National Minimum Wage

Debate between Jo Swinson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jo Swinson]

We may have a difference of opinion. I agree that there should be very tough consequences for employers who do not get it right. We have ensured that the fines are in place, increased the maximum penalty to £20,000 per worker—that is currently going through Parliament in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill—and introduced a naming and shaming scheme that is far more comprehensive than the previous scheme, the criteria of which were almost impossible to meet. We now regularly list employers that have not properly paid the national minimum wage, and we name them publicly so that in their local area people can be aware that those companies are not paying the national minimum wage, which affects the reputation of those businesses.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s plea for more prosecutions, I would say that, in the cases that are named, in most circumstances the underpayment is not necessarily a malicious act by the employer. That does not make it right, and it does not make it okay, but very often someone has put the wrong digits into a computer program so somebody is not been paid the right pence per hour. There may be mistakes on the accommodation offset allowances or mistakes on the apprentice rate. Of course, if we increased the apprentice rate to the lower age rate, we would simplify the system and make it easier for employers to get it right. That is not an excuse, as employers have a responsibility to get it right, but I would not necessarily contend that those circumstances should also result in a criminal prosecution. Our tough penalty regime, increased fines and the reputational consequence of naming and shaming are the right way to address underpayment. We are increasing the resources available to HMRC to address this issue.

[Jim Shannon]

There might be an individual working for a firm who is getting less than the minimum wage. They might be concerned but there is a fear factor in pursuing the issue. That goes back to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) said in his intervention. Is that part of the reason why we have a low prosecution rate? People fear losing their job for making a complaint. Would it be better for complaints to be tied to the company, not the individual?

[Jo Swinson]

I hope I can provide a lot of reassurance on those points. The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a fear factor, which is why it is important for people to recognise that they can make complaints in confidence. It will not necessarily be clear which member of staff has made a complaint. The HMRC investigator will not just go along to a company and say, “Can you show me the records for this particular member of staff?” The investigator can ask to see the records for all members of staff. That has two benefits. The first is confidentiality, but secondly, of course, if one member of staff is not being paid the minimum wage properly, it is possible—indeed, likely—that other members of staff are also not being paid properly.

To put the issue in context, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested that the reason why there are not as many prosecutions as he might like is that people are not coming forward. Actually, since HMRC began enforcement back in 1999, more than 229,000 workers have received arrears worth more than £54 million. In the last year alone, £4.6 million in arrears was delivered to 22,600 workers, a significant 17% increase in the number of workers helped compared with 2009-10. The amount of arrears per case is also rising. HMRC is learning how to ensure that it does not just look at one person in the business; now it routinely looks much more widely at lots of workers within the same business. That is important to ensure that enforcement works.

We are the fastest-growing G7 economy at the moment, and that strong growth is reflected in our employment statistics, with more people in employment than ever before. That is good news, but hon. Members have raised issues about the type of employment and whether it is just insecure part-time employment. It is worth recognising that our figures from the Office for National Statistics show that full-time work made up three-quarters of the growth in employment since the election and 85% over the last year. The growth in the labour market is significantly of full-time work, but of course there are issues around the insecurity of work, which the Government are taking steps to address. We understand those issues too.

We will return to this matter, rightly, many times in this House. I pay tribute to the Members present today, who in their different elements have been campaigning on the issue. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) is particularly assiduous in the care sector, where HMRC has done a significant investigation and is seeking to follow up. That is an area where HMRC found a lot of non-compliance. We need to stay on the case of industries where there are greater problems, because lack of compliance is much less widespread in other industries.

Post Office - Horizon System

Debate between Jo Swinson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

The review is independent of the Government and of the Post Office, so it would not be appropriate for me or for the Post Office to put an arbitrary time limit on it. That said, I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point that there is a need for speed and for the prompt resolution of these issues, but that has to be balanced against ensuring that they are looked at in a comprehensive way. The independent working group, which will include representation from the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, will help to ensure that that happens swiftly and without compromising the details that need to be gone into.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

I have bobbed up at the right time.

I thank the Minister for her statement. The Horizon system has been blamed by some sub-postmasters who have been accused of false accounting. Does the Minister agree that red tape makes it difficult to run rural sub-post offices, especially those in isolated locations? What steps is she taking to restore confidence in the system, especially in relation to rural post offices?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the issue of rural sub-postmasters. The communications systems depend on communications technology, which can be more of an issue in rural areas. Many post offices have a main phone line and also a back-up system, perhaps using a mobile telephone. Rural areas often have difficulties with broadband connectivity, which is why the Government are moving ahead with plans to ensure that rural broadband is much better spread out. The support for rural post offices is certainly significant, and we recognise that there are many branches that need subsidy from the Government to continue. That is why the Government are injecting £1.34 billion into the post office network. We also recognise that there will be a continuing need to ensure that rural post offices are supported in providing their excellent services. They might be the last remaining shop in a village, or the only post office serving a large, far-flung area.

Timeshare Contracts

Debate between Jo Swinson and Jim Shannon

Monday 3rd June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

In the Spanish example, they also have the 50-year contract unfair term, where the contracts become unenforceable. We are dealing with different legal systems, of course, and different economic circumstances, but it is definitely worth looking to see whether any lessons can be learned from how fellow European countries have dealt with some of these issues. Also, as the directive will be up for review three years after it came into force, that presents an ideal opportunity to consider how it has been implemented both here in the UK and in other countries, and whether there is some best practice that can be shared.

[Jim Shannon]

On the Timeshare Association, the Minister mentioned that alternatives and other options had been found for people who have timeshares. Will she elaborate on that? What is the success rate? What are those options? If they were on hand, perhaps that would help people to identify some way forward.

[Jo Swinson]

I would not want to paraphrase the entire guide to timeshare disposal, which the TA produced and which could probably say it better than I could. I can recommend that publication to the hon. Gentleman, as it would be useful for him to have a look at it. In general terms, buyers can be found for the contracts in some cases, whereas in others resort owners have a points system in a second-hand market. For example, where the owner of a timeshare contract is no longer able to access the benefits of the contract, perhaps because the location is a long distance away and they can no longer travel far because of age or infirmity, they might be able to swap the contract, through that points market, changing to a different property or a different resort much closer to home. Sometimes people are just seeking variety, because they do not want to go to the same place they have been going to for 15 years, and that can provide a helpful option to individuals in this situation. A wide range of avenues can be explored. Of course I am also looking at the issues arising from some cases where, because of age or a particular medical reason, there clearly will not be any benefit to the individual. In some of those cases resort owners have also been able to show flexibility in taking back those contracts. So a range of different routes can be explored but I certainly encourage anyone who finds themselves in that situation to make contact, because each individual case will be different and getting specific tailored advice would be helpful.

Another issue that has been raised is that of bogus resellers and, indeed, bogus compensators—we end up rolling our eyes, thinking that there will always be people who want to rip other people off. It is a sad state of affairs that we get the bogus compensators as well as the bogus resellers. It is positive to be able to report that the Office of Fair Trading has taken proceedings in the High Court in relation to some of the sales and marketing practices of Incentive Leisure Group Ltd, Personal Travel Group Ltd and others, and that legislation is already in place to tackle bogus resellers. The enforcers, who include not only the OFT, but trading standards, can obtain enforcement orders against companies under the Enterprise Act 2002. Let me give an example of how that can be used. Final enforcement orders were obtained in March 2012 against seven individuals and the companies concerned. Among other things, those orders prohibit the companies and individuals from engaging in misleading sales practices when dealing with people who want to dispose of their timeshares, and the orders require customers to be given cancellation rights in certain circumstances. So legislation and protection is in place, and it can be, will be and is enforced. That can provide reassurance, in any event.

Long-standing timeshare owners can pursue solutions through a range of avenues, even though before 2011 they did not have the revised cover of the new European directive on timeshare products. I agree with the hon. Lady that these issues can be very distressing and difficult for the people in the situation she describes. On a positive note, however, these issues should increasingly become a thing of the past, because of the new rules that are in place, to which I referred.

The agreement of the new timeshare directive in 2009 brought with it a raft of new protections to provide consumers with the tools they need properly to assess the value and detail of not only timeshare contracts, but timeshare exchange contracts and, most importantly, contracts for other long-term holiday products. Although “other long-term holiday products” is a clumsy phrase, it had to be designed because when the first directive tightened the conditions under which timeshare contracts could be sold, effectively outlawing the worst of the timeshare sales practices that were so prevalent in the ‘70s and ‘80s, these other products suddenly emerged to circumvent that directive.

The new directive was implemented in the UK by the Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts Regulations 2010, and I will give the House a few examples of how we saw the rules tightened significantly. For example, much more information needs to be provided to consumers about how the contract can be terminated, the methods by which future costs, such as maintenance charges, will be calculated, the degree to which timeshare owners have a role in decisions about future costs and detailed information about precisely what rights are provided under the contract. All that information is considered to be part of the contract. Importantly, the directive also provides the consumer with 14 days in which to consider the decision and withdraw from the contract if they decide it is not for them after all. No money can be taken from the consumer until that 14 days has elapsed.

The regime is generally recognised as a success. As the hon. Member for East Lothian said, complaints about timeshare sales have decreased markedly and the industry reports provisions such as the perpetuity clauses she mentions as such a problem are increasingly rare. I am sure she welcomes that fact. She asked about the review in 2014 and, as with any directives that are implemented, we are looking at how the provisions are working.

It is important that when there is evidence of problems in the industry, it is properly gathered together. Of course, the UK Government are in a position to communicate with the Commission on any problems that have been found. Obviously, whether any changes are needed will ultimately be for European agreement, so I encourage those campaigning on the issue not only to pull together the evidence and the case but to consider what is happening in some of the other countries in the EU in order to see whether any links can be forged with those campaigns.

For those products that do not fall under the timeshare directive, other EU legislation provides for contractual rights on the sale of services and withdrawal rights in the case of off-premises sales. Those rights still apply. Irrespective of the extra coverage provided by the timeshare regime, the EU legislation outlawing unfair contract terms and misleading and aggressive commercial practices also applies, as it does to all consumer sales.

I acknowledge that there might be no easy answers for those who have timeshare contracts—agreed, in some cases, a long time ago—in which they have discovered that provisions that did not seem to have significant consequences at the time are now a significant burden and a worry. Aside from encouraging those affected to continue to engage with the contracting parties and associations that might be able to help, I hope that I have been able to reassure the House and the hon. Lady in particular that there are now far more robust protections for consumers in the sector. The signs are positive that the new protections are working. Unfortunately, there will always be some in the market who attempt to operate outside the law, as there are in other markets, but the new regime seems in the main to be robust enough to ensure that the issues that the hon. Lady has so understandably raised tonight should not arise in the future.

Whistleblowing

Debate between Jo Swinson and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh, particularly as this is my first of no doubt many Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this important debate. She has a strong track record of campaigning, particularly for workers’ rights. I know that that was her background in professional life before coming to the House, and she has continued it in an excellent manner while she has been here. We entered Parliament together, and it is a delight to respond to her on this occasion. I thank her for her kind congratulations and good wishes to me in my new role. I hope that we will be able to engage constructively, as I know that she has a significant contribution to make in this area of her expertise.

It is nice that my first Adjournment debate has allowed me to look into whistleblowing in more detail. As the hon. Lady mentioned, it is a complex and specific area of law. I will do my best to answer her questions, but if there are any outstanding issues, I will be more than happy to write to her and engage with her in future. No doubt there will be further debate on Report of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which will return to the House of Commons in due course.

Whistleblowing is an important issue. It is important to recognise why the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 was passed in the first place. From a range of disasters, incidents and other cases, such as the dreadful events on Piper Alpha, it became clear that there was not enough protection for people who blew the whistle to raise concerns about health and safety issues or other matters of public interest, and that that situation needed to be put right so that people would have the ability and confidence to speak out in such circumstances without fear of losing their jobs or other detriment.

It is fair to say it was a landmark piece of legislation, introduced by the Labour Government, to whom credit is due. However, it is also important to note and remember that it attracted cross-party support as well, because Members throughout the House recognised that change was needed. The Act meant that for the first time, employees raising genuine concerns about wrongdoing in the workplace were protected. This Government strongly support the protection that the Act gives whistleblowers, and we agree that it is incredibly important that employees feel able to speak up about workplace issues affecting the public interest.

In responding, I will say a little about the change to the Act proposed in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. It aims to fix a specific issue that has arisen as a result of the judgment in the case of Parkins v. Sodexho Ltd 2002, whose effect was to widen the scope of the Act beyond what was originally intended, leading the legislation to be used opportunistically in some cases to address matters of purely private interest. There is wide agreement that the effect of Parkins v. Sodexho must be addressed, and I recognise that the hon. Lady understands that it is a problem that needs rectifying. There are slightly differing views about how that should be done, and it is right that those should be debated and scrutinised thoroughly in the House.

The relevant clause of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill was debated in Committee on 3 July. During that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) set out in detail the reasons for the Government’s approach. I do not intend to repeat all his arguments, but we believe that the Government’s approach of inserting a public interest test is the only way of fully closing the loophole created by Parkins v. Sodexho while avoiding the possible unintended consequences of alternative approaches.

In preparing for this debate, I looked at some of the figures demonstrating the scale of the issue. In the first year after PIDA was passed, 157 protections were applied for. As one might expect with a new piece of legislation, that number increased as awareness increased, to 400 or 500 in 2002. Since the ruling, it has expanded rapidly, so that in 2011-12, about 2,500 applications were made under PIDA.

There are different ways of interpreting those figures. One is that there is lots of whistleblowing and it is a wonderful success of the Act, but I think that it is understood that application for protection is often being added on in employment cases. Most cases do not even come to tribunal, as the majority are settled in other ways. Of the 2,500 in the last year we have figures for, more than 900 ended up in a conciliated settlement through ACAS and more than 600 were withdrawn or privately settled. There is, therefore, concern about it being used in an opportunistic fashion in some cases. I think that that is recognised, and so we need to deal with it.

In preparing for the debate, I wondered what the controversy was in requiring that the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 had to include a public interest test, because there is a basic logic to that—it does what it says on the tin. When it was originally drafted, it was almost taken for granted that, because of the title of the Bill, it would be used for cases that were genuinely in the public interest. I am convinced it is within the original spirit of the Act that the person making the application for its protection should reasonably believe they are raising an issue in the public interest, so we are just trying to prevent the tactical, opportunistic use of PIDA by those who claim that protection to raise purely personal issues.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the Minister on her promotion and wish her well in her new job. I am sure that she will be aware of a new organisation that has been set up in the past month, perhaps just outside the legislative consultation process in which we are now involved, on behalf of whistleblowers who have got together to promote their cases. Does the Minister intend to contact that organisation to get its input into the process, so that the voice of whistleblowers is heard fully?

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and kind words, and for his contribution to my knowledge on this matter. I have not come across that new organisation which has only been in existence for a month, but my approach is to welcome any organisation or individual that wishes to ensure that its concerns are heard. I would be happy to read a submission from that organisation if he is able to pass on its contact details after the debate.

The hon. Lady mentioned concerns about the burden of proof, which she felt would be unhelpful to individuals. Clearly, it will be up to the tribunal to decide whether that test is met. I do not think that having to bring something in the public interest is a hurdle that will stop people bringing cases forward. It will promote consistency in the legislation and underlines the principle that the 1998 Act, with the right and proper extra protections it offers, is concerned with a public rather than a private interest. In the autumn statement, we announced we would fix that specific issue, and it will be done through the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill.

The hon. Lady raised a wide range of issues. There are no current plans to review the legislation more widely as the Act is generally operating well and as intended, but I will reflect on the matters she has raised in such a thoughtful manner.

The Government provide guidance on making protected disclosures, and the hon. Lady asked about how it would be promoted. Of course, in light of the proposed change under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill we will consider whether the guidance needs to be revised at all. I understand the genuine concern relating to the survey that suggests that many people are entirely unaware of the protection. It is worth putting on the record the Government’s thanks for the excellent efforts made by Public Concern at Work in promoting the 1998 Act and bringing it to the attention of more workers. It is important that it is widely understood.

The hon. Lady asked a specific question about whether lawyers will inform their clients. They have a general duty to advise a client on any aspect of the law that is relevant to the situation, as she will know from her professional life, and that includes advising on public interest disclosure rights. That does not need to be set down in legislation, but is a duty that any legal professional would fall under.

Turning to other issues that were raised, there has been a suggestion from Public Concern at Work that the Government should copy the vicarious liability provisions of the Equality Act 2010. Aspects of the 2010 Act are currently under review, particularly in relation to vicarious liability. While that is ongoing, further changes to PIDA would be premature. I am also aware of the concern about the judgment in the Fecitt case, in particular. An employee who blows the whistle could be subject to inappropriate bullying behaviour by other members of the work force, and the concern about the ruling was that employers would perhaps not have a responsibility to do something about that. The ruling was specific, however, and took the view that in that case the NHS had taken reasonable steps. Therefore, I would not necessarily assume that there is a guarantee that employers never need to do anything. The judgment is perhaps not as crystal clear as some would like, but clearly an employer that does not do enough to prevent an employee being victimised by other employees could themselves be liable for their failure to act if it can be shown that the employee has made a protected disclosure, so there is perhaps some reassurance about those concerns.

There is another potential remedy in the law. An employer could be vicariously liable under other legislation, such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, depending on the circumstances of the individual case. It is also possible that an employee who had experienced that could argue that the employer had acted to destroy the relationship of mutual trust and confidence, and thereby bring a claim for constructive dismissal.

On the Shipman inquiry and the good faith test, we do not see its purpose as being interchangeable with the public interest test. The good faith test prevents an individual from making a disclosure for a malicious purpose; for example, to deliberately cause commercial damage to their employer. The public interest test deals separately with the fact that the disclosure must be of public, rather than private interest. The good faith requirement is not intended to operate as an additional barrier to genuine whistleblowers.

The hon. Lady raised the Leveson and Mid Staffordshire inquiries. They are large inquiries in their own right and deal with a wide array of different issues, much wider than the specific provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The Department of Health has published its response to the Mid Staffordshire inquiry and is continuing to promote whistleblowing in the NHS.

On the categories and definitions of “worker”, we are already in dialogue with stakeholders and the Department of Health about the categories of worker that are covered. It is important that individuals who should be included are not inadvertently excluded from the scope of the Act. I hope the hon. Lady will be reassured that those discussions are ongoing with a genuine desire to ensure that people are properly covered.

The hon. Lady asked for a more thorough, wide-ranging review of the Act in its entirety. At the moment, there is not necessarily a case for that, but, as I said, I will reflect on the points that she has made. There are various issues, and it is important to ensure that they are all considered on an ongoing basis.

Chechnya

Debate between Jo Swinson and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring the current political situation in Chechnya to the attention of the House, following my visit there last year with Lord Judd, to examine the human rights situation. Sadly, since I secured the debate, the instability of the Caucasus has once again risen high on the news agenda, following Monday’s deadly suicide bomb attack at the airport in Moscow. Police sources say that the bomb bears the hallmarks of past attacks carried out by Chechens and other Islamic separatists from the Caucasus.

In 2009 Moscow declared that the situation in Chechnya had normalised, marking the end of its military operations in the republic. However, Chechnya and the north Caucasus region face a constant battle against terrorist insurgency, which, far too often, the world seems to ignore. From 2002 the parliamentary all-party group on human rights was keen to send a fact-finding mission to Chechnya. The eight-year delay is testament to the challenge of getting the permission of the Foreign Office and the Russian and Chechen authorities, all at the same time. I and Lord Judd want to thank Nicole Piché from the group, who organised the visit and accompanied us. Without her tenacity over eight years it would never have happened. We also thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials here and in Moscow for their assistance and advice—particularly Iain Frew and Elena Arganat, who came with us to Chechnya. Their knowledge, insight and translation of both language and culture were invaluable.

I should like to draw attention to several issues of concern about the political situation in Chechnya: the security situation, and in particular the danger of young people being driven to extremism out of desperation; the regular human rights abuses, such as the house burnings and disappearances, of which we sadly heard tales during our visit; and the sinister and oppressive Chechen regime, with no accountability or judicial process, and a culture of impunity. I fear that all those problems will only continue, and indeed will get worse, before the international community understands that Chechnya is a destabilising sore, which is infecting the whole region. I hope that the Government will recognise the danger of Chechnya’s situation and the importance of engagement with Russia, the EU and the wider international community to address it.

I want first to discuss the security situation. Last autumn’s siege of the Chechen Parliament, when Islamic militants killed two police guards and four rebels died, hit the headlines all over the world. The suicide bombing of the Moscow metro in March 2010 brought Chechnya’s “black widows” to international attention; the suspected perpetrators of the attacks were Chechen women who had lost husbands to the Russian military. However, such news attention on terrorist attacks for a few short days only plays into the hands of the militants, who relish the publicity. Instead a sustained and focused effort is needed to deal with the underlying problems of corruption and oppression.

Many in Moscow, and possibly beyond, may cling to the false notion that the security problems can be contained by President Ramzan Kadyrov’s authoritarian regime. Keeping the population in check through a climate of fear and repression and the brutal crushing of dissent is fuelling tension. State-sponsored murder creates martyrs. A combination of desperation and revenge is driving some, often young, Chechens to what they see as the only alternative—the extremist cause. Kadyrov’s Administration have justified some of their brutal acts on the grounds that they are fighting terrorists, who also use brutal means. However, the boundaries have become blurred between terrorists and dissidents. I do not think I am being cynical if I say it suits the regime for it to be so easy to silence any critics by denouncing them as terrorists.

The main focus of our trip was to investigate the human rights situation, in response to reports of appalling violations. On several occasions, we met the relatives of those who had been beaten, abducted and locked up in a far-flung prison on some trumped-up charge or who had disappeared. House burnings were another cruel tactic that was used. One woman placed three photographs in my palm. They were of her brother, her son and her daughter, all of whom had been killed or were missing. The fear was palpable. Speaking out about these abuses, even in a so-called private meeting, carries a real risk of reprisals that could see other family members being abducted, tortured or worse. I understand why so many people keep quiet in fear. I am in awe of the courage of those who speak out, through their grief, to try to secure justice, however slight the chance. In this context, the work of non-governmental organisations in protecting and promoting human rights is absolutely vital, although they operate in a very dangerous environment.

In July 2009, leading human rights activist Natalya Estemirova was abducted in Grozny, and found later near the border with Ingushetia with gunshot wounds to her head. The Estemirova murder sent shock waves through the NGO community in Chechnya, and her employer, Memorial, had to suspend its Chechen operations for several months on safety grounds. There is a wilful misunderstanding by the Chechen authorities of what the “N” in NGO stands for. The very concept of an organisation that is independent of Government—or non-governmental—openly challenging policies and practice seems anathema to them. Their preference is for NGOs to be subsumed into Government, thus removing any semblance of transparency.

President Kadyrov has suggested that Memorial should change its working methods. Instead of making cases public, he thinks it should tell him personally about the problems so that he can just solve them quietly. Forgive me for thinking that that is not a solution to the problems.

Human rights ombudsman Nurdi Nukhazhiyev, who is charged with championing human rights in Chechnya, has asserted that he is “independent of other authorities”, but in our meeting with him, he flatly refused to discuss any allegations that implicated the President, so, despite his protestations, he was clearly far from independent.

During our meeting I literally could not believe my ears—I even challenged the translator in case there had been a misunderstanding—when Nukhazhiyev told us that Oleg Orlov of Memorial had “benefited” from Natalya Estemirova’s murder. With the champion of human rights in Chechnya behaving in such a way, it is not surprising that people despair.

Memorial’s status as a truly independent NGO means that it has attracted the ire of the Chechen regime. In July, President Kadyrov went so far as to say it was an enemy of the people, the law and the state. That accusation is more appropriately levelled at President Kadyrov himself. The international community must assist NGOs and human rights defenders who are taking great risks to document and improve the situation in Chechnya. We must defend their right to do their vital work. When the lives of prominent human rights defenders or journalists are threatened, we should be open to applications for asylum. We do not wish to see more cases like that of Natalya Estemirova or Anna Politkovskaya.

I am pleased to say that in October, MEPs voted to endorse a resolution defending Memorial, and condemning the

“cynical and absurd attempts to implicate it in the crime of aiding terrorist organisations.”

I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will continue to press our EU friends to recognise the significant human rights problems in Chechnya and use European institutions to bring pressure to bear on Moscow to act.

The human rights violations in Chechnya are compounded by the lack of transparency and accountability of the regime, and the absence of any meaningful justice process and rule of law. The personality cult around Kadyrov is unbelievable. Every public building in Grozny displays large photographs of the President, and the TV news would be funny if it was not actually real. Back at our hotel, we watched the evening bulletin and it was almost entirely composed of positive news stories about what the President had been up to that day, with no debate, opposition or criticism.

On the day the President was far too busy to meet with Lord Judd and me as scheduled, the TV news told us that he had been opening a furniture shop—urgent business indeed. We might complain about this country’s press and media, and as politicians we perhaps do so more often than others, but a free press is essential to a free democracy. Journalists in Chechnya continually walk the difficult line between trying to report the news in line with their journalistic principles and not angering the regime so as not to risk their lives.

Kadyrov and his Government face no parliamentary scrutiny: 37 of Chechnya’s 41 MPs belong to the same party, and the Parliament meets infrequently. The President is keen to promote a climate of fear, and in a recent broadcast said:

“I am looking for evildoers everywhere. If two people meet, the third among them will always be one of my men. I know everything. I hear everything.”

That is truly chilling, like something out of a George Orwell novel.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In relation to the very clear impact on human, political and democratic rights, there is the issue of religious freedom. A great many people have been persecuted because of their religious beliefs. Did the hon. Lady have an opportunity to speak to any such people, who perhaps out of fear did not make themselves known to her? I am aware of a great many Churches and groups of people who are experiencing religious persecution and discrimination. What should we do about that, and what could the Government do in representing those people?