Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

On 18 March 2003, Mr Blair told the House of Commons that he judged the possibility of terrorist groups in possession of weapons of mass destruction as,

“a real and present danger to Britain and its national security.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 768.]

When Sir John Chilcot presented his report to the families of some of those killed in the Iraq war—those families included the parents of Lieutenant Marc Lawrence, a young naval aviator and one of my constituents, who was killed in a Sea King helicopter—he was rather more robust than he was in the conclusions of the report. He said:

“The judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s WMDs were presented with a certainty that was not justified.”

On the eve of the vote on the Iraq war, a number of us on the Opposition Benches had grave concerns about what we were about to undertake and what we were going to ask of our young men and women in our armed services. We were called into an office by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who was then Leader of the Opposition, and by the shadow Foreign Minister, then the Member for Devizes, Michael Ancram. We were told by my right hon. Friend that he had been informed, on Privy Council terms, that there were weapons of mass destruction, that the United Kingdom, or the interests of the United Kingdom, faced a 45-minute threat from those weapons, and that it was imperative, in the interests of our national security, that we should support the motion that was to be put before the House. I think I am right in saying that, on that basis, all but one of us concurred.

I do not doubt the information that was given to me by my right hon. Friend, but I believe that he was misled on Privy Council terms. The House has heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) of the five items on which Mr Blair misled the House. Yes, we do have to learn from this. I must take responsibility, because I voted that way, for the death of my young constituent and, by implication, for the deaths of hundreds of armed personnel and many, many civilians.

Mr Speaker, if a motion for contempt is brought before you, you should look favourably on a hearing for it, because I believe that we owe that to the families of those who have lost their loved ones in this conflict.

Human Rights in Iran

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Offord]

I certainly agree with that sentiment. As we have seen in previous negotiations with Mr Rouhani, he did not approach them in the same fashion as our own Government did.

Khamenei described security as a “high priority” for his country, saying that it demanded serious supervision by officials of the security forces, through the

“sound mind, acts and morals of the staff.”

He stressed

“providing social and moral security”

for the people. Given such realities, the Supreme Leader’s call for more repressive measures should alarm the British Government into reconsidering its policy towards Iran, especially on human rights. Many Iranian experts and human rights activists believe that the domestic repression is an integral part of the ruling theocracy and its ability to secure its grip on power. I and many of my colleagues in all parties in this House share that assessment.

All politics are local and when the regime carries out appalling atrocities such as public hangings and floggings on a systematic basis, it only alienates and angers the citizens. Surely every Iranian leader understands the benefits of stopping the executions and the boost that such a decision would have for their image globally. Yet the Iranian leaders refrain from such a constructive move and even step up the appalling atrocities, risking an outcry of international condemnation. Iranian leaders, including Rouhani, are shooting themselves in the foot—not because they like it, but because the survival of their theocratic system depends on those actions.

The simple conclusion is that the survival of the ruling theocracy puts Iran’s President and leaders in diametric opposition to the interests of millions of Iranians and, in particular, the two thirds of the population who are under 30, trying to overcome repression and dreaming of a free and open society. Our Government’s policy on Iran cannot ignore or underestimate those realities, as we have so far under previous Governments. To do so would have severe consequences for the Iranian people, the region and, by extension, our own interest in the region and the wider middle east.

I therefore welcome the Government’s serious concerns about Iran’s use of the death penalty, as highlighted in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s corporate report on Iran, published earlier this year. I am encouraged by the fact that the Government recognise that the human rights situation continues to be dire since Rouhani took office, and is worsening in many areas, which is in line with the findings of the United Nations special rapporteur on Iran, Dr Ahmed Shaheed.

I am also delighted that the Government decided to support the latest resolution on Iran in the UN General Assembly’s third committee, which criticised the systematic human rights violations in the country. In November last year, Baroness Anelay, in a statement following the resolution, said:

“Significant concerns remain about Iran’s clampdown on some of the fundamental freedoms of its citizens, including freedom of religion and belief and freedom of expression, as well as the increasing number of executions.”

I have no doubt that the Government and the Minister will agree that the time for concrete and verifiable improvements in Iran, especially on human rights, is long overdue. We want to see such improvements achieved by the Iranian people, because they would be in our interest. On that issue, we are on the same page and, I suspect, many colleagues will concur with Baroness Anelay that it is time for words to be translated into actions. As such, the UK, given its permanent status on the UN Security Council and its strong voice at the UN Human Rights Council can and should take the lead on the international scene in order to secure the concrete actions called for by the FCO with regards to advancing and promoting human rights in Iran.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said, in particular on the lifting of sanctions. Is it not the case, however, that in reflecting the obsession with nuclear arms, we have lifted sanctions against providing funding for the IRGC while gaining nothing in return on human rights? The western world has been made to look very stupid. There is a fine irony in providing funds for the IRGC while criticising and contesting the legitimate claims of the National Council of Resistance of Iran and of the People’s Mujahedin Organisation of Iran, both of which are working towards democracy.

[Dr Offord]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work with regard to this cause. As I said, I regret the decision of our Government and of overseas Governments, including that of the United States, to decouple the issues of human rights abuses and Iran’s support for terrorism from the nuclear negotiations. I remain concerned in particular about the funding of the IRGC and, indeed, where such funding is then heading. Many of us are aware of IRGC funding activities in support of terrorism in countries such as Syria and Lebanon. That remains a huge concern for the overall peace and security of the middle east. I very much concur with my hon. Friend. I have to say that the present President of the United States was keen to gain a nuclear deal at any cost. I also agree with the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who said it would be better to have “no deal”, rather than “any deal”.

Another major concern for many Iranians and, in particular, for many of my constituents are the crimes committed against the residents of Camp Liberty—formerly Camp Ashraf—who have suffered seven deadly attacks. On 29 October 2015, Camp Liberty, north of Baghdad airport and the place of residence of Iranian refugees, was attacked by at least 80 missiles, launched by the Iranian regime’s agents. Twenty-four residents lost their lives, and a large section of the camp was destroyed. I am grateful to the Minister, and I wish to place my gratitude on the record: I contacted him after that outrage, and he reassured me that he would provide assistance wherever possible. Camp Liberty remains a great concern for many of my constituents, who have relatives and friends in the camp. The issue of the camp is tied to human rights abuses in Iran, and it is also an international tragedy. The international community should take more action.

In my conclusion, I would like to make the following recommendations to the Government—I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how we can help them to implement and promote policy recommendations. First, the UK should publicly name and shame those Iranian leaders who are known to be responsible for the ongoing atrocities and human rights abuses in Iran and impose punitive measures against those leaders and institutions, such as the IRGC and the Supreme Leader. Those people are committing and encouraging repressive policies.

Secondly, the UK should bring Iran’s appalling human rights dossier to the UN Security Council for a review so that Iranian leaders committing heinous atrocities can be prosecuted in international tribunals. That is particularly important, because that establishes justice for the millions of people who are victims of the regime’s repression in Iran and reminds the Iranian authorities that they cannot blatantly ignore the recommendations of the UN resolutions—their actions include banning the UN special rapporteur for Iran from visiting that country—without consequences.

Thirdly, the UK Government should make relations with Iran contingent on concrete and verifiable improvements on human rights in the country, including but not limited to an immediate halt of executions, torture and arbitrary arrests, and the release of all political prisoners. Fourthly, the safety and protection of Camp Liberty residents must be guaranteed until they all depart from Iraq, and there should be support for host countries—especially Albania—in making their relocation possible.

The message to the Iranian regime should be simple: the UK stands with the millions of Iranians who want their Government to act in a civilised manner, not to be a backward-striving theocracy that survives on repression, barbaric punishment and terrorism. I and many of my colleagues from both Houses of Parliament have on many occasions urged the Government to recognise and support Iranian dissidents and activists who are advocating a free and democratic Iran. Those individuals struggle against the current theocratic regime in Iran, despite enormous personal sacrifices and threats to their lives, to establish an Iran where capital punishment, torture and persecution are abolished and prohibited by law. I am grateful to those who have come to the Public Gallery to listen to the debate and who play an active part in that. I pay tribute to them.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Sir Edward, you have been—and I trust will be again—a distinguished member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, so you will know as I do that the People’s Mujahedin of Iran leader, Maryam Rajavi, has appeared at the Council of Europe on many occasions. At present, she is not allowed to meet here in London with FCO representatives. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be very helpful indeed if the FCO were to agree to meet Maryam Rajavi here in London, to hear what she has to say?

[Dr Offord]

Sir Edward, you must think that this debate has been co-ordinated because some contributions from other Members have been on issues that I have not touched on but certainly agree with. I would welcome the FCO lifting the ban on Maryam Rajavi to enable her to come to this country, explain her position and illustrate what measures can be taken to promote peace and security in Iran.

In fact, I will go on to Maryam Rajavi’s 10-point plan and its benefits. As my hon. Friend said, Mrs Rajavi presented her plan at the Council of Europe in 2006, which is a time I am sure you will remember, Sir Edward. I would be surprised if any Member of this House or the other House could find any point that they would object to in that plan, which, most of all, includes supporting the commitment to abolish the death penalty, which we all agree with. It also supports complete gender equality in political and social rights and specifically a commitment to equal participation of women in political leadership. Any form of discrimination against women would be abolished and women would enjoy the right to choose their clothing freely. It also includes a modern legal system based on the principles of presumption of innocence, the right to defence and the right to be tried in a public court, the total independence of judges and the ending of cruel and degrading punishments.

Those are just three of the points in the 10-point plan and I will not test the patience of the House by going through them all, but I have no doubt that the Minister, and indeed the Government, want to see those values established and promoted in Iran and the wider middle east. Failure to put Iran’s human rights abuses and support for terrorism at the centre of our Iranian policy will only harm our interests in the region and destroy our reputation, simply because such a policy will project weakness and advance the terms dictated by the regime in Tehran. I hope that, following this debate on human rights, we will play our part in ensuring that we help and support the Iranian people to establish these democratic values and principles in their country sooner rather than later. I dare to say that such a policy that backs the Iranian people and their democratic aspirations will have strong support from both Houses, the Iranian people and the Iranian diaspora.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Edward. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing this important debate on the desperate human rights situation in Iran. Like him, I have attended the annual gatherings in Paris sponsored by the National Council of Resistance of Iran. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. At those meetings there are always many opportunities to talk to Iranian exiles from around the world. Perhaps 100,000 people go to those gatherings whose families have direct experience of human rights violations. All too often they have been denied the opportunity to communicate with family at home in Iran, for fear of repercussions; and, indeed, we meet people who have experienced persecution themselves.

The central charge made by all those who have spoken so far, and which will no doubt be made by those who speak later, is that the Tehran Government have completely failed to live up to international obligations on the most basic human rights. In 2013 Hassan Rouhani was elected—a supposed reformer. I use that word loosely, as I do the word “election”, because it is worth remembering that candidates are filtered by the Guardian Council. That was also the story of the 2016 parliamentary elections. They are not free, democratic elections as we know them. Despite the election of a supposed reformer, the situation has continued to deteriorate. According to Amnesty, nearly 1,000 people were hanged in Iran in 2015, as we have heard. That is the highest number of executions per capita in the world, and it has led Amnesty to describe the rate of executions as

“a horrific image of the planned state killing machine”.

The UN special rapporteur on Iran recently announced the rate of hangings as the highest for 27 years, exceeded only by the period immediately after the 1979 election and the removal of the Pahlavi dynasty.

A matter of particular concern—although everything we have heard is a matter of concern—is the breaches of the convention on the rights of the child, which was ratified by the Iranian authorities in July 1994. Yes, that was a welcome step at the time, if it meant anything; yet since that ratification there have been 81 identified cases—there is a strong, and I think firm, suspicion of many more—of people under the age of 18 being put to death. I reiterate the point about how the situation is escalating: 24 of those juvenile murders have happened since Rouhani came to power, including the case of Alireza Tajiki, who was arrested at the age of 15 and sentenced to death in 2013 on the basis of confessions obtained by torture in the notorious Evin prison. It was notorious under the Shah, but my goodness it is notorious under the present regime as well. Mercifully, through the actions of NGOs such as Amnesty the execution was postponed 24 hours before Alireza Tajiki was due to be hanged. Another instance was the case of Mohammad Reza Haddadi, sentenced for crimes that, again, he committed at the age of 15. He has spent 12 years on death row, and his execution has been postponed six times.

In the spirit of the belief that freedom of religion is the birthright of all of us, of all faiths, wherever we live, it is wholly appropriate to talk about the Baha’i community. As we have heard just now from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) the regime has a propensity to demonise, through the Government-controlled propaganda machine, the peaceable Baha’i community. In 2015 alone there were some 4,200 articles in the state-run media against the Baha’i community—12 to 13 articles demonising them every day. The unjustifiable sentences of 20 years in Evin prison given to seven Baha’i leaders are now in their eighth years. Their only crime was to be members of the Baha’i faith.

Jobs and business licences are denied to the Baha’i community; members are denied Government jobs in the civil service, and jobs in teaching and law. They are denied any position of influence. The security unit of the public places supervision office—a chilling description —decrees that Baha’is

“may not be issued work permits in a wide range of businesses, including hotels and tourism, the food industry, jewellery, publishing, and those related to computers and the Internet.”

In other words, they are left to wither at the bottom of an economic heap in that community.

This has not been an orchestrated debate—far from it—but I would like to highlight the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon. The imprisoned union activist Jafar Azimzadeh has been on hunger strike for nearly two months in Evin prison. His crime was that he wrote an open letter to the regime’s deputy Minister of Labour, expressing concerns about workers’ rights. We have heard about the families of the Iranian dissidents in Camp Liberty, such as the political prisoner Saleh Kohandel, languishing in jail because of support for loved ones in the camp. That is a day-to-day reality for Iranians. I have been involved in campaigns for human rights in Iran over the past 11 years, and one of the sadnesses has been the extent to which the media in this country are not mindful of the issues and do not publicise them. There was a flurry of publicity when the green revolution supposedly was happening, which I alluded to in my intervention, but the world media are too quiet on these issues. They need to be highlighted.

The violations will be condemned by everybody in this Chamber. Every year, the United Nations General Assembly adopts a resolution condemning Tehran’s human rights abuses and making recommendations for improvement. Every year, those recommendations are routinely ignored by Tehran. There has been talk—indeed, more than talk; there is practical evidence—of Iran being brought in from the cold, but I urge the Minister to continue his work. This is nothing new; he has a sound record on championing human rights around the world, but he must continue to ensure that human rights abuses are discussed in the international arena. They should be discussed, as we have heard, at the UN Secretary Council. Those found responsible for the ongoing atrocities—there is a long list—should be referred to the International Criminal Court, to face justice. Will this Government make improvements in our relationship with Iran contingent on the end of well-catalogued human rights abuses, religious intolerance, executions and torture?

Our approach to Iran should include an active and direct dialogue with opposition groups committed to democratic change and the most basic human rights that should be common to any civilised society. The debate has moved on. I hope the Foreign Office is mindful of that; it should be. When I first came to this House, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran was a proscribed organisation. The Foreign Office justified that proscription. That proscription was lifted. It has been lifted throughout the world. People understand that the PMOI and Madam Rajavi are fighters for democratic change. That is what she has said, and it is reinforced by the 10-point programme we have heard about.

[Sir Roger Gale]

That proscription was, of course, only lifted following a High Court action. It is believed that there is an underlying concern in the FCO that, although proscription has been lifted, in fact, technically it is still there.

[Mr Williams]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that intervention. He is right. I have said in debates in the past that there is a grudging acceptance by the FCO that the proscription has been lifted. I deeply regret that there has been a reluctance from the Foreign Office to rise to the terms of that de-proscription. One way it could rise to that challenge would be, as we have heard, to allow President-elect Maryam Rajavi at least to come and talk to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It was rather strange when a few years ago, a Committee room was booked in the name of the former Crown Prince of Iran, who came and talked to some of us. We listened to what he had to say about his democratic message, and yet Maryam Rajavi—who has a big mandate from many Iranian people in the country and in exile—has been denied that opportunity. I hope the Minister will reflect on what the hon. Member for Hendon and others have called for, with regard to a visit in the future.

Iran was once labelled “the great civilisation” by one of its former leaders. Closer analysis showed that it was not a particularly great civilisation in the years preceding 1979. If it was not a great civilisation then, my goodness, it is not a great civilisation now. Its people are denied the most basic human rights, and that must change. I think we will have the consensus of this Chamber on that, and I hope that that includes the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Yukos issue is a matter that is currently before the courts, and there has been a recent decision in this case. We have looked at the options for expanding sanctions to cover other areas, but we found that the individuals who could be targeted are already either, in effect, covered by other measures or would not be affected by the kind of sanctions that we could impose. So, as a Government, we do not see any prospect of expanded sanctions.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Returning to the original question by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no question of EU sanctions or Council of Europe sanctions being lifted until Nadiya Savchenko is unconditionally released, until intervention in Donbas has ceased, and until the future of Crimea is properly and freely determined?

[Mr Hammond]

That is our position. Of course, we need to maintain a consensus within the European Union on renewal of sanctions, and that is work that we are continuously engaged in. I am confident that sanctions will be rolled over this summer, but we have to make the case again every six months for continuing those sanctions.

Famagusta

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Let me first say to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) that the baton—the chairmanship of the all-party group—has been smartly passed from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) to me. Either I or the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) will certainly ensure that she gets a chance to see the position for herself. Some colleagues have seen the Berlin wall, but not everybody has seen the green line in Cyprus. Right through the centre of one of Europe’s major cities is a barricade. There are several yards of barren land, with buildings going back to 1974 when everything stopped. There are 1974 cars in the car showroom, meals still on the table, and change still on the table. It is quite extraordinary. Unless colleagues have seen that for themselves, they do not understand how desperate the situation is.

It is quite wrong that, since 1974 when Turkey invaded the northern part of Cyprus, a European Union member state, Cyprus, has been occupied by an aspirant member state of the European Union, Turkey. Successive attempts to resolve the problems have failed. That is not, as has been said, because Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots do not get on together: they do by and large—well, as much as anybody else does—and they live happily side by side. There was a time, a generation and a half ago, when Greek Cypriots spoke Turkish and Turkish Cypriots spoke Greek and they used the same bars, cafes and coffee bars, they played sport together and they coexisted in the same villages in harmony.

Sadly, a generation and a half down the line, that is beginning to change. Now there is a generation of children—some of Turkish settlers and some of Greek Cypriots—who have never known the other side, have never spoken Turkish or Greek and have never shared each other’s cultures, much of which is very similar. [Interruption.] I am coming to Varosha Famagusta, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am just trying to set the matter in context. By the way, I should have declared an interest as an honorary citizen of Morphou who takes part, by invitation, in the annual march.

I have been working on the Cyprus problem—as it is known—since 1983, which is when I first came into the House, and I have not seen a great deal of progress, but there is a window of opportunity now.

The leader of Northern Cyprus, Mustafa Akinci, used to be the mayor of the northern part of Nicosia when Lellos Demetriades was the mayor of Nicosia. The reason that is important is that, while everybody else was fighting, not getting on and posturing, Lellos Demetriades and Mustafa Akinci got together literally in the dead of night and planned the sewers for the whole of Nicosia, because patently, there cannot be two sewerage systems for one major city. They also planned the water systems. They even planned the road system, so that one day, looking downstream when there would be a settlement, the roads would join up, and they will.

I do not believe that Mustafa Akinci, who was capable of that degree of foresight and co-operation, is not capable of reaching a deal with Nicos Anastasiades, the current President of the Republic of Cyprus. Such a deal can, and should, happen. In the interests of the peace of the whole of the middle east and the whole of Europe, it must happen, but for it to happen, unfortunately, Turkey must agree.

Recently I have seen the welcome mat put out for Turkey. For very obvious reasons, we need Turkey at the moment. It is, for example, taking thousands and thousands of refugees from Syria and it is rightly looking for help. The idea that we can fast track Turkey into a European Union without settling the Cyprus problem is a non-starter; it is simply a red line—or shall I say a green line? Both Front-Bench teams must use their best endeavours to seek to ensure that Turkey comes to the negotiating table and does the deal. Yes, the hon. Lady and my hon. Friends were right to say that without the settlement of the property issues there will be no settlement. Without the right of freedom of movement, there will be no settlement. Without the removal of Turkish troops from Northern Cyprus, there will be no settlement. How would it feel if we had said after the war that we would keep troops there in perpetuity? Why should the Cypriots—Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots—settle for the presence of foreign troops, even one foreign troop, on their land without invitation? If they are there by invitation, that is a different matter. The Greek troops and the Turkish troops have to leave the island.

The rest gets harder. Property is very difficult indeed, as much of the land has been built on. We know who owns the land, but who now owns the houses? It will not be easy. It will take money and it will take time, but it has to happen. The bottom line is a bi-communal and bizonal federation. That is the goal, and it is achievable, but we say to our Cypriot friends, some of whom are in the House tonight, “We are with you and we will stay with you for long as it takes.”

MV Seaman Guard Ohio

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Swire]

I will come to that. At no stage have we asked anyone to beg for anything.

On 12 October 2013, the ship was detained by the Indian coastal guard security off the Tuticorin port in Tamil Nadu. Consular staff in Chennai were alerted on 14 October to reports of a vessel being held, and the Indian legal process began four days later on 18 October. Permission to visit the men was sent on the same day to the Ministry of External Affairs. Consular staff conducted their first prison visit on 21 October and passed on messages to the men’s employer, lawyer and families.

The crew were charged under the Arms Act for being in possession of assault rifles and ammunition, the Passports Act for entering India without a valid visa and the Essential Commodities Act for procuring fuel in India without permission. During the men’s imprisonment, consular staff visited them on no fewer than 18 occasions. Consular staff liaised with the prison authorities to ensure that the men received an enhanced diet, and they raised medical and dental concerns. Staff also helped the men to maintain regular contact with their families, friends and the Mission to Seafarers by passing on letters and facilitating visits. Since the men’s release from prison on 5 April 2014—one was released later, on 19 July 2014—consular staff have continued to provide assistance by liaising with the company AdvanFort, the lawyer, hotel and police, and by putting the men and their families in contact with organisations that offer help from financial assistance to counselling. Ultimately, however, it is each man’s decision whether to take up those other sources of help. Some of the men have also received assistance from private individuals and their own regimental associations.

As the hon. Member for Wansbeck knows, I managed to track down Samir Farajallah, who owns AdvanFort, and I reminded him of his responsibilities, but as I know the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, communication with Mr Farajallah remains extremely difficult. Although, as I have said, we cannot interfere in another country’s legal system, the British Government—the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his predecessor William Hague, who represented one of the men, Nicholas Simpson; as well as British officials and myself—have repeatedly raised the case with the Indian authorities at local, state and national level, urging resolution as quickly as possible. I raised the matter most recently with the Indian Foreign Secretary in my office here in London on 25 June.

As the hon. Member for Wansbeck said, in July 2014 the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed all charges against the crew. As is allowed under Indian law, the prosecution decided to exercise its right of appeal and take the case to the Supreme Court in New Delhi, so the legal case continues. At the Supreme Court hearing on 28 April this year, the judge committed to giving a written verdict. The Supreme Court has been in recess since then, and it reopens tomorrow on 1 July. There is no set date for the written verdict, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we cannot request one.

Meanwhile, I am conscious that the decision of the Indian authorities to prevent the men from leaving India until the completion of the legal process has taken a great toll. Among other things, it has meant that they could not support their families through illness and the birth of a first child. We have made representations on compassionate grounds and issued emergency travel documents to some of the men, but I repeat that this is a legal process in which we cannot interfere. That is why consular staff have provided lists of lawyers and suggested that the men seek independent legal advice.

Although we, too, are frustrated by the continuing case, we are unable to demand the release of British nationals overseas. We are unable to interfere in another country’s legal process. However, we have made and will continue to make known our ongoing interest in the legal case at the highest level. Indeed, if things are not satisfactorily resolved by the time Prime Minister Modi visits, the matter will almost certainly be raised at that point as well. We will express our desire for a swift conclusion, and we will continue to do all we can within the remit of our consular service for the men and their families.

I thank all the hon. and right hon. Members who represent the families for continuing to take such an interest in the case, and I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House. I repeat that the Supreme Court hearing starts tomorrow, and we hope that it will issue a swift ruling. We do not want to do anything, inside or outside the Chamber, which could in any way prejudice the men’s chances of an early release and repatriation to their families and loved ones.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I would be grateful if hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber did so via the Members’ entrance, because we need to admit some members of the public who are in wheelchairs. I will suspend the sitting for a couple of minutes to facilitate that process.

European Union Referendum Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

I, too, declare an interest, in that my husband is German. He has been here for 29 years, working as a general practitioner and paying tax, but he does not get to vote in elections to this House, which sets his rate of taxation, and he certainly did not get to vote for me.

Given the argument that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) is making, is there not a danger that this will become a very nationalistic debate? That accusation was thrown at the SNP when our nationalism was completely civic and open to everyone. Pursuing a genetic-source, where-were-you-born franchise is a dangerous argument to follow.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

I remind the Committee that interventions are intended to be brief. [Interruption.] He’s finished? I’m terribly sorry; I thought that the hon. Lady was intervening.

[Dr Whitford]

I was trying to intervene.

[The Temporary Chair]

Mr Tugendhat has the Floor.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I did not give way; I sat down.

[The Temporary Chair]

I call Hywel Williams.

[Hywel Williams]

I am glad to speak in support of amendments 18 and 19 and new clause 2, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), other SNP Members, Members from Plaid Cymru and the Green Member.

Usually I do not quote individual cases because there are many dangers in speaking about the individual circumstances of constituents, but in speaking about this matter I will describe briefly two cases that prove the rule, in the proper sense of the phrase. I am aware that hard cases make bad law, but we are talking about 2.3 million cases in total. These are just the cases of a couple of friends of mine.

The first is Swedish and has been resident here for more than 20 years. She is an NHS worker in the tough field of mental health and she pays her taxes. She is Welsh-speaking, English-speaking and Swedish-speaking, and she has two children and a husband who also speak Welsh, English and a bit of Swedish. In my book, she is a Welsh citizen—there is no doubt about that—but if she tried to vote in the referendum, she would be turned away.

The second is a Danish friend who has been resident here for 35 years. She is a university worker who pays her taxes. She is Welsh-speaking, Danish-speaking and English-speaking. She has two children and a husband. Again, in my book, she is a Welsh citizen, but should she try to vote, she would be turned away. That is plainly outrageous.

Those people are not public figures, they are not famous, but they are hard-working members of their communities. They have an equal stake in the collective future of those communities and, in my book, they have an equal right to have their voices heard. In that sense, I fully support the amendment. It would be outrageous if those people were denied the right to vote on a matter of such importance.

Briefly, I will turn to votes at 16. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that the Government’s St David’s day Command Paper on the future of devolution in Wales proposed that the Assembly should decide on the issue of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. There is strong opinion in favour of that move in Wales. In 2008, the Welsh Assembly collectively decided that it was in favour of it. Interestingly, in 2014, the Children’s Commissioner for Wales said that more work had to be done on the issue. He was pressing for the franchise to be extended before the 2015 election, but that did not happen. Opinion in Wales is strongly in favour of votes at 16.

There have been early-day motions and private Members’ Bills in this place on extending the franchise. One of those was introduced by a Welsh Member, others were introduced by Liberal Democrat Members and one was introduced by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), although, given her current status, I do not want to suggest that she is in any way biased on this issue now. There is, however, a great deal of support for votes at 16.

As I said earlier, any speculations that we make about the effect of introducing votes at 16 are trumped by the experience in Scotland. That experience trumps all the counter-arguments. We do not need any fanciful musing from Government Members, because we have the proof in respect of engagement in the debate and in respect of turnout. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon said on Second Reading, one reason why there was engagement in the referendum is that people were talking about a real question, whereas there are doubts about whether the referendum provided for in the Bill will be on a real question. Perhaps that might be explored later.

As I said earlier, if people doubt the value of 16 and 17-year-olds having a vote on this crucial question, that might be thought to throw some doubt on the value of the results of a referendum decided partly by the votes of those aged 16 and 17. I am sure that the opponents of the amendments today are not saying that, but one should make that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 48, in page 2, line 30, at end insert—

‘(aa) the provision made under subsection (1)(a) shall include making arrangements to allow all those entitled to vote in the referendum to vote by electronic means.”

The amendment would provide for electronic voting in the referendum.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment 3, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The referendum shall not be held on the same day as:

(a) elections to the Scottish Parliament;

(b) elections to the National Assembly for Wales;

(c) elections for the Mayor of London; or

(d) local authority elections”.

The amendment would prevent the referendum being held on the same day as Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, London mayoral or local authority elections.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The referendum shall not be held on the same day as elections, other than by-elections, that are scheduled to take place for:

(a) the Scottish Parliament;

(b) the National Assembly for Wales;

(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly;

(d) the Gibraltar Parliament;

(e) Police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales;

(f) the London Assembly and Mayor of London; or

(g) local authorities and mayors in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.”

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the referendum is not held on the same day as other polls.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 8, in clause 6, page 3, line 37, at end add—

‘(5) Regulations made under this Act or the 2000 Act in respect of the referendum must be made and come into force not less than six months before the start of the referendum period.”

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure the legislative framework for the referendum is clear at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with.

Clause 6 stand part.

Clauses 7 to 11 stand part.

[John McDonnell]

Given the limited time available, I will be brief. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak on the other amendments. I just want to warn the Committee that on subsequent occasions I will bore Members by going on about electronic voting as often as I can. We have been waging a campaign for 15 years to see whether we can update our electoral methods and bring them into the 21st century. For brevity’s sake, I will circulate the notes prepared by the Library for those Members who are interested. I want to thank Isobel White, the researcher, for preparing the notes, which go through the history of electronic voting, including the various pilots that we have undertaken since 2000.

We started the adventure way back in 2000, when we established the first pilots, and we had more in 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007. At each stage we had reports back on the enhancements that electronic voting would bring to our procedures. The background to the attempt to introduce electronic voting is the declining turnout in elections, although the key issue is whether the subject of an election excites the general public, such as in the Scottish referendum. If people feel the issue is important enough, they will turn out and vote, but unfortunately they do not have the same incentive in some elections. Part of the issue, therefore, is ensuring that voting is as easy as it can be, and we have been piloting electronic voting for a long time.

The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy has explored the issue in the last two years and made several recommendations. The remaining issue to be confronted is the security of online voting, but I do not believe it to be an insuperable problem. The reason for raising the issue in the debate on the Bill—as I will for every other Bill that we consider, including the trade union Bill we are expecting—is to ensure that we force the Government to resolve the issue of security, which seems to be the only thing holding this back.

Britain in the World

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. There are 13 more maiden speeches that we need to accommodate. Those of us who have been through the process know that it is a little harrowing to have to wait too long. To try to be generous to those making maiden speeches, I will cut the general speaking time to four minutes with immediate effect.