Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the latest political developments in Ukraine.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

15. What reports he has received on recent developments in Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I will make a statement shortly and I visited Ukraine yesterday. The United Kingdom is gravely concerned by the violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

Our options are open on that. The European Union Foreign Affairs Council yesterday agreed to look at targeted measures. Our options are open on the further action that we can take, and which we will take in conjunction with our allies and partners, because that will make any such action more effective, when we are able to consider developments over the coming hours and days.

[Helen Goodman]

At this time of crisis, it is clear that the Foreign Secretary must have no conflicts of interest. Unlike the Swiss and the Austrian Governments, this Government have not frozen the assets of members of the Yanukovych regime. Human rights activists in Ukraine have contacted me to complain that the Tories have taken money from members of that regime in the past. Does the Foreign Secretary want take to this opportunity to clear up that matter?

[Mr Hague]

I find the hon. Lady’s question ridiculous in the extreme, and I almost do not know where to begin to ridicule it. Certainly, Her Majesty’s Government would not be influenced by any such matters. I discussed with the Prime Minister of Ukraine yesterday our eagerness to assist with the return of stolen assets and their recovery for Ukraine. For the first time, the Ukrainian Government yesterday gave us a list of those involved; they had not done so previously. I have agreed with the Prime Minister of Ukraine to send a team urgently to Ukraine to advise the Ukrainians on the information they need to provide to us for us to be able to act on it. I think she can now see how utterly baseless her question was.

Ukraine, Syria and Iran

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes; I think that the right way for the new Government to approach this, as I said in my statement, is in a spirit of reconciliation but holding to account those responsible for human rights violations. Of course we resolved at the Foreign Affairs Council on Thursday to impose visa bans and asset freezes on those who we know are responsible for such violence, so we can exercise that power.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has repeatedly rightly said that Ukrainians must decide the future of Ukraine, and that political change must be achieved peacefully. Accepting those constraints, what does he think, in practice, the EU can and should do to build capacity and support political development?

[Mr Hague]

We can do a great deal, as we have in many other countries. The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Through the work of our embassies, we can give the Ukrainian authorities clear advice, as I have been doing in public today, and shall do in private, about how matters should be conducted to achieve that free, democratic future with financial support from international institutions. However, it is also important to communicate that message more widely across many different sectors of society in Ukraine—our embassy has begun to do that —and it is possible to find in European Union countries funding to support democratic development and political capacity building. We will be ready to do that.

Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Pound]

I am grateful, and I place on record my appreciation for the hon. Gentleman and the work he is undertaking in that area. To show how important that link is, when President Ilham Aliyev made critical comments fairly recently—I think it was on 17 October 2012—in connection with British Petroleum’s output from the Azeri–Chirag–Guneshli field, our ambassador to Azerbaijan, Peter Bateman, said:

“I shall be calling on BP in London next week to find out what more, if anything, we can do to help”.

That shows a remarkable degree of association with the British Government, and of involvement at a very high level. Indeed, the FCO was vital in negotiating what was widely called the “contract of the century”, which was signed in Azerbaijan in 1994. Co-operation was so close that when we first posted ambassadorial staff to the Republic of Azerbaijan they were located in BP’s offices in Baku. The relationship continues and prospers. In fact, the Foreign Secretary attended the signing ceremony for the final investment decision on the Shah Deniz 2 project in Baku.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary told me in response to a parliamentary question that he raised human rights issues on that visit. Does my hon. Friend know, and will he press the Minister on whether the Foreign Secretary also raised the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh?

[Stephen Pound]

Like many Members, I was in the Chamber for the debate that my hon. Friend initiated on that issue, but I think, with respect, that the Minister may be a more appropriate person to respond. I am not entirely privy to every detail of the negotiations and discussions, but I certainly recall the debate on this important issue.

There are some signs of movement. Just this week, the United States ambassador to Azerbaijan, Richard Morningstar, issued a statement to say that the United States is being even more active in resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict than in the past. He said:

“I can understand the frustration of the Azerbaijani people about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We are committed to trying to bring about resolution. It is a good thing that presidents met in November.”

There is some movement. This week, the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group have spoken of their hope for moving forward on this issue, particularly because of the additional truce that was agreed before the winter games in Sochi.

Human rights issues in Azerbaijan are probably not the subject of this debate, but I am looking to get some movement to allow some peace to return to a deeply troubled part of the world. This may be commonplace and obvious, and it may almost be otiose for me to say it, but it is one of the great tragedies that some of the most beautiful parts of the world are the places that are most troubled. One thinks of parts of central Africa, East Timor, and so many countries of great heart-stopping beauty. Anyone who has been to Nagorno-Karabakh—as I know many Members of the House have—will never forget those great sweeping, soaring mountains, those deep, eye-stretching valleys, and the churches going back nearly 2,000 years, with distinctive Armenian crosses everywhere one looks. We need to do something to bring back that peace.

In addition, we are approaching the anniversary of the great Armenian genocide of 1915. If ever there was a time when this House could look to Armenia with support, friendship and solidarity, it is as we approach this anniversary. The Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) is not in the Chamber, but I notified him that I was likely to mention his name. Every time we have discussed the Armenian genocide and the current situation, he has chosen to use comments such as “the so-called genocide” and say how he disapproves of any democratic opposition in Azerbaijan. He never misses an opportunity to defend President Aliyev. That is a shame, because I would have thought that if there is one thing the House can agree on it is that a genocide of the most horrendous proportions did take place in Anatolia, Van and what was then called western Armenia. The 1915 genocide was the third genocide and was particularly horrendous. Would it not be a good thing if we were to lend our support, put our shoulder to the wheel, and try to move Minsk forward in time for the commemorations of this appalling genocide?

Some would say, “Can we not put this matter behind us?” I am not Armenian and I am not Azeri. I do not have a drop of blood of either of those nations in my veins. However, I cannot help but note that even though much of what we talked about this evening appears to be in the past, it is a past that still resonates.

Many people will know the situation that occurred on 18 February 2004. Extraordinarily, soldiers from Azerbaijan and Armenia were present at a NATO partnership for peace activity in Budapest. One Azerbaijani soldier, Ramil Safarov, decided to buy an axe and take the head off an Armenian soldier, Gurgen Markarian. This happened in Hungary in 2004. This is not ancient history; this is recent history. At the time, the Azerbaijan human rights commissioner said that Safarov must become an example of patriotism for Azerbaijani youth and the National Democratic party awarded him the man of the year award in 2005. When the Hungarians released Ramil Safarov, he returned to Azerbaijan to be promoted to the rank of major. He received eight years back pay and was given accommodation. It is that raw and it is that recent. My point is that these emotions simply cannot be allowed to fester. When we have a feeling of animosity between two peoples that leads to a fellow soldier on a NATO joint exercise decapitating another soldier, that is something intensely felt and we must be able to somehow push that forward and improve the situation.

The British Government cannot demand action, but what we can do is to show our concern. I know the Minister and respect him, as do most in the House. We have an opportunity to put down a marker: to say it was an awful, bloody and terrible war, but that it finished 20 years ago. Let us finally end this awful conflict, and allow two nations to emerge into the sunshine to live in peace. Then we can talk about human rights, but at least let us talk without the sound of gunfire, without the smell of cordite and without the chill anticipation of death.

UK Relations with Ukraine

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Havard, for your guidance on the debate. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak about UK relations with Ukraine. I requested the debate in the aftermath of a decision by the Ukrainian Government not to proceed with the signing of the association agreement, but the topic has become much more urgent in the past few days. A large number of Ukrainians are in Parliament square as I speak, but they are small in number compared with the thousands taking part in the Euromaidan demonstration in Independence square. At the weekend, something approaching 1 million people in Ukraine demonstrated their unhappiness at the turn of events most recently. We have watched the events with growing concern.

Yesterday, there were reports that the Ukrainian Government had taken a decision to use force to disperse the protesters; happily, that has not happened. However, there have been raids on the offices of the opposition and there is no doubt that the situation remains tense and unstable. I hope that the Minister in his response will be able to say something about the latest information we have; I understand that talks have now started between opposition groups, civil society and the Ukrainian Government, which must be welcome, but we are by no means away from the danger that force might be used. I want to return to that later in my remarks.

I had hoped that the debate would take place in happier circumstances. I declare an interest: I am the chairman of the British-Ukraine all-party group; I am a director of the British Ukrainian Society; I was an observer in Kiev for the elections to the Verkhovna Rada earlier last year; and in September I attended the European strategy conference in Yalta.

At the conference, which took place only 12 weeks ago, representatives of all major parties in Ukraine were present. I heard both President Yanukovych and Prime Minister Azarov speak and state very clearly the absolute determination of Ukraine to go down the European path and to sign an association agreement at Vilnius. That strategy had the support of all the parties of Ukraine with the exception of the Communist party.

Of course there were always going to be obstacles. We are aware that Yulia Tymoshenko is still in prison, which was a serious issue that needed to be resolved. There were concerns about the way in which the judicial process had operated in imprisoning her and the claim that it was “selective justice”. There were wider concerns about the level of corruption that still exists in Ukraine and the abuse of monopoly power. But there appeared to be a real determination to make necessary changes. Measures were being tabled in the Rada to meet the requirements of signing that association agreement. It appeared that there might be a way forward whereby Mrs Tymoshenko could perhaps go for medical treatment abroad, and she herself had said that she did not want her situation to prevent the signature of the association agreement.

We always knew that the one obstacle, the biggest opponent, would be Russia. I was in Yerevan, a little while before Yalta, just after the decision had been taken by Armenia not to proceed with the signature of an association agreement. Without question, that decision was taken because of the enormous pressure that was put on the Armenian Government by Russia, in particular over the security problems that the Armenians face and the threat to withdraw security guarantees. But it appeared that Ukraine would stand up to the pressure, despite the economic measures being taken by Russia—import controls and tariff barriers. At Yalta, Ukraine expressed an absolute determination that it would proceed with the agreement. It was therefore a real surprise and a great sadness when the President came back and announced that instead of signing the association agreement in Vilnius, Ukraine would seek closer relations with Russia. I suspect that he cannot have anticipated the reaction to that announcement.

We saw the protests begin in Independence square, and instead of diminishing, they have, if anything, strengthened. Anybody who has seen the film footage of the violence committed about 10 days ago by riot police against innocent, peaceful protesters will have been deeply shocked by it.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate on human rights day. Does he agree that we would be interested to hear from the Minister what pressure the British Government can bring to bear on Ukraine to secure a strong human rights record in future, with a free press and the end of the holding of political prisoners, when the leverage of the EU association agreement is no longer a card to be played?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I shall return to both issues; I agree with the hon. Lady that those are desirable objectives, but there is a more immediate, pressing concern about how the protesters are treated. Their human rights are important at this time. We must not see a repetition of the kind of violence that has been committed by special forces against people. The scenes of people lying on the ground being beaten with batons by 50 or more riot policemen as they ran past were wholly unacceptable. Concerns have been expressed that provocateurs have been placed among the protesters, and that that may precipitate a decision to declare some kind of state of emergency. All of that would mean that Ukraine would slip backwards. I want to hear from the Minister a strong message from the British Government that human rights and peaceful protest must be respected, and that we cannot see any kind of repetition of the violence that has taken place in the past few days.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, but I would not wish to stray back into the debates on the earlier group of amendments. We are now talking about other matters.

I was commenting on the possibility of holding the referendum by the end of 2014, as suggested in my amendment 22. To meet people’s concerns about that issue and about whether to hold the referendum on the same day as the general election in May 2015, I have tabled an amendment to allow for greater flexibility. My amendment 23 would allow the referendum to be held by the end of 2015. That would mean, of course, that the Government would have to give some thought rapidly to how their renegotiation strategy could be developed prior to the general election. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats would, as usual, be very accommodating and helpful to their Conservative partners, as they always are on all matters.

This amendment would at least reduce the period of uncertainty. One of my big fears is that a referendum held a long way away will lead to potential delays or even cancellations of suggestions for inward investment into this country from countries such as Korea, Japan, China or the United States that have other European Union potential host countries such as the Netherlands, the Irish Republic and elsewhere. They might choose to go there rather than here if they thought that, four years down the line, the UK might be exiting from the single market and the European Union.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

On that very issue, is my hon. Friend aware of what Nissan said a couple of weeks ago? It said that it would reconsider its investment in the UK if Britain leaves the European Union—and there are 6,500 people employed by Nissan in the north-east. Does not my hon. Friend find that to be an extremely worrying scenario?

[Mike Gapes]

Absolutely—and it is not just Nissan; it is any major international company that wishes to locate within the European Union to get access to the single market population of 500 million and wishes to be based in a country with a high level of education where large numbers of people speak the English language. Because there is an excellent education system in the Netherlands, that counts as one such country; the Irish Republic would also provide an easy alternative for location if, because of the uncertainty created by a potential referendum and renegotiation leading up to 2017, they chose not to invest in the United Kingdom.

I was dealing with amendment 23, but amendment 24 would allow a little bit more time for the renegotiation. It is not as good as holding it earlier because of the uncertainty and the issues to which I have just referred. Nevertheless, this would allow less uncertainty—one year less uncertainty—than this private Member’s Bill, supported by elements of the Government, would allow.

Given the questions over whether this issue should be properly considered and some doubts about how long the renegotiation might take, I have also tabled amendments to provide an alternative date after the next general election, going beyond 2017. I have suggested—although I shall not press amendments 26 and 27 to the vote—2018 and 2019 as alternatives to allow more time. With 27 other EU states, this renegotiation, if it were to happen, would be extremely difficult. If, of course, the renegotiation is going to be a modest figleaf-type negotiation, it could be done quite quickly. If, however, it is fundamental and has to meet all the demands of the people who want to leave behind all the aspects of the present European Union and go back to being a free trade area or a common market, it would involve a complete disintegration and disentanglement of the UK relationship, requiring an à la carte approach that the other 27 countries are not likely to—I would say, will not—agree to. That would be a problem, so we would need a long time to persuade those other countries of our case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening on me to tell the Minister for Europe what he wants, but the Minister shows no signs of getting up to intervene and tell the House what powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to get back and whether they will meet the hon. Gentleman’s ambitions.

Thirdly, I suspect that the hon. Member for Windsor can make common cause with other Members who have tabled similar amendments to change the date of any referendum. My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath and my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South, for Glasgow North East and for Derby North have suggested in amendment 77 that the period from July to December 2017, when Britain holds the presidency of the European Union, should be avoided. Surely that will be this country’s moment of maximum influence in Europe, when the Prime Minister of the day chairs the European Council and can set the agenda and force the rest of the European Union to consider Britain’s priorities. At that moment the Conservative party would have all the machinery and influence of Government focused not on fighting Britain’s corner but on fighting Tory Eurosceptics. It is diplomatic nonsense. It is not worthy of a Foreign Secretary supposedly serious about fighting for our national interest.

As the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South, amendments 21 to 27, and his speech underlined, the complete lack of flexibility in the Bill over dates for a referendum is surprising. In Committee the hon. Member for Cheltenham set out the perfectly plausible possibility that negotiations on treaty change might be ongoing as the Bill’s arbitrary deadline approached. Indeed, in Committee the Minister half accepted that such negotiations, involving many countries and considerable complexity, could still be taking place, but he was not prepared to allow any flexibility in the legislation. Ministers could be in the middle of crucial negotiations, but rather than concentrating on completing them just when they are in their most sensitive stage, they would have to switch all their attention from fighting Britain’s corner to fighting a referendum campaign. How on earth could such a situation be in the national interest? Is not the truth that the fruitcakes are not in UKIP; they have just been gobbled up by Ministers.

Despite my sympathy for what I think are the motivations of the hon. Member for Windsor, I cannot recommend support for his amendment. Given that for 40 of the past 41 months since the Conservative party took power prices have risen faster than wages, as a country we should be spending the next year concentrating on improving living standards, increasing the number of well paid jobs and tackling energy bills. A referendum next year, or indeed in four years’ time, would make that task harder as a result of all the uncertainty it would bring.

Consultation with a wider field of national bodies and local government, as amendment 68, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East, suggests, might have enabled the Prime Minister to withstand the pressure from the Tory right over timing. Why was a referendum later in the next Parliament ruled out? There does not appear to have been any input in that decision by any recognised national or local grouping, yet the Bill rules out such flexibility. Is not the truth that too many Conservative Members, because they do not trust the Prime Minister on matters European, are unwilling to trust him on the issue of a referendum beyond the halfway point of the next Parliament?

Let us consider the merits of amendment 68. When the Prime Minister decided to take the risk of allowing Britain to leave the European Union, at a potential average cost of £3,000 to the living standards of the British people, there was probably no one in the room who was not a member of the Conservative party, apart from Lynton Crosby. There was no one else to give the Prime Minister a view on whether a referendum might be in the national interest, or indeed, if a referendum were in the national interest, how it should be conducted and what information should be available when it took place.

[Helen Goodman]

On the amendment tabled by our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), does my hon. Friend not agree that this consultation is extremely important and necessary, given that the Bill has not been treated, as it should have been, as a constitutional Bill, with pre-legislative scrutiny and an opportunity for evidence-taking? We must have the amendment; otherwise, we will never know what enormously important stakeholders in this country believe.

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, as indeed has our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East. She points to the consultation deficit that is implicit in the way the referendum has been brought forward.

Nobody seriously doubts that a referendum will inject uncertainty into British economic life, putting at risk our constituents’ jobs and opportunities for higher living standards. The amendment offers the prospect of serious voices from outside the narrow confines of the Conservative party contributing to the debate on whether a referendum might be held and, if so, when and how. They would be calmer voices than those of Conservative Members terrified of losing their seats. When there is increasing talk about the possibility of interest rates rising, it is hard to believe that the Prime Minister is willing to risk such a huge cut in the living standards of the British people—£3,000 a year per household, according to the CBI—simply to try to maintain the fiction of unity over Europe among Conservative Members.

New schedule 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East, specifically suggests that the CBI should be consulted. I would welcome that, because a dose of realism about the stakes involved in a decision to leave the European Union is sorely needed. Any debate on whether, when and in what circumstances a national referendum should be held should surely be informed by contributions from those recognised as representing some of the major interests and communities in the UK.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bain]

That is a pertinent and well made point.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Further to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), is it the case that the Bill has received no pre-legislative scrutiny and that no evidence has been taken?

[Mr Bain]

Sadly, that is correct. Before I became a Member of this House, I watched with great enthusiasm the passage of equivalent pieces of legislation, such as the devolution legislation of 1997, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the House of Lords Act 1999. Those Acts were of prime constitutional importance and they were well scrutinised by this House and the implications were well debated by Members. We have simply not seen that with this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

It has been a bit of a bumpy ride for me getting to today, to say the least—particularly among colleagues—but I rise to support a 2014 referendum. We Conservatives are completely united in wanting to give the British people a voice on Europe. We would have had a referendum by now if the Liberal Democrats had not held us back in the coalition. It is disgraceful that Labour Members want to gag British people and deny them a say on this incredibly important issue, even though eight out of 10 of our constituents want to have their voice heard on Europe. It strikes me that, at a time when the majority of our constituents—

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Adam Afriyie]

I will not give way, because Members are—

[Helen Goodman]

This is a point of order.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to give us his general overview of the political situation in this country when he is supposed to be debating these particular amendments to this particular Bill?

Middle East and North Africa

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have a big role to play, and the European Union, using its collective economic weight, potentially has a big role to play as well. As I said earlier, although we must never pretend that these matters can be sorted out by anybody other than Egyptians, we must not understate what we can do to assist. After all, British companies are the biggest investors in Egypt, and there are myriad family, business and personal connections between the people of Egypt and the people of the United Kingdom. We must not understate our influence, therefore; what we do can help, and what we say matters.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the Foreign Secretary and President Obama all expressed regret at the military intervention in Egypt, but the special envoy for the Quartet on the middle east suggested that it was inevitable, that they had no alternative. I realise that the Foreign Secretary has been very busy, but has he had an opportunity to discuss those remarks with the special envoy?

[Mr Hague]

The special envoy, the former Prime Minister from the hon. Lady’s party, does not have to clear with the Foreign Secretary of the day everything he says. I am not sure he would ever have cleared it with the Foreign Secretary of his own Government—perhaps the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) can tell us—and he certainly does not clear it with the Foreign Secretary of the next Government, who are opposing parties to his. That would be hoping for too much. I put things differently from him, as she noted—

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

As believers in democracy we are always in favour of people having their voices heard, and we would be reluctant ever to regard elections as unhelpful. We hope, of course, that in any elections, people who are ready to make peace will be successful so that this long-running conflict can be resolved.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Ghana; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

We welcome Ghana’s successful conduct of elections in December 2012, which were internationally recognised as generally free, fair and credible. The Foreign Secretary visited Ghana in March, strengthening further the already excellent Ghana-UK relationship, and I had the pleasure of attending the presidential inauguration in Accra in January.

[Helen Goodman]

I am a little bit surprised by the Minister’s answer to be honest. Last week some women from the Ghanaian Parliament came to Westminster, and they emphasised the value of stable institutions. As the Minister knows, a dispute about the presidential election is, fortunately, being pursued in the courts rather than on the street. Will he say a little more about discussions that the Foreign Secretary has had about that episode?

Azerbaijan (Human Rights)

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to initiate the final debate of the year this afternoon. At the beginning of November, I went to Baku to attend the UN internet governance forum, and I was taken there by Nominet—I wish to put on record my thanks for its generosity.

It might seem strange for the United Nations to hold an internet governance forum in Azerbaijan. The internet is one of the most free means of communication—it was instrumental in facilitating recent political uprisings during the Arab spring—but unfortunately the same cannot be said in Azerbaijan. Before discussing the human rights situation, I wish to take a moment to describe this country on the Caspian. It is a very beautiful, wild and mountainous country in the Caucasus. At no point in its history has Azerbaijan been a liberal democracy, so unfortunately it has no such traditions to recover. From 1805 to 1991, it was part of the Russian empire, latterly of course in the Soviet Union. In fact, it was in Baku that the Tsars imprisoned Stalin. In the last 20 years, the country has prioritised rapid economic development, based on its substantial oil and gas reserves. It is, I am afraid to say, the spiritual home of the 4x4, and it has an unresolved conflict with its neighbour, Armenia.

That context may explain the human rights situation in Azerbaijan, but it certainly does not excuse it. This year, Azerbaijan has played host to two major international events. The first, as many people are aware, was the Eurovision song contest. The second was the UN internet governance forum that I attended. Those two events should have been an opportunity for Azerbaijan to step forward and open up. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to have happened, with the authorities clamping down even more aggressively on journalists and critics of the regime.

At the moment, Baku is plastered with huge posters of President Aliyev, whose father—incidentally—was also president. Most people, when they have photographs taken for political purposes, choose ones that are flattering. Unfortunately, I found President Aliyev’s 6-foot-wide grin more of a crocodile smile.

The petty reality of life in an autocracy was brought home to me on the first morning when all the traffic on the motorway was held up for 20 minutes to allow the official motorcade to pass through, but the problems are far more serious than that. One might expect a Government who are trying to impress the rest of the world to be on their best behaviour, but while I was there the authorities continued to jam the BBC television channel.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

[Helen Goodman]

While I was there, the authorities continued to jam the BBC television channel and they held the trial of Avaz Zeynalli, who was accused of criticising the regime. The evidence was claimed to have been videoed, but neither the defendant nor his lawyer were shown the film. Finally, they hacked into the computer of Neelie Kroes’s staff while she attended the conference.

There is a long history of violence against journalists in Azerbaijan, which is documented by the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety, an Azeri non-governmental organisation. According to the institute, in 2005, Elmar Huseynov, the editor of Monitor, was gunned down in Baku. In 2011, Rafiq Tagi, a critic of Iran and the impact of Islam on Azerbaijan, was stabbed and subsequently died. The level of intolerance is well illustrated by the case of Agil Khalil, who was assaulted and stabbed after investigating reports of trees being burned in an olive grove. In April this year, Idrak Abbasov was attacked by employees of the state oil company of Azerbaijan while filming the destruction of residential properties near an oil field outside Baku. He was beaten unconscious and was in hospital for a month. It is thought that he may have been targeted for exposing human rights abuses in the run-up to the Eurovision song contest. In fact, three weeks previously, he had received The Guardian journalism award at the Index on Censorship freedom of expression awards here in London. There is then the case of Khadija Ismayilova, who I met at the IGF. She had previously worked for Radio Free Europe. Her flat was bugged and a sex video of her, which was filmed secretly, was posted on the internet.

Amnesty International has asked, in particular, that I raise the case of Mehmen Hoseynov, who is facing five years in prison. He is accused of hooliganism for filming a protest on 21 May. Will the Minister raise his case with the Government of Azerbaijan and call for all charges against him to be dropped immediately and unconditionally? Index on Censorship is also concerned about the cases of Minas Sargsyan, Hilal Mamedov, Anar Bayramli, Jamal Ali and Faramaz Novruzoglu. I have e-mailed the Minister with the details of their cases, rather than detaining the House with the long stories attached to them, so that his office can look into them.

Those cases are not isolated incidents; they are part of a systematic repression of free speech in Azerbaijan. In Azerbaijan, defamation is a criminal offence. Media workers are persistently defamed and persecuted. Azerbaijan is the top jailer of journalists in Europe and Central Asia. Index on Censorship estimates that there are currently 70 political prisoners in Azerbaijani jails. Freedom of expression, assembly and association are limited.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was personally involved in trying to help during an election in Azerbaijan, but the person I was trying to help was not even allowed to enter the country to stand in the election. Does the hon. Lady agree that, until that sort of thing changes, this will not be a great country?

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is particularly pertinent because there will be a presidential election in Azerbaijan in 2013. It would be excellent if we could see some improvement in the openness of Azerbaijani society, because it would give us greater confidence that these elections are freely and properly run and that people expressing many different opinions can stand.

The year 2011 also saw mass protests in Baku and Guba. They were put down extremely aggressively and some of the demonstrators were imprisoned. Furthermore, the state controls the conventional media—television, radio and newspapers—in a top-down way. Economic development and urban renewal around Baku has been pursued without regard for individuals’ property rights. The property of hundreds of people has been expropriated to make way for luxury developments, and the Government have forcefully evicted home owners, sometimes in the middle of the night. They have been left homeless and destitute. In Baku, many people still live in a Kafkaesque world where news stands do not sell any newspaper. In this situation, the internet provides a news space, and the Government claim that 60% of Azeri people have broadband access, but the American organisation Freedom House’s assessment is that the net is only half free, because the authorities mount cyber-attacks on dissident websites and arrest bloggers and IT users for their political writings on the web.

As a member of the Council of Europe and signatory of the European convention on human rights, Azerbaijan is not simply breaching human rights, but breaching its international agreements. In fact, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will be discussing a draft resolution and report by rapporteur Strasser on political prisoners in Azerbaijan in January. The Azeri Government refused to co-operate with rapporteur Strasser, but Amnesty International says that his report is thorough and extensive.

Last week, on 12 December, the Parliamentary Assembly’s monitoring committee said:

“The combination of the restrictive implementation of freedoms with unfair trials and the undue influence of the executive, results in the systemic detention of people who may be considered prisoners of conscience”.

It continued:

“Recently adopted amendments to the Criminal Code…which have increased penalties for”

those involved in

“‘unauthorised’ gatherings…raise concern, as do alleged cases of torture and…the impunity of perpetrators.”

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

As chairman of the all-party group on Azerbaijan, I recognise some of the concerns and challenges that the hon. Lady raises. She talked earlier about the expropriation of property and land, but would she not agree that the expropriation of the land and property of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis by Armenia in 1992 is also a cause for concern and very wrong?

[Helen Goodman]

I do not think that an international conflict justifies Government repression of their own people, whether in areas of conflict—some of the cases, about which I have written to the Minister, relate to the Nagorno-Karabakh problems—or elsewhere. The situation there simply does not justify the abuse of human rights of Azerbaijani people across the country and, in particular, in the capital city.

Given the situation and the UK’s strong relationship with Azerbaijan, will the Minister tell us what the British Government are doing to put pressure on the Azerbaijanis to improve their human rights record? In particular, will the Government support a strong resolution calling on Azerbaijan to honour its commitments and condemn the violation of basic freedoms—the resolution will be discussed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in January? Will the Minister also support rapporteur Strasser’s report on political prisoners in Azerbaijan?

It is important to remind ourselves that, when the British Government and Parliament stand up for human rights in other places, we do make progress. Last year many of us signed an early-day motion calling for the release of Emin Milli. He was imprisoned after posting a satirical video on YouTube criticising Government spending on importing donkeys from Germany. He was released, came to Britain, was awarded a Chevening scholarship and has just been awarded his master’s degree. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the Minister for his full reply, but because I am not sure how far along he is with his remarks, I want to ask him whether he will commit the British Government to take up the individual cases I mentioned. I do not know whether he is going to come on that.

[Mr Lidington]

I was grateful to the hon. Lady for sending my office details earlier this week of the cases she intended to raise. So far, we do not have direct contact with all the individuals she mentioned, but we know that Human Rights Watch does have those individual cases under review—and we support the work that Human Rights Watch is already carrying out. In previous meetings, I have raised individual cases with Azeri Ministers—particularly the case of the blogger Eynulla Fatullayev, who was subsequently released and pardoned. I think that was due not only to my intervention but to a sustained international campaign. I shall certainly ask for further advice on the individual cases that the hon. Lady has raised, so that I can consider opportunities to take up those cases—if, I make this caveat, we judge that that is going to help to secure the outcome that both she and I wish to see, which is a just outcome and respect for human rights and media freedom.

We played an active role in Azerbaijan’s universal periodic review by the UN Human Rights Council published in 2009. We are not satisfied that Azerbaijan has yet made sufficient progress on some of the recommendations made. Key recommendations in that review included that Azerbaijan

“effectively investigate and prosecute crimes and violations against journalists and human rights defenders and see that those responsible are punished.”

The review conclusions also asked that

“complaints of harassment of journalists and human rights defenders receive prompt response and that adequate measures for their safety are taken.”

Azerbaijan is scheduled for another review in 2013, and we will not hesitate to press for progress on these points, dating back to the 2009 review, and other issues of concern, including those raised by the hon. Lady today.

Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are cornerstones of a democratic society. We are therefore concerned about reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International highlighting the difficult environment in which journalists work and the detentions of leading journalists and activists. The UK has raised high-profile cases at official and ministerial level, including in the recent past, and we are certainly willing to do so again. In addition to raising the Fatullayev case, we have met, and have remained in contact with, the brother of Vidadi Iskenderov, a human rights defender and political activist currently serving three years in prison on charges of interfering with the 2010 parliamentary elections. Embassy staff have also visited Shahin Hasani, the leader of the opposition Popular Front party, who is in prison for possession of ammunition, a charge he refutes.

The Government of Azerbaijan have indicated a willingness to improve the situation for journalists, and we hope rapid action is taken. On her recent visit to Baku to attend the UN internet governance forum, the OSCE representative on freedom of the media, Ms Dunja Mijatovic, commented that she had witnessed

“the political will of the Azerbaijani authorities to improve the current practices to ensure better compliance with OSCE media freedom commitments.”

OSCE representatives have worked with Azeri journalists to educate them on their rights. The UK has funded workshops to improve the situation for journalists and activists as well as to provide professional training, in order to help raise journalistic standards and encourage impartial and responsible reporting.

We have called on the authorities to allow freedom of association in Azerbaijan and are concerned that new laws are due to come into effect in January that will significantly increase the fines for unsanctioned protests. Azerbaijan should avoid obstructing citizens exercising their lawful right to protest. We call on protest organisers and the authorities to work together constructively to find a solution in line with European democratic norms. We will continue to monitor that situation closely.

On forced evictions and the compensation issue, our embassy is funding projects to increase public awareness of property rights and to promote international standards in order to prevent forced evictions. However, we must primarily look to the authorities in Azerbaijan to accept responsibility and play their part in securing a fair outcome. Property rights must be respected and where they are violated independent courts should uphold those rights. We also call on Azerbaijan to uphold the law and ensure freedom of religious practice. We urge the Azerbaijani authorities to adopt a form of non-military service for conscientious objectors to military service.

The UK is the largest single foreign investor in Azerbaijan. We are proud of our association with Azerbaijan and the work we are doing there to achieve mutual prosperity. Our position as a big investor also confers on us a responsibility to engage seriously on areas of policy where we and the Azerbaijanis may have differences, including human rights and the rule of law. We are well aware of that responsibility. I believe the Government have already shown that they are determined to have conversations, even difficult ones, on such issues with the Azerbaijani authorities, and we will continue to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Safety of Journalists Abroad

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Main. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) on securing a debate on an issue that is not only important but becoming increasingly so because the problem seems to be intensifying.

When I found out about the debate I was, by coincidence, reading a collection of essays by Vaclav Havel, one of the 20th century’s greatest dissidents and human rights champions. He said:

“Today, in the era of mass media, it is often true that if a deed lacks adequate coverage, particularly on television, it might just as well have remained undone.”

That, of course, is what repressive autocratic regimes rely on, and it is why we need good journalists. We are grateful to them for going beyond the call of duty and normal professional competence to run risks that most of us certainly would not. On that, Havel said:

“Humanity’s thanks belong to all those courageous reporters who voluntarily risk their lives wherever something evil is happening, in order to arouse the conscience of the world.”

I am sure that we can all think of legion examples over our adult lifetimes, and perhaps even from our childhoods, of seeing things on the television that have made us realise how small the world is and how important it is to take action.

I had some conversations with a war correspondent for one of the major British newspapers, and I want to report what he said:

“Despite the recent deaths and injuries to journalists in Syria it is essential that there is independent reporting from there. Otherwise all we are getting are the views of the regime and the opposition.”

That attitude is admirable, because a small number of people run risks for the benefit of a large number. The correspondent also said that

“it is proving to be very difficult to work inside Syria. The sheer ferocity of the regime attacks means that you are vulnerable and unlike Libya for example, where the rebels held half the country, there is nowhere to run to. Another difference between these two conflicts is that the journalists captured by the Gaddafi regime were all eventually freed”.

It does not look as though that is the case in Syria.

This debate raises issues about the role and responsibilities of media organisations and about Governments. British media organisations are obviously careful about where they send their staff, but journalists are concerned about how freelancers are treated—not that they are treated as somehow expendable, but that less responsibility is felt towards them. That is clearly not right when media organisations and the rest of us take freelancers’ stories and pictures. Freelancers are obviously on temporary contracts and are often cash-strapped, and few of them have hostile environment training or are insured. They are under not exactly more pressure but more temptation to run risks that others might not, and I have been told that that might be especially so with tabloids and news organisations that do not maintain international offices in different parts of the globe. Media organisations have responsibilities, and they need to consider how they treat everyone whom they pay to get news for their outlets.

Another thing that came from the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Bath is that the high and growing number of deaths is mainly made up of people working in their own countries. Last year, 106 people died reporting overseas, but people who are reporting in conflict situations or under violent and autocratic regimes are not just caught in the crossfire, but targeted and attacked for what they are writing and filming, by their regimes, terrorist organisations and criminal gangs. We need to consider that issue carefully.

The IFJ research also revealed that the great majority of deaths have occurred in peacetime, which tells us that journalists die not only in war situations but when reporting from countries that do not respect human rights and where the press is not free, as it is in this country. That is a major part of the risks that they face.

The right hon. Member for Bath spoke about the problem of impunity—a serious problem in Russia. The whole world knows of the murder of Anna Politkovskaya in 2006, but it is probably not as well known that the Russian Union of Journalists has found that between 1993 and 2009, 300 journalists died or disappeared. The National Union of Journalists is running a campaign focusing in particular on the situation faced by women journalists. When women journalists are in risky situations, they are threatened not just with violence but with sexual abuse and attack, and particular care must be taken. The NUJ believes that women are put into even riskier situations, which is extraordinary.

The international status of journalists under the Geneva convention is extremely important, as is the role of the United Nations and UNESCO’s potential to protect journalists in countries where they are being threatened and to ensure that their rights are enforced. I do not want to delay hon. Members for long, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what he is doing to ensure that international forums use all available levers to increase the safety of journalists.