International Human Rights Day

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Margaret Ferrier

Thursday 8th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Human Rights Day 2022.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting today’s debate to mark International Human Rights Day, which this year falls on Saturday 10 December, and I thank my parliamentary colleagues who supported the application, as well as those here to participate. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary human rights group—PHRG—it is a great honour to open the debate. The APPG works cross-party to raise greater awareness, both in Parliament and more widely, of serious human rights violations taking place across the world; to press for reform and redress; and to amplify the voices of those at the grassroots, including victims—or, as many prefer to be called, survivors—and human rights defenders working on behalf of affected communities. I strongly believe in the importance of an annual international human rights day.

Given the continued prevalence of authoritarian regimes and Governments who commit, facilitate or turn a blind eye to serious human rights violations, and of abuses committed by non-state actors such as terrorist entities and criminal groups, it remains as necessary as ever to highlight the universal applicability of fundamental rights—political, civil, economic, social and cultural—to everyone everywhere in the world.

We can sometimes take our rights for granted, or underestimate the impact of human rights abuses on communities, families and individuals, the vast majority of whom are peaceful and simply wish to live a life free from fear. When I hear about people arbitrarily detained, harassed, persecuted, brutally tortured or disappeared for trying to exercise their right to free speech, to protest or to join a trade union, or who are being discriminated against because of their ethnicity or religion, I wonder: what if that had been me, a member of my family, a colleague or a friend?

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I want to support this debate, although I have a British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly meeting that will prevent me from contributing further. May I, through the hon. Lady, recommend that people go to the Upper Waiting Hall to see the display by PEN and Amnesty, and to learn about the journalists who were arrested and herded up 21 years ago in Eritrea? There, Members can see an illustration of how we cannot know what is going on in some countries, because those who could tell us—trade unionists, journalists, people in opposition and people in the Government who object to what is going on—cannot have a voice. We have to be a voice for them and watch out for them.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will mention that display later.

There are those languishing in a crowded, filthy prison after an unfair trial, those being prosecuted simply for peacefully protesting about Government policy, and those who have had someone close to them killed for their political or social activism. I want them to be offered the same help, support and solidarity that I would fight to have provided to someone close to me. Today, I hope that we can, using the parliamentary platform that we are privileged to have, provide some support to victims, and to human rights defenders across the world, who often risk their personal safety to champion the rights of their community. I want to take this opportunity to express my concern about the human rights situation in a number of countries on which I have been focused for some time—countries in the middle east and north Africa, as well as Zimbabwe.

The situation in a number of Gulf Co-operation Council member states and Iran remains challenging. As I am sure colleagues are aware, I remain very concerned about serious human rights violations in Saudi Arabia by the state, which, according to the latest annual report from Human Rights Watch,

“relies on pervasive surveillance, the criminalization of dissent, appeals to sectarianism and ethnicity, and public spending supported by oil revenues to maintain power.”

I remain unconvinced by Saudi Arabia’s recent attempts to project a more modern and progressive image, including through glossy advertisements that try to entice tourists to holiday there. Most recently, since 10 November, while the Saudi regime thought that the world’s attention was elsewhere because of the World cup, the execution of those sentenced to death has resumed. Many of those killed were convicted of non-violent drugs offences, for which the Saudi Government had committed not to execute people. Some were Saudi nationals, but others were foreign nationals from Pakistan, Syria and Jordan. This latest wave of executions follows the execution of 81 people in a single day on 12 March 2022.

State Pensions: UK Expatriates

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Margaret Ferrier

Thursday 20th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been very clear and helpful. If the practice is for such helplines, which are for our constituents rather than for us, to be closed down before Parliament has stopped sitting—before we stop being Members of Parliament—may I suggest, through you, that those who are listening should change the practice and make sure that that happens when Parliament is dissolved, and not simply because an election has been called?

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has made it clear that he will communicate with the shadow Minister, but can we ensure that there is communication with all Members of the House if this closure happens? We hope that it will not, because it will impact all our constituents in a very big way.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Peter Bottomley and Margaret Ferrier

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Programme motion No. 3: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I rise to speak on new clause 24, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members.

The charity Electrical Safety First is calling on the Government to legally require online retailers to report to trading standards and/or the police people consistently selling fake electrical products. This is a growing problem, and it is estimated that 64% of fake electrical goods are now being sold online. Much of the current legislation around the sale of counterfeit goods is over 20 years old, and we need to be mindful of the fact that, in this digital age, parts of it simply may not be fit for purpose.

Sales of dodgy electrical goods are rising rather rapidly. Research found that around 2.5 million adults have purchased a counterfeit electrical product in the last 12 months—double the number who reported purchasing a fake in the previous year.

Not all counterfeit electricals may be substandard, but many carry a substantial risk. People may view these fakes as harmless—perhaps in the same way they might consider a counterfeit pair of sunglasses to be—but the fact is that they can prove deadly. These products have the potential to deliver a fatal electric shock.

As well as the safety implications, we need to be mindful of the revenue that sales of these goods generate, which is thought to be worth more than £1.3 billion per year in the UK. A large portion of this—an estimated £900 million—is thought to help to fund organised crime.

Many people who buy fake electrical goods do so without realising it. Unwittingly, they are placing their families, friends and neighbours at risk. Vendors often sell through reputable online marketplaces, so they enjoy an almost implied credibility, further giving customers confidence in their purchases.

I would like to finish by asking the Government to take those points into account so that we can begin addressing this problem and perhaps placing some of the responsibility on the websites that enable this black market trade.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I support the Minister’s response to new clause 6, which will be useful.

New clause 8 refers to clause 76 on page 76—one of the 18 times in the Bill where the clause number is the same as the page number. Perhaps that could be a Christmas quiz for the Clerks, if they are paying attention.

The point about this is that neither the BBC nor the Government consulted Back Benchers. It was Parliament that, in 2001, agreed the concession for the over-75s. The cost of £750 million can be compared with the cost of local radio at £115 million, Radio 4 at £90 million, BBC 4 at £49 million, and CBBC and CBeebies at £97 million—a total of about £340 million. We could double that and still not have got to the cost of this so-called concession.