Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We are constantly raising this issue. I have done so myself and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), does so regularly. If it is not concluded, it will, of course, be a topic of conversation during my visit to India shortly. We hope that the court proceedings—the latest of which was, I think, scheduled for today—will be resolved soon. We must not prejudge what will happen in a court, but we will absolutely keep on top of this case.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Despite the concerns of some about Prime Minister Modi’s nationalist past, his record of delivering economic growth in Gujarat is undeniable—and is, indeed, in no small part the reason why he was elected in the hope that he could replicate that across India—but such rapid development must be sustainable. The Foreign Secretary did not mention climate change in his list of things he intended to discuss with the Indian Government. What can the UK do to encourage India to play a full and constructive role in forthcoming international climate talks?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Lady is right about the prospect of great economic progress. We do give great importance to trade and investment with India, and we are making good progress towards doubling bilateral trade by 2015, but she is also right that climate change is a very important issue. Our relationship with India is such that we need to discuss all global issues together, and that absolutely will include climate change. India will have a big role to play over the next 18 months in crucial climate change negotiations, so that will be on the agenda for our visit as well.

Human Rights (North Korea)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate. It is difficult to know where to begin talking about the horrors and atrocities in North Korea; as the hon. Gentleman said, the country is certainly in a category of its own. Although we can all unite in condemning the horrors in the country, we are, in fact, trying to identify ways to do something about the situation. I am sure that I am not alone in sometimes feeling a sense of impotence. There is only so much work that can be done in identifying the horrors, and the next step is to see what action can be taken.

We are in a stronger position than previously following the report of the UN commission of inquiry and the recent UN Human Rights Council resolution. I joined organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in supporting calls for the inquiry, not only on a personal level but on behalf of the Labour Front-Bench team, and I welcomed Foreign Office support for international action last year.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Lady for what she is doing. Does she agree that now that the UN commission of inquiry has been received, and it is so devastating, we should press for it to be forwarded to the UN Security Council and call on the Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I also congratulate the hon. Lady because she has done a huge amount of work on the matter through the all-party group on North Korea, and she made a powerful speech a moment ago. I will come to her point in a moment; that is one of the steps that should be considered.

The DPRK rejected the commission of inquiry and refused to grant access, but the commission still provided invaluable evidence of life inside the country and in the prison camps, as we have heard. I pay tribute to the members of the inquiry, its secretariat and the witnesses and experts that it heard from. We should reflect especially on the bravery required from the victims who shared their experience with the inquiry. There were 80 witnesses and experts who testified publicly, while 240 people gave confidential interviews. The commission rightly emphasised the duty to protect their safety and the need for member states to provide additional protection measures where necessary. It is imperative that such efforts continue.

The report, as we have heard, provides a comprehensive account of the complete absence of human rights in North Korea. The illustrations submitted to the inquiry provide a graphic impression of the unimaginable torture meted out in the prison camps. The conclusion that systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been, and are being, committed by the DPRK, constituting crimes against humanity, demonstrates the clear need for the international community to respond.

Chillingly, the commission warns:

“The gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”

As we heard, the violations include an almost complete denial of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as of the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, information and association. The commission highlighted how the spread of Christianity is considered a particularly serious threat, underlining why the work of organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Open Doors is so important.

The report details how the North Korean state is an all-encompassing indoctrination machine; how state surveillance permeates the private lives of all citizens; how people are punished for watching and listening to foreign broadcasts; and the pervasive state-sponsored discrimination under the songbun system. The gross violations of the right to food and its manipulation as a means of control mean that North Korean citizens are being left to starve. The commission warned that it was particularly concerned about the long-term effects of ongoing chronic malnutrition among children.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I had to attend a Committee during the earlier part of the debate but still wanted to put my concern on the record. She mentioned the control of information. Does that not indicate the importance of taking steps to ensure that people in North Korea have more access to what is happening in the outside world? We must make sure that they have a true picture of what is going on in their country and elsewhere. That also highlights the importance of debates such as this that keep the British public’s attention on the issue.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, debates such as this are important because if we speak out, our voices do get heard, despite the restrictions in North Korea. I would also echo the points made about the BBC World Service, although I am not going to dwell on that because those points were made comprehensively.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I do not wish to depress the House even more, but does my hon. Friend agree that things are actually getting worse by the day? We now have a situation in which Satan is devouring his children. The regime is slaughtering its own, and there has never been a time when it has been more vital that we promulgate these facts, as we heard at the meeting of the all-party group last week. Who would have thought that matters could get worse? But they have and continue to do so. That is why debates such as this are so vital.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I just mentioned the food situation in North Korea—how do we influence a regime that does not seem to care whether its people starve? What sort of leverage do we have when the issue is not just the repression of people’s freedom of expression and religion and their right to challenge the regime, but the fact that North Korea’s leaders seem perfectly happy to sit back and let their people starve? Things have indeed become much worse. I will come to how, as a matter of absolute priority, we must look at what we can do to try to change the situation.

We also heard from the report about how discrimination against women and girls has resulted in their becoming increasingly vulnerable to trafficking and prostitution. The punishments associated with transgressions are severe and arbitrary, including summary executions, most notably that of Kim Jong-un’s uncle in December last year.

The prison camps are indicative of the North Korean state’s complete rejection of basic human rights and international law. We hear about people being disappeared because of their connection with the Republic of Korea or Christian Churches—they are taken off to political prison camps. It was, I suppose, a small sign that things were not quite as bad as they have been that the commission found that guilt by association is now less frequent, although that is more than compensated for by some of the other atrocities that occur. Nevertheless, although some relatives are still at risk, the commission found that guilt by association is not quite as prevalent as it was previously.

To use the commission’s words, “unspeakable atrocities” are being committed in the camps, including

“deliberate starvation, forced labour, executions, torture, rape and the denial of reproductive rights enforced through punishment, forced abortion and infanticide.”

It estimates that hundreds of thousands of people have died in the camps over the past 50 years, and that between 80,000 and 120,000 political prisoners are currently detained in four camps and being subjected to horrifying treatment.

The report leaves us in no doubt that action from the wider international community is imperative. As the commission stated,

“The fact that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as a State Member of the United Nations, has for decades pursued policies involving crimes that shock the conscience of humanity raises questions about the inadequacy of the response of the international community.”

It went on to stress:

“The international community must accept its responsibility to protect the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from crimes against humanity, because the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has manifestly failed to do so.”

We know that that will continue.

The commission’s report must ensure not only that the world’s attention is on the plight of the people of North Korea, but that urgent action is taken. As has already been mentioned, action from China is key because it is one of the few countries that has some leverage on the situation. As the commission stated,

“China pursues a rigorous policy of forcibly repatriating”

North Korean citizens who have managed to flee their country, despite their being refugees in need of, and entitled to, international protection.

China not only fails to respect the principle of non-refoulement; the commission suggests that, in some cases, Chinese officials inform their North Korean counterparts about those they have apprehended. According to the commission, those repatriated are systematically subjected to

“persecution, torture, prolonged arbitrary detention and, in some cases, sexual violence, including during invasive body searches.”

As we have heard, repatriated pregnant women are subjected to forced abortions, while babies born to returned women are often killed. The risk of refoulement, and their fate in North Korea, prevents defectors who manage to get to China from registering their children’s birth in China, denying them access to health services and education. It is estimated that there are 20,000 children born to DPRK women in China. In failing such defectors, China is failing in its international responsibilities, so it is imperative that the international community challenges it.

[Andrew Selous]

Does the hon. Lady agree that China’s policy is particularly unfortunate given that South Korea would accept all the refugees? If China did not want them, they would not be left in China.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree. China provides some humanitarian assistance to North Korea; one would therefore hope that it had some leverage over the Government there and could persuade them to change their ways.

The hon. Member for Congleton mentioned the fact that one action that could be considered is referral to the International Criminal Court and the adoption of targeted sanctions. Resolution 25/25, passed by the UN Human Rights Council in March, was a welcome first step in taking the report forward, in particular by extending the mandate of the special rapporteur and requesting increased support, including establishing a field-based structure to strengthen monitoring and improve engagement with all states.

However, it was disappointing that 11 countries at the Human Rights Council abstained on the resolution vote, while six—Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Venezuela, Vietnam and China—voted against it. There is more general concern about the composition of the Human Rights Council. The UK is on the council, but many member states have, shall we say, rather poor human rights records. There is concern about such countries’ failure to respect the special procedure or country-specific mandate holders. It would help if the Minister set out more about what he thinks the Human Rights Council can actually achieve—beyond mere condemnation of the DPRK regime—and how that can be done.

Following the recent universal periodic review, it has been reported that North Korea has actually agreed to consider 185 of the 268 recommendations. However, it has rejected some of them outright, including that it should co-operate with the ICC, end guilt by association, implement the commission’s recommendations, close the prison camps and abolish the songbun system. Critically, the Human Rights Council resolution recommended that the General Assembly submit the report to the Security Council for further action. The Human Rights Council called for the consideration of a referral

“to the appropriate international criminal justice mechanism”,

which would presumably be the ICC. On top of that, it called for consideration of the

“scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for crimes against humanity”.

Will the Minister update us on the Government’s discussions with Security Council members about formally putting the DPRK on the agenda? What sanctions does he think could possibly be effective in targeting the DPRK leadership? Bearing in mind Russia’s and China’s position on the Security Council, what are the prospects and time scales for action and any referral to the ICC?

Now that the commission has reported and the Human Rights Council has passed its resolution, it is crucial that we maintain the momentum and keep the spotlight and pressure on North Korea, to try to secure the co-operation of partners in key positions of influence. It would be so much easier to say that solutions are more easily at hand in other countries, where the UK operates more leverage and where we know that we can, perhaps, achieve more good in a shorter time, but to turn our back on what is happening in DPRK, just because it is a difficult case and the solutions do not immediately present themselves, would be morally wrong. We simply should not contemplate that.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; she has been generous in giving way.

The approximately 600 people from the North Korean diaspora in this country have not been mentioned so far. Could we not harness them and perhaps ask the BBC to ask them to help with some editorial work on programmes broadcast into Korea? They would surely want to help their families still left in the country.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. What always has to be weighed up is whether such a move would make life easier or worse for the people in the country. People in the country know how dreadful the situation is there. People from the diaspora community here would, obviously, need to highlight that to win over international opinion, ensuring that this matter is firmly on the political agenda. I am not so sure, although I have only just heard the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, what the impact would be of such footage being displayed in North Korea. There is a particular danger of measures being taken against people’s relatives who are still in the country. We have to be slightly worried about that.

[Stephen Pound]

rose—

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady gives way, she might like to consider that we are eating into the Minister’s time.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am sorry; I thought we had until a quarter past.

[Stephen Pound]

As my hon. Friend is aware, the North Korean embassy is in my borough of Ealing. I have tried to work with some of the North Korean diaspora in west London, to mount some sort of protest so that people can hear an alternative voice. I have to say to her that they are terrified. The crime of guilt by association throughout the family is so corrosive that, sadly and tragically, they will not dare to raise their heads above the parapet.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend obviously speaks from experience, having talked to the diaspora about this point.

I conclude with the words of the UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, who has warned that in looking at what was happening in the DPRK,

“insufficient attention was being paid to the kind of horrific and sustained human rights violations”

that were going on there. Her conclusion was that

“there can no longer be any excuses”

for ignoring that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Robust political engagement is definitely the option to take, but there is nothing robust about being in alliance with other parties when you are ashamed to see their leader and candidate come to this country.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I welcome the UN Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka, but given that President Rajapaksa has failed to comply with previous resolutions and with the very generous last-chance offer that the Prime Minister gave him at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, and has now rejected the current resolution outright, does the Foreign Secretary still think it is appropriate for President Rajapaksa to continue as chair-in-office of the Commonwealth? If this is referred to the Commonwealth ministerial action group, what position will the UK take?

[Mr Hague]

The UK is not on the Commonwealth ministerial action group, as the hon. Lady knows, nor is it in our gift to determine the chair of the Commonwealth ourselves, but it was within our gift to decide to go to Sri Lanka and to raise these issues. As the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) has just made clear, there would have been no chance of succeeding in the Human Rights Council, as we recently did, had it not been for the Prime Minister’s leadership, our presence in Sri Lanka and our willingness to show how passionate we are about what happened in the north of Sri Lanka. The Opposition’s attitude of not going to Sri Lanka would have been a terrible misjudgement.

Commonwealth Day

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Brady. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on providing this opportunity, and I thank the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for leading the debate in his capacity as chairperson of the CPA international executive committee.

As the other speakers have all done, I begin by emphasising the value of the Commonwealth and underlining the importance of Commonwealth day as an occasion to celebrate both the unity and diversity of our 53 independent countries. Other speakers said they feel the closest connection with Commonwealth citizens from Australia, New Zealand and Canada. I grew up in an ethnically diverse area and have had most contact with, and feel the strongest connection to, members of the diaspora communities from countries such as Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. When I worked in the City there seemed to be an awful lot of New Zealanders employed on temporary contracts, so I have had a fair bit of contact with New Zealanders. Our connection with the Commonwealth is not just about people in other countries; it is about people from those countries who have chosen to make Britain their home.

This has been an eventful year for the Commonwealth, marked of course by the birth of Prince George and our move even closer towards agreeing the new laws of succession. Fifteen of the 16 Commonwealth realms have agreed a new law to end male primogeniture and the bar on marrying Roman Catholics, which is a welcome step forward. Less positively, Gambia has withdrawn from the association. The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka last November created some division, to which I will return, and led to Mauritius withdrawing as host of CHOGM 2015.

The theme of this year’s Commonwealth day, “Team Commonwealth,” indicates the association’s strong bonds, and it is particularly apt as we look forward to the Commonwealth games in Glasgow this summer. A team is a good analogy for the Commonwealth; it signifies our collaboration and indicates how each and every member is important and has its own role to play. It means that we can celebrate our successes together and that we pull together when times are tough. It also means that we speak frankly and offer our support when a team member could do better. Like the Commonwealth, every team needs rules, which is why I make no apology for concentrating on what I see as scope for improvement. Teams ought to push each other to achieve more, which is what the Commonwealth must do for each member state.

Some of these points were addressed in our debate on human rights in the Commonwealth towards the end of last year, but it is important that they are placed on the record again, given that the situation has not improved. It is now a year since the Commonwealth charter was launched, which was a significant achievement. It was the first time in 64 years that the Commonwealth’s shared values have been set out in writing.

Those shared values attempt to balance the autonomy and differing cultures of many sovereign states. As I said in the debate on human rights in the Commonwealth, agreeing to the charter was not enough and cannot be enough; it was a blueprint for action, not a statement of the status quo. The charter was the start of a process to promote democracy, equality and human rights within the Commonwealth.

There is progress to be made across a range of areas, including gender equality—which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce)—sexual violence and the death penalty. At 10 pm British time tonight, 6 am on Friday in Malaysia, a Nigerian national with schizophrenia is due to be executed for a murder committed 18 years ago. I flagged that up with the Minister when I arrived in the Chamber, and I hope he can update us on whether the British Government have made representations to the Malaysian Government on preventing that execution. We should all oppose the death penalty in any circumstance, but a mentally ill man is due to be executed, so it is a particularly important case.

There are many important human rights issues, but I make no apologies for focusing today on what was described as the “elephant in the room” by Dr Purna Sen, the former head of human rights at the Commonwealth secretariat, in the recent Kaleidoscope Trust report, “Speaking Out: The rights of LGBTI citizens from across the Commonwealth.” Globally, more than half the countries that criminalise homosexuality are in the Commonwealth, and they make up 41 of the 53 Commonwealth nations—that is nearly 80% of the association. We should not be afraid to stand up and say categorically that that is wrong. The issue was debated when I spoke about the charter at the CPA conference in Johannesburg in September, and it was discussed in the Westminster Hall debate, too.

I know there is a concern about being seen to go in and preach to other countries, particularly those countries where we instilled certain values. There has been some interesting research in Uganda on how homosexuality was accepted until the British came in, told people that it was not acceptable and introduced laws against it during the period of colonial rule. When I raised that point at the CPA conference in South Africa in September, it was not well received by all delegates. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said in an intervention, the point was supported by my co-speaker, the Deputy Speaker of the South African Parliament. She spoke eloquently about her country’s rainbow constitution and opposition to all forms of discrimination. She said that, in South Africa, LGBT discrimination was seen as akin to apartheid, which was once seen as acceptable by many and is now viewed as abhorrent by all but a few. That does not necessarily translate into perfection on the ground, however. There have been instances of corrective rape and discrimination against LGBT people, but the law sets a strong framework.

Other countries are not making such good progress, however. The Australian High Court recently overturned legislation in Parliament allowing for same-sex marriages. India has recriminalised homosexuality following its Supreme Court reinstating in December a ban on same-sex relationships—a decision refused review earlier this year despite applications from campaigners and the Indian Government. Nigeria has passed a same-sex marriage prohibition law, meaning not only that same-sex marriage is punishable by 14 years in prison, but also that same-sex relationships or participation in gay clubs or organisations are also subject to 10-year prison terms. There are reports that men arrested since the new law was passed have been publicly whipped and there have been claims that confessions have been forced by physical interrogation. The Kaleidoscope Trust quotes a human rights lawyer in Cameroon who explains that LGBT people

“are generally considered as animals or devils… so they are in permanent danger. They can be injured, they can be killed, and they can be discriminated against. They can be rejected from healthcare and justice”.

Most notorious, as we heard in a good speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), is Uganda, which has now passed the long-feared Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Homosexuality was already illegal in Uganda, but the penalties have now been increased to life imprisonment. Indeed, it was mooted at one point that the punishment ought to be the death penalty. I have also had the privilege of meeting Dr Frank Mugisha of Sexual Minorities Uganda on a couple of occasions, and I understand that he met Baroness Warsi yesterday. I hope that it proved a productive meeting, because, although I know that the Foreign Secretary noted his sadness and disappointment that the Bill was signed into law by President Museveni, some concerns have been expressed to me that the UK’s response has been relatively muted. As my hon. Friend said, serious concerns exist that the law represents a public health threat as NGOs, including international organisations that provide health promotion and HIV/AIDS prevention, may be forced to close to avoid criminal sanctions.

In its 2011 report, “Time for Urgent Reform”, the Commonwealth eminent persons group encouraged

“the repeal of discriminatory laws that impede the effective response of Commonwealth countries to the HIV/AIDS epidemic”

and cited United Nations Development Programme evidence that the Commonwealth is home to

“over 60% of people living with HIV”.

The issue should therefore be a priority for the Commonwealth. Several other countries, not least the US, have made it clear that they are undertaking a wholesale review of their relationship with Uganda, and the World Bank has postponed a $90 million loan to the country. Some have called for all aid for Uganda to be reviewed, but only a small proportion of UK aid actually goes into direct budget support for the Ugandan Government and it is linked to trying to improve parliamentary democracy. If aid is reviewed as part of the lobbying on the issue, it is imperative that it should not hurt the people that UK assistance aims to help and that the Government continue their support for LGBT groups and human rights defenders in Uganda, to which they have recently committed.

To conclude on Uganda, there have been calls for travel bans, in particular for the members of the Ugandan Government and Parliament who championed the new law. What measures or sanctions does the Minister think could be effective in trying to turn Uganda’s position around? What action could the ministerial action group take? What penalties would he like for countries that violate the values of the Commonwealth charter—if, indeed, he sees the charter as something that should be enforced?

As I mentioned, there were concerns that last year’s CHOGM risked undermining the Commonwealth’s commitment to human rights, given the ongoing abuses in Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan Government’s failure to deliver truth, justice and accountability. Can the Minister update us on the Prime Minister’s efforts to secure an international inquiry for the people of Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council this month? What efforts have the Government made to secure action from the Commonwealth on that? I have spoken several times in this place about Sri Lanka, and the issue is ongoing, so I will leave it there, rather than outline my concerns.

The final issue that I want to flag up is the need for collective action on climate change. The Commonwealth is an appropriate forum for that, although we should be doing it on a wider scale, too. Bangladesh tops the climate risk index as the country most affected by climate change. India is in the top 10 as well. In the Maldives in 2009, as people might remember, then President Nasheed held his Cabinet meeting underwater with scuba gear to try to focus the world’s attention on the grim reality of climate change. Countries such as the Maldives could be entirely submerged underwater within just a few generations with just a 1 metre rise in sea levels. The Maldives are the lowest lying country in the world, with an average height of less than 1.3 metres above sea level.

The challenge of climate change is not something that any state can overcome alone. The Commonwealth must renew efforts to press for multilateral co-operation and concerted collective action to reduce carbon emissions, to limit rises in sea levels and to safeguard habitats. At CHOGM, Australia and Canada disappointingly declined to support a green capital fund. Last month, GLOBE International published a report on 66 countries’ climate change laws and highlighted that only the Australian Government sought to repeal national legislation in the past year. Australia and Canada are the only nations to have reversed significant climate laws since GLOBE International began its monitoring four years ago. Will the Minister tell us whether he agrees with Lord Deben, the former Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, who said that Australia’s move was

“so unintellectual as to be unacceptable”?

By contrast, the report noted Kenya’s new climate change plan. Kenya, along with Mozambique and Nigeria, was included among the eight countries to have passed flagship legislation. Tanzania passed a national strategy and Rwanda was noted for including climate change and the environment as a cross-cutting issue in its economic development and poverty reduction strategy. The report concluded that the momentum for climate change legislation is moving from the wealthier, industrialised nations to emerging economies. I hope that the Minister agrees that all Commonwealth nations need to work together, as set out in the Commonwealth charter, to protect the environment through

“multilateral cooperation, sustained commitment and collective action…and facilitating the development, diffusion and deployment of affordable environmentally friendly technologies and renewable energy”.

Will the Minister update us on how the Government are pushing for more action from the Commonwealth on climate change? To what extent is there is a consensus on the scientific facts of climate change and concerted action? I am particularly worried by reports that Prime Minister Tony Abbott is seeking to abolish Australia’s independent Climate Change Authority. Its chairman has reportedly said that the “bad guys” are winning the climate change debate with “brazen falsehoods”, “untruths” and “misinformation”. It is essential that the UK plays a global role in challenging the misinformation and efforts to dismiss climate change science, not least within our own country.

I realise that I have perhaps focused on the negative to too great an extent, but if we value the Commonwealth and want it to have a respected voice on the world stage and a continued purpose in the 21st century, we have to ensure that it remains relevant. To do that, we must continually ask more of it and ourselves. I welcome the Commonwealth charter as a mechanism for raising the Commonwealth’s expectations, but if we do not meet the high standards that it sets, it risks being used to conceal abuses. When we come back to this issue next year to celebrate Commonwealth day, as I am sure we will, I hope we will be discussing how those standards are not only being met, but surpassed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I will draw the hon. Lady’s question to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for Africa, who is travelling on ministerial duties this week. If we judged that to be the best way of making effective representations, we would not hesitate to do that.

The hon. Lady mentioned various options for action that might be taken. There is a judgment to be made about the right balance in these circumstances, between the megaphone and the candid words in conversation. We try to judge these issues so that we end up with a set of actions that are most likely to help those people who are under threat in Uganda. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi met Mr Mugisha yesterday so that they could hear first hand from somebody living in Uganda who feels that his position is at risk, and find out what he thinks are the most effective ways to try to seek a change in policy in Uganda.

The hon. Lady also mentioned Nigeria. We are disappointed that President Jonathan has given his assent to a Bill that would further criminalise same-sex relationships in Nigeria and infringe on the human rights of LGBT people. The Foreign Secretary made a statement on 15 January that highlighted our concerns and my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa raised these concerns directly with President Jonathan in Abuja, when he visited Nigeria on 27 February. Again, we will continue to lobby at the highest levels on this issue.

I was also asked about the persecution of Christians and other minorities in Pakistan. We continue to urge the Government of Pakistan to guarantee fully the human rights of all people in Pakistan, particularly the most vulnerable: women, minorities and children. These principles are, after all, laid down in the constitution of Pakistan and are in accordance with international standards, to which Pakistan has subscribed.

We regularly raise the issue of Christians and religious freedom more generally at senior level with the authorities in Pakistan, and did so during the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Pakistan in July 2013 and Baroness Warsi’s visit in September 2013. In fairness, the Pakistani authorities have publicly recognised the problems that their countries’ minorities face and the need to bring an end to religious persecution. The British Government remain fully committed to working in partnership with the Government of Pakistan to achieve that, and to tackle both terrorism and violent extremism in all its forms.

We cannot as one country impose change, particularly in public attitudes, which may in some Commonwealth nations be very different from public attitudes in this country, but we can and we will continue to speak out when basic human rights—life, liberty and personal safety—are violated. There can be no justification for infringing such fundamental human rights, which are central to a strong and prosperous society. The consequences of failing to respect human rights are apparent in Sri Lanka. I will give the Chamber the update for which the hon. Member for Bristol East asked.

The Prime Minister used his presence at CHOGM in Colombo in November 2013 to emphasise the United Kingdom’s and indeed the international community’s serious concerns about human rights in Sri Lanka. He made it clear that the Sri Lankan Government should begin a credible independent investigation into violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by both sides during the war by March, when the UN Human Rights Council meets to discuss Sri Lanka. No credible domestic process has yet begun.

Establishing the truth plays an important role in reconciliation. As a result, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon made it clear at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on 3 March that we would now call for an international investigation. I draw the attention of the Chamber to a written ministerial statement that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary published today on Sri Lanka. It is available in the Library and will be printed in tomorrow’s Hansard. That statement says, among other things, that a draft resolution was jointly tabled by the UN Human Rights Council on Monday 3 March by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Mauritius, Macedonia and Montenegro. The draft resolution calls for the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to lead the international investigation and to report back by March 2015. Further discussions on the text will take place this month.

The adoption of the resolution is not a foregone conclusion. Ahead of the vote, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, I, other Foreign Office Ministers and other Ministers across the Government have been in contact with a wide range of UN Human Rights Council member states to encourage them to support a strong resolution that calls for an international investigation. In doing so, we have drawn attention to the assessment of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who points to the need for such an investigation as progress on accountability in Sri Lanka has been, in her words, “limited and piecemeal”. In the days remaining before the vote takes place, we will continue to urge UNHRC members to support this action, and we will maintain our close contact with non-governmental organisations and civil society throughout.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister. I have seen the written statement. My concern is that Sri Lanka will not be happy to co-operate with this inquiry, and President Rajapaksa has more or less said so already. I will not put the Minister on the spot by asking a question about this, because his colleague, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Hugo Swire) is responsible for this policy area, but it is important that efforts are made to try to bring Sri Lanka on board and to convince it that it is in its best interests to co-operate with this inquiry rather than have it imposed from outside. It is in the interests of everyone in Sri Lanka, no matter what side of the conflict they are on, that a line can be drawn under past abuses and continuing abuses.

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with the hon. Lady. We will not for one moment stop trying to persuade the Government of Sri Lanka that it is in their interests on two counts—its effect on how Sri Lanka is seen internationally and the need for genuine reconciliation between different communities in that country. At the end of the day, the Government of Sri Lanka are sovereign and they will take their decision. We hope that they will eventually conclude that an independent inquiry of some kind is in the interests of Sri Lanka itself. That is why we are disappointed that they have not hitherto established an inquiry of their own. Had such an inquiry been set up in Sri Lanka, we would not need to call for one now at the UN Human Rights Council.

I should add that the Commonwealth ministerial action group has a key role to play in upholding the values to which all Commonwealth countries signed up when they agreed the charter. As CMAG meets for the first time since CHOGM here in London, we have a timely opportunity to restate our view that it is essential that CMAG lives up to the strengthened mandate that it received in Perth.

Our debate this afternoon is a reminder that democracy itself is a key Commonwealth value. The work that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association does to support and extend democratic values across the Commonwealth should not be underestimated. The CPA rightly enjoys associate organisation status within the Commonwealth and is the one Commonwealth organisation that directly represents parliamentary democracy. The Government recognise the CPA’s importance, and we remain happy to discuss proposals to enhance further its work through such measures as a democracy forum. I welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden about the wish to see greater recognition of the CPA’s role in strengthening contact between elected local government bodies across the Commonwealth.

I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s creative and imaginative proposal for a Commonwealth youth parliamentary assembly of some kind. I look forward to seeing how that idea develops further within the CPA. I welcome the decision of the House—it was not welcomed in all quarters—to allow the United Kingdom Youth Parliament to sit in the Chamber. The idea that one day we could look at a Commonwealth youth parliament visiting different Parliaments in different Commonwealth member states and in different continents is very attractive indeed.

In addition to Commonwealth values, hon. Members have referred today to the potential to increase prosperity across the Commonwealth for all its members. The Department for International Development contributes directly to member states that are developing countries, and allocated about £2 billion of aid to those countries in 2013-14—that figure ignores regional programmes and therefore masks a higher total.

Local sporting events also drive economic growth, as previous Commonwealth games have shown. According to the organising committee of the New Delhi games, Manchester benefited to the tune of more than £2 billion in 2002, Melbourne by £1 billion in 2006 and Delhi itself by £2.5 billion. The United Kingdom exceeded its four-year Olympic legacy target, adding £11 billion to the economy through trade and investment in just over one year. The Glasgow games of 2014, which will draw in more than 6,500 athletes and officials in 17 sports, with a global audience of approximately 1.5 billion people, offer a great opportunity for the United Kingdom to provide leadership in enhancing Commonwealth prosperity.

To that end, UKTI is working with Scottish Enterprise, in partnership with the Commonwealth Business Council, on behalf of the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments together to deliver the Commonwealth games business conference on 22 and 23 July. That conference will explore opportunities to strengthen trade and investment between Commonwealth partners and seek new, innovative solutions to deliver sustainable economic growth.

After that conference, UKTI will also host the British Business House, to highlight the UK’s position as a centre of trade and investment. Businesses and key decision makers from the UK and across the Commonwealth will participate in a series of high level round-table and seminar sessions to explore new opportunities to increase trade and investment in the Commonwealth.

Those are just two examples of how the Commonwealth can harness the potential in its membership to increase prosperity. We should be increasing trade and investment with all our partners globally, including the Commonwealth and the EU. I welcome the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), especially in the knowledge of his long-standing, honourably held position on our EU membership, that it is not a matter of trading with either the EU or the Commonwealth but one of trading with both. Indeed, in the case of Cyprus and Malta, we have an overlap on our Venn diagram.

The free trade agreements that the EU has concluded, or is negotiating with Commonwealth countries, will enhance further the conditions for trade. We expect, for example, the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement to benefit the United Kingdom’s economy and businesses by more than £1.3 billion every year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

The question of the Crown dependencies, as my hon. Friend knows, is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I am sure that the Lord Chancellor will be delighted to learn of my hon. Friend’s interest in the matter and I will draw his comments to my right hon. Friend’s attention.

The Government want to ensure that the Commonwealth remains as relevant to us in the 21st century as it was 65 years ago, when the London declaration of 1949 marked the birth of the modern Commonwealth. In this, our values and our drive to seize on the Commonwealth as an economic and diplomatic force multiplier will be vital.

The hon. Member for Bristol East drew the House’s attention to climate change, a contemporary challenge facing Commonwealth countries. As she hinted in her speech, Commonwealth island nations, particularly the Maldives under the former president, played a leading role in some of the global negotiations. Their sense of urgency and their ability to point out directly the threat faced by the islands and their citizens helped make it possible to build a bridge between some contrasting positions held by developed and emerging economy countries. This Government are continuing to press for ambitious European Union offers to global negotiations.

At CHOGM last year, Commonwealth leaders collectively renewed their commitment to achieving an international climate deal in 2015 and to making real progress through the UN climate negotiations. There was also agreement on the need to build the capacity of Commonwealth states to respond to climate challenges. We welcome such commitments and look to work closely with all our Commonwealth partners this year to strengthen ambition and capacity through the UN climate negotiations and other forums, such as the Secretary-General of the United Nations’ summit on climate scheduled for September.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will it be possible to move forward with this action through the auspices of the Commonwealth if some countries, particularly Australia, but also Canada, are not on board?

[Mr Lidington]

A Commonwealth position, as I mentioned in a different context earlier, requires consensus, but the Commonwealth can provide a forum, unique among international organisations, in which developed countries, vigorous, fast-growing, emerging economies, poor, developing states, enormous countries, such as India, and tiny island nations can all sit down together to discuss common problems. Through its network of connections—not just at Government level, but at civil society level—the Commonwealth provides a means of facilitating dialogue aimed at reconciling different interests and positions on climate change. In so doing, I hope that it would be easier to get the sort of global agreement that the Government want.

Our taxpayers rightly expect to know why institutions exist and what they achieve. The EU is familiar with such scrutiny, and the Commonwealth needs to define its relevance in a world of competing international organisations that cover all areas of activity. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, who has responsibility for the Commonwealth, recently brought together high commissioners from right across the Commonwealth and why he will shortly host a further discussion at Wilton Park on the future of the Commonwealth. In the wake of the CHOGM in Colombo and in preparation for the CHOGM in Malta, the work will provide leadership in identifying how we can adapt the Commonwealth to reflect better all our needs and to strengthen it as an association that endures into the next century.

The UK is one of 53 equal members within the Commonwealth, and the other 52 members’ voices carry as much weight as ours, so it is incumbent on all members to ensure that it remains as powerful and as effective as it has always been.

The network of parliamentary relationships provided by the CPA will be an important element in trying to secure agreement on reforms and the evolution of the Commonwealth in a way that demonstrates to citizens in all member states the organisation’s continuing relevance.

The Commonwealth is a vast network of Governments and civil society. We should strive to harness its economic clout for the mutual prosperity of all members. At its best, when it is true to its charter, the Commonwealth can be an effective advocate for democracy and for human rights. It can stand up for what the Foreign Secretary described in a speech in July 2011 as the values that “ultimately make us secure”. That is the Commonwealth at its best. That is the vision that the CPA embodies and exists to support and enhance. I hope—and believe—that its work will continue to grow in importance, and I wish success to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden and Members from all parties in this House who serve in the CPA.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend has often done a very good job of presenting that case to Sri Lanka. We continue to make that case. As he knows, Sri Lanka has made progress on de-mining and resettlement, but that is not sufficient to address accountability and human rights concerns, or to ensure that there is stability and democracy in future in Sri Lanka. We continue to ask the Sri Lankans to mount their own domestic investigation and inquiry, but in the absence of that, it is important that we press for the international inquiry to which hon. Members have referred.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights concluded that Sri Lanka’s failure to address the allegations was fundamentally a question of political will. Was it not incredibly naive of the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to believe that President Rajapaksa had any intention of conducting his own inquiry? Given the time that has been wasted by setting a March deadline, what has the Prime Minister done to use the UK’s position on the Human Rights Council to push for an international investigation, which he should have pushed for many months ago?

[Mr Hague]

I think there was a lot of unity in the House on Sri Lanka, but the hon. Lady chooses to try to make it a party political issue. Having witnessed the bilateral meeting between the Prime Minister and President Rajapaksa, I assure her that there was nothing naive about it. The Prime Minister forcefully put the case for Sri Lanka to mount its own inquiry and forcefully made it clear that he would press for an international inquiry if it did not do so. That is what he is doing in his contacts with other Heads of Government around the world. I and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, are doing the same with other Foreign Ministers. I hope the Opposition will concentrate on supporting that rather than trying to snipe about it.

Deep Sea Mining Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 5, line 32, insert—

‘In section 5 (Protection of the marine environment) leave out sections (1) and (2) and insert—

“(a) In determining whether to grant an exploration or exploitation licence the Secretary of State must not grant a licence unless and until it can be demonstrated that there are no indications for likely irreversible and or significant adverse effects as defined by the United Nations’ General Assembly / UN Food and Agricultural Organisation on the marine ecosystems and communities impacted by one or more of these operations. The absence of any such indications must be demonstrated through full and transparent prior environmental impact assessments and strategic impact assessments, which are required to be publicly evaluated and reviewed.

(b) In determining whether to grant an exploration or exploitation licence the Secretary of State must take into consideration the environmental definitions and designations of international bodies, including but not limited to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) scientific criteria for ‘Ecologically or Biologically Significant marine Areas (EBSAs)’, the CBD guidance for the design of representative networks of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), and the food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) criteria for the identification of ‘Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems’ (VMEs) and any other related treaties which may come into force.”.’.

The amendment seeks to improve the environmental requirements of the licences that come through the UK state system. I thank the World Wildlife Fund UK for its help in drafting the amendment, which it stresses is not “wildly ambitious”. It does not express environmental ideals that are impossible to achieve, but it is consistent with environmental definitions in existing international treaties.

The deep seas are poorly understood ecosystems and no one knows exactly what is down there. The findings of environmental assessments are not shared, so scientists and non-governmental organisations do not know whether there are things that are new, rare, endangered, or indeed that could be used for other extractive purposes—for example, the pharmaceutical industry might well be interested in what is on the sea bed.

I was concerned that on Second Reading some Government Back-Bench Members who did not see a need to improve environmental safeguards were working on a misguided assumption that, as one said, the environmental effect of mining is not permanent

“and the habitat will return to its normal state after the mining ceases in an area.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 610.]

As we discussed in Committee, however, without better measures in place to protect deep sea ecosystems, mining could cause irreversible damage or have serious adverse effects on marine communities, specifically hydrothermal vent communities, which were only discovered in 1977, and seamounts, which have taken 10,000 years to develop and have low resilience to change. As home to the largest reservoir of marine genetic resources, hydrothermal vent communities are of huge interest to science and pharmaceutical companies, some of which have patents on their products. Mining could destroy those resources before they are understood or even discovered.

The amendment would reverse the burden of proof in section 5 of the 1981 Act, in line with the precautionary principle that if there are indications of likely but uncertain significant adverse environmental impacts, an activity should not be authorised to proceed. The amendment would require environmental impact assessments to be carried out before exploration or exploitation takes place, and for the process to be transparent so that it can be publicly evaluated. That would also address the serious weakness in the system that if a contractor considers the environmental risk of mining to be too high prior to the environmental impact assessment, that concession could still be offered to another contractor.

Greater transparency in the system would also help to address weaknesses in monitoring the compliance of companies with environmental regulations and the terms of licences. It is difficult, as one can imagine, to make site visits in deep sea areas to ensure that work is carried out correctly, and the current process is not properly independent of contractor influence. NGOs will not know whether an activity authorised by licence is damaging, and it would be up to the contractor to stop and self-assess.

I was pleased that in Committee, the Minister—on that occasion the Minister for Europe—confirmed that the Government want a coherent system between the International Seabed Authority’s regime and other international treaties. The amendment also seeks to align the Bill better with environmental definitions and designations of international bodies, which the Bill currently does not consider. For example, the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s committee on fisheries defines vulnerable marine ecosystems in the high seas where bottom fishing cannot take place. Those include breeding grounds for orange roughy, which are often fished for around hydrothermal vents—the same areas that could be open to deep sea mining.

Although the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for North East Cornwall, has said—

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I just want to make the hon. Lady aware that my constituency is South East Cornwall.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am terribly sorry. South East Cornwall is written in my notes, so I do not know why I said North East Cornwall—territorial ambitions do not stop at the deep seas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It was made clear on Second Reading that companies wishing to exploit minerals on the sea bed had the opportunity of essentially shopping around the world and that they could apply for a licence wherever they wanted to. Is the hon. Lady concerned that if we have provisions in our legislation that are more onerous and demanding than those of other countries, we might be doing the sea bed a disservice, because those companies might obtain a licence elsewhere in order to avoid our legislation?

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Indeed, my understanding is that at the moment a company does not even need a licence to explore. Ideally, we would want everyone to go through the ISA regime, and a respectable and reputable company would want to do that and follow the correct procedures, but I understand that there is nothing stopping them doing that. It is an ideological debate that we could have at great length in relation to many different areas of policy. We could look at labour terms and conditions, for example, or health and safety rules. I do not think that we should be involved in a race to the bottom—actually, perhaps that is exactly what we are talking about. We want to ensure that the UK sets an example by requiring companies to act responsibly. Our natural resources are incredibly precious, and I think that we should be taking the lead in trying to ensure that we protect the environment.

The timing of the Bill is slightly strange, as was the timing of the 1981 Act. The Act was introduced a year before the United Nations convention on the law of the sea was finalised, although it then took about eight years to come into effect. The ISA will look at its regulations, which will obviously apply on a wider basis, next year, so in some ways the Bill pre-empts that. Perhaps there could have been better co-ordination. It is also slightly strange that we have been talking about updating the 1981 Act since 1982, so it has taken an awfully long time to reach this point. I think we need to drive the agenda forward. I accept that we do not want to disadvantage British companies, but we want to ensure that there is a reputable and reasonable regime in place.

The Government have said that

“the environmental protections in section 5 of the 1981 legislation have proved entirely sufficient, as have the inspections”,

but only two licences have been issued so far, both for exploration. Exploitation of resources is an entirely different matter, and the very purpose of the Bill is forward thinking, to cover licences for exploitation that is at least five years away. In the case of oil and gas, which it will also open the doors to, it is still further away in the future.

If the amendment is made, I do not think that it would make the regime overly burdensome. As I have said, the proposal is moderate and consistent with other international designations. However, it would boost one of the Government’s reasons for introducing the Bill, which is to help to increase the UK’s influence in current negotiations and in determining standards, as I said to the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). I appreciate that the ISA regulatory framework is of greater importance because it applies to all deep sea mining, not just those activities that get sponsorship from the UK. In which case, let us apply the environmental standards that we would like to see agreed in the negotiations, rather than keep the 1981 version. They are workable standards that we hope will be applied at ISA level to enable sea bed mining to go ahead without causing irreparable damage. As I mentioned, I did not get a direct response from the Minister in Committee on the level of environmental safeguards that the Government are seeking to get common agreement on during the ISA negotiations, although I was pleased that he made it clear that the international framework can and should be improved, as can section 5.

[Sheryll Murray]

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who, along with her colleagues the hon. Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), tabled the amendment. I know that they all feel strongly about the need to protect the environment.

Coming, as I do, from what I consider to be the beautiful county in Cornwall, I of course sympathise strongly with those hon. Members. [Interruption.] The Minister indicates that I might come from the second most beautiful county, so perhaps I should have referred to the wider south-west. Furthermore, I come from a fishing background, so I know well the impact that pollution can have on fishermen and their livelihoods. I also know that in some of the areas that the Bill relates to it would be very difficult to fish for species such as orange roughy, as the hon. Member for Bristol East indicated.

Since I have been in charge of the Bill, I have learned a lot about deep sea mining. In particular, I have become very conscious of the importance of environmental conditions, which will have to be taken into account once deep sea mining becomes a reality. Of course, we are looking only at exploration. I understand that the UK has issued one licence for exploration, and another one is going through, but exploitation, as the hon. Lady mentioned, is a long way off. I know that the Government are very aware of environmental issues and am sure that they will keep to their commitment to ensure the application of the highest environmental standards. I can assure Members on both sides of the Chamber that I, too, will be very astute to ensure that happens.

Section 5 of the 1981 Act will not be amended by the Bill, except for technical changes to include references to Scottish Ministers. I believe that that is a real benefit to Scotland and the United Kingdom. Section 5 already includes provisions to ensure that protection of the marine environment is taken into account, and indeed is at the forefront of the Secretary of State’s mind, when licences are issued. While I sympathise with the hon. Lady’s concerns, I do not think the amendment is necessary. I understand also that the Minister will raise some technical objections to it and that the Government will not support it. In those circumstances, I hope that she will not press the amendment, so that the Bill can make progress.

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

I was interested to hear some of the suggestions made this morning, as I have attended some, although not all, of the consideration of the Bill as it has made progress. The Government completely understand the sentiments that have led the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) to table the amendment —the hon. Gentleman is not in his place today, but he has been an assiduous attendee previously. The Government are committed to ensuring that the highest environmental standards are followed when exploration and exploitation of the deep sea bed take place. As the hon. Lady said, we are often—pardon the pun—in uncharted waters: this is new and exploratory, so environmental considerations need to be at the forefront of our proposals.

As hon. Members will know, the Government were approached 18 months ago by a major commercial company, Lockheed Martin, to sponsor its application to explore for minerals on the deep sea bed. When we received that approach, we took great pains to ensure that the environmental standards were the best that could be devised. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was closely involved, as were two eminent scientists from outside the Government. When the application reached the council of the International Seabed Authority, the environmental aspects were generally praised by delegations. At the meeting of the council last year, when the first discussion of the possible shape of future regulations took place, the Government made it clear that they would expect those regulations to incorporate environmental provisions of the highest standards.

The British Government have already spoken and acted in a manner that will ensure that the highest environmental standards are adhered to, and I know that the need to protect the natural environment has universal support across the House. However, the Government cannot support the amendment, and I shall try to explain why.

Section 5 of the 1981 Act, to which the hon. Member for Bristol East and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) referred, already includes clear provisions on the need to protect the marine environment. I know that on Second Reading the hon. Member for Brent North suggested that section 5 might not be sufficiently up to date, but we do not believe that to be the case. Section 5 is worded in a general manner and can accommodate changes to environmental perspectives.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North and I have been making is that post 1981 it has been clearly established that the precautionary principle, agreed at Rio, should apply, and it is missing here. It is the reversal of the burden of proof that will be missing if we stick to the 1981 Act. It is important to reflect in the Bill the extent to which the precautionary principle has been accepted.

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Lady is right, but we also want companies to come here, and therefore we want to ensure that our environmental protections are the best and are in place. We are convinced they are and that section 5 of the 1981 Act is worded in a general manner that can accommodate changes to environmental perspectives. We do not believe that the amendment would add anything to the legislation.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Brent North referred to the precautionary approach in principle 15 of the Rio declaration. But the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea made it clear in its 2011 advisory opinion that sponsoring states should comply with the terms of principle 15, as well as best environmental practices. In exercising his functions to issue licences under the Act, the Secretary of State would have to comply with those provisions.

In addition, by replacing the whole of the current section 5, the amendment would lose two key elements. The requirement at the end of subsection (1) for the Secretary of State to consider any representations would be lost, as would the power in subsection (2) for the Secretary of State to include in licences provisions about protection of the marine environment. On those two technical grounds alone, the amendment cannot be supported.

More substantively, the amendment would require a full environmental impact assessment, even before exploration is carried out. However, as the hon. Member for Bristol East conceded, exploration of the deep sea bed involves minimal disturbance of the marine environment and no commercial company would be expected to undertake a full environmental assessment in those circumstances. The Bill should not be about preventing responsible companies from undertaking responsible exploration. On the contrary, the Government believe that we should actively encourage exploration of the deep sea bed. That is because the scientific information obtained through exploration will be an essential element in considering the environmental aspects of mining when it does take place. As the hon. Lady acknowledged in Committee, mining on the deep sea bed will eventually take place.

The amendment refers to a number of other international instruments. The Government are entirely conscious of the current developments in international environmental law, and have for example been at the forefront of international action on climate change—as is well recognised. It is clear therefore that international developments will be, and will have to be, taken into account when decisions on whether to issue licences are eventually made. But we should not limit ourselves in this way. There may be national developments, or developments in the European Union, that should also be taken into account. The current text of section 5 of the 1981 Act already allows for this and indeed, in this respect, is wider in its ambit than the amendment. For that reason, the Government do not support the amendment.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I remind the Minister that the amendment says

“including but not limited to”.

We were conscious when drafting the amendment that we did not want to limit it to just those treaties cited, so that other laws and treaties agreed over time would be included.

[Mr Swire]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying that point.

Of course the Government will continue to expect that the International Seabed Authority, in its decision-making process, should work towards meeting agreed international standards with respect to protection of the environment, and should utilise the latest information about the importance of marine areas. The Government recognise that the work being carried out under the convention on biological diversity to identify ecologically and biologically significant areas, along with the identification of vulnerable marine ecosystems, provide authoritative information that needs to be taken into account within the processes of the International Seabed Authority. Furthermore, let me assure hon. Members that the secretariat of the ISA is highly expert and, in particular, well aware of international developments in the environmental field. I think, therefore, that the House can have confidence that these developments will not be overlooked.

In conclusion, the Government sympathise with the reasons that have led the hon. Members for Bristol East and for Brent North to table the amendment. We have had an interesting debate, but as I have said, the Government cannot support it and are satisfied that section 5 of the 1981 Act is sufficient. In the light of this, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for his response, although he has not entirely set my mind at rest. I would have liked the Bill to build on the environmental protections set out in the 1981 Act, given that we have moved on considerably since then, and I would have liked the precautionary principle firmly established in the Bill, because that is where we are at now with environmental protection internationally, but I do not intend to press the amendment. With respect to the Minister, however, he is the third Minister to deal with the Bill—there was one Minister on Second Reading, one in Committee and now another on Report and Third Reading—and there will be yet another Minister in the Lords. Furthermore, I am the second Labour spokesperson to deal with it. I hope in the Lords, therefore, there will be an opportunity for detailed scrutiny to ensure that we tie things together and take the Bill forward properly.

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Lady ought to be a little more positive. The result will be a widespread understanding of the Bill virtually across the whole of Government.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Certainly, we have moved on from the stage when probably not a single Member knew what was meant when we referred to hydrothermal vents, polymetallic nodules, a cobalt-rich crust or any of the other things we have been discussing, so we have been significantly enlightened. Nevertheless, I hope that the Lords will further scrutinise the environmental provisions and perhaps pull some of this together and table some amendments. As I have said, however, I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

[Sheryll Murray]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is a good Bill and an important one for the UK economy. It is also timely. As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, in 2012 the UK sponsored its first licence application to the ISA for a UK company to explore the deep sea for polymetallic nodules in the Pacific ocean. No one has learned more than I have about not only polymetallic nodules and cobalt-rich crusts but polymetallic vents and how some of them are dead, while others are smoking and look like they have their own ecosystems—those are the ones we all want to protect.

The UK Government sponsored the last licence issued under the 1981 Act, but that Act is restricted to exploration for polymetallic nodules; it does not allow exploration for other things, which is why it is essential that it be updated. As the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned, the Act predates the UN convention on the law of the sea and the subsequent implementing agreement on part 11 of the convention on deep-sea mining. In some small, niche areas, it is not entirely consistent with the convention, such as on the enforcement of decisions on sea bed disputes in the chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, established under the convention.

It is important for the UK that we put our legislation in good order, not least because we are strong proponents of the convention. It is also important economically. As many UK companies have expertise in the area, it could provide many benefits to the UK economy. I was delighted, therefore, that in Committee we extended the Bill to cover Scotland, which also has a lot of expertise gained through our exploration and exploitation of North sea oil. It will also benefit my own part of the country in the south-west and south of England. Plymouth university and Southampton university have departments looking into and gaining a lot of expertise in this area, which is unknown to many of us.

Sea bed mining has enormous potential. Scientists know that lying on the sea bed, at great depths, are valuable new sources of nickel, copper, cobalt, manganese and rare earth elements. These metals are being mined to extinction on land, so we need to find new sources. Metals such as nickel, used in superalloys, cobalt and manganese, used in energy storage technology, which will obviously benefit everybody, and rare earth elements, which are strategically important, are used in low- carbon technology, lasers, sub-conductors and many telecommunication applications. There are large quantities of these metals, and it is right that the UK benefit from its share of this groundbreaking new technology, which I hope will benefit UK companies considerably.

On 11 March last year, the Prime Minister attended an event at the ExCeL centre celebrating the granting of an exploration contract by the ISA to the UK. He spoke of the benefits to the UK and of the supply chain jobs likely to be created across the UK. As I mentioned, he said that jobs could be created not just in Plymouth and Southampton but in Portsmouth, Bristol, Liverpool, Newcastle and Aberdeen, in sectors such as engineering and the manufacture of high-tech remotely operated underwater vehicles and ship stabilisation systems. He also said that that was estimated to be worth up to £40 billion to our economy over the next 30 years. At this point, I should correct some information that I gave in Committee: I said that it would be worth £30 billion by 2030.

The Prime Minister welcomed the identification of more than 80 United Kingdom companies with relevant expertise with which the UK contractor might be able to work. He also welcomed the industry workshop event that had been arranged to follow the ceremony of the granting of the contract.

I thank the Government and individual Ministers for supporting my Bill, and I thank experts in the Department who have taught me an awful lot about deep-sea mining—about a world that lies at an even greater depth than that in which my late husband used to tow his fishing nets. I also thank the staff of the Public Bill Office for assisting me again. This is the second time I have spoken on Third Reading of a private Member’s Bill: I did so last year as well.

I can assure Members that deep-sea mining is not fracking, and does not involve any of the techniques that are associated with land-based mining. Specifically, deep-sea mining for polymetallic nodules involves no excavation of rock. It involves no use of explosives, and the nodules lie on the sea bed very much like the fish that my husband used to harvest in his nets. The techniques that are used to mine the nodules are likely to involve scooping or vacuuming them up. I do not pretend that the process will be environmentally neutral, but it is potentially less environmentally damaging than land-based mining for the same minerals.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying about the mining of polymetallic nodules—she may well be about to deal with this point, which I believe she covered on Second Reading—but are not the additional forms of exploration and exploitation allowed by the Bill potentially more environmentally damaging, given that they would involve a great deal more than just scooping nodules off the sea bed?

[Sheryll Murray]

The hon. Lady is obviously psychic. I was indeed about to deal with that point.

Mining for polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts is a different matter, because it would involve the excavation of rocks. Mining for those minerals is even further off than mining for polymetallic nodules, and in that context the principles that might apply to nodules would have to be considered again. I am determined, and I know that the Government are determined, to ensure that the highest environmental standards will be applied to any exploitation of the minerals to which the hon. Lady has referred, and she has implied that she shares that determination. I can inform her that international regulations governing the exploration of those minerals have been agreed and were in place in advance of the issuing of any exploration contracts, and that various regulations have continued to be reviewed and updated in the light of new developments and considerations.

I think that I speak for both this Government and previous Governments in saying that the United Kingdom prides itself on taking a close interest in these matters. We have observed that interest since the passing of the 1981 Act. The Bill updates and modernises our existing legislation following the ratification of various treaties. The United Kingdom was one of the first states to sponsor a commercial company to undertake exploration, and I trust that we shall be able to demonstrate the highest regard for international law by passing my Bill.

This is a good Bill, and it is important for the United Kingdom’s economy. It is all the better now following the passing of amendments to extend its provisions to Scotland. We engaged in some interesting and thought-provoking discussions on Second Reading and in Committee, which were all the better for the points raised by the hon. Member for Bristol East. There is clearly a common understanding of the fact that the exploitation of minerals in the deep sea is beyond any state’s jurisdiction, and will inevitably take place in the future. It is, therefore, important for the United Kingdom to be at the heart of it, and to assist the development of international regulations on deep-sea mining. I am glad that the Bill appears to have general cross-party support, and I hope that that support will continue in the other place.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with some of the technical aspects of the Bill when he sums up the debate.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do not intend to speak for long. Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). It is always challenging to take a private Member’s Bill through all its parliamentary stages, not least when the Bill contains as much technical detail and covers as many new areas as this one. However, I understood from the hon. Lady that this was her second experience of the process. She is a great deal luckier than I have been, because in my nine years as a Member of Parliament, I have never been successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills.

We on the Labour Front Bench do not oppose the Bill, because we accept that deep sea mining is inevitable. We could not prevent or even delay it even if we wanted to. We agree with the Government and the hon. Lady that it is important for the United Kingdom to be at the forefront of the benefits to be had from the industry. However, we want to be at the forefront not just because of the business opportunities afforded to the UK, but in order to be able to determine standards for ourselves rather than leaving it to others who may not consider environmental protection as important as we do.

I understand that the Government conceded privately that the Bill was not needed quite yet, and perhaps was not quite ready. A number of amendments in Committee extended its provisions to Scotland because discussions had not yet taken place. We accept that this Bill is a work in progress, but we think that it is, perhaps, a little bit rushed. It could perhaps have been dealt with as a Government Bill. We know the Government have supported it from the outset and, given that we have very little legislation going through Parliament at the moment, we had an ideal opportunity to discuss this as a Front-Bench Bill on the Floor of the House with several days of debate.

[Sheryll Murray]

May I clarify a point the hon. Lady has made? This Bill was going to be presented with or without Scotland measures. The amendments to include Scotland were introduced because that would be of great benefit. It is my Bill and I am leading it through, and it would have been presented without Scotland measures if necessary.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My point was not specifically about the Scottish amendment. I was just using that as one example to make my point. The discussions with Scotland took place, or were finalised, after the Bill had been introduced. My understanding was that the Government had conceded that, and, because the ISA regulations are being debated next year and because of other developments, the Bill might be slightly premature and a little bit rushed. It might have been given more consideration. We are where we are now, however, in terms of the parliamentary process. I hope the other place has the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in detail and perhaps make further amendments that would improve it.

I want to make one further point, which arose from the Committee discussions. It remained unclear how the finances of this will work and whether the UK would in fact get a share of the profits. We have been told that this is very much about wanting the UK to benefit from being in the vanguard of the exploration. As has been mentioned, the Prime Minister has claimed that sea bed mining could be worth a staggering £40 billion to the UK economy over the next 30 years, although I have not seen any detailed analysis to support that estimate.

I appreciate that it is slightly jumping ahead of even where the ISA is currently at, because it has not drafted its regulations yet, but the issue of operator profits is critical to this debate. I understand that the UK would benefit from corporation tax from those UK companies or foreign companies, such as Lockheed Martin, with UK subsidiaries which get sponsored by the UK, although once their profits have been understandably offset by their exploratory costs and the costs of environmental assessments, this amount could be quite limited. Certainly in the case of UK subsidiaries, profits may go to the parent company, but unlike the tax regime on North sea oil revenues, the British Exchequer will not be plugged into the profits, as the riches of the sea bed do not belong to the UK; they belong to what is described as the “common heritage of mankind” and those resources do not belong to any one state, and no one state would have the right to claim ownership.

Returning to my point about this Bill being slightly premature, I understand that there are discussions about a possible sovereign wealth fund, created from a fee that could be charged on output. That could be used for the benefit of developing countries, but again discussions on this are at an early stage and we do not yet know much about it. Again, I would have liked to have had more clarity on this. More than 30 years have passed since we last considered legislation on this topic with the 1981 Act. Given that it has taken us so long to get to the point where we are revisiting the matter, I would have liked to have had more clarity on that issue and on the environmental issues. We are where we are, however, and I hope when the Bill gets to the Lords there can be more clarity. We will support the Bill at this stage, however, because we think that if deep sea mining is to go ahead, there ought to be some sort of licensing system in place.

Human Rights

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Committee and the Foreign Office on their reports. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn): this is my third time responding to this debate and every year we make the same point, which is that we really cannot do justice to the depth and scope of the report in 90 minutes. I hope that whatever mechanisms are available are put in place to ensure that there is a full debate on the Floor of the House, perhaps when the next report is published later this year.

I will not, because of the short time available, dwell on points made powerfully by hon. Friends and other hon. Members: the valid point about why Bahrain is listed as a country of concern; the praise for the preventing sexual violence initiative; concerns about women in Afghanistan; concerns about the arms export regime; and points made about restrictions on freedom of expression, which is a growing trend, with increased use of the internet and surveillance in that regard. Another valid point was the support for the principle of the universality of human rights, which we see echoed time and again in our debates on this issue and which is important for us to defend.

Given my limited time, I will focus on the countries singled out by the Committee. First, the UK was right to object in 2009 to Sri Lanka’s hosting CHOGM in 2011. As Baroness Warsi noted in her evidence, we also raised concerns then about the prospect of 2013. That was regarded as something that ought to be kept under review, if there was no improvement in the human rights situation.

It is disappointing that a more robust position was not taken in 2011. It is well known that the Opposition disagreed with the Government’s decision to send the highest possible delegation to CHOGM and we still do not understand why the Government felt it necessary to confirm who would attend six months before the event. That removed a powerful lever that they could have used on Sri Lanka in the intervening period, to get it to try to improve its human rights situation.

The FCO states that the Government

“used the run-up to the Summit to urge Sri Lanka to make progress on human rights concerns”,

about implementing the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and to allow unrestricted media and NGO access. Of course, the latter did not materialise, as the likes of Channel 4 news attest to.

It is interesting that the list of subjects raised before the summit does not include an independent and credible investigation into alleged violations of international law. The Prime Minister’s call at CHOGM for an investigation was too little, too late. Reports from Sri Lanka indicate that the President is no more inclined to meet the request for an inquiry than he was before CHOGM.

I urge the Foreign Office to start talks with its international counterparts now. Doing nothing until the March deadline will leave it too late to agree terms of reference for or the composition of an international inquiry at the Human Rights Council in March, thereby leaving the Sri Lankan people waiting still longer for justice and reconciliation. As the Foreign Office’s update this month disappointingly confirms, there has been no improvement in human rights since CHOGM and little commitment to addressing sexual violence. Sri Lanka has still not signed up to the preventing sexual violence initiative, although the Foreign Secretary has said that he is still hopeful that it will.

Given the concern about ongoing violations, I would appreciate an update on the safety of the human rights defenders whom the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met during their visits. I echo the point about the deportation of Sri Lankan nationals. In light of the severity of the torture allegations, it is disturbing that that issue was taken out of the FCO’s latest human rights report and that Baroness Warsi

“declined to give a direct answer”

to the Committee. I hope the Minister agrees that the Foreign Office cannot be silent on such allegations and that he will commit to working with the Home Office and organisations such as Freedom from Torture and to upholding article 3 of the UN convention against torture.

I welcome the Committee’s reminder that, although Burma has come a long way, there is still a long way to go. It is important that the lifting of EU sanctions should be used as leverage to press for more concerted action on human rights. The opportunity that provides for economic development and greater inward investment in Burma could in turn promote further democratic reforms. We welcome the EU’s continued involvement and the confirmation of an EU-Burma human rights dialogue.

We also welcome the decision of the President of Burma to release political prisoners but, as the Committee’s report highlights, there are worrying restrictions on the definition of “political prisoner” and troubling conditions were imposed on the release of prisoners in the past. We urge the Government to renew their efforts to secure the unconditional release of all those unjustly detained and to press for the necessary legal and judicial reforms to end arbitrary or politically motivated detention.

The ongoing tensions in Rakhine state, the discrimination suffered by the Rohingya and the conflict in Kachin state must remain on the international agenda, as is recognised in the latest country of concern update. The Rakhine investigation commission was not sufficient, the irregularities in Burma’s 1982 citizenship law are unresolved and the prejudice against the Rohingya community remains.

Finally, it is important that the UK should continue to press Burma on the role and powers of the military, particularly in light of the British Army’s involvement with the Burmese army. Constitutional reforms are also paramount to removing the obstacles to free, fair and inclusive elections next year, including the barrier to Aung San Suu Kyi’s standing for President.

Next, the Committee was right to focus on Russia. The “foreign agents” law was among the most disturbing indications of Russia’s attempts to stifle civil society and dissent and to shield the Government from scrutiny, along with other restrictions on the freedoms of assembly and expression, including a new blasphemy law and increased internet regulation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said. It is disappointing that Baroness Warsi did not fully engage with the Committee’s discussions on using the Schengen negotiations as leverage and that her letter to the Chair told the Committee “remarkably little”. I hope Ministers are considering all tools at their disposal.

On LGBT rights, there is little surprise that Russia was ranked the worst of 48 countries in ILGA-Europe’s index of legal and human rights for gay people. Conversely, the UK was ranked first, of which we should be proud—that also gives us a special status in pressing for gay rights on the international front.

The spotlight provided by the winter Olympics no doubt contributed to President Putin’s amnesty and the release of the Arctic 30, Nadya and Masha from Pussy Riot and Mikhail Khodorkovsky among others. It is important that that pressure and trend should be maintained after the spotlight of Sochi has dimmed. As Mr Khodorkovsky highlighted on his release, many more political prisoners remain in detention. We must also consider Human Rights Watch’s warning that Sochi means that Russian authorities have intensified the harassment and intimidation of campaigners; other Governments and the International Olympic Committee should take note. Given that Russia is due to host the 2018 football World cup, FIFA should also be taking a close interest.

Human rights dialogue with Russia provides a welcome opportunity to focus on the UK’s serious concerns but, as the Committee and Baroness Warsi noted, such dialogue does not necessarily achieve a great deal. I hope the FCO will give particular consideration to Human Rights Watch’s recommendation for a more collaborative and united approach from the EU. Russia’s membership of the Council of Europe provides another forum for the UK to raise our objections, especially given that Conservative and United Russia MPs are members of the same group, as does Russia’s return to membership of the Human Rights Council.

The broader issue of LGBT rights was not explicitly addressed in the FAC report. I have mentioned Russia, but we have to look further afield and particularly to the Commonwealth, three quarters of which still criminalises homosexuality. Concerns remain about the situations in Uganda and Cameroon, for example, and about the recent repressive legislation passed by Nigeria. We must be unequivocal that such criminalisation breaches the core values set out in the Commonwealth charter.

I join the Committee in welcoming the long-awaited publication of the Government’s business and human rights strategy. It remains a concern, however, that Ministers, when considering opportunities to promote British companies and investment abroad, are willing to overlook human rights. The Chancellor and the Mayor of London certainly gave the impression that they were reluctant to raise China’s human rights record when they visited last year. The Treasury declined to answer my question on whether the Chancellor had discussed human rights in China and the action plan on business and human rights with the Foreign Office before or after he went. Indeed, the answer to that question was delegated to a junior Treasury Minister who did not even go on the trip. I tabled named day questions to the Prime Minister in advance of his visit to China, but the answer I received several weeks later was, frankly, worthless. It did not tell me anything.

We value a strong bilateral relationship with China, but that cannot be confined just to trade and financial matters. We need political engagement across the spectrum, and it is disappointing that some Ministers seem to view discussions on human rights as a box-ticking exercise so that they can give parliamentary answers to shadow Ministers saying “nothing was off limits” without revealing any more information.

I press the Minister to ensure that implementing the business and human rights action plan is a priority for his colleagues, who need to be fully briefed, for instance, on the reason for the FCO’s designation of a particular state as a country of concern. I am not talking about just Foreign Office Ministers and Treasury Ministers but Ministers across the piste.

Companies doing business abroad should be fully briefed, too. I understand that 130 representatives went to China with the Prime Minister; it would have been a good idea to sit down with them before the trip to discuss the business and human rights action plan so that they had some understanding of the context.

The Committee warns:

“The FCO should not simply allow UK commercial interests to proceed without restraint”.

Indeed, following concerns raised in last year’s debate, the Committees on Arms Export Controls reported on the overlap between arms export licences and countries of concern, as was flagged up by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). I hope the Minister will update us on how the FCO is working on that with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and UK Trade & Investment.

Finally, I welcome the UK’s return to the Human Rights Council, which provides another avenue for the Government to pursue the concerns we have discussed this afternoon. I hope that next year’s debate will allow us to focus on more successful examples of how the UK has exercised influence in the international sphere.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I absolutely commend that. The United Kingdom will continue to make our views very clear about this issue, in Russia too, with Russian leaders, and worldwide. I hope there will be better reflection in Russia over time on this issue.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s words and the confirmation that the Government will continue to raise this at the highest level, but what will such conversations achieve? It is clear that despite the expressions of international concern, not just Russia but several Commonwealth countries too, are moving in the wrong direction on LGBT rights. Now that Russia and the UK are both back on the Human Rights Council, does he perhaps see that as a way of making sure that it is not just about words, but about action too?

[Mr Hague]

We must all hope so. We cannot control the decisions in other countries but we can make the arguments and make our point very clear, as I did in a speech at the Perth Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2011. We have raised these issues with the Nigerian Government and we fund actual projects as well. It is not just words from the United Kingdom. We have provided funding in Russia for the Side by Side film festival, we have funded a project to increase the capacity of LGBT civil society organisations in Russia, and FCO officials in Russia meet LGBT activists regularly. We do give meaningful support, as well as the words of all of us in this House.

Bangladesh

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate all Members who have taken part in the debate on their well-informed contributions, many of which result from personal visits to Bangladesh. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk)—he has made his apologies for having to leave the debate early—for stepping in at short notice to secure the debate, which is timely, given that the elections took place on 5 January.

I also want to say briefly that I am sure that we are all mindful of the reason why the debate on child neglect that had been scheduled for today was cancelled. My thoughts are with the family, friends and many colleagues of Paul Goggins who are paying their final respects to him today.

As several hon. Members have said, Bangladesh has long been a valued partner of the UK. Obviously it is a young country, but our historical links with the region and its people go back long before its formation. We also have a sizeable diaspora community in the UK. Indeed, Bristol has the pleasure of having not only its first Muslim lord mayor, but its first lord mayor of Bangladeshi origin, Councillor Faruk Choudhury, who has made a real impact as a role model for younger people in the community.

As I said, the elections were held on 5 January. We have heard already about the widespread concern that has been expressed by the international community and the condemnation of shocking acts of violence and intimidation. I want to focus my remarks mostly on the elections, given that they are so recent. As we have heard, more than half the 300 seats were uncontested. Some candidates from other parties, I understand, tried to withdraw their names from the ballot paper. Some from smaller parties were elected, but more than 100 candidates from the ruling Awami League were elected unopposed, and 48 million registered voters out of 92 million could not vote. Indeed, it is reported that people could vote in just two of the 20 constituencies in Dhaka, so it is no surprise that the turnout was disappointingly low. The Government’s official turnout figure was 39% to 40%, but that has been queried, given that there was no turnout at all in many parts of the country because the seats were uncontested.

Furthermore, election day and the weeks preceding it saw deplorable acts of violence. There were arson attacks on polling stations, including more than 120 schools. There were reports that an election officer was beaten to death on polling day, and that 440 polling stations closed early owing to security concerns. Human Rights Watch reported that 120 people lost their lives in pre-election violence, and at least 18 people died on election day. Media reports have said that many were shot by police.

The reasons for the violence and the failure of the elections to proceed as we would have hoped are varied and complex. The Bangladesh Nationalist party, along with several of the smaller parties, decided to boycott the election in protest against the Government’s decision not to allow a neutral caretaker Government to take charge in the run-up to the elections. As we heard from the hon. Member for St Albans and others, such a practice had been in place since the 1996 elections. Meanwhile, there was a court order preventing the Jamaat-e-Islami party from participating. There were also reports that some candidates tried to withdraw, but were prevented from doing so, and that party representatives were arrested or forced to leave Bangladesh. After the BNP’s leader called for a march for democracy in late December, hundreds of opposition supporters were arrested, and demonstrators were prevented from reaching Dhaka. There were reports of arbitrary arrests and the indiscriminate use of force. Ms Zia was, in effect, placed under house arrest, with security forces preventing her from leaving her home. Those are all deeply troubling human rights violations.

We believe that the European Union, the United States, the Commonwealth and others were right not to send election observers, given concerns about the election arrangements, and the associated violence and intimidation. We support the remarks by the EU High Representative, Cathy Ashton, condemning the violence and highlighting the concern that some of the attacks targeted women and children, and religious and ethnic groups. Many of our international partners support her conclusion that conditions were not met for transparent, inclusive and credible elections.

It is hoped that the dialogue everyone—particularly the UK, the EU, the UN and the Commonwealth—is calling for will enable all people in Bangladesh to participate in transparent and credible elections in the future. We have heard calls today for fresh elections, with differing views about whether they should take place within the next few months, or whether more time is needed to put the appropriate mechanisms in place. I know that it is early days, but I would be keen to hear from the Minister what discussions the Government have had with the parties in Bangladesh and what role we could play in ensuring that elections that are satisfactory to the majority of the people in Bangladesh happen in the near future, no matter what the outcome.

The hon. Member for St Albans talked about the troubled history of elections in Bangladesh. She also discussed the persecution of religious minorities, which is a matter of great concern to hon. Members—it has been raised on a number of occasions, and it is important that it is flagged up. She talked about the all-party group’s visit to Bangladesh last September, which sounds very successful. Members of Parliament get criticised quite a lot for going on such overseas visits, but Members who took part in that visit feel that they are now informed about the situation so that they can take part in this debate. There is no substitute for being on the ground in a country and witnessing at first hand what is happening there.

The hon. Lady spoke about the garment industry, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The role of consumer power in flagging up these issues is something that we have not really mobilised. There are brilliant campaigns such as Labour Behind the Label, a Bristol-based organisation, and groups such as War on Want have campaigned on the matter in the past. We need to do more to flag up the ethics of our high street and what we are actually buying.

[Mrs Main]

I thank the hon. Lady for her favourable comments. The report by the all-party group, which we have handed to DFID—we hope for a response—explores many suggestions, such as kite marks. We would love to have a response from the Minister to some of them.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Given that the report has been submitted to DFID, it would not be my place to respond on its behalf, but my colleagues in the shadow DFID team, my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), are doing a lot of work on how we can make the high street more ethical. I am sure that we can work on that on a cross-party basis and with the support of those such as the all-party group.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) spoke from her unique perspective as the sole Member of the House of Bangladeshi origin—indeed, she was born in the country. She spoke eloquently about the frustration that is felt by members of the community over here. No matter which political party they may be aligned with or which party they may want to win the election, they all have a desire to see political stability and order restored in Bangladesh, not least because the current situation is putting at risk the economic investment that is lifting the country out of poverty. She made a powerful plea for people in power to put their political differences behind them in the country’s interests and said that the country’s politics is holding it back. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale echoed those sentiments, as did the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).

I thought at one point that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) was after a free meal in one of the curry houses in his constituency. I hope that he name-checked all of them and did not leave anyone out or he will be given a cold welcome next time he visits. He talked about the impact of aid and the contribution made by the diaspora, as did the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South, who speaks as someone with not just a significant Bangladeshi diaspora in his community, but in his role as a shadow DFID spokesman, talked about the Department. The last thing we want to do is to abandon a country just because the democratic process is not perfect, but we need to see how FCO and DFID funding, and the work taking place in the country, can be pulled together so that it is about supporting better political engagement and strengthening governance to ensure that aid money for poverty projects is well delivered, going into the right hands and benefiting the people. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) was entirely right to raise concerns about extra-judicial killings and the Rapid Action Battalion, about which I was talking to somebody only the other day.

Let me turn to the human rights situation. Last year, as a result of political violence, Bangladesh was added to the FCO’s human rights report as a case study. It is estimated that 500 Bangladeshis were killed in political violence in 2013, with injury caused to thousands of others, predominantly associated with the international crimes tribunal’s investigations into the 1971 war. I have seen harrowing reports. Human Rights Watch has documented evidence that the security forces were responsible for some of the deaths during the protests. It is imperative that those responsible are held to account. The incidents provided further evidence of the need to promote freedom of expression and association in Bangladesh. People in Bangladesh and some external observers have argued that the tribunal process is flawed, and there are troubling reports that at least one witness has been attacked and killed.

The verdicts have led to the death penalty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said, most of us are united across this House in condemning the use of capital punishment in all cases. I know that that is not a unanimous view, but I think I am right in saying that it is probably a majority view. Labour Members regard the death penalty as inhumane. As in the case of the execution of Abdul Quader Molla of the Jamaat-e-Islami party last month, it serves only to heighten tensions and spark further violence. The Government therefore have our full support in calling on Bangladesh to implement a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and to uphold the international covenant on civil and political rights. It is important, especially now that we are members of the Human Rights Council, that the abolition of the death penalty continues to be raised at the council and with our Commonwealth partners.

As has already been mentioned, the people of Bangladesh had our deepest sympathies following the Rana Plaza factory disaster last April, in which 1,100 people lost their lives and 2,500 were injured. We have discussed the protection of ILO standards within the garment industry and the hidden human costs associated with the ability to buy high street products in the UK at such a low price. I commend the TUC, among others, for its work with retailers to secure support for an accord to fund an independent and much-needed health and safety inspection body for Bangladeshi factories.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the role of the TUC. Will she also commend War on Want for its support for the garment workers and its practical support for helping union organisation in Bangladesh which, at the end of the day, is the best way to bring about health and safety in the workplace?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree entirely. I gave War on Want a little name check earlier, along with Labour Behind the Label, which also does excellent work. My hon. Friend has pointed out that China is now moving production to Bangladesh because it is even cheaper to produce garments there than in China. How do we tackle the issues involved? How do we raise terms and conditions, wages and living standards in countries such as Bangladesh in such a way that production is not displaced to another country that will undercut it even further? The only way that can be achieved is by implementing ILO standards universally so that there is not a race to the bottom and everything is about quality and maintaining good standards across the board.

The UK was a founder member of the ILO and, given the Government’s professed commitment to business and human rights—they published their action plan in September—it is important that the UK does more to work with the international community and British businesses to promote worker safety and employee rights with our partners overseas. Our immediate focus, however, must be on how we can secure peaceful and open elections in Bangladesh so that the people can express their political will in a democratic ballot. I am keen to hear the Minister’s assessment of the 5 January elections, of the role he sees the international community playing in trying to address some of the issues that arose from them—not just the violence, but the fact that many people in Bangladesh feel that democracy was not served—and of what we can do to ensure that democracy is better served in the future.

European Council

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s points. One thing that the habit of working together on security and defence matters through the EU does is enable us to bring in those countries that are members of the EU but are not, for historical and constitutional reasons, allies of ours in NATO. The very fact that Secretary-General Rasmussen not only spoke at the summit but warmly welcomed its conclusions as pointing the way towards a more effective European arm of defence that complemented and supported what NATO was doing should give us all confidence.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) for securing the opportunity to discuss this issue in the Chamber today and I share her regret that the Prime Minister broke with precedent by not appearing in person to answer her question.

Let me first touch briefly on the banking union. We welcome the progress that has been made, but what discussions were had during the summit to ensure that the European Central Bank’s risk assessments, which are due to be conducted later this year, will be sufficiently rigorous?

On migration, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that there will be further discussions on the

“need to find a better approach to tackle free movement abuse”

at an EU level. As we in the Opposition have said before, we need to reform the way free movement works so it is not seen as a part of a race to the bottom in the world of work. This means looking again at the transitional controls, including extending them over longer periods so that when new countries move into the European Union we learn the lessons from the past. With the recent lifting of transitional controls on Romania and Bulgaria, will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to address practical problems around those who exploit migrant workers to undercut local businesses and staff? EU reform will be achieved through building alliances for change among other EU member states rather than escalating rhetoric and alienating allies, so can the Minister set out who will be leading the negotiations on any proposed EU reform agenda on behalf of the Government?

The summit should have been a vital opportunity to build coalitions to secure the changes that must be made in Europe for Britain yet, once again, it seems the Prime Minister viewed it as merely providing the opportunity for securing headlines rather than securing change.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady is being unusually churlish. If she looks again at the Council’s conclusions, she will see that we not only managed to secure important and positive British interests that take the development of the common security and defence policy in the direction that the UK has long advocated, but—and she omitted to mention this in her question—we secured key safeguards on the operation of the banking union to ensure that the taxpayers of this country are not liable for the consequences of any solvency decision made by our eurozone colleagues. The Opposition might have had the grace to pay tribute to what the Prime Minister achieved; otherwise people might come to think that the Opposition are somehow dismissive of the interests of British taxpayers and of safeguarding them against such liabilities.

The hon. Lady asked directly about the safeguards that the Government were putting in place for people who might be exploited if they came here from other parts of the EU or elsewhere in the world. I can reassure her that the Government are doubling the fine for people who employ illegal workers and quadrupling the fine for paying people below the statutory minimum wage. Under the previous Labour Government, the fine for paying somebody below the minimum wage was £5,000 per employer. Under this Government, the fine will be £20,000 per employee, not per employer. When it comes to the protection of exploited workers, the Opposition’s record does not give them anything of which to be proud.