Falkland Islands Referendum

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes her point with great clarity. I support the thrust of what she says.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that his statement is warmly welcomed not just across the House, but throughout the United Kingdom, which stands full square behind the right of the Falkland Islands to self-determination. Will he give an assurance that not a single penny of British taxpayers’ money will go to Argentina while it adopts this aggressive position on the Falkland Islands?

[Mr Lidington]

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House a short while ago, British taxpayers’ money is not going to Argentina through World Bank loans. Our position is that any bid by any country for a World Bank loan must be considered on a case-by-case basis, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who leads on such policy decisions, will have careful regard to the hon. Lady’s comments.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

It is not the Labour party’s position that troops should be withdrawn by the end of this year. We want a co-ordinated approach. I understand that the discussions within NATO reflect the fact that some countries have already unilaterally announced that they are going to withdraw, with France saying that it will withdraw troops by the end of this year, the Americans talking about the end of the 2013 fighting season and the British Government holding to the position of having a NATO transition by the end of 2014. I hope that there will be greater clarity on taking a genuinely co-ordinated approach because if one has the opportunity to see, as I have, the work that British troops are doing in Helmand, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which American combat operations could cease in July, August or September of 2013 and Britain could maintain its current presence in central Helmand after that.

In the same way that we have been able to benefit from a strong bipartisan approach to the Government’s conduct in relation to Libya, I hope that we can continue to speak with one voice in the House on Iran, about which the Foreign Secretary said more this afternoon. The threat that Iran poses to Israel, to the wider stability of the region and to international security as a whole is real and deeply concerning, and it warrants urgent and concerted diplomatic efforts. We are clear that our objective in Iran is a change of policy, not a change of regime, and we support the steps taken by the Government to introduce and impose strict sanctions on the regime. However, I would welcome more clarification from the Minister in summing up than the Foreign Secretary was able to offer on the issue of providing insurance for ships carrying Iranian oil. There were many words, but not many answers. Given the Foreign Secretary’s remarks, I think that oil prices are a material consideration in determining the timing on when Britain chooses to impose sanctions on Iran. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm where the balance of authority on this lies within Government and whether this is a decision being led by the Treasury or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because many allies and many in the international community will have been troubled by the Foreign Secretary’s remarks. If some of the reports—they are only reports—are to be believed that Britain is one of the back markers and that this is being driven by a view from within the Treasury, that would be of great concern to Members on both sides of the House.

More broadly, we all welcome the fact that the next meeting of the international community—the P5 plus 1 process—will take place in Baghdad on 23 May. However, previous negotiation rounds have too often started in earnest and ended in frustration. The stakes are too high for that to be allowed to happen again. We must be clear about what we are seeking from the talks, and I would welcome a little more clarity from the Minister on what the British Government are looking for at Baghdad beyond the 20% enrichment issue that the Foreign Secretary shared with the House a few moments ago. This is delicate but vital work and we must not allow misjudged rhetoric to inflame or hinder vital diplomatic efforts. Let us be candid: if this debate had taken place three months ago, it would have been dominated by the threat of a potential strike on Iran. Since then, thankfully, the Iranians have signalled that they might be willing to make some compromises, and senior elements of the Israeli security establishment have signalled that they would be uncomfortable with a strike any time soon.

A negotiation path has now been opened up and the UK has a key role to play within it, but as surely as the temperature on this issue has dropped in recent weeks, so it could rise again in coming weeks. There may well be voices claiming that negotiations have stalled and that military action is therefore required immediately. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain will be unyielding in its commitment to advancing the case for negotiations as a diplomatic settlement in the immediate months ahead? To assist the negotiations, all options must remain on the table, but we are firm in our view that this opportunity must be seized by all sides so that military action can be avoided.

Let me address the pressing issue of Europe and the eurozone crisis.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on, may I ask him about Zimbabwe? I wanted to ask the Foreign Secretary about this, but he did not give way. If we had been having this debate two years ago, the Foreign Secretary would have mentioned Zimbabwe. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who is responsible for Africa, has done a very good job, but should not the Secretary of State be saying how he is going to ensure that pressure is put on South Africa to continue the work needed to get a global political agreement brought to fruition and get Zimbabwe back to being a fully democratic country?

[Mr Alexander]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the salience of Zimbabwe. In that, of course, we are as one. I had the opportunity in recent weeks to meet Morgan Tsvangirai when he visited the United Kingdom and was able to emphasise on behalf of my party our continuing interest, concern and deep worries about some of the developments that endure within Zimbabwe. When I was in the Foreign Office and had the opportunity to meet Morgan Tsvangirai long before he took office in the Zimbabwean Government, there was a constant tension between Britain’s capacity to make public statements and its capacity to exercise private influence in relation to the South Africans. The Minister may be able to comment on that. We were constantly aware that if we made some of the statements that we were minded to make in relation to Zimbabwe, we were vulnerable to their being used to offer succour, encouragement and a propaganda advantage to Mugabe. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government are following a path of quiet diplomacy and making sure that the regional leaders who bear a heavy responsibility—principally South Africa, as my hon. Friend suggests—recognise their heavy responsibility as we anticipate the potential for further violence and intimidation ahead of further elections in the country.

On the pressing issue of Europe and the eurozone crisis, there are many in the House who would like any discussion of Europe to focus on the question of an in/out referendum. If we are to believe the blogs and the briefings, our part-time Chancellor of the Exchequer is spending more time considering the electoral implications of such an approach than he appears to be spending on helping to solve the eurozone crisis that is engulfing parts of the continent. Let me be very clear about this. Opposition Members believe that Britain should now be focused on jobs and growth and leading the recovery in Europe so that many millions of British jobs that depend on Europe are secured, even in these turbulent times.

Within the eurozone itself, forecasters are predicting that Spain, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and Belgium would all miss the EU deficit target next year, as well as Ireland, Greece and Portugal, which are not expected to be able to comply with the terms of the EU bail-out programmes. The International Monetary Fund is forecasting shrinking economies and rising debt. No wonder firms are reluctant to invest, with such bleak prospects. An austerity-only economics—the voodoo economics of our time—driven by 23 out of the 29 Governments of Europe being held by the centre right, has been shown to have failed both here at home and abroad in Europe, yet have this Government shown themselves to be worthy of this moment? I would argue, far from it.

When British exporters and firms desperately need influence, the Prime Minister last December chose isolation instead. Why did he make that choice? Perhaps he was following the advice that was attributed to the Foreign Secretary on the eve of that fateful summit:

“If it’s a choice between keeping the euro together or keeping the Conservative Party together, it’s in the national interest to keep the Conservative Party together.”

But at what cost has this political party bargain been struck? They claim that they used their veto to stop a treaty that would harm British interests, but even the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not present in the House today, begged to differ. He said:

“The language gets confusing. Veto suggests something was stopped. It was not stopped.”



What of the so-called protections that the Government secured for British jobs and for British business? The Foreign Secretary was totally silent today on the fact that not one of the measures included in the fiscal compact would have applied to Britain, and still the Government are unable to point to a single extra protection that their so-called veto managed to secure for Britain’s financial services. But he need not take our word for it. It was no less than Lord Heseltine who summed it up so well in the week of the summit when he stated, “You can’t protect the interests of the City by floating off into the middle of the Atlantic.” We now know that this is not a Tory party following in the tradition of Macmillan, who applied to join the EEC; of Heath, who took us into Europe; of Thatcher, who signed the Single European Act; or of Major, who signed the Maastricht treaty. This is a Conservative party being followed and not being led by those on the Government Front Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

I want to focus on two issues: the Government’s commitment to spending 0.7% of our gross national income on international development, and the continuing threat to world security that is emanating from the middle east. I serve on the International Development Select Committee, along with five Conservative colleagues and four other Labour Members. The Committee is chaired by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). Each of us has seen at first hand the despair resulting from poverty in the developing world. We have also seen the acclaimed work of the Department for International Development, and we are all committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid, as is each of our political parties.

However, it says a lot about the Government’s priorities that the issue of House of Lords reform has been placed ahead of the commitment to legislating for that 0.7% expenditure. What puzzles me most about the decision is that the commitment was in all of the main three parties’ manifesto commitments to the electorate at the last general election. One would have thought that, after undertaking an independent analysis of those manifestos, the Government would pick one policy that would unite this Chamber rather than any of the myriad issues on which we choose to disagree. Alas, they did not.

There is one reason not to give aid: the philosophy of looking after our own interests first. That is a reasonable position to take if someone has amnesia and is willing to forget the wealth Britain has extracted from across the globe. Everyone, however, can point to a reason to give aid: it is the right thing to do and will make the world a more secure place for our country, as the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said. International development aid will also save lives and put more children into school, while creating new markets for the future.

We can point to the fact that in the 1950s, Korea was a war-torn aid recipient. It is now the 13th largest economy in the world, the second-fastest growing economy in the OECD and an aid donor. That single statement confirms that, despite the complexities of aid, despite multiple cultures and despite the challenges ranging from clean water to conflict and corruption, aid does work. Any remaining doubting Thomases out there should consider that Korean investment and exports are worth £8 billion a year to the UK and are set to increase by £500 million year on year as a result of the South Korea-European Union free trade agreement.

[Kate Hoey]

My hon. Friend talks about doubting Thomases. What would he say to people who ask why we give aid to a country like India when it has nuclear weapons?

[Mr McCann]

I am happy to answer that. The International Development Select Committee was in India last year, so it knows that, as the Secretary of State for International Development would confirm, 800 million people who live there are surviving on less than $2 a day, which is an important point. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend asks from a sedentary position why it has nuclear capability. Well, any country faced with threats on both sides of its borders is likely to think that nuclear weapons are a necessary safeguard. I saw some of the poorest people on the planet when we visited India, and I do not believe that we should resile from giving money to that nation.

I was saying that we generate £8 billion a year from South Korea and that this will grow by £500 million every year, and I was making the point that the UK aid budget currently sits at £7.8 billion a year. Some might legitimately argue that legislation is irrelevant because the money will be spent anyway. Some might say that the manifesto commitment was ducked by coalition parties because of the fear of a backlash from some of those sitting on the blue side of the Government Benches. That commitment should not have been ducked. Not only did all three main parties make that commitment in their manifestos but, even more importantly, our commitment sent a message around the world—that the UK was prepared to be bold, which could encourage others to be equally bold and to walk in our footsteps to reach the 0.7% figure. As the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said, we have been trying to reach that commitment for the last 40 years.

“A single event can shape our lives or change the course of history.”

Those are the words of the award-winning author, Deepak Chopra. We should heed those words rather than those of my e-mail friend, Mr Ronald Hunter, who Members will know sends us regular e-mail correspondence.

Just as we face the challenge of tackling poverty across the globe, so we still face unresolved tensions in the middle east. There is no other subject that can lead to such a swift loss of perspective in debate. It has the ability to unite those who do not normally see eye to eye, while simultaneously disuniting those who normally do so. I should register the fact that I am the vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel. Holding that title, however, does not make me oblivious or ignorant of, or unsympathetic to, the Palestinian cause. On the contrary, I support it. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Glenamara who, sadly, passed away recently. As the vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel, I and all those we work with owe a great debt of gratitude to Edward Short. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for his steadfast support for both Israel and LFI over many years. I never had the pleasure of meeting Edward Short, but from talking to colleagues it was clear he made a big and impressive impact and will leave a long legacy. As Chief Whip under Harold Wilson, he fought hard to marshal a majority of just five, commanding respect; and now that we are, regrettably, in opposition, we rely heavily on Short money, which Lord Glenamara first proposed—a vital innovation for allowing Oppositions to hold Governments to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who in his short time in this place has brought the experience of his previous work into Parliament. I congratulate him on his speech.

As I wanted to speak in this debate, I had to cancel a meeting with the chief executive of a company just across the river. He sent me an e-mail saying that he hoped I would be called—he does not understand how long we wait to speak—and said, “Could you please encourage the Government to concentrate on growth and not constitutional waffle?” I thought that that was a rather nice way of summing up Lords reform and I hope that we will see sense on that matter and not go forward with any discussion on it at all. It is not something for which any of our constituents are clamouring.

The Gracious Speech included two Bills on the European Union that the Government intend to introduce in this Session and I want to say a quick word about them. Neither Bill is the Bill that the public want to see. We know that the public, like many Members of this House, want a Bill that allows a referendum on our future relationship with the European Union. The public will note that, despite the passage of the European Union Act 2011, the Government propose to pass legislation to approve the creation of the European stability mechanism and to prepare for Croatia to join the EU without a referendum. Many members of the public were told that we did not need an in/out referendum because the Government would put it into law that any changes to our relationship with the EU would have to be approved by them. We can now see that that promise is inadequate because we will not have any say.

It is surprising that the Government are introducing the Croatia accession Bill. Personally—this is a very personal view—I cannot understand why Croatia would want to join the EU, but if it does that is obviously a matter for it. The ongoing expansion of the EU across the continent, well away from the small set of countries it comprised when we joined, shows that the European project is still very much alive in the hearts of the Brussels elite, who are pushing still for deeper and wider union despite the ongoing economic disaster. I believe—and believe that the public would want to see this—that if we are to be asked to pool our national sovereignty with yet another country with the result that in time our voice and our vote count for less in the European Parliament, that changes our relationship and should lead to a referendum.

Preparations for the European stability mechanism might also be premature. Only today we have the meeting between the new President of France and the German Chancellor with the intention of amending the austerity pact which the euro countries signed up to last year. I welcome the fact that eurozone countries should pay to support other countries that are struggling under that currency, but as we wisely did not join, we should not have to contribute a penny. We have already given too much money to propping up the euro through the International Monetary Fund. I remind the Government that the public will not stand for that, as we have seen from the increasing votes for the UK Independence party.

I was disappointed that neither of the Front-Bench spokesmen—I might be mistaken, but I listened very carefully—mentioned the word Commonwealth. Yet that is an association of 54 independent states that work together in the common interests of their citizens for development, democracy and peace. We just need to contrast that with the European Union. The Commonwealth works to uphold democratic rights and nurture constitutional government and parliamentary accountability, whereas the European Union increasingly seeks to thwart and ride roughshod over the democratic will of citizens to such an extent that it wants to install unelected bureaucrats as Prime Ministers of countries.

It is terribly sad that we are not making much more use of the Commonwealth. Despite the size and economic entity of the Commonwealth, the UK Government never talk about it as a huge economic union. We talk about individual countries within it but what about the fact that it accounts for 15% of the world’s gross national income and contains more than 2 billion of the world’s 7 billion population? We have a special link in this year of Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee. As the head of the Commonwealth, she is passionately concerned about it and has done so much as a monarch to ensure its importance and to ensure that we remember what it has done. So although the Commonwealth contains 2 billion of the world’s 7 billion people, there was not a single mention of it in the Queen’s Speech or, more importantly, tonight.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that many countries that do not have traditional links with Britain are seeking to join the Commonwealth? Rwanda is already a member, as is Mozambique, and countries such as Burundi want to forge links with the Commonwealth.

[Kate Hoey]

Absolutely, and that shows the strength and power of the relationship, which does not bind countries into a centralised you-will-all-do-the-same-thing approach but welcomes and supports them as individual countries. Let us not forget that the Commonwealth’s membership includes two of the world’s largest 10 economies—the UK and India—and two members of the G7: Canada and the UK. It also includes five members of the G20: the UK, India, Canada, Australia and South Africa. It has huge global significance and huge potential and also has the advantage of being a group of countries that are friendly, in most cases, including many with deep reserves of key natural resources. It is absolutely disgraceful that we in the United Kingdom are not seeing the Commonwealth as somewhere to which we should be reaching out. Ultimately, we should be establishing a Commonwealth free trade area. That would, of course, mean examining our relationship with the European Union, but our relationship with some of the large Commonwealth countries will be much more important in the long term. I therefore ask the Minister to mention the word Commonwealth in his response and say something about it just to show the Commonwealth countries that we care and that in this year of the diamond jubilee Her Majesty and this Parliament consider the Commonwealth to be worthy of discussion.

Having been quite critical, let me now say something nice about the International Development Secretary. The Department for International Development has been doing a very good job indeed and I want to mention in particular the work it has been doing in Zimbabwe, which has been terrifically important and useful. This covers so many of the issues that other Members have been discussing such as getting books into schools and has been a terrific opportunity for us to be sure that we are doing our bit for the education of children in what was once a fantastically well-educated country, despite all the issues there. I hope that until there are free and fair elections there we will continue to do our bit to ensure that primary schoolchildren have the opportunity to read and have an education.

I was very moved by the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who I know had another engagement to attend. I, too, was at St Paul’s yesterday to hear the Dalai Lama. I am a member of the all-party group on Tibet and I was very disappointed that although the thousands of Chinese students in this country were mentioned in the Government’s introduction to the debate, not a word was said about the Chinese Government’s human rights record and the appalling way they have treated not only the Tibetans but people in many other parts of China. The difference between what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford said about Palestine and the terrible things she saw and what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East said about Tibet is that at least the media can still get access to the refugee camps and Palestine. Yes, that is difficult but they and parliamentary delegations can get in, whereas it is incredibly difficult to get into Tibet these days. It has become a closed country to anyone who is not seen as absolutely supporting the Chinese regime.

Our Government should be speaking out more about this issue. We should be forming alliances with other countries and not allowing China to get away with what it is doing just because it is such a huge and economically powerful country.

When China was selected to host the Olympics, everyone said, “It’s going to make such a difference. China is going to change. It will change its human rights record and start freeing prisoners.” Have we seen any changes in China since the Beijing Olympics? I have seen nothing that has made a difference, and the fact that the Olympics were held there has certainly not made any difference to the brave Tibetans who are trying so desperately not just to have a free Tibet, but to be allowed to practise their culture and their religion. What has been happening there is shocking, and I hope that the Minister will make some reference to that.

Our Government have done some very good things through their foreign policy. I am delighted that they are opening up some of our embassies in parts of the world that were closed. I am pleased that they have made a decision that the UK flag must take precedence over the European Union flag. That is just a tiny little change, but it is very important and I welcome it. I pay tribute to our many ambassadors all over the world who do such a good job, trying to ensure that the United Kingdom’s voice is heard in those countries and that we stand up for the values that this country represents.

Finally, please, please would Ministers and shadow Ministers stop referring to Britain, Britain, Britain? We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If I hear the Prime Minister say once more, “Britain is this” and “Britain is that”, I am going to get very cross indeed. We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Britain excludes Northern Ireland; Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.

European Council

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Leigh]

What is in our national interest—we see it in this Chamber today—is that patriotic Members of Parliament are prepared to speak up for the vital national interest. By speaking out this afternoon, we are actually supporting the Prime Minister in his negotiating stance, because I believe that we stand for what the British people want.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I would like it to be put on the record that, while not many Opposition Members are present, many of them, as well as many Labour party members and millions of Labour party supporters throughout the country, want to see our Prime Minister standing up for this country and making sure that we get some of those powers back. The most important thing that the country wants, however, is a referendum on the whole question of Europe.

[Mr Leigh]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. Her courage, independence and intellect are widely admired throughout Parliament, because hers is a voice that stands up for reason and for democracy. I reiterate what the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Work and Pensions and many of us have said this week. The creation of true fiscal and monetary union throughout much of Europe, with the ability to compel nation states to, in effect, subscribe to particular levels of debt and taxation, is such a fundamental shift of power, that it would be a dereliction of duty, legalism in its worst form and slippery tactics, to say that that does not demand a referendum. We are talking about such a fundamental shift in our relationship with Europe that it would be an appalling attack on the good name of politicians and politics in general if, once again, we were to use mere legalism to say that a referendum is not needed.

I finish by joining my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex and agreeing with what he said when opening the debate. An increasing groundswell of opinion in this country says that we want a renegotiation of our relationship with Europe. We want to concentrate on our traditional strength of having the free trade of goods and people with Europe, which, by the way, is not at risk. It is a complete myth that somehow we will lose that when Europe has a massive balance of trade surplus with us. We want a renegotiation and, having achieved that, let us put the decision to the British people and move forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I disagree entirely. When our party was in government, we were at the centre of European decision-making, and the truth is that we are not any more.

Six weeks ago the Prime Minister demanded repatriation of powers, yet yesterday, in a 1,000-word article in The Times, in which he set out his position for the European summit, he did not mention repatriation once. We agree that the priority should be given to providing a lasting solution to the eurozone crisis, because we think it is in the national interest, but we also say that Britain should have a strong voice in these negotiations. Unfortunately, because the Prime Minister has tried to face two ways on the issue—on the one hand placating his Eurosceptic Back Benchers and some members of his Cabinet, and, on the other, trying to have a realistic negotiating position with our European partners—the risk is that he will not deliver on either of those objectives. Whereas many Conservative Back Benchers demand repatriation, a split has emerged, not only in the coalition, but in the Conservative party, over the past few days.

[Kate Hoey]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Emma Reynolds]

I will not, because I do not have much time. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that attempting repatriation would be economic suicide, and the Mayor of London and two Cabinet members—the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Northern Ireland—say that the treaty change would inevitably lead to a referendum, whereas the rest of the Government seem to be saying something quite different.

The fact that the Prime Minister is leading a divided party while negotiating on Europe is very much weakening his hand. By facing two ways, the Prime Minister’s position and the negotiating position of our Government are both confused and confusing. It is no wonder that our European partners are not entirely sure where the Prime Minister stands. It is clearly not in our national interest to have that weak voice and to stand on the sidelines. Splendid isolation is really not that splendid. The fact that we are in the slow lane of a two-speed Europe might chime well to the Eurosceptic ear, but, essentially, it could mean that other member states will take decisions that affect us without our being at the table.

I say to the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) that it is wrong to assume that eurozone members all agree on which direction they want to take regarding better economic co-ordination, because the French Gaullois tradition is an intergovernmental one that is very hostile and suspicious of supranational institutions. There are disagreements within the eurozone countries. We should not just assume that France and Germany agree on these issues.

If the eurozone crisis continues to deepen, it will have serious implications for jobs, businesses and banks in the UK. Our economy is closely entwined with the other 26 members of the European Union, and more than half our trade goes to those countries. Our banks are also extensively linked and exposed to eurozone banks, so it is clearly in the national interest for a solution to be found at the summit. Labour Members want the Government to push for a greater and more decisive role for the European Central Bank and a credible crisis fund with, of course, built-in conditionality. The so-called six-pack package goes a long way to creating credible rules and procedures to enforce those rules, but it is clear that a solution must also be found to tackle the balance of payments and trade imbalances, which several hon. Members have mentioned, between the different eurozone member states. It is also very important to enhance the competitiveness of the weaker economies.

In winding up, I would like quickly to ask the Minister a couple of questions. Why did the Prime Minister promise repatriation of powers six weeks ago and then suddenly drop those demands yesterday? What resources in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were given to working through options on repatriation, or was that always a matter of rhetoric rather than something really considered in the corridors of King Charles street? Why have the Government been so complacent about the emergence of a two-speed or multi-speed Europe, and what specific reassurances are the Government asking for with regard to the City and the single market? Are the Government seeking, for example, an emergency brake to be extended to the area of financial services? Finally, are the Government hopeful of a fairly rapid treaty change, and what are the risks to the UK and the rest of the EU of a prolonged process of treaty change and ratification?

In conclusion, we want to see the eurozone succeed, because it is clearly in the national interest that a solution is reached. It is not in the national interest to engage in “I told you so” arguments or schadenfreude, nor is it in the national interest for the governing party and the coalition to be so divided on this issue. Our European partners are left scratching their heads about what the Government’s position really is. The Prime Minister should never have promised repatriation of powers, if it was never his intention to deliver on that promise. His promise has entrenched and deepened divisions in his party, as we saw today and yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions.

That is no way to negotiate with our European partners. Our country demands and deserves better leadership, and only then will the Government be in a position to effectively pursue the national interest and start being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Division, isolation and weakness are, in fact, a betrayal of the national interest. My concern is that the Prime Minister will not be able to deliver on even the modest demands that he has set out because of his isolation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

As I said earlier, this is not without precedent. I am not saying that this will happen, but it is an option that has been floated quite openly by a number of European leaders as a possible way forward. Just as there is a negotiation within the eurozone about the measures and mechanisms to enforce discipline, so there is a negotiation with us and fellow non-euro countries. In the course of these negotiations, whichever option is followed we will make sure that our interests are protected. Of course, there is another option, which is to use the existing frameworks and treaties. That option is still on the table.

In the debate, there has been extensive discussion of the repatriation of powers and a referendum. We need to remind ourselves that this is the first Government in British history to have introduced a legislative guarantee of a referendum. The European Union Act 2011 ensures that there is now a legal requirement on any Government to hold a referendum before any agreement on treaty change that transfers competence or powers from the UK to the EU. I have never pretended that the Act is a panacea. It does not address the issue of repatriation of powers and that was not its purpose. It is a guarantee.

There has been some suggestion from hon. Members that the UK should hold a referendum on any changes the eurozone countries may choose to make. I want to reiterate the point the Prime Minister has made on this issue. What the eurozone countries may or may not do is have arrangements between themselves that pool some of their sovereignty. To say that we have to have a referendum in Britain about something that other countries are going ahead with anyway would not only be a rather odd approach for us to take, but it would probably mean that those countries would choose to go ahead in any case but using purely intergovernmental means, however messy and unsatisfactory from their point of view such an alternative might be. That may well yet happen, but holding a referendum on such a treaty would not bring back a single power.

Personally, I could draw up a list of powers—we had the list in the Conservative manifesto at the previous election—that I think are better decided nationally than by the EU. However, we have to be ruthlessly focused on what is most important to our national interest and, at this time, in particular to our national economy. That is why our priority in the negotiations is safeguards to keep the single market fair and open for our most crucial industries, including financial services, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) made reference.

[Kate Hoey]

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that none of the options that he has mentioned and that might happen is making any real change to our relationship with the European Union? Surely the changes are fundamental and require the will and support of the British people in a referendum.

[Mr Lidington]

No. We do not know the shape, let alone the detail, of any agreement that might be reached over the next 24 hours or longer. The risk alluded to by a number of my hon. Friends, which perhaps lies behind the hon. Lady’s intervention, is that of caucusing. The risk is that the greater economic integration of the 17, and of more countries over time as other member states join the euro, as is still their intention, will lead to caucusing on single market measures, so that the UK would in effect be presented with a “take it or leave it” option. That is certainly a theoretical risk and I do not want to pretend otherwise. The political reality, however, is, first, that that is not how the eurozone countries have operated up till now. We were given similar warnings when the United Kingdom took the decision to stay outside the euro when it was created, but those dire warnings have not been justified by the events of the years since.

Secondly, when I talk to Ministers from the other 26 member states, I find that neither the eurozone 17 nor the euro-out 10 are cohesive or monolithic blocs. Talking to Dutch, German—in particular—Finnish, Austrian or Irish Ministers, one finds that they all very much want the United Kingdom, with its championship of free and open markets and an outward-looking European Union, to be centrally involved in taking decisions. There is not that drive towards a caucus that a number of my hon. Friends fear.

Zimbabwe

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for attending the debate and intervening. Like him, I am an optimist; I think that Zimbabwe can have a fantastic future, given its agricultural productivity, the resources of its people and its natural advantages in the region. The challenge for us is to help the political process to allow that to happen, so I agree with the point that he made.

On the treatment of Zimbabwean Anglicans, hon. Members may know that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was recently accompanied in Zimbabwe by bishops, not only from Zimbabwe, but from South Africa, Tanzania, Botswana and Malawi, all of whom were absolutely horrified at what has been happening to Zimbabwe’s Anglicans. Since 2007, Anglican congregations have suffered systematic harassment and persecution at the hands of the police, often in direct contravention of court rulings. A report, which was handed to President Robert Mugabe, outlined details of that litany of abuses, which include false imprisonment, violence and denial of access to churches, schools, clinics and mission stations.

In the dioceses of Harare and Manicaland, properties belonging to the Anglican province have been misappropriated. It is a matter of the greatest sadness that Zimbabwean Anglicans are being prevented from continuing their work supporting local and often very needy communities with health care and education. Their priests and people are being denied access to their own clinics and schools. Many such institutions have been taken from Zimbabwe’s Anglicans, and are now under corrupt or poor management, being rapidly run into the ground and stripped of their assets. Details of that unwarranted activity and its impact on local communities were presented to President Mugabe in a report by Archbishop Rowan Williams. Every week, tens of thousands of Anglicans are denied their basic right to worship, because of the lies and falsifications propagated by the now excommunicated former bishop, Dr Kunonga, and his associates.

I have concerns about how the sanctions might be being evaded in Zimbabwe, and I ask that the Minister look into that. A glaring issue is that nationals of countries, including the UK, that have applied the sanctions—both individuals and companies—have continued to support the regime and nothing has been done about them. The British Government and others punish ZANU-PF, but fail to police their own citizens and, according to my sources, that includes companies such Old Mutual.

ZANU-PF officials have been able to externalise huge quantities of funds through share swaps between the Zimbabwean and London stock exchanges. Old Mutual has joint ventures with the Government of Zimbabwe that started before the formation of the unity Government, yet nothing is done. Moreover, those investments are directly connected to gross human rights abuses. Old Mutual has shares in a joint venture on the diamond fields where more than 200 panners in rags were gunned down from helicopters to clear the decks for investors. There are numerous reports of ongoing abuses. I understand that Old Mutual claims that any regrettable events predate its involvement.

The Central African Mining and Exploration Company purchased land from the Zimbabwean Government believed to have been extorted from another mining company and, in doing so, poured tens of millions into the pockets of the regime at a time when it needed election resources. What action can the British Government take on those issues?

The final words of my contribution should come from two black Africans, not a white Englishman.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Before he concludes, will he say something more about sanctions and restricted measures? He understands, as does the Minister, that the EU will decide what will happen with sanctions in February. Does he agree that it must be handled incredibly carefully and that we must not rush into removing any of those restricted measures, unless there is real evidence that it will make a difference to the political framework of getting a peaceful resolution and a free and fair election?

[Andrew Selous]

I welcome the comments of the hon. Lady, who is chair of the all-party group on Zimbabwe. She is right; the current regime has concerns about the sanctions. I think that they are partially effective. Her comments are wise, and I hope that the Minister will heed her words.

National Referendum on the European Union

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The remedy is to restore the health of the British economy, to have a tax system, such as the Chancellor is creating, that attracts businesses to this country, and to create export growth from this country to the whole world, not just to the European Union. We cannot do that if we are not taking part in the free trade agreements that Europe is making with the rest of the world.

The second and third reasons—

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend’s argument is that he would have a preferential voting system, but not everybody would, and I am pointing out the difficulties with that.

[Kate Hoey]

rose—

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I am not sure when the Foreign Secretary has to leave, but he is going to a very important conference, the Commonwealth conference in Australia. Many people in this country believe that the Commonwealth was sold out when we joined the Common Market, and I hope he remembers that by 2050 the 55 members of the Commonwealth will have 38% of the global labour force, while the European Union, with its 27 members, will have only 5%. I hope he goes with that figure in his head to the Commonwealth conference, because then we might actually see much more attention paid to the Commonwealth.

This could have been a wonderful day for Parliament, for democracy and for the new regime—on which the coalition have to be congratulated—of the Backbench Business Committee, with its many keen members. This debate was brought about by a process involving people outside, in the United Kingdom—and let us stop talking about “Britain”, please, because when we do we ignore Northern Ireland, which when it comes to a referendum is going to be very important.

Let us not forget, as many Members have said, that this issue has reached us today not only because of the 100,000 e-petition signatories, but because of the many organisations that have brought together different types of petition and written to people. It is not just about e-petitions.

Millions of people out there are watching what we are doing today, but the three party leaders, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) referred, have it seems almost—I am not sure whether I am allowed to use the word—colluded to ensure that Members do not have a free vote. I am therefore so pleased to hear tonight not just from my own side, but from people on the opposing Benches how many Members are prepared to say, “Party Whips are fine, because of course we are elected from our party, but sometimes the issue is more important than the party.” This issue is more important than the party, and that is why we have so much cross-party involvement in and support for the motion.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kate Hoey]

No, I will not, at this point—and not to you.

A number of points have been made, and I want to make just a few short ones. On the idea that the issue is a distraction, I have to say that the European Union is the thread that runs though every part of every law that we make in this country, and we must recognise that and ask people whether we have gone too far.

The Foreign Secretary talked about repatriation of powers, which I want to see, but, on the threat of a referendum hanging over the Foreign Secretary, we know that the Commission hates referendums, and I remember him arguing—I was on his side—for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, when he stated how much more strength it would give to the elbow of the then Foreign Secretary. We want to repatriate powers, and, if the rest of the European Union knew that the British public were sick, sore and tired of the money being spent on Europe, of the bureaucracy, of the corruption and of all that, they would be much more likely to negotiate the repatriation of them.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the one industry in this country that has suffered for the past 30 years under the European Union is the fishing industry? A referendum would right the wrong that has been done to that industry, and the destruction that it has suffered over the past 30 years.

[Kate Hoey]

I do not understand why my party, which wants a change in the fishery policy, are not allowing a free vote tonight at the very least, never mind supporting a referendum.

I get a bit fed up on this side of the House—I have said this before—about the way the media paint the matter as always being about Tory splits, attacks on Cameron, Tory diversions, and so on when a huge number of Labour supporters in this country want a referendum. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was rather ill advised to impose a three-line Whip. We need to have this debate out in the open.

What is everyone afraid of? It is ridiculous of those who are not in favour of a referendum to say that this is not the right time, because we all know that we would not have the legislation in place until the end of 2012, or probably 2013. We could not possibly have the necessary White Paper, or the details of what would go into the referendum until 2014, so no one should accept the reason that this is not the right time.

What causes the lack of confidence felt by the leaders of the main parties who are afraid of a referendum? We must choose whether to integrate fully into a pan-European system of government based in Brussels, or to seek a more international future based on trade and co-operation, not just with the EU, but with the rest of the world. It is time to stop being little Europeans; we must be internationalists. We have all had the Whips on our backs over the years. We have all survived, and many of us are still here. Despite what they have said, it is important that right hon. and hon. Members do what they think is right, what is right for their constituents, and what is right for the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bellingham]

Since the election nearly a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team have been to more than 30 Commonwealth countries, of which I have visited seven. I assure my hon. Friend that on the agenda for those meetings were trade diplomacy and building up business and enterprise with those countries. The Commonwealth has a vital role in pursuing the Doha development agenda.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that the Commonwealth Secretariat, which works for more than a third of the world’s population, is run on a shoestring, yet we give billions to the European Union. Would our money not be better spent on maintaining our links with all the small countries and other Commonwealth countries, which have close links, deep loyalty and close family ties to the UK? In other words, should we not put the Commonwealth before the European Union?

[Mr Bellingham]

The Commonwealth does a first-class job, and it is exemplary in providing excellent value for money from its Secretariat here in London. I am delighted that the multilateral aid review by the Department for International Development concluded that the Commonwealth has a unique place in the international system and can play an even more significant role in development.

Zimbabwe

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this opportunity to discuss the political situation in Zimbabwe. The Minister will know that for many years I have been visiting Zimbabwe, and have done so during the current serious political crisis. I was there during the dark days of Operation Drive Out Rubbish, when hundreds of thousands of homes and small businesses were demolished, and many people, particularly trade union activists, were singled out for beating and arrest.

I visited Zimbabwe again last month, and I was pleased to be accompanied by two other members of the all-party group on Zimbabwe, of which I am pleased to be the chairman. We were there particularly to see what was happening with the parliamentary situation. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who will contribute to the debate, was returning to Zimbabwe for the first time since 1979. His background as a trained election agent was valuable when we looked at political processes in Zimbabwe.

Lord Joffe was the other member of the delegation, and has an eminent record in southern Africa. He was the defence lawyer for Nelson Mandela when he faced the death penalty at the Rivonia trial, and defended many other leaders in the struggle against apartheid. He also defended a very young Jacob Zuma, so he is no stranger to political oppression. He was chairman of Oxfam at one time, so he has seen development and aid close up in many parts of the world. The delegation was thus very strong.

We came away from our visit with many anxieties, particularly about harassment of parliamentarians, but I also felt hopeful about Zimbabwe’s future. Given the high-profile events connected with Parliament in Zimbabwe during our stay, it was appropriate that our visit was funded by the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. That was the first of my many visits during the past 10 years that was funded. I am grateful for that, and pay tribute to the CPA, particularly Andrew Tuggey, for continuing to engage with Zimbabwe, even though Mugabe withdrew from the Commonwealth in 2003. It is very much in line with the Commonwealth principles set out in Harare and Millbrook in New Zealand that such engagement continues. I hope that before long, Zimbabwe will be able to rejoin the Commonwealth family. I know that many Zimbabwean Members of Parliament are waiting for that to happen.

Despite the hope, there are huge difficulties to be overcome. When the inclusive Government was formed, and particularly now with events in other parts of the world, especially in north Africa, attention was and is being diverted from what is happening in southern Africa, and there is a risk that that will continue. Mugabe and his strategists in ZANU-PF have for decades relied on a combination of regional intransigence and international indifference to neutralise anyone who opposes their monopoly on power. I am glad that the UK Government have not allowed Zimbabwe to fall off their agenda, and I pay tribute to the tremendously hard work and commitment shown by the Minister with responsibility for Africa, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who, unfortunately, cannot be here today, but we are delighted to have the Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), here to respond to the debate. The Under-Secretary has followed in the footsteps of his predecessors in recent years.

We are also being well served by our ambassador to Zimbabwe, Mark Canning. He and his team could not have done more to make our visit useful and productive. The Minister will understand that because we have had conversations about Europe, and he knows how pleased I was to see our flag being proudly flown not just at the embassy well above the European Union flag, but from the ambassador’s car as it drove through Harare. That was an important symbol of the United Kingdom’s continuing engagement in trying to help that country.

I also pay tribute to Dave Fish, head of the Department for International Development in Zimbabwe. He has won huge admiration in the country for his understanding of the context in which our UK aid programme is delivered. It is not an easy job, and we saw at first hand his outstanding commitment to getting it right.

We witnessed a real unity of purpose binding together the courageous men and women who are at the forefront of the struggle to bring reform and progress to Zimbabwe, whether they are active in politics or in civil society. Above all, it is a tribute to the people of Zimbabwe and those who have led the struggle for democracy that the process of transition is still on track, and that the long march of reform is continuing. It is important to remember that despite appalling provocation, the Movement for Democratic Change has remained a peaceful political party, and has not reacted in the way that Mugabe presumably wanted it to react in the face of the tremendous violence and intimidation.

Of course, the vast majority of Zimbabweans would like the process to move more quickly, as would members of the all-party group. We are impatient, and we wish that reforms could be implemented much more speedily. It is frustrating to see opportunities being missed, and people’s lives passing by with promises unfulfilled. The process is fragile, and there are still powerful elements who want it to stall or be reversed. They are from the old political establishment, and have a vested interest in maintaining a system that makes them rich, and consigns the mass of the population to disease, destitution and dependency. It is a shameful irony that those who shouted loudest about independence and sovereignty and condemned the role of the British colonial Government have driven their once-proud country to hunger and handouts.

There is still massive resistance to political and economic reform from those in the political and military establishments. They see their personal position of wealth and privilege threatened. We were all angry to see the blatant dishonesty of those who are intent on protecting their own power. It was tragic to drive through Zimbabwe and see factories lying idle, farmland lying uncultivated, and the people who should be working them cast aside and unemployed.

During our visit last month we went to Chegutu, and I pay special tribute to two people from that area who have helped to show the world not just what has gone wrong in Zimbabwe, but what can be done to make things better. I am sure that many hon. Members saw the striking film “Mugabe and the White African”. The all-party Zimbabwe group arranged a screening at Westminster when the film was launched nearly two years ago. It features Ben Freeth and his father-in-law, Mike Campbell, and their attempts to keep farming at Mount Carmel in Chegutu. ZANU-PF bigwigs with their armed thugs were determined to take control of the farm, and to drive Ben and Mike off the land, even though it had been purchased legally in the relatively recent past, and with no expression of interest from the Zimbabwe Government.

Mike Campbell decided to challenge the seizure of his farm through the courts not only in Zimbabwe, but going right up to those of the region, and to the South African Development Community tribunal. Bringing a court case in Zimbabwe requires courage, and Mike Campbell, his wife Angela, and son-in-law Ben all suffered dreadful beatings and violence for daring to challenge ZANU-PF. Their farmhouse was ransacked and burned, and the police failed to take any action against the perpetrators. The SADC tribunal ruled that the actions of the Government of Zimbabwe were illegal. At that point the lawyers representing the Zimbabwe Government promptly walked out and declared that they did not recognise the tribunal, although for weeks they had appeared before it, argued their case and delayed the process by asking for adjournments.

The response to the SADC tribunal ruling showed up Mugabe and his ZANU-PF colleagues and demonstrated that their fight is not only with reformers in Zimbabwe, not only with the British Government, and not only with the Commonwealth and the EU, but with anyone who dares to stand up to their violent and destructive policies. ZANU-PF’s intransigent and dishonest response to the tribunal helped leaders of SADC Governments to recognise the true nature of what they are up against with the old guard in Zimbabwe. Sadly, Mike Campbell paid a high price for his battle, and just three weeks ago he died. He never really recovered from the beatings he suffered at the hands of Mugabe’s thugs, but I hope that his death will not be in vain.

We were also able to visit the constituency of Chegutu West, and its member of Parliament, Prince Matibe. He is the second person from that area to whom I want to pay tribute. He is an example of a promising young generation of Zimbabweans who are determined to play their full part in restoring Zimbabwe and making the country work again. They want a Zimbabwe that can stand proudly on its own two feet, feed its people and provide them with jobs. It was uplifting to travel around that constituency with the young MP, and hear not only what he wanted to achieve for the people of his home town, but to see some seeds of hope. Despite having slender resources, and in the face of constant harassment and violence, Prince Matibe and his colleagues in the MDC have worked on projects that are making a real difference to the people of Chegutu. We visited a newly built primary school for which funds have been raised, and we met the headmaster and some of the children. We also met the local councillor, a member of ZANU-PF who praised the project and, I am glad to say, was fully engaged with it. We visited a new market established by the MDC so that local people can buy and sell local produce. It was a small but confident beginning towards reviving a town where the biggest local employer, a cotton ginnery that a few years ago employed 5,000 people, now stands empty and derelict.

We had a full morning’s meeting with many Zimbabwean MPs, and we were struck by the fact that they described themselves as “engines for development” in their constituencies. As Lord Joffe pointed out, there are not many countries where MPs would describe themselves in that way. One thing that came to light during our discussions with MPs, particularly those from the MDC, was that they did not feel sufficiently engaged with or consulted by the implementing agencies of aid programmes that are funded by donor Governments, including the UK. Those responsible for aid programmes are of course anxious for their work not to be seen as interfering in any way with the internal politics of the places in which they operate. However, there can be dangers if local circumstances are not acknowledged.

Normally, aid agencies will consult local officials who are seen as being professional rather than political, but that is not the case in Zimbabwe. A deliberate ploy of ZANU-PF has been to politicise every level of life and government in Zimbabwe, meaning that district officers and officials in health care and education are apt to represent the views of ZANU-PF. To counter that, it is important that elected MPs and councillors who have a mandate from the people be consulted. Otherwise, there is always the risk that the views of ZANU-PF are fed into the consultation by the officials, and the alternative MDC view is excluded because it is regarded as political. That happens at the openings of new aid projects, for example, when the elected MPs would not be invited because they are seen as political. Those present are the officials, who are seen as not political, despite actually being even more political than the MPs but without a mandate. I know that Dave Fish took that on board as a result of some of our discussions with MPs.

The difference in the experiences of MDC MPs and ZANU-PF MPs was brought home to us very starkly. Although ZANU-PF representatives seem to be above the law, MDC MPs are frequently arrested and detained in custody. One of those was Shepherd Mushonga, who is an MDC MP for the Mazowe Central constituency and chair of the parliamentary legal committee. We met him just after his release on bail and he is a lovely, cheerful man. The charge against him was that he had stolen $700-worth of excess quarry stones donated for building a nurses home in his constituency, and used them to build a primary school. There is a widely held perception that the rise in arrests of MPs was part of the plan to change the voting strength of the parties in the House of Assembly and facilitate the election of a ZANU-PF Speaker.

The Zimbabwean Speaker currently holds the chairmanship of the Southern African Development Community Parliamentary Forum. ZANU-PF does not like the fact that the MDC Speaker chairs that body because it plays a crucial role on behalf of SADC in planning, deploying and reporting on election monitoring programmes for the whole region.

We arrived in Zimbabwe on 13 March. Three days earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled by a majority of three to two that the election of the MDC chairman, Lovemore Moyo, as Speaker of the House of Assembly in 2008—he has been Speaker since then—was null and void. That ruling overturned an earlier High Court decision that declared the election valid. The Supreme Court decided that, of the 208 MPs voting, six had displayed their marked papers before depositing them in the ballot box, and that the secrecy of the ballot had been compromised. That seems a peculiar decision. On that basis, a few voters in one of our general elections could display their marked voting papers before depositing them in the ballot box, and render the entire election null and void. The ballot box is secret to protect voters. If people choose to disclose how they are voting, that is their business.

The good news, however, is that after a period of having no Speaker and no Parliament, Lovemore Moyo was reinstated as Speaker of the House of Assembly— many hon. Members will have met him when he visited this country. The voting figures showed that he had been backed not only by colleagues in the mainstream MDC and the tiny breakaway faction, but by some MPs from ZANU-PF. That shows that the longing for reform and for a country that works is spreading to the ranks of Mugabe’s own party, and we came across that attitude in some ZANU-PF MPs whom we met. Although they were less robust in their support for democratic processes than their MDC counterparts, we gained the clear impression that they too are weary of living in a country that is paralysed by failed policies and an intransigent leadership. Whether he really believed it or whether he said it simply as part of the diktat that is continually put forward, it was depressing to hear one ZANU-PF MP state clearly that Zimbabwe is in such a mess because of sanctions, which are stopping even medical supplies entering the country. That is complete and utter nonsense, but that MP believed it with a fervour that could have come only from total indoctrination.

Another MDC MP under arrest while we were in Harare—again, someone known to many hon. Members—was Elton Mangoma. He is the Minister responsible for energy and power development and the co-negotiator with Tendai Biti in the talks on the implementation of the global political agreement, facilitated by President Zuma of South Africa under the auspices of SADC. His arrest and detention in custody not only had a serious impact on the working of the inclusive Government, but exacerbated the already protracted delays in making progress with Zuma’s facilitation team on a road map towards the full implementation of the GPA. While we were in Harare, Elton was granted bail, but he was then rearrested on another charge. When he was granted bail, the state prosecutors invoked section 121 of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, which suspends bail orders for seven days, thus allowing him to be kept in detention. He was subsequently rearrested on a further charge, but that time the attempts of the state prosecutor to deny him bail were dismissed by the High Court.

There is an attempt by ZANU-PF and the establishment to smear MDC MPs, and it is continually suggested that they lack the capacity to be Ministers or form a Government. That line is less strong now, but over the years it has unfortunately been picked up and repeated far too easily by some of the eminent academics involved in commentary on Africa. That is dangerous. There are many capable and talented men and women in the MDC, and if we look at what ZANU-PF has done to the country over the past 31 years, it is ridiculous to say that the MDC could not do better. The economic progress that has been made since Tendai Biti became Minister of Finance is encouraging, and it was such a change from my previous visits to see well-stocked shops. However, until there is the rule of law, an end to violence and intimidation and free and fair elections under a new constitution, investment will be scarce.

It is amazing what can be achieved with scarce resources. Paul Madzore, another energetic and impressive MDC MP, showed us around his constituency of Glen View South, which is a high-density suburb on the south-eastern outskirts of Harare. We were warmly welcomed by the staff and pupils of Glen View high school, which has brilliant O-level and A-level results—the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport suggested that perhaps one of our Education Ministers might like to visit that school. Despite having hundreds of children and very few resources, that school’s results are fantastic, and I am sure we could learn something from it.

Unfortunately, the new textbooks paid for by taxpayers in the UK and donated to Zimbabwean schools via the Education Ministry had not yet arrived at either of the two schools that we visited. However, the good manners and smart uniforms were, despite all the poverty, a delight to see. What a shame that for many pupils, their hard work and dedication will not be rewarded by jobs when they finish their education.

I could list all the MPs who have been arrested, but I will not go into all the details. I will simply say that just a month before our visit, another MDC MP, Douglas Mwonzora, who is co-chairman of the constitutional parliamentary committee, or COPAC, was arrested outside Parliament. He had gone to the police to make a formal complaint after a meeting that he held in his constituency was disrupted by a gang sent by a ZANU-PF MP, but ended up being charged himself. His arrest clearly had a serious impact on the timetable for the COPAC consultation programme for a new constitution. That consultation is vital under the GPA and must be completed before new parliamentary or presidential elections can be held.

That fact was strongly reinforced shortly before our visit, following the claim by President Mugabe that he would call for elections whether or not a new constitution was ready. He was contradicted by Marius Fransman, South Africa’s Deputy Minister of International Relations and Co-operation, who said that

“any calls for elections without the finalisation of the constitution-making process are in breach of the GPA as well as the constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment number 19, which gives legitimacy to the inclusive government.”

A number of people were arrested, including Munyaradzi Gwisai and 45 other social and human rights activists, who had simply brought people together to watch some of the videos coming in about the uprising in Egypt and revolts in Tunisia. They were arrested because watching those videos was apparently a move to subvert a constitutionally elected Government. We can therefore see the difficulties that people have when they want to organise.

The fighting talk that we have heard from ZANU-PF about clamping down mercilessly on plotters of any revolts is entrenched in the thinking of the ZANU-PF old guard. Just this week, Stan Mudenge, who is a member of the ZANU-PF politburo and the Minister of Higher and Tertiary Education, vowed to search out all the people who vote against ZANU-PF and mete out retribution. Addressing Mugabe directly, he said:

“President, I want to tell you that some people in my constituency have rebelled and they voted against you in 2008. They are now supporting the puppet party MDC but I want to say that we will fish them out and deal with them until they come back to us and do things our way.”

He went on to threaten:

“We have a very forceful and vigorous youth wing and our members of the armed forces who will make sure that no one loses direction again like what happened three years ago.”

There is clearly a severe attempt to intimidate and frighten people in the lead-up to what eventually will be, we hope, free and fair elections.

That sort of talk and those threats show how important it is for international monitors to be in place well in advance of the next election. It underlines the fact that they should be widely deployed during polling and that they should remain on the ground afterwards to observe the aftermath and to deter any attempts at retribution.

It is good to see that South Africa also recognises that. Deputy President Motlanthe recently said:

“The conception is that these elections would be a watershed like the 1980 elections that happened when the old Rhodesia became Zimbabwe. There would be a need for an international presence of the same scale, to ensure a bridge with the past”.

He went on to say:

“The next elections are viewed by all parties as watershed elections, and therefore they have to prepare for them thoroughly to ensure that there will not be any more violence or intimidation during the course of the election campaign.”

I know that monitors and observers cannot simply be imposed on a country, but as British taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for much of the electoral infrastructure, I hope that the Minister will agree that, working with SADC, we should surely be setting some conditions now in the framing of the electoral road map. Can he tell us what exactly the current state of affairs is as far as election monitors from donor nations are concerned? UK taxpayers have very gladly given substantial amounts of money to provide ever increasing aid to Zimbabwe, but they cannot be expected to do that without some freedom of access to see how these important affairs inside the country are being run, so we do need to put conditions on some of our aid.

I am reassured that a new consensus is developing in SADC that the crisis in Zimbabwe is dragging down the region and compromising social stability and economic progress. As many hon. Members know, I was a great critic of the previous President of South Africa, Mbeki, because of how little he seemed to do or how little he seemed to care, but President Zuma has adopted a robust approach and the recent SADC troika meeting in Zambia seems to have made it clear to Mugabe finally that he can no longer get away with his old tricks of duplicity and reneging on undertakings. Indeed, Mugabe was very angry about what he was told. I hope that the Minister will give us his assessment of current attitudes in Governments throughout the SADC region and more widely in the African Union.

In his report to the summit, President Zuma said that it was time for SADC to “speak with one voice” in impressing on all the parties concerned the fact that the situation can no longer be tolerated. He said:

“The focus that Zimbabwean parties have placed on elections without creating the necessary climate for those elections is an unfortunate sidetrack.”

He referred to delays in reform of the mass media, saying that there was a “lack of political will” to implement reform.

I hope that Zuma and his SADC colleagues will pay equal attention to the need for security sector reform. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what we in the UK are doing to support SADC in that important area, because historically we played an important role in the integration of the Zimbabwean army after independence and I am sure that at more junior levels there is still a desire for the police and military to resume a professional rather than a political role.

The Joint Operations Command is composed of the high command of the military, the police and the Central Intelligence Organisation. Many regard it as a de facto ruling junta with the ability to overrule and countermand any decisions of Ministers that run counter to the vested political and business interests of the ZANU-PF political and military oligarchy.

During our visit, we were honoured to meet Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai shortly before he left on a tour to meet Heads of Government in the SADC region, including President Banda of Zambia, who chairs the SADC troika on politics, defence and security, as well as leaders of Botswana, Swaziland and Mozambique. On his return, Prime Minister Tsvangirai said:

“While I was away in the last four days, it appears the civilian authority is no longer in charge and dark and sinister forces have engaged in a hostile takeover of running the affairs of the country, with or without the blessing of some leaders of the civilian authority.”

That underlines the fragility of the situation and the real threat to progress, particularly in the light of the threats made just this week by ZANU-PF Ministers such as Mudenge. It shows why President Zuma is anxious about the threat of serious upheavals in the region following the trend that we have seen in north Africa.

We in the UK have close ties with Zimbabwe. There are social, political and diplomatic links. Despite all the talk of Africa’s new connections with China, India, Russia and other parts of the world, it is to the UK that Zimbabweans come for asylum. It is in the UK that Zimbabweans feel most at home if they need to live or work away from southern Africa. The diaspora have a crucial role to play in the new Zimbabwe, and I hope that we are giving the diaspora in the UK as much help and support as we gave those in exile from South Africa under apartheid.

I am very proud of the role that successive Administrations in the UK have played as advocates for change in Zimbabwe. The international response would have been far more feeble without resolute leadership from successive Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries. I think that the EU continued with its sanctions partly because the UK Government played a very important role in those discussions. I am glad that in this Parliament we have been able to play a part in keeping Zimbabwe in the spotlight and in giving a voice to the oppressed people of Zimbabwe. Many of those who lead the struggle for democracy and freedom there have given me their heartfelt thanks for the way in which their plight has been kept on the agenda in the House over recent years. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about our current engagement with our counterparts in the region.

North Africa and the middle east may be in the headlines, but the UK has a particular responsibility for Zimbabwe and our job as parliamentarians is to ensure that the Government continue to give support and help wherever they can to bring about a clear timetable for and a road map towards democracy, freedom and prosperity for the people of Zimbabwe and of southern Africa as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for initiating the debate and for giving the House the opportunity to express views upon Zimbabwe this morning, and I also thank all those who have taken part: the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). All their contributions spoke from a mixture of heart and head. What came through to me was the profound commitment, and love—I do not think that too strong a word—on the part of those Members for Zimbabwe and its people, coupled with an appreciation of the complexity and difficulty of the challenges that the country faces, and of the efforts by successive United Kingdom Governments to do what is best to try to make it possible for the people of Zimbabwe to decide upon the destiny of their own country. I thank the hon. Lady also for her kind words about the Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), and about our ambassador to Zimbabwe and the head of the DFID team in that country.

In discussing Zimbabwe, it is right to focus on not only the deep-rooted and abiding problems that afflict the country, but, as the hon. Lady did in her opening speech, on the progress that has been made in the face of difficult odds, since the formation of the inclusive Government in 2008. There has been a marked economic recovery, illustrated by a robust 8% growth rate in 2010, although it is also fair to remind ourselves, as has been said, that some sectors, most notably agriculture, are failing to perform at anything like their full potential because of the disastrous economic policies pursued by Zimbabwean leaders.

Reports of human rights abuses since the formation of the inclusive Government have fallen well below the peak, but there has been a worrying trend in the early months of this year of a reverse in those promising signals. There has been greater freedom for the print media, and the constitutional review process, despite its frailties, has helped to open up democratic space. The important point to note is that those achievements, both economic and political, are a tribute to the courage, dedication and persistence of reformers of all stripes in Zimbabwe. I pay tribute to all the reformist politicians, civil society groups, free trade unionists, churches and others in Zimbabwe who express their hopes for and work their utmost towards a better future for their country. Those people and organisations are not the creatures of any foreign power; they are the authentic expressions and voices of the people of Zimbabwe.

However, those efforts by many in Zimbabwe risk being undermined by a few who wish to sacrifice their own country’s prosperity and political development in order to hang on to power and the opportunity for plunder. Resisting those efforts and reinforcing Zimbabwe’s progress with a process for free, fair and credible elections will demand still greater courage and commitment from reformers in Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe’s neighbours in the region and those members of the wider international community in Africa and elsewhere, including the United Kingdom, that support Zimbabwe’s transition to full democratic freedom.

Rightly, much of this debate has focused on the great concerns about the increase in reports of politically motivated violence since the new year. The Government share that concern. The high-profile arrests and threatened arrests of senior members of the inclusive Government in March and April signalled a stepping up of the partisan politicisation of the legal process. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham was right to pay tribute to the courage and endurance of leading democratic politicians in Zimbabwe in the face of such treatment. We remain equally concerned by ongoing reports of rising intimidation targeting civil society groups and political activists.

Several hon. Members asked about the Government’s view of the regional approach to the political challenges facing Zimbabwe. South Africa and the Southern African Development Community more generally act as the facilitators and guarantors of the global political agreement and play the lead role in brokering an agreement on a road map to free and fair elections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham pointed out, it is somewhat ironic that the global political agreement should have been fully implemented by now, yet Zimbabweans and SADC are trying to agree on a path to the next round of elections before the GPA has been implemented anywhere near fully.

President Zuma of South Africa has shown in the creation of the elections road map that he is prepared to demonstrate strong and active leadership in the region. We hope that that critical document will address the many individual points raised by hon. Members during this debate, including the quality of the electoral register, the reform of the electoral commission, access to media and provision for the presence of international observers at the elections. The United Kingdom is certainly ready to support international observers in any way possible, yet it remains the case that we can send observers only in response to an invitation from the Government of Zimbabwe.

On the points made about this country’s programme of bilateral aid, following the bilateral aid review, our programme of aid to Zimbabwe has been increased further to £80 million for 2011-12, the largest amount yet. That is crucial. Our aid provides vital support, in particular for primary education and basic health treatment inside Zimbabwe. For example, last year we provided essential medicines to 1,300 primary care clinics and rural hospitals. The nature of that aid and the fact that it is distributed via the United Nations and non-governmental organisations rather than through the Zimbabwean Government means that I am cautious, to put it lightly, about calls for greater conditionality in the provision of aid, although I guarantee to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that I will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on the points they made about conditionality.

[Kate Hoey]

I thank the Minister. I think we are all conscious of the issues involved in aid. Our point is that it is not necessarily the Department for International Development but the agencies themselves—the big charities working in countries such as Zimbabwe—that need to be much more aware. They try so hard not to be political that they end up being political in how they operate on the ground.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Lady has made her point well. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend is made fully aware of the case that she makes.

The EU targeted measures on Zimbabwe remain in force. This Government remain committed to them, and the European Union has made clear its commitment to the continuation of those measures. We remain willing to revisit them within the year, but only if further concrete developments take place on the ground. We will not be shifted by coerced signatures on a partisan petition. On behalf of the Government, I make it clear again that we need to lay to rest the delusional nonsense that the EU targeted measures, which apply to 163 individuals and 31 entities in Zimbabwe, are somehow responsible for the widespread deprivation and suffering endured by the people of Zimbabwe. The right way to help with the economic plight of the people in Zimbabwe is for Zimbabwe’s leaders to pursue the kinds of economic policy and give the commitments to good governance that will attract investment and add to Zimbabwe’s trade relationships with the region and the rest of the world.

In view of the time, I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about the Kimberley diamond process and Marange, and I will copy the letter to other Members who have taken part in this debate. As my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for Africa has made clear on numerous occasions, we continue to take a firm line within the EU, which acts on our behalf in the Kimberley process, insisting that Zimbabwe should comply fully with the rules laid down in the process before diamond exports are permitted.

China has an important role in the growth and development of Africa, and considerable progress has been made in areas such as infrastructure as a result of Chinese financing. Like China, we see trade as vital to helping African economies to grow and escape poverty, but one lesson of the developing world is that as countries grow and develop, they require not just physical infrastructure but skills, improved health services and, critically, better governance, better public institutions and a clear commitment to the rule of law rather than arbitrary government. We believe that it is vital that donors, including China, be open about their investments and make clear what they are spending and what results they achieve. That enables people to hold Governments to account and ensure that donors co-ordinate their work effectively.

Interestingly, some of China’s recent experience, for example in Zambia or Libya, might give pause for thought to those who have assumed that China can maintain an economic relationship with African nations without regard to issues of governance and the rule of law. Where those prove lacking, investment and the safety of expatriate workers can sometimes turn out to be at considerable risk.

I express once again my gratitude to all those who have taken part in this debate. The Government remain determined to pursue the course on which we are set, and we hope to see Zimbabwe reach a more prosperous and democratic future.

Inter-Parliamentary Scrutiny (EU Foreign, Defence and Security Policy)

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walter]

I am grateful to the Minister for making those points. My point was that the €2.3 million is the cost of the WEU organisation, not the cost of the Parliamentary Assembly of the WEU, which is half that. I am delighted by the Minister’s assumption that the United Kingdom will gain from the sale of the building in Paris, because there had been rumours that it was to be gifted to the French Government. As holder of the presidency of the Assembly, we took the precaution of having an independent valuation of the building; it is worth at least €50 million, so the UK should benefit somewhat from its sale.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has been diligent in looking at the structures. Paragraph 5 of the European Union Committee report refers to some of the existing structures:

“We backed a ‘conference of committees’-type institution to replace the WEU Assembly, comprising a combined and enlarged version of the current informal Conference of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairpersons (COFACC) and Conference of Defence Committee Chairpersons (CODCC).”

The only problem with that is that, to my knowledge, the Conference of Defence Committee Chairpersons has not met for at least the past two years, so we are not actually replacing an effective body.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It was interesting to hear that list of terminology. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way forward for dealing with the European Union is to put the matter to the British people in a referendum, so that we can have a debate in this country and decide whether we want to stay in that hugely bureaucratic organisation, or leave it and become an independent country again?

[Mr Walter]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, although I think it goes a little beyond the scope of the motion. However, we and the Assembly of which I have the honour to be president are dealing with what are almost entirely intergovernmental structures consisting of European Union member states and other states in Europe such as Turkey, which has been mentioned several times, Norway or Iceland. We come together as willing partners in collective defence and security operations. Community institutions are not in any way relevant to our debate today; we are debating intergovernmental functions that are entered into freely.

My final point on the Foreign Affairs Committee report relates to the reference to the EU Speakers’ Conference, which will take place in April. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has already referred to the Belgian text—Belgium holds the EU presidency—which proposes an inter-parliamentary conference for common foreign and security policy and common security and defence policy, composed of delegations of the national Parliaments of EU member states. Paragraph 2 of that text suggests:

“Each national parliamentary delegation shall consist of four members.”

Paragraph 3 requests that

“The total number of delegates from the European Parliament shall not exceed one third of the members of the Conference.”

Therefore, if there are 108 members from national Parliaments, there will be 54 from the European Parliament.

On a reasonably rough approximation the UK and France together contribute around 60% of Europe’s defence budget, and we will have eight votes between us. However, the European Parliament, which makes absolutely no contribution to Europe’s defence budget, has no troops at its disposal, does not buy any aircraft carriers or other warships, aircraft or fighters, and has no troops deployed anywhere in the world, will have 54 votes. Is that the right proportion in terms of democratic accountability? I hasten to suggest that it is probably an imbalance. I am not averse to the European Parliament having some role and that its voice should be heard, but the presumption that its voice should somehow be considerably greater than that of the United Kingdom, France and others that contribute to Europe’s defence is nonsense.

The Belgian text goes on to suggest:

“The Conference shall have its seat in the European Parliament in Brussels. Meetings shall be organized twice a year in Brussels or in the country holding the rotating Council Presidency…The meetings shall jointly be presided over by the national Parliament of the Member State holding the rotating Council Presidency and the European Parliament.”

That means that responsibility is now to be divided 50:50. Paragraph 9 proposes:

“The secretariat of the Conference shall be provided by the European Parliament.”

The agenda will be set by the European Parliament, the conference will meet in the European Parliament and one third of the conference’s members will be Members of the European Parliament. My view is that that body will simply be an extraordinary meeting of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee: twice a year, it will invite Members of national Parliaments to come along to Brussels to hear what it has been doing. It will not be exercising genuine parliamentary scrutiny.

European Union Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

That is genuinely a matter of record now. We have now seen how far the EU has gone, and that is the reason for my probing new clause. We need to look to the future and be more vigilant. This is not just about the past; it is about what is coming in the future.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is probably aware that the vast majority of the public do not care which Government gave away our powers. They are fed up with the fact that more and more powers have gone to Europe and they want those powers back. Does she agree that until this country faces up to the fact that for far too long the public have had no say in whether we want to stay in Europe or not, and that until we get a referendum on that, we will never clear the air and be able to go forward in Europe as progressive Europeans, or go out of Europe and go forward as progressive UK citizens?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I entirely agree. The air needs to be cleared, and the British public naturally feel upset and uneasy about that. The issue is a sensitive one, hence the need for greater openness and transparency.

I ask the Minister to consider the points that I have made—fundamentally, the issue of openness and transparency. We have handed away far too many powers. The Bill is about the future, and I would welcome the Minister’s views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

My name is also on the new clause. I was cheered when I heard the hon. Gentleman say that we had a long time to discuss it, because unfortunately I have to be out of the Chamber for about an hour on an important matter, and I want to be here for the vote. I therefore hope that the debate will continue for a very long time. Does he believe that this proposal offers a way out of the current situation whereby the one thing that unites all the establishment parties is that they do not want the British people to have a say on whether to stay in or move out of the European Union?

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. Her views on this have been most helpful and supportive. I am sure that other Members will try to catch your eye, Mr Evans, and I hope that the debate will still be going on when she returns. She makes the fair point that when both sets of Front Benchers agree on something, it is almost certainly wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), who for many years has been a voice in Parliament for democracy and civil liberties. I share many of his views on the issue. It is a shame, in some ways, that we are debating such a hugely important matter as whether we should have an in/out referendum in the context of the Bill, because that is not what the Bill is about, as I know the Minister would agree.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on persisting and pushing new clause 11. I am one of the signatories to it, and I am glad that we finally got a debate. As someone said about two hours ago, the debate is giving us a great deal more time to discuss these issues than we would normally get.

I said earlier that I hoped hon. Members would keep talking until I got back from an engagement. I am grateful that they not only managed to keep talking, but are still talking. I was opening a new climbing wall at the Westway centre in London, and I was reminded there of a practical aspect of the European Union that people find so irritating. Some time ago the European Union working at heights directive was issued, which seemed sensible. Everyone assumed that it would apply to people working in industry, building sites and so on, but our officials—our zealots—always want to gold-plate. They thought that those who taught mountaineering should be subject to the working at heights directive.

It took nearly three years to bring that to an end and to ensure that the way we taught mountaineering and climbing in this country would not be ruined by a directive that insisted, for example, that certain ropes should not be used. Hon. Members who are mountaineers will well remember that. While the Committee was debating the new clause, I was reminded of a practical example of where the European Union starts off with a good idea, a few people agree with it, no one is ever asked about the detail, and when it finally comes to be implemented, the officials, the bureaucrats and those who love to be able to impose things on other people strengthen the directive so that it sometimes goes way beyond the common-sense reason behind it.

[John Mann]

It was in the previous Parliament, as chair of the all-party mountaineering group, that I negotiated the end of the working at heights directive, or rather its subjugation in relation to mountaineering. Does that not emphasise the point that the regulations were easy to deal with—the meeting took five minutes—but the problem was how officials in Whitehall had chosen to interpret a straightforward directive that, in relation to certain professions, was extremely important?

[Kate Hoey]

My hon. Friend is right. I recall vividly that he was instrumental in that.

The same happens with practically every directive. It is all very well saying that the problem is just the officials. They are not elected. Ministers and Members of Parliament are elected. Directives are always gold-plated by civil servants. My hon. Friend remembers how long it took to get the argument across and to get Ministers to understand it and realise that the way the directive was being applied was not sensible. In other areas where directives are implemented, people may not realise that until the last minute or until it is too late. The European Scrutiny Committee is a brilliant Committee with its current Chair and with the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) on it, but it can never perform the necessary scrutiny.

I support the new clause, although, as has been said, it is not ideal or what we would really like. It has been a long time since the people of the United Kingdom had the opportunity to say whether they support the direction of the EU and where it is now compared with where it was when I opposed entry into the Common Market. I accepted that the country had decided to support it, but, over the years, what people voted for then has changed, as we all know, and now we need that debate again, not only as to whether the country supports the direction in which the EU has come and where we are now, but where it should go in the future.

I may be wrong, but my guess is that the vast majority of the British people do not like the direction that the EU has taken and the fact that this Parliament and this country have lost control over many areas. As I have said, there is no point blaming one party over the other. Both major political parties have, in their different ways and not always in the way they intended, conspired to stop the real debate. We saw that with the Maastricht treaty and with the Lisbon treaty, on which the Labour party acted disgracefully, having given a commitment to a referendum. Then the Conservatives, who had given a commitment to a referendum managed to get out of it because the decision had been taken. But, as has been pointed out, just because the decision had been taken to sign it, there was no reason why the British people should not have been allowed a referendum immediately afterwards to decide whether they wanted to continue with the agreement that had been ratified.

Even the most avid supporter of the EU, of which there are many on the Labour Benches, would have to accept that when the EU and the Commission do not get what they want in a vote they simply find another way to have another vote, as happened in Ireland. That is why there is no confidence in the EU. I have a lot of respect for the Minister, who, certainly in the past, will have been seen as not necessarily a Eurosceptic but a Eurorealist, or some other term. He may feel that he is doing the right thing, but the reality is that no one in the country trusts any of the politicians in power, of whatever party, on this issue. Something seems to happen to people when they are elected to Government and go to Brussels. They experience some kind of transformation. For some reason, they suddenly become part of it all. In many cases they become more ideological about it than some of the other European countries.

A long time ago, when I was a Minister in the Home Office and went with the then Home Secretary to meetings in Brussels, we would have a clear line about what we were doing on a justice and home affairs position. We would argue passionately. France would argue the other way and other countries would argue differently. Then in the tea breaks or wine breaks, they would ask us why we felt so strongly on a particular matter. They would say that they did not particularly like it, but they would support it, although they did not really intend to implement it. There was a general feeling that it did not really matter to many of those other EU politicians; they were part of it because they wanted to be part of the club and the whole European project. But they knew jolly well that when they went back to their own countries they would do the bit that they wanted. We were the exact opposite. We would fight our corner, but we would then have to give in because the Prime Minister would decide he wanted something else in some other department in Brussels. Not only would we agree, but we would implement the policy zealously.

[Mark Reckless]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we have this evening seen an honourable exception to that? The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who was a Minister for Europe and might have adopted such a position having been there and seen that, said that it is for the British people to decide.

[Kate Hoey]

I am sorry that I missed the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East when I had to leave the Chamber. We were both in Europe for a short period when my time in the Home Office coincided with his time in the Foreign Office, so I know his views on the matter and I am pleased that he has them.

I genuinely do not understand what we are afraid of, and neither do the public, particularly those who are strongly in favour of a referendum. What is the problem? We can no longer put it down to cost, because we are having this ridiculous referendum on the voting system, which most people are bored silly with—they yawn when it is brought up, even at political party meetings. I accept that it was set out in the coalition agreement, but there is no huge enthusiasm for that referendum, and yet we are spending so much money on it.

A referendum on the European Union would revitalise the political debate within this country. We would enliven things and go back to days of having public meetings. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said about the economic problems the country faces, but I do not think that having a debate on the EU would be a diversion. It would be a way of showing that there are other ways of running this country’s whole economic policy. We would get that debate and get out there among the people, because I know that they feel strongly about it.

I will not speak much longer, other than to say that I have been quite proud—others will laugh—to be associated with the campaign on the in/out referendum run by the Daily Express. As some Members might already have mentioned, yesterday a number of us took 373,000 envelopes, which had been returned from across the country, containing the slips published in the Daily Express asking for an in/out referendum. Those were just the envelopes, so many more were sent via e-mail. I think that we should be proud of the fact that a newspaper has managed to arouse that debate, and I would not care whether it had been done by the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, The Sun or even the Daily Mirror.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) talked about a growing mood in the country. We can sit here in isolation and ignore that mood, or we can grab it and lift it as an opportunity to get some decency and honesty back into politics. We should get that debate and have a referendum at some stage on whether we are in or out of Europe. I know that the Whips do not want Members to vote for this small new clause, but I say to Government Members that I have opposed my Whips on many occasions and am still alive and still here. To vote for it would send out a little signal that the issue will not go away.

[Mr Cash]

For me, the debate is not about the wording of the new clause, but about a question of principle. It is also about whether we are a democratic nation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) pointed out, and as many of us have argued for so many years, the question of why we are here in this House, ultimately, is entirely dependent on our relationship to the electorate. This is about democracy, not government.

We began our proceedings on the question of sovereignty some time ago, when we debated clause 18. In that debate, I made it clear—I believe that we won the argument—that the real question was whether this country would be able to govern itself or would end up being increasingly governed by judicial supremacy, and the European Scrutiny Committee report clearly demonstrated that point. For those of us who watched, for example, the recent BBC 4 programme on the Supreme Court, there is no doubt at all about the attitudes of some of the Justices in the Supreme Court and of many senior academics who are deeply influential in the Foreign Office and elsewhere. I know that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), understands that extremely well; I have heard him say so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Assuming that the Bill gains parliamentary approval and Royal Assent in the normal way, it will apply during this Parliament from the time when it comes into effect. As I said earlier today, one illustration of that is that the treaty change proposed by Germany and being taken through EU institutions at the moment will have to be ratified by primary legislation rather than simply by a resolution of both Houses, as would be the case under the current legislation, which was introduced by the previous Government in 2008. What distinguishes this Parliament is that the Government have said, as part of their coalition agreement, that we do not intend to agree at European level to any proposal to amend the treaties or invoke passarelle clauses that would require a referendum under the terms of the legislation that we have been debating for a numbers of days now.

The referendums authorised under the Bill are intended to be final decisions. They will give people the opportunity to judge whether a particular proposal to give new powers to the European Union is in the national interest. One of the things that is troubling about the new clause is that it implicitly assumes that those who vote no to a particular proposition also want to challenge the UK’s membership of the EU, but I do not think that that can be taken for granted. As other hon. Members have said, there is a risk that some people could be influenced in how they vote on the substance of a proposal by a calculation of whether it would be likely to produce the end result of an in/out referendum. Such electors might take into account his or her views on the in/out proposal and not just the pros and cons of the measure on which they are being invited to cast a vote.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough overlooks the problem of a possible succession of referendums on Britain’s membership of the EU. It is possible to imagine that under a future Government—not this one—referendums on moving to qualified majority voting for common foreign and security policy and on joining the euro might be scheduled for two successive years. The new clause would leave open the possibility of an in/out referendum after one—or, indeed, both—of those referendums, because under his new clause a rejection of the first proposition would trigger an in/out referendum, which might result in the public deciding to stay in the EU. A second referendum on a treaty change might come forward 12 months later and also be rejected, and then, in the course of less than a year, we would find ourselves with two successive referendums on the UK’s membership of the EU. That is not a sensible way in which to conduct our relationship with the countries of the EU.

Nor does the new clause address what would happen if there were two questions on a ballot paper in one day, which we debated earlier. Why should a positive vote for one treaty change proposition and a negative vote for a second trigger a referendum? One cannot read into how people cast their votes on treaty change proposals what their view would be of the desirability of a referendum on membership. More fundamentally, however, the new clause does not capture the range of opinions held by the British people. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), whom I completely respect on these matters, said that she wanted people to be able to express a view on the direction that the EU was taking. However, that is not what people are being offered through the new clause, of course. They are being offered the opportunity not to express their view on the direction of the EU, but to say whether the UK should remain a member.

[Kate Hoey]

The Minister must know that it is precisely because of the direction of the European Union that people want the opportunity to say that they do not like that direction by withdrawing from the European Union.

[Mr Lidington]

Withdrawing from the European Union is not the only choice for people who are dissatisfied with the current arrangements. There are plenty of people around who want Britain to remain a member of the European Union, but to have certain powers currently exercised in Brussels repatriated to this country. After all, that was the combination of views expressed at the last general election in the Conservative party manifesto, which sought the repatriation of certain powers, but said:

“A Conservative government will play an active and energetic role in the European Union”.

European Union Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I will give way two more times and then make some progress, to be fair to the House

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has mentioned the Lisbon treaty a number of times, saying that because of it we cannot do certain things. Surely the public will think that no Government should be committed to previous Governments’ decisions, and that it would be perfectly possible—there would be huge support for it—for the coalition Government to say, “Now we are in government, we want a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.” That would sort out the whole situation, because clearly the public would vote against it.

[Mr Hague]

As the hon. Lady knows, since the Lisbon treaty was ratified it has been built into the treaties of the EU. It does not have a separate existence once it is ratified. A referendum on that would be the same as a referendum on taking part in all the EU’s institutions—in other words, being in the EU at all.

[Kate Hoey]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I have to say that there is little in the speech of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) with which I would disagree. That immediately places me, of course, very much in a minority in my own party. I do not think that either of us is in a minority in the country, however. Many people watching our debate today will be wondering how on earth we ever got here. They will wonder why we are trying to introduce a Bill that is literally tinkering around with the real and fundamental problems of our membership of the European Union.

It is with great regret that I have to say that my party betrayed the promise it had made on the Lisbon treaty. If it had granted the referendum on that treaty, we would not be here discussing this Bill. One reason why my party and others did not want that referendum is that they knew the result would have been a defeat. In other words, we would not have signed up to the Lisbon treaty; it would not have happened.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Lady forgive me for pointing out that if we had had the referendum on the Maastricht treaty, it is most unlikely that the European Union would be in the mess that it is in today?

[Kate Hoey]

I was new into Parliament shortly before the Maastricht treaty and I lost my position as the shadow spokesperson on the citizen’s charter and women because I voted against that treaty. I am therefore well aware of the issues. I was obviously in a minority then in my party, even though prior to that we had been quite sceptical on Europe.

I give the coalition Government some credit, because I know that they are facing great difficulties. The Conservatives said fine words before the election about how they were going to get more powers back and not allow any more powers to go. Unfortunately, perhaps because of the coalition, but also because of other pressures, most of that has not been complied with. The Government have therefore come up with this Bill, which seeks to show the country that there is still support within the coalition for getting some powers back. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has said, the Bill is unfortunately a minefield that lawyers will absolutely love.

The Bill misses the whole point. Some people continue to say that we should not even discuss whether we should leave the European Union, whether we should have that debate in the country and whether we should have a referendum. They have yet to prove to me—I have studied this very carefully—just how having that debate, having that referendum and voting to leave the European Union would be a disaster for this country. No cost-benefit analysis has ever been carried out on that. No Government have undertaken a proper cost-benefit analysis of the benefits to this country of being in the European Union. Although other countries, such as Switzerland, have carried out such analysis, every time it has been suggested here, it has been brushed away by the elite in Europe and in this country, who say that the net gains of membership are so obvious that there is no need even to think of quantifying them. That is increasingly becoming not true and the public are beginning not to believe it.

I am not a reader of the Daily Express, but its campaign, which has shown huge support for a discussion and debate on the European Union, is very much to be welcomed. Recent developments have made all of us who have doubts about this country’s involvement in the European Union queasy, because the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU is incredibly expensive for us and the benefits are becoming increasingly difficult to see. We do not need, again, to go into the cost of our net budget contribution, the increase that is going to take place and how it will be spent. Nobody wants to let the public know just how our money is spent. They are not told about the huge costs of the European External Action Service. From now on, our ambassadors will become less important than this European Union ambassador and it is shocking that we have allowed that to go ahead. I cannot understand why the new Government have done so, apart from the fact that they are a coalition.

However, I still wonder whether a Conservative Government with a proper majority would really have done all the things that they said they would. Once someone goes to Europe and gets involved in it, they somehow start almost to be part of it. They start to make up the discussions and the arguments, and somehow their attitudes change. The Minister for Europe used to say some brilliant things about Europe that I agreed with, but now that he is on the Front Bench, his words have changed slightly and become slightly nuanced. We get the feeling that once people have been going to Brussels over and over again, they change their attitude.

I am concerned that the Bill does not go far enough. I am not going to vote for the Labour amendment, which is a cop-out and a nothing amendment—it does not say anything. It does not bring to people’s attention all the opportunities that we missed when we were in government. I still have not decided whether I will abstain or vote for a Bill that we might be able to amend. I want this Bill to be used as the opportunity for people in the country to start being listened to. I want them to start having the opportunity to engage in the debate about why they feel so strongly that our membership is not giving us anything that is worth the money that we pay in.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Although many of us, myself included, would like to head into reverse and one day have that wider question determined, does the hon. Lady not accept that it is a positive move that this Bill provides a brake to stop us hurtling further forward without having a say?

[Kate Hoey]

I would accept that, except that even since the new coalition Government took office, this country has given away some more powers and given up things. We are already going to support directives that we should not possibly be supporting. It is the drip-drip-drip nature of the European Union that really gets me.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is really closing the stable door after not only the horse has bolted, but the stable has caught fire?

[Kate Hoey]

That is my point, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will never get the issue that is big enough for a Minister to say, “We are going to have a referendum on this.” Ministers will find some excuse not to do so, which is why the only honest thing is to work towards having a debate in the country and a referendum on whether we want to stay in the European Union. We hear all those Members, Ministers and shadow Ministers continually saying, “Ah, but it would be desperate. We could not possibly leave. We couldn’t even think about it.” They should put their arguments to the people. Let the people decide. Let them say what they really think and let us see what that decision would be.

There is one little book that every Member in this House should buy. If the Foreign Secretary, the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Ministers have not read it, I will give them a copy. It is called “Ten Years On: Britain Without The European Union”. I wish it had said “the United Kingdom”, rather than “Britain”, as that would not have left out Northern Ireland. This brilliant book actually says, “If we were to leave the European Union, this is what this country would look like 10 years on.” Let us have the confidence to say to the people that it is time that we have that real debate. Let those people who are confident that the European Union is the right thing for this country put it to the people and give them the say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very proud, and I am sure that Opposition Members are very proud to have him in their ranks, but unfortunately for them, the UK Independence party has taken the Referendum party’s place and is pushing the agenda even further to the right. It is even more vehemently anti-European than the Referendum party.

[Kate Hoey]

Why do my hon. Friend and other Members keep referring to Euro-realists and Eurosceptics who want to see a real debate and a referendum as somehow being on the right? Does he not accept that many members of the Labour party, many Labour MPs and many Labour-supporting people in the country think that what is going on in Europe is wrong?

[Mark Hendrick]

I thank my hon. Friend, but in my opening remarks I referred to the opinions of some Members on my side of the House, and of course she is among them. I do not think that the mainstream of the Labour party is particularly against referendums. We offered a referendum on the euro should the five tests for entry into the single European currency have been met, and we offered a referendum on the European constitution, which, as Members know, was dropped because of the referendums in France and Holland. A new treaty came forward, for which we had committed to no referendum, which was why there was no referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

The Bill is not about democracy or a referendum. For many Conservative Members it is not about any future competences of the European Union; it is about getting out of the European Union altogether. I am sure that it was introduced to try to satisfy some of the Conservative Eurosceptics, but as we have seen from today’s debate, it goes nowhere near far enough to do that.