Hurricane Irma

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I particularly appreciate what my hon. Friend has just said, and it applies equally to DFID, where officials have been working throughout the night. As I say, I was at the crisis centre yesterday afternoon, at about half-past 8 last night and again early this morning. They have been manning this round the clock, and they are constantly in touch with the overseas territories and other political groupings to ensure that we can be as co-ordinated as we possibly can. I publicly thank them all, and I am sure that everyone in this House would do so, too.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I absolutely appreciate the importance of the immediate humanitarian effort and hope that at the Cobra meeting this afternoon the Government will consider the possible impact of Hurricane Jose, as the reports we are receiving are quite alarming. May I also urge Ministers to consider seriously the issue of climate risk insurance in future? I know that there were efforts to move this forward at the G20 and it does need to be on the political agenda.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Yes, I can give a positive answer. This is a positive and ongoing policy stream within DFID. The UK and DFID are in the lead on this across the world, so I can confidently reassure the hon. Lady.

UK Nationals Imprisoned Abroad

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Flello. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for this opportunity to discuss Andy Tsege’s case, which my speech will be focused on. Over the past year or so, I have been contacted by a lot of constituents who are concerned about the British Government’s apparent failure to support a British citizen with a partner and three children in London. I have met with Reprieve to talk about the case and I pay tribute to that organisation, not just for representing Andy, but for its work over many years in challenging the use of the death penalty across the world.

As we have heard—I will recap briefly—Mr Tsege was sentenced to death in absentia in 2009. He was at home in the UK at the time and had received no notification of the proceedings against him. He was convicted under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, legislation that was not even introduced until a month after his trial began, and there are reports that the prosecution frequently amended the charges against him. The trial was described by a representative from the US embassy in Addis Ababa as “political retaliation” and

“lacking in basic elements of due process”.

As we have heard, rather than the Ethiopian Government approaching the UK to see whether Mr Tsege could be extradited, he was kidnapped at a Yemen airport, bound, hooded, and taken on a plane to Ethiopia in breach of international legal extradition processes. For a while, no one knew where he was being detained, but he eventually surfaced at a prison that has been described as “Ethiopia’s gulag”. His partner is not permitted to travel to Ethiopia and neither she, nor their three children, have spoken to him in two years. He has been shown on state television, where he apparently appeared exhausted and to have lost a lot of weight. The UN special rapporteur on torture has reported to the Human Rights Council that Mr Tsege’s treatment has violated the convention against torture, and a British psychiatrist has reported that his mental state is deteriorating.

While Mr Tsege has been detained, he has been allowed only brief and irregular visits from British consular officials, and none of those visits has been private. I understand that the most recent visit was last Thursday, in which he was told that a lawyer may have been found for him to assess his options under the Ethiopian legal system. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that this is a positive step forward, but it will be small comfort given that Mr Tsege was illegally convicted and sentenced to death, that there was no lawful basis for his rendition from Yemen to Ethiopia, and that the Ethiopian ambassador has confirmed to Reprieve and to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that there is no right of appeal. Will the Minister explain what he believes legal representation for Mr Tsege would actually achieve and why the Foreign Office has not done much more to support him?

The Foreign Office, in seeking to explain its reluctance to help Mr Tsege, said that the UK does not intervene in other countries’ legal systems. Yet Reprieve points out that the UK has frequently requested and secured the release of British nationals who have been arbitrarily detained in other countries. It also points to President Obama’s successful request, before his visit to Ethiopia, for the release of bloggers sentenced to death under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation as evidence that the Ethiopian Government will respond positively to international pressure. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has also called for Mr Tsege’s immediate release.

I can understand why the UK would not wish, as a general rule, to intervene in other countries’ judicial systems, but surely that should apply only when we have confidence that the rule of law, due process and the independence of the judiciary from political interference—basic principles that should be at the heart of any legal system—are being upheld. Surely we have a responsibility to speak out where freedom of expression is under threat, and a duty to challenge torture and oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. The Minister must see that Mr Tsege’s case highlights concerns on all those fronts, and he knows that there are wider concerns about Ethiopia’s human rights record. The Foreign Office has expressed concern that, in an attempt to restrict dissent:

“Those detained under the ATP include members of opposition groups, journalists, peaceful protesters, and others seeking to express their rights to freedom of assembly or expression”.

Amnesty International’s annual report highlights how members of opposition parties and protesters have been extra-judicially executed, and that the elections took place

“against a backdrop of restrictions on civil society, the media and the political opposition, including excessive use of force against peaceful demonstrators...and the harassment of election observers”.

It also reports that the ATP was used to “suppress freedom of expression” and detain journalists in the run-up to the election, and that many journalists have been forced to flee the country. Amnesty has condemned the recent arrest of the Ethiopian opposition leader as

“an outrageous assault on the right to freedom of expression and should sound alarm bells for anyone with an interest in ending the deadly protests that have rocked Ethiopia over the past year.”

The Human Rights Watch report on Ethiopia also makes for disturbing reading, with evidence of

“harassment, arbitrary arrest, and politically motivated prosecutions.”

It says that the media “remained under government stranglehold” and that security personnel have tortured political detainees. Human Rights Watch also describes Mr Tsege’s removal from Yemen as “unlawful”.

Even if the Foreign Office thought that Mr Tsege’s trial and detention complied with international law—a very big if, given what we have heard this morning—surely the Government would still have an obligation to challenge the death sentence given that the UK unequivocally opposes the death sentence in all circumstances. That used to be a human rights priority for the Foreign Office, but those priorities have now been abandoned in a shameful sign that the Government’s human rights work has been downgraded.

The Government chose not to renew their strategy for the abolition of the death penalty when it ran out last year. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us why, and what the Government are doing to ensure that the international community does not interpret this as a weakening commitment to global abolition, because that is what it looks like. Will the Minister tell us whether FCO resources for challenging the death penalty have also been downgraded? The Minister will no doubt tell us that the Foreign Office has replaced its six human rights priorities with its three pillars. I would appreciate an update on how the Foreign Office is working to support those pillars overseas. I urge the Minister to consider the questions that Mr Tsege’s case raises about Ethiopia’s commitments to democratic values, the rule of law and the rules-based international system.

The UK’s support for human rights—domestically and internationally—should be robust and categorical. Too often, the issue appears to be an afterthought for Ministers when abroad and to be seen as a nuisance at home. I ask the Minister to reflect on what Mr Tsege and his family have been through over the last few years and to consider whether he deserves better from this Government. It is shameful and indefensible to treat a British citizen in this way. I hope we hear a firm commitment from the Minister to do absolutely everything he can, using the considerable leverage at the Government’s disposal, to secure justice and freedom for Mr Tsege.

Dog Meat (South Korea)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) for introducing this debate. I am also pleased to see the Foreign Office Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), in their places.

I was the shadow Foreign Office Minister covering this part of the world for four years, until about a year ago. I also had the human rights brief. The ongoing frustration is that it is always so difficult to get people to listen to arguments about human rights issues in our relationships with other countries, let alone get them to consider the animal welfare issues. I was rather disappointed when I asked a question last Thursday of the new Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), about the Government’s action plan on business and human rights that was launched with much fanfare three years ago. I asked where the action plan fits into the new Department for International Trade—when going out to other countries to negotiate trade agreements, will we be aware of the attempt by the former Foreign Secretary, William Hague, to meld the desire to trade with companies and to talk about human rights? The answer I got was pretty much, “That’s a completely separate issue. It’s something for the Foreign Office and nothing to do with us.”

If we cannot even persuade that Department that human rights should be on the agenda when we are negotiating trade agreements, we will have difficulty making the argument that animal welfare should be on there too. I hope that the Foreign Office Minister takes that back to his colleagues and starts talking to the new Ministers in the Department for International Trade about the importance of this issue and the strength of feeling about it.

I had the pleasure of visiting South Korea a few years ago with the UK-Korea Forum for the Future. Every two years, some UK parliamentarians go out to South Korea, and every other year, people from the South Korean Parliament come over here. South Korea is not only a major trading ally of the UK; it is also our friend, but that should not stop us at times being a critical friend. It is interesting to note in the Library briefing that the consumption of dog meat in South Korea did not become commonplace until the Korean war in the 1950s. It is easy to forget what an incredibly poor country South Korea was back then, lagging well behind its neighbour to the north. Of course, now the situation has been reversed, and we hear reports that Kim Jong-un’s people are on the verge of starvation. Obviously, the human rights situation is dreadful there too.

One of the fascinating things about my visit to South Korea was seeing how the country had transformed itself from abject post-war poverty into an economic export-led powerhouse, albeit not always under the most democratic leadership. Seoul now presents as a very modern, high-tech city, with gleaming skyscrapers and excellent transport, but as we have heard, some of the old ways remain, including the dog meat trade. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) mentioned, 5 million dogs are involved in the trade every year. I have seen figures that show that more than 2 million dogs are factory farmed in South Korea for human consumption. They are kept in terrible conditions in tiny cages, exposed to extreme heat and cold, before being cruelly killed, often via electrocution.

[Sir Alan Meale]

In terms of the two figures I referred to, one is the overall figure for the whole country, but my hon. Friend is right; 2.5 million to 3 million puppies are factory farmed for the trade.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification.

The fact that the petition so easily reached 100,000 signatures, and the number of emails Members have received from constituents, remind us that Britain is a nation of dog lovers, as we saw in the public response to other campaigns, such as Pup Aid’s campaign against puppy farms. That serves as a reminder that we ourselves are not above criticism and that much can be done to improve animal welfare in this country.

In the past, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), has told me that the UK has the best record on animal welfare of any country in the world. After our last exchange, she sent me some evidence in support of that. Whether we are the best is a moot point, but we are clearly better than most. However, we still regularly see terrible footage of conditions in some slaughterhouses and factory farms here, with millions of birds shot in the name of sport and some truly appalling cases of ill treatment of pets. We discussed the cruelty of snares in the main Chamber just before the summer recess.

I am pleased to have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) to sponsor her ten-minute rule Bill calling for tougher sentences for animal cruelty, following the dreadful case of the Frankish brothers in her constituency, who filmed themselves torturing their bulldog by throwing her down the stairs, stamping on her head, swinging her around and headbutting her. We certainly should not be too complacent or congratulate ourselves too much about conditions here in the UK. Today is about making the case against the dog meat trade in South Korea, which is the only country to intensively farm dogs for food. As petitioners have told us, there is a good chance of making progress with the South Korean Government on this issue, not least because the eyes of the world will be on South Korea in the run-up to the winter Olympics.

It was interesting to read in the Library briefing the article by Jill Robinson, the founder and CEO of Animals Asia, which has long campaigned on these issues and says that because the laws in South Korea are stronger than in countries such as China, there is less criminality in the dog meat trade, with fewer dogs mysteriously disappearing from the streets. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for the speech he made in last year’s Backbench Business debate on the wider dog meat trade in countries such as China, in which he outlined in distressing detail the immense cruelty and suffering involved in the theft, transportation, caging and slaughter of millions of dogs each year.

The Yulin dog meat festival is a particularly hideous example of that. Animals Asia has said there is less criminality in South Korea, but Jill Robinson argues that that in fact means there is more cruelty, because there is no way to make dog farming profitable without cutting every corner imaginable. She says that Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines have made dog meat eating illegal, largely because there is no humane way to breed dogs for meat.

In last year’s debate, my former colleague in the shadow DEFRA team, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), said:

“Although the Korea Food and Drug Administration recognises all edible products as food, other than drugs, Seoul has passed a regulation classifying dog meat as a ‘repugnant food’. However, as in other parts of the world, such regulatory oversight has not been effective in curbing the demand for dog meat.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 1223.]

There is a law in place in South Korea—the Animal Protection Amendment Act 2007—which prohibits some of the cruel methods used to slaughter dogs, but it is widely ignored, as we have heard. According to charities involved in campaigning on this issue, many South Koreans believe that the more a dog suffers before it dies, the better the meat will taste, as adrenaline in the system makes the meat taste better. Dogs are therefore often subjected to cruelty before being slaughtered. There is an issue of enforcing the current law as well as making the case for stronger laws and, indeed, trying to outlaw the dog trade altogether.

It is encouraging to hear that cultural attitudes in South Korea are changing and that many more people are speaking out. There is always a danger of being seen to preach to other countries where the cultural norms do not coincide with the practices in this country, and it is best if change can be encouraged to come from within. Some might argue that we are guilty of sentimentality, double standards or hypocrisy in condemning the dog meat trade when so many other animals are killed for food every day around the world, with many kept and killed in equally cruel conditions.

Some of us are of the school of thought that says, “Why eat a cow or a pig if you wouldn’t eat a dog or a cat?” We saw that in the horse meat scandal, when consumers here were appalled to learn that they might be eating horse when they thought they were eating beef or lamb. Of course consumers have the right to know what they are eating and to choose whether that is an animal they wish to eat. I make the point simply that we are discussing the dog meat trade, but there are many other debates to be had about slaughter conditions, the transportation of animals and other practices around the world that we do not focus on quite so much.

In last year’s debate, there was much discussion about the extent to which we should seek to impose our cultural norms on other countries. As the Government said in their written response to the petition, selling and eating dog meat is a legal and culturally normal practice in South Korea, as it is in a number of other countries. They went on to say:

“In the absence of international norms, laws or agreements governing the trade and consumption of cat and dog meat, the United Kingdom has no legal grounds to intervene or take trade measures against those countries”.

I accept that there are no legal grounds for intervening in the actual practice of eating cats and dogs, but I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere and I, as well as the many Members who will follow us, will make the case today that there are certainly moral and ethical grounds for intervening against the immense cruelty involved in the trade. I hope that the UK Government do not hide behind the reasoning they originally gave in response to the petition as an excuse for inaction. We should be doing all we can to continue to raise this issue during our bilateral discussions and to support activists in South Korea who seek to outlaw this terrible trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that contribution. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made reference to the Yulin dog meat festival, which has been considered in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber. I was pleased to join her colleague, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), when we presented a petition to the Chinese embassy in London. They did not open the door, but I have no doubt we will be back next year. My right hon. Friend’s point is incredibly important: we cannot focus on this just because of the winter Olympics and the opportunity in the next two years to shine a spotlight on the dog meat industry in South Korea. It is our job to make sure that the focus does not wither.

Building on the comments that have been made about some of the local issues we face on animal cruelty and animal welfare, it is important to recognise that from my own constituency’s perspective, we do not have our sorrows to seek. Individuals are convicted for dog fighting and for stealing domestic cats in order to train their dogs to be involved in the dog fighting industry. I received an email today—I will have to look at it in more detail—that suggests that permission has been given for a beagle farm in Hull for 2,000 dogs to be bred per year for the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries. I do not know enough about that, and I am not sure I am in a position to consider criticising it at this stage because I recognise the necessity, but it is incumbent on us all to recognise that it is not just outwith this country that there are welfare issues.

[Kerry McCarthy]

On that particular point, it is particularly disappointing that, as I understand it, the local council opposed the setting up of the beagle farm for toxicity tests on dogs; the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), also rejected it; and it was only when there was a change of incumbent in that post that it was allowed. It is really disappointing that it has been allowed. The two leading lights of the campaign against it are Stanley Johnson and Professor Michael Balls—both of whom have sons who have been Members of this place. They are formidable campaigners on this, and I hope that we can eventually overturn it.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful for that additional information, although I am sure that if I proceed with the issue you will remind me it is ancillary to the debate at hand, Mr Nuttall. The broader point is that on animal welfare—issues that not only motivate us, but create a really passionate response from our constituents and have encouraged more than 100,000 people to sign the petition—we cannot lose sight of those easy wins or important goals that we should be seeking to secure at home as well as abroad. With that, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I look forward to the responses by those on the Front Benches.

Sri Lanka: Human Rights

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on securing this debate and on his continuing commitment to the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils and its valuable work in maintaining the focus on human rights in Sri Lanka and on Tamil rights in particular. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and I will try to address as many of their points as I can in the time available to me.

This debate comes at an historic time for Sri Lanka. Last October, President Sirisena’s Government took the significant step of co-sponsoring Human Rights Council resolution 30/1. In his update to the Human Rights Council last week, High Commissioner Zeid recognised where progress has been made, identified where more could have been done and set out the need for a comprehensive strategy to make further progress. I fully agree with his assessment.

The Sri Lankan Government’s response demonstrated their commitment to addressing the legacy of conflict. Foreign Minister Samaraweera set out to the UN Human Rights Council on 29 June what his Government would be doing to fulfil the commitments they made in Geneva last October. Their approach addresses the core issues that have marred Sri Lanka’s history and scarred its society: human rights, reconciliation and transitional justice. I welcome the Government of Sri Lanka’s determination and commitment to deal with these complex and sensitive issues in a comprehensive and systematic way.

We should not, however, underestimate the challenges of dealing with the legacy of a 30-year conflict. Foreign Minister Samaraweera said last week in Geneva:

“Reconciliation does not happen overnight. It requires effort, hard work, commitment, and careful, continuous, concrete action. It is a journey that requires constant striving.”

I wholeheartedly agree. We should remember that Sri Lanka has been on a remarkable journey in the last 18 months, since President Sirisena was elected. The country is, I believe, now in a far better place than anyone could have imagined.

I have spoken before about the striking differences between the Sri Lanka I saw in November 2013 and the one I visited in January this year. The elections last August were the most democratic in living memory, and resulted in the formation of a national unity Government committed to reconciliation and peacebuilding. The constitutional reform process Sri Lanka has now embarked on is an essential foundation for the country’s future stability—a foundation on which to build its democracy, its development and its political reconciliation. The devolution of political authority that the authorities are seeking to enshrine within that process will be crucial for Sri Lanka’s long-term governance and prosperity.

The hon. Gentleman emphasised the need for Sri Lanka to make timely progress on its commitments. At the Human Rights Council session on 29 June, the UK urged Sri Lanka to deliver on those commitments, including by putting in place credible transitional justice mechanisms underpinned by meaningful consultations and effective witness protection. In that respect, we welcome the Government’s announcement that they will establish an Office of Missing Persons. We remain committed to the full implementation of resolution 30/1, and we stand ready to support the Sri Lankan Government to that end.

Although progress has been slower than we and many others had hoped, it has been encouraging to see Sri Lanka’s renewed openness and engagement with the UN. We welcomed Sri Lanka’s invitations to High Commissioner Zeid and various UN special rapporteurs to visit and to discuss torture, disappearances, and the independence of judges. However, we recognise that much remains to be done, in particular in improving the rights of all the country’s citizens.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of allegations of ongoing human rights abuses. We have been clear with the Sri Lankan Government about the need to do more. I discussed our concerns with High Commissioner Zeid in Geneva last month, and again with Foreign Minister Samaraweera in London last week. I set out clearly the areas we felt were important for Sri Lanka to focus on: torture, land reform and transitional justice.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Did the Minister have the opportunity to discuss with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister this week’s announcement that Sri Lanka intends to demilitarise by 2018, which would be a very welcome step? As the Minister will know, the Sri Lankan military is involved in running everything in the north from beauty parlours to hotels to food companies, and dealing with that is an important part of putting the north back on a stable footing.

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Lady makes a very credible point. I have been to the north twice and seen that for myself. An army has no reason to be in business in a civilian structure or to be on other people’s land, and I will come to that in just a minute.

The hon. Gentleman asked about our funding arrangements to promote human rights abroad. Our £6.6 million three-year conflict, security and stabilisation funding for Sri Lanka focuses on reform, interfaith dialogue—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), with his ongoing support for Christian communities around the world, will be pleased to hear that—transitional justice, de-mining and anti-corruption. Through the Magna Carta fund and our bilateral programme budget, we are also supporting a number of other human rights and reconciliation projects. Our programmes in Sri Lanka aim to strengthen democratic institutions, support reconciliation and protect human rights.

On land reforms, which the hon. Lady just raised, more land returns are essential, both to build confidence and to allow the resettlement of displaced Tamils. I was encouraged that a further 701 acres were released two weeks ago, and that Foreign Minister Samaraweera has said that the Government have instructed the military to release all land obtained from civilians by 2018. The British Government are clear that land releases must be accompanied by adequate housing and support for resettled communities. We continue to support de-mining programmes, one of which I have seen, and housing and resettlement through our contributions to multilateral agencies.

We will continue to encourage the Government of Sri Lanka to prioritise the reform of their security sector, not least with the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. All forms of sexual and gender-based violence and torture must be addressed. The President has taken steps to address this and has issued guidance to all security forces that emphasises the absolute prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment, including sexual violence. The Government, with our assistance, are also putting in place training programmes for the police and other measures aimed at combating and eliminating torture. This includes addressing the need for the prosecution and conviction of perpetrators.

There are other areas of concern. These include issues of freedom of speech and movement, the remaining detainees held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the continued involvement of the military in commercial life in the north. Through diplomatic pressure and targeted projects, we will continue to encourage the Government to address these issues.

The hon. Member for Ilford North highlighted the issue of international involvement in the prosecution of war crimes. The British Government have always been clear that any accountability mechanism needs to be credible and meet international standards. We therefore welcomed Sri Lanka’s co-sponsorship of UNHRC resolution 30/1. We have reiterated our commitment to its full implementation on a number of occasions, most recently in Geneva last month.

Tamils Rights: Sri Lanka

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on securing this afternoon’s debate. As he says, there has been cross-party work on the issue, and I hope that it continues. I will try to keep my remarks brief, because while it is always important to hear what the Minister has to say, I understand that he has just returned from Geneva, so he may have some particularly useful information for us.

Despite encouraging signs since the defeat of President Rajapaksa in last month’s parliamentary elections—President Sirisena naming an ethnic Tamil Leader of the Opposition and asking the new Parliament to draft reforms to promote ethnic reconciliation; the appointment of a Tamil chief justice; and some of the military administrations in the north being replaced with civilian ones—it would be wrong to suggest that it is possible to draw a line under what has happened in Sri Lanka’s recent history, which the hon. Gentleman eloquently outlined.

Some people will argue that it is time to move on, and that a new dawn is on the horizon, but that would not give justice to the Tamil community, which has endured terrible human rights abuses. That legacy must be addressed by President Sirisena with the support of the international community and with an independent international mechanism. The abuses include the many thousands of enforced disappearances. Too many families are still waiting for answers, and I hope that the Minister regularly discusses that with the Sri Lankan Government. Freedom from Torture’s “Tainted Peace” report on torture in Sri Lanka since the end of the civil war states that last year, for the third consecutive year, Sri Lanka accounted for the most cases referred to its clinical services, including cases that have happened since the election of President Sirisena. That underlines that we cannot be complacent about the direction or pace of reform in Sri Lanka.

As has been mentioned, there is also the question of what happens when we send back to Sri Lanka people who have had applications for asylum here rejected. Freedom from Torture reports that more than a third of cases reviewed for the study involved people who were detained after returning from the UK. The previous Foreign Secretary, William Hague, undertook last year to investigate reports that Tamil asylum seekers deported by the Home Office had been subjected to sexual violence on their return to Sri Lanka. Like previous speakers, I ask the Minister to update us on the outcome of those investigations, and on the conversations he is having with the Home Office.

Previously, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was unable to tell the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs whether the human rights defenders, journalists and others who met the Prime Minister during the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting had been subjected to any intimidation or harassment as a result. A report by the International Truth and Justice Project Sri Lanka has alleged that Tamils organising demonstrations for the Prime Minister’s CHOGM visit were threatened by the security and intelligence services, and that some were subsequently tortured. I hope that the Minister agrees that we have a special responsibility to look into the situation and the safety of those human rights defenders who met our Prime Minister, and that he can update us on that.

As we have heard, the United Nations Human Rights Council inquiry’s report and the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights will be published tomorrow. The high commissioner has already warned that the

“findings are of the most serious nature”

and rightly concluded that the UNHRC

“owes it to Sri Lankans—and to its own credibility—to ensure an accountability process that produces results, decisively moves beyond the failures of the past, and brings the deep institutional changes needed to guarantee non-recurrence”.

President Rajapaksa notoriously refused to co-operate with the inquiry. The Sri Lankan Foreign Minister’s address to the UNHRC this week recognised the need for change and accountability, and committed to repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Sri Lanka intends to establish a commission for truth, justice, reconciliation and non-recurrence, in consultation with South Africa. I hope that the Minister can update us on his discussions on that with his Sri Lankan counterparts, and on how the Sri Lankan Government can guarantee that the commission is credible, effective and unquestionably independent. We had a long wait for the for the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s report, which, as everyone will agree, did not resolve any issues. We need an inquiry that commands the confidence of the Tamil community, which has been let down so much in the past. It remains imperative that Sri Lanka work with the UN to deliver accountability and justice, and to secure Sri Lanka on the path to peace and reconciliation.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I think that we are all united in urging the Sri Lankan Government to engage constructively with the high commissioner’s recommendations. I hope that the UK can play a constructive role in ensuring that they do so.

Human Rights (Saudi Arabia)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart McDonald) on securing the debate. Understandably, he focused on the case of Raif Badawi, as did his Scottish National party colleague, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). Sometimes a case assumes totemic status in the human rights catalogue. We know that there are many horrific cases of human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, but sometimes it takes a case such as that of Raif Badawi to capture public attention and focus people’s minds, so it is right that the hon. Member for Glasgow South raised it.

We heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia. He has been a strong advocate for many years on the issue of freedom of religion and, in particular, the persecution of Christians, and he made a compelling contribution again today.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about a number of issues, which I will come on to, such as arms deals, the memorandum of understanding with the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Justice, and migrant workers. However, it is important that as well as focusing on the specific issues that have been raised, we look at the wider questions about what it means for Saudi Arabia to be a Foreign Office country of concern on human rights grounds. It is important that Parliament regularly revisits the question of human rights in Saudi Arabia and questions the nature of our bilateral relationship, as it epitomises the inherent challenges and contradictions in the UK’s foreign policy and flags up some of the very difficult questions that we struggle with and have to reconcile.

We heard today some of the reasons why the Foreign Office regards Saudi Arabia as a human rights country of concern: the restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly; concerns about migrant workers; reports of torture being commonplace in prison; and the crackdown on dissent, including legislation equating criticism of the Government with terrorism. Those are not simply internal, domestic matters but questions of international law and universal principles of human rights.

On the specific case of Raif Badawi, which I will return to throughout my response, the hon. Member for Glasgow South eloquently summed up the position. It is very difficult to imagine not just Mr Badawi’s plight, but what his family, who are now in Canada, are going through. His arrest and conviction expose Saudi Arabia’s disregard for religious freedom and freedom of expression, and his sentence breaches the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which Saudi Arabia has ratified. I will refer to several such agreements during my speech, and we have to ask what it means for Saudi Arabia to have ratified them if we continue to see cases such as that of Raif Badawi.

Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. It is true that there has been a little progress. Women are expected to be allowed to vote in this year’s municipal elections for the first time, and 30 of the 140 seats in the Shura Council have been allocated to women. More employment opportunities have also been opened up to women. Those are, however, very small steps. Saudi Arabia still operates the guardianship system, and women are still very much subordinate to men. There is still a ban on women driving, for example. In December, two Women2Drive supporters were arrested and later charged with terrorism-related offences, for the crime of driving a car and being women.

The Government’s latest human rights and democracy report lauded Saudi Arabia for its participation in the preventing sexual violence initiative. It is true that there is a new law criminalising domestic violence in Saudi Arabia, but Amnesty International reports that women are still not adequately protected from sexual violence. Although it has not been raised today, we have discussed in the past the plight of the Saudi princesses, on which people seem to have fallen silent. Perhaps the Minister can update us on that. If that is what happens to women in the royal family in Saudi Arabia, what hope is there for ordinary women?

Hon. Members have highlighted the absence of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, where the rights and wellbeing of minorities—not least Shi’a Muslims, as well as Christians and atheists—need to be protected. Apostasy is punishable by death and Saudi Arabia is one of the most prolific countries, behind only China and Iran, in the use of the death penalty. Last year, the number of executions increased significantly to 86. By June this year, however, Saudi Arabia had already surpassed last year’s total, and there have been more than 100 executions. As we have heard, the country has had to advertise to recruit eight more executioners for the public beheadings.

[Stewart McDonald]

Does the hon. Lady agree that given that Saudi Arabia is advertising for more executioners, no progress is being made on that front?

[Kerry McCarthy]

The statistics I have just quoted speak for themselves. As I said, the number of executions that have taken place this year has already exceeded last year’s total. Clearly, Saudi Arabia is not moving in the right direction on the death penalty. People have been sentenced to death for sorcery and adultery, and they have been executed for confessions allegedly obtained through torture. Juveniles have been executed, which is in clear violation of international law. In that brief summary of just some of the human rights concerns, I have covered five of the Foreign Office’s six human rights priorities: freedom of expression on the internet, torture prevention, women’s rights, freedom of religion or belief, and the abolition of the death penalty. The Foreign Office has never listed lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights as one of its six priorities, although that should be a priority, not least because in countries such as Saudi Arabia homosexuality is punishable by death, as several colleagues have mentioned today.

The Foreign Office’s sixth thematic priority is business and human rights. We have heard very little of the Government’s business and human rights action plan since it was launched in 2013. The previous Foreign Secretary assured us:

“The promotion and protection of human rights is at the heart of the UK’s foreign policy”.

By contrast, the Prime Minister spoke of his determination to place

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

Therein lies the dilemma. The current Foreign Secretary did not mention human rights at all when he was appointed, and it certainly seems that the commercial heart has had a much stronger beat at the centre of our foreign policy than the human rights heart. I do not deny that we need to attract inward investment and promote UK exports, but we cannot do so at the expense of basic human rights for people in countries such as Saudi Arabia, or by ignoring our international responsibilities. The Foreign Secretary has said that

“Saudi Arabia is an important ally of the UK”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1040.]

We would, therefore, expect the Government to use that relationship with a strong ally to discuss their human rights priorities.

Last year, UK arms exports to Saudi Arabia were worth £1.6 billion. Questions have rightly been asked about the inclusion of Saudi Arabia as a priority market for arms sales when it is also a human rights country of concern, but those are questions that Ministers have been unwilling or unable to address. Indeed, Defence Ministers recently told the House that they would not be reviewing the licences to Saudi Arabia, despite the UN’s warnings regarding the conflict in Yemen, about which they stated:

“The indiscriminate bombing of populated areas, with or without prior warning, is in contravention of international humanitarian law”.

I hope the Minister will be able to tell us whether he thinks the Government’s eagerness to sell arms to Saudi Arabia undermines any efforts to challenge the country’s human rights record or mutes discussion.

As several hon. Members have mentioned, there seems to be a significant reluctance on the part of the UK Government to speak out on human rights. The Government’s initial response to Raif Badawi’s conviction and flogging seemed rather timid, and the Prime Minister has been evasive when he has been asked about discussions on human rights with the Saudi authorities. I remember tabling a series of written questions some years ago, in which I asked about discussions. I kept being told that nothing was off the table and there was a broad range of discussion, which is what tends to happen whenever I ask what discussions the Prime Minister has had on human rights. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us a little more today.

The Minister will, no doubt, tell us that there is a difference between private and public diplomacy. I accept that public condemnation is not always the most effective, and I am not suggesting that it is always appropriate to divulge the details of private conversations with foreign dignitaries. I accept, too, the need to consider our national interest and Saudi Arabia’s strategic role in the region. There is, however, a difference between choosing the best approach and turning a blind eye to egregious human rights abuses.

The concern that the British Government has dodged questions of human rights was only reinforced by the comments made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), the chair of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia, during last year’s debate on this subject. He stated:

“British officials were petrified at the prospect that I might raise issues involving Christian rights in front of the King. They do not like British Members of Parliament raising such issues”.—[Official Report, 24 June 2015; Vol. 583, c. 9WH.]

There is a danger that if the UK is perceived to be inconsistent on human rights and to demand higher standards from some countries than others, it will undermine Ministers’ attempts to promote human rights in any country. We cannot be seen to have double standards when it comes to universal, inalienable principles of human rights. The international community cannot selectively grant impunity for human rights abuses. Countries such as Saudi Arabia cannot be allowed to hide behind their economic power and strategic importance while the international community criticises other countries more strongly.

That is especially true when Saudi Arabia is a member of the UN Human Rights Council, a body that is supposed to be

“responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe and for addressing situations of human rights violations”.

Saudi Arabia has failed to implement the recommendations that it accepted in its universal periodic reviews, however, and it has rejected the recommendation to ratify the international covenant on civil and political rights. As we have heard, the country has ratified other agreements but failed to implement them.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The covenant that my hon. Friend has mentioned would also help to protect migrant workers, who, as I pointed out, are incredibly badly treated in Saudi Arabia. Does she agree that we should do more about migrant workers in that situation?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I absolutely agree. The situation in Qatar, which my hon. Friend mentioned earlier, has shone a spotlight on the plight of migrant workers in the middle east. We should not assume that that is a problem only in Qatar; it is certainly an issue in countries such as Saudi Arabia, and it requires international action, particularly where British companies are involved.

There is limited space for civil society in Saudi Arabia. Amnesty International is denied access, human rights defenders are prosecuted, and non-governmental organisations are required to register—something that few, if any, have managed to do. That all suggests an unwillingness to engage on human rights or to work with the international community, and it makes it all the more important for Saudi Arabia’s allies, such as the UK, to be frank with it. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us more about how the UK works with Saudi Arabia on the Human Rights Council.

The UK Government seek to work in partnership with the Saudi Government on some matters. The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) mentioned the memorandum of understanding that the previous Justice Secretary has signed with his counterpart, and the Home Secretary did likewise earlier this year. Given the concerns that we have heard about the criminal justice system in Saudi Arabia—including the use of corporal punishment and amputations—I hope that the Minister will be able to advise us on the conditions attached to those MOUs and the progress that is being made.

[Stewart McDonald]

Does the hon. Lady support calls by Amnesty International for the British ambassador in Riyadh to visit Mr Badawi in prison to check on the conditions in which he is being held?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Yes, I certainly do. I am meeting Amnesty later this afternoon, as I do regularly. I hope that the Minister will help facilitate that.

We were told that the UK raised Raif Badawi’s case with the Saudi authorities at a senior level, but six months after his first 50 lashes and after three years’ detention, he remains in prison with the threat of 950 more lashes hanging over him. What assessment can the Minister give of the UK’s actual influence in this situation? King Abdullah was hailed by some as a reformer, but the slow pace of reform failed to prevent immense suffering and discrimination. Although the new king has taken positive steps, including small steps to protect religious minorities, little has changed so far in terms of basic rights and freedoms.

The UK must be prepared to discuss with Saudi Arabia the need for more fundamental reform if the kingdom is to meet its obligations to the people of Saudi Arabia and the international community. As I said, we recognise the need to work with Saudi Arabia and establish a strong relationship, but a bilateral relationship that turns a blind eye to human rights or silences a partner is inherently fragile.

I referred earlier to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s six thematic human rights priorities. I have heard reports that those six priorities have now been abandoned in favour of three vaguer work streams; I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to clarify that, but it is important. As I said, I would like to see the current priorities strengthened by the addition of LGBT rights. I am concerned that the abandonment of those six principles will mean less focus on human rights. It would be helpful if he could advise on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

Again, that is a rather large section of my remarks, and I hope to come to it shortly, so I will continue to make progress.

[Kerry McCarthy]

On a more general point, the Minister says that representations are being made behind the scenes and that that is the best way to influence the Saudi regime. Can he point to instances in which he feels that British influence has actually made a difference to the Saudis’ record on human rights? What changes has he seen as a result of our representations?

[Mr Ellwood]

Again, I need to make some progress, and then I will answer those questions. It is important, if we have these debates, that we can see progress being made. We must be able to see movement forward. I will give some illustrations of that and of instances in which Britain is trying to assist in that progress.

Turning to some of the specific questions that have been asked, the hon. Member for Glasgow South asked about the lowering of the flag on the death of King Abdullah. I should make it clear that it is a long-standing convention to half-mast the Union flag on Government buildings following the death of any foreign monarch. That is the convention; it was not specifically to do with that particular case.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow South, spoke at length about the Raif Badawi case. I give the hon. Gentleman the same answer I gave in the main Chamber: the case is in the supreme court and is under review. We therefore cannot interfere with that process, in the same way that the Saudi authorities would not interfere with our process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

We welcome, since 2011, the release of 2,000 political prisoners, increasing press freedoms and the discharging of 500 child soldiers. We have, however, seen some re-arrests and we have not been slow to raise these issues. We are working extraordinarily closely with the Department for International Development to try to ensure that on 8 November Burma can face a democratic election where the people can decide who they wish to govern them. From that will flow greater freedoms and respect for human rights.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Given the continued plight of the Rohingya and the role of the military, not just in Parliament but in its continued use of sexual violence with impunity and the lack of progress on key areas of constitutional reform, it is clear we are not seeing the progress we need in Burma. Does the Minister think that the UK or the EU retain any influence now that sanctions have been lifted?

[Mr Swire]

Yes, I do. Incidentally, I draw the House’s attention to the hon. Lady’s recent article on Burma in the Huffington Post, where she appears to suggest that the Prime Minister took business leaders to Burma before the EU lifted trade sanctions in 2013, implicitly suggesting that somehow the Prime Minister was promoting trade when EU sanctions were in place. I refer her back to a 2012 article in The Guardian, which she would do well to read. She may wish to correct what is effectively rather a misleading comment in her article.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I know that the Prime Minister and the Minister are keen to strengthen our bilateral relationship with Burma, but does he agree there will be serious consequences for that relationship if Burma fails to deliver free, fair and credible elections in November in which the Rohingya can participate and Aung San Suu Kyi can play a full role?

[Mr Swire]

Of course, we work closely with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on all these matters. To repeat, the Prime Minister, with President Thein Sein, said at the G20 that elections should be inclusive and credible, which is what we are working towards on 8 November.

UN Independent Commission of Inquiry (Gaza)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). I have taken part in many debates on this subject during my 10 years in the House, but hers is one of the most powerful speeches that I have heard, based as it is on her own experience of working in Gaza. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on securing this debate. She has chosen an incredibly important issue for her first Westminster Hall debate, as evidenced by the turnout today. I do not have time to refer to the many excellent speeches made in this debate, but I will touch on some of the issues that were raised.

Each and every death during this conflict on both sides was a tragedy. The appalling bloodshed underlined once more that there cannot be a military resolution. The only way forward is the diplomatic route and a negotiated two-state solution that recognises the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. As such, we welcomed the Egypt-brokered ceasefire last August. If we are finally to end the cycle of violence, we have yet again to ensure that the necessary lessons are learned from this most recent conflict. That includes holding accountable those responsible, and securing access to remedy for the victims.

As we have heard, the UK abstained on the resolution that initiated the commission of inquiry last year. The Foreign Secretary at the time said that the resolution was “fundamentally unbalanced” and would not help to achieve a lasting ceasefire. The UK Government subsequently encouraged all sides to co-operate, but I suspect that the Foreign Secretary’s initial rejection of the inquiry might have undermined the UK’s influence in that regard. It was certainly disappointing that Israel declined to co-operate and that that prevented the commission from investigating Israel’s claims. UK support for the resolution at the Human Rights Council last week, though, was welcome. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he now feels that the report has made a positive contribution.

The report makes disturbing reading in identifying serious breaches of international law, by both Israel and the Palestinian armed groups, that it warned could amount to war crimes. Last summer the Opposition condemned Hamas’s rocket fire, tunnels and extra-judicial killings, and I reiterate our condemnation. The commission report conveys the sense of fear that the tunnels in particular stoked up among innocent Israelis. Rocket fire, however, by the very nature of such weapons systems, was indiscriminate and in violation of international humanitarian law. We recognise, too, Israel’s right to defend itself, but we agree with the commission that the conduct of Palestinian armed groups does not

“modify Israel’s own obligations to abide by international law”.

In that respect, there were clear differences between the Government and the Opposition last summer. We felt that the Prime Minister had remained silent and should have spoken out when the victims were predominantly civilians, in particular given the number of children killed. We felt that he was too unequivocal in backing Israel’s right to defend itself, despite the disproportionate manner in which it exercised that right. The commission concluded that Israel might have failed to do everything it could to adhere to the three principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. The implication is that the terrible death toll could have been avoided.

The report documents some of the issues already touched on by other Members: how residential areas were targeted; how strikes came in the evening or at dawn, as families were gathering during Ramadan; how ineffective the roof knocks were as a warning system; and how artillery and mortars with a wide-area effect were used. The report attempts to convey the extent to which Palestinian civilians felt trapped. Even if they had received warnings, there was nowhere obvious for them to flee to where they would be safe, as we have heard. It is difficult to imagine the sense of terror that that would engender in such a densely populated area. There were also distressing allegations that civilians carrying white flags were attacked.

The cumulative impact of all that last year became evident all too soon. The Israel defence forces and/or the Israeli Government failed to re-examine their approach or to alter their tactics. In light of the report, I hope that the Minister will be able to reflect on whether the UK Government, and others, could have done more last year to press Israel to re-evaluate its response to the rocket fire. Does the Minister think that the Prime Minister could have questioned the proportionality, the legality and the morality of Israel’s use of force, and questioned at the time what it would ultimately achieve?

The commission noted that

“Israel’s interpretation of what constitutes a ‘military objective’ may be broader than the definition provided for by international law”.

I hope that that is one of the many findings that the Foreign Office will discuss with its Israeli counterparts, in addition to expressing concerns about such things as Israel’s choice of weaponry. Does the Minister believe that Israel could have done more to uphold those three principles of proportionality, distinction and precaution?

Several Members have touched on the issue of arms export licences. The Government, of course, chose not to suspend any such licences for export to Israel last year and sales have continued over the past few months. Members have no doubt received emails from their constituents concerned that £4 million in arms sales to Israel was approved in the four months following the conflict last year. In light of the commission’s findings, I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills intend to review the licences, or Israel’s use of arms sold by the UK. Baroness Anelay, the Minister of State, said in the debate in the other place on Monday that we are “most cautious” when we issue export licences. She ruled out a blanket arms embargo. I will be grateful if the Minister touches on whether a case-by-case arms embargo, or the revoking of certain licences, has been or will be considered.

We cannot neglect the lasting legacy of last summer’s incursion and the humanitarian catastrophe that it triggered. As well as the loss of life, more than 11,000 Palestinians were injured, more than 3,000 of them children. It has been reported that 10% of them suffered a serious disability, and 1,500 children were orphaned. Furthermore, as we have heard, 18,000 homes were destroyed. I will be grateful if the Minister responds to the questions asked about the international support available to the victims of the incursion, about Department for International Development support to UNRWA being cut and about what we are doing to help people in Gaza rebuild their infrastructure and homes.

Looking to the future, the commission acknowledged that its report is only the latest in a long line of inquiries and missions seeking to aid accountability and end violence for the people of Israel and Palestine. The report rightly highlighted that there has been a

“persistent lack of implementation of recommendations”.

With Israel and Hamas already rejecting the report and the US voting against the Human Rights Council resolution last week, how can the international community ensure that the report is not yet another footnote in the history of the suffering of the Palestinian and Israeli people, or that last summer’s incursion was not simply another chapter in the cycle of violence in Gaza, which is doomed to be repeated? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how the Government will work with Israel, Palestine, and the Human Rights Council and UN to end the culture of impunity that has prevailed, to support new dialogue and to promote co-operation with the International Criminal Court.

Finally, the commission of inquiry recognised that it could not investigate the events of last summer in isolation; it also needed to look at the west bank. It rightly expressed its concerns about administrative detention, torture and ill treatment. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on the UK’s discussions with Israel in that regard, on talks to lift the blockade and end the illegal settlements, and on efforts to strengthen moderate voices within Palestine.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Minister could conclude his remarks no later than 3.57 pm, that would be appreciated.

Tibet

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate. As has already been said, he has done a tremendous amount of work and advocacy in support of the people of Tibet over the years. Having visited Tibet himself and worked with the exiled Tibetan community in Dharamshala, he provides valuable insight. I was present for his speech in the Chamber last year on International Human Rights Day, when he conveyed the profound beauty of Tibet, which too often provides the backdrop for scenes of grotesque suffering. I will return to that.

I should begin by stating that China’s sovereignty is not in question. We recognise Tibet as part of China, but we support genuine autonomy for Tibet and recognise that that is what His Holiness the Dalai Lama is seeking. The Dalai Lama’s middle-way approach is about not independence, but autonomy that respects the rights and culture of Tibet. Of course, they are not currently being protected, as we heard in compelling detail from my hon. Friend. China must recognise that a more authoritarian approach will not strengthen its sovereignty; it will only diminish its moral authority.

The international community must raise concerns about the treatment of Tibet, but we recognise that the issues can be resolved only by meaningful dialogue between the Chinese Government and representatives of the Dalai Lama. Disappointingly, we are now into the fifth year without talks, making it all the more important that both the UK and the EU do everything they can to promote a resumption of dialogue. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are currently doing on that front?

Autonomy is a matter for China and Tibet, but human rights should be a concern for all nations and all peoples. As we have heard, freedom of expression is severely restricted in Tibet: websites are blocked and violence and intimidation are used as means of repression. There have also been worrying signs that the situation is deteriorating, with China expanding its police and military presence. Tibetans’ religion and loyalty to the Dalai Lama is a particular concern to China, and over the past year we have seen greater efforts to restrict religious expression. Photos of the Dalai Lama are banned, and so too are songs praising him; monks are at particular risk of persecution and must seek permission to travel; and nuns have been expelled from their nunnery for refusing to denounce the Dalai Lama.

In March, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief warned that China’s actions are

“really destroying the autonomy of religious communities”.

Tibetans’ cultural identity is also being undermined: their language is under threat, their flag is banned, and last year China announced a programme to help local artists to

“form a correct view of art”—

chilling words. In addition, musicians are being detained on charges of separatism. We have heard about the Chineseification of Tibet, and it is feared that the development of Lhasa and the InterContinental resort will mean that Tibetan culture is further subjugated.

Those deemed to be on the wrong side of the authorities have been subject to excessive force—we have heard about the number of political prisoners, many of whom have died from injuries sustained in prison. Last August, Tibetans protesting against the detention of village leader Dema Wangdak were met with tear gas and live ammunition. Protestors have been injured and jailed for demonstrating against mining, and people have even been jailed for messaging each other about an anti-fur campaign.

There are many other examples—we have heard some from my hon. Friend—but the self-immolations are the most shocking evidence of the extent to which freedom of expression and peaceful protest are restricted in Tibet, as well as of the length to which people will go to try to make their cause heard. Last month, a mother of two children resorted to self-immolation. The Chinese authorities reportedly then arrested a family member and ordered others to lie about her death.

There were at least 10 self-immolations last year, and there have already been five this year, bringing the known total to 140, the majority of whom will have died. As I said in the debate in December last year, self-immolation is a harrowing indictment of human rights in Tibet, and it is shameful that it continues. Criminalising bereaved relatives is not preventing the self-immolations—of course, it would not. The solution is dialogue with the Dalai Lama’s representatives and an end to repressive practices. Since December’s debate, there have been further steps backwards. For example, it has been announced that monks and nuns will come under even greater scrutiny and must “educate themselves in patriotism”, and 20 new rules have been issued to prevent perceived “splittist” behaviour.

My hon. Friend mentioned a number of cases. I remember that last year he highlighted the case of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, whom he mentioned again today, a senior monk whose death sentence on false charges was commuted to life imprisonment. There are serious concerns about his deteriorating health. Last year, the Minister told us that he shared our concerns about Tenzin Delek’s conviction and wellbeing, and said that he had urged the consideration of parole on medical grounds. Last week, the Tibet Society issued an urgent appeal because the parole request has still not been considered. I hope that we hear from the Minister on that.

Over recent months, and indeed years, there has been very little progress, stalled talks and a number of worrying developments. China has even sought to put pressure on other Governments and isolate the Dalai Lama, as we saw after the Prime Minister rightly met the Dalai Lama, and when South Africa denied His Holiness a visa to attend the peace summit for Nobel laureates.

Tibetans have tried to protest their cause peacefully, with dignity and restraint, but China’s failure to engage and steadfast refusal to consider genuine autonomy suggests that it does not recognise such a measured approach. It is a missed opportunity for China to reach a positive agreement that enables Tibetans to live peacefully in accordance with their culture and religion in a stable Chinese Tibet autonomous region. China is also missing the opportunity to demonstrate to the international community that it can engage on human rights, and that it is a genuinely outward-looking, forward-thinking nation with a leading role to play in the international community.

China’s global role is not in doubt. The UK values our bilateral relationship with China. We want a strong partnership, and the Government should look to work constructively with China on a whole range of strategic issues, as is happening in some areas. Nevertheless, we cannot let that work inhibit us when it comes to universal principles of human rights. The Government cannot allow the UK’s message on human rights to be undermined by an inconsistent approach. Of course, it is somewhat difficult for the UK Government to send that message to China when they themselves are threatening to renege on international human right agreements—although perhaps that is a debate for another time.

We heard in the debate in December—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s latest human rights and democracy report also emphasises this—that the Government continue to raise Tibet as part of the UK- China human rights dialogue. That should be an important part of our bilateral relationship, yet the dialogue seemed to be held rather sporadically during the previous Parliament; indeed, my understanding is that China cancelled some sessions. Will the Minister advise us on how effective he thinks the dialogues have been, and on the extent to which he feels China has taken our concerns on board? We know that the Government have urged the Chinese authorities to exercise restraint in Tibet, but does he think that they have done so, and, if so, was that in response to the Government’s urging?

From what we have heard today, it does not seem that the UK has been particularly influential. I appreciate that it is not an easy task, but is the Minister able to tell us what progress he thinks the Government can make during President Xi Jinping’s state visit later this year? Was the decision to invite the President a response to agreement from the Chinese Government on any areas of concern? Encouragingly, the FCO’s human rights and democracy report noted that a UK diplomat had been granted permission to visit the Tibet autonomous region—the first such visit for three years. I would be grateful for any information the Minister has on China’s response to the UK’s request for unrestricted access for international journalists, non-governmental organisations and diplomats. Can he also confirm that the Government have made representations in support of a visit from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who has, we understand, been in discussions with China directly?

My hon. Friend touched on several other issues. During December’s debate, a number of hon. Members expressed concerns about the impact of mining in Tibet, not least following Greenpeace’s report exposing illegal mining on the Tibetan plateau; Tibetans have faced severe punishments for challenging that mining. The Minister had limited time during the last debate and was unable to comment in detail on that, but I am sure that he has enough time now to tell us whether the UK has had any discussions with Chinese authorities or with mining companies on those mining operations.

Tibet was described earlier as an environmental barometer and is sometime called the third pole. Its susceptibility to climate change makes it all the more important that China demonstrates responsible environmental stewardship as part of its welcome international commitments to tackling climate change. With the Paris talks taking place in December, this year is incredibly important for international climate dialogue. China has made some welcome moves towards taking a stronger position in Paris this year, but has Tibet, given its particular environmental sensitivities, formed part of the discussions?

Finally, my hon. Friend mentioned the Nepal earthquake, which also led to people in Tibet losing their lives. The impact on Tibetan refugees in Nepal is important, and I hope that the Minister touches on that.

Bangladesh

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this debate. It is not the first time that we have debated Bangladesh in this Chamber. She has done an excellent job chairing the all-party group and obviously continues to show passion for the country.

We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) about the importance of free and fair elections, which must have the confidence of the international community and the people of Bangladesh—I will mention that—and peaceful transition from one Government to another.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) mentioned the important issues of child marriage and tackling climate change. Many of us will today have been lobbied by constituents on the Climate Coalition’s summer rally. It is important that we highlight the impact of climate change on countries such as Bangladesh when urging the Government to make progress in the talks that will happen later this year.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) made an interesting speech, with a new take on this topic from the trade union point of view: he spoke about labour standards in the shipbuilding yards and among garment workers. Most importantly, he name-checked his local restaurant, which is always a good move for an MP; there will be free poppadums for him next time he is there, I am sure.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about name-checking, but given that Tower Hamlets is the curry capital of Britain, there are just far too many good restaurants for me to mention.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Perhaps the next time my hon. Friend speaks he will give a long list, and then he will get free poppadums in all of them.

The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) talked about the plight of Hindus, which I will mention, and about the diaspora community in his constituency and its passion for education. I think that all of us with ethnically diverse constituencies realise that levels of aspiration in some of these communities are extremely high.

The Bangladesh diaspora is an important part of our communities that maintains our strong historical links to Bangladesh, which the hon. Member for St Albans mentioned. The connection between our two countries was reaffirmed this week with the visit of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, whom many of us had the opportunity to meet. She was in the public gallery for the maiden speech of her niece, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who has become, as has already been mentioned, one of three MPs of Bangladeshi heritage in the House, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq).

We have heard that Bangladesh has made progress on poverty reduction and prosperity is rising. Its economy has grown by around 6% a year despite political instability, structural constraints and the global financial crisis. Many of the millennium development goals have been reached, such as the goal on getting girls as well as boys into primary and secondary education, although there is always an issue about children dropping out as they get into secondary education—particularly girls, when marriage is on the cards.

The country is heavily reliant on agriculture and the garment industry; the latter accounts for more than 80% of exports. We have heard about Rana Plaza, to which I will return in a moment. There is potential for growth in some sectors, such as the information and communication technology sector, which generates some $300 million in revenue. At a very local level, microfinance has made a real difference. I was fortunate, when I visited Bangladesh with Results UK, to meet Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel peace prize winner, whose microcredit system has reached out to some 7 million of the world’s poorest, many of them in Bangladesh, and helped when the conventional banking system would not. It is notable that he said that 95% of its loans were given to women. Women are very much the driving force of economic regeneration locally.

Remittances from the diaspora community accounted for 8% of GDP in 2014, which is some $14 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has done excellent work on this front, trying to ensure that the flow of remittances continues to countries such as Bangladesh, but there is still a need to look at whether remittances can be better channelled into growth, so that it is not just about subsistence and supporting families to keep their heads above—let us leave that metaphor. It should not just be about supporting families to get by on a daily basis.

Bangladesh remains a poor country. Political violence is a major concern. Last year’s elections were boycotted by the main Opposition party and more than half of the 300 seats were uncontested. There was violence on election day, including arson attacks on polling stations; 21 people died, adding to the death toll after 120 people lost their lives in pre-election violence. This year, with the anniversary of the election, there were more deaths and fires, and thousands of people were arrested. Amnesty International has reported in the past on the use of excessive force, torture and extrajudicial killings by the police in Bangladesh. Questions have to be asked about the police response to the violence. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester said about conversations in his local restaurant regarding developing policing, and about the contribution that we can perhaps make on that front.

The Opposition leader, Khaleda Zia, reportedly encouraged protests in January. The Minister will be aware that she has been charged with corruption—allegations that must be dealt with independently and in accordance with the rule of law. I hope that, during her visit, the Foreign Office discussed the matter with the Prime Minister in more detail.

The Rana Plaza disaster in 2013 was one of the world’s most serious industrial accidents, as hon. Members mentioned, in which more than 1,100 people lost their lives and 2,500 people were injured. It exposed the hidden costs of the clothes we buy on our high streets. The TUC and organisations such as the Bristol-based Labour Behind the Label have done great work to campaign for justice and reforms. I understand that the compensation target was finally reached in the last few weeks. The tragedy demonstrates the importance of the International Labour Organisation, yet the coalition Government withdrew funding for it. Of course, we have seen plans to erode workers’ rights at home, too.

It would help if the Minister outlined how the FCO was working with Bangladesh to improve rights and safety conditions for workers, and how it was demonstrating to the international community, as well as to businesses operating in the UK, that this is a concern for the Government; and it would help if he said that the Government recognised the importance of raising labour standards, not just internationally in Bangladesh, but to protect those in this country.

As the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire said, Bangladesh is one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change. It produces just 0.3% of global emissions, but is especially susceptible to cyclones and rising sea levels, which threaten the lives, homes, food and livelihoods of its 160 million people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and I were at a meeting with climate scientists this morning, and some of the facts and statistics they put in front of us were absolutely frightening. If the world does not act, rising sea levels and global warming will impact on not just such countries as Bangladesh, but every country. That is why we need a strong global deal on the table at the Paris talks later this year. It is also why we need action on climate change when the conference on the sustainable development goals meets in the autumn.

Bangladesh warned last year that it would need £3 billion over five years to adapt to current climate challenges, including help to build 700 km of coastal defences. If that is not done by 2050, rising sea levels could cover 17% of Bangladesh, displacing millions and potentially forcing 50 million people to flee. If any more incentive were needed—again, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire touched on this—we need only look at the wider impact of climate change. According to Human Rights Watch, 29% of girls in Bangladesh marry before the age of 15, despite that being illegal. That percentage is higher than in any other country. By the age of 18, 65% of girls are married, in part because of poverty and lack of access to education. Climate change is another driver of that, with parents marrying off their young daughters after losing their home or crops to floods or soil erosion.

[Mrs Main]

The APG visited an institute for the paralysed. While we were there, we saw many children who looked like they had cerebral palsy, but it was the result of young women giving birth and those births going wrong. It is important that young women are protected from entering into having children at a young age.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Parents may see marriage as a way of securing a better life for their daughters, but too often they suffer abuse in marriages. Even where that is not the case, the physical risks of giving birth at such a young age can be bad indeed. Child marriage is illegal in Bangladesh and the Prime Minister made some encouraging commitments at the girl summit in London last year. Reports indicate, however, that there has been little progress on her pledges. There has even been some discussion about the legal age for marriage being reduced in Bangladesh. The UK Government were rightly lauded for hosting the summit, so I hope the Minister can update us on how they have been trying to maintain that momentum and get Bangladesh to deliver on the commitments made there.

As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned, there is serious concern about the persecution of Hindu communities and the decline of the Hindu population in Bangladesh. Freedom of religion and expression are a grave concern. Earlier this year, three secular bloggers were hacked to death on Bangladesh’s streets. Those responsible for such horrendous acts must be brought to justice, and the Government must protect the rights of religious minorities and atheists in Bangladesh, as well as the majority Muslim population. We have seen bloggers, Facebook users and human rights organisation officials arrested because of what they have put online. The FCO listed freedom of expression on the internet as one of its six human rights priorities, so perhaps the Minister can advise us on whether the new Government continue to have those six priorities. How have they been working with Bangladesh to support reform in this area? Abolition of the death penalty was another of the FCO’s priorities, and the UK must continue to push for a moratorium in Bangladesh, as we do elsewhere.

Finally, one area where Bangladesh has been less proactive is the boat crisis with Burmese and Bangladesh migrants. We have previously discussed our concerns that Bangladesh has returned Rohingya fleeing persecution in Burma and blocked aid agencies from accessing Rakhine state. The international community is horrified by the discovery of mass graves and scenes of migrants from Burma and Bangladesh packed on board ships and risking their lives in search of a new home in Malaysia, Thailand or Indonesia. I know that the Minister responded to an Adjournment debate in the Chamber only last week or the week before on the situation in Burma, but Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has dismissed the Rohingya as economic migrants who are “mentally sick”, and said they should be punished, as they were

“tainting the image of the country”.

Will the Minister comment on the situation from the Bangladesh perspective?

I hope the Minister will agree that the international community needs to address not only the immediate crisis in the Andaman sea, but the underlying issues forcing people to flee their homes in Burma and Bangladesh. Bangladesh is of course part of the discussions about Rohingya citizenship and whether they can eventually be given rights of citizenship in Burma.

I regret that my remarks may appear rather negative; I started by saying that there was much in Bangladesh’s future to be positive about, but it is important, as other Members have said, to highlight some of the issues, in a spirit of friendship, so that we can, with our common shared history and our role in the Commonwealth, work with Bangladesh to address them.

[Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister to speak, I remind him that there are approximately 15 minutes to go. It would be helpful if at the end he could find a little time for Mrs Main to respond to the debate and thank Members for their participation.