European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Albert Owen

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

There is a lot in that.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kate Hoey]

No, I will not give way at the moment.

Look at all the different EU regulations and the ways in which the EU has encroached on our country’s rules over the years. Majority voting has meant that we have occasionally been outvoted, and we have therefore been unable to do things that we wanted to do. When we decided that we wanted to leave, it was clear that the EU felt that we had no right to make that decision, which is why it wants to delay and delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

My hon. Friend may think that I am talking absolute nonsense, but 17.5 million people out there do not.

Let me get back to my reason for speaking today: I oppose new clause 13, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), and I want to explain why we must leave the customs union. I am very pleased that our Front Benchers have made no remarks about us supporting the new clause, and I certainly will vote against it tonight.

[Albert Owen]

rose—

[Kate Hoey]

People voted to leave for all sorts of reasons, but—

[Kate Hoey]

I can see. I do not need to be told what to do by my hon. Friend; I have been here quite a long time.

It is very clear that if we stay in the customs union, we cannot cut the kind of free trade deals that we want with the over 80% of the world’s economy that will be outside the EU once we have left. That is not what the British people voted for. They voted to leave for different reasons, but underlying everything for all of them was our getting back the ability to make decisions about what we want to do and who we want to trade with.

[Albert Owen]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kate Hoey]

As my hon. Friend is very kind and nice, I give way.

[Albert Owen]

Does my hon. Friend not understand the significance of the June election? The Prime Minister called the election to improve her majority, but it was reduced. That was a game changer in many ways. Many Labour Members increased their majority, including, I think, my hon. Friend.

[Kate Hoey]

Members who read this year’s Labour manifesto—it was very readable—will know that it was very clear that we had accepted the result, that the British people wanted to leave, and that we were going to leave the customs union and the single market. For once in my life, I am not the rebel on the Labour Benches; the rebels are sitting on my right. I genuinely cannot understand how progressive people who believe in equality, fairness and justice can support—

Tibet

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Albert Owen

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), as I am also a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on getting this timely debate. I will not go into the individual cases that he carefully and properly raised. An important aspect of today’s debate is that we get the names of those brave Tibetans who are being held in custody or have been imprisoned for long sentences out to the rest of the world, and that has been done well this morning.

Looking through Tibet Watch’s excellent booklet, “Broken promises”, I was reminded of how we were all were duped—or how many people were; I feel personally that I was not—into feeling that if China got the Olympics, it would make such a difference and China would do all these wonderful things, changing its whole attitude to human rights. We went along with that, but what has happened? Not a single thing has changed in relation to Tibet. Indeed, as has been mentioned, things are getting worse by the day.

I, too, had the privilege of hearing from the gentleman at yesterday’s meeting who had recently been to Tibet. It is clear that the Chinese Government are making a huge attempt to rapidly change the face of Tibet—not just to change civil liberties and human rights, but to change the physical structure of Tibet. Some 13 million Chinese tourists visited Tibet last year, and we are seeing a concentration of Chinese people who are given money to go and settle in Tibet. The Chinese Government want to eliminate every last sign or vestige of Tibetan culture and the history of that wonderful country. We must be clear that none of our warm words about working closely with China seems to be having any effect whatever. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about that.

I want to go into a little more detail about something that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned. I am also concerned about the Confucius institutes, of which I think there are now 24 in the United Kingdom. These are Chinese Government-funded cultural centres that are set up at universities all over the world, although the UK has the second highest number after the United States. Several universities in the United States and Canada—including the university of Chicago, Pennsylvania State university and the Toronto district school board—recently pulled out of relationships with Confucius institutes because of accusations and proof of discriminatory hiring practices and censorship of certain topics. In order for a university to receive Chinese money, the Chinese do not want any mention of Tibet or any criticism of anything that is happening.

I was privileged to hear recently from an American professor at a meeting in Parliament about how China’s influence on an American university is threatening freedom of speech. If we cannot have freedom of speech in our universities, we really are on a slippery slope. It is worrying and sad that one of our most famous universities, the London School of Economics, has been reluctant to give out information on how much money it has been getting from China. It is only through journalists’ use of freedom of information requests that we have discovered the exact amounts given out. It has been revealed that the LSE

“has received £863,537.91 from the Chinese state for housing a Confucian Centre and a further $33,000 for teaching Chinese government officials via BHP Billiton, a mining conglomerate.”

If China has 25 of these cultural outposts right at the hearts of our main universities, that funding will extend to several million pounds. Of course that may sound wonderful—isn’t that great: universities that are suffering from a shortage of resources are getting money directly from China? The danger, however, is that no matter how much the university hierarchies say that that will not influence or affect what they do, the reality on the ground is that it does. In fact, they are taking what could be said to be Chinese gold in return for getting out Chinese propaganda—sometimes subtly, sometimes less subtly. I really believe that our Government should be investigating this and making sure—[Interruption.]

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady’s phone is vibrating and being picked up by the microphones.

[Kate Hoey]

I am sorry. The phone is turned off. I am glad I am not in Tibet, because it would have been monitored.

There is a serious issue. We are seeing Chinese developments coming into this country, into London, and the big money coming in to build tower blocks and hotels. On the subject of hotels, let me say how shocking it was that InterContinental Hotels went ahead and built one in Lhasa that employs Chinese people and is part of efforts there to destroy Tibetan culture. Tibet groups across the world are trying hard to organise some kind of boycott of InterContinental Hotels, because of what the company is doing in that part of Tibet. We must get to the bottom of the money that is coming in

There have also been incidents, such as the ones we heard about only yesterday, which happened recently in Sheffield, where there are substantial numbers of Chinese students. Many of those students are very political indeed, and we heard about the example of a shop owner who had put a Tibetan flag in the window. I do not think it was a huge flag; nevertheless, they were threatened that if they did not take it down, things would happen. In fact, the windows were broken, which was reported to the police, but the attitude was, “Well, this was just students being a bit silly.”

The reality is that this is not students being a little silly. What is happening here is coming from the very top in China. I am very worried indeed that unless we face up to it early, China will do in this country and other parts of Europe what it has done in Africa, which is to go in and simply use its money as a way of getting its message across and its way of doing things. That relates directly to Tibet, in the sense that Tibet is the issue in this country that gets the most publicity in our universities, and yet many of our students are being stopped from getting their message across because of the worry about China.

I would add that South Africa recently refused to give His Holiness the Dalai Lama a visa, which meant that the conference of all Nobel prize winners had to be cancelled—it is now happening in Rome, in Italy, this week. Meanwhile, the Chinese Government, having put pressure on South Africa, immediately thanked the South African Government and more or less said, “We will now do something for you, as you were so kind as to stop the Dalai Lama visiting.”

We are getting to the point where I want to ask our Government, “What dreadful thing would the Chinese Government have to do in order for our Government to start standing up to China?” What would have to happen for us to start calling in the Chinese ambassador and doing things that make a difference, such as saying, “I’m sorry, we might need the money—the investment is great—but you, China, are fundamentally a pariah state and we’re going to treat you as such”? Unless we start standing up to China, as the European Union or as a country, it will not buckle to anything other than force, in terms of what we are saying—I am not suggesting we invade China, but I am suggesting that we start to mean what we say.

Warm words have come out of all Governments, including this one and the previous one. We were the last country not to recognise that Tibet was part of China, but David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary in the previous Government, changed that, telling the House that it would make a great difference and that China would start behaving better. Of course that did not happen.

China has a terrible human rights record not only in Tibet, but all over China. I want the Minister to outline clearly what more the Chinese have to do to people in Tibet and through their influence in this country before we as a British Government say, “Enough is enough.”

Energy Company Charges

Debate between Baroness Hoey and Albert Owen

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right to refer to the regulator’s lack of teeth and its lack of willingness to use the powers it already has. That is an important point.

Some people say, “It’s a free market. Why should we over-regulate it?” They would also oppose the motion’s suggestion that the Government should consider introducing a cap, but it is important to realise that we have been here before. There is no doubt that the price of energy rose considerably between 2006 and 2008. Ofgem undertook an energy supply probe and agreed to place a licence condition on the energy companies to ensure that different segments of the customer base did not face undue price discrimination. This motion—I am certain that the hon. Member for Harlow will make this point more accurately than me, because he has done a lot of research on the issue—does not ask for very much, only to return to the position we were in previously. The licence condition that Ofgem introduced in 2008 after its energy supply probe lasted three years. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) has hit the nail on the head. We have been here before and Ofgem has the ability to address the issue.

My party has talked about having a new body to put consumer rights at the top of the bill. The opening line of Ofgem’s website states that it is there “to protect the interest” of the customer. In this case, I believe that it is failing, and falling short of what it should do on behalf of the consumer. I am very pleased that my party now considers that off-grid customers need the same protection as those on the mains gas grid, so that everybody in the United Kingdom is treated fairly in relation to energy and can have somebody to fight on their side.

Hon. Members have intervened about those who are hurt most by direct debit payments. I confess that I pay my utility bills by a mixture of direct debits and good old quarterly payments on paper—

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Using the post office.

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was my next point—that I use the services of my local post office to pay my energy bills, which helps the local community in many ways. We get drawn into using direct debits, because it is a little bit cheaper, but sometimes there is extra social value from using other methods.