Human Rights (North Korea)

Debate between Andrew Selous and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I just mentioned the food situation in North Korea—how do we influence a regime that does not seem to care whether its people starve? What sort of leverage do we have when the issue is not just the repression of people’s freedom of expression and religion and their right to challenge the regime, but the fact that North Korea’s leaders seem perfectly happy to sit back and let their people starve? Things have indeed become much worse. I will come to how, as a matter of absolute priority, we must look at what we can do to try to change the situation.

We also heard from the report about how discrimination against women and girls has resulted in their becoming increasingly vulnerable to trafficking and prostitution. The punishments associated with transgressions are severe and arbitrary, including summary executions, most notably that of Kim Jong-un’s uncle in December last year.

The prison camps are indicative of the North Korean state’s complete rejection of basic human rights and international law. We hear about people being disappeared because of their connection with the Republic of Korea or Christian Churches—they are taken off to political prison camps. It was, I suppose, a small sign that things were not quite as bad as they have been that the commission found that guilt by association is now less frequent, although that is more than compensated for by some of the other atrocities that occur. Nevertheless, although some relatives are still at risk, the commission found that guilt by association is not quite as prevalent as it was previously.

To use the commission’s words, “unspeakable atrocities” are being committed in the camps, including

“deliberate starvation, forced labour, executions, torture, rape and the denial of reproductive rights enforced through punishment, forced abortion and infanticide.”

It estimates that hundreds of thousands of people have died in the camps over the past 50 years, and that between 80,000 and 120,000 political prisoners are currently detained in four camps and being subjected to horrifying treatment.

The report leaves us in no doubt that action from the wider international community is imperative. As the commission stated,

“The fact that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as a State Member of the United Nations, has for decades pursued policies involving crimes that shock the conscience of humanity raises questions about the inadequacy of the response of the international community.”

It went on to stress:

“The international community must accept its responsibility to protect the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from crimes against humanity, because the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has manifestly failed to do so.”

We know that that will continue.

The commission’s report must ensure not only that the world’s attention is on the plight of the people of North Korea, but that urgent action is taken. As has already been mentioned, action from China is key because it is one of the few countries that has some leverage on the situation. As the commission stated,

“China pursues a rigorous policy of forcibly repatriating”

North Korean citizens who have managed to flee their country, despite their being refugees in need of, and entitled to, international protection.

China not only fails to respect the principle of non-refoulement; the commission suggests that, in some cases, Chinese officials inform their North Korean counterparts about those they have apprehended. According to the commission, those repatriated are systematically subjected to

“persecution, torture, prolonged arbitrary detention and, in some cases, sexual violence, including during invasive body searches.”

As we have heard, repatriated pregnant women are subjected to forced abortions, while babies born to returned women are often killed. The risk of refoulement, and their fate in North Korea, prevents defectors who manage to get to China from registering their children’s birth in China, denying them access to health services and education. It is estimated that there are 20,000 children born to DPRK women in China. In failing such defectors, China is failing in its international responsibilities, so it is imperative that the international community challenges it.

[Andrew Selous]

Does the hon. Lady agree that China’s policy is particularly unfortunate given that South Korea would accept all the refugees? If China did not want them, they would not be left in China.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree. China provides some humanitarian assistance to North Korea; one would therefore hope that it had some leverage over the Government there and could persuade them to change their ways.

The hon. Member for Congleton mentioned the fact that one action that could be considered is referral to the International Criminal Court and the adoption of targeted sanctions. Resolution 25/25, passed by the UN Human Rights Council in March, was a welcome first step in taking the report forward, in particular by extending the mandate of the special rapporteur and requesting increased support, including establishing a field-based structure to strengthen monitoring and improve engagement with all states.

However, it was disappointing that 11 countries at the Human Rights Council abstained on the resolution vote, while six—Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Venezuela, Vietnam and China—voted against it. There is more general concern about the composition of the Human Rights Council. The UK is on the council, but many member states have, shall we say, rather poor human rights records. There is concern about such countries’ failure to respect the special procedure or country-specific mandate holders. It would help if the Minister set out more about what he thinks the Human Rights Council can actually achieve—beyond mere condemnation of the DPRK regime—and how that can be done.

Following the recent universal periodic review, it has been reported that North Korea has actually agreed to consider 185 of the 268 recommendations. However, it has rejected some of them outright, including that it should co-operate with the ICC, end guilt by association, implement the commission’s recommendations, close the prison camps and abolish the songbun system. Critically, the Human Rights Council resolution recommended that the General Assembly submit the report to the Security Council for further action. The Human Rights Council called for the consideration of a referral

“to the appropriate international criminal justice mechanism”,

which would presumably be the ICC. On top of that, it called for consideration of the

“scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for crimes against humanity”.

Will the Minister update us on the Government’s discussions with Security Council members about formally putting the DPRK on the agenda? What sanctions does he think could possibly be effective in targeting the DPRK leadership? Bearing in mind Russia’s and China’s position on the Security Council, what are the prospects and time scales for action and any referral to the ICC?

Now that the commission has reported and the Human Rights Council has passed its resolution, it is crucial that we maintain the momentum and keep the spotlight and pressure on North Korea, to try to secure the co-operation of partners in key positions of influence. It would be so much easier to say that solutions are more easily at hand in other countries, where the UK operates more leverage and where we know that we can, perhaps, achieve more good in a shorter time, but to turn our back on what is happening in DPRK, just because it is a difficult case and the solutions do not immediately present themselves, would be morally wrong. We simply should not contemplate that.

Funding Formula

Debate between Andrew Selous and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, Mr Dobbin, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is also a pleasure to see so many hon. Members present. Some have left to attend a Select Committee, but this has been a good debate in which a lot of people have had an opportunity to participate.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is passionate about the issue and has raised it on a number of occasions in Parliament. I accept that the issue is complex and that it is worthy of debate. However, although it is easy to criticise the operation of existing mechanisms, it is more difficult to come up with an ideal solution. The hon. Gentleman stated that the Barnett formula is broken, and he has argued passionately for a needs-based formula. He is waving a hefty document at me. If he would like to pass me a copy, I will sit down and digest it with great enthusiasm at some point.

The Barnett formula has been criticised over the years and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, its inventor, Lord Barnett himself, has suggested that we might need to move towards a needs-based formula. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted arguments criticising the formula, but it is easy to conflate and confuse two issues: what happens in terms of spending within a devolved nation as a consequence of devolution, and what is a direct consequence of the Barnett formula. He highlighted the differences in devolved areas in relation to council tax, prescription charges, tuition fees, education maintenance allowances, hospital car parking and so on. However, I should like to question his comments on the differences in relation to bus travel. He said that it was not possible in England for the carer of a disabled person to travel for free with them, but that is certainly not the case in my local area. Perhaps it is up to local authorities to decide, but in my area people get free bus travel if they can show that they are in the company of someone for whom they are caring.

The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman remind us of the argument about whether devolution is about deciding the size of the cake or about allocating who gets which piece of the cake. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said, Scotland misses out in other areas as a consequence of policies on prescription charges and tuition fees that differ from those in England. Moreover, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who is no longer present, pointed out that waiting lists are far longer in Wales as a consequence of decisions taken, using devolutionary powers, to spend money elsewhere. He said that, as a consequence, there will be real-term cuts in the health service—in the cancer drugs fund, for example—in Wales.

We have to accept that our establishment of the devolved Parliament and Assemblies means that the basic principle of devolution will lead to differentials in spending. It may create a sense of unfairness, but I do not think that that is particularly germane to the issue of the Barnett formula and its grant.

[Andrew Selous]

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying and I do not disagree with her that how the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government spend the money they are given is up to them. I have no quarrel with that. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) has said, if Scotland is getting £4.5 billion more than a needs-based assessment might imply, does she not understand that that can fund additional services that are not available to her constituents and mine?

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I have said, the Barnett formula is not perfect. We have established the Calman commission and the Holtham commission to look at the more detailed issues of how devolution works and how we fund matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I agree entirely. Statistics are thrown around about public spending, its impact and who gets the most. It is not just about Government block grants, but about things such as welfare spending and the impact of locally raised funding, such as council tax, which is a separate issue. I think that people sometimes forget that.

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire argued that either a separate body or the Office for Budget Responsibility should administer and oversee the introduction of a needs-based allocations system. I agree that, if we are to move towards something like that, now is not the time to introduce radical change overnight. This is a difficult time economically, and the Scotland Bill, which is making its way through Parliament, will have a major impact on the tax-raising powers of the Scottish Parliament. There are decisions to be made about whether it will take up those tax-raising powers and the impact that would have on its spending. The impact of the comprehensive spending review settlements on the devolved nations is also an issue.

I accept—I think that there is cross-party consensus on this—that we need to examine the case for moving towards a needs-based formula. Some of my colleagues have said that, but it has to be done carefully. I do not want to return to line-by-line negotiations with the devolved nations whenever there is a spending round. There has to be a formula of some sort. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) said that a needs-based formula would be eminently contestable. It would be difficult to establish which needs should be taken into account and which needs should not.

[Andrew Selous]

Does the hon. Lady think that we are so much more pathetic than Australia? Queensland and New South Wales are at each other’s throats to get more funding, yet they have a settled procedure which they all respect. Does she really not think that we can aspire to and achieve that in this country?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am saying not that it is impossible to achieve, but that it is difficult. The Barnett formula was established in the 1970s and people have said that the implication was that it was intended to be in place for only a year. A Labour Government operated under the Barnett formula for 13 years, but a Conservative Government operated under the same formula for 18 years, so this applies to successive Governments. Although there were criticisms, they were unable to find the ideal solution to replace it. Devolution has bedded in and there has been a call from the devolved Assemblies for more powers, which is going to throw the issue into the spotlight again. It is time to revisit it.