Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. This will be a negotiation. In the present pre-negotiation phase, we are quite properly setting out our broad agenda. Understanding our partners’ concerns, where their agendas coincide with ours and where their red lines are is all perfectly legitimate. It is clear already that some of our partners are beginning to line up for a negotiation. Giving away our hand at this stage would be foolish.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

22. My constituents are extremely concerned about the payment of child benefit for children living not in this country, but in other European countries. Did the Foreign Secretary make any progress with Chancellor Merkel recently on this, or is it still the Government’s view, as expressed by the Prime Minister in May, that it would be impossible to stop this? Is that why the Government have resisted publishing an accurate estimate of the cost?

[Mr Hammond]

There are accurate estimates in the public domain of the amounts of child benefits paid overseas. I have seen them regularly. When I was shadow Chief Secretary in opposition, I remember briefing them to the media regularly, so those data are published. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Conservative party intends, if re-elected, to proceed down a route that will include ending the payment of child benefits in respect of children not resident in the United Kingdom.

Government Strategy Against IS

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The short answer to my hon. Friend is yes to all four of his points. I simply add a rider in respect of his final one: as the Prime Minister said on Monday in the House, the Government, while wanting to put such a matter to Parliament, including for a vote, as rapidly as possible, will need the freedom to act in the case of an urgent threat to the security of the United Kingdom or of an impending humanitarian disaster, and to come to the House as soon as possible after such action.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is clear to the whole House that ISIL must be defeated. I understand that it is premature to take decisions about the involvement of the UK in military action, but I want to ask something further to the question put by the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), the former Minister. I wonder whether the Minister agrees that, were the House to decide that military action should be taken, including in Syria, there would be no question of the Government’s asking the permission of the horrible despot Assad.

[Mr Lidington]

We do not recognise Assad as providing the legitimate Government of Syria, so that question would not arise.

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I wish to confine my remarks to the situation in Ukraine. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), and I will follow his example by beginning my speech by declaring an interest. I am an officer in the all-party group on Ukraine, although I must confess that I cannot remember which particular role I have.

I take it as axiomatic that our aim in Ukraine is to secure peaceful, democratic, political development in that country. By that standard, we are not doing very well. Of course President Putin, for his own internal and external reasons, has done and is doing everything he can to undermine those developments. None the less, I have some questions about the way the UK, as a country and as a member of the EU and NATO, has played its hand; there has been a lot of furious rhetoric but a lack of sombre analysis. The Russians have a strategic interest in a warm-water port in Crimea for the Black sea fleet—we do not. The Russians have a long and close history and relationship with Ukraine—we do not. There is a large Russian-speaking minority in the east of Ukraine, and we are not in that situation. That all means that when push comes to shove, in an open conflict, the Russians are going to be prepared to do more and to push harder than we have and ever would.

Indeed, it is clear that some in eastern Ukraine do not support the Kiev Government and have not supported the association agreement with the EU. Unfortunately, because of the Russian actions it is difficult for us now to see how many people in eastern Ukraine take that view. When I visited Ukraine a couple of years ago, it was clear that the country had weak civil society and weak political institutions. We saw that in the way the Kiev Government were dealing with the problems in eastern Ukraine; there was no proper dialogue but an attempt to impose people on, and control people in, eastern Ukraine. A deeply unsophisticated approach was taken of imposing oligarchs as governors in eastern Ukraine and refusing to listen. We need to look at things again.

During the demonstrations in Maidan square at the turn of the year, the European Union had a tendency to over-promise: to promise more than we have or than we will deliver. Our messages were confused and confusing. Of course, a large number of people and the Kiev Government wanted the EU association agreement, but why did it have to be rushed through in a way that for the Russians was highly confrontational? In July, the Ministry of Defence was briefing that Ukraine is regarded as virtually a member of NATO, which was unhelpful as it created uncertainty and unpredictability in respect of our potential actions in the minds of the Russians. We need to draw a clear distinction between the Baltic states, which are members of NATO, to which we have clear obligations and which have duties and responsibilities to the alliance, and Ukraine, which is not in that situation.

I am not entirely convinced that sanctions are as effective as the Foreign Secretary hopes they are.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give me some details of what she thinks are appropriate sanctions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

One problem is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) has been saying, it is not clear that small changes in the income of particular individuals will matter very much to President Putin. Edward Lucas said that in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee. There is also a problem of corruption, which is not helped by the Tory party taking a lot of money from Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs.

We need to move to a political process to strengthen the political dialogue. On Monday, the Prime Minister agreed that the Russians had legitimate interests in the area, especially in seeing that the Russian minorities are well treated and protected.

The Foreign Secretary talked about effective international monitoring. I am not clear whether he meant the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe or a UN-sponsored plebiscite. We need to know more clearly what the Foreign Office has in mind. What is absolutely clear is that the former British ambassador to Moscow, Tony Brenton, was right when he said that we should stop shouting and start talking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I apologise to colleagues for having missed some of the Back-Bench speeches earlier due to an unbreakable commitment related to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.

As was observed earlier, when my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is thought about in defence terms the one word that will be associated with him will be “strategy”. When my political epitaph comes to be written, I guess most people would think that the one word that would be associated me would be “Trident”—or, if they were feeling kinder, it might be “deterrence”. Actually, a different word ought to be associated with what I am trying to outline in terms of strategy today: “containment”. Containment is the key to what we need to do in the two very different scenarios of Russia’s behaviour and ISIL’s behaviour. Containment sometimes has to be done by means of a balance of terror, as when dealing with a nuclear-armed state such as Russia. On other occasions, it has to be done with the more traditional concept of the balance of power, as when dealing with states such as those of the middle east. Containment by means of the balance of power often means active intervention.

Let me refer briefly to two scenarios. In the case of Russia and Ukraine, what Russia is doing is not new, as the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) observed in his interesting speech. In fact, it is based on a model of what it did in the immediate aftermath of the second world war, when countries such as Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary were first subverted and then taken over. I have previously mentioned the important work of Professor Anatol Lieven in analysing the situation in Ukraine. Time prevents me from doing more than pointing out that he has consistently said that the only way in which a disaster will be averted is for some considerable degree of autonomy to be awarded to the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine. If we try to egg on the other parts of Ukraine to win militarily, Russia will simply step up its military effort and the overall effect will be disastrous.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point, and I agree with him. Did he agree with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), as I was somewhat alarmed to discover that I did?

[Dr Lewis]

Sadly, that is one of the Back-Bench speeches that I missed.

I am grateful, in any case, for the hon. Lady’s intervention, as it gives me a little more time to refer to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). There is a huge difference between NATO members that are covered by the article 5 guarantee and other countries, no matter how sympathetic we are towards them, that are not. When I was 16, Czechoslovakia was invaded. I thought what a shame it was that while Czechoslovakia was temporarily free we did not scoop up this poor vulnerable country under the protection of NATO. But I was 16 then—I am not 16 now, and I know the realities. I know that what was done in the aftermath of the second world war was nothing more than a recognition of the reality that the west could band together to protect itself by means of NATO, but it could not, at that stage, protect the countries of central and eastern Europe. Russia had to be contained by means of the balance of terror involving nuclear deterrence.

Let me quickly move on to ISIL. We are not in a situation where we have a choice of good outcomes. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) set out certain conditions in hoping for a good outcome in relation to the choices that face us. I hope they are right, but the likelihood is that there will be no good outcome in these confrontations—that no good guys are going to come out on top, but only somebody of the stripe of an Arab dictator, on the one hand, or revolutionary jihadists on the other.

That is where we move on to containment by means of a balance of power, whereby sometimes there is no ally to be helped and all we can do is try to ensure that no one of a bunch of undesirable actors on the international stage gets to be dominant. That is what we have to do in this case. That is why I gently disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex about the vote that we had last year. I am absolutely delighted to look back on the fact that I was one of the people who made sure that we did not intervene to drag down Assad, atrocious though he is, because the upshot of that would have been similar to that of dragging down Gaddafi. The effect of the latter was not to further western strategic interests but the interests of our deadly enemies on the jihadist front.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I think that is an incredibly generous description of how NATO is behaving under President Obama, although it certainly was belligerent under Bush.

NATO’s endless eastward expansion has encouraged an equal and opposite reaction on the other side, in Russia. Although I am not a defender of Putin or, indeed, of Russian foreign policy, one has to say that if there was a general agreement that Ukraine should be a neutral, non-nuclear state, the presence of NATO forces in Ukraine and joint exercises with Ukrainian forces were likely to encourage the Russian military to do the same across the border. If we want to see peace in the region, as we all do, surely there has to be demilitarisation and a process that brings about a peaceful reconciliation in Ukraine, if that is at all possible. Instead, what I hear all the time is the ratcheting up of the military options on both sides, with more and more exercises and more and more overflying.

This is a very dangerous situation that could indeed lead to some dreadful conflict. I want to sound a note of caution about it and also draw attention to the fact that NATO now gives itself the right to involve itself in any part of the world, at any time, through its rapid reaction force. Indeed, the Prime Minister wanted to bring another 33 countries on board. A global military power that can go in anywhere is not necessarily a good thing; indeed, it can provoke all the opposition and all the problems that we are discussing in today’s debate.

The question I want to put to the Minister—to which I hope I will get a reply either today or in writing—is this. The mutual defence agreement between Britain and the USA on the sharing of nuclear information, originally signed in 1958, comes up for renewal this year. There is no date set for Parliament to debate it, and apparently the Government do not seem terribly keen on that, yet President Obama sent a message to Congress on 24 July saying that he approved of the renewal of the agreement and hoped that Congress would approve it. If it is good enough for Congress to debate the mutual defence agreement, surely it is good enough for us to debate it as well.

[Helen Goodman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to bring down conflict, tension and the international temperature is to be predictable? These unclear mandates lead to uncertainty and unpredictability.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Indeed, and the daily dangers from the situation in Ukraine and eastern Europe are pretty obvious for everyone to see. I hope we can think more carefully about this, rather than rushing more and more troops, more and more arms and more and more missiles into the area, and instead try to search for a political solution, difficult as I obviously recognise that to be.

I want to make two other points. This morning a number of us went to Room 14 to hear a statement from Dr Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestine National Initiative. He showed us a short film that was appalling, shocking and horrible. All I was seeing were pictures of buildings in Gaza that I have visited and known. They are all ruined, and there are 2,000 people dead and many families completely bereft of everything. The bitterness from that bombing by Israel continues and will continue for a very long time. Surely there should have been a response by the British Government on this. It is not good enough just to talk about Israel’s right to exist and its right to self-defence. There was a total disproportionality about the whole conflict. More than 2,000 Palestinians are dead; sadly, 100 Israelis are dead. I wish no one had died from that conflict, but unless we address the rights of and justice for the Palestinian people—their right to nationhood, their right to recognition, their right to travel, their right to trade; all those things—and instead keep them in prison in Gaza, this will all break out again in the not-too-distant future and we will have a renewal of all the horrible bloodletting that has happened over the past month.

There was a massive lobby of Parliament yesterday by supporters of Palestine. On 9 August, 150,000 people came on a demonstration in London to show their solidarity with people under bombardment. It is up to us, as one of the authors of the Sykes-Picot agreement, which is the antecedent of many of these problems, to be prepared politically to do something about the problem, at the very least by suspending all military arrangements with Israel. Although I recognise that that will not solve the problem, it would at least send a significant political message.

My final point in my remaining minute is simply this. I have been a Member of this House long enough to have discussed the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, the Libya conflict and indeed, before that, the Gulf war. I am no supporter, sympathiser, apologist or whatever for ISIL—for what it stands for, what it does, what its methods are or for its current threat and attacks on the Kurdish people. Surely, however, some basic understanding of history will recognise that our interventions and our behaviour—American interventions, American behaviour—have created the circumstances in which ISIL has grown up. The money now going into the region for arms—from Saudi and other sources—as well as all the other weapons going in are a major cause of the current conflict within Iraq. Let us learn the lesson: intervention everywhere is surely not the solution; the solution is working with people on development and bringing about peaceful solutions to problems rather than the obsession with taking military intervention around the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with my right hon. Friend about the symbolic as well as practical economic importance of the proposed deal. In practice, a successful transatlantic trade negotiation would establish global regulatory standards for business and trade on a transatlantic basis instead of the transatlantic powers having to copy others.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

3. If he will make it his policy to publish a list of all meetings between Ministers of his Department and officials since May 2010.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We publish details of ministerial meetings with external organisations on a quarterly basis, but in line with the practice of previous Governments, we do not intend to publish a list of meetings between Ministers and their departmental officials.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Minister tell the House whether at the meeting that the Foreign Office had on 24 February with Dmitry Firtash the question of asset freezes or sanctions was discussed?

[Mr Lidington]

I am obviously not going to go into details of what may or may not have been discussed at a meeting, particularly one at which I was not present, but it remains the case that Foreign Office officials and Ministers speak to people of all types from many different parts of the world with a single objective in mind, which is how best to enhance the United Kingdom’s understanding of global events and strengthen its interest in world affairs.

Ukraine

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to speak in this important debate about the very serious situation in Crimea and Ukraine.

The whole House is agreed that the events of the past two weeks have gone in completely the wrong direction and that what we want to see is the peaceful democratic development of Ukraine. We all know that conflict will set that back. If this crisis is not to escalate, we need to concentrate on bringing down the temperature, but securing Russian participation in meaningful talks about the future will be difficult.

It is clear that a vote with transparent ballot boxes and no international monitors does not reach the required standard for a free choice for Crimean people. When he winds up the debate, will the Leader of the House explain whether we are going to stick with our position on the overriding importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, or are we going to discuss what we believe would be a free and fair plebiscite?

As the Foreign Secretary has said, Ukraine should not have to choose between Russia and the EU. It is quite clear that the Russians feel they have a great deal at stake. Their major—possibly the major—concern is the warm-water location of the Black sea fleet. Will the Leader of the House explain how it could be maintained were Ukraine to join NATO?

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth)? My real worry is that the Crimean peninsula is isolated and that the Russians require land access to it, which means coming through eastern Ukraine.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman, whose military expertise goes far beyond mine, makes a very useful point.

As we have previously discussed in the House, we need to look at the behaviour of the new Government in Kiev. The under-representation of Russian speakers from the east and the appointment of two oligarchs as governors of eastern regions does not look inclusive.

When I was in Ukraine a couple of years ago, it was absolutely clear that weak institutional arrangements had been further sapped by a weak political culture and an undeveloped civil society. Virtually every senior politician was supported by an oligarch—unless they had become one themselves—and it was very unclear who controlled whom.

I was therefore extremely concerned to receive e-mails from human rights activists in Ukraine who claimed that British parliamentarians had received money from Dmitry Firtash, a major Ukrainian oligarch. He owns 45% of the Ukrainian gas transit company, which controls Gazprom’s supplies through Ukraine to Europe, and he also owns a major chemical industry in the country. Mr Firtash is estimated to be worth between $600 million and $5 billion. He has been linked to President Yanukovych and even to President Putin.

When I raised the possibility of conflicts of interest with the Foreign Secretary on 4 March, he described my question as “utterly baseless” and “ridiculous in the extreme”. Since then, in an episode described by one analyst to the Financial Times as “seismic”, Mr Firtash has been arrested in Vienna by the Austrian organised crime unit, following a seven-year investigation by the FBI.

We have also learned that Mr Firtash had a meeting at the Foreign Office on 24 February. I hope that the Leader of the House, who will wind up the debate, can tell us whom Mr Firtash met, what was discussed and whether the issue of sanctions or asset freezes was on the agenda. On the same day, the Foreign Secretary said in the House that he wanted to see an “end to pervasive corruption” in Ukraine. We all agree with that, but I notice that Mr Firtash is not at the moment on the sanctions list issued by the EU.

Even the most cursory glance through the Electoral Commission website reveals that in recent years the Conservative party, in various guises, has received nearly £200,000 from associates of Mr Firtash. The Harlow Conservative party has received £40,000 from Mr Shetler-Jones, who was the chief executive officer of Mr Firtash’s holding company, Group DF. Mr Shetler-Jones has given money in his own name and via a company called Scythian, which he owns and of which he is a director.

Earlier in the Parliament, Baroness Neville-Jones was refused the post of National Security Adviser because of her links to Ukrainian oligarchs. She, too, has received money from Mr Shetler-Jones. During the previous Parliament, the Electoral Commission looked into whether Scythian was an active company, but it has not published its findings. It is apparently a consultancy that advises on energy matters, but it is not clear who its clients are.

That is not only a concern in this country but a serious problem from the perspective of Ukraine. Ukraine has lost the equivalent of almost half its annual GDP to outflows into offshore accounts during the past three years. The all-party group on anti-corruption says that a proportion of those funds have been laundered through the UK, that this is a clear example of the damaging role UK companies and individuals play in aiding foreign corrupt officials, and that assets should be identified, frozen and returned without delay. The Foreign Secretary has said that he is working on Ukrainian asset recovery, and I hope that the Government will take a no-holds-barred approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hague]

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

[Helen Goodman]

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

[Mr Hague]

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

Ukraine, Syria and Iran

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

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

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Hague]

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

Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Pound]

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

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

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

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

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

[Stephen Pound]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK Relations with Ukraine

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Whittingdale]

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

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Helen Goodman Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

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

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

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

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

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

[Mike Gapes]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helen Goodman]

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

[Mr Thomas]

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

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

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