Palestine and Israel

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I will not discuss the rights and wrongs of the Palestinian and Israeli causes, about which hon. Members have spoken with such passion and eloquence, because I want to focus on the narrow issue of recognition: when it is appropriate and what its consequences are.

Some countries grant recognition as a mark of approval of a regime and withhold it as a mark of disapproval. Others grant recognition only on condition of receiving reciprocal favours from the country concerned. Neither approach has traditionally been that of the British Government. We have always granted recognition to a regime, however abhorrent, once it has established effective control of the state apparatus on the bulk of its territory. Likewise, we withhold or withdraw recognition from any regime, however congenial, if it lacks, or loses, control over the bulk of the state apparatus in its territory. Thus, whereas the United States refused to recognise the communist regime in China for many years and continued to recognise Taiwan as the legitimate Government, Britain speedily recognised the People’s Republic of China once its power was clearly established. I believe that we should stick to that pragmatic approach, subject to qualifications. We should recognise the Palestinian state, not as a mark of approval of its policies or disapproval of Israeli policies, but simply as a recognition of the reality, just as we would do anywhere else in the world.

There are two possible objections to our doing this. The first is that this is a question of recognising a state as well as a regime. Normally, we recognise a state as any duly constituted territory established as a state with a long history or more recently by agreement with the previous authorities exercising sovereignty in that territory. We did not recognise Katanga or Biafra even though the breakaway regime had established control, but Palestine is not a breakaway regime. It was recognised as a separate entity by the inheritor of the previous sovereign authority, the League of Nations and then the General Assembly of the United Nations.

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

I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman is drawing a conclusion in favour of recognition. Does he think it significant that he and the right hon. Members for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) and for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway)—distinguished senior Conservative Back Benchers and former Ministers—have arrived at the conclusion that recognition is the way forward? Is not this a significant step?

[Mr Lilley]

I am sure that it is extremely significant, as is any contribution that I make. [Laughter.]

The second objection is the one that has been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)—namely, that the Palestinian state is not in de facto control of its territory because of Israeli occupation. However, Britain has never accepted that military occupation extinguishes a country’s statehood. We did not do so during the second world war, when we continued to recognise the occupied countries in western Europe. For that reason, we should go ahead with recognition.

What effect would recognition have? Here, I fear that I must disappoint Members on both sides of the debate: it would have very little impact indeed. The proponents and opponents of recognition exaggerate the impact that it would have. Already, 134 countries have recognised Palestine and it has had no discernible effect on either advancing or hindering the peace process. Sadly, we in this House cling to the delusion that the world hangs on our every word, but it is absurd to imagine that the people who are prepared to fire rockets at civilian areas from Palestine, or the people in Israel who are prepared to incur international odium by the brutal way in which they respond, will be moved one way or the other by what we in this House say today. It is time we as a Parliament grew up and recognised that we have very little control over what happens there. Ultimately, it will be the people on both sides who will recognise the need to reach an accommodation. In that important programme the other night, we saw six former heads of Shin Bet—Israel’s state security apparatus—acknowledging the need to reach such an accommodation.

In line with our traditional policy, we should recognise the Palestinian state as a reality. We would not be granting it anything; we would simply be recognising a fact. We should make it clear that, in doing so, we were not expressing support for its policies or repudiating the right of Israel to exist. We must also accept that change will come about only as a result of those on the ground in Israel and Palestine realising that they need—

Bangladesh

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for his initiative in enabling Members to comment on the situation in Bangladesh. I also echo others in thanking the chair of the all-party group on Bangladesh, my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who has earned the trust and the gratitude of Members through her exceptional leadership of a group that has covered a number of important issues during the past few years.

I listened with particular interest to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who spoke with great expertise about this topic, as she does about many others, and I shall begin my speech where she began hers. The impact of the terrible situation in Bangladesh can be measured by the disruption, violence and deaths that affect the lives of ordinary Bengalis in Bangladesh, and also by the natural sympathies and empathies that British Bengalis feel in relation to not just their family members and people from their villages, but the future of their country, given the direction that it has taken under the current political leadership of the Government and Opposition parties.

Effective democracies require good governance, and good governance requires not just the letter but the spirit of the constitution to be followed. Constitutions are not dry documents on which the ink settled many years ago; they are living documents, and they are given life by the people and partisans who take on public life in democracies to achieve a better outcome for their constituents and their countries. If politicians are to operate effectively, a discourse must take place between the leaders of political parties. Beyond the clash of personalities and the partisanship of party labels, there must be a fundamental understanding of the operation of politics to which both political parties acquiesce, and that requires compromise. It is clear that such a situation has not existed in Bangladesh in the recent past.

As many Members have observed, the present situation in Bangladesh cannot be viewed in isolation from the sequence of events that led to it. What appeared to many members of the all-party group over the past few years to be a drift away from democracy now appears to be an active pursuit of one-party or one-coalition rule. Let me list the steps that have been taken that I believe point to there being an active strategy, rather than an unconnected series of events.

Many Members have rightly observed that we should look at the actions of both political parties and should not take sides. That is fair, but only up to a point. I believe that a particular responsibility lies with the governing party of the day. As I list these steps, I think it will become clear, in the case of each of them, that there were decisions to be made, that those decisions were made by the governing party and that, as a result, that governing party is accountable for them. I hope that the Minister will convey to us some of his thoughts about the actions that he would like the current Government of Bangladesh to have undertaken in each instance.

Let me begin by describing the actions of the Rapid Action Battalion. Like many organisations, it was organised with good intentions—the purpose was to crack down on crime—but, in effect, it is an extra-judicial squad that goes around randomly arresting people and potentially involving itself in wide-ranging corruption. It has a habit of killing ordinary civilians in what Human Rights Watch has euphemistically called “crossfire”. By 2010, more than 600 people had been reported to have been killed by the Rapid Action Battalion in such “crossfire” incidents. Its action has continued, and the Awami League-led Government have shown no ability whatsoever to bring it under control.

Imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, an extra-judicial killing squad roaming around the countryside in Epping Forest or other parts of our United Kingdom, and the Government of the day not taking any action as a result. I think that serious questions would be asked in the House and that the whole of our free society would require the Government to take action, but that has not happened in Bangladesh.

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

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm that serious questions have been raised for years about the integrity of the Rapid Action Battalion and the way in which it has operated. That has happened under both Governments, which makes it doubly depressing that the force seems still to be operating with total impunity.

[Richard Fuller]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. When issues persist under this Government, he rightly asks the Government questions in the House about how they are dealing with them—that is the right thing to do. Responsibility now lies with the Government in Bangladesh, who are allowing that force to continue its extra-judicial killing.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who is an active member of the all-party group and demonstrates his deep knowledge of the issues we are discussing. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on his initiative in securing this debate from the Backbench Business Committee and welcome the support from the chair of the all-party group, the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). I also commend her on the way in which she framed this debate in her excellent opening contribution which was balanced, constructive and informed, and demonstrates why she is our leader as chair of the group. We are very grateful for the work she puts into making it as active and involved as it is.

What we are hearing is shared despair at the situation in Bangladesh. I am a vice-chair of the all-party group and I have visited the country on five occasions. I have some 15,000-plus constituents in Poplar and Limehouse whose family are from Bangladesh. Some of them support the Awami League and others support the Bangladesh Nationalist party, and I suspect there are even some who support Jamaat.

My wife is a trustee of the Sreepur village orphanage in Bangladesh and I am a patron. It has being going for 25 years this year and looks after 1,000 destitute mums and kids in Bangladesh. We in Britain are proud of it because it was founded by a British Airways stewardess, Pat Kerr, and promoted by the BBC and British Airways. I also did a two-week stint in Dhaka in Bangladesh in 2008 with my wife on Voluntary Service Overseas. As an aside, I add that my most memorable headline was secured during that visit when, as part of our activities with the non-governmental organisation to which we were attached, we visited Bangladesh’s largest legal brothel, with 1,800 prostitutes, to look at the sexual health advice and the anti-HIV/AIDS activity it was promoting. The headline in the Dhaka Daily Star the next morning was “British Aviation Minister visits brothel.” That was not the most encouraging information No. 10 received that September, but I still managed to front the Labour Government’s initiative on additional aviation capacity in the south-east, which fortunately the Davies commission now seems to be agreeing with. I have strong connections with Bangladesh, therefore.

The international reaction from Washington, Beijing, Brussels and the UN has been consistent, as it has been in the Chamber today. All are calling for calm, for dialogue and for a fresh approach.

Many Members have pointed out that Bangladesh is a young democracy, that it is one of the poorest countries in the world, and that it suffers greatly from climate change, but it also has strong international support, and it has made dynamic economic progress in its young history and demonstrated great generosity and spirit. That is what makes recent events doubly disappointing, especially after the 2008 election, which had a turnout of nearly 90% and was declared to have been free and fair.

Subsequent problems have arisen over the war crimes tribunal, the international caretaker electoral arrangements, the use of the death penalty—the hon. Member for Bedford mentioned the adjustments to that—the use of punishments, the unprovoked violence from political extremists and the concerns about overreaction. These have all conspired to exacerbate the problems facing Bangladesh.

Given the progress made since the 1971 war of independence, the country’s political leaders have serious questions to answer. Both the main political parties have demonstrated immaturity and petulance. The Awami League and the BNP have both boycotted Parliament after election defeats, but both came to their senses. The representation by the hon. Member for St Albans of the history of the problems of the Governments and the different systems involved was a fair one. She demonstrated the open support in this House and across Britain for the Bangladeshi political parties to get together to resolve their difficulties. The challenge for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League is how to reach out to Begum Khaleda Zia and the BNP and rebuild confidence. Without stabilisation, Bangladesh’s world standing could be reduced, which would harm its economy. No one wants to see that outcome.

Yesterday, I and other colleagues met minority groups based in the UK. They were citizens demonstrating in Parliament square to raise their concerns about the violent attacks on Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and others in Bangladesh, which occur regularly at election time. Those attacks must be condemned. Jamaat supporters have been accused of orchestrating a lot of them, but whatever their source, they must be stopped. Both the main parties need to do more to protect the minority communities and to condemn all political, ethnic, religious or cultural violence.

[Rehman Chishti]

The hon. Gentleman mentions Jamaat. He must have seen the recent statement that Jamaat will not be able to contest any elections in future. If that is the case, might it not result in further violence in Bangladesh? We have only to look at what has happened elsewhere with the Muslim Brotherhood; if Jamaat goes underground, there is more likelihood of violence, and that needs to be addressed.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

That is a genuine concern. The right balance must be struck in regard to political freedom and the free expression of ideas through democracy, argument and reasoning, and the possible defeat of those ideas at the ballot box. Jamaat has not been prohibited in Bangladesh, although it has been accused of being a terrorist organisation. One would oppose the ambition of some in Bangladesh to create an Islamist republic, but I understand that it is something that some people want. However, they form a tiny minority. In the last election, I think Jamaat got less than 4% of the popular vote. That demonstrates Bangladesh’s great support for its democracy and its secularism.

I do not think that the political parties in Bangladesh need to be frightened or provoked by Jamaat, or stampeded by it. Arguments can be made that will beat it through the electoral process. The BNP has been in alliance with it, and many commentators are calling on that party to dissociate itself from Jamaat in order to create more political space. I understand that, historically, the Awami League had an alliance with Jamaat. These days, however, Jamaat is putting forward a much clearer political point of view, and the main parties should all dissociate themselves from it and let it stand on its own two feet.

[John Hemming]

I endorse what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) have said so far. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in order to build trust and ensure that there are fresh elections, the institution of a caretaker Government will be necessary?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I believe that the calls for new elections are premature at this point. Holding elections immediately would only play into the hands of those who have tried to sabotage the recent ones. The international community has a job to do in stabilising relations within Bangladesh, in giving support to the BNP and the Awami League, and in creating a climate in which elections can take place. I cannot see the Awami League staying in power for a full five-year term; that would be against the spirit of what has happened so far, and against the spirit of what has been said in the Chamber today. It will be very difficult to get to a situation in which elections can take place, however.

[Richard Fuller]

I want to make it clear that it is important for new elections to be held in the near future. The last election did not confer legitimacy. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it would be okay to go on for two or three years before having a new election, or should one be held within months, as happened in 1996?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The timing of a new election is difficult. I do not think it should be five years hence; it should be held within weeks or months, but I think it will take a bit longer than that. A certain political climate has existed in Bangladesh for several months now, as the all-party group’s visit in September confirmed, and it would not be in Bangladesh’s best interests to call an election now. However, I understand the ambition—and I support the call—for free and fair elections to give greater validity to whoever is in power.

The recent election has produced nothing but losers. The Awami League has lost some of its moral authority, the BNP clearly lost the election, and Bangladesh has lost some of its international reputation because of its damaged democracy. However, online reports yesterday from The Daily Star in Bangladesh seem to offer some hope. The reports of consensus talks and co-operation between the Awami League and the BNP are encouraging, but there is a long way to go.

In conclusion, I too want to ask the Minister what contact the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have had with their Bangladeshi counterparts. What message are we sending to Dhaka and to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina? Everyone, including the British Government, our high commissioner in Dhaka and the Bangladeshi high commissioner here, wants to see peace and a healthy, secular democracy thriving in Bangladesh. Getting there will be very challenging, however, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Friday 29th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

Let me begin by wishing all my Jewish constituents, and Jewish people all over the world, a happy Chanukah.

It is a great pleasure to introduce this series of amendments. A number of them are in my name, but some have been tabled by other Members. The amendments in my name are 52, 53, 54, 55, 17, 5, 6, 7, 16 and 61. In the first part of my speech I shall concentrate on amendments 52, 53, 54 and 55, which relate to the provision in clause 3(1) that

“The Electoral Commission shall publish a report setting out its recommendations for the rules in accordance with which the referendum is to be conducted “.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mike Gapes]

I will in a moment. I should like to make a little progress first.

If the referendum is to be conducted properly, we cannot allow the Electoral Commission’s report to be published so close to the date on which it takes place that the commission’s proposals cannot be properly considered by the Government and then implemented. We must specify a date in order to provide a clear deadline for the commission, which does not always act in a timely manner. The amendments propose various alternative dates because at the time when they were tabled there was another group of amendments to be considered and I did not know when they would be debated, but all those dates precede the proposed date of the referendum, namely before the end of 2017.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am glad that my hon. Friend cautioned me against intervening too early, because he has now started to explain. What I wanted to know was why he had specified three different dates. Was it because he was not sure which would be the best of the three, was it because of the pace at which the Electoral Commission could move, was it because we were not sure when the referendum would take place, or was it because he was not sure whether any or all the amendments would be selected?

[Mike Gapes]

The answer to those questions is yes, yes, yes and yes. The proposed date of the referendum was not made clear to us initially, and there was a possibility of amendments allowing it to be held, for example, before the general election, one year after the election, or later. It was therefore important for there to be amendments in this group which were related to, but not dependent on, those in the other group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I tabled these amendments for many reasons, but the most important reason is that the Bill is inadequate. It has many flaws, and if it leaves the House of Commons unamended, the other place will have to give it proper consideration and try to remedy the failure of this place to improve it.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I saw the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), shaking his head during my hon. Friend’s comments. This morning the hon. Gentleman moved an amendment to his own Bill, so it is clear that it has already been improved. Has my hon. Friend had a chance to discuss these amendments with the hon. Gentleman, and can he tell us whether the hon. Gentleman is inclined to accept them?

[Mike Gapes]

I have had no direct discussions with the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), but he is present, and is perfectly at liberty to speak about the amendments or even to intervene now. I should welcome an intervention from him if he wishes to explain why he does not like certain of my amendments. However, as we have observed on previous Fridays, although he is the Bill’s promoter, he makes hardly any contributions to our debates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am sorry to say that I am somewhat disappointed by amendment 17. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who said that it will give a veto to the devolved Assemblies, which is not in the ethos of a United Kingdom. More importantly, paragraph (d) states that there is a veto in relation to European Parliament constituencies. Notwithstanding the explanation of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) about the referendum result not being binding, the amendment refers to a decision that

“the referendum has not produced a valid outcome.”

To me, that means that the referendum would be discarded. Does the amendment mean that the Electoral Commission will raise such a matter, because the amendment does not indicate what will happen if vetoes for different geographical areas are allowed and one actually takes place?

[Mike Gapes]

I agree that amendment 17 is not perfect. I originally put forward a series of amendments, but they were tabled together as one amendment. I would have preferred to have a vote on each paragraph separately, but that is not how the process worked, so they are all together in one. I interpret the amendment as giving advice to the Electoral Commission, which would then make recommendations to the Government, at least six months and probably two years in advance of any referendum. At that point, provisions could be considered to take account of the needs of the whole of the United Kingdom, as well as the requirement for a threshold to ensure that the result of any referendum cannot be based on a small minority, as has happened in police and crime commissioner or other elections, when the decision will have profound long-term implications for the future of the whole United Kingdom.

Amendments 5 to 7, which are linked, make proposals relating to the conduct of the referendum to make sure that there is a level playing field in the provision of public information and campaigning on both the yes and the no sides. From our experience of other referendums, not least the one on the alternative vote, we know that the different sides can put in different levels of resources. We know that well-funded American citizens of Australian origin who have daily newspapers and people from other countries who have connections with lobbying companies and organisations, whether tobacco lobbyists or others, will be able to generate large amounts of publicity for one side in any referendum campaign.

It is important to have balance. We already have rules with regard to party political broadcasts on television. Amendment 6 would make provision for television referendum broadcasts for both sides, so that there are

“no fewer than six nor more than 10 broadcasts of a total time of at least 60 minutes on all television channels…at such times as are determined by the Electoral Commission”.

Given that this country has minority languages that are recognised by the devolved institutions, we need provision for broadcasts in Welsh or Gaelic in certain parts of the United Kingdom.

[Mike Gapes]

The amendment is about state funding to ensure that both sides have a minimum level of resources for campaigning, but it does not cap the total that can be spent. It is entirely up to the Electoral Commission to propose rules of that kind. None of my amendments would introduce a cap, but I take my hon. Friend’s point. There will undoubtedly be a disparity, with well-funded—perhaps foreign—interests that want the UK to leave the European Union, because they see that as a way to help their companies have lower standards of social protection, parental rights or whatever, so there are dangers.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly and I will agree about amendment 5, as we did on the wording of amendment 17. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South intend to introduce a private Member’s Bill to make voting compulsory in this country? My impression is that what he wants broadcasters and print media to produce would completely turn off the British people by forcing politics down their throats. If anything is guaranteed to ensure that people do not vote in the referendum, it is this amendment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention introduces an interesting question that is not absolutely pertinent to the amendments, but I am sure that Mr Gapes will stick carefully to his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I am about to introduce amendment 7, but I thank my hon. Friend for pre-empting me. It deals with what we could call the Rupert Murdoch question: making sure that when 70% or more, by circulation, of this country’s print media is in the hands of people who do not want Britain to remain in the European Union—they will no doubt campaign vigorously, as many of them have for many months or years, with a relentless daily drip, drip, drip—their readers should have some information from both sides of the campaign.

Amendment 7 states that

“proponents and opponents of the question in the referendum are able to publish a two full page advertisement spread immediately after the front page in all national editions of newspapers published in any part of the United Kingdom, as specified by the Electoral Commission, on four dates to be specified by the Commission”.

That would ensure that the debate is conducted with some degree of fairness, and it would also save costs. There could be a higher figure for both sides of the campaign to enable them to put out more material, but we require balance in our broadcast media—the BBC and other broadcasters are supposed to show balance during election campaigns—and the amendment is about having such balance in our print media.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I took notice of your previous admonishment, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I mentioned alternative legislation. However, I want to do so again on the basis that we considered recently the complex issue of press freedom and the royal charter. Surely what is missing from amendment 7 is the word “paid”. It states that the Secretary of State will make publishers

“publish a two full page advertisement”

on these issues. Surely the word “paid” should be in there, because we would not be taking editorial control of the newspapers. The adverts would surely have to be paid for by the taxpayer.

[Mike Gapes]

It would be for the Electoral Commission to consider how best the adverts could be paid for. The payment could come out of the £10 million that is mentioned in amendment 5 or a special fund could be established for the purpose. Perhaps, out of the goodness of their hearts and acting patriotically in the national interest, the newspapers might allow both sides in the debate to be heard, rather than putting only one side of the argument, as is often the case with some publications in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

Yes, I recall; I was in the Chamber at the time. I withdraw any inadvertent slight against those on the Government Front Bench on that particular point, but obviously my remarks just now about the Minister’s shameful comments still stand.

Despite my youthful appearance, I actually participated in the referendum in 1975. I know it is probably difficult for people to believe, but I was eligible to vote. Indeed, it was my second opportunity to vote in a national poll.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I can reassure my hon. Friend; he need not think that some of us do not believe he voted in that referendum.

[Chris Williamson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I think is also a vegetarian. I was just about to say that my youthful appearance was down to my vegan diet, but I digress.

As we know, in the 1975 referendum the country voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EEC. I have to say I voted no, but I have since recognised that I was wrong to do so. Were I to have my time again, I would certainly vote differently, because the EU has developed in a very positive way. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South referred to some of the benefits of our membership. Certain powerful media moguls in this country want us to withdraw from the EU because it would make it easier to take away workers’ rights and consumer protections and to adopt exploitative working practices, which would become much more commonplace. It is only thanks to the EU that many of those rights are enshrined in law and workers receive the rights they now do, through things such as the working time directive and so on. Obviously, the single market is an extremely important benefit to the UK and the British work force, millions of whose livelihoods rely on companies whose main market is the EU, but that would be jeopardised if the referendum was held and the country voted to withdraw from the EU.

Given the importance of the referendum to the UK’s future, my amendment 85 is essential. It would make a significant turnout at a referendum much more likely. It proposes that unless people have good reason, they should be subject to a penalty if they do not participate in the referendum. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South, I favour compulsory voting, but I am not necessarily suggesting that we introduce it for general and local elections. I think this referendum is different, however, because the consequences of a vote, whatever the outcome, would be profound and potentially irreversible. As I have mentioned, people’s livelihoods, consumers’ rights and the single market would all be affected by a decision to withdraw from the EU. It would be appropriate, therefore, on this occasion, if not on any other, to impose a penalty in order to maximise turnout. We want to ensure that the British people’s voice is heard and that the overwhelming majority of the British people express their view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I shall come on in a few moments to comment briefly on the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South, particularly the one identified by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. What she suggests would certainly be a safeguard, but I am not sure that it would be a strong enough safeguard. I generally support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South, and I am going to speak about them in a few moments.

The difference between the PCC election, in which as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham pointed out the British people spoke volubly by their lack of participation, and the referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU is that the latter is absolutely fundamental and potentially irreversible. If on a turnout of, say, 15%, it was decided that the UK withdraw from the EU, the impact on the remaining 85%—actually, it would be more than 85% because I would assume that the 15% who participated would not have all voted the same way, making it potentially 90%—could be devastating. All those people could have their lives literally turned upside down by a tiny rump, a tiny proportion, of the British people—10%, say, if the turnout were that low. That is why I come back to the point that making it compulsory for people to vote would overcome the scenario that I have just outlined.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Forgive me if I missed this in my hon. Friend’s opening remarks, but did he explain how he arrived at £50? That is a significant amount. It is about the same amount as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and I will pay to see West Ham beat Fulham tomorrow—[Interruption.] Sorry, I mean West Ham United and not the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown).

[Chris Williamson]

I accept that £50 is a fairly arbitrary figure. I did not want to make it so high that it was unreasonable, but it needed to be sufficiently high. I think £50 is around about the level—

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

I will not give way, because I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already and I think the Bill needs to make progress.

I will not press the amendment to a vote and I will not move it, but it raises important issues and I would like to hear the Minister’s response to them.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to contribute briefly to the debate. I should say at the outset that I support the Bill but I also support the European project and the European Union. I do not think that we have anything to fear from a referendum, whenever it happens.

Let me run through the amendments. I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) that I do not support everything that he has proposed. I support amendment 52, oppose amendments 53, 55 and 17, support amendment 5, and say no to amendments 6, 7 and 16, and yes to amendment 61. I would be interested to hear the explanation from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who is on the Front Bench, for amendments 64 and 84, which we have not heard yet. I am not entirely convinced by the proposed wording. I oppose amendment 85. As for amendment 65, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), which he has said that he will not press to a vote, I think its tone was defeatist about Scottish independence and the referendum so I was going to vote against it in principle, as I think we will win the referendum for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I remember with fondness the time when my hon. Friend was the Friday Whip—he was a very good one. Would the debate not be better if the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) at least made an intervention or speech in it?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

It is not for me to respond on behalf of right hon. or hon. Members. When I was a private Member’s Bill Whip, I used to advise colleagues on a Friday. I would say, “Stay in your seat and don’t be provoked by anything Opposition Members say.” The hon. Member for Stockton South is showing admirable restraint. Some of the things that have been said during the debates on these Fridays will have irritated the life out of him, but he is keen to get to the conclusion of the debate. He has made a tactical and strategic decision, but I understand Opposition Members who would rather have engaged in a fuller debate with Government Members.

In conclusion, I support the EU. We have nothing to fear from a referendum. I support the Bill in principle and will vote for it on Third Reading. I look forward to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister explaining why I should support the two amendments he has tabled, which I suspect he will do shortly.

[Wayne David]

I shall keep my comments brief, because hon. Members want to make progress and I want the process to be expedited as much as possible.

I begin by picking up one of the last points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who referred to the comments made a little while ago by the Minister. I take exception to the Minister’s comments. He said that a number of the amendments in the group are otiose. That might be his opinion, but we should put on record our thanks to hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), for tabling amendments, which have allowed for a proper discussion and debate on this enormously important Bill. Regardless of whether we agree with the amendments he has tabled, had he not done so we would not have got into a detailed debate today and on other days about the Bill’s ramifications and implications. Rather than saying simply that the amendments are otiose, we should be thanking my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend spoke eloquently to amendments 52 to 55. In essence, they are about insisting that the Electoral Commission comes forward with a proper series of recommendations for the conduct of the referendum. That is important, because all of us recognise, no matter which side of the argument we are on, that there needs to be a proper and fair discussion and debate in the country. I echo a point made by the Electoral Commission when I say that it is simply not enough to have stipulations about how the debate is conducted; information must be provided by the Government that objectively sets out the parameters of the debate to be held. The Electoral Commission says that all the research it has conducted shows clearly that the majority of the population feel that they do not have sufficient information to reach an objective decision, either for or against. It is therefore important that the Government set out objective information about the European Union. Of course, the last thing we want is the Government subjectively setting out information, in a biased and partisan way. That is why it is very important that the Electoral Commission not only sets out rules—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), for Derby North (Chris Williamson), for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David). It was a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). It was somewhat surprising that the Minister was short in his comments; he certainly was not sweet in his comments. One noticeable feature of his contributions on Report has been the increasing fear he seems to be displaying of taking interventions, particularly from those on the Front Bench but also from Back Benchers.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is doubly disappointing, given how much respect and high regard the Minister is held in?

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend has made his point, and he is accurate.

I wish to speak to amendments 84 and 64 in my name. I may want to press amendment 64 to a Division.

First, let me address speedily the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South. Although referendums are—in this country, at least—unusual, there have been several in recent years, and a noticeably higher number under Labour Governments. Not for us the dismissive attitude to some of the British people of Conservatives such as Boris Johnson—we instinctively trust the British people. Under Labour we had the 1975 European Communities membership referendum. We have had the various Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolution referendums, and the referendum that proposed a devolution of powers to London—the Greater London authority referendum in 2000. We have also seen a number of referendums on directly elected mayors. There is a considerable amount of experience to draw on in getting any future referendums right.

Referendums are substantial undertakings. Their administration is a sizeable cost to the state. There is also substantial inconvenience to the public; schools get closed for the day. Rightly, therefore, great emphasis is placed on getting the conduct of the referendum right. We do not want to waste precious resources or the time of those involved. We need to ensure that the result is legitimate, valid and fair. With that in mind, a proper plan for the arrangement of the referendum is sensible. Clause 3(1) is helpful in that regard, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South pointed out, the absence of a timetable or deadline for the publication of the Electoral Commission’s report is problematic.

Bangladesh (Escalation of Violence)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Rushanara Ali]

I am coming on to that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There have been reports of attacks on Hindu temples and other minority groups, including Buddhists, and on businesses and homes. That is completely unacceptable. I will come on to that in a moment and refer to discussions in the other place.

Following the International Crimes Tribunal’s recent rulings, there has been violence, as we are all aware. According to Odhikar—a Bangladeshi human rights watchdog—more than 100 people died between 5 February and 7 March; 67 people were killed after the court delivered its third sentence on 28 February. As the hon. Gentleman has already mentioned, there have also been attacks on minority groups, and they have been highlighted by Lord Avebury in the other place. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide an update on any representations that the UK Government have made about these issues and what action the Bangladesh Government are taking to provide protection to those who feel vulnerable, particularly those in minority communities.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. There was a demonstration outside the Palace of Westminster last Wednesday on behalf of minority groups—Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and others—who put responsibility for the attacks on minority communities directly at the door of the Jamaat-e-Islami party. They claim that it organised the violence as a response to the war crimes tribunal judgments. Has my hon. Friend received similar complaints about Jamaat, and how does she see the role that it is playing in all this? I am sure that the Minister will respond to that in due course.

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend will be aware that any attempt to try to understand the deeply complex nature of the politics and political parties of Bangladesh is beyond me. I am concerned that all parties behave responsibly and within the law, whether they are here or in Bangladesh. My job as a constituency MP is to make sure that people behave responsibly and that, whatever their political leanings towards parties in another country, they act peacefully and within the law, whether there or here.

I appeal to those who demonstrate in one of the major parks—Altab Ali park—in my constituency every weekend and every Friday to do so peacefully and to relay their concerns peacefully. In the end, they will be doing no favours to their fellow countrymen and women in Bangladesh if they act irresponsibly. I would say that to all the political parties and to all those who have political leanings, whether towards Jamaat, the Awami League or the Bangladesh Nationalist party. Sadly, too often people get into polarised positions and insist that we, as British parliamentarians, should take sides. I do not think that is the responsible thing to do. What is important is that those people themselves exercise responsibility.

The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), in her capacity as chair of the all-party group on Bangladesh, has also raised concerns about political violence in Bangladesh, particularly among the youth wings of parties. Political leaders—our appeal is to all the political leaders—should take responsibility and ensure that they set the tone, so that the young, impressionable people who are involved in the youth wings of political parties act in a non-violent, peaceful way to highlight their concerns and their unhappiness about whatever may be happening. In the end, that will be the true test of the maturity of where people in Bangladesh and the British Bangladeshi community have got to. We have a responsibility to ensure that we encourage dialogue across the board in all the parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

Mrs Riordan, it is a very great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), whom I congratulate not only on securing this important and timely debate but on approaching what is a difficult matter in such a reasoned and balanced way.

I know that she and other hon. Members, together with their constituents, continue to take a close interest in the situation in Bangladesh. A number of important points have been raised this afternoon, and I hope that I will get round to responding to most of them in the time left to me.

I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), the chairman of the all-party group on Bangladesh, that there is clearly an appetite to debate this matter further, but alas allowing that is not in my gift. However, I am sure that she will make her representations in the usual places, and I hope she will secure a wider debate.

First, I want to make it clear that the United Kingdom and Bangladesh enjoy a strong and long-lasting relationship, which is important to both our countries. As Bangladesh prepares to mark 42 years of independence, we are proud that the UK was the first European country to recognise Bangladesh. Personal ties continue to connect our countries. Nearly 500,000 people of Bangladeshi heritage live in the UK, a good number of them in Bethnal Green and Bow. It is all the more important that we do not shirk our responsibility to highlight our concerns about human rights and respect for the rule of law. Those values are at the heart of British foreign policy, and they are particularly important at a time when Bangladesh is experiencing some of the worst violence it has witnessed in decades. According to human rights organisations, last year there were 15,101 incidents of political violence. That is lower than the 2001 figure of 26,426, but it shows the magnitude of the problem. Indeed, human rights organisations indicate that in January and February alone, there have been approximately 5,000 incidents of political violence.

Since January, the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh has found three men, including two leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami, guilty of crimes committed during the 1971 war between Pakistan and Bangladesh. As a result of the verdicts and the ongoing political tensions, Opposition parties, mainly Jamaat-e-Islami and the Bangladesh Nationalist party, have called approximately 12 enforced strikes, or hartals, as they are known. The latest verdict issued in the case of Jamaat’s vice-president Delwar Hossain Sayeedi on 28 February led to mass protests across Bangladesh, with media reports of more than 70 deaths, many of which were reported to be the result of action by the law enforcement agencies.

We are also concerned about the media reports that 24 Hindu temples, 122 houses and dozens of shops have also been destroyed. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) raised similar concerns about attacks on religious minorities. We are concerned about the recent attacks, and in a statement on 13 March, my noble Friend Baroness Warsi said that she deplored the attacks and called on all parties to exercise restraint. The British high commission has met the Government of Bangladesh and Opposition parties, and senior officials in Dhaka have met officials from the Bangladeshi Prime Minister’s office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to make clear the importance that we attach to ending the violence and making peaceful political progress. The British Government have been clear in their condemnation of the senseless attacks and their widespread and debilitating impact on families, communities, religious minorities and businesses—as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow mentioned—in Bangladesh and the UK.

Hon. Members who have followed the situation in Bangladesh over the years will recognise the many personal and historic events that influence the political climate. For Bangladesh to achieve its potential, its politics should be practised primarily in Parliament, not on the streets. The British Government are strong proponents of freedom of expression and the right of all citizens to hold Government to account, including through legitimate and peaceful protests. That is an essential element of any democracy. As my noble Friend Baroness Warsi said during her visit to Bangladesh last month, however, violence and vandalism have no place in legitimate protests. We hope, therefore, that all parties can resolve differences through dialogue and discussion, and that citizens will be able freely to raise their concerns or grievances through peaceful means, without fear of retaliation or attack.

I would also like to reassure the House and members of the British Bangladeshi diaspora community that the British Government have strongly condemned the recent violence, including the attacks on religious minorities. Those concerns were raised with the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, and with the leader of the Opposition Bangladesh Nationalist party, Khaleda Zia, during my noble Friend Baroness Warsi’s visit to Bangladesh. Last week, she also issued a statement expressing sadness over the senseless loss of life and called on all parties to exercise restraint.

As part of our bilateral relations with Bangladesh, officials at our high commission in Dhaka meet regularly with the Government of Bangladesh and members of the Opposition alliance parties. During the last week, our high commissioner in Dhaka has met Foreign Minister Dipu Moni and other representatives of the main political parties. The high commissioner has urged

“all parties to exercise restraint, moderation and respect for the rule of law”.

We were encouraged by Dipu Moni’s statement that an investigation will be conducted into the recent violence, deaths and any use of excessive force by the police. We have urged the Bangladeshi Government to ensure that any investigation be conducted transparently and swiftly.

The United Kingdom remains committed to promoting human rights across the world and is steadfast in its opposition to the death penalty. As a fellow Commonwealth member, we look to Bangladesh to uphold Commonwealth values, which are clearly set out in the Commonwealth charter signed by Her Majesty the Queen on Commonwealth day, 11 March. Bangladesh is a country with more than 150 million people who are deeply passionate about their politics and political parties.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister has been very reassuring about the role that the high commissioner in Dhaka has played in addressing the Government, the Bangladesh Nationalist party and other political parties. Can the Minister tell us what response the high commissioner received from the parties? Have they all issued statements calling for calm in Bangladesh?

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I am not certain what the parties in Bangladesh have done, but, for our part, we will continue to urge all parties to take part in the elections in a fair and transparent way. We believe that the dialogue belongs in Parliament rather than in protest on the street, which has been so unsettling. With parliamentary elections due by January 2014, the UK is committed to working with all parties in Bangladesh to support the development of a stable, prosperous and democratic society. To achieve that, Bangladesh needs to have strong, independent and accountable institutions and a functioning Parliament at the centre of political debate.

Through the Department for International Development, which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow shadows, and international partners, our programmes focus not only on poverty reduction and achieving the millennium development goals, but on strengthening political participation and promoting democratic institutions. We are helping civil society to track election-related violence and mitigate it through community engagement. Our programmes aim further to strengthen the skills and systems of the election commission and to support the Parliament of Bangladesh to become more open and effective. I hope that all political parties, the election commission and civil society can work together towards credible elections that are inclusive and transparent.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for securing the debate. The British Government are committed to Bangladesh’s development and to its ambition of achieving middle-income status within the next decade. We remain the largest bilateral aid donor in Bangladesh, with a programme of £1 billion over four years, which will directly help millions of the poorest people in the country. Of course, we are still as keen as ever on human rights, particularly those of British citizens who return to Bangladesh. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow raised the issue of Sheikh Noor-e-Alom Hamidi, who was arrested in Dhaka on 22 February, and I reassure her that we are providing consular assistance. Our consular officials visited Mr Hamidi this month, and we continue to monitor his detention closely.

To conclude, I want to send out a clear message that Bangladesh matters to the UK. As a long-standing friend, international partner and fellow Commonwealth member, we hope all political parties and civil society will engage in constructive dialogue. For all those reasons we will continue to monitor the situation in Bangladesh and continue to urge all parties to exercise restraint, moderation and respect for the rule of law.

Palestinian Resolution (United Nations)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It does require bilateral talks; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is, as I indicated a few moments ago, fault on both sides when it comes to efforts to have negotiations over the past few years. Israel has been, on the whole, readier to enter into negotiations, but Israel has not made the decisive offer, or the more decisive offer than anything seen in recent years, that I have called for. The Palestinians have not always been ready to enter into negotiations at all. Both those things will have to change if we are to see a successful peace process.

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

The Foreign Secretary said that he was worried about a backlash from Israel and others. Given the blockades, the illegal settlements, the wall, the destruction of Palestinian farms, the arrests, the imprisonment, the decades of ignoring UN resolutions, the refugee camps, the abject poverty and the rest, how much worse does he think it can get for the Palestinians?

[Mr Hague]

Unfortunately, the position could get worse. The Palestinian Authority is in a precarious financial position, although the United Kingdom, under Governments of all parties, has a very strong record in that regard, and we will maintain that strong record. But it is a difficult position. Given the nature of the west bank, the proximity of Israel and the obviously very difficult relations with Israel, yes, things could get worse. There are ways in which they could get even worse, so the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to all the factors to which he drew attention, but we still need the parties to be able to restart negotiations, taking into account the concerns of both sides.

Piracy (Somalia)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Richard Ottaway]

I cannot go to our precise conclusion quickly, but we believe that it would be a good idea if there were prosecutions in this country, if only to demonstrate that we mean business. The important thing is that there are prosecutions, and if a memorandum of understanding is working effectively, it is a pragmatic solution.

Turning to ransoms, I said earlier that $135 million was paid last year, and in our judgment the Government have been slow to track the flow of money. It might be an effective means of countering piracy if the flow of money were tracked. An international taskforce on ransoms has been established recently, but it is controversial because it attempts to prevent payment of ransoms. It is worth noting that the Chamber of Shipping has expressed concern that the international policy and that of the UK is to try to prevent the payment of ransoms.

The Foreign Affairs Committee is worried about that. In our view, the only way to recover vessels is to pay ransoms, which is particularly appropriate when the use of force is ruled out. In all honesty, there is no other way for shipowners to recover their property. The position can be likened to a mugging of a man in the street. If he were subject to a violent attack, no one would tell him not to pay anything because it will only encourage more muggers. I invite the Government to take a hard look at the matter and to say whether Government policy is unchanged.

British hostages have been taken as victims of piracy, and the Committee welcomes the release of Judith Tebbutt. We did not refer to her in our report because she was still in captivity while we were drafting it, and we concluded that it would be too sensitive to comment. We are delighted that she has been released. We understand that there are prosecutions in Kenya and that a ransom was paid. I would be interested to know from a Minister whether that payment was tracked and whether a prosecution is expected. We also took evidence from the Chandlers, and we are delighted to hear that only last week they set off to continue their voyage around the world, but I am reliably informed that they will avoid the Indian ocean.

At heart, the solution to the problem lies not offshore, but onshore in Somalia. There is no easy solution for that troubled country. African Union troops are clearly making progress. We have had two excellent conferences on Somalia. One was here in the United Kingdom in February, which I believe is producing results, and I congratulate the Foreign Office on putting it on. The other was in May in Istanbul, Turkey, at which I gather serious progress was made. The Department for International Development is putting in £83 million, of which £6 million will go on counter-piracy.

We treat the subject very seriously. Our report is important.

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

I apologise for not having had the chance to read the Select Committee’s report, but I look forward to doing so. I take it that the hon. Gentleman did not have an opportunity during the Committee’s examination of the evidence to speak to welfare organisations such as the Mission to Seafarers and Apostleship of the Sea, which have dealt with some of the hostages before, during and afterwards.

Ilias Ali

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). He, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) and I are active members of the all-party group on Bangladesh. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) for securing this important debate. It is a great reassurance to see the Minister in his place, and I am glad to see him, because he has gained a solid reputation since his appointment and helped me on several occasions. The fact that he will reply for the Government in the debate gives us great reassurance on the importance of the matter for them.

The matter has been raised with me by a number of organisations and constituents. Most recently, I had a meeting in the Devons road mosque in Bromley-by-Bow, organised by Abdus Sardar, a former mayor of Tower Hamlets. More than 50 constituents of various Bangladeshi political persuasions wanted to raise the matter of Ilias Ali’s disappearance and the general political climate in Bangladesh. I yesterday had a meeting with Justice for All, at which some 20 people from various constituencies—leaders of their Bangladeshi communities—raised this matter.

I shall declare my interest: I am a supporter of Bangladesh, as are all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. However, questions are being asked. When Secretary of State Clinton was in Bangladesh recently, she raised the matter directly with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka. There is international concern about what is seen as a deteriorating situation in Bangladesh.

The Labour party has a closer association with the Awami League—we are sister organisations—but has great respect for the Bangladesh Nationalist party. I criticised both the Bangladesh Nationalist party and the Awami League when they boycotted Parliament after losing elections, but Bangladesh is a young democracy. We have a mature democracy, and we make mistakes. Bangladesh has had democracy only since 1971, and it makes mistakes. It is the British Government’s role to help, support, and give succour to, Bangladeshi democracy. There is support on international development and for infrastructure, and support from the Foreign Office is critical.

In the recess debate only a few moments ago, we heard a number of colleagues say that Britain’s role in helping Commonwealth countries to develop is significant. We need to ensure that we are there for them. Tonight’s debate is significant. It demonstrates that we are interested in Bangladesh. Some 20% to 25% of my constituents’ families originate from Bangladesh. We want the British Government to continue to play a positive and active role. I am keen to hear from the Minister, because there is no disagreement on either side of the House. We want a safe, secure, democratic Bangladesh that has an enviable growth rate of between 6% and 8% a year. Its strategic place in the region makes it important to the international community.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely important point. Subsequent to the disappearance of Ilias Ali, there have been several hartals—national strikes—and business leaders in Bangladesh have called for the two parties to come together to stop them. Does he recognise the close correlation between promoting democracy and human rights in Bangladesh, and maintaining its growth rate? Without the first, it will not achieve the second.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a critical point. I hope that both the main political parties in Bangladesh—there are many other parties, of course—understand that they cannot have economic growth and international respect without the democratic foundations we all want entrenched there. I am sure that that is what they want. My meetings with the Bangladeshi high commissioner—colleagues have had similar meetings—demonstrated Bangladesh’s commitment to the objective of a free, fair, open and transparent democratic Bangladesh moving forward economically. As we all know, it is one of the five poorest countries in the world, has twice the population of Britain, is two-thirds the size of England and a chunk of it is under water a third of the year. The challenges it faces are massive compared to our problems—and we know how difficult our problems are. I am grateful to the Minister for being here, we are keen to hear what he says and I am grateful for this opportunity to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I would be grateful if, in accordance with the trust that colleagues accorded me at the start of the debate, my hon. Friend left me to make a judgment when I am there dealing with the authorities. It is clear to me—not only from the comments of colleagues in this debate, but from the letters I have received from a number of Members of Parliament and the comments made by members of the Bangladeshi community in the United Kingdom—that there can be no doubt among the authorities there about the great concern aroused not only by this case in itself, but by its context, given other cases. That allows me, I think, to have a frank discussion with the authorities, as well as with representatives of all the political parties in Bangladesh, about the issues; but for now, perhaps I might be given the opportunity to make a judgment about more practical support when I am there.

Colleagues will know that, as has been mentioned, opposition parties responded to the disappearance of Mr Ali with a programme of public demonstrations and hartals, which are enforced general strikes. In associated violence, sadly, a number of people have died. Since then, some 33 members of the Bangladesh Nationalist party have been arrested for an alleged arson attack. There are accusations that the arrests were politically motivated. Colleagues who have studied the situation in Bangladesh over many years will recognise that a lot of personal and historical baggage drives that country’s political discourse. We will not speculate about the identities of the victims and perpetrators in this series of unfolding events. What I will say—I am reinforced in this by the comments that all colleagues have made—is that we regard this form of politics as a problem. It is in Bangladesh’s interests that its politics be practised primarily in Parliament, not in the streets.

Hon. Members have rightly raised broader concerns about human rights in Bangladesh. We welcome the Bangladesh Government’s assurances that they are committed to protecting human rights, and I recognise that progress has been made across a range of social development indicators. However, I note that reports, including from Bangladeshi human rights organisations, continue to suggest high levels of disappearances, abductions, extra-judicial killings and torture. The Foreign Secretary himself raised our concerns when he met the Bangladesh Foreign Minister on 16 April. Such issues are a standing item in our discussions with the Bangladesh Government.

Improving human rights, democracy and the rule of law are also integral parts of the United Kingdom’s development assistance programme in Bangladesh, which includes projects to support access to justice, to improve political participation, and to promote accountable and transparent government. To give one example, over the past five years we have supported the establishment of 20,000 community police forums, enabling access to more equal and fairer police services for 5 million people. UK support over the next three years should increase access to community-led legal services from 35% to 50%.

During my forthcoming visit to Bangladesh, I expect to meet the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to see some excellent UK-funded projects and to meet young people with high aspirations. That is the positive side of our relationship with Bangladesh. I shall also take the opportunity of my visit to raise the difficult subjects that have formed the core of our debate today. I plan to use my visit better to understand Bangladesh and to discuss with the country’s political leaders what it would take to make sustained progress on human rights and ensure that the country is on a path to free, fair and participatory elections by early 2014.

We have a strong, broad and long-standing relationship with Bangladesh, which is important to both countries. We were the first European country to recognise Bangladesh, and, as colleagues have already mentioned, some 500,000 people of Bangladeshi heritage live in the United Kingdom. We are also the largest cumulative investor in Bangladesh. Given this close and multifaceted relationship, it is right that we should look at Bangladesh’s problems, a number of which have been highlighted in today’s debate, and conclude that it is all the more important that we engage.

Colleagues have mentioned the fact that Bangladesh is a young democracy and that its standards need to be high. I agree with both those statements. There is no doubt that democracy is struggling there because of the country’s historical baggage. It is therefore essential that we give our total support to those who are engaged in promoting democracy and working hard in the most difficult circumstances.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Minister announced that he is to visit Bangladesh soon. He might know that my wife, Dr Sheila Fitzpatrick, and I worked with Voluntary Service Overseas in Bangladesh. If he has an hour to spend with VSO when he is there, I am sure that he would be welcomed and shown the connections that VSO has made between London and Dhaka.

[Alistair Burt]

I hope I am not giving too much away by saying that, in the past, my legs have been treated by the hon. Gentleman’s wife—and very well treated they were, too. If she is doing VSO work there, that is a very good deal for Bangladesh. I have no idea how flexible my programme will be, or where she might be, but we can discuss that later. I will certainly get a message to Sheila, given the tremendous work that she does.

Let me conclude by saying a little about democracy in Bangladesh. It is essential that we do all we can to get the balance right. We do not want to be compromised, or compromising, in relation to high standards, but nor do we want too much pressure to be placed on those who are struggling and seeking to do the very best they can in the circumstances. To achieve a strong, stable, prosperous and democratic Bangladesh, it will need independent and accountable institutions and a functioning Parliament at the centre of political debate. We strongly encourage all parties to engage in constructive politics, for the good of the citizens of Bangladesh. The British Government have consistently stated that it is for Bangladesh to decide how to manage its national elections, but it is essential that they are free, fair and peaceful.

This House, and Parliament, have a role to play. When I visit countries abroad, I am always struck by how much this House is looked up to in so many parts of the world and by how much visits by colleagues are valued. The opportunity for parliamentarians to speak to parliamentarians, and for candidates to speak to candidates, about what is expected and what can be done matters much more than statements from Ministers and the like. I am sure that we will have a role to play in encouraging that democracy.

The importance of the incident that has been highlighted today cannot be overestimated. The British Government are making rigorous efforts to ensure that the best possible investigation is carried out, and we will continue to do so. We will press the authorities to reveal as much as they possibly can about what they are doing. We recognise that all parties have a role to play in this, and no fingers of blame can yet be pointed. I look forward to reporting back to colleagues in due course, after I have made my own visit.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you the very best for this brief recess.

Question put and agreed to.