Forced Organ Removal: China

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate. He is right to say that this is an increasingly worrying international issue, so well done to him for bringing it to our attention.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that this matter is not new to the House of Commons. A number of parliamentary questions have been asked about it. I read through the questions that Ministers have answered over the years, and there appears to be a contradiction: although the Chinese Government sometimes give assurances that organs from executed prisoners will be used for transplantation only with their consent, on other occasions there is a complete, flat denial that any of this is going on. There seem to be two levels of dialogue, which are curious when read all at once as a sort of transcript from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. When the Minister responds, will he clarify whether he believes that that is an issue? If so, what are the Government doing about it?

I want to highlight some of the excellent points that have been made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) commented, correctly, on the demand side of the problem and on the fact that many foreign people are travelling to China for what is called in the literature “transplant tourism”. She was right to ask what the Government are doing to educate people who may wish to travel from this country to China to receive medical treatment. I would be grateful if the Minister could let me know whether, for example, the NHS has any background information about patients who may be particularly tempted to consider having this kind of operation. Also, can he say what cross-referencing there is between the NHS and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in that regard?

The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is well known for her concern about human rights across the globe. She made some important points today. She was right to say that the United Nations should be carrying out a full investigation and that our Government should play a crucial role in that. She was also correct to say that Mr Speaker held an excellent event, the screening of “The Bleeding Edge” film, to highlight the issue of the forced removal of organs in China. Sadly, owing to pressures on my diary in the summer, I was not able to attend, but I believe that the film is compelling and I will certainly put it on my list to watch at Christmas.

[Fiona Bruce]

I just inform the hon. Lady and other Members that so much interest has been expressed in that film that our commission is proposing to put on a further screening in this place shortly. I hope that she will be able to attend that.

[Catherine West]

I thank the hon. Lady for that information. I will indeed try to attend the second screening of “The Bleeding Edge”.

[Jim Shannon]

May I recommend to those people who have not seen that film that they do so? However, if anyone does come to watch it, they should come prepared for some horrific viewing; many people seeing the film have felt unable to continue watching it and have had to close their eyes. It is a very effective film but it is also very hard to watch. I urge those who have not seen it to go and see it, but they should prepare themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think it was the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) who suggested that this issue is just so horrific to think about. We are talking about it in the cold light of day now, but I think that people will need quite a strong constitution to watch the film.

The hon. Member for Congleton talked about Dr Enver Tohti’s time working as a surgeon in China. I will be interested to follow up on his personal testimonies about the executions and subsequent organ harvesting. I am sure that the Foreign Office is looking carefully at those reports in order to come to a judgment on how to substantiate those claims and on what action to take as a result. Any suggestion of “on-demand killing” for organs is too terrible even to contemplate.

I press the Minister on the issue of a travel ban. Does he believe that that strategy could work? Furthermore, the hon. Member for Congleton talked, in the light of the allegations, about the increased activity in recent years. I note that in the briefing prepared for today’s debate there is quite a lot of fresh information from 2015 and 2016. We do not feel reassured that this activity is being reduced. We need to ask further questions.

I will briefly put on the record my appreciation of the comments by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and of his forensic questioning about exactly where we are in relation to the human rights dialogue. He is right to remind the House that we already have a vehicle in place to examine human rights in all countries about which we have concerns, particularly in relation to the groups that are highlighted in the reports.

In the context of the alleged organ harvesting, the Uyghurs, the Tibetans, the House Christians and Falun Gong tend to be the groups that come up again and again in the human rights legislation, in the recordings and in other evidence. Therefore, could the Minister respond to the questions put by the hon. Member for Gloucester—what is the existing framework and what are the dates for ongoing dialogue and challenge? Also, can he explain why there is no mention of this issue, which is clearly of concern to so many people, in the July 2016 FCO report?

I thank all Members for being here today and for putting on the record their concerns and questions. May I press the Minister on the question of an independent investigation by the British Government and of the Government working closely with the UN on the issue? What are the levers we can use around some of our relationships in the wider sense? We meet regularly to talk about trade. We meet regularly to talk about ongoing concerns and ongoing positive elements of our relationship. How can we develop the balance that we so desperately need in relation to countries that are so important to us in the post-Brexit climate? The European Union has, I think, taken a lot of responsibility for human rights work over the years. How can we again make that part of a more balanced approach to relationships with China?

Can the Minister clarify the question of allowing citizens to go to China for organs? How can we look at whether there are practical ways to establish a travel ban until we are absolutely sure that this is not happening? Also, can he explain how we can monitor any ongoing allegations, so that we can be absolutely sure that we are dealing with the facts?

Victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism: Compensation

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on securing the debate. I also pay tribute to the tireless work of support and campaign groups that have continued to seek justice for those who have fallen victim to terrorism, including the Docklands Victims Association, which recently commemorated the 20th anniversary of the Canary Wharf bombing. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was in the Chamber earlier.

I appreciate that when the Minister gave a commitment back in September 2015 that the

“Government’s objective is broad and lasting reconciliation between Libya and UK communities affected by the Qadhafi regime’s sponsorship of terrorism”,

there was no stable or recognised Government in Libya, and that remains accurate today. Even in the last 24 hours the Government of national accord have lost control of three major oil ports. We know how difficult it is, but will the Minister please update us on the most recent representations to his counterparts, not just in Libya but in the USA? As Members have said today, there is a serious anomaly—I am talking not just about US victims, whom the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) underlined in his speech, but about French victims, whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) mentioned. Why should victims in the UK be any different?

Many Members have mentioned the legalities of this case, but surely the big question is the moral case. We are not here just to talk about legalities, court cases and precedents, and so on; what we care about is fairness for victims. So many years have now elapsed, and we are desperate to get a solution.

I will repeat a couple of important points so that the Minister can be forensic in his response. As I am being brief, I hope he will allow me to intervene if he does not respond to my questions. First, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) made a brilliant observation about having a covenant for victims. What is stopping our excellent civil servants drafting such a covenant? The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee could have a hearing on a covenant for victims, and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) could contribute to debates within the Committee.

Secondly, what is the Minister’s view on building a database? Thirdly, the hon. Member for South Suffolk said that there should be regular updates on the FCO website. If not, why not? Tell us this morning. Let us get some certainty. Finally, I see no difference between the US and the UK. We are partners when we set out on such expeditions, and we should have a similar outcome for victims here in this country.

There has been much talk of predecessors. When Gordon Brown set up the reconciliation commission, I was probably leading the London Borough of Islington and talking about speed humps. What matters is that we are where we are. Some of us were not in the House then, and it is important that we start from today. Today we can have a fresh start. We have heard passionate speeches today from Members on both sides of the Chamber, and there is no reason why we cannot start afresh with fresh Members and fresh energy. Let us have some justice for the victims. Let us not allow this debate to get dusty on shelves again.

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister to wind up with a minute or two left at the end, so that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) can conclude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

As I said, that is an option that we can consider, but it has severe consequences, which is why I would not recommend it when we are about to embark on discussions. If there is any whiff that we are about to dip into frozen assets to the tune of £9 billion, where will that take our relationship with Libya? There would be consequences. I will make it clear: our objective is to gain compensation, but our strategy to gain that compensation should take us to the best possible place, rather than making us enemies along the way.

[Catherine West]

What assessment have the Minister’s civil servants made of the varying degrees of need? We know that some victims are in desperate need—today, not in the future. What assessment has been made of their varying levels of need?

[Mr Ellwood]

It is not for me to do that. I am the Minister in the Foreign Office. When I visited Northern Ireland, it became apparent to me that there were cases in which those subject to violence and terrorism there by the IRA were perhaps not receiving as much compensation as they should. I pass on such matters, but they are not for me as a Foreign Minister to pursue. I am helping with the link with Libya.

There are various schemes in place. I am involved in supporting those affected by the Sousse terrorist attacks to ensure that they receive the necessary compensation. There is a criminal injuries compensation scheme, as well as one tailored to Northern Ireland. If they do not meet the support needs of those affected, that is a domestic matter that must be pursued, and I will encourage that, but it is not for me to pursue it. However, I will discuss it with the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Dog Meat (South Korea)

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. A number of excellent contributions have been made today, and as ever with many of these Westminster Hall debates, there has been a great deal of consensus across the Chamber.

With over 100,000 individuals signing the petition relating to animal cruelty and dogs, in particular, in South Korea, it has evidently sparked a lot of interest among our constituents, so it is very pleasing to be able to speak in the debate on behalf of Labour and to challenge the Minister to do all he can to put this issue on the record personally and through his offices in the Foreign Office. We have heard a number of excellent contributions, not least from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) who set the debate off and particularly underlined the fact that the 2018 winter Olympics gives us a good opportunity to talk about this issue and our constituents’ concerns about the cruelty of the animal trade.

Several concerns persist about the use of dogs for meat. In particular, many of the dogs are kept in terrible conditions, including in a system similar to that of battery chickens in which dogs are tightly confined in metal cages and subject to long periods in the hot sun of Korean summers and the freezing cold of winters without the ability to move freely around.

The way in which dogs are bred remains an issue in the UK but it is of far greater concern in South Korea given that there is less government regulation there. We have read many briefings about deformities, and fertility and inherited health conditions. Those issues are rightly of great concern to leading charities, constituents and campaigners. Tragic incidents of dogs being fed on other dogs have come to light through briefings. Has the Minister raised those issues with Minister Yun Byung-se?

Tackling the issue must go beyond pressing for legislative reforms. This afternoon, we have heard about some cultural changes, which are very welcome indeed. The fact that many of the older generation are partaking less in the tradition of eating the product and that younger people tend to have chicken soup rather than dog stew is probably a positive culinary development. I am pleased that the Minister and his officers are prepared to tackle some of the cultural norms, and we must not be afraid of doing so. The practice of having a pet is now becoming common in Asia, which is perhaps leading to a greater understanding of the inappropriateness of the treatment of many poor animals.

I will draw briefly on some highlights of the debate. I was interested to hear the reflections of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). The past week has shown that there are, indeed, massive political issues in the Korean peninsula, and it would be remiss of us not to mention that. I have every sympathy for the Minister in organising his priorities when he next meets with Korean colleagues and his opposite number.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made a salient point about the European Union, hoping that our own regulation will not go backwards. Indeed, the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), mentioned that the UK has a wealth of experience because of our traditions and our relationship with the EU. We hope that we do not go backwards in the post-Brexit confusion that we seem to be in, but that we continue to hold those standards as high as we possibly can.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) mentioned foxhunting. I am sure that South Korean campaigners feel strongly about that, and they are quite right to raise the issue of such practices in some of our rural and countryside areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has spoken eloquently not just today, but in previous debates, about best practice in animal husbandry. She has a great track record of interest in and love of animal welfare, as well as human rights. She was quite right to hark back to the golden era of Lord Hague, when human rights and such issues were higher up the agenda. At that time, we enjoyed having a sense of peace of mind that such issues were being raised at the highest level. The feeling now is that when Foreign Office Ministers meet with their counterparts abroad, the approach not just to human rights, but to animal welfare, is different. However, I would be happy to be disabused of that notion if the Minister chooses to have that debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East was right to mention that other parts of Asia, including Singapore and other countries, have outlawed dog meat. Will the Minister comment not just on the cultural change, but on the change happening in the region?

My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) made a good point about making a stand and ensuring that, as Members of Parliament, we tell our Government what we would like on the list of priorities and the agenda when the Minister meets with his counterpart in South Korea.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for this late and welcome opportunity to support my hon. Friend’s points and to join all those who want the maximum pressure exerted to stop these appalling practices.

[Catherine West]

We are all aware of the high-profile debate about grammar schools in the Chamber now, which is perhaps why there are not as many hon. Members in Westminster Hall. Nevertheless, we have representation from almost every party, which is great.

[Lady Hermon]

A number of hon. Members referred to the atrocious trade of greyhounds being exported and cruelly consumed in South Korea. Greyhounds are very intelligent animals. They also have a high haemoglobin count and are one of the few types of dog that can give another dog a blood transfusion. Therefore, will the hon. Lady take the opportunity to say something about what her party, as a united party on this issue, might do to ensure that greyhounds are not exported through Europe or elsewhere, so that they are not consumed—which is a grisly business—in South Korea?

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East has a track record of raising that issue on a number of occasions and has been a champion for animal welfare. Certainly, we could raise the greyhound issue with the Government again. Perhaps we could even seek a further debate here so that we give campaigners every assurance that it is at the top of our animal welfare agenda.

Finally, there are questions that go beyond the specifics of dog meat. The UK has come a long way in improving practices to ensure that our meat industry has, as much as it can, a sense of health and safety, welfare requirements and systems for oversight and scrutiny. Depending on the level of detail into which the Minister gets with his colleagues in South Korea, perhaps we could do some best practice exchanges. Our universities and veterinary schools have excellence in research and development. Are there some R and D exchanges that the Minister could give us some assurance on?

I thank you, Mr Nuttall, for chairing the debate. I hope we can continue to see progress, particularly in the timing of the Minister’s interventions with his opposite number. As the big events of 2018 come up, he will have more opportunities to develop relationships with countries that are hosting large sporting events. He, his officers, his parliamentary private secretaries and all the other Ministers who get to pop into South Korea and make representations on many issues can try several different approaches.

Chibok Schoolgirls

Catherine West Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will be brief so that the Minister has time to respond to the specific points that have been raised. I am grateful to the Chairman of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for securing this debate. As ever in Westminster Hall, this has been a cross-party and collegial debate.

I will press the Minister on a couple of points about the assistance that the Government are giving to Nigeria. Will he comment briefly on the larger number of 276? Is he aware of the services on offer to the girls who have returned, particularly post-traumatic services? Does he believe that the services funded through the DFID budget are of high quality? Will he briefly touch on both the Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office budgets being spent on assisting with the logistics of finding the girls who are still missing in this huge terrain?

Will the Minister comment on the sensitive matter of returned girls who want to terminate their pregnancies? What choice of healthcare is on offer? Will he comment on those who, through ostracism in society, are sadly facing destitution? What sort of basic welfare is available to these girls? Some of those who have returned are being ostracised. That information comes from House of Commons Library research and the Guardian article by Chitra Nagarajan, who has underlined that although some girls have been returned, and we hope more will, those crucial services must be in place. High-quality, long-term, ongoing care, in which the UK has expertise and which we are in a good position to offer, would be valuable. By providing such care we could rest assured that excellent services are available when more and more of these girls are returned.

I address my other short point not to the Minister but to our Government’s trade envoy, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). He has an important role to play, and I am pleased that he has emphasised that the Nigerian judiciary has a role to play in strengthening the effectiveness of the rule of law. Will the Minister outline how the roles of the trade envoy and the FCO will be co-ordinated so that we strengthen our messaging when officials and envoys are in Nigeria so that these issues are discussed at every single opportunity, not just Government to Government or military to military, but in a genuinely co-operative and co-ordinated response?

[John Howell]

It depends on the cheekiness of whoever is the trade envoy. In my case, I take everything under my own banner and I do a bit of the co-ordination myself. If I can continue to do that, so much the better.

[Catherine West]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to be as cheeky as possible.

Once again, I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate. I apologise for not having a chance to mention everyone, but I particularly thank the three Members who were there and who heard the chanting. They are wearing their badges today. Listening to their speeches was very emotional.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I am getting better at this, clearly. She spoke about the underlying problems. I will come to that in a second, because it is important to dealing with areas of instability and conflict, which are an incubator for extremism. She gave an important list, including poverty, cultural issues and the role of women and girls in society. In the 21st century, it is important that we can articulate that from an early age, which is exactly what some DFID programmes are doing.

Finally, I turn to some of the questions raised by the Labour spokesperson. Her speech was quite short; she caught me off guard a little by stepping back, but she clearly wanted to give me the most time possible to answer the points. She spoke about post-traumatic services, which must be considered. I do not have the details, but the former Foreign Secretary, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, raised with President Buhari our concern to ensure that that package of measures is in place. Again, when I go on my visit there, it will be on my list.

[Catherine West]

I understood that the debate would finish at 3 o’clock, but we now have loads of time for interventions. Will the Minister write to the Committee members and to me about the exact provision for women, particularly in relation to some of the healthcare issues that I mentioned, including post-traumatic support and counselling and the depth of those services? It has been highlighted in press reports that some of that provision is not necessarily reaching the ground, and it should be ready in case other girls return who have been abducted or radicalised. We would like the detail.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady has explained why she made an uncharacteristically short speech, thinking that the debate would be curtailed at 3 when we actually have more time. I will certainly be able to discuss other things, if there are more that she was hoping to present.

The hon. Lady raises some important questions about post-traumatic services and the role of the envoy. If I may explain, when I invited a number of the Africa envoys to meet me as the Minister for Africa, I wanted to know what the formalities were and how we could utilise them. In his own way, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley put his finger on the point: it varies incredibly according to the enthusiasm of the individual tasked with the job of envoy. I would like to elevate it to a much more formal role, so that envoys are tasked by the Prime Minister, occasionally get access to the Prime Minister at No. 10 to share their thoughts and have to write reports. I understand that none of them has to do so. We have not only a gifted but a committed envoy, who has attended this debate, but there is no requirement for any of the trade envoys actually to produce any work. I think that that is wrong.

We are considering ways we can work together on a more formal footing to leverage the role, because it is important. As we have seen, envoys can get amazing access. Because it says on their business card “Prime Minister’s envoy”, they get incredible access, and that needs to be leveraged appropriately.

[Catherine West]

May I suggest that the Minister not only reaches officials but goes to small business communities, which provide huge opportunities for applying pressure in regional ways? They go into communities in much more depth.

Another point I want to make concerns linking the trade envoy with the all-party group and the Chairman of the International Development Committee and its members. We are all here, so perhaps we could establish a reporting-back system by trade envoys to the Select Committee and to the APPG on occasions, if that is permitted, so that the informal networks that operate among parliamentarians can be enhanced and we close the gap.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady is making up for the shortness of her speech with the length of her interventions, but they are welcome. There are useful observations and initiatives to be pursued there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I should like to associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about Jo Cox, the MP who tragically lost her life. She was a fellow colleague from the 2015 intake. She was an advocate for refugees and a fierce and passionate champion of the dispossessed. We miss her very much at FCO questions, and her memory inspires us all as parliamentarians to work selflessly for those whose voice is rarely heard.

In relation to the human rights situation in China, Amnesty International has stated that at least 248 human rights lawyers and activists have been targeted by the authorities over the past year. They include the prominent lawyer, Wang Yu. She and 12 others are now under formal arrest on charges of subverting state power. What is the Minister’s assessment of this targeting of human rights activists? Does he agree that, on occasion, the Government’s approach lacks assertiveness in relation to human rights in China?

[Mr Swire]

I should like to associate myself with the hon. Lady’s first remarks, but I dissociate myself from her concluding remark. I believe that, on balance, we have got the situation just about right. We are concerned about the human rights lawyers and we continue to raise the issue. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so with the president of the Supreme People’s Court of China, Zhou Qiang, on 9 June. He has also raised our concerns with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, and we will continue so to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

As one of my colleagues said earlier, last week we had all our senior people in London for the annual leadership conference, and I clearly set out to them the challenge to the Foreign Office and its network as we move into this new phase where we will seek to redouble our efforts to build trade relationships around the world beyond the European Union. I can tell my hon. Friend, and the House, that I got the resounding response that they are up for that challenge.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Earlier today, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled against Chinese claims to territorial rights in the South China sea, backing a case brought by the Philippines. Does the Secretary of State agree that the PCA’s ruling must be respected, and that any non-compliance by the Chinese Government would not only cause severe reputational damage to China but constitute a serious breach of international law?

[Mr Hammond]

The UK’s position has always been, and will remain, that we urge respect for international law and the rules-based international system, and decisions arising from international tribunals. As the hon. Lady will know, the ruling is 501 pages long. It flopped on to my desk just before coming over here to answer questions—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is obviously super-efficient; I might test her later. We will study the decision carefully. If the hon. Lady can give me any insight into her understanding of page 432, I would be very grateful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

Perhaps I might outline for the House some of the costs. We estimate that the initial costs would range from £55 million for a 50-person pilot on Diego Garcia to £256 million for a 1,500-person resettlement on Diego Garcia and the outer islands. In addition, operating costs would range from £5 million to £18.5 million a year on a potentially open-ended and escalating basis.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office commit that financial resource, which is desperately needed, to recognise the human rights of this group of people who have suffered for so long under many different Governments?

[James Duddridge]

Following the detailed KPMG report and subsequent consultation, Her Majesty’s Government are looking closely at the matter. The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not come to a conclusion at the Dispatch Box, but go through due process, and I will try to do so as quickly as possible.

Burma

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. May I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on securing this important debate? Members may wish to know that at my daughter’s secondary school, she is in Aung house. It is lovely to be able to explain to her and the other girls why their house is named after Aung San Suu Kyi.

I, too, have met Ben Rogers; I loved his book and read it during my Christmas break. It is clear from his book and from the work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide that Burma is a difficult place geographically, because so much happens in villages and it is difficult to scrutinise things happening a long way away. That presents us with a real problem in tackling human rights issues. Although we are all well apprised of what is happening with the Rohingya people, what is happening to other minority groups is less well known. Christian Solidarity Worldwide and other groups can perhaps help us understand the fuller picture of what is happening in Burma.

It has been fabulous to hear such a great range of voices today, and to hear about the trip that colleagues undertook to discuss parliamentary business. The hon. Members for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke of the training courses they undertook with local parliamentarians in Burma-Myanmar and how exciting it was to hear about the experience of new MPs there. They also spoke about how we can take over all the knowledge about how we manage our constituencies here, which enriches the work of Burma’s Parliament.

I was delighted to hear the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) about corruption. We have not really touched on that sufficiently in this debate, but perhaps there is a separate piece of work that we could undertake on it, because it is crucial. British businesses going into Burma in the coming years must be aware of the corruption problems in Burma and, indeed, other countries. Our approach to foreign policy must be balanced. It is important that we have trade at the centre of our foreign policy, but it is also crucial that we tackle difficult and entrenched issues such as corruption, human rights abuses and the repression of certain minority groups.

I appreciated hearing from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) about how difficulties with citizenship hold back Burmese members of Parliament from taking on their roles. I thank him for his speech. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the particular issues facing Christians and the testimonies of girls who have been abused in churches, which is a doubly awful situation. I have read such terrible stories myself, having been involved in the work of Burma Campaign UK to end rape and sexual violence.

It was good to hear the hon. Member for Congleton focus on the Shan women, who face particular issues that go right into the heart of their villages, and to hear the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) talk about the basics—the things that we take for granted that need to be worked towards in Burma. Indeed, the Parliament there has had the support of our Speaker for many years, and it is exciting to see the fruit of that coming to bear, with our own parliamentarians going abroad and making sense of the reality there.

I want to focus on Burma Campaign UK’s pledge to end rape and sexual violence. We have heard some stories, and we have read about the two Kachin teachers aged 20 and 21 who were raped in Kaunghka village, in northern Shan state. No one has yet been charged or put on trial for that crime. Originally, when the former Foreign Secretary, with the support of Ms Jolie, made a big push on sexual violence, it took quite a bit of pressure to get Burma on to the list of countries that were going to be focused on. I am pleased that we eventually got Burma on to that list back in 2012, but it is a country that sometimes suffers from not being in the limelight enough. That is why it is special that Members have taken such an interest in it. While many countries immediately came to mind, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it took quite a while to get Burma on to the list of countries that the then Foreign Secretary was going to focus on. I make a plea to the Minister today that he focuses on the role of women and girls, as we know from DFID’s important work over the years that educating women has a long-term effect.

The pledge to which many of us have signed up calls for an investigation into rape and sexual violence, particularly involving the military. We heard a good intervention on that from the hon. Member for Strangford. It also calls for an

“end to impunity for rape and other forms of sexual violence”

and “support for victims”. We could do a lot to provide such support, hopefully through the DFID budget—for example, helping those with post-traumatic stress disorder and providing counselling and confidence building, which we know are crucial for women who are survivors of sexual violence. The pledge supports the

“inclusion of women at every political level in Burma including the peace negotiations between the Burmese government and the ethnic armed political groups”,

between which there is tension. Finally, the pledge calls for Burmese law

“to be in line with international human rights standards to outlaw rape in marriage.”

Those are the five elements of the pledge that we have signed up to, and I look forward to the Minister confirming that he will redouble his efforts to put them at the top of the agenda when speaking to Burmese Ministers.

I emphasise the importance of a rounded foreign affairs policy. We would like to see a much more high-profile debate on human rights as well as trade. There is a triangle of national security, human rights and trade, and the last two sometimes tend to be less high-profile.

We have not debated press freedom enough today. It is difficult to put that on an agenda between Governments, because it is about freedom, but allowing press freedom is a crucial part of knowing what is happening in terms of human rights. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned the punishment that is meted out to people who use Facebook. Finally, if the Minister would be so kind, I would like him to mention the anti-corruption stream.

Hong Kong: Sino-British Joint Declaration

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate. Indeed, I recognise his record of being critical of China as regards Hong Kong and his recent intervention in the House on the case of Mr Lee Po, shortly after his disappearance.

When we balance the relationship with China, our great partner, we must recognise the importance of putting on record what we hold dear about human rights, equality and freedom. That is not always easy, but it is important to uphold. I am sure that hon. Members recognise the continued importance of Hong Kong to the UK. Our shared history, the development of economic ties and the fact that more than 3 million British citizens are currently resident in Hong Kong mean that the UK will continue to have a very special relationship with this special administrative region. With more than 600 UK businesses registered there, an export market worth £8.6 billion and a UK investment stake of more than £33 billion, the signs are clear that trade is healthy.

I will focus on two specific areas, both relating to the key issue of stability. The one country, two systems framework is crucial in underpinning confidence in Hong Kong—in the place of Hong Kong, which we all love. We all want reassurance that there is a robust and structured judicial framework and that the rule of law is upheld. The hon. Member for Gloucester is right to describe the importance of the rule of law as defined by the independence of the judiciary. He is also right to praise China for its robust approach to addressing corruption in the wider piece—not just in Hong Kong but in the wider country—and the zealousness with which corruption is being addressed demonstrates that there is an ability to uphold the rule of law where necessary. The rule of law can therefore be upheld in Hong Kong; it just takes political will to make that happen.

The joint declaration is crucial in upholding understanding and confidence in Hong Kong. We all know that many perceive Hong Kong as the gateway to the broader Chinese market and to China culturally, and it is perceived as a place where corporate structures can grow within a familiar system. The dynamic in Hong Kong and the Legislative Council is changing, and we have heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that there is a sense that whereas protest was peaceful several years ago, in the past few years it has started to become less peaceful. There is more use of police and certain tactics that are not welcome in controlling crowds, which is the sort of tone that needs to be underlined in this debate.

Equally, what we are seeing happen at constitutional level and in debates in the Legislative Council—the filibustering, the discussions, the lack of harmony—are all things that, in a sense, change the temperature in Hong Kong. They are the sorts of things that, as a partner of Hong Kong, we need to underline and draw to China’s attention. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of the current situation in Hong Kong on constitutional reform, on the peacefulness or non-peacefulness of demonstrations and on how young people feel. The hon. Member for Gloucester was right to read out an email from a young person, and I have been approached both by British-born Chinese and by Hong Kong students who are studying here. They are concerned about their future in Hong Kong, and they want to enjoy in Hong Kong the kinds of freedoms that we enjoy here.

Upholding the one country, two systems principle goes beyond ensuring commercial interests. Members are right to mention the debate we had this morning, in which I talked about our triangle of aims in foreign affairs. The triangle has three parts: first, economy and trade; secondly, security—I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the South China sea issue, because we do not speak about that as much as perhaps our partners would like—and thirdly, human rights. We cannot just have to ourselves the freedoms and rights that we enjoy here; we must hold them up abroad, too.

Upholding the one country, two systems principle goes beyond just ensuring commercial interests; it is about that triangular approach. I think particularly of our great collaborations on the rule of law. We share best practice in our legal teams with Hong Kong, and so on. The hon. Gentleman mentioned IP, but there are a number of other areas where there is so much to be shared, enjoyed and built on, and I worry that the human rights side could be slightly staining what our other excellent endeavours might achieve. We must ensure that we bring human rights and cases such as that of Lee Po to the fore so that we can all move at the same pace on the three elements of my triangle.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Lady is making a number of good points, as one would expect from someone who has been engaged on this issue for a long time. Does she agree that it is important that we offer constrictive criticism as friends in a partnership between two nations, and that we highlight what more China can do to win friends and, above all, trust as she goes increasingly global? The idea behind one country, two systems and the 50-year period of the joint declaration was that by the end of that period the systems in Hong Kong and China would be so similar that there would be no need for one country, two systems any longer. Does she think that things are heading in that direction at the moment and that the systems are getting more similar, or is there a risk, in the worst case scenario, of the two systems moving further apart?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

Indeed, and that is where we need a balance. In China, they talk a lot about harmony and balance, and that is what we have to do. We must ensure that all our work streams come together at the same time. When we work on legal relations, technological advances, business and education—our wonderful collaboration between universities—we must not forget who we are. We are determined to promote human rights, equality and so on, and so we must bring all of those work streams together, including the important one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—peace. We must maintain peaceful, open dialogue.

To digress slightly—I will be very brief, because I know the Minister wants to get away—[Interruption.] He is so busy. The tone in the all-party China group when Mr Liu was present recently was excellent. We had a very open discussion about best practice on anti-corruption and on a number of work streams to do with local business in various constituencies. We also had a robust discussion about a recent delegation to Hong Kong, and we raised our concerns about Mr Lee Po and other cases, and about the steel situation. I felt that it was a perfect meeting. Members of Parliament were able to discuss openly what we feel, and we had a wonderful conversation and dialogue. From my tiny knowledge of China—I lived there, but one never knows everything—I felt that we made progress in our dialogue. It is important to emphasise that.

In our meetings with China we must continue to be energetic in raising matters such as the cases of Mr Lee Po and Cheung Jiping and not shy from them. We must remember that Mr Po is a British citizen. Information and press freedom are crucial to democracies, so it is important that they are front and centre of our discussions. I will be grateful if the Minister can update Members on what further action he will take to investigate the nature of Mr Po’s recent public communication and whether it was genuine or made under duress.

We all want a stable Hong Kong. I remember stepping off an aeroplane there in 1974 and smelling the tropics and feeling the warmth. All of us who have been there, lived there and love that place want it to be stable. We want freedom, human rights, genuine democracy and all of those wonderful things to be kept going, and we want to maintain those international friendships. We do not want a closed Hong Kong whose young people are unhappy about their future. The joint declaration must be meaningful, and stability must allow economic life to flourish. We must also support freedom of expression, the rule of law and a peaceful future.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate and pay, once again, tribute to his valuable work through his chairmanship of the all-party group on China, as well as to his deep personal interest in Hong Kong. I agree with his opening remarks in which he drew attention to all those who are following the debate outside this place. The rather thin attendance in no way reflects the level of continuing interest in Hong Kong, in the UK and in Parliament. It is purely the result of the timing of the debate being shifted, and of other competing demands on Members’ time.

To the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), I would say that this Minister is not at all in a hurry to get off. He is at the disposal of Members, although limited by time. I am anxious only to get on with the debate, to address some of the extremely important and interesting points raised by hon. Members this afternoon.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us, Hong Kong remains of great importance to the United Kingdom. There are more than 295,000 British citizens and 3.4 million British national overseas citizens living in the city. In 2015 approximately 530,000 visitors from the UK went to Hong Kong. Our bilateral trade continues to be one of the foundation stones of our partnership. UK investment in Hong Kong, conservatively valued at £33 billion, makes up about 35% of total British investment in Asia. I was slightly intrigued to hear the comparison that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) sought to make in a rather roundabout way between Scotland and Hong Kong and England and Hong Kong. I would just point out that I believe the Scottish Government would do well to study the free market approach of the special administrative region in running a very successful financial enterprise. I have no doubt that even the First Minister, in her visit to Hong Kong last year, might have noticed the difference in the comparative financial positions of Scotland and Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is the regional headquarters for 126 British companies and, incidentally, some of the leading ones have a distinguished and strong Scottish heritage. Some 630 British companies operate in the city, reflecting its pivotal role as an international gateway to mainland China and as a global financial centre. Hong Kong also, as has been pointed out, has a key role in our wider bilateral relationship with China, where we are supporting economic growth and the rule of law.

The Government’s relationship with the Hong Kong SAR Government is also strong. I most recently visited Hong Kong in July and discussed a full range of UK-Hong Kong bilateral issues with the Hong Kong Chief Executive CY Leung, the Financial Secretary John Tsang and the Secretary for Housing and Transport, Anthony Cheung. I also saw legislators and investors, and met Fred Lam, the new chief executive of the airport authority, to explore opportunities for British companies in the third runway expansion of Hong Kong international airport. In October we welcomed CY Leung to London for his first official visit as Chief Executive. Both I and the Foreign Secretary discussed with him the importance of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, and of preserving the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Sino-British joint declaration.

The United Kingdom strongly believes that it is those rights and freedoms that underpin Hong Kong’s continuing success. The joint declaration agreed the peaceful return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty under one country, two systems, and was one of the great successes of United Kingdom-China diplomacy. Some 31 years after its signature, our commitment to ensuring the faithful implementation of the joint declaration, and the protection of the rights and freedoms it guarantees, is as strong as ever.

It is in that context that the Government remain so concerned about the disappearance from Hong Kong of British citizen Lee Po and others associated with the Mighty Current publishing house. The Foreign Secretary made it clear on 11 February in his six-monthly report to the House that

“our current information indicates that Mr Lee was involuntarily removed to the mainland without any due process under Hong Kong SAR law.”

That constitutes a serious breach of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong. The United Kingdom and 11 other countries signed a US-led statement at the UN Human Rights Council on 10 March that made it clear that the disappearance of the Hong Kong booksellers was

“violation of the high degree of autonomy promised Hong Kong under its Basic Law”.

We have raised the case of Mr Lee with the Chinese and Hong Kong special administrative region Government at the highest level. I raised the case with the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom on 22 January, and I made clear the need for the Chinese authorities to return Mr Lee to Hong Kong immediately. The Foreign Secretary raised the case with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on 5 January and in London on 4 February, and the Prime Minister raised the case with the Chinese ambassador on 8 February.

More recently, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer visited Beijing on 25 and 26 February, he raised the case with the chairman of China’s Politics and Law Commission, Meng Jianzhu. I understand that the delegation from the all-party group on China, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), visited Hong Kong from 25 to 29 January and also raised the case with the Hong Kong special administrative region Government.

As we make clear in the six-monthly report,

“we have called, in our contacts with the Chinese government at the highest level, for Mr Lee's immediate return to Hong Kong. Moreover, we urge the Chinese and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Governments to reassure the people of Hong Kong that law enforcement in the Hong Kong SAR is exclusively the responsibility of the Hong Kong authorities, and that the fundamental rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents will continue to be fully protected, and respected by all, in accordance with the Joint Declaration and Basic Law.”

[Catherine West]

The debate has been focused on Hong Kong, but if Mr Po is now in China, will the Minister elucidate how the UK Government will use their influence when it is a question of mainland China rather than Hong Kong? There is perhaps more familiarity with how the judicial process works in the latter.

[Mr Swire]

We believe that if Mr Lee Po is to face any kind of trial, that should be in Hong Kong. That is agreed by the SAR as well. I shall continue, but the hon. Lady may want to come back to me if I do not fully answer her question. I raised Mr Lee Po’s case on 16 March at an “Advancing the Rule of Law in China” seminar organised by the Great Britain-China Centre, where I made it clear that

“the rule of law has been fundamental to Hong Kong's continued economic success”.

On the issue of citizenship, I stress that Mr Lee remains a British citizen with the right of abode in the United Kingdom. Despite the formal requests that we continue to make, we have not been granted consular access. Let me be clear that the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments have been left in no doubt as to the importance we attach to this case. We call again for the immediate return of Mr Lee to Hong Kong.

[Catherine West]

I just want to clarify what processes there might be to have Mr Lee returned to Hong Kong if he is not currently there. What influence might the UK Government bring to bear to achieve that outcome?

[Mr Swire]

I have rehearsed the high-level contacts and representations we have had with the Government in Beijing, not least those involving the Prime Minister, the ambassador and the Chancellor when he was in Beijing. We have raised the case at every level and will continue to do so until such a time as Mr Lee is returned to Hong Kong.

Several Members mentioned the South China sea. We support the Philippines’ right to peaceful arbitration. I stress that we take no view on the underlying sovereignty issues, although we do believe in a rules-based international system and the freedom and movement, and we do expect all others to abide by whatever ruling comes out of UNCLOSS through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea settlement. We are concerned about the risk that some of the large-scale land reclamation in the South China sea could pose to maritime freedom of navigation and to the area’s stability.

The six-monthly report makes it clear that, while the implementation of one country, two systems has served Hong Kong well in the vast majority of cases, there are specific grounds for serious concern in some other areas, such as academic freedom and the freedom of the press. As the six-monthly report states,

“it is essential for continued confidence in ‘One Country, Two Systems’ both in Hong Kong and internationally, that Hong Kong continues to enjoy, and is seen to enjoy, the high degree of autonomy and the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Basic Law and guaranteed in international law by the Joint Declaration.”

I was asked specifically by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester about the comments that Zhang Xiaoming, the head of the Central Government Liaison Office, made in a speech. I welcome the comment by Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma, whom I have met, on judicial independence. He reiterated article 25 of the Basic Law, which states:

“All Hong Kong residents shall be equal before the law.”

At the recent National People’s Congress annual session in Beijing, the Chinese Government reiterated their commitment to one country, two systems, and I welcome that.

Continuing the theme, my hon. Friend also raised the issue of an independent judiciary. Our assessment is that, while there have been specific challenges, on the whole the rule of law continues to function and the judiciary continues to be independent. We are confident in Hong Kong’s legal and judicial system, which has been and will remain an essential foundation for Hong Kong’s success.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green properly raised the issue of constitutional reforms, which we were all involved in, one way or another, in the past year or so. I remind the House that in the last Westminster Hall debate on Hong Kong, which was in October 2014, we discussed that very issue. It remains a crucial issue, both to meet the aspirations of the people of Hong Kong and to ensure effective governance. As the six-monthly report makes clear:

“The UK Government judges that constitutional reform will help, not hinder, the Hong Kong SAR Government to deliver. A more democratic and accountable system of government would help strengthen those rights and freedoms which have come under increasing pressure over the past two years…We encourage all parties to play their part in rebuilding constructive dialogue to pave the way for the resumption of the process at the earliest opportunity.”

The FCO and the Spending Review 2015

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in this important debate. With an international network of 268 posts across 168 states, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a long and proud history as a world leader in diplomacy, securing peace, protecting citizens abroad and providing an overseas platform to many domestic Departments and agencies.

Last year, the UK was ranked No. 1 in the world in Portland’s league table of soft power. As the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who is no longer in his place, mentioned, the concept of the battle of ideas is incredibly important as we approach the concept of our work abroad. The question is whether this year’s spending review undermines the important work of the FCO and our standing in the world of diplomacy. We know that since 2010 the Government have repeatedly cut the budget of the FCO, and now we have a Foreign Office that not only has the smallest budget of any Whitehall Department but has had its budget slashed by 16% in real terms.

According to the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee mentioned several times in today’s debate, we spend less on diplomacy than Canada, France, the United States and even New Zealand. Germany spends almost 50% more than this Government do. Some key states, such as China, Brazil, Indonesia and Russia, are actually increasing their diplomatic budgets. Although I welcome and support the announcement that the FCO’s budget will be protected in real terms, that comes after five years of cuts that have reduced the workforce to an all-time low and risked undermining its ability to have influence in the world. The Committee’s report, which we have debated at length, shows that over the last Parliament the country was found to be lacking in expertise, analytic capability and language skills to manage the fallout from the Arab spring and the crisis in Ukraine. We heard some very interesting Russian from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) emphasised the importance of acquiring language skills. One never knows when one might need a language.

I hope the House will receive from the Minister today a clear outline of spending estimates which will demonstrate how he intends to repair the damage already inflicted on his Department, to allow the UK to pursue its political and diplomatic objectives and maintain the global lead in soft power resources.

Last summer the world observed the largest refugee crisis since the second world war. According to figures released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are an estimated 59.9 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, more than 20 million of whom are externally displaced refugees. As has been discussed in the House frequently since the summer, millions of those refugees are fleeing the destabilising civil war in Syria. Earlier today, following the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), the House was fully engaged in a debate about how the situation in Syria could improve. We must have the resources to match the energy and the desire in this House to see peace in the middle east.

Given the media coverage, it would be easy to think that that was where the problem ended, but we know that millions of people have fled Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, Burma, Iraq, Eritrea, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Gaza and the west bank—the crisis is global. I take this desperate situation as a clear example of why we need a Foreign and Commonwealth Office that is properly funded and capable of engaging with these issues. Only a properly funded Foreign Office can allow the UK to take its place at the United Nations Security Council to set an agenda that seeks to address the causes of the international refugee crisis.

It has become clear that as a result of five years of cuts, there has been a change in the FCO’s focus and a downgrading of its focus on human rights. The Committee Report noted:

“The Permanent Under-Secretary acknowledged that human rights was now not one of the top priorities and that ‘in a constrained environment’, other elements of the FCO’s work had ‘supplanted it to an extent’. We believe this to be a consequence of the savings imposed so far on the Department.”

To give one example on which there has been a lot of correspondence between Labour colleagues and others, Mr Andargachew Tsige is a British citizen currently imprisoned in Ethiopia. We could devote much more energy to such cases, were we to have the resources in country.

At one time securing peace, strengthening human rights and protecting our citizens abroad were at the top of the FCO’s list of priorities, yet the recent state visit by China, for example, appears to illustrate the fact that the Foreign Secretary’s top priority for the FCO is mainly commercial. It was up to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to raise specifically the problem of the tariff arrangements which put UK steel at a trade disadvantage with China, human rights in China, climate change and the need to tackle enduring poverty. In recent months, the priority of international security in relation to the South China sea has come to the fore.

This Government’s foreign policy lacks balance. Trade with China or any other nation is only one side of the coin. The other side of the coin, human rights, appears to have declined in importance. The Foreign Secretary has committed to an “internal review” following the Foreign Affairs Committee report. We look forward to seeing that, yet this House is still waiting to be told if it will be made public. Ministers should explain why they will not commit now to publishing this important document, given the clear public and national interest.

In conclusion, the FCO website states that its priorities are to protect British people and promote our global influence and prosperity. After five years of cuts, the question is whether the FCO remains fit to deliver those priorities. There is strong evidence, much of which we have heard in the House today, that diplomatic operations have been devalued and the FCO’s workforce has been cut right back. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on projected estimates, and I hope to hear more about how an adequately resourced Foreign and Commonwealth Office might lead to a more rounded foreign policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

There will be open registers available for law enforcement agencies to interrogate. There will not be publicly open registers. That is a long-term aspiration, but initially we want there to be access for law enforcement agencies. That will create greater transparency and reduce corruption and terrorist payments.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

In April 2014, the Prime Minister said:

“I believe that beneficial ownership and public access to a central register is key to improving the transparency of company ownership and vital to meeting the urgent challenges of illicit finance and tax evasion.”

Nearly two years have passed and there still appears to be no timetable for transparency arrangements in respect of the financial centres. Why is that?

[James Duddridge]

There has been much progress, which the hon. Lady dismisses too readily. There are checkpoints. Only last week, I spoke to overseas territory leaders. There are people out there at the moment and we hope to crystallise some of the improvements before the May summit on corruption. That summit was called by the Prime Minister and will be held here in London, which demonstrates the British Government’s commitment to this important issue.

[Catherine West]

Will the Minister tell the House the exact date by which he expects overseas territory financial centres to ensure that there are proper transparency arrangements, or will we continue to hear more excuses for inaction in the years to come?

[James Duddridge]

This is a matter of direction, rather than an ultimate destination. We will constantly ask the international community to do more to create greater transparency, but it is crucial that the international community, whether it is the Crown dependencies, the overseas territories or other overseas Governments, move together on this, because we want to eliminate the problem of corrupt and untransparent moneys, rather than shift it from territory to territory.