Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I think that there is a very real prospect of progress in that regard. There is commitment and real political will on both sides of the Atlantic. The European Commission has published its draft negotiating mandate, and President Obama has spoken about the matter. As an agreement with the United States is potentially worth more than £100 billion a year to European Union economies, we will put an enormous amount of effort into this.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

As the Foreign Secretary said, the holy grail of EU free trade agreements is the one with the United States, which would create a world-beating single market and a substantial number of jobs, and would help to increase the EU’s gross domestic product. Does he agree that we would look pretty dumb if we were leaving the EU just as it was signing the free trade agreement with the United States?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend has made his point well, but I do not think that anyone is contemplating leaving the EU before 14 June—if, indeed, ever—when key decisions will be made at the Trade Council in the EU. If that process is successful, it will allow negotiations to be launched during the President’s visit to Europe for the G8 summit a few days later. We are getting on with all these matters now.

G8 Foreign Ministers

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

All options have to be considered. The hon. Gentleman has asked about the issue several times and has been pursuing it wholly legitimately. My answer is quite similar to the one I gave him last time. To enforce a no-fly zone, there are, again, international legal considerations. It would also require the participation of aircraft on a very large scale, so the decision would essentially be one for the United States, given the scale required. No such decision by the United States has been taken. We are working in an environment where we do not have a no-fly zone and we have to consider the options available to us in the light of that.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on a successful conference, which obviously entailed a lot of hard work behind the scenes. On Syria, he said, “As things stand, we need greater flexibility if we decide that urgent action is necessary”. Does he accept that any further action in Syria must be lawful and have a legal basis if it is to have international support?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. It is a fundamental principle for British Governments that the action that we take must be lawful. My hon. Friend will know that when, for instance, we took action ourselves in Libya, based on UN resolution 1973, the Cabinet collectively considered the legal advice before that took place. We were able to be clear about it in the House.

Yes, international law is of paramount importance for us. Due regard must be given in international law, of course, to extreme humanitarian suffering. There comes a point where trying to ameliorate extreme humanitarian suffering becomes the prime consideration. However, I assure my hon. Friend that such legal considerations will never be absent from our minds.

Commonwealth Day

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Mr Hollobone, I am grateful to you for calling me to speak in that generous manner. I am not sure that I can quite live up to that billing, but I appreciate the opportunity to address you in the Chair. I am also grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing, at a congested time in the parliamentary programme, that we could have a debate on the Commonwealth.

It has been my initiative, as chairperson of the international executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, to try to encourage universally throughout the Commonwealth a debate on a wide canvas, not necessarily to any rigid format, but to allow issues connected with the Commonwealth to be raised, as much as anything else just to hoist the flag and show that there is membership of the Commonwealth in each of the legislatures, that it ought not to be forgotten and that there should be a regular review of some issues affecting it. It is a rather good week, apart from being the week in which Commonwealth day occurs, because the new charter has been signed by Her Majesty the Queen. That in itself is a notable event, which we are right to recognise in this House.

It might be asked, what really is the Commonwealth? To even pose the question is a reminder that many people are unaware of the existence of the Commonwealth in their daily lives. That is worrying in respect of the Commonwealth concept having meaning and if people are to understand its breadth and the opportunities it provides. It is, importantly, a voluntary association. Nobody has to be a member of the Commonwealth. The modern Commonwealth is not a British Commonwealth; it is the Commonwealth of nations, in which there should, indeed, be parity of esteem. It is an example of countries slowly edging together, towards wider circles of understanding and co-operation, beginning to see that there are opportunities that were perhaps not recognised 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

The Commonwealth embraces one third of the world’s population, and half of the population of the Commonwealth is under 25. We should be particularly concerned about that young section. Just as we tend to accept the world as it is at the moment we are born, so the Commonwealth can pass over the heads of many young people, weighed down, perhaps, by what they see as immediate issues around them, rather than realising that they are also part of this greater entity. The Commonwealth must have meaning for them. That is why there is particular importance in the promulgation of the charter, affirming the commitment of the Commonwealth to the principles enshrined at Harare, Singapore and Trinidad and Tobago, and focusing on respect for human rights and equality for all, the rule of law and good governance.

It is correct that we should ask all members of the Commonwealth continually to assess themselves, and be assessed, against those values, but some degree of tolerance has to be allowed. There is never going to be a rigid standard to which at all times all nations are going to conform, for a variety of reasons. Indeed, looking at our systems of government, it could be argued that none of us are perfect. It is not too clever for British politicians to say to their partners in the Commonwealth, “You should be doing more about the representation of women in your Parliament”, when we in this country have not attained the levels that we would like to have achieved.

We cannot always expect the laws in certain other Commonwealth countries to conform to where we are; we have changed our minds on some issues, and the laws in our country have developed. We need to be careful about the extent to which we scold other countries for not marching in step with us. What is needed is a process of persuasion—sometimes rather slow persuasion—to move countries towards what might be seen as full conformity with the values of the charter.

In concluding the wider debate that preceded this one, the Minister mentioned the upcoming Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka. I visited that country for last year’s Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. I had the privilege of giving a lecture in the series commemorating the late Lakshman Kadirgamar, Sri Lanka’s former Foreign Minister. He was a contemporary of mine at university, whom I admired then and whom I grew to admire even more during his legal and political career. In my lecture, I laid down views as to what our friends in Sri Lanka needed to do to give confidence to their partners in the Commonwealth and to ensure there was full-hearted support for their hosting of the Heads of Government meeting later this year. It is perhaps worrying that they have not yet demonstrated, to the complete satisfaction of their friends in the Commonwealth, that all is moving in the right direction.

There must, therefore, continue to be persuasion so that countries understand the importance of adhering to the values of the charter. The Commonwealth ministerial action group must take a more active role in chivvying, to ensure that people are not allowed quietly to forget, reject or abrogate the principles behind the charter. The CPA has a valuable role to play in that respect. It is not as effective as it could be. It is divided into nine regions, and a lot of valuable work is done, but more could be done if there was the will and if there were the resources.

What does the CPA do? It concentrates on strengthening parliamentary institutions. One has only to look around to see all sorts of possible improvements. Some Members of the House would say that improvements have to be made in the way Westminster works. We never reach a destination; there is always a desire to see how much more we can improve. However, bigger steps need to be taken in certain other countries. Many of those countries will look to this country for guidance, including help from Clerks about procedural matters or creating robust Standing Orders.

Given the churn rate of Members of Parliament in the different jurisdictions, people find themselves elected and then wonder what they have to do next. We can all learn from the interchanges that take place under the CPA’s auspices; we can learn from each other. We might say to someone, “Well, that’s interesting: I have that problem, but I didn’t know you had it as well. How do you tackle it?” There is mutual advantage in such exchanges. Similarly, strengthening parliamentary institutions is a topic for almost never-ending discussion.

There are also the diplomacy aspects. When parliamentarians talk to one another, whether in structured seminars or on their margins, when one meets afterwards for a meal or a drink, we begin to understand each other’s problems and points of view. That is not megaphone diplomacy; it is about quiet discussion and respecting the people we are with. There lies the strength of the interchanges I mentioned. Such things are, no doubt, easily mocked by the press. If someone strays outside their own jurisdiction to visit another, that may be seen as being somehow a diversion from their main duties, but it should not be, because such exchanges are extremely valuable. Strengthening Parliaments across the Commonwealth to improve the quality of governance is the key to their ultimate success in ensuring the prosperity and welfare of their people.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is talking a lot of sense about the interchange and networking opportunities in the Commonwealth. Is he aware that more than 70 organisations are linked inside the Commonwealth? They cover journalists, accountants, actuaries, local government officials and endless others, all of whom have an expanded network within the Commonwealth.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, I am indeed aware of that. However, given that I happen to be the chairperson of the CPA, I thought I would concentrate on the organisation for which I have some responsibility, rather than range over the whole field. Of course I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says, as well as the need for many of the organisations he mentioned to work together. In some cases, what these different interests are trying to do overlaps, so if they co-operate and pool their resources, they can increase their impact and usefulness.

The CPA has the advantage of embracing the small states and the overseas territories, in a way that is not mirrored at Heads of Government level. We also have the separate Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians organisation, but it is not yet strong in all the CPA’s nine regions, and I am seeking to put that right. I am also seeking to have established the principle that the Commonwealth Youth Parliament should meet every year, because it has met just five times over the past 50 or 60 years, which is not enough. Young people expect continuity; they do not want to be picked up every now and then, asked, “Are you interested? Have you got something interesting to say?” and then forgotten about. There needs to be a continuing process whereby young people’s voices are heard at the highest level.

What is the Commonwealth? It is an extraordinary association of nations. When we celebrate it on Commonwealth day, we are entitled to extol its rich heritage and recognise its enormous reach. In 2013, I should like to see a significant deepening of social, economic, cultural and sporting links between Commonwealth countries—our nations, our citizens and, pre-eminently, our parliamentarians.

The Commonwealth’s theme this year is opportunities through enterprise, and that is opening up a whole new possibility for Commonwealth countries. In the past, their economic relationships were perhaps imbalanced; now there are more opportunities for trade and for taking a common position on trading matters in wider world bodies.

We will let ourselves down if we fail to engage in a continual programme of reform and renewal. An annual check-up such as this, at parliamentary level, is valuable and should continue. There is so much to think about; I have merely scratched the surface in general terms. There is so much to work towards. I fervently believe that all nations in our Commonwealth gain strength from developing their links and deepening their friendships.

FCO: Human Rights Work

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I am pleased to open this debate on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs report on the human rights work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We are lucky to live in a functioning, flourishing democracy, underpinned by the rule of law. Sometimes, we are accused of going too far in our quest to protect the sanctity of human rights, particularly those of criminals who seek refuge on British shores, but it is a price that we pay for freedom and a fair society. The question is whether we have a moral duty to export the values and rights that we hold so dear. Of course we do, but perhaps not at the expense of our national interests. Matching the UK’s support for human rights and democratic values with its pursuit of trade, security, energy and strategic interests is central to much of the Foreign Office’s work.

In addressing the conflict between interests and values, a good starting point is the Prime Minister’s speech to the Kuwait national Parliament in February 2011:

“For decades, some have argued that stability required highly controlling regimes, and that reform and openness would put that stability at risk. So, the argument went, countries like Britain faced a choice between our interests and our values. And to be honest, we should acknowledge that sometimes we have made such calculations in the past. But I say that is a false choice.”

A careful balance needs to be struck between our interests and our values, and the Committee’s report on the Foreign Office’s human rights work in 2011 explored that. In general, we found that the Foreign Office, which I congratulate on its report, was doing a lot of excellent work, at times under difficult circumstances, but we believe that Ministers should be bolder in acknowledging contradictions between the UK’s interests overseas and its human rights values. Such contradictions are a theme that recurs constantly in inquiries by the Foreign Affairs Committee. A good example is our report on the Arab spring; some witnesses thought that a conflict between the two could not always be avoided.

Giving evidence in the current inquiry into Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, Sir Tom Phillips, a former UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told the Committee only a couple of weeks ago about working with the grain of particular societies in Saudi Arabia to advance UK values. He added, significantly:

“I never interpreted the working-with-the-grain mantra as meaning that one should not be clear when necessary about our principles on any particular issue.”

Throughout our human rights inquiry, the issue surfaced again in relation to Bahrain and Burma.

The Committee’s human rights report concluded that, in pursuing interests alongside values, the UK runs the risk of operating double standards. It urged the Government to be more transparent and to set out the contradictions in the public domain. The Government rejected our recommendation, but I invite the Minister to consider whether the approach that we proposed would in fact be more open and realistic. Could it expose the Government to less criticism in the long run, without sacrificing our principles?

The Committee noted that nearly two thirds of the FCO’s report was taken up with commentary on human rights in countries of concern. The section on countries of concern is a valuable source of information, but it has difficulties, such as certain controversial omissions and vague criteria, although I note that the Government response says that the FCO will report fully on the criteria in its next report. We warned that the list of countries of concern would lose credibility if political and strategic factors were allowed to colour decisions on designation. Such decisions, we said, should be based purely on the assessment of human rights standards and should stand up to objective comparison.

Bahrain is a case in which we questioned the Foreign Office’s judgment. At least 35 people died and 2,000 were arrested following repression in early 2011. The report by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, although substantial and respected, is being implemented slowly, and there is still much to be done. I am keen to keep an open mind on the issue, as we are still in the midst of our inquiry into the UK’s relations with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and have yet to hear their Governments’ side of the argument. However, the injustices in Bahrain in February and March 2011 were undeniable, and the events in Bahrain did not seem any less serious than those in other countries that were listed as countries of concern. I know that the Foreign Office is not persuaded—it says that Bahrain has a better record than many countries in the region—but it is only fair to give notice to the Minister that one of the first things that Committee members will do when the FCO publishes this year’s report is to turn the pages to see whether Bahrain has been designated a country of concern, as we believe it should be.

Deportation with assurances was another area highlighted in the Committee’s report. Countries receiving deportees from the UK give assurances that their human rights will be respected on their return. Arrangements are already in place with Jordan, Lebanon, Ethiopia, Algeria and Morocco. As a Committee, we are aware of the widespread criticism that promises by Governments with a chequered record of treatment of detainees are, to quote one of our witnesses, not worth the paper that they are written on. The case of Abu Qatada, which has provoked great anger and frustration in recent weeks, is a prime example. I welcome the Government’s response that David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism, will conduct a one-off review of the policy on deportation with assurances and that the conclusions will be made public. However, the Committee asks the Foreign Office to provide more information on the arrangements for monitoring detention conditions. The Foreign Office agreed in its response to provide details of the monitoring bodies and the arrangements for following up monitoring. When will that information be provided?

We also concluded that the DWA arrangements are of such significance in Parliament that greater accountability is warranted. We suggested that the text of the memorandum of understanding underlying the arrangements should be laid before Parliament and that Members should have 14 days to object. The Government rejected the recommendation, pointing out that memorandums of understanding are not legally binding, but I hint to the Minister that the FCO missed the point slightly. We are talking about agreements of considerable political significance and concern to Members throughout the House. I urge him and his Foreign Office colleagues to rethink.

There is some debate about whether pressure should be applied in public or in private. We devoted a section of our report to the FCO’s use of public pressure such as sanctions, boycotts and the like, but sometimes private pressure is the way forward. Sir Tom Phillips, the former UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told us that he strongly advocated private pressure for reform on human rights in countries such as Saudi Arabia, though he did not rule out public pressure.

It is generally accepted that there are occasions on which public pressure, particularly concerted multilateral action, can be valuable in indicating widespread disapproval of a foreign state’s human rights practices; whether or not it works is another matter. It would not be difficult to argue that the EU sanctions on Iran have been effective in contributing to the current parlous state of the country’s economy, but it would be harder to make that argument for the sanctions imposed on Burma by the EU.

The EU agreed last April to a partial suspension of its sanctions against Burma, for one year. The Committee was satisfied that enough progress had been made towards reform in Burma to justify that. We believe, however, that there is still some way to go. By current estimates, there are still some 200 political prisoners in Burma. We urge the FCO to press for better access for independent observers to Rakhine state, where violence against the Rohingya minority reached a peak last year.

The EU Foreign Affairs Council will need to agree whether to extend the partial suspension of sanctions next month. We would be grateful to the Minister if he told us what the FCO’s preferred outcome is for those discussions. If he is in favour of continuing the partial suspension, will the UK make that conditional on further commitments to reform by the Burmese Government? Will he clarify his statement in answer to a parliamentary question in February, when he said that, if unanimity at the EU Foreign Affairs Council cannot be reached,

“sanctions will fall away in their entirety”?—[Official Report, 28 February 2013; Vol. 559, c. 668W.]

On denying entry visas on human rights grounds, hon. Members will be familiar with the tragic case of Sergei Magnitsky—a lawyer who died in pre-trial detention in Russia in November 2009, following the denial of medical treatment. No one has yet been convicted of any offence in relation to his death. In passing, I register my dismay at the decision of the Russian authorities to proceed with the posthumous prosecution of Mr Magnitsky for defrauding the state. I hope that the Foreign Office will make it clear to the Russians that that is a vindictive and callous action, which we condemn.

The UK can refuse to grant a visa for a non-European economic area national to enter the UK if there is

“independent, reliable and credible evidence that an individual has committed human rights abuses”.

The Government have come under pressure to deny UK entry visas to those people thought to have played a part in Mr Magnitsky’s death. Perhaps the Government have already done exactly that, but we do not know, because the Government’s policy is not to routinely publicise the identity of those who are banned from entering the UK. We concluded that there was value in publicising the names of those who were denied entry to the UK on human rights grounds, if that power was used sparingly.

The Government response confirmed that they could disclose the names of those denied entry “when justified”. That is all very well, but how often do the Government feel that publication is justified? It seems to me that it is very rarely, and I wonder whether the Government are missing an opportunity to draw attention to our determination to uphold high standards of human rights by shaming those who blatantly disregard them.

As we have touched on the subject of Russia’s questionable human rights record, I also draw attention to Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former head of the Yukos oil company, who fell out with the Kremlin after challenging official corruption. He is currently serving his 10th year in a prison cell, on grounds that are distinctly flaky and based on a trial that did not comply with the standards that we would recognise in the west.

In conclusion, I reaffirm our praise for the FCO’s work on this highly sensitive and morally complex area. The FCO is working in the real world, and the Committee’s job is to support it as a critical friend. We hope that some of our recommendations will help the FCO to strike a better balance, so that its global influence and credibility grow stronger. We live in an age of 24/7 news, where intelligence can be disseminated worldwide at the click of a button. We also have the unprecedented emancipation of previously suppressed peoples, and they might be suspicious of the motives of foreign countries meddling in their affairs. It would therefore be a naive Foreign Office that imagines that it can pretend to act solely in the interest of human rights, when it has its own citizens and national interests to protect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Havard. I am pleased to take part in the debate.

I shall take as my starting point the end of the speech by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on how the late Robin Cook, as Foreign Secretary, introduced the concept of an annual human rights report from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In return, the Foreign Affairs Committee must monitor it and put forward proposals, and then we get a debate in Westminster Hall, which seems to be a poor return for the amount of work put in by both the FCO and the Committee, particularly as the debate is limited to an hour and a half. I reiterate what I said last year, and I have said every year about the debates: the debate should be for at least three hours, in the main Chamber on a Thursday afternoon or another appropriate time—possibly in Government time. If we are to be taken seriously as a country concerned with human rights and with the influence that we can bring to bear on human rights around the world, we have to take ourselves seriously. Although I respect all hon. Members taking part in the debate, it needs to be given greater prominence. I am sure the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), would agree, because it would mean that he could speak in the main Chamber, rather than here.

[Richard Ottaway]

I am inscrutable.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

He is utterly inscrutable. He and I had an interesting debate in Cambridge two weeks ago, and he was less inscrutable then.

I wanted to raise many issues, but I shall try to be brief to take on the points you made, Mr Havard, about the length of the debate. We should consider the fact that the parliamentary process of human rights monitoring is complex. We have the Human Rights Act 1998, which applies to UK law. I am a strong supporter of it and our participation in the European convention on human rights and the European Court Of Human Rights. You, Mr Havard, chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which the 1998 Act set up. I welcome the Joint Committee and its work. It has been a valuable way to monitor what has gone on, but I remain to be persuaded that, with all the other responsibilities the Foreign Affairs Committee has, it would not be better to have an international human rights Committee of the UK Parliament to deal with international human rights issues and to put forward the strong cases that many Members make on many occasions about human rights issues around the world.

Things have moved on, in that Britain is a signatory to the International Criminal Court and our courts have pronounced a universal jurisdiction for human rights offenders and potential war criminals where there is prima facie evidence against them. That was a huge step forward. We have spent a lot of time raising human rights in Chile and the need to put General Pinochet and others on trial for what they did there, so I welcome the universal jurisdiction declaration. Much less welcome however is that Parliament has reduced its applicability by limiting the arrest warrant to an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than an application from an individual citizen to Westminster magistrates court. That has not done our reputation much good.

When the Minister responds to the debate—obviously there are many issues and I guess he will not be able to reply to all of them—I would be grateful if he could answer this narrative issue. I welcome the way in which our representatives at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, which I quite often attend on behalf of a non-governmental organisation, regularly and effectively take up the issue of the death penalty; they are to be commended on that. It is quite noticeable that on every single report that comes up from a country that retains the death penalty, the UK representative gets up and objects to its use in that jurisdiction; I absolutely welcome that.

I am interested in taking international human rights and human rights law further. The International Criminal Court is an enormous step forward—there is no question about that—but the non-participation of certain countries in it, particularly the United States, obviously weakens it. Since the first world war, the US has had mixed feelings about involvement in any international organisation. What pressure was the Minister able to bring to bear on the United States regarding its participation, or indeed on the many other countries that still need to participate?

I am an officer of the all-party group on human rights, and a vast number of human rights abuse issues are brought to our attention. We try to take them up in the best way we can with our very limited resources. I want to bring up a general issue, but I will first deal with some specific countries.

I notice how rapidly human rights issues can change. In the “Human Rights and Democracy: The 2011 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report”, one country that has not been listed for particular attention is Bangladesh. Yesterday, there was a demonstration outside this building concerning the current wave of attacks on minorities and the conduct of the war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh. Amnesty International reported last week:

“A wave of violent attacks against Bangladesh’s minority Hindu community shows the urgent need for authorities to provide them with better protection…Over the past week, individuals taking part in strikes called for by Islamic parties have vandalised more than 40 Hindu temples across Bangladesh.”

The report goes on to describe the attacks against religious minorities. To the credit of those who attended the small demonstration yesterday in Parliament square, there were representatives from Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and Muslim organisations. They wanted to see the retention of the secular constitution in Bangladesh and to question the conduct of the war crimes tribunal.

I have no problem whatever with any country deciding to investigate what were the most abominable abuses of human rights and the war crimes committed during the independence war of 1971. However, the case would be strengthened if international observers were specifically appointed to attend all the sessions, to give it a degree of support and approval, which was done in war crimes tribunals in other parts of the world. It is not to say that the war crimes tribunal is a bad thing—I think it is a good thing—but observer presence should be strengthened.

While I understand the deep anger that many people feel and the terrible sense of loss that many have suffered, I cannot, under any circumstance, support the death penalty for anything; indeed, that is now a narrative of our policies. I hope that we will make that clear, and also make it clear that the mobs that are attacking minority communities or anyone who is not seen to approve what they want are totally unacceptable. We should be saying that clearly to the Bangladeshi Government. I do not blame the Bangladeshi Government for the activities of the mobs, because those activities are largely directed against the Government, but all Governments have a responsibility to protect minorities and people in what is an extremely difficult situation. There is a large Bangladeshi community in this country.

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling rightly drew attention to the situation in Palestine. I was in Gaza three weeks ago, on a delegation with colleagues from the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties, organised by Interpal. The issue of human rights and the treatment of prisoners are very current. Issues such as Palestinian parliamentarians still being held in prison, the frequent use of executive detention and the hunger strikes that have taken place, and continue to take place, among the prisoners are not going to go away.

Effectively, 1.7 million people are in a prison called Gaza, with very limited access to Israel and no access whatever, as far as I can see, to the west bank through Israel. The population is imprisoned unless Egypt can be persuaded to open the Rafah crossing fully, which would in turn make Gaza part of Egypt rather than part of Palestine. That may well be the intention of some, but we must be firm that the continued corralling of people in Gaza is an abuse of their human rights on a collective scale.

There is something tragic in talking to brilliant young people in Gaza. Some 55% of the population are university graduates—the best educated population in the whole region—but unemployment is at 70%. Their life chances and career possibilities are limited. It is a cauldron, of course, that explodes from time to time, and unless the fundamental issues are addressed, that cauldron will continue to explode.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) said about Sri Lanka and the treatment of Tamil people. I hope that the Government will continue to put all the pressure they can on the Sri Lankan Government. Above all, I hope that the embassy and particularly the Home Office will follow up cases in which someone is forcibly removed to another jurisdiction.

My final general points are about thematic issues. Dalit people in India and many other countries suffer a collective abuse of human rights because of a perverted view of Hinduism. Hundreds of millions of people suffer from that. We have an opportunity to support what the House of Lords has done and defend its amendment to our legislation that would mean that it will be illegal to discriminate by caste and descent in this country. That is illegal in the Indian constitution, but collective discrimination takes place on a massive scale. While the Department for International Development has done well in targeting aid programmes, which ensures that that does not happen in any project that we fund, we must be as tough as possible with the Indian Government and other Governments in whose territory discrimination by caste and descent takes place.

Around the world, there are individual and collective abuses of the human rights of people in the circumstances that we have outlined. There is also an appalling lack of human rights, dignity and access to democracy for large numbers of desperately poor migrants around the world. They are the people who are exploited in big cities and who die when they try to cross the Mediterranean, get to the Canary islands in the Atlantic or travel through Mexico to get to the United States, where they hope to gain some kind of economic salvation. We must address the collective human rights issues of millions of people around the world who suffer the most appalling privations and often death while trying to find a place of economic and political sanctuary. It is up to us to be more alert and aware of the causes. That is surely what being in a democratic Parliament is about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

May I ask you, Minister, to give Mr Ottaway a couple of minutes at the end of the debate?

[Richard Ottaway]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Mr Ottaway is indicating that he does not need more time.

[Richard Ottaway]

I give my time to the Minister.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Excellent. Thank you very much for that. I call the Minister.

Syria

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It has been tried countless times: Lakhdar Brahimi has been to Damascus countless times, and Kofi Annan before him went to Damascus countless times. Every possibility has been given to the regime to negotiate, but it has never entered into a sincere or meaningful negotiation. That being the case, it is not adequate to watch slaughter on this scale and say that we will stick our heads in the sand about it. It is important to have a foreign policy that relieves human suffering and upholds human rights. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would always be in favour of that.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

While I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s position in not supplying weapons to the rebels, it is perfectly clear that someone is supplying weapons to the rebels at present. Is not the great challenge for Syria the fact that that lot will end up fighting against Shi’a-backed militants, supported by Iran, Lebanon and Iraq, some time in the future?

[Mr Hague]

Of course, the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict is one of our great concerns. That is why we have to do everything we reasonably can to shorten the conflict, as that will only get worse as the conflict goes on. As my hon. Friend says, the conflict in Syria is already militarised and weapons have already been obtained and are being obtained by all the factions fighting in Syria, including the military council, working with the national coalition. I fear that the longer the conflict goes on, the more sectarian it will be in nature and the more opportunity there will be for extremists to take hold there. Giving our assistance to moderate forces and not to extremist forces is therefore one way in which we can try to shape the situation in a more sensible direction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I am not quite sure what reassessment the hon. Gentleman is asking for. As I have said, we are monitoring events as closely as we can. We are engaged with a variety of projects for democracy building in Tunisia, yet the constitutional processes being undergone are for Tunisians themselves. I spoke to our deputy head of mission just this morning. The streets are calm; people are expecting a Government to be formed at the end of the week. They are well aware of the difficulties of forming the Government and of the pressures between the political parties, but as he said, there are grounds for some optimism. These are obviously difficult days for Tunisia, but the fact that the process has been handled democratically and peacefully to date is much to be welcomed, and we will continue to encourage it.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister can agree that Tunisia has made remarkable progress in its transition to democracy. For quite some time it has led the way in the region, but the inevitable wobble has now happened. Can he say what role the Deauville partnership has in helping the political, social and economic transition to democracy?

[Alistair Burt]

I very much appreciate what my hon. Friend says. There has been good progress, but we must all be clear that each state is different. These events in the Arab world will take time and there will inevitably be progress, both forwards and backwards. Tunisia is facing its own difficulties, but facing up to them well. The Prime Minister has made it clear that, as part of our responsibilities for the G8, the Deauville partnership will be reinvigorated to ensure that economic support is available to countries in transition. We believe that the G8 process this year will be able to deliver economic benefits to countries in transition such as Tunisia, which will be of enormous help to them.

Syria: anti-Government Forces

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and he makes a valid point. I stress again, however, that the change to EU sanctions legislation concerns the provision of non-lethal and technical assistance; it is not concerned with the provision of weapons or with arming either side. I repeat what I said earlier: the countries arming President Assad’s Government in particular should stop, because it is they who are directly contributing to the carnage unfolding in Syria.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister of State on stepping in at short notice, particularly for a brief with which he is not familiar. I agree with him completely that there are several questions—who is arming, what they are being armed with and the nature of the EU embargo—that will be far better answered by the Foreign Secretary later in the week. A humanitarian disaster is occurring on the Jordanian and Turkish borders with Syria. Will he give us an indication of the levels of help and assistance being given by the British Government?

[Mr Swire]

It is not for me to question the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I think that somewhere inherent in his remarks was a compliment—at least I like to think so. I assure him that the Foreign Secretary, who as he says is better placed to answer these questions, will give him a full update on humanitarian assistance to the neighbouring countries to which he alluded.

Europe

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Time does not permit me to analyse the shadow Foreign Secretary’s speech, except to say that I think that he has misjudged the mood not just of the House, but of the whole country.

A lot can change in a day in politics. The Prime Minister’s EU speech, given in his capacity as leader of the Conservative party, was a landmark speech that has resonated far and wide. It was probably the most cogent argument for the European Union that most of us have heard in recent times. Of course it will have its critics, but leadership always does. The House should be in no doubt: this was leadership not just of Britain, but of Europe as a whole. Some of Britain’s fiercest critics, on both sides of the in/out fence, are now congratulating the Prime Minister on leading the agenda.

Just a few weeks ago, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs had what it thought was a private meeting in Berlin with the political editor of Die Welt—a leading German newspaper. A few days later, we were slightly surprised to find a full account of the meeting in The Times, under the headline “Gone is the time when David Cameron had new ideas for Europe”, in which that journalist said:

“Turkey is becoming more relevant to discussions on the future of Europe than Britain.”

However, after last week’s speech, the same journalist wrote:

“Mr Cameron has staked out an excellent position…Britain is setting the European agenda.”

German journalists have much in common with their British counterparts.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

Given what my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has just said and having reflected on the shadow Foreign Secretary’s speech, does he share my surprise that the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to put what he clearly believes is a compelling argument for Britain’s place in a reformed Europe to the British people?

[Richard Ottaway]

I quite agree. My hon. Friend makes her point well.

For far too long, the debate about the EU has been polarised. Now we have a course of action that recognises British Eurosceptism, but keeps us at the table using our influence. Of course Britain continues to have its detractors. The French Foreign Minister said:

“You join the football club, but once you are in, you cannot say, ‘Let’s play rugby’”,

but he misses the point. We are not saying that we want to do a Webb Ellis, picking up the ball and running with it; we are simply asking whether the offside rule is working properly. Also, we have allies. Like us, the Dutch want to reform the EU. They are shortly to produce a report on the repatriation of powers—a document that has a familiar ring to it. Reform will be tough, but it is necessary. There is now a widespread recognition that the EU is not working as it should. That was admitted in an excellent piece in The Times today by Guido Westerwelle, the German Foreign Minister. He clearly expresses his support for reform across the board, arguing that it should be on an EU-wide basis. I agree.

[Mr Redwood]

Is not the problem that we thought we were joining a football club and now there is mandatory synchronised swimming?

[Richard Ottaway]

Yes, but my point is that it is an exaggeration to say that we are trying to play a different sport. We are trying to take a fresh approach. It is the multi-tiered approach that I think is most likely to win the day.

[Michael Connarty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Ottaway]

I will not give way. I have had my two shots, and I do not get a third.

Clearly, we need different arrangements for those countries in the euro, those that are out and those in transition—a group that I suspect will be around for a long time. Call it multi-tiered or an inner and outer group, or whatever, but we have long been at the point where a one-size-fits-all approach is over, and Europe knows it.

The case for sticking with the EU hinges on three main plus points—trade, the single market and diplomacy—and another often forgotten aspect: peace and security. Britain’s trade with the EU is a major success story. Almost half the UK’s exports go to the EU and 51% of imports come from the EU. We export more to Ireland than to Brazil, Russia, India and China put together. Global success is to be found in single markets. Let us look at the economies of the USA, China, Brazil and India—all single markets with a common currency and common language. The EU single market—a British invention of Margaret Thatcher—has significantly increased EU prosperity since its inception in 1987. We need to be part of it.

Then there is the diplomatic clout that membership of the EU brings. In trade, combating crime and terror, fighting fundamentalism, liberating markets and addressing climate change, we have a strong voice at the table. Within the EU, the UK, together with France, leads Europe’s defence policy. I am proud that our intervention in Mali shows that, when the going gets rough, Europe can count on Britain to step up to the mark.

Some people have called for us to have the same status as Norway, as a member of the European economic area. I do not accept this. If it means stepping to one side and letting others dictate the terms of trade, that is not gaining sovereignty but losing it. We have to be difficult, but stay in.

It is interesting to reflect on Mrs Thatcher’s defining Bruges speech of 1988, in which she rejected the centralised, unaccountable, federal Europe of Jacques Delors. She said:

“The European Community…must reflect the traditions and aspirations of all its members.”

Far more importantly, she went on to say:

“Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.”

I could not put it better myself. Indeed, her words seem rather tame compared with some of the language that we hear today. But the peace dividend that Europe brings still remains uppermost in my mind.

At last week’s Chatham House seminar, the French commentator pointed out that between 1870 and the second world war, France and Germany fought each other three times. In the same period, Britain fought two devastating world wars. In the period since, we have lived in peace. I was born in May 1945, as Europe lay in smouldering ruins. I am part of a generation that has rebuilt that Europe. I have enjoyed a life of unparalleled peace and prosperity. Now is not the time to jeopardise all that we have achieved. The stakes are high, but I believe that we can reach a new agreement with our European partners, and I believe that the people of Britain will back it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

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

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of supporting education and health care for women in Afghanistan will be a successful transition in 2014? Will he update the House on how the talks in Doha are going? Is there any sign that the United States Administration are prepared to get involved in them?

[Mr Speaker]

Specifically and exclusively with reference to education and health for women in Afghanistan—nothing else. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knew that.

Syria

Richard Ottaway Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I agree with the right hon. Lady, as that is our broad understanding of international law. There is, of course, a further argument about the wisdom of such intervention, but in a situation of overwhelming humanitarian need with no clear alternative a strong legal case can be made.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has confirmed that from 1 March EU countries will have more room to manoeuvre. Does he agree that the composition of the opposition forces has now become less obvious and that their long-term intentions are less certain? Will he be very careful about who exactly he is helping before providing any extra assistance?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, of course, and we are very careful about that anyway. Part of the justification for giving the help we have given so far to the Syrian opposition is to strengthen the moderate forces and people who want to see a free and democratic Syria. Let me be clear that the flexibility I have talked about will be in place from 1 March—the whole sanctions regime on Syria has been rolled over only until then. We have not yet agreed in the EU whether or how we will amend the sanctions regime; those discussions will be going on over the next few weeks. The opportunity for flexibility has now been built in by our requesting a three-month roll-over.