North Korea

An Open Letter to North Korea’s Exiles

What more is there to say about the Government of North Korea, a regime that wantonly starves, enslaves, impoverishes, and exterminates its population to maintain the legitimacy and rule of a system? To suffer for one’s family or for one’s cause is one matter. But to suffer for the Supreme Leader-centered system: that is another matter entirely.

As a serving Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom and a Co-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, I have witnessed Pyongyang’s march toward ever increasing capacities of evil. My journey has been marked by scores of exiled North Koreans who have visited London to tell of the horrors of starvation, poverty, imprisonment, and physical abuse and violence. I have heard of the state’s psychological weapons of war that have led to North Korean children being forcibly aborted and women and men being humiliated and compelled to give their minds to the Kim-family cult.

When I listen to exiled North Koreans, I always hear of a sense of betrayal. As exiles, you will have escaped the grip of the North Korean system, but you will have been forced to pay a heavy price for your freedoms. Many of you will have experienced brutalities that I will never comprehend. You will all have been separated from your families or have heard of suffering that befell family members. Those of you who now shed light on life inside North Korea or those of you who once worked for the North Korean government may now live under constant threat. And you will all have now realised a very stark fact: the system that raised you also betrayed you.

It may be of little consolation, but five-thousand miles from the Korean peninsula in London, your stories and your voices are heard. Through reports, oral testimonies, and exiled media outlets, such as New Focus, the awful realities of life inside North Korea — once dismissed as fantastical — are no longer hidden or denied.

To be frank, global recognition of the horrors that you once faced in North Korea took far too long to arrive. But today, the evidence against the North Korean government is so overwhelming that no amount of tourist attractions, paid for by the blood of twenty-five million citizens, or attempts at dissuasion by Pyongyang or its apologists can disguise the brutal reality of life under the Supreme Leader-centered system.

As exiles, you function as vital relays between hope and despair for your countrywomen and men who remain in North Korea. Every time you contact a remaining friend in North Korea, send money back to family members, or another compatriot flees, the foundations of the Kim dynasty erode ever more. The Kim dynasty is not simply based on the perpetuation of violence, it is also sustained by propaganda that justifies the cult of Kim. It is vital that we continue to break down this communications barrier.

It is my contention that the exiled North Korean community deserves more credit than it has received. For all of the good work of the United Nations and the international community, we must never forget that it has been the tireless work of exiles that has kept the candle burning for North Korea. The world has taken much from your community, and we must remember to repay your sacrifices. The All-Party Parliamentary Group has always welcomed, and will continue to welcome, you to London to tell your stories to the British public and politicians.

As I look forward, I see reasons for hope. Forces such as the black-market, foreign media, and the growing ability of ordinary North Koreans to make contact with the outside world are eroding Pyongyang’s ideological grip on its citizens. The exiled North Korean community that once stood in despair now rallies against those who abused, tortured and killed their very own.

I have previously written of my hopes for the 30,000 exiled North Koreans who now live in the Republic of Korea. The National Assembly has passed the North Korean Human Rights Act and it is my hope that exiles will play a leading role in the Act’s implementation. Without the input and leadership of those who have experienced North Korea, we are all doomed to repeat the failures of the past.

Time waits for no man and change in North Korea cannot wait. I believe that North Koreans will soon be freed from their shackles and the exiled community will surely play a large role in this momentous task.

Fiona Bruce MP is Co-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, and Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article Written for South Korean Newspaper

South Koreans may be surprised to learn that over five thousand miles away in London, the Korean peninsula is a hotly debated issue. In the United Kingdom’s Houses of Parliament, where I am a serving MP, politicians from across the political spectrum regularly meet to discuss the trials and tribulations of the Kim Jong-un regime and the plight of the North Korean people.

In 2004, two of my colleagues, Lord Alton and Baroness Cox, visited North Korea. Their objective was to raise awareness in the UK parliament of the human rights, humanitarian, and security issues posed by the North Korean Government. Upon their return to London, they founded the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea (APPG) — a grouping of politicians from all parties that meet to discuss and debate North Korea.

Since the APPG’s formation, we have welcomed North Korean Government delegations, including the Speaker of the North Korean Assembly, Choe Thae-bok; we have debated North Korea in both Houses of the UK parliament; and, most importantly, we have provided North Korean refugees with the opportunity to speak about their experiences to UK politicians (the UK is home to the largest North Korean refugee population outside of South Korea).

In December 2015, I met with Kim Son Gyong, Director General of the European Department of North Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Our discussion, which is on public record, was cordial, but frank. I told Mr. Kim that UK parliamentarians asked for changes in the way that his government treated the North Korean people. I questioned his view that there were no human rights violations in his country. And I reminded him of the inevitable course of international justice that is outlined in the report of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry.

An offer was also extended to his Government for assistance in the field of human rights — I await a reply.

This, in essence, is the role of a democratically elected politician. Like my colleagues on the National Assembly in South Korea, I was elected by the people, for the people. My job is not only to represent and promote local interests at the national level, it is also to promote universal interests at the international level.

The North Korean people have no recourse to justice or democracy. They have no viable political representatives. It therefore falls upon politicians, like myself, to advocate for their well-being and human rights.

As a serving MP with a passion for the North Korean people, I have followed the now decade-long legislative debate in the South Korean National Assembly on the North Korean Human Rights Act (NKHRA) with interest.

The debate is of course nuanced, but many politicians in the UK — both liberal and conservative — struggle to comprehend why the NKHRA is yet to pass into South Korean law.

In the UK, human rights were first set out in law in the Bill of Rights in the year 1689. In the three centuries that have passed since, there have certainly been struggles but human rights are now seen as being above politics. Indeed, they now form a global normative order: which is to say that human rights are universal and non-negotiable. They are the most basic and substantive component of modern humanity. 

As such, and with profound respect for the views of my fellow South Korean politicians who oppose the NKHRA in its current form, I urge them to act immediately to improve human rights in North Korea through supporting the NKHRA legislation.

Discussing human rights issues with the North Korean Government and people should not be optional, nor should it be viewed as a political act. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated, the dignity and worth of all human beings passes through national borders. It is for those of us who enjoy freedom to champion it for those who do not.

Is the NKHRA, as the bill is presented in the National Assembly today, provocative nor detrimental to peace and unification on the Korean peninsula? I would say it is not. North Korea’s actions — from the sinking of the Cheonan in 2010 to the border shelling in August 2015 that followed anti-Pyongyang propaganda broadcasts — have certainly been provocative and detrimental to peace. But South Korean has a maturing democracy and has shown admirable restraint. It should not be held hostage by its northern neighbours.

The APPG has for many years urged the BBC — the UK’s public broadcaster — to transmit a Korean-language service to the North Korean people. Following years of consideration and NGO action, a BBC radio service for the North Korean people will soon become a reality. For the APPG, our support of this radio service was not a matter of politics. It was a way of ensuring that North Koreans were able to exercise their freedom to listen to impartial news and information.

In my view, the aim of the North Korean Government’s opposition to radio broadcasting and the NKHRA is clear: Pyongyang seeks to divide South Korean public opinion. If South Korea’s politicians and public stood united behind a NKHRA, the North Korean Government understands that it would face its biggest challenge. In truth, Pyongyang fears a politically unified South Korea.

Will change in North Korea come through unrestrained flows of money or humanitarian aid? The evidence suggests it will not. Will reform come through tourism or cultural engagement? Again, all evidence says it will not. In reality, the small amounts of change in North Korea have emerged from the North Korean people themselves.

It is the duty of us all to support those who are working for positive change in North Korea. A NKHRA will not bring an end to the North Korean Government’s abuse of its population, but it will say ‘enough is enough’. Time is fast running out for the current North Korean regime. Let South Korea’s National Assembly be prepared for change by uniting behind the North Korean people today.

Fiona Bruce MP is Co-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, and a serving Conservative Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom.

Fiona Bruce MP’s Christmas message from the House of Commons to North Koreans

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): We hear today that Sony has pulled the apparently joke film “The Interview” about North Korea. I decry inhibiting free speech, whatever the material, but life in North Korea is not a joke. It is not a joke that desperate women wade across the frozen Tumen river to escape to China, only to be caught by Chinese men, sold into sexual slavery and then, when used up, sent back by the authorities to face torture in North Korea and the forced abortion of their unborn children.

It is not a joke for those hundreds of thousands who live in concentration camps reminiscent of the Nazi era, many for uttering a few words against the North Korean regime—or, worse, under the regime’s atrocious “guilt by association” rule, not for something they have done, but for something their relatives have done to offend the regime. Prisoners are told they are not humans but animals and indescribably tortured: steam-rolled to death; killed by having hot molten metal poured over them; frozen to death; starved to death; worked to death in factories; hung upside down to have water poured into their nostrils, like so much beef hanging from hooks in a slaughter house; deprived of clothing and sleep, then mercilessly pummelled with wooden bats; kept in cells with two holes in the door for them to stick their feet out to be horrendously tortured; and frequently forced to watch executions, including of their blood relatives. As my co-chair of the all-party group on North Korea, an increasingly active group, Lord Alton, said,

“Christmas spent in a North Korean gulag will be just another day of grotesque suffering.”

18 Dec 2014 : Column 1629

Life in North Korea is not a joke outside the concentration camps either. It is not a joke for the thousands of stunted, parentless children—the so-called wandering swallows—who eke out a living on the streets. The problem of malnutrition in North Korea is so bad that the minimum height for a member of their armed forces is just 4 feet 2 inches. It is not a joke for the disabled in North Korea either. Just when we thought that reports from North Korea could not get any worse, this week we heard at first hand from an escapee at a meeting of the all-party group in the UK Parliament about how disabled people, including children, were sent

“for medical tests such as dissection of body parts, as well as tests of biological and chemical weapons. Dwarves are castrated. Babies with mental and physical handicaps are routinely snatched from hospitals and left to suffer indescribable things until they die. The disabled in North Korea are simply disappeared.”

We were told that by a disabled escapee, Ji Seong-Ho, who, at 14, lost his left hand and leg after passing out from hunger while scavenging for coal on railway tracks and was run over by a train. He was told by North Korean Government officials:

“disabled people like you hurt the dignity of North Korea and you should just die.”

He told us, “That really hurt.”

At Christmas time, let us remember that living in North Korea is not a joke for the many brave Christians who every day fear incarceration simply for owning a Bible. One lady has told the all-party group that if soldiers suspect that someone is a believer, they will ransack their home until they find what they are looking for. In her home, they did: they noticed a brick slightly out of position, and behind it they found her Bible, so she was taken to prison.

I have mentioned just two of many escapees who have spoken to our group this year and who are now finding sanctuary in the UK and increasingly giving testimonies of their suffering to Members of Parliament. For the rest of my speech, however, I want to speak not to fellow Members, or even to our constituents, but to the people of North Korea. When I first spoke about North Korea in the House, I was amazed to receive a letter from supporters in South Korea saying, “You are being heard” so I know that when we speak here, many of you in North Korea hear what we say—and that is increasingly the case with modern means of communication, such as smuggled-in USB sticks.

I want you, the people of North Korea, to know that your suffering is being heard. Do not think that no one cares. Do not think that no one is speaking out for you. In the UK Parliament, more and more people are speaking out and showing that they care. We have compassion for you in your suffering, and this Christmas remember that our compassion is as nothing compared with that of Christ. One day, this too will end. Kingdoms rise and fall. We are praying for you and for your freedom.

In addition to praying and speaking out, more and more people are acting. This year, a 400-page UN report by Mr Justice Kirby catalogued the brutal atrocities you experience. The world now knows of them and cannot stay silent. Increasingly, people in the free world are calling for action on your behalf. Only last week in this Parliament, the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief issued a report that can be found at www.freedomdeclared.org which added to demands made last month at the UN by no fewer than

18 Dec 2014 : Column 1630

111 countries that those responsible for human rights violations in North Korea be brought to justice by the International Criminal Court. We also called for all appropriate justice mechanisms to be considered to bring the North Korean Government to account for their terrible atrocities against their own people. Here in the UK Parliament, as MPs we continue to press for the BBC World Service to broadcast to you, the people of North Korea, in the Korean and English languages, and we MPs continue to press for an increased dialogue with China to stop its policy of forced repatriation and for humanitarian aid to the people of North Korea.

So, at Christmas time our hearts go out to you, the North Korean people, from the UK. Know that we are with you; know that we are supporting and working with your relatives and friends who have escaped to this country and know that they have a voice; and know that we shall continue to speak out for you and to press for action on your behalf until the day comes, which it surely will, when your country is free again and your suffering is at an end.

The Shadow Leader of the House, Thomas Docherty responded saying:

“As ever, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) made an impassioned and knowledgeable speech about the situation in North Korea. She has a tremendous track record in relation to the persecution of Christians, and—again, as ever—she made a hugely important contribution. I know that her work has the support of all Members.”

Fiona Bruce MP

Website of the All Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, of which Fiona is Co-Chair:   www.appgnk.org        Fiona Bruce as Vice Chair of the Parliamentary Group on North Korea Co Hosts hearing with the UN Investigator into human rights atrocities in North Korea.

Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) not only on an excellent speech—which I fully support—but on his work on the all-party group on smoking and health, of which I am a member.
My motivation in supporting the debate today comes entirely from wanting to ensure that we protect children and save lives. I echo everyone who has said, “Let’s do as much as we can to prevent young people from starting to smoke,” because the later they start the less likely they will become addicted and the fewer lives we will see debilitated. It is not just about saving lives; it is about the quality of life that many will suffer. How many people who have taken up smoking desperately want to stop? The best way to stop smoking is not to start in the first place.
John Glen: Does my hon. Friend share the grave concern that a disproportionate number of people from the poorest communities are taking up smoking in ever increasing numbers?
Fiona Bruce: I absolutely do, and I also share the view that young people are attracted to designer brands. They are attracted not just to the product but to the packaging. I have two young sons—one is 17 and one is 20—and I was amazed to discover that not only do young people want to buy designer clothing but there is a trade on eBay for the tags and packaging. People collect the labels.
We have known for a long time that young people are attracted to labels. In 1995 a survey of youth in America told us that young people associated the following words with designer packaging: popular, cool and good-looking. With cigarettes in plain packaging, they associated the words boring, geeky and cheap. In 2012, another survey found that young people felt that if they smoked stylish packs they would be “better and more popular”. The evidence is there. We do not need to delay.
3 Sep 2013 : Column 20WH
It is a tragedy that each year 200,000 people start to smoke when we could take action. I do not believe that the fact there have already been successful measures is an argument for not taking further action—quite the opposite. According to one statistic I have seen, the display ban on large shops has contributed towards 100,000 fewer young people taking up smoking each year. If that is correct, let us build on the success. Let us do more, and see more and more young people discouraged from taking up smoking.
If I saw a young child drowning in a canal or about to run in front of a car, I would do all that I could to stop them and to save that life. Is that not what we are in a position to do in this House? The public do not want to see young people’s lives and futures damaged by smoking. More than 190 health organisations support standardised packaging. People in this House support it. Let us have a debate and a vote, and take action to protect the health and lives of future generations.

Planning in the Constituency

Statement to Public Inquiry

16^th July 2013

Appeal against Non-Determination

Land to rear of Land to the North of Congleton Road, Sandbach APP/0660/A/13/2189733

Appeals in Cheshire East affected by the SHLAA in the Congleton Constituency:-

Abbeyfields, Sandbach 2141564

Sandbach Road North, Alsager 2195201

Elworth Hall Farm, Elworth 2106044

Hassall Road, Alsager 2188001

The Moorings and Goldfinch Close/Kestrel Close, Congleton 2188604 and 2188605

Waterworks House, Sandbach 2192130

Land Adjacent to Rose Cottages, Holmes Chapel Road, Somerford, Congleton 2192192

38 Congleton Road North, Church Lawton 2193013

Land South of Hall Drive, Alsager 2196791

The following statement, by me, Fiona Bruce Member of Parliament for the Congleton Constituency, is being made at the request of and in support of my many constituents who will be affected by the above developments should they proceed and is supplementary to the objection letter which I registered with the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate on 31^st January 2013, and its attachment, an earlier objection letter to the Chief Executive of Cheshire East Council dated 19^th September 2012. As stated in that letter applications for the above developments have caused concern to a significant number of my constituents. Indeed this cannot be overstated. Perhaps I may put this in context when I say that I have had a constant stream of letters, emails, telephone calls and surgery appointments from constituents since I became Member of Parliament for the Congleton Constituency in May 2010 regarding planning concerns and that in terms of my postbag, compared with concerns over planning applications, no other issue comes even remotely close to approaching the volume – or indeed the intensity of concern – of communications from residents to me as their MP. Groups of residents in two towns, Congleton and Sandbach, have launched Downing Street E-Petitions.

I appreciate that at this particular hearing the land at the north of Congleton Road site at Sandbach is your primary consideration together with consideration of the adequacy of the Cheshire East Council’s Housing Land Supply as detailed in its SHLAA.

Concerns which residents have raised with me regarding the above site are shared by residents regarding many of the other applications listed at the top of this letter including impact on greenfield and greenspace sites, pressure on schools, roads, local medical services and other infrastructure, the risk of turning strong local communities into commuter belts and the fact that many of these applications do not reflect local community views as expressed in Town Plans.

It is noted that the National Planning Policy Framework promotes sustainable development – but sustainable in terms of environmental, economic and social respects. In a letter dated 10^th June 2013 to me Nick Boles MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Planning) stated in response to a letter I sent – one of many communications over the last two to three years to Ministers expressing the concerns of my constituents about the NPPF and its role in upholding local democratic decision making:-

‘Whilst being pro-growth the Framework does not put the interest of businesses ahead of community. The Framework is clear that the purpose of planning is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that the economic, social and environmental roles of the planning system that underpin the delivery of sustainable development are mutually dependent. The presumption makes clear that the policy objectives elsewhere in the Framework provide important safeguards, against which the benefits of allowing development will need to be weighed.

Local Plans are a key element of the Government’s planning reforms. Wherever a Local Plan is drawn up, consulted on and agreed, local residents should expect decisions to be taken in accordance with it. This is a sign of true localism in action. Local Plans, Neighbourhood Planning and Community Rights to Build and Acquire are bringing planning powers back to local areas.’

My constituents have made their case clear to me, and I support them fully – that the development of the land to the north of Congleton Road would not be sustainable in economic, social or environmental terms – as detailed below.

In environmental terms, the land which is the subject of the application to the north of Congleton Road is quality agricultural land and very much part of the local countryside enjoyed by residents with two footpaths crossing it, the material use and enjoyment all of which would be lost together with the biodiversity it sustains should this land be built on. The area is not within the local Settlement Zone Line and any development on it, particularly of the height and density planned would be an inappropriate incursion into the countryside surrounding Sandbach.

With reference to economic sustainability, there is a grave danger that with a high proportion of residents likely to purchase in this proposed development being from outside the area, and this likely to be the trend should other developments be constructed thereafter, commuting to work out of the area will increase putting additional strain on the already strained road network (such as Junction 17 of the M6), and community life and cohesion, one of the great strengths of the towns in my constituency will be seriously denuded. Further, since the Cheshire East Local Development Plan proposed priorities are to focus development of Crewe and Macclesfield, with towns such as Sandbach (and indeed Congleton and Alsager) not being identified as major centres of growth, the volume of development which could proceed, should this appeal be allowed, and possibly using this appeal as a precedent would not be plan-led and therefore, my constituents argue, not economically sustainable with reference to the NPPF guidance. There will simply not be the local jobs to support this volume of house building.

In respect of social issues, my constituents fully accept that some development should be provided for within my constituency, and this is accepted in, for example, the Sandbach Town Plan, but that this should be in sustainable locations, and not to the degree which the above listed applications would involve. May I ask that you give the Town Plans developed in my constituency as much consideration as possible bearing in mind that a great deal of time and thought has gone into their preparation on the part of many of townspeople who feel, and I agree with them, that if localism is to mean anything it must mean respecting their views with regard to planning and developments in their towns. The strength of local feeling in this connection is evidenced by the fact that only last week the Mayor of Sandbach, Councillor Michael Benson, asked me to arrange for him to formally deliver to the Prime Minister at Number 10 Downing Street on Thursday 11^th July a letter expressing this from which I quote as follows:

Dear Prime Minister,

As Town Mayor and on behalf of all Councillors and residents I am writing to ask for your help to resolve a growing problem affecting our historic market town.

Sandbach currently has about 8000 homes and faces an onslaught of speculative planning applications which, if unchecked, will increase this to 14000 and change the character of our town beyond recognition.

We are not against plan-led development but our views are being ignored when appeals are heard.

Cheshire East Borough Council is working hard to complete its emerging Local Plan and this has been supported by residents through the consultation stages.  It will, however, take upwards of a further year to complete and at present carries on the status of ‘material consideration.’

I cannot tell you how disappointed and disillusioned residents are at the present system which appears to encourage growth at the expense of local communities.  The Local Planning Authority should be free to provide additional homes at a pace and in numbers which are in keeping with the expressed needs and wishes of local people and given much greater weight than at present...

In Sandbach, the Town Council is so concerned about the strength of local feelings that it has recently taken the unusual step of launching a Petition which supports the substance of the views expressed in this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Michael Benson

Town Mayor

Sandbach Town Council

A large volume of house building, even spread over the next few years, in a single town would, as mentioned above, simply not be socially sustainable by the local community and its services. The strength of concern of residents in this regard can be judged from the fact that there are well over ten Action Groups opposing unsustainable development in Sandbach alone.

I should be grateful if you would also be good enough to give as much weight as possible to the Cheshire East Local Development Plan. Local Government reorganisation, imposed upon Cheshire at short notice by the previous Government, has meant that Cheshire East has had less time than other Councils to develop its Plan. I hope that you will be able to take this unusual factor into account. Whilst Cheshire East Council may have commenced its development of its Local Plan later than others, for the reason given above, no one could gainsay that under the present Leadership of Councillor Michael Jones the utmost energy and alacrity has now been injected into this process. I am personally very much aware of this since from the moment I arranged a meeting in Westminster last Autumn between the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Councillor Michael Jones, at which when Eric Pickles MP made it very clear that progress with the Cheshire East Local Plan must be given the utmost priority, there is no doubt that the Council has taken this on board and made considerable headway both in clarifying its priorities and consulting with the local community accordingly.

Finally with reference to the Housing Supply Target, I understand that the Cheshire East Council’s SHLAAs annual target is 1,150 (based on the now revoked North West Regional Strategy 2008) – for the whole of Cheshire East, a large Unitary Council with a population of over 370,000 whereas Sandbach has some 17,000. It would be completely disproportionate if this appeal together with those ‘behind it,’ resulted in almost the entire annual supply of houses for the Council’s area to be accommodated by one town over the next few years, and particularly a town not identified as a key growth area. This would be neither plan-led, proportionate nor sustainable and could simply not be absorbed comfortably into the existing settlement. The Council’s recently produced SHLAA identifies many sites across the wide region Cheshire East sits within which could adequately and more appropriately supply the housing land and numbers required for well over five years to come and it would be significantly unfair to the local Sandbach community, and indeed other towns in my constituency affected by applications listed above, if simply because these particular applications have reached an appeal stage before others, construction on one or more of these sites should proceed when for the many reasons outlined above this would be wholly inappropriate and premature.

With regard to its appeal against non-determination in this case and its arguments in support of the probity of its recently produced SHLAA, Cheshire East Council has my full support.

In closing may I state my appreciation to you for the opportunity afforded to me by the reading of this statement to impress upon you the strength and depth of feeling of residents across my constituency in this matter.

Fiona Bruce MP

Member of Parliament for Congleton

16^th July 2013


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 

Fiona Bruce MP – Transcript of Interview on Planning with BBC Radio Stoke

7^th June 2013


Interviewer: You will have heard over the last year that planning applications have been popping up all over East Cheshire with developers taking advantage of two things, the Council doesn’t have an up-to-date strategy dictating where building should take place and the Government has now made it easier to get planning permission in the countryside. Yesterday campaigners in Cheshire finally got to put their concerns to the Government when they met with Communities Minister Brandon Lewis. The meeting as organised by Congleton’s Conservative MP Fiona Bruce who joins me on the programme now. Good Morning to you.

Fiona: Good Morning Tim

Interviewer: First of all, you are fighting quite a lot of planning applications in your constituency alone aren’t you?

Fiona: We are, this is because developers are targeting this very pleasant part of the country to live in and the Government’s current planning policies aren’t helping.

Interviewer: So this is where you disagree with your boss then?

Fiona: I think the Government has to listen. I think what has happened is that the impact of their current policy has had unintended consequences and they need to take action to stop what’s happening. Let me give you an example:
Sandbach -  a town with 8000 houses at present have developers potentially trying to get consent for 7000 more, now that’s completely unsustainable it would turn the community to a commuter belt and the roads and schools would be completely pressurised, it’s unthinkable.

Interviewer: It’s what the Government wants though isn’t it, to get the economy moving?

Fiona: Yes, but I think what the Government hasn’t realised that developers are taking advantage of this gap in time. This is a moment in time where the Government are saying through its NPPF, we want more building but the Government is saying we will listen to Local Authorities about where building should be put according to their Local Plan. Now the problem is, Cheshire East at the moment don’t have a Local Plan and therefore developers are working on the area and they are applying for consents all over Cheshire East. One resident yesterday said ‘its 100 here one day, 300 hundred houses another day” and it has to stop.

Interviewer: Who’s to blame for this, I mean, is it the Government policies or is it Cheshire East Council for not having their Local Plan in place, I mean, you know, it’s been several years now since they, you know, split from all the Local Authorities.

Fiona: You make a fair point Tim but I think what we have to say is, we are where we are, at this stage what the Action Groups who I met with yesterday -  I’ve been meeting with them for some time -  but who I bought the Government Minister to meet yesterday, what they want is, firstly, they want Cheshire East to have longer to finish its Local Plan, they want the work that’s been done already on the Local Plan which is now quite substantial, to be treated as what’s called an Emerging Plan which can carry weight on Planning Appeals so that means Planning Inspectors can look at what’s been done on a Local Plan and they also want to ensure that Local Town Plans such as the Sandbach Town Plan, the Congleton Town Plan, the Alsager Town Plan, that these carry more influence. At the moment, they don’t.

Interviewer: Do you think there is an element of NIMBY-ism here?

Fiona: When you look at the kinds of figures I’ve talked about I don’t think that can be an accusation that carries weight. This is so substantial, the scale of applications is so considerable that what is happening is land-banking which is where developers are saying, ‘ah here’s a limited time where we could possibly get consents for greenfield’, remember this is farming land they are going for, “we can get consent on these greenfields and then hold it for years’. That can’t be right. And the other thing, apart from the pressure on roads and schools, where are the jobs for people who are going to live in this area if this number of houses are built.

Interviewer: If you build the houses it may bring the prosperity with it.

Fiona: I think this should be the other way round actually. I think we need to look, focusing on supporting our businesses, getting our young people apprenticeships, on getting a University Technical College into Cheshire East, to train the skills up so that we can strengthen our economy and then we’ll have people who can have the jobs and live here. And I think that that’s a better priority than having all of these thousands of houses which could be potentially built in Cheshire East and that’s why I am backing these Action Groups. I have been backing them for a long time and I know how frustrated and angry they have become. They know I am listening. They actually know that the Town Councils are listening they know that Cheshire East is listening but what they have felt was that National Government is not listening to these unintended consequences and that’s why I bought a Government Minister right into the constituency to listen to them face to face and as one of the Action Group leaders said “we want to thank him because he was a Daniel, he came into the lion’s den, he faced the music” and I believe he is going to go back, as he said he would, to Government Ministers including Eric Pickles and take these messages and these requests back from my patch.

Interviewer: Fiona Bruce MP, thank you very much.

Queen's Speech 2013

Abortion

On International Day of the Girl Child, let’s oppose the sexism that causes gender-based abortion

Fiona Bruce MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group

Last week, I was privileged to be in New York, for the UN Sustainable Development Summit, where the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – seeking to tackle poverty and inequality across the world – were formally adopted. It was a time of great hope and optimism: looking back at the huge progress made through the Millennium Development Goals, and the ambitious aspiration that is within our grasp over the next fifteen years to see extreme poverty eradicated worldwide. Since the Millennium Development Goals were adopted, extreme poverty has almost halved, child mortality has more than halved, and 2.6 billion more people have access to clean drinking water. But I was also struck by some of the more stubborn problems we face. Great progress has been made on human dignity and gender equality over the past fifteen years, but a glance at the new SDGs show us how far we have to go. It has been urgently necessary for the SDGs to cover equal rights to education and economic resources; to look at how to enable the empowerment of women; and to ensure that schools can have ‘access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene’, because so many girls across the world are prevented from attending school when this not the case.

In many ways, this fight for equal human dignity and worth for all – whether opposed on the basis of gender, or race, or religion – is a tougher challenge than defeating extreme poverty, or providing clean drinking water. It may be a battle which we never finish fighting. As the actress and UN Women Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson said at the UN last year, ‘No country in the world can yet say that they achieved gender equality. These rights, I consider to be human rights, but I am one of the lucky ones. My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter.’

Yet, no every daughter is so fortunate. As a recent Department of Health publication showed, even in the UK daughters can often be seen as less valuable, or even a failure, just because of their gender. As one case study in the publication reported, one 25 year old mother aborted her baby girl, because ‘for various complex cultural reasons both self imposed and community imposed, she thought by giving birth to a boy she would be accepted into the family’, but not if she had given birth to a girl. At 29 she aborted twin girls for the same reason. Another case study tells of a man pressurised into divorcing his wife when she gave birth to their third daughter. In another, a mother of two sons decided to abort the girl she was expecting, because as ‘the eldest of six girls…she recalls each time her mother went to the hospital of how disappointed everyone was when each time it was a girl. This is experience traumatised and consumed her so much that the thought of giving birth to a girl meant disappointment, betrayal and lowered status within the family and community.’ These stories reveal a hidden problem in our own society; and not one particular to certain communities: ‘family balancing’ is becoming an increasingly common phrase.

This Sunday, 11^th October, is the International Day of the Girl Child. It is a day of celebration: of daughters, of universal human dignity, and of the great privilege it is to be a parent to a daughter – just as it is to a son.

The wonderful Pink Ladoo campaign (www.pinkladoo.org) is marking the occasion by handing out a box Pink Ladoo, traditional sweets, to parents of all the babies - male and female - born in Birmingham Women's Hospital. It is a tradition that had previously been reserved for sons, with no equivalent for daughters, and it is a beautiful gesture to celebrate daughters on this day.

So, in that same spirit, on International Day of the Girl Child, let us celebrate all daughters, and our equal human value, and oppose the sexism that leads so many women to abort their beautiful baby daughters, just because of their gender. It hurts so many; it is beneath our shared human dignity; and it is far beneath the lofty goals set at the United Nations last week.

_____________________________________________________

Abortion  (Sex Selection) Ten Minute Rule Bill Speech

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to clarify the law relating to abortion on the basis of sex-selection; and for connected purposes.

Sex-selective abortions are happening in the UK, and there is widespread confusion over the law, which is why this Bill is needed. The Bill is extremely straightforward, merely clarifying that nothing in section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 allows a pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child. It is a shame that this clarification is needed. Successive Health Ministers and even the Prime Minister have been very clear on the matter. They state that abortion for reasons of gender alone is illegal. The Prime Minister has described the practice as “simply appalling”. But these Ministers are being ignored. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which performs around 60,000 abortions a year, flatly disagrees with them. Even today, it is advising women, in one of its leaflets and on its website, that abortion for reasons of foetal sex is not illegal, because the law is “silent on the matter”.
The British Medical Association holds yet another interpretation. It argues that there may be cases where having a child of a particular gender may be

“a legal and ethical justification for an abortion”

on the grounds that the sex of the child may severely affect the pregnant woman’s mental health. I wish to address that point. Some say that the sex of the unborn child can be a legitimate ground for an abortion where a woman is being threatened with abuse if she carries the baby to term. Those who make that argument perhaps fail to realise that, in such tragic cases, it is not the sex of the child that is the ground for the abortion but the threat of abuse, which may constitute a physical or mental risk. I find it deplorable that anyone would be satisfied to provide a sex-selective abortion to a woman who, after she has had it, is then sent back to an abusive partner. What needs to be addressed in those dire circumstances is the abuse itself. Those women need help, and that is one aim of the Bill.
The BMA represents every doctor who permits or performs an abortion and BPAS is the UK’s biggest abortion provider. We cannot sit idly by as it contradicts Ministers over a practice that the Government state is illegal. Urgent clarification from this House is needed.
The main motivation for the Bill, which is more than merely a desire to achieve a consistent policy line on this issue, is that we know that sex-selective abortions are happening in the UK and little is being done to stop them. We know that because a growing number of courageous women are speaking out about their experiences. Here is the story of Rupinder, which is not her real name, told by Jeena International, which works with UK women who have sex-selective abortions.

“Rupinder decided to abort her third child as she was expecting a girl. She was the eldest of six girls and she recalls that each time her mother went to hospital how disappointed everyone was when each time it was a girl. This experience traumatised and consumed her so much that the thought of giving birth to a girl meant disappointment, betrayal and lowered status within the

4 Nov 2014 : Column 678
family and the community. Rupinder made a painful decision to abort which she now regrets as she felt that she had no other choice.”
Then there is the experience of Uraj—also not her real name—which might help to persuade those who doubt that son-preference is a problem in this country.

“During a routine ultra-sound scan Uraj’s husband asked what the sex of the baby was and was told a girl. During the drive home, there was pin drop silence in the car. When they arrived home, Uraj started to prepare the evening meal in the kitchen, trying to silence her daughter at the same time as she was crying. She knew her husband was not happy and was angry that she was expecting another girl. She remembers him repeatedly punching and kicking her in the stomach and passing out. When she regained consciousness her husband had walked out and he sent her divorce papers a couple of months later.”

Despite the existence of such stories, there are still those who claim that there is no evidence for the practice. In response to these critics, Rani Bilkhu, the director of Jeena International, said:

“Saying that there is no evidence is tantamount to saying that these women are lying and that our organisation is making things up.”

It is hard to disagree with her, and it is crucial to note that Ms Bilkhu is referring to the brave few who have come forward in the hope that, in so doing, they will help to combat the practice. Their stories are only the tip of the iceberg. Another organisation, Karma Nirvana, which runs a crisis helpline for women in such situations, says:

“We believe the prevalence of sex-selective abortion in the UK is currently under-reported and this has been the case for many years. We have received, and continue to receive, calls from victims who are pressured to identify the gender of the child for the purposes of identifying if it is a girl. Victims express how they are then pressured by family members to abort the child and to give reasons other than sex selection and how they face abuse if they refuse to request this or abort.”

To those who argue that there is no evidence of sex-selective abortion in the UK, I pose a question: what reason do we have to doubt the word of these organisations? If the testimony of these women and those who work with them is not enough, consider the statement of the GP and former BPAS consultant, Dr Vincent Argent, who said he had “no doubt” that this was a problem in the UK and that there were

“an awful lot of covert sex-selective abortions going on.”

Indeed, I am told that some hospitals operate a policy of not telling the women the sex of their baby for fear that it will lead to a sex-selective abortion.
We can no longer ignore the fact that sex-selective abortion is a reality in the UK. Lest anyone think that this is an issue that applies only in certain communities, they should consider the tragic fact that the words “family balancing” are heard with increasing frequency and understanding across the country.
Thankfully, at the moment, countrywide analyses of birth data do not seem to show significant gender imbalances, but sex-selective abortion is clearly happening. Surely we cannot be saying that we will do nothing until the statistics show a national skewing in gender ratios, as in other countries. That would be wrong. How many more women must come forward before we take action? The time at which Government support should have been offered to women such as Rupinder and Uraj passed long ago, which is why I, and other colleagues, have brought this Bill to the House today.
4 Nov 2014 : Column 679
The Bill is sponsored by 11 female MPs from all parts of the House and supported by a large number of other MPs. Today, I wish to place on record my thanks to those MPs, including: the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), for Salisbury (John Glen), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson), for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) and for North Somerset (Dr Fox). All of them support this Bill and I sincerely thank them for that.
Clause 1 would send a clear signal that abortion for gender is not permissible under UK law, clearing up considerable confusion. Subsection (2) would make it clear that the clarification relates only to sex-selective abortions, therefore putting the Bill squarely in line with the Government’s interpretation of the Abortion Act. Clause 2 obliges the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that the law is being upheld. That will enable the Government to think about ways to help such women.
This month, for the first time, the UK has dropped out of the gender equality top 20. It is a further damning indictment of our commitment to female parity that we allow national institutions to contradict the Government on an illegal practice that predominantly affects girls. Even worse, we are choosing to ignore the evidence of women who have gone on the record and who have suffered under this appalling practice. This has gone on long enough. We must now act. As an editorial in The Independent said in January:

“Sex-selective abortion is barbaric and socially destructive.”

This Bill would be a step on the way to addressing this tragic and discriminatory practice and the first and most fundamental form of violence against women and girls. I commend it to the House.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
The House divided:

Ayes 181, Noes 1.

_____________________________________________________

Abortion reform call as record number of babies survive birth at 23 weeks

Sarah-Kate Templeton, Health Editor Published: 31 August 2014

·         

·        

AT LEAST 120 babies born during week 23 of apregnancy — the last week when abortions on demand are legal — have survived in the past four years, The Sunday Times can reveal.

New figures show the number of babies who are born before the 24-week legal abortion limit and survive is rising at large hospitals with specialist doctors. The real number of week 23 babies who survived is likely to be higher, as it is based on a sample of 25 hospitals that replied to a request under freedom of information laws.

The disclosure will revive the debate over the legal limit for abortion. In 2008, MPs voted against moves to reduce the limit to 22 or 20 weeks. Healthy babies can be aborted legally on demand up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy.

The new figures show that at Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, six of eight babies born at 23 weeks and admitted to the neonatal unit for treatment last year survived.

Six of seven babies born at 23 weeks at University College London Hospitals (UCLH) and given treatment to save them survived. All five born at 23 weeks at North Bristol NHS Trust last year also lived.

In 2011, 565 babies were aborted at 23 weeks’ gestation when they would have had a chance of survival.

Nationally, however, and particularly in smaller hospitals, the survival figures are lower. The EPICure study, published in 2012 and based on births in 2006, found that just 19% of babies born at 23 weeks survived. The research also found high levels of disability among babies born at 23 weeks.

These statistics are used by some to defend the abortion limit, arguing the survival rate remains poor. The figures obtained by The Sunday Times show that, even in the past four years, at some trusts where up to eight babies have been born at 23 weeks, none has lived.

Some leading neonatologists argue, however, that where treatment is centralised in large hospitals with specialist expertise, the survival rate is high and increasing.

Dr Ngozi Edi-Osagie, clinical director of neonatal services at Central Manchester University Hospitals, said: “It is a concentration of expertise, both in medical and nursing, that contribute to making a difference in survival at this very low gestation.” She fears a pessimistic view harms such babies’ prospects. “If you say that they don’t survive, they won’t,” she said.

At UCLH, 20 of the 26 babies born at 23 weeks between 2010 and 2013 and given active treatment to keep them alive survived. At North Bristol NHS Trust, 15 of the 19 babies born at 23 weeks between 2011 and July this year survived; and at Central Manchester University Hospitals, the figure was 10 of 16 over the same period. Six of the 11 babies born at 23 weeks at Barts Health NHS Trust in London and admitted to the neonatal units in the two years between 2012 and 2014 also survived.

Fiona Bruce, Conservative MP and member of the all-party pro-life group, said: “I do not understand why there is not more outcry about the fact that we allow viable babies to be aborted.

“The new figures support what we have known for a while: that advances in pre-natal care make a mockery of our 24-week abortion limit.”

_________________________________________________________________________________

Fiona Bruce Speaks against the change of law which could potentially introuduce a technique for 'designer babies' on the Today Programme on Radio 4 4/06/2014

link - starts at 1:19:20 -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b045bsc8

Abortion Statistics Bill Speech - 16th April 2013

Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to compile statistics on gender ratios of foetuses aborted in the United Kingdom, and where available overseas; and for connected purposes.

It is a tragedy that, in some countries, the words “It’s a girl” are not always a source of joy but sometimes of danger. The abortion of baby girls occurs in huge numbers simply because of their gender. The UN states that it is a problem of “genocide proportions”, with one expert estimating that gendercide has cost the lives of about 200 million women and girls worldwide over the past 30 years.
The practice is pervasive in China. The country’s one-child policy and its traditional preference for boys have led to widespread abandonment, infanticide and forced abortions. China now has 37 million more young males than females. We hear of towns and villages where young men outnumber young women by up to 30:1. Quoting China’s official figures, the Financial Times stated recently that there have been 330 million abortions since the one-child policy was introduced—a policy tragically indirectly aided and abetted for many years by funds provided by successive British Governments.
Similarly, there are markedly more males than females in India, with various regions facing serious and growing gender imbalances. The murder of a student who was gang-raped on a Delhi bus at the end of last year sparked outrage across India and shone a spotlight on the place of women in Indian society. That and the country’s long history of expensive dowry gifts on the marriage of a daughter are among the factors that are resulting in the illegal but widespread practice of female gendercide.
Female gendercide in such countries is fuelling human trafficking and sexual slavery. It is resulting in tragic practices such as the kidnapping, sale and imprisonment of young girls in places far from their home towns to act as so-called “wives”. Such avoidance of female births is gender discrimination in its worst form. It constitutes violence against women even before they have a chance to live.
Why am I relating these tragic situations in this place today, when so many Members are well aware of them and condemn them? The reason is that if we are to condemn gendercide in countries such as China and India, we must be ready to condemn and challenge any suggestion that gendercide is taking place in the UK. I acknowledge and respect the wide range of sincerely held views on abortion, but such wider discussions are not the subject of this ten-minute rule motion. The motion seeks to draw the House’s attention to indications that illegal gendercide appears to be taking place in this country. I hope that the House can unite in registering profound shock at even the possibility that that it is happening, in whatever proportion.
The House will have seen early-day motion 936, an all-party motion that I tabled on this topic. It has attracted more than 50 supportive signatures. I am
16 Apr 2013 : Column 170
therefore confident that the concerns about this issue are shared by a number of Members from all parties in the House.
On 8 January, the Department of Health confirmed in a written answer to my noble Friend Lord Alton of Liverpool that there are discrepancies in the balance between the number of boys and girls born in the UK to some groups of women that

“potentially fall outside of the range considered possible without intervention.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 January 2013; Vol. 742, c. WA2.]

That indicates that there may be evidence that a significant number of abortions are taking place on the grounds of gender or sex selection, a practice that is wholly illegal in this country. Any doctor who performed a termination on that basis would potentially be committing a criminal offence.
I welcome the decision of Ranjit Bikhu and other British Asian women to establish a campaign to challenge anti-girl and anti-life attitudes and practices. It must never be a matter of choice to end the life of a girl merely because of her gender.
An investigation by The Daily Telegraph in 2012 uncovered strong evidence, including filmed evidence, that doctors at some British clinics are agreeing to terminate pregnancies by arranging abortions on the grounds of gender and to produce the relevant paperwork. The investigation also exposed a practice termed “family balancing”, with boys being aborted too, thus stretching the possibility of gendercide taking place in the UK well beyond certain cultural groups. One doctor, highly experienced in this field, said he believes the practice is “fairly widespread”.
Technological advancements in prenatal diagnostic tests now enable the gender of a fetus to be determined at 10 weeks’ gestation. As that technology continues to develop and becomes widely available, there is much concern that it will increase requests for abortions when the gender of an unborn child is not what a mother or father were hoping for.
My Bill reminds the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that abortion on the grounds of gender is illegal in this country, and it calls on the Department of Health to put in place procedures to record the gender of babies aborted under the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967, once the sex can be determined. The Bill would also impose tougher penalties on anyone found to have facilitated the abortion of a child because of its gender, or made arrangements to travel overseas for such an outcome. In addition, it calls for further consideration of the practice and implications of the wide, deeply concerning and, in some countries, extensive practice of female gendercide overseas.
Here in the United Kingdom, a country that prides itself on striving for gender equality and tackling discrimination in all its forms, any indication of this most fundamental form of gender discrimination and violence against women must surely be investigated further. A key purpose of my Bill is to highlight concerns about abortion on the grounds of sex selection taking place in the UK, and to remind us all, whether regulators, prosecuting authorities, doctors, the Department of Health or, crucially, Ministers, that we cannot turn a blind eye to the issue and should be proactive in preventing, challenging and stopping it as something that is wholly unacceptable in the UK, as well as abroad.
16 Apr 2013 : Column 171
Before I say “I commend this Bill to the House”, this would until yesterday have been the end of my speech. Quite remarkably, however, bearing in mind the fact that my Bill is called the Abortion Statistics Bill as set down several weeks ago, just yesterday the Department of Health announced a consultation on abortion statistics and their publication. I would flatter myself by thinking there was any connection; none the less it gives me the opportunity to mention the issue. I understand that the Department of Health is seeking the public’s view on the publication of abortion statistics, in order—and I quote from its overview—

“to ensure that the reports remain relevant and useful.”

In the light of the causes for concern that I have highlighted today, I trust that the Department will consider including in those statistics a record of the gender of babies aborted, if ascertainable. I hope that many responses by the public to the consultation will support that call.
Finally, in further support of my motion, I draw the House’s attention to the recent call by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for members states to

“collect the sex ratio at birth, monitor its development and take prompt action to tackle possible imbalances.”

I understand that the Department of Health is currently finalising its response to the Assembly on that issue, and I note the comment from the Health Minister Earl Howe that

“this is an important piece of work and demonstrates how seriously this issue is being taken not just in this country but across Europe.”

Let us ensure that we lead the way in monitoring, challenging and—most important—preventing this deeply worrying practice. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Fiona Bruce, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Mrs Mary Glindon, Jim Dobbin, Robert Flello, Pat Glass, Mr Virendra Sharma, Jim Shannon, Rosie Cooper, Daniel Kawczynski and Jeremy Lefroy present the Bill.
Fiona Bruce accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April, and to be printed (Bill 158).