Oral Answers to Questions

Margot James Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I believe I am right in saying that the shadow Home Secretary has had her six questions. [Hon. Members: “More!”] There will be more.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Ind)]

Q4. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that legislation to establish a tough independent regulator of internet companies empowered to challenge the automatic right to anonymity online should be a priority for the Queen’s Speech?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to make the UK the safest place in the world to go online for our children, but also for all members of our society. Our online harms White Paper set out our plans to make companies more responsible for their users’ safety online, especially children, and also sets out measures to reinforce powers to issue fines against those who put them at risk.

Foreign Affairs Committee (Hong Kong Visit)

Margot James Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

As always, it is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) He will recall that I, as a newly elected Member of this House, joined him on the Foreign Affairs Committee in 1992. In my time as a member of the FAC, I made many visits to many different countries. We might have had some issues about who we were able to meet and the exact timings of visits, but we were never told—not even by Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan or China—that we were not welcome to come and that the authorities would stop us getting off aircraft. It is not, as some Members have said, a matter of visas; UK citizens do not need visas to go to Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Government determine their own internal arrangements, yet the people in Beijing and their diplomatic representatives in London have told us that we are not welcome in Hong Kong, which is, as the Chair of the Committee so ably put it, a breach of the undertakings given by the Chinese to the people of Hong Kong and to our representatives in the negotiations that led to the joint declaration.

Members have asked why China is doing this. I suspect—and this really surprises me—that they are afraid that the presence of a handful of British parliamentarians is somehow going to change the internal dynamics in Hong Kong and China. They must be very nervous and worried. What is happening in Hong Kong is not being broadcast in the Chinese media. We can see it covered in the rest of the world and we can see it in Taiwan, but the Chinese authorities have rigorously censored communications about events in Hong Kong. That also happens when the people of Hong Kong protest on the anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen square—not a word of it is broadcast by the Chinese state authorities. This is an indication that the Chinese regime is prepared to use a ruthless power because it is afraid. That augurs badly for what might happen in Hong Kong in the coming weeks and months.

I do not want to spend too long talking about that, but I did want to talk about the issues about Parliament and the Committee’s inquiry. Let me go back to the previous time we visited China. In May 2006, the previous Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, which I had the great honour of chairing, went to Hong Kong and from there to Beijing. The group then split into two. One went to Tibet, to Lhasa, and the other, which I led, went to Shanghai. We then met up again in Hong Kong and went to Taiwan. One of the interesting episodes, to which the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling just referred, was the meeting we had with Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing. He was very pleasant to begin with and asked me how my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), the then Foreign Secretary, was doing as he had had amicable discussions with her in the United Nations Security Council meetings. After 10 minutes, he switched completely to tell us, “I understand that you intend to go to our 19th province”—that is, Taiwan. “We have no objection to your going, but only after the reunification of our country.”

He then said, “You are all diplomats.” We said, “No, we are parliamentarians. You don’t understand. We are not here representing the British Government but doing an inquiry and our presence and visit will not in any way change the British Government’s policy. We are doing this because we need to investigate Taiwan and its relationship with China.” He said, “If you do this, there will be serious consequences.” We wondered what those serious consequences were. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, the visit continued and we went to Tibet and to Shanghai, went back to Hong Kong and then to Taiwan. There were no serious consequences for the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Later on in the previous Parliament, when the Committee was considering human rights issues globally, we decided as a Committee to receive the Dalai Lama for a public evidence session, which I chaired. At that point, I received a very long and vitriolic letter from the National People’s Congress in Beijing and a visit from the then Chinese ambassador, who subsequently became a deputy Foreign Minister, bringing lots of different materials including piles of books about the CIA’s role in Tibet and other documentation. The Chinese are obviously very sensitive, as they always have been, about issues to do with their status and the respect others have for China in the world. We can have a robust exchange about such issues, but there has never been a ban on parliamentarians from this House as a result of those differences. That tells me that there is something happening internally in China that is worrying.

In our report after the inquiry in the previous Parliament, we commented on the situation in Hong Kong. In one of our conclusions, we recommended that

“the Government urge the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to make significant, major steps towards representative democracy and to agree with Beijing a timetable by which direct election of the Chief Executive and LegCo by universal suffrage will be achieved.”

I hope that that is a position to which we all, including Members on the Government and Opposition Front Benches, could agree today. It is of course a matter for the people of Hong Kong and China to make proposals using the arrangements set out in the Basic Law, but the aspiration for representative democracy and universal suffrage should apply for all people as soon as possible, including in Hong Kong.

The Committee also commented on the internal situation in Hong Kong with civil liberties, humanitarian issues and the rule of law. Our conclusion in 2006 was that

“despite some concerns, overall Hong Kong remains a vibrant, dynamic, open and liberal society with a generally free press and an independent judiciary, subject to the rule of law.”

I hope that we can say the same about Hong Kong today. Obviously, our report will have to be published in due course when we have finished taking evidence, but I think that the behaviour of the Chinese authorities towards our Committee as well as other issues that have been raised with us so far in the evidence we have received prompt concern about whether those principles and values are under threat today.

Let me conclude with a more general point, which has been mentioned in passing. Some people believe that we should turn a blind eye to this and some people believe that the economic imperative should determine everything. Those of us who have been to Taiwan, however, or to other countries around the world with significant Chinese populations, know that there is nothing inherently authoritarian, Stalinist, Leninist or Maoist in the Chinese character. What is communist about China today? Only the name of the ruling party. It has a state capitalist economic system run by an elite that holds political power through a one-party system and suppresses and controls dissent. How sustainable is that in the future? I do not know. China’s economy is turning down and the rate of growth is slowing. China has a major demographic problem long term and its ability to meet the aspirations of its people, which it has done, taking hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in recent years, is not necessarily sustainable indefinitely under its current political model.

There are clearly big questions for the rest of the world about how we deal with a growing China. People have talked about China’s rise and Martin Jacques, an author who is very well informed although I do not agree with his rose-tinted conclusions, has written a book called, “When China Rules the World”. Frankly, if China were to become the most important country in the world politically that would raise serious questions about what kind of universal values it would have and what kind of rule of law and humanitarian law there would be.

It might be a small point for some people that a Committee of the House of Commons has been prevented from going to Hong Kong, but it raises fundamental questions.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the banning of the visit is symptomatic of China’s attitude to the rest of the world, particularly her near neighbours, considering the aggression over the Senkaku islands, the adventurism in the South China sea and the intransigence she has demonstrated in the Security Council?

[Mike Gapes]

I would be fairer to China, because it has played a positive role in some international matters, such as climate change, and certainly on international security, so I do not think that all its actions have been on the bad side. However, there are concerns about its attitude and, as the hon. Lady has highlighted, there are a number of territorial disputes around the coast and in east Asia, where a number of states are in contention for territories that have the potential for gas and oil exploration. I do not want to go down that track now and so will conclude by talking about democracy.

In our 2006 report, the Committee came to an important conclusion. We were commenting on the Chinese military build-up across the Taiwan straits and the possible threat to peace and stability in east Asia. Relations between Taiwan and China have since improved significantly: there are now far more direct flights, there is massive investment, and millions of mainland Chinese tourists visit Taiwan, as I saw last new year—the hotel I was staying in was full of mainland Chinese. Nevertheless, there is still great sensitivity in China about what is happening in Taiwan. The Taiwanese people, as they have shown in recent local elections, are very committed to democracy. They throw politicians out and reject incumbent parties and Governments regularly.

Our 2006 report—I think that this is still pertinent today—concluded:

“the growth and development of democracy in Taiwan is of the greatest importance, both for the island itself and for the population of greater China, since it demonstrates incontrovertibly that Chinese people can develop democratic institutions and thrive under them.”

That is also relevant to Hong Kong, which is why what is happening there matters and why our Committee is absolutely right to continue our inquiry and, in due course, produce a report. The Government will then have to respond to that report, hopefully before the next election, so that the House can have a further debate about developments in Hong Kong and China over the coming months.

Human Rights (Burma)

Margot James Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burrowes]

When I was in Burma, leaked documents were in the public domain, and the issue is causing real concern. In the words of Human Rights Watch, if the plan was followed through it would be

“a blueprint for permanent segregation and statelessness.”

The plan would involve the construction of temporary camps for those who refuse to abandon the name Rohingya, with a view to relocating them to third countries. That is abhorrent, and they would be forced or obliged to identify themselves as Bengali in order to be considered for citizenship. That plan certainly needs to be condemned and I hope the Minister will be able to do that.

Last week, the United States called for a new plan to be developed. I hope the Government can support that call. The UN Secretary-General called for the rights of the Rohingya people to be respected. This is a good opportunity for the Minister to make it abundantly clear, as he has done previously, that any plan that involves such segregation into camps and forces Rohingya to identify as Bengali is totally and utterly unacceptable.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I share his acknowledgement of the progress that Burma has made in the area of greater political freedoms, but when I visited Burma at the beginning of the year the apparatus of a police state was still in evidence. Citizens spoke to me in hushed tones, fearful of being overheard, about the oppression of the Rohingya Muslim minority, among other matters.

[Mr Burrowes]

That is right. It is easy for us, from afar, to see the obvious discrimination against the Rohingya people. Even those who are on the side of democracy and reform are challenged by the issue. We can see clearly that, in the long term, for there to be a truly democratic free state there have to be equal rights, including for the Rohingya people. The abuse of the Rohingya people continues. Fortify Rights has documented such abuses showing that Government authorities have been involved in trafficking Rohingya out of the country and profiting from it. I encourage the Minister to raise this subject directly with the Government of Burma.

I invite the Minister to give an assessment of the peace process and the steps our Government are taking to urge the Government of Burma and their military to observe ceasefires, stop further offences and stop the further militarisation that I saw and heard about, particularly in Kachin state. I was in Myitkyina and visited a camp for internally displaced Kachin people. They were surviving in very basic conditions. Access to medical care and education was frankly woeful. They had fled their villages following attacks by the Burmese army. Their plea was genuine:

“We want to go back to our villages but the army are still there and we do not feel secure. Our request is for genuine peace.”

We met the Kachin Independence Organisation, which is involved in negotiations. It saw a particular role for the United Kingdom:

“We Kachin are longing for the involvement of the United Kingdom as a strong advocate for peace.”

I invite the Minister to respond to that call.

While in Kachin state, I was particularly moved by meeting the wives of Kachin men who had been arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned and tortured. One told me how her husband’s torturers heated a knife in a fire and then sliced his skin, rubbed bamboo poles up and down his shins, subjected him to water torture and stamped on him. A man described being forced to kneel on very sharp stones with his arms outstretched as if on a cross, a physically painful position to be in for a long time but also a deliberate mockery of his Christian faith. A hand grenade was placed in his mouth. Others claimed that male prisoners were forced to engage in sex, and to beat each other with sticks.

I met another man, Brang Shawng, who, after reporting the rape—victimisation is going on; we are not just talking about historical abuse—and murder of his own daughter Ja Seng Ing by Burmese army soldiers, found that he was the one on trial, charged with defamation. That is unacceptable. There is a continuing catalogue of human rights abuses taking place. This is not just historical. Justice is not only being delayed but denied. No one is being called to account and we need to see that happening. Various institutions of government and the application of the rule of law are in their infancy, but the scale of human rights abuse and the lack of justice need proper attention.

The Humanity Institute told me that on the issue of sexual violence, on which our Government have rightly taken a lead with the preventing sexual violence initiative, Burma is, thankfully, on the list. It needs to be a priority case. The institute told me that there have been 12 cases of sexual violence in the past six months of 2014 in northern Shan state alone. In just that one part of Burma, there has been that much sexual violence, with the youngest victim reported to be three and the oldest 40.

Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to urge the Burmese Government to stop the torture, the rape and the impunity and, crucially, to ensure that perpetrators are held to account? Will he also encourage my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whom I have forewarned of this request, in his capacity as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict, to prioritise and visit Burma to address issues of sexual violence there? I hope that the commitment made will continue beyond the election. Burma is one place we need to visit if we are to tackle the perpetual use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.

I met a representative of Burma’s Rohingya Muslims, whom I have referred to already and who, as others have pointed out, are among the most persecuted peoples in the world. Despite having lived in Burma for generations, they have been stripped of their citizenship and rendered stateless, and two years ago they suffered appalling violence that resulted in thousands living in dire conditions in camps. I visited a camp for internally displaced people that was in poor condition, and I understand from reports that the condition of these camps is absolutely shocking. The Rohingya continue to experience segregation and further dehumanisation. I ask the Minister, particularly in the light of the leaked action plan, to respond to these concerns.

Beyond the particular issue of the Rohingya people, wider religious intolerance against Muslims in Burma is causing serious concern. In the past two years, a wave of violence and hatred has swept the country. Aung San Suu Kyi, whom I had the privilege to meet, expressed concern about religious intolerance and said that some were using religion for political purposes. Will the Minister press the Burmese Government to hold to account all those inciting violence or hatred and to ensure inter-religious harmony? This is an opportunity for Burma, with its melting pot of religions, to show that freedom of religion is a foundation of true democracy.

The proposed legislation restricting inter-religious marriage and religious conversion, about which there is great concern, must be abandoned as soon as possible. Ultimately, however, the most significant test of Burma’s democratic reforms are the elections in 2015. During my visit, some were concerned that they would be postponed and that the Government were playing games, but I understand that the election commission in Burma has confirmed they will go ahead next October or November. However, Aung San Suu Kyi’s clear message to us was that they had to be fair, free and on time. Without amendments to the constitution enabling her to stand for the presidency; without international monitors in place some months before—Britain could play a role in that—to assess the climate in which the campaign is held; without further legislative reform to end the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of activists and protesters; and without the release of all remaining prisoners, it is difficult to see how the elections can be free and fair. What pressure is being brought to bear on the Burmese Government to amend the constitution?

Britain and the international community must be vigilant and heed the words not only of Aung San Suu Kyi but of those I met from the different ethnic nationalities, civil society and so on, all of whom, without exception, told me that reforms had stalled. We need to ensure that further religious strife does not get in the way of true freedom and democracy.

Despite the gloom and despair over the lack of reform, I was most impressed by those who expressed the greatest determination and commitment to the pathway of democratic reform. I am talking about those who have the most reason to feel bitter and negative and to give up, the former political prisoners, who instead spoke to me about the culture of dialogue, about which they were still positive. It is the duty of this House and this Government to be on their side and to help ensure that society in Burma is free and fair.

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

Margot James Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

A number of things about ISIS are clear: it is well funded; it is very well organised; and it has a comprehensive, complex and sophisticated communications strategy. None of those things happened overnight, and it is legitimate for us to ask why we did not pick up on some of those trends earlier. Did we know about ISIS? Were we aware that ISIS is, in the Prime Minister’s words, the greatest threat to us in a generation? If we were aware, why did we not act sooner? If we did not know, we need to ask questions of our intelligence and diplomatic services, but they are questions for another time.

We also know clearly the sort of threats that ISIS poses. We have seen the humanitarian threat to those unfortunate enough to fall within the territory it controls and the barbaric ways in which people have been treated. We are clear about the threat of destabilisation to the region and the fact that ISIS potentially threatens an all-out religious war in one of the world’s most unstable regions. We are also aware that it could become the university of jihad if it is allowed to establish a caliphate, and that will be exported to countries such as the United Kingdom. It is also clear that we in the west must accept the failures in our foreign policy, not least with Iraq where we have indulged and over-tolerated the Maliki Government when it was clear that they were failing in their promise and their duty to establish a Government of national unity.

The question is what do we do to deal with ISIS in the immediate future and then in the longer term. As has been said, we need to deal with it financially. It is difficult to stop oil being sold on the black market, but we must try and try harder with our allies who might be able to exert some leverage. We need to stop the flow of finances through the international banking system and ensure that ransoms are not paid. Paying a ransom is financing jihad, and we must not do that no matter how difficult that is. We must stop the double dealing of some of the countries and groups in the region that are making it extremely difficult for ourselves and our allies to bring this matter to a successful conclusion.

Then there is the question of whether we should involve ourselves in military action. As I and many others have said before, there are a number of questions that we need to answer before we can get involved in military action: what does a good outcome look like; are we able to engineer a good outcome; do we have to be part of such engineering; and how much future liability do we want to hold as a consequence?

What is clear is that our allies in the region simply do not have all the military capabilities they require to deal with ISIS on the ground. They do not have the ability to make the strategic air attacks that will deal with command and control and the ISIS supply lines. If it comes to a ground counter-offensive, they will require close air support. There is no point in us trying to will the outcome without being prepared to will the means. I was very impressed, as I always am, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), spoke about a battle of ideas. We must understand that this battle, like all battles, is one of ideology, and we must be careful about the western liberal tendency to allow wishful thinking to overtake critical analysis.

We need to understand one thing, which is that there are people out there who hate us. They do that not because of what we do or where we intervene but because of who we are and what we stand for—our values, our system of Government and our belief in basic rights.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very impassioned speech with which I agree. May I just take him—[Interruption.] I am so sorry but I do not feel well.

[Dr Fox]

I hope that my hon. Friend feels better.

All conflicts are battles of ideology. That is particularly true of those who return from the region having been involved in jihad in support of ISIS. When the Home Secretary winds up the debate, I hope she will make it clear that in this country we have no place for the concept that someone can take a sabbatical from civilisation and then apologise and come back as though nothing has happened. There has to be a price for those who take up arms against their own country by proxy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border made an interesting point about resourcing our security services. It is worth mentioning that we spend on GCHQ, the security services and Secret Intelligence Service in a year what we spend every six days on the national health service. As a country, we must think about our priorities and just how high up that level of priority the security of our people is. Supposedly, that is the first duty of Government.

GCHQ

Margot James Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I am so sorry, Mr Speaker, but I was just getting up to leave the Chamber.

[Mr Speaker]

We are sorry the hon. Lady is taking her leave, but we will hear from her on other occasions. [Interruption.] She has nothing for which to apologise. I mistakenly thought she was trying to contribute. She should take her leave; we will give her a cheer [Hon. Members: “Hurray.]We will hear from her again soon. She is a very regular contributor.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margot James Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am sorry if the hon. Lady feels that the treaty of Lisbon is so perfect that it needs no reform at all. In respect of the President of the European Council’s comment, he has said before that he does not think that any treaty change is likely for the next couple of years, and I do not disagree with that opinion, but if the hon. Lady looks again at the report of the four Presidents, if she looks again at President Barroso’s blueprint for European reform, she will find there a proposal for substantial changes to the way the EU operates that would not be possible without changes to the treaties.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

We are seeing some positive results and progress in areas such as the EU budget, fisheries and the extension of the working time directive. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ongoing process of negotiation and alliance building is a vital part of realising the reforms needed in the EU and Britain’s relationship with its European partners?

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree with what my hon. Friend says. The achievement of the first-ever reduction in a European financial framework, coupled with the agreement on the ban on the obscene practice of discarding fish—something for which this country has fought for many years—is clear evidence not only that this Government are committed to working with our partners in Europe to achieve common objectives, but that we are succeeding in delivering outcomes that should be welcomed right across the House and by everybody in this country.

Sexual Violence in Conflict

Margot James Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on her excellent speech in opening this debate. She began with a “West Wing” quote. I originally had a reference to “The West Wing” in my speech, but had taken it out; I shall now put it back in. I wanted to mention the episode “The Women of Qumar”. For anyone who recalls it, the President and his staff are managing a situation with the fictional country of Qumar—over an arms deal, I think. The President’s press secretary, C.J. Cregg says:

“They beat women; they hate women; the only reason they keep Qumari women alive is to make Qumari men.”

Unfortunately, I fear that that is not just a fictional situation for some women around the world.

I feel that I cannot do justice to this subject today, not because of time constraints but because of the horror of some of the situations the debate is about. I had the privilege of attending a meeting here in Parliament in January 2011, addressed by Margot Wallström, the first ever special representative of the UN Secretary-General on sexual violence in conflict. Her term in the position came to an end last year, and she has been replaced by Zainab Bangura, a senior politician from Sierra Leone. I am sure that we all wish her well in that role.

I am always struck by how we seem to accept that sexual violence is something that just happens—that it is a “fact of life” both at home in the UK and when it occurs in conflict. I do not accept that, and I think much more can be done to tackle it. In preparing for this debate, I unfortunately stumbled across some truly horrifying discussion boards, with comments illustrating appalling attitudes towards rape. While we are absolutely right to shine a light on these issues in a conflict setting, it is also true that the attitudes that lead to this behaviour exist in all societies. The issues we face here in the UK were well highlighted in our earlier debate.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady recall a recent case this year in which a Muslim man found guilty of rape was exonerated by the judge on the grounds that he had received education in whatever educational establishment he attended, which had taught him that women were of no value? Does she agree with me that this attitude permeates fundamentalist thinking, and that it can be traced in many of the conflict situations emerging, particularly in north Africa?

[Gemma Doyle]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight that issue, but I believe that these attitudes can be found across all societies. They are absolutely not acceptable; we should do everything we can to combat them.

Just as I believe that we will never entirely eliminate violence, it is unlikely that we will ever entirely eliminate sexual violence. The issues we are debating here today are depressing, upsetting and tragic—yet I think we have reason to be optimistic. If everything that could have been done had been done, and still no progress had been made, that would be a hopeless situation. I am optimistic because not nearly enough has been done, and I think that with the will and the resources we can drive down sexual violence in conflict. The investigation teams announced earlier this week were very welcome, and I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment, too, although we need a greater emphasis on prevention, along with a focus on investigation.

There is no doubt that sexual violence is used as a weapon in war. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found that an estimated 20,000 to 50,000 women and girls had been raped during the conflict; the Special Court for Sierra Leone estimated 50,000 to 64,000 had been similarly affected; and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found that an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 girls and women had been raped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall show myself to be the mistress of self-discipline.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I am particularly glad that she referred to the war in Bosnia. Amnesty International’s report, “When everyone is silent”, was published last October and sets out for the Foreign Secretary—I am pleased that the International Development Secretary is also present—the scale of the challenge that we face in ensuring, first, that women feel able to come forward and tell their stories and, secondly, that justice will be done if they find the courage to do so.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing this debate, and I am sure she will not mind me mentioning that, although the Order Paper does not reflect it, there was cross-party support for it. She should not apologise for not talking much about violence against men, because I remember following her when she made her maiden speech in the Chamber in which she spoke with passion about a project in her constituency for men who were suffering domestic violence. Although the prevalence of men who suffer sexual violence in conflict zone is not as great, the stigma for them is considerable. They can even find themselves criminalised and imprisoned because they are deemed by the nation to have taken part in an immoral crime.

I am pleased to be speaking in this debate because I am a member of the International Development Committee, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into violence against women and girls. I know that the Foreign Secretary said that it was important to realise that we are talking specifically about sexual violence in conflict zones, but we wanted to broaden our report to make it more general. I do not feel like we have had two separate debates this afternoon because every issue that was raised in the last debate affects our capacity to have an impact on sexual violence in conflict zones. If women are not supported by the justice system in their state or know that they will have to return to a community where they will be stigmatised, they will not come forward or seek justice.

I wrote to a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about a woman who was raped in Egypt. When the doctor was collecting the forensic evidence, he could not find the correct instruments and used a pair of scissors to try to take swabs. The woman said that that examination was worse than the rape. We need to be honest and admit that that is the situation in many countries. Although we want to support women, there is a lot of work to be done not just by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but by the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that women, girls, boys and men who are victims of sexual violence get the justice that they seek when they come forward.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s speech and his commitment. It is clear that he has real passion for this issue. However, I have some questions and hope that we can get a bit more detail about how he intends to achieve his aims. I am glad that he told the House that he will be working closely with DFID. I do not intend to be critical or to score party political points, but it is important that we are honest. What does he believe would be an indication of success? Does he have any numbers in mind or any particular areas that he wants to concentrate on? How is he working with DFID? It is important that the resources are given directly to projects in other countries that support women and girls who are the victims of sexual violence. It would be helpful to have more detail on how the two Departments are working together.

It is important, unpleasant as it is, for us to try to get inside the minds of the men who carry out these dreadful violent crimes. We must understand that when a soldier comes from a country where there is no respect for women and where women have no rights and are excluded in every way, it is much easier for them to take the final step of committing an act of sexual violence. That is why it is vital that the work with DFID continues. We must try to effect change in those countries. If we do not change the situation with regard to sexual violence against women and girls in peace and in conflict, at home and in developing countries, we will not achieve the laudable aims that the Foreign Secretary has set out.

[Margot James]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Without wishing to compromise the focus of the Foreign Secretary’s initiative, which I support wholeheartedly, as I am sure she does, I agree with her that women’s unequal status and the misogyny that exists in many societies are both a cause and a consequence of the sexual violence that we are discussing this afternoon.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I thank the hon. Lady. I would go even further and say that countries that have such an attitude toward women are far more likely to be involved in conflict in the first place.

Let us call today for a swift and just international response to sexual violence against women, girls, boys and men. We have to acknowledge that the most effective way for us to improve the lives of women and girls, so that they can live free from the fear of violence and its devastating effects, is to work to bring about change across a whole range of issues—education, training, employment, access to finance, health care and justice. Those are the ways in which we can protect women and make it possible for them to come forward and tell their stories, so that we can deliver justice and so that their daughters will have a different story to tell.

Europe

Margot James Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I have just pointed out many of the things that we have achieved. The reason we have had such strong support from Germany, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands on the EU budget is that we have built alliances. The reason that the EU patent regime has been brought in is that we have built alliances. I hope that that is well understood by Members from all parts of the House.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend talks convincingly about the need for the reform of Europe being respected by many other member states. I met Japanese officials yesterday and they made the point that many Japanese investors who invest in this country support what the Prime Minister said last week and are keen for some of the EU regulations on their businesses to be lifted.

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. Such people come to the UK because there are many cultural and linguistic advantages, and because of the corporate tax rate, which we are bringing down progressively. They want to see Europe reformed. There is no doubt about that.

Britain is not alone in calling for powers to flow back to member states.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margot James Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

When we talk of the scaling down of military activity, we should bear in mind that that refers to the withdrawal of international and United Kingdom forces from combat roles. In their place will be 330,000 Afghan security forces who know that part of their role will be providing domestic security to ensure that the progress that has been made—such as girls going to school—can continue, and that they will be protected in so doing. The example of Malala, the young woman in Pakistan who was threatened by people very similar to those who are threatening girls in Afghanistan, demonstrates the importance of that.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

If women are to gain access to health and education, they must enjoy the same freedoms in the public space as men. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his initiative to prevent sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations, and on putting that initiative on the G8 agenda. How will it be implemented in Afghanistan, where it is clearly much needed?

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his initiative to prevent sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations, which has been warmly welcomed by Members in all parts of the House and internationally. The G8 summit in April will consider the best way of implementing it, which will involve not just national Governments but non-governmental organisations and human rights monitors. They will be vital to ensuring that women are protected locally, and that those who perpetuate violence towards them are accountable for their actions.

Mali

Margot James Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the importance of human rights, which he will not be surprised to hear is an integral part of the training that will be given to the Malian Government to ensure that they are well aware of the way in which the military should behave when they go into the northern parts of Mali. He will also not be surprised to hear that, on Saudi Arabian and Qatari involvement, I have seen no evidence to support the reports in the media that they are supporting terrorists in the northern part of Mali.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Islamic extremists have been threatening civil society and committing gross atrocities in west Africa for many years, but the situation in Mali is a marked escalation of violence. As in Afghanistan, the Islamists have been brutal in their suppression of women’s rights in Mali. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that he will work closely with the Department for International Development to ensure that Malian women are fully involved in any future conflict reconciliation?

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the appalling level of atrocities taking place against women, particularly in the northern part of Mali. I know that she will be pleased to support the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexual violence initiative, which we are pushing forward and engaging with very seriously across many African countries and elsewhere in the world. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right to highlight the importance of the involvement of women at a much earlier stage in the resolution of conflict, both in northern Mali and elsewhere.