Persecution of Christians

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I know from past experience of speaking in Westminster Hall debates on human rights issues that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is passionate about the issue. He has made a number of speeches and interventions on the subject in previous debates and I congratulate him on persuading his party to table the motion today.

As we have heard, freedom of religion or belief is included under article 18 of the universal declaration on human rights, which states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

As we have heard from those who have spoken so far, in too many countries those freedoms, particularly the right to dissent from the majority religion and to change religion, are not respected.

I commend the all-party group on international religious freedom. I attended its meeting with Baroness Warsi a few weeks ago and I am sure that we will hear from some of the group’s members this afternoon. In particular, I congratulate the group on its report “Article 18: An Orphaned Right”. Although all human rights are interdependent and interrelated, it highlights the fact that religious freedom often remains on the margins. As we heard from the Minister, the abuse of someone's right to freedom of religion often acts as a gateway to other human rights abuses, such as those of the right to freedom of assembly or expression.

We have to consider religious freedom as an intrinsic part of human rights and indicative of the level of civil and political freedom in a country. According to the Pew research foundation, almost 75% of the global population live in countries with Government restrictions or where harassment related to religion is common. We have discussed the fact that Christians are the religious group most subject to persecution. In 2011, a report stated that the harassment of Christians was most prevalent in 105 countries, followed by the harassment of Muslims in 101 countries. We need to flag up the fact that persecution is not restricted to Christians, but we are here today to discuss the persecution of Christians.

Before moving on to the more commonly cited countries in the debate about religious freedom, I want to comment on the Central African Republic, which has been mentioned. According to the US ambassador to the United Nations, the Central African Republic has been described as

“the worst crisis most people have never heard of”.

There have been harrowing reports of violence, beheadings and villages being razed to the ground. France has warned that the country is on the verge of genocide, as violence between Muslims and Christians escalates. A third of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance, and I hope that the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development will do all they can to try to prevent that situation from escalating even further and to bring relief to people on the ground.

The plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt is more commonly known. As documented in Amnesty International’s report, “How long are we going to live in this injustice?”, there was an unprecedented wave of sectarian attacks on 14 August, when the security forces dispersed people in camps, and churches and Church-affiliated buildings as well as businesses owned by Coptic Christians were destroyed. The excellent report by Amnesty—I recommend it to people who have not read it—reported that 43 Orthodox churches were completely destroyed, and 207 churches were attacked. Not only were the symbols of Christianity attacked but Christians themselves, and four people were killed that day. That is part of a rise in sectarian tension in Egypt, following decades of discrimination suffered by Coptic Christians and impunity for the perpetrators. Egyptian law also means that it is difficult for Christians to rebuild their churches.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the Coptic Church, which is probably one of the oldest Churches in the world. Does she agree that when we talk about aid two of the issues that could be raised are human rights—there is a price to pay for aid—and religious freedom, regardless of whether someone is a Christian or belongs to any other denomination? The two have to work hand in hand to attain what we would call human rights.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point that has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions. For example, we might look at aid to countries such as Uganda, which has introduced a Bill that has been discussed for the past few years. It is a private Member’s Bill, but it has support from senior figures, and it would introduce the death penalty for homosexuality. People have asked me whether we should give aid to a country that is considering such a measure. Should we give aid to other countries where, for example, abortion is denied to rape victims? It is a tricky situation, because if we deny aid to countries where people are persecuted, we run the risk of penalising the most vulnerable people we are trying to help. We need to send a strong message not about the conditions that we impose on aid but about our expectations of human rights in the countries to which we give aid. I shall come to that when I discuss the Prime Minister’s visit to China.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has raised a difficult issue, but it did not stop the west imposing sanctions on Iran for other reasons. Should we not look more at whether conditions should be attached to aid where there are particularly horrendous or general abuses of individuals’ freedom of religion?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I would not want to separate it out and just talk about it in the context of freedom of religion. We should discuss it generally in the context of human rights abuses. We have taken steps in countries where we think that there is corruption—

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

May I just finish answering the question?

In several countries we would give aid directly to agencies working in the field, rather than putting it into the Government’s coffers, because of concerns about corruption and a lack of democracy. That might be a way forward when we have concerns about a country’s human rights record, particularly if there are recognised and well-established agencies, such as UN agencies, working in those countries that we can trust to deliver aid without discrimination and without supporting any measures that persecute people. As I have said, I think that we should look at a country’s record in the round. It comes down to whether we trust its Government to spend aid money in the way we expect them to.

[Robert Neill]

I do not think that we disagree with anything the hon. Lady has said, but why does she seem so reluctant to phrase her contribution in terms of religion and the particular persecution suffered by Christians? We are all in favour of human rights for everybody, but there is a particular and pressing concern about Christian communities around the world. Will she not be more specific in her response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) on ensuring that aid reflects discrimination against Christian and other religious bodies?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that we should start carving up human rights by saying that some abuses are worse than others. That would be entirely wrong, because there are countries in which people of other faiths are being persecuted and killed, and we see persecution when we look at violence against women and attacks on LGBT communities. I accept that the persecution of Christians is a growing problem and that it is horrific in many countries, but I just do not think that we should divide it up. I think that we should look at whether a country respects human rights.

This year saw the launch of the Commonwealth charter, which was trumpeted as the first time that all Commonwealth countries had signed up to a statement of shared values. I attended the Commonwealth parliamentary conference in Johannesburg this year. There was a lot of controversy, because it became apparent that not all the countries represented shared the same values, particularly when it came to LGBT rights.

I will return to the issue of religious freedom. The Maldives has signed up to the Commonwealth charter and so is deemed to share the Commonwealth values of respect for human rights, but its constitution states that a person is not allowed to be anything other than Muslim, as we have heard, and no Christian gatherings or buildings are allowed. Citizens have to be Muslim, and that is enforced by pressure from families, society and the state.

Bangladesh is another Commonwealth country. The Bangladesh Minority Council has lobbied and met me to highlight the treatment of Christians, Buddhists and, in particular, Hindus, who now comprise just 7% of the population. In Pakistan, as we have heard, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Ahmadis are at serious risk of violence and intimidation. Members will know the case of the Christian girl arrested last year for allegedly burning pages of the Koran, which brought to public attention the impact of the blasphemy laws in that country. We have also heard about another Commonwealth country, Nigeria, where horrific acts of violence against Christians are being carried out. We have to question what we can do within the Commonwealth. If we say that the Commonwealth is a club of shared values, what can we do when members of that club do not seem to be putting those principles into practice? It is really important to take that question forward.

The hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted the plight of Christians in Syria. Of course, that is not the only country from which Christians are being forced to flee. Open Doors has warned that Christians are on the verge of extinction in Iraq, where their population has fallen from 1.2 million in the early 1990s to just 333,000 today. In Iran, Christians have had to flee their homes or the country, Muslims who have renounced Islam face the death penalty and Christians are being sentenced to 80 lashes for drinking communion wine. The special rapporteur on human rights in Iran reported that more than 300 Christians have been arrested since 2010, including Saeed Abedini, who was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for this work with the house churches. Other faiths, not least the Baha’i, also face persecution in Iran.

On Burma, we know about the religious tensions in Rakhine state, where the Rohingya Muslims’ faith is a factor, as well as their ethnicity, but Christians in Burma have suffered persecution too. The Chin Christians have been targeted for their ethnicity and their faith. A report by the Chin Human Rights Organisation documented cases of forced labour, more than 40 separate incidents of torture, and 24 official complaints from Chin Christians of human rights violations, including rape and extra-judicial killing, where no action was taken against the perpetrators.

As we heard earlier, Open Doors ranked Saudi Arabia second on its world watch list, with only North Korea ahead of it. Conversion to a religion other than Islam is punishable by death, and Christian worshippers risk imprisonment, lashing, deportation and torture. It is important to note that last month saw the elections, mostly uncontested, to the Human Rights Council, of which Saudi Arabia and the Maldives, as well as China, are now members. I echo the comments I made about the Commonwealth club. If these countries are to be members of the Human Rights Council, they need to be demonstrating in their own countries that they are putting respect for human rights into practice.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I remember being on a visit to China with the hon. Lady a few years back, when I was intrigued to find out that there are over 60 million Christians there. To help take forward greater tolerance for human rights and freedom of religious worship, does she think it is important to have greater inter-faith dialogue engaging the Chinese authorities with Christian groups and other groups to help people to appreciate just how big the Christian community is in that country?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I, too, was astounded to hear that figure, because one would not have appreciated that the Christian community was so strong in China. He is entirely right that dialogue is one of the ways forward. It is very important in many other cases where part of the persecution arises from the fact that people do not feel able to speak out and proselytise and publicise their religion and feel it is something they have to keep under wraps.

Of course, the Prime Minister is in China at the moment. Before his trip, I tabled some parliamentary named-day questions, which unfortunately were not answered when they should have been, asking him what efforts he was going to make to raise human rights during his visit. I know that it is primarily a trade delegation, but he has gone to a country where Muslims, Buddhists and Christians, as well as Falun Gong practitioners, suffer torture, harassment and arbitrary detention, and the Tibetans and the Uighurs are prevented from exercising their freedom of religion too. It is important to use such a high-profile visit to raise those issues.

I was impressed by Baroness Warsi when she came along to the recent meeting of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief. She seems to be very committed to pursuing this issue. My concern is that she has been given the human rights brief and it is almost as though it has been put in a box so that she will be travelling around the world talking about human rights, which frees up not only the other Foreign Office Ministers but all the other Ministers who are going on trade delegations abroad—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but in all fairness, when the Minister got to 16 minutes I said to him that lots of people were waiting to speak.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am on my last page.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Good. One minute, thank you.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am concerned that it is almost as though one person has been delegated the job of talking about human rights and that means that everybody else is free to just go and talk about trade and does not feel that they ought to use the leverage that a trade mission gives them to raise human rights issues too. It is very important that the Prime Minister does that. I asked him about it when he recently went to Saudi Arabia and did not seem to raise human rights there either.

In conclusion, as you will no doubt be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important that Parliament works with faith groups in this country that have connections with groups abroad. Open Doors and, in particular, Christian Solidarity Worldwide have been very active in the past few years in encouraging Members to bring forward parliamentary debates. There is also a central role for the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, as we have discussed. The role of Government should be to push for greater compliance with the universal declaration on the human genome and human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights, to support the work of the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and to press countries with outstanding requests to agree to inspection visits, and indeed other special procedures mandate-holders covering other human rights. Given its membership of the human rights council, the UK has the opportunity to work with our international partners to strengthen protections for basic fundamental freedoms. Support for the freedom of belief must be part of that. No Government can be selective in the human rights they endorse, just as the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister cannot be selective in which countries they challenge on their human rights record.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

UK Relations with China

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing the debate, which is particularly timely given that the Chancellor and the Mayor of London have recently visited China and that the Prime Minister is due to visit at the beginning of December.

We have heard about China’s economic importance to the UK and about the fact that it is the world’s second largest economy. Some projections indicate that it will overtake the US economy in just three years’ time. To put that growth in context, it was suggested in 2004 that China might become the world’s largest economy in 2035, but it is now expected to be 2016. I visited the country with the all-party group on China two years ago. People have to go there to see for themselves the phenomenal scale of development in cities such as Shanghai, Chengdu and Beijing and really to appreciate the extent to which China has industrialised and modernised in recent years.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned that China’s overseas investment has expanded dramatically. He raised concerns about the perhaps somewhat cavalier attitude of some countries, particularly in Africa, to the Chinese presence, and he talked about how we can raise those issues through our relations with them. China’s overseas investment rose from $17 billion in 2005 to $130 billion last year, and it is on an upward trajectory.

Given China’s rising global standing, the importance of a strong bilateral relationship cannot be overstated. That is why the Labour Government published a UK-China strategy on a framework for engagement in 2009, covering China’s growth, including boosting our business, educational and scientific links; the need to foster China’s emergence as a responsible global player, including action on climate change; and promoting sustainable development, modernisation and internal reform in China. Human rights was very much part of that third element, and I will come to that later.

The Government are right to seek closer economic ties with China, but there needs to be a broader focus on co-operation across a range of areas. At the moment, it seems that the UK is being held back by a lack of strategic vision and an insular focus on commercial opportunities to the exclusion of other factors. As the shadow Foreign Secretary said recently, we need an Asian step change in the UK’s foreign policy to ensure dialogue is not limited only to commercial matters.

The Foreign Office should seek to engage better with China on a range of issues, including climate change, technology and international issues such as the middle east and Africa. We must recognise that our EU allies are also working to strengthen their ties with China. Germany’s exports to China far exceed the UK’s and so, to a lesser extent, do France’s.

Given that our countries share common goals, I hope the Minister will agree that greater collaboration could increase European engagement with China to the benefit of all our nations. Additionally, by working with our allies across the Atlantic, we can strengthen our position, working together to negotiate with China, including on trade rules, intellectual property and an agreement on binding global emissions reductions.

Although China has ratified the Kyoto protocol, it is not required to limit emissions, as a non-annexe 1 country. We cannot ignore the environmental implications of China’s sheer size and rapid economic development. It currently has the highest carbon dioxide emissions in the world—more than the USA and India combined. Although its cumulative footprint is obviously not as great as that of countries that developed much longer ago, evidence suggests that China’s greenhouse gas emissions are rising by 10% each year. To its credit, China has taken some positive action in recent years, with greater use of environmental regulations and advances in mitigation techniques as a result of the development of its technical expertise. There has been considerable investment, for example, in alternative energy, but despite that, the country is still heavily reliant on coal.

China is particularly vulnerable to the impact of climate change, with increasing temperatures and rising sea levels a threat to its long coast line. Glacier melt in Tibet is also a serious concern. Furthermore, the World Bank has estimated that China is home to 16 of the 20 most polluted cities. Interestingly, there have been dramatic increases in environmental protests in China, and surveys indicate considerable support for more robust environmental regulation.

Encouragingly, there are signs that the Chinese Government are responding. Chinese Ministers have confirmed to GLOBE International—I believe they are meeting at the moment—that they will introduce comprehensive legislation on climate change over the next two years. It is imperative that the UK and the wider international community engage with China to secure its involvement in global efforts on this front.

Recently, there have been discussions on energy, with the Energy Secretary announcing the Chinese investment in Hinkley Point following his recent visit to China. As the hon. Members for The Wrekin and for Cheltenham mentioned, the investment is welcome if it enables us to diversify our energy mix, but any agreement will require thorough scrutiny, given the 35-year guarantees offered to the companies involved.

The Chancellor has announced a relaxation of visa requirements for Chinese visitors, which is perhaps an indication that the Government now recognise some of the tensions and contradictions in their immigration policy. The issue was certainly raised when the all-party group visited China a couple of years ago. Businesses there told us that, although the UK was seen in the past as the premier destination for students wishing to study abroad, there was increasing competition from Australia and America. That was partly linked to the visa requirements and being able to stay on and work in the country for a few years afterwards.

Organisations such as the British Council and the university of Cambridge, and companies such as Tesco, which has a presence in China, made the point quite strongly. There is a strong educational link between our two countries. Chinese students are the largest foreign contingent in UK schools and universities, but the Government’s net migration targets are perceived as a threat to that situation. The news on visas is welcome if it will help with that.

Human rights have been covered in surprising detail during the debate, which I expected would be more about the economic side of things. I welcome the raising of human rights issues. As we heard, after the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister met the Dalai Lama last year, the bilateral relationship became rather strained, and it was reported that the Prime Minister’s visit to China was postponed as a result. He was not welcome in the country, and ministerial contact was reportedly cut off.

Following the thawing of relations it seemed that the Chancellor, on his recent visit, was keen to reassure China that the Prime Minister had no further plans to meet the Dalai Lama. Undoubtedly the trip took place in delicate circumstances, and reportedly there were tensions between the Treasury and the Foreign Office about how to reconcile China’s strategic importance, particularly on the economic front, with its human rights record. The answer—I hope that the Minister will agree—is that neither can be ignored, which is why human rights were central to Labour’s strategy for building a closer relationship with China.

[Mark Pritchard]

These debates are not party political, particularly on human rights matters. However, for the record and the sake of clarity, will the hon. Lady tell me whether the Leader of the Opposition has met the Dalai Lama, and, if so, whether he intends to again?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I do not want to speak off the cuff. I think that my right hon. Friend has met the Dalai Lama, but I am not aware of his intentions. I simply cannot answer for him as I have not discussed the matter with him.

The Government recently published their action plan on business and human rights, which said that the promotion of business and respect for human rights should go hand in hand. There is concern that the Treasury in particular has not signed up to that script. Following the Chancellor’s visit, I tabled a question asking what discussions he had had with the Foreign Secretary before he went about human rights in China and the Government’s action plan on business and human rights. I also asked what discussions the Chancellor had during his visit about freedom of expression, freedom of association, the rule of law and Tibet.

Somewhat mysteriously, the question seemed to be transferred to the Foreign Office. I received a letter from there, telling me that it had been sent back to the Chancellor for a response. The Chancellor chose not to respond, and passed the question to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who had not even been on the trip, although I believe the Financial Secretary had. The Economic Secretary responded on 4 November at column 11W but would not tell me whether the Chancellor had discussed human rights with the Foreign Secretary or with officials he met in China.

That is not really good enough. When the Chancellor goes on a trade mission, we expect him to be concerned primarily with economic matters, but human rights should be woven through our bilateral relationship with any country, and should be raised as part of the delegation. Reports from the visit suggest that the Mayor of London was also reluctant to raise those issues. He was quoted as saying:

“I don’t just walk into a meeting and say, ‘I say, you chaps, how’s freedom doing?’ ”

I appreciate that he was there to represent not the Government but London, but his flippant remarks demonstrate the need for a clear strategy on how to raise challenging and troubling subjects with a nation whose partnership is highly valued, but which is also designated by the Foreign Office as a country of concern with regard to human rights.

The Foreign Office’s latest human rights report noted that in China

“progress on core civil and political rights was limited in 2012”,

with

“increased online censorship and harassment of human rights defenders”.

Some positive developments were noted, but concerns still included

“the inadequacy of safeguards in China to guarantee the rule of law and access to justice”.

The UK cannot strengthen its relationship with China by being timid; we must acknowledge where China has made progress and be frank where there are shortcomings. More recently, as other hon. Members have noted, there have been some positive developments, such as last week’s reports about the relaxation of the one-child policy and reported moves to abolish “re-education through labour” camps.

[Mark Pritchard]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a tragic irony in the fact that the Communist party was formed in part for workers’ rights, but now oversees much industry where workers have very few rights in what is a modern form of Chinese sweatshop? Any dialogue should include that issue, along with human rights.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree entirely. We should at every opportunity talk to the Chinese about, for example, the International Labour Organisation standard on workers’ rights. There is concern that when people try to raise questions of how workers are treated, the forces of repression prevent their speaking out. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The reports of the abolition of the “re-education through labour” camps are welcome, and I hope that the Foreign Office will keep a close eye on progress on that.

There were also reports earlier this summer that China would soon begin to phase out the use of executed prisoners’ organs for transplants. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the campaign about forced organ harvesting, although it is not in his portfolio. His views on that, and on restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, including the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners, would be interesting. The use of the death penalty and secrecy on the number of executions carried out in China are also matters for concern.

[Mark Pritchard]

The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. Is she aware of a report by ChinaAid that more than 20 Christian believers from the Nanle county Christian church—a church sanctioned by the Three-Self movement—were detained between yesterday morning and today and that Pastor Zhang Xiaojie was arrested along with others? No charges that stand up to scrutiny have been laid against them. Will the hon. Lady join me in calling for their immediate release?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was not aware of that report. I get the impression that the hon. Gentleman has just received notification of it, but I am a member of the all-party group on international religious freedom or belief, which sends out excellent e-mails almost daily, updating members on such incidents around the world. It is worrying that that has happened, and I would be happy to support the call the hon. Gentleman makes. The oppression of people purely for their religion—or, indeed, their lack of faith—should not be tolerated wherever it happens.

The hon. Member for The Wrekin mentioned animal welfare, which I know is dear to his heart, and the hon. Member for Cheltenham talked about it in some detail, too. The one issue that I do not think was mentioned was tiger farms. At the moment there are more tigers in captivity in tiger farms in China than there are in the wild throughout the world. There are about 3,500 in the wild and at least 5,000 in tiger farms, which are often used as tourist attractions. That was raised at the convention on international trade in endangered species meeting in 2012. The UK Government and, I think, the Indian Government urged that the farms should be phased out. I should be interested to know whether progress has been made on that.

As to Tibet, while we respect China’s sovereignty, we cannot ignore the serious human rights issues that arise—the disturbing number of self-immolations and the reports of arrests because a friend or relative has self-immolated. It is important that the UK should continue to raise concerns about the treatment of people in Tibet and promote dialogue. The UK-China human rights dialogue is one cornerstone of our bilateral relationship. The 20th round took place in January 2012, and the Foreign Office’s March human rights update reported that it was waiting for China to respond to the proposed dates for the 21st round. That was not included in the June or September updates, but I hope that progress is being made and that the Minister will agree that it is important to continue that long-standing dialogue and get the 21st round in the diary as soon as possible.

From next year, the UK will be working with China on the Human Rights Council. Given that the Foreign Secretary has said that his priorities for the UK’s term on the council include championing freedom of expression and freedom of religion and belief, it is important for the UK to press its new colleagues on the council on such issues and to emphasise the value of visits by UN special rapporteurs, as well as championing the issues globally.

To conclude, we support constructive long-term engagement, but it needs to be political as well as economic engagement across Government. The long-planned autumn statement has now been rearranged because of the Prime Minister’s visit to China next month. The number of the Prime Minister’s overseas trips has given the impression that he is concentrating on trade to the exclusion of human rights, so I hope that the Foreign Office will ensure that he is fully briefed on the UK’s commitment to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and on the reasons why the Foreign Office includes China among its countries of concern.

As I have said, climate change must also be on the agenda. In preparation for the visit, I hope that the Prime Minister will not only liaise with UK businesses, but consider the opportunities provided by our place in the EU and by our close ties with the US, looking beyond commercial factors to see the wider contribution that China can make to the global community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Simmonds]

I am not an expert on bile from bears, but I will certainly write to my hon. Friend and put a copy of the letter in the Library with the details he requests.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am sure the Minister will be reassured to know that I will ask him about something that is in his portfolio. Concerns have been raised with me recently about a link between wildlife crime and international trade in endangered species, and funding for terrorism in Africa, particularly with al-Shabaab in Somalia. Is that on his radar, and is the Foreign Office planning to address it?

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that important issue and I hope that she will understand if I do not go into details. Yes, we are aware of that, we are looking at it, and we are working with our multilateral partners to address it cohesively and collectively.

The hon. Lady referred in her speech to environment and climate change. It is important that we continue to work with China on such issues, which we do. Clearly, China’s rapid industrialisation has put strains on the environment. Other hon. Members mentioned that, and China’s third plenum also recognised it. It is important to establish ecological civilisation. We continue to work with China at all levels, not just with central Government, but at provincial and local level on a multilateral basis to try to encourage process and improvement in environmental standards, and to encourage the use of renewables and energy efficiency, which are a key component of this important agenda.

Another point that hon. Members raised is the importance of Chinese engagement with Africa. We welcome that engagement in Africa. China plays an increasingly important role in security and prosperity on the continent. Both the UK and China share a fundamental interest in promoting sustainable development and maintaining regional stability. The Chinese are now involved in UN peacekeeping operations in Sudan, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and in anti-piracy issues off the horn of Africa. We are building a partnership with China in Africa to help to reduce poverty and to achieve the millennium development goals. Chinese and UK businesses are working together to maximise the beneficial impact for those living in Africa. I could not allow this debate to close without emphasising some of the positive things that China is doing in Africa.

We are entering a new phase in our relationship with China. The United Kingdom has significant expertise that complements China’s needs, not just in the private sector but in the Government sector. Our global interests are more closely interlinked than ever. We will continue to approach UK-China relations constructively based on our values and shared interests. We can deliver real prosperity and security benefits for the UK, China and Asia. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin for providing the House with an opportunity to debate this significant, timely and important relationship.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is normal for Ministers to approach the Box, and only Ministers. I did not see anyone approach the Box.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

He’s there!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I know where the hon. Gentleman is now thank you, Ms McCarthy, but I am saying that I did not see him approach the Box and I am sure he will not do that. It is supposed to be for Ministers. Having eyes in the back of my head is not a skill I have yet developed, but I am sure the protocol will be observed.

Greenpeace Activists in the Russian Federation

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this debate. It is clear from the attendance here in Westminster Hall today, and from the correspondence that I am sure we have all had, that there is considerable concern across the House and among the wider public about the plight of the Arctic 30, as they have become known, and in particular about the six Britons who were arrested: Kieron Bryan, Philip Ball, Frank Hewetson, Anthony Perrett, Alexandra Harris and Iain Rogers.

As we have heard, 28 Greenpeace activists and two freelance journalists were detained last month after armed Russian security forces descended upon the Arctic Sunrise. They have been charged with piracy and are being held in prison in Murmansk, after the courts denied them bail.

I will come later to the issue of opposition to oil drilling in the Arctic, which is, after all, why Greenpeace activists were off the coast of Russia carrying out this action. The immediate priority must, of course, be the safety and welfare of the 30 detainees, who face at least two months’ pre-trial detention and possible prison sentences of up to 15 years. Other speakers have spoken of concern about the conditions in which they are held. Some are held in solitary confinement or are unable to converse with cell mates. They have limited contact with the outside world, they cannot receive telephone calls or have visits from their family, and their letters are confiscated when they have read them.

Alexandra Harris has said that she suffered serious stomach pains and asked both a Russian human rights official and a British diplomat about seeing a doctor, but she was not able to see one. Earlier today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I met Kieron Bryan’s family and heard some of their concerns about the fact that he is unable to converse with his cell mate, and that if his brother went to Murmansk to visit him he would be questioned at length and would not necessarily have the right to talk to Kieron when he arrived there. I hope very much that the Foreign Office officials in our embassy in Moscow can help to facilitate a trip and ensure that if he goes to Russia he will be allowed access to his brother. That is the least they could do.

I understand that Kieron has had three visits from our diplomats in Russia. Can the Minister assure us that consular staff have unimpeded access to the six British citizens? How satisfied is he about the conditions in which they are held and their access to medical assistance and legal counsel? Whenever our officials in Moscow and elsewhere in Russia want to see those six Britons they should be able to do so, and I am worried that that is not the case. Have the Government been able to secure visas, visitation rights and telephone contact for all the families?

We have heard about the somewhat dubious nature of the charges. Even President Putin has said that the six Britons are obviously not pirates, yet they are being charged with piracy. What representations have been made about the legal situation, the legal basis on which the Russian authorities boarded the Arctic Sunrise and the legality of the charges?

As has been said, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has raised her concerns directly with President Putin, but when the Prime Minister—one of his Witney constituents is among those held in Murmansk—was asked about the matter at Prime Minister’s questions, he merely said:

“We need to follow this case extremely closely, and that is exactly what the Foreign Office is doing…we are daily seeking updates from the Russian Government”.—[Official Report, 16 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 736.]

That implies that the Prime Minister is not personally involved although one of his constituents is among the detainees. Will the Minister tell us to what extent the Prime Minister is involved, both as Prime Minister and as a constituency MP? The implication of

“daily seeking updates from the Russian Government”

is that not a lot of lobbying is going on. Surely, instead of just waiting to hear what is going on, we should exert pressure and do all we can behind the scenes to ensure that the case for releasing the six Britons and the other activists is made as swiftly as possible.

Oil drilling in the Arctic is deeply contentious and it is right that we discuss not just the plight of the people held in jail in Murmansk but why the Greenpeace activists felt compelled to take the personal risk of protesting at the Prirazlomnaya oil rig in the harsh Arctic climate. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet. Last September, the extent of the ice cap was at a record low and the Environmental Audit Committee advised in its excellent report that we need to re-examine the risk of a summer collapse. It also warned that a number of tipping points are approaching “with potentially disastrous consequences”. The tragic irony is that melting of the ice caps provides greater opportunities for oil and gas exploration, which will then further accelerate climate change.

The Environmental Audit Committee argued that the Arctic is one of the least well understood places on earth and highly sensitive to environmental damage, and that any response to an oil spill would be ineffectual. It called for a moratorium on drilling in the Arctic. As the shadow Minister for the Arctic, I was happy to support that during the debate in February on the Committee’s report. There was common agreement that such issues are not just for the Arctic states and members of the Arctic Council, on which the UK has observer status. In that debate, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), assured us that the UK is

“leading the fight on tackling the underlying cause of the threats facing the Arctic.”

He also said that the possibility of an oil spillage in the Arctic

“is absolutely abhorrent and has terrifying consequences for the environment”.—[Official Report, 7 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 159WH, 161WH.]

That suggests that the Government would be sympathetic towards the Arctic 30 protest.

What discussions have the Government had with their Russian counterparts about the implications for both the Arctic specifically and the wider environment of Gazprom proceeding with its plans to drill there? During the debate in February, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for East Devon, assured us that

“It is wrong to say that the UK should not, and does not show leadership on issues affecting the Arctic.”— [Official Report, 7 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 159WH.]

However, I suggest that the extent of the UK’s leadership is in doubt. Indeed, in July the Environmental Audit Committee concluded that the Government

“failed to grasp the urgency of action needed”

and

“failed to offer a coherent argument for its view that future Arctic oil and gas exploration is compatible with efforts to contain global warming to 2°C.”

The UK accounts for the largest contingent on board the Arctic Sunrise, so does the Minister agree that now is the time for leadership from the Government? What conversations has the Foreign Office had with representatives from the 17 nations represented on the ship? Canada, Brazil, Denmark, Argentina, Australia, Italy, Sweden, the USA, the Netherlands, France, Turkey, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ukraine, Finland and Poland all had citizens detained. Have the Government had conversations with representatives of those Governments, and have they sought to raise the arrests and the reasons for the protest with the Arctic Council?

I understand that today the Russian Foreign Ministry has said it will not accept the international arbitration process in relation to the Netherlands’ application to the UN Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in an attempt to secure the return of the Arctic Sunrise and the release of the activists. What support are the Government giving to the Netherlands’ bid to deal with the matter under the auspices of the UN tribunal?

Last week, the Foreign Office published a policy framework on the Arctic, and the Government have pledged to

“work towards an Arctic that is safe and secure; well-governed in conjunction with indigenous peoples and”

in line with international law and where

“policies…are developed on the basis of sound science”

with

“full regard to the environment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 October 2013; Vol. 748, c. 77.]

The compatibility of that statement with the Government’s support for Arctic drilling is a matter for another debate, but will the Minister elaborate on the Government’s vision for “well governed”, how he sees international law being enforced, and how they plan to work with other states to achieve a “safe and secure” Arctic? Is that something they plan to discuss with Gazprom and other companies such as Shell or British-based insurers?

I want to give the Minister plenty of time to respond, particularly as I have asked many questions. There are real concerns about the human rights situation in Russia and the deterioration of freedom of expression, which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) raised. This is not the time or place to go into the details of that. However, I will check my diary to see if I can make the 4 o’clock meeting with the Russian ambassador. It is important that we go along and express our concerns on those fronts.

Human Rights (Commonwealth)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion]

I absolutely support the work of the Kaleidoscope Trust, but a vast amount of work unfortunately remains for us to do.

It struck me forcefully when visiting the Apartheid museum in Johannesburg last week that many of the battles for racial equality had been won. It should be celebrated that apartheid is over, but segregation between homosexuals and heterosexuals continues in other parts of Africa. Many terrible cases from across the Commonwealth illustrate the appalling way that the LGBTI community and LGBTI activists have been treated. In Cameroon, Alice Nkom and Michel Togue, who are defence lawyers for LGBTI people, have received telephone calls and text messages on a daily basis from anonymous people who threaten them and their families with death. In South Africa, 24-year-old Noxolo Nogwaza was brutally murdered in KwaThema township. An active member of the Ekurhuleni Pride Organising Committee, she was raped, repeatedly stabbed and beaten to death. The police responsible for the investigation into her murder have so far made no progress and no suspects have been arrested.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech so far. Does she agree that that example shows that we must do a lot more than simply change the laws? South Africa has a rainbow constitution that is very much against discrimination based on sexuality, but the problems that she highlights still exist on the ground.

[Sarah Champion]

The fundamental problem is that, although equality is embedded within the Commonwealth charter, LGBTI rights are not mentioned explicitly, so these grey areas are exploited.

Last year, armed police raided a human rights workshop attended by LGBTI activists in Kampala, Uganda, arresting five staff of the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project and 12 other participants. That happened in the context of the Ugandan Parliament seeking to pass an anti-homosexuality Bill, which could include punishing homosexuality with the death penalty. The Bill would create legal provisions to persecute and punish people just for being LGBTI, which directly contradicts all international human rights legislation and should be condemned by the international community. I am aware that Uganda claims that criminalising homosexuality is partly in the interest of public health. In reality, however, it further stigmatises and marginalises groups, making education about effective forms of sexually transmitted disease control considerably more difficult. HIV control is incredibly important as it is an enormous problem within the Commonwealth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and all the other speakers, several of whom were in South Africa with me last week. I hope that I do not repeat too much of the speech I made in Johannesburg, as they might find it much duller on a second hearing.

As a starting point, I want to echo what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, which was that the charter means nothing if it is just words on paper. It is very easy for people to sign up and say, “We all share these values”, and “We are one big happy family—aren’t we lovely people?”, and so on. What the Government do on the ground is what matters. It is about how they implement the charter and how they continue to review and monitor it, and make it stronger. The most important thing is that the charter must not be used as a fig leaf for human rights violations.

I also want to echo what the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said. When I spoke in Johannesburg last week, I was very conscious that we should not, as the UK, be going in and preaching to other people about human rights, particularly given our history as the colonial power in many of the countries that we are addressing.

As the hon. Gentleman said, it is ironic that, going back many years, we took Christianity to some of these countries and told them that things such as homosexuality were wrong, but now we are coming back and saying, “Hang on, we got it wrong that time. You have to think something completely different.”

One thing that came out of the response to my speech in Johannesburg was this. We were told by a few of the delegates, “You have to give us time, because we’re new democracies. You’ve been established a lot longer. It will take us longer to win hearts and minds and to progress these ideas of equality.” What concerns me about some of the countries is not that they are taking longer to reach the position that we are at with things such as same-sex marriage and allowing gay couples to adopt, but that they are moving backwards—in the wrong direction. I am thinking of things such as the Bill that Uganda has been debating for the past few years about bringing in the death penalty for homosexuality. The issue there is not people struggling to keep up with us and moving more slowly than us; that Bill is actually a step in the wrong direction. We also see that with other countries outside the Commonwealth, such as Russia, which is now moving in a very worrying direction on LGBT rights.

As was said, the Commonwealth charter refers to the Commonwealth’s opposition to

“all forms of discrimination”.

I want to pick up the point about LGBT rights being covered, we think, under the broad description of “other grounds”. I suspect that the intention was that because it would be impossible to get every Commonwealth country to sign up to a specific reference to discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, “other grounds” would be included so that countries that want to interpret that as meaning that we are against discrimination on those grounds can believe that, and those that are more reluctant to do so can pretend that it is not really in there. That lets some of the countries off the hook. I am referring to the 41 countries that will claim adherence to the charter, but will continue with their policies of discrimination.

Let me cite an example. I mentioned it in South Africa in response to the delegate from Cameroon. In June of this year, the gay activist Eric Lembembe said in response to attacks that were taking place on the offices of gay rights organisations in Cameroon:

“Unfortunately, a climate of hatred and bigotry in Cameroon, which extends to high levels in government, reassures homophobes that they can get away with these crimes.”

Two weeks later, he was horrifically tortured and murdered.

This is the important thing. Governments have a key role to play, but not just in the laws that they pass. They must recognise that the laws that they pass and the discussions that they have in Parliament filter down into horrific attacks on people in the streets. We see this even in countries such as South Africa. I echo what the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole said. The Deputy Speaker of the South African Parliament made an amazing speech, declaring her support for equality and saying that that was a country that had fought discrimination, and had fought apartheid. Thirty or 40 years ago, at that Commonwealth meeting, there would have been people arguing that apartheid was perfectly legitimate on human rights grounds, that different people had to respect different cultures and so on. However, even though that country has enshrined anti-discrimination measures in law, there is still that battle for hearts and minds that needs to be won at grass-roots level. The stories that we heard about corrective rape of lesbian women and the fact that the police were not really prepared to take those allegations seriously were very worrying indeed.

I therefore ask the Minister to tell us what the Government have done to pursue this agenda since our debate in March on Commonwealth day. He said then:

“We fundamentally believe that we should do much more and we remain concerned by recent attempts in several Commonwealth states to introduce punitive laws on homosexuality.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 186WH.]

Is it the Minister’s view that laws criminalising homosexuality and, in particular, attempts to introduce the death penalty for same-sex relationships not only undermine the clause in the charter that talks about an appreciation for

“the dignity of all human beings”,

but violate international human rights standards?

I will mention very quickly the issue of the death penalty, because my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham was very comprehensive in her coverage. I am pleased that the UN Human Rights Council is looking at, in particular, the issue of the death penalty for under-16s, for pregnant women and for people with mental and intellectual disabilities, and the impact on the children of those who are executed. That has not been on the agenda before, so I welcome that, but would the Minister update us on the impact in the Commonwealth of the Government’s “Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty” and what attempts the Foreign Office is making to promote the second optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights? That protocol specifically signs people up to opposing the death penalty. Does the Minister share my assessment that the death penalty—the use of capital punishment—does not comply with the spirit of the charter, and is that an argument that we will be advancing with other Commonwealth countries?

Let me briefly mention something else that I talked about in South Africa. We had just had news of the resolution of a particularly horrific case in the Maldives. It involved a 15-year-old girl who had been sexually abused by her stepfather for many years and ended up giving birth to his child. When she tried to report that to the authorities, she confessed to having some sort of sexual relations with another adult man and she was sentenced to a flogging—100 lashes—which could have been postponed until her 18th birthday. When I went to meet the relevant Minister in the Maldives, I was told that that should not have happened; she was a vulnerable child and should have been a ward of court. The people there were at great pains to assure me that it was a mistake. As it happened, the Government could not direct the court to drop the sentence, but that did eventually occur.

Yes, that is a particularly extreme example of someone who should not have been subjected to such an ordeal, but many other women still find that although they are the victim of a crime, they are treated as criminals. They are charged with adultery and receive the punishments that flow from that because they have been raped. Sometimes they are forced to marry their attacker. There is just the fact that flogging is used. I was told in the Maldives that they tend to turn a blind eye to adultery unless a pregnancy results, because that is concrete evidence that something has been going on. As a result, 95% of convictions and punishments for adultery are given to women, because it is obviously much easier to show that a woman has become pregnant than it is to show which man was involved.

The use of flogging as a punishment is, I would say, in clear breach of the prohibition on

“cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”

in the universal declaration of human rights. Are we pushing that point at international level to try to persuade countries that they should not be using flogging as a punishment? Women should have no fear of reporting crimes against them. They should be confident that they will be treated as victims, rather than being put on trial themselves.

The last thing that I will mention is CHOGM, which many other hon. Members have discussed. The Government’s long-standing and repeated position was that they would make a decision on attendance closer to the time. The Minister said during our debate in March that no decision had been taken, and I received a similar response in Foreign Office questions in April. The Government have a real opportunity to use this situation as leverage to say to the Sri Lankan Government, “We are reviewing whether to come to CHOGM. We are reviewing the size and scale of our delegation and, indeed, our attendance overall.” However, in May, the Prime Minister announced that both he and the Foreign Secretary would represent the UK in Colombo. Can the Minister tell us what changed between the end of April, when it seemed that that was still a matter for consideration, and early May? Why was the decision taken to send the most senior delegation, and why did the Government choose to announce that so far in advance?

It is not even clear that the Government are united behind the decision. In May, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged in the House that it was a “controversial” decision

“in the light of the despicable human rights violations”.

He concluded rather vaguely:

“If such violations continue, and if the Sri Lankan Government continue to ignore their international commitments in the lead up to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, of course there will be consequences.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 634.]

When I tabled a written question, however, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), was unable to tell me what those consequences might be and in which circumstances they would be considered. I hope that this Minister will be able to provide more clarification in his closing remarks.

I do not have time now to discuss the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights about her recent visit to Sri Lanka—some of my colleagues have mentioned that—but I hope that the Minister will do so. I know that he has limited time; he is looking at the clock, but he will get his 10 minutes. The UN commissioner’s conclusion was:

“The war may have ended, but in the meantime democracy has been undermined and the rule of law eroded”.

She warned that Sri Lanka, far from showing improvement, was

“showing signs of heading in an increasingly authoritarian direction”.

I hope the Minister will tell us what consideration the Government have given to the UN commissioner’s report and whether it has influenced the size, scale and scope of the delegation going to CHOGM.

Non-Proliferation Treaty

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I have listened with great interest to what has been, perhaps inevitably, a somewhat polarised debate. It is fair to say that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber —my hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) and the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—although they reach very different conclusions about the approach to nuclear weapons, approach the issue from a position of great integrity and with a real desire to ensure that we never revisit the horrors of the only use to date of nuclear weapons in conflict, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the second world war.

I have great respect for the views expressed by everyone who has spoken in the debate. I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Gentleman’s closing remarks. I was with him for quite a bit of his speech, up until he said that we will never see an end to nuclear weapons unless we see an end to conventional weapons and a world Government. Perhaps taking the opposing view—that we will achieve a world without nuclear weapons—is idealistic, but I think it is important that we have that in mind as an end goal. After all, each of the parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—he cited article 6—has undertaken to pursue in good faith negotiations on the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve nuclear disarmament. Having signed up to the treaty, we have committed ourselves to making progress on that front, even if we think that the end result will be a long way off; it comes down to the speed and passion with which we pursue those negotiations.

The official Opposition believe that the UK must continue to press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons and to work towards total elimination of our nuclear arsenal and all others. Those efforts must include working with the International Atomic Energy Agency to develop assurances of supply for nuclear fuel that provide energy security without the need for proliferation of sensitive enrichment technology. I do not intend to talk about nuclear power—it has been discussed in previous debates in Parliament—but it is part of the issue.

When the Labour party was in government, we committed to reduce the number of operationally available warheads to fewer than 160, so the UK has now reduced its nuclear arsenal by 75% since the end of the cold war, and we welcome the Government’s announcements on reducing both operationally available warheads and the overall weapons stockpile. The UK now accounts for less than 1% of the global stockpile of nuclear weapons. We have the smallest arsenal of the five recognised nuclear weapons states, and we are the only state to reduce to a single nuclear deterrent system.

On Trident and the need for an independent nuclear deterrent, Labour’s continuing objective is to play an active and constructive role in an international effort to achieve a world free from nuclear weapons. Any future Labour policy will seek to take disarmament further by reducing the number of deployable and stockpiled warheads, but Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent has been the cornerstone of our peace and security for more than half a century. In today’s world, so long as there are other countries with such capabilities and the security landscape is characterised by instability and uncertainty—we have heard about the situation in Pakistan, North Korea’s missile tests and the unpredictable situation in Iran, despite the election this week of a new President—it is right that the UK retains an independent nuclear deterrent. However, we want the UK to have the minimum credible deterrent, in line with our international obligations and strategic security requirements, and we want to ensure that we achieve maximum value for money within that chosen platform.

I will address some of the countries of concern that pose a possible nuclear threat. In the past year, international talks on Iran’s nuclear programme have achieved little, resulting in harsher sanctions. On Monday, the head of the IAEA reported that sanctions have not been successful in slowing Iran’s ability to enrich uranium. We welcome the commitment of Iran’s new President, Hassan Rouhani, to greater nuclear transparency, of course, but those words must be backed up with progress on the ground.

The Russian Foreign Minister has reported in the past few days that Iran is prepared to suspend the most sensitive parts of its nuclear programme, which could be welcome news, but we must be cautious. The new President was head of Iran’s national security council for 16 years, and he was Tehran’s key nuclear negotiator from 2003 to 2005. It is fair to say that he did not demonstrate any great enthusiasm for transparency on Iran’s nuclear capability when he was in those positions.

On North Korea, there has been a ratcheting of tensions in the past year or so, with the launch of two rockets carrying satellites in 2012, which was widely seen as an attempt to test its missile technology. The launch was met with global condemnation, including from North Korea’s closest ally, China. The UN Secretary-General condemned the launch as a violation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1874.

In February 2013, North Korea conducted its third nuclear test in seven years, and there has been rhetoric from Kim Jong-un about a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the USA and threats against South Korea. I was in South Korea for a UK-Korea Forum for the Future conference last week, and one of the key messages that we gave to our Korean hosts was on our admiration for their calm response to those threats. Obviously, South Korea is used to such threats, as there has been conflict between the two countries for many years, but its response helped to dampen the tension in the area.

I would be grateful to the Minister if he updated us on his assessment of the situation. The North Koreans pulled out of the talks that were due to take place on the grounds that the South Koreans were not sending sufficiently senior people. That seems to be an issue that could quite easily be resolved. What conversations, if any, has he had to try to ensure that those talks go ahead?

The security of existing stockpiles in countries such as Pakistan and Russia remains an ongoing concern. The IAEA has reported more than 100 nuclear smuggling incidents since 1993, 18 of which involved highly enriched uranium, which is the most dangerous product on the nuclear black market. Does the Minister have anything to say on how we are trying to address such smuggling incidents?

I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North had to say about the middle east nuclear-free zone, for which he has been campaigning for some time. He tabled an early-day motion on that in 2010. I understand that the hopes of having a conference this year have been somewhat derailed by the situation in Syria. Will the Minister comment on whether we can push for that conference to take place?

The Minister attended the NPT review conference at the UN last year, and it was reported that a five-year action plan spanning the three pillars of the NPT was agreed by consensus. The next NPT review conference will be in 2015. What progress have the Government made on drawing up their objectives? What do they hope to achieve at that conference?

The Trident alternatives review is set to publish its report before July, and the Government will have an opportunity to assess whether to cut the number of Vanguard submarines from four to two. Late last month, the Financial Times reported that the review will conclude that any alternative to Trident will either be impractical or more expensive. I assume that the Minister will want to wait until the review is published before commenting in detail, but I would be interested if he could answer a few questions. How much time and money is being spent by the MOD on the review? Will it be published as a Government document or, as it was inspired by Liberal Democrat members of the coalition, will it be published under their auspices? What consideration will be given to the review before the finalisation of the Conservative party manifesto?

Finally, I want to mention Government efforts to reduce their own nuclear stockpile. In 2010, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed Parliament that the UK had 225 nuclear warheads; he also signalled that the coalition would downgrade their importance in UK military strategy. What efforts are being made on that front?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. Of course I shall be happy to ensure that the relevant and important non-governmental organisations to which he has referred, along with others, engage with officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is also right to draw attention to the significant challenges that exist in some countries, but I assure him and other Members that we lobby vociferously, not just in countries such as Uganda and Nigeria but in Russia and Iran, where there are particular problems that need to be dealt with to ensure that there is equality of rights.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I urge the Minister to prioritise talking to other Commonwealth countries about this issue in the run-up to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. May I ask him specifically about Russia, however, where in the context of a wider crackdown on freedom of expression and human rights, the Duma has just passed a law introducing draconian penalties for propaganda for non-traditional sexual relations? Have the Government taken advantage of President Putin’s presence in the UK this week to push him on this issue and to urge him not to go down that path?

[Mark Simmonds]

As I said a moment ago, we consistently lobby—through bilateral relations and our embassy in Moscow, as well as through the multilateral organisations I referred to earlier, particularly the UN with its universal periodic review—to make sure that countries like Russia adhere to the international framework for human rights, especially as it relates to LGBT rights. I can give the hon. Lady an assurance that we will continue to lobby through both those two sets of organisations, bilaterally and multilaterally, to try to make sure that all people have equal access to human rights.

Shaker Aamer

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

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

I, too, join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) on securing this debate on behalf of Shaker Aamer and his family. His case is a cause of great concern to MPs of all parties, as demonstrated by the turnout in Westminster Hall today and, of course, by the number of signatures—more than 117,000—on the e-petition site. I know that the hon. Lady has already done a great deal to push for Mr Aamer’s return to his family, who live in her constituency. As others have done, I also want to mention the role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I know that it is very frustrating for him not to be able to speak in the debate today, given his previous work—during his time not only in the House, but as a human rights lawyer—on this and related issues. However, he is obviously with us in spirit, if in silence.

First, although I am sure that it does not need restating, I want to place on the record that Labour is completely opposed to Guantanamo Bay. We removed all British citizens and all but one British resident from Guantanamo Bay through our diplomatic efforts when we were in government. Indeed, we were the first country to ensure that all its citizens were removed from Guantanamo Bay. We are now left in a position whereby Mr Aamer is the sole remaining British resident there, and every effort should be made to end his detention without trial.

As we have heard, although Mr Aamer is a Saudi citizen he is a British resident, married to a British national and the father of four British citizens, the youngest of whom he has never had the chance to meet, as he was actually airlifted to Guantanamo Bay on the day that his youngest son was born.

I understand that the Minister is responding to this debate as his portfolio includes counter-terrorism. Although national security is, of course, a paramount concern for both the US and UK Governments, the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay is also a fundamental human rights issue, which, many have argued—indeed, it has been said by Members in Westminster Hall today—is more likely to have jeopardised than safeguarded American security.

After Mr Aamer’s arrest in November 2001 in Afghanistan, he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay on 14 February 2002; as I said, that was the day that his youngest son was born. Mr Aamer’s legal representatives at Reprieve claim that his treatment at Bagram airfield, allegedly including sleep deprivation and physical abuse, led him to make a false confession, which has since been used to justify his detention without trial for more than 11 years. Mr Aamer denies all accusations of involvement with al-Qaeda, but has not had the opportunity to answer any of these charges in a trial.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that, apart from sleep deprivation and everything else, Mr Aamer’s head was banged against the wall quite a few times when all these things were happening?

[Kerry McCarthy]

These suggestions have been put forward by Mr Aamer and his lawyers. Obviously, there would be grave concerns if that were the case. We also know that defamation cases are going on in terms of other suggestions that have been made against him.

Mr Aamer not been charged; that has come out during the debate. Perhaps we could understand it if he were being held without charge just while investigations were proceeding, and there were reasons that could not be revealed to anyone for why he was being held without trial, but he has been cleared for release. That is what people find baffling. It is estimated that 86 of the remaining prisoners have been cleared for release. Mr Aamer was first cleared under the Bush presidency in 2007 and subsequently by President Obama’s Administration in 2009.

The fact that Guantanamo detainees are held indefinitely, without the right to a fair trial, is itself a serious affront to international human rights standards. Indeed, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has condemned Guantanamo Bay, asserting:

“The continuing indefinite incarceration of many of the detainees amounts to arbitrary detention and is in clear breach of international law”.

She also referred to,

“the systematic abuse of individuals’ human rights”.

It is not only prisoners’ detention that is of such concern to human rights campaigners, but the reports of their treatment, which Mr Aamer’s lawyer has described as “gratuitous torture”. We have heard accounts of that.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does my hon. Friend share the conclusion that many of us have reached: that this man continues to be detained, not because of any evidence against him, but because of the evidence that he can offer against the torture system that he has experienced, including the complicity of British intelligence services? Does she also appreciate that there is suspicion that the American authorities say they are getting one message from the political wing of the British Government, but getting very different, and damnable, messages from the intelligence wing of the British Government?

[Kerry McCarthy]

All hon. Members in this Chamber, with the exception perhaps of the Minister, can only speculate about the reasons why Mr Aamer has not been released. I hope that the Minister will tell us all that he can about the discussions that have taken place about the reasons given for his continued detention.

I do not think that the suggestion that Mr Aamer would be likely to be involved in terrorism activities, or would in any way be a danger to the public if he returned to Britain, holds water. As has been said, the other people who have returned to this country have not been involved in such activity. As far as I know, that has not been alleged.

[Jane Ellison]

As I said in my speech—I wonder whether the hon. Lady agrees—whatever might be revealed, it will always come out in the end, because in free societies it does. Our institutions are robust enough. Many hon. Members voted to go to war on what turned out to be a false precept under the last Government. It turned out that there were no weapons of mass destruction, yet our democracy has survived. Our institutions might be bloodied, but they are unbowed. Does the hon. Lady agree that, whatever might come out, we will survive it and be better as a result?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree. The bottom line is that we are fundamentally opposed to any collusion or complicity in torture or mistreatment. It would be wrong if British or American forces were involved in any such activities. Mistreating somebody who might expose such activities in a world where we are upholding human rights law must be wrong. If such activities did occur, they need to be flushed out into the open.

Obviously, there is always the underlying security issue. The United States has the right to defend its citizens, and we have the right to defend ours, against the threat of terrorism. That sometimes means that things cannot always be as transparent—as open—as we would like them to be. However, if there is any suggestion that we are not upholding the international laws that we claim to hold dear, that is a serious matter and we cannot hide behind that.

As has been said, this debate is so urgent because Mr Aamer has now been on hunger strike for more than 70 days and experts warn that he is now beyond the point of

“irreversible cognitive impairment and psychological damage”.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned reports that he is suffering with arthritis, asthma, prostate and kidney problems and severe backache. It is said that he can no longer read and is dizzy, but is reluctant to call the guards when he falls because of their previous treatment of him. Worryingly, it is claimed he is being denied water or has to endure a forcible cell extraction first—we have heard about that already—and there are other reports of hunger strikers being given only dirty water. According to his lawyers, Mr Aamer’s knee and back braces have been taken away, as has the blanket that he needed for his rheumatism. Papers recently filed with US courts cited “deliberate indifference” to detainees’ medical needs. Even if there were valid reasons for continuing to hold Mr Aamer in Guantanamo Bay, I think that all hon. Members would agree that he ought to be treated with respect and in accordance with the normal processes that we would expect to apply to anybody held in a prison—and not to be subject to this kind of treatment.

This is not Mr Aamer’s first hunger strike. He allegedly initiated a strike in 2005, following which he was punished with solitary confinement for 360 days. I understand that the US authorities deny the claims that Mr Aamer has been held in solitary confinement for three years. Again, we are not in a position to know whether that is so.

It is understood that 84 Guantanamo detainees are on hunger strike and five are being treated in hospital. There were reports of clashes just over a week ago, when the guards allegedly tried to end the hunger strike. It is difficult to verify conflicting reports, but it has been said that 16 people are being force-fed, in breach of the 1975 World Medical Association declaration of Tokyo, the guidelines for physicians concerning torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in relation to detention and imprisonment.

It is on the record that the Government have repeatedly called on the Obama Administration to return Mr Aamer to the UK and that must remain the pressing goal, but will the Minister say what representations have been made regarding his treatment during his detention, and the conduct of the Guantanamo guards towards the other 165 detainees? Has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sought information on how long and under what circumstances Mr Aamer has been held in solitary confinement? Given the grave concerns about Mr Aamer’s health, what discussions have the UK and US had on medical facilities at Guantanamo Bay; and will the FCO seek assurances that Mr Aamer is receiving the medical care he needs? What efforts have been made to ensure that Mr Aamer is, at the very least, able to speak to his lawyers?

Given the clear statements of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights that the USA is in breach of international law, have the Government in recent months discussed the USA’s obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights, or encouraged co-operation with UN special rapporteurs? Similarly, has the Minister raised the right to a fair trial or any objections to the military commission system?

It has been suggested that the latest hunger strike followed the reassignment of Dan Fried, President Obama’s special envoy, tasked with transferring prisoners and fulfilling the pledge to close Guantanamo Bay. Have the Government discussed the implications of that with the Obama Administration, and does the Minister still think there is the political will, within the White House at least, to eventually close the centre?

Congress and the National Defence Authorisation Act have been identified as the greater obstacles. Although the NDAA essentially precluded any transfers from Guantanamo Bay, when its provisions were renewed in 2012, I understand that a degree of flexibility was introduced for the Secretary of Defence, which the hon. Member for Battersea mentioned. Despite this, there were no releases last year. Can the Minister tell us more about the implications of the Act, as renewed in 2012, for Mr Aamer and the other detainees, and whether the Secretary of Defence is able to exercise such discretion? Have the Government raised this matter with the White House, the Department of Defence and representatives from Congress?

The question remains why, despite being cleared for release some six years ago, Mr Aamer remains in Guantamo Bay. Can the Minister say whether, in either 2007 or 2009, Mr Aamer’s release depended on any conditions being met? For example, was he cleared to return home to his family in Battersea? We have heard that he may only have been cleared to return to Saudi Arabia. If that is the case, does the Minister share our concern that somebody with indefinite leave to remain in this country, who has a family in the UK, is married to a British citizen, has four children who are British citizens, and has not been convicted of a crime, should be sent to Saudi Arabia, about whose human rights record we have grave concerns, and which he left when he was only 17 years old?

The US authorities may dispute some of the reports emanating from Guantanamo Bay, but it seems beyond doubt that the latest hunger strike, which is seemingly one of the most serious, is a sign of the increasing desperation of detainees and perhaps a fear that the remaining 166, out of the 779 who have been held there over the years, have been completely forgotten. Can the Minister assure us that the Foreign Office remains determined to secure the release of the last remaining British resident and, more generally, to press for the closure of Guantanamo Bay? Does he share our concern, which many Members have expressed in their speeches and interventions today, that its continued existence undermines the USA’s ability to promote human rights around the world and, given that the USA is such a close ally and friend of the UK, risks undermining our credibility on international human rights as well?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The decision to site the next CHOGM in Colombo was taken by consensus in the Commonwealth back in 2009, and we have no indication that the Commonwealth intends to change its view on that, but my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to point out the contrast between Commonwealth values and concerns about what is happening in Sri Lanka. We and other Governments have made that clear, and the recent passing of the Human Rights Council resolution in Geneva, which the UK strongly supported, is evidence of that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister just referenced the most recent United Nations resolution on Sri Lanka, in which it noted

“the continuing reports of violations of human rights in Sri Lanka, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture, and violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly”.

Given that Sri Lanka has been judged in those terms by the UN, to what extent does the Minister think the country complies with the principles of the Commonwealth and the recently adopted Commonwealth charter, and should we use CHOGM as a means of leverage to put pressure on Sri Lanka to put its house in order?

[Alistair Burt]

The hon. Lady is correct when she says that CHOGM provides the opportunity for us and others to express concerns to Sri Lanka, and to urge it to make good its own promises to fulfil the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendations. We have urged it to do so and we will continue to do that.

I was able to speak to the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister yesterday. I made reference to our further concerns, whether they are about the impeachment of the Chief Justice or further attacks on the press in Jaffna, and made it clear that if Colombo is to host CHOGM later this year, the spotlight will be on Sri Lanka and it will need to demonstrate to the world how it has responded to these concerns and made good its own beliefs in reconciliation for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister shares my hope that the latest round of peace talks with the FARC will succeed. Can he update the House on his assessment of what progress has been made in those talks and tell us what representations, if any, the UK has made to President Santos regarding his five-point plan, particularly the fifth point, which is on victims’ rights?

[Mr Swire]

As I said, we are hugely supportive of what President Santos has done to date and very much welcome the talks that have been going on in Havana, which we understand are due to restart in May. We stand by to offer any help we can. I think that it is worth paying tribute to his Government for getting to where they are. It has been a long time since Colombia has been as peaceful as it is today, but there is still a long way to go.

FCO: Human Rights Work

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I join in the congratulations to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and to Committee members for bringing their report to Westminster Hall today. However, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about the need to spend much longer debating it. We had the same problem last year, and we could easily spend a whole day on it in the main Chamber to do justice to the issues raised. I hope that that matter will be considered next year.

Both the Chair of the Select Committee and the Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), have brought their considerable experience to bear in their speeches. If we look around the Chamber today, we will see that the entire political spectrum is covered, and yet we are all committed to pursuing the issue of human rights and trying to ensure that the UK gives the matter greater priority. That is the one thing that has come through in all the speeches we have heard this afternoon.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling used his expertise to talk about North Korea and Russia, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). Last year, I went to Moscow to observe two days of the trial of Pussy Riot, which is an issue that is quite dear to my heart. This year is the 10th anniversary of Khodorkovsky’s arrest, and the two band members were held in the same glass box that was used to contain him when he came to court. From the people I met on that visit and from the numerous events that I have been involved in since calling for the release of the two remaining members of Pussy Riot who are still being held in penal colonies, it is clear that the human rights situation in Russia has deteriorated significantly. Human Rights Watch said recently that 2012 saw the worst crackdown since the fall of the Soviet Union. It will be interesting to see how that is addressed in next year’s report.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South mentioned the deportation issue in Sri Lanka. I am also speaking in the next debate about Commonwealth day, so I will be covering that issue then as well. His points were well made. We need to revisit the issue of who we are deporting to Sri Lanka and the situation that they might face there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) discussed in some detail the matter of Israel and Palestine. I will not refer to it here, as it is a topic that is discussed in quite some depth elsewhere. For example, in Foreign Office questions last week, about half of the questions on the Order Paper were about Israel and Palestine. None the less, let me echo the concerns that have been expressed, especially about the failure of international law to make any progress. It is all very well to condemn the human rights situation, the illegal settlements, the route of the wall and, of course, the abuses on the other side, but there is always this sense of déjà vu; what can the Foreign Office do to address those issues, make some progress and try to ameliorate the situation for the many people who suffer human rights abuses?

Let me turn now to the detail of the report. Last year’s report noted the Foreign Office’s decision to omit Bahrain from the list of countries of concern in its 2010 human rights report, which was described as a “glaring omission” by Human Rights Watch. The Government’s response last year argued that many of the most serious events in Bahrain fell outside the 2010 period covered by the report, but that they undertook to ensure that next year’s report—the one we are discussing now—would address them. None the less, Bahrain is still not included as a country of concern, and the Committee has once again concluded that it should have been.

The FCO’s report included a case study of Bahrain, but Human Rights Watch has described it as “very weak”. Will the Minister elaborate on the reasons for including Bahrain as a case study rather than as a country of concern, and tell us who was involved in taking that decision?

Will the Minister commit to introducing more transparency and clear criteria for the designation of countries of concern, especially as Human Rights Watch has described the current rationale as “vague and unconvincing”? I also echo the questions that were posed about the Bahrain grand prix. It was a matter that we discussed in some detail last year. There seemed to be a lack of clear guidance as to whether it was appropriate for the 2012 grand prix to go ahead. Will the Minister advise us on the FCO’s position on the 2013 grand prix?

Boycotts are also mentioned in the report. As some Members have said, they can be a blunt instrument if they are used in a seemingly arbitrary way. As the Select Committee reported:

“It is difficult to discern any consistency of logic”

in the Government’s approach last year. Indeed, with the Euro 2012 matches in Ukraine, the Minister seemed to suggest that the Government would keep the attendance under review. It was said that if the England team progressed to the later stages of the tournament, the Government might be prepared to attend, but they would boycott the earlier stages, which seemed rather inconsistent and gave the impression that the Government were willing to attend if they received good PR and a nice photo opportunity back at home but were not too bothered about the earlier stages of the game.

Conflicting interests were a prominent concern in the Select Committee report as they were in the 2010 report. The Committee said:

“It is inevitable that the UK will have strategic, commercial or security-related interests which have the potential to conflict with its human rights values.”

The previous Minister with responsibility for human rights, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), advised that the Government saw no inherent contradiction between the Government’s pursuit of commercial interests overseas and the promotion of human rights, and the Government’s official response this year stated again that they “do not agree” with the Committee’s assessment.

It is troubling if the Government are not alive to the danger that their pursuit of financial investment from some countries could compromise or overshadow their message on human rights. Does the Minister at least acknowledge that there is the potential for conflict, and will he set out the Foreign Office’s strategy for managing that and ensuring transparency so that the Government’s human rights work is not compromised?

Only last month, there were reports that the Cabinet was split over how robust the UK should be on China’s human rights record given the country’s economic importance. Yesterday, along with other Members, I met a couple of constituents from Tibet, who were here to lobby us about continued human rights abuses in their country. I had to say that I strongly suspected that the matter of Tibet was not a priority for Ministers when they visit China, and I said that it should be.

The Prime Minister’s answers to my parliamentary questions suggest that he did not discuss the use of the death penalty during his recent visit to India.

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

I did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was about to mention the fact that the Minister did, but the Prime Minister did not, despite India’s recent resumption of the use of the death penalty, and the abolition of the death penalty being included among the priorities of the Foreign Secretary’s human rights advisory group. As the Minister has just advised me from a sedentary position—I was going to mention it anyway—he discussed the death penalty with representatives in India, but if

“the promotion and protection of human rights”

really is at the heart of UK foreign policy, as the Foreign Secretary states in his foreword to the 2011 report, does the Minister not think that that should be the case at every level of Government and that it should not be given to—if the Minister will forgive me for saying so—a junior Minister in the Department rather than the Secretary of State to raise such issues?

Similarly, when I asked the Prime Minister about what discussion there was of human rights when he visited the UAE and Saudi Arabia, he would say only that

“no subject is off limits”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 143W.]

That rather gave the impression that human rights had not been discussed in detail with the Government. Will the Minister advise us on whether human rights were discussed and, given that Saudi Arabia is listed as a country of concern, will he tell us what the Government’s policy is on ministerial and prime ministerial visits to countries of concern, and whether there is clear guidance about whether and when human rights should be included on that list?

The Prime Minister’s visit to Saudi Arabia brings me neatly on to the arms trade. It is deeply concerning that the Committee found that the Minister with responsibility for human rights was not even aware let alone consulted about which countries appeared both on the FCO’s list of countries of concern and as one of the priority markets for arms exports for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Will the Minister assure us that in future there will be more co-ordination between the two Departments, and can he outline the FCO’s guidance on arms exports to countries of concern? With the imminence of the UN conference on the arms trade treaty, will he assure us that the UK will be the champion of a strong treaty and not a broker for a weak one?

Given the short time we have left, I will leave my comments on Sri Lanka for the Commonwealth day debate. None the less, I echo the concerns that have been raised about the human rights situation there.

I was in Burma over the weekend and had the fantastic opportunity to attend the first-ever conference of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy. It had been banned for 25 years from holding a party conference. It gives one such hope to visit a country where there has been progress on both human rights and democracy. We hope that in 2015, there will be democratic elections which will see Aung San Suu Kyi become President of Burma. I wanted to mention my visit because it shows that improvements can happen. Last year, the EU took the decision to suspend sanctions. Given what I have observed of the situation in Burma, I think that that was the correct decision and indeed it is something that the NLD supported as well.

Finally, it was troubling that the Government were so reticent in providing information on the number of staff working full-time on human rights. I know that the Foreign Affairs Committee eventually ascertained that there are 14 staff working across the 28 countries of concern and four case-studies countries. Does the Minister have any plans to increase that number?

To conclude, I welcome the Government’s continuing commitment to their annual human rights report and, as I have already said, I hope that next year we can have a fuller and more public discussion of the 2012 report in the main Chamber.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

May I ask you, Minister, to give Mr Ottaway a couple of minutes at the end of the debate?