FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Debate between Tom Tugendhat and Jim Shannon

Thursday 4th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady makes some important points on soft power. We did not look specifically at the area of arts that she talks about, but we did speak to people about universities. The university sector is an extremely important element of the UK’s soft power, particularly in Scotland, which has universities with international reputations such as St Andrews, which is merely an example of the much larger university sector.

When we look at the university sector in terms of soft power, it is important that we look at both its influence and the challenge that dealing with autocratic states can pose. The hon. Lady is right that soft power is very important; it allows us to spread cultural values and to influence future generations of Chinese society. However, it also gives the Chinese state an opportunity to influence some aspects of the UK.

We took evidence from some universities and professors who commented on the nature of the intervention in UK civic life that the Chinese state has made, on occasion, in seeking to close down debate or discussion in UK universities by using Chinese students as an economic lever over our university sector. That is clearly important, and something we need to be cautious about. It is one of the reasons why many of us on the Committee are so supportive of the work of the BBC World Service in setting out a neutral and open information network for the world.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, thank the Chair of the Committee and all its members for this comprehensive report. As he and the Minister will know, I have a deep interest in human rights. Pages 28 and 29 of the report are clear about the persecution of ethnic minorities or religious groups. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned the Uighur Muslims. House Christians, Buddhists and the Falun Gong also face persecution. The Chair of the Committee will be aware of the debate that we had in Westminster Hall a short time ago about live organ transplants or extraction on a commercial basis, with some 90,000 transplants per year in China.

I know that the Minister is very sympathetic to the issue—this is not a criticism, by any means—but I wonder whether the Committee gave any thought to how to address the human rights exploitation, which is clearly at a clinical, surgical level. Although the Chinese constitution says that there is freedom of expression, there clearly is not. How can we persuade the Chinese Government, through the Minister and our Government, of the changes that we feel they should put in place?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman’s record on defending human rights, and particularly the freedom of religion and belief, is second to none in this House, and I am grateful to him for those points. In the inquiry, we restricted ourselves to focusing on the UK, our relationship to China and how we should shape our position. We therefore did not look at the house Churches, the Christian persecutions or the Buddhist persecutions that he speaks of.

We looked at the Uighur element because of the repercussions on the UK of increased radicalisation in Muslim communities. We also recognised the closing down of freedom of expression in Hong Kong, and therefore the intervention in the rule of law, because we have a specific commitment, lodged with the United Nations in the Sino-British treaty, that we are obliged to maintain.

Furthermore, we also inherit some aspects of that rule of law, because we continue to send judges to the court of final appeal in Hong Kong. The undermining of the rule of law in Hong Kong could therefore affect the perception of UK justice here at home. We are focused on how we can influence the UK Government to change their actions in relation to protecting the UK’s interests. That is why we focused, as I said, on the Uighur and the Hong Kong elements in relation to human rights.

Foreign Affairs Committee

Debate between Tom Tugendhat and Jim Shannon

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind words. I have been clear since the time that I was elected to chair the Committee that I answer to the whole House, not just the Committee. I therefore feel that it is my responsibility and not a choice—it is simply a duty—to respond to the House and to be available to respond on anything that we have covered.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: Britain’s history has not been good. We must not forget the air policing, as it was then called. The then Colonial Secretary, one Winston Churchill, was the first person to use chemical weapons against the Kurds. Indeed, it was the RAF that dropped them. One reason that the RAF still exists is that it cut the cost of colonial policing by reducing the number of battalions required. I am afraid that that is true—we do not always have a glorious history.

The truth is that our role today is as a peacemaker and as an engaged friend of the whole region. In that, we should recognise that the Kurdish people have the right to self-determination, and we do recognise that, but we should encourage them to stay as part of the Republic of Iraq in the areas where they are within Iraq. Many witnesses we spoke to said that, although the referendum had called for independence, they were looking for greater autonomy within the Republic of Iraq, so there is more tension within the Kurdish position than appears immediately obvious. It is, of course, a tragedy that Syria remains governed by such a barbarous dictator and it is a great shame that he is being supported by so many around the world. The fact that he is now supporting Kurds to take on another NATO ally does not make us any happier.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Chair of the Committee and its members for their comprehensive report. On page 5, paragraph 3, it states:

“The evidence given to us was clear: future conflicts were probable, and Kurdish groups would likely be involved.”

Political events in Kurdistan-controlled areas and Turkey’s interactions have clearly cast a spell over the whole area. Did the Committee consider that Kurdish regional autonomy may be obstructed by Turkey, which is very obvious? However, is it possible that Iraq and Syria may consider it an option? Is it too late to give the Kurdish people the hope, vision and goal that they seek and deserve? Is it possible to move Kurdish regional autonomy from being aspirational to being practical?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Part of the evidence that we received was that Kurdish regional autonomy has been a matter of great debate even within the Kurdistan region itself, and it is not absolutely clear that full independence is sought. There has been an enormous amount of debate about that and indeed some evidence pointed to the fact that greater autonomy in the Republic of Iraq was indeed what most were looking for. We did not look specifically into further details of that, so I will not go much further. I merely repeat that supporting the autonomy of the people of the Kurdish region is important, but so is supporting the Iraqi Government’s right to territorial integrity.

Gatwick Airport: Growth and Noise Mitigation

Debate between Tom Tugendhat and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for expressing that essential point. The noise management board, which is part of the solution, has begun that work, but of course it cannot solve the problem alone. As he would expect, I will come on to the Department for Transport and its role in restoring trust. I welcome his points.

I remember David Wetz, who lives in Chiddingstone, telling me last summer that he was unable to enjoy his daughter’s birthday celebration properly outside because normal conversation simply was not possible in the garden. That is a disgrace. It is not a matter of nimbyism. It is about people wanting to live a normal life without having a motorway built over their heads.

As representatives in Parliament of communities such as Chiddingstone, we are responsible for representing their interests to the Government—I pay tribute not only to the right hon. and hon. Members present, but to the many others who have joined groups with us. It is clear that we need to enforce a better balance between the interests of the aviation industry and of local people affected by noise. Successive Governments have designed policies that seek to achieve that balance, but we must consider whether Gatwick is complying with them and whether the Department for Transport is enforcing them in its role as noise regulator.

The key policy—it is a welcome policy—on noise is the 2013 aviation policy framework, which clearly stated Government policy on aviation noise as

“to limit and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I know that the debate is about Gatwick, but the same issue affects other airports. Belfast City airport has a cut-off time of 9.30 pm for aeroplanes to land. Obviously there are cases in which aeroplanes land later, but a system of fines is in place and the money goes into the community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what happens at Belfast City—a smaller airport, but one that is surrounded by houses—could well be helpful for his investigations, and indeed for the Minister and his Department?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has come up with some suggestions, and I would be happy to look into them later. In fact, some interesting work has been done on the approaches to Schiphol airport with respect to the effect of laying out the ground on how sound travels. There are interesting ideas out there, and I certainly welcome looking at Belfast’s example.

The policy set out by the Government is clear: they do not endorse any increase in the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise. That approach is a welcome change, but Civil Aviation Authority data demonstrate that it is not being followed. Since the policy was introduced and the flightpaths were altered radically in 2013, Gatwick has increased its flight numbers by 12% and its passenger numbers by 22%, but the number of people significantly affected has not reduced. In fact, it has risen every year.

The Minister will know about the 57-decibel average noise contour—after all, it is the Government’s preferred noise impact measure. Using that calculation, the number of people affected by aircraft noise has increased by 27% since 2013. Looking at it geographically, the affected area has increased by 8% across Kent, Surrey and Sussex over the same period. Using the Government’s preferred data method, we can show that noise is continuing to get worse in the communities affected, despite the policy. My question for the Minister is clear: why have the Government failed to implement the aviation policy framework in full? Their own figures clearly show that the number of people being significantly affected by aircraft noise has increased.

The aviation policy framework rightly looks at sharing the benefits of growth between the aviation industry and local communities. Indeed, to quote it directly:

“The industry must continue to reduce and mitigate noise as airport capacity grows”.

I hope everyone includes in their definition of “the industry” airlines, airports, National Air Traffic Services, the Civil Aviation Authority and all those industry representatives who sit on Gatwick airport’s noise management board. Have the benefits of growth been shared? Certainly, many people are benefiting from the airport—Gatwick and the air industry have grown—but both collectively and within their individual areas of responsibility, they have not done enough to reduce noise.

I am afraid that it remains unclear what the industry has done so far, particularly away from the confines of the noise management board. At the Gatwick airspace seminar and noise management board public meeting only last month, we heard that the airport requires airlines to contribute to the reduction of noise. We also heard very clearly from the chair of the noise management board, Bo Redeborn, that this issue would not be considered because it is outside the terms of reference of the board. However, in a letter to me and six other colleagues on 6 December, the day before the airspace seminar, the Secretary of State for Transport mentioned that Gatwick’s noise management board was the place to discuss these matters. We obviously need a little clarity. Which one is it? Should the noise management board be looking at these matters at the expense of the industry doing anything to reduce and mitigate noise as airport capacity grows? If so, that is in contrast to the policy. However, it is clear from Bo Redeborn’s comments last month that the noise management board is not the place to discuss these matters, contrary to the Secretary of State for Transport’s letter.

I am disappointed that repeatedly the Department for Transport seems unwilling to take a view on whether its aviation policy framework is being properly implemented or not. My view, however, is clear: I agree with Bo. It cannot be left solely to the noise management board, although it definitely has a role. The line from the policy is clear and it is the whole industry that needs to do more, individually and collectively, to reduce and mitigate noise. Passing the issue to the noise management board for its consideration is being used as a reason not to enforce policy, which is a great shame. My second question to the Minister is this: what steps will he or his Department take to ensure that the industry will reduce and mitigate noise on its own, outside of the agreed work programme of the noise management board?

Finally, I will again quote from the aviation policy framework—everybody’s favourite bedtime reading. The framework says it is clear that the Government want

“to incentivise noise reduction and mitigation”.

Sadly, in the considerable correspondence that I have had with the Department for Transport over the past few years, I cannot find many examples to highlight what incentives have been offered for noise reduction and mitigation. It seems that Gatwick airport’s compliance with the aviation policy framework is largely optional. As Gatwick, along with Heathrow and Stansted, is a noise-designated airport, the Secretary of State has direct responsibility for regulating noise at the airport. It is for the Department for Transport to ensure compliance—that cannot be delegated down to the airport’s noise management board.