Srebrenica Genocide (20th Anniversary)

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour and a privilege to follow the excellent and moving speech by my hon. Friend on the other side of the House, as I like to call him, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who had a distinguished career in Bosnia and who has done so much since to raise what happened not only in Srebrenica but in so many other places. I have often been truly moved when he has told me of his experiences during those times, as well as those of his wife and many others. Truly, one can only imagine the horrors that he and many others saw.

It is a bleak week, as my hon. Friend said. Today, we remember those who were tragically killed in the 7/7 bombings in London. It is only a short while since the horrific attacks in Tunisia. Tragically, it is the 20th anniversary of the genocide—it is clear that it was a genocide—in Srebrenica. It is an opportunity to stop and reflect on the consequences that hate, intolerance, ideology and, dare I say it, turning a blind eye can have for men, girls, boys and women—humans who share the same blood and flesh as us, regardless of their religion, ethnicity and background. It was truly moving to attend the memorial in Westminster Abbey yesterday and to have the chance to meet again many people I was able to meet on a trip with Remembering Srebrenica to Srebrenica, Potocari, Tuzla and other locations. I saw the places where such horror and brutality emerged, and I can say without hesitation that it was one of the most moving experiences of my life.

I remember what I was doing in 1995. I was 15 years old. I was out celebrating with friends on the beaches of west Wales, having a good time and relaxing, yet Nedžad Avdic, who my hon. Friend referred to and whom I have met, was just two years older and was being corralled into a building with his family and friends. He saw so many brutally murdered and executed around him. That struggle, which my hon. Friend illustrated so clearly with Nedžad’s words, serves as an example to us all. We might live in the same continent, but great horrors can emerge at any time.

While I was in Bosnia, we travelled to Srebrenica and Potocari on a bus. As we approached one of the tunnels on the windy roads through the beautiful Bosnian countryside, one of our guides—he was also a survivor, and his name was Mohammed—said, “This is where I emerged from the tunnel.” I said, “What do you mean?” He was one of those who managed to escape to make that long, arduous march through the mountains, attempting to evade the Serb forces at every step. Those people suffered without food and water in brutal circumstances. He was one of the lucky ones—he survived. He told me that he had done a lot of survival training as a youngster in equivalent bodies to the scouts. He used those skills, but his friends and those around him who did not have that skill of surviving in the wilderness often succumbed or were lured down to what they thought was safety by Serbs who told them to come down from the mountains. In fact they were being lured to their deaths—that was the brutality of it. I was taken aback by the video footage kept by those who committed the atrocities. While we were in Potocari we saw some truly chilling footage of executions, of people being led away and of people being lured falsely to their deaths. It will stick with me for the rest of my life.

We also went, as my hon. Friend reflected, to the mortuary and saw the work of the International Commission on Missing Persons. I was truly shocked not only that brutal murders had been carried out, but that the Serb forces chose to disturb the mass graves and dig bodies up. They knew that the evidence would emerge, so they tampered with the remains. They split them across multiple graves. It is truly shocking.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been to Srebrenica, and I think it leaves an indelible mark on the soul of anyone who has been. It was such a dreadful occurrence.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the International Commission on Missing Persons. When I visited, we met ladies who still have not found their husbands and sons because of the atrocities that the Serbs committed with the reburial of bodies. The ladies of Srebrenica cannot lay their loved ones to rest. I commend publicly the work that the International Commission on Missing Persons is doing to try to identify remains through DNA and other means. That would enable those people at least to lay their loved ones to rest.

[Stephen Doughty]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I was struck by how so many people were not afforded dignity in their life and were then also denied it in their death, as were their families. Many Srebrenica mothers are sitting in the Public Gallery, and I have been struck by how they just want the matter resolved—they just want to know where their loved ones lay. Advances in technology have enabled identifications to take place, but the extent of the desecration and damage to the graves was such that a number of individuals still cannot be identified. I praise the work of those involved in the International Commission on Missing Persons and others who have done such diligent work over many years trying to bring that sense of closure to the families. I must point out that that feeling is shared by the new generation in the Balkans. One of the workers we met in the mortuary was from Serbia. She was absolutely dedicated to her work, and she wanted to ensure justice and dignity for the families so brutally broken apart by these acts.

Much has been said, and many reports have been written, about the terrible events of that time in Bosnia. Much focus has been put on the situation of the Dutch forces in Potocari and others. To my mind, the actions that took place were deeply concerning and unconscionable. To walk around the battery factory and other locations where thousands were effectively sent to their deaths is a deeply disturbing experience.

It is fair to say that although I am proud of this country’s role in recognising the genocide, in holding memorial events such as we saw yesterday and in hosting the President of Bosnia and many others—including the mothers and survivors in the last few days—we must take a step back and reflect as an international community. This weekend, a number of concerning allegations were made in The Observer concerning what the wider international community knew about directive 7 and about the speech that Ratko Mladic gave to the Bosnian Assembly where he said of the enclaves:

“My concern is to have them vanish completely.”

There were questions about the messages or signals alleged to have been given to Mladic, Karadžic, the Bosnian Government and others about the tenability of the enclaves. We know that on 2 June, Mladic ordered the destruction of Muslim forces in the enclaves, but it is important that we are frank about the worrying allegations that some members of the intelligence services from other countries—including, I am sorry to say, the UK—knew about some of the Serb plans.

I do not think it would be right to focus on individuals, but the allegations are serious and worrying. I do not know their veracity, but it is vital that the international community does all it can to own up to whatever faults and failings there were, as happened after the terrible genocide in Rwanda and other international atrocities. I ask the Minister gently for some assurance that those allegations are being looked at and that any evidence that emerges will be shared in full and frank detail. Now, we can only learn from the horrors, and from the failure at all levels to protect all those people in Srebrenica and at other locations. We must do that. We assume that the march of progress is inevitable and that these crimes cannot happen again, but unfortunately it has been shown far too often that they can.

When we were in Sarajevo, we saw a remarkable and moving exhibition of photos of survivors from Srebrenica and the surrounding areas. I encourage everyone to see it, because it is an important indicator of what happened. It was displayed alongside an exhibition about the horrors and atrocities being committed in Syria today. We need to reflect on the fact that, tragically, we often consider situations after the event and look back at what may have gone wrong. There has been much controversy in the House about the votes and decisions that we have taken on Syria, on which Members have different views. Why do we always focus on those decisions, rather than look back two and a half or three years earlier to understand how we got to a position where such atrocities and flagrant abuses of human rights could take place? That is something for all of us to reflect on.

It is all very well to judge or criticise those who have taken specific decisions, but the question is: how did we allow this to happen on European soil just 20 years ago? How can we work, on all sides of the House, across the continent and across the world, to ensure that such horrors can never happen again?

European Union Referendum Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am going to make some more progress, because I have been extremely generous in giving way.

On the franchise, the Government are right to use the same basic approach as 40 years ago in the last European referendum and as 33 days ago in the general election—in other words, the parliamentary voting register. I do not begrudge extending the franchise to a particular group of 790 people, but I say to the Foreign Secretary that if we are going to extend the franchise to 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90-year-olds in the House of Lords, I think we should also extend it to 16 and 17-year-olds. On this side of the House we are in favour of giving these young adults the right to vote in all elections. This is an issue of principle—it is about giving them as citizens the right to participate in our democracy.

I suspect that during the course of this debate and the Bill’s Committee stage we will hear arguments against doing that, but I simply say that they will have a ring of familiarity about them, because on every single occasion in the past 200 years that someone has had the temerity to suggest that the franchise should be extended, the forces of conservatism—with a small c—have said, “Don’t be ridiculous”; “It’ll undermine the fabric of society”; or, “They are incapable of exercising the necessary judgment.”

After all, during debates on the Reform Act 1832, landowners said that the only people who could vote were those who had an interest in the land—the people who owned it. In 1912, Lord Curzon said about votes for women:

“Women do not have the experience to be able to vote.”

If we substitute the words “16 and 17-year-olds” for the word “Women”, we will see that exactly the same argument is being made today. Indeed, the same argument was made when a Labour Government lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. It is the same old excuse of an argument against giving people a say, and it is completely at odds with the other rights we already give to 16 and 17-year-olds, including the right to work, pay tax and join the armed forces. [Interruption.] I am well aware of what the Foreign Secretary is saying, but they can also be company directors and consent to medical treatment—it is a long, long list.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is odd that the Government’s position on the Wales Act 2014 is to devolve to the Welsh Government the power to decide whether 16 and 17-year-olds can be given the vote? The Government are giving that power to Wales and it has been exercised in Scotland, yet they are blocking it in this instance.

[Hilary Benn]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point as to why the franchise should be extended.

Britain in the World

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) and two excellent speeches from the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), particularly given the maritime connections between our three great cities and the mutual links we have with Malawi and Yemen.

The next five years present this House and this country not only with crucial choices about our public finances and public services but with fundamental decisions about Britain’s role and capacity within the world. I would argue that the decisions we take on international issues over the next five years will have a far greater impact on the prospects for millions of Britons over the remainder of the century than the majority of the individual Bills that we will consider in this Parliament.

I fear much that the Tory Government have proposed in this Queen’s Speech. I fear the impact of swingeing cuts to our social security safety net on the most vulnerable and I fear the continuation of systematic and partisan attacks on our civil society, trade unions and our fundamental rights and protections. What I fear most of all, however, is the risk that this House and this country will descend further into insular nationalism, whether it is Welsh, English, Scottish or British, which could leave us a broken, isolated and increasingly irrelevant rump on the fringes of western Europe, unable to stand up for the values of our citizens in an increasingly disordered, fragmented and challenging world.

This House, this Government and the citizens of the United Kingdom face a choice: do we stand together as a country in Europe and the world robust, equipped and engaged to deal with the challenges of poverty, climate change, conflict, human rights abuses, barbarous ideologies and changing technologies, or do we allow ourselves to be overcome with fear or the misty eyed vision of empire past and break apart or break away from the co-operation and solidarity that allows us to face those challenges with optimism, hope and determined purpose, both as the UK and within the EU? I will say without hesitation that I believe that our future and the future prospects of people in my constituency and across Wales and the UK are best served by a positive vote to stay in the European Union.

The EU needs reform. Of that, there is no doubt. Whether it is the absurdity of the two-seat Parliament, the overbearing nature of the often poorly accountable European Commission, or the obsession of some European leaders with the project rather than delivering benefits for European citizens, many changes are needed. Let us not forget that, in the year in which we celebrate 70 years since the end of the most brutal world war, in which millions died—the second war to devastate our continent in the last century—the fundamental principles of the European Union are worth standing up for: peace and security; freedom and tolerance; economic co-operation and trade; a Europe of social justice that recognises that the whole continent prospers when we support the poorest and most fragile members; and a Europe with a voice of progressive values in the world, alongside the United States in a world faced by the threat of an increasingly belligerent Russian Administration and the uncertainties and opportunities inherent in the rise of the east and the south. Just over two decades ago, China and the EU traded almost nothing, but today we form the second largest source of economic co-operation in the world, trading more than €1 billion every day. We are the most open market for developing countries and in the face of one of the greatest global challenges, climate change, we have stood together for carbon efficiency and international co-operation to find a deal that delivers.

It is not just that global vision but hard economic facts that matter for my constituents. Some 500 firms from other EU member states are based in Wales, employing more than 54,000 people, and 150,000 jobs in Wales depend on access to the European single market. Companies such as Airbus, which employs more than 6,500 people in Wales, including some just over the border from my constituency in Newport, have cautioned that they might reconsider their investment in the UK in the event of Britain leaving the EU.

To leave the European Union would be the greatest act of economic, political and classic folly in the past 100 years. It would be a fearful and foolish response to a world of opportunity and challenge.

Yemen

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I should make it clear that, historically, Yemen is a country that has never been broken down along sectarian lines and we hope that is not gong to be the case here. We remain firmly committed to supporting both the integrity of the Yemeni state and President Hadi’s elected Government to implement this peace agreement, along with all parties, including the Houthis.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, may I associate myself very much with the comments of my right hon. Friends the Members for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and for Warley (Mr Spellar) and the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan)? The situation in Yemen is of great concern to many constituents of mine in Cardiff, particularly in Butetown and Cardiff bay, many of whom are of Yemeni heritage. What advice does the Minister have for those who may be worried about friends, family and relatives who are British citizens but who may not have followed the travel advice and may be in Yemen at the moment? Can he suggest what specifically they should do, and can he also give an assurance that the UK Government will give this issue a much higher priority, not only because of the current situation, but because of the poverty and insecurity that there have been in Yemen for far too many years?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman raises two very important points. First, while this subject may not have had a high profile in the media, that does not mean it has been a low priority for the Foreign Office, the United States and the Friends of Yemen—including in our work with Saudi Arabia. It is of huge concern, but it has not been on the front pages.

Secondly, I agree that many of our constituents will be concerned about what is going on and for loved ones and friends. I advise the hon. Gentleman to encourage his constituents to look at the FCO website, where there will be updates and information on ways to get in touch with the Foreign Office desk. If there are any complications, I would ask him to get in touch with me personally and I will make sure that that communication link is established.

Government Strategy Against IS

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

As the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said, as things stand today we have ruled nothing out. We want to see the defeat of ISIL and an inclusive political process in Iraq and in Syria—those are our objectives.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have spoken to many young people across Cardiff South and Penarth who are deeply concerned by videos, images and extremist propaganda from ISIL, and those who have gone to fight for it, being distributed on platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, Ask FM, BBM and WhatsApp. What discussions have the Government had with those platforms about disrupting those activities, and what methods are they using to rebut many of the extremist arguments being put forward?

[Mr Lidington]

I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s horror at the ready accessibility of those images. He will understand that there are practical challenges in any Government anywhere in the world trying to control the internet. I will write to him about the specifics.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

Yes I do, and you, Mr Speaker, and others at all levels in this place are trying to show best practice. In effect, we are trying to build a democratic country in a country that has not been a democracy. We are trying to embed democratic institutions and that requires a lot of work, and I pay tribute to those right across this House—officials, civil servants, Ministers, Opposition MPs. All of us have a part to play in this, given our long-standing close affinity and history with that country.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to provide protection for British civilian personnel currently working in Afghanistan.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)]

Government Departments take the duty of care for our civilian personnel serving in Afghanistan extremely seriously and all civilian personnel are provided with a high level of protection, but for obvious reasons, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, we do not publicly comment on the nature of that protection.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for his answer. In the light of the recent horrific attacks in Kabul, and, indeed, the risks to British civilians working for peace and development worldwide, can the Minister assure us that the Department will be keeping advice given to civilians under constant review and that proactive communication will continue to be made, particularly with non-governmental organisations, on that matter?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The travel advice is reviewed on a regular basis and each time there is an attack or any intelligence. It is cross-checked against what we are doing in other parts of Government and is kept under constant review.

Ukraine

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. I must not stray too far into the responsibilities of my colleagues, but it is important that our energy supply is not only efficient but sufficiently diverse for our national security. That will become an even more important consideration over the next few years.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the dangers of provocative misinformation by Russia, via media or social media, what discussions did the Foreign Secretary have with the Ukrainian Government on ensuring that the Ukrainian people, including those in Crimea, continue to have free and unfettered access to objective sources of information on what is happening in their country?

[Mr Hague]

That is an important point and a difficult one for the Ukrainian authorities, because Russian state television is broadcast in many regions of Ukraine, where people therefore hear only one partial side of the argument. From what I could see, the Ukrainian authorities are taking every step to correct misinformation whenever they can and are giving maximum information to the world’s media. However, this is one of those occasions when it is important for people to use social media and listen to different sources of information, because they will not receive the truth from just one source.

Ukraine, Syria and Iran

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I agree very much with my hon. Friend about working with Russia, and that in the 21st century we live in a world of global networks in which the power of ideas has become more important than spheres of influence. Democracy, accountability and human rights are ideas that cannot be suppressed, and should not be suppressed. We look at international diplomacy in that way. I agree that the age of spheres of influence is now over.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Chancellor and others about the role that international financial regulatory bodies, banks and, indeed, other treasuries can play to give practical support to investigations into corruption? Where wrongdoing is proven, what steps can be taken not only to freeze but return assets to the Ukrainian people?

[Mr Hague]

Where we have evidence of corruption, we can act: those who are called politically exposed persons and who live in the UK are subject to that scrutiny. The Treasury is very much in favour of that. The Foreign Office and Treasury will work closely in ensuring that the international financial support I have been speaking about is based on clear conditions and on transparency and that it is used effectively, not in a way that feeds corruption.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have more knowledge and a higher comfort level when it comes to speaking about the concerns of Welsh speakers than of those who speak Gaelic, but I recognise that my hon. Friend, in drawing the House’s attention to the issue of Gaelic translation, is making an extremely important point. Both my hon. Friends, the Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Ilford South, who have intervened thus far have, through their specific points—including one I have raised a number of times—essentially made the broader point that there has been a huge consultation deficit with this Bill. That is most unlike the way in which referendums usually take place. It is sad, if I may put it this way, that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South has had to seek to address particular aspects of that consultation deficit by forcing the Minister for Europe and, indeed, the Bill’s sponsor, to consider the issue of Welsh translation and of Gaelic translation, too.

Let me come back to the broader point I was making about the need for proper consultation with the Electoral Commission and the need for sufficient time to allow that commission to do the thoughtful work that all who have an interest in this referendum want it to do. My concern is that the further work that the Electoral Commission has said in its statement is necessary would not be available to the House of Commons to discuss.

It is true that the further work of the Electoral Commission might be available for the deliberations in the other place. It is possible that the other place might amend the Bill, in which case it could come back to this place, but there is absolutely no guarantee that the other place would pass an amendment to this particular part of the Bill, allowing this House, the primary Chamber, to consider the Electoral Commission’s further work. It would be some irony, would it not, if the other place were left to make the key decisions on a Bill that is being presented as the chance to win back powers for the House of Commons?

We know how important it is to get potential referendum questions right. There was protracted and lengthy debate in Scotland about the wording of the question for the referendum that is due to take place next year. After proper consultation had taken place there, the First Minister was forced to back a new form of words. Hon. Members will also recall the debate surrounding the wording of the most recent referendum to take place across the whole of the UK—the alternative vote referendum, which asked the electorate whether they preferred the alternative vote system over the traditional first-past-the-post electoral system.

I suspect that some of us will find it less comfortable than others to recall the result of that referendum. However, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) noted in Committee, referendums are sometimes nothing like as clear-cut as the EU referendum was and can instead be decided by “minute percentages”. The referendum on whether Quebec should stay part of Canada, for example, was decided by less than 1% back in 1995. It is absolutely vital to consider carefully the wording of the question. It is also vital to ensure that we have a fair process to determine what the question should be and that we think through the psychological impact that a particular form of words might have on the question.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the situation in Quebec. Does he also recognise that a significant degree of debate and concern was expressed before, during and after that referendum about the very wording of the question, which resulted in the Canadian House of Commons having to pass a clarity Bill about referendum questions and how they should be considered by Parliament?

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend has studied his Canadian history, and the House is better informed as a result. I suspect that we need some form of clarity Act to try to encourage the Minister for Europe—or, indeed, the Foreign Secretary—to set out what powers and competences they want the Prime Minister to repatriate back to the UK after the treaty change that they say is coming. We are in the dark because neither the Minister for Europe nor the Foreign Secretary will tell the House—nor will the Prime Minister. Hopefully, a clarity Act is not needed in the context of the referendum question, but I hope that my hon. Friend’s point about the Canadian clarity Act might finally jog the Minister for Europe into some action and clarity about the broader issues before us.

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 set out a number of important changes to how we do politics in our country—in particular, the regulation of referendums. Under the 2000 Act, the Electoral Commission, that much respected independent body responsible for supervising and implementing the regulatory framework of our electoral system, has a statutory responsibility to report on the intelligibility of a question included in a referendum Bill. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister for Europe is getting advice from the Whips in the form of the former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister. One hopes that the Minister is being passed information about the Prime Minister’s intentions on powers and competences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I was not challenging Mr Speaker’s judgment on this matter, but the hon. Gentleman was perhaps over-interpreting the reasons why his amendment had been selected for debate.

With regard to the amendments on the Welsh language, we have already had legislation on referendums that uses the terminology set out in this Bill.

[Stephen Doughty]

What consultations have the Minister and the Bill’s promoter had with the Welsh Language Commissioner, a new office set up in the past year to provide advice on issues such as whether there is an important difference between “version” and “translation”, and all the permutations of that?

[Mr Lidington]

I will leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South, if he wishes to respond as the promoter of the Bill. We have a clear example within the past two years of a referendum that has been conducted in the UK, including within Wales. I do not recall any instance in that context when people in Wales protested that the wording in the Welsh language was in any way misleading. That question was based on the use of the term “Welsh version” in the parent legislation.

With regard to Scots Gaelic, we are dealing here with a UK-wide referendum. We have, under specific legislation, provision for UK elections and UK referendums to include a Welsh language version of the questions or party names on the relevant ballot papers. There is no equivalent in UK legislation for Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic or any other language to be used in that way, so, again, the provisions in the Bill are completely in line with normal precedent as regards UK practice in legislation.

Finally, there is the important category of amendments on the wording of the question, which draw upon the Electoral Commission’s recent report. It is important to bear in mind how the commission went about its work and the tone with which it presented its report. It carried out 103 interviews with individuals and received representations from 19 individuals and organisations. On the basis of those consultations and its own analysis, it concluded that the Bill met most of the tests that it would normally expect any referendum question to meet. It did not put forward an alternative wording but, rather usually, suggested—I use the term deliberately—two possible alternative wordings. There was no suggestion anywhere in its findings that the question drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South was misleading or in any way designed to be unfair, but it suggested that Parliament might like to consider some alternative forms of words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

It is a pleasure to be able to speak to amendments in this group, which is the most important of the three groups, because the question used in the referendum is a fundamental issue. My amendments relate principally to the question, and there are subsidiary amendments that relate to the Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish situations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) eloquently explained why amendments 35 and 36 have been tabled. The original wording of the question in the draft Bill published on 14 May was:

“Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?”

That original proposal was subsequently changed, according to the Daily Mail, as a result of lobbying by Eurosceptics. The newspaper said that

“anti-Brussels MPs privately protested that the word ‘remain’ would prompt voters to stay in”

and so

“the wording has been changed”.

The question has therefore been changed at the behest of Eurosceptics, contrary to the original intention and to the very strong advice of the Electoral Commission.

We face a dilemma. We could go for the alternative suggested by amendment 36, which puts both sides of the case. Presumably, the ballot paper could have two boxes and people could tick one to remain in or another to leave. In my opinion, however, the wording of the original proposal in the original draft Bill is preferable and I would like the House to have the opportunity to vote on it, because I think it is consistent with the original intention and clear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has said, it would deal with the small number of people—the polling evidence clearly shows that there are some—who are not even aware that this country is in the European Union.

[Stephen Doughty]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this situation underlines why we need the Electoral Commission to provide guidance and expert advice to the public and to arbitrate the process neutrally, and why the comments made by the chairman of the Conservative party were so disappointing and quite sinister?

[Mike Gapes]

I agree that Michael Green’s remarks were wrong. It is important to remember, as a helpful House of Commons Library note makes clear, that

“the Electoral Commission has a duty to assess the intelligibility of the question”,

that it has published guidance on that, and that it uses

“focus groups and similar techniques to ensure that the electorate understand the question.”

That may not be convenient for those people quoted by the Daily Mail as having lobbied for a particular outcome in the drafting of the question, but the fact is that the Electoral Commission is the expert. It has carried out thorough research and its report is critical of the question proposed and suggests that we at least go back to the original question, as set out in my amendment 35. Incidentally, that was also the subject of an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), which, although it was not selected for debate, I think shows that there is cross-party concern about this matter.

It is important that we have clarity, because a referendum on leaving the European Union will have enormous economic and political consequences for our country and its international relationships and for British citizens, including the 1.4 million living in other EU countries, a large number of whom will, according to the Government, be deprived of being able to vote in the referendum. It will also have implications for new Europeans and for British people who have married citizens of new EU countries. Those new Europeans may be living and working in this country and they may have children at school here. They are contributing to our country, but they might not be able to have a say in the referendum. The question must be clear and not leave any room for ambiguity or doubt about the outcome. People should not be able to say afterwards that the referendum was rigged and unfair and that the result should therefore not be accepted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making extremely important points. Does he recall that the Government wasted £350,000 on printing English-only versions of the ballot papers for the police and crime commissioner elections? Their record on bilingual ballot papers is not good and they should give the matter much more serious consideration.

[Mike Gapes]

I agree absolutely. I hope that the Government will give the matter further consideration and realise that amendment 37 is not a frivolous amendment, but a serious one that relates to important issues of concern. It needs to be considered on that basis.

Amendment 38 states that there should be consultation with the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government. That consultation would be helpful in ensuring that the question in the Welsh language was correct and accurate, and that it was not simply a version, but a translation of the wording being voted on in other parts of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 35 and to oppose amendment 36. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), hold strong views about amendment 35, and it is important that the House expresses its view on the amendment, too. The wording should make specific reference to our remaining in the European Union. It should not give the impression to the public when they come to make their decision that we are not already in the European Union.

The past has shown us that the wording of the referendum question is important in that it not only frames the debate but affects voter understanding. If the wording of the question for a referendum in 2017 is left solely to the Government, and the Government have not taken sufficient notice of an independent body such as the Electoral Commission, the question could be misleading, deliberately vague or confusing, or reflect a bias leaning one way or another. In short, the wording of the question in a particularly close referendum could affect whether voters choose to remain in the EU or to leave it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) pointed out, we need only cast our minds back to the 1995 independence referendum in Quebec. After a failed independence referendum in 1980, the Parti Québécois was brought back into power in 1994 and quickly called for a fresh referendum. It asked the people of Quebec:

“Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”

That is a long referendum question, which caused a great deal of confusion, to the extent that the referendum was taken again. Led by Federal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien of the Liberal party, the no campaign complained that the yes campaign’s approach of offering sovereignty and association with Canada was not clear enough, and federalists said that the word “country”, as in “sovereign country”, had been left out intentionally to confuse voters. It also complained that the wording of the question, particularly the phrase

“the agreement signed on June 12, 1995”,

might imply that the new economic and political partnership had somehow already been secured, in the same way as the question proposed by the Government gives the impression that the UK might not already be a member of the EU by omitting to mention that we are.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend again mentions Quebec, which is an important issue that the Government and the promoter of the Bill need to consider. Another issue was that the period of uncertainty lasted for many years afterwards. The clarity Act was not passed until 1999, so the debate about whether the question was clear was wrangled over for four or five years. Many argued that the uncertainty created by the referendum and the question contributed to Canada’s poor economic performance in the 1990s. It had wider implications, not only legal and constitutional ones.

[Mark Hendrick]

I totally agree. Opinion research tended to bear out the federalists’ claim about the wording of the question. A poll conducted three weeks before the vote found that 28% of voters who had not yet made up their minds believed that a yes vote would simply mean negotiating a better deal within the federal system.

There were many other indications of the importance of the wording. Polls suggested that some 53% of those who supported sovereignty thought that it did not mean separating from the rest of Canada. Even more striking differences were shown: if the polling question was reversed and respondents were asked whether they wished to stay in Canada, 59% said yes; and a poll in 1994 suggested that 71% of sovereigntists wanted to remain part of the federation.

An in/out referendum is a huge issue as far as the UK’s membership of the EU is concerned. We need to make distinctions purely and simply by making it plain at the start that we are a member of the European Union and by asking the public whether they wish to remain as a member.

On the question of the alternative to EU membership, the Democracy Movement testified to Parliament:

“The danger of bias with ballot paper preambles not only relates to what is actually included in them but also to what is left out”.

I feel that any referendum on leaving Europe should allude to what being outside Europe would mean. The Government need to be clear on the choice offered. If it is a choice between being a member of the EU or a member of the European economic area or the European Free Trade Association, like Norway and Switzerland, that choice should be expressed if not in the question in the literature given out with the ballot paper or before the referendum takes place.

Signed in 1992 and operational from 1994, the EEA agreement extends the EU single market and free movement of goods, services, people and capital, together with laws in areas such as employment, consumer protection, environmental policy and competition. It includes Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, but not Switzerland. In practice, that means that the vast majority of the EU regulations that are identified as the most burdensome to business, including the working time directive, would still apply if the UK left the EU but remained a member of the European economic area. The UK would also be bound by future EU law in those areas, but would arguably have less influence over their content. Any question on European membership should therefore state clearly what the alternative to that membership should be.

Human Rights (Commonwealth)

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion]

I am extremely grateful for that intervention, which echoes my thoughts. I will address those questions in more detail later, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for sharing them.

The Commonwealth charter is an exciting development that allows the Commonwealth to shape itself as a compelling force for good. The charter commits all nations to the universal declaration of human rights and opposes all forms of discrimination

“whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.”

The Commonwealth charter states that those rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and that they cannot be implemented selectively. I will point out where we can improve our practices to ensure that those clear, explicit definitions are upheld.

Women’s rights vary hugely across the Commonwealth. Although I am well aware that the topic merits a debate in its own right, in the limited time available I will draw attention to a few key areas of concern.

The Commonwealth charter states that the education of girls is an essential component of human development. The Pakistani schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai certainly agrees. Malala’s determination to defend girls’ right to education is one of the most inspiring stories of our modern age. Despite Malala exposing some of the dangers for girls who are trying to access education, however, there are still great barriers. In Cameroon an estimated 38% of girls are currently missing from secondary education, which is simply unacceptable. Women’s education is important not only for empowering the individual, but for the country’s development. It is right that that is recognised in the Commonwealth charter. The Commonwealth comprises not only some of the most developed nations, but some of the least developed. Creating effective education for young women is imperative for change for the better.

Child marriage is a harmful practice that constitutes a violation of the most basic and fundamental rights of young women. There are provisions in the Commonwealth charter for investing and promoting young people’s development. Being a child bride causes appalling harm to a girl’s prospects for education and, indeed, to her health. Only this Monday, we heard of a girl of eight dying from internal sexual injuries after her marriage to a 40-year-old man in Yemen. Unfortunately, that horror is widespread and prevalent across the world, as at least 14 million girls—more than half of whom live in the Commonwealth—marry under the age of 18 every year. There is a clear need to legislate to put an end to child marriage. We need to put an end to the practice, so that every girl is free to enjoy her childhood. All leaders of Commonwealth nations must collectively support steps taken at the United Nations to eradicate child, early and forced marriage.

The Commonwealth charter recognises the importance of women’s rights:

“We recognise that gender equality and women’s empowerment are essential components of human development and basic human rights.”

Throughout the Commonwealth, however, women are in need of a voice. To make the necessary changes, we need better representation of women in our Governments. That change would ensure the rights of women can no longer be ignored. Representation is key to creating positive changes to all the current issues that face women across the Commonwealth.

In the Chamber of Deputies of the Rwandan Parliament, 56% of representatives are women; I am ashamed to admit that only 23% of MPs in the House of Commons are women, placing us 65th in the Inter-Parliamentary Union. We clearly have a lot to learn about women’s representation.

The Commonwealth charter commits Commonwealth nations to the universal declaration of human rights, and article 3 enshrines the right to life. The death penalty fundamentally undermines that right. Worldwide, great progress has been made on abolishing the death penalty. However, Commonwealth countries including the Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Guyana, Grenada, Jamaica, St Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Swaziland, Malawi, Kenya, Ghana, Cameroon and the Maldives still support the death penalty. Thirty-six Commonwealth countries have the death penalty. Although I acknowledge that many of those countries have expressed a commitment in legislation not to carry out executions and are abolitionist in practice, death sentences are still regularly given, even if they are not fulfilled.

In August 2012, nine people were executed in Gambia, with President Jammeh calling for all death sentences to be carried out “to the letter” by mid-September. Those executions were in sharp contrast to the trend in west Africa towards ending the use of the death penalty. Amnesty International, along with 66 other human rights organisations and west African civil society groups, condemned the executions in a public statement released in September 2012.

There has been a recent resumption of executions in Nigeria, where there had not been an execution since 2006. Four men were hanged in June. Papua New Guinea recently passed legislation that expands the crimes for which the death penalty could be used, signalling a return to its use, even though no executions have taken place since 1952.

We must also recognise that individuals continue to be sentenced to death, or executed, for crimes not involving intentional killing. Therefore, the punishment does not meet the threshold of “the most serious crimes”, as prescribed by article 6 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, to which all Commonwealth countries are committed by our charter. For example, people are condemned to death for blasphemy in Pakistan, for forms of aggravated robbery in Kenya and Zambia and for drug-related offences in Malaysia and Singapore. That is simply not acceptable under current international law. The death penalty must be repealed in all 36 Commonwealth countries.

The persistent persecution of the LGBTI community in the Commonwealth undermines the entire point of being free from discrimination. The Commonwealth charter does not explicitly mention the protection of LGBTI people. I understand why that compromise position was taken, but I believe it is a grave mistake, as 41 Commonwealth countries currently criminalise homosexuality. Those laws are often a historical relic of British colonial rule that continues to stigmatise and marginalise the LGBTI community across the Commonwealth.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong and wide-ranging speech. I want to associate myself in particular with her comments on LGBT rights in Commonwealth countries. Will she join me in commending the work of the Kaleidoscope Trust, the president of which is Mr Speaker and which enjoys support from members of all parties across the House? It works with LGBT activists in many Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries to fight against the type of discrimination that she describes.

[Sarah Champion]

I absolutely support the work of the Kaleidoscope Trust, but a vast amount of work unfortunately remains for us to do.

It struck me forcefully when visiting the Apartheid museum in Johannesburg last week that many of the battles for racial equality had been won. It should be celebrated that apartheid is over, but segregation between homosexuals and heterosexuals continues in other parts of Africa. Many terrible cases from across the Commonwealth illustrate the appalling way that the LGBTI community and LGBTI activists have been treated. In Cameroon, Alice Nkom and Michel Togue, who are defence lawyers for LGBTI people, have received telephone calls and text messages on a daily basis from anonymous people who threaten them and their families with death. In South Africa, 24-year-old Noxolo Nogwaza was brutally murdered in KwaThema township. An active member of the Ekurhuleni Pride Organising Committee, she was raped, repeatedly stabbed and beaten to death. The police responsible for the investigation into her murder have so far made no progress and no suspects have been arrested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Gray. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—I want to say “my hon. Friend”—for her speech. It is a pleasure to attend this afternoon’s debate to support and agree with much of what she had to say. Like her, and the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), I was at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference last week and found it a fascinating, if sometimes frustrating, experience. I had not intended to take part or speak as much as I did, which is probably the case for many of us, but some of what we heard at the conference could not go unanswered.

Gatherings of the Commonwealth, such as the CPA conference, are great moments. Bringing parliamentarians across the Commonwealth together is completely appropriate, to remind us of the shared values and history that we enjoy. We found a lot of consensus among Commonwealth parliamentarians on a range of issues. I attended a number of sessions, including one on the empowerment of women, although that went a little bit agley, with a contribution on the legalisation of drugs, which did not seem appropriate to a debate on female empowerment in business, unless there was a niche interest. We also had an interesting session on caring for our elderly population, which was a bit more orderly. The female parliamentarians also had many enjoyable hours in the Commonwealth women’s conference, from which of course we men were barred. That aside, it was an interesting gathering.

In the plenary sessions, bearing in mind the Commonwealth charter and the provisions on democracy, we had some interesting discussions about self-determination and the democratic rights of the citizens of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. There was strong support for the motion that we eventually agreed on Gibraltar and for the motion that we quickly agreed on the Falklands. The British delegation was united in support of the rights of people in the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar to determine their own destiny and future.

We had an interesting debate on human rights in general and on the charter. The hon. Member for Bristol East made a fine speech from the podium—fine and provocative, which I think was what she intended, and it certainly sparked an important debate. She made reference to the charter’s article on human rights:

“We are committed to equality and respect for the protection and promotion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights…We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds.”

Debate was sparked off by “other grounds”, and turned into a discussion of the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals in different countries.

I do not speak regularly on LGBT issues in this country because, fortunately, we operate a “live and let live” policy. Rights have advanced greatly in the past few years, certainly under the previous Government and hopefully under this Government with regards to equal marriage, so the issue is not one on which I would usually engage, although I am supportive of those rights. We almost take them for granted in this country, people of my generation in particular but, given some of the contributions at the conference after the speech by the hon. Member for Bristol East, I could not help but participate in the debate.

We heard some quite frightening speeches, in particular from Cameroon and, to an extent, from Ugandan representatives. It reminded me that, although we have much in common throughout the Commonwealth, with many shared values, there is a great deal that divides us, and we should not pretend that those divisions do not exist. Furthermore, it is incumbent on all parliamentarians from this country and from other parts of the Commonwealth to make it clear when we disagree. In response to comments from a Cameroonian delegate regarding homosexuality, in which she stated that it went against the laws of nature, there was a sharp intake of breath from our delegation and many others in the room, particularly the Canadians, who also spoke on the issue. I therefore felt the need to speak in that debate.

Appropriately enough, we were in South Africa, a country that knows all too well the history of dividing one group from another to the disadvantage of all. When we attack one individual’s rights, ultimately we have an impact on everyone else’s rights. I felt the need to intervene in that debate, and to point out things with which I am sure everyone in the Chamber would agree. We do not want to preach to those countries, and we have a stain on our own history in terms of what people have thought—not so long ago in this country we thought that a role for women in politics was inappropriate and that people in Africa were incapable of governing themselves. We know about such stains on our history, which I made mention of and about which we are embarrassed.

Similarly, as I said in Johannesburg last week, even today in our own country, which is a modern, liberal-looking democracy, as parliamentarians we come across people who still hold quite frightening views. Our responsibility is to challenge such views. I do not pretend that our country does not have people who think some of those things, but we have a level of protection for rights, which have expanded in recent years, of which we should be proud. I therefore felt that it was important to speak up on the issue and to make it clear that, while we have stains on our own history, we have learned the lessons. It is not about preaching, but about simply standing up for the rights of minorities elsewhere.

If there was one glimmer of hope on the LGBT issue, it came in the contribution of one of the Ugandan parliamentarians. He seemed to be saying, “Well, we know that our views on this issue are not as developed as yours. Maybe, in a couple of decades’ time, this won’t be an issue for us.” That seemed a strange admission, almost as if he was saying, “We know we are wrong, and in 30 years’ time we won’t be wrong.” It was an odd contribution. I spoke to that parliamentarian afterwards, however, and he was at pains to assure me that the particular piece of legislation before the Ugandan Parliament, of which the hon. Member for Rotherham made mention, was unlikely to be introduced in its current form.

That debate divided the Commonwealth—sadly, as older Commonwealth against new Commonwealth—and comments that were supportive of what the hon. Member for Bristol East had said tended to come from our delegation. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) made an excellent contribution, and there were contributions from Canada and New Zealand. Samantha Sacramento, the Minister for Equality from Gibraltar, made a fine contribution as well, but for me the best speech came from the podium, from the Deputy Speaker of the South African Parliament. Deputy Speaker Mfeketo made a brilliant speech in which she spoke passionately about how the experience of South Africa was relevant to LGBT rights; in that country, they know about the impact of one community being divided off and having special laws passed against it.

Such comments were more powerful coming from another African politician, rather than, sad to say, from a white parliamentarian. Many contributions, such as that of a parliamentarian from Mauritius, were in essence, “Well, you gave us these views. You came here in colonial times with those views. You came with your Bible and told us that this was wrong, and yet now you are preaching to us.” All the contributions from Canada, New Zealand and the UK were of limited impact compared with the fine speech of Deputy Speaker Mfeketo.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. Does he share my concern about some groups, in particular from the United States, which have been stirring up homophobic hatred in countries such as Uganda? There are some quite sinister activities going on, with a number of reports over the past few months. That is exactly the opposite of what we ought to be seeing.

[Andrew Percy]

I am concerned about that, and some people in our own country like to stir up such views. I hope that Ugandans are as quick to dismiss the views of such outside influences, wherever they come from, as they would be to dismiss the views of their former colonial masters.

As I said, the contribution from the South African Deputy Speaker was very fine, and I associate myself with calls from the hon. Member for Bristol East at the conference and the hon. Member for Rotherham today that we must do more to ensure that the charter does exactly what it says on the tin—as the old Ronseal advert used to say. Furthermore, when the charter mentions discrimination on “other grounds”, our country and our Government must challenge such discrimination, whatever and wherever it may be.

I want to comment briefly on Sri Lanka. I heard the hon. Member for Rotherham call for a boycott. I have engaged in issues arising from the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I have always been against boycotts as a way of trying to solve such issues. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s conference next year will be in Cameroon. Given some of its views on the rights of LGBT people and women, it could be said that we should not attend it, but boycotts are not necessarily the solution. What Prime Minister Harper has done in Ottawa was bold, but I am not sure that a boycott would be in our interest. I sometimes think it is better to attend such meetings and to make the case on the ground in the country concerned. We must be careful about boycotts, although I entirely concur with the hon. Lady’s comments on human rights in Sri Lanka. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bristol East referred to that issue at the conference, and she challenged the Sri Lankan delegation to demonstrate a commitment to human rights at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

I concur with much of what the hon. Member for Rotherham said. The conference last week was fascinating. One does not often come back feeling like a human rights advocate because one does not often feel the need for that in this country, but I came back from South Africa better educated and a little frightened at some of the views I heard. The Government must ensure that they challenge those despicable views.