Gibraltar

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I assure him that the Royal Navy challenges all unlawful incursions by vessels, and indeed puts out radio warnings about the monitoring of all offending state vessels until they leave our waters, but it is clear that we need to de-escalate this, not go in the other direction.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Minister should not hold his breath waiting for the European Commission to do anything more on the problems at the border. As a huge morale boost for Gibraltarians, perhaps he or the Foreign Secretary will get on a plane in the next couple of days, and go to Gibraltar, and make it very clear publicly that they will do whatever is needed to protect Gibraltarians from Spanish bullying.

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that suggestion. I cannot speak on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, but I can certainly give her an unequivocal assurance that the United Kingdom Government, including the Foreign Office, stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government and the people of Gibraltar to make sure that they can keep their links with the United Kingdom. We will work together to do everything that we can to reduce and mitigate this unacceptable behaviour, both on the part of Spanish oceanographic vessels and as regards the border delays.

UK Relations with China

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

I will start by recognising China’s rich, deep cultural heritage. It is one of the oldest civilisations in the world, with an impressive history spanning more than 10,000 years. China is well known for its succession of dynasties. The first was the Xia dynasty, which began in the 22nd century BC and lasted until the 16th century BC. It was followed by the Shang and Zhou dynasties, which lasted five and 11 centuries respectively, and then a succession of others until the comparatively modern and more familiar Ming and Qing dynasties from the 14th century onward.

The dynasties made a fundamental contribution to the development of Chinese civilisation. For example, under the Qin dynasty, the great wall of China was constructed to protect the country from northern invaders; under the Han dynasty, a national civil service was established; and under the Tang dynasty, China became a great world power for the first time, which is being repeated today. China’s history and culture cannot be overstated. Whether through literature, philosophy, music, the visual arts, cuisine or religion, China’s influence has reached all parts of the globe.

China is home to more than one in five of the world’s population, with more than 1.35 billion inhabitants, and to 56 recognised ethnic groups and at least 292 languages and dialects. It is one of the world’s great civilisations. China matters. It is big in history, size, culture, population, commerce and ambition. The scale and pace of the change that has taken place in China over the past 30 years has been unprecedented—a second great leap forward. It has been a giant leap. China is now the world’s second largest economy and its largest exporter and importer of goods. As the fastest-growing major economy in the world with an average annual growth rate of 10% over the past 30 years, China has rapidly expanded its global influence. That growth rate is likely to put its economy ahead of the United States within the next two decades. However, countries cannot exist on economic prosperity alone.

People and societies make a country or a civilisation, not volatile stock markets, trade or the buying of goods and services. Yes, those things are the lifeblood of outward prosperity, but it is the prosperity of the human spirit that helps to advance civilisations: the freedom of the individual to determine their own destiny for good or ill, to determine whether to turn left or right and what they believe and to dream, imagine, create and innovate. This is about social growth, not just economic growth. Whether China’s leaders can recognise that will determine China’s future and success. Markets rise and fall, but the human spirit always seeks to soar, wherever it is.

UK relations with China are probably stronger today than ever before. Chinese investment in the UK is welcome; the UK does not have what one senior Chinese official recently called a cold war mentality towards Chinese inward investment. I am glad that that is the Chinese view. However, the security implications for any investment must always be weighed carefully against the economic benefits of such investment. That is prudence, not paranoia.

For example, the recent agreement on China’s part-financing of the UK’s new nuclear reactors is welcome, and I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on negotiating it. It is very much needed if we are to keep the lights on and keep the UK’s economy moving and growing, but at no point should Chinese companies still owned mostly by the state—a single-party neo-communist state—have any involvement in the design, build or running of the UK’s new nuclear power stations.

Similarly, the UK telecoms industry should always put UK national security implications before the pursuit of market share or profit. Chinese companies should have clear and stated restrictions on access to Government and critical national infrastructure, telecoms and energy grids. If we undermine our national security, we all lose economically, socially and militarily. Our national interests will be harmed and, in extremis, we will lose our freedoms.

I welcome the recent announcement that investors in London are the first to be allowed to apply for licences to make Chinese-currency investments. As the Chancellor has said, the decision will make London a major global centre for Chinese currency trading. That is good news.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that it is shocking that the InterContinental Hotels Group, whose headquarters is in London, is building a new hotel in the centre of Tibet? That is not acceptable to the Tibetans who have fought so long for the right to be free in their own country.

[Mark Pritchard]

The InterContinental Hotels Group is an important British company employing a lot of people around the world. Clearly, it must make commercial decisions with the information available. I would hope that it had some dialogue not only with the Chinese authorities but with Tibetans in exile and the people in Tibet who are being oppressed by the Chinese authorities. I will come to Tibet later in my speech. If InterContinental did not consult, I hope that it will learn lessons from the example of Tibet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are hopefully arguing for the upholding of the Chinese constitution itself. The Chinese authorities need not fear freedom of religion. The suppression of religion, not the freedom of religion, is what causes instability in societies.

I have my Tibet notes, so I will hopefully have some added value later, but first I will speak briefly on animal welfare. As I mentioned, China probably has the worst animal welfare record of any country, yet it is known as the country of the dragon. I fear that, if dragons existed, they too would probably be cruelly reared and cut down in their prime for their teeth and claws, or be caged throughout their life without any care or compassion. In a world in which dragons lived, the country of the dragon would be pre-eminent in their slaughter. The country of the dragon would slaughter the dragon to extinction.

China’s demand for ivory is a major factor in the demise of elephant and rhino populations across the world, often for alternative medicines and therapies, some with unproven benefits, and with the false claim that those and other such medicines improve libido—science has proved quite the opposite. The Chinese Government should educate their population on the threat to some of the world’s most endangered and vulnerable species and unblock websites so that people may access that information themselves. Even the Tibetan antelope has been driven to the brink of extinction due to the Chinese authorities destroying its habitat with forced land use changes and unregulated hunting.

The Chinese invasion of Tibet has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Tibetans and the imprisonment and torture of thousands more. In 1959, the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s political and spiritual leader, fled into exile in India followed by more than 100,000 Tibetans, and established the Tibetan Government in exile.

China must end its economic strangulation of, and mass economic discrimination against, Tibet. That deliberate policy has forced thousands of Tibetans to abandon their traditional rural lives and move into new housing colonies in urban areas where non-agricultural jobs are controlled by the Chinese state. Tibetans are now a minority in such urban centres because of China’s encouragement of mass Chinese migration.

The Buddhist religion continues to suffer. The Chinese have destroyed more than 6,000 Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and shrines since 1949. Today, the number of monks allowed to enter monasteries is strictly controlled and limited. Any references to, or images of, the Dalai Lama are banned. As I mentioned, I have had the privilege of meeting the Dalai Lama twice, and I have made it clear whom I will meet and not meet.

Chinese political oppression—and that is what it is: oppression—has responded to uprisings with extreme violence. Some 300,000 Chinese soldiers are now posted in Tibet. China has repeatedly violated UN conventions through the extensive use of torture against Tibetan political prisoners, including monks and nuns. The Chinese regime has also wreaked huge environmental damage throughout Tibet.

The third plenary of the 18th central committee of the Communist party of China met last week. Many of the decisions made at that important gathering are welcome, but those decisions must be implemented, not just announced—the Chinese are very good at press releases, but we need to see action on the ground that changes people’s lives for the better.

[Kate Hoey]

This question might be more for the Minister to answer, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the Chinese reaction to the Prime Minister’s meeting with the Dalai Lama was rather upsetting, the Prime Minister should, when he visits China in the near future, specifically raise with the Chinese Government the position of Tibet, including all the political prisoners in Tibet and the way in which Tibetan culture is being ruined?

[Mark Pritchard]

The hon. Lady has a long and distinguished record in the House of standing up for human rights, and she is standing up for Tibet today. The Prime Minister will set out the case for human rights, which the Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Office Ministers do consistently, but the realpolitik is that we need to engage with China on all sorts of levels. That said, I believe that the Prime Minister will want to avoid any perception that the United Kingdom and its Government, and therefore its people, are kowtowing to the Chinese and I am sure that that perception will not be allowed to form when he visits China.

I welcome the liberalisation of the one-child policy that was announced at the plenary session, but it needs to be the first—not the last—step in reducing forced abortions, fines and imprisonment for those who by design or accident find themselves with larger families. It is a blight on China’s international reputation that it aborts more babies in the womb than any other country on earth.

I also welcome the announcement that fewer crimes will be subject to the death penalty. Such measures should be introduced this year, not next year. I also hope that that will lead to the complete abolition of the death penalty. As someone who is supposed to be a centre-right politician, and as the proud vice-chairman of the all-party group on the abolition of the death penalty—one group among many that shows the value of all-party groups—I am active with others, and Baroness Stern does a great job of chairing that group. China can really take the lead on the abolition of the death penalty.

The announcement that China will do more to open up its economy and to liberalise its trade and commerce with the outside world is also welcome. It is good news and many good things came out of that plenary session.

In conclusion, China’s economic rise has been impressive, but if it is to be sustainable, its economic progress needs to be matched with more freedoms for its people and with foreign policy restraint. The Chinese are great historians, great diplomats and great survivors. The Communist party will know that it cannot hold back the tide of its own people’s rising aspirations, growing expectations and more informed view of their place in China and the rest of the world. The party’s future will not be secured by stirring extreme nationalism or fostering xenophobia. China’s Communist leaders need to allow change or sooner or later they will be changed. They can work with their people or against their people. Let freedom reign in China.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman must have misspoken. I think he just said—perhaps I heard him wrong—that Gibraltar could join the kingdom of Spain without leaving the United Kingdom.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Yes, he did.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for endorsing me. I do not think the hon. Gentleman meant to say that. He said that Gibraltar is self-governing. It has self-government on many issues, but not all. We still provide its international relations, Home Office functions and defence functions. I think the hon. Gentleman is misspeaking.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend makes an important and valid observation. It appears that the Leader of the Opposition does not even trust his own party, because he cannot lead them one way or the other on this important matter, but he has ordered them to run away from the debate.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I want to point out that it is important to recognise that the majority of Labour voters in the country want to see a referendum.

[James Wharton]

The hon. Lady is of course right. We know that the majority of people in this country want a referendum. I would extend to her on this issue the hand of cross-party co-operation and friendship, and to any of her colleagues who would like to join in what we are trying to do to deliver that, not just for Labour voters, not just for Conservative voters, but for everyone, whether they believe that we should be in European Union or should leave it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on winning the ballot and promoting this Bill? I know that many of his colleagues would have loved to be No. 1—indeed, a few Labour Members would have liked to come first and promote the very same Bill. We might have elicited more support from the Labour Benches if one of us had done that, but I am not sure.

I have heard a lot today about how one party or another is playing politics, but as far as I am concerned, those who suffer when party politics are played on any side are the public. The only people who will suffer if this Bill is not supported will be the public who have wanted a referendum for many years.

[David Simpson]

On that point, does the hon. Lady agree that the general public want a level playing field in Europe? They have not seen that for many years, and this referendum will give them their say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

To me, this referendum is not just about politicians trusting the people, but about people beginning to trust us again, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said. Looking at the records of all the political parties on Europe over the last 20 years, the public find there is not much that they can trust in what any of the political parties have said. That is precisely why we need this legislation.

Of course, the Bill will not bind the next Government. If my party is in power after the next election, I will continue to campaign for a referendum. I hope it will be recognised that any party that goes into the next election without offering the people the chance of a referendum will not be looked on very well. I am therefore confident, as some of my colleagues are, that our party will change its mind on this, just as it changed its mind on the euro and a number of other issues relating to legislation that has been introduced.

It is common sense that we need a referendum. Europe has changed so much—I will not go through all the different treaties. No one under the age of 55 has had a say on this. It is just scandalous to think that any party can sit around and abstain on an issue like this. What is the point? I genuinely cannot understand why we want to abstain, other than to say that we are playing into the hands of the Conservatives. I do not think I am playing into the hands of the Conservatives by voting for this Bill today; I am playing into the hands of my constituents and the British public, who want a referendum. I appeal to Members from my party not to abstain. This is not necessarily the Bill that will finally get consent in this House; there will be amendments—I personally would like a referendum sooner rather than later.

I want to read out two simple letters from the many that I have received over the last week or two since the Bill was published:

“As one of your constituents I am asking you to listen to my voice, and the voice of millions of others, who believe it’s time that the British people were given a say on Britain’s membership of the European Union.

This is not about party politics or the next general election.

It’s about democracy, and giving people a chance to decide whether the EU is right or wrong for Britain.”

The next letter says:

“Thanks for your stance on a referendum, we do appreciate being treated like adults, despite what”

some other Members of Parliament are saying.

I feel strongly that this Bill sends a message today, 40 years after we originally joined the Common Market, that we are in a new century and a new era. Europe has changed. Our country now needs to make that final decision about whether our future will be in Europe or whether we can see a better future outside Europe. We will be vilified by the establishment—anyone who has tried to speak out on Europe over the years has been vilified. The mantra of the European Union elite has always been “Ever-closer union”. They will not allow such minor concerns as the opinion of the public to interfere in referendum decisions. Over and over again, decisions are quietly pushed through in Europe. We have to speak out. Now is the time for this Parliament to say, “We want to govern our own country; we want to have a referendum,” and let the public decide.

European Council

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman should also acknowledge what was discussed, particularly in the Council, and the emphasis that was placed on the single market and on cutting red tape for small businesses. The Prime Minister is setting out what will be discussed at the G8 at Lough Erne, when we will be talking about issues such as tax, transparency and getting businesses going. Those are the things that we want to concentrate on. I agree with my hon. Friend that those other things are not so relevant.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Did the Prime Minister have any discussions on the fringes of the European Council meeting about Zimbabwe, and about the fact that, after this weekend, the European Union will lift many more of its restrictive sanctions? Does the Minister realise that there is concern about that? There is still a problem in Zimbabwe. There are huge human rights issues, and it is important that the European Union should give the matter careful thought before lifting those sanctions in the lead-up to the elections in July.

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Lady makes some extraordinarily good points on the sanctions against Zimbabwe. I was not aware that the matter was not on the European Council agenda. I was not privy to any private conversations that might have taken place, but she has made some extremely pertinent points.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

Indeed, the 1959 Antarctic treaty froze all sovereignty claims there. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, whose private Member’s Bill, the Antarctic Bill, has passed through the House and is now law.

Many Argentines continue to work in the United Kingdom, and many British people work in Argentina. They are able to get along in a positive way. Perhaps the wisest words spoken in the past two weeks were those of one of the international electoral observers, who said:

“The Falkland Islanders are citizens and they have the right to express themselves.”

Those were the words not of a local, but of Senor Jaime Trobo, the Uruguayan electoral observer.

I suggest that now is a good time to evaluate from where the right to self-determination originates. The principle is set out unequivocally in article 1.2 of the charter of the United Nations, which states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is

“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate on such an important subject on such an important day for the Falkland islanders. Does he also think that this is a good time for the United States of America to show that it understands democracy, and for President Obama to come out in support of the rights of the Falklanders, rather than sitting on the fence as he seems to have been doing?

[Guy Opperman]

While we would all support President Obama, he seems to be acquiring some splinters by sitting on the fence for so long. The United States’ position is surely hypocritical, given that it uses and benefits from bases in British overseas territories such as Cyprus, Diego Garcia, Ascension and Gibraltar when it suits them. Because it does not use the Falkland Islands for those purposes, however, it is not so supportive of, or enthusiastic about, our claims and those of the Falkland islanders.

Europe

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I will give way in a moment to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

Ratifying Lisbon without consulting the people did real damage to the EU’s democratic legitimacy in this country. I remember one Labour Member agreeing with that point in the debates on the Lisbon treaty—the hon. Member for Vauxhall.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary should know that a majority of Labour voters support bringing back powers from Europe. Although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said, we want to be friends with our European allies, talk to them and work with them, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the threat of a referendum makes it much more likely that we will get the real engagement that will satisfy the British public?

[Mr Hague]

Although, as Foreign Secretary, I might not describe it as a threat on a daily basis, I agree with the thrust of the hon. Lady’s argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) referred on a number of occasions to the UK and not to Britain. I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary, who talks about “Britain, Britain, Britain”, seems to have forgotten that we are part of the United Kingdom. So I thank my right hon. Friend, but that is probably as much as I am going to be thanking him for. I am here to say on behalf, I believe, of many Labour voters, the majority of the British public and the majority of my constituents that what the Prime Minister said about a referendum, our changing relationship with Europe and the need to bring back powers from Europe is absolutely right, and those comments have been welcomed by the country. I am genuinely disappointed that my party is going to take a little bit of time before, inevitably, it comes round to saying that we want a referendum.

Normally, it is just a few of us who put forward the “Eurorealistic” case in such debates, but it is great to see that today quite a number have come along to put forward that view, which I welcome. I remember when there were just a few of us here and we were supporting the Government in putting in place their EU lock. We said it was right that we should be saying that if any more powers were going back to Europe we should have a referendum. I am sorry that Labour Front Benchers were not in favour of that at the time, but I am delighted that we have changed our mind and are now supporting that.

I know that before the European elections my party will without doubt be saying that it wants us to have a referendum, because that is a basic tenet of democracy. We know that the European Union—the Common Market to which we signed up all those years ago—has changed so much. We have seen many changes and the British public never got the chance to say what they thought about them. We had promises from Members on both sides of the House that there would be a referendum, but we never got that referendum.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the major change in our relationship with Europe was the signing of the Single European Act in 1986 by Margaret Thatcher?

[Kate Hoey]

I perhaps differ in that I do not take that tribal attitude to the matter—I want to do what is best for our country. I do not care who made those decisions; my party made terrible decisions, as did the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats always make terrible decisions on Europe. I do not care who did it—it was wrong. I voted against the Maastricht treaty, as did many of us way back then. We were right in everything we said at that time and everything we said about joining the euro, which of course my Front Benchers did have the right view on, and our Government rightly did not join it.

Let us remember something about the people who are now all doom and gloom about what would happen if we had a referendum, and we did not get enough powers back and voted to come out of the European Union. These people are saying that that would be the most catastrophic thing that could happen, but they are the very same people who were wrong earlier—the Richard Bransons of this world and the other top business leaders who, for their own particular interests, have always been in favour of more integration. They were wrong then and they are wrong now, and the British public know that.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a very good point. I wonder whether, like me, she is an aficionado of the Danish political drama “Borgen”. The first episode of the second series just a few weeks ago had that memorable line, “In Brussels, no one can hear you scream.” Does she think that it is not only in Brussels, but in the office of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that nobody can hear the British people scream?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

The reason I support the lancing of the boil, as many people have described getting this matter out in the open, is that we need to have that debate; we need to be able to listen to people and we need to deal with the arguments from Members on both sides of the House about whether it is crucial that we stay in the EU. It would not be such a terrible thing if we came out of the European Union; we would have a much more confident future looking to Asia and the rest of the world, and looking back to our heritage of the Commonwealth. We could do that, but until now the ordinary person in this country has felt that nobody has listened to them.

We have now begun that debate, and I would like it enshrined in legislation in this Parliament that whatever happens and whoever is in government—I hope that my party will be in power after the election—the referendum will go ahead. The only way we are going to get these powers back—the only way we will get the fisheries policies and the common agricultural policy changed—is by showing that we mean we want the power back and by being confident enough to say to our European allies and our European friends, “We do not like the structure of the European Union. We do not like the way it has shaped up. We want to change it.”

I was reading an article today that I suggest all hon. Members should read, even those who do not normally read the Daily Mail. It was written by Andrew Alexander and it goes through the details of how we got to where we were when we joined the Common Market and how our leaders—Ted Heath, the former Prime Minister, and all our negotiators—gave in, gave in and gave in. What Mr Alexander is saying, as I am, is that we should have the confidence to say, “No, we are not giving in, as they want us almost more than we want them. They need us more than we need them.” If we were able to go out and make that case, we would be able to get a huge amount of those powers back.

If those powers are not going to give us the feeling that we have taken things back into our country and if we were out of the European Union, we would still be able to have all the social policies that we have opted for. We could have our own social chapter—we could do it here. We do not have to be told that we have to do it in Europe. This Chamber is where we should be making the laws for this country and this is where I believe we will ultimately win back that power.

Although it may take just a little longer than I would have liked and we will not get the referendum for a few more years, I am pleased that we have finally reached a position where, between now and then, we will be able to ensure that the case is heard and that people will be listened to. We are actually here to promote democratic views in this country, and people will now be listened to. I believe that my party will go into the next election making sure that it trusts the British people; if we did not trust the British people to have their say on the future of this country and of our relationship with Europe, that would be quite disgraceful. I have confidence that my party will change its view, just as it has changed its view on a number of other issues on Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Thank you for this opportunity to speak in what is an extremely timely and important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Members of this House, we are all very privileged to have the opportunity to contribute and have our say. Every time I walk through the doors, I am conscious that there are approximately 100,000 people in my constituency whom I am seeking to represent. I was struck by the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). She has left her place, but she spoke about giving dignity back to our constituents. I can think of no greater way of doing that than to give them a say on our future relationship with the European Union. The influence of the EU in the past four decades has increasingly dominated every aspect of our national life.

On 1 January 1973—I do not remember it; I was only three years old—we joined what was then referred to as the Common Market or the European Economic Community. When I was six, our membership was confirmed in a referendum. It is important to say that most people thought they were voting in favour of a common market—a customs union or a free trade area. [Interruption.] At the time, some people referred to the small print in the treaty of Rome about ever-closer union, but generally people believed that, essentially, they were joining an economic free trading agreement.

Over ensuing decades, the European Economic Community developed into the European Community and then into the European Union, and the various Acts and treaties, including the Single European Act, which has been referred to, the Maastricht treaty and the failed EU constitution, which had to be rebranded and essentially presented and passed by the previous Government as the Lisbon treaty, have seen an inexorable moving of power from this Parliament to a centralised EU.

I am often struck that people refer to the EU as a federal project—if only it were a little more federal with more subsidiarity! Over the past 40 years, however, it has grown into a central government project, and it is right that the Prime Minister has offered the country a chance to decide its future relationship with the EU. Last Wednesday’s speech will prove to be one of the most important speeches that a British Prime Minister has made in the past half century, and I, for one, am grateful for the clear direction he has set out—as the Foreign Secretary said, it is much clearer than what we hear from Her Majesty’s Opposition.

I only wish that our coalition partners were also signed up to a referendum. It certainly used to be their policy. I do not often quote the Deputy Prime Minister, but I would like to now. Writing in The Guardian on 25 February 2008, he said:

“It’s time we pulled out the thorn and healed the wound, time for a debate politicians have been too cowardly to hold for 30 years—time for a referendum on the big question. Do we want to be in or out? Nobody in Britain under the age of 51 has ever been asked that simple question. None of them were eligible to vote in that 1975 referendum. That includes half of all MPs. Two generations have never had their say.”

That was five years ago, so now that age is 56, and we are into a new Parliament.

[Kate Hoey]

Why does the hon. Gentleman think the Deputy Prime Minister has changed his mind?

[Henry Smith]

I wish I knew how the Deputy Prime Minister’s mind worked. You would be quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rule me out of order for being unparliamentary if I used the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber, and I would never use the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber to refer to another right hon. or hon. Member, but I think that the Deputy Prime Minister is guilty of rank inconsistency over his party’s position on a referendum.

This country has a unique position in the world; we have global links like no other nation on earth and we of course have our proximity to the European continent. This nation’s success has been rooted in being a free trading nation that seeks links and co-operation with the world. Our best opportunity for the future, as in the past, is to utilise those unique links and act as a conduit—a bridge—between the world and the European continent.

Zimbabwe (Blood Diamonds)

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is very nice to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Havard. It is also very nice to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on Zimbabwe, of which I am the chair.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) for his persistence in securing this debate and for the fact that we are lifting the veil of darkness that sometimes hangs over the whole of the diamond industry generally and particularly in Zimbabwe. He was an outstanding Minister for Africa and I am absolutely delighted that now he is back on the Back Benches he is again able to get more positively engaged in helping Zimbabwe, because his knowledge of southern Africa is absolutely tremendous.

I share most of my right hon. Friend’s analysis—in fact, all of it. I will not go through some of the issues related to individuals involved in the Marange diamond area, but I want to raise some further issues related to that area. Having said that, I am absolutely delighted that over the years the all-party group on Zimbabwe has managed to keep some of these issues about Marange to the forefront. Just a couple of years ago, in June 2010, the then vice-chair of the group, Baroness D’Souza, who is now obviously in charge of the House of Lords, and I wrote to Stéphane Chardon, the EU representative who chaired the Kimberley process Working Group on Monitoring at that time. We expressed our grave concern about the way that human rights abuses and reports of killings in the Marange diamond field were being investigated by the group. We did so because in the many years since the situation in Zimbabwe became really serious the UK Government and other Governments around the world have felt powerless, but through the Kimberley process and through having an EU appointee as chair of the group we had some direct responsibility and control. With many of the points that my right hon. Friend made, we need to look at how the Kimberley process is working and consider whether we can make some effective changes.

I pay tribute to some of the members of the all-party group on Zimbabwe, particularly some of those in the House of Lords, who have continued to probe and ask questions about Zimbabwe. Lord Avebury, Baroness Kinnock and Baroness Boothroyd have been assiduous in keeping pressure on our Government and—indirectly—on the EU, and in ensuring that Government Ministers of whatever party have remained closely engaged with Zimbabwe. I also pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who is the current Minister for Africa, for the close personal interest that he has taken in Zimbabwe and indeed in the whole of southern Africa. I am sorry that he is not here for this debate today. When he phoned me yesterday, he was in Malawi, so I know that he is very intent on trying to see what the British Government can do to help the process in southern Africa.

Of course, Zimbabwe is of close interest to British taxpayers. Through our international development programme, we are expected to pick up the bill eventually—it is quite right that we should do so, and I have no problem with it—for rebuilding much of the infrastructure and institutions of the terribly ruined country of Zimbabwe. However, it would be the most appalling irony if the revenue from the massive national windfall of diamonds should end up in the pockets and overseas bank accounts of the very same army officers and ZANU-PF politicians who have wrecked Zimbabwe, especially if they are allowed to use that windfall to buy weapons, tanks and other vehicles to extend their illegal grip on power.

There is no doubt that, as my right hon. Friend has already said, ZANU-PF functionaries and Ministers are effectively running a parallel economy in Zimbabwe. That is clearly chronicled in the excellent report on Zimbabwe by Global Witness and it is something that we just cannot ignore.

I will mention one particular British company that sometimes does not get mentioned in discussions of Zimbabwe, but that has an involvement in the country. That company is Old Mutual. Last year, we met the chairman of Old Mutual, Patrick O’Sullivan, and its chief executive of long-term savings, Paul Hanratty, here in London just before one of the company’s annual general meetings, where some people were turning up to protest against the fact that Old Mutual’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Old Mutual Investment Group (South Africa) or OMIGSA, had invested in a South African company, the New Reclamation Group, which of course my right hon. Friend has already referred to. New Reclamation Group has a very poor reputation in Johannesburg. It is in fact, as has been said, more or less a scrap metals merchant. It basically presented a business case to Old Mutual to invest in the Mbada Diamonds company, and that investment was made.

We just cannot ignore the fact that a British company is involved in this way. When we talked to the chairman and chief executive of Old Mutual, of course they made the point that they are representing their shareholders and they cannot actually make policy. However, there is a moral judgment to be made in some of this activity, and as a primary landowner and property manager in Zimbabwe Old Mutual is interwoven within the fabric of society and its investment policy, far from being apolitical or just about business, plays a really important role in the country, and if it wishes to avoid perceptions of collusion or acquiescence in the continuing repression and human rights violations in Zimbabwe, it should disengage completely from anything that is linked with blood diamonds, and I call on it to do so.

I want to talk very briefly about a worry that exists at the moment and that was referred to by my right hon. Friend in his speech. It is a worry about the rumours—in fact, they are not rumours, because we all know that there are discussions on this subject going on within the EU—about whether there could be suspension of some of the sanctions that have been imposed. We need to start from the understanding that we are not involved in a “blame game” about who is right or wrong on whether we should consider suspending sanctions; it is a situation in which everyone wants to do the right thing. Sometimes when we are over here discussing what is happening in Zimbabwe, what may seem to us the right thing may not necessarily be the right thing to the people who are involved in the struggle in Zimbabwe.

There is a strong push, particularly from the Southern African Development Community and South Africa, for a carrot in the form of a vote on the new constitution, probably in an October referendum, as part of the global political agreement—the GPA. That would allow the process to go forward to free and fair elections next year, and I understand that we would then suspend sanctions. The detail may not yet be finalised as to how many would be suspended and whether it would be just sanctions on individuals or also direct sanctions involving, for example, the EU’s funding of industry in Zimbabwe, but they would not be lifted, or rather not suspended—it is important that I use the correct terminology—until such time as there was a free and well-organised referendum on the constitution.

It would be easy for a free and relatively peaceful referendum to take place in the autumn, but those who continue to be able to turn on the tap of violence can do so almost at will, and I worry that once we have suspended the sanctions—should we get a free constitutional process—it will be easy for that tap to be turned on extremely quickly. The violence is still there, whenever ZANU-PF and its apparatchiks want to carry out some atrocity. Just last weekend, they stopped a Movement for Democratic Change rally, so it is clear that they can do huge damage at will, and the money from the illegal diamond sales makes it easier for the violence to be turned on, with the machinery that they have.

SADC and South Africa are absolutely crucial, but I have mixed feelings, and am concerned. Perhaps when discussing the suspension of sanctions we can tie South Africa and SADC into the process, so that if some of the sanctions were suspended, but the GPA were not then fulfilled and violence started again, we could be absolutely certain that South Africa and the other SADC countries would do what they have said they would do if the sanctions were suspended. Disappointingly, the SADC leaders have, time after time, seen their solidarity not with the people of Zimbabwe, not with all those who have bravely and patiently struggled to represent the democratic will of the people, but with the crooks, bullies and corrupt people who are committed to keeping Mugabe in power at any price. If the British Government and the European Union suspend sanctions they will be putting huge trust in SADC, and in South Africa in particular as the guarantor of the safety and rights of the Zimbabwean people, and we must be certain that that trust will be rewarded in full by an unequivocal refusal by South Africa, leading the rest of SADC, to excuse or turn a blind eye to any resurgence of violence.

I do not believe that Mugabe will give up power peacefully, or that he will want what we would call a genuinely free and fair election—even with the best will in the world, I do not think that we can have a really free and fair election as we would see it. We can make next year’s election much better than the last one, but only if South Africa and SADC unequivocally accept that they have an international responsibility, and the quid pro quo of removing the ridiculous idea that the sanctions have caused Zimbabwe’s economic crisis. We all know— even the most extreme member of ZANU-PF knows— that that is nonsense, but it has been a potent weapon, used particularly in rural areas where the broadcasting media are still totally in ZANU-PF’s hands, and that has not changed under the GPA. The newspaper media are slightly freer, but the broadcasting media, which are the ones that get into the rural areas, are 100% ZANU-PF dominated. The SADC leaders have too often allowed Mugabe that kind of propaganda victory, by remaining silent on the violence until relatively recently and speaking out only to condemn the targeted measures imposed under the Cotonou agreement.

Many many years ago, when we were young, my right hon. Friend and I joined together in protests about apartheid in South Africa, in what was called the Stop the Seventy Tour, but nothing we did is an excuse for the unleashing of violence and intimidation on Zimbabweans just because Mugabe has a problem with the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth or the United States. Such things are never excusable. I have no expectation that the ZANU-PF hard-liners or the Zimbabwe military will change their ways. They are worried about losing their wealth and their ill-gotten gains.

I hope that we can give enough encouragement to men and women of good will, especially the younger generation who hope for a new Zimbabwe and all the millions of Zimbabweans who have left the country and live around the world. I understand that under the new constitution such people will, importantly, retain their citizenship, and be able to play their part in the new Zimbabwe, and we can help with that. We have to be very careful with the handling of the suspension of sanctions, because some sanctions have worked. It is nonsense to say that they have not—that is why there is such a push to get them lifted—but I accept that there might be some that could be suspended. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, however, that there are some people we cannot possibly take off the lists—indeed, there are one or two we might add.

I want to end by saying that I wish that everyone could read the amazing speech made by one of my Zimbabwean heroes, Roy Bennett, at Rhodes house in Oxford in May. Entitled “Smoke and Mirrors: another look at politics and ethnicity in Zimbabwe”, it was a wonderful speech, which put into around a dozen pages just what the future for Zimbabwe could be, and how we, as the British Government, can help.

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.