Human Rights: Kashmir
Nigel Evans Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tahir Ali
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point.
In south Asia, the long-drawn-out dispute over the state of Jammu and Kashmir remains a hanging fireball between two hostile nuclear neighbours, India and Pakistan. It has brought human misery in the form of wars and human rights violations, and continues to threaten regional and global peace. My role is not to take sides, such as being pro-Pakistan or anti-India; I believe that as a Kashmiri it is my duty to highlight the abuses and human rights violation to this House.
Even after seven decades, the people of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir are waiting for their right of self-determination, as promised by the United Nations. Notwithstanding more than 25 UN resolutions calling for solutions to the dispute, India is reluctant to grant Kashmiris their right to self-determination. The Scottish people were rightly afforded a referendum to express their desire for independence, and the UK had a referendum on remaining in or leaving the EU. Kashmiris are not begging for their freedom, and nor will they beg; it is their birthright and, eventually, it will be achieved.
The Indian occupation of Kashmir is not something that can be or should be left to India and Pakistan. Let me be absolutely clear: this is not a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan; the international community needs to take responsibility. The British Government have a responsibility: this is another example of the mess left by the British Government in 1947. We cannot turn our backs to the people of Kashmir and say it is absolutely nothing to do with us. This is an issue of international significance on which the UK should take a leading role, given its historical involvement in the situation.
In February of 2020, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who is well known for her activism and support for the Kashmiri people, was denied entry to India and essentially deported without any suitable explanation given by the Indian Government. In essence, entry was denied because of her high-profile work supporting the self-determination of the Kashmiri people. British parliamentarians, Indian politicians sympathetic to the Kashmiris and international observers are all denied access to Indian-occupied Kashmir.
Earlier this month, China’s ambassador to the UK was prevented from entering Parliament to attend a meeting with the all-party parliamentary group on China. The initiative came about because of protests by the Speaker and Lord Speaker in response to China imposing travel bans on five MPs and two peers. I ask, with the same justification, that measures be taken against the Indian high commissioner, who is still allowed on the parliamentary estate. It seems that we are prepared to take action against China but not India. This is clearly a case of double standards, and it is why I demand that the Indian high commissioner be barred from the parliamentary estate, pending an end to the military occupation of Kashmir.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
After the events of the last century, by now we should all know what a fascist party of Government looks like, speaks like and acts like. By extension, we should also know what illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing looks like. However, despite knowing this, we fail in our duty to act. Knowing the BJP’s projected journey towards genocide, we are not doing what we should do. Members should not just take it from me. Genocide Watch exists
“to predict, prevent, stop, and punish genocide”,
and its “ten stages of genocide” model has been used by the US State Department and the UN. Genocide Watch has said that all 10 stages of the genocidal process in Jammu and Kashmir are far advanced while Kashmir is under military rule. Yet still, despite all the cautions and the signs, our Government maintain a bilateral position in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, while they apply Magnitsky-style sanctions against China and make a determination of genocide in relation to Uyghur Muslims.
Why the double standards? Is it not the case that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere? Why do we apply a different standard to our friends and trading partners than to our foes? Is it not easier to be critical of our foes, but bolder and braver to be critical of our friends? It is common knowledge that Kashmir is deemed the unfinished business of partition. The question on the minds of millions of Kashmiris worldwide and in the region is simply this: how will the butcher of Gujarat settle this unfinished business of partition? If the assessment made by Genocide Watch and others is anything to go by, we can draw the conclusions.
There are those who ask, “Why Kashmir? Why should we care?” To them, I say that aside from the barefaced violations of international human rights and our colonial legacy, the answer is that Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir is the world’s largest militarised zone, and India and Pakistan are two nuclear-armed states that will be on the brink of war if India continues its war-mongering. That should be enough to keep everyone up at night. The list of serious human rights violations by security forces in Kashmir—and the deliberate erosion of civil liberties by the ideological bed buddy of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the BJP Government—is endless.
While Pakistan made a gesture towards peace by safely returning an Indian fighter pilot in 2019, the BJP has been accused of alleged torture and the custodial killing of the leader Mohammad Ashraf Khan, and the kidnapping, desecration and forced burial of Syed Ali Geelani’s body against his final wishes. Make no mistake: India is setting the stage for Kashmir, and it is not for a Bollywood blockbuster. The BJP’s journey towards enacting genocide in Jammu and Kashmir must be stopped. While the people of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir look to the world to act, will this Government make urgent representations?
I will not stop speaking: not until every mother in Kashmir is reunited with her son, until every woman in Kashmir is free from the threat of being raped by Indian forces—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am sorry, Barry—we have to leave it there because of the time pressure.
Afzal Khan
I agree wholeheartedly. The whole of south Asia is suffering as a result of how these two big countries are behaving and the money they are spending on arms. China, Pakistan and India are nuclear powers, so they are putting the safety of the whole world at risk. The sooner they get around the table, the better.
The concerns point towards a wider problem in India. Discrimination has become embedded in law, with the Disturbed Areas Act in Gujarat used as a tool to discriminate against Muslims. Protests in Indian-administered Kashmir are also prohibited. Kashmir is the only state in India where a crowd control gun is used that has caused more than 700 Kashmiris, including infants, to go blind. The list of issues is long. As the all-party human rights group puts it, India is a “diminishing democracy”.
The Government like to talk about the close relationship and friendship between the UK and India, but true friendship requires honesty and accountability. Successive UK Governments have adopted the position that it is for India and Pakistan to resolve Kashmir’s future and that the UK should not interfere in or mediate the process. However, we must go beyond that and recognise the role that Britain has played in the Kashmir conflict. Its roots lie in the countries’ shared colonial past, which facilitated the violent partition process between India and Pakistan and left the fate of Kashmiris undecided.
So will the Minister meet me, Kashmiri groups and members of the diaspora to hear their concerns at first hand? This week, the UN General Assembly also met. Will the Minister also outline whether the issue of Kashmir was on the agenda, and what steps are being taken to ensure that the UN resolutions are upheld? The reality is that the Indian Government have utter contempt for international law and human rights—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry, but we will have to leave it there, Afzal.
I am grateful to Debbie Abrahams for offering to give up her wind-up in order that the last speaker, Zarah Sultana, will have the full three minutes.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
Today’s debate on rights abuses in Kashmir is one close to my heart. It is very personal for me. In the 1960s, my grandfather came to the west midlands to work in the foundries, having left his home in Kashmir. I still have family in the region, and that is what makes what is happening in Kashmir all the more painful.
It is now more than two years since the BJP Modi Government unilaterally revoked articles 370 and 35A of the constitution, robbing Indian-occupied Kashmir of autonomy, reflective of its status as an occupied territory, violating UN resolution 47 and initiating a brutal lockdown. This has intensified human rights violations in the region, with widespread reports of torture, rape, extrajudicial execution and illegal detention. In what is now the largest military occupation in the world, the internet connection was cut off, and political leaders, activists and journalists were arrested.
In 2020, following its reports of widespread state abuses, human rights organisation Amnesty International faced reprisals from the Modi Government and was forced to halt its operations in the region. These repressive actions have been mirrored in how the Indian Government have cracked down on the largest protests in world history, led by tens of thousands of farmers; in how they have unlawfully detained British Sikhs in India, such as Jagtar Singh Johal; and in how they attempted to have three British Sikhs from the west midlands extradited, only for Westminster magistrates court yesterday to rule that there was not evidence to justify it. I send my solidarity to the families of these men, who have faced months of agonising uncertainty and fear, and to the Sikh community in Coventry and across the UK.
Human rights abuses in Kashmir are not simply some issue of foreign policy of which Britain can wash its hands of responsibility, nor are they a bilateral issue for India and Pakistan to resolve. This House has a special responsibility for the plight of the Kashmiri people. In 1947, as the colonial power, the British Government oversaw partition of the Indian subcontinent and rejected calls for Kashmiri independence. That decision laid the groundwork for the oppression we see in Kashmir today. But far from standing up to the Indian Government for their violations of human rights and international law, this Conservative Government would rather cosy up to Prime Minister Modi, and would rather refuse to speak out and, once again, demonstrate moral cowardice that shames this House.
Britain has a special responsibility to the Kashmiri people, and it is long past time that we spoke up for their inalienable rights and pursued diplomatic channels to secure UN resolution 47, securing their right to self-determination.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Apologies to Jim Shannon, who has been here throughout, but, sadly, we have run out of time. Wind-ups—I call Hannah Bardell.
Amanda Milling
I want to make a couple of points, but I might come back to hon. Members if I have time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) made a point about the diplomatic network. We regularly raise our concerns about human rights and about the situation in Kashmir at a senior level within the Governments of Pakistan and India. This is done at ministerial level and through officials from our high commissions in Islamabad and New Delhi. Officials from the British high commission in Islamabad visited Pakistan-administered Kashmir earlier this year. Their counterparts in New Delhi are discussing the possibility of their own visit to India-administered Kashmir and are in regular touch with contacts there.
Let me make a couple of points about some other issues that have been raised. We voiced our concern when the Indian Government introduced restrictions on assembly and communications in India-administered Kashmir in August 2019, and we are pleased that the vast majority have since been relaxed. We welcomed reports that many of those who were detained have been released, but we understand that a number of political detainees remain. We call on the Government of India to ensure that they are released as soon as possible.
Let me be clear: freedom of expression and media are essential qualities of a functioning democracy. Just as with India, ties between our people underpin our strong relationship with Pakistan. We continue to urge the Government of Pakistan to guarantee the rights of all citizens as laid down in the constitution of Pakistan and in accordance with international standards—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am afraid that we have to leave it there. I thank everybody who took part in the debate.
Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Joint Committee
Nigel Evans Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith
I strongly agree; in fact, that was going to be the next line of my remarks. Indeed, a number of Members across the House have been pressing for details on family reunion. There is also the question of funding for local authorities to keep people safe. I have met three families from Afghanistan who have already been settled in Stirling in the last couple of weeks, and they were particularly concerned about friends and family who were still in the country and still very much in harm’s way. I pay tribute to Stirling Council and to Forth Valley Welcome, who have done so much to make these refugees feel safe and secure in the Forth Valley. I say, in a genuine and constructive offer to the Government, that we can do more: the Forth Valley can do more and Scotland can do more. We need the details of the scheme and particularly of the funding, because we are not going to make promises that we cannot keep, but we are willing to play our part constructively.
There are wider and longer-term implications to the Afghanistan situation. It is not just about Afghanistan. Where is your global Britain now? After Afghanistan, it is clear that the UK cannot operate significant independent engagement and that it has precious little influence on US engagement. This was a collective failure of the US, the UK and others; many countries have failed in this. The world is less secure than it was, and the bad guys are now feeling more confident than they should be. That is something we should all be deeply concerned about.
Domestically, the integrated review is out of date within six months of its publication. We also see that the UK’s Indo-Pacific tilt looks even less credible than it did—and frankly that was not much, from our perspective. Global Britain is not the SNP’s project. That stands to reason, as we have a different world view. We believe that Scotland’s best future is as an independent state within the European Union, but we do not wish global Britain harm. The UK is always going to be our closest neighbour and our closest friend. The SNP submitted constructive suggestions to the integrated defence and foreign affairs review, and they are even more relevant now than they were. We will continue to work constructively, from our perspective, to help our nearest friend and neighbour to learn the lessons of the last few months, but that needs to be done on the basis of humility and reality. Learning lessons would go a long way to support the motion put forward by Labour today, which we are very pleased to support.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We are going to try to get everybody in, but I am afraid that the time limit forthwith is four minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We will go now to three minutes and we will hopefully get everybody in.
Several hon. Members rose—
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of the motion and to speak for those vulnerable people who have endured and are suffering the situation that we, as a major occupying force, have left behind. During the past few weeks, we have all been inundated with cases from constituents desperately seeking whatever help they can find for family members in Afghanistan. My office has been no exception.
Like other hon. Members, I would like to take the opportunity to thank my staff, and staff across the House, who have gone above and beyond the call of duty. Anyone who knows anything about this House knows that we are nothing without our staff; the past few weeks have been a testament to that. From British nationals trapped in Kabul to young children seeking to be reunited with their parents, siblings or grandparents, to former UK-contracted personnel stuck in hiding in fear for their lives, our offices have been presented with some of the most harrowing cases. Listening to them and reading them have profoundly affected people.
While those who are carrying out Operation Pitting on the ground are to be commended, it is worth noting that the Government received intelligence about the worsening situation in Afghanistan in July. We knew for a year that the withdrawal was happening. Glaring mistakes with neglected case inboxes and sensitive documents are a reminder that this could all have been prevented and that all blame is to be laid right at the Government’s door. We may never know the true effect of all the mismanagement, but the suggestion that 9,000 eligible Afghans entitled to settle in the UK have been left behind does nothing to ease the worried minds of my constituents.
I was appalled to read the Home Office letter. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has quoted from it, but it is worth quoting again: it says that
“we cannot provide to MPs assessments or updates on those individuals who remain in Afghanistan and whose cases they have raised.”
What exactly are we supposed to do with that? For weeks, our offices have done exactly as instructed when raising cases. We have endured the different email addresses, the briefings with few answers, the helpline numbers published wrong or with a digit missing, and all the failures in between. We did absolutely everything that we were asked to do by the Government—and now, nothing. To say that that is not good enough is a complete understatement. That is no way to run a Government, no way to treat colleagues, no way to treat our hard-working staff and certainly no way to treat vulnerable people who have been left in Afghanistan.
To add further insult to injury, the Government with their damaging legislative agenda seem hellbent on punishing people seeking refuge from war, violence and persecution. The hostile environment has meant that in the past decade the UK has deported more than 15,000 Afghan asylum seekers on the basis that Afghanistan was a safe place, yet we are meant to clap our hands for the Government saying they will repatriate 20,000 here over the next few years. There will inevitably be a rise in Afghan refugees, and the Nationality and Borders Bill, that disgraceful piece of legislation, will do nothing to alleviate it. I do not understand why the Government have not—
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Last week, I held a special meeting in my constituency for my Afghan community. Dozens and dozens of worried and distressed residents came to meet me, all wanting help for their relatives in desperate situations; I wanted to share a few of their stories in this Chamber, especially as the Government were not responding to any emails and were not listening to our requests. To protect their identity, I will use their initials only. Because of time, I will read just a couple of the situations that were brought to my attention.
SE’s brother was a driver for a British translator and was therefore one step removed from direct employment with the British. I have not received any clarification of whether he is eligible for ARAP; I have received no answer from the FCDO.
BS’s mother is a single woman whose husband was murdered by the Taliban for working as an interpreter for British troops. Again, I have received no answers to any inquiries.
My constituents who came to meet me cannot sleep. Many have anxiety problems. One person was highly suicidal. People are crying as they speak to me—the situation is devastating for them and their families. The Government need to get a grip on what families here are going through.
What about the families in Afghanistan? The Government have had 18 months to evacuate people from Afghanistan, but they keep on getting it wrong. Why? They got it wrong when they said that the Taliban would not take over, they got it wrong when they said that lives would not be at risk, and they got it wrong in not being able to manage a safe emergency evacuation. Delays have been putting lives at risk, and their ability not to say what the resettlement scheme really means is causing further frustration, anxiety and annoyance to people in this House, but more so to our communities and to people who are left in Afghanistan.
We need more from the Government, and we expect more from the Government. I ask the Minister, for the sake of my constituents, to help those who need protection from being raped, from being kidnapped, from experiencing barbaric treatments, from hunger, and, ultimately, from death. I support the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Sarah Owen, to resume her seat no later than 6.48 pm, with no time limit.
Beijing Winter Olympics and Chinese Government Sanctions
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing this debate, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow a fellow Greater Manchester MP, the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra).
When people say “Olympics”, there’s me thinking about jumping hurdles, hitting archery targets, Usain Bolt breaking records and our wonderful Team GB cycling team, but then I realised it is not Tokyo that we are on about today, but rather the Beijing and Hubei 2022 winter Olympics. You know what? I know absolutely nothing about the winter Olympics, yet here I am today speaking in a debate about them, though I am confident in observing that the absence of a background in something does not necessarily deter anyone from waxing lyrical in the Chamber.
I have to declare an interest in China, and that is that I know a wee bit about the country. I worked and lived there for over a decade, and I spent around 14,000 hours learning Mandarin Chinese—Putonghua—along with the Shanghainese dialect. I also hold two master’s degrees on China, as well as currently reading for a PhD in China-related studies. Unfortunately, over the last year, nearly all the debate on China has been extremely one-sided. It is not multifaceted, it fails to see much of the nuance that exists, and ultimately it does not depict the country that I came to know, although it does have many problems.
I know even less about the Olympics. I worked at the embassy during the Beijing 2008 Olympic games as the Olympic and Paralympic attaché, and helped to promote our wonderful country to the Chinese during the London 2012 Olympiad, when I was based at the British consulate in Shanghai. From these experiences, my view is that we should not be boycotting the upcoming 2022 winter Olympics, because it is now more important than ever for us to push for as many people-to-people and governmental exchanges as we possibly can. I am a firm believer in the UK being open to the world, as that is the only true way to maintain influence and project the interests of our people. The alternative is an introverted stance in international politics that, quite frankly, reeks of a seeping of confidence in our ability to influence and attract on the ice rink of international affairs.
I saw this at first hand in 2012 when Mr Wu Chengzhang wrote to me when I was at the British consulate two months before the London 2012 games. He really wanted to go to London to see the Olympics, because he had been there for the 1948 Olympiad playing basketball for the Chinese team. He even played against the British team. Through working with different partners, we were able to get him on a plane—he was 88 years old at the time—to go to London, where he met the man who had been his arch-nemesis at the time, Mr Lionel Price from the British team, who has sadly subsequently passed away. They spent the day together in London, where they went to the London Eye, among other things. This created so much good will between the peoples of the UK and China, and it was widely hailed as a bilateral success.
A British Chambers of Commerce report presented this week to the all-party parliamentary China group made the point that—I paraphrase—the resumption of travel and openness can help to create opportunities to build common ground and enhance intercultural understanding. This is exactly why we should be in attendance, come February 2022.
Today’s debates also makes me think about why, covid faff aside, there is no real opposition to Tokyo hosting the summer Olympics this month. When we think back, there was much anxiety in the 1980s about the economic rise of Japan, especially from the United States. Then we think of the last 30 years. Japan not only has maintained its position as one of the top three largest economies, but has a soft power capability that is truly astonishing. Along with the UK and the USA, it can boast one of the most influential youth cultures on the planet. I cannot help but feel that China can definitely take inspiration from its neighbour across the east China sea. It has done so before in its economic model, sometimes known as the developmental model for economics.
Certain developments obviously have not been helpful of late, including a tilt to a more aggressive tone in diplomatic engagement, sometimes referred to as wolf warrior diplomacy, and the sanctioning of my colleagues in the House. The sooner we can move away from such tools and tone of diplomacy the better. I welcome the arrival of Ambassador Zheng Zeguang to the UK, and hope that, if he happens to see today’s debate, he can work with our Government to ensure an easing in tensions. There is a long way to go in how China presents and communicates itself with the rest of the world. We must, however, ask ourselves what a boycott would achieve. In the case of the 2022 Olympics, many experts say that a boycott likely will not work and could make it even harder to gain concessions from China.
Experts found that boycotting the 1936 Berlin summer games and the 1980 Moscow summer games did not change the direction of state policy. I do not believe that a boycott will lead to China changing its policy on ethnic relations, particularly with the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang autonomous region, or zìzìhqū. If anything, the Government may dig in further. The only thing that it will achieve is potentially some loss of face on the organisers’ behalf, and those boycotting may feel virtuous for a few moments.
The Olympics should not be politicised, but obviously they have always been a medium through which to see the ebbs and flows of international relations. However, if we cannot engage in healthy competition on the slalom or in the bobsleigh, then what—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
No, we have to move on. Sorry, Mark; you have had seven minutes.
We now go to Christine Jardine, by video link. We are having a bit of a glitch with the clock, as you may notice, so hopefully you have another device there. If not, just give your wonderful speech, and I will stop you after seven minutes or so.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will do my best.
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this crucial debate, because it is about much more than it might appear at first sight. It is not about sport. It is not about the Olympic games. It is about human rights, and sending a clear message to the Government of China that we will not take part in what will be a celebration of their regime, which, as he so clearly demonstrated, is exactly what it will become.
We have already heard some amazingly erudite contributions, particularly from the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). Although I have not been sanctioned in the same way that he and many other hon. Members have, my constituency of Edinburgh West is home to the Chinese consulate in Scotland, and in the past it has been made clear to me that my comments and criticisms of the regime’s actions in Xinjiang, Hong Kong or Tibet were less than welcome. Nevertheless, I wish to make it clear that I do not support any indication of this country’s approval of China’s action that might be inferred from diplomatic support of the games.
I am someone who has always believed that politicians should not interfere in sport and doubted, like the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), the value of sporting boycotts, but this summer, like so many others in these islands, I have been swept up in the amazing buzz and excitement that surrounded Wimbledon, Euro 2020, and the anticipation of the Open championship and the Tokyo Olympics—each of them a great celebration of sport, bringing so much happiness to so many young people in pursuit of the goals of sporting achievements, which have already been detailed. So it should be with the winter Olympics next year, but I fear that it will not be.
I am in agreement with those who believe that it is not appropriate for a sporting celebration, and the Olympics in particular, with their declared high ideals and spirit, to be taking place in a country against a background of widespread human rights abuses and undermining of democracy, which is why I am in complete agreement with today’s motion. Indeed, I might be tempted to go even further.
Just a few days ago, the Foreign Affairs Committee released a report urging the UK Government to partially boycott the 2022 Beijing winter Olympics. Earlier, in February, our party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), announced that we would call for Britain to boycott the 2022 Beijing winter Olympics over alleged ethnic cleansing against Uyghur Muslims, who have been imprisoned and subject to political re-education in Xinjiang. Who could fail to be moved by the TV pictures last year of adults forced to kneel on railway platforms before being loaded on to trains to be taken to who-knows-where and with an intent that I do not even want to think about? At the same time, we see a threat to democracy in Hong Kong and the Chinese Government failing to respect the joint agreement, which was a precursor to the end of British involvement in the territory in 1997.
Against that background, for us to offer any official Government backing for the winter Olympics would be to send the wrong message to Beijing. It would be telling it that we are fine with its behaviour—that we will turn a blind eye to the reports of a million Uyghur Muslims in detention camps and will not defend democracy in Hong Kong. I do not believe that is a message we want to send.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) speak about what might now be regarded as the sham of Beijing’s opening ceremony—a dazzling, hypnotic sham. Do we want once again to provide such a promotional opportunity for a regime whose approach to human rights is the antithesis of everything we believe in in this country—human rights, democracy and respect—or a positive platform to show off and display the regime in a positive light? I do not believe so.
After my party leader made his call for a boycott, there were warnings that this might mean sanctions from the Chinese Government, but to give in to that threat would be to give way to bullying, which is why I back the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath to go further. We should go further than the growing consensus in support of a diplomatic boycott and boycott the winter Olympics in Beijing completely. We should not allow the Olympics to return to China until the regime begins to change and to respect human rights and democracy. There has been enough hand wringing and prevarication. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past. The treatment of Uyghur women and children forced to undergo procedures that they feel they have no choice in meets the criteria for genocide as set out in the genocide convention.
The Liberal Democrats want our Government to send a message that the UK will stand up against such crimes against humanity. We will not indulge the Chinese Government by offering diplomatic credibility to the games. We will not help them to promote the regime on world stage. We will not support the Olympics in Beijing. We do not believe that the Government should do so, and we support the motion before the House today.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for bringing this important debate to the House.
The Olympic games uses sport to bring nations together, guided by the core values of excellence, friendship and respect. The games and its core principles hold a special place in the heart of Rother Valley, as Lesley Ward, a resident of Brampton-en-le-Morthen, represented Great Britain on our diving team at the Olympic games in 1992, 1996 and 2000. Needless to say, everyone in Rother Valley is immensely proud of her. The Olympic charter’s noble values are cherished in Rother Valley and across the world, which makes the International Olympic Committee’s decision to award the games to Beijing incredibly odd indeed.
Outrage and horror in this place and around the world have rightly followed the reports of mass atrocity crimes in Xinjiang. The UK Government and this Parliament cannot stand by and watch. The Foreign Secretary himself said of the Chinese Communist party’s actions in Xinjiang:
“Internment camps, arbitrary detention, political re-education, forced labour, torture and forced sterilisation—all on an industrial scale. It is truly horrific...We have a moral duty to respond.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]
In April, this House voted to declare that China’s actions amount to genocide and crimes against humanity, so why are we in this situation, even debating the Olympic games next year?
The People’s Republic of China is a cause for concern beyond the Xinjiang crisis, too. Commercially, companies fear upsetting the Chinese government and Chinese consumers, so they will often bend to Chinese demands. It is simply not right that British and American companies, based in the UK and the US, accept the diktat of a foreign dictatorship.
The misuse of economic soft power is directed against sovereign states, too. Australia has had tariffs imposed because of its refusal to toe the line. African nations are the victims of coercive economic neo-colonisation. The belt and road initiative is a Trojan horse for debt-trap diplomacy. The distribution of the Chinese covid-19 vaccines is being used as diplomatic leverage, and the remaining allies of the Republic of China—Taiwan—are being financially induced to switch democratic recognition to the PRC.
Elsewhere in business, the Chinese run roughshod over rules of intellectual property, copying western technology and innovation. They manipulate the renminbi and provide unfettered state aid to their industries and companies to put western businesses at a disadvantage. The recent Chinese Government crackdown on Didi, Alibaba and Tencent demonstrates their intention to control all aspects of Chinese life, threatening our citizens’ data security and the competitiveness of western companies.
It is clear that, on covid-19, the Chinese are not being fully open and co-operative with the international community. All this is without mentioning the PRC’s disregard for the rules-based international order in its treatment of Tibet; its aggression on the Indian border; its persecution of Chinese Christians, Falun Gong and other minorities; its militarisation of the South China sea; its threats towards the Republic of China; its banning of pro-democracy candidates running in elections in Macau; and, of course, its outrageous and illegal national security law in Hong Kong, trampling on the rights of millions of British nationals. In the UK, we face constant threats to our national security from cyber-attacks, espionage, Chinese ownership of vital infrastructure and key companies, as well as infiltration of our universities and institutions. In the light of all this, why is the global community acquiescing in the 2022 winter Olympic games being hosted in Peking? And why are the UK Government even considering sending British representatives to attend the games?
The PRC uses international events such as the winter games to cultivate its image and bolster its legitimacy, both at home and abroad. We must not hand China a propaganda victory. Unless the PRC ends its oppression in Xinjiang and elsewhere and lifts sanctions on British companies and individuals, we must consider action in relation to the games. A possible option is one where Great Britain would still participate in Beiping and we would still cheer the team on to glory, but no state officials would attend. Our stance would send a message to both Peking and the wider international community that the UK unequivocally stands against the horrendous crimes occurring in Xinjiang and elsewhere and would ensure that Beijing realises that it cannot commit these crimes with impunity.
As a result of the PRC’s conduct towards the United Kingdom, its own people and the international community, we cannot and must not provide a veneer of diplomatic respectability to the Chinese regime. I call on the International Olympic Committee to look at moving the 2022 winter games from the PRC and I urge the UK Government to consider not sending official representation if the games do go ahead in Beijing. I shall always celebrate and support the Great Britain Olympic team, but we must not celebrate or support the Communist party of China, which is currently oppressing people both in China and abroad. We must look at all and any options to stop this awful regime.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I must put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) for cutting his speech short to allow me to speak this afternoon; I am incredibly grateful for his generosity. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)—my good friend—for bringing this very important debate to the House. He has been a very passionate and powerful campaigner on Tibet, Hong Kong and the Uyghur, and his integrity on some of these key issues of the day continues to be a source of inspiration to all of us.
Before my words are misinterpreted, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not generally for boycotts—that is not the kind of Conservative I am. I am rising to speak in favour of a diplomatic boycott, which is very different from a sporting boycott. A diplomatic boycott of the Olympic games is nothing new, as has been mentioned in many speeches today. I also put on record the fact that these Olympics will no doubt take place and that I will be supporting our British athletes and hoping that they win gold in every competition that takes place. But that is very different to supporting the CCP as it sportswashes what is happening in Xinjiang.
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am one of the MPs sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party, and not for committing gross human rights abuses or being a terrorist or a warlord—unless my colleagues who have been sanctioned too have something that they wish to share about themselves—but speaking up against genocide. If my Government think they have any way of persuading the CCP to conduct itself any differently in the face of our values and norms, I am afraid they have lost the plot completely.
If there is any confusion on this House’s views on genocide, let me say that just three months ago this Parliament took an unprecedented decision, based on the evidence, to unanimously declare that all five markers of genocide were being met at the hands of the CCP against the Uyghur in Xinjiang. Let me just remind people about this. Of course one of the markers is killing members of a group. Others are causing serious bodily or mental harm; inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births—we know that is happening, with the forced sterilisation of Uyghur women; and the barbaric act that is taking place against Uyghur families, with Uyghur children in their hundreds of thousands being separated from their parents. That is what is taking place in China and this is what they do not want us to talk about as these games take place.
Of course we are signatories to the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which is why I would never use the word lightly. Before the Minister at the Dispatch Box has to hold the embarrassing position that only the UN can declare genocide, I must point out that we know the UN is broken when it comes to preventing or even researching genocide when it comes to China.
We should also reflect on what this House has said. We are not the only ones in the world who recognise that the evidence exists that genocide is taking place. The Netherlands, Slovakia, Canada and the Czech Republic have all debated their own motions, and Biden’s Administration have continued to declare the situation in Xinjiang an ongoing, active genocide. More importantly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you could take a message back to Mr Speaker, reflecting on what the US Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said about the Olympic games. She is on the record as saying that she supports a “diplomatic boycott” on those grounds. Mr Speaker may have an opportune moment at some point to let us know what his position is, because somebody in this place has to reflect the view of this House; unfortunately, I am worried that the Government may not be bold enough to hold that line.
My anxiety is that if we have diplomats and politicians attending the Beijing Olympics—the genocide Olympics, as they have been referred to—it enables the CCP to sportswash what is happening in Xinjiang and it makes a mockery of everything we stand for. When the Foreign Secretary talks about:
“Internment camps, arbitrary detention, political re-education, forced labour, torture and forced sterilisation—all on an industrial scale”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]
what does it mean if we then turn up to these genocide Olympics? I know it is difficult for the Government, but politics is about choices and at some point we have to defend our values and our British laws. A diplomatic boycott will have an impact and is a low-risk, high-reward way of establishing global Britain’s values. As the Foreign Secretary has already been on record to say
“We have a moral duty to respond.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]
And we can, by making sure that we do not have a diplomatic presence at the Olympics.
Such a measure is nothing new. A former Prime Minister, David Cameron, did not attend the 2014 winter Olympics after the country in question passed anti-LGBT laws. Let us remind ourselves that the CCP believes that homosexuality is a mental illness and it is killing or destroying millions of Uyghur people. The situation is no better—I would argue it is much worse—so we should not be turning up diplomatically at the genocide Olympics.
There is some anxiety that we cannot take action unilaterally, but that is also nonsense. Many Parliaments around the world are currently debating, discussing or putting motions in place to ensure that politicians and diplomats will not be turning up at these Olympics. It is also quite exciting to note how forceful and bold the Biden Administration are being on this. Just last night, a motion was moved in the Senate to declare that all goods coming in from Xinjiang are slave labour goods and will now be blacklisted and not allowed to be imported into America. These are the motions we should be moving in this House; our position should not be to say, on the one hand, that this is an industrial-scale version of human rights abuses and, on the other hand, that there is nothing we can do.
Politics is not for the fainthearted. Every decision has consequences, but a diplomatic boycott would enable us to stand by what this House and our allies believe—that a genocide is taking place in Xinjiang.
The games last 16 days, or about 1.3 million seconds. That is a second for every Uyghur imprisoned, abused or forced into labour under President Xi. We as global Britain have to make a stand. Do we stand by those oppressed, or do we stand by President Xi? A lifetime ago, the 1936 Olympics were not boycotted, and that did not stop the slaughter of millions of Jews. We cannot make the same mistake again. I urge this House to support this motion and push for a full diplomatic boycott of the genocide games.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Gavin, I do not know whether you got the message. You have up to eight minutes.
Covid-19 Vaccines: Nepal
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It being 6.59 pm as we go into the Adjournment debate and the Minister moves slowly to his place, the Dispatch Box has been sanitised, so we do not need to suspend the House. The fact that I am rabbiting on a little will mean that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) need move the Adjournment only once.
I do apologise, but as this is a very limited debate, Members other than the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and the Minister will not be able to make speeches. However, they will at least be able to ask to intervene on the Minister; of course, it will be up to the Minister whether he accepts their intervention.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Official Development Assistance and the British Council
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karen Bradley
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. This is not an either/or. Money spent there will save money upstream. I know that the Treasury scorecard is very difficult to comprehend and that this is not necessarily how it works, but that relatively small amount of money will save enormous amounts of money at home and will make the world a better place for all of us.
My final point is on the British Council. I am disappointed by the situation that we have arrived at. I know that the Government have put an enormous amount of money into the British Council. The British Council is normally pretty much self-sustaining. Its language schools and language business mean that it pays for about 85% of its costs in normal times—but, as I have said, we are not in normal times. Like so many other organisations, the British Council has not been able to deliver the services that it would have delivered and therefore make the income that can and needs to make. We are talking about money for two years so that it can get back on its feet. The price that we will pay for not meeting that request by the British Council is that we will see the closure of offices around the world, including in the US, Afghanistan and other places.
I said in respect of international aid that other countries will move in; there can be no doubt about the significance of the British Council and its offices, and about the idea of another power moving into those offices where the British Council has been. Yes, the British Council sells language services to the public, but the service it provides to the United Kingdom is about far more than just language services. The British Council is about Britain’s place in the world and is perhaps the most visible part of our soft power that anyone sees in any country they have visited. I was able to travel the world as a Minister at many levels and as a Select Committee member, and the British Council was always present, promoting Britain, British values and British interests. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister: please try to find a way to support the British Council so that we do not have to see the closure of posts. Once we have moved out and those relationships are lost, they will never be regained; someone else will move in and we will be a poorer country for it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The time limit is eight minutes. I call Sir Edward Leigh.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), I anticipated having three minutes and, somehow, I now have eight minutes. Unlike her, I have since written more notes and now have the difficulty of trying to read my own writing.
I rise to recognise the UK’s global reputation for delivering life-saving aid, to warn of the risks resulting from a reduction to the 0.7% target and to offer ideas for maximising the UK’s support for the world’s most vulnerable through the next decade and beyond. However, I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who made the important point that it is about the four aspects of defence, trade, development and diplomacy all working together. Like four wheels on a car, we cannot get to our destination without all four working at the same time.
We need to consider the impact of development on trade, the impact of development on defence and the impact of development on diplomacy, and likewise in reverse. There needs to be a more holistic view of what we can do to be a truly global Britain.
Aid is a British success story. We are recognised as global experts and have achieved incredible results. Since 2015, we have helped 14 million children access education, and we have helped 6 million girls. When leadership was needed to address covid-19 in poorer countries, the UK stepped forward, committing over half a billion pounds and 100 million vaccine doses to the COVAX initiative. We have led the world in tackling violence against women and girls, by launching the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative—again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes—and funding innovative new programmes.
Aid spending is also an investment in our global reputation. It establishes us as respected and trusted international partners, which can only help in our mission to secure trade deals that will benefit the constituents of every Member in this House, including mine in Bury South.
With generous and effective aid spending and a global diplomatic presence comes our soft power and soft influence, which places the UK at the heart of critical debates and gives us the legitimacy and ability to guide international action on key global challenges such as climate change. When the UK speaks on such issues, the world listens.
It is with concern, therefore, that we witness the slashing of aid budgets, eroding this proud legacy and, ultimately, costing lives. We have made a commitment to ensuring 12 years of quality education for girls and, as a founding member of the International Parliamentary Network for Education, this is something of which I am immensely proud, yet our aid cuts leave 700,000 girls without access to education.
We have pledged to prevent 20 million people from experiencing catastrophic famine, but we have cut our funding to Yemen, a country on the brink of famine, by nearly 60%.
The cuts are not going unnoticed by our friends or, more importantly, our adversaries. The UN Secretary-General has described the aid cuts as a “death sentence”. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said that the recruiting sergeants of Hezbollah, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, ISIS and other armed militia across the globe will be the immediate beneficiaries of the cuts to the UK’s humanitarian programmes. China and Russia are watching, and they will not hesitate to fill the vacuum we are creating and destabilise more regions across the globe.
With an eye on the development of the UK’s new international development strategy, I will finish with three recommendations. First, let us use the strategy to announce a return to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid and to signal to our G7 and G20 allies that Britain can be a force for good and a trusted international partner.
Secondly, let us focus our aid on where it is needed most. The International Rescue Committee’s analysis shows that 20 countries, mostly conflict-afflicted, currently host 85% of the 235 million people in need of humanitarian assistance globally. Maintaining our commitment to spending 50% of ODA in fragile and conflict-afflicted countries provides the greatest opportunity to drive down humanitarian need and ensure value for taxpayers’ money.
Finally, let us unleash the power of integrating diplomacy and development. We are permanent members of the UN Security Council, NATO, the G7, the G20 and Five Eyes. We have a global diplomatic network. In short, we have clout. When we speak, the world rightly listens, but our world-leading diplomacy should lead efforts to reduce suffering, to foster peace in conflicts like Yemen, to remove barriers that deny humanitarian aid to those who need it, and to hold to account those who attack civilians and violate international law.
I am proud of Britain, and I am proud of a global Britain, especially in a post-Brexit world. I am proud of the values we stand for and the progress that we have made through our aid spending, and I am sure I will be proud of what we achieve in future years, too, as soon as we go back to 0.7%. As we recover from covid, the next big thing to focus on is climate change. Again, 0.7% is fundamental to addressing climate change.
These results will come only if we retain our aid spending. Restoring the budget is not just the right thing to do morally, it is the right thing to do for the UK’s national interest. Let us return to 0.7% and return to doing what we do best.
I close by saying that Britain keeps its promises; let us do so again. In this House we often say anecdotally that it is country, constituency and then party. This may not be the popular thing in the country, in my constituency or in my party, but it is the right thing to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the wind-up speeches and, by video link, Chris Law.
James Duddridge
I am not going to give way yet, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman if there is time.
Our fifth priority was science and technology. The sixth one was open societies and conflict resolution, which drives some of these problems. All too often we spend our money on problems that could have been solved early on. The final priority is economic development and growing GDP per capita in the developing world so that they pay tax and get functioning systems as we would have. In that light, we are supporting the continental free trade area, which will drive growth in countries, and we are expanding our diplomatic network.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, mentioned Niger, Chad and Djibouti, all of which I will be hoping to visit in the near future, and a number of people mentioned the large number of multilateral bodies we are and will continue to be pre-eminent in.
The British Council is the second leg of this debate. We are strongly committed to the British Council. We have allocated more than £600 million since the pandemic to secure its future, which includes a 27% increase on funding this year. I know hon. Members wanted more, but in the context of an aid cut the British Council has done incredibly well out of the settlement, because of the value people see in it—we have seen that across the board.
Let me address some more specific comments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) talked about the linkages. One thing an integrated Department allows is for us to look at the linkages between modern slavery and girls’ education, which is the example she chose. She criticised us for operating in silos, but, again, bringing together the Departments has helped. A number of Members expressed concerns about a loss of expertise; actually, changes to the total operating costs ratio—a bit of a technicality—mean that we can do more in-house, which should help.
An hon. Member asked about our staff in Abercrombie House; we will be increasing the number of staff in Abercrombie House and in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling criticised us for making admirals ambassadors and honourable consuls captains. I get his point, but we are not merging with the Ministry of Defence. I could talk about some of the best people in my team—for example, the director general, Africa was an economist, focused on aid, was an ambassador and is now back here doing a cross-Whitehall job. I could go on with many examples of people across Whitehall.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) asked us to support the special drawing rights. I have spoken to the right hon. Gentleman about the matter and I have said openly that we are lobbying for that at World Bank-IMF meetings. We support the recycling of SDRs to the developing world. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned IDA replenishment, which we support and are working on.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is no longer in her place, mentioned funding for a specific project and felt there would be adverse effects if it was cancelled because of a new variant. I would very much like more information on that from her.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is an ex-Minister and clearly understands the dynamics of having to make difficult decisions, particularly in respect of balancing aid issues with education and law and order. He asked about the logistics of COVAX; I would love to draw on his resource, but we are also working with Africa CDC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) offered an equally passionate but slightly different view from that expressed by the hon. Member for Rotherham, but it was good to see them both get praise.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) made a very thoughtful speech that challenged everyone.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) made very good points. Given his penchant for publicity and flair, I have no doubt that he will be on the front page of the Southend Echo tomorrow, not me.
The least said about the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) the better, really; certain things should stay in private.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) made a deeply thoughtful speech that he said was from the defence perspective but actually ranged much more widely beyond that.
I heard an impressive speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), whom I have not heard speak before. He went from 10 minutes to eight minutes to three minutes and back to eight minutes.
I heard my first speech from an Alba Member of Parliament. I noted down initially that the speech from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) was kind, thoughtful and well informed; by the end I put “ranting”. But it was all the better for it and when in future I see his name on the annunciator, I am going to rush into the Chamber.
Sarah Champion
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is always wonderful to have the last word.
I thank everybody for their passionate contributions to this debate. This is truly a cross-party issue and I hope the Government are listening very clearly to the loud plea that we are making.
This debate is not actually about 0.7%; it is about how we see ourselves and how we present Britain to the world. I am proud that we have a strong history of development in this country and it pains me that, piece by piece, that is crumbling away with the decisions the Government are making. It is not the Government who are facing the repercussions—although one could look at the results of recent by-elections—but the very poorest in the world. We should not be doing this.
We need to provide clarity. We need clarity for the NGOs that have received FCDO funding in the past. Contrary to what the Minister said, they are being told by webinars and by junior Ministers, and they are being given a week to wrap up their projects. Many of the examples are on the public record, so I am more than happy to share them with the Minister, because it is shocking.
This House needs clarity on what the Government’s priorities really are, because we understand the seven priorities but unfortunately the Government keep going against them. As many Members have argued passionately, we need the Government to understand that defence, diplomacy, development and trade are all interlinked, and that weakening development weakens all those things.
I end by saying that there are threats to this country, unfortunately, but a threat such as terrorism is resolved not by bullets but by full tummies and economic potential. That is what concerns me: by weakening development we are weakening this country’s security.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As a former member of the International Development Committee, may I say that it was some of the most valuable work that I have done over my 29 years as a Member of Parliament? I have really enjoyed the debate this evening.
We will have the Dispatch Boxes cleaned during the Adjournment debate to save a bit of time. I know the Minister will not touch the Dispatch Box until then.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Human Rights: Xinjiang
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on bringing this debate to the House today and on continuing to stand up for what is right.
China’s modernisation and rise to being a global power has been the defining phenomenon of the last 40 years, but not all communities and peoples under the control of Beijing have benefited from that rise. The Chinese Communist party has been ruthless in response to any perceived threats to its ideology and control. The tanks in Tiananmen Square were symbolic of a process that has continued largely unnoticed until the very public crushing of Hong Kong’s defence of democracy.
Today’s debate is about the persecution of the traditionally Muslim Uyghurs of Xinjiang province. It is about a genocide taking place right now. But, as we have heard, many Members also share concerns about Chinese actions in Tibet and there are close links between the two communities in the UK.
Today, I would like to highlight, yet again, the work of a new campaign group co-founded by my constituent, Kirsty Robson. It challenges us to learn lessons from the holocaust and to break the cycle of impunity for perpetrators that allows atrocities to continue. Its work is very much needed now.
I also want to acknowledge BBC journalist John Sudworth, who was driven out of China last month by harassment following BBC coverage of China’s persecution of the Uyghurs. Thanks to John and his work and the bravery of others in speaking out, we know that 1 million or more Uyghurs are interned in detention and re-education camps in Xinjiang province—camps that are dedicated to achieving transformation through education. It is where Uyghur traditions, beliefs and language are intensively undermined and the Uyghur community as a whole is treated like a terrorist network to be squashed.
The existence of those camps is admitted by the Chinese Government, who describe them as “voluntary”. That is completely lacking in credibility, and we have heard today the horrific reality of the vast numbers of deaths and the terrible treatment in those camps. Alongside the camps there is widespread slave labour, with hundreds and thousands of Uyghurs and other minorities forced to work in vast cotton fields and factories, the produce of which is undoubtedly—and mostly unchecked—feeding through into major UK stores. I am confident that consumers would be appalled if they realised that.
When bureaucracies and armies are given free rein and there is no accountability, women and children are very often on the receiving end of atrocities. That is what has happened in Xinjiang following a visit by Xi Jinping in 2014, when he urged tough action against the Uyghur population in response to a terrorist attack. Since then there have been more reports of forced sterilisation as a means of population control, reports of systemic rape, torture of women in camps, and children being taken from their families and sent to state orphanages and boarding schools to break family and cultural ties.
Thanks to the work of Yet Again, I was able to hear the personal story of Uyghur activist Rahima Mahmut, who has lived in the UK since 2000. What she expressed was chilling. She also tells of the crushing of peaceful demonstrations in her home town of Ghulja in the 1990s, and of the pressure on the families of those who have sought refuge abroad. Her report shows that while Chinese authorities claim to target religious extremists, they really see any practising Muslim there as an enemy. Their actions make a real mockery of China’s constitutional protection of religious belief.
East Renfrewshire is home to Scotland’s largest Jewish community, and every year I join events on and around Holocaust Memorial Day, which is a privilege and always gives me significant pause for thought. That is when we reflect on that dreadful event and say “never again.” But here we are, knowing that a genocide is unfolding—let us be clear: that is what it is—and yet the UK Government seem unwilling to do anything about it beyond ritual diplomacy.
We must recognise and act on the atrocities facing the Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in China. They cannot be ignored as the UK scrambles for trade deals. To help achieve that, yet again we are partnering with the Scottish Council for Jewish Communities to hold an event for the Jewish community to find out more about what is happening to the Uyghurs. We should all, including the Chinese Communist party, take a lead from that determination to learn the lessons from history. This must stop, and it is our responsibility to stand up and be counted to make that happen now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
While I am not introducing a time limit at this moment in time, may I ask everybody to look at about five minutes, please? Please do not exceed that, and then we can try and get everybody in.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) [V]
In 1948 the UK, along with other countries right around the world, signed the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. It was a commitment that this country made towards ensuring that the atrocities perpetrated during the second world war would never happen again, and yet 73 years later we find ourselves hearing of the horrors facing the Uyghurs in the autonomous region of Xinjiang. Removing the thin guise of tackling terrorism and separatism, we have heard the truth of what is really happening in that region’s education—re-education—camps. Numerous robust and independent reports over a number of years lay bare the overwhelming evidence that the Chinese Government are interning the Uyghur people on a mass scale, subjecting them to brutal forced labour and physically and psychologically abusing them.
I pay tribute to my colleagues who, despite intense intimidation, have worked tirelessly to raise the plight of the Uyghurs in this House, and have spoken movingly and with great knowledge and skill, asking the Government to honour their commitments under the Genocide convention. We are all aware, given the veto that China has at the UN Security Council, of the challenge that the International Court of Justice faces to be able to pronounce that genocide is occurring in Xinjiang. In light of that, like all western countries, we need to think very carefully and critically about our current and future relationship with China. That is particularly so on issues of trade, investment and domestic infrastructure and the relationship between our universities and the Chinese Government.
I am not blind to the fact that China is a major player on the world stage and that we have been told this is an ever-increasingly globalised world, although I think that that is no longer an assertion beyond challenge. However, as British politicians it is our duty to stand up and speak for those who have been silenced. The motion from my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) is an attempt at just that, but it also serves a wider awareness-raising purpose. It ought to prompt the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for International Trade to reflect on the role that our embassy teams in China have in terms of promoting trade, particularly in sensitive areas.
Digital and energy security are the most obvious of those, and clear moves to reassess the wisdom of our country’s links and reliance in those fields are already visible, but another area quite rightly coming under the spotlight is education. It is a mistake to allow action over what is going on in Xinjiang to be restricted to that area alone. It is about China, its economy, its Communist leadership as a whole and about our Government, but it is also about wider British societal responses to those abuses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) wrote powerfully and convincingly in The Daily Telegraph recently about the need for the UK university sector to change its approach to China. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has added to that here today.
The independent international education sector also needs to give the matter serious consideration. I wrote about that for the Independent School Management Plus magazine as chairman of the all-party group on independent education some months ago. At the weekend, The Times quoted me and others in warning of the dangers, moral and financial, of our independent schools setting up satellite schools in China given the human rights abuses in Xinjian most starkly of all, but also in Tibet and Hong Kong, and the increasing menace towards Taiwan. It is highly relevant today in terms of what ought to be done.
I have some sympathy for schools that set up in China 10, 15 or 20 years ago when envisaging a different direction of travel in China and when seeking to be part of it was entirely plausible, but it is much harder to have any sympathy for those seeking to do so afresh now because we know, so clearly, what is going on in Xinjiang and beyond in China. We know that it is no longer possible, in anything more than a merely superficial way, to impart the values of British education and those of the schools and their long and worthy traditions: freedom of thought, racial equality, questioning, liberalism in the best sense of that word, and looking at the truth. They are just not possible in China, including nowadays in Hong Kong. It is akin to seeking to set up a British school in South Africa in 1975 and not worrying about the reputational damage, saying that local rules and customs must be respected and adhered to.
Elsewhere in the world, of course, there are accommodations and compromises to be made in having satellite schools. I am not one of those people who believes that we can morally trade or share educational practice only in exemplar nations such as those in Scandinavia or Australia, New Zealand and Canada. But when the line between authoritarian government and totalitarian government is not only crossed but, via genocide, left way behind as it has been in China, it is time to think again. It is time for the FCDO to reflect on the embassy’s attitude in the educational space in line with that.
I conclude with thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden for all her work in this area and for getting this debate to happen.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Wind ups will start at 4.36 pm with Chris Law who will have six minutes and then the shadow Minister and the Minister will have eight minutes each. At 4.58 pm, Nusrat Ghani has the final two minutes.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to the wonderful and important work that she has been doing on this issue. Human rights abuses in Xinjiang are abhorrent, and I listened painfully to what my hon. Friend said about the disgusting forced sterilisation, and to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said about the equally repugnant organ harvesting. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) spoke with perpetual eloquence on Tibet and other issues related to China.
In the time available, I would like to speak to three brief points: first, the importance of recognising what is happening; secondly, specifically for the Minister, the importance of developing a policy in an inconsistent world that is morally and practically defensible; and, thirdly, what the UK is often very good at, which is building alliances around the world to protect what one might call ethical sustainability for the 21st century.
On the first point—I will be wary of time, Mr Deputy Speaker—we need to recognise the systematic suffering of other human beings whose lives are being damaged because they are being targeted en masse. That is important in itself. As certain Members have already said, we do it for the same reason that we did it in the Balkans and in Syria in recent years. We have done it in past decades in the holocaust and now have started to do with the Ukrainian holodomor—the mass starvation of the Ukrainians in the 1930s by Stalin.
The painstaking recording of death, of lives cruelly ended and of human suffering speaks to a shared ethical core of humanity and our need to record what has happened to other human beings. We do that in memory of the dead, but we also do it in recognition of the living. In relation to Syria, for example, a lot of work done recently by good people tracing the deaths, the murders and the mass slaughters has been funded by the FCDO. I congratulate it on its foresight in that, but it prompts the question whether it will be doing the same in Xinjiang. Might it start doing the same in Tibet, too? That is the first point. We record these things because they need to be recorded.
Secondly, we need a practical policy towards China that is defensible in an inconsistent world. Many improvements have been made to our policy on China in recent years by this Government, and I give them credit. We have moved on from the embarrassment of George Osborne turning up in Xinjiang about 10 years ago—that was just awful. It is nice to have politicians with an ethical strain running through them.
Janus-like, we still have two conflicting policies. One from the Foreign Office pledges to put human rights at the heart of everything we do, but our trade policy seeks to trade without asking too many questions. We have Foreign Ministers, including the Secretary of State, eloquently criticising China while Trade Ministers in the other House ingratiate themselves and dismiss human rights. This is not consistent. We pontificate on Africa, but are strangely silent on central Asia and China. It makes us look foolish and as though our values are somewhat tradeable.
We have heard of the Confucius institutes problem, the endless issues we have with the universities, and the plying for covert influence that China and Russia do in this country. We need policy—domestically and in foreign affairs—that is practical and morally defensible. No one can unilaterally change the world, not even the United States or China and not the UK, but we do have influence, and we need to understand the importance of developing consistency. Okay, we trade with China, but we need to limit our dependency.
I did a report with the Henry Jackson Society. A quarter of our British supply chain is dominated by China. The problem is that if we go further down that route, we end up like New Zealand, in a hell of an ethical mess, with a Prime Minister who virtue-signals while crudely sucking up to China and backing out of the Five Eyes agreement, which is an appallingly short-sighted thing to be doing. On that point, we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with Australia. That is a tired cliché, but the Australians are calling out China, and doing so at trade risk. We need to make sure they do not pay an ethical price, and that brings me to the third point.
The one thing in our strategic culture that we are probably unique at—apart from being an island, which clearly shapes our geography and our outlook on the world—is that we have genuinely been better than any other nation on the planet at building alliances, whether that is from the colonial days or in the days of Europe and Protestants versus Catholics and all that. We need to build alliances for the 21st century. In the 21st century, there are two visions of humanity: there are open and free societies where political leaders are answerable to the people, and there are closed societies, which, through the use of artificial intelligence and big data, are becoming ever-more dominant and threatening to their people. We have to make sure our universal values survive, not only here but globally, so that, despite Russia, China and other regimes, they continue to be the go-to values for humanity for this century.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have 10 speakers left and there are about 45 minutes, so Members have four and a half minutes. Particularly if Members are speaking remotely, could they please keep an eye on timing devices and bring it in below five minutes?
Ms Ghani
I thank hon. and right hon. Members across the House for speaking with one voice and the appropriate tone in considering the crime of all crimes, genocide. There is absolute recognition that all five markers of genocide have been met. The House, I hope, will speak with one voice in a few moments and unanimously support my motion. Unfortunately, that puts the Government in a very difficult position because at some point they will have to undertake their UN obligations.
China sanctioned us for opposing its crimes against the Uyghur. Parliament must now prove that it will not be cowed and back my motion unanimously. We will continue to stand up for the Uyghur people.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region are suffering crimes against humanity and genocide; and calls on the Government to act to fulfil its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and all relevant instruments of international law to bring it to an end.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Could those Members now leaving do so in a covid-friendly way? We are going to move to the next business. My suggestion is that, while Mr Fletcher is speaking, we sanitise the Government Dispatch Box only.
Chinese Government Sanctions on UK Citizens
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nigel Adams
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend’s remarks about our former colleague Cheryl Gillan. I was her Whip for a time when I first became a Whip. I had not realised that Cheryl had also been a Whip and knew how the game worked, and she very politely reminded me of that. I remember her telling me, “If you need to be bothering me as a former Whip over this particular vote, Nigel, then you really are in trouble as a Government.” She will be sorely missed.
I also wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about whether this is a thinly veiled attempt to distract attention from the horrific crimes. Well, of course it is. I agree 100% that we must not let this action by China distract from the horrific violations taking place in Xinjiang. We will continue to work with our international partners to send the clearest possible signal that the international community has a collective willingness to act.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I shared a room with Dame Cheryl for a period of time, and it just shows the strength of Dame Cheryl that she was able to put up with me for so long. We sat on the Council of Europe together and, Dame Cheryl, we are going to miss you greatly.
I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question, which, as the Speaker intimated, hits at the very heart of the democracy in this country. We are now going to suspend for three minutes.
World Water Day
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind the hon. Member that we are under massive pressure for time, so he should be looking to wind up very soon.
Navendu Mishra
I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I fully share my hon. Friend’s concerns; his point about water companies going back into public hands is very valid, and I support that.
I will conclude in a moment, but first I would like to talk about the Flint water scandal. Time and again, we have seen that private water companies do not have the consumer’s best interests at heart, and the drive for increasing profit comes at the expense of health and safety. Perhaps the most notable example of that was the Flint water scandal in Michigan, which is one of the worst human-made environmental disasters in US history and a case that has been held up as a symbol of environmental injustice and racism.
In an effort to cut costs with the private water contractor, Veolia, former Governor Rick Snyder took the decision to use Flint river to supply water to the city’s predominantly African-American and economically poor population. The corrosive water, however, was not treated properly—a misstep that freed lead from old plumbing into homes. Despite desperate pleas from residents holding jugs of discoloured water, the Snyder administration and the drinking water regulator took no significant action until a doctor publicly reported elevated lead levels in children 18 months later. In the months and years that followed, 12,000 children were exposed to dangerous levels of lead, while residents experienced rashes and hair loss, and 12 people died from an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease. It is time for private water companies to be prevented from treating our environment like a sewer and finally bring water back into public ownership.
In conclusion, I call on the UK Government to continue to play their part and help alleviate the suffering and harm caused by limited access to clean water. This means ensuring that water, sanitation and hygiene are fully integrated into all health programmes supported by UK aid, as well as using our role as chair of the G7 to bring donors together to make progress towards funding the $1.2 billion that is needed to build the basic infrastructure for water, sanitation and hygiene and health facilities in low-income countries.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To assist those taking part in the debate, the wind-ups will begin at no later than 4.36 pm with Patricia Gibson for six minutes, then Anna McMorrin at 4.42 pm for eight minutes, then Wendy Morton at 4.50 pm for eight minutes, and then Navendu Mishra will have the last two minutes.
Sri Lanka
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It may be helpful to inform the House that this debate is likely to run until about 3.45 pm.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
I start by highlighting my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka’s relationship with the rest of the world has been strongly shaped since the end of the conflict by allegations that the army committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the final phase of the civil war.
A UN panel of experts reported in April 2011 that there were credible allegations of those crimes by both Government and Tamil Tiger forces. It remains my opinion that both sides were at fault. However, I regret the Government of Sri Lanka’s decision to withdraw support for UNHRC resolution 30/1 and note that previous domestic initiatives have failed to deliver meaningful accountability. I therefore urge the Sri Lankan Government to engage in a process that has the confidence of all on the island.
But it would be remiss to state that the current Sri Lankan Government have failed to act. The Office on Missing Persons and the Office for Reparations are to be retained and strengthened, so that communities may build trust. It will be good to see reform of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and progress on the release of political prisoners. We must act as a critical friend to the country. We need to help strengthen democratic institutions, and we must trust Sri Lanka to develop its own judicial and non-judicial mechanisms.
Since the end of the conflict, reconciliation has occurred between Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities. People are able to live wherever they wish. They benefit from state resources, such as free education and health services. Private land that was occupied by the military has been returned, former conflict areas have been de-mined with assistance from the United Kingdom, and more than 12,000 ex-LTTE— Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—cadres have been rehabilitated. There is a greater connectivity throughout the island and globally, and all of this has transformed the business sector and the lives of everyone in the country.
But we should remember that resolution and accountability are not a panacea for addressing underlying tensions. Questions about how to address the legacy of the Sri Lankan conflict must be answered: what kind of justice is attainable? How should the victims of violations be treated in the process? What might punishment look like, and how can justice play a constructive role in forging a lasting peace?
Draft legislation for a truth and reconciliation commission had been prepared under the previous Sri Lankan Government, and that could be revisited. If it gains universal support in Sri Lanka, truth seeking among all stakeholders, including the diaspora in many of our communities and constituencies, could make a lasting difference. When these issues have been resolved, a sustainable and acceptable peace will endure. Given the good will between our two countries, I ask the Minister: how can the UK help to facilitate a TRC mechanism that is unique to the needs of Sri Lanka?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It may help those who are participating, both remotely and physically, to know that the wind-ups will begin no later than 3.21 pm. Anne McLaughlin will have six minutes, both Stephen Kinnock and Nigel Adams will have eight minutes, and then we will go back over to Siobhain McDonagh for two minutes at the very end. I hope that is useful.
Siobhain McDonagh
I thank all the hon. and right hon. Members from across the House who have taken part in this debate. Their commitment to the minority community of a small island is very much appreciated, but their interest is because of the hard work of the members of the Tamil community. They simply cannot forget the relatives they no longer have, the relatives who they have no idea where they are, the relatives who were bombed in hospitals and the relatives who were left on beaches having lost their limbs by a Government now led by the same men who did that to members of their family.
This debate is about the credibility of the British Government in taking seriously the loss and distress of a community in this country—half a million who work hard, do their best and contribute greatly to our nation. Are we serious about representing them, or do we believe that Governments who have powerful friends should be allowed to behave as they like?
I suggest that the Government of Sri Lanka only understand very firm action. To rely on that Government to seek out those who committed the atrocities or to take action is simply a fool’s errand, and it has to stop. We have to seriously mean that we will help the Tamils in this country to find their relatives, to know what happened, and to allow their relatives to live in a community where they are able to vote, to take part and to believe that their views are taken seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes with concern the reports of a systematic attack in Sri Lanka on democratic governance, the rule of law and human rights including renewed discrimination against the Tamil and Muslim communities; is profoundly concerned that the Sri Lankan Government has refused to investigate accusations of war crimes including by key members of the current government and has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1; welcomes the significant leadership role played by successive UK Governments at the Human Rights Council and urges the Government to provide clear policy direction and leadership to ensure a new substantive resolution is passed at the upcoming Council session in March 2021 that will enable continued monitoring by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and mandate a mechanism to gather, preserve and analyse evidence of violations for future investigations and prosecutions; and calls upon the Government to develop a consistent and coherent policy to assist the Sri Lankan people through its trade, investment and aid programmes, and in its diplomatic and military relations.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will suspend very briefly for the cleaning of the Dispatch Boxes.
Counter-Daesh Update
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend, who chairs the Defence Committee, asked four or five questions in one; I want to try to do them justice, but I am conscious of the strictures of the Chair.
My right hon. Friend makes some really good points. On Yemen, the UK has been and remains one of the leading not just aid donors but supporters of Martin Griffiths, the special envoy, and the initiative, and we will continue that. We have made it clear that we fully support Saudi in its efforts to bring an end to the conflict and also to bring pressure to bear on the Houthis, who threaten, seek to destabilise and rely on Iran for their support.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for making his statement and am extremely grateful for his responding to way more than 30 questions from 30 Members of Parliament, for almost one hour.
I will suspend the sitting for three minutes so that people can safely leave the Chamber and other Ministers and Members can then enter in a covid-safe fashion.