EU-Turkey Agreement

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

First, let me reiterate again that, as yet, there has been no deal. That is a matter for the discussions between now and next week’s European Council meeting.

I am sure that my hon. Friend has studied the European Union treaties intensely, in which case he will know that a measure affecting visas or migration must be introduced on a treaty base on which the United Kingdom is not bound, but can choose whether or not to opt in. As the Prime Minister has made very clear, we are not going to participate in visa liberalisation with Turkey. That is a sovereign decision for us to make, and one that is recognised in the European treaties.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I think most reasonable people would support a mechanism that cuts off the people-trafficking routes and the dangerous routes across the Mediterranean, but what assessment will the Government make when this mechanism is in place to ensure that it is operating as the Minister envisages and that the money reaches the people whom we want it to reach—the refugees?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. Monitoring and review mechanisms must be part of any eventual agreement, and that is the sort of issue on which officials will be working in the coming week.

The FCO and the Spending Review 2015

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to open the first estimates day debate of the new Parliament, and I thank the Liaison Committee for selecting the first report of the Foreign Affairs Committee for debate.

I pay tribute to the work of the Committee in the last Parliament and to my predecessor, Sir Richard Ottaway. I was lucky to have him as a parliamentary neighbour for 18 years and can well understand why he was so widely regarded across the panoply of the Foreign Office establishment and those interested in foreign and Commonwealth affairs for the way in which he led the Committee in the last Parliament.

One of the Committee’s final reports in the last Parliament, which was published in February 2015 only weeks before Parliament was dissolved, took a detailed look at the impact of cuts on the Foreign Office budget resulting from the 2010 spending review. It accepted that the Foreign Office needed to play its part in the general retrenchment instigated by the review and believed that Foreign Office Ministers and senior managers had, on the whole, played a difficult hand skilfully. However, it concluded:

“The cuts imposed on the FCO since 2010 have been severe and have gone beyond just trimming fat: capacity now appears to be being damaged. The next Government needs to protect future FCO budgets under the next Spending Review…If further cuts are imposed, the UK’s diplomatic imprint and influence would probably reduce, and the Government would need to roll back some of its foreign policy objectives.”

I remind the House that the reduction imposed on the Foreign Office in the four-year period ending in March 2015 amounted to 24% of its resource budget. However, the majority of the savings came from what amounted to a conjuring trick. Funding for the BBC World Service was transferred from the Foreign Office to the licence fee payer from 1 April 2014. At a stroke, the Foreign Office’s apparent budget was reduced by £240 million and the cuts that it had to make to its own budget through savings amounted to just 10%.

Even though the real reduction was just 10% over the four years, it is hard to find anyone who does not believe that the FCO’s capacity was damaged in the process. Our predecessors described the Foreign Office as a machine stretched to the limit, with key posts left unfilled because staff of the necessary calibre were needed for more immediate crises; overseas posts at junior levels lost, reducing the opportunity for staff to accumulate the experience that is essential for service at higher levels within the organisation; and reductions in UK-based staff at many overseas posts, denying those who remained time to leave the diplomatic bubble and gather a sense of the real currents in society around the country in which they served.

Overall, the headcount of UK-based staff has reduced by 10% between 2011 and now, which seems perverse at a time when the Department has been under such policy pressure and suffered such overstretch. To some degree, the reduction in UK-based staff was mitigated by the recruitment of locally engaged staff who, in many cases, have brought a depth of local knowledge that it would be difficult for a London-based employee ever to acquire. However, many of them happen to be British people who are based overseas and then formally become locally engaged staff. Although the average cost of such people is one third of UK-based staff, it is not a straight saving, because such replacements do not come at zero cost. I have already heard troubling reports of unintended consequences arising from such things as locally engaged staff not being cleared to the same security level as UK-based staff.

To use Tunisia as an example in advance of the Committee’s visit to Cairo and Tunis next week, I applaud the FCO’s swift consular response to the terrorist attack in Sousse in June 2015, but I have heard that the subsequent counter-terrorism analysis was complicated by a lack of UK-based staff who were cleared to the necessary level. That analysis was of great significance, because it will have played a role in the FCO’s decision to advise against all but essential travel to the entire country—a country where tourism contributes directly and indirectly to a large proportion of GDP and is a major source of foreign currency. Tunisia is a fragile country that has undergone its fair share of volatility since it sparked the Arab spring, and we all have an interest in nurturing its continued stability.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case for investing in our diplomatic service. Does he share my concern that the cuts are not only leading to a lack of spread across the world and impacting on the standing of the United Kingdom globally, but affecting the expertise and analytical capabilities of the diplomatic service in respect of the information it feeds back to the United Kingdom?

[Crispin Blunt]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have made that point before and will make it again in respect of the inquiry we are conducting into the intervention in Libya. Just how deep was the knowledge on the basis of which we decided to intervene? It is the depth of knowledge that has been lost.

Another price that is being paid is that locally engaged staff do not really understand the UK context. It has been put to me that the quality of the reports that are coming through is not quite what it was because they are not addressed to the needs of the Ministers at whom they are aimed. The difficulty is that very overstretched UK-based staff in a post are, in addition, having to oversee the work of the locally engaged employees.

Returning to the issue of Tunisia, I accept that the security of our citizens must be a Government priority and that they cannot commend travel unless they have confidence that our citizens will be reasonably safe, but this decision had serious consequences for Tunisia’s stability and the security of the region. We must therefore be completely confident that we can make informed decisions, rather than simply defensive decisions because of an absence of capability.

Reports are, of course, the standard mechanism by which Select Committees express their views. I believe that Committees can miss opportunities by not getting inside the decision making cycle, or by devoting our energies to conducting retrospective analyses after policy has been formed and executed. The Government should welcome input at an early stage from an informed, cross-party Committee that could make practical, forward-looking suggestions, rather than just telling the Government where they went wrong.

We published our report on the Budget in October last year, almost exactly a month before the spending review, and we made just one recommendation:

“We recommend that the Treasury protect the FCO budget for the period covered by the 2015 Spending Review, with a view to increasing rather than cutting the funds available to support the diplomatic work on which the country’s security and prosperity depend.”

I am delighted that our recommendations were accepted, and that the settlement reflected our central recommendation.

We spent much of our first few evidence sessions looking at how the Foreign Office was preparing for the spending review, and at what scope there was for it to absorb further cuts of the scale already imposed over the previous four years. The Foreign Secretary gave oral evidence twice, and we tried to get a sense of his priorities and what he would seek to preserve. We then took evidence from Sir Simon McDonald, the new permanent under-secretary, and his senior management team, to try to understand the grit and detail of what might be achieved and how if—God forbid—savings of 25% or even 40% were required. That gloomy environment perhaps reflected our rather defensive recommendation, which was obviously designed to hold the current position, but the Committee clearly believes that more resources are needed to support our diplomacy.

European Affairs

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I will make a little progress, if my hon. Friends will allow me.

These changes, taken together with our existing opt-outs from the euro, from Schengen and from justice and home affairs measures, give Britain a special status within the EU; indeed, it is a unique status. That gives us the best of both worlds: a seat at the table to protect our interests, but a permanent opt-out from those areas of the EU that we reject—out of ever closer union and political integration, out of Schengen, out of the euro and out of eurozone bailouts.

This is a significant package, delivering the substantial, legally binding and irreversible changes that we promised. But let me be clear: no one is suggesting that it solves all the problems of the EU. The deal is not the end of the reform of the EU, but it is an important step on the road.

No matter which side of the debate we are on, I hope that we will at least be able to agree across the House that the decision will be one of profound significance for the future of our country. It will be a choice that determines our trajectory for a generation or more. Let me be clear; the Government will respect the outcome of the referendum, whatever the result. There will be no second referendum. The propositions on the ballot paper are clear, and I want to be equally clear today. Leave means leave, and a vote to leave will trigger a notice under article 50. To do otherwise in the event of a vote to leave would represent a complete disregard of the will of the people. No individual, no matter how charismatic or prominent, has the right or the power to redefine unilaterally the meaning of the question on the ballot paper.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to make it clear that this is a one-time referendum and that the decision is in or out. If it is out, I think that the British people need to know what they would be going out to. Does he agree that it is about time the vote leave-ers set out precisely their vision of Britain outside the European Union?

[Mr Hammond]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am about to come to that point. I hope that my remarks might provoke some of my hon. Friends to put some flesh on the bones of what leaving might mean. I will say something about the consequences of, respectively, a vote to leave the EU and a vote to remain.

UK’s Relationship with the EU

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

It is in the interests of the United Kingdom that our partners and friends who have committed themselves to the single currency should be able to ensure that the currency union is stable and that it creates the conditions for economic growth and higher employment. That will benefit us, so we will not stand in the way of their integration if that is what they wish for. However, we want to ensure that any such eurozone integration does not take place at a financial or political cost to countries like ours that have decided to stay out of the currency union. The principles that are set out in the Tusk drafts today take us a long way towards securing that objective.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is not good co-ordination when Members of the European Parliament, the devolved Administrations and others have had sight of this deal before Members of this House have done so and been able to discuss it thoroughly. On the specifics, the Minister implied in his main response to the urgent question that the deal would include removing unnecessary burdens on business. For me, that is code for reducing workers’ rights. Will he say whether part of the discussion has been about watering down the social chapter or workers’ rights?

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman might not have heard what I said a few moments ago, but as soon as the documents were released in Brussels, I instructed that copies be sent straight away to the Vote Office, the Library of the House and the Chairs of the Committees of this House that are most directly involved in the scrutiny of European matters.

On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, there is no contradiction here in supporting good and effective rights for employees at work. Few have been more committed to parental leave arrangements than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Government have a very good track record on those matters. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is very out of touch if he thinks that significant reductions could not be made to the complexity and the burden that are placed on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, by regulation at both the national and European levels. I am disappointed that he does not recognise that and support our objective.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I always used to wonder why Foreign Office questions took longer. A senior Clerk said to me, “Mr Speaker, the reason they tend to take longer is that Ministers, perhaps understandably, feel they are addressing not merely the House but the world.” I think that probably explains it, but I would like to make a bit of progress.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the findings of the Wass report on child abuse in St Helena.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)]

The UK Government take child safeguarding in the overseas territories extremely seriously. We and the St Helena Government accept all the recommendations in the report, and a senior UK official has been appointed to be based in St Helena to oversee and implement all the recommendations.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The Wass report notes, at paragraph 1.48, that

“it should be recognised that Claire Gannon was not properly briefed for the task that confronted her when she arrived on St Helena in February 2013.”

Was it the responsibility of the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development, the governor or other staff in St Helena to provide the briefing?

[James Duddridge]

Prior to all governors going out to overseas territories, the Foreign Office organises extensive briefings in all policy areas, and I can assure the House that, in addition to the normal briefings, we now provide specialist briefings on child safeguarding. This subject was central to the Joint Ministerial Council only last month; in fact, it was the main issue we discussed.

Daesh: Syria/Iraq

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces tells me that there is a certain amount of operational information available on the gov.uk website on a daily basis, and the hon. Gentleman may find information there that at least partly answers his question.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), the Foreign Secretary set out the complexities of establishing a civilian safe haven on the ground in Syria. Notwithstanding that, given the intensification of the civil war and our own battles against Daesh, will he enter into dialogue with Syria’s neighbours to see whether they or the Islamic military coalition that he described would be willing to provide the ground support that is needed to create that safe haven for civilians?

[Mr Hammond]

I regularly talk to my Turkish colleagues, in particular. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Turks have long promoted the idea of creating safe havens in the north along the border with Turkey. However, all such previous proposals have foundered on the question of who will provide the defensive air cover, given the presence of a very sophisticated Syrian air defence system, and now the presence of Russian air-to-air offensive capability in the area.

British Property Owners (Cyprus)

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of British property owners in Cyprus.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray.

I am grateful for the chance to raise this issue in Westminster Hall. I am not the first Member to take it up on behalf of their constituents and I begin by praising the work of the all-party group on the defence of the interests of British property owners in Cyprus. Under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the group has done great work in raising the concerns of people caught up in property and banking problems in Cyprus. It has also provided a framework through which they can pursue justice and fairness in relation to their properties.

I have been contacted by a number of people in my constituency about the mis-selling of Swiss franc mortgages by Alpha Bank in Cyprus, and about the poor advice they had received from solicitors purporting to act on their behalf. Briefly, the background to this issue is that between 2003 and 2010 Cypriot banks advised buyers to take out a mortgage in Swiss francs, because the interest rates were lower and the currency was considered stable. However, when the value of the Swiss franc soared against the euro in the aftermath of the financial crisis, buyers found that their mortgage repayments had doubled.

Buyers have complained that banks often failed to explain the potential risks or that currency fluctuations could cause repayments to rise, which has resulted in property owners being left with unfinished and unsaleable apartments, huge loan obligations and negative equity following the collapse of the Cypriot property market, which saw property values in some areas plummet by as much as 70%.

In one case brought to me by a constituent, the developer went into liquidation before the property being built for my constituent and his wife had been completed, taking 85% of their mortgage fund and leaving them insufficient money to finish the remaining work. My constituent says that his solicitor and Alpha Bank allowed that to happen by permitting the developer himself to sign written confirmation that the various stages of work had been completed.

My constituent and his wife had to begin making mortgage repayments at a time when they did not have the land in their name and the property was not finished. Effectively, therefore, they were paying a mortgage on a property and land that was not legally theirs. When they explained to Alpha Bank that they were in a desperate situation, they were simply told that if they did not make their mortgage payments the bank would seek possession of their home here in the United Kingdom. Similarly, another constituent with the same Swiss franc mortgage with Alpha Bank spoke of what he believed to be collusion between the bank, the solicitor and the developer, leaving him threatened with bankruptcy.

I am sure that those examples will be depressingly familiar to anyone who has had dealings with people caught up in the fiasco.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am chairman of the all-party group on the defence of the interests of British property owners in Cyprus. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the group. Is he aware that we will have a meeting of those affected at 11 am on 12 November, at which the high commissioner for Cyprus, Mr Euripides Evriviades, will be present? There is also a Bill before the Cyprus Parliament, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that shortly, so I will not go into any more detail.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He is absolutely right, and I commend him for his work in leading the all-party group. It is my intention to be at that meeting but, if parliamentary duties do not permit me, a representative from my office will attend. I am aware of the situation in Cyprus to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

There have also been allegations of Cypriot solicitors using invalid powers of attorney. The case I want to focus on, on behalf of one of my constituents, is an example of that, and it also highlights that constituent’s concern about his legal representation while seeking to obtain redress.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Before he moves on to that specific case, I want to say that I have had conversations with a number of leading politicians in Cyprus and have found them to be sympathetic, and understanding of some of the problems he refers to. When the Minister responds, will he let us know whether he has had conversations on the matter with members of the Parliament in Cyprus?

[Andrew Gwynne]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask that question, and I expect and hope that the Minister in his concluding remarks will be able to answer it. It is important that whatever pressure can be brought on the Cypriot authorities by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, is brought, and that Ministers do all they can to raise the issue with their Cypriot counterparts.

[Sir William Cash]

May I quickly add that the Minister for Europe has been immensely helpful? He has been to two, or perhaps even three, of the meetings I have convened for the purpose. I pay tribute to him for his active interest in the matter.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the work that the Minister has done, and will continue to do, in respect of the injustices that many of our constituents face. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

My constituent does not want to be publicly named, so I will refer to him as Mr T. C. In 2007, Mr T. C. and his brother-in-law wanted to purchase a retirement property in Cyprus through a UK company called ROPUK. They met with the company’s representatives, who showed them impressive brochures and projections, and they decided to go ahead with the purchase. They paid a £25,000 deposit and understood that when the property was built they would go to Cyprus to have an inspection and then sign a mortgage agreement. They were advised by ROPUK’s representative that a Swiss franc mortgage would be best, but they did not sign up to any agreement except to give a Cypriot solicitor power of attorney in any transactions to which they agreed.

In 2010, when the property was due for completion, Mr T. C. visited Cyprus to monitor the progress of the build. He found that it was not even half finished; it is still in the same state today. He believes that the power of attorney was not executed in accordance with common or Cypriot law, rendering it illegal and anything signed using the power of attorney invalid.

My constituent and his brother-in-law first heard of Alpha Bank when it started to pursue them for payments. They had not signed a mortgage agreement themselves, but one was signed by a third party without their knowledge or consent, and they have never even seen the agreement with the bank, despite repeated requests. They believe that the bank released all the money from their fraudulently obtained mortgage to fund something that is simply not there.

The payments from the mythical mortgage should have been gradually disbursed as the build progressed, according to the progress certificates issued by the project’s architect. The bank’s surveyor should have been inspecting the development and issuing a report back to the bank, a copy of which should have been passed to the Cypriot solicitor, who was supposed to be acting in my constituent’s best interests, to verify build stage against the drawdown of moneys.

[Sir William Cash]

If the Bill to which I referred becomes law, it will give the Republic of Cyprus land registry the authority to exempt, eliminate, transfer and cancel mortgages and encumbrances depending on the case and under certain conditions. I do not have time to go into all the details, but I want to get that into Hansard.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is important that that is placed on the record.

I return to the case. None of what I just mentioned was ever done, which is why, years after the supposed completion, Mr T. C. and his brother-in-law still have absolutely nothing. They now owe the bank in the region of £257,000 plus interest—the original price they were quoted was about £140,000 minus their deposit—and they were issued a writ informing them that their case would be heard in the courts of justice in London in June 2014. They received the writ less than a week before the case was due to be heard and had no time to appoint a solicitor.

The case was heard at the courts of justice in front of Master Easton. He asked Alpha Bank’s solicitors, Stephenson Harwood, to shelve the European enforcement order pending ongoing legal discussions in Cyprus, but they refused. A European enforcement order was rubber-stamped subject to a second hearing in September. By that time, Mr T. C. and his brother-in-law had appointed Cubism Law to represent them and their case was led by Duncan McNair, who they understood to be an expert in the field.

His representation in the UK forms the second part of the concerns that Mr T. C. raised with me. He and his brother-in-law paid Cubism Law £2,000 up front to represent them. A barrister attended court, but they say that they were simply told that the European enforcement order had been ratified and that a charge had been placed on their UK properties. They then had to defend the European enforcement order in Cyprus, where they believed they would get less justice than they would here.

Prior to the first hearing and before becoming subject to the European enforcement order, Mr T. C. transferred the house he and his wife owned into her name, to protect her share of their UK property, which was their only substantial asset. His wife was not party to the property purchase in Cyprus. Following the second hearing, Mr McNair commented that the judge had not been impressed by the action Mr T. C. had taken. My constituent says that he asked for advice on whether he should change the title deeds back into his name and that all he was told by his solicitor was that he should let them work for their money, by which he understood him to mean Alpha Bank’s British solicitors, Stephenson Harwood. Mr T. C. says that they always made it clear to their solicitor that their priority was to get the European enforcement order overturned and for no further action to be taken until that was achieved.

Mr T. C. says that over the next few weeks much correspondence was exchanged between the two firms, but that that did not prevent Stephenson Harwood from continuing to threaten seizure of the properties. However, it did result in Cubism Law making regular demands for funds, which my constituents deemed unnecessary. At that stage, they became concerned about the costs that were racking up, and the date for the Cyprus hearing was still weeks away. Through Cubism Law, they had paid for solicitors in Cyprus to represent them at the hearing, which was subsequently postponed three times.

Mr T.C. asked his solicitor what the strategy was for their situation, as the costs were spiralling and all they had asked at that stage was for him to defend the European enforcement order in Cyprus. Mr T.C. says that they also informed Cubism Law on 28 October 2014 that they did not wish to incur any further costs, but that specific request was ignored and the costs continued to mount. Most of the costs related to correspondence between Stephenson Harwood and Cubism Law over the transfer of the title deeds. Mr T.C. states that if his solicitor had advised him immediately to transfer the title deeds back to his name, he would have done so. He was eventually advised to do that and for him the question remains as to why he was not asked to do that earlier.

During the time leading up to the hearing dates, Mr T.C. says that he and his brother-in-law were constantly subjected to requests from their solicitor—usually late at night by email—giving them deadlines for payments with what they perceived to be veiled threats of them “prejudicing their case”, or inferring that they would not be represented in this country or in Cyprus in the future. By that stage, their costs had increased to more than £12,000, which was approaching the 5% settlement offer Alpha Bank had alluded to for incomplete properties such as theirs. On 10 November 2014 they sent an email to their solicitor again instructing him not to incur any further costs and mentioning the 5% settlement offer. That request was again ignored and their solicitor entered into discussions with a barrister, for which they were charged.

Mr T.C. says that they have yet to be informed what the basis of those costs were and what the discussions were trying to achieve. He adds that at no point had they indicated that they wished to start proceedings against the bank, as Mr McNair had advised that they could not sue the bank if the European enforcement order was not overturned.

[Sir William Cash]

Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I wonder whether his constituents have taken the matter up with the Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Not only have my constituents done that, but I have done so as their MP. The response we got back was less than satisfactory. I am still taking that up with the various authorities, but my constituents feel that one form of redress is to place on public record the real injustice that they feel they have endured over the past few years.

Mr T.C. said that when he pointed out that the solicitor had stated it was not possible to sue the bank without the European enforcement order having been overturned, the solicitor changed his statement and said it would be possible, but with difficulty. The new date for the hearing in Cyprus was set for early January 2015, but that was postponed until late January, and the case was finally heard in February 2015.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

People from my constituency have had problems similar to those of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents; the problems do not relate just to Cyprus, but to Turkey, too. The majority of them are law-abiding citizens who want to get some property to use, in most cases as a holiday home, but they find the legal system difficult. The hon. Gentleman is outlining the problems of his constituents. Does he feel, as I do, that the British consulate could have given better or more advice on what was best to do in a foreign country where they do not speak the language and are unaware of the legalities?

[Andrew Gwynne]

There is a lot that could have been done differently, and I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. That is based on my experience not only with this case, but with several cases that my constituency office has been dealing with. No doubt other Members’ offices are dealing with similar cases, too. I again commend the work of the all-party group and the Minister in trying to bring some kind of resolution to these matters. We are where we are, and it is a far from ideal situation for many of our constituents.

As I said, the case was finally heard in February 2015. In January, Mr T.C.’s brother-in-law was out of the country dealing with a family matter and he told Cubism Law that he had insufficient funds at that time to settle up his latest bill, but would settle at the end of January or early February when Mr T.C. returned to the UK and after the European enforcement order court case in Cyprus was settled. Mr T.C. says Mr McNair replied saying he no longer represented them and again implied that they may not be represented in Cyprus. However, the Cypriot solicitors later assured them that they would be represented.

The European enforcement order was overturned with reservation at the hearing. Mr T.C. feels incredibly let down by the representation he received and believes a lot of the costs were avoidable and totally unnecessary. He has complained through the firm’s complaints procedures and received what he and his brother-in-law considered to be a derisory offer of redress, which they refused, as they did a subsequent offer.

As I said in response to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the matter has been referred to the authorities, including the Law Society and the ombudsman. Mr T.C. feels that he has suffered real injustice in respect of both the property purchase and how his case has subsequently been handled. I appreciate that the Minister can do little to answer my constituent’s specific concerns, but I would be grateful if he could update Members on the progress being made in general on the matter and on what the Government are doing to support Mr T.C. and all constituents caught up in this sorry situation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, I do. By passing this legislation, the Japanese have allowed themselves more freedom to co-operate with international partners in preserving international peace, and we are very keen that that includes more Japanese peacekeepers on UN peacekeeping operations as well as Japanese logistic support to other operations carried out by partners and allies around the world.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Some of the concerns of the Japanese have centred around the activity of the People’s Republic of China in the East China sea and the South China sea regions, particularly the recent dispute with Japan over the Diaoyu-Senkaku islands. When the Foreign Secretary is in discussions with the Japanese and the Chinese, will he try to build some sense of peace and stability in that region to try to allay the concerns not just of Japan but of other countries in the region?

[Mr Hammond]

First, let me congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his very good pronunciation of those particular islands. Our position on this is clear: we do not take a position on the different claims to sovereignty over disputed territory in the East China or the South China seas. What we are clear about is two things: first, these disputes must be resolved in accordance with international law and peacefully; and secondly, the international right to freedom of navigation and freedom of overflight must be preserved. That is the position that we consistently take and that we consistently make to Japanese, Chinese and other south-east Asian interlocutors.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

We welcome the fact that Mr Nasheed has been moved to house arrest and the political dialogue between the opposition parties and the new Government. We hope the talks will provide the basis for progress on the numerous concerns within the Maldives. It is worth repeating that the Prime Minister has called for the release of all political prisoners, including former President Nasheed.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

But does the Minister agree that the Maldives are in breach of the principles of the Commonwealth charter, and does he think the time is right for the Commonwealth to take action against the Maldives to bring about the return of the rule of law and the principles of democracy?

[Mr Swire]

We are not a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I have discussed these matters with the Commonwealth Secretary-General. I understand that there has been a telephone conversation between CMAG members and that they keep the situation under continuous review.

European Union Referendum Bill

Andrew Gwynne Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman made an excellent contribution on Tuesday, and he makes an excellent point today. I think that 16 and 17-year-olds have a perspective that many of us lack, just as people from an older generation have their own perspective, and that is what makes our democracy so rich. He and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) have made excellent points.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Is not this about trusting young people to make informed decisions about their future, given that 16-year-olds can leave school, go to work, pay income tax and national insurance and consent to sexual relationships? This is about their future, too. That is why it is absolutely right to extend the franchise.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman speaks for the other side of the Labour party on this—I wonder whether there is a third side—and he makes a very good point.

On the Scottish Parliament’s Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill, which I will talk about in a moment, YouthLink Scotland has stated:

“We believe that this Bill addresses the inequality that young people aged 16 and 17 years old have historically faced: the discrepancy between their democratic rights and responsibilities—16 and 17 year olds can join the armed forces, enter employment and be subject to taxation, get married and drive a car, yet they were deemed too immature to cast a vote in an election.”

That is exactly the point the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, having served alongside him on some of these matters in the previous Government. I want to say to Ministers through my remarks in the House today, in addition to whatever I may say to them privately, that we ought to return to this matter in the House. Some very important issues have been raised in the debate and I hope my remarks serve to show that there is cross-party consensus on the need to involve young people in our democracy. I am sure the Front-Bench team are listening very carefully to that.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady and have a large degree of sympathy with her argument. Given how important the EU referendum is—the issue has defined the Conservative party’s political agenda for at least the past 15 to 20 years—does she not realise that giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds would allow them to take charge of their own destiny, because the EU treaty rights will be theirs as well as hers?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is an important matter for the Conservative party, and I think that he would be forced to concede that its absence from his party’s agenda has also been a defining matter for it. I repeat that I am delighted that we are in a position to have this historic referendum, which is wanted by many of my constituents and others. Indeed, during the election campaign, I could barely find one constituent who could comprehend the idea of not having the referendum.

Let me go to the heart of the technical point that the Committee is considering. Clause 2(1) gains its legitimacy from the parliamentary franchise. Any change that we might want to make should be made at the source. If the legitimacy of holding a referendum derives from a franchise, we ought to change that franchise if we think that is the right thing to do, rather than do so on an ad hoc basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

If the hon. Gentleman is seriously holding up the AV referendum in 2011 as a model of democratic engagement, I am afraid that, based on my experience, I beg to differ. I really do not think that is a model we should follow.

[Andrew Gwynne]

In 2017, we will have the inaugural elections for the metro mayor for Greater Manchester. That in itself will pose a challenge for those of us who are politicians in the city region, because it is a new post and we will have a duty to explain what it will be. Is that not another reason why we do not need this added complexity?

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend makes a good argument. That is an important election and, as I say, the focus will be on who should be that mayor. There will be different candidates standing, and it is a different question from whether or not we remain members of the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend puts it very well.

[Andrew Gwynne]

May I take the Minister back to his earlier answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and point out politely that the population of Greater Manchester is greater than that of Northern Ireland and almost as large as that of Wales? We are going to have an inaugural election for a metro mayor, which is a creation of his own Government. Do we not deserve to have that argument separately from the EU referendum?

[Mr Lidington]

I take the hon. Gentleman back again to 2011, when we had the London mayoral election on the same day as the referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. That did not appear to cause the electorate any great problems.

The other question that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East put to me was about the difficulty of operating different regimes for purdah during overlapping electoral and referendum periods. To some extent, the riposte to that came from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but given that the Government have this week undertaken to consult all parties on the appropriate framework for purdah in the run-up to the EU referendum, I am happy to take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s points as part of that consideration and future discussion.

There are some technical flaws in the Opposition’s amendment. There is, for example, no carve-out regarding by-elections, so an unanticipated by-election could inadvertently result in an agreed referendum date becoming invalid at short notice. Nor does it capture police and crime commissioner elections, which, if the amendment were agreed to, would still be possible on the same day as the referendum. Even if the right hon. Gentleman had his way, there would need to be some tidying up at a later date.