| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ann Clwyd: I heard the report from the members of the delegation when they returned from Iran, and it was fascinating to listen to because they obviously had worthwhile discussions with the Iranians. I know that the Secretary-General and others had meetings with the Iranians in Geneva the previous year to try to set up such a visit, and we found that exchange to be useful. It is worth going to listen to some of the reports that people make about their important visits. I again encourage my colleagues to listen to those when they get the opportunity. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the agreeing to be a member of that delegation—
Mr. Evans: I was not on that delegation.
Ann Clwyd: Sorry, the hon. Gentleman was not on that delegation. It was very good. Particularly at these more difficult times, that kind of exchange of views with countries that we may feel very annoyed with at various times is worth while and must deflect the aggro which undoubtedly exists. Again, that is an important part of the IPU’s work, and I hope that there will many similar delegations.
John Bercow: I am glad the right hon. Lady has enjoyed her five years’ service on the committee. It would be safe to say that the IPU, which is an admirable organisation, her fellow parliamentarians and, above all, the victims of human rights abuses are very appreciative of the service she has given. There has been no more consistent or passionate champion of human rights over a very long period than she.
Ann Clwyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. It has sometimes got me into trouble, but we must use the opportunities that we have, even if that sometimes means getting into trouble. It is important that we do so because we have a voice and platform, and we should use them. I never understand the view of people who feel negative towards this place; I consider it a great privilege to be here, and if Members do not use the opportunities it gives, they are missing a lot. I encourage my fellow MPs to stand up for the rights of their colleagues. They should do so in our Parliament, in the media and through the IPU. The information contained in the cases that the committee makes public can be used in all kinds of forums, as I said.
The Government, too, should raise the cases when meeting their counterparts abroad. Such lobbying would feed into their work on good governance. I know that we all ask questions of Governments such as, “When you met so and so, did you raise this?”. The answer is usually yes, but all too often I am afraid that such issues are nowhere near the top of the list of subjects that are under discussion.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I wholly endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) about the right hon. Lady; a great tribute should be paid to her. She has been talking about her interaction with the Government. How often does she meet Ministers to discuss these cases? What interaction does she have with other multilateral and supranational agencies, for example the EU. The IPU does a lot of work with the UN, does she meet its senior officials regularly to discuss these cases?
Ann Clwyd: I shall start with the last question. The IPU has a presence in New York and would like more interaction with the UN than it currently has—that is one of the aims of its reform programme. Obviously, I talk to my Government colleagues on a range of these issues, sometimes with more satisfactory results than on other occasions. Nevertheless, it is important to continue to push certain issues. As my colleagues know, Iraq has preoccupied me quite a bit during the past few years, and I suspect that it will continue to do so. However, it is not for me alone to do that work; it is for everybody in this place. All of us, in our various ways, can make those contributions. We can call Government to account, and, particularly when they are having bilateral meetings with colleagues from other countries, try to push human rights up the agenda.
It is a great pity that the only group on human rights in this House—the all-party group on human rights—is completely reliant on outside help. We would not have our very good parliamentary researcher were it not for the Barrow Cadbury Trust supporting us. When I consider the other all-party groups in this place and the huge sums that are available for the activities of some of them, , which I shall not list because we all know them, I think that it is a disgrace that an important issue such as international human rights is not given more financial support. I shall end with that plea, and I hope that my colleagues will join in the discussion.
10.17 am
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): I intend to speak only very briefly, because I know that not much time is left in the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on raising the issue of the IPU and all the good work that it does. She mentioned the fact that there are a number of inward and outward delegations from the United Kingdom. The dialogue that is established between members of Parliaments is very important. It is not just about us talking to the rest of the world; we listen to what they have to say as well, because we do not have the answers to all the problems in other countries. We can learn by some of the practices operated in those countries.
I recently chaired a luncheon with the Chinese delegation that we had here. We all recognise the importance of China throughout the world now. In 50 years or less, one can only imagine what sort of status it will have in the world. Very different cultures are involved, and there are human rights issues in China as well. The death penalty in China is one such issue; I believe that its use of the dealt penalty is one of the highest in the world. I have issues with the way that the penalty operates in China, but it would be completely irresponsible for me then to walk away from China and say, “Well, that’s it. We will not have anything more to do with you.” The fact is that we must recognise the influence that China now has throughout the rest of the world and, thanks to some of the IPU visits that I have made, I have seen that influence.
I hope that the Minister will
say something about those parts of the world where we have little or no
representation. For example, an IPU delegation, of which I was
privileged to be a member, recently visited Gabon and we co-chaired
that visit from Yaoundé in Cameroon. That it is not the best way
to have British representation in that part of the world, but China is
there big time. There are huge issues in Gabon concerning the
environment, as well as democracy, that we need to address—for
example, illegal logging and China’s influence. On our visit, we
learned that the Chinese are responsible for building not just one but
two parliamentary buildings in Gabon and we must question why we have
little or no presence when other countries, such as China, are doing
well there.
I was at an international conference in Tonga in the summer. We have pulled our flag down there, yet the Chinese are increasing their representation. I hope that the Minister will say something about the representation that we have throughout the world and whether pulling the flag down in a number of countries, as we have done, and lessening our representation in other countries, including Germany and the United States of America, is the best use of money.
In some ways and in some countries, it might be better if we reduced our representation rather than cutting it. I hope that the Foreign Office is looking carefully at something like a Tesco Metro appearance in some of those countries rather than no appearance whatever. With a limited and fixed budget, we shall have at least some influence in those countries, particular with those with which we have had long relationships over centuries. To walk away after putting in huge investment over a long period is a grave mistake.
I praise Ken Courtenay and his staff in the IPU who give great support to all delegations, both inward and outward. They do a fantastic job, sometimes at incredibly unsocial hours, and must deal with all sorts of problems that arise with inward and outward delegations when huge pressure is put on them by parliamentarians of all countries. I praise their work.
The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned Colombia, which we visited under the leadership of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) who did a tremendous job. The one thing we learned there was the importance of the Chevening scholarships and the fantastic work of the British Council throughout the world. Being able to visit some of those countries means that we see at first hand what it is doing on the ground. President Uribe was a Chevening scholar and when we visit such countries, we can get privileged access because of the earlier investment.
The point about the Chevening scholarships is that we tried to recognise people who would have influence at a later stage and bring them to the United Kingdom so that there would be a dialogue because they would already know what the United Kingdom was all about. My goodness, that paid dividends when we visited Columbia and met the President for an hour and a half in private audience. That was tremendous and it was superb to talk to him. He has a great fondness for this country. Again, I hope that the Minister will say something about the Chevening scholarships. I know that they have been overhauled, but I hope that they will not lose the essence of what they were all about. We look at certain countries to work out which people will have influence at a later stage and we bring them to this country so that there will always be dialogue.
Tremendous
joint work was done recently at the Africa conference between the IPU
and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. A number of
parliamentarians came here from Africa. We went to the British Library
over a three-day period and there
was superb dialogue between members of Parliament from Africa and the
United Kingdom. Going back to what the right hon. Member for Cynon
Valley said, there is a huge advantage in having a private dialogue
with them when they are outside their own countries because they feel
more comfortable talking to us privately about some of the issues in
their own countries. We can talk about those issues in relation to the
United Kingdom and the democratic processes in this country, which they
can see first hand. They take that back with them to their countries. I
cannot overestimate the importance of our recent conference, which was
a tremendous
success.
Almost finally, I want to talk about the Iran trip. I am a member of the Council of Europe and when I spoke to representatives of the opposition to the Iranian regime, they told me about the public executions that take place. Two young lads were recently executed because they were accused of being gay. The photographs that appeared in our newspapers shocked every decent, thinking person. Women are publicly stoned for adultery. It is incredible that that goes on in the 21st century. When I heard that a delegation was going to Iran, I thought that it was the right thing to do. I was delighted to speak to one of the members of that delegation who said that it spoke privately to members of Parliament from the Majlis and was able to get across human rights issues so that they could better understand where we are coming from. It is not a case of just wagging the finger. The delegation spoke not to the Government but to the members of Parliament, who clearly must operate within the current regime. I take my hat off to those who are opposed to the regime but work within it to try to alter it for the better.
The visits and conferences that I have described all cost money and I understand that the IPU’s budget is under pressure this year and next year. If the budget remains frozen in real terms, there will either be a cut in the number of inward delegations and what we can do when they come here or in the number of outward delegations. That will hit at the group’s work. I hope that the Minister, as well as parliamentarians generally in this country, recognises the hard work that is being done. We have heard what is done in the committee work behind closed doors. Many people do not even know that that goes on. There is work in dialogue and constructive help for parliamentarians throughout the world daily. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the budget for forthcoming years will be maintained to recognise the IPU’s work.
10.26 am
Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): I shall also try to brief. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this debate and on her consistent work over many years. She has championed human rights even when it has not been popular to do so and when it has been at great cost to herself.
I
want to refer briefly to a visit that I made to central America under
the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union when I led a delegation.
It was a good example of the effective work that the IPU can do on the
ground to serve human rights. That visit occurred in the early part of
June to two countries in central America: Guatemala
and El Salvador. Visiting two countries was a useful experience in
itself because we could develop a regional perspective and we saw the
contrast between two neighbouring countries in central
America.
In El Salvador, we found a relatively stable, democratic process. The two parties, the Frente Farabundo Martà para la Liberación Nacional and the ARENA party, which had been at war during the 1970s, 1980s and early part of the 1990s, were pursing a peaceful democratic process and had laid down their arms. The ARENA party was in government and the FMLN was in opposition, and we thought that there was genuine determination across the political spectrum to make the peace accords of the 1990s work effectively. Of course, we saw great problems in the country—land issues, high criminality and widespread poverty—but there was great optimism and that came across clearly from everyone we met.
To be blunt, the situation in Guatemala was quite different. The country was less prosperous with less business confidence, widespread corruption and high criminality, particularly from the “maras” gangs. It was pointed out that more people in Guatemala lose their lives through crime than died during the civil war of the 1980s and 1990s. Before we went to Guatemala, the delegation had graphic briefings from Amnesty International. Its two basic concerns were the ongoing land disputes and the high level of evictions. It was concerned about the human rights abuses and the way in which peasants and rural workers in particular were being treated.
Secondly, Amnesty International was concerned about the violence against women. I would like to read an excerpt from one of its reports that graphically shows the appalling situation in Guatemala. A mother, referring to her daughter, said:
“My 15-year-old daughter Maria Isabel was a student and worked in a shop in the holidays. On the night of 15 December 2001, she was kidnapped in the capital. Her body was found shortly before Christmas. She had been raped, her hands and feet had been tied with barbed wire, she had been stabbed and strangled and put in a bag. Her face was disfigured from being punched, her body was punctured with small holes, there was a rope around her neck and her nails were bent back. When her body was handed over to me, I threw myself to the ground shouting and crying but they kept on telling me not to get so worked up.”
We had the opportunity to raise such issues when we were in Guatemala during a long discussion with President Oscar Berger. Naturally, his responses were unsatisfactory from our perspective. What came across clearly to us in Guatemala was that although the political will might have existed among decent people to get to grips with such problems, the political or civil infrastructure was not in place to do so. The police in Guatemala suffer from widespread corruption and the judiciary is both corrupt and inept. Many of the large property owners do not feel that they have a stake in the country; in fact, many live in Miami and visit the country only occasionally.
Above all else, we did not find
the same commitment to democratic politics in Guatemala as we found
in El Salvador. That is largely for historic reasons. During
the civil war in El Salvador, it was recognised that neither side could
win—neither the left nor the right, neither the FMLN nor the
ARENA party. A historic compromise was therefore reached, with both
sides
laying down their arms and making a genuine commitment to the peace
accords and the democratic process. That did not happen in Guatemala.
There the army won, and democratic politics suffered as a consequence.
What political parties exist in Guatemala have shallow roots. To build
up respect for human rights and to crack down effectively on
criminality, there is a need to enforce democracy and the political
process. That is one of the lessons that we learned, and one aspect of
our international work that we must continue to pursue.
In conclusion, the example of our visit to central America shows clearly the worth of the IPU. Parliamentary democracy has a central role to play in promoting human rights. The IPU, as the international manifestation of parliamentary democracy, therefore has a crucial role to play. One the of the most telling moments that I experienced in El Salvador was when one of the members of the assembly who belonged to the left-wing FMLN said to me, “Mr. David, at one time my colleague”—he pointed to a friend of his from the ARENA party—“and I were literally trying to kill each other in the civil war. Today, although we have political differences, we are nevertheless friends in the legislative assembly.” That better than anything else illustrates the importance of parliamentary democracy and the work of the IPU.
10.34 am
Mr. Jeremy Browne (Taunton) (LD): I shall speak briefly because this debate is drawing to its conclusion. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on her introductory speech and the work that she undertakes through the course of the year on behalf of the IPU. I am a member of Amnesty International and I thought that there was a lot of overlap between what she said about work at the parliamentary level and what I am sure all hon. Members wish to promote more generally—respect for human rights and the right of every individual to live free from an oppressive state.
Certain benefits continue to make the IPU relevant, even though it was founded more than a century ago. First, it is important that Parliaments throughout the world assert themselves. People often ask me why I became a politician—they wonder what the benefits of parliamentary life are and what the role of Parliament is. They ask, “What about big business? What about the internet and the media?” However, Parliaments are still the way by which people can decide their priorities and administer their affairs in a logical, coherent and accountable manner. It is in our interests to promote parliamentary democracy throughout the world, particularly in the face of some of the alternative sources of power, which have become more prevalent in recent decades and which perhaps make the IPU even more relevant.
When I talk
to constituents and others, I am struck by the increasingly
international dimension to politics. The big issues that concern people
who organise high street petitions in my constituency and elsewhere are
the effects the globalisation— whether they regard them as
adverse or positive—the global environment, particularly the
warming of the planet, and the effects of global policy, such as
population increase, immigration, work permit arrangements and so
forth.
More and more, we live in an interdependent world, so we need to relate
to other countries—not just those that we find it the most
amenable to have relations with, but those that are perhaps more
challenging to deal with directly. The IPU plays a key role in
that.
The final positive aspect, of many, is that the IPU is a means by which we can spread best practice. We can advise parliamentarians in less mature democracies than ours about procedures and how scrutiny can be improved. As was mentioned by a previous speaker, however, it is only reasonable that we learn from others too. After all, one of the two Houses of our Parliament is non-elected and the other one has a majority Government with the support of 35 per cent. of the electorate. Occasionally it does us no harm to stand back and reflect on how others might see us and on whether we can learn any lessons from parliamentarians elsewhere in the world.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, South-West) (Lab/Co-op): When I and a number of others were recently in Saudi Arabia, extolling the virtues of democratic elections, those we spoke to pointed out that their Majlis, which is entirely appointed, has many similarities with the House of Lords. We agreed that the abolition of both of them was a good idea.
Mr. Browne: I do not want to stray too far from the brief, but I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says. British parliamentary democracy has been established over many years and has a great deal to recommend it, but we should be cautious about assuming that our models are superior to others. He cites a particularly good and topical example.
I want to raise one or two more points that perhaps the Minister will touch upon if he has enough time. One is that the IPU faces challenges from a number of competitor organisations. I see, for example, that you are the chairman of the all-party British-Czech and Slovak group, Mr. Cummings, and there are many other groups that conduct bilateral relationships between our Parliament and other Parliaments, as well as Commonwealth, NATO and other groups. The IPU needs to ensure that it continues to be relevant and punch its weight. It is a source of great concern to me, and I hope to others, that the United States, which is the most powerful country in the world and has an impressive democratic tradition, is not playing its part in the IPU. The organisation is clearly diminished by its absence.
As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned, the IPU always faces the challenge of defining precisely what its role is. It is clearly beneficial for us to continue to have discourse with countries around the world, but in Iran, for example, to which there was a trip earlier this year, not everybody is free to stand for Parliament in the first place. Iran’s parliamentarians are a group of people who have been elected only after satisfying the people in positions of authority that their views are broadly aligned with those of the regime.
The IPU is engaged in a difficult balancing act. I congratulate everybody on the IPU executive in Britain for trying to strike that balance and for their vigilance and their determination to represent the cause of parliamentary harmony and discourse around the world. I hope that, in another 117 years, it will be functioning as successfully as it does today.
10.40 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), not only securing the third of what I gather have become annual debates—I hope that we will continue to hold them annually—but on her long-standing work on human rights in various guises. She is the Prime Minister’s special envoy to Iraq, but she did not even touch on Iraq in her speech. However, she gave numerous examples of human rights abuses by some pretty nasty regimes, and she is to be congratulated in the highest terms for her work. We have also heard excellent speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David).
I shall touch on only one or two points, because time is pretty limited. One of the main functions of the Inter-Parliamentary Union is the strengthening of democracy and good governance around the world. The dreadful news that we see on our television screens and read in the newspapers each day tends to cloud our thinking and make us think that democracy is perhaps on the wane and that human rights abuses are getting worse. I am not sure that that is the case. If we consider the historical context, we see that some of the worst abuses in human history occurred in the last century—the second world war, Pol Pot’s killing fields and Stalin’s gulags, to give a few examples. The IPU’s work has huge influence around the world, and it is vital that it is continued and strengthened. Those involved are doing a great job of work.
As I said, the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley is the Prime Minister’s special envoy to Iraq, where in December last year 75 per cent. of those eligible to vote turned out and voted in the National Assembly elections, despite huge intimidation. In Afghanistan, despite enormous threats from the Taliban, supporters turned out en masse and elected a president in 2004. Ukraine saw the orange revolution in 2004, and Georgia the rose revolution in 2003. The bulldozer revolution in Serbia brought Milosevic down in 2000. There are great examples of democracy being spread throughout the world. The IPU’s contacts with parliamentarians in those democracies do a great deal to strengthen them and bring about better human rights and well-being for the peoples of those countries.
As I said in my intervention on the right hon. Lady, the IPU could build better relationships with multilateral and supranational bodies such as the EU and, in particular, the UN. The latter does a great job of work, but with the resources that it is given, it could do an even greater job. Last year, it had an historic summit, but the process of reform seems to have stalled. It is the job of parliamentarians—the IPU is well placed—to have high-level contacts within the UN, to ensure that that process continues.
One
of the main successes of that reform, as the right hon. Lady will know
well, was the creation of the Human Rights Council, which had its first
meeting in Geneva recently. We will all look to see how effective that
organisation is, and how it deals with those of its members who have
bad human rights records. Relationship building, not only with
individual countries and Members of Parliament, but with organisations
of that sort, could go a long way to helping to improve democracy
and human rights. Relationship building and education are critical parts
of the IPU’s work. The hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr.
Davidson) referred to the visit to Saudi Arabia, a country that has a
faltering human rights record, but which is an important ally of the
United Kingdom and a very influential country in the current middle
east conflict. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West
(Mr. Brady) spoke warmly about the success of that visit to Saudi
Arabia and the two nations’ conference. Through such contacts
and networking, the IPU can do a great deal of
good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred to engaging with young people, which is another critical part of the IPU’s work. If one can engage with young people at the start of their parliamentary careers, they rise up through the system and can eventually become influential people in their own country. My hon. Friend also referred to the work of the British Council and to the Chevening scholarships given by the Foreign Office. Those are excellent things, but it is a pity that the remit of the Chevening scholarships has been narrowed recently. I ask the Minister to look into that carefully.
As my party’s spokesman on trade, I was particularly interested to read in the 2005 annual report about the work of the IPU in a symposium and steering committee chaired by Lord Paul in Geneva on 21 to 23 April on the subject of the Doha trade round. It demonstrated that really successful initiatives, such as that symposium, should be followed up when the right things do not happen. This is a critical time for World Trade Organisation talks, and I wonder what sort of emergency procedures the IPU has to enable it suddenly to summon a new symposium to find out what further impetus the IPU could give stalled WTO talks. The WTO talks are one of the best ways of improving human rights and standards of living in the poorer countries of the world. If those talks stall, it would be a great setback.
We are all talking about the environment these days, but I did not hear the words environment and sustainability mentioned once, although sustainability, the environment and human rights are one and the same thing in terms of good governance. What work could the IPU do to encourage some of the less well functioning democracies of the world to improve their environment and sustainability?
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley mentioned embassy closures. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) mentioned two visits to central American countries. We now have embassies in only three of the six central American countries. In addition, I note that we do not have an embassy in Madagascar, from which an inward visit is envisaged. The Foreign Office is closing embassies and removing British representation, all for the sake of a very small amount of money, compared to, say, the overspend of the Department for Work and Pensions. The Foreign Office closes embassies and saves perhaps £1 million, but the Department for Work and Pensions overspend far exceeds that.
Through those closures, we are
cutting off our nose to spite our face. I hope that the Minister will
reflect on the strong concerns expressed in this debate, and that he
will think about whether we cannot have at least a very small
delegation in such countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble
Valley suggests. This
week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir
John Stanley) asked an interesting parliamentary question about how
many embassies are manned by one person. The answer is that there are
quite a lot around the world. However, that is a better model than
closing an embassy, because that way there is at least some presence on
the ground when something goes wrong, when some dreadful tragedy
occurs, or when some human rights abuse takes place. There is at least
someone to make representations to the relevant
Government.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |