli Government to lift the blockade and siege of Gaza on humanitarian grounds. I firmly believe that Israel’s security considerations could be addressed; there are means to do so with an international monitoring force.

Britain bears a tremendous deal of historical responsibility for the conflict, going back to the Balfour declaration when Britain held the mandate for Palestine, but our efforts to resolve the conflict have been demonstrably inadequate. We are at a tipping point for the middle east, so it is critical that the UK and the wider international community are honest brokers for peace and take practical action to tackle the root causes of the conflict. Only when Israel ends its policy of occupation and colonisation of Palestinian lands will a genuine peace between Israel and Palestine be possible.

Hazaras (Afghanistan and Pakistan)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the position of Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I am grateful for this debate, and I speak as an MP and as chair of the Hazara all-party parliamentary group. In recent weeks, we have seen ethnic and religious minorities face appalling violence at the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Iraq and Syria. This debate is about another community that has suffered at the hands of very similar ideologues for far too long.

I knew little of the Hazara until I met constituents who were part of the Hazara diaspora and who had been forced to flee violence. I believe that might be true of other right hon. and hon. Members who want to speak in this debate. The Hazara are an indigenous people of Afghanistan, predominantly but not exclusively Shi’a Muslims. The community in Quetta in Pakistan’s Balochistan province was established in the late 19th century by Hazaras fleeing religious persecution in Afghanistan. It largely prospered, providing education for men and women and showing a deep-seated and industrious work ethic, until it became the target of terrorist attacks from about 1999.

Hazaras comprise between 10% and 20% of the population of Afghanistan. Persecution continued into the Taliban era, with thousands killed in massacres during the civil war and under the Taliban Government. In part, the Hazara are victims of the violence against Shi’a Muslims and other religious minorities that is endemic in Pakistan and has featured strongly in the history of Afghanistan. I do not want to underplay the common features shared with the wider violence against the Shi’a community, but Hazaras have suffered disproportionately, in part because their distinct ethnic identity makes them easily identifiable and targets for prejudice and discrimination.

There is little doubt that sectarian groups have received finance from states and individuals in the Gulf. Today, they might be recognising just what they have created in Iraq and Syria, but we and other western countries have been silent for far too long on their role. Just occasionally, the violence in Quetta makes the international news: in June 2012, when a university bus was bombed, killing four and injuring 72; and in early 2013, when two bombings killed 180 Hazaras. Continuing violence has been well documented in the recent Human Rights Watch report “We are the Walking Dead”, published in June 2014.

The community in Quetta comprises about 500,000 people, yet nearly 1,500 people have been killed since 1999 and more than 3,500 injured. The attacks have targeted breadwinners and forced businesses to close, promoting economic deprivation, while some recent attacks have directly targeted women and children. Perhaps 55,000 people have fled to Australia or Europe—of course, not all survived the journey—and following attacks on transport, students no longer attend university. In Quetta, the community is restricted to two enclaves with a total area of just 4 square miles. The community is isolated, with travel restrictions imposed by the Pakistani Government.

Shockingly, in the past 16 years, not one person has been brought successfully to justice. The al-Qaeda-affiliated organisation Lashkar-e-Jhangvi has openly claimed responsibility for the killings, while leading members have been seen associating with public figures and politicians in Pakistan. A few people have been arrested, but have then been released or able to escape or cases have been dismissed. It is clear that the Pakistan authorities have failed to act with any effectiveness to protect the Hazara community, with attacks taking place close to the presence of security forces.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the others who have secured this debate, and I agree with everything in his very powerful speech. Does he agree that given the inability or unwillingness to bring people to justice for these horrors in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and given the hideous murders that have taken place, it is high time that the United Nations referred Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and other groups alleged to be responsible to the International Criminal Court in order to send the most powerful signal possible that this is utterly unacceptable to the international community?

[Mr Denham]

I think there is indeed a strong case for that, and I will come in a moment to the responsibility of the international community.

In other parts of Pakistan, the Pakistan state has made significant efforts against, for example, the Pakistan Taliban, that have not been made in Quetta. The Pakistan Government are clearly in breach of their international obligation to protect their people. We should call tonight for effective action by the Pakistan state, but those demands must be consistently reinforced by the international community, by individual Governments, including our own, and by international institutions, including the United Nations and its agencies, and that must be done in every relationship—political, military, development and human rights.

Demands for change must be central to our relationship with Pakistan, not just raised occasionally or at a junior level. Last year, the then Foreign Office Minister Baroness Warsi did raise those issues with Prime Minister Sharif and he denounced sectarian killings. What we now need to see is visible action to investigate those killings and prosecute those, particularly the LEJ leadership, who have claimed responsibility. Militant groups should be disbanded and those such as the political wing of the LEJ, which in March this year celebrated killings and pledged to eliminate Hazaras from Balochistan, must be brought under control.

We need the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development to recognise the roots of the problems faced by the Hazaras. I would like to see DFID develop assistance programmes to address the immediate needs of the community in Quetta. I would also like to see the conflict pool—the UK fund for conflict prevention, which already operates in other parts of Pakistan—extended to Balochistan. Big efforts must be made to engage the UN system, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said. The UN system has strong policies on human rights, preventing genocide and the protection of indigenous peoples, all of which should apply to the Hazara. While some recent and welcome progress has been made, much more could be done.

Human Rights (North Korea)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, as you are one of the few Members of Parliament to have visited North Korea.

North Korea is arguably the world’s most closed nation, with the worst human rights record. Looking through all 30 articles of the universal declaration of human rights, it is difficult to identify any of them that have been implemented and respected in North Korea. Almost all are severely repressed or denied. Indeed, the former United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in North Korea has described the country as “sui generis”—in a category of its own.

For those reasons, debates such as this are long overdue. For too long—more than 60 years—what amounts to the world’s worst human rights crisis has also been its most overlooked. Why has the appalling inhumanity in North Korea not generated the same headlines or provoked the same mass public outrage as apartheid in South Africa? I hope that young people in our universities and elsewhere will take the issue to heart, as they did apartheid. When I was at the university of Oxford the week before last, I talked to students about it, and I encourage colleagues to do the same when they visit universities and colleges.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this enormously important debate. What he wishes is actually starting to happen. Students from Oxford have come to see me, and one important point that they made is that if we could get the BBC World Service to broadcast to Korea in Korean, its reputation for impartiality would be an enormous force for good.

[Andrew Selous]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I will say more about the BBC World Service and broadcasting in general in North Korea later in my remarks. I welcome his support and intervention.

On 17 February this year, the UN commission of inquiry on human rights in North Korea published its report, concluding that North Korea’s brutal regime is committing a wide range of crimes against humanity, arising from

“policies established at the highest level of State”.

Such crimes against humanity include,

“extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation”.

That is a pretty appalling list.

Among the reported abuses, the inquiry found that pregnant women are starved, while their babies are fed rats and snakes. More than 100,000 people—I think the Government estimate up to 200,000 people—are in gulags, which have existed for more than 60 years. There is systematic torture; everyone is forced to inform on each other; entire communities are denied adequate food; and the bodies of the dead are burned and then used for fertiliser.

When pregnant North Korean women are forced to return to North Korea from China—a serious issue in itself—they are subjected to forced abortions if it is suspected that the father of the child is Chinese. If the baby is born, it is killed. Widespread forced abortion and infanticide for purely racial reasons are just two of the brutal regime’s many barbaric acts.

The UN’s 400-page report, based on many hours of extensive first-hand testimony from victims and witnesses, details what it describes as “unspeakable atrocities”.

Elections in Bangladesh

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to have been able to secure this Westminster Hall debate. I welcome the opportunity not only to discuss recent elections in Bangladesh but to talk about the lessons of the past few months—I believe that the UK can learn from those lessons—and the opportunities that are open to us as we help Bangladesh to work towards political stability in the coming years.

Bangladesh is a country that has seen significant progress since its infancy. Responding to the millennium development goals, it has reduced the poverty gap ratio from 17% to 6.5%. Investment in children’s health has resulted in a reduction in the mortality rate of under-fives, and the prevalence of underweight children has almost halved. The World Bank recognises the advances that the country continues to make, suggesting that it will become a middle-income country by 2021.

Clearly, what happens in Bangladesh is hugely important for its prosperity and the life chances of the people living there. However, the recent election has seen those advances undermined by the country’s own political leadership. As we all know, on 5 January, Bangladesh held its 10th general election. On paper at least, it demonstrated overwhelming support for the Awami League, which won 232 of the 300 seats. However, the reality of the election was a turnout that was reported as being as low as 10% and a mass boycott by Opposition parties that meant that half of the seats remained uncontested. Schools used as polling stations were burned down and the lives of 21 were people lost.

We celebrate the progress made by Bangladesh since its modern birth in 1971, but the ongoing mistrust between the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist party and other Opposition parties points to a dysfunctional political climate in which the prospect of free and fair elections seems elusive.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this enormously important debate and endorse what he has said about the importance of the progress that Bangladesh has made. Does he agree that one of the fundamental problems with the election was the Awami League’s refusal to follow the precedent of previous elections, whereby there had been a caretaker Government to oversee fair process, foreign observers and the rest, and that that failure and the political thinking behind it led to the tragedy that now confronts us?

[Gavin Shuker]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which has been much debated not just in the House but further afield. The events running up to the election were deeply regrettable. The question whether it was right to press on with the elections will perhaps be left for others to decide—or even for history. Right now, it is vital that the international community takes a lead—as the UK has—in saying that the elections were neither free nor fair and, for that reason, were not right.

Gary Dunne

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise a constituency issue in Westminster Hall. Gary Dunne was tragically murdered on 3 March 2006 in Benalmadena on the Costa del Sol in southern Spain. He was attacked by 12 men and stabbed to death with a machete by Victor Posse Navas. For his family, nothing will bring Gary back. Every day, they remember him as a son, a partner and a father. Although nothing can be done to soften the horror of the tragedy for the family, much more could have been done, and still can be done, to make life that bit easier for them.

Our British consular staff deal with thousands of deaths of British nationals around the world, often in difficult, traumatic and complicated situations. They deserve praise for their work. More often than not, the support from consular staff is of the highest standard. In this case, however, the Dunne family were left vulnerable; they felt alone and received little help. In the midst of dealing with the news of the cruel murder of their son, they were told that they would have to pay to bury him, not in Liverpool, but in Andalucia in southern Spain, due to local legal restrictions about hygiene. The Spanish authorities said that before Gary could be brought home to Liverpool, he would have to be cremated in Spain. The family received no assistance from the Spanish police and were not met by liaison officers.

Mr and Mrs Dunne had to endure three years of campaigning simply to ensure that their son’s body could be repatriated and buried at home. In 2009, Gary’s parents were finally able to bury him. The intervention of the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), helped enormously. He made personal representations to the then Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Zapatero, which resulted in progress being made.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his incredibly important campaign. I also congratulate the Dunne family on all the work they have done. What happened to them could happen to any of our constituents. Does he agree that the ordinary citizen would expect the EU to ensure that everyone has decent treatment in such appalling circumstances?

[Stephen Twigg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I agree with him entirely. Further on in my remarks, I will talk about the work that the excellent MEP for the North West, Arlene McCarthy, has done to support the Dunne family and to raise the broader issues.

The Prime Minister played his part. The community and people of Liverpool were a constant support to the Dunne family. A petition lobbying for Gary’s body to be returned home was signed by more than 40,000 people. When his body was finally returned for a funeral in Liverpool, hundreds of well-wishers turned out in the streets to applaud. It is not often that civilian funerals are held at Liverpool cathedral, but the dean agreed to host the service there. Everton football club provided Goodison Park as a venue for the wake. No family should have to face the trauma and struggle that the Dunne family have had to endure—waiting for years before they could finally have a funeral and bury their son. There are lessons that we must learn.

My constituents, Gary’s parents—Stephen and Lesley—have worked tirelessly to ensure that no other family has to suffer such an ordeal. In 2010, I raised their case at Prime Minister’s Question Time with the current Prime Minister. He agreed to meet Mr and Mrs Dunne, who emphasised the need for changes at a European level, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) rightly said, to prevent apparently obscure local rules stifling a family’s ability simply to bring their loved one back for a funeral.

I remain grateful to the Prime Minister for meeting Mr and Mrs Dunne and for his support in that meeting. What progress have the Government made since then? Do the Government see any way in which we could ensure that the system of repatriation does not cause even more suffering and agony to grieving family members?

The Spanish authorities had insisted that due to rules related to their hygiene laws, Gary’s body could not be repatriated for at least five years. However, since then, the Dunne family have discovered that other families who suffered tragedies in Andalucia were told that they did not have to wait such a long time. Will the Government look into why there seems to be an inconsistency in the application of the rules? If the rules indeed state that a body can be repatriated only after five years unless it is cremated, will the Minister make the case, through the appropriate channels, both directly with the Spanish and through the European Union, for reform of what seem to be unreasonable and unfair rules?

After all that, the tragic saga still goes on for Gary’s family. The Dunne family were not informed by the Spanish authorities when the murderer was caught; they had to find that out through a friend phoning them. Owing to their frustrations with the Spanish legal system, the Dunne family tell me that they still do not know whether the killer is still in jail, and if so, when he will be released. Will the Minister make representations on behalf of the family to ensure that their case is brought to the attention of the relevant Minister in Spain? It is critical that the Government of Spain undertake the responsibility to keep the Dunne family informed of developments as and when they occur.

While the process up to this point has been handled atrociously by the local and national authorities in Spain, there is still a lot more that they can do. Gary’s partner, Ashley, and his young son, Kieran, have struggled to receive any compensation. The Spanish court has ordered the perpetrator to pay €125,000 in compensation, yet so far, only €1,500 has been received. Payments stopped some time ago, and the small amount that was paid was of little comfort, as it had to be used simply to pay court costs.

Stephen and Lesley have spent time themselves in Andalucia, at their own expense, fighting for justice for Gary. Due to a legal error during the formalities of applying for the money from the Spanish Government, the Dunne family were only receiving €100 a month from Gary’s killer, which came from the wage that he gets from his work in the prison kitchens. Now even that has stopped. Neither the killer nor his family has significant assets, and they are apparently unable to pay the compensation.

With the support of Arlene McCarthy MEP, the Dunne family have been lobbying the relevant Spanish authorities. In December 2011—two years ago—Arlene McCarthy wrote to the Spanish Minister who leads on this area of policy, but she has not even received the courtesy of a reply. Will the Minister look into that issue as a matter of urgency and make representations on behalf of the Dunnes?

I got to know Mr and Mrs Dunne well, as their constituency Member of Parliament. I have known them now for six years. Their focus has always been on the fight for justice for Gary and his surviving partner and child, but also, more broadly, on trying to ensure that no other family has had to endure what they have endured. However, the court in Spain had ordered compensation of €125,000. Although the issue of compensation has never been the one that the family has asked me to prioritise, I feel that I owe it to them, as their MP and a friend, to say that it seems to me a basic minimum that the compensation should be paid out to the family as a matter of urgency.

Finally, will the Minister assure me that more is being done to ensure that standards are maintained and improved in our consulates around the world? The Foreign Secretary has said that the Foreign Office is always seeking to improve the consular support and assistance in such tragic circumstances. Will the Minister set out what measures are being or will be taken to fulfil that? It seems critical that the staff who are involved in what is by its nature delicate and sensitive work are equipped fully to do their job professionally and compassionately.

I am aware that the Foreign Office has signed an agreement with the national homicide service run by Victim Support to provide the same level of support to families who lose a loved one as a result of a murder or manslaughter overseas as they would receive if the crime had taken place in the UK. That is a welcome commitment on the part of the Government and Victim Support. Will the Minister tell us how that new service will work and whether the Government have reached their goal of offering the level of service that one would expect in the UK for families who find themselves in such tragic circumstances abroad?

Gary’s family have suffered terribly for almost eight years now. They have lost a son, a partner and a father; they have battled for three years just to have a proper funeral for Gary; and they are now trying to receive the compensation that a court has ordered should be paid to them. It is a great tribute to them that they continue to campaign for justice for others, as well as wanting justice for themselves. I believe that they have been let down, and they deserve more from the relevant authorities. I urge the Government to do everything in their power, both bilaterally with Spain and through the European Union, to help us take the matter forward.

Persecution of Christians

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) on securing the debate. The large attendance by Members from all parts of the House for a half-hour Adjournment debate shows that her subject not only is objectively important and significant in how we conduct our international policy in this country, but arouses powerful and continuing concern in all the political parties represented in the House. I am grateful to her for the way in which she presented her case and in particular for her generous comments about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s recently published human rights report.

As the hon. Lady said, an increase in persecution is threatening the existence of Christianity in the very region of its birth, with many people feeling that they have no choice but to flee to safe havens elsewhere. As the excellent report from Open Doors made clear, violence, discrimination and systematic persecution threaten Christian communities in Africa, the middle east and certain other countries around the world. The Government share many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady and in the Open Doors report. We condemn all instances of violence and discrimination against individuals or groups on the grounds of their religion, regardless of the country or faith concerned. As the report rightly emphasised, our condemnation should extend not solely to the more extreme forms of suffering inflicted upon people because of their religion or belief, but to any and all forms of such discrimination.

I assure hon. Members that we are fully committed to promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief in its broadest sense, as defined in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which was alluded to by the hon. Lady. It is worth reminding ourselves of that central passage:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

I assure the hon. Lady and the House that we take those words seriously.

I want to respond directly and clearly to two of the central points in the hon. Lady’s speech. The Government’s position is to condemn laws against so-called apostasy and any Government policies anywhere in the world that punish people for changing their religion or belief voluntarily and freely, because that is at odds with the words of the universal declaration. Also, we accept completely that, when we talk about religious persecution and the human right to the free expression of religion and belief, we are talking about not only the private or domestic sphere but, in our understanding, the freedom to practice that religion openly and to make manifest one’s religious or other belief in the way that one conducts one’s life.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment. He and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) rightly referred to the universal declaration, but encouraging co-operation and respect for religious rights is also right there as a purpose of the United Nations in article 1 of its charter. Can he tell us what specific steps the Government will be taking at the UN to raise the issue up the international agenda in the way that needs to happen?

[Mr Lidington]

We raise the subject repeatedly in the UN, at the Human Rights Council and in opportunities that we get in the General Assembly and from time to time in the Security Council. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have resisted occasional attempts in the UN to return to language about defamation of religions, which used to characterise some of the debate. With the agreement of the March 2011 resolution of the Human Rights Council, we have been able to move on to more productive discussions of the issue; resolution 16/18 is not perfect, because it was a compromise to achieve consensus in the UN council, but it included not only a focus on combating religious intolerance, but key statements about protecting the human rights of minorities and promoting pluralism in society. We also continue to support strongly the work of the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and we attach great importance to seeing his mandate renewed during the year.

Hazara Community (Pakistan)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing this important debate, and I thank him for his courtesy in allowing me to say a few words. He has comprehensively and eloquently set out the plight of the Hazara community in Pakistan. I am happy to endorse the points he made.

Like Southampton, Milton Keynes is home to a sizeable Hazara community. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and I have spent a considerable amount of time meeting members of that community and working with them. Last year, we had the great honour of attending their annual school prize-giving day—a warm and jolly occasion that served to underline the warmth and depth of community spirit among them in Milton Keynes. That makes it even more galling to learn about the stories of their kinsmen and loved ones being persecuted, injured and killed in Pakistan.

The numbers involved are quite shocking. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a list. The impact of the killings and of the injuries sustained among the community as a whole has been absolutely shocking. Let me provide a few other examples. A decade ago, there were 300 students at the main university in Quetta. After all the death threats and the persecutions, there are not any today. About 80% of Hazara businesses have either had to be sold or closed down. There are 3,000 orphans or children living in poverty because the main breadwinner has been killed. As we have heard, there is no semblance of a social security system there. Then there are the thousands killed or maimed—yet not one arrest of the perpetrators. Those figures are shocking, but it is only when we hear personal examples that the true scale of the horror comes home.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing this enormously important debate. I was pleased to join the big meeting that the hon. Gentleman sponsored in the House of Commons, for which I thank him. Was it not deeply moving both to hear the testimony of the people there and to experience their confidence that making their representations through this House to the Government might produce real change in the interest of justice for the Hazaras?

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention and he is absolutely right. That recent meeting was one of the most powerful I have ever attended in this place. It was heart warming to encounter the strength of feeling and the optimism among members of the community that we might be able to effect some positive influence or change. I will certainly continue to do all I can, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will do the same.

In preparing for this debate, I spoke to some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North to get their personal stories about what has happened. A gentleman by the name of Nasir Abbas was a relative of my constituents Mokhtar and Shalia Ali. He was 34 and he was the main breadwinner of the family; the rest of the family depended on him, yet he was killed in a suicide attack. The family is now living in squalor, with no real way of supporting themselves. The family then suffered again, when the father-in-law received a death threat and not long afterwards suffered a fatal heart attack—yet another tragedy for the family. That is just one of many similar examples that go on today.

As the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen mentioned, we have not long since marked Holocaust memorial day. At the weekend, I attended a couple of plays in one of Milton Keynes’s theatres by a group called “voices of the holocaust”. The very powerful plays depicted the escalation of persecution in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. It was an historical reminder of what went on and of the fact that that same kind of persecution happens today, which places on us a great duty to stand up and speak out against it. I have done a lot of work with the community across the country, and I am happy to endorse the resolutions they passed in the conference on genocide.

I appreciate that this area is a dangerous and difficult part of the world, but that does not absolve us from taking action. I know that the Minister has taken a keen interest in the matter. I urge him, in addition to answering the specific questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman, to do all he can to work bilaterally with the Pakistani authorities, but also multilaterally through the United Nations. I think that it, too, has a significant role to play.

Of all the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, the one I would particularly emphasise concerned the need to use the lever of British aid to bring about some positive action. As the conference has demonstrated during the past couple of days, we are not without influence in that part of the world. I owe it to my constituents to stand up and highlight the plight of their kinsmen, and this country owes it to those people to stand up for them, to speak out, and to use what influence we have to improve this dreadful situation.

Protecting the Antarctic

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Like the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on securing this enormously important debate. Antarctica, as he says, is uniquely important scientifically, climatically and environmentally. Is it not vital for the protection of penguins, and flora and fauna in general, that there is strict enforcement of the restriction on resource exploitation and unregulated fishing in Antarctica and, like me, does he look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government are doing to reinforce that strict enforcement?

[Neil Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and I thank him for that important contribution to the debate. He can be reassured that that is exactly the direction of travel in which I think we need to be going. The Bill that I will be bringing to Parliament would strengthen those protection mechanisms, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be there to support me on 2 November.

The Antarctic is important for a number of reasons, not least its pivotal role in regulating the earth’s climate. The Southern ocean is a massive sink for CO₂. Although it is obviously a harsh environment, we must all recognise that it is also fragile, which is what the right hon. Gentleman was really alluding to. The challenges are captured in the statistics, such as the fact that in the past 30 years the air temperature has risen by 3° C and the sea temperature by 1° C—87% of the glaciers are in retreat. Without doubt, there are challenges to confront and recognise in our thinking.

There are also questions. For example, the number of krill—a relatively common, shrimp-like creature, stuffed full of protein—is starting to decrease, due to not only fishing, but environmental changes. Marine life in general also needs to be protected. That area of water alone contains 120 species of fish, which we must of course celebrate, but also ensure we can defend.

There are threats to the Antarctic that it is important to highlight today. We have considerable good international co-operation. Britain has been a key leader in that process and we need to both salute and cement it. We have played a great part in the Antarctic, not only because of Robert Scott and the Falklands, but because a whole host of foreign policy issues bring us to recognise the pivotal role the area plays. Although we are still recognised as a key leader, it is our responsibility to demonstrate leadership now, as more and more nations become more and more interested in the Antarctic. It is necessary to talk not only about protecting the environment, although that is critical, but about Britain’s interests in the region.

Overfishing is a risk. I do not want to get into a discussion about the common fisheries policy, because its area does not stretch that far, but we need to think about protecting fish stocks.