Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Martin Horwood and Tom Brake

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the doors of the Leader of the House’s office and mine are permanently open to that sort of approach. In fact, the dialogue with the NCVO has been very active and constant, and I am keen to pursue that. The NCVO is, as I stated earlier, at least partially happy and has in the past said that the amendments significantly meet its concerns. There is common ground and we want to ensure that it is developed further.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Although the Deputy Leader of the House has said that this issue is clearly to do with candidates or parties, there is a slight problem with the wording of lines 1 to 4 on page 13, which note that “for election purposes” means

“for the purpose of or in connection with…candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies”.

Although this is a valuable Bill which has been widely misrepresented by 38 Degrees and others, I think that wording presents a potential risk to charities such as the one for which I used to work and campaign, in that it might restrict what they perceive to be their political activity.

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. My issue with his concern is that that terminology is used in PPERA, which has been around for 13 years. One would therefore have expected such concerns to have emerged in the past 13 years, and seeing as they have not, I am reasonably confident that they will not emerge by 2015 either.

Cycling

Debate between Martin Horwood and Tom Brake

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I apologise, Mr Bayley, for missing the opening speech of this debate. I had a long-standing commitment to meet a school party, but I am sure that I would have agreed with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) said. I am pleased to have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) that she fell in love on a tandem. The only time I have been on a tandem was with Mark Oaten, and I assure my hon. Friend that I did not fall in love. In fact, I think I nearly died, because riding a tandem is not quite as easy as it looks, as Mark Oaten found out.

Liberal Democrats are often accused of being fanatics, usually Eurofanatics, but I am proud and happy to confess to being a cycle fanatic. My addiction to cycling started in my early 20s when I spent six months on a bike, cycling around Europe and on the other side of the iron curtain. It was a fascinating journey, and one that I would like to experience again in the near future. If any colleagues are keen to take part in the Blenheim palace triathlon in June, I encourage them to join me, because I will be taking part, and cycling is an important component. I am looking for partners for that, but it will not involve a tandem.

I welcome The Times campaign. I have attended a number of debates on cycling, and this is the most crowded that I have ever attended. Clearly, when The Times and The Independent swing behind such a national campaign, it attracts attention, which is very welcome. It also reflects the fact that cycling is becoming not a minority interest, but one in which people see the potential for significant health and economic benefits, as well as benefits for tackling congestion. One statistic that I have retained from our briefings today is the fact that 56% of short journeys of less than 2 miles take place by car. That is a telling statistic that we should address.

It is not impossible to reverse the trend. In recent decades there has been a trend away from cycling, but during the past couple of years there has been a positive movement towards cycling. As a result of investment from Transport for London, the Smarter Travel Sutton initiative in my London constituency saw a 75% increase in cycling in just three years. That was achieved not by building expensive infrastructure, but by going out to people and reminding them about the facilities available locally—for example, telling someone who perhaps had not been on their bike for 30 years that at the end of their road there was a cycle track that they could use to go to work and back safely. The increase was achieved just by behavioural change and talking to people, and with a significant increase in cycle proficiency training for 2,400 children. That clearly required investment, but not huge sums of money.

I hope that the Minister will respond specifically to The Times manifesto and its eight points. Perhaps he will confirm which of those he believes are achievable and over what sort of time scale he thinks they can be achieved. Points 4, 5, 6 7 and 8 are all eminently achievable because they either do not require significant sums of money, or they require only a transfer of funding within a Department.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should support The Times manifesto. Does he agree that it is important to put the matter into context and emphasise the health benefits, and the relative risk of cycling, which is still a relatively safe activity? Cyclenation has calculated that the health benefits outweigh the risks by about 20:1, and that it is still safer and healthier to cycle than not to cycle.

[Tom Brake]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Clearly there are risks associated with cycling, but they are relatively small, and the undue focus on accidents is not helpful. Newspaper coverage of deaths in accidents involving vehicles is not as extensive as that given to accidents involving cyclists. There are definite health benefits, and we should take them on board. The health benefits for those who continue to cycle or take up cycling later in life are long lasting.

There is an issue for cycle manufacturers. I do not know what the experience of hon. Members with children is when they try to find bikes for their children, but manufacturers’ undue emphasis on producing mountain bikes is not helpful. They are quite heavy for a girl or boy who may not be confident on a bike. Manufacturers should provide more flexibility and choice in the market.

My final point concerns cycle training, and the figures from Sutton where there was a 75% increase in cycling in just three years. A key issue that was identified in achieving that was that cycle training for adults should be targeted and specific. That is not spelled out in detail in The Times manifesto, but I hope that the Minister will pick up on it because if we are serious about getting adults back on to their bikes 20 or 30 years after they last did so, specific and targeted training is needed to convince them that it is a safe, healthy and fast way of getting around.

Sri Lanka (Human Rights)

Debate between Martin Horwood and Tom Brake

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for securing this very timely debate. At the outset of my remarks, however, it is important to stress that Sri Lanka has many things to be proud of. Its record on literacy, child mortality and life expectancy is among the best in south Asia and, indeed, one of the best of any developing country. Sri Lanka also has a proud tradition of democracy and the rule of law.

Sri Lanka ought to be an aspiring leader within south Asia and, indeed, the democratic Commonwealth, but the truth is that gaining such a status demands the highest possible standards of human rights, and the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this debate and from many other debates and commentaries around the world is that, during and since the violent conclusion of the war in 2009, Sri Lanka’s record has not met those high standards. That casts a rather dark shadow over the country’s otherwise proud record in development and democracy.

The UN panel of experts produced its report in 2011, which found credible allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in Sri Lanka. The report also highlighted the fact that a staggering number of civilians—40,000—were killed in the closing weeks of the war in Sri Lanka and, critically, it called for an international accountability mechanism, which several hon. Members have already referred to.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On accountability, does my hon. Friend share my concern about the committee of inquiry that has been set up by the Sri Lankan army and that was appointed by Lieutenant-General Jayasuriya, who was the commander of the security forces in the Vavuniya area during the last few years of the war? Moreover, does he hope that the Minister, when he responds to this debate, will indicate that that is not the sort of accountability that the British Government believe is effective in holding people to account?

[Martin Horwood]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In fact, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall pointed out that there has been a series of internal commissions and inquiries within Sri Lanka, none of which have really had much credibility. Possibly the most credible of them has been the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, which produced a report last year, and it is important to acknowledge that that report made some tough recommendations in relation to detainees and media freedom. Furthermore, it dispelled the myth that there was no shelling of civilians and that, for instance, the shelling of hospitals by Government forces did take place. In that sense, that report by the LLRC was an important step forward.

Nevertheless, I should still like to hear from the Minister what progress he thinks has been made in implementing the recommendations of the LLRC report. For instance, Human Rights Watch reported only last month that there are still several thousand people in Sri Lanka who, having initially been detained under the emergency regulations, are still in custody. Many of them have been held for years without trial, which is in violation of international law. The Sri Lankan Government have so far refused even to publish lists of those who have been detained. Of course, as several hon. Members have pointed out, there are severe limitations to the LLRC report, particularly in relation to the army’s conduct and to accountability for possible war crimes and humanitarian crimes that may have been committed.

More fundamentally, however, there are other, deeper issues with Sri Lankan society. The Foreign Office’s own human rights report highlighted, for example, issues of torture. The report quoted the statement by the World Organisation Against Torture that

“it had received credible testimonies of torture from across the country, including in cases not related to the ethnic conflict or terrorism”.

The report also raised issues about human rights defenders, freedom of expression and other concerns, which I probably do not have time to go into today.

The role of the army in Sri Lankan society is an increasing concern. Earlier this month, The Economist highlighted the role of the Sri Lankan President’s brother, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who is the country’s defence secretary. The Economist said:

“His brother, Basil, calls him ‘fully vegetarian, the nicest, kindest person in the family’, yet he is widely feared.”

The article continued:

“A Tamil leader says the army oversees ‘oppressive, insulting, humiliating’ rule in the north, with tales of land grabs, murders and rape. In Colombo, political observers worry about the militarisation of politics.”

The article went on:

“Some local journalists are warned by editors never to write about him”—

that is, Gotabaya Rajapaksa. It concluded on Gotabaya:

“Asked if he frightens people, he says: ‘If they don’t criticise me, it is because there is nothing to criticise.’”

I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.

Obviously, there are also specific cases, such as those of Mr Weeraraj and Mr Murugananthan, the activists who have disappeared, and indeed the continuing case of Sarath Fonseka, a former general, who had the temerity to stand against Mahinda Rajapaksa in a presidential election. Can the Minister tell us—if not now, then in writing—what representations are being made on those specific cases to the Sri Lankan Government? Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and others have raised the issue at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. It has also been raised, as has been mentioned, by the Canadian Government.

In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister three specific questions. First, has he raised the issue of an independent accountability mechanism, as recommended by the UN panel of experts, with the Sri Lankan Government, within the EU and at UN level? If so, what progress has been made? I do not want words put into the Minister’s mouth, but it is important for us to know that those discussions are taking place. Secondly, what is our response to the Government of Canada and others who have questioned whether it is right for Sri Lanka to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, given Sri Lanka’s record on human rights? Thirdly, I emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall about the continued deportation of Sri Lankans from this country, when such deep concerns are raised by the Foreign Office about the treatment of detainees and those in custody. Obviously, the Minister has to be diplomatic, but it is time to send a clear message that, as a democratic Commonwealth country with high aspirations, Sri Lanka’s record on human rights and accountability for crimes committed is simply not good enough and has to change.