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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

We very much want the United States to be a party to the agreement, but we know—as is well known—that they have issues with some items. The Secretary of State was made well aware by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of the importance we attach to the arms trade treaty. The United States is, of course, keeping its negotiating position carefully guarded in the run-up to the negotiations, as one would expect. We are very keen that the United States should be able to sign the agreement and, of course, that it should meet our objectives of being robust and effective.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I was a little disappointed to hear that no Minister from our Department for International Development would be attending the arms trade treaty talks later this month. Given that armed violence is estimated to cost Africa $18 billion a year, will the Minister assure me that tackling poverty and the extent to which arms transfers undermine socio-economic development will be at the top of his list of priorities when he goes to New York?

[Alistair Burt]

As the hon. Lady rightly says, I am going to New York. It is not possible for a Minister from DFID to go on this occasion, but they went last July. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, has been determined in all his efforts over the course of the past year to pursue our interests in the treaty and will continue to work the phones even while other people are in New York. There is no lack of engagement from DFID and the Government’s determination, supported, we know, by the whole House, will continue throughout the conference.

Protecting the Arctic

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan, for the second time this week.

I congratulate the Environmental Audit Committee on producing the report, which was not only fascinating reading but shocking. In parts, I found it enlightening, although I was already aware of some of the issues involved. The report highlights the importance of the Arctic region which is

“one of the least understood places”

on the planet, with its unique wildlife and ecosystems, and is also home to almost 10% of the world’s known conventional oil and gas resources.

Many of us have seen—I always have to get in a plug for the BBC’s natural history unit, which is based in Bristol—on the “Frozen Planet” series some of the wonders of the Arctic. Some years ago, I was fortunate enough to visit Svalbard as a guest of the Norwegian Government, which was incredibly eye-opening not only in understanding the geopolitics of the region and the way in which the Arctic states work together but in seeing first hand some of the effects of climate change.

Climate change is having more of an impact on the Arctic than anywhere else; the report highlights that the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the planet and fast approaching several tipping points, which would have worldwide ramifications. As has already been mentioned, it is deeply ironic that the climate change that is damaging the Arctic is also opening up the area for the north-west shipping routes and greater exploitation of the Arctic’s oil and gas resources, fisheries and minerals, because global warming is causing the ice cap to melt. The consequence of allowing that opening up is to accelerate the climate change that caused the ice cap to melt in the first place. This is a difficult issue to resolve, but how do we balance the need to protect the Arctic environment with the desire of the Arctic states, the oil and gas companies and others to exploit the region’s natural resources—the fossil fuels, other minerals and fisheries—and to open up new shipping routes?

In his response, I hope that the Minister will also outline what he sees as the UK’s role in the Arctic and what contribution we should make. We are not a member of the Arctic Council, but we have observer status—one of only six states to have permanent observer status—and we are a close neighbour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) mentioned. We have a long history and strong environmental, political, economic and scientific interests in the region, so what does the Minister see as our role in future? It is worth noting as a general point that climate change poses the biggest threat to the Arctic environment, yet we are the ones causing it. We have a responsibility to deal with the issues, because the consequences will be felt globally. Climate change is caused by global factors, it is not a matter for the Arctic states alone to resolve.

I want to say a little more about the impact of climate change. The Environmental Audit Committee heard evidence that the current situation met the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s definition of “dangerous change”, and an expert witness said:

“We are going to get into a ghastly situation for the planet at some point and whether it is happening next year or it is going to take a few decades is the only question”.

Not only is the ice cap retreating, but snow cover is decreasing and there is increased precipitation, rising temperatures in the permafrost, melting glaciers and more.

The report notes evidence that climate change is

“having a profound impact on many species”,

such as polar bears, reindeer and walruses, and much of the Arctic’s biodiversity is shared with other parts of the world, including the UK. For example, 15% of the world’s migratory bird species spend their breeding season in the Arctic. Although this has not been mentioned much so far in our debate, the effect of all the changes on indigenous people is also important.

The report details some key tipping points, which are points at which rapid changes take place out of all proportion to the climate change driving them. When those points are reached, the climate change effects on the Arctic might be massively accelerated. The tipping points include the Arctic becoming ice-free in the summer within a decade or even sooner. The retreat of the ice cap, in both extent and density, is accelerating. The Arctic Methane Emergency Group reported to the Committee that

“the rate of warming of the Arctic could double or even triple, once the Arctic Ocean is ice-free in September. And it could double again, once the ocean is ice-free for half the year”.

A particularly alarming potential tipping point identified by the Committee—I admit that I was not that familiar with it previously, and I found this section of the report quite shocking—is the thawing of permafrost, which would cause the release of methane, a greenhouse gas that does not get the attention that carbon dioxide emissions do, but has a warming effect 72 times more than CO₂ has over 20 years. The report acknowledges the lack of consensus on how close we are to those tipping points, but the direction of travel is not in doubt. As was noted by the Committee, geo-engineering for the Arctic does not currently offer a credible long-term solution for tackling climate change. A more realistic and lower risk intervention would be to tackle black carbon, and I hope that the Minister will say something about that in his response.

On drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic, I reiterate the Committee’s concern about what

“appears to be a lack of strategic thinking and policy coherence within Government on this issue, illustrated by its failure to demonstrate how future oil and gas extraction from the Arctic can be reconciled to commitments to limit temperature rises to 2°C.”

In their response, the Government argue that Arctic production is required to meet global demand and to provide domestic energy security. They use data from the International Energy Agency report, “World Energy Outlook 2011”, which forecasts world oil demand in 2035, which would be consistent with a 50% chance of meeting our goal of limiting the increase in average global temperature to 2°. The Government argue that the extent to which global demand outstrips supply could be met by new Arctic production capacity. We have already heard other speakers cast some doubt on whether that increased production is necessary.

In its “World Energy Outlook 2012” report, however, the IEA stated:

“In view of the technical and environmental challenges and high cost of operating in extreme weather conditions, including the problems of dealing with ice floes and shipping in water that remains frozen for much of the year, we do not expect the Arctic offshore to make a large contribution to global oil supply during the Outlook period.”

In addition, data in the same report suggest that projected oil demand in 2035 could be met entirely by currently producing, already discovered fields.

Will the Minister respond to those projections in the latest “World Energy Outlook” report? Will he also set out in more detail how the Government’s position is consistent with their decarbonisation targets and what the chances are of keeping global temperature rises below 2°C?

The Government stated in their response that they supported

“the use of the highest environmental and drilling standards in the Arctic”,

but that they were not in a position to determine what constitutes such standards, which was a matter for the countries of jurisdiction. The Government’s claim is undermined by a recent report in The Guardian, on Tuesday 15 January, which shows that they tried to water down planned EU regulations on deep-sea oil drilling. Leaked European Union documents given to The Guardian show that the Government tried to remove the proposal of several EU members to recognise an “oil spill response gap”—if adverse weather conditions make it impossible to clean up a spill, causing it to be left for weeks or months, and if this gap is too great, companies could be prevented from drilling.

There is further evidence that the UK, far from thinking that this was a matter for the countries of jurisdiction, has tried to water down EU proposals to force drilling operators to lodge their emergency response plans with Governments, which would provide greater transparency in seeing whether operators complied with Government regulations. I will be grateful if the Minister responds to that story in The Guardian and tells us whether he regards that as an accurate account of the UK’s position in the EU negotiations.

The Committee detailed key problems associated with oil and gas extraction in the Arctic that makes it particularly risky, from extreme weather conditions to lack of time to clear up an oil spill if it happens towards the end of summer drilling, or the distance and unavailability of infrastructure to manage accidents at remote Arctic drilling locations. Indeed, a review by Pew Environment Group of oil spill response in the US Arctic ocean concluded that companies were not adequately prepared for a spill in the Arctic, as has been mentioned by other speakers. Recent events suggest that the Committee is right to be concerned by the heightened risks attached to oil and gas extraction. Shell’s attempts at Arctic oil exploration, on which it has so far spent $4.5 billion, have been put on hold following a series of mishaps including its Arctic oil rig, the Kulluk, running aground off Alaska in gale-force winds on new year’s eve. On 8 January the Obama Administration launched a 60-day review into whether Shell should even be permitted to drill in the Arctic.

I turn to marine diversity in the Arctic. The other day, we debated the Antarctic Bill and the importance of establishing marine protected zones there. I very much welcome that, and we should press ahead with our efforts to establish such zones in our overseas territories around the world. I am pleased that the Government are committed to working towards a new global mechanism to regulate the conservation of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and that they will press for a new implementing agreement under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea to deliver that. It will provide a means of establishing marine protected areas in the high seas, and presumably the future creation of offshore oil and gas no-go zones.

I led a Westminster Hall debate on preserving our marine ecosystems back in July, following an agreement at Rio+ that a decision should be taken by the UN General Assembly in 2014. It would be good to know what steps the Government have taken with others who were in favour of an agreement at Rio+, such as Brazil, Australia, the European Union, South Africa, India and the Pacific islands, to move this agenda forward, and what representations have been made to the UN General Assembly towards delivering a new implementing agreement under UNCLOS. In the meantime, will the Government revisit the Committee’s recommendation that there should be a moratorium on drilling in the Arctic until a number of reasonable conditions are met, first and foremost until the regulatory regimes of all Arctic states impose the highest available environmental standards, with the risk standard adopted as low as possible?

One of the positives that can be taken from the Government’s response is their agreement to the Committee’s recommendation to publish a policy framework for the Arctic in 2013. I appreciate their sensitivity in not describing it as a strategy, given that we have only observer status and are not an Arctic state. As part of that framework, the Committee suggested opportunities for “grand bargains” that might be explored with potential observer states, including China, on wider environmental issues. In his evidence to the Committee, the then Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), said that the Government would be pleased if more countries were granted observer status on the Arctic Council, and was not worried that this could dilute the UK’s influence. What is the Minister’s position on China’s request for observer status? Has his Department discussed with stakeholders on the council the potential for reaching “grand bargains”, if the granting of observer status could be linked to action on black carbon emissions from China?

Development of the policy framework will be overseen by the cross-Government Arctic network group. However, several concerns have been raised by non-governmental organisations working on Arctic policy about the transparency of the group, which is convened by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office bringing together key Departments to consider key Arctic issues. I urge the Minister to allow for greater public and parliamentary scrutiny of the group, to provide opportunities for NGOs to make representations to it, to require it to publish notes of its meetings, and so on.

I thank the Committee, particularly the Chair, for this debate. I hope that this is just the start of wider attention to Arctic issues. They are incredibly important not just for the UK, but for the future of our planet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

I do not think my hon. Friend would be arguing for that, seeing as the Government are limited in their jurisdiction in the area, and seeing as they do not own any oil companies exploring in the area. For the British Government to make a unilateral proclamation about unlimited liability in that area would be seen by some as somewhat condescending and interfering. However, clearly, environmental protection should be at the forefront. That is why a lot of British companies—in terms of deep sea drilling, and the kind of measures and safety measures that we have learnt over years in the North sea—could have a very real application to safe drilling in that sensitive part of the world.

The hon. Member for Bristol East asked a technical question about the threat of methane released from permafrost. Continued warming of Arctic land masses will lead to a large-scale melting of permafrost, which may well release large quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Although the magnitude of any release is uncertain, it has potential to significantly accelerate global warming. While the amount of methane currently being released is small compared with other sources, that contained below permafrost and land ice is thought to be huge. The Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme is looking at methane release in the Arctic as part of its Task Force on Short-Lived Climate Forcers.

The hon. Lady also asked how serious black carbon is in the Arctic. It is definitely an issue for consideration. The United Nations Environment Programme report into black carbon produced last year concluded that emissions of black carbon particles into the atmosphere can have a significant impact on human health and both direct and indirect climate impacts. For example, some emissions can be transported long distances and deposited as soot on Arctic ice or snow, which decreases surface reflectivity—albedo—and increases ice melt because of the additional warming effect. The Arctic Council’s AMAP produced a report in November 2011 on the effects of black carbon and has a task force that is following up that work. It is currently drawing up its work programme.

The hon. Lady also asked about the report in The Guardian, the issue of higher standards for drilling in the Arctic, and the allegation in that report that we are in some way undermining the EU’s attempts to apply them in our own backyard. All I will say is that she should not believe everything she reads in the papers, let alone The Guardian. However, negotiations are continuing with the EU on the proposed directive to regulate offshore oil and gas activities, and the UK is working to ensure that the highest levels of safety and environmental protection are upheld in an effective manner. It is worth saying that the UK already has a robust regime in place to regulate offshore oil and gas. Environmental safety is paramount, and offshore operations are only permitted in the UK where there is a thorough and comprehensive oil spill response plan in place.

The hon. Lady asked what more we are doing to move forward marine protection issues at the United Nations. I will write to her on that point and provide an update. She also asked about the Arctic policy framework. We will produce the Arctic policy framework in the summer of 2013. That will be a dynamic process involving interested stakeholders, and it will outline the Government’s policy and approach in more detail.

The hon. Lady also asked how the UK’s influence in the Arctic Council would be affected if observer status is granted to applicant countries. We do not believe that the UK’s influence will be impacted. Most of our influence on the council comes through scientific engagement with the working groups. We will continue to provide that, regardless of the status of other countries with respect to the Arctic Council.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Minister may be about to answer this question, but I specifically asked about the UK’s attitude towards China being given observer status and whether we would welcome that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

Yes I can. Indeed, not too long ago I made a statement about the situation in Kachin. We welcome what the President said about Kachin when he reiterated the Burmese Government’s stated commitment to a nationwide ceasefire and to peace building, although we do not recognise one or two other things he has said. It is important that there is a ceasefire in Kachin state and that the military in the area adheres to what the President is saying. It is also important, as I stressed when I was in Burma in December, that humanitarian aid gets to the people in Kachin.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the Minister has noted the urgent and troubling situation in Kachin state, with the three civilian deaths reported last week and the military breaking a very short-lived ceasefire at the weekend. Will he tell us what discussions the Government have had not just with the Burmese authorities on the urgent need for peace talks but with the EU and the United Nations on his assessment of whether the resumed attacks bring into doubt the Burmese Government’s commitment to a ceasefire and their control over the military?

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Lady raises a good point. There is a genuine question about control over the Burmese military; and until the Burmese military is brought under control, the peace process in Burma and the journey on which the President has embarked will be under serious question. We are anxious to help with what is going on in Kachin: we have increased our humanitarian aid, which now totals £3.5 million—as far as I am aware, the biggest donation in that area from any country. We are also one of the three bilateral members of the peace donor support group, which represents most of the major donors in Burma and is working closely with the Government to move from the ceasefire arrangements to political dialogue with all Burma’s ethnic groups.

Antarctic Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

Following the Prime Minister’s statement, may I add my sympathies to those who have lost loved ones at this difficult time and concur with the thrust of all the questions put to him?

Let me return to clause 5 of the Bill, which we were debating an hour ago. We currently have a good opportunity to test clause 5, because amendment 2 is provoking a constructive debate about its purposes. It is important to bear in mind just how vulnerable some parts of Antarctica are, particularly the Southern ocean, which is of decisive importance to the environment, not least because it absorbs up to 40% of carbon dioxide. It therefore plays a major part in the overall global environment. It is also important to note that the Southern ocean has a considerably more complex food chain than might at first be apparent, so it is all the more important to ensure that it is protected. That is why we are right to support clause 5 as it stands—because it not only ensures that protection is the order of the day, but that action can be taken if something goes wrong. That is implicit in clause 5.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the seas in the area. Does he share my disappointment that the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources failed to agree proposals for two marine reserves in the Southern ocean, one in the Ross sea and one in east Antarctica? Does he agree that it is important not just to protect the ice mass, as it were—the land in Antarctica—but to look for environmental protection for the oceans as well?

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful for that intervention. The Bill looks into the marine aspects of Antarctica as well. Obviously we would be building on such measures in different ways, and although the Bill is specific about the provisions that the hon. Lady has already outlined, I take note of what she has said. Indeed, my interest in this area will lead me to discuss later the matter of promoting the protection of the Southern ocean.

Let me emphasise the value of clause 5 in connection not just with preparation, but with contingency planning. That is where clause 5 comes into its own, because it makes it clear that contingency planning is necessary, and it is easy to justify in connection with the rest of the Bill.

Sri Lanka

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Mr Hollobone, I join in congratulating you on how you have chaired this debate and managed to call all the speakers. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this debate. I have participated with her in previous debates on Sri Lanka, and she is not just passionate but knowledgeable about the situation there, despite not having visited the country.

It is interesting that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) discussed the eight-day trip to Sri Lanka in July, which was arranged by the Sri Lankan high commission. Nine Conservative MPs went on that trip, plus the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I certainly was not invited. As I am the Opposition spokesperson on Sri Lanka, one might think that I would have been the first port of call if the high commission genuinely wanted it to be a cross-party trip. It is obviously useful and important to visit countries and see the situation on the ground, but the experience on such trips and the lessons learned tend to depend on what one is shown and who is the host. This debate has amply demonstrated how going to see things on the ground does not necessarily give the whole picture.

[Dr Offord]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will not, because it is important that we give the Minister time to respond. I want to use less than my time if possible.

Like the Government, we welcome the report of the internal review panel on UN action in Sri Lanka, and we note the panel’s conclusion that the Secretary-General took a courageous step in commissioning the review, but that in itself is not enough; we must learn lessons from it. We must not just focus on the extent to which the Sri Lankan people were let down by the international community; we must see how we can move forward.

The temptation with any review is to focus on the past. We should not forget the atrocities committed on Sri Lanka’s killing fields, the tens of thousands who needlessly lost their lives during the civil war or the many other civilians who have been affected. I do not support calls to draw a line under those atrocities; I do not think that the time has come to say that we can now move on and forget what happened. Many people have not been held to account for the crimes that they committed, and we must still focus on that. I thought it quite shocking that one Government Member referred to irregularities in the past. They were much more than irregularities. It is also shocking that people cast doubt on the evidence, such as was shown in the Channel 4 programme, about what happened in Sri Lanka. It is well documented by international organisations.

As the head of Amnesty International’s UN New York office stated, the review is

“a wake-up call for UN member states that have not pushed hard enough for an independent international investigation into alleged war crimes”.

Amnesty warned that there is “no evidence” that

“the Sri Lankan Government’s lack of will to protect civilians or account for very serious violations…has changed”.

The most pertinent conclusions on which we must now focus are that the report’s recommendations provide

“an urgent and compelling platform for action”

and that the

“UN’s failure to adequately respond to events like those that occurred in Sri Lanka should not happen again.”

Many have been shocked by the review’s finding that UN staff

“did not perceive the prevention of killing civilians as their responsibility”.

On the concept of a responsibility to protect, the review warned:

“Differing perceptions among member states and the Secretariat of the concept’s meaning and use had become so contentious as to nullify its potential value. Indeed, making references to the responsibility to protect was seen as more likely to weaken rather than strengthen UN action.”

The panel concluded that there is an

“urgent need for the UN to update its strategy for engagement with member states in situations where civilian populations…are not protected”.

Will the Minister outline the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s current interpretation of the responsibility to protect doctrine? What discussions have the Government had with international colleagues about the internal review and how the situation can move forward?

During the past year, the final report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission has been published, but as has been widely acknowledged, it failed to address the credible allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by both sides in the conflict, as highlighted by the UN panel of experts. The LLRC’s composition and narrow terms of reference were deeply flawed, as is borne out in its report, which fails even to mention torture, despite the fact that the UN Committee against Torture noted “continued and consistent allegations” of its widespread use.

The LLRC was in no way adequate, but some of its recommendations offered a foundation on which we could build, providing that they are properly implemented. In accordance with the UN Human Rights Council resolution passed in March, the Sri Lankan Government developed their national action plan, about which I have asked the Minister before, but there remain few signs of meaningful progress, as noted by many countries and non-governmental organisations during Sri Lanka’s universal periodic review towards the end of last year. What contact has the UK had with the Sri Lankan authorities since the periodic review? Will the UK set out identifiable goals that can be assessed at the UN human rights plenary session in March, which must take the opportunity to reassure the people of Sri Lanka that the UN can help them?

The year 2013 could prove to be a crossroads for Sri Lanka, but the UN is not the only institution with a pivotal role to play. Many Members have mentioned the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit later this year. The UK’s stance to date has been ambiguous compared with, for example, that of the Canadian Prime Minister, who stated unequivocally that, unless there were clear signs of improvement in Sri Lanka’s human rights record, he would boycott the summit. Is the UK Prime Minister’s attendance at CHOGM provisional? If so, what conditions must the Sri Lankan Government meet if the UK is to be present?

We must also consider the UK’s duty to protect. Will the Minister update us on the Foreign Office’s discussions with the Home Office regarding deportations to Sri Lanka, which other hon. Members have mentioned? Finally, given the UN’s clear failures to protect civilians and recognise the Government’s human rights abuses and the shortcomings of the LLRC, does the Minister agree that the people of Sri Lanka deserve an independent international investigation to provide not only answers and accountability but a clear way forward for their country?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I am pleased to say that we have an extremely good track record in that respect. We are one of the largest aid donors to Burma and have allocated £187 million to it over four years, which includes support for the process of ethnic reconciliation. We announced another £27 million in November for the humanitarian support of refugees and internally displaced people and for peace-building activities, drawing on our experiences in Northern Ireland. We have provided a further £2 million to Kachin, where there are 27,500 internally displaced people. We have a record that is second to none in providing the aid that is sorely needed in that part of the world.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I know from my visit to Burma in July that the country will welcome the trade delegation that the Minister is leading. However, I am concerned that, from feedback I have had and questions I have asked about other trade delegations that have been led by the Foreign Office in recent months, it seems that very little has been said about human rights on those trips. Will the Minister assure me that the plight of the Rohingya, the fate of political prisoners and other human rights issues in Burma will be very much on his agenda when he goes to Burma?

[Mr Swire]

I can certainly give the hon. Lady that assurance. Trade is one part of what we are doing, as I have attempted to outline this morning. We believe in trade because, by engaging in it, we can form relationships and show the people of Burma what future they can have. However, that we are trying to increase our bilateral trade does not mean for a moment that we will ignore our drive for increased human rights and the recognition of different ethnic groups in Burma. I shall make those points to all the politicians I meet there. Indeed, I have made those points to the Burmese politicians I have already met.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I do not think that that is particularly fair on the Burmese Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I discussed these matters extensively in New York. We await the report from the Burmese Government, and our ambassador has been to the area. We think that the Burmese Government are doing what they can with their army and police. Inter-communal violence has gone on for a number of years in that part of the world, as the hon. Lady will be aware. The matter needs to be resolved, not least the issue of citizenship for the Rohingya people.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s recent support for a review of the 1982 Citizenship Act which, as we have already heard, is one of the underlying factors rendering the Rohingya stateless. It is also important that Bangladesh is brought into discussions about citizenships. Will the Minister tell the House what efforts are being made to bring those parties to the table?

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Lady is right. I alluded to that in my earlier remarks. We think citizenship is important. We have been pressing for many years for the Burmese Government to recognise this. The Foreign Secretary raised the matter with his opposite number back in September. On Bangladesh, yes, again the hon. Lady is right. Bangladesh does have a role to play. The first thing is to solve and to stop the violence that flared up again as recently as a few days ago. That must come to an end. We must make sure that there is proper humanitarian access and that aid gets in to those people who are displaced and homeless, and then we must see the report that comes out from the Burmese Government. Certainly, any long-term solution needs to address the long-standing issue that has too often been ignored about the right of those people to have a state. That needs to be resolved in the round. I wholly concur with the hon. Lady’s remarks.

Rohingya Communities

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Mr Williams.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) on securing the debate. I, too, have been contacted by constituents who are concerned, particularly by what they saw on the Channel 4 programme about the plight of the Rohingya community. Everyone who has spoken today has done an excellent job in conveying to the Chamber some of the problems faced by the community and some of the human rights abuses being committed against it. I welcome the Minister to his new role. I suspect that we will be spending quite a lot of time in Westminster Hall together in such debates in the coming months.

I was fortunate to visit Burma in July, with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, to see the progress that has undoubtedly been made by the regime, and to discuss the need for continuing reforms if Burma is to be a true democracy where political freedoms and human rights are respected, where the rule of law is firmly established, and where communities are not torn apart by conflict. It is important to note how far Burma has come in a very short space of time. There was a feeling of optimism from everyone I spoke to, particularly when I met Aung San Suu Kyi and other newly elected MPs who had won by-elections earlier this year. There is a sense that the genie is out of the bottle and that there will be no return to the former repression, but obviously there is a very long way to go and further progress to be made.

The problems faced by ethnic minority communities were a key issue we discussed. I think I am right in saying that approximately 43% of the population in Burma comes from a minority community. Conflicts in some states, such as Kachin, Karen and, of course, Rakhine, are a graphic reminder that there is still a long way to go in Burma.

I wish to give as much time as possible for the Minister’s winding-up speech so that other hon. Members have the chance to intervene, so I will not go through the problems faced by the Rohingya community again. As hon. Members have said, villages have been destroyed by fire, and we have heard about rapes and the brutal murders of children. The World Food Programme estimates that 90,000 people have been displaced by the violence. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South said that up to 100,000 had been displaced. There is clearly a humanitarian crisis and I hope the Minister will tell us what steps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development are taking to ensure that victims are receiving the humanitarian assistance they clearly need, what access there is to the camps, and how much aid the British Government are prepared to contribute.

Much of the blame for the violence against the Rohingya community has been attributed to other ethnic groups within Rakhine, but disturbing evidence suggests that the Burmese border security force, army and police are also involved and culpable. Human Rights Watch has condemned the authorities for standing by and watching, indifferent to what is going on. Amnesty International reports that

“Hundreds of mostly men and boys have been detained, with nearly all held incommunicado, and some subject to ill-treatment.”

It describes the arrests as “arbitrary and discriminatory”. Worryingly, it seems that political prisoner numbers are once again on the rise.

As part of the package of reform in Burma, we have seen the release of political prisoners and a relaxation of press censorship. In Rakhine, however, a different picture seems to be emerging. During my visit the plight of the Rohingya was raised at virtually every meeting, but there is a lack of support for the community across the board. Although we talk about this as being a Muslim issue—certainly the British Muslim community has done a lot to bring it to people’s attention—we were told that it was an issue of what was deemed to be illegal immigration, and not that the Rohingya community is a Muslim community. I am sure that that would be disputed by many within the Rohingya community, but it comes down to the basic issue of what country they belong to and their disputed legal status in Burma.

I had a positive and informative discussion with representatives of the Rohingya community. One question I posed to them was whether they would qualify for protection under the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. They have not passed that hurdle yet, and it is debatable whether they would. Some would say that the 1982 citizenship law was passed by the military government specifically to exclude the Rohingya population from Burmese citizenship.

I do not think that anyone else has gone into any detail about that law. It categorises people into three groups. Full citizens are those who belong to one of the eight specified national races, or whose ancestors settled before the British occupation in 1823. Obviously, the Rohingya do not come into that category. Associate citizens who applied before the 1982 Act came into effect qualify under the previous 1948 law. For the most part, the Rohingya would not meet that criterion either. Finally, naturalised citizens are required to provide conclusive evidence that they or their parents’ residency in Burma predates independence in 1948. Some of the Rohingya community I met have generations who go back that far, but a lot more have arrived more recently. Those who have at least one parent qualifying under one of those categories can become naturalised citizens if they are at least 18 years old and speak one of the national languages. That does not include the dialect spoken by the Rohingya, so even if they manage to prove that they meet one of those other categories, the language criterion excludes them. That means that the Rohingya are, in effect, left stateless or classed as resident foreigners without any legal status. Many of them have little formal documentation, so even if their roots in Burma go back pre-1948, it will be difficult for them to prove that.

Human Rights Watch, in its report, “The Government Could Have Stopped This”, suggests that many of those who had any paperwork would have lost it in the fires earlier this summer. That organisation has received reports from some Rohingya that the authorities confiscated their ID. Clearly, the Rohingya people are in a Catch-22 situation now. There is no way that they can prove that they meet the citizenship requirements under the current law. They are, in effect, stateless; they cannot prove that they have the right to be citizens of any other country. I will mention Bangladesh in a moment.

Will the Minister say what discussions there have been with the Burmese Government regarding the 1982 law and, given that Rohingya children born in Burma are denied citizenship of any nation, what representations have been made regarding article 7 of the convention on the rights of the child?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

Historically, the Burmese Government were, perhaps, more sympathetic towards citizenship rights in relation to the Rohingya. The first President of Burma said that the

“Muslims of Arakan certainly belong to the indigenous races of Burma. If they do not belong to the indigenous races, we also cannot be taken as an indigenous races.”

In the past there has been a more understanding attitude towards the Rohingya. It is important that we get that on the record.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That shows clearly why the 1982 Act was such a backward step: by establishing the principle that there are eight national races, it went back on what the then President said. Review and reform of the 1982 Act is crucial to dealing with the Rohingya’s situation.

The establishment by the President of a commission to investigate the violence in Rakhine state was welcomed by the Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who does not cover Burma, but deals with human rights issues—or did at the time. He issued a statement welcoming the announcement, emphasising that it was crucial for the commission to be impartial and inclusive. Will the Minister say what involvement the Foreign Office has had in the commission’s work? Have any direct representations been made to the commission? Has the Foreign Office been involved in assessing the commission’s progress to date?

Several hon. Members mentioned Bangladesh, which is important, because Burma cannot resolve the situation alone and it is not Burma’s sole responsibility to resolve it. The Rohingya’s treatment by Bangladeshi authorities is also a serious cause for concern. It is difficult to verify numbers, but we have seen videos of packed boats being turned away by Bangladesh. It is estimated that more than 300,000 Rohingya refugees have managed to cross the border into Bangladesh, but the Government there officially recognise only 29,000 of those as refugees.

It is worrying that Bangladesh has now stopped three aid agencies—Médecins Sans Frontières, Action Against Hunger and Muslim Aid—from providing aid, claiming that Rohingya are in Bangladesh illegally. They are going backwards and forwards across the border and are regarded as illegal immigrants in both cases. What contact has there been between the UK and Bangladesh regarding the principle of non-refoulement and humanitarian access? Has the Minister tried to encourage a dialogue between the Bangladesh and Burmese authorities? That is what is needed at the moment to deal with the immediate humanitarian crisis, because the refugees have nowhere to go.

Burma should be praised for the steps that it has taken towards democracy, but it still has a long way to go. The progress is fragile and grave human rights violations remain, including but not limited to the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities. The President must prove that his Government are committed to addressing those violations and the UK must demonstrate, when the Burmese President visits this country, that all due representations are made and that this matter is flagged on the political agenda. I am sure that the Minister wants to update us on all those issues in his response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I share my hon. Friend’s analysis. We have a very close working relationship with Chile, which is the most developed economy in Latin America, as well as with Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and other countries with an outward-looking free trade disposition. We continue to work closely to promote British trade and, more generally, wider British interests, including our political interests.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Can the Minister give us a progress report on what the Foreign Secretary called

“Britain’s most ambitious effort to strengthen ties with Latin America in 200 years”?

Does he regard the motion passed by the Organisation of American States, expressing solidarity with Ecuador over his bungled threats to their embassy, as a measure of how successful the Foreign Secretary has been so far?

[Mr Browne]

As an indication, the Foreign Secretary and I have visited Latin America more than did all the Ministers in the previous Government put together. We are strengthening our ties with like-minded countries such as Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Peru. As for Ecuador, when I visited I was the first Minister to go there for 12 years.