Press Freedom and Safety of Protesters: India

Debate between Graham Stringer and Martyn Day

Monday 8th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 563473 relating to press freedoms and safety of protestors in India.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this return to Westminster Hall debates, with virtual participation—something I know many Members are grateful for—which gives e-petitions awaiting a debate the public hearing that the petitioners deserve.

Farming protests in India may not seem to be the most obvious issue for a petitions debate, but the Petitions Committee has always accepted petitions calling on the UK Government to engage with other Governments on human rights issues. The petition focuses on the protests in Delhi and across India following the agricultural reforms agreed by the Indian Parliament. It calls on the UK Government to

“Urge the Indian Government to ensure safety of protestors & press freedom”.

It argues that

“democratic engagement and freedom of the press are fundamental rights and a positive step towards creating a India that works for all”,

and calls for “transparency & accountability” from the Indian Government.

The petition has already been signed by more than 115,000 people, and it has until 17 June to run—a fact that highlights the public interest in, and topicality of, the issue. The close ties, and many family connections, between these islands and India are another factor. The petition was created by Gurch Singh, whose family is from a farming background in the Punjab, after the distress he observed when he found his mother in tears watching the Indian news channels’ coverage of the protests. He then spoke with relatives in India about the distress they were in, and with members of his local community. It is testament to his efforts that his area is in the top 10 constituencies for signatories. Gilles Verniers, a political scientist at Ashoka University, has said:

“Every farmer community everywhere is discussing these farm laws. It is not just a local or regional matter.”

He is right. It has even found its way to being debated in these islands.

The farming protests are complex in their nature and origins. Indeed, even as a Member who takes a keen interest in India and has family connections there, I must admit that, prior to the scheduling of the debate, I had little knowledge of the subject, other than having seen some brief news footage of clashes between farmers and police in riot gear, from which I gleaned that it was something to do with farming laws, and that several high-profile celebrities such as Rihanna and Greta Thunberg had spoken out about it. I am grateful to those who have taken the time to speak with me over the last few days, and to those who have provided briefings. The House of Commons Library, the Indian high commission, the petitioner, and several political contacts with first-hand experience have all greatly assisted my understanding of the issue.

Today, we are not having a debate about the merits of the agricultural reform Bills passed by the Indian Parliament. The UK Government have repeatedly acknowledged that it is a sovereign matter for the Government and people of India. In their diplomatically worded response to the petition, the UK Government stated:

“We respect that agricultural reforms are a matter for India”.

That new-found support for self-determination and sovereignty from the UK Government is quite encouraging —those of us from Scotland are paying close attention.

The Indian Government’s right to enforce law and order is also not in dispute, and again that has been repeatedly acknowledged by the UK Government in their statements on the protests. In their response to the petition, the UK Government stated:

“We also recognise that governments have the power to enforce law and order if a protest crosses the line into illegality. We look to the Indian government to uphold all freedoms and rights guaranteed in India’s strong constitution.”

However, this debate is an opportunity to note concerns raised regarding the safety of protesters and press freedoms in reporting on the protests.

To help those who may be coming to the debate with a similar knowledge base to the one that I had a week ago, I believe the background to be as follows. It can be argued that the farmers have been ripped off for generations, that the sector requires reform, and that they have suffered a huge loss of income due to the covid lockdowns. Agriculture is controlled by the state in India, and three farm laws were passed by India’s Parliament last September, resulting in opposition from farming groups. There are arguments about the constitutionality of the laws, which is an issue for India’s own legislative and judicial process.

The farm laws allow, for the first time, farm gate sales to corporations. They put an end to warehouse capacity limits for processors, and they introduce tax-free, privately owned corporate yards, or mandis. We have heard reports of water cannons and tear gas being used against protesters in the early stages of the protests, repeated clashes between police and protesters, and the suspension of mobile internet access and social media accounts in late January and early February. There are good links to reputable sources on those events in the House of Commons Library debate pack.

Sadly, several farmers have suicided in protest, and others have died from exposure during the winter conditions of the protests. Indian farmers have been occupying roads around Delhi since 26 November, and on 26 January—Republic Day—they drove more than 120,000 tractors to the capital. The vast majority of those taking part, it should be stressed, did so peacefully. I believe it was inspired by an American farmers’ “tractorcade”, which brought Washington to a standstill in 1979. It is a small world.

Across India, some 750 million people are directly engaged in agriculture. That is around half of India’s population. Land has been described as sacred, and farming seen as a religious duty or way of life. It is a very significant issue for India, and has a resonance with the Indian diaspora around the globe, and for concerned environmental and political activists. While the protests been largely peaceful, they have on occasion involved the use of direct action such as strikes and blockades, which have disrupted road and rail traffic. The most significant clash between police and protesters so far came on 26 January, when one protester died and more than 80 police officers were injured after protesters deviated from an agreed protest route, including breaching security to enter the iconic Red Fort in Delhi.

The BBC cited local media reports of police using tear gas and batons, and of police officers being targeted by protesters driving tractors. The violence was condemned by farmers’ groups and union leaders. In response to the violence, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs put out a statement on 3 February arguing that the violence on 26 January had been the result of “vested interest groups” influencing the protests. It argued:

“Indian police forces have handled these protests with utmost restraint”,

despite hundreds of police officers being attacked. The statement also noted that the Government have held multiple rounds of dialogue with protesters’ representatives and farming unions, and had offered to suspend the implementation of the laws—an offer rejected by the farmers’ unions, who want to see the laws fully repealed.

Following the violence at the end of January, the Indian Government also temporarily suspended mobile internet access in three areas around Delhi where protesters had gathered. The Indian Government claimed that the suspension was in order to maintain public safety. The UK Government have since acknowledged and welcomed the removal of those restrictions in their answer to a House of Lords written question on 22 February. However, on 9 February, Amnesty International released a statement calling on the Indian Government to stop what it referred to as an “escalating crackdown” on protesters and farming leaders, citing reports of arrests, threats and harassment of peaceful protesters. The International Press Institute took the matter up in its communication directly with Prime Minister Modi, in which it urged him

“to take immediate steps to ensure that journalists can work without harassment and fear of reprisal”

from the Government,

“and to direct the state governments to drop all charges against journalists, including those under the draconian sedition laws, that have been imposed on them for their work”.

Press freedom and the right to peaceful protest is central to any democracy, so the images emerging from India over the past few months are deeply worrying. Some 67 journalists were arrested and detained last year alone. The escalation in violence and the press crackdown, including over social media accounts, cannot simply be ignored, especially at a time when the UK Government are keen to strengthen ties with the Indian Government.

As the world’s largest democracy and a key regional player, India has a pivotal role to play on the world stage. That is why it is vital that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary impress on our Indian partners our joint convictions on free speech and the right to protest. I look forward to hearing the contributions to the debate, and I hope that the Minister will advise whether these concerns will be raised by the Prime Minister on his trip later this year.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Back-Bench speakers, I have two points to make. I am going to put a time limit of three minutes on speeches. I also announced at the beginning that hon. Members who were not present for the start of the debate would not be allowed to speak, but this is the first time we have had these arrangements so at the end I will call two hon. Members who were not here at the start—one of whom I think I went to Westminster Hall, as opposed to the Boothroyd Room, which is understandable. I do not expect there to be that flexibility after this sitting, but it makes sense to do it this way for this first meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day [V]]

I thank all who took part in this debate. It is fantastic that these debates are taking place, so I also thank the House authorities for facilitating them, although we could clearly have done with a much longer debate. The spirit of today’s contributions was very much one of concern born out of friendship. The images and testimonies that we heard today are thoroughly depressing. We rightly regard India as a valuable friend and ally, which makes it imperative that we do not turn a blind eye to the events taking place. To do so would be a failure of both diplomacy and friendship.

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

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the sitting. Please will Members participating physically leave the room promptly by the exit door on the left while observing social distancing. Thank you.

Sitting suspended.

Trade Deals and the NHS

Debate between Graham Stringer and Martyn Day

Monday 16th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 307339, relating to trade deals and the NHS.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This e-petition raises

“concerns that a trade deal between the UK Government and the US deal might not exempt our NHS, leaving it vulnerable to privatisation and in direct contradiction to promises this would not happen.”

It was launched on 11 May and closed on Remembrance Day last week, attracting just under 112,000 signatures. The UK Government responded on 23 June, stating:

“The government has been clear that protecting the UK’s right to regulate in the public interest and protecting public services, including the NHS, is of the upmost importance.”

The petition also highlights that if a deal quietly went through during the coronavirus crisis, it would be unethical, lack transparency and, if US finances were involved in our medical system, potentially create a direct health risk to us. This latter point relates to the fact that US Government statements have suggested that they intend to negotiate for US pharmaceutical companies to charge higher prices for medicines sold to the NHS as part of any UK-US free trade agreement. The cost of drugs to the NHS is already growing much faster than inflation, driving deficits across the service. Allowing big business and pharmaceutical companies to behave as they see fit would drive costs for new drugs well beyond the NHS’s ability to afford them, threatening our health, safety and national security.

In their response to the petition, the Government went on to reiterate their overall objectives, which were stated in their UK-US freed trade agreement document. They said that, along with the NHS, the price the NHS pays for drugs and the services the NHS provides would not be on the table when negotiating trade deals. Their response also said that no changes would be made to the UK’s

“intellectual property regime that would lead to increased medicines prices for the NHS.”

However, the timing of the launch of this petition is significant because, as the Government response also pointed out, the negotiating objectives for a free trade agreement between the UK and the US were published on 2 March, more than two months before the petition’s launch. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that, as the petition was launched after the publication of the UK-US trade deal negotiation objectives, either the petitioners thought that the Government had not been clear in their response, or they were not convinced that the price the NHS pays for drugs or the services it provides would not be on the table when negotiating trade deals.

Indeed, who can question the petitioners’ doubts, when we have seen the UK Government’s repeated refusal to guarantee excluding the NHS and other public services from future trade deals? For example, most recently, on 28 August, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) tabled a written parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for International Trade, asked if she will make it her policy to exclude the NHS from potential future trade deals. Unfortunately, although the question was direct, the answer the hon. Member received did not give a direct commitment.

Furthermore, the UK Government’s response said that their negotiating positions had been made clear to all their trade partners, including by the Secretary of State in her written ministerial statement to Parliament on 18 May. Although the Secretary of State’s statement on the future trading relationship with the US mentioned negotiations many times, not once did it confirm that the NHS was not a part of them. I therefore struggle to see what reassurance that statement gave.

The Secretary of State’s next statement on the matter, on 30 June, entitled “Negotiations on the UK’s Future Trading Relationship with the US: Update”, stated:

“the Government remains clear on protecting the NHS”.

Those eight words would have been welcomed across the House, of course, and we all wanted to take consolation from them. Yet our hopes were again dashed less than a month later when Conservative MPs voted overwhelmingly against an amendment to the Trade Bill that would have enshrined in law the protection of our NHS and other vital public services that this petition is calling for. That is a significant inconsistency and contradicts previous promises, which is a tenet of the petition. I hope that the Minister can throw some light on why only two Conservative MPs saw the perceived duplicity in saying one thing and then acting against it, not least because neither of the Secretary of State’s subsequent statements have repeated that assurance.

The people who have signed the petition just want that assurance. They want a cast-iron guarantee—not words that can easily be rescinded—that the vital services provided by our NHS will be protected. Those vital services have come to the fore in an unprecedented way throughout this terrible covid-19 pandemic. Quite simply, the petitioners do not want our NHS to be weakened and undermined by private companies being able to trade unhindered on the back of it, which, I think—I am sure others here agree—is a perfectly reasonable position, given what has already occurred with the Trade Bill.

It is important to note at an early stage in this debate that, because the Trade Bill was able to pass without the amendment that would have protected the NHS and publicly funded health and care services in other parts of the UK from any form of control from outside the UK, one independent MP joined 336 Conservative MPs to reject protecting the provision of a comprehensive, publicly funded health service, free at the point of delivery, from being undermined or restricted by any international trade agreement. It is also worth noting that the rejected amendment would have, among other things, recognised that an appropriate authority had the right to enact policies, legislation and regulation that protect and promote health, public health, social care and public safety in health or care services. Furthermore, it would have excluded provision for any investor-state dispute settlement, a clause that provides or is related to the delivery of public services, healthcare, care or public health. I will discuss the relevance of ISDS clauses shortly.

I want to highlight another amendment proposed to the Trade Bill that would have required the UK Government to secure the approval of both Houses of Parliament and the devolved Parliaments of Scotland and Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly before a trade agreement could be approved. Notably, 323 Conservative MPs voted down the proposal. The reality of those two amendments being rejected, which has been reported by the BBC’s Reality Check, is that Parliament does not have a statutory role in either scrutinising or voting on any future trade deals because the Government have the power to pass some aspects of trade deals without there even needing to be a vote in Parliament.

Apart from the worrying lack of scrutiny that situation presents in protecting our NHS and other public services, I believe it to be fundamentally undemocratic. Indeed, the bottom line is that, despite the UK Government’s response to the petition stating that they

“will continue to ensure that decisions on how to run public services”

will include “Devolved Administrations”, the devolved Administrations—like Parliament—will not play a statutory role in the UK Government’s international trade policy. That is undemocratic and highlights the wider implication that a trade deal could undermine the constitutional powers that devolution delivered.

It is plain for everyone to see that the NHS is a prime example of that, because health is a devolved matter. Therefore, given that the UK Government are in a position to influence devolved powers without a statutory requirement to seek consent from, or even to consult, the devolved Administrations, will the Minister today also explain the Government’s position that it is constitutionally inappropriate for devolved Administrations to have a statutory role in a reserved area, while it is not deemed constitutionally inappropriate for the UK Government to legislate in areas of devolved competence?

If the UK Government want us to believe that they will keep their promises that the NHS is not on the table in trade negotiations, they should commit to legislation that will ensure it is taken off the table. I am certain that I am not alone in finding it hard to understand why an amendment that would have ensured market access to healthcare services was restricted was roundly rejected by all but two Conservative MPs. Having discussed how trade deals could negatively impact on health services, what possible reason did the Government have for not seizing the opportunity to commit legally to ensuring that trade agreements could not be concluded if they risked altering the way our NHS services are provided?

That brings me to investor-state dispute settlements, which are a threat to public services, particularly when they are permitted speculatively or retrospectively. That was a red line when the EU negotiated TTIP—the transatlantic trade and investment partnership—with the US. The EU would never accept a trade deal with the US in which such principles were compromised, because the trade agreements that include investor-state dispute settlement clauses have the potential to undermine the procurement process and regulations within public procurement, especially within the NHS, if not restrained properly and fairly.

Indeed, the creator of the petition, Joanne Barlow, saw investor-state dispute settlements as one of the major problems of a trade deal with the US, pointing out that they could include legal challenges by any US markets deprived of access to the market or if their profits were threatened. Joanne explained that that would make it difficult to return the NHS to a fully publicly owned and run institution. In addition, Ms Barlow noted that she could not find evidence of a specific clause exempting the NHS from American investment. It would therefore be of some comfort to the petitioners if the Minister could today confirm that there will be no investor-state dispute settlement clauses in any trade deal signed by the UK.

To summarise, if this Government’s insistence that the NHS is not on the table in a trade deal with the US is indeed the case, why did they not accept the amendments that were put forward and commit their pledges in law? The petitioners want that insistence to be in legislation, to ensure that our NHS is not left vulnerable to privatisation or becomes a victim of broken promises that it will not be sold off to the highest bidder. No one needs reminding that we are still in the depths of the covid-19 pandemic, which has caused physical, mental and financial hardship to people across the UK. Given the lack of scrutiny and democracy that the Trade Bill has delivered, I urge the UK Government to respect the request of the petitioners in their negotiations with the US and not to progress a trade deal that will risk our NHS in any way.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Within the Chamber now are five Members on the call list, with two Members not in the Chamber, so it is difficult for me to calculate a time limit. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople from 5.30 pm, so we have about 45 minutes for Back-Bench speeches. If Members keep an eye on the clock and make short speeches, I will not have to impose a time limit.