| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 July 2009 : Column 273WH—continued
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), in his powerful speech, mentioned Neda, the 27-year-old music student, whom we saw, apparently
shot by paramilitaries, lying bloodied on the street in Tehran. Her death was captured on video and beamed across the world in a day to millions of viewers. In many ways, she has become the icon of the clash between the old and the new in Iran. In the end, no Government can rule without consent, and this is a crisis of the regime’s making. Although it must be for Iranians to decide how Iran should be governed, it is the demands of ordinary Iranians to which the Iranian Government should respond, and they forget that at their peril.
British foreign policy towards Iran should always be based on a pragmatic and hard-headed assessment of where British interests lie. Although those interests lie in an Iran once again engaged in the mainstream of the international community, we should never lose sight of the fact that Iran has one of the worst human rights records in the world. It is ranked 145th out of 167 in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index. In the past few days, locally employed staff in the British embassy were taken captive without provocation. The unjustified harassment of staff from any embassy is a violation of diplomatic norms and utterly unacceptable. It is hard to know where to begin in the seemingly unending list of human rights abuses, a number of which were referred to by my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess).
The personal stories paint a powerful picture. Iranian authorities executed Delara Darabi in Rasht central prison on a Friday morning in May. Not only had there been no formal notification 48 hours before the hanging, as required under Iranian law, but just a fortnight earlier, Ms Darabi had been granted a two-month stay of execution by the head of the judiciary. The day before their daughter was walked to the gallows, her parents visited her in jail where she excitedly informed them that there was to be an appeal so that new evidence could be heard. Twenty-four hours later, she was dead. The Iranian people responded with huge internet campaigns and mass demonstrations—a powerful expression of disapproval of the regime.
It is evident that Iran’s head of judiciary has little ability to control his own judges. Nevertheless, I urge him to act before any of the other 130 juvenile offenders on death row are executed. The international community has a clear duty to take a stand against an act that we all agree is wrong, and the message to the Iranian regime must be clear: its actions have consequences. Amnesty International regularly reports that trial hearings are often heard in private and that political detainees are denied access to legal counsel, often despite assurances to the contrary. It is ironic that when one visits Tehran, the Iranians talk with great pride about how there are designated seats in the Majlis for representatives of the Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian minorities. That must be contrasted with the appalling apostasy laws that still exist in the provinces, and the ruthless treatment of members of the Baha’i faith, whose leaders are even now imprisoned without trial, possibly awaiting charges for which, if found guilty, they could face a capital penalty. I pay tribute to the strong case made on their behalf by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire in his capacity as the chairman of the all-party Friends of the Baha’is group.
Even the designated non-Islamic religions face persecution. According to the last US State Department report on religious freedoms, there was an exponential
rise in officially sanctioned anti-Semitic propaganda, including official statements, media outlets, publications and books. So-called President-elect Ahmadinejad still pursues a virulent and outrageous anti-Semitic campaign, regularly questioning the existence of the holocaust. He also persists in chauvinistic remarks and has vetoed Bills designed by the seventh Majlis to improve the position of women.
Gender inequality and discrimination are widespread, and are perpetuated by Iran’s constitutional structures. In Iran today, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; compensation payable to the family of a female victim of a crime is half that of a man’s family; boys inherit double what girls receive; and securing a divorce and custody of children is near-impossible for a woman. However, despite all the constitutional discrimination set against them, we again see the spirit and determination of the Iranian people themselves: two-thirds of students are women, and there are female MPs, doctors, policewomen and taxi drivers, and some 97 per cent. of women can read and write, which is one of highest literacy rates in the middle east.
Iran’s leaders face a clear choice. Either they can accept the United States’ offer of engagement and negotiation, which means dramatically improving their human rights record and suspending their nuclear program, or they can face international isolation, economic stagnation and a tightening of international sanctions. We hope that they see it as in the long-term interests of Iran and its people to choose the former.
10.49 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on securing this Adjournment debate. I know that it is often said that he champions minority causes, but the House is a place in which such voices should be heard. The issue under debate is of particular importance. The hon. Gentleman specifically drew our attention to the plight of the Baha’i community in Iran. Its seven leaders go on trial this weekend. It is probably appropriate that all we do at this stage is demand maximum transparency and openness in the way in which that trial is conducted. The judicial process should be conducted along the lines of international best practice, and international observers should be allowed to witness every conceivable stage of those court proceedings. For reasons that I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand, it is probably best that I leave it at that. We will be keeping a close eye on proceedings to ensure that the leaders of the Baha’i community are treated appropriately and properly.
Hon. Members have referred to the recent elections in Iran. Although it is not for Britain to determine the outcome of such elections, it is for us to say that the will of the Iranian people must prevail. Moreover, it is entirely appropriate to say that the reaction to those who felt motivated to go on to the streets to demonstrate against the outcome of that election was entirely unacceptable. The arrest of protesters and the alleged violent assaults against those who dared to question the result of the election is not acceptable in any country that claims to have been through a democratic process.
Lembit Öpik:
Going back to what the Minister said about the Baha’is on trial this weekend, I understand why he takes his position. However, will he assure me
that his Department will make a formal submission of that kind to the Iranian authorities? I am not asking him to go further than he has done in his comments, but I should be grateful if he made that as a formal submission through the usual channels.
Mr. Lewis: I will certainly make that submission through the relevant international institutions—whether it is the EU or the UN. We have made it very clear that we want to see that happen, but it is probably best that that is done through those international institutions in this particular case.
Going back to the elections, the will of the people must prevail. The regime’s reaction to the protests following the elections is not acceptable, especially given the fact that it claims to have been through a democratic process. Part of going through a democratic process is being willing to allow people to express their objections and concerns about the outcome. The reaction of the regime is not very encouraging, particularly in the context of the recent positive overtures from the President of the United States of America, and our own Prime Minister, both of whom have said that they are willing to engage with Iran, but that it has to make fundamental choices. For example, as a nation, does it wish to become part of the mainstream international community, or does it want to remain on the margins, as defined by its human rights and other internal issues? Its recent behaviour in the aftermath of the recent elections cannot be encouraging for any hon. Member of this House who genuinely wants to see progress based on mutual respect, engagement and diplomatic processes.
Let me speak now about the human rights situation, then I will deal with the points that have been raised. Iran’s human rights record is well documented. It has consistently deteriorated over the past few years. It has the highest execution rate per capita of any country worldwide, and juvenile executions continue apace. Despite Iran’s history of tolerance and the rich and diverse mix of religious and ethnic groups that make up Iranian society, religious and ethnic minorities are subject to persecution, intimidation, arbitrary detention and denial of education. Even before the recent unrest began, the Iranian authorities had arrested large numbers of teachers, women’s rights activists, students, trade unionists and ethnic minorities on charges of propaganda against the Islamic Republic, acting against national security and organising illegal gatherings. That was all part of a rigid clampdown on any form of dissent, opposition or peaceful organised protest.
In the aftermath of the elections, people’s right of free assembly has been effectively withdrawn. Such actions are entirely unacceptable, and the European Union has made that abundantly clear to the Iranian authorities. Hard-line cleric Ayatollah Khatami’s call for those involved in recent protests to be
“dealt with severely and shown no mercy”
We have heard about a number of examples of human rights abuses that cannot be tolerated. They include the arbitrary use of the death penalty; juvenile executions; persecution of minorities, whether religious minorities or minorities based on sexual orientation; the denial of people’s right to express themselves freely; and the treatment of women in Iranian society. None of those issues is consistent with the stance of a country that
wants to move from the margins of the international community to the mainstream. It is appropriate that at every opportunity this House shines a light on those human rights abuses and supports those who argue that there is serious need for reform in Iran. We must also recognise that it is the people of Iran who should be leading that call for reform with the international community in support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about trade unions in Iran and the fact that they are not allowed to organise in a free and effective way. The symbol of any civilised society is the ability of trade unions to fulfil their functions in that way. My hon. Friend is mistaken in suggesting that the west—whether it is the United States or Britain—is responsible for the actions of the Iranian Government. That lets them off the hook and plays into the hands of the propagandists in the Iranian regime. We must make it clear that it is the Iranian regime that has primary responsibility for the way in which it behaves towards its own citizens and the rest of the international community. We should not allow it to be said that it is our foreign policy that legitimises and justifies the behaviour of Iran or any similar regime.
Moreover, I totally reject the notion that we have ever tried to appease Iran. We have tried to engage with it, and that is the appropriate thing to do. It is regrettable that the Iranian regime turned its back on that offer of engagement. Let us hope that it does not make that mistake again following the offer that has come from the new President of the United States. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) suggested that we have specifically appeased President Ahmadinejad. However, it was the UK ambassador who led the walk-out at the recent conference in Durban, when Ahmadinejad repeated his vile anti-Semitism, his unjustifiable denial of the holocaust and his suggestion that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map. It is this country that has constantly condemned that kind of behaviour and rhetoric from Ahmadinejad.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) raised the question of our local staff in the Iranian embassy. One member of staff is still being held and we are hopeful that, through dialogue with the Iranian authorities, that individual will be released soon. There is no justification or excuse either for any of our staff to be held a minute longer in Iran or for the suggestion that we as a country were responsible for whipping up the public reaction after the election.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on his passionate and authentic speech, which he turned into a human story. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) focused on freedom of speech issues and the attack on minorities. I agree with most of the contribution of the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). As he said, we enjoyed jousting in our previous roles, and I look forward to doing the same in our new roles.
It is essential that we make it clear where we stand on the abuse of human rights in Iran, which is totally unacceptable and not the behaviour of a country that seeks to come into the mainstream. We urge the regime to take a different path. If it does, it will find a willingness to engage in a constructive and positive way.
Bullied Children
11 am
David Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): The effects of bullying on children can be devastating. Their mental and physical health can be destroyed, their self-esteem may be devastated, and they may even contemplate suicide. The fear of being bullied is a major reason for unauthorised absence from school, with all the effects that that can have on life chances.
The Cambridge-based charity, Red Balloon, which provides education and support for bullied children who have excluded themselves from mainstream education and helps them to recover and re-enter mainstream education, has helped many young people whose physical and mental health has been wrecked by bullying. I pay tribute to that charity, and I shall draw the Minister’s attention to three of its cases to illustrate what we are dealing with.
The first case is of a girl who was beaten up and locked in a toilet in primary school. That induced a complete physical and mental breakdown. Aged 11, she was admitted to an adolescent mental health unit. She was barely able to walk and suffered from a facial palsy, and had such low self-esteem that she refused even to have her photograph taken.
A second girl stopped going to primary school when she was eight after she had been humiliated and called names. She was diagnosed with myalgic encephalomyelitis and spent the next five years at home, receiving no education of any sort from the local authority. When she came to the charity aged 13, she was unable to read or write.
The third example is of a boy who was extremely badly bullied, constantly, over a long period. He was often surrounded and taunted by groups of boys. On occasion, he would lose his temper and fly into a rage, which just encouraged his tormentors to continue. Finally, one day he lifted a chair and threw it at them, and he was the one who was excluded.
All three of those stories end well. The first girl, within six weeks of receiving the specialist care and attention that she required, had recovered to the extent that the palsy had gone, she no longer limped and she was smiling. It was found that she had an excellent singing voice. Nine months later, she was performing solos in front of hundreds of people. She is now at sixth form college, and her mother says she is flying.
The second girl recovered to the extent that she is also at sixth form college doing A-levels. The boy, in the safe environment with which he was provided and the calm in which he could get on with his studies, did well and subsequently went into a good job.
However, many such stories do not end so well. Children exclude themselves from school for years and end up with no qualifications or, worse, they suffer lasting damage to their mental health and educational achievement. Of course, the most serious outcome is suicide, and such cases appear in the media from time to time. It is difficult to design studies to show a causal link between bullying and suicide, but a review of 37 studies from 13 countries by Kim and Leventhal of Yale medical school showed that bullied children were far more likely than normal—nine times more likely according to one study—to think about killing themselves.
My question for the Minister is this: what can the Government do to help bullied children and, in particular, should the Government be counteracting some of the tendencies in school funding that might act against the interests of bullied children? The first point to make is that there is uncertainty about how many children are affected by bullying to the extent that they miss school. The official returns concerning school absences do not include bullying as an official category, so we have to rely on unofficial research.
Research by Beatbullying, another organisation that does very good work on bullying, including in Cambridge, has estimated that 170,000 absences a day are caused by bullying, which amounts to about 20 daily absences in a school of 1,000 pupils. I do not know whether that is correct, but even a tenth of that number would be something to worry about. Red Balloon believes that anything up to 6,000 young people nationally could be in need of the sort of service that it provides, but we do not know for certain.
That is worrying because of the way in which provision for children not in school is funded. The Government intend that, by September this year, all secondary schools will be part of school behaviour partnerships, which will deal, among other things, with the question of absences from school and the commissioning of services to deal with them. In addition, encouraged by the Government, local authorities are increasingly devolving spending decisions on what services to provide for children not in school to those partnerships, via the devolution of funding to schools.
I am not against devolution of budgetary power and responsibility to schools. Indeed, this debate gives me the opportunity to commemorate one of the pioneers of local financial management of schools, the former leader of the Alliance group on Cambridgeshire county council, Peter Lee, who sadly died on election day this year. Peter understood that there are serious difficulties inherent in, and therefore limits to, local financial management. One difficulty with such local financial management is that it could accidentally give schools an incentive to reduce costs by reducing quality. There has to be something in the system to counteract that tendency. I am concerned that schools and partnerships could have an incentive in the system as it has been set up, to deny the extent of the problem of bullying, especially given the lack of official information.
It is important to understand that many children who are excluding themselves because of bullying do not have statements and, unlike the boy I mentioned, have not been excluded formally from school, so it is very difficult for them to show up in the numbers and easy for them to slip through the cracks. I do not want to make accusations against specific local authorities or imply that some councils are more prone to that behaviour than others, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) was told by her local authority that there were no known cases of pupils dropping out of school because of bullying. I cannot see how that contention is believable.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |