Anglo-Vietnamese Relations

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) on securing the debate, on his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Vietnam and on having the courtesy to talk to me in the Lobby about some issues that he wanted to raise. It is a pleasure to see the Minister. We tend to face each other in this Chamber rather more often than he ought to, given that this is, yet again, not one of the countries that he covers in his brief, but it is always a pleasure to see him here.

As we have heard, Vietnam is fascinating country with great potential that has made great strides in recent years, but it still faces many challenges. It has come a long way over the past decade, achieving middle-income status and improvements in the quality of life for much of its population. I hope that the friendship between Britain and Vietnam is a factor in helping it achieve that progress and will be a factor in helping it achieve much more over coming years.

Vietnam has already met a number of the millennium development goals, not least on infant mortality and eradicating extreme poverty. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) mentioned the progress that has been made in raising child and maternal mortality rates. The poverty rate has decreased from 58% in 1992 to 15% in 2008, which is remarkable progress. UK aid, through the Department for International Development, is making an important contribution, totalling over £200 million over the past five years, with £25 million in debt relief since 2006. But with UK aid and the development partnership agreement due to end in 2016, it is crucial that Vietnam is left in a position not only to sustain the impressive improvements that it has made, but to make much further progress.

Of course, neither this Government nor the previous Labour Administration have focused solely on aid. The right way forward is to strengthen political and economic links, particularly trade links, between our two countries. That began in 2004, with the first official visit of a Vietnamese Head of State to the UK, followed by the first visit by a Vietnamese Prime Minister in 2008, on which occasion the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), signed a joint declaration on partnership for progress. Five priority areas were included in that partnership agreement: trade and investment; development, including good governance, accountability and the rule of law; international issues, including Security Council co-operation and climate change; education; and tackling illegal migration and organised crime.

The declaration was a landmark achievement in our bilateral relationship, laying the foundations for the strategic partnership signed by the current Foreign Secretary in 2010, the intention of which is to strengthen the relationship on seven fronts: political and diplomatic co-operation; global and regional issues; trade and investment; sustainable socio-economic development; education, training, science and technology; security and defence; and people-to-people links. Part of the political and diplomatic co-operation includes a biennial strategic dialogue, and I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary pursuing that dialogue in Vietnam as we speak—he is certainly in the far east. The Ministry of Defence subsequently signed a co-operation memorandum of understanding, and the UK is increasing its diplomatic presence in Vietnam.

Members of the law committee of the National Assembly visited London last year to discuss political and constitutional reform with hon. Members at one of a number study sessions. It was a good opportunity, and I met some of the delegation on that occasion. Such interchange between the two Parliaments is useful for everyone concerned.

Tourism is a growth sector in Vietnam. People who have perhaps been to Thailand and such places in the past now see Vietnam as the next frontier. The first direct flights from the UK start in December, and it is hoped that they will increase tourism as well as business links.

The partnership with Vietnam is therefore developing on a number of fronts. Strengthening the ties between the UK and Vietnam is of mutual benefit to both our countries, hence the Foreign Secretary’s decision to visit Vietnam this week to meet business leaders and UKTI’s designation of Vietnam as one of its high-growth markets. Vietnam is the second most popular investment destination in the emerging markets after China, and more than 100 UK companies have registered offices in Vietnam. UK-Vietnam trade, as mentioned, was worth more than £1.8 billion last year, with UK imports accounting for the vast majority of that sum, totalling over £1.5 billion, compared with exports of only £295 million. With the strategic partnership specifying a trade volume target of $4 billion by next year, can the Minister in his response set out the progress made and the likely balance of trade over the coming years?

The bilateral relationship not only strengthens co-operation between our two countries, but provides a greater presence for the UK in ASEAN and for Vietnam in the European Union, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley said. The UK was the 13th largest investor in Vietnam last year—we were the third European nation after the Netherlands and France—and the EU is Vietnam’s third largest trading partner after China and the US. With negotiations due to start on a bilateral free trade agreement between the EU and Vietnam, making Vietnam the EU’s third partner in the region after Singapore and Malaysia, it will be important for the UK to maintain a strong position in the market and during the negotiations.

While noting the economic benefits for our countries, however, we cannot overlook the need for ongoing political, economic and social reform in Vietnam, as has been said. Having initiated the “doi moi” reforms, joined ASEAN, been a member of the UN Security Council and made impressive progress on many of the millennium development goals, Vietnam has rightly been commended. It has improved its standing in the international arena, but Vietnam’s partners, such as the UK, have a duty to support further improvements, not least in human rights, and to ensure that economic growth does not leave the poorest behind.

The Foreign Office has stated:

“Corruption in Vietnam remains systemic”,

and in the 2011 corruption perceptions index, Vietnam scored only 2.9, ranking it 112th out of 182 countries. That is of both domestic and international concern, given that the Business Anti-Corruption Portal reports that

“weak enforcement means corruption continues to be cited as one of the most problematic factors for doing business in the country.”

What support, therefore, is the UK offering for the delivery of the anti-corruption strategy?

Vietnam is to be commended for its development efforts, and it is encouraging that its 10 year socio-economic development strategy connects economic growth to social progress and equality, but the previous UN resident co-ordinator, John Hendra, has expressed concerns about whether the Administration’s efforts would reach the most vulnerable. It is one thing for a country to be lifted to middle-income status, but the benefits are not necessarily felt by everyone in the country. There is concern that, in particular, informal workers, unemployed agricultural workers and ethnic minority groups from remote areas will be left behind; 70% of the population live in the countryside and are not necessarily benefiting from urban growth.

Growth has not brought economic stability, and the country is struggling with high inflation; the Financial Times reported that food prices had risen by 32% in the 10 months to October. The Vietnamese Government have raised the minimum wage in response, but 12 million people are still in poverty, and the poverty rate among ethnic minorities is at 50%. Land ownership is a particularly difficult issue, with confusion and conflicts developing where citizens have land-use rights but the land remains officially owned by the state. It is worth noting, as the EU has, that Vietnam has sought to improve living conditions for ethnic minorities, aiding social and economic integration, including support for education in minority languages, and it is important that the UK, too, supports such efforts. Will the UK Government work to ensure that the benefits of the expanding trade relationship with Vietnam help not only the UK, but more of the Vietnamese population?

Vietnam has attracted investment and overseas business with its cheap labour—wages in China are a third higher. Wages remain low, although, as I said, the Vietnamese Government lifted the minimum wage recently. The strategic partnership declaration referred to increasing Vietnam’s footwear, garment and textile exports, which will, of course, be a pivotal source of income for the country, but will the UK Government monitor workers’ rights and conditions and any implications for Vietnam’s agricultural workers?

As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire mentioned, economic growth can come at a high cost to the environment. Vietnam, as she said, is particularly vulnerable to climate change; it is among the top five countries most likely to be affected by rising sea levels. Will the UK continue to provide climate change assistance for adaptation and mitigation measures?

Human trafficking remains a serious concern, which is attributable partly to the uneven economic development to which I referred and to the trend for rural-to-urban migration. Over the past year, Vietnam has developed a national plan of action on human trafficking, and its anti-human trafficking law came into effect in January. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre has identified Vietnam as the No. 1 source of potential victims in the UK. Will the UK Government therefore work with the Vietnamese authorities to ensure that their measures to end trafficking are effective and that victims are supported?

On human rights, the bi-annual EU-Vietnam human rights dialogue is an important initiative and a sign of Vietnam’s commitment, as is the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. Worryingly, though, as mentioned, restrictions on freedom of expression have been tightened over the past couple of years, and the suppression of political dissent has continued. Human rights campaigners this month called for the release of the three bloggers referred to by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire—the founding members of the Club for Free Journalists—who have been accused of conducting propaganda against the state and could face up to 20 years in prison. Can the Minister tell us what representations the UK Government have made on the cases of those three bloggers in particular and on the more general issue of internet freedoms, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and an independent judicial system?

While Vietnam is moving forward, it is worth remembering this morning how the past continues to affect the lives of many in the country. More than 100,000 Vietnamese have been killed or injured by land mines since the Vietnam war and, according to the UN, 6.6 million hectares remain polluted, which Vietnam estimates will take decades to clear. The US ambassador to Vietnam reports that the USA has provided $62 million, but have the UK Government had any discussions with officials in either the USA or Vietnam about efforts to remove the land mines?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley spoke movingly about the effects of Agent Orange, which is another tragic legacy of the conflict. Two years ago, the UN announced a $5 million project to help clean up contamination, after the Vietnam Government had reportedly spent $5 million building landfill for contaminants on one of the three main sites affected. Vietnamese officials, however, estimate that they might need at least another $60 million to decontaminate those three bases. The US Government have contributed, and they have given some funds to help Vietnamese living with disabilities as a result of Agent Orange. Has the Foreign Office recently assessed Vietnam’s ability to clear the contamination and help its victims and what international aid could be given to assist the country?

As I mentioned earlier, the Labour Government signed a memorandum of understanding for UK-Vietnam co-operation by 2013, which included pursuing objectives in ASEAN and the EU, expanding trade, and the pursuance of the “doi moi” agenda. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of diplomatic relations next year, it is encouraging that the UK continues to develop a closer relationship with Vietnam and to expand trade opportunities. I urge the Minister to ensure that the UK supports Vietnam in helping to spread such benefits as evenly and as widely as possible. I wish both countries the best success in pursuing their friendship in the years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

I am not as familiar with visa issues affecting Vietnam as I am with those in countries of which I have more intimate knowledge, but I think the problems are common and similar. We are trying to operate a regime that will encourage people to come to the United Kingdom within the limits set by the Home Office on security, numbers, and everything else. The balance is always difficult. I will raise with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane the issues relating specifically to Vietnam, and I presume that he has already been in close touch with the Home Office. The balance is difficult. It is not easy anywhere, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady’s concerns are reflected back.

Education and its spin-over into the general partnership with the United Kingdom put us in a good position not only to be a leading partner in educational development but, as a result of English language use, in various commercial opportunities. I will speak about trade and investment before coming to human rights and other issues.

Vietnam’s impressive potential makes it attractive to UK businesses, which are already doing well in Vietnam. The UK is already Vietnam’s biggest foreign investor in financial services. Other sectors where there are opportunities include education, which I touched on a moment ago, real estate and retail. Bilateral trade in goods reached almost £2 billion in 2011, up by 33% on the previous year. UK exports grew by 18%, reaching £325 million. As I am sure hon. Members will recall, the strategic partnership includes a joint commitment to double trade by 2013—the hon. Member for Bristol East made the point about where our balance of trade should be heading—and our UKTI team has trade officers in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to help UK companies looking to establish or expand their presence in Vietnam. However, in a rapidly growing market it is necessary to take a longer perspective, and we are working with the Vietnamese through the Joint Economic and Trade Committee to identify priority areas and boost our trade and investment relationship. Those bilateral talks include issues of market access and other points of concern to UK companies.

We are well placed to share UK expertise in the financial services, and as I have indicated, the UK is already the biggest investor in that sector in Vietnam. The UK has recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Vietnamese Ministry of Finance under which we will co-operate on a financial framework for public-private partnerships, public debt management and sovereign credit ratings.

UK companies are world leaders in managing large infrastructure projects and that will be an important area for Vietnam in coming years. It is estimated that an investment of around $160 billion will be required over the next decade, and given the scale of that investment, new models of funding for those projects will be required. We have actively shared our experiences of the public-private partnership model with the Vietnamese, and we hope that UK companies will continue to contribute their world-class expertise.

However, despite that background and the UK’s involvement in trade and investment and commercial opportunities, we acknowledge that Vietnam must do more to meet its commitments. Vietnam has reaped the benefits of its accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2007, but its obligations must also be prioritised. We regularly encourage Vietnam to liberalise its markets further, and negotiations on an EU-Vietnam free trade agreement will start soon, which will bring additional benefits to the UK and Vietnam.

Bureaucracy and corruption remain major problems; Vietnam is ranked 116th on Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index—a long way below China and Thailand. The hon. Member for Bristol East raised that issue and asked what more we can do to help, and the UK remains keen to work with Vietnam to address those problems, including through the anti-corruption dialogue. We believe that tackling corruption has become a priority for the Vietnamese Government. They have developed a comprehensive legal framework on anti-corruption measures, and in 2009 they signed the United Nations convention against corruption. Although there has been good progress, the enforcement and impact of the convention remains patchy at best. Therefore, a joint in-country team from the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been formed to lead our anti-corruption work. Such work is given high priority in Vietnam because it has a direct impact on UK interests and we believe that we can make a difference in a fast-emerging market. Corruption is holding back economic development in too many countries in the region, as well as in other parts of the world. It is an endemic and cultural problem, and needs to be tackled. I am confident, however, that our efforts will assist Vietnam in its attempts to deal with that problem.

Before looking at human rights, I would like to mention one or two regional issues and respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the South China sea. As Vietnam’s economic power grows, so does its political power. Through our bilateral relationship we are encouraging Vietnam to play an active and responsible role on the global stage, and to use its influence in the region and through ASEAN on issues of importance such as Burma, counter-proliferation and climate change.

As the House will be aware, the Government are concerned about tensions in the South China sea, which is a vital global trade artery. The UK has an interest in maintaining freedom of navigation in the region, and we hope that all parties can resolve disputes peacefully and in line with international law. The UK continues to call for all parties to show restraint and abide by international norms for the safe conduct of vessels at sea. We hope that the Vietnamese can build on recent discussions with all relevant parties and reach an agreement.

We recognise, however, that the dispute in the South China sea is long-standing and complex. It centres on a maze of overlapping territorial claims and the associated right to exploit maritime resources, by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei. Oil and gas reserves in the sea are significant. The South China sea is a vital global trade artery and some 50% of world trade passes through it.

As the right hon. Gentleman made clear, China, Vietnam and the Philippines have been vigorous in stating their claims. Earlier this month, Philippine and Chinese naval vessels were involved in a tense stand-off over 12 Chinese fishing vessels that were anchored in disputed waters off the north-west coast of the Philippines. Although such incidents continue to be relatively low level, the UK remains concerned about the potential for a minor skirmish to escalate quickly through a miscalculation on either side.

Our role is to encourage all those involved to seek agreement through international negotiation and existing processes. The right hon. Gentleman asked about advice from the United Kingdom, and as an island nation with a long history and involvement in such matters, our advice on maritime issues and territorial disputes will continue to be available to all parties. It is essential to find a peaceful way forward. We understand that ASEAN and China have agreed to develop a code of conduct for the South China sea, and we continue to support that process.

Let me turn to human rights, and the issue of Agent Orange that was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. While that remains primarily an issue for the United States and Vietnam, we share a concern about the circumstances of the past. We continue to pay close interest to the issue—I know that during a visit to Vietnam in September last year, members of the all-party group for Vietnam, together with staff from our embassy, visited a number of sites affected by the use of Agent Orange.

Since 2001, the Governments of the US and Vietnam have worked together on the potential environmental and health issues related to Agent Orange and dioxin contamination. The Joint Advisory Committee that advises both the US and Vietnam on activities related to Agent Orange and dioxin contamination, including research and environmental remediation, met for its fourth annual meeting in September 2009. In December 2010, the US and Vietnam signed a memorandum of intent to start work on dioxin clean-up in Da Nang, to be completed in 2013. Although it is primarily a matter between the US and Vietnam, we take a close interest in it and our officials have raised the issue directly with the United States. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured of our sympathy and understanding in relation to those concerns.

Other issues of human rights have been mentioned, including freedom of expression, the blogosphere, freedom of religion and freedom of politics. As the Foreign Secretary has said, human rights are essential to and indivisible from the UK’s foreign policy objectives. As hon. Members will know, the FCO publishes an annual human rights report. The 2010 report, published in April 2011, identified Vietnam as one of 26 countries of concern and highlighted the concern that there were no signs in the short term that the human rights situation there would change. I encourage all colleagues to look at the report for 2011, which is due to be published shortly.

Supporting Vietnam in improving its record on human rights remains a priority for the UK and is very much part of the strategic partnership. We engage Vietnam on human rights bilaterally and through the EU, which holds an annual human rights dialogue with Vietnam. Our overarching objective is to strengthen accountability, which would lead to increased freedom of expression, effective oversight mechanisms and a more robust response to corruption. Our efforts are focused on building engagement with the Government and the Communist party of Vietnam on key areas of concern; supporting the development of the media; enhancing openness, transparency and Government accountability; and tackling corruption.

The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire referred to freedom of expression, which is our main human rights concern in Vietnam. The Vietnamese authorities maintain a tough stance against any political dissent and a firm grip on print, broadcast and online media across the country. We have concerns about the Vietnamese Government’s treatment of peaceful activists, bloggers and land rights campaigners. National security laws are regularly used against political dissidents and human rights defenders and often lead to lengthy prison sentences. We continue to urge the authorities to adopt a more tolerant approach, stressing the links between Vietnam’s future macro-economic development and its willingness to encourage free speech, open debate, innovation and creativity, which are all important in developing a modern, vibrant and industrialised economy.

The hon. Lady mentioned the death penalty, and I can assure her of the UK’s belief that it is wrong in all circumstances. We will continue to raise the issue with nations that do not hold that view.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of freedom of religion. In recent years, the Vietnamese Government have made progress in implementing their legislative framework to protect freedom of religion and belief. However, there are still isolated reports of harassment of religious groups by local government officials, as well as delays in approving the registration of religious groups. We and our partners in the EU continue to encourage the Vietnamese authorities to ensure that religious freedoms are respected consistently across the country and that central Government policy is understood and implemented appropriately by provincial and local authorities. There have been a number of incidents involving Christian and Buddhist sites as part of land disputes between religious groups and local authorities. In such cases, we have always urged all parties to seek a peaceful resolution, and we have urged the Vietnamese authorities to ensure that property registration procedures are applied consistently across the country.

The hon. Lady mentioned migration and trafficking, about which we are very concerned. The Vietnamese are one of the top three nationalities encountered in the UK as potential victims of trafficking. None the less, the scale of the problem is small compared with illegal migration from Vietnam. Many people are complicit in their illegal entry, but once they are in the UK, organised crime groups target those who are vulnerable and traffic them internally within the country. Sadly, Vietnamese adults are almost as likely to be trafficked for sexual exploitation as they are for labour exploitation. The key to tackling trafficking is to decrease the smuggling of Vietnamese nationals to the UK.

We are also concerned about Vietnamese minors. Between April 2009 and February 2011, 75 out of 96 victims were identified as minors. The majority arrive in the UK as clandestine entrants and are then targeted for labour exploitation, especially cannabis cultivation.

To reduce such threats, we have developed an excellent relationship with the Vietnamese Ministry of Public Security on migration issues. That is particularly significant, given that the UK is clearly the demandeur in the relationship. We are increasing work on organised crime through the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which will post a full-time officer to Vietnam in 2013. For the time being, the work is covered by a Bangkok-based officer, who visits Vietnam twice a month. Through the risk and liaison overseas network, the UK Border Agency is increasingly active in Vietnam, and it will become still more active following the agreement of the memorandum of understanding on immigration information exchange.

Colleagues raised a couple of issues about climate change. Across the Government, we will launch a new trilateral relationship with the Government of Vietnam and the World Bank, and we have been working closely with Vietnam on that. As part of the strategic partnership, the Department for International Development will fund a £3 million project covering key gaps in capacity in five Vietnamese partner Ministries, and that will include adaptation and low-carbon growth analysis.

On adaptation, DFID is developing a project on coastal adaptation in the Red river delta. We hope that will be funded by the international climate fund, which is designed to address climate change internationally. The hon. Lady was right to recognise the particular geography of Vietnam, whose river deltas put it at maximum threat from climate change. That is a further reason why we should act bilaterally with Vietnam, as well as acting on our international obligations.

The right hon. Member for Knowsley mentioned development and poverty, and I am keen to respond. On development, we recognise that economic and commercial growth and opportunities in Vietnam are perhaps the biggest drivers in raising living standards and dealing with poverty. Vietnam has made considerable progress against key development indicators and is seen as something of a success story in reducing poverty. In 2011, it ranked 128th out of 187 countries on the human development index, which is well above what could be expected, given the country’s current national income. However, challenges still remain. Some 12 million people still live in poverty, and the poverty rate among ethnic minorities is particularly high, at 52%.

Since 2006, we have granted Vietnam more than £25 million in debt relief through our DFID office in-country. Based on a 10-year development partnership agreement, the UK has provided more than £448 million in grand-aid to Vietnam. When the development partnership agreement concludes in 2016, DFID will graduate from its programme in Vietnam. As part of that transition plan, DFID will focus on ensuring that interventions are sustainable beyond the period of its presence. Long-term activities on issues such as governance, climate change, and trade and investment are increasingly taken forward as part of the strategic partnership. We are also working on that with multilateral organisations.

The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned labour conditions and wages. As part of Vietnam’s work with the UK Government, we are discussing capacity building and sharing our experience on labour laws, union participation and economic development in conversations with partners in Vietnam.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will UK trade unions be involved in that, perhaps under the umbrella of the TUC? Will they work with labour organisations in Vietnam on these issues?

[Alistair Burt]

If I may, I will raise that with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane. However, I saw Brendan Barber quite recently regarding trade union activity in countries in transition in north Africa, and we have a good relationship with the TUC in taking forward work on trade unions in places where that may have been difficult historically. I am sure the same partnership opportunities will exist in Vietnam.

I hope that covers the issues colleagues have raised. If anything has been left untouched, I will, of course, ensure that it is dealt with by letter. I hope the time we have spent on the debate and the points that have been raised confirm that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Vietnam today is timely and builds on the good relationship between the UK and Vietnam, which has been built up over a number of years. The strategic partnership between us, as well as our common concern to use the opportunities provided by trade and investment and to recognise Vietnam’s growing political power and responsibilities in the region, are all good reasons why my right hon. Friend should be there today building our relationship and looking to the future.

I also hope that what I have said about the UK’s commitments and engagement—whether on commerce, poverty or human rights—shows that we have the right balance in our relationship. We want to encourage development right across the board in Vietnam, while not holding back on addressing issues that may be detrimental to its development, as well as those issues that any country, on an international basis, will want to put right over a period of time. In the UK, Vietnam has a good partner on those issues. We will offer advice and support as Vietnam continues its progress through the century.

Uganda (Human Rights)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.

I, too, had the pleasure of visiting Uganda—first in 2006, with Oxfam, and then again in 2007, when I was one of the guinea pigs for the Voluntary Service Overseas parliamentary scheme, in which MPs are sent to work on short-term placements in the summer. I spent a few weeks at VSO head office in Kampala, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) that it is a beautiful country, with very friendly people. I very much enjoyed my visits there, although on my first one, with Oxfam, I was taken up to Kitgum, to the camps for internally displaced people who had been driven from their villages by the Lord’s Resistance Army.

It was my first visit to sub-Saharan Africa, and it was certainly one of the most tragic sights I had seen—people living in huge camps. I think at that time about 1.8 million people had been displaced from their villages. They were in their mud huts, surviving on one meal a day. I always remember the sight of a young boy, who was probably about 11 or 12, and who was wearing a three-piece suit that had obviously been donated to a charity in a place such as the UK. It was 10 sizes too big for him, the trousers were all rucked up, and he had a little waistcoat. He was wearing it in the baking sun, but was obviously proud of his suit.

When I was there, there was talk of the peace talks beginning to make some progress. There were talks in Juba. However, it was several years later before people who had spent nearly two decades in the camps were able to return to their villages. It is important that the Kony 2012 campaign has drawn attention to the atrocities that have been perpetuated by the LRA, but it is somewhat ironic that it has come to international attention—and that so many celebrities have become aware of it and are drawing it to greater public attention—at a time when the LRA is no longer operational in Uganda and people have been able to return to their villages.

It is clear that the LRA has no popular support in Uganda and no clear political agenda. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, virtually all Christians would be absolutely appalled at Joseph Kony’s claim to be inspired by the ten commandments and that he is acting through some sort of Christian imperative. The UK leads on the LRA at the UN Security Council, and Lord Howell said recently in the other place that

“the UK Government remains very actively involved. We continue to work with international partners to disband the LRA and to bring to justice Joseph Kony and the other LRA leaders who have been indicted by the International Criminal Court.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2012; Vol. 736, c.GC199.]

I am not quite sure what that entails. I appreciate that the Minister may be in difficulties and that if operations are under way, he would not want to reveal them to us. However, it is not clear to me whether there are active attempts to track down Kony and bring him to justice, or whether it is a question of containment and of trying to prevent him inflicting more atrocities.

One thing that struck me when I was in Uganda is that the Acholi people have a concept of reconciliation that involves a ceremony. I cannot remember the details, but it is something to do with drinking something from a tree. When I spoke to people there, they were very keen to implement that and forgive people who had been abducted by the LRA and had committed atrocities, even if it came down to killing or raping people of their own tribe. That is their culture of forgiveness and they wanted those people back in their villages. Surely that process should not extend to the likes of Joseph Kony and the leaders of the LRA. It is incredibly important that he is brought to justice.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Lady share the concern of many people—including myself and many in this House and outside it—who are fearful that Joseph Kony could be going underground? In other words, he could hide for a certain period of time when there are 5,000 soldiers trying to find him and, at some time in the future if he is not caught, he could come out of the woodwork again and resume his violent activities and brutalisation of the people.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do, indeed. I remember when I was in Uganda that Kony’s deputy, Vincent—his surname escapes me—was phoning in on Bush radio and taking part in talk shows. It seemed rather strange that although technically they were in hiding, in some ways they were quite visible. Yet, no one had managed to track them down and arrest them. We know that the LRA has been seen in the DRC and in South Sudan, and there is a real fear that it could be regrouping or that atrocities are being carried out in those areas, too.

The UN has also expressed concerns about acts carried out by the Uganda People’s Defence Force. There have been allegations of rape, torture and use of lethal force, especially during political demonstrations. Opposition politicians, their supporters and some journalists have faced harassment, beatings, and arrest. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) listed in some detail the pressure that Opposition politicians have been put under. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) mentioned—I think she was talking about the same incident—that, in January 2011, the police arrested 35 female activists from the inter-party co-operation coalition, who were protesting against the Electoral Commission of Uganda and accusing it of partiality.

There have also been reports—for example, by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women—that violence against women and girls in Uganda remains widespread. There is an inordinately high prevalence of sexual offences and although it is promising to note that Uganda has ratified the protocol to the African charter on the rights of women in Africa, much more needs to be done.

On press freedom, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, last year, Uganda dropped 43 places to 139th position out of 170 countries in the world assessed by Reporters Without Borders. Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda documented 107 cases of attacks on journalists in 2011, up from 58 in 2010 and 38 in 2009. Those incidents include shootings, physical attacks, unlawful arrest and detention, incarceration, denying the media access to news scenes, confiscation of equipment, defective and trumped-up charges and verbal threats. According to Amnesty International, at the end of 2011 up to 30 Ugandan journalists were facing criminal charges for activities that were a legitimate exercise of their right to freedom of expression.

[Katy Clark in the Chair]

Since the general elections in February 2011, a blanket ban has been in place against all forms of public assembly. I understand that President Museveni has been pressing Parliament to approve constitutional amendments that would curtail bail rights for people facing certain charges, including participation in protests. The proposed constitutional law would allow judges to deny bail for at least six months to people arrested for treason, terrorism, rape, economic sabotage and rioting.

It is the case that 56% of Uganda’s prisoners—more than 17,000 people—have not been convicted of a crime and are locked up awaiting resolution of their case, sometimes for years. According to Human Rights Watch, conditions in the prisons are appalling. Limited use of bail and inadequate legal representation contribute to the delays.

In the time left to me, I want to return to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts—the anti-homosexuality laws. I am quite surprised: when this debate on human rights in Uganda was first called, I thought that the issue of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights would be at the top of the agenda, because it has achieved much coverage lately. I hope that when the hon. Member for Strangford quotes, “When they came for the communists”, “When they came for the trade unionists” and “When they came for the Jews”, he also includes in that list “When they came for the homosexuals”.

When I visited Uganda in 2007, the issue had just begun to raise its head. That was because LGBT activists had started campaigning for their rights to be recognised. I was shocked on one occasion when I was walking down the road to see a billboard for a newspaper saying something like “Homos arrested in march”. I had no idea that such language was still used. What was often said to me then was, “If only they’d keep it to themselves, they wouldn’t be bringing this attention on themselves and would be able to just carry on quietly.” That language has been used since time immemorial to stop people asserting their rights against discrimination and persecution.

As was mentioned, the Ugandan tabloid newspaper Rolling Stone published in 2010 the full names, addresses and photographs of 100 prominent and allegedly gay Ugandans, accompanied by a call for their execution. The headline was “Hang Them”. One of those on the list was leading gay rights activist David Kato, who was beaten to death in January 2011. He was murdered shortly after winning a lawsuit against a magazine that had published his name and photograph, identifying him as gay and calling for him to be executed. There was a suggestion that he had been robbed by someone, but most people do not give that allegation much credence.

Then there is the anti-homosexuality Bill currently before the Ugandan Parliament. The Ugandan penal code already prohibits consensual sex between individuals of the same sex. However, the Bill goes much further. It originally called for the death penalty for consensual same-sex acts, but now calls for life imprisonment. However, it still introduces the death penalty for the offence of “aggravated homosexuality”, which is defined as an HIV-positive man having intercourse with a man who is HIV-negative. It also punishes those who do not report within 24 hours violations of the Bill’s provisions. That applies to people who do not accuse others of being involved in homosexual activity if they believe that they have been. The Bill also criminalises the “promotion” of homosexuality.

The Bill has been widely criticised by human rights organisations and Uganda’s diplomatic partners. President Obama called the Bill “odious”. Thankfully, President Museveni publicly distanced himself from the Bill when it was brought before the Parliament in 2010 and 2011.

I was in Ghana recently with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and ended up spending a day with a group of Ugandan MPs, who raised the subject with me. They said, “Whenever we see anyone from your country, all they want to talk about is our anti-homosexuality Bill.” It was disturbing that only one of the group was opposed to the Bill. All the others were supportive in varying degrees, and presented the old idea of predatory homosexuals preying on children as a child protection issue. They said that they did not care what people got up to in private, and that promotion was the real problem, but when I pressed them and asked why they were not just banning promotion, and why they were trying to impose life imprisonment—quite a few supported the death penalty—for consensual acts, they could not answer. That shows that there is still a long way to go.

Although the conversation was polite, it put us in a slightly difficult position. As one MP said, we took religion to them, and encouraged them to believe in certain things. We had a debate about whether it was a human rights issue, or a matter of religious belief, and whether that outweighs other people’s human rights. As they said, we told them that homosexuality was wrong when proselytising Christianity, but we are now saying that they must believe something else that we tell them. The colonialist agenda of trying to impose western values on them became quite an issue.

[Pamela Nash]

I have had similar conversations with Ugandan politicians. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to ensure that we are not seen as promoting a view or way of life on Ugandan people, but that the issue is human rights abuse? We need countries throughout the world to exert the sort of pressure that the UK Government are exerting. We must work with other Governments to ensure that we are not seen as an old colonial power imposing a belief on Ugandan people.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I was in Jordan recently, and was talking to a couple of women political activists from the Islamic Action Front, which is the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. We got on to issues such as gay rights, and alcohol consumption. Parts of Jordan are tourist destinations and women wear bikinis on beaches, and so on. We could not claim that wearing a bikini on a beach is a fundamental human right, but with gay rights there may be certain values, and we should not accept that people’s cultural or religious beliefs allow them to persecute or discriminate against people because of their sexuality.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s speech so far, and I have listened carefully. The thrust of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who introduced the debate, was the persecution of Christians in Uganda. I am interested to hear what the two Front-Bench spokesmen say about the representations about Christians. The hon. Lady has not placed much emphasis on that so far.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Uganda is quite a strongly Christian country. I have worked with organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the Barnabas Trust and so on that have campaigned on the persecution of Christians in other countries. I had not had representations about persecution of Christians in Uganda until the hon. Gentleman spoke. I appreciate that there is a particular issue for people who have converted from Islam. They may have particular problems, and obviously their security should be protected because their right to practise whatever religion they choose is important, but that right cannot extend to supporting discrimination or persecution of people whose sexuality is different. It is important to flag that up in this debate.

I know that the Minister wants to spend some time responding to the debate, so I will finish. There are concerns about the HIV/AIDS prevention and control Bill, which was retabled in the Ugandan parliament in February 2012. It calls for mandatory HIV testing, and forced disclosure of HIV status in certain cases. I appreciate what a devastating impact the AIDS epidemic has had in Uganda and many other sub-Saharan African countries. When I was there, I saw the work of public education campaigns, and particularly those targeting older men who single out under-age girls because they think they will not be HIV-positive. I appreciate that the country wants to do more to tackle the AIDS problem, but forced disclosure and mandatory reporting and testing are likely to violate human rights on a number of grounds, so they are a matter for concern and vigilance. The Bill has also been criticised by gay rights activists because it excludes homosexuals from prevention programmes.

Finally, I return to UK financial assistance to Uganda. At one point, we withdrew some direct budget support to the Ugandan Government because of concerns about the 2006 elections. We enter dangerous waters when we introduce an element of conditionality into aid—the debate in the past has always been about economic conditionality, such as linking support to water privatisation programmes—but we should require certain standards from the countries to which we offer aid. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts that it would be a dereliction of our duty to the people of Uganda if we withdrew aid, but it is important that any aid we give the country is accompanied by strong messages and, where appropriate, criticism of Uganda’s human rights record. We should use aid not as a strong-arm tactic, but as leverage to get across our points to the Ugandan Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I strongly endorse the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend. Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world. Its economy is growing by 6% or 7% a year, and it is the only G20 country in south-east Asia. There are big opportunities for us—political, diplomatic and economic—in countries such as Indonesia. I am delighted that the Prime Minister’s tour of Asia was so successful, and we are working in posts and across Government to build on that success.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Britain has some of the toughest arms export rules in the world, and the Prime Minister’s recent efforts to promote the defence industry on his overseas visits will have been made within those parameters. Did he also take the opportunity to push for a strong international arms trade treaty, and what steps are the Government taking to bring that about?

[Mr Browne]

In a sense, the hon. Lady has answered her own question. We have extremely tough rules on arms exports, and we are keen to promote an arms treaty. However, as is widely recognised throughout the House, it is legitimate to sell arms to people who comply with the regulations, and that is what we will do when it is appropriate.

Safety of Journalists Abroad

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I join other Members in congratulating the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) on securing the debate and on highlighting some serious examples of the danger that journalists continue to face while working overseas.

We are all familiar with high-profile cases such as the recent tragic death in Syria of Marie Colvin, an internationally renowned foreign correspondent who was rightly feted for her bravery and for her determination to carry on and get the story, even though she faced great personal danger. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said, we do not hear as much about the local journalists who are investigating corruption or reporting on conflicts, and who also run a serious risk of persecution, injury or death, but who do not have the benefit of a Government overseas who can raise concerns and provide consular support.

Reporters Without Borders has said that local journalists pay the highest price every year to guarantee our right to be informed about wars, corruption and the destruction of the environment. Let me cite one example. I have recently returned from a visit as part of a delegation to Colombia. We looked at the human rights situation there and met a great number of human rights activists, journalists and campaigners for press freedom and civil freedoms. The Minister has also just returned from Colombia, although I gather that his trip was mainly to discuss trade issues. However, he will, of course, be very much aware of the human rights situation and the risk to journalists, and perhaps he will tell us whether he had an opportunity to discuss those issues.

The right hon. Member for Bath talked about impunity, and the crux of the matter is that if we do not ensure that those who are guilty of crimes against journalists are brought to justice, whatever those crimes are, there will be no deterrent to those who want to threaten or terrorise them, or otherwise to prevent the development of a free press, or stop journalists working. A free press is one of the most essential elements of a democracy, and one of the most important tools for promoting it, and opposing oppression. It must be protected, which includes bringing people to justice.

These days, the issue is not just press and broadcast journalism, which we might describe as mainstream journalism. The Arab spring, in particular, has highlighted the role of so-called citizen journalists. People now blog, tweet and post pictures taken on their camera phones, or video footage that they have taken in the middle of unrest. Sometimes that is the only voice that we hear about what is really going on. Those people give a voice to protesters and ordinary citizens who would otherwise be voiceless. It is far more difficult to bring those people, who are sometimes known as netizens, or citizen journalists, under the formal umbrellas of protection. They will not be trade union members or work for companies that can protect them and push their case. However, there is not, these days, a clear dividing line between one form of journalism and another.

Even in this country, we have bloggers who are now regarded as mainstream journalists. They can be seen on “Newsnight”, but the bulk of their work is blogging from the street. In some countries where the mainstream media are banned, or subject to serious repression, the voices of those citizen journalists are the only ones that we hear. I would be interested to know what efforts have been made to bring those informal journalists under the umbrella of protection. There is little mention of that in the UNESCO draft action plan.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about the need to build a strong press in the countries concerned. The stronger the press, the safer and better protected the journalists are, because other people working in the field will be able to highlight abuses. I have been involved with some work being done on that front by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Quite often in meetings with members of delegations from abroad, or at overseas conferences, it is possible to talk to politicians about their work as politicians, but rarely is there an opportunity to talk to journalists. The politicians often do not have the support of a free, robust and well equipped and resourced press. That makes it difficult for them to do their work of democratic scrutiny. There is considerable scope for the UK Government, whether through the foundation or otherwise, to do more to promote strong and independent media in such countries.

Today’s debate is timely, as UNESCO is presenting its draft action plan this week. UNESCO notes that there has been little improvement in the safety of journalists in the past few years. Figures for casualties tend to vary quite dramatically from year to year, depending on circumstances, so there was a fall in the number of deaths in 2007 and 2008, because the situation in Iraq improved, but there was a significant rise in 2009 because of the one-off horrific incident of the deaths of 30 journalists in the Philippines on 23 November. There are some differences between the figures cited by the UN, those reported by Reporters Without Borders and those of the International Federation of Journalists, but all the sets of figures make it clear that across the globe journalists are still coming under attack and being censored, kidnapped, threatened, arrested, jailed, forced to flee or even killed.

The draft action plan emphasises the need to extend UNESCO’s work, such as in assisting countries to develop laws and mechanisms that support, rather than suppress, freedom of expression and information, and to implement the rules and principles set out in UNESCO’s 1997 general conference resolution on violence against journalists. The Minister may well say that that the draft action plan stems from a meeting that was called following a UK initiative last year, and I would be interested to know more about the role that the UK played in drawing up the draft plan, and what role it envisages in taking it forward. When will the five aims of the plan be implemented and what resources will be devoted to that?

Recently, the Government have taken considerable interest in Somalia, with the conference in London, which I welcomed. I have met journalists from Somaliland, and even there, where it is relatively peaceful, there have been problems with the jailing of journalists. Are there countries where the Minister feels the UK could play a particular role—perhaps on a pilot scheme or project basis—and do imaginative and innovative things to support the development of a free press, as well as protect those who promote it?

Sri Lanka (Human Rights)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing this debate. Ever since the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission was published, I have thought that Parliament needed to discuss it. The turnout today has meant that Members have had to rush their contributions and many have not had the chance to speak. Perhaps the Backbench Business Committee or the Government ought to consider a full day’s debate on the Floor of the House, like the one we had on Somalia just before the half-term recess. I think that many Members would be keen to make more of a contribution.

We have heard accounts of appalling abuses in Sri Lanka. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) discussed violence perpetrated against women, which has not received sufficient attentions. There are also concerns about displaced people. Many Members have referred to the Channel 4 film “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields”. I attended a recent exhibition in Parliament with photographic evidence of some of the abuses that occurred in Sri Lanka. I do not want to cut into the Minister’s time, and I do not think it would be a good use of my time to detail those abuses—they are on the record and in the public domain—but it is worth restating that the UN panel of experts found credible the allegations of a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law by the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, some of which could amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Attempts have been made to dismiss some of the evidence produced, including attempts to rubbish the Channel 4 film by suggesting that the footage of violence against women could have been faked. It is important to put on record that, although the UN panel of experts was not given as much access as we would have liked, it found that the original allegations were credible.

[Robert Halfon]

I support everything that the hon. Lady is saying. Is she aware that in November 2011, the UN Committee Against Torture reported that the Sri Lankan military behaved as though they were above the law and noted threats and harassment against human rights workers, defence lawyers and journalists?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Again, we must take seriously the fact that the allegations have been substantiated. They are, for all intents and purposes, a fact, and we must proceed on that basis, rather than still debating which side is right or wrong about the allegations. It is notable that the LLRC report makes no mention of torture in 338 pages.

[Mr Love]

Notwithstanding some concerns about time for the LLRC report, there has been a general consensus in this room about its significant shortcomings and failures. Does my hon. Friend agree that Government action is called for to address those shortcomings, and that the call for an international independent investigation must be sustained?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Labour was concerned about the LLRC’s composition and terms of reference, and the report’s flaws have borne out that concern. As the shadow Foreign Secretary said last year, we were not convinced that the commission could do its work even with international participation, and we thought that an international commission was needed to consider the evidence. That is still the Labour party’s stance.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office statement in response to the publication of the LLRC report was critical to a degree, but perhaps not as critical as Members feel it should have been. Will the Minister explain in more detail exactly what he sees as the report’s flaws? Is it the Government’s stance that the LLRC is a sufficient basis for moving forward and that it is all about implementing the recommendations, setting a time scale and making progress, or does he think that the report, although useful in parts, is not a sufficient foundation for moving forward and that an international investigation is needed instead?

I particularly hope that the Minister can give more clarity on what the UK Government’s stance will be at the UN Human Rights Council in March. It has been said that the US will introduce a resolution calling for further action. I would be interested to know whether the Government support the US on that. A time scale is needed, as is a mechanism for ensuring that the recommendations in the LLRC report are not just allowed to drift.

I was concerned to hear the Sri Lankan high commission mention the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which took decades to be implemented and reach its conclusions, and the Stephen Lawrence investigation, which took 18 years. We should not be using that sort of time scale, or thinking that it will be decades before prosecutions are brought or resolutions are found. The US Government’s suggestion that report-backs should be made at future Human Rights Council meetings in June and September is a good starting point for setting a time scale and moving the agenda forward.

On deportations, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) has had to leave, but he mentioned a constituent’s case. I appreciate that it is not in his portfolio, but will the Minister clarify the UK Government’s stance on deportations to Sri Lanka? A flight is due to leave on 28 February, and people are concerned about that. To his knowledge, have there been any allegations of mistreatment on return of those forcibly removed by the UK to Sri Lanka? What attempts have the UK Government made to monitor suggestions that people returned forcibly to Sri Lanka will be at risk? Are efforts made to investigate such allegations? What does he think would qualify as a substantiated allegation in a context where victims and family members might be reluctant or not in a position to come forward to give evidence of their concerns?

I will let the Minister reply, but the main thing that I want him to confirm is whether he sees the LLRC report as a basis for moving forward or whether he thinks an international commission is needed. Does he think that the UN is the right body to take things forward? Does he support not just an international investigation but a much stronger mechanism to ensure that justice is done for the victims of human rights abuses in Sri Lanka? The culture of impunity that has been allowed to develop must no longer continue.

Falkland Islands

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Guy Opperman]

Argentina has described the royal visit as an inflammatory act, which is ridiculous. The gentleman involved, who happens to be the future king, is going as a search and rescue pilot. Were he to save the life of some hapless Argentine sailor, I hope that Argentina would be equally as grateful as, I am sure, the individual saved by the presence of the Duke would be. I support the fact that the Duke of Cambridge has been asked to go and that he intends to do just that.

I pay tribute to Able Seaman Derek Armstrong from my constituency who was a pupil at Prudhoe community high school. At 9 o’clock this morning I met with students from that school who are visiting the House of Commons today—all hon. Members know of schools that visit the House in order to understand its history. On 22 May 1982, Derek Armstrong was 22 years old and serving on HMS Ardent. He was sadly killed in the attack that sunk that ship, and Prudhoe community high school now presents a Derek Armstrong memorial award each year to the best sportsperson at that school. It was amazing to see the students this morning as that living history, and the relevance of the Falklands war to individuals and to their school, was explained to them.

When the Duke of Cambridge goes to the Falkland Islands later this year, I regret that he will find an island that is under a degree of trade blockade. The Argentine President has upped that blockade by taking the slightly unbelievable step of blocking ships that are flying the Falkland Islands flag from their ports, and she has persuaded other members of the south American trading bloc, which includes Brazil and Uruguay, to do the same. A ship is not allowed access if it shows the so-called “defaced” Falkland Islands red ensign. Provided it removes its flag, however, and denies its true origins, it is given access. Such denying of a recognised international ship that is carrying a recognised international flag runs contrary to international law and is, I suggest, a protectionist and retrograde step. There is no justification for such petty actions that are done only to intimidate a small civilian population and, with respect, such things are beneath the Argentine people. Let us be blunt: such actions merely harden the resolve of this House, strengthen that of the Islanders, and do nothing to endear the Argentines to the Islanders. It is hardly about hearts and minds.

Are we in 2012 really going down a route that sees civilised countries make ever increasing efforts to block free trade? This is about protectionism. Will the Minister update the House on the efforts made by our diplomats to end the trade blockade? I accept that the Foreign Office has done—and continues to do—a great deal to support the Falkland Islands over the past few years, but I hope that it will do yet more to increase support, both financially and in terms of manpower, in the Foreign Office itself and on the Falkland Islands.

I will attempt to address the principle of self-determination, which is set out in article 1.2 of the charter of the United Nations, and article 1 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. The Argentines continue to say that we should negotiate on sovereignty, but about what?

Let us analyse the claims. In 1965, UN resolution 2065 noted

“the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands.”

It invited the Governments involved

“to proceed without delay with the negotiations...with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly UN Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands.”

UN resolution 2065 must therefore be read in line with UN resolution 1514, which states:

“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”

It adds—and this is key—that all peoples have

“the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

The argument that anything other than self-determination is supported by the UN agreements is completely wrong. Self-determination is enshrined within the resolutions and supports our case.

UN resolution 1514 continues:

“All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected…Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

I could continue with an analysis of the various UN conventions and protocols, but under any interpretation, the argument supports the right to self-determination for the Falkland Islanders.

Thirty years after the Falklands war, we should be celebrating the culture of those special islands and investing in them in a variety of ways. We should also be promoting the fantastic tourism opportunities they could provide. The Mercosur countries of the south American bloc are our friends, just as we would like Argentina to be. We wish President Fernandez a full recovery from her operation. I am an MP from the north-east and my local football team, Newcastle United, is led by one Argentine and includes another, and those players are revered by thousands of people who support that team. In no way is Argentina our enemy; we wish to be trading partners and friends, and to take the relationship forward. This world has so much strife, but I say to the Argentines: let us work together for prosperity, not fall apart as fools.

The Argentine Government must understand that the future of the islanders does not lie with Argentina.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman says about the right to self-determination, and his analysis of how those rights are enshrined by the UN. I understood, however, that he was calling for such a measure to be encapsulated in British law. He has said that we need a law of self-determination for the overseas territories, but he has not explained why he feels that that is needed as an add-on measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) on securing this debate. The good turnout today is a testament to the desire in this House to reiterate our support for the people of the Falkland Islands. As we mark the 30 years since the Falklands war, it is important to remember not only those who fought but the sacrifice of the 255 Britons who lost their lives. As we approach the anniversary, the increasing tension and the greater focus on the Falkland Islands must be particularly difficult for the families of those who died during the conflict. It is important that we use occasions such as this to reiterate our gratitude to them for their sacrifice and our commitment to protecting the Falkland Islands.

As I made clear earlier, Labour continues to support the islanders’ right to self-determination. It is a long-established principle that has been recognised by successive Governments and by the Falkland Islands constitution. Moreover, as we have discussed, it is set out in article 1.2 of the UN charter and in article 1 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. As the hon. Member for Hexham said, it has been reinforced by UN resolutions that deal specifically with the Falkland Islands and by the many other UN resolutions that reaffirm the commitment to the right of people to determine for themselves what their future should be. Therefore, I am not persuaded by him that there is a need to enshrine that principle in UK law. He has said that it would send out a signal that we are absolutely committed to upholding the right to self-determination, but I do not think that the purpose of legislation is simply to send out signals when the position is already clear. Indeed, I thought that the ideology that underpins his Government is that we should not go down the path of unnecessary legislation; that we should legislate only when there is an absolute need for it. Also, I am concerned that, if there were an attempt to enshrine that principle in UK law, it could be seen to undermine other principles of international and UN law that are not enshrined in UK law; it could seem that the principle were of a different status.

[Mr Gray]

I agree with the hon. Lady about small government, but does she recall the occasion when her right hon. Friend, the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) entered into negotiations with the Government of Spain on the future of Gibraltar without consulting the people of Gibraltar? That shows that, on occasion, such things can slip. Is that not a reason for writing the principle into law?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do not think that entering into negotiations or discussions with another country necessarily thwarts or flouts the right to self-determination. It is fairly well established that we will respect the right of the people in the overseas territories to determine their fate, and we have reiterated that over and again.

[Mr Gray]

Will the hon. Lady give way again?

[Kerry McCarthy]

We are not here to discuss Gibraltar.

[Mr Gray]

If the hon. Lady is saying that she could see no reason why the right hon. Member for Blackburn should not have discussed with Spain the future of Gibraltar without consulting the people of Gibraltar, is she saying that it would be perfectly reasonable for any other Foreign Secretary to enter into discussions with the Government of Argentina about the future of the Falklands without consulting the people there?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am obviously not saying that at all. If we were having bilateral meetings with Argentina, or if there were a state visit to Argentina, and the issue of the future of the Falkland Islands were raised by the Argentine Government, we would of course have discussions with them about that. That is not the same as entering into negotiations or in any way at all committing to signing away the rights of the Falklands Islands without respecting its residents’ right to self-determination. As has already been mentioned, given that the Falkland Islanders are unanimous in their desire to remain British, I cannot see that as something that would in any way, shape or form be on the table in a serious way at any such discussions.

[Guy Opperman]

For the avoidance of doubt, I shall try to clarify the point that I was seeking to make, which I believe was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray).

There have, down the generations, been examples—whether it is Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands in the late 1960s—where successive Governments have sought to negotiate on sovereignty in circumstances where that has palpably not been the will of the people. My proposal would allow the House of Commons and Parliament to send out a crystal-clear message that self-determination is part of the law of this country, and negotiations cannot be entered into without observation of the individual rights of those persons. That does not currently exist, and that is the right reason why we seek a law on self-determination out of the Foreign Office White Paper that will be discussed in the House this year.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Perhaps we can agree to differ on that matter, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and whether he feels there is a need for the principle to be enshrined in UK law.

We share the Foreign Office’s disappointment about the decision to block ships that carry the Falklands flag. Developments since December have been particularly troubling, and we welcome the robust response from the Foreign Office. Although it is reassuring that ships have been able to get around that policy and continue to enter ports by carrying the British flag, it is obviously not acceptable for the Argentine Government, because they object to the Falkland Islanders’ choice to remain British, to seek to impose an economic blockade or to inhibit the Islanders’ way of carrying on their economic life.

It is also worrying that other south American countries have been brought on board in that decision. Will the Minister confirm which countries and representatives from south America have had direct discussions with the Foreign Secretary, who visited Latin America earlier this month, about the Falkland Islands? Was the blockade discussed with other countries? What was the outcome of the talks? Will the Minister assure us that the Foreign Office is using all diplomatic options to encourage Latin America to respect the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination? What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the impact of the tension with Argentina over the Falkland Islands on the UK Government’s efforts to strengthen the relationship with the rest of south America? Will the Minister explain to us what representations the Government have made to counterparts in Chile about protecting the one flight a week from Chile to the Falkland Islands, which President Fernandez has sought to stop?

We appreciate—I have reiterated this today—the need for a robust and unambiguous stance from the UK Government on our determination to protect the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination and, consequential to that, their British status. Is the Foreign Office concerned, however, that the Prime Minister’s choice of language might have unnecessarily inflamed the situation? I welcome the Prime Minister’s clear assertion in the House that the future of the Falkland Islands is a matter for the people themselves and that they will remain British for as long as they choose to do so, and we also agree that Argentina cannot disregard the Falkland Islanders’ right to choose. However, accusing the Argentine Government of colonialism, which was clearly an emotive choice of words, provoked a strong reaction from the Government and the Argentine people. Does the Minister think, with hindsight, that that was a wise choice of words? We are also concerned about the march on the embassy in Buenos Aires, in which protestors burned the Union flag. Will the Minister assure us that the welfare of the embassy staff is being protected?

Some suggestions have been made, not in this Chamber, but in the media, that the defence of the Falkland Islands would not be secure if there were attempts by Argentina to invade—although we note that the Argentine President has ruled out any military action. For example, in a recent piece in The Daily Telegraph, General Sir Michael Jackson said that Britain would not be able to reclaim the Falklands if Argentina invaded. I note that earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is well informed on such matters, assured us that that was not the case and that there was no threat, but I would be grateful to receive some reassurance.

[Mr Gray]

It is absolutely the case that we would not be able to send a taskforce tomorrow in the way that we did 30 years ago; we simply do not have the resources to do that. That is quite different from saying that we have no resources to defend the Falklands—of course we do. In particular, the building of a runway at the airport has made defending the Falklands an entirely different matter from what it was 30 years ago, when that did not exist. Of course we can do it today, but we would not be able to lay on a task force as we did then.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Indeed.

Argentina has now named an ambassador to the UK, which is a step in the right direction. Will the Minister tell us whether he has had any contact with Alicia Castro since her appointment? Does he intend to meet her soon? Have his officials in the Foreign Office had any contact with her? We are all keen to hear from the Minister his response to the various points that have been raised in the debate, so I will hand over to him.

Human Rights

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the Members present on their contributions. I, too, will not attempt a world tour of human rights, but I pay tribute to the Members who have talked in detail about the situation in countries such as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Colombia and Sri Lanka. It is not possible for me to canter through those countries, but there were some very well made points.

I entirely endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) among others, about one and a half hours not being sufficient time for a debate of this nature. There is inevitably a time lag with such reports, and a lot of water has passed under the bridge since this report was compiled, with developments in countries such as Bahrain and Syria. I hope that next year’s report is given the full justice of a debate in the Chamber, and a full-length one too.

Of course, Labour Members share the Committee’s belief that all Departments need to provide a clear, consistent and robust message on the fundamental importance of human rights. I note that the Committee’s report expressed concern about the delay in the Government’s strategy on the use of soft power, which has been mentioned. I hope that the Minister will take that back to the other Departments and urge them to do all that they can, and particularly to use the opportunities presented by forthcoming events such as the Olympics, to promote the Government’s human rights message.

More troubling was the conclusion by the Committee that the Government had failed to take

“a stronger and more consistent stance”.

Obviously, the Government have to be nuanced in the manner in which they respond to individual cases and to take into account the likely impact of private or public condemnation. Although I note that the Department’s official response was that the Government

“will not downplay criticism of human rights abuses”,

perhaps the Minister could respond in more detail on the Committee’s concerns and some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members today, particularly in relation to Saudi Arabia, Syria and Bahrain, and respond to the concern of Human Rights Watch that the UK may create an impression of double standards.

Throughout the report, a common theme is the greater emphasis under the current Government on the Foreign Office’s role in promoting the UK’s commercial interests. Of course, it is very important that we develop strong trade links with other countries, particularly at a time when the domestic economy is faring so badly, but there is always a balance to be struck, not least if the Foreign Secretary is to achieve his stated aim of a foreign policy that always has

“consistent support for human rights and poverty reduction at its irreducible core”.

The Prime Minister, meanwhile, has asserted that the UK must place

“our commercial interests at the heart of our foreign policy.”

When the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), gave evidence to the Committee, he said that the Government saw no inherent contradiction in those two statements, although he acknowledged that they could give rise to “short-term tensions”, so perhaps this Minister could elaborate on how the Department manages those short-term tensions. To what degree do we tolerate human rights abuses by a company that we are trying to secure a greater trading relationship with and to what extent do we use the trading relationship as a means of putting pressure on the other country to deal with those human rights abuses? I think that people will share my concern that in some instances the commercial relationship is deemed far more important than dealing with the human rights abuses.

The Foreign Affairs Committee emphasised the need for human rights to feature more prominently across the Government, so will the Minister tell us what progress the Foreign Office is making with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, UKTI and UK Export Finance in particular? Let me single out one country in relation to which there is particular tension. The Committee highlighted that as a particular concern. I am referring to China. It is notable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose Asia for his first international visit of 2012. Obviously, Asia is a continent of great economic importance for us, but there is a careful balance to be struck. Will the Minister tell us whether officials were present during the Chancellor’s visit to raise the UK Government’s concerns about the deteriorating human rights situation in that country and to make clear that, regardless of the purpose of the visit—whether it is primarily about economic matters or about other matters—human rights issues must always be on the agenda while such abuses exist?

The Committee noted its concern about the Prime Minister’s decision to visit the middle east to promote UK arms suppliers during the early stages of the Arab spring. It now seems that the UK continued to export between July and September last year to Bahrain, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I would appreciate the Minister’s response to the conclusion of the Campaign Against Arms Trade that

“While the Government promotes arms exports to repressive regimes, it is pure hypocrisy for it to talk about supporting human rights and democracy.”

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) mentioned that there does not seem to be a reference in the report to what is regarded as the cornerstone of our arms export policy—that we do not export to countries that may use those arms for internal repression or external aggression. I would be pleased to get the reassurance from the Minister that that remains the Government’s objective when it comes to arms sales.

I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) about the attempts to promote cluster munitions sales at the arms fair in the UK, which I know she raised at the Human Rights Watch report launch the other day. I would appreciate a reply from the Minister on that.

I will just skim over some of the other points. The delay in the implementation of the Bribery Act 2010 is another matter of concern to us, as is the postponement—cancellation—of the Gibson inquiry. I appreciate entirely why the Government have had to do that while a criminal investigation is ongoing, but can the Minister assure us that a future inquiry will be established on the basis that has the respect of NGOs, former detainees and the international community?

I shall just mention one of the countries specifically dealt with in the report, because the issues surrounding it are very much current. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) talked about Sri Lanka. We have recently had the report published by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. I hope that, at some point over the next few weeks, we will find time for a full debate on that in the House, because there are many question marks over the report, in relation to the terms of reference of the commission and its recommendations. I know that I am asking the Minister a lot of questions, but it would be helpful if he could he say whether there will be an opportunity for further debate on that, because there was only a written statement from the Government.

Finally, I would like to raise the decision to exclude countries not eligible for overseas development assistance from the human rights and democracy programmes. That runs the risk of excluding countries that could benefit from human rights projects. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy is concerned that such an approach will limit the choice of which countries it works with. Will the Minister update us on that and clarify the support available to countries that are not eligible for overseas development assistance? What assessment is being made in the Department of the impact of that decision?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady is quite right: although what has happened in relation to the Karen people is important, other ethnic conflicts continue. I held a meeting with ethnic representatives from around Burma in Rangoon on my visit there and raised this wider matter with the Government at all the meetings I had with them. I also announced an additional £2 million of humanitarian assistance for displaced people in Kachin state, where fighting continues. It is important for the Government of Burma to understand that resolving the conflicts more widely around the borders and ethnic areas remains important.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Opposition join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming the release of political prisoners in Burma although, as he has acknowledged, many hundreds of men and women remain in prison there for their political beliefs. Will he tell the House what he did to push the Burmese regime to allow greater access for the world’s media, particularly in the run-up to the elections in April, now that restrictions have started to be lifted?

[Mr Hague]

I made the point to Government Ministers there that part of the essential opening up to the rest of the world is access for media representatives. Indeed, on my visit I was able to facilitate that access for the first time and to ensure that BBC correspondents could go to places or get invited to press conferences to which they would not previously have been invited. Each international visit helps to prise open to a greater extent the media’s access to Burma. We will continue with those efforts.

North Korea

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Davies; welcome to your position. I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate. As has been said—by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I think—her concern about the plight of the people in North Korea shone through in everything that she said. It is important that we discuss this issue in terms not just of criticising the regime in North Korea, but of the compassion that I am sure we all feel for the people of North Korea.

I, too, had the pleasure of meeting Shin Dong-hyuk when he was in Parliament recently. The hon. Lady spoke in detail about the account that he gave. No one who met him could fail to have been moved by his personal story. The thing that stuck with me particularly was his account of the young girl who had been caught with some grains of rice in her pocket and was eventually beaten to death—she died because of her injuries. What struck me was the fact that he said, “Actually, we regarded this as commonplace. We weren’t horrified by it, because it was so common for that sort of horrific scenario to be enacted in the prison camps.” He had no awareness of life outside his camp, or of the fact that there was an alternative, until he escaped. What he had to say made a very powerful impression on me. Christian Solidarity Worldwide is to be congratulated on its efforts to ensure that we get to hear about such examples.

Obviously, the situation in North Korea at the moment, with the death of Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un’s succession, has created a great deal of uncertainty among the international community. Whether we can treat it as an opportunity to try to put the international spotlight on North Korea and highlight some of the opportunities for change is a moot point. Certainly, we would all be united in hoping that it does present an opportunity, but, as has been said, there is not just one issue to tackle in North Korea. The hon. Member for Cheltenham talked about this. There are humanitarian concerns and concerns about the repression of free speech and lack of democracy. There are the kidnappings and the prison camps. There are so many issues to be tackled, but we need to do all that we can to try to keep the focus on North Korea and to keep diplomatic efforts to engage with North Korea at the forefront of what is being done.

As the 2010 Foreign and Commonwealth Office report on human rights and democracy highlighted,

“Human rights, as understood by the rest of the world, do not exist in the DPRK.”

The former UN special rapporteur on human rights in North Korea described the situation as “horrific and harrowing”. As has been said, the outside world lacks reliable information about life in North Korea. The fact that we have to rely on the accounts of the few people who have managed to defect—it can take them many years to reach a safe place where they feel able to talk about their situation—shows how dire the situation is.

It is difficult to imagine the sheer scale of the restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of information, freedom of movement and freedom of association. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) gave a fascinating account of his visit to North Korea and of just how different it is. I have visited many countries where there are real concerns about human rights, but the scale of what he was talking about was very different from that in any of the countries that the rest of us have visited.

As has been said, external media are prohibited, and there are indications that the restrictions are being enforced even more stringently. There is no freedom of religion, and several Members have talked particularly about the persecution of Christians. The rights of women are enshrined in the constitution, but sexual harassment and violence are reportedly widespread, while victims of human trafficking are treated as criminals. There are also reports of forced abortions and infanticide, and child labour is not uncommon.

The punishments associated with even minor transgressions against the restrictions are harsh and arbitrary. Although the numbers are not known, for the reasons that we have discussed, the death penalty, including public executions, and torture and other forms of inhumane treatment are used routinely.

Even more worryingly, Amnesty International reports that, in preparation for Kim Jong-un’s succession, officials deemed a threat to him were executed. Although it is difficult to secure completely reliable figures, Christian Solidarity Worldwide notes there was a 58% increase in reports of human rights violations between 2010 and 2011. The populations of the prison and political labour camps also seem to have increased, with estimates that 200,000 people are now held in them.

The hon. Member for Congleton did not touch only on the human rights abuse, and it is important to note that the debate is also about the humanitarian situation, which the UN special rapporteur has described as absolutely dire. As we have heard, there are severe food shortages, which, along with the lack of proper health care, are a serious danger for the people of North Korea. There is minimal medical care outside Pyongyang, and any facilities are of a poor standard. The food shortages are acute and chronic, and inefficiencies in the public distribution system are exacerbated by floods and harsh winters. It is estimated that 1 million people have died since the mid-1990s because of the lack of food, and millions are suffering from malnutrition.

Of course, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that the regime is not prepared to admit just how bad things are or to engage with the international community to the extent that it needs to on the issue of aid. China and South Korea have provided the most humanitarian aid, but with the deterioration of the bilateral relationship with South Korea since 2008, its contribution has fallen drastically. I was in China just before Christmas and took the opportunity to talk to the Chinese authorities about what more they could do to provide support for the people of North Korea.

I very much support the World Food Programme’s emergency operation, which was launched in April, but there are concerns. The UN has reported that it has received only 31% of the resources needed, and the assessment is that there is still a serious crisis.

Countries face a difficult dilemma when providing humanitarian aid to North Korea, not least because of the difficulty of ensuring that aid reaches the people who need it most. We also get into the whole debate about whether aid should be used as leverage on the human rights issue. However, the UN has warned that aid to North Korea should not be politicised when the humanitarian situation is so dire, and I subscribe to that view.

Can the Minister tell us whether longer-term plans will be in place once the World Food Programme operation ends in March? Do the Government agree with the UN’s statement that aid to North Korea should not be politicised? In that context, what can we do to support the humanitarian programme in North Korea?

Will the Minister assure us that the Government are making every effort to work with the EU and the UN to send a clear message to North Korea and to ensure that the transition to the new leadership presents an opportunity rather than a danger? What discussions have UK representatives had with international partners—particularly North Korea’s neighbours—and representatives of the North Korean regime since Kim Jong-il’s death? Does the Minister share my concern that efforts to cement the new leadership in place could lead to a deterioration in the human rights situation? If the new leader is not secure in his position, that could trigger a greater crackdown on anyone seen as a potential opponent of the regime.

Following Kim Jong-il’s death, the Foreign Secretary indicated that the UK’s priority was the resumption of the six-party talks. Any engagement between North Korea and the international community would be welcome, but will the Foreign Office seek to broaden its efforts beyond denuclearisation to include a human rights agenda?

One significant obstacle to progress is North Korea’s refusal to admit external observers, so we support continuing efforts to press for a visit by the UN special rapporteur. Can the Minister advise us on any recent diplomatic discussions on the issue?

Finally, last September, the International Coalition to Stop Crimes against Humanity in North Korea, led by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Federation for Human Rights, was launched to campaign for the establishment of a UN commission—something that the European Parliament has called for previously. The Government have indicated that they are not against a commission, but there are doubts that it would be possible to secure UN Security Council support. Will the Minister advise us whether there are any active negotiations on the issue and whether he takes a positive view of whether a commission can be achieved?

Iran (Human Rights)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) for securing this debate. I do not intend to touch on the issues that she raised with regard to the Baha’i faith, because she did comprehensive justice to those and we will hear the Minister’s response. We also heard from the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) about the plight of Christians. Both issues have been raised with me on a number of occasions by local campaigners, including members of the Baha’i faith and the Christian community in Bristol and on a wider scale.

I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which was also mentioned earlier today during a debate on human rights in North Korea. CSW does sterling work campaigning there, as well. It is testament to that organisation’s powerful campaigning on this issue that so many hon. Members have mentioned it.

I was going to mention the BBC World Service Persian TV service being jammed, but that has already been mentioned by hon. Members. Will the Minister comment on what representations have been made? That has been going on for a couple of years, and since 2009 there has been almost consistent jamming of the service and only intermittent ability to broadcast. I should be grateful if the Minister said a few words about that.

It is 17 years since Iran last submitted a report to the UN human rights committee. As we have heard, the scale of human rights abuses in the country is vast. It is not just people of religious faith who have come under threat: political activists, women and ethnic and sexual minorities live under the real and ever-increasing threat of arbitrary arrest, torture and even death. The UN has called on the Iranian Government to engage with the international community in strengthening human rights safeguards and we fully support this approach.

A key area of concern is the deplorable attack on the British embassy in Tehran last November. The Iranian Government have blocked access to the embassy’s website, which detailed Iran’s human rights obligations and important information about how Iranians could travel to the UK. Given that the Government have now closed our embassy in Iran—a measure that Labour spokespeople supported—will the Minister say how they intend to continue to monitor human rights violations in the country? Does the Minister accept the concerns of some human rights campaigners that the embassy’s closure will inevitably have an impact on the UK’s ability to appeal to the Iranian Government regarding ongoing and future human rights abuses? Will he also say what impact the closure of the embassy will have on our work with civil society groups within Iran?

Although the attack on the embassy was utterly deplorable, we should not allow that to deter us from trying to find ways to continue to promote human rights and hold the Iranian Government to account for their abuse of those rights. The campaign to save Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani from being stoned to death has already been mentioned; that is a compelling example of how international pressure can have an effect on the regime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, there are small signs that such things have an impact, even though they may not deliver overnight the ideal situation that we would like. The campaign to save her life continues. There is still a threat of death by hanging. It is important to try to mobilise international opinion on such issues.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

At some point, Iran will have to submit itself for an in-country review of human rights at the UN Human Rights Council. I do not know when that will be, but it cannot be that far away, because it is near the end of the first tranche of in-country reviews. That would be an ideal time for the concerns that hon. Members have raised here to be rearticulated by the British representative in Geneva.

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is important that Iran is subject to such intense international scrutiny.

The UN special rapporteurs have difficulty coming up with authoritative statistics. Figures show that 252 officially announced executions were carried out in 2011. However, Amnesty International, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, and the UN have reported that more than 300 people were secretly executed in Iranian prisons in 2011. There is a strong suspicion that the real figure is probably far higher.

Among those secretly executed were women and a great number of foreign nationals, particularly from Afghanistan, the majority of whom were accused of drug trafficking offences. Testimony from relatives and other inmates reveals that the majority of the victims were not informed of their sentence until a few hours before the execution was carried out and that most executions occurred without families being given prior notice. Most deplorably, as has already been mentioned, Iran continues to execute children, who are widely reported to have been tortured into making confessions. It is suggested that 143 children remain on death row.

[Jim Shannon]

In respect of the figures that the hon. Lady mentioned, approximately 550 and 600 people were executed in Iran last year—and probably every year for a period of time. Iran is second only to China in that regard. Does its being number two in the world league of executions lead to concern?

[Kerry McCarthy]

We oppose the use of the death penalty in any circumstances, but the crucial starting point is that information on executions that are carried out should be transparent. We should know the figures for what people have been convicted of and how many executions have been carried out—half the executions I mentioned were carried out secretly, and most people would regard it as inappropriate that offences such as drugs trafficking should carry the death penalty. The issue is significant, and one on which we should continue to put pressure on the Iranian Government.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The hon. Lady is giving a good overview of the difficulties. Does she concede that, because of its role as a state sponsor of terrorism and other activity in the middle east, in particular in support of despotic regimes, Iran is in many ways exporting human rights abuses throughout the region?

[Kerry McCarthy]

There is certainly concern about the international role played by Iran. I do not want to stray into the territory of its foreign policy, particularly because Iran does not fall under my brief in the shadow foreign affairs team, but I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the influence of the Iranian regime, in particular in the region, and the wrong message being sent to other regimes.

We have not debated in much detail today the impact of human rights abuses on women in the country. Officially, under article 20 of the Iranian constitution, there is equality between men and women. It states:

“All citizens of the country, both men and women, equally enjoy the protection of law and enjoy all human, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, in conformity with Islamic criteria.”

As a recent report by the UN confirms, however, Iranian law provides an insurmountable barrier to gender equality. To give a few examples, under Iranian law, a woman’s testimony is worth only half a man’s testimony; the age of criminality starts at the age of nine for girls, whereas it is 15 for boys; mothers may never have guardianship of their children, even if they are widowed; and women do not have equal inheritance rights. For some time there has been growing concern about the crackdown on women who fail to adhere to the traditional dress code in public. For example, the number of women applying to university has declined since measures taken by the regime to enforce the dress code there.

Disturbingly, Iranian authorities blame women who have been raped for inducing their attackers to sexually assault them. In June 2011, 14 women were kidnapped and gang-raped, but the Government claimed that the women had brought the attack on themselves and that the manner in which they had been dressed was reason enough not to bring the attackers to justice. Recently, we have seen the imprisonment of women’s rights activists who signed the “One Million Signatures” campaign to repeal discriminatory laws. One activist was sentenced to nine and a half years in jail for assembly and collusion against the regime and to a further two years for participating in a protest against laws discriminating against women. Another women’s rights activist was given three and a half years in one of Iran’s most notorious prisons in May 2011.

Three gay men are known to have been hanged in Iran in 2011, and two teenage boys, in a case that drew widespread international attention, were hanged in 2005 for the same offence. Some observers report that that is only the tip of the iceberg, because in many cases the families are not prepared to make public the fact that their relatives were executed under the sodomy laws.

I finish with a few words about the role of social media in Iran. We heard from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) about how a fairly well organised, well educated opposition movement exists in Iran, and how it is struggling to break free from the regime’s grasp. According to Harvard university, the rate of growth of internet usage is higher in Iran than in any other country in the middle east. An estimated 700,000 active blogs come from the country. In 2009, the regime was quick to blame the use of the internet, social networking sites in particular, for the outbreak of protests following the disputed presidential election. Today, the regime does all it can to block access to websites promoting democratic change. For example, in September last year, a blogger received a nineteen-and-a-half year prison sentence for propaganda against the regime, and the UN’s recent report on the state of human rights in Iran gives numerous examples of bloggers and journalists imprisoned for similar activities.

It has now been reported that internet cafés have been asked to record customers’ online footprints and to install security cameras. As recently as Monday this week, the Iranian regime announced that it intends to introduce its own internet operating system, to enable it to block websites considered unsuitable and to monitor online activity. As we saw in other countries during the Arab spring, social media are incredibly important in spreading democratic ideas and in enabling people to mobilise opposition to human rights abuses and undemocratic practices. I urge the Minister, in his discussions on human rights in Iran, to stress that freedom of expression is an important human right, and that access to the internet and to social media is now a fundamental freedom that should be protected.