EU Membership: Economic Benefits
David Anderson Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
This debate has consumed us in this Chamber for the best part of the year, at times compromising our ability to scrutinise and properly review other matters of public policy. It has also been raging for months in the communities outside, yet the most dispiriting thing about this process for me is that I find so many people who say now that they are less well-informed than they were at the beginning of the discussion. The reason for that is all to do with the manner in which the debate has been conducted. Not only has it been incessantly negative, but it has traded in glib soundbites and tried to pander to prejudice, rather than illuminate, educate and inform people so that they can make a proper decision.
I therefore hope in the limited time available to explode some of the worst myths and misrepresentations that have been put about, the first of which relates to sovereignty. Next Thursday, we will be part of the European Union and the people of this country will vote on whether to continue that relationship. In that moment, sovereignty will lie with the people of the United Kingdom. Nothing they can do next Thursday will change that situation, so no matter what the result is, in one, two or five years’ time or never the people of the UK can choose to review the decision they make next Thursday. Nothing is forever, and government must always be with the consent of the people. Therefore, when those in the leave campaign say that the choice next Thursday is between retaining sovereignty here and giving it away, that is not a half truth or a misrepresentation—it is a lie.
The next point is to do with the money. We have talked about how much we contribute and how much we get back. It is a fact, and we need to tell people, that we are net contributors to the European Union, but we need to explain why that is and where that money goes. The bulk of that money goes to support social and economic development programmes in European member states that are less prosperous than we are. That is not a result of charitable donations by philanthropists in the Cabinet; it is a strategy to try to develop the economy across the continent so that in years to come the people who live in southern and eastern Europe will have the economy, the support and the money to be able to buy the goods and services we offer in this country. It is about a continental approach to economic development.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Is it not also much better to invest in these countries so that we can trade with them and build democratic structures than to send young men and women out there to die on battlefields, as we have done on this continent for centuries?
Tommy Sheppard
I could not agree more. I also want to tackle the question of democracy, because the leave campaigners have suggested that this is about an unelected, unaccountable European bureaucracy versus—I guess—the exemplar of democratic participation that we apparently have in this country. That also is untrue. There are three institutions in the European Union: the Parliament, which is directly elected by the people; the Council of Ministers, which is composed of elected Ministers from the national Governments; and a third institution made up of appointed Commissioners—but they are appointed by elected national Governments. So when people say that the European Union is undemocratic, that is also not a mistruth—it is a lie.
I now wish to speak to some colleagues on the left who have joined the leave campaign, some of whom are in my party. I regret what they have done because they have given the veneer of political breadth to a campaign that is fundamentally reactionary in its nature, and I hope they will reconsider. When we come across glib phrases such as “a bosses’ Europe” or “a bosses’ club”, we should take a moment to try to understand what is happening. Anyone who has a materialist view of philosophy knows that we make our own history. Therefore, the institutions that govern us are not divine, and are not inherently one thing or another; they are created by us. It is a fact that every European Union treaty there has been has been a reflection of the political balance of power in the continent at that time. In the 1980s we made great advances in workers’ rights because the social democratic parties and the left parties were in the ascendency, much to the chagrin of Margaret Thatcher at the time. In recent years, that has not been the case and some treaties have been more pro-corporate, but that is because, my friends, the left is not in the ascendency in Europe. What those who believe in a progressive Europe need to do is link up, as the shadow Chancellor said, with other forces across the continent and explain that a different form of Europe is possible. I believe we can do that.
Finally, let me talk about this issue of migration and public services. I have been an MP for over a year. In that time, I have tried to help more than 1,200 people. Invariably, most of them have problems with public services: they want to move up the housing ladder, they want their benefits reinstated, and they are worried about the NHS waiting lists. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people among that 1,200 who are citizens of other European countries. Most of them are young, working couples who are trying hard to build up their families and to build a better future for themselves—by the way, in doing so, they are making Edinburgh one of the most vibrant capitals in Europe.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I will start as I intend to finish. We need to think what will happen next week if we vote to leave. Who will be driving the Brexit bus? It will not be the hapless Prime Minister or the man who has been described as Pinocchio from No. 11. It will be people such as the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the man who trebled tuition fees, brought us a Back to the Future school system, took away the education maintenance allowance and destroyed Sure Start, or the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who destroyed Remploy, brought in the bedroom tax, gave Atos free rein, cut sick pay, cut jobseeker’s allowance and hit disabled people’s security.
Others who would be on the Brexit bus include the Leader of the House, who privatised probation, sacked 7,000 prison officers, destroyed legal aid, restricted access to tribunals and cut support for personal injury legislation; the new kid on the block, the Minister for Employment, who described British workmen as the laziest in the world and pretends that she will pump billions into the NHS and VAT cuts; the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is risking the peace in Northern Ireland, ignoring the impact on our oldest and closest neighbour, and pretending that we can leave the porous border between the north and the south and still keep out the so-called hordes from Turkey, Syria and Iran; and finally, the clown prince, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who sold out his friends, his party and his country to move from City Hall to No. 10. His idea of negotiation was never to meet the unions while the tube was in chaos. He is a man who thinks that a funny line puts everything right. Well, I’m sorry—this is no laughing matter. If we want a joker to be Prime Minister, let us vote for Peter Kay.
That is the motley crew who will be in charge if we vote leave next Thursday. Behind them all is the man who has had the Prime Minister on the run for a decade, Mr “Farridge”. These are the people who will be heading off to Brussels with the intention of coming back here and starting this country on a path to deregulation and a free-for-all. They really do want the UK to be the Hong Kong of Europe.
To all those who are confused by the position of my party in the debate, I say, “Be very, very clear. If the Brexiteers win next week, you will need Labour more than ever.” This is the fight of our lives and it is more important than party politics. It is the defining moment of this new millennium. I urge everyone not to make the mistake of getting even with politicians who they think have let them down. I urge people not to let their anger and worries blind them to the reality of where we could end up, and not to let an unprincipled bunch of right-wing deregulators use xenophobia and racism as a front to change the future prosperity and security of this country.
Kurdish Genocide
David Anderson Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Great support has also been given by members of the Newcastle-Gateshead medical volunteers, led by Deiary Kader, who, as well as the people from Sheffield, have been going over to Kurdistan to treat people for a number of years. Next month, they will go there for the eighth time. Over those years, thousands and thousands of people have benefited from the relationship that we have developed between our two countries.
Meg Munn
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that partnership to the attention of the House. It is true that in the UK there are very many doctors of Iraqi and Iraqi-Kurdish origin. While they have continued to serve and provide support for our community, they are also doing such things as my hon. Friend described and doing what they can at a time when the health services in Iraq still need a great deal of investment to develop to serve an ordinary population, let alone one that has suffered the kind of trauma, torture and chemical attacks that have been suffered in Iraq, particularly in Kurdistan.
Alongside the physical impact of repression on the population, we must not underestimate the psychological effects: living with the grief of lost family members, remembering the terror of attacks and, above all, the constant fear. As a woman says in one of the DVDs I mentioned, Iraqi people had no dignity because they had to sell out their consciences to Saddam Hussein to stay alive.
Thirty-five years of dictatorship are not easily forgotten, but there have been positive moments since the 2003 invasion. We remember the TV pictures of the purple-stained fingers shown with pride when the Iraqi people were able to exercise the right to vote—something that we take for granted. They were excited about being able to take part in the first democratic elections. But of course voting is only the first act; building the institutions and democratic habits are much more difficult—all the more so when people have not been allowed to make their own decisions, and acting on their own initiative was a risky thing to do.
My involvement with the Kurdistan regional and Iraqi national parliaments has shown me just how difficult this task is, but it is a task to which many brave Iraqis are committed. To take on these tasks and build a new society is complex and demanding; it will take time, dedication and determination. We should continue to support them in this. An important way to do that is formally to recognise what happened to them. Former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner argues that
“human rights should mean that people are protected within their own countries”.
When these rights are violated, it is the duty of the international community to honour victims and to ensure that history cannot repeat itself. If democratic Governments cannot be clear about genocide and say that such crimes must be stamped out, then who will?
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I should like to start by praising the modern-day Bard, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), for successfully securing the debate, and those wonderful people on the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to hold the debate today. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for the work they have done on this issue.
Three decades ago, most of us in our places today were not Members of the House and what was happening in Iraq was only part of the background to our lives—perhaps not so much for the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon because of his personal links, but most of us had other things to occupy us. The issue did not get the attention it should have had at the time. Perhaps if we had been as actively involved as we became two decades later, things might have been different. If we had had a different attitude to the Iraqi Government at that time, things might have been different and we would not be talking about the issue today.
Let me focus on the impact of what happened back then on real human beings. My interaction with Iraq started in 2003, when I was the president of Unison—the biggest trade union in Britain at the time—and a member of the general council of the TUC. Like most people in the labour movement, I was completely and utterly opposed to the invasion of Iraq. I believed that the reasons for going into Iraq were not justified, that the argument about weapons of mass destruction was not proven and that we had gone in far too early, with Hans Blix doing good work on the ground, despite the obstacles put in his way. Nothing should have happened until his work had been completed.
I remain convinced today that the leader of my party and the Prime Minister at the time decided to go into Iraq alongside the Americans for two reasons. First, he passionately believed that Saddam should be got rid of, and, secondly, he wanted to keep good relations with the Americans. I believe that the Americans went in for different reasons. They wanted to get rid of Saddam, too, but they also wanted to gain control of the oil wealth in that part of the world and, even more important for the American Republican party, they wanted to ensure that George Bush got re-elected 18 months after the invasion. I remain convinced that that was why, no matter what we did, the Americans would have gone into Iraq around the time they did, as it was a perfect way of winning the election that lay some 18 months ahead.
After the military action had finished, my role in my trade union was to ask, “What do we do now?” One benefit of Saddam’s removal was the re-emergence of a trade union movement in Iraq—a movement that, before Saddam’s reign, had been one of the most active and one of the largest from Europe to Australia but that had been suppressed. We took the decision as a trade union to do all we could to try to help people who had not been involved in real trade union activity for at least four decades to get involved in that role in the world again. We started a training scheme for trade union stewards and we brought people from Iraq—basically Kurdistan because no one could get out of the rest of Iraq—to London. This was a training scheme for a small group of trade unionists who could then go back and train the trainers.
Mr Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend, and I am very well aware of it. I shall refer later to a member of the delegation I led in 2006. She was the treasurer of NASUWT at the time, and she also chaired the TUC task group on Iraq.
That training programme was so successful that we ended up expanding it. Instead of bringing people out of Kurdistan to London, we got them out of there to Amman in Jordan, which was much easier in terms of the numbers. I was really proud when we were finally able to establish a trade union training school in Irbil in Kurdistan in early 2006.
As a newly elected MP, I was delighted to receive the backing of the trade union movement to take a delegation out to Irbil in early 2006. There were eight of us, including members from the NASUWT, the journalists’ union, Unison, local councillors and others active in supporting the Iraqi cause for many years. We went out there to see what we could do to develop trade unionism on the ground. Straight away, I was immensely struck by the attitude of the trade unionists we met. To me, they were comrades. The fact that they were from another part of the world was irrelevant to me. They were my friends, standing up for working people and trying to develop their skills so that they could look after people properly.
The first thing that those trade union members said to us was, “We need your help. We need your Government to start investing in this country, because if they do not invest we will not have work, and if we do not have work we do not have a trade union movement.” That was a very simple equation. When we asked what practical help we could give, they arranged for us to meet their labour, equality and health Ministers and the Minister responsible for matters relating to the Anfal genocide. That was the first time I had really been exposed to what had happened.
The other thing that those people said to us, very clearly, was “We thank you, as a nation, for what you did for us in 1991, and we thank you even more for what you did for us in 2003, when you liberated us.” That was a shock for me: it was a slap in the face. I had seen what happened in 2003 as an invasion. However, it was all very well for me, sitting in the comfort of Blaydon, to say that it was really, really wrong. It was not me who was being wiped off the face of the earth, it was not my parents who were being buried alive, it was not my village that was being flattened, and it was not my real life—my community—that was being devastated and destroyed. That was happening to these people. Listening to what they said did not change my view that we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons, but what became very clear to me, and has remained clear to me ever since, was that we should have done it 20 years earlier. Why on earth did we not do that? If we had, this disgraceful thing would not have happened.
What were we doing 20 years earlier? Unfortunately, we were doing the bidding of Saddam Hussein. We were, to an extent, sitting on our hands and supporting the Americans yet again while they, and the rest of the world powers, were sitting back happily watching the Iranians and the Iraqis wipe out 1 million of their own citizens, using them as pawns. If, as a by-product, we saw the Marsh Arabs being wiped off the face of the earth and the attack on the Kurds, we just had to ignore it. It was a price worth paying if Saddam was able to keep the ayatollah and his acolytes under control. Was it worth it in terms of the international situation? Well, other people will decide when it is history, but, looking back and seeing what I see now, I think that it was absolutely the wrong thing to do.
We were not just sitting back innocently. As was said earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North, we were actively engaged: we were selling arms to that regime. In fact, we were selling arms to both regimes, and it was the wrong thing to do. It may have been very grandiose in the big scheme of things, but it did nothing to help the people on the ground.
Since that first visit to Kurdistan, I have been back there, and have also been to Baghdad. On both occasions, I was hugely impressed by the generosity and warmth of the people. That is typical of people in the middle east, but it is even more noticeable in Kurdistan. They were like people from the north-east of England, who, as everyone knows, are always much warmer, more generous, more humorous and more giving. Everyone understands that, wherever they are from.
Other Members who have been to Kurdistan have mentioned the “red house”, the torture chamber in Sulaymaniyah. No one who goes there can fail to be struck by it. The first thing that struck me was what a huge building it was. It is a huge building in the main street of one of the biggest cities in that part of the world. No attempt was made to hide from the public what went on in that place. Indeed, everything that was done was documented. The holocaust was mentioned earlier; exactly the same methods were used in this case. There were documents on everyone, and all the documents were in triplicate. Wiping people from the face of the earth was seen as a normal thing to do by people who did not care about them and just wanted to replace them with their own people. It was absolutely unbelievable.
One thing stuck in my mind particularly. In 2006, as we were walking out of the “red house”, we saw five Kurdish guards in the reception area, sitting around watching television. On the television screen, live, was the trial of Saddam Hussein. I felt that that was real history in the making. For those people, it was life-changing: it would give them a chance to get their lives back. As I said earlier, for people such as me who had not wanted this country to go into Iraq, it was a huge wake-up call, making us ask what we could do. I think that what we can certainly do is promote what we are doing today.
Meg Munn
My hon. Friend is right: the regime did document these events. The most shocking aspect of the DVD I mentioned is the fact that the footage of what happened—such as people being shot—is taken by the regime. The most horrific thing I saw—I am not sure why this was more shocking than seeing somebody being killed—was a man being held by several other men while having his wrist beaten until it was broken, and at the end someone came along and moved his arm but there was no connection between the two parts. It is just brutal, and there is no excuse for our not recognising this, as the evidence is there.
Mr Anderson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There was never any attempt to pretend this was not happening; it was just hoped that the rest of the world would not care that it was happening and would turn a blind eye, which is exactly what we in the international community all did. Today, we have a chance at least to make amends in a small way, and it is very important that we do that.
As well as visiting the “red house”, I visited some of the villages in the north-east of the country, where people saw their way of life totally terminated. Not only did the perpetrators take the men away from their homes and kill them, but what really shocked me was that many of these people were buried alive. They did not even give them the justice of putting a bullet in their brain. They put them in trenches and covered them over using bulldozers. That is how little feeling, and how much contempt, they had for these people.
I discussed with families and friends their despair. I visited what effectively had become a concentration camp in the capital, Irbil. Only young men and women were held there. They had been taken from the agricultural area, which had been the bread basket of Iraq and which is now devastated. All these young people want is to go back home. Sadly, however, if they go back home they will not know how to start getting the farms up and running again, because they have lost contact with the farming industry. Their fathers were taken away and killed 20 or 25 years ago, so they have nobody to tell them how to do things.
We visited a place in the north of the country. I spoke to a village elder, who thought I was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown); I do not know where he got that idea from, or who was more miffed, me or Gordon. This elder explained to me how passionately he had welcomed Baroness Lynda Chalker in 1991, who had gone there in her capacity as overseas aid Minister and had built some temporary accommodation. He remembered that 17 years later, and he felt such gratitude for my country for having helped his country in that way that it made me very proud to be a Member of this House, but it also made me frustrated, as we had not kept up with the work of supporting those people as we should have done. The big question asked of us was why we had not helped them earlier. I have talked about that, and I hope today’s debate will remind us of why we should have.
I want to read out a letter I received from a very close friend of mine, Hangaw Khan. He is a trade union leader in Kurdistan, and is someone I am very proud to call a comrade. He asked me if I would go and visit his mother and father, and I said, “Certainly I will”. I did not realise there would be a three-and-a-half-hour ride up into the mountains, but it was well worth doing. They were so proud of what their son had done. When we began our campaign with colleagues from across the House, he sent a letter on behalf of his trade union executive in which he thanked us for starting the campaign and said:
“Kurdish United Workers are well aware of all the genocide which has been committed against Kurdish people in Iraq. Moreover, our (KUWU) members are made aware that the Kurdish people are still suffering significantly from the genocide effects on all their life aspects.
We really appreciate your invaluable efforts along side other different parties and groups to ask the government urgently not to ignore all the crimes against humanity which had been committed against our nation for decades and to recognise it as genocide.
In fact, having recognised this genocide against our nation will enter the history for ever and will be the proud step in the view of human beings especially the Kurdish people. Also, there is no doubt that this act consider as a voice of conscience of humanity.
Finally, let us thank you very much in the name of our burned country, the pure pink blood of our genocide martyrs, buried alive innocent women and children, burned and drowned thousands Kurdish by chemical gas. As we are part of human beings, we do hope that all of us & the governments and nations will be aware of recognising any genocide which is committed anywhere in the world.”
That was sent from the Kurdistan United Workers Union last September.
In the past 50 years, millions of lives have been wasted in Iraq. Billions of pounds have been wasted and trillions of words have been wasted. I hope that the words of Hangaw Khan are not wasted and we should listen to him today. I am convinced that the House will pass this motion, which will be a huge statement, but, to be honest, although that is important it is not as important as our Government saying that they support what we are trying to do. I ask those on both Front Benches to think about what has been said in today’s debate.
I know that there are legal issues and that people will say that they want to deal with this, but they cannot. We have seen this week the rebirth of that horrible phrase “weasel words”. I have nothing but respect for those on both Front Benches and I know that they are both committed to the work they are doing. Unless we do something other than saying well done to those who have spoken in the debate and unless we get a commitment that our Government will lead this campaign, as we should, the debate will have been meaningless. No disrespect to the intention of the people who led the debate or those who supported us in bringing it together, but we need real action.
We must also bear in mind that 25 years ago, if we had taken real action, we as a nation could have stopped this. We chose not to. Let us not repeat that mistake today.
Ian Lucas
It certainly is important that such matters are dealt with collectively. We are an international community with international institutions and, in international situations such as the one we are discussing, the appropriate approach is to work through international justice bodies to recognise when certain circumstances amount to a genocide. We then need to use our institutions to establish the facts and their implications in law. The legal implications of recognising any set of events—not just those under discussion—as a genocide are considerable. They constitute a particular crime under international law, which imposes obligations on states to prevent and punish with regard to such circumstances.
If something that has happened in the past—such as the events under discussion—is defined as genocide, the question arises of whether retrospective action can be taken. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified whether it is his understanding that a statement that an act was genocide would have a retrospective effect and allow action to be taken against anyone who is held responsible for actions that took place in the 1980s.
We heard about the considerable progress that Kurdistan has made. That has built on the relationship that exists between this country and the Kurdistan region of Iraq. I hope that this debate will add to that relationship. There is a strong group of Members of this House who have spoken eloquently today and who have great respect for Kurdistan and the Kurdish people.
We must work together to reflect on our discussions today. We must also look at what action is being taken in other countries, whether by their Parliaments or Governments, on this issue of genocide in the Kurdish region and see what is the appropriate forum to take that forward.
Mr Anderson
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) asked about practical things that the Opposition can do. Will the shadow Minister commit our party to entering discussions with representatives of the Kurdistan Regional Government based in this country to see whether they can help us to get evidence that would help to create a legal argument that we could present to the international community? Other countries could then say whether they think that it was genocide or not and give reasons why.
Ian Lucas
I would be pleased to meet representatives of the Kurdish Regional Government to discuss the issues that we have been debating and to see what barriers are in the way of this matter being taken forward. I would also be pleased to discuss this with the Minister to explore what further common ground there is on this issue, which is considered important by a number of Back Benchers from both our parties who have made an eloquent and compelling case.
We cannot reach conclusions today, but we have heard a compelling case. This is the start of the matter, not the end. We need to continue to discuss this in detail and to reflect on the best way to take it forward. That is best done collectively both within this country and internationally. We need to reflect on the action that other Parliaments have taken and consider what steps it would be best to take to deal with the appalling set of circumstances that the people of Kurdistan suffered in the 1980s. We must work together to ensure that their pain, suffering and grief is not shared by any other group of people in the future.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Anderson Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alistair Burt
Of course the Bonn conference is part of the ongoing relationship of the international community with Afghanistan, and it has women represented on it. We made it an important part of our representation, and our own Minister with responsibility for dealing with violence against women—the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone)—was present. We do indeed work to make sure that women’s representation is there. I come back to the point that much of this is in the hands of Afghan women themselves, who are very active and have made it clear that they do not wish to see the gains of recent years reversed. It is difficult, and no one should pretend otherwise, as it is not easily dealt with. We are confident that the opportunities will be there, that the determination of the international community will be there and that Afghanistan will be a stronger society because of the participation—political and otherwise—of women.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
3. Whether he has had discussions with the Ethiopian Government on the human rights situation in that country; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have candid and regular dialogues on human rights with Prime Minister Meles and others. We recently raised the plight of opposition leaders and journalists who have been arrested under Ethiopia’s counter-terrorism legislation, and we have also raised the impact that that is having on Ethiopia’s already restricted political space. We are engaging with the Government to promote best practice in the implementation of the legislation, with respect for human rights.
Mr Anderson
Discussions that I have held with the Oromia Support Group and Human Rights Watch suggest that the situation on the ground is extremely serious. For instance, 80% of male detainees have been tortured and more than 50% of female detainees have been raped, and more journalists are locked up in Ethiopia than in any other country. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me, along with representatives of those groups, to try to clarify the position, so that if it becomes clear that they are wrong and the Ethiopian Government are right, the situation can be rectified, and if it is the other way around, the issues can be taken up with the Ethiopian Government?
Mr Bellingham
I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and any people he wishes to bring to see me.
It is important to bear in mind the fact that, although we recognise Ethiopia’s right to fight terrorism, that must be done in the context of observing human rights. It should also be borne in mind that there is a big difference between journalists’ reporting terrorism and their supporting it. It seems that the Ethiopian Government often do not make that distinction.
Simon Robertson
David Anderson Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
This relatively simple debate has been complicated by the fact that it has spread across the world, as it involves an international airline. I am raising this issue as someone who has for more than 30 years acted as a representative for people in many forms of conflict and dispute, many times doing so in times of direct conflict. What I have found during those years is that there are always at least two sides to every story. I am here tonight to present one side of this story—that of my constituent, Mr Simon Robertson. He is a 38-year-old young man who had visited Japan five times before he went there in February. I wish that I could make part of the case for the Japanese immigration service and for KLM, the airline involved, but because they have not given me the relevant information I am hard-pushed to do that.
The case refers to a journey that Mr Robertson made in February. I shall read from a letter that he sent to both the Japanese embassy and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He stated:
“This…should be considered both as an official protest at the unacceptable and unlawful treatment to which I was the victim of, as well as an official report of criminal offences, committed against myself, by those at the Narita Airport Border Agency… The incidents to which I refer are as follows:
Recently, I arranged to make a long trip to Japan. I was to stay in your country for 89 days and while I was there, I was to have meetings with numerous individuals as well as seeing some friends of mine. The trip was to last from 4 February…until 4 May 2010. Arrangements had been made to hold meetings during that period, and these meetings were over various topics, but the main business reason was to make preliminary investigations as to expanding my business operations.”
He included the details of his trip in the letter to the immigration service. He continued:
“I accurately filled out an immigration form, while on the aircraft and I arrived at Narita on 5 February….I presented this form along with my passport to the Narita Border Agency. For unknown reasons, the official queried this information and then took my airline tickets and my passport from me and I was taken to a separate room.
While I was there, I was interviewed by another official, who despite being told by me on numerous occasions in both English and in Japanese, that my Japanese was poor, insisted in conducting this interview solely in Japanese.
After a while, I was led into another room, where I was investigated by a different inspector. He wished to know my purpose of my visit. I explained very clearly what the purpose was…I pointed to the address of Mr. Junji Abu and his family, who I was to visit. They were aware that I was coming and they would confirm this to the investigator. He telephoned Mr. Abu and returned. At this point, his entire tone and manner became extremely hostile. He demanded to know about the relationship between myself and Mr. Abu’s daughter called Yuuko. I correctly stated that I had known…Yuuko…for 17 months, we speak everyday and are close. At this point, the questioning became even more outrageous. The investigator demanded and shouted over and over: ‘Are you going to marry Yuuko?’ He repeated this question six times and on the first five occasions I stated that we had not decided that at that time. On the sixth occasion, I said that this decision was a matter between myself and Yuuko. At this answer, the investigator got angry and stated that he would oppose my entry to Japan.
I consider this to be an outrage. My relationship with Yuuko is a matter solely between myself and the Abu family. It is not a visa requirement of any country that visitors must marry one of their citizens, in order to be granted a visa.
Subsequently to this, I was taken into another room where the same investigator spoke in Japanese, but a translator was used. At the beginning of the interview, I was told that the investigator was the judge and his decision was final. I answered all the questions accurately and truthfully, but I noticed on the investigator’s desk that the decision to refuse my entry had already been written out.
I was told that my request for entry was denied and I was to be removed from the country.
I was then marched to a bureau de change where it was demanded that I give the inspector 40,000 Yen. A copy of this transaction is included within this letter as proof of this. I was forced to hand over this money and I was marched into a car and then to a cell. I was held in this cell for 24 hours where I was denied food and access to a telephone to call a lawyer or one of my friends. The guards also deliberately deprived me of sleep by continually hitting the metal door of the cell and then laughing about it, for one entire night.
The following morning, again no food was provided to me and at 12:15, I was marched into a car and to Narita Airport. I was not told where I was going, nor was I permitted to call my friends who were extremely worried about me, nor was I allowed to call my family. I was forced to wait at the gate with the guard standing right over me for over an hour. I found this to be extremely humiliating.”
Mr Robertson then explains what happened when he got on the plane. His letter continues:
“The KLM Captain had been told by the Narita Border Agency that the reason that I had been refused entry to Japan was because I had arrived in Japan with the wrong documents. This was a blatant lie. I produced a copy of my travel arrangements and a photocopy of my passport to show the captain and the purser who both confirmed that my documents were all correct and in order. They said that my treatment was ‘an outrage’ and that I should make a formal complaint. I am sure that the KLM staff will confirm this.
Sadly, the guard did not return my passport to the purser of the KLM aircraft and instead had kept hold of it…When I landed at Amsterdam, I sought the purser to ask her to return my passport, so that I could clear Dutch customs and fly on to Newcastle. The purser stated that she did not have my passport and she sought the captain. The captain did not have my passport either and he and the purser confirmed that they had never received it at Narita.
A copy of that letter went to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Japanese embassy.
On 9 March, Mr Robertson received a letter from the FCO saying that it did not have the power to investigate the matter but that it had written to Tokyo requesting that an investigation should take place. I also wrote to the Japanese embassy on 12 February asking it to investigate and on 13 April—10 weeks after the original letter—I received a letter of reply from the embassy saying that
“we have already reported this case to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan, and are currently waiting for the result”.
On 25 May, I forwarded an e-mail from Mr Robertson to the new Prime Minister and the new Foreign Secretary asking them to look into his case and also to try to progress it. In the period between the original letter and 25 May, Mr Robertson had been in regular contact with the FCO, asking what was happening. The e-mail made it clear that a Foreign Office official who had been working with Mr Robertson had originally agreed to report the incident as a crime.
In the interim, Mr Robertson tried to help the FCO and the Japanese immigration service because he had been able to find out the identity of the officer who he believed had abused him in Japan. He reported that information to the new duty officer with whom he was dealing, but he was devastated when she told him that she was dismissing that information. She refused to pass it to the Japanese authorities and said that she was not prepared to report the matter as a crime. Surely, when someone makes a very serious allegation and is able to tell an official in the FCO specifically who was responsible, it is reasonable for that person to ask the official to pass that information to the Japanese authorities and ask them to investigate. Mr Robertson could not believe that the official refused to do that.
On 4 June, I received an e-mail from Mr Robertson advising me that, sadly, his girlfriend in Japan had died. He said:
“She took her own life, but she was killed by the outrageous intransigence of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and our own Foreign Office”.
On 24 June, I received a letter from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who now has responsibility for the far east. On whether the FCO should have reported the matter as a crime, he said that he was
“sorry for the misunderstanding”
about whether it had agreed to report a crime, but added:
“we do not agree that we have a duty to report alleged crimes to the local authorities”.
I find that amazing. If someone says to a representative or an official body of this Government, “We believe a crime has taken place against a British citizen,” it is just good manners, if nothing else, to say to people with whom we have a strong relationship such as Japan, which is one of our best allies, “Look, this has been said about you in your nation. We believe that this man believes that it is a crime.” It may well not have been a crime, and I shall come on to that, but if Mr Robertson believed that it was, why would the Foreign Office not want to alert the Japanese to that?
The Minister also said on 24 June that the Japanese authorities had informed him that they believed that
“Mr Robertson was treated in line with their regulations and international human rights standards.”
The Minister also suggested that Mr Robertson seek legal advice. So, on 24 June, with reference to a case going back to 6 February, the Foreign Office decided, “We have been told by the Japanese that everything is okay. Therefore, you should forget about it or take advice from a lawyer.” To me, that is effectively the Foreign Office trying to wash its hands of the matter and move on.
Interestingly, the Foreign Office knew that information before Mr Robertson did, because he did not receive the letter until a day later, when the Japanese confirmed what we had learned from the Foreign Office—that they believed that he was treated properly. I asked the embassy to show me exactly what happened, and in the paperwork it included a flowchart of what should have happened. There was also a document on why he was refused entry. I shall read it out very slowly, because it states:
“Your statement concerning activities to be engaged in Japan in your application is not found not to be false.”
There were no details of what that meant, what he had said or what they had said. Obviously, the embassy was saying, “We’re not quite sure that you’re telling lies, but we’re not quite sure that you’re telling the truth, either.” It was very confusing.
In the letter, the embassy made it very clear that,
“since the individual remains the responsibility of the carrier, the immigration bureau has no involvement in the process…Mr Robertson’s allegation that he was forced to hand over money by immigration officials has no basis in reality.”
That is despite the fact that Mr Robertson sent on to the Japanese immigration service a copy of a receipt that had been taken while he was in Narita airport. The letter continued, stating that
“Mr Robertson’s treatment…prior to removal was entirely the responsibility of the airline, any inquiries regarding this treatment, the allegation that money was forcibly taken from him or the location of his passport should be made directly to the airline.”
I find that incredible. The Japanese Government are saying that it is all the airline’s fault, but the airline was on Japanese soil. If it did what Mr Robertson said it did, surely the Japanese authorities should go to KLM and say, “What on earth are you doing in our country behaving like that?” Perhaps it did not behave like that, but it was the Japanese Government’s responsibility, not the responsibility of someone who could not get back into the country to pursue the matter.
On 8 July, I wrote back to the Japanese embassy explaining that Mr Robertson challenged both its interpretation of the events and the role played by KLM, with which he had been in constant dialogue. I asked the embassy for a meeting with KLM in order to sit around a table like adults and talk things through in order to see exactly where we were. I expected my suggestion to be put forward, and thought it a reasonable thing to do. On 2 August, I got a letter back from the Japanese embassy, basically reiterating that Japan had acted fairly, that the “sole responsibility” for the matter lay with KLM and that my request for a meeting was refused. Again, that was less than helpful.
On 19 August—a date that I should like the House to remember because I shall come back to it—I wrote to KLM asking it for specific details about its role in Mr Robertson’s detention and removal, because some very serious things had been said about an airline with a reputation. Apart from the fact that I wanted to clear up the matter on behalf of Mr Robertson, I also wanted to give the airline a chance to stop a Government saying some pretty disparaging things about it. I made the airline aware that, ultimately, if I could not get a satisfactory response, I would raise the matter, as I am doing, on the Floor of the House.
I asked KLM specifically how long Mr Robertson’s passport was in its possession; exactly what happened to it; whether the airline was told why he was being refused admission to the country; whether his passport was handed over; and when. On the same date, I again wrote to the Japanese embassy asking for specific details that would expand on the denial of entry letter and on what went on, including the timing of events. I also asked about its statement,
“your application is not found not to be false.”
What did that mean? What was said? What was done? What went on in that room? We wanted to gain a view of events.
I again asked to have a meeting, because that would have been a sensible thing to do. On the same day, I wrote to the Foreign Office expressing the concerns and uncertainties about the whereabouts of Mr Robertson’s passport; nobody seemed to know where it was. On 3 September, I received a letter from the embassy saying, “We are unable”—and, I believe, unwilling—
“to provide any further information…we are unable to respond to any further request for a meeting or any further questions concerning his removal.”
The Japanese embassy was saying to me that it did not want to talk anymore and it believed that it had gone far enough. It was refusing to talk to a Member of the House. How it has treated Mr Robertson is not right, and it is also not right to have treated me in that way—not as an individual, but as somebody trying to work on behalf of my constituents. I would suggest that the same would apply to the other 649 Members.
In October, I again wrote to the Japanese asking them please to consider the position and try to give more specifics. I wanted to avoid bringing this debate to the House if at all possible; I wanted to resolve the matter in a sensible, adult way. I also advised them in the interim that I had been told by Mr Robertson that he had been approached by Amnesty International, which had said that his case was not unique. In 2002, it produced a report that pointed out that this sort of behaviour had been going on in Japan for some time. I have no proof that that is the case, but Amnesty International tells me and Mr Robertson that that is exactly what is happening.
On the same day, I wrote to the Foreign Office to ask it to ask the Japanese to meet me and, if possible, Mr Robertson. On 16 September, I received a letter from the Foreign Office explaining its view of where the passport had been. On 19 August I had written to KLM; on 14 October I got a letter from the company explaining where it thought the passport had been. To put it mildly, the two letters show a degree of confusion. The final paragraph of the KLM letter reads:
“Mr. Robertson’s passport was incorrectly added to a special envelope dedicated to storing copies of travel documentation…This envelope should normally not contain original passports and unfortunately it was not examined until a later date.”
I had asked the company for specific time scales, and the letter said:
“Mr. Robertson’s passport was then handed over to the UK Immigration…who advised it would be sent to the UK.”
No time scales were given and there was no record of exactly what happened. There was massive confusion from all concerned.
The case has made me face a number of possibilities. First, Mr Robertson is telling the complete truth and someone in Japan or at KLM is refusing to address these matters, which include allegations of physical abuse, imprisonment, verbal abuse, racism, extortion, deliberately or accidentally withholding a passport, and possibly—at least, partly—some responsibility for the suicide of a young woman.
On the other hand, Simon’s claims could be completely or partially untrue. I have to consider that possibility because, as I said, I have only his side of the story—I have never had the chance to sit down with the authorities and KLM and ask why they believed that this man was making it up. Because they refused to meet me, I have no choice but to carry on believing that what I am being told is the truth.
As I said, Simon has been in touch with Amnesty International, which has produced a report. I am also led to believe that both the United Nations and the US State Department have expressed concerns about some of the things that have happened to their citizens at the hands of the Japanese immigration authorities.
Is this all in the mind of a young man who is clearly suffering physically and mentally from the ordeal? I do not believe so, but presumably the Japanese and KLM do. The Foreign Office said that the Japanese have said that they acted properly. Unless the Minister tells me something different tonight, I will have to accept the fact that it believes the same thing.
The Foreign Office has a duty of care to Mr Robertson and a duty of loyalty to our relationship with Japan. I have had a strong relationship with the country for a number of years. In the north-east of England, we are happy that Japanese industry has come into our part of the world and played a tremendous role in manufacturing. I want us to continue to have a good relationship with Japan and I believe that the Japanese Government would not be happy if such behaviour was going on without their cognisance.
I hope that between us we can get to the bottom of this situation. I hope that in his response the Minister will agree to meet me and, if possible, to get people from the Japanese embassy to come and speak to me and him—or his colleague—and to get KLM involved. Let us sit around the table like adults and try to resolve this matter. At the end of the day, I am trying to represent my constituent in the best way I can. I should not have had to do this tonight; the matter should have been resolved much earlier.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) on securing this debate. His persistence in following this complex and difficult case is an example of how he puts the welfare of his constituents at the forefront of everything he does.
It is clear that his constituent, Mr Robertson, is both angry and frustrated at the way he has been treated and is not satisfied with the explanations that have been subsequently offered. I thought it would be worth setting out what the FCO has done so far to assist Mr Robertson in bringing some form of closure to this difficult situation. I hope it gives some assurances to the hon. Gentleman that the FCO has done all it can in this case.
There are two separate but related issues. The first is the treatment Mr Robertson received from immigration officials at Narita airport and the second is the difficulty he encountered in locating his passport following his deportation. Let me deal with each in turn, explaining the action that consular officials have taken in each instance.
The first issue concerns what happened at Narita. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Mr Robertson has been in regular contact with consular staff in the FCO following his deportation from Japan in February. He requested that we raise with the Japanese authorities his mistreatment by immigration officials at Narita. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the FCO takes allegations of mistreatment of British nationals very seriously and will always raise them with the appropriate authorities when asked to do so. Our embassy in Japan wrote to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in March requesting that an investigation be carried out into the treatment that Mr Robertson was subjected to.
A response was received on 2 May stating that Mr Robertson was treated in line with procedures set out in Japan’s immigration and refugee recognition law. I must say that the two-month delay seems unacceptable and was inordinately long. The response also advised that Mr Robertson was treated in accordance with international human rights standards. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also explained that when a foreign national is refused entry to Japan, the airline, as carrier, is responsible for deporting that person. I understand that a notice of deportation order was passed to KLM officials confirming that Mr Robertson was under their custody and that they were responsible for ensuring that he left the country.
I can appreciate Mr Robertson’s frustrations about the length of time it took for us to receive a response from the Japanese authorities and his concerns that the information received did not explain the reasons behind his deportation. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, consular staff raised Mr Robertson’s case within three days of his bringing it to our attention and they pressed the Japanese authorities for a response on four separate occasions after our initial letter in March.
I am aware that Mr Robertson was unhappy with the response received from the Japanese authorities and asked that the FCO carry out an independent investigation. At Mr Robertson’s request, consular staff approached the Japanese authorities for further information on the reasons why he was refused entry. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs would not divulge specific details of individual cases to our consular staff on the grounds that they are a third party.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the FCO cannot force a foreign Government to respond to our requests, nor is there any legal obligation for them to share information with us. The FCO does not have any jurisdiction to carry out investigations overseas, nor can we insist that the Japanese authorities look into the matter more thoroughly.
I am confident that we explored all possible avenues to obtain this information on Mr Robertson’s behalf and I am sorry to say there is nothing the FCO can do to put pressure on the Japanese authorities to provide the information to us. Should Mr Robertson wish to continue to pursue this matter with the Japanese authorities, he should do so with the assistance of a lawyer. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and Mr Robertson have been given the contact details of the Japanese immigration bureau with which the hon. Gentleman can pursue this matter.
I am aware that Mr Robertson has expressed his dissatisfaction about the level of assistance he has received from consular staff both in London and in Japan, and his concerns that the assistance he was given differs from that provided to other British nationals. I am sorry he feels that way. However, I am confident that our consular staff did all they could to assist and support him in this matter. Consular staff strive to provide a consistent, professional service to all British nationals in accordance with our policies.
Mr Anderson
May I refer the Minister to the specific point about Mr Robertson identifying the person he believed was responsible for the abuse, and the decision by the Foreign Office member of staff not to report that to the Japanese? Surely that should have happened.
Mr Bellingham
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We will certainly pursue anything that he has raised in this debate that is new and of relevance. I will write to him on that specific point.
The second issue is the retrieval of the passport. I can understand Mr Robertson’s additional concerns in this regard. I understand that when the notice of deportation order was passed to KLM officials confirming that Mr Robertson was under their custody, his passport was handed over to KLM officials, and the Japanese immigration authorities’ involvement ceased at that point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, consular staff in Tokyo raised this with Japanese immigration officials and with KLM airlines in Amsterdam. On 25 May, Mr Robertson’s passport was found at KLM offices in Schiphol airport in Amsterdam, and it was subsequently returned to the Identity and Passport Service in the UK.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Mr Robertson’s passport was cancelled on 8 February. The UK Border Agency and Interpol were subsequently notified that his passport was no longer a valid travel document and that all appropriate steps were taken to ensure that his missing passport was not misused. Although the KLM flight captain and crew on the return flight were incredibly courteous and helpful to Mr Robertson, I am not impressed with the follow-up action they took, and there are certainly some points that need addressing.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing Mr Robertson’s situation to the attention of the House. Having introduced a number of Adjournment debates on behalf of constituents over the years, I know first-hand that a Back Bencher’s highlighting of such cases, thus ensuring that their constituents’ concerns are raised and recorded, is incredibly important.
I have tried to spell out what the FCO has done to assist Mr Robertson with his case, although I can appreciate his frustrations at being told there is nothing further we, as an Office, can do to assist him with this matter. I am confident that consular staff have done all they could to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. Obviously I would not presume to tell Mr Robertson what to do, but if there are outstanding issues that he wishes to pursue, then I really would encourage him to consider seeking the assistance of a local independent lawyer.
The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that he was keen to have a meeting with me. I have never yet turned down a request from a parliamentarian to have a meeting. Parliamentarians obviously have the right to raise issues on behalf of constituents, and other matters, in the House on the Adjournment. When a parliamentarian contacts a Minister to say that he would like to have a meeting, that is certainly something that we consider very seriously. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come and have a chat with me, or indeed with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is responsible for consular services, then of course we will accede to that request; we are more than happy to do so. I know only too well the hon. Gentleman’s determination and commitment to his constituents—not just this one particular constituent but all of them. He is a fine example of an MP who is taking up the case of a constituent and raising it in the House, and I applaud him for doing that.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would like us to facilitate a meeting with the Japanese embassy and with KLM. I cannot do that. However, as I said, when a parliamentarian contacts a Minister to request a particular meeting, we will certainly accede to that—these are, after all, requests from parliamentarians in the British House of Commons. I hope that his request for a meeting with KLM and the Japanese embassy will be taken very seriously.
Once again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. If there are any outstanding or additional points that I have not covered, I would be more than happy to write to him in the very near future.
Question put and agreed to.