Human Rights in Mexico

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Cathy Jamieson]

Before the Division, I was speaking about the situation of Miriam Lopez and the treatment she received. When she was eventually released without charge, she was brave enough to file a formal complaint, but four years have passed and none of her torturers has been brought to justice. Sadly, her ordeal is not unique.

Between 2003 and 2013, there was a 600% rise in the number of torture cases reported to the National Human Rights Commission. Another torture victim, Claudia Medina, told Amnesty that on 7 August 2012 navy marines broke into her home, tied her hands, blindfolded her and took her to the local naval base where she was tortured using electric shocks, sexually assaulted, beaten, kicked and left tied to a chair in scorching afternoon heat. The following day she was again blindfolded and transferred to the federal Attorney-General’s office where she was interrogated and pressured into signing a statement that she was not allowed to read. Later that day, the authorities presented Claudia and the other detainees to the media, claiming that they were dangerous criminals. She was later released on bail. She reported her treatment, prompting a federal judge to request an investigation. Over two years later, no investigation has taken place.

Federal courts dealt with 123 prosecutions for torture between 2005 and 2013, but only seven resulted in convictions under federal law. On paper, Mexico has adhered to the highest international standards in its examination of alleged torture claims, but in reality forensic examinations tend to be poor, late, re-traumatising and biased. For example, detainees should be medically examined following arrest, but many say that that does not happen and that no questions are asked about injuries. The initial examinations that take place are often held in the presence of people who may themselves have been implicated in torture. The medical professionals involved are military officials or employees of the offices of the Attorney-General or of the prison system. Photographs to document injuries are almost never taken, so the potential for torture or other ill treatment to go unrecorded within the system is clear.

I hope the Minister will respond on those two particular cases and tell us whether an investigation to secure justice for Miriam and Claudia is any nearer.

Many arrests are made without evidence or warrants, with suspects allegedly caught red-handed. In many cases, people are arrested without there being any direct connection to a crime or crime scene, due to anonymous tip-offs or because their name has been given by a torture victim. All too often, those arrested are from poor and marginalised communities. They have little access to effective legal support; of course, the less support they have, the more likely it is that they could be tortured.

The victims, their relatives and activists defending their human rights often face threats and intimidation, deterring many from lodging formal complaints. Key safeguards in Mexican law such as the right to a defence from the moment of detention are not upheld. Amnesty has interviewed victims of torture who allege that they were refused access to a lawyer until they had signed a statement. Between 2008 and 2013, 8,500 people in Mexico were held in 80-day pre-charge detention under the arraigo system. Of those, only 3.2% were convicted.

Mexico is also plagued by frequent abductions. Last November, the disappearance of 43 students once again bought the country unwelcome notoriety. In Mexico itself, thousands of people took to the streets to demand an urgent search and justice for the missing students, who were training to become primary school teachers in rural communities. They came from a largely indigenous area with high levels of depravation, discrimination, marginalisation and lack of access to basic services. They were politically active, and many were involved in demonstrations over rural teachers, education policy and other issues.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The disappearance of the 43 students caused worldwide outrage. They were killed, their bodies burned and their remains wrapped in bags and thrown in a river. At the time, it was indicated that a level of corruption and links to a drugs cartel ran through from the police to the judges and even the mayor of Iguala. Does the hon. Lady feel that if we are to tackle the human rights abuses in Mexico the dirty officials have to be removed?

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In very recent developments within the past day or so, the parents of the students have refused to accept a claim from Mexico’s Attorney-General that the students are dead and have demanded that the search continue. Amnesty believes that the Attorney-General of Mexico has failed properly to investigate allegations of complicity by the armed forces and others in authority. Local police operating in collusion with criminal gangs are thought to be responsible for many of the disappearances, as well as the separate killing of three students and three bystanders.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the local mayor, who is suspected of involvement and was also the subject of separate allegations, from a first-hand victim, of direct participation in violence and murder, which were not investigated. The Mexican Government have to tackle the collusion between the authorities and organised crime. Otherwise, there can be no justice.

The 43 students form part of more than 23,000 cases of people who are missing or have disappeared and whose whereabouts remain unknown. In 2012, the National Human Rights Commission said it was investigating more than 2,000 cases of reported disappearances. Thousands of unidentified bodies lie in mortuaries across the country or have been exhumed from mass graves. The Mexican Government must demonstrate that they are prepared to take serious and urgent action on torture, murder and abduction. That means making it clear that officials can no longer ignore human rights abuses and that anyone implicated in them, directly or indirectly, must be prosecuted. Victims must have access to truth and justice.

I have a few points to put to the Minister. I hope he will agree that the UK Government have a moral obligation to act in the face of torture, abduction and systemic persecution. I hope, too, that he will agree to call for urgent action to stop the use of torture and terror, end the culture of impunity and improve the justice system in Mexico.

Among the issues that I hope the UK will raise with the Mexican authorities are immediate investigation of all allegations of torture and other ill treatment; immediate and proper medical examination of detainees; immediate access to legal counsel for all detainees and enabling them to meet with their families; holding detainees only in recognised detention facilities; abolition of pre-charge arraigo detention; suspected torturers all being held to account, regardless of rank; and reparations to people who have been subjected to torture. With 2015 being the year of the UK in Mexico and of Mexico in the UK, an upcoming visit of the Mexican President also provides an opportunity to raise such issues. We are a key ally of Mexico, so I hope that UK Ministers will harness their diplomatic leverage and urge the Mexican authorities to make human rights a political priority.

Specifically, how will the UK Government use the Mexican President’s state visit to the United Kingdom in March to press for accountability on human rights violations in Mexico? How will the UK Government use the opportunity of the year of the UK in Mexico and of Mexico in the UK to secure tangible progress on human rights? Given the worsening human rights situation in Mexico, will the UK Government include Mexico among the “countries of concern” in the annual Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights report?

Devolution (Scotland Referendum)

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am a proud Scot and a firm believer in the principles of devolution. I campaigned tirelessly for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and I was proud to serve there for some 12 years. During that time, I saw progressive change made using the devolved powers, whether that was abolishing feudal tenure, taking clause 28 off the statute book, or leading the way in the UK towards implementing the smoking ban. Those are all things of which the Scottish Parliament can be proud. We also had some of the most forward-looking and progressive legislation to tackle homelessness, which provided a lesson for many other places.

As a Scottish Minister, I also spent a lot of time having fairly robust discussions, sometimes with people in my own party, about the boundaries of devolution and what was devolved to the Scottish Parliament as opposed to what had an impact across the UK. Of course, we sometimes had to negotiate around that in relation to the Sewel convention and legislative consent motions. Where the legislative boundaries lay was never quite as clear cut as people have suggested at various points today.

Of course, Labour has guaranteed more powers for Scotland. We have been saying that throughout the referendum debate and we have a timetable for delivery. Scottish Labour’s devolution commission produced an in-depth report that considered a range of options for further devolution. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) expressed some surprise that different options seem to be laid out in the Command Paper, but the Command Paper was supposed to gather together the views of the different political parties and the different interests and put them on the table as a starting point for further debate and discussion. The task now is for all of us to try to find common ground and to unite where we can. That will require give and take on all sides.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The only region of the United Kingdom to have devolved powers for matters covered by the Department for Work and Pensions is Northern Ireland, and that became an obstacle to welfare reform in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Does the hon. Lady agree that sometimes we need to be very careful what we wish for?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I think I used the phrase, “You had better be careful what you wish for” a number of times during the referendum debate, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When we take forward our discussions and debate we need to think about what we want to do with those powers we intend to devolve. The devolution commission report in Scotland was called “Powers for a purpose” for exactly that reason.

I recognise that, as shown in the referendum debate, many of my constituents felt somehow disconnected from politics not just at the UK level but at a local authority level and in the Scottish Parliament.

Money Transfer Accounts and Remittance Sector

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Cathy Jamieson]

Indeed, and I am grateful to both Oxfam, which has provided me with a briefing, and the UKMTA, which has also provided me with that information. Of course, one of the dangers is that when we begin to investigate these matters, people start to find that there are problems and rather than finding solutions to those problems, the response is, “Well, we will just make sure that it is closed down and doesn’t happen.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise for not being here earlier in the debate; I wished to be here, but I had other commitments. The hon. Lady has outlined her concerns, which this House shares, about the £15 billion of remittances that happen each year. Does she agree that it is not only a matter of making the right, legitimate channels available for these transactions to take place but one of restoring confidence in the system? If there is no confidence in the system, people will feel vulnerable, whatever transactions take place.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. At a point in time where even some of the larger financial institutions have seen confidence erode, it is of course important that people can have confidence in the system, every step of the way, and that that confidence is rebuilt.

I would like the Minister to answer the questions that have been put to him, particularly the very pertinent questions about what specific action has been taken since July. Also, will he now give a commitment that he will personally press for and oversee some of the work, and drive it forward across the different Departments, to ensure that there is no more dragging of heels or things getting lost between the different parts of Government, simply because of the Departments’ inertia? I am sure that he will want to take the opportunity to respond to those points.

Thalidomide Victims

Debate between Cathy Jamieson and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the apology was fairly thin because it did not really accept responsibility or bring any additional resource with it. I will be delighted to take up the invitation to join the all-party group.

We all know the history. Between 1958 and 1962, thalidomide was given to thousands of pregnant women in the UK, supposedly as a simple solution to relieve morning sickness. In what has been called one of the darkest episodes in pharmaceutical research history, however, the drug caused thousands of babies to be born with a range of physical disabilities and medical conditions. It is worth remembering that the 472 thalidomiders alive in the UK today have been through a whole range of difficulties in their lives. They have been affected in a variety of ways, not only due to missing, short or deformed limbs, which is the common perception.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter before hon. Members. In Northern Ireland, there are 18 thalidomide victims, of whom eight are in my constituency and district, so the subject is close to my heart. One of the ladies, Sara Bunting from Newtownards, came to me this week to outline her case, which was to do with not only health but education. Does the hon. Lady feel that any pilot scheme for thalidomide victims must address not only the health issues alone, but education, because in many cases those people did not realise their potential? Such potential, if realised, could have been equal to or perhaps better than that of many in the Chamber.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. This debate is focused on the health grant, but many people, with the right support and resources at an earlier stage and with people to champion their cause, could perhaps have done more to realise their potential. Ministers will want to take that on board to see what can be done in future in relation to the grant.

Many thalidomiders suffered damage to their eyes and ears, facial disfigurement and from damaged or missing internal organs, and a number have brain damage. Some 20% have hearing difficulties or deafness, and 1% are blind. The thalidomiders, who are now aged between 49 and 52, are beginning to show signs of early-onset wear and tear—the kind of symptoms normally expected of people in their 70s, 80s or 90s—and that has to be as a result of putting an unusual and sometimes extreme level of pressure and strain on their already disabled bodies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

The issue of justice is important, and it involves not just the health grant, although that is important, but compensation and other issues that are being pursued elsewhere.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Lady think that the Government should put pressure on the German Grünenthal Group? It said this week:

“we have been silent and we are very sorry for that.”

If its apology is forthcoming, surely it is time for it to deliver compensation. Perhaps the Government will support the thalidomide victims in their campaign for full compensation.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am sure that any company would listen carefully to the comments and views that MPs are setting out on behalf of their constituents and take account of any message from the Government. I hope that Ministers will join us in calling for additional support and, further to the company’s apology, more compensation. The company must take responsibility for its actions.