Tibet

Lady Hermon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I am delighted that Mr Speaker has granted this debate on freedom of expression in Tibet, which I believe is the first debate on Tibet for some years. I am particularly pleased that it is taking place on international human rights day, which is appropriate given the human rights abuses that Tibetans have suffered for decades, ever since the occupation of Tibet by China in 1950.

Chinese Government representatives and diplomats will say that Tibet has always been a part of China. They say that it has never been a separate nation or an independent state, but that is simply not true. However, gradually over the past 60 years or so, Tibetans have become second-class citizens in their own land.

I had the huge privilege of visiting Tibet in 2006, thanks to the insistence of colleagues on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in particular the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was initially reluctant for members of the FAC—of whom I was one at the time—to go to Lhasa and other parts of the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region, but we insisted and, in May of that year, a small group of five British MPs was eventually given permission to travel from Beijing via Chengdu to Lhasa. We were accompanied by Barbara Woodward, then a senior British diplomat at our embassy in Beijing—I believe she is now the ambassador-designate—who spoke excellent Tibetan, and about 15 officials from the Chinese Government’s Foreign Ministry, who were there to look after our security and attend to any medical needs, given the high altitude of the Tibetan capital. The new railway from Chengdu was yet to open later that summer.

I did not expect that the visit would have such a profound effect on me and my colleagues. The sheer beauty of the ancient home of the Dalai Lamas, the Potala palace, and the surrounding Himalayan mountains make Lhasa a unique capital city. It is, as Tibetans often say, the roof of the world. On disembarking the aircraft at 13,000 feet above sea level there is a sensation of dizziness, which can last for several days at that altitude. Heinrich Harrar’s book, “Seven years in Tibet”, had given me some background to what we were about to see, but nothing quite prepares one for the reality. The city had changed quite a lot over the years and there were many more Han Chinese residents in 2006 than there ever had been. However, the old Barkhor area in the centre of Lhasa was mainly intact and the Buddhist temples have been carefully preserved in recent years, following their initial destruction at the beginning of the Chinese occupation.

Our hosts were impeccably polite and helpful, but they always kept a watchful eye on us by sitting in the lobby of the Yak hotel in the centre of town where we were staying. It was hard to get away from the minders, even just to go to the noodle bar next door, but on the final evening in Lhasa the former Member for Thurrock, Andrew Mackinlay and I managed to escape past the security people out of a back door and into the labyrinth of small streets that eventually led us to the Barkhor. Once there, we tried to speak to local traders, but most of them did not speak English or were too frightened to engage with a foreigner, or both. The overwhelming sense we felt from the Tibetans we managed to speak to was that they were highly religious Buddhists and that they missed the Dalai Lama, who was forced to flee from Tibet in 1959 after being told of a Chinese plot to murder him.

The reverence for Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, was clear, but the fear of expressing any support for the exiled religious and political leader meant that few obvious signs of support were evident among most of the population. Local Tibetan Communist officials told us that the mediaeval feudalism that used to characterise Tibet before the enlightened Chinese Communist party liberated the Tibetan people meant that every Tibetan now had a far better lifestyle: they could live in a good home and have enough to eat.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene so early in his contribution and I am delighted that he is having this debate on this day. I wonder whether he or Andrew Mackinlay, or any of the other visiting Members, had the opportunity during their 2006 visit to obtain evidence of, or to discuss, human rights abuses, including torture, in Tibet. Will he enlighten us about that in his contribution?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution. Sadly, we did not have much of a chance to talk to anyone about what Tibetans had to suffer day in, day out, because we were not allowed access to any Tibetans without our minders from Beijing. However, we asked the abbot of one of the monasteries about the missing monks for whom we had records and names. He was extremely embarrassed and refused to answer our questions because of the people who were watching him. There was a sense of fear the whole time that we were there, but subsequently we discovered quite a lot, especially when we did our full inquiry into Britain and China. The people we were with said that the Tibetans were now better off under the Chinese People’s Republic, without a feudal monarchy over which they had no say or control—that they no longer had to be subjected to an ancient religious system of government that had subjugated them for centuries.

After leaving Lhasa, we travelled for several hours along dusty, deserted roads in a treeless wilderness towards the concrete-block town of Tsedang, a place that foreigners rarely visit, where silence greeted our entry into a run-down old bar on the evening of our arrival. The next morning we were to visit the oldest Buddhist monastery in Tibet, the eighth century Samye monastery, which is being carefully restored to its full glory by the Chinese after the damage wrought in the 1950s following the invasion. It was a truly remarkable place, but even there the interpreters were reluctant to mention the name of the Dalai Lama, who still had a throne waiting for him in one of the many rooms.

On our return to the UK, news of the trip quickly spread to the Tibet support groups and the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet, which I now have the privilege of chairing. I was asked to speak and to show my many stunning and extraordinary photographs, which I was happy to do. Just over a year later, in September 2007, I joined a visit organised by the APPG and the Tibet Society to Dharamsala to meet the exiled Tibetan community and, of course, His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The Dalai Lama always talks about his middle way policy towards China. He jokes in his broken English that because Tibetans are no good with firearms, the Chinese are welcome to provide an army to defend Tibet and that Tibetan cooking is pretty awful, while Chinese food is very tasty, so most Tibetans would prefer to eat Chinese food. However, he thinks that the autonomy they are given should mean just that: the ability of Tibetans to have a say over their own future; to decide for themselves who their rulers should be; to speak their own language; to practise their own religion; and, most importantly, to have their Dalai Lama back among them, not continuing to live in exile.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question; the answer is no, not while we were there. On subsequent visits to Dharamsala we engaged with many young people who had escaped from Tibet to seek refuge and sanctuary in India. They made their views very clear, and how they saw the oppression by the Chinese Communist regime in Lhasa and other parts of Tibet. Sadly, however, while we were in Tibet, we did not have access to anybody outside those who were dictated to by our hosts. Those were the strict rules under which we were allowed to visit Tibet at all. It was a privilege to be in Tibet, but sadly it was not a very enlightening visit as far as learning the views of the people was concerned. Nevertheless, being there and seeing things for ourselves meant a great deal.

As I was saying, the Chinese Government expressed a number of concerns and objections to the memorandum. To address these, the Tibetan leadership presented the “Note on the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People” during the ninth and last round of talks. The memorandum and the note outline how genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people could operate within the framework of the People’s Republic of China—its constitution, its sovereignty and territorial integrity, its “three adherences” and the hierarchy and authority of the Chinese central Government.

Sadly, there has been no dialogue between the Chinese and the exiled Tibetan leadership since 2010. Despite that, however, the Tibetan leadership remains steadfast in its commitment to the middle way approach, and to finding a lasting solution through dialogue between the envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the representatives of the Chinese leadership. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is this. Would the British Government support the resumption of dialogue between the envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the representatives of the Chinese leadership? The Tibetan leadership has reiterated on numerous occasions its commitment to seeking genuine autonomy, not independence, and to finding a resolution to the Tibet issue through peaceful means. The British Government have a particular responsibility, unique among all western Governments, because of the relationship that we had with the Tibetan Government in Lhasa prior to 1959.

[Lady Hermon]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him once again. He referred to the special commitment that Britain has to Tibet. Bearing in mind the special commitment that the UK had to Hong Kong and the recent reaction by China to Hong Kong, is he saying to us and to the Foreign Office that he is concerned about China tightening, rather than loosening, its grip on Tibet?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question, which is very pertinent. I have deliberately avoided mentioning Hong Kong, but she makes an important point. My impression, having studied Tibet and Chinese relations with Tibet for the last eight years, is that China is tightening its grip. There is further oppression of the Tibetan people and China is clamping down; there is no doubt about that.

In the eight and a half years since I was in Lhasa, Tibet and its people have come to mean a great deal to me, as they do to so many supporters of a free Tibet, both in this country and throughout the world. In a materialistic consumer society, the teachings of the Dalai Lama and the ideals of Tibetans living in exile provide us with an alternative to the lives we live today. It is not that I have become a kind of Jewish Buddhist—[Interruption.] Well, there might be such a thing. It is not that we should all convert and that the world would then be a better place, but this is an ancient culture with warmth, wisdom and a message of peace and love for all humanity—I do not mean Judaism—and that is a message that we rarely hear in the world today. The 14th Dalai Lama never stops telling anyone who will listen—many millions do listen to him—that we can live in peace and harmony together, without war or conflict. I can never understand why the Chinese Government believe he is such a threat to them, and even call him a terrorist.

Today is not only international human rights day but the 25th anniversary of the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to His Holiness. To quote from the announcement of the Nobel peace prize for 1989, which was made in Oslo on 5 October that year,

“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize to the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, the religious and political leader of the Tibetan people. The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people. The Dalai Lama has developed his philosophy of peace from a great reverence for all things living and upon the concept of universal responsibility embracing all mankind as well as nature. In the opinion of the Committee, the Dalai Lama has come forward with constructive and forward-looking proposals for the solution of international conflicts, human rights issues and global environmental problems.”

Later today, I will attend a ceremony in London to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to the Dalai Lama. It is important that we never forget the contribution that he has made to global peace and understanding. Despite their best efforts, the Chinese Government can never remove the love and respect that the Tibetan people have for him. His message continues to be highly relevant in the modern world.

The cause of Tibet and freedom of expression is important, and not just to Tibetans. Let me outline some of the cases that have been drawn to my attention. One of the earliest cases I became involved in was that of Dhondup Wangchen, the Tibetan film-maker who produced a documentary that was critical of the Chinese Government in the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. For his crime of making a film called “Leaving Fear Behind”, Dhondup was given a six-year prison sentence, and he was only released on 5 June this year. When he was imprisoned, I raised his case in the House with the then Foreign Secretary, and subsequently wrote to the Chinese ambassador and the authorities at the prison where he was incarcerated.

Dhondup’s wife, Lhamo Tso, came to stay with my wife and me in Leeds three years ago while she was on a tour of the UK to raise awareness of her husband’s plight, which had left her and their four children living in extreme poverty in Dharamsala. This family’s story was typical of stories of the families of any Tibetan who dared to speak out against the Chinese Government and the way that Tibetans are routinely treated in their own land. “Leaving Fear Behind” is critical of the Chinese Government and records the feelings and thoughts of ordinary Tibetans about the Olympic games. It does not advocate violence or the overthrow of the state; it is not subversive in any way; and it would be considered quite mild if it had been a documentary about this country’s attitude to what the Chinese Government label an ethnic minority. However, such freedom of expression is forbidden in Tibet, so Dhondup had committed a criminal offence.

The outrageous and severe punishment he received almost took his life, because he contracted hepatitis B while he was in jail. Born in Amdo, Dhondup is now 40. He is free again and will soon be reunited with his wife and children, who are now in the United States. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Students for a Free Tibet took up his case and organised a worldwide protest, but it made no difference to the severity of his sentence; he was not released early.

Let me leave Dhondup’s case by quoting him on why he made the film:

“At a time of great difficulty and a feeling of helplessness”,

the idea of his film was to

“get some meaningful response and results. It is very difficult”—

that is, difficult for Tibetans—

“to go to Beijing and speak out there. So that is why we decided to show the real feelings of Tibetans inside Tibet through this film. Nowadays, China is declaring that they are preserving and improving Tibetan culture and language. That’s what they’re telling the world. Many organisations and offices have been set up for these things. What they say and what they do are totally different, opposites. If they really want to preserve and improve Tibetan culture and language in Tibet then they should withdraw Chinese people living in Tibetan areas. Tibetan culture and language has to be practised in all Tibetan areas. If it’s not practised, how can it be preserved?”

Throughout the ages, music has often been used as a way of expressing protest. A number of Tibetan musicians have written and performed songs and made CDs, for which they have been arrested and severely punished. Lolo, a 30-year-old male Tibetan singer, was first detained on 19 April 2012, shortly after releasing an album with political lyrics. After a brief period of detention he was released but was later re-arrested. In February 2013, Lolo was sentenced to six years in prison by a court in Xining, Qinghai province, on charges of “seditiously splitting the state”, a catch-all offence that allows the Chinese authorities to punish ethnic minorities defending their rights. Lolo’s album, “Raise the Tibetan Flag, Children of the Snowland”, contained 14 songs that called for Tibet’s independence, the unity of the Tibetan people and the return of the Dalai Lama. The title track is a direct challenge to China’s rule.

Other musicians convicted for publishing controversial Tibetan songs include Kalsang Yarphel, who on 27 November, just two weeks ago, was sentenced to four years in prison by a Chinese court in Chengdu, Sichuan province. Pema Rigzin, 44, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison and a severe fine of 50,000 yuan for composing, releasing, and distributing music with alleged political overtones. Among the songs he produced were “In Memory of Tibet” and “Tears”, which have since been banned. Rigzin was detained on 7 May 2013 in Chengdu city, and held incommunicado until the trial. Rigzin’s family were barred from hiring the lawyer of their choice.

Kelsang Yarphel, who is 39, and a popular Tibetan folk singer and composer, was sentenced to four years in prison and given an immense 200,000 yuan fine. He was detained by the authorities in Lhasa on 14 July 2013 on charges that he performed a song with alleged political overtones in a concert. Though some of Yarphel’s music encouraged Tibetan unity, none has been known to express overtly political ideology. Song titles included “We Should Learn Tibetan” and “We Should Unite”. At the Lhasa concert he performed a song called “Fellow Tibetans”, which calls on Tibetans to learn and speak Tibetan and to “build courage” to think about Tibet’s “future path”.

Finally, I draw to the attention of hon. Members and the Minister the case of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, a senior monk sentenced to life imprisonment on false charges. He is not a musician. He was arrested on 3 April 2002 following a bomb blast in Chengdu, along with his student Lobsang Dhondup. In November 2002, both were sentenced to death. At the trial, the main evidence presented against Tenzin Delek was a confession from Lobsang Dhondup, which Lobsang later retracted, claiming that he had been tortured. However, the appeal hearing in January 2003 upheld Lobsang Dhondup’s death sentence and he was executed on the same day. Tenzin Delek Rinpoche’s death sentence was suspended for two years, and then commuted to life imprisonment in 2005.

Tenzin Delek Rinpoche has consistently maintained his innocence. He is now suffering from severe ill health and there are serious concerns for his well-being, so much so that family members and others are calling for the international community to help press the Chinese authorities to grant him medical parole. Tenzin Delek is a highly revered Tibetan Buddhist lama and a community leader from Litang in Sichuan province. He has worked on numerous social, medical and educational projects and campaigned for the protection of Tibet’s fragile environment, working to stop indiscriminate logging and mining activities. I hope that the Minister adds his voice to the international calls for Tenzin Delek’s early release.

There is no doubt that the Chinese Government use a mix of systematic oppressive measures, propaganda and disinformation to stifle free expression and to present a positive image of their actions in Tibet to the outside world. Since peaceful demonstrations spread across Tibet in 2008, the Chinese authorities have adopted a harsher approach to suppressing dissent. In its current approach, which can be more accurately characterised as totalitarian, the state recognises no limits to its authority, imposes a climate of fear, and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life to crush all forms of dissent against Communist party rule. There has been a dramatic expansion of the powers of China’s policing and military apparatus in Tibet. This has created a climate of fear and lack of trust, even among families and close friends. Many Tibetans in exile report that they cannot talk to their families in Tibet on the phone, because of the danger to their families of their having contact with them as exiles.

The Chinese Government have stepped up Communist party presence in Tibet, sending thousands of Chinese officials to carry out surveillance and so-called “political education”, and to disseminate propaganda. The Chinese state media call it a “war against secessionist sabotage”, in which the Chinese Government seek to replace loyalty to the Dalai Lama in Tibetan hearts and minds with allegiance to the Chinese party-state and, in doing so, to obliterate memory and undermine Tibetan national identity at its roots.

Just nine days ago, on 1 December, the Chinese Government announced a programme of sending artists, film-makers and TV personnel to ethnic minority and border areas to help local artists

“form a correct view of art”.

Announcing the programme, the state-run news agency, Xinhua, commented:

“Art and culture cannot develop without political guidance”.

It also congratulated Chinese President Xi Jinping for

“emphasising the integration of ideology and artistic values”.

Since last May, following the killings in Xinjiang, an expansive counter-terrorism drive has been launched by the Chinese Government and has expanded across China, including Tibet. In Tibet, the Chinese authorities have organised large-scale military drills and intensified border security, and are holding training exercises for troops on responding to self-immolation and on dealing with problems in monasteries, in spite of the absence of any violent insurgency in Tibet. Armed responses to protests, including killing with impunity and the torture and imprisonment of individuals, have become the cause of instability and are therefore deeply counter-productive.

In conclusion, I have a number of requests for the Government to consider, which I believe will help the cause of Tibet and allow Tibetans the right to free expression that we in Europe and the west take so much for granted. I hope that the Minister will discuss these points with the Foreign Secretary, and that on this international human rights day of 10 December, the British Government will continue to be proactive in supporting the human rights of Tibetans in Tibet.

My requests are these. First, as a matter of urgency, I urge the British Government to call on China to engage in a broader and more substantive dialogue with Tibetan representatives, and to involve the Dalai Lama in discussions on Tibet’s future. There needs to be a more robust approach, given that the current approach is clearly not achieving anything.

Secondly, I urge the Government to strengthen policies towards China and Tibet, and to be more robust, with a clear stance and directive regarding human rights, civil society and democratic rights. The Government should adhere to their stance that human rights are integral to the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. Thirdly, I want the Government to challenge China’s policies in Tibet, in particular where the Chinese Government are flouting international standards on human rights and civil liberties. Fourthly, the Government should take the lead in the European Union in explicitly calling on the Chinese Government to address the policies in Tibet that threaten Tibetan culture, religion and identity and are the root cause of the crisis. These are the key grievances of the Tibetan people.

Fifthly, I urge the Government to prevail on the Chinese leadership to end the military build-up and to limit the dominance of the security apparatus in Tibet. Sixthly, I want the Government to initiate a scholarship scheme in the UK for Tibetans inside Tibet, as well as for Tibetan refugees. Seventhly, the Government should explore the possibility of cultural exchanges with Tibetans inside Tibet or, if that is not possible, with Tibetan refugee communities in India and Nepal, to help promote and preserve Tibetan culture. Eighthly, I want the Government to provide funding for a BBC Tibetan service. Ninthly, I urge the Government to call for medical parole for Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, who is serving a life sentence and is seriously ill.

Over the past seven years, I have been privileged to meet His Holiness the Dalai Lama no fewer than eight times: twice in India, five times in London, including when he was awarded the Templeton prize at St Paul’s cathedral in May 2012, and once when he came to my home city of Leeds. I am grateful to both the office of the Dalai Lama in London and to the Tibet Society for their help in organising the visits of His Holiness to the UK, and to Mr Speaker for hosting the Dalai Lama in Parliament in 2012, against the advice given to him from certain quarters that such a meeting could damage relations with the People’s Republic of China. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister also deserve praise for agreeing to meet the Dalai Lama in 2012 at St Paul’s cathedral, an event that had repercussions for UK-China relations for many months afterwards.

I thank Philippa Carrick and Paul Golding from the Tibet Society and Chonpel Tsering from the office of the Dalai Lama for all their help in preparing my speech today. Finally, I strongly believe that Tibet and the Tibetan people should be free, and I will never give up my support for their struggle. I give everyone today the traditional Tibetan greeting: tashi delek, or blessings and good luck.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to make a contribution, Mr Owen, thank you.

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for bringing the subject to the House for consideration. As the Democratic Unionist party’s spokesperson for human rights, I am delighted to be in a position to contribute to today’s debate. Religious persecution in Tibet is not only a matter of ethnic or religious conflict, or discrimination by a majority against a minority, but is politically motivated and consciously implemented as a policy to realise political aims. That is what is happening in Tibet, which is why are speaking about it today. I am always pleased to see the Minister in his place, because he is totally committed to addressing the issue of religious persecution wherever it may be in the world. I have heard his contributions in the House, but I am also aware of his work and of the many countries that he visits. We appreciate that very much.

The issues in Tibet started in the 1950s and heightened throughout the 1960s, and the Dalai Lama and some 100,000 Tibetans fled to India. Within a few years, nearly all of the more than 500,000 monks and nuns were driven from the 6,000-plus monasteries and nunneries of Tibet, virtually all of which were destroyed. Many monks and nuns were tortured, killed, imprisoned or forced to disrobe. A few years later, during the cultural revolution, any display of religion was prohibited, punishable by beatings and imprisonment, and all religious objects were confiscated and destroyed.

A campaign for political re-education, the so-called “patriotic education campaign”—sounds very Chinese—was instituted in the monasteries in 1996 to implement the goals of the third work forum. Political work teams were sent into monasteries and nunneries throughout Tibet, including many where monks and nuns had never been involved in demonstrations or protest. The work teams are frequently accompanied by armed police, who stand guard over the monks and nuns as the members of the work teams speak.

Re-education combines investigation and interrogation of individual monks and nuns with lectures by political workers. It is clear that individual liberties have been taken away and religious views discounted, with monks and nuns given the correct answers to a series of questions on Tibetan politics, history and religion. They are then required to take written examinations and sign a written affidavit of loyalty to China. To pass and to be allowed to remain, monks and nuns must agree that Tibet has always been part of China. Asking a Tibetan to be part of China is like asking me, as a British citizen, to be part of Ireland. It is impossible; I would not accede to it and neither should they. Monks and nuns must also assent to characterisations of the Dalai Lama as a criminal, unfit to be a religious leader and not worthy of veneration. Refusing to participate in the re-education is not allowed. Monks and nuns who attempt to boycott the sessions are arrested and imprisoned. Failure to comply with the demands of the work team and to denounce the Dalai Lama results in expulsion or arrest. That is a clear violation of individual liberties and an attempt to direct religious viewpoints.

In 2014 the situation in Tibet has not improved, as all the Members who have spoken today have outlined. Every aspect of Tibetan life is under siege from a Chinese leadership determined gradually to eradicate a whole culture. That cannot be allowed and it is an issue that must be addressed. The Tibetan flag and national anthem are banned. Possession even of a picture of the Dalai Lama can result in torture and imprisonment.

[Lady Hermon]

Chinese companies are now investing in Northern Ireland. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether his party leader—who is by happy coincidence the First Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly—makes any representations about Tibet to those Chinese companies before they invest?

[Jim Shannon]

I am not aware of what the First Minister does, but I suggest that we should have done so and that he needs to do so. Similarly, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned direct contact and using all available opportunities. I know that the Minister who is here today does it, and I am sure that he will outline such issues.

Even children in Tibet face abuses of their freedom and human rights. Tibetans are not free to protest or speak openly about their situation, and even peaceful demonstrations are met with heavy-handed military crackdowns. In 2008, thousands of Tibetans staged the largest protests in Tibet for over 50 years, and demonstrations swept across the entire Tibetan plateau. Chinese authorities arrested an estimated 6,000 protesters; about 1,000 of them are still unaccounted for. Where are they? What questions have the Government asked about those forgotten people and forgotten prisoners—if they are still alive?

We are all aware of the Tibetan monks who, horrifically, have set fire to themselves as a method of protest to highlight these issues. Every one of us can remember those horrific, horrendous stories of people driven to extremes to express themselves and to seek liberty, the democratic process and the right to religious freedom through their deaths.

Prisons in Tibet are full of people detained for simply expressing their desire for freedom. People have been arrested and sentenced to prison for peaceful acts, such as distributing leaflets or sending information abroad about events in Tibet. We take such things for granted in this country because they are part of our democratic right—we are speaking about them democratically here today. Yet those everyday freedoms—those small acts of democracy—that we enjoy, as part of the great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Tibet can lead to imprisonment and even torture. The clear violation of human rights is shocking. As a country, through this debate today and through our Government, we have to take action.

Reporters Without Borders ranked China 175th out of the 180 countries on its press freedom index. There are more foreign journalists in North Korea than in Tibet. Despite what by our own standards we can describe only as atrocities, this week a top Chinese official in Brussels told reporters that China does not need lessons on human rights from the EU; well, actually, it does. Li Junhua—putting a Northern Ireland accent on a Chinese name—a director-general in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, has said that China has its own model of human rights. It does, but that model does not conform to the model that we have in the free west. He claimed that China had a clear understanding of how human rights will be carried out in his country and was confident of its own model.

The US diplomat Sarah Sewall recently claimed that there was

“not a degree of freedom for Tibetans within China”

after meeting Tibetan refugees from Nepal and India and gleaning first-hand information about their lives in the country before they had to flee because of persecution. Clearly the ongoing hardships and crimes against them that Tibetans still face on a daily basis back up Ms Sewall’s point. Tibetans cannot enjoy any freedoms, which in turn means they are denied their basic human rights. That is the issue. The Chinese may well measure their version of human rights differently from those of us in the EU and the USA, but that does not mean that we should simply sit back and accept the situation, because ultimately it is not good enough.

It is not good enough that people are denied their freedoms—freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of speech, to name just a few. People have fought and died to secure those rights; in 2014, Tibetans are either fleeing, being imprisoned or being killed to try to secure them. We must let the Tibetans know that they are not struggling in vain or suffering in silence. We must do all that we can—at Westminster, in Brussels and on the world stage—to persuade China to change its oppressive ways in its bid for political support.

Palestine and Israel

Lady Hermon Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I had a number of bilaterals in Cairo, and I met the Lebanese Foreign Minister and we spoke about that issue. The hon. Gentleman might be aware that we are pouring in significant DFID and Ministry of Defence funds to support Lebanon in that regard. In Cairo yesterday Secretary Kerry again reaffirmed that the United States is fully committed to bringing the parties back to negotiations, and the UK will continue to take a leading role in working closely with international partners to support US efforts. A just and lasting peace will require leadership from all sides. For Israelis and Palestinians that must mean a commitment to returning to dialogue, and to avoiding all actions that undermine prospects for peace.

Let us be clear: Israel lives in a tough neighbourhood and faces multiple security challenges. The British Government are staunch supporters of Israel’s right to defence. Israel is a friend and we are proud to be pursuing a strong, bilateral relationship, from trade to our commitment to growth in high-tech start-ups. However, Israel’s settlement building makes it hard for its friends to make the case that Israel is committed to peace.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Will the Minister enlighten the House about what he thinks would be the consequences should the motion be passed tonight? Would the consequences be helpful at this time, would they be neutral, or would they be negative? That would be helpful in guiding us to make the right decision in a controversial and important debate and vote.

[Mr Ellwood]

I ask the hon. Lady to be patient so that I can complete my speech and get to that point. We have made our position clear: Britain defends the right to choose our moment, which is appropriate for the peace process, when we make that bilateral decision.

Returning to Israeli settlement building, last week I visited the E1 area of the west bank and met members of the Bedouin community living there who face relocation by the Israeli authorities. They told me that they had no wish to leave, and expressed their fears of being forcibly transferred to make way for the construction of Israeli settlements. Such a move would seriously threaten the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state, and according to the UN would be contrary to international humanitarian law. Israel’s recent decision to advance settlement plan units in Givat Hamatos will also have serious implications for the possibility of Jerusalem being part of a Palestinian state. As the Foreign Secretary said on 3 October, Israel needs to change course on that now. The Palestinian Authority must also show leadership, recommitting themselves to dialogue with Israel, and making progress on governance and security for Palestinians in Gaza as well as the west bank.

Persecution of Christians

Lady Hermon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to have the chance to make a short contribution to this timely and important debate. I, too, congratulate DUP Members on choosing this subject.

Many Members who are in the Chamber today were also present for the Westminster Hall debate that the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) secured on the persecution of Christians in the middle east. During that debate I made a short intervention to highlight the real concerns of the Christian community in Malaysia. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who was responding to the debate, rightly said from a sedentary position that Malaysia was not in the middle east. I understand that, but it highlights the importance of this debate in enabling us to discuss places outside the middle east in which there is significant concern about how members of the Christian faith are treated.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why so few of his Labour colleagues are in the Chamber this afternoon for a very important debate about the persecution of Christians? I am absolutely baffled by their absence.

[Tom Greatrex]

I was going to say that I thanked the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not sure why others are not here. I specifically want to make a case in relation to Malaysia, which I hope will help to illuminate the debate and add another aspect to it.

Deep Sea Mining Bill (Ways and Means)

Lady Hermon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Deep Sea Mining Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the imposition of charges in connection with licences granted as a result of the Act, and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.

The House debated the Bill on Friday 6 September and it received its Second Reading unopposed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for her work on the Bill thus far and to Members from across the House who took part in the debate. The former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), signalled the Government’s support for the Bill on Second Reading, and in order for the Bill to progress to Committee it is necessary for a Ways and Means resolution to be agreed by the House.

As I have said, this motion allows for charges to be imposed in connection with licences granted as a result of the Act. Under the Act, licences would be granted for the exploration or exploitation of any of the certain mineral types for which the International Seabed Authority has regulations—currently, those are polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides and ferromanganese cobalt-rich crusts. The licence would be specific to a particular area of the deep sea bed and it would not have effect until the ISA issued a corresponding contract to the same applicant. The application fee for an exploration licence currently stands at £10,000.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Have mining companies expressed any interest in exploiting the deep sea bed around the coast of Northern Ireland? The Bill extends to Northern Ireland but not to Scotland, as is helpfully explained in the explanatory notes.

[Mr Swire]

I am not aware that there has been any such interest, but, as the hon. Lady says, the new licensing regime applies to Northern Ireland as much as it does to anywhere else. Of course, all this motion is doing is committing the Bill to Committee, where she will have a chance to use her forensic powers of examination to tease that and other information out.

As I was saying, the application fee for an exploration licence stands at £10,000. The company then pays an annual fee for three years to continue to hold the licence; those fees are £15,000 for the first year, £25,000 for the second year and £25,000 for the third year. Those are substantial sums; indeed the fee for an application to the ISA is $500,000. Those involved are not small-scale companies but businesses that are prepared to make significant investments in the search for minerals on the deep sea bed. Two licences have been issued under the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981, and should this Bill become law we hope it will encourage other companies to apply. The fees go into the Consolidated Fund. The ability of the UK Government to issue these licences, in a manner that is fully compliant with international law, will ensure that British companies benefit from the opportunities available in this new industry. The country as a whole will benefit, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon]

I was particularly struck by the Minister’s phrase that the Bill will benefit “British companies” and allow them to exploit the deep sea bed. The Bill runs to only two clauses, but does it contain a clause that I have not noticed which reduces those who can mine the deep sea bed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland—but not Scotland—to British companies only?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the Minister answers, it may be helpful if I remind the House that we are not discussing the Bill. This is about the charging regime for the licences; the debate is on the Ways and Means motion. I fear that we are in danger of debating the Bill, which would not be in order this evening. I know that the Minister is trying to keep in order.

Court of Justice of the European Union

Lady Hermon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on the Bill he brought forward a year ago that allows us to hold this debate, which is crucial in ensuring that European matters are properly discussed. As I understand it, we are the only member state of the European Union that will have this type of debate to make this important decision.

Beyond that, I diverge from the Minister. I diverge from him particularly in his admiration for this Court. I do not believe it to be a just Court. We must always remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it was this Court that ruled in its own favour to increase its own pay, against one of the fundamental principles of justice—that a judge should not rule to his own advantage. So it is not a proper, just Court like the noble courts that we have in this land; it is a Court with a political agenda, which is always pushing for more integration, for more Europe, towards the federal superstate, which we in this House who value the sovereignty of Parliament and of the British people should treat with the greatest suspicion.

The Minister spoke of the rulings that have come down occasionally in our favour, and the costs that we have been saved; I think BSE and pharmaceuticals were the two specific examples that he gave. I hope he might consider doing a cost-benefit analysis of all the judgments delivered by the European Court of Justice, to decide whether it has saved us money, or whether overall it has cost the British taxpayer money, since we joined the European Union in 1972.

But let us come particularly to the increase in the number of advocates-general and what is being achieved by that. What we are really doing is contributing to the growth of the power, the bureaucracy, the size, of the superstate that the European Union has become. By making the European Court bigger and stronger and able to take on more cases, powers are more centred at the European level. They will have a greater ability to determine the law in this country. The efficiency of the European Court of Justice is something that should make people who are concerned about parliamentary sovereignty nervous, because the more efficient it can be, the more it can interfere with our laws and the more it can take power away from Westminster.

And then we look at the cost: the €4 million cost that will be added to the total cost of the European Court—the extraordinarily high cost that the European Court has to start with of over €350 million. I looked up briefly the cost of our own Supreme Court. It was estimated in 2009 to cost £13.5 million to run. Perhaps this is a case for privatisation to a British court, because if we can get justice in this country with our highest court for £13.5 million, I wonder what it is that requires €350 million to be spent at the European level.

In a letter, the Minister explained some of the extra costs. These grand panjandrums—these advocates-general —do not just get their pay and their staff; they have to have cars as well. It is all part of the great European gravy train, with cost being piled on cost. When unanimity is the issue, the British Government, rather than taking the opportunity to use their power to delay or stop something that the European Parliament, Commission and Court want, give in at an early stage, so the negotiating strength that we would have had when setting the budget is frittered away. I ask the Minister: what are we hoping to get in return for not using our veto?

In our relationship with Europe, when we are in a position of strength and we hold the good cards, do we play the ace of trumps? No, we do not; we play some lesser card that I would know more about if I were a better gambler. That is the error of our European relationship. We talk in this House about repatriating powers, but when we negotiate in Europe, we continue to give them away to allow the European centre to become stronger.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am most apologetic for the fact that I was not here in the earlier part of the debate, but I did hurry into the Chamber. Has the hon. Gentleman ever read a reasoned submission by an advocate-general? Knowing him slightly as I do, and knowing the quality of his contributions to the House, I am convinced that he would be most impressed by the logic, intellect and reasoning in some of those submissions. I think that if he took the time to peruse them, he would support the motion.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but she misses the point that I am trying to make, and evidently not making clearly enough. It is not an efficient, smooth-running European Court that I want, because that is at the heart of the political expansion and centralising power of the European Union. If we look at what the European Union has done, and how it has become an increasingly federalised system, we see that it has done so through the judgments of the European Court, which has increasingly ruled in favour of more Europe. It is a political Court, much as the United States Supreme Court was in the early 19th century. It is about bringing federalism to the peoples of Europe. I accept that it has some of the highest intellects as members; I would not begin to deny that. We have sent some very fine judges there, with prodigious brains, ability and intellect, but what they have done after getting there is take power away from the United Kingdom and this Parliament. That is what I most strongly object to, and I object to the Government not using their negotiating position to get something in return.

The Conservative part of this coalition is looking to a renegotiation, to repatriate powers, but at the same time, it is doing things that increase the power and authority of the European Court. That seems to me to be fundamentally a mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him a second time. I listened carefully to his reply to my first intervention. May I ask him for a reply to the question that I asked: has he ever read a reasoned submission of an advocate-general?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Lady asked me a question that went into sub-paragraphs on whether I was denying the great intellect of the advocates-general, which I think was at the heart of the matter, and I was saying that I admire their great intellect, but I do not want their great intellect deciding the rules of this country. I want the intellects of the British people, sending Members of Parliament to this House, to decide the laws of this country. I do not want rule by the cleverest continentals; I want rule by the good, honest, British—English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish—people, ensuring that this country is properly governed.

I want the Government to do what they said they were going to do in relation to increasing the number of judges when, in a letter of 27 July 2012, they said that the increase in judges should be part

“of a wider discussion on improving the efficiency of the Court and containing its cost.”

But now, less than a year later, we roll over and say, “Have a few more advocates-general because it will make you more efficient.” This cannot be the right negotiating stance to take. Again and again, it is more Europe, more advocates-general, more smart cars for them to drive round in, more cost to the British taxpayer—a very high cost—and instead of saying, “This must change; we will change it; powers must be repatriated,” we roll over and wait for our tummies to be tickled. I do not want my tummy tickled and I do not want more advocates-general.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate and shall attempt to respond briefly, with the leave of the House, to the various points and questions that have been posed.

I turn first to the characteristically eloquent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). He and I have debated in the past and I am sure we will have opportunities to debate again the extent to which there should be European Union-level competence over particular areas of policy. He and I may agree on some parts of that debate, and we will certainly have different views on others. The point of principle in the context of today’s debate seems to be that if European-level rules and laws have been established and legislated for at the EU level—most obviously to govern a single market in goods and services—we need some kind of supranational EU tribunal or arbiter to decide on the interpretation of those laws and rules and to resolve any conflicting assertions as to the correct interpretation of them.

[Lady Hermon]

On the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, I am sure that it has not gone unnoticed that it always wishes to promote equality between men and women. Have the Minister and his colleagues pressed the ECJ to ensure that the new advocate-general will make the existing advocates-general representative of men and women across Europe?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady is right that, on jurisprudence, the Court has treated this issue as one of great importance. Of course, it is for individual member states to nominate men or women to serve as advocates-general, and it will then be for the article 255 panel to consider whether those nominees meet the strict criteria and standard required under the treaties. I would hope that there is fair representation. It is important that the ablest men and women are willing to be considered as potential candidates.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking a second intervention. I hope that, aided and abetted by his lovely team, he will now be able to throw some light on the current composition of the Court’s advocates-general.

[Mr Lidington]

I will write to the hon. Lady with that information, but I can tell her now that, as I am sure she already knows, the United Kingdom’s advocate-general is indeed a woman who, whether one agrees or disagrees with her particular opinions, is an extremely able lawyer who contributes a great deal to the work of the Court.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset argued that the Government should carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the Court’s impact on the United Kingdom. The Government, as the House will know, have launched a review of the current balance of competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The 32 calls for evidence and reports on different aspects of policy will give ample opportunity to businesses and others to argue where ECJ decisions have been of benefit to this country and where they have been harmful. Without revealing too much, I can tell the House that the forthcoming report on taxation policy—it is as yet unpublished—will make specific reference to leading cases in the European courts and how they have had an impact on the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend also said that he wished that the Government had demonstrated a willingness to exercise a veto over the measure for the appointment of three new advocates-general. I say to him that a veto should not be brandished if we think that the measure concerned will be to our overall advantage. I also say to him that the Prime Minister has shown that he is willing to exercise a veto and to block measures that he believes would harm the interests of this country. We must use our negotiating capital skilfully and be prepared to be cussed and awkward if necessary about the things that really matter to the interests of the British people. The Government have been right to play hardball on issues such as the multi-annual financial framework and the long overdue reform of the common fisheries policy, and in our refusal last year to accept the proposal to set up an operational headquarters for the EU’s common security and defence policy.

I was asked a number of questions by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and others about Court reform and how we were seeking to promote greater efficiency, and about financing. I will deal with those two central questions before concluding my remarks.

On Court reform, a key point to emphasise is that the treaties give the Court of Justice the prime role in initiating proposals for its reform. Under article 281 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, changes to the Court’s statute can be proposed by the Court on its own initiative after consulting the Commission or by the Commission after consultation with the Court. The Court can propose amendments to its rules of procedure, but they need the approval of the Council. There is a Council lock on proposals, but the proposals must in the main come forward from the Court. The House will readily understand why the treaties were written in a way that protects the Court to some extent from political pressures. Within that context, we have been consistent in urging the Court to take seriously its duty to look hard at the possibility of internal administrative and procedural reform, as well as looking for other ways to enhance its efficiency and deal more promptly with the growing backlog of cases.

The reforms that have been agreed over the past two years, with the support of the United Kingdom, have included establishing the new office of the vice-president of the European Court of Justice and General Court. The quorum in the Grand Chamber has been changed to allow greater flexibility. We have seen the abolition of the requirement for a report for hearing and for the reading of that report. That has saved a lot of time when one adds up the savings accumulated over a large number of cases. We have seen the agreement to create a pool of temporary judges for the civil service tribunal. We have also seen changes to the ECJ’s rules of procedure to provide greater efficiency.

Other ideas are still being discussed. One to which the UK Government are quite sympathetic is the creation of specialist chambers within the Court. However, that is for the Court to propose if it is persuaded that it is the right course on which to embark. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and other Members will know, the House of Lords Sub-Committee that is considering these matters has produced detailed reports on Court reform and efficiency.

Finally, let me turn to finance. The UK is one of a group of like-minded, budget-disciplined member states that work together routinely to push down the EU’s annual budget costs. The group includes Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Austria as well as us, and we have no reason to believe it will be less focused on budget discipline this year. It is fair to say to the House that the €4 million needed for the advocates-general cannot be negotiated in isolation and would be one part of an annual budget negotiation of roughly €130 billion in total. The bill for the advocates-general and their staff would be less than one 100th of a percentage of the EU’s total annual budget for 2013.

To respond to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East, I say that the Court can request funds, but funding is for co-decision by the Council and the European Parliament. If we look at what has been happening in the EU’s annual budget for 2013, we see that the Court requested an increase to its budget of 8.4%—€29.2 million—which in percentage terms was the biggest requested increase for any EU institution that year. In practice, the UK and its allies worked together to reduce that increase to just 1.9% in 2013—slightly below the level of inflation. There is no reason to believe that the same could not be achieved on budget neutrality for the advocates-general, particularly given the underspend in the Court’s budget in each of the past three years.

Clearly this matter is one component of a much bigger negotiation, and the Court’s total budget forms just one part of the overall annual EU budget. There is, however, no doubt about the Government’s determination to ensure that those small additional costs are met from within the Court’s existing budget, and in particular its publicly known underspending. We will continue to work assiduously for the best possible efficiency and the greatest possible value for money, not just in the affairs of the European Courts but in every institution of the European Union.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7013/13, the draft Council Decision increasing the number of Advocates-General of the Court of Justice of the European Union and, in accordance with Section 10 of the European Union Act 2011, approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of that draft Council Decision.