Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we have surged our political support to our embassy in Baghdad and our consulate general in Irbil, with a number of additional Foreign Office personnel being moved out there. He is absolutely right to say, however, that there is a need for a political initiative to address the alienation of the Sunni community. That involves the creation of a national guard and a repeal of the de-Ba’athification laws, in order to allow Sunnis to participate fully in the Iraqi state.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has announced that an additional 125 British troops will be deployed to assist with counter-IED training and logistics in Iraq, but President Obama has said that US personnel sometimes have more training capacity than there are recruits for that training. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore tell us how the additional trainers will make a difference, and what protection they will be given as they carry out that very important task?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes; the hon. Lady makes an important point. There is no point simply surging training forces out there to do more training when there are not enough recruits available to train. What we have always said is that we will reinforce our support where there is something specific we can do and where we can bring some value to the table. Sadly, because of our experience in Afghanistan and in the previous Iraq campaign, counter-IED training is a British niche capability, and that is what our troops will be doing. It is a much-needed requirement and we are glad to be able to provide it. In terms of protection, the British forces deployed to Iraq proper will be within US perimeters and protected by US forces.

Tamil People in Sri Lanka

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on securing the debate. It is not the first time that we have debated this matter, although it is notable that there is more consensus in the room than there has been on previous occasions. We have heard from hon. Members about various minority groups in Sri Lanka, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the persecution of Christians. There is also an issue with the Muslim minority community in Sri Lanka and, indeed, people from the majority community suffer such things as repression and false arrest. However, as today’s debate is about the Tamil people and the impending report, I will confine my comments to that.

As we have heard, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), is in Sri Lanka. I understand that the joint chair of the all-party group on Sri Lanka, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), was also due to go out on 27 January, although I do not know whether that is a coincidence. I hope that the Minister for Europe, when he responds to the debate, will be able to tell us a little bit more about his fellow Minister’s visit and with whom he will be meeting. I echo the comments of those who have said that it would be helpful if the Minister of State made a statement on his return from Sri Lanka, or wrote to those hon. Members who attended this debate, to tell us what has been achieved. At this time of great uncertainty, caution has rightly been expressed about what the result of the presidential elections will mean for Sri Lanka, so it would be useful to hear the Minister’s first-hand take on what he has seen there.

It is to be hoped that the presidential election marks the beginning of a new era for Sri Lanka, but we should not accept the argument that it is time to draw a line under Sri Lanka’s past and move on, as some people have suggested. There has been too much injustice, especially towards the Tamil people, for that to be appropriate. It is imperative that the UN investigation continues and reports to the UN Human Rights Council in March, and the election of a new President should not be used as a reason to delay that. Labour called for an international inquiry in 2011, so we welcomed last year’s decision of the Human Rights Council to launch an investigation.

President Rajapaksa repeatedly failed to comply with successive Human Rights Council resolutions. He also failed to deliver the necessary independent investigation, and he even failed to implement the recommendations of his own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, weak though that was. That was why we were so concerned by the coalition’s delay in supporting UN action and the refusal to use the Prime Minister’s attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting as leverage. We felt that the movement towards a proper, comprehensive UN inquiry were unnecessarily delayed by the Prime Minister accepting Rajapaksa’s assurances that he would investigate. We know that Rajapaksa set up a three-man inquiry, but I do not think that that will lead to particularly positive outcomes. Indeed, the new President may disband that inquiry.

There have been positive indications that President Sirisena will lead a Government who are very different from that of his predecessor, but there is ambiguity over the UN investigation and efforts to secure accountability and justice for everyone in Sri Lanka. As has been said, the new President was a member of the Rajapaksa Government and served as Defence Minister during the final stages of the civil war, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) expressed doubts about his commitment to action and with regard to his complicity in past acts. Reports during the election campaign indicated that he, too, rejected the UN investigation. Since then, the BBC has said:

“The new president…disowned Mr Rajapaksa but vowed not to allow him to be hauled before an international war crimes court.”

The Tamil Guardian stated this week:

“The new government, around President Maithripala Sirisena, has expressed its firm commitment to protect any Sri Lankan citizen who fought against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam from facing international justice.”

The President’s senior adviser is meeting the United Nations high commissioner for human rights this week and the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister was reported as saying that the Government would take action against perpetrators if there was evidence of war crimes. Those are positive signals, but there are mixed messages about whether the Sri Lankan Government will accept the conclusions of the UN investigation, whether they will work with international judicial mechanisms and whether members of the previous Government or the military will face justice in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Foreign Minister has said of the allegations:

“Whether those are war crimes or whether such crimes amount to genocide or not will have to be decided by a domestic inquiry.”

The new Government in Sri Lanka are reportedly in the process of establishing a domestic mechanism.

At such an early stage in his presidency, we cannot dismiss the possibility that President Sirisena is genuinely committed to delivering accountability. Indeed, we hope that he recognises that a successful, meaningful domestic mechanism would demonstrate his departure from his predecessor’s approach. I reiterate that no domestic approach can halt the UN investigation, which must fulfil the mandate set out in last year’s resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka. Regrettably, the Rajapaksa Government denied the UN investigators visas to visit Sri Lanka. In the final few weeks of the investigation, President Sirisena has the opportunity to demonstrate to the international community that he will lead a very different Government. I trust that the UK is doing everything possible to encourage his co-operation with the UN. Needless to say, it will be crucial that the Sri Lankan Government accept the final report and work with the UN on its recommendations.

We are all aware of the reports of intimidation and reprisals suffered by human rights defenders and others in Sri Lanka. What is being done to try to secure the safety of Sri Lankans who give evidence to the UN investigation or any domestic inquiry? The report by the high commissioner in September noted several concerns about Sri Lanka’s Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Bill, which was submitted to its Parliament last August. Worryingly, the Foreign Affairs Committee has noted that the Foreign Office was not able to clarify whether the human rights defenders, journalists and others who met the Prime Minister in November 2013 had been targeted. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on the steps that the Foreign Office took to protect those Sri Lankans and monitor their ongoing safety.

[Mr Scott]

Does the hon. Lady agree that arresting people who are giving evidence is not in any way helpful or beneficial to an investigation, and that the new Government of Sri Lanka must put an immediate stop to that? Anyone who gives evidence to such an investigation should be able to do it freely and in an unfettered manner.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I absolutely agree, and there is nothing I can add. The hon. Gentleman makes his point very powerfully. The fact that such precautions and safeguards are necessary highlights the fact that our concerns about Sri Lanka should not be confined to what happened during the civil war. This is not something under which we can draw a line. As successive Human Rights Council resolutions have documented, there were ongoing concerns about human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Sri Lanka that President Rajapaksa failed to address. Indeed, in many ways, his conduct exacerbated those issues.

The new President’s pledges during the election campaign to correct those concerns were a significant factor in his success. His commitments to end nepotism and corruption, to restore the independence of the judiciary and to repeal the 18th amendment are welcome. It is also crucial that he seeks to work with the Tamil community and to repay the faith it invested in him during the election. For Tamils it is about not just the UN investigation, but addressing the injustices that they have suffered since 2011 and the publication of the LLRC report.

As the high commissioner’s September update to the Human Rights Council noted, the Rajapaksa Government proscribed a number of Tamil diaspora groups as terrorist organisations. The new President must take positive steps to safeguard freedom of expression, to deliver justice regarding the enforced disappearances, to end the arbitrary arrests, to ensure that freedom of religion is respected and to ensure that Tamil and Muslim minorities are protected. Demilitarisation will also be key, especially in the north. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said, the President’s decision to replace the governor of the northern province with a civilian has been taken as a positive signal of intent and an indication that he is listening to the Tamil National Alliance. I hope that will continue. I also hope the Minister is able to update us today on discussions relating not only to the UN investigation, but to compliance with Human Rights Council resolution 25/1 more generally, and to agreeing the outstanding requests for visits by UN special procedures mandate holders.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned, it is notable that President Rajapaksa repeatedly refused to sign up to the Foreign Office’s preventing sexual violence initiative, despite the efforts of the Prime Minister and the previous Foreign Secretary to persuade him to do so. These are very early days, of course, but do the Government think that the new President will be any more receptive? Will the Foreign Office and the Leader of the House, who is still responsible for the PSVI, pursue that initiative with the new President as soon as possible?

Will the Minister for Europe also update us on the FCO’s work with the Home Office, following the previous Foreign Secretary’s assurances last June that he would investigate claims that failed Tamil asylum seekers who were returned to Sri Lanka by the Home Office had been subjected to torture and sexual violence? I know that this is not the Foreign Office’s direct responsibility, but I hope that he is able to assure us that the election result will not lead to automatic assumptions by the Home Office that Tamils are now safe to return to Sri Lanka.

Although the conduct of the election this month was an improvement on previous years and there seems to have been a smooth and peaceful transition of power, there were nevertheless reports of intimidation and harassment during the campaign, and reports that the new Government will investigate an alleged coup plot. It will be helpful if the Minister could provide his assessment of reports on efforts to investigate voter intimidation, and on the prospects for free and fair parliamentary elections later this year. I believe that those elections will be held in late May or June, so there is not much time to ensure that that happens.

We hope that the new President will be able to put Sri Lanka firmly on the path towards peace and democracy. He will have the full support of the international community if he chooses to do so, but he must also demonstrate a willingness to engage with international partners. We all await the UN report in March and hope that it proves instructive in finally delivering accountability and justice for everyone in Sri Lanka. I hope that the Minister is able to update us on the Government’s preparations for the 28th session of the Human Rights Council and on their plans to monitor compliance and carry the report forward. Fundamentally, the aim for this year cannot simply be the publication of the UN report. The aim must be justice, accountability and meaningful progress for not just the Tamil community, but all Sri Lankan people.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) on securing the debate. I note the contributions of Members on both sides of the House and thank them for taking part.

The debate is timely, coinciding as it does with the visit to Sri Lanka by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), although that timeliness inevitably means that there are limits to what I am able to say. We will know a lot more and be able to make a clearer assessment of the new Sri Lankan Government after his meetings today and tomorrow. He hopes to see the President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the new governor of the northern province, and he intends to travel to the north to meet the Chief Minister and representatives of Tamil political parties, engage with internally displaced persons and talk to journalists. He is making a point not only of talking to the Government, but of trying to see for himself the situation on the ground in the north and talking to people there from the Tamil minority, who will be able to give him a first-hand view of the current situation and their hopes and expectations for the future.

Of course, we await the publication of the report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is due to be presented to the Human Rights Council in March. The Government do not know what that report will say or what its recommendations will be. We await the report’s conclusions and recommendations on some of the issues raised in the debate, such as whether what happened in Sri Lanka should be classed as genocide, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) knows, carries legal, not just political, implications.

The new Government’s commitments are promising. They have said that they will end the executive presidency within 100 days; restore the independence of key institutions, including the judiciary and the police; reinstate media freedoms; end Sri Lanka’s international isolation; and return powers to the provincial councils. We have seen some early positive signs of progress, such as replacing the military governor of the northern province with a civilian, but I stress that these are early days, which is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Minister of State wanted to go to Colombo and the north of the island as soon as possible to meet the new Government and urge them to continue living up to the high expectations of the people of Sri Lanka and the international community and to make his own judgment on what the Government intend to do. We will not ignore the challenges that Sri Lanka faces, including the challenges faced by Tamil communities in the north and east of the island. There are many challenges, including the settlement of internally displaced people.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am pleased with what the Minister has to say about the visit to Sri Lanka by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), particularly that he is going to the north. The Minister may be coming on to this, but when will we hear about the right hon. Gentleman’s visit? Will he be able to write to MPs or give a written ministerial statement?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I know the hon. Gentleman is a great fan of Sri Lanka, I welcome his endorsement of the new Government and I hope he will continue to take as active an interest now under them. Trade is important and so, too, are human rights. We have a large diaspora community in this country, from both sides of the divide, and we want to see peace and reconciliation. We believe that until there is justice, peace and reconciliation, trade cannot grow in the way it should do and prosperity will not benefit the whole country as he and I would both wish.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am sure we all hope that President Sirisena’s election marks a new era for Sri Lanka. Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), does the Minister agree that if the President is to gain the trust of the international community, he must now demonstrate his support for the UN inquiry? From the Minister’s initial conversations, does he believe that the new Administration will fully co-operate with the UN and will fully commit to securing truth and justice for the Sri Lankan people?

[Mr Swire]

That is certainly what I want to see. After all, I am part of a Government who went out to Colombo for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting when the hon. Lady’s party said we should not go. We have engaged consistently on this matter. We pressed the Government of President Rajapaksa and we press the current Government—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members chuntering, because the Labour party’s position was for us not to go to CHOGM—we went, and the Prime Minister went to the north. We continue to engage, and I shall be travelling to Sri Lanka again shortly to make these points.

Tibet

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate. His long-term commitment to the Tibetan people and their cause is outstanding.

As my hon. Friend said, it is particularly fitting to be debating the subject this morning, as today is human rights day. The UN’s theme for this year’s human right’s day is “Human Rights 365”, which makes the point that we should be concerned about human rights not just on one day a year, but every day of the year. As has been said, it has been several years since the subject of Tibet was debated in Parliament, so it is useful to make the point that it is not a concern that should just pop up occasionally. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has just said, Tibet should be raised as an issue of concern whenever our Government have dealings with China, be it a trade mission meeting or another form of engagement. I hope the Minister can reassure me that that is indeed the case.

The sovereignty of Tibet is not really on the table at the moment; the discussion is more about a middle way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East outlined. I should make it clear that the Labour party recognises Tibet as part of China, but that does not mean that we cannot support meaningful autonomy for Tibet. The issue can be resolved only by genuine dialogue between the Government of China and representatives of the Dalai Lama, but talks have been stalled since 2010. I do not want to repeat all the questions that have been put to the Minister, but the British Government could play an important role in getting those talks moving again, and I hope we will hear from the Minister about that.

As the hon. Member for Cheltenham said, the Chinese are fortunate that the approach taken by the Tibetan leaders has been to urge a peaceful solution. They have shown remarkable restraint and taken a measured approach. The Chinese Government should recognise that and be prepared to engage with them.

We have heard several strong speeches about the abuse of human rights—particularly the restrictions on freedom of expression and the use of violence as a means of repression. We have also heard about how the human rights situation seems to be deteriorating and about the growing influence of Chinese culture—how its pervasive impact is gradually making Tibetan culture secondary. That is particularly true of the development of Lhasa.

I do not want to repeat all those points, but I would reiterate a number of concerns. I was particularly struck by the number of musicians my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East mentioned. Often, they are at the forefront of expressing dissent, even though the examples he gave could hardly be regarded as incitement to great political insurgency. The fact that China is cracking down on the arts and cultural diversity by sending artists to rural areas to form a “correct view of art” is quite a totalitarian response, and we should be very concerned about that.

Campaigners have been jailed for messaging each other even about an anti-fur campaign. Bloggers have been jailed. Nuns were expelled from a nunnery last month after they failed to denounce the Dalai Lama during a police raid. There are many other examples, and the fact that I am not going into great detail about them does not mean we are not hugely concerned—it is just that we have heard from the people I mentioned, and I am also keen to give the Minister time to respond.

We did not hear that much about self-immolations. There have been 133 since 2009, and the vast majority of the people involved have died, while details of the well-being and whereabouts of some of the others are not known. The fact that people are prepared to resort to such extreme measures and feel that is the only way to get their views across is the most harrowing indictment of human rights in Tibet.

The Chinese Government have now criminalised self-immolations, rather than responding to the underlying reasons why people would resort to such drastic measures. Since December 2012, anyone potentially associated with a self-immolation risks a charge of intentional homicide, which is subject to the death penalty. Family members could be arrested even for their involvement in the funeral of someone who self-immolated. Last year, Lobsan Kunchok received a death sentence, suspended for two years, on such a charge, while more than 40 Tibetans were sentenced to prison last year. I hope the Minister will tell us what representations he has made about those cases, against the intentional homicide law and against the use of the death penalty.

I recognise why the Government are so keen to promote trade links with China. Our bilateral relationship is incredibly important and we value it, but that does not mean we should be silent on human rights. We need a much more strategic engagement that allows the UK to raise human rights concerns and to meet the Dalai Lama without fear of being frozen out. I hope the Minister will agree that the Government’s commitment to business and human rights—the business and human rights action plan was published just over a year ago—should mean that no Minister from any Department visits China without being prepared to raise such issues.

The Foreign Office’s latest “Human Rights and Democracy” report noted

“concerns around the consequences of resource extraction and allegations of corruption.”

British businesses do not tend to operate in Tibet at the moment, although we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about InterContinental’s regrettable decision to open a resort in Lhasa. It would be helpful if the Minister told us whether concerns about corruption and human rights in Tibet have been reflected in the advice the UK offers British businesses, and whether the UK uses its trading links with China to address those concerns.

I want to touch briefly on environmental considerations, which have not been mentioned. Tibet is often referred to as the third pole, as it is home to the largest concentration of ice and glaciers outside of the Arctic and the Antarctic, providing an invaluable water source but also making Tibet especially vulnerable to the impact of climate change, and meaning that Tibetans face the threat of forced migration. China’s new commitment to action on climate change and its agreement with the US provide welcome leadership on the international stage. Talks are going on in Lima, leading up to Paris 2015, but it is important that China demonstrate responsible stewardship in Tibet and look after the environment there. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us—he can do this in writing, because he has a lot of questions to reply to—on any talks the Government have had with the Chinese authorities about the Tibetan environment and Greenpeace’s report earlier this year exposing illegal mining on the Tibetan plateau. Greenpeace says that that operation covers 14 times the area of the City of London, and it believes that the mining violates water protection laws.

My final point is about access for the media, non-governmental organisations and other groups wanting to visit the Tibet Autonomous Region. It is disappointing that the British embassy’s requests to visit it last year were declined. Perhaps the Minister can update us on the prospects for future visits. The EU special representative for human rights and a number of diplomatic missions have been permitted. I hope the Minister will agree that it is important that the UK and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have discussed with China the possibility of visiting Tibet. I hope the Minister and the British embassy will do all they can to support that and visit Tibet.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

All have a role to play in gaining peace in that country, which has been ruined by the civil war with FARC. When I was recently in Cuba, as the first British Minister to visit in 10 years, I raised this matter with Cuba, which is playing host to the peace process. I say again that these negotiations with FARC are quite a long way through and what we need to see is a final settlement with FARC—we have just seen the release of the brigadier general and the others who were taken by FARC within the last month or so. That remains the big prize and everybody should have a say in the peace that will ensue from that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Land grabs have been a predominant feature of the conflict, and restitution of land is a key part of the peace discussions. With the Government promoting business opportunities in Colombia, will the Minister say what guidance they issue to UK companies on forced displacements and what safeguards they insist on to ensure that the UK is not supporting economic projects using illegally acquired land?

[Mr Swire]

All British companies anywhere in the world are issued with guidelines on ethical investment, and those operating in Colombia are no exception. I am delighted that in 2013 we met our £1.75 billion bilateral trade and investment target for Colombia two years ahead of schedule. We have now set a revised target of £4 billion by 2020. Growth stood at 126% from 2009-12. Ethical investment is important, but so too are investment and bilateral trade. We are a Government who believe that increased trade is the sea on which all ships rise together. That benefits all in Colombia, even the poorest.

Foreign Affairs Committee (Hong Kong Visit)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

We are grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate, and grateful to the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) for making the application for the debate under Standing Order No. 24.

As we have heard, the House is united in its concern—indeed, its unhappiness—that the Foreign Affairs Committee has been prevented from visiting Hong Kong. We have also heard that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was denied a visa for the all-party group on China’s visit to Shanghai, causing that visit to be abandoned at short notice too. The hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), among others, referred to what he described as the Dalai Lama affair, when there was concern about the Prime Minister being refused a visa to visit China after his meeting with the Dalai Lama.

Speakers in today’s debate have also raised wider concerns. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) highlighted issues relating to press freedom and the repression of journalists, and spoke of the problems she encountered on an earlier visit to China. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), a long-serving member of the Select Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) spoke about their attempts to visit Taiwan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) spoke of his apprehension about the future of Hong Kong when he was there at the time of the handover, and the hon. Member for Gloucester told us of his substantial experience of working in the region and on fostering Sino-British relations, including by setting up a charity. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) focused on how we should not let our desire to trade with China, and the importance of China as a potential trading partner, deter us from raising other issues, such as human rights, animal welfare and wildlife crime.

Select Committees are an integral part of our parliamentary democracy. The FAC’s reports are always informative and make an invaluable contribution to the scrutiny of the Foreign Office, and as the Chair detailed, overseas visits are an important part of the Committee’s work in that they offer a greater insight into the countries being visited and the opportunity to foster bilateral relations. As stressed by several speakers, independence is a fundamental feature of Select Committees. It is not for the Government or the Opposition to seek to interfere with their inquiries or determine with whom they can or should meet—or indeed where they should visit.

Neither is it for other Governments to intervene or seek to ward off Committee members. Over the summer, I was therefore troubled to read the letters from the Hong Kong Government, the Chinese foreign affairs committee and His Excellency the Ambassador explicitly requesting that the Committee cease its inquiry and intimating there would be serious consequences for UK-China relations if it did not do so. The ambassador’s letter warned that the Committee’s inquiry

“will ultimately harm the interests of Britain”,

and the letter from the Chinese equivalent of the FAC advised Committee members to

“bear in mind the larger picture of China-UK relations”.

We value a strong relationship with China, as several speakers have said, and we do not believe that the independent decisions of the FAC should affect this. It is important to emphasise, as others have done, that its inquiry is in no way intended to interfere in the sovereign affairs of China. The operation of “one country, two systems” and the implementation of Hong Kong’s Basic Law are matters for the Governments of China and the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, as I made clear to the Vice-Minister in the International Department of the Communist party of China’s Central Committee when I met him this morning. The Committee’s interest in Hong Kong does not signify any latent imperialist tendencies on the UK’s part. I think we are all very aware, when we take an interest in other countries’ affairs, particularly where there is a direct British colonial legacy, that we should avoid giving such an impression.

We should also recognise that the joint declaration specifically affords Hong Kong

“a high degree of autonomy”.

However, it is a matter for the UK, working with China, to ensure the continued success of the Sino-British joint declaration signed by our two countries 30 years ago, and it is also a matter for the UK to honour the joint commitments it made to the people of Hong Kong to facilitate the handover in 1997. Accordingly, the FAC decided to scrutinise the Foreign Office’s implementation of and respect for the agreement.

The joint declaration states:

“Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

As a signatory to a binding, international treaty, the UK must speak up if the agreement is not fully upheld. It is deeply troubling to hear that the Chair of the Committee was told that China regarded the joint declaration as no longer in force and as having ended at the time of the handover. We all noted the contribution from the former Foreign Secretary, who made it clear that this was not the intention when the agreement was entered into.

We have all seen the scenes in Hong Kong: the clashes between protestors and the Hong Kong police and the authorities’ use of force. The protestors have sought discussions with the Chinese authorities and a resolution to the different views within Hong Kong on the best form of universal suffrage there. Reports indicate that their negotiating team has previously been prevented from travelling to China for talks—another worrying sign—and it should be noted that the joint declaration refers to freedom of travel being ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Following the violence in recent days, one of the student leaders has now announced a hunger strike in an attempt to secure talks with the Hong Kong Government. We believe this situation can only be resolved by dialogue involving the Chinese Government, the Hong Kong authorities and representatives of the pro-democracy campaigners. However, while the response is a matter for the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments, it is appropriate to raise our concerns. Members would be concerned by reports of pepper spray, batons and water hoses being used, whether in a city in this country or anywhere else around the world.

As the Opposition, we would also be calling on the Government to speak with their overseas counterparts if we had concerns that basic human rights were not being upheld, as we do now. The UK’s responsibilities under the joint declaration add to the imperative to do so. The Government were right to seek assurances from China regarding the police response over the past few months, and we hope that the Minister will continue to do so.

Parliament also has a particular interest, because we now know that the tear gas was supplied by British companies. Indeed, it seems that the Committees on Arms Export Controls have elicited a change in policy—or perhaps just a confused policy—from the Government. The Business Secretary wrote to the Chair of the Committees on 28 October to confirm that he had accepted the advice of the Foreign Secretary that the use of tear gas

“was an uncharacteristic response... not indicative of a wider pattern of behaviour”.

No licences were revoked or suspended. It has been reported, however, that the Business Secretary told the Committees yesterday that he would “urgently seek advice” on the issue. It is not clear why it has taken so long for him to investigate such a serious matter. We hope he will take it very seriously indeed.

The Government have a role in offering their support for dialogue and calling for the basic freedoms and rights of all people to be respected and protected. It is vital that Hong Kong can preserve these fundamental rights, and everyone in the House hopes to see all the parties in China and Hong Kong reach agreement on universal suffrage and deliver Hong Kong’s vision for democracy. That would be the most fitting way to celebrate 20 years of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy within China in 2017. Well before then, however, we hope that the FAC will have the opportunity to renew and strengthen its friendly ties with the FAC of the National People’s Congress and that its members will have the opportunity to visit.

As the Prime Minister’s official spokesman has said, the travel ban

“only seeks to amplify concerns about the situation in Hong Kong, rather than diminishing concerns”.

We are all disturbed by these latest developments. UK-China relations are best served and strengthened by a spirit of transparency and co-operation, which I hope the Foreign Office will be able to promote. It would be hugely disappointing if the Committee’s inquiry was allowed to affect the bilateral relationship between the UK and China, and I hope the Minister will use his influence to bring this matter to a speedy and satisfactory resolution—one which allows the Committee to continue its inquiry unimpeded. I hope to visit Hong Kong in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I shall certainly raise that matter; we have raised it already, but I shall give the hon. Lady an update on the results of our investigations.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister has rightly raised concerns that the headline figures for the release of political prisoners are perhaps not what they seem. Concerns have been raised about conditions being attached to the release of prisoners, for example, and about the continuing arrests of human rights defenders and journalists. Does he share the concern of the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights about signs of possible backtracking by the Burmese regime? What can we do to ensure that Burma remains on the road to democracy as we approach next year’s elections?

[Mr Swire]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have continuing concerns, not least in Rakhine and Kachin. Only yesterday I was discussing these concerns with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has just been there. The big goal in all this is the parliamentary elections next year. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure that they are inclusive and credible elections, from which can flow a better and more democratic Burma for all the component parts of that wonderful country.

Hong Kong

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, Mr Weir, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing this debate. He has a long-standing interest in this part of the world and is chair of the all-party China group. We all have an interest in our historic relationship with Hong Kong and our current financial and economic ties. I do not intend to dwell on those, given the time pressure, but I will focus on the test that one country with two systems is facing with the proposals to move towards universal suffrage, and some of the unhappiness that has been expressed on the streets of Hong Kong about whether those proposals go far enough. The issues are obviously for the Government of China and the Hong Kong special administrative region, but the Minister will agree that the UK also has a responsibility to uphold the joint declaration.

Over the past month, many thousands of Hong Kong citizens, predominantly students and those in the Occupy Central movement, have taken to the streets to protest because they feel the proposals for electing a Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 do not go far enough. It was interesting that the hon. Gentleman said that many of the protesters were not even born when the joint declaration was signed. I had to do my sums, and I am that old.

The point about the change in identity of the young generation that has grown up in Hong Kong was interesting. The protesters are questioning whether what is being proposed gives Hong Kong the high degree of autonomy guaranteed by the joint declaration and the Basic Law. Article 45 of the Basic Law states:

“The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People’s Government.”

It also states that

“the ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”

That is where we are now, as was confirmed by the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People’s Congress at the end of August.

The concern that has been aired is that there will be only two or three candidates, who will each need to secure the majority approval of the nominating committee. As the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said, the size of that committee has increased substantially from 400 to 1,200 members and many people in Hong Kong feel that they are not being given a genuine choice and that the future chief executive will be too tied to Beijing.

Human Rights Watch estimates that 500,000 people have taken to the streets of Hong Kong this year, although I think the hon. Member for Gloucester said 800,000. We have heard disturbing news of clashes and injuries over the weekend. For the most part, the protests have been peaceful, for which we are thankful, but the response from the police in Hong Kong has been a more serious cause for concern. They have used tear gas and batons to control protesters, and last week we saw images of officers beating a handcuffed protesters. The police department has confirmed that it is investigating the incident, and it is important that reports of excessive use of force are independently investigated.

Amnesty International has reported that the police have failed in their duty to protect the pro-democracy protesters. They report that women and girls have been targeted and subjected to sexual assault and harassment, and witnesses have reported that the police stood by and did nothing. Those reports must be taken seriously by the Hong Kong Government and by the British Government, too.

The joint declaration states:

“Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

As a signatory to that binding international treaty, the UK must speak up if the agreement is not fully upheld and if people are under threat of violence or intimidation for exercising those rights and freedoms. As a further point, it is also worrying that the BBC English language website was reportedly blocked in China last week.

On the specific point of arms export licences, it is reported that the tear gas used against protesters was imported from Britain. Worryingly, the Foreign Secretary was quoted as saying that was “immaterial”, because Hong Kong could buy it from other countries if they did not buy it from the UK. I do not think that is what should pass for a responsible export licensing policy. If the test is simply whether other countries could sell them the product, too, I do not think that is where we should be, and I would be grateful if the Minister could advise us of any review of the relevant export licences.

The Minister may, I hope, have been copied into a letter that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), the Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, has just sent to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. It is dated 21 October, and he is asking for a reply before the Committees next meet on 30 October. Does the Minister intend to discuss the six points that have been raised by the Chair of the Committees in that letter? Will he also advise whether the Government have discussed the authorities’ response to the protesters with their Chinese counterparts of the Hong Kong special administrative region?

In addition to the UK’s responsibilities arising from the joint declaration, we must ensure more generally that the commitment to promoting human rights and the rule of law and to supporting democracy as the best means of creating stable, accountable and transparent government is not in doubt. Although I acknowledge that the elections are a matter for the Basic Law rather than the joint declaration, it is still right for us to take an interest. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) talked about concerns expressed by some that if democracy was allowed to take its course, poor people might actually get to wield a degree of influence, or in fact, the majority could decide the outcome of the election. Those comments were quite entertaining, but also made a pertinent point about some people’s definition of democracy differing from other people’s.

I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that the UK Government should not seek to interfere in China’s affairs, but we do have a role to play in safeguarding the principle of one country, two systems, which has worked so well since 1997. Building a constructive, multi-faceted relationship with China that allows our two countries to work together in pursuit of common objectives—so yes, to support our trading ties, our economic and cultural links, and to work with them particularly closely on issues such as climate change—is very important, but it is also important that we have a relationship with China that allows us to engage on areas of disagreement too, including raising human rights concerns.

The FCO’s statements have rightly emphasised how important it is that

“the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice and a real stake in the outcome.”

The Minister’s statement last week likewise said that the transition to universal suffrage should meet

“the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong”

and offer them

“a genuine choice in the election”.

Of course, it is not up to us to decide what the aspirations of the Hong Kong people are or how they can be best fulfilled, but we do have a role to play in promoting and encouraging dialogue within Hong Kong and by endorsing the high degree of autonomy that one country, two systems is supposed to safeguard.

As we mark 30 years since the joint declaration was signed, we want to look forward to 2017—to celebrating those 20 years since Hong Kong returned to China. The introduction of universal suffrage, as set out in the Basic Law, will be a fitting tribute to all those who worked so hard to deliver and implement this historic agreement, and who have worked to ensure its success over the past two decades. We trust that the Governments of China and Hong Kong will work with the people of Hong Kong to ensure that the commitment is honoured and that we can deliver Hong Kong’s vision for democracy.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate. I do not call him my hon. Friend just as a courtesy; he was my excellent Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office until recently, and I pay tribute to his valuable work, his deep personal interest and his well-informed advice to me on Hong Kong and China over the years.

My hon. Friend’s great expertise, along with the wealth of experience of my predecessors who spoke in the House of Lords debate on Hong Kong last week—and indeed, the extraordinarily good participation that we have had from colleagues across the divide this afternoon—show the depths of knowledge available to the Government on Hong Kong. Incidentally, I would not want people to think that the only interest in Hong Kong is from the people of Gloucestershire, although that is very much how it might look when people see who turned up here this afternoon.

The future of Hong Kong is of great importance to the United Kingdom as a co-signatory of the Sino-British joint declaration, and given the magnitude of our trade, investment, educational, cultural and, of course, historic links. With over 250,000 British citizens and 3 million British national overseas citizens living in the city, more than 500,000 visitors from the UK to Hong Kong last year, and over 560 British companies with offices in Hong Kong, more than 120 of them using it as a base for their Asia-Pacific regional operations, Britain’s relationship with Hong Kong is long-standing, wide-ranging and unique.

We strongly believe that it is the autonomy, rights and freedoms guaranteed by the joint declaration that underpin Hong Kong’s success. As we approach the 30th anniversary of its signature, our commitment to ensuring the faithful implementation of the joint declaration, and the protection of the rights and freedoms it guarantees, is as strong as ever. That is why we have been monitoring events closely and regularly raising Hong Kong at senior levels through official channels in Beijing, Hong Kong and London.

My hon. Friend said he thought that the Government had been a bit slow to respond to developments in Hong Kong; I take a slightly different view. I point out to him that we have been addressing this all year. In May in Beijing, I talked about constitutional reform with the director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, Wang Guangya. Last week, I saw the Hong Kong Secretary for Justice, Rimsky Yuen, in London, along with our Secretary of State for Justice, and, as has been well publicised and said again this afternoon by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), I met Anson Chan and Martin Lee along with the Deputy Prime Minister at separate meetings back in June.

I also refer to the statements we issued. The Foreign Office issued statements on 4 September and during the parliamentary recess on 29 September and on 2 October, and, of course, I issued a written ministerial statement on 13 October. Last week, the Foreign Office submitted its written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry on Hong Kong. I should also point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who I know is a modern man, that I also tweeted, as I am sure he would have seen during that period.

Hong Kong has also been discussed by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in a number of meetings, including with Premier Li at the summit in London in June and Vice Premier Ma Kai at the economic and financial dialogue in London in September. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I also discussed Hong Kong with the Chinese ambassador earlier this month. As I am sure my hon. Friend will also readily concede, sometimes megaphone diplomacy is not the best way of proceeding.

I believe that the six-monthly reports that we continue to submit to Parliament on developments in Hong Kong are taken seriously and are widely read by academics, non-governmental organisations and other diplomatic missions in Hong Kong—and, indeed, further afield. I understand that those reports are also widely read by officials and key decision makers in Hong Kong and Beijing.

In the last six-monthly report, the former Foreign Secretary, now my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, noted that “one country, two systems” continued to work well. Specific evidence for its success includes an independent judiciary and the rule of law. I readily agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the importance of that. He asked about judicial independence with regard to the White Paper. I can do no better than quote the noble Lord Neuberger, one of the judges who regularly goes to Hong Kong, who said to Reuters in August 2014 that

“at the moment I detect no undermining of judicial independence”.

He also said:

“If I felt that the independence of the judiciary in Hong Kong was being undermined then I would either have to speak out or I would have to resign as a judge”.

The evidence also includes direct and active participation in political decision making by a number of different political parties; the freedom of Hong Kong people to participate in regular peaceful protests; and the activity of a vibrant and engaged civil society. Indeed, the protests on the streets of Hong Kong in recent weeks have shown that the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, including the right to demonstrate, continue to be respected. It is important for Hong Kong to preserve those rights and for Hong Kong’s people to exercise them within the law.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who speaks for the Opposition and is looking rather lonely on her side of the divide, asked particularly about allegations of how the police have behaved. We have been watching the reports and following the allegations that the police have used disproportionate force. I very much welcome the investigation that the Hong Kong police have launched into those. I am pleased that the protests have largely been peaceful to date. That is in itself quite an achievement, given the huge numbers of people who have been on the streets, and sometimes in very confined spaces.

The hon. Lady also asked about the use of CS gas and whether the United Kingdom had sold gas to the Hong Kong police. The answer is, yes, we have previously licensed exports of tear gas to Hong Kong, but we will certainly take the recent disturbances in Hong Kong into account when these matters are discussed, as they most properly will be by the Foreign Secretary, who would discuss them with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. It is worth pointing out that tear gas was used once, at the start of the protests, but not since.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Could I press the Minister on that point? Will the Foreign Secretary or he be speaking to the Business Secretary before he replies to the letter from the Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls?

[Mr Swire]

I shall have to get back to the hon. Lady on that, because I genuinely have not seen the letter and was not aware of it until she raised it a few moments ago. I will ensure that we get back to her.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) talked about his daughter, who works in Hong Kong, and rightly pointed out the disruption caused to many businesses and the huge inconvenience. I am concerned to hear what he says about the possible negative effect on tourism in Hong Kong. We will continue to follow developments on the ground with keen interest and to remain in regular contact with our consul general in Hong Kong, whom I met in London last week.

The issue at the centre of the protests is, of course, Hong Kong’s democracy and specifically the arrangements for the election of the Chief Executive in 2017. It is perhaps worth underlining some important points. Unlike with Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms, the joint declaration does not deal in the detail of Hong Kong’s democratic arrangements. It provides the essential foundation, including that the legislature be constituted by elections and that the Chief Executive be selected or elected locally. However, the detail of that is set out in the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution that came into force at the time of handover in 1997, and in associated decisions of China’s Parliament, the National People’s Congress.

Her Majesty’s Government have consistently set out our view that Hong Kong’s future is best served by a transition to universal suffrage, in line with the Basic Law and the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. We firmly believe that greater democracy will help to reinforce Hong Kong’s open society, the rule of law and its capitalist system, which are vital for Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity in the long term. But let me make it crystal clear that the detailed arrangements for implementing that are for the people of Hong Kong and the Governments of Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China to determine.

When the National People’s Congress issued its decision in August, we responded by welcoming its reconfirmation that the Chief Executive could be elected by universal suffrage in 2017, but we also acknowledged at the time the disappointment of those in Hong Kong who were hoping for a more open nomination process. However, it is important to recognise that the NPC decision does not represent the last step in this process. It sets the parameters for electoral arrangements for the Chief Executive in 2017, but there is still important detail to be decided before a final package can be presented to Hong Kong’s Legislative Council for debate next year, and of course those arrangements need to be approved by two thirds of the Legislative Council.

The details that still need to be defined include how the nominating committee operates to ensure maximum competition between candidates; transparency; and accountability to the broader public. The Government have made clear our hope that the different sections of Hong Kong society will come together to agree detailed arrangements on these issues that command the broad support of the community as a whole, that are consistent with the Basic Law and that represent a significant step forward on Hong Kong’s democratic journey. That journey then, of course, continues with the elections for the Legislative Council in 2020.

During my visit to Hong Kong last year, I had the opportunity to engage with a wide range of people with divergent views on how to implement a system for universal suffrage. The strength of feeling among Hong Kong people on this issue and their desire to stand up for what they believe in is clear. It is now essential that all sides engage in constructive dialogue, to broker consensus and allow meaningful progress.

I am pleased to see that Carrie Lam, the Chief Secretary of the Hong Kong special administrative region Government, held talks with the Hong Kong Federation of Students yesterday in which she made a commitment to gauge and reflect people’s views. The Hong Kong Government’s suggestion that there is still ample room under the 31 August decision to work out a nomination procedure and election method for 2017 reiterates the importance of the next round of consultations.

I emphasised to the Hong Kong Justice Secretary last week the importance of relaunching dialogue with a wide range of people in Hong Kong on these issues. I hope that the second phase of consultation, which is the right method to engage all the citizens of Hong Kong, will begin soon. As the former Foreign Secretary said in his foreword to the last sixth-monthly report to Parliament, published in July, there is no perfect model. What matters is that the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice and a real stake in the outcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester asked whether the Foreign Office would give an oral statement at the time of the next six-monthly report. That will be in January. I am appearing in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee myself in January, which will provide an ample opportunity to debate these issues. We will consider having a statement at the time, depending on the circumstances. I will say to my hon. Friend that we are having a debate now and he also has the ability to use the Backbench Business Committee if he wishes to have another debate himself.

My hon. Friend asked about the BBC. We have made representations, with our embassy in Beijing, to the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs on that subject. My hon. Friend asked whether we had made representations about Parliament’s right to hold inquiries and debates. We have reminded the Chinese Government, in London and Beijing, that the UK Parliament is independent of Government and very well entitled to debate and look into any aspect of Government policy. He asked when I would be going next to Hong Kong. Depending on the Whips, I shall be going there in January.

Given the UK’s strong commercial and trade relationship, shared history and unique commitments to Hong Kong, we care deeply about its future and that of its people. We have a moral obligation and a legitimate interest in the preservation of the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. We believe that a transition to universal suffrage will safeguard Hong Kong’s future prosperity and stability. That is why we continue to encourage the Governments of Hong Kong and China to find options that offer a genuine choice to the people of Hong Kong in the 2017 election.

I am grateful to hon. Friends and to the shadow Minister for this opportunity to restate clearly the Government’s position on this incredibly important issue and to all those people who follow these matters and contribute to the debate that we need to have in this place.

Protecting Children in Conflict

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) and the Backbench Business Committee for providing the opportunity to debate this subject. It is sadly not the best attended debate, but that is often the case on Thursday afternoons. However, the speeches have been genuinely excellent, if a little depressing in content.

We have heard much about the suffering of children who are affected by conflict and about the disproportionate, devastating and far-reaching impact that conflict has on children’s lives. Armed conflicts continue to take the young lives of thousands of children each year, whether as civilians or as child soldiers. My hon. Friend said that, whereas children used to be caught up in collateral damage, they are increasingly being targeted during conflict, whether to be recruited as child soldiers or as the victims of sexual violence.

When children are affected by conflict, it has a lasting legacy, even when countries emerge from that conflict. Some people have physical injuries because they have been maimed in the conflict. My hon. Friend spoke about the concern over the growth of indiscriminate explosive weapons such as cluster bombs. Other people are harmed psychologically and suffer trauma because of what they witnessed or took part in during their childhood. Quite often, people suffer because they have missed out on education or suffered health consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) spoke of the suffering and deprivation of the children living in Gaza.

Eight years ago, I had the opportunity to visit Uganda with Oxfam. It was the first overseas visit that I made as a Member of Parliament. What I saw there still resonates with me today. I went to the camps for internally displaced people in the north. That was at the beginning of the peace talks between the Government and the Lord’s Resistance Army, and there were about 1.5 million people living in the camps. I heard horrific stories about child soldiers who had been abducted by the Lord’s Resistance Army. More than 25,000 children, some as young as 10, were abducted, indoctrinated and forced to become child soldiers or, in the case of girls, soldiers’ wives. Some were forced to commit atrocities against their own families, such as killing or amputating the limbs of their parents, brothers or sisters, so that they lived in fear of returning to their villages and would not escape.

Being forced to become a child soldier does not necessarily condemn someone for the rest of their life. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) talked about setting up a business in Sierra Leone that recruited former child soldiers. I commend him for that. If he has not read Ishmael Beah’s excellent book, “A Long Way Gone”, I recommend it to him. It is aptly described as “a child’s journey to hell and back”. Ishmael Beah was recruited at the age of 13 by the Government army in Sierra Leone, but was eventually released. It is the amazing story of how he was helped by a UNICEF rehabilitation centre. I think that he is now living in New York and has published his first novel. He is a compelling writer and the book offers inspiration and hope for those who are suffering a similar fate today.

I also pay tribute to Emmanuel Jal, who is a former child soldier from South Sudan. I was privileged to meet him at Glastonbury last year in his new incarnation as a rap artist and political activist. That just shows what people can achieve. The fact that those two men are out there as spokespeople for former child soldiers is incredibly inspiring.

Many Members have spoken about the importance of education. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was very specific in what he asked of the Minister. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about education often being neglected and underfunded in the humanitarian response to conflict. The hon. Gentleman argued that education should be included in the first phase of the humanitarian response and that at least 4% of the funding in such situations should be targeted at education. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

As we have heard, this is a timely debate, given the publication on Tuesday of the UN Secretary-General’s annual report on children and armed conflict, which documents 23 conflict situations in which children were recruited, maimed, killed or subjected to sexual violence and other grave human rights abuses in 2013. The UN reports that seven national armies recruited child soldiers, as did 50 armed groups in 14 countries. The Secretary-General concluded that last year was marked by “worrisome trends” that necessitate “a redoubling of efforts”, including

“a significant spike in the killing and maiming of children”.

There were 4,000 cases of the recruitment and use of children. Of course, those are only the documented cases and there could have been many more. The report also noted the continued detention of children allegedly involved with armed groups.

In Afghanistan, the Secretary-General documented the recruitment of boys as young as eight to be suicide bombers or sex slaves, or to manufacture and plant improvised explosive devices. In December, there were 196 boys in juvenile rehabilitation centres in Afghanistan on national security related charges. The UN has received several reports of alleged ill-treatment of child detainees, including sexual abuse. The number of child casualties in Afghanistan increased by 30% last year and the UN verified reports of sexual violence against girls and boys committed not only by the Taliban and the Haqqani network, but by the national police. Children were also affected by attacks on hospitals and schools. Schools were attacked on at last 73 occasions, resulting in at least 11 children losing their lives.

War Child reports that one in seven Afghan children will not reach their fifth birthday. There are no social services to protect the poorest and most vulnerable children. One in three children under the age of five is moderately or severely underweight. I could go on with the horrific statistics that are revealed by the report. Some 49% of Afghanistan’s internally displaced people are under 18. That all demonstrates the need to maintain a focus on Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the international security assistance force.

As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, the Central African Republic presents one of the most pressing challenges. The recruitment of child soldiers in that country is described as “endemic”. I have been contacted by many constituents, as I am sure have other Members, who support the Save the Children campaign for the more than 1 million children who are desperate for life-saving assistance. Save the Children has highlighted the threat of sexual violence in the CAR and I know that the Minister has focused on that issue. Indeed, I was pleased to attend his “Voices of Children in Conflict” event at the global summit to end sexual violence, as did my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, where we heard more about the efforts to help the estimated 6,000 child soldiers in the CAR, 40% of whom are girls and are more at risk of sexual violence. As the Secretary-General summarised it, children are suffering “abominable atrocities”. We have heard of cases of boys being beheaded, for example.

I understand that the international contact group on the CAR is due to meet next week. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on his priorities for that, and on what he thinks can be achieved. He will know that Save the Children has called for the appointment of a special envoy and the deployment of UK experts.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the picture is a little more mixed. Some 30,000 child soldiers have been demobilised, according to the World Bank’s figures from 2011. There has been progress in prosecuting the people responsible for recruiting child soldiers. The UN has reported that 910 children were recruited in 2013 to be used as combatants or for supporting roles in the camps. Most of the girls who were recruited were subjected to sexual slavery. The UN was able to verify 209 cases of conflict-related sexual violence. UNICEF has done excellent work to help nearly 5,000 children who had been associated with the conflict. It is imperative that such work continues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Easington made a powerful speech about his personal experiences of visiting Israel and the occupied territories. I am contacted regularly by constituents who are concerned by the plight of Palestinian children in particular. As we have heard, by the end of December, 154 boys were being held in Israeli military detention, most in pre-trial detention. There is concern at the fact that that more than 1,000 children were arrested by Israeli security forces last year. As my hon. Friend said, that conflict is a tragedy for the children on both sides and for the families on both sides who have lost children, who have seen their children suffer or who have had to watch their children grow up with the ongoing conflict, perhaps being stoned on the way to school, suffering abuse or living in fear of rocket attacks. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

[Grahame M. Morris]

While my hon. Friend is on that point, I would like to ask her opinion on the specific recommendations of the report that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Baroness Scotland commissioned on the treatment of Palestinian child detainees, which the Israeli authorities have largely ignored.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I have read the powerful “Children in Military Custody” report, to which my hon. Friend refers. Obviously, the Minister is not in a position to take it forward with the Israeli authorities, but the recommendations should be acted on.

Burma, too, is an ongoing concern. We had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall a week or two ago about the continuing conflict, particularly as it affects ethnic minorities in Burma, especially in Rakhine state, but also in other areas where it remains a problem. Given the time available, and that fact that we documented it in some detail in that debate, I will move on. However, at the end of the sexual violence summit, the Minister said that addressing the problem of children in conflict was a personal priority for him. Will he therefore tell us whether the training offered by the UK to the Burmese military was conditional on ending the use of child soldiers? There is also the problem of the prevalence of sexual violence in the Burmese military and the immunity enjoyed by the army. Given that we are providing some support for the Burmese army, it is important that we flag up the use of child soldiers with Burma.

As we have heard, the devastating crisis in Syria has created more than 1.2 million child refugees. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on ensuring that children are not the forgotten victims of the conflict. Several Members paid tribute to his Adjournment debate last night on the abduction of the Nigerian schoolgirls and the need for safe schools there. I was a present at a debate that he held a couple of months ago about education for children, particularly displaced Syrian refugee children in the camps in Lebanon. He brought forward an amazing initiative. He had been talking to the Department for International Development that day and the Minister said that he would act upon the former Prime Minister’s suggestion for sharing school time: there are two shifts in a school, and the Lebanese children would attend for part of the day and the Syrian refugee children would attend for the rest of the day. Several hundred thousand children would benefit from that initiative, and I commend my right hon. Friend for that, and his work on addressing the problem of Boko Haram and the Nigerian schoolgirls. Boko Haram was added to the Secretary-General’s list published this week, and many other countries, such as Sudan, South Sudan and Somalia were also included.

Slightly more positively, the national army in Chad has met all the requirements of its action plan and has been removed from the list of those recruiting children, which is good news. That shows the difference that the UN can make. It is imperative that the international community pushes for, first and foremost of course, an end to all those devastating conflicts, but also for special consideration for how children can be protected, and for these countries to work with the UN on the development and implementation of action plans.

The examples we have heard today demonstrate the multiple and severe ways in which children are affected by conflict, necessitating a multifaceted, variable and enduring response from the international community. The UN Children, Not Soldiers campaign launched this March works in Afghanistan, Chad, DRC, Burma, Sudan, South Sudan and Yemen to end and prevent the recruitment of child soldiers by Government security forces by 2016. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how the UK is supporting this, and what discussions there have been on deploying child protection experts. It is important, too, as I am sure that the Minister agrees, that the FCO provides robust protections for human rights defenders speaking up for children who are denied a voice.

I am sorry—I am making an awful lot of demands on the Minister in the time he has—but it would be helpful to have an update on how enforcement of the arms trade treaty could protect children and deter the recruitment of child soldiers. I am sure that the Minister will, when he speaks, reiterate the personal commitment he has shown to helping children in conflict. He will know that the FCO has our full support for its work to end sexual violence.

I hope that the Minister can tell us a little more about the concrete steps taken at the summit last month to protect some of the most vulnerable children around the world from such appalling crimes and to ensure that survivors can access age-appropriate support, given the particular difficulties children will face in speaking out about the sexual violence that they have endured.

Today’s debate has also highlighted DFID’s role in working to secure access to education, health care and humanitarian assistance. I have not spent so much time talking about education because several hon. Members have done more than justice to that topic today. It is obviously incredibly important.

I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian again for leading the debate. She understandably cares passionately about the subject and I commend her for her efforts to ensure that the specific needs and vulnerabilities of children in conflict are not overlooked or subsumed in a homogenous approach that neglects the complexities of these atrocities.

Burma (Persecution of Minorities)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Howarth, for calling me to speak. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) for securing this debate today. Although it is undeniable that Burma has made considerable progress in recent years, many Burmese civil society representatives who I have met have made the point that the hon. Gentleman made: in some ways the narrative has been established that there has been so much progress in Burma—it is moving towards democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi has been released from house arrest and elected to Parliament, and, I think, 42 of the 43 seats in by-elections were won by her party—that everything is well and good in Burma. However, people have expressed their anxiety to me that that narrative has allowed some of the real concerns that have been highlighted today to be overshadowed by it, almost to the extent that there is a degree of complacency about Burma’s progress. Obviously, we have to be vigilant that that is not the case.

We have discussed the plight of the Rohingya on several occasions in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) has had to leave to attend another meeting, but she and my hon. Friends the Members for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) have a particular interest in this topic, mainly because their constituents have raised it with them, as was the case with the hon. Member for Bradford East. Sadly, however, there is little sense that much has changed since we started talking about this issue.

Since the outbreak of inter-communal violence two years ago, hundreds of people have lost their lives, as we have heard, while 140,000 internally displaced persons are living in camps, where their freedom of movement is restricted.

Following a visit to Burma earlier this month, the UN deputy humanitarian chief described conditions in one camp as

“appalling, with wholly inadequate access to basic services including health, education, water and sanitation”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East quoted, she witnessed

“a level of human suffering in IDP camps that I have personally never seen before”.

We have also heard that aid workers came under attack in March. It is not just the local community that is impeding the efforts of aid workers; the Burmese Government suspended Médecins sans Frontières’ work in a number of states and were alleging bias towards the Rohingya community.

Such is Burma’s rejection of the Rohingya that they are commonly referred to as Bengalis and, as we heard, there are disputed reports that UNICEF had to apologise for using the word “Rohingya”. The Government have yet to bring the perpetrators of the attacks on NGOs and the UN to justice and aid workers continue to put their own safety at risk.

Questions have been raised about whether the treatment of the Rohingya and the systematic denial of basic rights amount to genocide. Human Rights Watch has previously warned of ethnic cleansing in Rakhine state and the UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in Burma voiced his alarm at the deteriorating crisis, warning that

“recent developments in Rakhine state are the latest in a long history of discrimination and persecution against the Rohingya community which could amount to crimes against humanity”.

These are allegations of the utmost severity, yet the gravity of the situation does not seem to be matched by the response from President Thein Sein and it is not matched by the international community’s response, which lacks urgency. Concern has been expressed, but expression of concern is simply not enough to deal with the situation.

Our concerns are, of course, not only confined to Rakhine state. The Kachin conflict has been ongoing for three years after the breakdown of the 17-year ceasefire, and there are continuing troubles in northern Shan state. The UN special rapporteur estimates there are 100,000 internally displaced persons in Kachin and Shan, and reported to the Human Rights Council in March allegations of sexual violence against Kachin women and the arbitrary detention and torture of young Kachin men. He continues to receive allegations of

“serious human rights violations accompanying military offensives”

in those areas, including reports that more than 100 women and girls have been raped by army soldiers since 2010; 47 cases of gang rape; and 28 women dying from their injuries.

Between March and October 2011 alone, the Women’s League of Burma documented 81 rapes in Kachin and Shan states. The Minister will know that there are great difficulties documenting such atrocious crimes, not least because many victims or witnesses have been intimidated into silence by the army, so the real figures may well be much higher. The Kachin Women’s Association Thailand looked at 34 cases of rape in the Kachin conflict between just June and August 2011 and found that 44% of the victims were killed by their rapists. Such attacks have been perpetrated with impunity, as we have heard. Ethnic women’s organisations are concerned that President Thein Sein’s Administration is reluctant to work with women’s groups to stem the sexual violence, while the Burmese constitution protects military officers, who can only be tried in military courts. It is difficult to achieve prosecutions either in the usual criminal courts or the military courts.

Women’s organisations have also emphasised to me how land grabs, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, are increasingly a concern in Shan state. It is not only the military who are responsible. If the military seize land in an area, the rate of sexual violence increases, too; it seems to accompany their presence. Mining companies are also responsible. Burma seeks to open its country and economy to overseas businesses, which the UK Government have been keen to support. I will return to that in a bit more detail later. As mining companies come in, there is a real issue—as we have seen in so many other developing countries—with land being confiscated from the people who have sustained a living from it for many years.

It is known that Thailand wishes to return refugees from the Thai-Burma border. It returned 1,300 Rohingya refugees last year. I understand that, with the military coup in Thailand and the new regime there, this demand for refugees to be returned and the lack of consideration for refugees is exacerbated. China has returned refugees, too. The continuing conflict and difficulties in providing humanitarian assistance mean that it is by no means safe to return. It is no longer clear where the refugees would return to, given what I have just said about land grabs: the land belonging to the IDPs has been confiscated.

It had been hoped that this year’s census could provide a breakthrough in upholding the rights of ethnic minorities. DFID contributed £10 million for the census, as we heard, making the UK the leading donor, among contributions from the UN and other states, which obviously puts the onus on us to ensure that the census is conducted fairly and properly. The Burma Campaign was among those to warn that Burma was not ready for its first official census in 30 years, highlighting ethnic groups’ concerns that it could exacerbate inter and intra-communal tensions. It has also been reported that 23 civil society groups wrote to the parliamentary Speaker to ask for the census to be postponed, amid heightened tensions and objections to the categorisation of ethnic groups and sub-groups.

It was notable that the census did not use the preferred names of the ethnic groups themselves and was only produced in Burmese, except for some English copies for foreigners. So from the outset it was not an inclusive process that recognised and respected the language and heritage of Burma’s many ethnic groups. The UN special rapporteur observed that

“the Government has approached the census without sufficient or meaningful consultation with all affected communities”.

As we have heard, the UK received assurances that the Rohingya would be able to self-identify, but Burma’s Government failed to honour that commitment. As the UN special rapporteur highlighted, the decision to prevent self-identification

“is not in compliance with international human rights standards”.

I understand that the FCO subsequently summoned the ambassador, but it is not clear whether any conditions were attached to UK funding for the census or what precautions were taken by DFID and the FCO to reduce the likelihood of further violence caused by publication.

As I have said, I have on a few occasions met women from ethnic minority groups in Burma, most recently meeting women who visited for the summit on ending sexual violence in conflict. I congratulate those who participated in that initiative and, in particular, I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his work. When I met those women we talked, obviously, about sexual violence, particularly in respect of ethnic minority women in Burma. They told me that there are no specific legal protections for women and children, most particularly in the ethnic and rural areas; that Burma’s rape law is based on a penal code from the 19th century and it is, for example, legal for a man to rape his wife; and that domestic violence is not taken seriously.

The thing that struck me was that, right through the chain of trying to take action against sexual violence, there are obstacles in the way. It is partly to do with a culture that treats domestic violence and attacks on women as acceptable. But the police officers are all male, so when investigating rapes and talking to victims, that is obviously a problem. There is little in the way of rape support services and certainly no official rape support services; it is difficult to obtain a prosecution; victims are intimidated, as hon. Members have said; and prosecutions against military officers have to go through the military courts. At every step there are problems achieving prosecutions.

One outcome of the recent summit was that the Foreign Secretary said that prosecutions have to be the way forward, but it is much easier to say things than achieve them, and so much needs to be tackled. I urge the Government to consider working specifically with women’s groups, particularly from the ethnic minority communities in Burma, to see how we can address some of these issues.

Women have fewer than 5% of the seats in Parliament. That is exacerbated by the fact that 25% of the seats are reserved for the military, although there are now two female representatives in the military section. Women are even more under-represented in the Government. The Global Justice Center cites Burma as an example of the failure of the UN resolutions on women, peace and security and there are particular concerns that women are not involved in the talks to end the ethnic conflicts. I urge the Minister to talk to colleagues in DFID about what further work can be done on capacity building with women’s groups.

It is encouraging that the President has now agreed to sign the declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict, but, as I have said, that can only be the start of the process. The women I met who had been to the summit displayed a degree of scepticism, saying, “It is good that we have got this far, but it shouldn’t just be about the summit. The action has to be matched by words and a detailed plan for implementation.”

I shall, as the hon. Members for Strangford and for Bradford East did, mention the role of the Ministry of Defence and the British Army in offering training to the Burmese military. This gives the UK a certain degree of leverage, as does the aid funding that we have put towards the census and other programmes. The UK needs to use that leverage to challenge the constitutional role of the military—as I have said, it has 25% of the seats in the Burmese Parliament—and, more specifically, the human rights violations, sexual violence and land grabs for which the military are responsible, as well as to question the culture of impunity. Very few military officers have been prosecuted.

Finally, it is important to highlight other recent worrying developments, including the President’s reported support for laws preventing inter-religious marriage and religious conversion. Those would constitute serious breaches of international human rights, which I trust the Foreign Office is discussing with its Burmese counterpart. Human Rights Watch has reported that the electoral commission has tried to intimidate Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, and to restrict comments on military and constitutional reform, while Amnesty International has cited the recent arrests of human rights defenders and new prisoners of conscience in detention.

The Government’s cross-departmental paper “UK Activities in Burma” focuses on encouraging responsible investment in Burma. It is welcome that Burma is opening its doors to foreign investment, and there is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations free trade agreement as well. That is important and needed, but efforts to promote the GREAT Britain campaign, run by the Foreign Office, must not overshadow work to promote democracy and human rights in Burma. Last September, the Government published their business and human rights action plan, and I hope the Foreign Office is ensuring that British businesses are aware of the human rights situation in Burma and, in particular, the need to respect land rights when they seek to invest in that country.

“UK Activities in Burma” states:

“We are well positioned to have a positive impact in Burma.”

I urge the Foreign Office to use that position to push for the constitutional reforms that Burma needs for free, fair and inclusive elections next year, including the removal of the barrier to Aung San Suu Kyi perhaps taking on the mantle of President; for basic political and human rights to be respected; for the opening of a country office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; and for an end to the conflict. I realise I have focused on the negative; I am not underestimating how far Burma has come—the progress is welcome—but it is a grave danger to underestimate how much further the country still has to go.