Human Rights Violations

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I am delighted to have secured a debate on an issue that is of real importance to Members across the House. I am glad to see that representatives of other political parties are present to join in discussing such a vital issue.

The debate arises as a direct result of a report published earlier this summer by the Conservative party human rights commission, which I have the honour of chairing. I am particularly grateful to fellow members of the commission, including Members of both Houses of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and campaigners, for their work and support in helping the inquiry that led to the publication of our report. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who is present, for his work in the oral evidence sessions held during the inquiry, and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is also present, for her unstinting work in that respect.

I also pay tribute to all the organisations that submitted written evidence to the commission and to those who gave oral evidence. A wide range of organisations gave evidence to our inquiry, including Amnesty International, the British Medical Association, the Law Society, Medact, Human Rights Watch, the National Union of Teachers, the Rights Practice and the Peace Brigades. The result is the report entitled, “Professionals in the Firing Line”, which makes a number of recommendations to the Government that I shall deal with in turn.

In the ongoing debate about the state of human rights across the world, one thing is very clear: without the existence of impartial and independent professions and in the absence of proper systems allowing business people to operate with integrity, no society can truly call itself free or open. In other words, the implementation of basic standards of democracy and human rights at a political level will never be enough. Unless a country has a similar commitment to the free conduct of people offering and carrying out professional services—whether they are lawyers, doctors, teachers, journalists or people undertaking legitimate business—not only is the country in question obstructing freedom, but it is impeding its own economic and social development. Regimes in various parts of the world know that all too well, but they perceive the independence of professions or businesses within their societies as some sort of threat to their own political power.

For many years, I have been a member of a profession in England and Wales—the Bar—and its code of conduct tells barristers that among our duties must be the ability, at all times, to conduct cases “without fear or favour”. That is a phrase that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) will know well from his work as a lawyer. The words “without fear or favour” are very simple, but very powerful. They encapsulate two vital concepts for any professional holding themselves to be truly independent: first, the ability to operate freely and without worrying about any repercussions as a result of their actions; and secondly, the freedom to act without inducement or corrupt practice. In too many parts of the world, fear and undue favour are still all too prevalent in professional work.

Our report focused on several themes. Rather than taking a country-by-country approach, we considered the violations of human rights that are faced by different professions, according to the evidence that we received. We looked at the violations of human rights that are faced by lawyers and, according to the evidence, where the rule of law is weak or absent, lawyers face particular challenges. Whether they are challenging human rights abuses on behalf of political dissidents, representing communities threatened by large-scale economic development or defending people who are alleged to have infringed religious laws, lawyers face considerable infringements.

In places such as Colombia, Mexico, Nepal and Guatemala, lawyers face a range of human rights violations, including death threats, intimidation, stalking, assault, illegal surveillance and defamation. In Colombia, more than 400 lawyers have been assassinated since 1991. Shakespeare wrote memorably about killing all the lawyers but, in a different context and a different time, the lack of truly independent legal advice is a real threat to civil societies, such as that in Colombia.

I have focused on the dangers faced by lawyers. However, it is important to remember that not only are lawyers facing dangers, but the rule of law itself and the independence of the judiciary are under attack. For example, in Iran, the independent Bar Association, which was set up in 1955, was closed down after the revolution, and the majority of its directors were jailed. In the past two years, more than a dozen lawyers who had been members of that association have been imprisoned for defending political prisoners and even worse, because it is more permanent, many have been disqualified from practice.

In China, as it reaches a change of leadership, there again seems to be a crackdown on all forms of political dissent, which poses a particular challenge for lawyers, mainly due to an increase in police surveillance. We think that China has shown a complete failure to respect the United Nations basic principles on the role of lawyers. We have particular concerns about several cases involving the abduction, torture and house arrest or the holding incommunicado of lawyers. Of particular concern are the cases of Cheng Guangcheng, a blind lawyer, who has spent most of the past six years in prison or under house arrest for filing law suits on behalf of women forced to have abortions under the one-child policy; of Gao Zhisheng, a human rights lawyer, who defended Falun Gong and house church Christians and has at various times in recent years been jailed and beaten and is currently still in prison; of the several Molihua lawyers, who have been detained for varying periods in the past year; of the Beihai lawyers, who have been beaten up and arrested on various occasions; and, finally, of Liu Xiaoyuan, a Beijing-based lawyer and friend of the artist Ai Weiwei, who was detained for six days in April last year at an undisclosed location. All those are pretty stark examples of China’s failure to adhere to a basic tenet of human rights.

In Bahrain last year, the prominent defence lawyer Mohamed al-Tajer was arrested without a warrant by masked security officers, who took him to an unknown location and brought him before a military court, in which he was charged with allegations of spreading rumours and malicious news and of inciting hatred towards the regime. His trial was then referred to a civilian court and he has been released from prison, but his legal status is unclear. I mentioned Iran, and it would be wrong not to refer to the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh, who was arrested in September 2010 and is now serving an 11-year sentence for representing the Nobel peace prize recipient Dr Shirin Ebadi as well as many other human rights campaigners.

As a result of the evidence we heard, we have made a number of recommendations for action by the British Government. First, we recommend that they do everything that they can to promote respect for the rule of law and protection for lawyers in all relevant public statements and bilateral discussions.

Secondly, we recommend that the Government develop and maintain relationships with lawyers, especially those at risk and those involved in defending human rights campaigners, political activists and vulnerable communities, and in conducting anti-corruption cases. Embassy staff should visit lawyers and provide opportunities and platforms to meet.

Thirdly, we recommend that all United Kingdom diplomatic missions implement the EU guidelines on human rights defenders and include the protection of local human rights defenders, including lawyers, in their contingency plans for emergency situations.

Fourthly, financial support and technical expertise should be provided to Governments and lawyers to increase understanding of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. We also recommend that human rights violations and questions of impunity are investigated so that justice is upheld. Finally, we called for the ratification of the United Nations international convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances.

We then looked at the challenges faced by medical practitioners, whether they be doctors, nurses or other medical workers. We of course dealt with the incidents that arose from the unrest in the Kingdom of Bahrain in 2011, which involved a large number of Bahraini doctors. More than 200 medical professionals were arrested following the direct intervention by security forces in an incident at the Salmaniya medical complex, the largest public hospital. The events that followed are well documented, but the evidence that we heard from a number of professions were of arrests, detention and, sadly, mistreatment. We also looked at the use of military rather than civil procedures to deal with a number of people, and of criminal proceedings to address issues that were more properly the province of professional conduct.

The commission was pleased to note that 15 criminal prosecutions against medical professionals were dropped in March and that, in the aftermath of the unrest, the Bahraini Government set up a national institution on human rights and a new human rights and social development Ministry, and are making some progress in moving their society forward from the position it had reached last year.

We urge the Bahraini Government to allow foreign journalists and human rights organisations to observe such developments, and call on Her Majesty’s Government to monitor their progress so that we do not have a situation whereby lip service is paid to human rights.

We encountered evidence of the threats being posed to medical professionals not only in Bahrain, but in several other countries. We received examples of cases from Syria, Iran and India. In Syria, we heard evidence of the arrest, torture and abuse of health professionals, Sadly, we also heard about the death of a number of professionals in that country.

According to the British Medical Association, there are reports of some doctors being used by the Syrian authorities as tools of repression. In some cases, they were instructed to abuse wounded protesters who sought treatment in state-run hospitals, which is an appalling perversion of the oath that is taken by all doctors and the ethics that surround the medical profession. It is something that any truly free society would regard as abhorrent.

We also heard about the case of Dr Binayak Sen in India. He is a renowned paediatrician and human rights activist who was sentenced to life imprisonment for sedition and conspiracy against the state before being released on bail by the Indian Supreme Court last April. His imprisonment has been condemned by a number of organisations, including Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

It is also known that in conflict zones, medical professionals are deliberately targeted by those involved. For example, in Sri Lanka, during the final stages of the civil war, the military was accused of intentionally shelling field hospitals, killing doctors and other medical professionals. The United Nations report of the Secretary-General’s panel of experts on accountability in Sri Lanka said:

“The Government systematically shelled hospitals on the frontlines. All hospitals in the Vanni were hit by mortars and artillery, some of them were hit repeatedly”.

In the ongoing and historic ethnic conflicts in Burma, attacks by the Burmese army on clinics and medical professionals are well documented.

As a result of the evidence we heard, we make the following recommendations for the Government: consider proposing an extension to the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health to include reporting on protection for and violations of medical neutrality; work with the International Committee of the Red Cross to develop the project “Health care in danger” to better assure the security of health care workers during armed conflict; and ensure that British diplomatic representatives are present at any trial proceedings involving doctors or other medical professionals where there is evidence that the defendants have been subjected to violations of human rights or are being persecuted as a direct result of fulfilling their professional and ethical medical responsibilities. Finally, we welcome the Bahraini Government’s acknowledgement of the abuses that were committed, and urge the Government to monitor closely the progress of promised institutional change in Bahrain.

We then looked at violations of human rights being faced by journalists and media workers. We were helped by organisations such as Article 19, which works in the area of press freedom. Since 2010, more than 500 journalists have been killed and in 2011 alone at least 97 were killed. Among the most dangerous countries for journalists are Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Mexico, the Philippines and Somalia. It is right to note that Turkey and Uzbekistan have the highest number of journalists in prison.

It is estimated that 145 journalists are in jail around the world, with 67 in Turkey alone. They are mostly being held under anti-terror laws. Media workers are also vulnerable to violence based on gender and to sudden disappearances. At least 10 journalists disappeared in Mexico in 2011. Infringements against the media take place not only in countries with conflict situations or with little or no democratic progress, but in emerging democracies. It is crystal clear that in the overwhelming majority of cases, the crimes against journalists go unpunished. In other words, there is operation with impunity by both states and third parties within those countries.

Belarus is a country of particular concern to the commission. There are a number of continuing infringements against the freedom of journalists to operate. The case of Oleg Bebenin, who was found hanged in his country home in 2010, is one of the most concerning cases. Even though Belarus is in Europe, it is ranked 189th out of 196 countries for press freedom by Freedom House, which is lower than Iran or Zimbabwe. All mainstream media outlets in Belarus are controlled by the state and after a mass media law was passed in 2008 further restrictions were introduced, including allowing state prosecutors and the ministry of information to close or suspend news outlets if they

“threaten the interests of the state or the public”.

That has resulted in the denial of many licences for media groups and an increased risk to media organisations that are hostile to or disagree with the regime.

The position in China regarding the media also concerned the commission. In particular, many bloggers and others using the internet have been arrested in the last year. The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China reports that more than a dozen reporters, including representatives of international media organisations such as the BBC, CNN and Bloomberg, have been detained or beaten by security officers when they covered possible protests. Zhang Jialong, the former Caijing magazine journalist who covered the detention of the artist Ai Weiwei, went missing in April 2011 after being approached by a person claiming to represent the police. In 2009, the Nobel prize laureate Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to 11 years in prison having been held incommunicado since December 2008.

In Iran, journalists face harassment, torture and imprisonment. They include Faranak Farid, a women’s rights activist and journalist. She was arrested in September 2011 and detained without charge. She is reported to have been beaten so severely that she is now unable to move one of her arms and has lost the hearing in her left ear.

I have already mentioned Syria in another context, but it would be wrong of me not to refer to that country and that regime again in discussing journalists. Several journalists in Syria, including Mohammed Zaid Mastou and Dorothy Parvaz, have been detained.

As a commission, we recommend that the Government take several steps to increase protection for media workers and to promote press freedom. We urge the Government to work to uphold and enforce UN Security Council resolution 1738 on the protection of journalists; we urge the Government to support activities to promote world press freedom day each year; and finally, we ask the Government to help to ensure that press freedom and the protection of media workers are raised in all bilateral and multilateral forums, with specific attention paid to the EU and the UN, and particularly with reference to the Governments of China, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey and Uzbekistan.

The report then turns to the violations of human rights that are being faced by teachers. Once again, maintaining the integrity and independence of the teaching profession is vital if future generations are to have access to the truth and understand the world around them in an objective way. It is sad and concerning to note that in far too many regimes and countries teachers themselves are facing oppression and the use of violence by third parties within those countries. We are grateful to the National Union of Teachers for the evidence that it provided.

In countries such as Colombia, Ethiopia and Iran, the situation is particularly concerning. The position of teachers in Colombia remains grave. In 2010, 49 trade unionists were assassinated, 27 of whom were teachers and members of the Colombian teaching union. As I say, the position of teachers in Colombia remains very serious. In 2011, the killings continued; in fact, 29 trade unionists were assassinated last year. And so far in 2012, 16 trade unionists have been assassinated.

In 2009, Education International published a report on political violence against the education sector in Colombia. The report said that between 1991 and 2006 more than 800 Colombian teachers and education workers were murdered. Those killings were carried out primarily by right-wing paramilitary organisations, and once again they were committed with impunity—that means that there was no punishment, no comeback and no consequence as a result of those murders.

One example of such killings is that of Jorge Eliécer de los Ríos Cárdenas, a teacher who was responsible for an environmental education project. In June 2011, he was shot several times outside his school. He had publicly denounced the effects of open-cast mining on his local community and he paid for that with his life.

In Ethiopia, teaching unions have been restricted and teachers who have been active in illegal union activities have faced intense persecution. Teachers who have criticised the Government’s educational policies have been dismissed. In 2008, a new union, the National Teachers’ Association, was established but it was not recognised by the Government. In November 2011, an Ethiopian teacher burned himself to death in protest against human rights violations, having been jailed for helping to organise demonstrations against corruption in government.

In Iran, members of teaching unions have faced arrest and detention, and teachers belonging to religious minorities have faced severe persecution. Last year, the authorities in Iran tried to shut down the Baha’i Institute for Higher Education, which is the only higher education facility for those adhering to the Baha’i faith. As a result, dozens of academic staff were detained. Other cases from Iran that we heard about include that of Farzad Kamangar, a 35-year-old teacher who was imprisoned and charged with “enmity towards God”. He was sentenced to death and executed in 2010. Furthermore, meetings of the Iranian Teacher Trade Association have been prevented from happening and many teachers remain in detention.

After the protests in Bahrain that took place early last year, we have heard examples and received evidence of the violation of human rights of teachers and university professors in that country. In particular, we heard evidence about the case of Jaleela al-Salman, vice-president of the Bahrain Teachers Association. We are concerned about her arrest in March 2011, which took place in her own home in front of her children. We are also concerned about the dissolution of the Bahraini teachers’ union, which happened in April 2011. A new union was established but it was established by a Government ministry, and therefore there are concerns about the integrity and independence of that organisation.

Having considered all the evidence about teachers that it received, the commission makes the following recommendations: we urge the Government to seek systematic protection of the human rights of teachers across the world; we ask the Government to promote the implementation of fundamental labour standards, including the International Labour Organisation conventions 87 and 98; we ask the Government to promote the right of teachers to form trade unions; we ask the Government to seek accountability for crimes committed against teachers and teacher trade unionists around the world, particularly in Colombia and Ethiopia; and finally, we call upon the Government to seek the release of all teachers imprisoned in Iran.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. He has asked the Government to take certain steps, but does he agree that we also need to urge other countries to establish a body similar to our Joint Committee on Human Rights? I serve on that Committee, which considers whether all legislation is human rights-compatible. Does he agree that we need to encourage other countries to have such a committee, to ensure that all legislation is looked at in the light of human rights?

[Mr Buckland]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes a very proper point about the need for more effective political mechanisms for legislators, so that every possible step is taken to ensure that human rights legislation is passed in the country in question. I think that he will agree with my fundamental point that that, in and of itself, is not enough and that more needs to be done at the professional and civil levels to propagate standards of independence, integrity and freedom. Without that kind of culture developing in countries with poor records, such countries cannot be judged to be truly free.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend has briefly touched on the overall aspect, which is the separation of executive and judicial powers. The fundamental point is that it is great to have lawyers who can carry out their jobs, but it is important to have a judiciary that will give them impartial hearings. The countries that he mentions are affected by that, and unless the situation changes one will not get proper human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the key importance of an independent judiciary. So many countries do themselves a disservice by not guaranteeing free and independent legal processes. They damage their own trade prospects by not giving businesses the confidence that any dispute with which they might become involved can be resolved properly by an independent judiciary. That challenges the viability of contract law, and we know plenty of examples of other countries that use English contract law, with its long reputation for integrity and reliability, as the way to do business. That is great for this country, commercially as well as politically, but other countries will do well to adopt the principles that for so long have applied in countries such as ours.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his thorough report, and I urge those who have not read it to do so. The excerpts from the report that he has drawn upon in his speech today are heartbreaking, and illuminate what goes on in the rest of the world.

Has my hon. Friend thought about the fact that the United Nations was set up in the wake of the second world war, to try to prevent such enormous atrocities as happened in that war from ever occurring again? Has he also thought about the fact that some of the UN’s institutions are not as effective as they might be—in particular, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which often has principal members who themselves have pretty dubious human rights records? What more could our Government do to urge the UN to be more effective? Many of my hon. Friend’s recommendations involve human rights resolutions.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right. The answer that I would give him today is that I think that the United Nations has brought together Governments but perhaps has a long way to go to bring together other levels of society. For an organisation such as the UN to make true progress, more work must be done at differing levels of society, more effectively to bring together professional organisations, for example. We are lucky in the United Kingdom to have organisations, such as the Law Society and the Bar Council, with international relations committees that do a lot of this work, by working with lawyers in other countries to spread best practice, share principles of freedom and justice and encourage other societies to work in a similar way. Without the support of member Governments of the United Nations, and of the institution itself, that work will always be too ad hoc to have universal application. That is my view about how the United Nations should now develop, nearly 70 years after its foundation in San Francisco in 1945.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for The Cotswolds for their interventions. Reference has been made to the integrity of contract law and to the rule of law, and that brings me on to the final area that we considered: the difficulties faced in many countries by people who are trying to carry out business or are in some way involved in representing people in business. I have made the fundamental point that threats to the integrity of business practice threaten not only freedom, but the commercial and financial viability of many countries. In particular, we looked at what is happening in Russia, and we are gravely concerned that the Russian state is either condoning or actively taking part in endemic corruption. There are two cases that we consider to be examples of the baleful effect of state corruption on the lifeblood of an economy.

The Sergei Magnitsky case has been well documented and the subject of debates, not only here but in countries across the world. A debate in the House some months ago highlighted the continuing concerns of both Government and Opposition Members about the role of the Russian state in the killing of the lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky. Putting it simply, Mr Magnitsky was arrested, imprisoned and ill-treated, and he died for having blown the whistle on the massive theft of tax revenue from the Russian state by its own officials. A simple recitation of those facts underlines the seriousness of the position that the Russian state now finds itself in and the danger to freedom that such cases reveal.

We believe that in recognition of the unique position of London as a destination of choice for many senior Russian officials, the Government should, as soon as possible, introduce measures publicly to restrict visas and to freeze the assets of Russian officials involved in serious corruption and human rights abuses. We were delighted by the reference to the issue in “Human Rights and Democracy: The 2011 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report”:

“Where there is independent, reliable and credible evidence that an individual has committed human rights abuses, the individual will not normally be permitted to enter the United Kingdom.”

That statement is particularly important in the context of a recent development in Russia: the decision by the authorities to withhold the identities of all 12 prosecutors involved in the posthumous—yes, posthumous—trial of Sergei Magnitsky. The man not only suffered indignity in life; he now faces it in death. The reason for withholding the identities, it seems to me, is simple. If legislation, which is being considered by the United States Congress among others, is passed, those individuals would face losing visa rights and having their assets frozen if their identities were revealed. That lamentable state of affairs further reflects the difficult and troubled situation that we face with human rights in Russia.

The other Russian example that we looked at was the Khodorkovsky case. Without going into the full details of that troubled history, the individual remains in prison, after eight years, and the case has still not been satisfactorily resolved. We regard it as yet another example of double standards being applied, rather than equality under the law, which has to be a basic tenet of all countries that hold themselves out to be free. That is important, because bilateral trade between the United Kingdom and Russia has been growing by an average of 21% every year since 2001. In 2010, exports from this country to Russia increased by 51% to nearly £3.5 billion, which shows the importance for British business of the integrity of the financial and business systems in countries such as Russia. Without that integrity, there is a direct threat to British business and the integrity of trade between our two nations. That is why, at a practical level, it is important that the British Government’s message to regimes that indulge in such practices is clear.

We urge the Government to introduce measures to support civil society in Russia, by encouraging and facilitating British professional bodies to engage with their Russian counterparts. We emphasise that Russia’s membership of European and global organisations such as the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the World Trade Organisation carries a significant responsibility to operate according to international rules.

A foreign policy that involves not only the use of political pressure to achieve change but investment in developing professional skills and capacity, with the direct input of British professional organisations in sharing best practice and providing training, will do much to help build a freer and more stable world.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I sense that my hon. Friend is coming to his peroration, but has he considered how our international development assistance might be used to persuade countries that have a less than perfect human rights record that they need to improve their performance?

[Mr Buckland]

Yes, I have. I firmly believe that the role of our international development programme is not only to give direct monetary help, where appropriate, but to facilitate and allow professionals and professional organisations to spread best practice and train professionals in emerging countries, by providing the appropriate funding for those programmes to exist.

As a country, we produce thousands of qualified professionals every year, and this is not an easy time for many of those professionals to go immediately into full-time practice because there is a lot of competition in the market. I believe that there is a great opportunity for some of our younger professionals and, indeed, for professionals who wish to take a mid-career break to put something back into the society from which they have benefited. What better way to do that than by embarking upon properly funded, properly structured programmes in countries with poor human rights records to spread good practice and freedom?

Our greatest invisible exports are freedom, the rule of law and freedom under the law. Let us ensure that fellow professionals in other countries can genuinely enjoy the freedoms that I and other professionals have enjoyed in this country so that they, in all their walks of life, can operate without fear or favour.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) not only on securing this debate but on the way in which he has chaired the Conservative party human rights commission since taking up that post nearly a year ago. His dedication is shown in the high quality of the wide-ranging report and its in-depth recommendations. It is a privilege to be identified with the report and with his work.

[Mr Buckland]

I pay tribute to commission member Mr Ben Rogers, whom my hon. Friend and I know well. He has played an important part in bringing together the strands that form the report.

[Fiona Bruce]

I will augment the report by referring to additional examples of human rights abuses against professionals uncovered by a contemporaneous inquiry.

Since April, the Christians in Parliament all-party group has conducted an inquiry into human rights abuses in Iran, and my speech will focus on professionals who have suffered human rights abuses in that country. With the help of Elam Ministries and Eighteen07, the all-party group is currently cataloguing those abuses, particularly abuses against the rapidly growing Christian community,

A range of human rights abuses has been described to us, from job discrimination and the withholding of passports to false arrest and subsequent sleep deprivation, false information being given to families while those arrested are in detention, beatings, lengthy interrogations, mock executions and actual killings. I will highlight three examples given to us by professionals.

Issa Dibaj is the eldest son of Mehdi Dibaj, who a generation ago in 1994 was killed in Iran for his Christian faith. Almost 20 years later, Issa is still suffering as a result. He explained several forms of abuse that he has experienced. Although perhaps not as major as the abuses experienced by others, I cite the example of job discrimination. He is a teacher:

“I graduated with a first class degree in English literature from Tehran university, the country’s best educational institution. Despite being highly qualified, despite the fact that the university was in desperate need of instructors in English, and despite having the full support of the academic members of the board of the English department, my application for a teaching position in Tehran university was rejected with the vague explanation that ‘at present we cannot offer you this position’.”

I turn now to the evidence gathered for our report from the alarming testimony of another professional, Hossein Jadidi. A lawyer, Mr Jadidi was a devout Muslim who converted to Christianity. In our hearings, he reported enormous resistance from the authorities to his attempts to provide professional services to his clients, many of whom are also Christians. He discussed two clients in detail as an example.

On reporting to the Iranian intelligence ministry to be registered as his clients’ lawyer, Mr Jadidi experienced intimidation and threats and was not permitted to visit his clients, in contravention of Iranian law. Eventually, his clients were granted bail, but once the bail had been paid they were not permitted to leave the prison. The prison authorities then refused to receive Mr Jadidi’s written protest on their behalf. Mr Jadidi reports that he himself eventually became the subject of human rights abuses and persecution, which began with monitoring by the Government. He became aware of telltale sounds on his phone calls that indicated a third person was listening in, and he noticed that people were always watching him when he got out of his car.

In December 2010, the Iranian Government organised a large-scale programme of human rights abuses against Christians, taking hundreds of people into custody and questioning them. On their release, many reported back to Mr Jadidi that he had been the repeated subject of their interrogations. One said that an interrogator had told him, “We know what Hossein is up to, and he’s playing with fire.” Another interrogator used the interrogation to threaten Mr Jadidi indirectly by asking, “Isn’t he afraid that when he drives his car he will have an accident?” As a lawyer, Mr Jadidi knew the authorities needed to gather substantial evidence before arresting him, and because of the number of people detained who had reported back to him that he had been the subject of interrogations, he realised the authorities were putting together a file on him.

Mr Jadidi was a member of Iran’s religious minority committee of the human rights commission of the lawyers’ centre. He learned that other members of the committee were also being systematically arrested and taken into custody. At that point, he felt compelled to leave his profession and flee Iran to avoid his own arrest.

My third example involves a journalist and is equally disturbing, as it relates to BBC employees. We heard highly disturbing evidence from Sadeq Saba, editor of BBC Persian, which is part of the World Service. Other witnesses told us that an enormous number of people in Iran listen to BBC Persian. It carries great authority, as we all appreciate.

Mr Saba testified about what he termed a

“campaign of harassment and intimidation against BBC Persian staff and their relatives”.

He stated that although reports are widespread of journalists being persecuted throughout the world, it is extremely unusual to hear of journalists working in Britain being attacked through the intimidation of their families in another country. That is a particularly disturbing approach and creates serious worry for BBC staff based here, far away from vulnerable relatives who have no connection with the work of the BBC other than through a family member.

One journalist was instructed to report for interrogation via the internet, and was told that if they did not comply, their family members in Iran would be in danger. Most alarming in Mr Saba’s testimony was the number of people who had been approached in that way, or whose families had been approached. Over a six-month period, no fewer than 30 to 40 of Mr Saba’s staff on the BBC Persian service told him about such threats or intimidation. Their families had been contacted by the authorities. The regime suggests to family members, for example, that it might be best if the journalists give up their jobs or give information about the BBC to the Iranian Government. Families report being extremely scared of grave consequences if they do not comply. I put on record my admiration for Mr Saba’s staff and his leadership role. It is remarkable. He told us that to his knowledge, no journalist has succumbed in response to threats to them or their family.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to highlight those additional examples of the sufferings of professionals for their role in society. It is critical. I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly to the recommendations of the report that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon discussed. We in this country are in a unique position to make a difference.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend is right. Bahrain is sometimes portrayed as having no Opposition activity, with marches postponed or cancelled, but in the run-up to the grand prix recently Al-Wefaq, the main Opposition party, held authorised demonstrations. However, as my hon. Friend says, if a meaningful dialogue is to take place, there must be two sides to it. We will continue to urge both Opposition and Government to engage in such a dialogue, because the implementation of the commission’s recommendations is just as important as the recommendations themselves.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I welcome the setting up by the Bahraini Government of a Ministry of Human Rights and Social Development, but what is my hon. Friend’s assessment of the progress that is being made? Are the reforms having a real effect on the quality of human rights in Bahrain?

[Alistair Burt]

There are developments that make a difference, such as human rights training in the security forces and a code of conduct for the police, efforts to prosecute members of the security forces who may have been involved in offences last year, and a general recognition that the recommendations in the independent commission’s report need to be implemented. A series of reforms are taking place, but, as my hon. Friend suggests, more needs to be done.

Syria

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I will certainly look at the point that the hon. Lady has raised and discuss it with my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence. I am not sure that we can do much in our relations with that company that would make a difference to this situation, but I will look at her point.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the time that could be spent in negotiating the terms of reference for an international conference is time that the international community can ill afford to waste, bearing in mind the continuing loss of life? Does he agree that Russia would be better advised enthusiastically to support the enforcement of the objectives of the Annan plan?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I very much agree with that. In the absence of the implementation of the Annan plan, the absence of a sufficiently strong insistence on its implementation and the absence of the implementation of all the UN resolutions that we have promoted, the virtue of a conference is that it could be the forum in which insistence on the Annan plan or something like it is made by Russia as well as by all the other countries that would be involved. Every day and every week that has gone by has contributed to the huge death toll of perhaps 15,000 people. Every day that goes by adds to that death toll. We are pursuing this option in the absence of the other options, which have so far not worked.

Sergei Magnitsky

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on initiating this important debate. I am happy to support the motion, which I signed along with 40 other Members.

Such is the strength of feeling in the House that the debate is a welcome addition to the growing chorus of concern both in this country and internationally about the scandalous case of Sergei Magnitsky. I speak as a fellow lawyer who worked for many years in a free and open legal system, where justice was done and seen to be done. It chills me to the bone to think that a fellow lawyer who was doing his job had to suffer the most appalling indignities and death at the hands of the very authorities he was trying to expose.

For those of us who have heard the account of the life and death of Sergei Magnitsky, the sense of shock and outrage never lessens. For those who are hearing the case for the very first time, I would characterise it in this way: an independent lawyer was arrested, imprisoned, ill-treated and killed for blowing the whistle on the massive theft of tax revenue from the Russian state by its own officials. A simple recitation of those facts underlines the seriousness of the case. It is sadly indicative of the state of kleptocracy, plain and simple, into which the Russian state seems to be descending.

The Conservative party human rights commission, which I have the honour to chair, heard evidence from Bill Browder and others about the Magnitsky case as part of our ongoing inquiry into the role of professional people in countries around the world with poor human rights records. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, this debate is not just about Russia—it is about freedom itself. The motion is not anti-Russia. Those of us who love Russia and its people, who have visited the country on several occasions both before the end of communism and after, want to see it thrive and march down the road to freedom. At present, though, Russia is sadly far away from that road. That is why the approaches taken in other countries and other legislatures, most notably the United States Senate, are commendable. They point a clear way to concerted international action to deal with the perpetrators of such crimes in a way that affects them most significantly: by limiting their freedom to visit countries such as Britain and by freezing the assets that we know they own internationally. That is not interference in the domestic affairs of another country, but international action designed to express our disapproval, our disgust, at the role of officials in concerted and organised state corruption.

It is time for Russia to have its chance to reach freedom. All we are saying today to the Russian state and to those responsible for these crimes is that they should turn away from oppression and corruption, acknowledge the sins of the past, deal with them properly and join the free world in the fullest sense.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I will reply to that point simply by saying that it is important that we, as a House, consider matters as they are going on concurrently. There should be no presumption that other Members of the House necessarily know the detail of the matters that we are discussing.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

May I reinforce my hon. Friend’s point that it is important for the House as a whole, and indeed for departmental Select Committees, to have thematic debates about issues that arise from the EU? Such debates should happen at an earlier stage than they do, which so often seems to be at the last minute. I agree with him on that point.

[Mr Cash]

There is also the important question of whether action might need to be taken on the advice of the Attorney-General in relation to the ratification process, which, as I shall explain in a moment, was initiated by the German vote yesterday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

I certainly would, as I said earlier.

Angela Merkel is quoted in The Wall Street Journal a few days ago as saying:

“As Chancellor of Germany, I should and sometimes must take risks but I cannot embark on an adventure.”

I cannot think of any more dangerous adventure than moving away from the rule of law and inviting the tendency to coercion, which is increasingly evident in German policy making. Indeed, I believe that new rules of law are being asserted to break the rule of law. I am sorry to say that in Germany they seem to believe in government by rule. We believe in government by consent.

The process will not work. We are now in the period of a phoney war. Those who have seen the play “Three Days in May”, about 1940, may well wonder whether it is now obvious that, if we were to acquiesce in imposing the new and unacceptable rules, and in using EU institutions, that would become a new process of appeasement. Fortunately for us, in those dark days, Churchill refused to accept Halifax’s advice at the end of that fateful month.

The letter that the Prime Minister has sent, through Sir Jon Cunliffe, to the secretary-general of the European Council makes it clear that we have serious reservations. We now have two Europes, both built on sand. It is essential that we have a referendum in this country so that the people can have their say because there are such profound questions—

[Mr Buckland]

On what?

[Mr Cash]

On what kind of Europe we want. It is increasingly obvious that the position has become unacceptable and that the rule of law itself is now in jeopardy. We are involved and we must have a referendum on our relationship with the EU. However, first the Government must decide what action they will take about the challenge to the rule of law in Europe. They must put referral to the European Court of Justice firmly on the agenda, follow that through and, at the same time, reassess our policy towards the European Union and insist on a renegotiation of the treaties to ensure that the United Kingdom is not found wanting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this welcome debate, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, allows for the expression of a wider spectrum of the opinions in the House on matters germane to the European Union and the crisis in the eurozone, and I am grateful to him for securing it. I reiterate a point that I made to him in an intervention, and that needs to be underlined today: it is incumbent on both Houses to raise their game when it comes to the scrutiny of European legislation in its various forms, and to raise their game significantly when it comes to debates about thematic developments in the European Union.

The European Scrutiny Committee, which my hon. Friend chairs, does an admirable amount of work, but its limited remit, as I think he would concede, does not allow it to go as far as he and others would perhaps like in looking at some of the thematic issues raised today. That is why I strongly believe that it is the role of subject Select Committees, at a far earlier stage, to do the work of scrutiny, examination and report. That would add to the quality of debate on the detail of European policy.

I am a member of the Justice Committee, and together with other members, I recently paid a most instructive visit to Brussels. We met the Vice-President of the Commission who has overall responsibility for justice and home affairs, and we met other members of the directorate-general. Frankly, it was instructive, because it became blindingly clear to me and my colleagues that we as domestic parliamentarians need to have an input into the detail of proposed regulations at a far earlier stage. I am thinking particularly of the justice and home affairs pillar; by 2014, we have to have considered whether we opt into the entire mechanism, or stay out and perhaps adopt some of the regulations that we have chosen to opt into thus far. That is important work that we are missing.

The Liaison Committee has met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, and I know that the Government are keen for Parliament to take a far more proactive role. I am glad that they take that view, and I look to the Liaison Committee and the Chairs on it to take up the cudgels, or the baton, and get that scrutiny right.

Far too often in debates about the European Union—I speak as a lawyer with 20 years’ professional experience—we end up talking about the legalistic aspect of Europe, and we forget that Europe is nothing without its people. I have the honour of representing a constituency in Swindon that has many links with the European Union. We have many major manufacturers, including car manufacturers such as Honda, which exports 50% of its vehicles to the 27. We have a number of other international companies that export widely to the European Union. Our links and trade with Europe are vital.

I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for widening trade with the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—and the wider world. That agenda is something that we all agree on, but we have to accept the reality of Britain. The reality is that the EU—the 27—is still our major trading partner. Any scintilla of schadenfreude, or a wish that the eurozone would break up, is dangerous. It suggests that somehow we are not linked at all with the affairs of the EU—that it is a faraway place of which we know little. I think of Neville Chamberlain when I say that, and I resent bitterly the suggestion that those of us who favour positive engagement in Europe are the heirs of appeasement—far from it. We are fully engaged with the affairs of Europe. The lesson from history is that when Britain disengages, we end up having to go in to sort the mess out, and I for one am not prepared to take that path.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not accept that all of us in this country want to trade with Europe? There is no question about that. There is no “little island” mentality. We want to be part of, and trade with, Europe; we just do not want to be told what to do by Europe, and we want our own currency. It is not a matter of “little Britain”. We do not want to get out; we want to trade with Europe—that is it.

[Mr Buckland]

I do not disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) made a powerful point about variable geometry; we should use Europe in our national interests, and work with it where appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) is absolutely right about trade and the single market, which was, let us face it, a British invention. Lord Cockfield did a huge amount of work to make sure that that aspiration became a reality, and my hon. Friend is right to emphasise the issue. As for not being told what to do, again he makes a fair point. I do not accept that, at any stage, the British Government, or the people of this country, should be put in a position in which they end up doing something against their will. That is why I supported the Bill on European referendums, now the European Union Act 2011, why I agree with the mechanism that the Government proposed, and why I was happy to speak in support of that Bill on Second Reading and at other stages.

To come back to the reality of the debate about Europe, we are talking about real jobs. We should be talking about trade, widening the single market, the digital economy and the energy market—all things that form the subject matter of a very helpful letter, signed by the Prime Minister and 11 other Heads of Government on 20 February, which set out a plan for growth. That should be at the core of negotiations at the European Council. That should be the agenda, because that is the agenda that is relevant to my constituents and the wider country. It would be wholly ridiculous for me, an elected representative of Swindon, to say to my Honda workers, “What we need is more arcane debate about the legality of Europe,” when what they want to hear is debate and discussion about how we can grow the economies of Europe and expand the growth agenda. That is what I call on Ministers to do.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Buckland]

I shall take an intervention from my hon. Friend, as he was good enough to allow me to intervene on him.

[Mr Cash]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and it has been, in a way, my political life’s work to try to draw attention to the effect that this legal framework has on our daily lives, but it is absolutely unacceptable to suggest that we can make any changes of the kind that he would prefer to make, in order to benefit his constituents or mine, without having regard to the legal constraints imposed on us as a result of treaties.

[Mr Buckland]

I yield to no one in my respect for my hon. Friend, and he and I have had many conversations on these issues, but we cannot get away from the point that the European Union is an exercise of political will first and foremost. It is the political will of its members that drives the future course of the European Union. I accept that we all work within a legal framework, but let us be clear about where we are. The 25 have agreed to sign a treaty that is not an EU treaty. If there is to be any proposed fold-in in five years, the British veto will apply. We have the right to say no, and that is an important point that we need to underline.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Mr Buckland]

I shall take an intervention from my very good and honourable Friend.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. We may not have the ability to say no, because the issue may qualify for enhanced co-operation in five years’ time.

[Mr Buckland]

As a lawyer, I love a legal debate, and bearing in mind what has been said and the aspirations signed up to by the 25, I think there is a very strong case for saying that when the five-year period comes to an end in 2021 or ’22, we will still be in a good position, bearing in mind the clear political will that the Prime Minister has shown by his refusal to participate, and to allow the United Kingdom to participate. That is a very clear statement of intent, and I would be happy to argue the case on that point in five years’ time, just as I am happy, and happy for the British Government, to argue the case about some of the articles in the fiscal compact. Where there is reference to the European Court of Justice, it is incumbent on the Government to argue the point, and to make it clear that we wish the compact to be entirely outwith the institutions of the EU.

Those are matters of legal debate. I do not accept that they are now set in stone, or in some way unarguable or unimpeachable. Let us bear in mind what happened in the economic crisis of 2008, when member states cast to the four winds rules that we all thought immutable. We need to remind ourselves at all times that the institution is an exercise of political will or it is nothing. That is why clear expressions of political will, such as the one that we heard from the Prime Minister in December, are the right approach. I welcome the debate, and I thank my hon. Friends for taking part.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

May I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on getting this crucial debate, and say how shocked I am by my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) for their view that the legality does not desperately matter and it is all about politics? This is a novel and somewhat eccentric view for parliamentarians to take, when the heart of the matter is the law and the detail of the law. Without the rule of law, what we are doing here ends up being a waste of time.

[Mr Buckland]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is bursting to intervene, so I happily give way to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

As I said, as a lawyer I realise that although the law is not irrelevant—of course it is not—political will often takes precedence, as we have seen in the history of the development of the EU. Surely my hon. Friend can accept that.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am afraid to say that I disagree with my hon. and almost learned Friend. Law is the foundation of what politicians do, and politicians use their political will through the law. Indeed, they have the ability through Parliament to change the law, but they cannot just ignore it.

That is why I want to come on to Sir Jon Cunliffe’s important letter. He makes two significant points. First, he notes that

“the EU institutions must only be used outside the EU Treaties with the consent of all Member States, and must respect the EU Treaties.”

In response to a question at a meeting of the European Scrutiny Committee last week from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), the Minister for Europe—who, if I may say so, was extremely helpful at the evidence session—said when asked whether permission had been given by the Government for the EU treaties to be used:

“No, we have not been asked so to do.”

It ought to be of grave concern to the House and to the country that the member states of the European Union, excluding us and the Czech Republic, have decided to proceed with a treaty without establishing that they are following the correct legal forms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That does not alter the fact that it is not an EU treaty, and that is the point. The Commission might well take a view on these matters, and that brings me to another key point. It is in our nation’s interests to ensure that the treaty works in protecting the euro in the long run. We do not want the euro to fail, because that would badly affect our economy. It is important that we continue a dialogue with the process but are not actually involved in it. It seems to me that what we have secured through the veto and our continued resistance to being a part of the treaty is essentially an overview on proceedings to ensure that the EU positions are safeguarded, because in so doing we will protect our interests and those of the overall single market.

It is important to note the comments of the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, who noted that the United States was concerned not about our failure to be part of the treaty, but about whether the treaty itself would succeed in its principal mission of enhancing the position of the euro. That is a clear expression of the American Government’s position, and it is consistent with our position because we, too, recognise that that is a fundamental priority. I am not often asked by constituents whether the treaty is an EU treaty or some other kind of treaty; what they are worried about are the economic circumstances in which they live, and that is what we have to start talking about.

Although I welcome the debate, I am disappointed that it was secured only as a result of Standing Order No. 24, and that for that reason we had less than 24 hours to consider it, but it is also necessarily important to talk about what will happen at the European Council, which is almost immediate. At that Council we need to drill down on the key issue of what we need to do to ensure that growth comes to Europe and to Britain.

[Mr Buckland]

On that point, should not priority be given to tackling the tariff barriers and, indeed, non-tariff barriers that often exist between the EU and countries such as Japan and other major competitors, which are a real block to more effective trade?

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for that intervention. It is crystal clear that we need to engage properly with the large economies, such as those of Japan, China and the US, because they understand that we are talking about a European dimension. He has hit the nail on the head in that regard. It is critical that we look outward for trade opportunities and inward to ensure that we are internally competitive. That means that the single market needs to be further upgraded and that the energy market needs to be made into a European market, because until it is we will continue to suffer from price variance and supply problems. If Members want to know about that, then rather than worrying too much about what is happening in Europe with regard to policy, they should just ask their constituents, who will tell them that they want more stable and lower energy prices, and the way to achieve that is by developing an energy market.

To do all those things, Britain must be a key player in the European Union, and the Government are rightly ensuring that we are. We have to be there in order to develop bilateral relationship and to be part of the leadership of the European Union, so it is right and proper that we show a responsible attitude to the way in which the treaty we are talking about unfolds. If we are seen to object to any measure intended to protect the euro or to deliberately obstruct the measure they wish to introduce, we are at risk of taking some blame for something that we do not want to happen in the first place. Therefore, it is in our interests to start co-operating with those nation states that are considering the treaty. That is why we should be sensible about the use of the EU institutions.

At the beginning of this whole process, immediately after the veto, I said that we should consider the questions relating to the use of the EU institutions. There are two good reasons for allowing the use of the EU institutions: first, to secure our reputation as a country that is involved, engaged and ready to contribute to the future of the EU; and secondly, to ensure that we can easily observe what is going on, because we have a clear and obvious interest in making sure that the EU treaties, such as the Lisbon treaty, are enforced and maintained as part of the governance of the EU. That is how we will be able to check the legality of the treaty we are talking about today. We will do that not by complaining about it or chucking grenades into the process, but by allowing it to happen and ensuring that we keep an eye on what is happening. That is the Government’s key objective and I am pleased to note that that is what the Government are doing.

I will end with the points that are really important to my constituents. In my constituency we need jobs, growth and investment. There are firms in my constituency that depend on European markets and that are part of significant and complicated supply chains stretching across Europe. We need to think about the importance of those supply chains to our economy and ensure that we encourage investment across Europe and between nation states where appropriate. The critical issue is to move the terms of debate away from the questions of treaties and so on and towards what we actually want the EU to do and how we express this country’s objectives for the EU. The electorate are much more impressed if we talk about economic growth, because that is one of their priorities, as it is ours. It is also a question of labour mobility, because when people are thinking about moving jobs they appreciate a flexible labour market, and one of the things the European Council should focus on in the coming days is labour mobility and youth employment. I note that that is on the agenda, and rightly so, and think that the electorate and the House will welcome it when the results are announced.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the debate. I have to leave at 3.30 pm, as I have advised you, but I have been here for the entire debate. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) but must say that I disagree with just about every word that he said. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on securing the debate, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud observed, we have had only a day’s notice of it. That was because my hon. Friend the Member for Stone was so fleet-footed and secured it through Standing Order No. 24. Should we not have had that emergency measure, we would have had no discussion whatsoever.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said that we had not had enough time to contemplate the matter, but we should contemplate the impact of this form of legislation even if we do not get debates on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), who is not here at the moment, have spent many long years studying the implications of what goes on in Europe for our economy and our legislature. It is extremely important that we do so. This is not about navel gazing.

I was somewhat disappointed in my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who seemed to feel that by studying the matter we are somehow being disloyal. It is not disloyalty. We are doing just service to our constituents, because although there may be the political will or ambition in Europe, the impact will be very much on us as a democratically elected Parliament. I, like many other colleagues, have been extremely disappointed by the mission creep throughout Europe, which has in effect led to imposition on a democratic country—such as Greece—by people who were never elected by that country but who now make decisions about it.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to correct a misapprehension. I apologise if I created the impression to which she refers, because it was not my intention at all. I think that we are all patriots in this House—we should be—and that although we may agree on the ends, we may differ on the means by which we achieve them. I should not for a moment question my hon. Friend’s integrity or her sincere devotion to her country.

[Mrs Main]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I end this part of the debate on that conciliatory note.

I have sincere concerns, however, that the mission creep that I mentioned in an intervention has led us to the point at which a democratic country can have something imposed upon it, leading to riots and civil unrest, because it is not willing to take the necessary pain that the EU must inflict on it. Although we are not today debating whether Greece should leave the EU, we all should heed the warning that when Greece signed up to being a full member of the EU it did not sign up to have something imposed upon it, as it has had.

Sri Lanka (Human Rights)

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Scott]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. During the conflict, we saw reports of murder, rape and torture. Now we are hearing about people being resettled into other people’s jobs and being moved into homes and areas where Tamils had lived. No one can deny what we saw in the Channel 4 programme; it was there. Some people have said that it was not correct and that it was not edited in the right way, but no matter how the programme was edited, someone is still dead at the end of it, killed by someone else. If there is ever to be reconciliation, we must have answers. Those answers are needed not only by the Tamil people, but by everyone in Sri Lanka, so that everyone can live in democracy and harmony. That can only be done if justice is done.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

On accountability and independence, does my hon. Friend agree that the forthcoming UN Human Rights Council is an ideal opportunity for that mechanism to be set forth, so that we have a genuinely independent process and that the questions that he properly raised can be answered?

[Mr Scott]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I will personally go to the Human Rights Council to try to ensure that that happens. I will be with other hon. Members from all parts of the House.

The Americans have explicitly stated that if the internal mechanism is flawed and accountability is not addressed, they will put pressure on an international mechanism to probe human rights abuses. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether we can support the Americans at the UN in Geneva.

Somalia

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I add my congratulations to the Foreign Secretary and his team on their leadership on Somalia. It is excellent that he visited Somalia to see first hand the challenges in rebuilding the country. The Secretary of State said last week:

“For the security of the UK, it matters a lot for Somalia to become a more stable place”.

I echo that, and I am pleased that the UK is hosting the Somalia conference.

Feltham and Heston has a small but significant Somali population. My experience is of a hard-working community looking to develop a life for their families, and of parents encouraging their children to do well at school and take up the opportunity of education that was denied to so many. Many make a positive contribution to the local community through voluntary and other work.

The leaders of the Darussalam Masjid and Cultural Centre in Heston have also shown a lead in helping fellow Somalis who have settled here to deal with the consequences of experiencing two decades of conflict and famine. I should like to build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) said about the aspiration of so many in the Somali community. The conference in two weeks’ time is an opportunity to highlight that other side of the story of Somalia and to keep it centre stage as a symbol of hope.

In my short contribution I shall deal with three matters: the engagement of the Somali diaspora, the situation of Somaliland, and developing systems and livelihoods, which is a theme of the conference. First, on the engagement of the Somali diaspora, I wanted to mention the helpful comments by the Secretary of State during the Chatham House event, which other Members have referred to, and the pledge that members of civil society and the Somali diaspora will have the opportunity to contribute positively to the conference outcomes. Will the Minister say more about that in his winding-up speech? Will members of the Somali diaspora in this country, including those from my constituency, be engaged in future activity? The conference will be the start of a new phase of work and its legacy is important. It would be a lost opportunity indeed not to build on some of the relationships and engagement that develop in the run-up to the conference.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful case for the diaspora community in her constituency. I have a diaspora community in Swindon, and I should like to reinforce to the Minister the hon. Lady’s point about the need for the mechanisms of engagement to be made clear so that my constituents, like the hon. Lady’s, can make a positive contribution to, for example, the future of Somaliland.

[Seema Malhotra]

I totally support the hon. Gentleman’s comment.

European Council

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

No, because I might take another intervention on something else. Time is limited and I cannot do justice to everyone.

On Tuesday the International Monetary Fund published its world economic outlook. It revised down its global growth forecasts, mainly because of developments in the eurozone. It now expects the eurozone to enter a recession in 2012, with GDP falling by 0.5%. Those of us outside the eurozone are not immune from that. The ongoing sovereign debt crisis is having a chilling effect on our economy, too. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), I do not want to see the euro fail.

The eurozone needs to find a credible and sustainable solution to the debt crisis. Beyond that, there is a challenge for all 27 EU member states to release the brakes on growth to generate wealth, jobs and enterprise, and that was very much the focus of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins).

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

On the point of improved opportunities for the single market, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Government take a clear message to the Council that work on improved tariff reform between the UK and Japan is vital for the British motor industry, particularly Honda in Swindon, which is a Japanese company based in the UK?

[Alistair Burt]

I can make no stronger a case for Honda in Swindon than my hon. Friend has made. He is absolutely right to focus on competitiveness, growth and the agenda that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will take forward there. I appreciate his comments. This informal European Council will rightly focus on growth and competitiveness, and it is vital that it makes progress ahead of the March European Council, which will also focus on growth.

The UK has played, and will continue to play, a strong and positive role in the EU as we and our European partners face the most pressing task of tackling our shared economic challenges. We are leading the arguments for growth and others continue to look to us for leadership. We have spearheaded the work of 16 member states, some inside the eurozone and some outside, in pressing for reforms to support growth. Together we have over the past year secured positive conclusions from European Councils that reflect our priorities. Action is now being taken, as shown by the Commission agreeing to exempt micro-businesses from EU regulation unless a clear case can be made for their inclusion.

Our diplomatic efforts to build alliances for growth continue in the European Council. The UK has agreed growth priorities for the informal Council with the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland and Estonia, which will cover: completing the single market; reducing the regulatory burden; what member states should do to improve labour markets; and reaffirming the importance of the external dimension of the single market.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also spoke to the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, at the weekend to discuss our shared priorities. They agreed that the steps we should take to strengthen growth and fight unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, in Europe will form the focus of the informal Council on Monday. A number of right hon. and hon. Members spoke about our engagement with Europe. The Prime Minister was very clear today when talking about engagement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) made clear. In response to the question the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked on Lisbon, I can tell him that the Prime Minister today said in Davos:

“For all the talk, the Lisbon Strategy has failed to deliver the structural reforms we need.”

It has largely been replaced by Europe 2020, which includes the sorts of benchmark the right hon. Gentleman referred to. The fact remains that we need to be bolder in the structural reforms we pursue to promote growth. The Prime Minister also said:

“Britain has been arguing for a pro-business agenda in Europe… Over the last year we have spearheaded work with 15 other member states across the EU... This weekend Chancellor Merkel joined me in calling for a package of deregulation and liberalisation policies… But we need to be bolder still. Here’s the checklist: all proposed EU measures tested for their impact on growth; a target to reduce the overall burden of EU regulation; and a new proportionality test to prevent needless barriers to trade in services and slash the number of regulated professions in Europe. Together with our international partners, we also need to take decisive action to get trade moving.”

That is what the EU needs, and that is what the informal Council will concentrate on.

Iran (Human Rights)

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Ellman]

That report is extremely important in documenting the wide range of persecution in Iran. It is important that the report is made known more widely and leads to action. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work during the previous Parliament as Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which considered human rights in Iran and specifically referred to some of these issues, including the Baha’is and other groups to whom he referred. The Select Committee’s work in drawing public attention to the situation is extremely important, but what also matters is that the information is used and followed by action, in this country and internationally. I note that both the present Government and the previous Government have taken the issue of general persecution against a range of people in Iran seriously and have raised it. Their work has been good, but much more still needs to be done.

In March 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed a special rapporteur to monitor Iran’s compliance on human rights, and last December the General Assembly expressed deep concern about a wide range of abuse that is continuing and, in some cases, escalating. It stated that the abuse includes a “dramatic increase” in the use of torture, the systematic targeting of human rights defenders, pervasive violence against women, and continuing discrimination against minorities, including members of the Baha’i faith.

Regrettably, those representations, and the work done by our Government and others in the United Nations—and, indeed, in Europe—have not had a great deal of effect. Persecution continues and concerns are escalating. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) referred to the concerns expressed by the Canadian Senator, Roméo Dallaire, who has drawn attention to the rise in atrocities in Iran, both generally and specifically against the Baha’is. It is extremely important that the world does not wait until there is a genocide. It should heed warning and take further action to put pressure on the Government of Iran to stop what they are doing. The Minister does good work in this area, but what further representations does he intend to make? Will he make representations to those members of the UN Human Rights Council who did not feel able to join in the condemnation of the atrocities, in order to persuade them to increase the pressure and join that widespread condemnation?

I have a specific request: will the Government call for Dr Bielefeldt, the UN special rapporteur on the freedom of religion or belief, to be granted a visa to visit Iran, so that he can compile a new report on freedom of religion or belief there? Dr Bielefeldt’s comments in October 2011 on the extreme nature of the persecution of the Baha’is in Iran are extremely alarming. Will the Minister do all that he can to support the issuing of a visa from Iran to allow Dr Bielefeldt to visit and conduct further investigations?

Too little is known about the plight of the Baha’is. Some Members may be aware of it only from their constituency work and their work with refugees. Many of us find that people in our constituencies are seeking asylum on grounds of persecution following their experiences in Iran. I have met a number of such people. Indeed, I am in the process of making representations on behalf of two Baha’is from Iran who are seeking asylum following persecution in their homeland, in this case for their work in the field of the arts. That demonstrates the Iranian regime’s repression of its whole population.

Last July, the popular Iranian comedian, Omid Djalili, wrote in The Guardian about the plight of the Baha’is and, indeed, his own experience as a Baha’i. He wrote about his experience as a member of an Iranian football team in Northern Ireland. He was a valued and successful member of the team, but when his colleagues discovered that he was a Baha’i, he was cold-shouldered and dropped from the team, which is an example of absolute prejudice against Baha’is.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady referred to the 1991 memorandum. Does this not go beyond a culture? It is an actual black-and-white policy, as laid out by the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. The memorandum needs to be withdrawn so that there is not a policy in black and white, with expulsion from universities, exclusion from employment, and general exclusion from life in Iran.

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with the tenor of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. In the context of the whole field of human rights in Iran, we are talking not about persecution by individuals, and something that is inconsistent with the general tenor of the way in which the Government operate, but about state-sanctioned persecution, which is what makes it so ominous and horrendous. That is why it so important that action is taken, not just nationally—we cannot achieve very much on our own—but internationally. It is extremely important that people understand what is happening—that this is part of the state apparatus, not an anomaly.

Omid Djalili wrote a number of interesting things in his article. He wrote about his own experience. I was privileged to hear him speak about it directly at the House of Commons only a few months ago when he addressed a meeting held by the all-party friends of the Baha’is group—of which I am the treasurer—about human rights in general. In his Guardian article, he took the issue further than his individual experiences. He wrote about the general situation in Iran in relation to Baha’is and how he felt that their plight had been ignored for far too long in Iran as well as outside it. He wrote:

“Nowadays, the climate feels different. In February 2009 a group of Iranian intellectuals, writers, activists and artists signed an open letter to the Bahá’ís stating their regret concerning the Iranian government’s treatment of its Bahá’í minority. They made an open apology for their silence during Iran’s long-running persecutions: ‘a century and a half of oppression and silence is enough’. This letter was welcomed by the Bahá’ís, who have always made it clear they are humanitarians, not political activists, working towards social transformation for all at a grassroots level, not concerned with overthrowing governments.”

It is important that people understand that the nature of the Baha’is is peace-loving. They want to unify people and do not seek division and dissent. It is important that that gentle approach is not misunderstood, that people understand what is happening to the Baha’is and, indeed, to other groups, and that they are willing to take action about it.

I hope that this debate will focus attention on Iran’s deplorable record on human rights across the board. The abuses affect far too many people. I hope that it will shine some light on the position of the Baha’is, whose plight is little known and little understood. What matters most, however, is that action is taken. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Sergei Magnitsky

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr MacShane]

I would support that. Perhaps some right hon. and hon. Members present might combine to ask the Backbench Business Committee for a longer debate, which might allow a slight pause for breath and more development of some of these themes. In particular, it would show the Russian authorities that this is a cross-party affair, with support from a considerable number of Members of both Houses.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I just want to add Canada to the list. It has also passed legislation in similar terms to the United States, so it is not just one country but many countries taking a strong stand against these appalling acts.

[Mr MacShane]

Poland and, I believe, the Netherlands have done so as well, but the addition of Canada, which is a great beacon of democracy and a Commonwealth country, is most welcome.

Yes, I believe that we should be doing what has been set out. We should not need to have a debate, because I hope that when the Minister replies, he will tell us that he fully accepts that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will put a statement, a note, in the Library tomorrow, with those names on it, saying that they are not welcome in the UK, and will pass the names on to Europol and Interpol. So far, the FCO has resisted that idea and has constantly sought to downplay the Magnitsky affair. The FCO position or, more accurately, the Whitehall position has been to shelter behind Russian bureaucracy.

On 15 November 2011, the Minister for Immigration finally replied to a letter that I sent him in August on the idea of a visa ban. That was a very discourteous gap between my letter and his reply. He wrote:

“The Russian Presidential Council on Human Rights presented to President Medvedev its report on Mr Magnitsky’s arrest and treatment”

and the

“Minister of the Interior has announced that its own internal investigation has not found any evidence of abuses by their officials”.

Well, that is a surprise—a bureaucracy defends its own people. Nevertheless,

“the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation chaired by Alexander Bastrykin”

would report by 24 November. To my knowledge, no such report was issued, and it is time for the FCO and Home Office to stop parroting Russian excuses for inaction and instead to follow the example of the United States, Canada and Poland and make it clear that those who stole the money that Magnitsky was investigating and then colluded in his death should not be given a permanent status of impunity by Whitehall fiat.

In an earlier reply to a parliamentary question from me on 13 July 2011, the Minister for Immigration—I welcome the Under-Secretary from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but this is as much a matter for the Home Office as it is for the FCO—confirmed the following:

“The Secretary of State for the Home Department…does have the power to exclude foreign nationals whose presence in the UK she judges would not be conducive to the public good”,

but he added that

“the duty of confidentiality means that the Government are unable to discuss the details of individual immigration cases.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 398W.]

I am sorry, but that will not do and it is not true. Her Majesty’s Government have regularly published the names of those to whom they deny visa entry. They include or included the TV cook Martha Stewart, the actor George Raft, the Scientologist L. Ron Hubbard and even a Nobel laureate, the Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, who wrote:

“Death is the stone into which our oblivion hardens.”

It is the wish of the Russian authorities that Magnitsky’s death hardens into oblivion, but as another great writer who lived under communism, Milan Kundera, wrote:

“The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”

Let us not hear from the Minister today that the Government cannot publish the names of the people whom they ban. We should not allow Magnitsky to be forgotten. If the Home Office can publicly ban a cook, an actor, a loopy and a poet, surely it can ban those Russian officials named as associates in this massive theft, then the arrest and ill- treatment to the point of death of a lawyer representing a British citizen and his company.

Modern Russian apparatchiks like to visit, buy flats in and educate their children in London. If we name and shame and announce that they will lose those privileges if they break the law and allow a lawyer representing a British firm to die in agony for having defended his client’s interest, diplomatic pressure will be focused and sharp and will send a clear state-to-state signal that Russia cannot live above the law.

This is not just about Russia, however. We need to find ways of sending signals to mid-level officials in other authoritarian regimes that when they break the law, the doors of Britain are not easily open to them. A new approach is required to create a new tool of democratic diplomacy—namely, the precisely targeted travel ban that is made public so that all law-abiding state officials in Russia and elsewhere can see that corruption and collusion in murder are no longer crimes without sanction. That is what more and more decent Russian citizens want.

A further signal could be sent. Just as Mr Putin is not welcome on the streets of Moscow today, Britain should say that he is not welcome at the opening ceremonies of the London Olympics. In 1980, Mrs Thatcher had the guts to say no to a formal British endorsement of the Moscow Olympics after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If the Prime Minister wants to emulate the Iron Lady, he should say no to Mr Putin, who will use the London Olympics and the winter Olympics in two years’ time as events for self-promotion.

Of the 20 years since the end of communism, Russia spent the first decade being plundered by oligarchs and the second decade being robbed by state functionaries up to the highest level. It is time that Russia became a normal rule-of-law nation and its tax collectors levied taxes for the good of the people, not their own offshore bank accounts.