European Union Referendum Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The answer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s question is that the Government will, of course, express their view very clearly at the conclusion of the negotiations and make their recommendation to the country, giving their reasons for so doing. One aspect of the debate about which we have concerns is how the Government, who will have called the referendum and made a recommendation to the British people, should be able to express their view and answer questions in the final four weeks, as he described. The debate about so-called purdah and section 125 relates specifically to the final 28 days of the campaign.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend comment briefly on the comments that were sent out at just gone half-past 12 today by Michael Carpenter, the Speaker’s Counsel, in which he said:

“I commented about all this in my earlier note to the Committee. Mr Lidington seems simply to repeat the unsound arguments advanced before.”

For those of us who have concerns, that is a very worrying statement from such learned counsel.

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend had received the legal advice that I have had, she might take a rather different view.

Many hon. Members have said that the purdah rules that apply during elections have worked well and I agree. Of course, those rules are based entirely on guidance and convention. They allow for common sense and involve no legal risk. Section 125 of the 2000 Act is very different, since it is a statutory restriction. Given that the EU referendum debate will, I think we would all accept, involve people on both sides of the argument with deep personal pockets and passionate views on the subject, the risk of legal challenges during the campaign is real. The Government are seeking, through the amendments, to manage that legal risk.

European Union Referendum Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendment 1, which would extend the franchise for the referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds, and amendment 2, which would have a similar effect in Gibraltar.

The franchise that has been chosen for the referendum, which is set out in clause 2, is the franchise for UK parliamentary elections, but with two exceptions. First, it is extended to peers, and secondly, it is extended to the people of Gibraltar. The Opposition have no objection to those two extensions of the franchise, but we believe that they are incomplete. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) flagged up our concern on this issue on Second Reading, when he said that we wished to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for the purposes of the referendum.

There has been an active debate for some years about extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and we heard some of the arguments in the initial exchanges of this debate. People of that age can pay income tax and national insurance, obtain tax credits, consent to sexual relationships, get married, enter a civil partnership, become a company director and do many other things. In fact, both my party and the Conservative party allow them to join and have a vote in the selection of the party leader, if they so wish. Until very recently, 16 and 17-year-olds could not vote in national or local elections, despite their ability to select someone who aspires to become Prime Minister.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

If the right hon. Gentleman is going to cite a list of things that people can do at 16, he also needs to consider the things that they cannot do. They cannot leave school without being in full-time education until they are 18. They are protected in law as a minor if they commit a crime. They do not serve on the front line. They can only get married with parental permission, and they cannot buy fireworks, alcohol or cigarettes. I do not see the point of trading these lists. We have made a decision that young people at the ages of 16 and 17 receive protection in law, up to a point. That is agreed in relation to the franchise.

[Mr McFadden]

The hon. Lady makes the point that not every right and legal responsibility is conferred on people at 16. That is true, but many of them are. The question of the right to democratic participation is therefore not a science, but a matter of judgment. That judgment will be the subject of the rest of my remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

I would like to say it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), but I found his arguments somewhat confused and wide-ranging. Let me remind him that the reason we have a Conservative Government is that a Conservative manifesto promised the people that if we had a Conservative-led Government, they would have a referendum. That was decided on by the current franchise of 18-year-olds and over. Those people voted to have a Conservative Government—I like saying that—so that we could then give those aged 18 and over a choice on their future in Europe. As someone who is in her late 50s, I am sorry to say—[Hon. Members: “Never!”] You are so kind. I would like to remind Labour Members that until this moment they, including the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who led for the Opposition, wanted to deny me, in my 50s, a choice on the future of my country. I am glad there has been a Damascene conversion to allowing people of all ages, including me, to have a choice that I never had 44 years ago.

We now have a choice on the future of our country. Muddying the waters by, as the hon. Member for Ilford South was suggesting, including every person who could be affected as a result of being in this country in the time of a referendum and trying to make the franchise so wide—

[Stephen Gethins]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

Let me make a little progress, because Scottish Members have made a lot of comments in this debate. I am pleased that Scotland had its own referendum under its own rules, because that was devolved as such, but we are not devolved here. We have a franchise and I would like to stick with it. That is why I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) that I fully disagreed with the points she made. I understand the passion with which she made them, but I do not believe this is the time to adopt her approach. The electorate who decided that we would have this choice should now have the right to exercise that choice.

The hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) argued that we should have people on the franchise at 16 because it gets them into good habits, but he then made the confused argument that between 18 and 25 people dropped into bad habits, because they went off to university, got married, moved away or went travelling during a gap year. But those 16-year-olds would eventually become 18-year-olds, so surely they would then have the same chaotic approach to voting that he described. This is not a time to make the point that we will get 16-year-olds into good habits that they will continue for the rest of their lives.

In a relatively short time, we will have this momentous referendum, which I have wanted for a significant period. I would have been hugely disappointed because up until now a Labour Government would have denied me that choice—I am sure I would have gone to my grave without ever having had it. We should stick with the franchise we have. As people have said, they want there to be a recognised choice and a momentous decision. Eighteen is not so far past 16 to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said, that these people are not going to be the ones who have that future—they are, too. We should be making the effort to engage the 18 to 25-year-olds and to increase the turnout. St Albans had a high turnout—

[Stephen Gethins]

A study by the University of Edinburgh showed that if people engage at 16, that increases their chances of being engaged from 18 to 24. That is one of the many reasons why we should have votes at 16.

[Mrs Main]

I respect the right of the Scottish people to draw those conclusions, but my conclusion is that we need to look at why in so many of our constituencies—perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell me the turnout in his in a further intervention—the turnout is so low. Why does the weather affect the turnout?

[Stephen Gethins]

The turnout in my constituency was 72%, which was significantly higher than the turnout across the UK, as indeed was the turnout in every Scottish constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, but his turnout was lower than my turnout. Having said that, many Members will know that in their constituencies the turnout, particularly in local elections, is woefully low. The turnout among young people is woefully low. I did 10 hustings—I am sure he did 110—but I can tell the Committee that many young people told me that those who were able to vote did not know enough. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes on that, because we need to make sure that that information is got across. We do not have the mechanisms at the moment to get the information to enough young people in a way that I would like. I do not believe now is the time to consider lowering the age for the franchise and including 16 and 17-year-olds. We need to put our energies and efforts into the 18-plus group.

In my intervention, I made the point that we have things that people can do at 16, but we have a lot of things that they cannot do. The comments made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) have been somewhat misinterpreted by the Committee. I think the point he was trying to make is that we protect young people from a lot of things—he happened to discuss child and sexual abuse. If a young person gets involved in a bad group and eventually goes down the criminal path, we treat them in a way that accepts their youth in law. We treat them in a way that protects them and we hope they will learn the error of their ways before they enter the adult world when they would face extremely serious consequences. We take that approach on a lot of things for young people. We try to protect them from the evils of smoking, drugs and drink.

I know that this is different in Scotland, before someone bounces up and down to tell me so, but we say that a young person still needs parental permission in our country to get married at 16, which I would suggest is a very young age to be getting married. Now is not the time, in an amendment to a Bill as important as this, to decide that we have to review the whole franchise. I do not accept that it is infantilising young people to treat them as what they are—young people, pre-18, the age at which the full weight and consequences of the law fall upon them.

Let me also point out to Opposition Members that people pay tax aged three if they happen to be a child star—that has nothing to do with age. So let us leave that one out; “taxation and representation” is somewhat of a misnomer. We say that young people are protected. What we need to say is why those young people of 18 are then considered adults. They can leave school—they can leave full-time education—and enter the world of work. They lose that protection of that twilight era between being a very young child and an adolescent, and being a young adult.

[Chris Skidmore]

Has my hon. Friend considered the issue of who the electoral roll and electoral data should be made available to? During the general election we all had access to the data in order to ensure that we provided materials, but those data could be used in other ways, such as by marketing companies to target 16 and 17-year-olds. How would she ensure that the roll is used sensibly and is not used for damaging purposes?

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but I will be chided if I go down that route because it is not within the remit of the amendments under consideration. Such a matter would have to be discussed if we were to reconsider the franchise. I do not think that we should pick and choose our franchise arrangements; I know that Scotland did for the referendum. At the moment, we have a franchise of 18 plus. Those voters elected this Government and asked this Government to deliver a referendum and it is those voters who should vote in the referendum; it is as simple as that.

If we are going to start treading in these waters of saying that 16-year-olds should vote, why should we stop there? As has been said in this Committee, why not 15-year-olds? Why not 14-year olds? How have we picked this arbitrary age? Scotland went down the 16-year-old route. Does that make it the right one?

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

I know that I mentioned the word Scotland, so I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

[Alison Thewliss]

Does it not strike the hon. Lady that whenever franchises have been extended in this country, whether it be from 21 to 18, or indeed allowing women the franchise, arguments about capacity and the ability to vote have always been made, yet the franchise age has gone down? More people have participated in elections, and that has been a good thing for democracy.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Lady has just made my point. My point is: why not any age? She has exactly made the point. We choose ages for a reason. My generation was one of the first to vote at 18. I am sure that my father thought I was barking mad and should not even be running a whelk stall. The point is that we made a decision, and that decision has stood us in good stead. We must face the fact that 18 to 24-year-olds are not exercising that franchise. Moving the franchise inexorably downwards, which the hon. Lady thinks is a good idea, does not necessarily mean that we get better political engagement, debate or even consequences.

The hon. Member for Ilford South seemed to feel that the franchise for this particular referendum should apply to everyone who may or may not feel they are affected by being in the country as a result of EU membership; well, I profoundly disagree. This is about the self-determination of our country and how we see our place within Europe. That is something that I have never voted on, and I wish to vote on. I am pleased that the public have been offered such a vote now.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely rich of the Opposition to have a view on the details now when they were seemingly disinterested in the basic question for many years?

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend reinforces my point. Up until this very moment, the Opposition did not want us to have this debate. Suddenly, they are coming up with a whole load of detail that they feel is crucial to the debate. I think they suspect that the younger generation are more likely to want to remain in Europe. Political opportunism is why they are looking to move the franchise. I agree that, in the future, we should all have a larger debate on whether the franchise is pitched at the right age. Let us park that political opportunism, welcome the fact that Opposition Members want to give us old birds an actual vote—at long last—but let us keep the franchise where it is. It has stood us in good stead. Any efforts and bluster—

[Keith Vaz]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

I shall certainly give way to the right hon. Gentleman who does not bluster.

[Keith Vaz]

I missed that last comment. I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Just to be clear: she keeps referring to Opposition Members. Some of us have been calling for a referendum on this subject for many, many years—and it was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto in 2010. It is just that the Front Bench team took a bit of time to get to where some of us were.

[Mrs Main]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I hope that he will forgive my comments. We have many friends on both Benches who have wanted a referendum. I accept that he is a firm and staunch European. He wanted to have the referendum to give a choice, with the choice being, in his view, to stay in. He has colleagues who share that view, and others who share the opposite view. I am prepared to be corrected by the right hon. Gentleman, who holds staunch views.

The right hon. Gentleman is also right in another regard. I have that poster on my wall that says, “We are the only party that will give a true referendum”. I think we were playing games with the Lisbon treaty at the time. A poster of Nick Clegg, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, is on the wall in my office, and has been there for some time, as are pictures of those who want to give us a true referendum.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend said that her father might have thought she was eccentric voting at the age of 18, when she was first allowed to do so. The fact that she has a poster of Nick Clegg on her wall seems to add to her father’s view. Does she need some help in this matter?

[The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). I really hope that we are not going to spend a great deal of time talking about the artistic merit of what hangs on the hon. Lady’s wall.

[Mrs Main]

I have been gently chided from going down that route. The point is that a referendum is something that has been rattled around for a considerable time. We are now having one, thanks to the fact that we have a Conservative Government who have promised to deliver a referendum, and deliver it we shall. I do not wish to muddy the waters of something so vital, so important and so longed for by trying to move the franchise down to the age of 16 or 17.

I look forward to all sides expending as much effort and energy on this matter to ensure that those people who currently have the franchise exercise it. That will be the best way to ensure that we get a vote that represents the true wishes of the people of this country. Those people of 18 will be living with the consequences for a very long time—just as those of us in our fifties have lived with the consequences of what our parents chose for us. We should stick with our current franchise, and not be considering passing an amendment that does something so momentous as extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Such a decision may be for another day. All the implications raised by the hon. Member for Ilford South could be discussed then. We could consider who should vote at general elections and at local elections. That is an important issue, but it is not for today. I shall vote with the Government and not support the amendment.

[Tom Brake]

I rise to speak in favour of amendments 51, 1, 2 and 18. Having been advised that the lead amendment would be 51, I put my name to that, but I am also happy to support amendment 18, which seeks to achieve the same thing in relation to EU citizens being able to vote.

Briefly, on the subject of votes at 16 and 17, the Scottish referendum has demonstrated convincingly that 16 and 17-year-olds are interested in politics and that when there is a vote of substance, they will want to take part. They have demonstrated, I would have thought convincingly to the House as a whole, that they should be entitled to vote. Certainly, that is something that the Liberal Democrats have pursued vigorously for many years. Indeed, Stephen Williams, the former Member for Bristol West, pursued the matter in the previous Parliament and ensured that the House voted in favour of votes at 16. It was not legislated on, because it is not something that the Conservatives would agree to in the coalition.

My friend in the other place, Lord Tyler, has also pursued the issue through a private Member’s Bill in the other place, calling for votes at 16 for all elections and referendums.

Bangladesh

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Bangladesh and its future.

This debate about the future and direction of travel of Bangladesh is important, and I am delighted that it is well attended by people from the all-party group on Bangladesh.

It is worth briefly revisiting how and why Bangladesh was born, and why it emerged from the cauldron that was East Pakistan—against a background and prospect of the loss of the official language, Bangla, and against the prospect of greater Islamisation—to become the modern developing country that it is today.

Bangladesh is a young country and it has had to make a long journey in a relatively short time. No one is saying that the journey to independence and democracy has been easy, and it is easy to be too judgmental and see that journey through the prism of our own long-established democratic processes. The Prime Minister of Bangladesh has told me that Bangladesh models itself on our democracy.

It is important to remind ourselves of the dreams and ideals for Bangladesh when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman led his people to victory in the battle for independence. It is important that, as friends of Bangladesh, we ask, what is the direction of travel for Bangladesh 44 years later, and what more can be done by the UK to help the people of Bangladesh on their path to fulfilling their potential and delivering a future that upholds the ideals of peaceful secularism, prosperity and political engagement?

It is vital that we, as the biggest bilateral donors to Bangladesh, act as a critical friend and offer help and support where we can. With the most recent figures showing a UK contribution of more than £250 million, it is important that taxpayers’ money is protected from corruption and is spent wisely, transparently and effectively in helping Bangladesh on its journey.

A recent Independent Commission for Aid Impact report on Bangladesh observed:

“Poverty levels have fallen to under 45% as a result of steady growth, industrialisation and greater access to finance, which has led to improvements in a range of social indicators, such as adult literacy, child malnutrition and infant mortality. The agricultural sector accounts for only... 18% of GDP... A number of factors, nevertheless, point to continuing vulnerability. Many Bangladeshis still live under the poverty line—an estimated 77% of the population live on under US$2 a day—and there is marked income and social inequality. Resilience to... shocks cannot be guaranteed.”

It is vital that we help Bangladesh to achieve its millennium goals of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger; achieving universal primary education; promoting gender equality and empowerment of women; reducing child mortality; improving maternal healthcare; and combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases. I know that good progress has been made on those goals, and, given the criticisms from some quarters about the largesse of our aid budget, I urge the Minister to consider giving an update to the House some time soon on the progress that has been made in those areas.

However, corruption is rife in Bangladesh, and 34% of aid projects in the countries that we support, and that are scrutinised under the ICAI, are showing amber or red, giving cause for concern. Does the Minister have any updates on how many of our aid schemes in Bangladesh are running on green, and how are the schemes being audited to ensure that we know we are getting value for money for the taxpayer and delivering real benefit in the country that we want to help?

It has been observed on many occasions that Bangladesh was born of blood and suffering, and that no election since has not resulted in blood and suffering or been delivered peacefully. That is a great shame, and I will touch on it later. Over the past few days, many Members will have had the opportunity to meet the visiting Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina. Her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, led the call to arms to fight for independence in his country in his Road to Ramna speech on 7 March 1971. It is worth looking at, because this was the goal that people set themselves:

“I am requesting you, you are my brothers. Do not make this country a hell and destroy it. We will not see each other’s face in the future. If we can solve things in a peaceful manner, we can at least live as brothers. That is why I am requesting you; do not try and run military rule in my country… Hindus, Muslims, Bangalis and non-Bangalis, all those who live in this Bangla are our brothers. The responsibility of protecting them is upon you. Ensure that our reputation is not smeared in any way... If one more shot is fired and if my people are killed again then my request to you is; build a fortress in each and every home. Face the enemy with whatever you have”.

Even then, in the call to arms, he was stating how relevant it would be in an independent country to be secular and inclusive. He went on:

“The struggle this time is the struggle for our emancipation. The struggle this time is... for independence”.

It was also the vital struggle for secularism and the wish to live in peace with their fellows.

In December 1971, Bangladesh was born. I know there are disputes and concerns over war crimes from that time and disputes over the persecution of perpetrators of those crimes, but I do not wish to explore those issues. I particularly wish to stress today that whoever is governing Bangladesh, now and in its future, it is imperative that all aspects of human rights are protected and observed, and that freedom of speech is championed. All efforts must be made to ensure forthright and fair political engagement.

I have been concerned about allegations of political harassment and about concerns over malicious destabilisation of the country through acts of violence by groups that do not hold the high ideals that Mujibur Rahman expressed in 1971. No avenues must be left unexplored in supporting Bangladesh’s avowed commitment to secularism, its avowed commitment to ensuring a fair and transparent electoral process, and, most importantly, its role in protecting the rights of religious minorities. Anything the Government could do to help Bangladesh to navigate that tricky path would be most helpful.

It is worth noting that, in October 2010, the High Court in Bangladesh declared:

“Bangladesh is now a secular state... everybody has religious freedom, and therefore no man, woman or child can be forced to wear religious attires like burqa.”

That was a welcome public statement and a well-timed reiteration of Bangladesh’s origins, which were born out of a desire to resist the pull of fundamentalist Islam. In today’s uncertain world, with fundamentalism on the rise, we should applaud and nurture that stance. Too many young people in our own country are heeding the siren call of religious fundamentalism and travelling abroad to support terrorists and join jihad. We need Bangladesh to hold the line in an uncertain world and stand up for secularism and freedom of speech.

Only recently, there have been some widely reported attacks on individuals in Bangladesh, and they are a worry. Four bloggers have been brutally murdered since February 2014. In February of that year, Ahmed Rajib Haider was killed outside his home amid tensions over a tribunal judging war crimes. In February 2015, a Bangladesh-born American blogger, Avijit Roy, was similarly killed with machetes and knives as he walked back from a book fair in Dhaka. In March 2015, Washiqur Rahman, 27, was hacked to death by two men with knives and meat cleavers just outside his house as he headed to work in Dhaka. In May, Ananta Bijoy Das, 32, was killed as he left his home on his way to work at a bank. Four masked men hacked him to death with cleavers. Such atrocities have been linked to freedom of speech and perceived religious insults. The Government have made arrests, but that is a worrying direction of travel. Does the Minister have any views or updates on this?

On the bigger picture, we are all aware that rumbling along in the background of individual incidents is the unhappiness of the opposition parties, particularly the Bangladeshi National Party, or BNP, over the abolition of the caretaker system, as well as their lack of engagement in the current electoral process. It must be said, however, that there has been a history of unhappiness with the caretaker Governments on both sides, depending on who has been in charge, since 1991.

It will not have escaped the Minister’s notice that it has been reported in today’s edition of the Daily Star, widely ready by many of our constituents, that protesters from the BNP were demonstrating outside our own Parliament yesterday against the visit by Sheikh Hasina. The newspaper observed quite fairly that the wings and influences of the BNP and of the Awami League have spread to many countries, and that those parties campaign and protest against each other outside Bangladesh. It is regrettable that such political enmity and unhappiness is travelling so far, and indeed sweeping up supporters in our own country. We need a way forward and we need to help to break this impasse.

Whatever the outcome of any future election in Bangladesh, it is vital that all sides feel they are not excluded from it or cannot take part in it.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with the hon. Lady. Does she agree that the priority for Bangladesh, and for the UK’s relationship with Bangladesh, is to facilitate, in some way and at some point, a peaceful transition of power from one side to the other? Like her, I have talked to many colleagues and supporters on both sides of the political divide in Bangladesh, and the sense of grievance on both sides is legitimate and real. Until there is a peaceful transition of power, the problems will simply go on and on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I wrote a letter to Baroness Warsi in January 2014 raising that issue. She replied:

“I called on both sides to put a stop to disruption and violence and to focus on political dialogue. They both have a responsibility to ensure a secure and stable Bangladesh. We have always made clear that how this process is managed is a matter for Bangladesh”—

she was referring to the caretaker Government system, or not. She continued:

“I issued a statement on 6 January noting that the UK, like others in the international community, believes that the true mark of a mature, functioning democracy is peaceful elections that express the genuine will of the voters.”

She concluded:

“As an urgent priority, all Bangladesh’s political parties must share a clear and unequivocal responsibility to work together to strengthen democratic accountability and to build the willingness and capacity to hold future participatory elections without the fear of intimidation or reprisals. The UK is encouraging Bangladesh’s political parties to support political dialogue... We will continue to work with international partners including through the European Union to help achieve this.”

I hope the Minister has an update and that there has been progress, because that letter to me was written on 24 January 2014, nearly 18 months ago.

When evaluating Bangladesh in May 2014, the ICAI said:

“Long-running political rivalries have paralysed government decision-making in recent years. Bangladesh is in need of infrastructure upgrades and advances in its public service delivery systems.”

The squabbling and disputes are hampering that, which cannot be good for the country.

The Minister sent me a response in February 2015:

“I share your deep concern about the escalating political unrest and the absence of political dialogue among Bangladesh’s political parties… I raised my concerns about the continuing violence and political harassment when I met Bangladesh’s Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs on 20 January.”

He concluded:

“Together with our international partners, we continue to urge all political parties to work together to resolve their differences through constructive and peaceful dialogue.”

As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said, this has been going on for a long time, and it must be brought to some sort of conclusion. We must not interfere, but we must somehow help the process.

The Minister said in his letter:

“Our High Commissioner, along with other EU Ambassadors, met Bangladesh’s Foreign Minister Mr Mahmood Ali on 14 January to express our collective concern at the ongoing violence”—

this is the phrase that struck me most—

“and the shrinking of democratic space.”

Will the Minister update us on whether there has been any progress in expanding that political space, or has it been contracting even further?

Only on Monday, Sheikh Hasina addressed Members at an event in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association room, and she was warmly welcomed. She made a point of reaffirming her Government’s commitment to upholding secularism and tackling terrorism. She has been praised by Prime Minister Modi of India for her efforts to tackle terrorism, even if he somewhat spoiled the effect with his comment that she was not doing badly for a woman—she was probably damned with faint praise. What more can be done to help her to make further progress against the destabilising effects of terrorism and religious persecution in Bangladesh? What more can be done to encourage and facilitate full participation by all groups in the electoral process? As we know from our own democracy, strong participative opposition parties that scrutinise and hold Governments to account make for robust legislation and fairer government for all.

I have visited Bangladesh five times, so the Minister knows that I take a keen interest in the country. My most recent visit was in 2013 as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Bangladesh. I am pleased to see Members in the Chamber who went on that cross-party visit to investigate and report on the Rana Plaza tragedy. That catastrophe led to the deaths of 1,100 people, with many more left crippled through catastrophic injuries. The ready-made garment industry is crucial to the prosperity of Bangladesh. The recent Independent Commission for Aid Impact case study stated:

“Economic growth has mainly come from an abundant source of largely unskilled and cheap labour. The RMG sector has taken advantage of this situation and… now employs around 4 million workers (mainly female) and accounts for 80% of manufactured exports. The recent international attention on Bangladesh’s RMG sector in the wake of safety disasters, such as… Rana Plaza… is proving… a challenge to the Government rather than an opportunity to reform the RMG sector.”

I would welcome a comment from the Minister on that, because our report was keen to see what progress could be made after Rana Plaza and our Government’s big efforts to try to support the country in developing infrastructure resilience and fairer work practices, and to ensure that Bangladesh can be proud of the garment industry, its biggest export, and that the industry has a secure future. The Prime Minister of Bangladesh assured us that much has been done, but have there been any inspections or updates on the aid and expertise we have sent?

I will conclude there, because I know many other Members will raise other issues. I wish Bangladesh well, and I think it has so much to offer. We are friends of Bangladesh, but we are critical friends. We need to ensure that aid money is being well used and well targeted, and, where it is not, that it is redirected. We need to ensure that we follow up on progress. It would help to satisfy many critics of our aid budget if they knew that the money is helping to form, mould and support a country that is independent, secular and a bulwark against the fundamentalist Islamism that is affecting so many young people in our own country today. Bangladesh may need our help, a bit more coaxing and a bit more effort, and I would like the Minister to update us on where we are in the bigger picture.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

Absolutely, and I will develop that argument over the next couple of minutes. ILO standards are basic minimums, and there should not be a problem with our addressing them. Western corporations —in this place, we look at British corporations in particular—are responsible for ensuring that their employees in Bangladesh are treated decently and fairly. As the hon. Member for St Albans said so eloquently, there are siren calls from fundamentalist Islam in Bangladesh that will sound more attractive and fall on much more fertile ground if the ordinary working people continue to see exploitation in the garment industry and other sectors. I support the work of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, and I know the Bangladeshi community in Britain does, too.

I was pleased to attend recently a reception at the Chester Tandoori restaurant with my good friend, Mr Abdun Noor. The small Bangladeshi community in Chester was paying tribute to a visiting police superintendent from Sylhet district, whom they had met when they were out there. They were impressed by his work as an up-and-coming police leader—in particular, his work on eradicating corruption. They simply want to be able to work fairly out there, and they want the system to work fairly. At last, the new regime is attempting to eradicate corruption, and he is in the lead on that issue. He introduced a concept and strategy that, for them, seemed novel: policing by consent. He was trying to win support for the police from across society and to develop a structure of civil society. Therefore, there is support for the kind of measures for developing civil society that the hon. Member for St Albans talked about.

Our role in Parliament is to put pressure on British and other western companies to ensure they do not exploit their employees in Bangladesh for short-term profit. The long-term strategic error of allowing fertile ground for extremism will be extremely damaging to those companies and to the UK’s long-term interests. We have a responsibility to the UK to ensure that the companies that benefit from such labour fulfil their responsibilities.

We also have responsibilities. I like a bargain as much as the next hon. Member. When I go to one of the large supermarkets, I feel happy if I can pay a low price for a garment made in Bangladesh, but if the price of treating poor workers in Bangladesh fairly is that we have to pay a bit extra for a shirt or a pair of trousers, it is worth paying if it ensures long-term stability.

[Mrs Main]

As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will confirm from our visit to Bangladesh, the Rana Plaza collapse was caused by poor building conditions. It would not have mattered how much those workers were being paid. Corruption around the infrastructure that had gone on previously caused those buildings to be unsafe and unstable. We need to work on those two things.

[Christian Matheson]

I absolutely accept that, but what the workers are paid is under the control of western corporations, and therefore under our control, because we can put pressure on them.

In the time remaining, I want to talk about my work with the shipbreakers on the beaches south of Chittagong, who are some of the worst-employed workers in the world. They have no health and safety protection and work in some of the most dangerous conditions. If they are lucky, they might have a pair of sunglasses for eye protection when using metal cutters. They are sent on to ships—big bulk carriers and oil ships—and told to cut through pieces of metal, although they do not know what they are cutting. Sometimes they cut into fuel tanks where gasses have built up.

It is common for workers to be killed on the ships. When I was there about four years ago, I was told that there was an average of three or four deaths per week in each shipbreaking yard. Indeed, the week before I arrived, it was reported that five workers had died. In fact, a sixth had been reported dead, but I was told that his body had simply been thrown overboard, so the shipbreaking owner would not have to pay compensation to his family. I hope that since I was last there the shipbreaking owners have become more responsible. Those workers’ conditions were absolutely appalling. When we are being a critical friend of Bangladesh, in the words of the hon. Member for St Albans, we must put pressure on the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that they put pressure on the shipbreaking owners.

Child labour is also a problem. I was told by workers in the shipbreaking yards that there is no child labour problem, but I could not understand that as I could see that the young boys in front of me were child labourers. It turned out that in Bangladesh the age of adulthood is 15. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) talked about ILO standards. Young boys of 15 are considered child labourers by international standards. Child labour should be discouraged, and we should support its eradication in those shipbreaking yards, not least because of the huge dangers those workers face.

My hon. Friend also mentioned Rana Plaza. One of the problems is that the garment workers are fractured. There are many unions that cannot see eye to eye, and there is a lot of disagreement. In those circumstances, it is easy for unscrupulous employers to take advantage of the workers. I hope we can help to develop trade unions in Bangladesh, because the best way to improve conditions is for the workers to improve them themselves by joining together and giving themselves that collective strength.

I again congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans on securing the debate, and I echo the request for assurances from the Minister, whose response I await with interest.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

For the past six years, I have had the great privilege of serving as vice-chairman of the all-party group on Bangladesh under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). There are a lot of ethnic and national groups in my central London constituency, including a significant Bengali population. Some are in the City of London, but a significant number are in south Westminster and Pimlico. I am therefore very much aware of the issues raised in the debate.

I have twice visited Bangladesh—specifically, I have visited Dhaka, the capital, and the Sylhet region in the north-east of the country, from where many British Bengalis come originally. We were promoting grassroots football, and in 2010 we met Sheikh Hasina and the Opposition leader, Khaleda Zia.

Half of Britain’s estimated 500,000 Bangladeshis live in London. That may account for the growing success of that community’s young people, who benefit from the education and job opportunities on their doorstep. Some 61% of Bangladeshis got five good GCSEs in 2014, compared with 51% of the Pakistani population and 56% of the indigenous white British population. I am incredibly struck by the fact that the great majority of Bengalis whom I represent in Parliament live in social housing. Many came here speaking little English and with few conventional skills, but they have a passion for education, and we should be proud of that. That applies to many immigrant populations in this country. It is unique to Britain; the experience in places such as France and Germany is very different. Many of our immigrant populations recognise that the way out of the economic difficulties that they face, and will probably face for the rest of their lives, is educating their children to give them a better life. That is something we should all work hard to encourage.

Bordering my constituency is Tower Hamlets, the heart of the Bangladeshi community in Great Britain. We are all familiar with the sometimes negative press coverage of elements of that borough in recent years, but that is only a very small part of the story of Tower Hamlets—I say that as I look into the eyes of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). He knows as well as I do that it is an incredibly vibrant borough, which produces aspirational, motivated young people who go into the tech and banking jobs in Canary Wharf, which is in his constituency and, to the west, crosses the border with the City of London. It is also great to see the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) leading the charge on parliamentary representation from that community. We should be proud that there are now three female Bangladeshis in the Commons representing London seats.

However, major tensions and political problems remain in Bangladesh. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans rightly pointed out, they sadly spill over, to an extent, into this country. We see close at hand some of the factionalism within the main political parties and a group of smaller parties. We particularly have to watch for the creeping influence of Jamaat-e-Islami, which is thought to have founded the Islamic Forum of Europe, which has been promoted in London mosques, in particular the East London mosque down the Whitechapel Road.

Hon. Members will be aware that I have recently been vocal in the House about the persecution of religious minorities in the middle east, particularly the ancient Christian communities such as the 8.5 million Copts in Egypt, and the 2 million Christians who until recently resided in Syria. Many go back to communities that were proselytised by St Paul in the immediate aftermath of the birth of Christianity.

Precious little is said about the situation of religious minorities in Bangladesh. I am afraid that has deteriorated in tandem with the rapid rise of militant Islam and its influence on Bangladeshi politics. I take this opportunity to raise the plight of the 20 million Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and indigenous minorities living in Bangladesh. Since the verdict by the International Crimes Tribunal in February 2013, which handed a life sentence to the leading Jamaat-e-Islami figure for war crimes in 1971, members of Jamaat have responded by destroying many places of worship, and murdering and attacking innocent people for their religious views, as has been pointed out.

That is incredibly depressing, particularly because, with a young and vibrant population getting a much stronger education both in Bangladesh and in our diaspora here, it is a country that should be looking to the future, not constantly harping on the past. Terrible and dreadful things did happen 44 years ago on all sides of the divide. It ill behoves any Government to utilise their position in power and manoeuvres with the judiciary to give a one-sided approach, as has happened. Clearly, justice has to be done, and I accept that an element of reconciliation has to take place. The worry is that this episode will continue in a downward spiral in years to come, with different sets of politicians taking the opportunity to make narrow, partisan points, without looking to the future of the country.

As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the current ruling Awami League is nominally secular and has promised to bring the ageing leaders of Jamaat to justice for their role in the 1971 genocide. However, in the face of violence and the broader band of Islamists, that is no easy task. Attacks on those minority communities in Bangladesh are, I fear, frequent and continuous and may well continue.

I reiterate my hon. Friend’s message about the importance of maintaining that secular society. We are lucky that our relationship with Bangladesh has, to a large extent, kept terrorism at bay, but we cannot be complacent about that, particularly with large numbers of Bengalis in this country potentially being influenced by events in their homeland.

[Mrs Main]

I have been told, although I have no proof, that Jamaat is actively funded by Islamists in Pakistan, to help fund their destruction of Bangladesh. These things are interlinked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you, Sir Alan, presiding over business this afternoon. I look forward to hearing the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) respond to the debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Bangladesh, for leading the group with distinction and enthusiasm. She knew that I was thinking of challenging her for the chair but I thought that would be churlish, given how well she has led us for five years. I probably could not have beaten her, anyway, so that was entirely fatuous on my part. I am delighted she secured this debate and pleased that the title refers to the future of Bangladesh. That is very much what we all want to see, although she also covered the history, as have other speakers.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). He is my neighbour and friend. In this debate we are all friends because we are all friends of Bangladesh. We may be in different parties but we all want the best for that country. I know we all agree, as other speakers have touched on, that it is not our role to play sides in Bangladesh. We are not supporters of the Awami League or of the Bangladesh Nationalist party. Whichever party—BNP or Awami League—has won the support of the Bangladeshi people, I and colleagues have supported the Government of Bangladesh.

The right hon. Gentleman made some pertinent points about some political organisations in Bangladesh, in particular Jamaat-e-Islami. That is the sister organisation of the Islamic Forum of Europe, which has such a bad influence on our young people in the UK. Jamaat has been an ally of the Awami League in previous elections, though in more recent years has been associated with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. That is disturbing because, as has been referred to, Bangladesh has a proud secular history.

Another matter already raised is that of the violence against minority communities. I know the Bangladesh Government want to do more to protect minority communities. We want to see them redouble those efforts because those attacks are deeply disturbing for a country that was founded as a secular democracy. I criticised the Awami League for boycotting the last BNP election victory and I criticised the BNP when it boycotted elections two years ago. Many of us thought the BNP could have won that election and I thought the boycott was completely wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) referred to confidence in the electoral process. The UK, the European Union, the United States and international organisations have a huge role to play in rebuilding the confidence within Bangladesh about transitional arrangements and the confidence in elections. The UK Government played a huge role in validating the electoral roll in Bangladesh, where 80 million voters were registered in 18 months. That demonstrated that we should have confidence in the electoral structures and arrangements within Bangladesh for future elections. There is a lot of pressure to accelerate the elections, and they have got to be timed to have the confidence of the international community as well as of the Bangladeshi people, so that the outcome will be respected internally and externally.

We all know, and reference has been made to the fact, that Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world, and it is one of the most vulnerable to climate change. Although its people are among the poorest in the world, it has had 6% growth for the past five to 10 years—a growth rate we would all bite their hands off for. That is not a criticism of the UK Government’s economic plan, although we all know it is not working that well, notwithstanding what the Conservatives say, but we would all love a 6% growth rate.

One side product of that growth, of course, was the disaster at the Rana Plaza. The acceleration in growth has meant that the regulation and protection of workers, wages and conditions have fallen behind. It was therefore reassuring to read an email this week from GreenGrade, an organisation the hon. Member for St Albans invited to make a presentation to the all-party group last year. GreenGrade, which helps garment workers and garment factory owners to improve the industry’s standing, says that

“Rana Plaza workers will get full compensation”

and that the donor trust fund, which was set up by the ILO,

“has reached its US $30 million target”

this year. Victims and families will therefore get compensation.

Colleagues will know that I am patron of the Sreepur village orphanage, which has been running in Bangladesh for 25 years. I am proud that it has helped a whole number of children who were made orphans by the Rana Plaza disaster. They have been housed, and they are being looked after. Clearly, a lot of good is coming out of a very tragic story.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman is being a little too modest: the Sreepur office is run by his wife, who is absolutely fabulous—she came to make a presentation to the all-party group. I pay tribute to the efforts of the hon. Gentleman and his wife in rescuing children from the exploitation they may have been drawn into as a result of Rana Plaza.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

It is very generous of the hon. Lady to mention my wife, who is a trustee of the orphanage. It was set up by Pat Kerr, who was born in Scotland and who was a cabin crew member with British Airways. The orphanage now looks after 500 children and 150 destitute mums. It has looked after women and children for the past 25 years, and it is a huge success story. It goes from strength to strength, and it has a lot of support in the House, including from the hon. Lady.

I want to refer quickly to elections. As I said, we need to build confidence in the electoral process. Accusations have been made about corruption and fraud. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster touched lightly on the fact that we in Tower Hamlets are not unused to corruption and fraud—our mayor was recently taken out by the election court. However, it was great to see Sheikh Hasina here this week giving commitments on the drive to rebuild confidence in the electoral process and institutions. Incidentally, it was also great to see her niece, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), make her impressive maiden speech yesterday. She will be a real asset to not only the Labour party, but the whole House in due course. The Prime Minister of Bangladesh is rightly proud of her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman was brave enough to travel the roads of Dhaka. The important thing we saw over there was the power lines draped outside buildings and the roads, which made us feel like putting our hands over our eyes while we travelled on them. If business is to keep investing and trusting in Bangladesh, we need to see infrastructure growth, and I would like to hear comments from the Minister about that. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that infrastructure growth and resilience are important if we are to support growth?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I absolutely agree, and I want briefly to mention three issues we came across when we went to Bangladesh, because they are important for the future.

The first is the context of our visit: the Rana Plaza disaster, which was one of the worst industrial accidents the world has seen—some 1,100 people died. That came just after the Tazreen Fashions fire, which killed 112 people. Clearly, they should be addressed in the context of the development of Bangladesh’s economy. To be honest, when I went there, I perhaps had a predetermined view that the question was primarily one of exploitation, with western companies using the cheap labour rates of Bangladesh to make profits. I still believe that western companies have a duty not just morally but in terms of their reputation and brand to make supply chains transparent and to do what they can.

However, the situation is complex. The standards adhered to by western factories that export to this country are clearly higher than those of the domestic garment industry in Bangladesh. Many of the problems that we encountered were to do not just with the behaviour of western companies, and labour standards, but the whole system of governance in Bangladesh—the need for good governance, and for corruption to be rooted out. Those are central challenges that have been mentioned in the debate, and they lead to my second point, which is on the political culture and political violence in Bangladesh, and the need for change.

I am sure that all of us with an interest in Bangladesh—particularly in Tower Hamlets, I should imagine—have had experience of people wanting to take our photo and get a comment from us endorsing one side or another in regional or national elections, or perhaps in Bangladesh’s historical disputes. I completely understand that there are legitimate grievances on either side of Bangladesh’s political history, but my message to those people is always that there is much to be gained from trying to find a way through to a peaceful transition of power in Bangladesh.

For all the differences between parties in the House, we can honestly say that when one side wins an election—usually the Conservative party—we are willing to give up the keys to Downing Street. I was surprised by the amount of interest there was in that way of doing things when I was in Bangladesh. People were taken aback by the fact that we were an all-party delegation, and could not relate to that. If either side can reach the point of having faith in the central idea of adhering to the rules of the political system, and to the rule of law, perhaps through the mediation and support of countries such as ours, Bangladesh has a huge future, and proceeding in that way is extremely important.

Political violence in Bangladesh clearly continues to be a concern. I asked for figures from the Library. I believe that 120 people have been killed this year in political violence—half of those are believed to have been burned to death. It would be terrible if people took that as indicating the nature of Bangladesh as a whole. It is much more than such statistics. Many people, and not only those with an ethnic or historical link to the country, want to visit it, to have a relationship with it and to do business with it. UK investment in Bangladesh is of huge importance to our economy, just as it is to that of Bangladesh, so it is important to get past the issues I have outlined.

I want finally to make brief mention of climate change. Most people in this country who consider the challenges are aware that Bangladesh is particularly vulnerable. Today, there is a lobby of Parliament on climate change on the theme “Speak up for the love of”. Bangladesh produces 0.3% of global emissions, but it is one of the countries most at risk from rising sea levels. The Ganges delta has 230 rivers, and there are 160 million people living in an almost completely flat area one fifth the size of France. A sense of justice and equity, regardless of what side of the political divide we are on, will tell us that there is a need to do the right thing this year in this Parliament to tackle the situation.

People often ask about the consequences of climate change, and they need to realise that it will affect not only countries such as Bangladesh, but the UK. It will create refugees and problems of food supply and food security. There will be huge knock-on effects for this country as people go to places where they have relatives, or that they have relationships with. That brings us back to the fundamental point that it is in our interest for UK parliamentarians to take the right steps for the UK’s national interest and for the world. I hope that we will do that throughout this Parliament.

I warmly welcome the debate, and the relationship between the UK and Bangladesh, which I agree is extremely important to parliamentarians. We are all friends of Bangladesh and I hope that the relationship will become even more important in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

Perhaps the next time my hon. Friend speaks he will give a long list, and then he will get free poppadums in all of them.

The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) talked about the plight of Hindus, which I will mention, and about the diaspora community in his constituency and its passion for education. I think that all of us with ethnically diverse constituencies realise that levels of aspiration in some of these communities are extremely high.

The Bangladesh diaspora is an important part of our communities that maintains our strong historical links to Bangladesh, which the hon. Member for St Albans mentioned. The connection between our two countries was reaffirmed this week with the visit of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, whom many of us had the opportunity to meet. She was in the public gallery for the maiden speech of her niece, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who has become, as has already been mentioned, one of three MPs of Bangladeshi heritage in the House, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq).

We have heard that Bangladesh has made progress on poverty reduction and prosperity is rising. Its economy has grown by around 6% a year despite political instability, structural constraints and the global financial crisis. Many of the millennium development goals have been reached, such as the goal on getting girls as well as boys into primary and secondary education, although there is always an issue about children dropping out as they get into secondary education—particularly girls, when marriage is on the cards.

The country is heavily reliant on agriculture and the garment industry; the latter accounts for more than 80% of exports. We have heard about Rana Plaza, to which I will return in a moment. There is potential for growth in some sectors, such as the information and communication technology sector, which generates some $300 million in revenue. At a very local level, microfinance has made a real difference. I was fortunate, when I visited Bangladesh with Results UK, to meet Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel peace prize winner, whose microcredit system has reached out to some 7 million of the world’s poorest, many of them in Bangladesh, and helped when the conventional banking system would not. It is notable that he said that 95% of its loans were given to women. Women are very much the driving force of economic regeneration locally.

Remittances from the diaspora community accounted for 8% of GDP in 2014, which is some $14 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has done excellent work on this front, trying to ensure that the flow of remittances continues to countries such as Bangladesh, but there is still a need to look at whether remittances can be better channelled into growth, so that it is not just about subsistence and supporting families to keep their heads above—let us leave that metaphor. It should not just be about supporting families to get by on a daily basis.

Bangladesh remains a poor country. Political violence is a major concern. Last year’s elections were boycotted by the main Opposition party and more than half of the 300 seats were uncontested. There was violence on election day, including arson attacks on polling stations; 21 people died, adding to the death toll after 120 people lost their lives in pre-election violence. This year, with the anniversary of the election, there were more deaths and fires, and thousands of people were arrested. Amnesty International has reported in the past on the use of excessive force, torture and extrajudicial killings by the police in Bangladesh. Questions have to be asked about the police response to the violence. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester said about conversations in his local restaurant regarding developing policing, and about the contribution that we can perhaps make on that front.

The Opposition leader, Khaleda Zia, reportedly encouraged protests in January. The Minister will be aware that she has been charged with corruption—allegations that must be dealt with independently and in accordance with the rule of law. I hope that, during her visit, the Foreign Office discussed the matter with the Prime Minister in more detail.

The Rana Plaza disaster in 2013 was one of the world’s most serious industrial accidents, as hon. Members mentioned, in which more than 1,100 people lost their lives and 2,500 people were injured. It exposed the hidden costs of the clothes we buy on our high streets. The TUC and organisations such as the Bristol-based Labour Behind the Label have done great work to campaign for justice and reforms. I understand that the compensation target was finally reached in the last few weeks. The tragedy demonstrates the importance of the International Labour Organisation, yet the coalition Government withdrew funding for it. Of course, we have seen plans to erode workers’ rights at home, too.

It would help if the Minister outlined how the FCO was working with Bangladesh to improve rights and safety conditions for workers, and how it was demonstrating to the international community, as well as to businesses operating in the UK, that this is a concern for the Government; and it would help if he said that the Government recognised the importance of raising labour standards, not just internationally in Bangladesh, but to protect those in this country.

As the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire said, Bangladesh is one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change. It produces just 0.3% of global emissions, but is especially susceptible to cyclones and rising sea levels, which threaten the lives, homes, food and livelihoods of its 160 million people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and I were at a meeting with climate scientists this morning, and some of the facts and statistics they put in front of us were absolutely frightening. If the world does not act, rising sea levels and global warming will impact on not just such countries as Bangladesh, but every country. That is why we need a strong global deal on the table at the Paris talks later this year. It is also why we need action on climate change when the conference on the sustainable development goals meets in the autumn.

Bangladesh warned last year that it would need £3 billion over five years to adapt to current climate challenges, including help to build 700 km of coastal defences. If that is not done by 2050, rising sea levels could cover 17% of Bangladesh, displacing millions and potentially forcing 50 million people to flee. If any more incentive were needed—again, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire touched on this—we need only look at the wider impact of climate change. According to Human Rights Watch, 29% of girls in Bangladesh marry before the age of 15, despite that being illegal. That percentage is higher than in any other country. By the age of 18, 65% of girls are married, in part because of poverty and lack of access to education. Climate change is another driver of that, with parents marrying off their young daughters after losing their home or crops to floods or soil erosion.

[Mrs Main]

The APG visited an institute for the paralysed. While we were there, we saw many children who looked like they had cerebral palsy, but it was the result of young women giving birth and those births going wrong. It is important that young women are protected from entering into having children at a young age.

[Kerry McCarthy]

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

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

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

“tainting the image of the country”.

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

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

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

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

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

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

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

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

Rohingya Community (Burma)

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Westminster Hall

On resuming—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) is in his position and the Minister has also returned from the Division, so we will go ahead with the debate, which will now finish at five minutes past 10—10 minutes past 5. Oh dear, it has been a long day.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

As I was saying, when I last secured a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall in September 2012, it was on the back of ugly sectarian violence in Rakhine between the Buddhist community and the Muslim Rohingya people. At that time, tens of thousands of the Rohingya community were being displaced. In Sittwe, for example, the Rohingya people were driven out of their homes, and there were reports at the time of mobs burning down houses. Indeed, various non-governmental organisations, such as Human Rights Watch, reported that the police and other paramilitary forces had opened fire with live ammunition on members of the Rohingya community.

I am sure that Members will recall that the tensions at that time were exacerbated by the suggestion by the Burmese President at the height of the crisis about handing over the Rohingya community to the UN high commissioner for refugees until they could be resettled in some third country.

As I remember, in that earlier debate all Members who contributed spoke out against the Burmese regime and we all would have hoped for some progress. However, today in Rakhine there are still 140,000 Rohingya living in squalid temporary camps, which are routinely described by agencies as being among the worst refugee camps in the world. Basic necessities such as food, clean water and health care are scarce; job opportunities for the Rohingya are virtually non-existent; and often the Rohingya are banned from leaving the camps by security services. Those Rohingya who leave those camps illegally often travel to Thailand and Malaysia, but they often end up as the victims of human traffickers. The Arakan Project found that in November alone, nearly 12,000 Rohingyas fled Rakhine state. Since 2012, a total of around 80,000 Rohingyas have fled Burma by boat.

The picture remains depressing for that part of the world. I will cite a few more statistics that I came across while doing my research for this debate. Today, 70% of the Rohingya still have no access to safe water or sanitation services; in some Rohingya districts, there is just one doctor per 160,000 people; only 2% of Rohingya women give birth in a hospital; and 44% of the population of Rakhine state live below the poverty line, which is almost 20% higher than the average figure in most parts of Burma.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady, whom I have known for many years as a fellow London MP, is infinitely better in touch with her voters than the leadership of her party. I have to say—and I do not mean any discourtesy here—that I am rather glad she is not part of the leadership of her party, because she would be a much greater threat to us than the current leadership is. She is absolutely right. What I find, representing a London constituency, is that people often forget that Londoners, who are part of a cosmopolitan, diverse and open city, none the less believe it is time for us to look again at our relationship with our European neighbours. The hon. Lady is absolutely right; her analysis is spot-on.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree—he said this earlier—that many people say, “I might have voted for the EC, but I would not vote for this”? I think that people are entitled to say that they would like to have a vote again, because they may well have changed their opinions. They may not, but we should at least offer them the choice because what is now on the table is a very different animal.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I voted previously, I had campaigned to stay in what was then the European Community. I think that many people who voted for membership then would say that the world is very different now, the consequences are very different, and the pressures that have been placed on British business and a raft of our institutions are entirely different, and it is fair and legitimate to ask again. The greatest danger to our long-term relationship with the EU and to long-term business investment would be if we were in a construct that did not preserve our fundamental interests—the fundamental interests of our businesses and, for example, of London as the great world financial pole—and that did not preserve our right to develop our trade links with developing markets in China, India and Brazil, areas where, interestingly, the EU has singularly failed, as yet, to establish proper free-trading agreements. If we did not have a situation recognising the particular circumstances of the UK—rather than pretending all is happy and well in the garden—that would damage long-term legitimacy and would damage business investment and confidence over the long term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on achieving third place in the ballot and on introducing this Bill to the Chamber again.

Labour believes that any judgment about a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union has to be based on what is in the national interest. We do not believe that a Bill calling for an in/out referendum in 2017 on an arbitrary date unrelated to the likely timetable of major treaty change, putting jobs and investment in Britain at risk, is in our national interest. That is why Labour does not support this Bill. Instead, Labour will legislate in government for a lock that guarantees that there cannot be any transfer of powers from Britain to the European Union without an in/out referendum.

The promoter of the Bill answered the question from the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) by saying that the Bill is about trust. Let us deal with that issue directly. This Bill has not been brought before the House because the Prime Minister suddenly woke up with a democratic impulse or because Conservative Back Benchers trust the public; it is being debated because Conservative Back Benchers do not trust the Prime Minister.

[Mrs Main]

If the right hon. Gentleman does not support the Bill, and given that with some Liberal Democrat colleagues Labour Members could defeat it, why are they abstaining and allowing their cronies in the House of Lords to do their dirty work? Why do they not put their vote where their mouth is on this question?

[Mr Alexander]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, she has never been my lodestar of political judgment, and I therefore think that Labour Members shall make the judgments in relation to the legislative passage of any Bill.

This Bill is being presented for a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I want to make some progress.

Earlier this year, Sir Richard Branson said, in no uncertain terms, that

“the last thing the UK should do is leave”

the EU,

“as it would then have no say on how to improve it and make it more productive for all countries involved.”

[Mrs Main]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I hope it is a point of order.

[Mrs Main]

I hope so, too: I will take your guidance on that, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are talking about whether we should have a choice, not about the nuances of what businesses think would happen if we were to leave the EU. Nobody is proposing to leave today. Is it in order for the shadow Foreign Secretary to major on the debate in that way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It is for the Chair, as you, as a member of the Panel of Chairs well know, to make that decision. That is not a point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I have been generous in giving way, so let me make a little progress.

Since we debated the last version of this Bill, the European context has altered. First, the prospect that the Prime Minister hoped for rather forlornly at the time of his speech to Bloomberg—that major treaty change by 2017 would be inevitable—has receded. That is an uncomfortable truth. Secondly, the economic concerns that have been expressed by John Cridland, Sir Richard Branson and many others across the British business community have endured. Thirdly, we have to have the humility to recognise, as was pointed out in an earlier intervention, that there is politics at work in the Bill, and the politics has moved on since the Bill was last debated as well.

Since we last debated the Bill, the Prime Minister has lost a Foreign Secretary who was apparently deemed by his Back Benchers to have gone native in the Foreign Office, to be replaced by a Foreign Secretary—I welcome him to his position on the Front Bench—who, on hearing the news that the then Secretary of State for Education, the current Chief Whip, had suggested that he would vote to leave the EU today, rushed to the television studios to match that Eurosceptic pledge. One would almost think that they were worrying about an election beyond the general election in May 2015. The truth is that one of the reasons why we are once again debating the Bill is that the centre of gravity of the Conservative party has shifted and continues to shift. The Bill is all about internal leadership challenges and external electoral challenges.

I do not want to intrude too much on private grief, although I could probably be tempted, but what has also changed is that the Conservative party has lost two Members of Parliament to UKIP in just the last two months. Who knows how many more will follow? Who knows how many more are now saying, “Never say never.”? That is the real reason for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

It is true that it covers part of Europe, but I would gently make the point that at the time of the previous referendum there were six members and there are now 28. A considerably larger proportion of the European continent is covered by the European Union now. That is hugely to the benefit of the people living in those countries that were not in the European Union in 1975, and who will be living in the European Union when the referendum happens, as I hope it does, in 2017. The slightly crude characterisation of the Conservative party by the shadow Foreign Secretary was wrong. It is clearly, from his point of view, designed to damage the party, and I think it would damage the Conservative party if that canard was allowed to go unchallenged.

One of the interests that my party has represented very strongly is the business interest in this country. It has been one of the observable facts of the current leadership of the Labour party that, after years of Tony Blair attempting to make Labour a more business-friendly party, all of that has been thrown away. It seems perverse of it to do that, but in partisan terms I am quite happy for it to do it. It is very important that the Conservative party maintains close relations with business interests, both for its own sake and for the wider prosperity of the country. I agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) that the serious voices in British business want us to stay in a reformed Europe. It is not just the CBI, as he quoted, but the Engineering Employers Federation and many big companies. Ford, BAE Systems, Unilever, Citibank and Siemens have all warned of the damage that will be caused to their businesses if we pull out. Of course, that would affect not just their businesses but tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of their workers. We all need to listen to that voice, because it is a very important one.

[Mrs Main]

None of the businesses my right hon. Friend mentions are advocating that people should not be given a choice; they are simply advocating what they would support should the people be given a choice.

[Damian Green]

I absolutely agree. As I said at the outset, I am strongly in favour of the Bill and will be voting for it for the second time in two years. Given my general stance on European issues, one reason I am in favour of it is because I am in favour of democracy and this is an important historic decision that ought to be put to the British people. At the same time, I am confident that the view that we should stay in a reformed Europe will appeal to the British people, and that those who think as I do will win the referendum vote. So from that point of view, bring it on! There are a number of economic reasons for that: the capacity to negotiate on trade benefits that millions of people in this country get from the single market, and the seriousness with which we are taken in other parts of the world. This debate is not the time to rehearse those arguments—the referendum campaign may well be the time to do that—but there are other arguments as well, arguments of idealism.

The other point I would put, in particular to my own right hon. and hon. Friends who may well believe that Britain would be “better off out”, to coin a phrase, relates to Britain’s voice in the world. It seems to me unarguable that if we pulled out, the rest of the world would, first of all, be completely bemused that here was an advanced prosperous democracy telling 27 friendly democratic neighbour countries that we no longer want to act or be in an organisation with them. Not only would that have a damaging effect on our relationship with those 27 other friendly democracies, it would have a seriously damaging effect on our relationship with the other great powers of the world. It is not credible that an American President, a Chinese leader or an Indian business person would take Britain as seriously if we pulled out of the European Union as they would if we stayed in and played a leading and constructive role in it. Britain’s ability to have a strong voice and, in the words of our former Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd, to punch above our weight in the world depends partly on our playing a leading role in the European Union and in Europe more widely. That is one more reason why our staying in the EU should appeal to Conservatives.

Many people have mentioned the lessons that we should learn from the Scottish referendum. One lesson I learned is that, although it is vital to win the economic argument, as the Better Together campaign did, it is also important to win the emotional arguments. In a referendum campaign, we will need to engage heads and hearts. For all the current travails of the eurozone, which desperately need sorting out, I believe that an idealistic vision remains.

We live in a continent that has spent centuries tearing itself apart with wars that destroyed communities and whole countries, leading up to the terrible slaughter in the first half of the 20th century. In the past 70 years, that continent has become a haven of peace and prosperity in an increasingly dangerous world, and it has built that peace and prosperity in countries that had previously known nothing but occupation and oppression. Go to Cracow, to Bucharest and to Vilnius and see what people there think. They are proud to be members of a democratic European Union, and we in Britain should be proud of our part in building this peaceful and prosperous continent.

I am very much in favour of letting the British people hear these arguments and of putting them to them in a referendum. I am also proud to be a member of the only party in this House that is wholeheartedly in favour of that—[Interruption.] I am being heckled from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), whom I sort of welcome to his new place. Shockingly, I have had private conversations with senior people in UKIP over the past few days. Before the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), falls off her chair, I should explain that those conversations were held entirely on the basis of policy. I was assured that UKIP’s position was that it would prefer the House of Commons to vote to pull Britain out of Europe without consulting the British people in a referendum. To be fair, that conversation took place last Monday and today is Friday, so UKIP could well have held several positions since then. I very much look forward to the hon. Gentleman catching your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that he can clarify exactly what UKIP’s position on a referendum is this morning.

I want to end by quoting some wise words from the 1975 referendum campaign:

“The choice is clear. We can play a role in developing Europe or we can turn our backs on the Community. By turning our backs we forfeit our right to influence what happens in the Community. But what happens in the Community will inevitably affect us.”

That was right when Margaret Thatcher first said it in 1975, and it is still right today. For Britain’s sake, we need to make that argument and to trust the people to listen to it. Most of all, we need to pass this Bill with all speed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I want to set out the settled view of British businesses that we should remain in membership of the European Union. I find it puzzling that so few Conservative Members are willing to set out those arguments today, and why it falls to Labour Members to do so. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who started to set out the case a moment ago, but his is a very rare voice on his side of the House.

[Mrs Main]

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that he is completely missing the point. That is not what the Bill is about. When the Bill is passed and the decision is made to have a referendum, we will listen to the voices of everyone, not just business, and an informed choice will be made. It could be “in” or it could be “out”, but the choice will be with the people. It will not be a case of listening beforehand to businesses which say “Do not give them a choice.”

[Stephen Timms]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

“Do I want an in/out referendum? No, I don’t, because I don’t think we should leave.”

That is my position, but, in fact, all that I am doing is quoting to the hon. Lady what the leader of her party said on 5 January 2010, when he was Leader of the Opposition. When he was setting out his case for becoming Prime Minister he rightly identified the question of whether we should remain in membership of the European Union as being central to the determination of whether we should have an in/out referendum. He was speaking at an event called “Cameron Direct” in Hammersmith. Voters were given an opportunity to see what sort of person he was, and to put questions to him. He drew attention to the central connection between question A, “Should we remain in membership of the European Union?” and question B, “Should we have an in/out referendum?” , and he made his view absolutely clear: because he did not think that we should leave the EU, he did not think that we should have an in/out referendum. I am simply setting out the view that he took then. Of course his view has since changed, and we may well want to discuss in this debate why the Prime Minister’s position has changed so radically, as it undoubtedly has. Perhaps the lack of trust among his Back Benchers has led to that change.

[Mrs Main]

We do not know whether Labour Members are in favour of an in/out referendum, because they are not going to vote on it today—they have said they are not—but those of us on the Government Benches would like to give the people the choice. We do not care if there are different views—and there are different views on the right hon. Gentleman’s side, too—because we all have one vote, and the public will decide.

[Stephen Timms]

Well, I want to defend the view set out by the leader of the hon. Lady’s party. On 5 January 2010 in Hammersmith, shortly before he became Prime Minister and when he was leading the efforts of her and her hon. and right hon. Friends to be elected in the general election. He said:

“Do I want an in/out referendum? No, I don’t, because I don’t think we should leave”.

I think he was absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Carswell]

The reason I changed my mind was because I came to realise that the promises on Europe of the Administration that the hon. Gentleman defends have all the credibility of a Greek Government bond, and like a Greek Government bond they can be redeemed only on the say so of a German Chancellor. Because I now see that, and many of my former colleagues now see that too, I recognise that the promises are literally incredible. Now that I have realised that, I have done something about it. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to resolve that dilemma for himself.

[Mrs Main]

I wonder when the damascene conversion came about, because in The Daily Telegraph in April 2014 the hon. Gentleman said:

“In order to exit the EU, we need David Cameron to be Prime Minister in 2017—the year when we will get the In/Out referendum, our chance to vote to leave the EU.”

So obviously it was between April and sometime recently.

[Douglas Carswell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for once again pointing out that when the facts change, I change my mind. I wonder what she does. When the leader of my party announced at Bloomberg that he was serious and wanted change, no one cheered more loudly or tweeted more joyously than I did. But I came to realise, as many of my former colleagues and those sitting next to the hon. Lady on those Government Benches now realise, it was merely smoke and mirrors. He was not serious about change. The game plan was to secure the illusion of a new deal in the hope that voters would vote to stay in. It is all about not changing. Once I realised that, I did something about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I have already given way twice to my hon. Friend, who has spoken at some length. I want to make some progress because other Members want to get in.

Another problem with the timetable is that it assumes that the Prime Minister will be able to renegotiate by the end of 2017. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) spoke eloquently about the Prime Minister’s track record of not being the strongest at winning friends and influencing people, not just in his own party, but in 27 countries. [Interruption.] I appreciate that it is difficult for the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) to stand up sometimes, but he should just get up and say it rather than sledge from a sedentary position. He just wants to chunter away and that is fine.

The Prime Minister has failed repeatedly to win in Europe. Do we really think that the other 27 nations are going to allow the United Kingdom unilaterally to have a series of opt-outs from Europe?

[Mrs Main]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to infer anything from what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but would he like to explain why my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) has trouble getting up occasionally? I think that was an unfortunate and ill-judged remark.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Lady will appreciate that that is not a point of order. We will not take time in this debate discussing the hon. Gentleman’s athleticism or otherwise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I shall not be repetitive at all, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend.

Many companies in Korea, China, the United States and elsewhere around the world wish to invest in Europe. They will be looking closely at whether to invest in this country when there is uncertainty over our staying in the single market. This is a vital issue, and it is time the Conservatives understood that their proposal poses a threat to inward investment, jobs and prosperity. Millions of people in this country work for foreign companies that have come here to invest and to gain access to the European single market. This country is outward looking and global; it has a stable society and the rule of law. It is also involved in the largest single market in the world, on a continent of 500 million people. Half our trade is with the European Union. The Bill represents a threat to that and to the jobs and prosperity of our people. That is a flaw in the Bill.

I have talked about the proposed date, and I will say more about that another time.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman is making a deeply passionate speech about the flaws in the Bill. I can therefore guarantee that he will vote against it today. Or is he able to tell me otherwise?

[Mike Gapes]

The hon. Lady will have to wait and see whether there is a vote. I am waiting to see what happens. She will not have long to wait.

There are many flaws in the Bill, and it needs to be significantly improved if it is to be in the interests of our people and our country. I have already mentioned the House of Lords vote earlier this year to change the wording of the question that will be asked in the referendum back to the original wording proposed by the Electoral Commission. I was going to mention the original Government proposal put forward by the Conservative party, but of course it was not a Government proposal; it was a Conservative proposal. I have to keep reminding myself that we are in the bizarre position of having a private Member’s Bill being used as a device for introducing what ought to be a Government Bill. I agree that it should be a Government Bill. We should not be abusing the private Members’ Bill procedure by doing things like this. Many Conservative MPs have been forced to come here today. They have been whipped to come here on a Friday morning and eat bacon butties when they should be out campaigning in Rochester and Strood. Instead, they have to be here because they have been whipped to come and vote on a private Member’s Bill. That is absurd.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

If every single Opposition Member who spoke about the awfulness of this Bill does not reinforce that with their vote today, the public can conclude that they are prepared to let the unelected House at the other end of this Building do their dirty work for them. I have heard from them today nothing good about this small Bill, which simply reinforces the public’s ability to make up their own mind when they have heard all the arguments, whether from business or politicians. Therefore, if those Opposition Members who desperately oppose this Bill do not vote today, they will show the hypocrisy of the Opposition, who prefer to let the other end do their dirty work for them.

[Robert Neill]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly: That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 0.

Palestine and Israel

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In the past, my problem with fully supporting Palestinian statehood has been the fact that Hamas—designated a terrorist organisation by the UK, as well as the United States, the European Union and other countries such as Australia—is so closely linked with the Government there. I remain concerned by the indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel from Gaza, as well as the support given to other terrorist activities.

Article 57 of the Geneva convention, which I studied when I was the commander in Bosnia, is the key. It states that constant care must be taken to spare civilians from being hurt. It stresses that those who plan or decide on any attack must do everything feasible to verify that the objectives attacked are not close to civilians. It is absolutely clear that the military wing of Hamas, by its rocket attacks on Israeli territory and its association with west bank terrorism, such as the abduction and murder of three Israeli teenagers in August this year, pays scant attention to that fundamental humanitarian law.

I have criticised, too, Israeli military actions in south Lebanon, the west bank and Gaza for quite a few years —even before I was a Member. In my view, the Israeli defence force, whatever the reason or military requirement, has breached article 57 on occasion, too. After all, it is indisputable that large numbers of civilians have been killed as a result of IDF operations in Gaza this summer.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I hope that my hon. Friend shares my view that one can condemn Hamas and the atrocities that it commits while still recognising that Palestine should have the right to be an independent state.

[Bob Stewart]

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says.

I have had to deal with terrorist organisations of one form or other, whether the Provisional IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army, Protestant extremist groups or even terrorist gangs in the Balkans. Too many soldiers under my command have been killed by fanatics for me not to be very serious about this problem. I loathe the way that terrorists act, and their politics of guns, explosives and rockets.

Now if Hamas was to renounce violence and stop attacking innocent people in Israel, which in fairness, for a while, it did a few years ago, I would be much less vexed. Like so many in the Chamber, I have very mixed feelings about the motion. We all want to see a state called Palestine, but can I support a Government linked to terrorism? In theory, I should not, but in practice can I? After all, I can think of several well established states that support terrorism—away from their own territory, of course—which our Government already fully recognise and, indeed, support, despite this knowledge. So I wonder, why should we not support the Palestinians, too? Despite my aversion to the terrorism practised by elements of Hamas, I have decided that it is time that this Parliament should fully endorse the move to Palestinian statehood. I will be voting for the motion in the hope that it brings closer a peaceful settlement in the wonderful Levant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who, like other Members, touched on the human realities of people whose lives are afflicted in this conflict. The question for this House is: where do we stand on the basic, core question that constantly runs through this problem?

Every time there is violence and every time the attempts at a peace process fail, fall into a lull and are followed by more violence—whether it is from Hamas or the excessive efforts of the Israeli defence forces, as we have seen this summer—people ask what the western world is doing about it. Where does the international community stand when human rights are sacrificed again and again, and what is its will when international law is violated again and again? Of course, we hear from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere that the Israeli Government are told not to be disproportionate and warned against occupations, and yet the situation continues.

People are increasingly fed up with this screensaver politics, where shapes are thrown, images projected and impressions generated, but nothing real goes on in relation to the substantive issue. People in our constituencies find it frustrating, but the people for whom it must be most frustrating are those moderate people in the middle east, including those in Israel who know that their security will never come from drenching people in Gaza with bombs, and those in Palestine who know that their peace, rights and liberation will not come through lobbing rockets into Israel. They want a peace process and they know that at the heart of that peace process there has to be a two-state solution, and that two-state solution has a better chance of happening if there is at least a semblance of a two-state process. When there is no two-state process, we are wasting our time talking about a two-state solution.

The Minister told us today, once again, that the British Government will recognise the state of Palestine at a time when it is most beneficial to the peace process, but then he went on to say that a negotiated end of occupation is the most effective way of having the Palestinian aspiration for statehood realised on the ground. Is he telling us that the British Government will move on recognising the state of Palestine only when there is a negotiated end to the occupation, whenever that is? If he is, that is no argument against the motion, and nobody could accept it as a reason for voting against the motion or the amendment.

[Mrs Main]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my suspicion that we will not have a vote tonight? It looks suspiciously as though there is consensus. If we do not have a vote, the House will not speak with the grand voice in the way he hopes.

[Mark Durkan]

That may well be, and it may add to people’s frustrations. We will see whether it happens. We want to flush out a proper declaration, because there should be no obfuscation. There is a clear choice. One of the beauties of the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) is that it is clear—for the purposes of providing absolute clarity, there is the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw)—and the issues have been well distilled in a very good debate.

A couple of attempts have been made to cloud some of the issues, including by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). He tried to suggest that the experience of the Northern Ireland peace process somehow means that we should not recognise the state of Palestine now, but leave everybody to sort everything out and then recognise it. The truth is that he and his party opposed the peace process throughout and did so shrilly. They said that the sky would fall in. They opposed American involvement. They opposed what the British and Irish Governments did to create the framework for a solution, and they opposed building a solution based on three sets of relationships—institutions in Northern Ireland, institutions in Ireland and institutions between Ireland and Britain.

The point is that people outside a conflict sometimes have to help to create some of the givens in a process. In the give and take that we expect in a negotiated process, particularly in a historic conflict, it is not in the parties’ gift to do all the giving; that is where responsible international input can create some givens and new realities.

Bangladesh

Anne Main Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the current situation in Bangladesh.

I am pleased to see that this debate will be well attended despite the fact that it was arranged at very short notice. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who originally tabled it, with my support, at the Backbench Business Committee, but cannot lead it because of previous commitments. I am pleased to share the debate with him, and I know how actively he takes an interest in the subject.

We could not possibly look at the current political situation and sense of instability in Bangladesh without briefly revisiting what has happened in the past, which has helped to form the situation. I was in Dhaka in 2006 when the previous Government led by Khaleda Zia, the Bangladesh Nationalist party and various coalition parties were proceeding with an election in which the Awami League was not participating and which was deemed unfair and undemocratic. The non-participation and civil unrest that ensued led to a takeover by the army. Dhaka was under curfew and chaos ensued as a result.

There has now been another election that both parties came back and contested having spent two years out of the country and out of political engagement while the caretaker Government led by the military were in place. The Awami League won a landslide victory. That was not disputed; the voting was considered to be perfectly within the rules of the electoral process. However, it appears that nothing was learned from those two years in the wilderness or from the grievances expressed against the previous Government. The Government led by the Awami League carried on with an election but there was not full voter participation, to put it mildly—it was about 30%—and there was non-participation by the leading opposition. There were all the similar complaints of non-engagement in Parliament because microphones were switched off, and so on.

I am sorry to say that the democratic process improved by nothing between 2006 and the latest election in 2013. That is deeply disappointing given the amount of the British aid budget that goes into supporting the strengthening of democracy in Bangladesh, such as the training of civil servants.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

All of us who have Bangladesh close to our hearts are deeply worried by the situation, particularly, as my hon. Friend rightly says, over the past seven years. There seems to be a sense that that country is again plummeting towards the prospect of some military takeover and martial law. Does she agree that while one inevitably has to look at the history, going back as far as partition in 1971, it is also important that there is a responsibility in the hands of today’s Bangladeshi politicians to draw a line under the past and look with a firm eye to the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that others will touch on that matter. On 12 December, before the election, Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State in the other place, went to try to encourage the leaders—Begum Khaleda Zia and the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina—to put aside their differences, to park the acrimony and bitter disputes that they have as a historical political narrative, and to continue the process of dialogue.

Our Government, I am proud to say, continue to urge all parties to work together and to strengthen democratic accountability, but unfortunately it is not bearing a lot of fruit. The parliamentary model over there does not reflect ours. There are no shadow teams, so any new Government coming in will not have been actively involved in shadow responsibilities in a Parliament that is regularly empty—I have sat in there.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On having confidence in the caretaker system and an Opposition to shadow the Government, a key element for many years was that Bangladesh had caretaker Governments before elections—as in other countries, such as Pakistan—to ensure that the election process was fair and transparent and that all political parties could have confidence in it. It was completely and utterly wrong that that did not happen this time.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point that has been raised many times with the all-party group on Bangladesh and other Members with an active interest in the issue. The reason the caretaker Government were introduced was that neither party trusted each other. During the 2006 election, the then Opposition—the Awami League—hotly disputed the fairness of the caretaker system and accused the BNP-led Government of stuffing it with their own supporters and people with influence over, or who owed their jobs to, them.

It was not a perfect system. The Awami League Government had a right under the constitution to alter it and they did so. I completely accept that many of the public disagreed with that decision, but it was recognised internationally that, given that they were elected in an 87% landslide victory, it was within their electoral mandate to make it.

Since the decision was made, I am sorry to say that the country has been in turmoil. Members of the all-party group—some of whom are present—visited the country in September to investigate the collapse of the Rana Plaza and other infrastructure deficits associated with the Tazreen fire and other garment factory fires and collapses. We raised the issue with both leaders and with businesses, asking them what their concerns were about the current unhappiness, debate and instability surrounding the change from the caretaker system—which, despite the fact that it was regularly disputed, was understood—to the leap into a future without such a system. People can have confidence in one system over another only if they truly believe that a caretaker is neutral. I believe that towards the end of the process, as the election loomed, Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League suggested a move towards a version of a caretaker system with Ministers from both sides, but it was not accepted

This is always a matter of dispute. The Bangladeshi Prime Minister told the all-party group—I found this poignant but, oh, so true—that an election has never taken place in Bangladesh without blood and dispute. That has been the case since the birth of the country. The people who suffer are the poor and those whose livelihoods rest on whether the international garment industry, which is dragging Bangladesh—if only it could get its act together—to the fore of a tiger economy, will get fed up.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

May I press my hon. Friend on the important point she is making? During our visit to investigate the collapse of the Rana Plaza, was not the clear message from those businesses that perform to ethically high standards that, unless the infrastructure, stability and future of Bangladesh were secure, they could not pledge their continuing support?

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend accompanied the team and did a very able job, along with the hon. Members for Rochdale, for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). We managed to prise out of businesses—some of which did not wish to be identified—their concerns and they are reflected in our report, which we submitted to the Department for International Development. It says that we

“were concerned about the complacent belief in Bangladesh that”

the ready-made garment industry

“will continue to invest in the country for the foreseeable future”,

and that businesses were concerned about the infrastructure problems.

Every building in Bangladesh is liable to collapse in an earthquake, apart from—I am pleased to say that at least our staff will be safe—the high commission building. Many of the buildings that have been turned into garment factories are unsafe in their construction, were never designed for the purposes for which they are being used and are poorly inspected and poorly built, which is threatening this vital economy.

We have suggested that other markets, such as Morocco, Ethiopia and Burma, would be viable alternatives. Political instability, disruption caused in the provision of power and gas and failing infrastructure are all key factors in the slow down of an undeniably excellent growth record.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work as chair of the all-party group. I agree with her points about the garment industry. Will she comment on the disturbing reports of attacks on religious minorities, particularly Hindus and Christians, over the past few weeks that have resulted in a large number of deaths?

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman is another member of the all-party group to whom I pay tribute for his sterling work in raising concerns about this issue. We had a presentation from religious minority groups on how persecuted they are. Unfortunately, it is a failing of any democracy when people are not free to express their religion and belief. Bangladesh is a secular country that has many Muslim believers, but many other religions as well. In 1971, it had the proud aim that it would remain secular. It is also a proud member of the Commonwealth. It is a disservice to that country that people from minority religions now feel so oppressed and intimated, with their temples being daubed and disrupted.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is speaking eloquently, and she is a distinguished chair of the all-party group. I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I might be wrong, but I think, statistically, that Bangladesh has the second-largest Hindu population in the world. We are all supporters of Bangladesh—I have a huge Bengali community—but the message we should send from this Chamber is that it must respect the human rights of religious minorities.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have met Amnesty International and other groups that watch the human rights situation, and I know that that situation has, sadly, been a major source of concern over the years.

When I was in Bangladesh in 2006, I was pretty depressed to read comments in the press about the BNP Government, who were then limping along, giving undertakings to introduce sharia law as part of a coalition deal. That was before the army stepped in. A legal system based on sharia law would certainly disadvantage communities that do not follow that law. The belief espoused in the constitution that Bangladesh should be a secular country and respect other religions was a fantastic aim. It is just sad that on many occasions it has not been delivered.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned that people are in fear of their lives. There has been significant violence on the streets, with petrol bombings, and the leaders of opposition parties have felt intimidated since the election, while the poor are suffering. According to The Guardian, the recent data are that more than 500 people have died and 20,000 people have been injured in the past 12 months, and that more than 100 people have died since the election.

Other issues are intimidation, disappearances, crossfire and whether the rapid action battalion is out of control. I went to pay my respects to the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, who gave firm assurances that such issues would be investigated. Whoever leads the Government in Bangladesh needs to take them seriously. When we were there, the members of the all-party group made it clear that we do not have any truck with or particular preference about how the election was conducted, so long as it was fair, or about who is in power, so long as they represent the people and do the best for the people, which is not happening at the moment.

[Mark Field]

I very much agree with most of what my hon. Friend is saying, but will she put it in context, because many people may wonder why we are talking about Bangladesh? It is a member of the Commonwealth and there is a big Bangladeshi diaspora in this country, but we also spend more than £150 million a year of DFID money on Bangladesh, much of which is handled very well by Bangladeshis on the ground in Sylhet and Dhaka. Will she tell us more about that and about this country’s commitment to the long-term stability of Bangladesh?

[Mrs Main]

I will not speak for too long, because other people want to take part in this important debate. I am sure that we will all have second bites of the cherry during other Members’ contributions.

A parliamentary answer that I received this week stated:

“Violence and instability are damaging to Bangladesh’s reputation, economy, and to people’s livelihoods. As the largest cumulative investor in Bangladesh, and the largest bilateral grant donor, the UK supports the people of Bangladesh in their aspirations for a more stable, democratic and prosperous future.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 525W.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) is therefore right that we are a hugely important partner for Bangladesh. That is why we are hearing the views of so many hon. Members, even on a day when many Members, and particularly Opposition Members, have an important event to attend after the death of their colleague. Bangladesh really must take this matter seriously. These are not idle concerns.

There was a report in The Daily Telegraph last Saturday about aid budgets being under threat of being curtailed, cancelled or put on hold. From talking to the Minister of State, Department for International Development, I understand that that is a total misrepresentation. I am glad to have that assurance. Some 70% of our aid to Bangladesh goes to non-governmental organisations, many of which do a fabulous job. The APPG saw some of the projects when we went to Bangladesh. However, the British public, who are also facing tough times, will find it questionable that 30% of our aid goes, in various forms, to the Government. If the Government do not show that they will speak up for and do what is right for all the people of Bangladesh, I do not believe that we should be giving them 30% of the aid. We should give it to the charities and NGOs that are doing a great job and that are accountable. I do not think that we, as one of the largest aid donors, should continue to send money directly to a Government who were elected on 22% of voter participation—some voters felt too intimidated to participate and others that they had no choice—until there is a return of democratic accountability.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Main]

I will give way for the last time, because I am about to finish my remarks.

[Rehman Chishti]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia should put aside their venomous personal differences, which go back decades, and put the interests of Bangladesh first so that the country can move forward?

[Mrs Main]

I absolutely agree.—[Interruption.] I can hear the chuckles that are going around the House because we have had these conversations many times.

The APPG has received many representations about how the other side—I will put it in that way, because there is the churn of a wheel and next time it will be a different political group—feels deeply that it is kept out of Parliament, that it does not have an opportunity to speak, that the microphones are switched off and so on. We have been to the Parliament as part of a fact-finding group. The participation in debates is virtually zero because people see no point in participating. Whichever party or coalition is in power has to acknowledge that. We do not have a perfect system here, but we have a system in which strong opposition makes for better governance. By going there in September, the APPG hoped to show that, despite the fact that we may lob political differences across this Chamber, we can work together in an apolitical fashion to discuss what is in the best interests of Bangladesh. We hoped that the unity that we showed would provide a good example.

I am sorry to say that the election and the level of non-participation are plunging the country into disarray. We are expecting a big rally by the BNP on 20 January. More people will be injured and suffer violence on that day. It is depressing to think that we cannot get the parties in a room and around a table to hammer out a way forward before the country dissolves into anarchy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

Members from both sides of the House have on a number of occasions raised the need for interim measures to secure and guarantee free and fair elections. Some raised the need for caretaker Governments, which have served the country well in the past. As the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) mentioned, other countries such as Pakistan have followed that lead and have expressed their disappointment that the system has been removed.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Lady is experienced in the matter, but caretaker Governments have not always served the country well. In 2006, the Awami League had no confidence in the caretaker Government and those who participated in it. That is why the army had to take over.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Danczuk]

That issue did not come up during my visit, so far as I can recall, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that this could be viewed as a healthy aspect of Bangladesh’s politics.

My third and final worry concerns economic development. In recent years, as has been pointed out, the country has made great strides forward in that respect. Gross domestic product growth has been at 6.1% and Bangladesh is on track to meet the goal of halving income poverty by 2015. Despite that, Bangladesh is not a rich country. As I have seen for myself, millions live in desperate poverty.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that when we were in Bangladesh, we saw some excellent factories that were internationally run but, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) said, we also saw sweatshops. If Bangladesh does not want to go back to being an immensely poor country full of sweatshops, it needs international buyers, but they are being scared off by all these problems.

[Simon Danczuk]

The hon. Lady is exactly right. I was coming on to make the point that if this political instability continues, there will be real concerns for Bangladesh’s economic development. The constant strikes, boycotts, violence and sabotage will cost the country literally millions of pounds in lost productivity.

So what next? The first thing that needs to happen is an end to the violence by both sides and the reopening of dialogue, at least between the two major parties, which need to agree on a way forward to end the current uncertainty. Hon. Members will be aware that other countries in the international community—the United States, Canada and the European Union—have already called for fresh elections. I would urge our Government to take a similar view and to press for that to happen. International observers should be present at elections and I believe that there should be an interim caretaker Government.

Whatever route is taken, it is clear that the welfare of the people of Bangladesh must be the top priority. Bangladesh can be a model for other countries to follow, but it must first leave behind the factionalism and the division that have haunted its politics. Most ordinary people in Bangladesh are tired of the bickering and the violence; what they want is a better life for themselves and their families. I believe that it is time for the voices of those people to be heard. Bangladesh must focus on the future, and not dwell on the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my attention. I think that it emphasises the need for accountability on the part of the Bangladesh Government, and the need for them to bring that force under control.

The second instance in which decisions were made and actions were required involves the sequence of political disappearances in Bangladesh. That, too, has been continuing for a number of years under different political parties. However, when a series of what might be called junior political operators—people who have just become involved in politics—start to disappear, it is the responsibility of any Government to take that very seriously indeed. It is their responsibility to use all the resources at their disposal to try to identify the circumstances that led to those disappearances, to find out who was responsible for them, and to bring whoever was responsible to justice.

This issue has particular poignancy for me because of the disappearance of Ilias Ali, the former Member of Parliament for Bishwanath. I met him in 2011 when he visited Bedford and brought to my attention the growing problem of political disappearances in Bangladesh. I listened to him intently. I was getting to know him and I thought that he was an interesting fellow, but I sort of thought, “Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you, because you are from the political opposition.” I wish that I had listened to him more. Then, in 2012, I saw him in Sylhet. He said “Richard, I am worried about the disappearance of one of my student political leaders.” I was a bit more concerned on that occasion, but I wish that I had listened to him then, because two weeks later, he himself disappeared.

Even now, no one knows what has happened to Ilias Ali. I do not believe that the Bangladeshi Government are wantonly trying to avoid bringing people to justice, but I do hold the Government of the day accountable for continuing political disappearances in a state that they are supposed to be governing.

Let me now give my third example. We have talked a little about the war crimes trials in Bangladesh. They, too, were begun with the best of intentions, with the aim of bringing about reconciliation; indeed, the international community was very happy with the structures that were established. It has taken a long time for the people involved in the wars of liberation in Bangladesh to be brought to trial.

I consider any system of justice that ends in the death penalty to be inherently flawed, because I do not believe in the death penalty as any form of justice. Notwithstanding the potential death penalty, however, the war crimes trials went from auspicious beginnings to become a very tainted process. Indeed, The Economist reported that the chief justice, Mohammed Huq, had to resign after he had

“prohibited contact with the prosecution and Government officials.”

The process was further tainted when the rules of trial, which permitted providing for a life sentence, were rewritten so that a death penalty could be imposed on someone, who was subsequently hanged. That undermines people’s faith that, when they are looking for justice, the Government of the day are on their side.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend is making a hugely powerful speech. War crimes were carried out on all sides, in effect, and there have been major accusations about retaliations and retributions, and that only certain people are being pursued for their crimes, rather than there being a process of looking at the crimes as a whole and holding people to account regardless of the party they happen to be involved in. That is not justice either.

[Richard Fuller]

The chair of the all-party group makes a powerful point that adds to this picture of a sequence of actions that were impacting on political and everyday society in Bangladesh. It was the responsibility of the Government of the day to handle and manage that, but they failed to do so. With the elections and the situation in Bangladesh, a clear thread can be drawn through all activities and actions up to the present day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who has a long, distinguished history with the people of Bangladesh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on initiating the debate through the Backbench Business Committee, and on giving Members an opportunity to express their views on this important matter.

I start from the principle that we should exercise caution when commenting on another country unless we have had a chance to visit it and see the situation on the ground at first hand. I had the good fortune to visit Bangladesh some 18 months ago, as part of a trip organised by the Conservative Friends of Bangladesh. My hon. Friends the Members for St Albans and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and I saw at first hand many of the issues that have been raised today. I have to say that the Parliament in Bangladesh was bizarre. We three Members were greeted almost like visiting royalty. We were presented to the Parliament, which was half empty, and witnessed its Prime Minister’s question time. It was a far cry from what we experience in this House each week. Questions to Government Ministers were scripted and delivered by Government Back Benchers only. No members of the Opposition asked any questions whatever of the Prime Minister, because they were not there—

[Mrs Main]

And there were no interventions.

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed. Clearly, a fledgling democracy that has not yet established itself into a proper parliamentary democracy had taken adversarial politics to the extreme.

We had the opportunity of meeting all three party leaders, and it was clear to me that there is bitter hatred between them and no sense of co-operation between the parties, which is a problem for a parliamentary democracy. It can work in a military dictatorship because it does not matter there, but the proper orders of priority are needed in a parliamentary democracy.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend mentioned that we met three parties. Just in case anyone is puzzled, we met the Jatiya party and not the Jamaat-e-Islami party. I thought I would clear that up in case anyone was wondering which parties we are talking about.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder.

I also think there was complacency from the Government of the day. I remember their Chief Whip telling us, “Don’t worry, when we come to those elections the BNP will not boycott them because they fear losing their seats.” That Government believed that they could bend and twist things but everything would be all right and there would be an election. They expected not only that they would win that election, but that the BNP would bow and participate fully in it. Clearly, that view was misguided and wrong, and it has led directly to the current impasse.

Other hon. Members have referred to the violent history of Bangladesh—how it began and what has happened—and I do not intend to dwell on that because it has been well covered. Although Bangladesh has advanced economically, the bitter poverty that exists there must be addressed. We were able to see children from the slums attending a school, and the only clothes they had were those donated by British non-governmental organisations—

[Mrs Main]

It was the Hope school.

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed. It was a great thing to see those children being educated, to give them a chance of a better life, but the poverty in the whole of the country is extreme and must be addressed.

We also witnessed the problems caused by the risk of earthquakes, and I will never forget my hon. Friend being winched down the outside of a building in a rehearsal of what could happen in an earthquake. It took great courage for her to carry out that act—I am not sure she was aware of what was going to happen when she was put into the winch in the first place. That demonstrated to us that the Bangladesh Government are making preparations to deal with natural crises that could occur.

Bangladesh’s infrastructure, however, is horrendous. Dhaka’s traffic is probably the worst in the world, as the city is permanently gridlocked, and the condition of the roads is a disgrace. I cannot forget the 12-hour trip we took by rutted road from Sylhet to Dhaka—my body has not recovered since. The key point to make is that there is a great opportunity for investment in the country’s infrastructure, which will improve the ability of farmers and industrialists to produce the goods that will drive forward the country’s major economy.

DFID funding must be at centre of our thoughts, because it is where we can bring pressure to bear. We saw how DFID and Government funding has enabled cataracts to be treated in the outlying communities in a way that shamed our national health service. People who have the first signs of blindness as a result of cataracts can be spotted and then treated quickly for the princely sum of £27 per eye. That shows that when a good project is implemented it can be done properly and effectively, and is a demonstrable example of what can be done elsewhere.

However, DFID funding—to the tune of £5 million a year, I believe—has also gone towards community workshops to build community capability. Clearly that has not worked, because if it had the parliamentary elections and democracy in Bangladesh would have been far better. I hope that DFID will review that funding. When we returned 18 months ago, we questioned whether the money was being used in the best way possible, given that other projects could clearly be organised through NGOs to provide a better future for the people of Bangladesh. Those issues must be addressed and the funding needs to be reviewed, so that we bring pressure to bear on the Government in Bangladesh. We need to say, “If you do not make sure that the rights of minorities in the country are protected, we will have to reconsider whether that funding continues.” I must add a word of caution, because the money that goes to the NGOs is being spent extremely wisely, well and effectively; it is the money given to the Government to spend that is of great cause for concern, for not only our taxpayers, but the people of Bangladesh.

The current persecution of minorities, with the murders of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and other minorities, is an absolute disgrace. We should condemn those murders outright. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take up the issue, and make sure and demonstrate to the Government of Bangladesh that these things cannot be allowed to continue, in any shape or form. Any representations should be made through our Foreign Secretary and our embassy. The rights of those individuals are paramount and they must be allowed to continue to celebrate their religion, their ethnicity, their background and their history.

Finally, I think that there is a potential way forward for the future. I was a bit disturbed to receive an e-mail from the BNP about the situation in Bangladesh—I differentiate the BNP of Bangladesh from the pernicious, evil organisation that exists in this country, but I was not sure at the time which had sent me this e-mail. The leaders of two major political parties in Bangladesh hate each other and will not co-operate in any shape or form, but surely there is an opportunity for the Commonwealth and for the British Government to play a role in bringing together the disparate parties in Bangladesh and hammering out a deal. Such a deal would allow a caretaker Government to proceed; and it would allow us to move towards free and fair elections in the near, but not necessarily immediate, future, in order to allow the fledgling democracy of Bangladesh to flourish and to encourage and promote a Parliament in Bangladesh that mirrors how we operate in this country. That would entail free and frank exchanges, an opportunity for the Opposition the criticise the Government and the opportunity of saying, “That will be done in a fair way”. It would also entail the freedom of the press.

At the moment, press freedom is seriously threatened, because politicians and journalists disappear and nobody knows where they have gone, whether they have been arrested or whether they are still alive. A situation of fear breeds uncertainty and the worst-case scenario. I ask our Foreign Secretary and our Ministers to make representations to the Bangladeshi Government, asking them to come to their senses and reach a negotiated settlement, so that there can be a bright and prosperous future for the people of Bangladesh, because the young people there deserve it.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Along with others, I welcome this debate, and pay tribute to those who applied for it and to the all-party group on Bangladesh. I have a substantial, but not huge, Bangladeshi community in my constituency, and I have had close relationships with them and with the wider Bangladesh community for all the time I have been an MP.

I agree that we cannot change the tragedy of the history of Bangladesh, but it is worth recalling a couple of highly significant points in its history. It was originally created as East Pakistan during the tragedy of partition in 1947, and there was a tragic loss of so many lives in the wars that followed. To divide a country called Pakistan by 1,000 miles of another country was inevitably going to lead to an unstable relationship and problems. The many uprisings in what later became Bangladesh against Pakistani rule and the abuse of power by the authorities in East Pakistan led to the war in 1971, and eventually the success of the Mukti Bahini forces, which brought about the independence and recognition of Bangladesh.

It is true that disgraceful atrocities were committed during that war and that very large numbers of people died. It is also absolutely correct that those who commit atrocities should be brought to justice however long that takes. That surely is what we believe in when we hold international war crimes tribunals. In that sense, it is right that the Government of Bangladesh, led by Sheikh Hasina, set up the war crimes tribunal. My concern, and that of many others, was over the difficulties that international observers faced in observing those trials. Concerns were expressed about them and the execution of one very prominent person that followed the tribunal. Apparently, there was indifference by the Government of Bangladesh to universal concerns around the world about the use of the death penalty. Let me reiterate that I for one cannot accept the death penalty in any circumstances or on any occasion. The message has to be that justice and the judicial system must be seen to be independent. However, I endorse the point that Governments are entitled to operate a war crimes tribunal and use their judiciary to look at atrocities that have been committed. They should also ensure that all witnesses and legal representatives are secure and safe, that there are international observers and that international norms are followed.

The more recent history of Bangladesh is about the economic problems that the country faces. It has a large population and is one of the largest countries in the world. It faces enormous environmental challenges from water supply—either over-supply or under-supply of fresh water—and the problems of managing a river system that emanates from a neighbouring country and of rising sea levels and the dangerous floods that occur as a result.

Bangladesh also has an economic model that is difficult to sustain. It wants to become part of the world trade system by exporting garments, and I applaud that, but the problem is that with the beggar thy neighbour policies of the World Trade Organisation, the garment industry quickly moves itself from one low-wage economy to another, to another and so on. We now have the prospect of Chinese companies opening factories in Bangladesh because wages in China, while very low, are relatively high compared with those in Bangladesh. If Bangladesh then raises its wages to any decent level, the danger is that the garment industry will up sticks and go somewhere else. We have to think about the cheap clothes that we buy on the high streets of this country, and indeed of the United States and the rest of Europe, and the appalling working conditions that are behind all that.

[Mrs Main]

That was the focus of the all-party report. The few extra dollars or pence that would be needed to give a fair wage was not an issue to those who were involved in the garment industry. It was the whole infrastructure deficit that was more likely to drive businesses away. The problem is not in paying the workers in Bangladesh but in the Government not tackling the infrastructure deficit, which is making businesses question their presence there.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

To their credit, the Government of Bangladesh did increase the basic minimum wage, and that was welcome. None the less, I have attended meetings with the International Labour Organisation and trade unions from this country and Bangladesh about the abominable working conditions and safety of buildings, to which the hon. Lady rightly drew our attention, and the loss of life as a result of fire. We must bear all that in mind.

Before I conclude, let me turn to the violence that has been committed against human rights activists and religious and ethnic minorities, and to the numbers of people who have disappeared over the last few months and years. There can be no acceptance anywhere in the world that it is legitimate to persecute people. In the case of Bangladesh, the persecuted happen to be Christians or Hindus, but it would be no more correct for any other society to pursue and persecute people because they are Muslims. Surely the norm of the United Nations universal declaration of 1948 was that one accepts and respects religious and ethnic diversity in any and every society. I welcome the fact that Bangladesh’s constitution of 1971 is a secular one and guarantees rights of religious assembly and religious freedom, but the reality is that forces and gangs—in some cases funded elsewhere, and in some cases parastatal—have been killing and persecuting religious minorities, which is simply not acceptable. We must send out a strong message to that effect.

My final point is about how a democracy works. A democracy works if there is an open, free and fair electoral system. It also requires an independent judiciary, an independent media, security for those who are reporting, and the right of assembly and of free speech. All those things have been challenged in Bangladesh, and the violence and the deaths that we have seen are simply not acceptable.

When the election took place, the Awami League was inevitably going to win it, because the Opposition simply did not participate. I have read the Awami League report on the elections, and I can kind of see the point that it is making, but it hardly confers legitimacy on a Government when the Opposition do not take part, so we can hardly say that it was a democratic representation of the will of the people. Indeed, I have had it said to me by people in the London Bangladeshi community that the BNP might well have won the election had it taken part. I do not know whether that is the case, but we do know that the current impasse has to be broken in some way. There have to be talks with all the parties and there has to be freedom of movement of all political leaders and an acceptance that what has happened is really not a credible way for the Government of Bangladesh to continue to behave. It is not for us to say what should happen, but if there are to be legitimate talks with all political parties and representatives, there is likely to be a call for fresh elections.

Human rights, peace and democracy are at stake. Sadly, many of the very poorest people in Bangladesh live in disgraceful and appalling conditions. Working conditions are appalling and we look to a strong democracy in Bangladesh and support from the rest of the world to conquer that poverty and bring about a decent life for the people of Bangladesh. That is what the war of 1971 was about. It was not about the discrimination and the killing of people because of their views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate all Members who have taken part in the debate on their well-informed contributions, many of which result from personal visits to Bangladesh. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk)—he has made his apologies for having to leave the debate early—for stepping in at short notice to secure the debate, which is timely, given that the elections took place on 5 January.

I also want to say briefly that I am sure that we are all mindful of the reason why the debate on child neglect that had been scheduled for today was cancelled. My thoughts are with the family, friends and many colleagues of Paul Goggins who are paying their final respects to him today.

As several hon. Members have said, Bangladesh has long been a valued partner of the UK. Obviously it is a young country, but our historical links with the region and its people go back long before its formation. We also have a sizeable diaspora community in the UK. Indeed, Bristol has the pleasure of having not only its first Muslim lord mayor, but its first lord mayor of Bangladeshi origin, Councillor Faruk Choudhury, who has made a real impact as a role model for younger people in the community.

As I said, the elections were held on 5 January. We have heard already about the widespread concern that has been expressed by the international community and the condemnation of shocking acts of violence and intimidation. I want to focus my remarks mostly on the elections, given that they are so recent. As we have heard, more than half the 300 seats were uncontested. Some candidates from other parties, I understand, tried to withdraw their names from the ballot paper. Some from smaller parties were elected, but more than 100 candidates from the ruling Awami League were elected unopposed, and 48 million registered voters out of 92 million could not vote. Indeed, it is reported that people could vote in just two of the 20 constituencies in Dhaka, so it is no surprise that the turnout was disappointingly low. The Government’s official turnout figure was 39% to 40%, but that has been queried, given that there was no turnout at all in many parts of the country because the seats were uncontested.

Furthermore, election day and the weeks preceding it saw deplorable acts of violence. There were arson attacks on polling stations, including more than 120 schools. There were reports that an election officer was beaten to death on polling day, and that 440 polling stations closed early owing to security concerns. Human Rights Watch reported that 120 people lost their lives in pre-election violence, and at least 18 people died on election day. Media reports have said that many were shot by police.

The reasons for the violence and the failure of the elections to proceed as we would have hoped are varied and complex. The Bangladesh Nationalist party, along with several of the smaller parties, decided to boycott the election in protest against the Government’s decision not to allow a neutral caretaker Government to take charge in the run-up to the elections. As we heard from the hon. Member for St Albans and others, such a practice had been in place since the 1996 elections. Meanwhile, there was a court order preventing the Jamaat-e-Islami party from participating. There were also reports that some candidates tried to withdraw, but were prevented from doing so, and that party representatives were arrested or forced to leave Bangladesh. After the BNP’s leader called for a march for democracy in late December, hundreds of opposition supporters were arrested, and demonstrators were prevented from reaching Dhaka. There were reports of arbitrary arrests and the indiscriminate use of force. Ms Zia was, in effect, placed under house arrest, with security forces preventing her from leaving her home. Those are all deeply troubling human rights violations.

We believe that the European Union, the United States, the Commonwealth and others were right not to send election observers, given concerns about the election arrangements, and the associated violence and intimidation. We support the remarks by the EU High Representative, Cathy Ashton, condemning the violence and highlighting the concern that some of the attacks targeted women and children, and religious and ethnic groups. Many of our international partners support her conclusion that conditions were not met for transparent, inclusive and credible elections.

It is hoped that the dialogue everyone—particularly the UK, the EU, the UN and the Commonwealth—is calling for will enable all people in Bangladesh to participate in transparent and credible elections in the future. We have heard calls today for fresh elections, with differing views about whether they should take place within the next few months, or whether more time is needed to put the appropriate mechanisms in place. I know that it is early days, but I would be keen to hear from the Minister what discussions the Government have had with the parties in Bangladesh and what role we could play in ensuring that elections that are satisfactory to the majority of the people in Bangladesh happen in the near future, no matter what the outcome.

The hon. Member for St Albans talked about the troubled history of elections in Bangladesh. She also discussed the persecution of religious minorities, which is a matter of great concern to hon. Members—it has been raised on a number of occasions, and it is important that it is flagged up. She talked about the all-party group’s visit to Bangladesh last September, which sounds very successful. Members of Parliament get criticised quite a lot for going on such overseas visits, but Members who took part in that visit feel that they are now informed about the situation so that they can take part in this debate. There is no substitute for being on the ground in a country and witnessing at first hand what is happening there.

The hon. Lady spoke about the garment industry, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The role of consumer power in flagging up these issues is something that we have not really mobilised. There are brilliant campaigns such as Labour Behind the Label, a Bristol-based organisation, and groups such as War on Want have campaigned on the matter in the past. We need to do more to flag up the ethics of our high street and what we are actually buying.

[Mrs Main]

I thank the hon. Lady for her favourable comments. The report by the all-party group, which we have handed to DFID—we hope for a response—explores many suggestions, such as kite marks. We would love to have a response from the Minister to some of them.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Given that the report has been submitted to DFID, it would not be my place to respond on its behalf, but my colleagues in the shadow DFID team, my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), are doing a lot of work on how we can make the high street more ethical. I am sure that we can work on that on a cross-party basis and with the support of those such as the all-party group.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) spoke from her unique perspective as the sole Member of the House of Bangladeshi origin—indeed, she was born in the country. She spoke eloquently about the frustration that is felt by members of the community over here. No matter which political party they may be aligned with or which party they may want to win the election, they all have a desire to see political stability and order restored in Bangladesh, not least because the current situation is putting at risk the economic investment that is lifting the country out of poverty. She made a powerful plea for people in power to put their political differences behind them in the country’s interests and said that the country’s politics is holding it back. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale echoed those sentiments, as did the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).

I thought at one point that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) was after a free meal in one of the curry houses in his constituency. I hope that he name-checked all of them and did not leave anyone out or he will be given a cold welcome next time he visits. He talked about the impact of aid and the contribution made by the diaspora, as did the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South, who speaks as someone with not just a significant Bangladeshi diaspora in his community, but in his role as a shadow DFID spokesman, talked about the Department. The last thing we want to do is to abandon a country just because the democratic process is not perfect, but we need to see how FCO and DFID funding, and the work taking place in the country, can be pulled together so that it is about supporting better political engagement and strengthening governance to ensure that aid money for poverty projects is well delivered, going into the right hands and benefiting the people. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) was entirely right to raise concerns about extra-judicial killings and the Rapid Action Battalion, about which I was talking to somebody only the other day.

Let me turn to the human rights situation. Last year, as a result of political violence, Bangladesh was added to the FCO’s human rights report as a case study. It is estimated that 500 Bangladeshis were killed in political violence in 2013, with injury caused to thousands of others, predominantly associated with the international crimes tribunal’s investigations into the 1971 war. I have seen harrowing reports. Human Rights Watch has documented evidence that the security forces were responsible for some of the deaths during the protests. It is imperative that those responsible are held to account. The incidents provided further evidence of the need to promote freedom of expression and association in Bangladesh. People in Bangladesh and some external observers have argued that the tribunal process is flawed, and there are troubling reports that at least one witness has been attacked and killed.

The verdicts have led to the death penalty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said, most of us are united across this House in condemning the use of capital punishment in all cases. I know that that is not a unanimous view, but I think I am right in saying that it is probably a majority view. Labour Members regard the death penalty as inhumane. As in the case of the execution of Abdul Quader Molla of the Jamaat-e-Islami party last month, it serves only to heighten tensions and spark further violence. The Government therefore have our full support in calling on Bangladesh to implement a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and to uphold the international covenant on civil and political rights. It is important, especially now that we are members of the Human Rights Council, that the abolition of the death penalty continues to be raised at the council and with our Commonwealth partners.

As has already been mentioned, the people of Bangladesh had our deepest sympathies following the Rana Plaza factory disaster last April, in which 1,100 people lost their lives and 2,500 were injured. We have discussed the protection of ILO standards within the garment industry and the hidden human costs associated with the ability to buy high street products in the UK at such a low price. I commend the TUC, among others, for its work with retailers to secure support for an accord to fund an independent and much-needed health and safety inspection body for Bangladeshi factories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate at such short notice. The slot became available because of the unfortunate circumstances of the death of Mr Paul Goggins.

Although they are participating at short notice, many hon. Members and colleagues from the all-party group have spoken with great knowledge and depth. If the debate shows the world outside this Chamber anything, it is the House of Commons at its best. We are completely at one in our disappointment at Bangladesh’s situation and in our hope that some solution and way forward can be found even at this late stage.

The reason the interim period lasted for two years, despite that being far longer than is allowed for under the constitution, was that the 2006 to 2008 interim Government had to fix so many problems that had been left unfixed. For example, a credible voter list was needed, because millions had been left disfranchised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, when such a voter list was brought in, hopes were high that the country would be led by a party with a true democratic mandate, because so many people were enfranchised who had previously been left off a voter list that could in no way be considered free of corruption.

Given the hopes expressed at the 2008 election, which the Awami League won with a landslide vote and a true democratic mandate, it is a shame that in such a short time Bangladesh should find itself in its current position. So many colleagues who care so much about the country and who have spoken so knowledgeably—indeed, some have a large Bangladeshi diaspora in their constituencies—are united across the House and across parties in saying that the country must do better.

I concur with the shadow Minister that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) will probably have curry for life. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) did not break into the mother tongue of Bangladesh that he seems to speak so well, albeit with something of an accent. His wife runs the Sreepur street project, to which he referred, admirably. She has presented the good work that that charity does to the APPG.

To the people who ask what APPGs do, I say that this debate shows what they do at their best. They take an interest in a niche subject and unite colleagues in the House across party lines. I am truly grateful that this debate has been participated in so fully. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) could not take the limelight, as he was going to do, because of pressing engagements that meant he could not stay until the end. He would have done a brilliant job of opening and closing the debate, but I have had to fulfil that role. I am sorry if I have coughed throughout, but I have watched all of it.

I honestly hope that those who are watching this debate—some of whom are very close to us—have taken on board our earnest hope that they will go back and say, “Put your differences aside.” The two-lady solution that was being talked about in 2006 would have been a disaster because there can be no way to run a country through violence. We want Bangladesh’s political leaders to keep their arguments and debates within their Chamber, and to allow their electorate to come forward freely with a strong voice and say who they would like to represent them. The people should then be able to hold them to account. That is what this House does. We hold the Government of the day to account. Every Government who are in power must feel that they have to deal with the issues and that they cannot just keep looking back and blaming the Opposition, saying, “It all happened then.” [Interruption.] That goes right the way back to 1971. Let us end on that note of consensus—don’t spoil it. We can look back at the history, but if people focus only on that and lose sight of the bigger picture, to which we have all alluded, it will be a tragedy for Bangladesh.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the current situation in Bangladesh.

Syria

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, that is also true. The hon. Gentleman is looking ahead a bit, however. We are not yet in a situation where people can go back to their homes or be resettled, or where assurances can be given about the position of different communities in Syria. In a way, that would be a good problem to have. It is the next stage that we will need to move on to. Our overwhelming emphasis now is on staunching the bloodshed, but we will have to move on to those issues and he is quite right to raise them.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment not to provide any lethal support to the so-called moderate rebels. When thinking about a transitional Government, may I also urge him to learn the lessons from places such as Bangladesh? It had a transitional Government put in place but they did not consider the outcomes in regard to the delivery of democracy for those people who were not part of that Government.

UK Relations with China

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Before my hon. Friend moves on to animal welfare, I want to address Tibet. He talks about the international community being minded to take a tough approach, but as we speak there are human rights abuses in Tibet. There is self-immolation, and dissidents are being driven into the Dharamsala mountains. There is collective punishment and an attempt to eradicate the culture and language of Tibet. Is that not something on which the international community should be taking a tough stance, rather than kowtowing and acquiescing in the bullying of China when, for instance, the Dalai Lama visits various international communities?

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The interventions are getting longer and longer. I hope there might be a bit of discipline. The frequency is fine, but the length is getting a tad like a speech.

[Mark Pritchard]

If my speech becomes long, I am sure you will tell me, Mrs Main. The quality of the interventions has been so high that I have not noticed their length, but I am grateful for that reminder for later.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) makes an important point. I will address Tibet in detail later. If I do not answer his specific points, I know that he will remind me. I do not appear to have that particular page in my notes, but there is no need to worry because I can talk about Tibet right now.

I have met the Dalai Lama twice, for which I am glad. I am proud to have had the privilege of meeting him, and what the Chinese Government are doing in Tibet is completely unacceptable. There has been suppression of the Buddhist religion and oppression of the Tibetan people. There has been burning—since the late 1940s probably 6,000 monasteries and churches have been destroyed. From memory, there are some 300,000 Chinese troops currently in Tibet, which is unacceptable. There needs to be a peaceful resolution to the Tibet question, and human rights in Tibet must be recognised.

My hon. Friend used the term “kowtowing.” I am a subject of Her Majesty the Queen. I am a UK citizen, and I will meet whomever I want to meet. I will not kowtow to anyone from any other country. The Chinese must stop bullying individuals; they must stop bullying Tibet; and they must stop bullying other Governments, too.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

I thank my hon. Friend. He has made clearer the position of the Labour party than the Leader of the Opposition has yet managed to do. There may be a vacancy there for him soon if he were to choose to apply for it.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It may help my hon. Friend, who is doing a wonderful job here, if I could just refer to something that was put out by the Liberal Democrats at the last election, which said that the reason for giving a real referendum was that it was over 30 years since the British people last voted, and although they wanted to campaign to stay in, they firmly believed that length of time justified having the referendum.

[James Wharton]

I thank my hon. Friend. That leads me neatly on to my next point, which is that I have no objection in a referendum to those who would want to campaign to stay in, just as I could have no objection to those who would want to fight to come out. I do wonder, though, at a democratically elected Member of Parliament who would seek to deny the British people that choice. That is the fundamental area of disagreement, and beyond that I am sure we can reach across parties to find agreement and deliver a Bill that is so important and long overdue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I will give way in a moment or two, but let me make a little progress.

Only this week, the hon. Member for Stockton South faced criticism from none other than one of his own Conservative councillors, who called it

“a cynical, pointless stunt, nothing more”.

The Conservative councillor for Yarm and Kirklevington went on to say:

“I think it should have been something to get the economy moving or to speed up help to get women into work.”

I could not have put it better myself.

[Mrs Main]

Surely the right hon. Gentleman and his party must accept some responsibility for this uncertainty. In 2012 they cheated the British public with a tidying-up exercise on the Lisbon treaty, and now, again, there has been a broken contract with the British public. This Bill is a full contract with the British public that they have confidence in. I hope that he would at least go back and establish a bit of trust with the public on this matter.

[Mr Alexander]

I sense that the hon. Lady is so used to attacking the Government of 2012 that she has forgotten it was a Conservative Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denham]

I am not one of those who have been accused of abusing the courtesies of this House, but there is no requirement in the courtesies of this House to vote on a motion that is ridiculous, so I will not be voting on it.

There was a time, not so long ago, when private Members’ Bills were used for matters of great social reform, such as homosexual law reform and gay marriage. Issues of great constitutional importance were seen as the responsibilities of the Government. That may have changed. Gay marriage is an important social reform, so perhaps making it a Government proposal is progress—the Government’s gay marriage proposals certainly had many Government Members beside themselves. However, constitutional reforms, such as the Great Reform Act, the devolution referendum and the initial referendum on the European Union, which were the responsibilities of Government, have now been devolved by this weak and hopeless Prime Minister to private Members’ business. That is one great oddity.

[Mrs Main]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Denham]

No, I will make a little more progress.

Why has this situation come about? Why has supposedly the most powerful politician in the land come begging his MPs to support a private Member’s Bill? The Prime Minister’s position on the issue seems clear enough. He made a speech in January in which he said that after the next election, if there is a Conservative Government, he would aim to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, with an in/out referendum by 2017, come what may in those negotiations. That might not be wise—there is absolutely no guarantee of any negotiations being clear by 2017—but it is certainly a clear position, and it came from the Prime Minister.

Why was that not good enough for the Conservative Members who have turned up today? Of course, many of them just want to leave the EU. They do not care when, as long as it is as soon as possible, and they do not trust their own Prime Minister. As soon as the Queen’s Speech was published, they were after him. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) was first off the mark, moving an amendment regretting the failure to mention a referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech. He was very clear why one was needed. He wrote in The Daily Telegraph:

“The Prime Minister made a historic pledge to the British people during his January speech,”

but

“where the Prime Minister’s pledge falls down is its believability.”

Let me repeat that:

“where the Prime Minister’s pledge falls down”—

this “historic pledge”, let us remember—

“is its believability.”

What an extraordinary statement! The reason we are here today is because the majority of Tory MPs do not believe that a historic pledge made by their own leader is believed by the British people. That is the only reason we are here, and that is why the Prime Minister is humiliated by these proceedings today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I have made my position entirely clear on a number of occasions. We need to have something in the nature of a European Free Trade Association arrangement. We need an association of nation states. I am off to Lithuania the day after tomorrow to discuss these matters with the other 27 chairmen. The main topic of conversation now is democratic legitimacy, and it is not just in this country, it is not just in this Chamber, it is not just in the opinion polls, it is not just in the Eurobarometer, which has shown that trust in Europe has completely evaporated all over Europe. Wake up, I say. This is the fact, and it is happening. That is why we need to have a renegotiation. This is about trust. It is about allowing people to have government of a kind that responds to their own wishes, as expressed in general elections. That is why we cannot have two Governments and two Parliaments covering the same subject matter. It is complete, incoherent, absurd nonsense.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend has been tempted on numerous occasions by Opposition Members to debate the merits of in and out, but that is not what today is about. They will not say whether or not they will have a referendum. Today is about whether we will debate that with the public—not in here among ourselves, but take it out to the public. The Opposition want to turn today’s debate into a debate about the merits. I caution my hon. Friend about being seduced by Opposition Members. Make them answer whether they will vote for a referendum.

[Mr Cash]

I think my hon. Friend can be certain that I am not likely to be seduced, either by the Opposition or anybody else, for that matter. I simply say this: this is about the principle of a referendum.

I conclude with a simple statement: this is about trust. It is about trust in people. Because we are doing it through a Bill, as is required, we will give authority through Parliament to have a referendum. That is what this is all about. It is to give the British people their right to have their say. There is no question but that the Bill must pass, but it needs to be secured by a vote on both sides of the House. I am afraid that Opposition Members are neglecting their duty to their constituents if they continue to refuse to support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

Yes, I agree. That is why it is not enough merely to have it enshrined in law that there will be a referendum at some future point if there is some new treaty or whatever. There is a continuing erosion of sovereignty and it is therefore important that the matter is brought to a head sooner rather than later.

[Mrs Main]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Dodds]

Yes, and then I will make more progress.

[Mrs Main]

Is it not a fact that any referendum that was held would be on the treaty change, not on in or out? We have never had a promise of an in/out referendum, only a “no more change to a particular treaty” referendum. We need to make that point very clear. This is our one opportunity to do this.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady makes a very important and fundamental point. That is why this Bill is so significant and deserves the widespread support of Members of this House.