EU Membership (UK Renegotiation)

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew Percy (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not propose to impose a time limit, but Members can see how many people are standing. I ask them to bear in mind the fact that, to get everybody in, speeches will have to be about four minutes in length.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

This country would be more prosperous, have more influence in world affairs and be able to take control of its own affairs as a sovereign Parliament once again if we left the European Union. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate so that we can explore the arguments that demonstrate the truth of those three desirable objectives.

First, we would be more prosperous if we left the European Union. At the moment, we are tied to the European Union, of which all but two countries are in, or have signed up to join, the euro. Quite frankly, the European Union is an economic basket case partly because of the euro. Many of the people who argue that we should stay in the European Union wanted us to join that terrible currency.

Secondly, we would have more influence in the world if we left the European Union. At the moment, the EU represents us at a number of world bodies, the most obvious being the World Trade Organisation, and negotiation between the 28 countries of the European Union dilutes any influence that we have. If we represented ourselves, we would have more influence.

Finally and self-evidently, I believe in parliamentary democracy and the fundamental principle that the people who make the laws should be subject to the electorate. In the words of the old phrase from American presidential elections in the 19th century, the people should be able to “throw the rascals out”. If we cannot do that, we do not have a democracy, and we cannot do that to the people who influence, propose and produce the laws in the EU.

Given the hon. Members who are present, one might think that only Conservative Members oppose our continuing membership of the European Union, but that is simply not true. Although a majority of Labour MPs are in favour of staying in the European Union, many Labour party members, perhaps a majority of Labour supporters, and ex-Labour supporters—people who have stopped supporting the party because of its position on the European Union—understand that we would be better off out of the European Union. There is clearly a left-of-centre view, in favour of democracy and control of our own rules, that we should leave the European Union. I have never understood, when there is a consensus across the Labour movement and the Labour party against extreme deflationary policies, why we would support the European Union when its policies of competitive deflation across eurozone countries are destroying its economy.

I start, in any debate on the EU, by looking at what is in the interests of my constituents. Their employment situation is threatened by more or less uncontrolled immigration. Unskilled workers are competing with people who have no history in this country, and they often fail to get employment. That is particularly true in areas where the legal jobs market overlaps with the illegal or black market, where many people hope to survive. Such people are increasingly at a disadvantage. As the hon. Member for Kettering has said, many skilled workers from Poland come over here and compete below their skill level, and that is not in the interests of my constituents. It is all right for Mr Rose to say that he can lead the in campaign, because he is financially okay and will be all right at the end of it, but that does not apply to my constituents, who are among the poorest people in the country.

I represent many constituents from parts of the Commonwealth, such as the Indian subcontinent and parts of Africa, which have a long history of helping and supporting this country, not least in the armed services. Why should it be more difficult for those people’s relatives to visit them, or to join them and find employment in this country when they have particular skills? As the hon. Member for Kettering has said, they find that very difficult, whereas people from Romania—I do not want to pick on Romania—or Croatia or Lithuania, which have very shallow links with this country, can simply walk in and out of the country. It is not often said, but it should be, that the EU’s immigration policies are explicitly racist, because it is usually Africans and people from the Indian subcontinent who are excluded from having a fair go at our employment market.

All the political parties recognise, and say explicitly, that the current operation of the EU is unsatisfactory, and therefore there needs to be renegotiation. The Labour party has a clear policy, which is at least consistent and honourable: whatever happens in the renegotiation, we will campaign to stay in. I will not; I will be on the other side of that debate, but the Labour party will do so. The Government’s position is much less honest. They say that there will be a fundamental renegotiation and treaty change to improve our situation. There is, however, no real negotiation taking place that will help my constituents and improve their economic situation.

I will run briefly—I am aware of the time—through four points. The first is the suggestion that we could have more parliamentary influence, because we could negotiate with other Parliaments and three, four or five Parliaments could give a red card to, or veto, decisions by the European Union. What an insult to parliamentary democracy it is to say that this Parliament has to negotiate with another Parliament before we can stop laws that might be against the interests of this country.

The second point is that there will be more competition, or that the competitive agenda will be increased. I was a Minister in 1999 when the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, came back from Lisbon with a new competition agenda, which had zero influence. It was almost exactly the same as what is promised in these so-called negotiations.

The third point, which is at the core of where the future of the EU lies, is that this country needs protecting from being suppressed or oppressed by the majority of countries that will be in the EU and that may take decisions that are not in this country’s interest. Whether there is treaty recognition of our separate interest or not, there is bound to be a different set of interests from countries that are in a monetary union and that will eventually move, inevitably, into a fiscal union and greater political union. There are bound to be huge risks for this country in that we will always be in a minority position in the EU. I do not believe there can be any protection against that.

The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made a point about the risks if we leave the EU. Of course there are risks if we leave the EU; there is always risk in change. The question is where the balance of risk is. There is a much greater risk to the future of not only democracy, but the country’s economy and influence in world affairs by staying in the EU, where we will be in a perpetual minority, with a different interest from the rest of the countries.

The fourth point is where most of the publicity has been aimed—at in-work benefits. I do not believe that those benefits drive immigration into this country. What drives immigration into this country is that it is a fair, decent country where there is a real chance of getting employment, unlike many of the other countries, particularly those that have come out of the communist bloc. To say that somebody who comes here for genuine reasons—to work—will actually be in an inferior position to somebody who they are working next to in a factory, public service, or whatever position it might be, is not a desirable objective. It is a deeply nasty and unpleasant objective, and it will not do what it says.

I am getting looks from the Chair so I will finish on this point. There is a real opportunity for the country’s future to be better by leaving the EU and having more influence. I hope this will be one of many debates that we have between now and whenever the referendum is held that will allow the real arguments, facts and figures to come out.

[Andrew Percy (in the Chair)]

I will now impose a time limit of three minutes, starting with Steve Baker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has given a consummate performance, in which he really summed up the arguments well. There is only time to give a few headlines. The first hero of this debate is, of course, our Prime Minister because, but for him, there would not be a debate. Even our heroine, Margaret Thatcher, never gave us a full referendum on Europe, so we should thank our current Prime Minister profusely for giving the British people the chance to make this historic decision. It will be a most interesting debate, and I will make one or two points about it.

First, the language should be relatively calm. Authoritative studies prove that leaving the EU, or staying in it, would make a difference of only 1% or 2% to gross national product, so leaving the EU would not be a great disaster that will cost 3 million jobs. If we leave the EU, I am not sure there will be an extraordinary nirvana. Let us have a measured debate and keep things in perspective.

Secondly, we do not want to have a debate based on nationalism. We Eurosceptics are not nationalists; we welcome political co-operation and friendship with all the nations of Europe. We welcome Poles, French and Italians coming to live and work here, but it has to be measured migration. Ultimately, when there is net migration of 300,000 into this country, the British Parliament has a right to try to make a decision on such matters.

This negotiation is a missed opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering is probably right that perhaps a third of the population definitely want to leave, a third definitely want to stay and a third are in the middle. That last third probably want the comfort of remaining in some sort of relationship or partnership with the EU, but I believe they want to regain the supremacy of Parliament and regain control over fisheries, agriculture and, above all, migration. Given that we are the fifth largest economy in the world, and given that we are now a self-confident nation, we are no longer, as was the wartime generation, transfixed by the prospect of the loss of empire and the belief that we had to be part of a larger political union. We have moved on, and we are a self-confident, successful nation. I believe that we can create a dynamic, mid-Atlantic trading economy outside the EU that can move forward and increase prosperity for all our people. That is what I will be arguing in the EU referendum, and this debate is just one of the first steps along that path.

[Andrew Percy (in the Chair)]

We have two speakers left—I left some time for interventions—so there will be about four minutes for each speaker before I call the Front Benchers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady is a learned Member of this House. She should be aware that what she reads in the papers about what the special forces will be up to is not subject to discussion in this Chamber. I am afraid we will have to leave it at that.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The funeral of my constituent killed in Tunisia, Bruce Wilkinson, will take place this week. May I place on record on behalf of the family how thankful they are for the support they have received, the dignified way the bodies were brought back, and the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)? Can we guarantee that such support to families will continue?

[Mr Ellwood]

May I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend, who I know was very much involved with that family, and to all other Members of Parliament who played a role in providing a modicum of support to the families during this difficult time? We always learn from these experiences, but we stand ready to support all the families in the best way we can.

Iran (Proposed Nuclear Agreement)

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing it. I certainly agreed with the first two speeches, but I did not agree with a great deal that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) said. In fact, I would describe his speech as complacent in parts, particularly what appeared to be his defence of the Iranian regime’s actions compared with other countries. I think it is very complacent to dismiss the Iranian regime’s behaviour in sponsoring terrorism and supporting the murder of individuals around the region and the world on the basis that Iran is on the frontline against ISIS, which is, as he said, a cruel and vicious organisation.

[Mr Bacon]

Since he just accused me of supporting murder—[Interruption.] Those were the words; the tape will show it. Will he draw attention to precisely which words he thinks I used that leant support to murder?

[Andrew Percy]

I was certainly not accusing my hon. Friend; I accused the Iranian regime, which I said he seemed to be defending, of being engaged in the support of mass murder. If he looks at the record, I am sure he will see that.

I pretty much agreed with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy had to say. It is not the first debate on Iran that he and I have taken part in, but as the United Kingdom is one of the members of the P5+1, it is slightly frustrating that we have had few opportunities in the House to debate the detail of what is emerging, or even to express our concerns during the negotiation process. It should greatly worry us all that, in the lead-up to the 30 June deadline, many issues remain outstanding. Not only are there clear discrepancies between the expectations and demands of the various parties to the negotiating process, but many of the proposed parameters are worthy of criticism.

At this very late stage, increasingly concerning reports have been emerging. An IAEA report—I apologise; with my flat vowels, it is hard to get all those letters out together—this month has revealed that Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel has increased by 20% in the 18 months since negotiations began. That point has been made by other speakers. Worryingly, the news completely contradicts President Obama’s contention that the nuclear programme had been frozen in that period. In previous debates, I and colleagues across the House said that that was exactly what we expected to happen.

Of particular concern are the many reports of Iran’s intransigence towards the verification of the so-called possible military dimensions and its continued blocking of access to the country’s military sites to allow the IAEA to carry out crucial investigations. In a previous debate, I quoted a report saying exactly the same thing. Will the Minister tell us how we can possibly ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme is what it says it is when the IAEA is unable to determine the true extent of Iran’s historical research into nuclear weaponry or properly calculate the breakout time?

I am reminded of the words of the sadly now former Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister. His assessment of the process was that past actions predict future actions and that Iran had not earned the right—I have forgotten the quote, Mr Hollobone; I am still very tired from a recent long journey. I will come back to that point in a moment. I do apologise.

Since the announcement of the proposed parameters in April, Iranian officials have avowedly rejected any co-operation with the IAEA’s crucial investigations. That justifies the IAEA’s long-held concerns about the Iranian regime’s true intentions. Only on Sunday, the deputy chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri—excuse my pronunciation; being from Yorkshire I am not particularly good with anything that is not English—reiterated the regime’s position that permission to visit Iran’s military centres

“will definitely never be issued for any kind of access…even if it runs counter to the acceptance of the Additional Protocol”.

That leads to the question: what do the Iranians have to hide?

As the international community makes numerous concessions to Iran, which is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy and others pointed out, a country in the grip of a fundamentalist regime that has sponsored terrorism around the world and particularly in the region, Iran continues to hang its political prisoners and fund terror groups across the middle east. Given everything that the P5+1 and the west are seemingly expected to concede, will the Minister tell us what concessions the Iranians are expected to make in return? I will return to the words of the former Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, who urged extreme caution in our approach to this situation. I hope that the Minister will have those words and warnings in mind when he responds to the debate.

Gaza

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, in particular because you are one of the few Members of the House who can properly pronounce my constituency’s name; I will say it now as a hint for any Members who wish to refer to it during the debate—East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow.

I am pleased to be having this important debate today. I was motivated to secure it by the Westminster Hall debate of 1 December 2014, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), on the subject of ending the conflict in Palestine. I re-read the Hansard report of that debate recently and was struck by how much common ground there was between the Members who contributed. I spoke in it, championing my belief that the two-state solution is the only way forward. It also struck me that that debate could be a foundation to build upon; that is what I want to try to do today.

I recognise that there are still significant problems. From my perspective, our problem in the UK Parliament is that far too many Members cannot separate the troubled history of that part of the world from the objective of a two-state solution; as a result, far too often, debates in this place become mired in a grisly, macabre and desperate pit, relying on the body count in the most recent conflict or on a selective part of history so as to condemn one side over the other. Whether the contribution of a fractured and weak Palestinian leadership or the lurch to the right in Israeli politics, both sides often fail to recognise properly their own weaknesses. In particular, when violence breaks out the rush in this place to condemn Israel is matched by a pedestrian-paced admonishment of the Hamas violence that has started that same trouble.

Although the debate on 1 December marked, for the most part, a coming together of minds on many issues, every proposal made was negative. It was an oxymoron of a debate: a positive start conjoined to a negative finish. The conclusion was that there should be boycotts and sanctions. But they will not solve the problems of Palestine and Israel; rather, they will pour diesel on an already blazing fire, and create more resentment and more obstacles to peace. The aim of this debate is to create an environment for peace, to recognise the plight of the people of Gaza and to identify how we can overcome the barriers and create a more successful outcome for everyone. I will also set out the very real threat that Gaza faces from within, and the internal struggles that beset the Palestinian leadership.

In the interests of transparency, I place on the record the fact that I am one of the vice-chairs of Labour Friends of Israel. I am also an unequivocal supporter of a two-state solution for two peoples, with Israel safe, secure and recognised within its borders and living alongside a democratic, independent Palestinian state. I will be clear from the outset that last summer’s war was a disaster and tragedy for the people of Gaza and the people of Israel. Six months on from the end of Operation Protective Edge, this debate presents a timely opportunity to discuss ways in which Britain can contribute to halting the recurring spiral of violence in Gaza.

At home and in this House the war caused both anger and division, but surely we should now be able to unite around one goal and single objective—to ensure that the death, destruction and suffering experienced by both peoples are not repeated. Let me be absolutely clear: the people of Gaza did not cause or start the war, nor did the people of Israel. The responsibility for it and for the destruction that followed rests squarely with Hamas, and has done so on each of the three occasions in the past six years when Hamas has launched indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilians from residential areas of Gaza.

The question today is what can be done to break the vicious cycle of violence, against a backdrop of Hamas’s ongoing efforts not to support the people of Gaza but to continue its war against Israel. Although Arab nations and international donors have pledged the enormous sum of $5.4 billion for investment in Gaza, not one thin dime has been spent, because Fatah and Hamas cannot agree on payments to Hamas’s civil servants and cannot decide who will control the Rafah crossing—those are the priorities in those discussions. Instead of taking the opportunity to invest resources in its people, Hamas is investing in rearming. Now, ominously, it has almost regained its full military capability. I will put on the record that Hamas is preparing for further attacks on Israel as this debate takes place.

That point leads me to my first positive contribution on the way forward to peace. The international community needs to put an end to the threat posed by Hamas and other terrorist groups by halting rearmament and urgently pursuing disarmament in the Gaza strip. Secondly, the lives of the Palestinians living in Gaza must be improved, not simply through reconstruction but through concrete steps to lift the restrictions on the movement of people and goods, imposed not only by Israel but by Egypt, that stifle Gaza’s economic development and future prosperity.

Let me be unequivocal: the second of those objectives has to be utterly dependent on the first. The reality of Hamas’s perpetuating of conflict and laying the groundwork for another bloody war must be confronted by everyone. In December, Hamas celebrated its 27th anniversary by burning effigies of Jews and parading trucks carrying long-range rockets through the streets of Gaza. At the celebrations, Hamas’s military spokesperson, Abu Obeida, thanked Iran and Qatar for supplying the group with arms and support. A month earlier, Iranian leaders had confirmed their good relations with the Islamist group; having already done so much to hamper the cause of peace between Israel and its neighbours, Iran has pledged to redouble its malevolent efforts with these words:

“West Bank will surely be armed just like Gaza”.

That was tweeted by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.

Hamas claims to be concerned about the welfare of the Palestinian people, but many of us have long known that that is a lie, as it is proving once again. As I mentioned earlier, instead of turning its efforts to rebuilding Gaza, Hamas has rebuilt its depleted arsenal of rockets and mortars. In addition, it is rebuilding its terror tunnels. It is also rebuilding its armed forces by recruiting a new so-called popular army of young men aged between 15 and 21. Last month, 17,000 teenagers spent their mid-term break at Hamas’s military camps being drilled on how to launch attacks through tunnels and how to kidnap and murder Israeli soldiers. That is Hamas’s education policy—teaching young people to kill.

Hamas also likes to tax and spend. That is the name of a policy that is sometimes the subject of debate in the UK, but Hamas’s tax and spend is slightly different. It taxes the people of Gaza so that it can spend the money on reconstructing its terrorist infrastructure. For example, in a list I saw recently, furniture imported to Gaza at a cost of 1,200 shekels faces an additional tax of 800 shekels. That is also true of many other goods that have to be imported into Gaza. Hamas says that Israel and Egypt should lift the blockade, but only two weeks ago we learned that the Israeli navy had intercepted a ship travelling from Sinai to Gaza. On board was liquid fibreglass, one of the many dual-use materials Hamas uses to build its weapons of war—in that case, booby-traps for houses with tunnels running underneath them. The reality of Hamas is clear: it does not care at all for the people of Gaza. The intentions of Hamas are also clear: it seeks to wage another bloody war against the people of Israel.

In the face of that reality and those intentions, there is only one solution: demilitarisation. The international community knows that and during last summer’s conflict, both the EU and the United States of America made it clear that demilitarisation of the Gaza strip rested at the heart of ending the violence. Moreover—this is a really important point—the Palestinian Authority support that.

The prevention of a new war requires an urgent drive towards demilitarisation of Gaza, but it needs more than that; it needs hope and opportunity for its people. There is real disappointment that despite last spring’s Palestinian reconciliation deal, the Palestinian unity Government have failed to establish control in Gaza, where Hamas operates what President Abbas calls a “shadow Government.”

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

To take the hon. Gentleman back to his comments on demilitarisation, given the Egyptian crackdown in Sinai and the recent evidence of increased smuggling of weapons into Gaza through the Mediterranean, does he think that the building of a seaport in Gaza—which we would all like to see eventually, but not in the current circumstances—would increase the likelihood of Gaza being demilitarised or increase the likelihood that weapons would be smuggled in?

[Mr McCann]

I will come on to talk about a seaport and an airport, but my proposal for a route map to peace must be premised on demilitarisation. No one will invest that type of money in Gaza when the whole thing could fall apart and be destroyed again because of Hamas’s malevolent influence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I give my full congratulations to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) who introduced the debate, for whom I have admiration on this issue. He speaks with incredible wisdom.

I want to focus on five myths that hinder the reconstruction of Gaza, and through that, the peace process in the middle east. I will examine the occupation of the city, the blockade on aid, the border closures, the Israeli military operation and finally, the issue of settlements and how it affects the debate.

It should not be forgotten that the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, implemented in 2005 by Prime Minister Sharon, was one of the most painful political decisions to have been taken. It led to the split of his Likud party and the complete restructuring of the Israeli political landscape. Behind that plan, there was a real impulse to mend Israeli-Palestinian relations. The greenhouses were meant to stimulate the Palestinian economy, and if that had worked, further steps would have involved Israeli withdrawal from much of the west bank, just as they had had the courage to withdraw from Gaza.

That is why there must be no doubt, when discussing Gaza’s occupation today, that it is not an Israeli occupation, as it has been described. Since 2007, the people of Gaza have been oppressed by Hamas who, after literally throwing Fatah officials off the roofs of the city, have spent the last eight years subjugating the population and forcing civilians to act as human shields when launching indiscriminate attacks against the Israeli population. Therefore, the first steps towards reconstructing Gaza should be ensuring that Hamas no longer divests international aid for a reconstruction purpose to the armament of a city they occupy, and recognising the crucial role of Israeli aid in the reconstruction of the city.

There is also criticism of the aid blockade that is supposedly in place. Since September 2014, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the UN have agreed to a trilateral mechanism of reconstruction for the Gaza strip, following the summer’s Operation Protective Edge. That would facilitate the rebuilding of 60,000 homes in Gaza, and the use of materials would be supervised by the UN, thus ensuring that Hamas would not be able to appropriate those resources.

There have been millions of tonnes of aid from Israel into Gaza. A few hundred trucks go from Israel into Gaza every week. To talk about an Israeli blockade on aid would be to negate the 62,000 tonnes of construction supplies that have entered Gaza since the beginning of the plan, and wilfully ignore the crucial role of Hamas in stripping the people of Gaza of the resources they need. Let us not forget that it was a Hamas rocket that took down the Israeli electrical power plant that gives Gaza electricity. It is worth noting that the Palestinian territories receive more humanitarian aid per capita than any other country on earth. So much of it has been taken away by Hamas and abused and used for corrupt purposes. We know about the secret tunnels that cost $3 million each. Why do we have those when that money should be spent on helping the Palestinian people in Gaza?

The attempt to find justice where there are just preconceptions must be extended to this summer’s war. There can be no peaceful Gaza without a recognition of the mandate of self-defence that Israel had to take on when Israeli civilians were indiscriminately targeted by Hamas. We should remember that the Israelis suffered from 19,000 rockets fired by Hamas on to Israeli towns after Israel withdrew from Gaza. We remember the 3,360 rockets fired in just under a month. There can be no reconstruction if we allow Hamas to carry on rearming and carry on training its terrorists.

[Andrew Percy]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that Hamas was recently judged to be the second most wealthy terrorist organisation after ISIS, and would he like to say something about what the UK Government should be doing to ensure that more pressure is put on the funders in Iran and Saudi Arabia so that the reconstruction that he wants can happen?

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend makes the exact point that so much of the money that goes into Gaza is being used for terrorist purposes—to fund weaponry. Palestinian economists have estimated that about 2,000 Hamas operatives have made $1 million each from the smuggling that goes on in the tunnels. We need to look at what goes on in the other countries. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. The European Union has a mechanism for making sure that any real changes do not happen. We will be in a minority, even if we get one or two other countries to support us, and such changes just will not happen.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the lesson from Scotland is that the threat of a referendum can result in you getting quite a lot of what you want?

[Kate Hoey]

Yes, indeed. I was going to mention that, because I feel strongly that if we go in to negotiate, we have to be clear what the ultimate end is. By that, I mean what we will do if we do not get what we want. We cannot go into negotiations without it being very clear that if we do not get what we want, we will be prepared to leave the European Union; that is the right approach to take.

As the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, I should like to discuss Scotland a little further. Some people say that it is not the right time for a referendum, that a referendum is a diversion, it is not going to be good for business, and it will create anxiety and too much hassle, but I say let us just look at what happened in Scotland. Whatever someone thought about the final decision and whether they supported it—I was delighted that Scotland voted to stay part of the United Kingdom, but this applies even to those people who were on the other side—everyone accepts that there was a huge uprising in public interest in an issue. Real debate and discussion took place, and there was a feeling that, at last, ordinary men and women were able to come out and talk at public meetings and discuss things, even out in markets and on the streets. That had a hugely galvanising effect, and I think it will have a galvanising effect in the general election in May in Scotland and there will be an even bigger turnout than usual.

Palestine and Israel

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

The evidence of history is why. Twenty years of negotiations have failed, so we need to move things on. I firmly believe that we can all rally around this effort, and that that would achieve the desired results.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris]

No, I am afraid I will not give way.

Recognition is not an Israeli bargaining chip; it is a Palestinian right. It is one that has to form the basis of any serious negotiations. Indeed, the lack of equity between Israel and the Palestinians is a structural failure that has undermined the possibility of a political settlement for decades. As it stands, Israel has little motivation or encouragement—perhaps little incentive is a better way of putting it—to enter into meaningful negotiations. The majority of Israeli Government politicians flat-out reject the notion of a Palestinian state. There are currently no negotiations and, as Secretary of State John Kerry admitted, it was Israeli intransigence that caused the collapse of the latest round of talks.

Israel has been unwilling to offer a viable Palestinian state through negotiations. If the acceleration of the illegal settlement enterprise had not already proved that, in July Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu once again ruled out ever accepting a sovereign Palestinian state in the west bank.

[Andrew Percy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Grahame M. Morris]

No, I will not give way.

Let me be clear: to make recognition dependent on negotiations, as some Members advocate, is to reject the two-state solution. Some argue that by recognising Palestine, we would undermine negotiations or somehow incite violence, but it is the systematic denial of rights that incites violence and emboldens those who reject politics. The knowledge that Britain, once again, is refusing to recognise the rights of the Palestinian people will serve only to validate those who reject diplomacy and to demonstrate the futility of the efforts of moderates on both sides.

Rejectionists in both Israel and Palestine—those who oppose any type of political settlement—will be delighted to learn that the British Parliament has refused what the vast majority of states have already accepted. Members should bear that in mind before they cast their vote. Those Palestinians who have pursued the path of diplomacy and non-violence for more than 20 years have achieved very little. We need to send them a message and give them encouragement that it is the path of peace and co-operation, and not the resorting to force of arms, that will actually lead to a lasting and just peace. It will also send a message to Israel that the British Parliament believes that its illegal settlement enterprise, which has pushed the possibility of a two-state settlement to the brink of collapse, has no validity whatsoever and that the international community is resolute in its opposition to the systematic colonisation of Palestinian land.

The right to statehood has already been accepted by the Government, who have said that they reserve

“the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace”.

If they do not do so urgently, I contend, and many informed commentators would agree with me, that any hope of a two-state solution, the only viable solution, will disappear altogether. Instead, Israel will continue its crusade towards the morally repugnant and politically untenable one-state solution that, in truth, could be maintained only through even greater brutality and effectively through apartheid rule—a fate so bleak that any true friend of Israel would oppose it.

In conclusion, during the assault on Gaza the leaders of all the main political parties told Members in this House that the life of a Palestinian child is worth just as much as the life of an Israeli child. Today, we can show that we regard both peoples as equal in dignity and rights not just in death but in life. I urge Members to support the motion and to recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I was hoping not to have to say this, but if I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the details. I hope to be able to assure him that there have been no such cases, but I will certainly write to him with more details.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the double war crime perpetrated by Hamas with regard to not only hiding themselves and their weaponry among the civilian population, but deliberately targeting and desiring the murder of innocent Israelis?

[Mr Ellwood]

I mentioned earlier the important role that Hamas can play in organising and agreeing to a ceasefire. Unfortunately, it is the case that it has used some of its weapon systems in civilian areas, which has led to too many deaths. As we have said again and again, I hope that all parties can now come to an agreement on a ceasefire, led by the Egyptians.

Middle East and North Africa

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories.

I thank the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for securing this important, timely debate. In his contribution he displayed both his expertise on the whole area and his sensitivity to the involvement and suffering of so many different parties in that region. I want to focus my comments on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and, in particular, the horrifying events under way in Gaza, but what happens in Israel and the Palestinian territories is of course much affected by what happens in a turbulent neighbourhood. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Syria and the millions of people there who have been displaced. That ongoing issue is causing widespread concern.

I start by saying that all civilian deaths are tragic. A civilian death on any side of a dispute is equal to that on the other. It is all tragic and it should all be avoided. It is a great cause for concern that John Kerry’s initiative has, up to now, not succeeded. The overall situation will only be resolved by a negotiated agreement on setting up a Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. That means agreement on borders based on the 1967 boundaries, on how to share Jerusalem and on dealing with refugee issues on both sides. As long as that is not secured, there will be disputes.

The current situation in Gaza is intolerable. The Israelis withdrew all their 8,000 settlers and soldiers in 2005. Some were withdrawn forcibly by the Israeli army. There followed a short time when Israel and the Palestinian Authority had an agreement. For the very first time, Gaza was ruled by Palestinians, but that was short-lived. Hamas came to power, and it has to be recognised for what it is: a terrorist organisation. It is recognised to be so by, among others, the USA, Jordan, the European Union and Japan. Its 1988 charter—in other words, a recent, modern charter—contains elements that are blood-curdling. It talks about Jews running the worldwide media and Jews being responsible for such things as the French revolution and the Russian revolution. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that will not accept the existence of Israel. It is not interested in boundaries. It finds the concept of the majority Jewish state of Israel as anathema in that region, and that has to be remembered.

What is happening now is that Hamas decided to launch an attack, targeted on Israeli civilians. At the last count, although it may well be an underestimate, some 1,350 rockets have been launched, targeted on 70% of Israeli civilians.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Will she confirm the size and scale of the rockets? Some who seek to defend the action from Gaza refer to the rockets as little more than fireworks, but they are a new type of rocket from Hamas with a payload of 300 lb and a range of 100 miles or more. That should not be forgotten.

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Those rockets are aimed at and landing on places such as Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa. Munir al-Masri, a senior Hamas spokesperson, stated only two days ago, on 15 July:

“Hamas will continue hitting Israel until the last Zionist leaves the whole of Palestine, from the sea to the river.”

It is pretty clear what this is all about.

The situation is intolerable. Neither the Israeli Government nor any other Government could countenance this targeted attack on their citizens, the aim of which is to kill and to destroy. It is interesting to note the comment made by Gershon Baskin, who is renowned for his efforts working with Palestinians and Israelis to seek peace. Indeed, he was a pivotal figure in the release of Gilad Shalit. He spoke only last week of his absolute despair. He said that he called on the Hamas leadership not to intensify its actions. He knows that his message went right to the top, to Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader. With absolute despair, he said that the Hamas leader simply said, “Bring it on.” The situation is extremely grave.

A large number of Palestinian civilians have been killed or injured, which is a matter of deep regret. It is a tragedy for them as much as it would be for Israelis to be injured or killed. The responsibility for the deaths and injuries has to lie with those who decided to put their rocket bases, launchers and headquarters in civilian populations—Hamas. Indeed, a senior Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, said only two days ago, on 15 July:

“The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli weapons in order to protect their homes is a strategy that is proving itself.”

The Israelis feel that they have to stop those deadly rockets being launched, deliberately targeted at Israeli citizens. The Israelis know that they have to go to civilian areas, and they are consciously and as a matter of policy informing the civilians in those areas about what is about to happen and asking them to leave, because they do not wish to have civilian casualties. It is clear from that statement—there are many others—that the Hamas leadership is gloating over the situation and the death of its own citizens. That is absolutely deplorable and should not be countenanced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing the debate. He made a first-class speech that many of us could agree with in large part. I, too, draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to visits to Israel and to the Palestinian territories.

I want to speak briefly about the situation in Gaza and our country’s and Government’s support for Israel and its right to defend itself. I make no apologies for repeating some of the statistics the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) gave in her excellent speech on what has actually been happening in Gaza. She mentioned that 1,300 rockets have been fired at Israel since last Monday. That is more than 160 a day. Nine hundred and sixty-six of those rockets have exploded in Israel and 218 have been intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome defence system.

As I said in an intervention on the hon. Lady, it is frankly disgusting that some people, who would call themselves friends of Palestine, simply refer to those attacks as effectively firing fireworks at Israel. The fact that Israel is strong and has the capability to defend itself through Iron Dome should not in any way diminish our understanding of the scale, range and size of those rockets. Rockets have repeatedly been fired as far as Jerusalem, which is 55 miles from Gaza; Tel Aviv, which is 44 miles away, and even Haifa, which is 100 miles away. That is nothing new, of course, because since the beginning of 2014, 2,000 rockets and mortars have been launched from Gaza into the south of the state of Israel. Since 2001, more than 15,000 rockets have landed in Israel. That is an average of three attacks every day. I wonder how we would respond to such aggression and such threats.

That is not to say that the situation is not intolerable for residents and citizens living in the Gaza strip. I think that all of us in this place, whatever our views on who is to blame for the recent situation, would wish to express our condolences and horror at what is happening there at the moment.

Of course, we have heard some talk of the ceasefire proposal. I take on board in part the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), but there is no doubt that Israel communicated very strongly its intention to de-escalate, following the Egyptian proposal, and it did embark on that course of de-escalation with a suspension of attacks. What happened in response to that? Hamas did not not know about this proposal, which is what some seem to be implying or suggesting—that because it had not gone via the United States or through certain other channels, it was in some way a surprise to Hamas. It was not a surprise to Hamas. It knew about it sufficiently to be able to reject it, and it answered the proposal with a volley of 50 rockets following the suspension of strikes by Israel at 9 am on Tuesday. The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, also seemed perfectly satisfied with the proposal. He publicly backed it and urged both parties to sign up to it.

[Richard Burden]

How does the hon. Gentleman know that Hamas knew about the proposal? Who put it to Hamas? What was its response? And at what time of the night did that happen?

[Andrew Percy]

Hamas knew about the proposal sufficiently to reject it and then to fire 50 rockets in response to it, so I think that tells us all we need to know. And President Abbas seemed to know about it, because he stood up, quite rightly, and urged Hamas to accept it. This is a concern.

[Jim Sheridan in the Chair]

We must remember why we are in this situation and where we have got to. I understand the UK Government’s support for the unity Government. I understand their aims in doing so, and I understand that they have the best of intentions. It is a concern, however, that one of the unity Government’s constituent parties—although it is not actively serving in that Government, which is a technocratic one—does not recognise the state of Israel in its charter, and that it seeks not only the total destruction of Israel but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire said in his opening speech, the destruction of Jewish people around the world. I cannot understand how we can possibly expect to move forward with the unity Government when some of the potential members will not sign up to the Quartet principles. I will not dwell on the subject, but I agree entirely with the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside).

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that actions in overseas territories, such as Palestinian territories and Israel, have implications for my constituents? The Community Security Trust has said that anti-Semitic attacks have doubled, and of the 50 attacks that have occurred in recent weeks, 30 have been directly attributed to the incidents in those territories. The insistence of Hamas and other organisations on making claims such as we are discussing ends in violence towards my constituents.

[Andrew Percy]

Indeed, and I am sorry to hear about that. There are many good people who support the Palestinian cause for just reasons, but we must be honest and say that some use the cause for more sinister ends. We have heard examples of those, and they are truly shocking. I have no doubt that everybody here, whatever their view on the conflict, would condemn such actions entirely.

I want to say a little about the Israeli response. It has saddened me that some have bandied about phrases regarding collective punishment and the proportionality of the response. It is incredibly sad that people have died on any side of the conflict, but we cannot conclude, because of the way Hamas acts and the fact that it puts more of its civilians in harm’s way, that Israel’s response must be disproportionate simply because more people have sadly died. Let us be honest about what is going on. Israel does not fire rockets from its civilian population. While we have been debating, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency has confirmed that one of its schools in Gaza has been used as a hiding place for rockets, and the agency is due to make a statement on that shortly. That tells us all we need to know about why there are such large numbers of civilian casualties.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that point. The charge has been raised against Israel that it is committing a crime by firing on families. My hon. Friend’s point is an important one; there is a difference between firing on families because they are families, and because they are being used as a shield to hide army and control centre operations. As far as I have seen, where families have been fired on, Israel has agreed to investigate it, admitting that it is not the right thing to do and quite a different thing from firing on control centres.

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions are getting a bit long. Can we cut them down, please?

[Andrew Percy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is incredibly sad that the situation is such that civilians have been used as human shields. It is distressing that on Hamas’s Facebook page, the Ministry of the Interior and of National Security has advised Gazan citizens to ignore Israel’s warnings to get out. There are even “knock on the door” mortars fired in advance of an attack to warn Gazans of an impending strike but, sadly, Hamas is officially—

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Robert Halfon]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) has not been here for the debate, so I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Robert Halfon]

Does what my hon. Friend has said about UNWRA finding out that missiles were being kept in schools not show the truth of the statement that Hamas uses its civilians to defend its missiles, whereas Israel is using its missile defence to defend its civilians?

[Andrew Percy]

It absolutely does. It is appalling that, simply because there have been more deaths on one side, some people conclude that the response has been disproportionate. Hamas chooses to use civilians in such a way because, let us be honest, the more bodies that are photographed, the better it is for Hamas’s PR campaign. That is a terrible situation, but why else would the Ministry of the Interior be telling its citizens to ignore warnings to leave their homes because of an impending strike? What other reason could there be?

[Mrs Ellman]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his comment about Hamas is verified by the public statement made by Sami Abu Zuhri on 15 July, who said:

“The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli weapons in order to protect their homes is a strategy that is proving itself”?

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Lady puts it perfectly. That is a strategy.

I will move on because time is pressing. What would we do in such a situation? If 65% to 75% of our population was in range—

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I only want to make a friendly intervention.

[Andrew Percy]

All right. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, even though he has not been here for the whole debate.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a fellow member of the Select Committee on Health. I apologise for being late; I was presenting a petition at No. 10 Downing street. He is outlining a scenario that has made me wonder: if he had been Defence Secretary at the time of the IRA bombings, would he have advocated the carpet bombing of east Belfast or Kilburn?

[Andrew Percy]

No, but I would expect my Government to do all that was required to defend their citizens, particularly when the country is a democratic state. That is why I hope Israel will take the necessary steps, to the utmost and to the end, to defend its people and track down terrorists. We are talking about a terrorist organisation as defined not only by the state of Israel but by this country. I would absolutely expect my Government to respond forcefully to such acts of aggression.

I will end shortly because I know that time is pressing, although I would have liked to say something about the humanitarian situation and assistance to Gaza. We all agree that the situation is terrible. I hope that the Minister will continue to affirm this country’s commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself, and that he will push even harder to achieve progress in the middle east, as the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire said. The situation must not continue, on either side, for much longer. There must be a renewed emphasis on peace, and rockets on either side will not achieve that. I hope the Minister will confirm the Government’s stance on that matter. Of course, he is new to his role, and I congratulate him on it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Basically, yes. It is of course for Egyptians to determine their own constitution, but the thrust of our advice to Egyptian leaders is very much in line with what the hon. Lady says. Long-term stability will come from accountability—from Governments being responsive to the people. That is true of any country in the world, particularly one that has been through a sequence of revolutions. So I do agree with what she says.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

17. It was good to hear the Foreign Secretary condemn the abduction of three Israelis. Unfortunately though, Hamas, which is now part of the unity Government, declared the abduction to be a success. Will he further condemn the Hamas Prime Minister who, in April 2014, said:“Abducting Israeli soldiers is a top priority on the agenda of Hamas and Palestinian resistance.”We will not get peace with a unity Government who include people with such views.

[Mr Hague]

Let me say again that the new Government of the Palestinian Authority contain no Hamas members and have signed up to the Quartet principles, but I absolutely condemn any encouragement to foment further tensions, including the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers. That is exactly the sort of thing that obstructs a successful peace process and is presumably designed to do so. It is important that Hamas or anyone else desists from it.

Commonwealth Day

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Pamela Nash]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has a lot of experience in international development. It is a tricky balance to strike. We should not be frightened of saying what we think, but we must use the correct levers. We should not wield the DFID budget as a weapon but instead should use it to promote the values and beliefs that we have as a nation, the fundamental one of which is universal human rights.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

My point is similar to that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce). I was at the Commonwealth parliamentary conference with the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend in South Africa in September 2013 and spoke several times on this issue. I urge caution in using the Department for International Development budget because a big challenge for us when Canada, Australia and Gibraltar raise concerns is that our actions can be seen as an attempt to recreate the empire or to preach from our imperialistic past. Perhaps it is better if other nations, such as South Africa, advocate on such issues. We heard a wonderful speech at that conference from the Deputy Speaker of the South African Parliament, and because of history it may be better if South Africa advocates on such issues instead of us, sadly.

[Pamela Nash]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He made the great point that we should remember that we are not the only advocates in the Commonwealth for LGBT rights, women’s rights and equality for all. We have strong partners in the Commonwealth, and this is the time when we should come together to ensure that their voices are heard. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that South Africa may be a better advocate at the moment, and I hope that we can work with it on that.

I would like some clarity on the Foreign Office’s position. Has the Minister spoken about the matter to Uganda’s high commissioner in London recently? Are there other diplomatic engagements with Uganda and other Commonwealth Governments, such as Malawi and Nigeria, and countries such as Liberia, about LGBT rights and the recent proposed changes to legislation?

I want to pick up some points that hon. Members have made about DFID’s role and ask the Minister to comment on his Department’s discussions with it on Uganda and the emergency reaction. We have not touched on the fact that the problem is not just the legislation and the threat of arrest but violence. There have been outbreaks of violence over the past few years at every stage of the Bill’s progress in Uganda. Since it was enacted on 24 February, there have been several reports of people being murdered after being outed.

I was horrified to see that the Red Pepper, a tabloid in Uganda, had published the names of 200 people, including photographs and including the name of a dear friend of mine, Frank Mugisha, who runs Sexual Minorities Uganda. His name has probably appeared in Hansard more than mine over the last few years, and it is often taken in vain when this important issue is discussed. I am glad to say that he has rightly been nominated for a Nobel peace prize. He is the successor to David Kato, who was murdered three years ago after his name was published in another tabloid in Uganda. He successfully took the paper to court, but the price he paid was to be murdered. My blood ran cold when I saw that history was repeating itself in the tabloids.

What conversations has the Minister had with DFID about what the Government can do to provide support to those on the ground? I do not ask for protection from a law in another country, but what can we do to protect vulnerable Ugandans who are at increased risk of violence and violation of their human rights? An emergency security funding pool has been established, and I ask the Government to contribute to it quickly.

I have raised this issue today because it is fundamentally a human rights one. The Commonwealth charter, which was signed last year, includes articles on tolerance, respect and understanding, freedom of expression and human rights. I cannot think of a more valuable current issue to address than LGBT rights in Uganda and beyond in the Commonwealth. We should use our position in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Commonwealth to ensure that our voice is heard.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your surveillance, Mr Bayley. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on securing this debate and setting the broad scene. That enables me to be a little more focused on what is called the old Commonwealth, which is the backbone of the Commonwealth with the United Kingdom at the head. There is a feeling among the old Commonwealth nations that the door that was open is slowly closing, and that that was happening particularly under the last Government.

I have been speaking for about 10 seconds, and everyone is aware from my accent that I come from one of the Commonwealth countries. I cannot get away from that, but my accent is not Australian. I have dual nationality and I carry a British passport and a New Zealand one, which creates difficulties sometimes when there is a small battle at Twickenham. I assure all hon. Members that I cheer for England, although I put my money on the All Blacks.

As I said during an intervention, when I arrive at Gatwick, having dual nationality gives me the opportunity to survey which is the longest queue and which has more people serving it. I sometimes join the alien queue because it is quicker.

[Andrew Percy]

Does my hon. Friend share my opinion that it is terrible that Canadian, Australian and New Zealand nationals, who share the same monarch as us, are treated as complete foreigners when people from 26 other foreign countries can just walk through as though they were British citizens? That is completely unacceptable.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I thank my hon. Friend, who fired the shot for me without my accent, which was helpful.

The Commonwealth is a unique organisation. It is a worldwide family with a mixture of races, religions, languages and creeds based around the United Kingdom and the Queen. As I said, I come from New Zealand, which is a huge supporter of the Commonwealth and the Queen. If the New Zealand magazine, Women’s Weekly, does not have six pictures of the Queen and the royal family, there has been a misprint along the line.

New Zealand has slight republican moments, and I understand that it is considering a slight variation of the flag, but we will see. It will be amusing because Women’s Weekly will battle to keep the flag and I suspect that elderly New Zealand ladies will rally to the cause.

Next door to New Zealand is another Commonwealth nation—a little island called Australia. It has a few republican problems and, if asked, any New Zealander would explain that being Australian is in itself a difficulty, but it seems to overcome that, particularly in the cricket field.

Those two old Commonwealth nations have a huge rivalry, which can be seen on the rugby field. The insults and jokes between them are phenomenal and racist, but every joke can be turned round the other way, so anything a New Zealander says about Australia can be returned the other way round. However, they work extremely closely with the British Commonwealth, particularly when the United Kingdom is under deep threat. With Canada and South Africa, they are the old Commonwealth. They have a Commonwealth link, reinforced by kith and kin, and a two-way flow of tourism and migration going back two centuries, although that is being stemmed now.

My direct knowledge is obviously predominately of New Zealand, although I have lived in the UK longer than I lived there. I occasionally return there for a refresher course in the accent and attitudes. A touch of history may be helpful. New Zealand’s biggest influx of immigration over the past couple of centuries involved people who went there by choice—I am sure I will receive letters from Australians about this—and were not transported there. That can be seen when wandering around New Zealand, because the place names are a mixture of Maori, English, Scottish and Irish, and there are even a few Welsh names. The people there drive on the left. They predominantly speak English or a version of it, and the parliamentary system, although it has only one House, is much the same as that here. In fact, it mimics it even to the building. It is not quite as spectacular and not anywhere near as old, but it does mimic it.

My parents’ and grandparents’ generations talked of the United Kingdom as home and of “going back”. They still do. What intrigued me was that many of them had never been here, but they still talked about going back. They all have close links with this country and they display that in their houses. My parents’ and grandparents’ generations in particular would have on the coffee table in the sitting room—it was a sitting room, not a withdrawing room or drawing room—a fantastic book or two. Those fantastic books are full of photographs, which are dramatic for two reasons. First, they feature the United Kingdom and its beautiful scenery. The second and even more amazing thing is that the photographs were taken on sunny days. How the photographers managed to get 50, 60 or a couple of hundred sunny days to take fantastic photos beggars belief, especially after the last few months.

The close rapport between the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia is perhaps emphasised most in the farming communities. There are very close links, including educational links, both ways between the farmers, but perhaps it is more educational for the farmers from this country. One of my colleagues in this place asked me whether I could find a farm—he was thinking of a farm in this country, as I belong to the National Farmers Union—for his daughter to spend her gap year on before going to veterinary school. She needed a very good and unusual entry—a star entry—on farming on her CV to get into vet school. I ignored the thought that the farm would be here and rang New Zealand. I spoke to one of the high-country farmers I know there. They said, “Yes, we’d love to take her here—kith and kin etc.” She was over the moon, until she arrived and suddenly realised what she had taken on. The farm has barley, lucerne hay and so on, 1,000 head of cattle, 1,000 head of deer and 23,000 lambing ewes, so when they have lambed—this is the farm I came from—there are 50,000 woolly beasts running around the place. That my colleague’s daughter went there was an example of kith and kin. She had a hard time for the first couple of weeks and then settled into it and came back really educated. She staggered the people who interviewed her for veterinary school, and walked straight in.

Of course, the biggest example of kith and kin is seen at times of conflict. We have the first world war commemoration coming up. In that war, there was the battle of Gallipoli, which led to Anzac day. Here, Remembrance day is important. It is covered on television. Anzac day in Australia and New Zealand is the same. Interestingly, the young people in Australia and New Zealand now go to the remembrance celebration there. They used not to do that in the past. The people of those countries remember the soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought for the United Kingdom as part of the Commonwealth.

I found this hard to understand as a child. My little village—it was a little village, in the north of the south island—had a war memorial. In typical New Zealand style, people were pragmatic about it. It was a superb memorial, but of course they had public toilets underneath it, because they had to use the space there for something useful. The walls of the memorial—one can see this at any of the memorials in Australia and New Zealand, but particularly at the war memorial in Canberra—were covered with the names of the soldiers who had died, and there were hundreds upon hundreds from that little village.

On Remembrance day in this country, I go to the villages in my area, and they read out the names. That is desperately important—it is desperately important that the names are remembered—but people cannot read out the names in the little village that I come from, because that would take up the whole time for the service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the Chamber on the international importance of the Commonwealth of nations in the wake of the Commonwealth day celebrations in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth. I was proud to have been invited to attend the observance day service at Westminster Abbey in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, together with representatives from all the nations and territories in the Commonwealth family.

I was also proud to have played a part in the campaign to fly the flag of the Commonwealth, which ensured that most town halls across the country were sent the Commonwealth flag to fly for the first time. I pay tribute to Bruno Peak, who led that campaign and organised the sending out of flags. I hope that many of us were at our town halls on Monday to see the raising of that important symbol of the Commonwealth family.

[Andrew Percy]

I would like to put on the record the fact that I was at North Lincolnshire council civic centre on Monday, where the Commonwealth flag was duly raised.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I would not have expected my hon. Friend to have been anywhere else, because he is such a committed supporter of the Commonwealth. The tradition that we have established this week in our country—that the flag of the Commonwealth should be flown at civic offices, town halls and, I hope, schools—will continue. I am proud to say that the flag of the Commonwealth was raised on the flagpole outside the Romford Conservative association’s Margaret Thatcher house in my constituency.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for his magnificent work as international chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and of its UK branch in Westminster. I know that you, Mr Bayley, also play a significant role in the work of the CPA. When I was elected to Parliament in 2001, one of the first things I did was to join the CPA. I commend it on its magnificent work and the way in which it has evolved over my 13 years as a Member.

On my first CPA visit in 2002, I accompanied my right hon. and noble Friend the then Member for Folkestone and Hythe—now Lord Howard—to Mauritius. Since then, I have participated in many CPA activities. I am delighted that the CPA is no longer simply about parliamentary friendship—although that is important—but about helping others to develop important things such as credentials and good governance. The CPA does magnificent work in those areas.

I put on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden and his team for all the work that they do to promote the CPA. There are issues about CPA internationally, and I hope that all nations in the Commonwealth understand and appreciate that we must work together because we have important common goals, values and objectives, which we must cherish.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who has made powerful remarks today about his visit to Sri Lanka and the deep importance of the Commonwealth. Not enough people understand that. I am glad that he is part of the CPA and that he has been to Sri Lanka and seen what is going on. I was pleased to have the opportunity to visit Sri Lanka myself three years ago, where I saw the terrible things that have gone on in that country and the awful divisions that have occurred. Sadly, many of those divisions have been made far worse by the Sri Lankan Government’s decision many years ago that English would no longer be the country’s common language. Surely, one of the most powerful aspects of the Commonwealth is the fact that all its members are bound together by the common language of English. Ending the use of English as a common language for all peoples of the Commonwealth will create divisions as one regional language takes precedence over another. The common English language does more than anything else to bind us together.

The other thing that Sri Lanka did was to become a republic, taking away a Head of State who was neutral and above politics. Countries that have gone down the republic road have not necessarily had the great success for which they had hoped. Those that have kept Her Majesty the Queen as their head of state—Australia, New Zealand, Canada, most of the Caribbean countries and many others—have not suffered from the internal divisions that countries such as Sri Lanka have, sadly, experienced. That is a great lesson for countries thinking about going down that route. The monarchy is a glue that binds together people of all political backgrounds and all ethnic origins despite divisions within countries.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) for her powerful speech about human rights in many Commonwealth countries. I agree entirely with her. We are not doing enough to deal with the atrocious things going on today in some Commonwealth countries—she mentioned Uganda, and there are many others—where the standards and values of the Commonwealth should be enshrined. Those countries must understand that being part of the Commonwealth means that certain values, including, crucially, human rights, must be upheld. I commend her for speaking so strongly about that. It is a message that we must spread.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Of course, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The fact of the matter is that the Commonwealth is a Commonwealth of nations, and we are all proud of our national heritage. We are proud of being British, and people of Pakistani origin are proud of their origins, as are people from New Zealand or any other country. Tolerance, understanding, kindness and friendship are values that should bind us together, and intolerance against people for whatever reason is wrong. I am sure we all agree that the Commonwealth must uphold that principle.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) gave a moving, powerful and thought-provoking speech about the huge sacrifice made by the people of New Zealand, Australia and other Commonwealth countries in the service of King or Queen and country over so long. That is particularly true of New Zealand, which has done more than probably any other country when it comes to sacrificing its own people in the service of freedom, the defence of the Crown and all the values that we hold dear.

I have been to New Zealand five times and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on Australia and New Zealand, having been an officer of that group during my 13 years in the House. I believe that there is no country in the world with which we have more in common than New Zealand, although perhaps I might include Australia and Canada in that. We are cousins. We are kith and kin, as my hon. Friend rightly said, and I find it utterly shameful that a New Zealander arriving at Heathrow is treated as an alien. I have raised the matter repeatedly with this Government and the previous one. Two years ago, I put forward a ten-minute rule Bill, the United Kingdom Borders Bill, on that subject. In the final year before the general election, I hope that the Minister will take back to the Government the message that it is time we did something to address that.

It is completely wrong that someone from New Zealand, Australia or Canada is treated as an alien when they arrive at Heathrow, but someone from a country that happens to have joined the European Union, for better or for worse, is treated as though they are British and comes through the same channel as we do. How can that be right? How did we get into a situation where we treat countries with which we have most in common—countries with which we share a Head of State, a language and a style of parliamentary and legal system—as alien, while we give preferential treatment to countries that happen to have signed up to the European Union?

I urge the Minister to speak to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister and do something about the situation. If we want to value the Commonwealth, and particularly the realms, which remain under the Crown—if we want to cement them as part of the great Commonwealth family—let us try to affect that issue. Nothing offends New Zealanders, Australians and Canadians more than being treated in that way when they arrive at Heathrow airport.

[Andrew Percy]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate, as we know from previous occasions. I entirely concur with what he says. Does he agree that a simple approach would be to start with Commonwealth realms, allowing their citizens to enter through the same channel as UK and EU citizens? I should have thought that that would be very simple.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I think that my hon. Friend was probably a sponsor of my Bill, because he has hit on exactly the point that I made about the Commonwealth and the realms. Realms, where the Queen is still the sovereign Head of State, have a special, deep constitutional link with the people of the British isles—of the United Kingdom. If we cannot immediately act in relation to the entire Commonwealth, let us at least work with the realms, of which there are 15 apart from our own. I shall not list them; I know that the Minister knows them by heart. They are deeply committed to their links with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth, and we should do something to enhance and cement that special relationship.

I went to Jamaica two years ago with the Foreign Affairs Committee. That is another country with which we have strong bonds. Many Jamaicans live in the UK, particularly around London, and they, too, feel aggrieved when they are treated as aliens. They are also aggrieved at the air passenger duty that has done so much damage to our relations with the Caribbean.

I commend my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for saying that we would put the “C” back into the FCO. He has done that; but in the final year of the present Government’s term of office, we need to show that we mean it. We can do a great deal more on all the issues I am outlining. I know that the Minister, who is also deeply committed to the Commonwealth and the things that we have been discussing, will champion my suggestion when he next sees the Foreign Secretary. It would unite both sides of the House if we took the opportunity.

Hon. Members will know that in my 13 years as a Member of the House of Commons I have been a fervent champion of the Commonwealth, which we cherish and hold dear—its aims, objectives and successes, and all that those things stand for. It is a symbol of unity and demonstrates friendship between old friends and allies in all corners of the world, far and wide.

I am proud that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland takes a leading role in flying the flag of the world’s oldest and truest international grouping of nations, honouring centuries of partnership in the modern world. However, the Commonwealth of nations could be much stronger than it is, and a great deal more needs to be done to realise its full potential. Successive Governments of all parties have failed to grasp the potential that it represents.

We have, unfortunately, spent decades focusing on relations with the European Union—the Common Market, as it once was—building bridges with countries on the continent. That is right; we should trade and have friendship with the continent. However, that should not mean focusing purely on our relations with Europe and ignoring the Commonwealth. I fear that the Commonwealth has been damaged because for decades we have not realised its potential. We should have been building bridges in the past few years with Commonwealth countries in Africa, Oceania, Asia and of course the Caribbean. Yet all Governments have, sadly, focused on Europe. I think the history of our country has come to a turning point. That is not to say we should not continue to work closely with our friends and allies in Europe; of course we should, but we should now focus on the Commonwealth. We should help its countries and work with them, more deeply than in the past few decades, on building for trade and co-operation.

The Commonwealth cannot be defined in one sweeping statement. It has a number of unique and compelling attributes, all of which are weathered by time and change. It is steeped in tradition; shared culture, heritage and history; an intrinsic love of democracy and freedom; and shared legal and parliamentary systems. Above all the members of the Commonwealth are united in our love of our countries and our patriotism, rather than nationalism. There is a shared affection for Her Majesty the Queen and for historic links to the British Isles and what the Commonwealth represents. Her Majesty the Queen put it accurately:

“The Commonwealth of societies old and new; of lands and races different in history and origins but all, by God’s Will, united in spirit and in aim.”

There are 53 nations in the Commonwealth. Sadly, Zimbabwe and the Gambia are no longer members, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who has now left the Chamber, said, it is to be hoped that at an appropriate time they will rejoin and that we shall work with them on that.

The member countries range from the old dominions of Canada, New Zealand and Australia, of which we have spoken extensively in the debate, to the newest member, Rwanda, which joined in 2009. The Commonwealth spans every time zone and yields a combined GDP of more than £5.2 trillion. Commonwealth countries are the emerging markets of the future, so we no longer talk of the Commonwealth just in terms of a traditional, albeit important, friendship. Our intention should be to make it relevant to the long-term future.

I am brought back to my earlier point that we should work on trade with the Commonwealth. If that means changing our relationship with the European Union so that we can be the leading bridge between the English-speaking world and the Commonwealth countries, to build trade globally, so be it. Any Government bold enough to grasp that, and think long term—to utilise the Commonwealth as the foundation for that approach—will do a great service to the people of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth draws much of its uniqueness and individuality from its sprawl and its vast global network of nations. It boasts many of the world’s strongest economies, and its membership includes many emerging democracies. It is by no definition a western club; it includes countries from all corners of the earth, from the south Pacific islands to the Caribbean, from all corners of Africa to the north of Canada, and from the south Atlantic to the highest tip of the British isles. It is an amazing collection of nations, territories and dependencies: countries with a shared foundation of values and common interests, that we should make much more of than we have in recent decades.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

I touched briefly earlier on our trade with our partners in the Commonwealth of nations. That is among the most prevalent and topical economic discussion points of modern times. The tides of global trade are turning and we must adjust, to ensure that HMS Britain stays afloat and does not sink, lashed to the anchor of the eurozone, while we yet have the Commonwealth, which we could harness for trade and co-operation in so many areas. The time has come to be bold, and for us to be a global nation again. However, it will be necessary to change our relations with the EU to make that possible. Much is being made at the moment of the trading arrangements between the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States of America. Those agreements could have been made years ago, if we had chosen. We did not need to wait for Brussels to negotiate trading agreements; we could have agreed them many years ago, but we chose not to.

We not only chose not to but were prevented from making agreements because we are tied to an organisation that prevents us from doing what we have done throughout the history of these islands: traded globally, sailed the world and fostered relationships with countries far and wide. We can only do so again if we remove the chains that are shackled around our feet through being members of a political union. We can then use the Commonwealth as the basis of our global co-operation.

I welcome you to the debate, Mr Brady, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I have heard it suggested by many people that Commonwealth free trade is not practical. I disagree profoundly. With boldness and vision, we can lead on that idea so that Commonwealth trade is a way forward in future. It is backward-thinking to believe that our future rests only with the EU. We can trade with Europe as well as with the Commonwealth, and be a bridge between both parts of the globe that are important to us.

I would like to tell the Minister that a Government are strongest when they are boldest. I hope that most of us present agree that our boldest Prime Ministers, such as Lady Thatcher—some might not agree with everything she did, but she was bold and always stood up for what she believed was right—and the strongest Governments, often those who are re-elected, do radical things rather than pandering to the politically correct or acceptable views of the day. We must have bold vision, and I urge the Minister to raise that idea with the Prime Minister.

Look at the boldness that Lady Thatcher showed against adversity and in difficult situations; she risked everything to do what she truly believed to be right. What better example is there than when she sent a taskforce to the south Atlantic to rescue the people of the Falkland Islands? She could have given in and said that it was too difficult—that it was not practical and too expensive—but she knew what was right and fought for it, and thereby ensured that the people of the Falklands were liberated. We need the same attitude in government today on a range of issues, but particularly on embracing the Commonwealth nations for trade and co-operation, and to ensure that the values that we hold dear, which have lasted for generations, are protected and cherished for future generations.

I believe that all of us present could do more in our constituencies to promote the Commonwealth and the importance of our heritage. I would like to commend members of my local Conservative association who have formed a Conservative Commonwealth group. On Sunday, we held the first Romford service of thanksgiving for the Commonwealth at St Alban Protomartyr church in my constituency, presided over by Rev. Father Roderick Hingley. The chairman of my constituency Conservative Commonwealth association is Gloria Adagbon, who originates from Nigeria, and the president is Lloyd Thomas, who is from Montserrat.

People of all Commonwealth origins in my constituency are being brought together, celebrating their shared heritage—love of country; love of Queen; love of everything we hold dear in these islands. Many members have come to live in Britain and they cherish their Commonwealth links. I find it offensive and patronising when I hear talk of people being BME—black and minority ethnic. I do not think that that is a relevant term today. The term “Commonwealth origins” is a far more respectful way of discussing people who have come from different parts of the world. It does not matter whether someone is of a particular religion or colour; it is important that we have shared values, and the Commonwealth represents that.

The Conservative Commonwealth group in my constituency is doing amazing work in bring everyone together. I urge all MPs present, from all parties, to enhance the Commonwealth through their respective parties by bringing people together in their constituencies. We should visit schools and talk about the Commonwealth to children at assemblies and in classrooms more often. The diamond jubilee in 2012 was a great opportunity to do that. I visited every school in my constituency to talk about the importance of the United Kingdom, the overseas territories and dependencies, and, of course, the Commonwealth.

We all see in our local schools young children with Commonwealth ancestry—I certainly do in my constituency. At the service we held in Romford on Sunday we had a Commonwealth choir from the Frances Bardsley academy for girls. They sang Commonwealth hymns, and it was an amazingly uplifting occasion. High commissioners and representatives from all over the Commonwealth came to celebrate. I hope that colleagues from all parties can do more in their constituencies to promote the importance of the Commonwealth.

Earlier, I asked the Minister about the failure to fly flags in Parliament square this week for Commonwealth day. I must say that it was sad to see Her Majesty arrive to an empty Parliament square, completely devoid of flags. I know that health and safety is important and that work on repairing the pavements prevented the flags from being flown, but I really think that we can do better. I remember that the state opening of Parliament last year happened to fall on Europe day. The flags of the European Union were flown in Parliament square for the arrival of Her Majesty the Queen, yet this year, on Commonwealth day, she arrived at Westminster abbey and the square was blank, with no Commonwealth flags. We really should do better.

Her Majesty’s Government must look at the issue of flags, the failure to fly them on appropriate occasions, and the importance and significance of flying them in Parliament square. Parliament square is the centre of our democracy. Nearby is Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Foreign Office, the Treasury, parliamentary buildings and Westminster abbey, where coronations take place—yet in terms of which flags to fly and when, Parliament square is a muddle.

I wrote to the Prime Minister last year about the unbelievable events prior to Remembrance Sunday, when all the flags of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies were removed on the Saturday. It is bad enough that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies are not permitted to lay a wreath on Remembrance Sunday, but to remove their flags literally the day before—I witnessed it from my office in Portcullis House—was quite disgraceful; yet there has been no change.

We need a complete review of when flags are flown, and we should look at erecting permanent flagpoles in Parliament square. I am always told that it costs so much to put the flagpoles up and down; well, let us come up with a proper plan so that whenever we are in Parliament square we can see appropriate flags that show pride in our nation. I would have no problem at all with permanently flying in Parliament square the flags of the four countries of the UK, of the overseas territories and of the Crown dependencies. On special occasions, we can perhaps fly the Commonwealth and European Union flags, if they are considered appropriate, as well as other flags.

However, there is currently a complete muddle about when flags are flown and for what purpose. Departments are arguing with one another and blaming contractors for the muddles. I urge the Minister to take the issue back to his Department, because it would do great service to our nation, promoting pride and confidence in it, if we saw flags flying every time we went to the centre of our democracy, Parliament square. There could be no better advertisement for our country than if we were to get that right—currently, we are not.

I have mentioned the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, as I do on many occasions, and I would now like to discuss them further. We talk about the Commonwealth, but the overseas territories and Crown dependencies are not members. That is another strange muddle that we have allowed to occur over many years.

Mr Brady, as the chairman of the all-party group on the Cayman Islands, you will know how proud the people of the Cayman Islands are of their link to Britain. When I went to the Assembly of the Cayman Islands several years ago, I saw a map of the Commonwealth and I pointed out to the chief Minister of the Cayman Islands that the Cayman Islands was not coloured in as part of it. He looked at the map and said, “Actually, you’re right”; he had not noticed before. Ever since then, I have been astounded to see maps of the Commonwealth that do not include Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Why is that? Why are we not fighting for the loyal subjects of our 21 territories and dependencies? Why are we not allowing them to have at least associate status within the Commonwealth? Why do we not give them some recognition on maps of the Commonwealth? When the Commonwealth publishes lists of member states and their flags, the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are always missed out. I will refer to that matter further in a moment, because the British Council has just published a document that highlights precisely why it needs to be addressed.

We have this issue of the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories not being members of the Commonwealth and their flags not being flown accordingly. Despite cross-party support for their inclusion, the people of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are still not permitted to lay a wreath on Remembrance Sunday alongside the other countries of the Commonwealth. I know that the Minister will say that the Foreign Secretary lays the wreath on their behalf, but the Foreign Secretary represents Britain to foreign countries. These are British territories and their people served and died for Britain—for King, or Queen, and country. Why is it that the people of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and Bermuda, our oldest territory, are not allowed to have their representatives at the Cenotaph to lay a wreath on Remembrance Sunday? Is it not time that we addressed this issue once and for all? Of course the Foreign Secretary should continue to lay a wreath on Remembrance Sunday for British citizens all around the world, but let the territories and dependencies lay their own wreaths.

I have yet to hear from the Government who actually lays the wreaths on behalf of the Crown dependencies. It is not the Foreign Secretary, because the dependencies do not come under the Foreign Office; they come under the Ministry of Justice, but the Lord Chancellor does not lay a wreath. Once again, it is another muddle that the Government need to address, but I have yet to hear them deal with this argument, take it seriously and sort the matter out. I hope that the Minister will deal with it before the next election; we have one year to resolve it and I have no doubt that he will make it one of his priorities in the months ahead.

Let me give an example of how things are going so badly wrong. The British Council has published a superb booklet entitled “British Council’s Programme for Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.” We are all proud that the Commonwealth games are taking place in Scotland this year. The booklet is splendid and I have read it from cover to cover. It has a splendid message from Sir Martin Davidson, the chief executive of the British Council. Flicking through it, I came to the back and once again saw the map of the Commonwealth. Sadly, Gibraltar looks as if it is part of the Kingdom of Spain; it is not really highlighted at all and looks as if it is part of Spain. The Falkland Islands are the same colour as Argentina; they are not highlighted on this map at all. According to this map, there are no parts of the Commonwealth within the Caribbean. The British territories of the Caribbean—Montserrat, Anguilla, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and Bermuda, which is the oldest British colony—are completely wiped off this map. And yet every single one of those territories that I have just mentioned is a participant in the Commonwealth games, even though they are all excluded from this quite costly booklet produced by the British Council. If the British Council cannot get this matter right, what hope is there? We need to sort these issues out. I say to the Minister that it is so important that Her Majesty’s Government recognise all Her Majesty’s territories.

If all that was not bad enough, according to this map, the Isle of Man is part of England. The people of the island will not be happy to have their status as a Crown dependency taken away. The Channel Islands do not exist on this map either. So, Jersey and Guernsey, both of which are participating in the Commonwealth games, are excluded from this map; Sark and Alderney are also excluded. Once again, it is a muddle. We need to sort these issues out if we are serious about taking this matter forward.

There is another issue I wish to draw to the attention of the House today. There is one huge gap in the Commonwealth today. We are more connected to the Republic of Ireland than to any other country in the world and yet the Republic of Ireland is, sadly, no longer part of the Commonwealth family. It is time that we said to our friends, our cousins and our extended family in Ireland that they, too, should join the Commonwealth and come home to the family of Commonwealth nations. It was the people of Ireland, together with the people of England, Scotland and Wales, who built the Commonwealth—the original British Empire that evolved into a Commonwealth of nations. I believe that the people of Ireland belong in the Commonwealth.

The other evening, I was very pleased to welcome the Irish Taoiseach, Enda Kenny TD, to Parliament. He was at a St Patrick’s day reception on the Terrace of the House of Commons, and I had the opportunity to speak to him briefly about the importance of Ireland and why it was important that it joined the Commonwealth. He was receptive to that possibility when I spoke to him. In his speech at that reception, he also commended Irish citizens who had served in the British armed forces, and I also pay tribute today to those who, despite being citizens of Ireland, died in the British armed forces. There are still many Irish citizens in the British armed forces.

Ireland belongs as part of the Commonwealth family, and I urge Her Majesty’s Government to do everything they can to work with the Taoiseach and those in Ireland who share this vision to bring Ireland closer to the Commonwealth and give its people the opportunity to be part of this great family. We are all part of the British isles; we share that common heritage, language and history. Together we built the Commonwealth, and I hope that the people of the wonderful country of Ireland will join with us as part of the Commonwealth. As we approach St Patrick’s day next Monday, which also happens to be my birthday, I look forward to the day that we can celebrate Ireland coming back within the family of Commonwealth nations.

For me, the Commonwealth is deeply important. It is not just an organisation that we happen to be a member of; it is an organisation that we founded. It is an organisation of peoples, nations and territories, with a common heritage, the same language and similar constitutions, with Parliaments based on the Westminster model of a constitutional Parliament. Commonwealth countries share a legal system, and so many other values and ideas that we have in common. I believe that we need to harness all those things more strongly for the years to come. The Commonwealth is vital to our future, and any future Government should look long term to consider how we can develop the Commonwealth to make it even more important, not only for the people of this country but for the developing world, which so many Commonwealth countries are a part of.

I will close by quoting a poem that was read out on Sunday at the Commonwealth service in Romford. It was written by Rebecca Hawkins, aged 13, who is in year 9 at the Frances Bardsley academy for girls in Romford. I will not read the entire poem, even though it is magnificent, but I will ensure that the Minister sees a copy of the entire poem. I will read the final verse, in which Rebecca perfectly describes the different parts of the Commonwealth:

“From the red rock far down under

To Botswana with its dust and thunder

From Bangladesh’s rivers wide

To Britain where our Queen resides

From djembe drums in Ghana

To the West Indian sugar farmer

From lives hectic and lives peaceful

To green island gems and waters crystal

From skyscrapers to mauve moors bleak

To deserts and forests and snow-capped peaks.

We are the Commonwealth.”

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who—for 39 minutes—regaled us with his love of the Commonwealth. I know that he is a passionate advocate of the Commonwealth, and that came out in every one of those minutes. I agree entirely with an awful lot of what he had to say, particularly with regard to Commonwealth access to the United Kingdom and the importance of the relationship between the UK and the EU not being to the exclusion of that between the UK and the Commonwealth. Although I am a passionate advocate of withdrawal from the European Union, I am keen that the debate should never become about choosing between the Commonwealth and the European Union, because that would pull people into opposing camps.

I will be brief because I want to hear from the two Front-Bench spokespeople, who have to respond to the many good points made in this debate. I was going to say a few words about the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, but I mentioned it in an intervention and have spoken about it previously. Given where we are in the debate, I will not mention the CPA.

I broadly state my support for the Commonwealth and where it comes from, and I share that support with many of my generation. Some people tend to dismiss our relationship with the Commonwealth as something that people in their 60s and 70s are interested in because they remember empire and grew up learning history through the amount of red on the map in their classroom. That might be the case for some of that generation, who may look back on that period with rose-tinted glasses, but for people of my generation the issue is much more practical. There is a tendency to perceive that, because we have become so much more European, the Commonwealth is now less important to us. For my generation, in many ways, the opposite is true because we have been able to travel much more widely than our parents and grandparents.

For many of my generation, the Commonwealth is where we visit. It is a place we know better than perhaps our grandparents did. I previously worked in the US and Canada, with which I have a great affinity and attachment. Whenever I travelled in Canada, I could not help but realise that I was not in a foreign country. Canada feels far less foreign than popping 30 miles across the English channel to Belgium or France, which means that many of us in this country have a strong emotional attachment to the Commonwealth that was created not only in war but through practical interaction, exchange and family ties. Many of my generation feel a strong affinity and attachment to other Commonwealth nations.

When we talk about the Commonwealth, the issue is not about looking back with rose-tinted glasses to the lost days of empire. Many of my friends have emigrated. Where do they go? Some go to Europe for short periods, but in many cases they do not go there to start a new life. They tend to be drawn to Australia, New Zealand and Canada because of the similarities, shared values and in some cases, depending on their career, the shared legal systems and educational systems. They are drawn to the Commonwealth even now, after more than 30 years of EU integration and membership. For all that we have been forced down that route, many of us still feel committed to the Commonwealth.

I do not want to say much more. There is a lot that the Commonwealth could do a lot better, particularly on human rights. We should hold some of our Commonwealth partners’ feet to the fire, which is a point the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and I made when we were in South Africa, but I will not say any more on that as I have previously spoken about it here.

The Commonwealth is not about the past; it is about the present and the future. I hope the Minister recognises that many people of my generation strongly support links with our Commonwealth partners and would like to see a relationship in which those links are deepened and strengthened further. This is not about the past; it is about the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with the hon. Lady. We will not for one moment stop trying to persuade the Government of Sri Lanka that it is in their interests on two counts—its effect on how Sri Lanka is seen internationally and the need for genuine reconciliation between different communities in that country. At the end of the day, the Government of Sri Lanka are sovereign and they will take their decision. We hope that they will eventually conclude that an independent inquiry of some kind is in the interests of Sri Lanka itself. That is why we are disappointed that they have not hitherto established an inquiry of their own. Had such an inquiry been set up in Sri Lanka, we would not need to call for one now at the UN Human Rights Council.

I should add that the Commonwealth ministerial action group has a key role to play in upholding the values to which all Commonwealth countries signed up when they agreed the charter. As CMAG meets for the first time since CHOGM here in London, we have a timely opportunity to restate our view that it is essential that CMAG lives up to the strengthened mandate that it received in Perth.

Our debate this afternoon is a reminder that democracy itself is a key Commonwealth value. The work that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association does to support and extend democratic values across the Commonwealth should not be underestimated. The CPA rightly enjoys associate organisation status within the Commonwealth and is the one Commonwealth organisation that directly represents parliamentary democracy. The Government recognise the CPA’s importance, and we remain happy to discuss proposals to enhance further its work through such measures as a democracy forum. I welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden about the wish to see greater recognition of the CPA’s role in strengthening contact between elected local government bodies across the Commonwealth.

I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s creative and imaginative proposal for a Commonwealth youth parliamentary assembly of some kind. I look forward to seeing how that idea develops further within the CPA. I welcome the decision of the House—it was not welcomed in all quarters—to allow the United Kingdom Youth Parliament to sit in the Chamber. The idea that one day we could look at a Commonwealth youth parliament visiting different Parliaments in different Commonwealth member states and in different continents is very attractive indeed.

In addition to Commonwealth values, hon. Members have referred today to the potential to increase prosperity across the Commonwealth for all its members. The Department for International Development contributes directly to member states that are developing countries, and allocated about £2 billion of aid to those countries in 2013-14—that figure ignores regional programmes and therefore masks a higher total.

Local sporting events also drive economic growth, as previous Commonwealth games have shown. According to the organising committee of the New Delhi games, Manchester benefited to the tune of more than £2 billion in 2002, Melbourne by £1 billion in 2006 and Delhi itself by £2.5 billion. The United Kingdom exceeded its four-year Olympic legacy target, adding £11 billion to the economy through trade and investment in just over one year. The Glasgow games of 2014, which will draw in more than 6,500 athletes and officials in 17 sports, with a global audience of approximately 1.5 billion people, offer a great opportunity for the United Kingdom to provide leadership in enhancing Commonwealth prosperity.

To that end, UKTI is working with Scottish Enterprise, in partnership with the Commonwealth Business Council, on behalf of the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments together to deliver the Commonwealth games business conference on 22 and 23 July. That conference will explore opportunities to strengthen trade and investment between Commonwealth partners and seek new, innovative solutions to deliver sustainable economic growth.

After that conference, UKTI will also host the British Business House, to highlight the UK’s position as a centre of trade and investment. Businesses and key decision makers from the UK and across the Commonwealth will participate in a series of high level round-table and seminar sessions to explore new opportunities to increase trade and investment in the Commonwealth.

Those are just two examples of how the Commonwealth can harness the potential in its membership to increase prosperity. We should be increasing trade and investment with all our partners globally, including the Commonwealth and the EU. I welcome the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), especially in the knowledge of his long-standing, honourably held position on our EU membership, that it is not a matter of trading with either the EU or the Commonwealth but one of trading with both. Indeed, in the case of Cyprus and Malta, we have an overlap on our Venn diagram.

The free trade agreements that the EU has concluded, or is negotiating with Commonwealth countries, will enhance further the conditions for trade. We expect, for example, the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement to benefit the United Kingdom’s economy and businesses by more than £1.3 billion every year.

[Andrew Percy]

I wanted to say this, but I got my timings wrong, because I had not realised that the debate was running until 4.30 pm. That was why I cut myself off after four minutes. In terms of our relationship with Canada and the CETA, we will have a special position once that agreement is implemented. Does the Minister not agree that we need a particular strategy that utilises our unique relationship with Canada to ensure that, when the CETA is in place, we are the country in Europe that benefits most from it? We need a UK Government strategy.

[Mr Lidington]

With my Minister for Europe hat on, I would caution my hon. Friend slightly, because France would think that it has a particular relationship with Quebec, but he makes a good point. Actually, that strikes a chord, because when I last discussed EU-Canada negotiations with Lord Livingston, our new Minister for Trade and Investment, he was focused on the need for the UK to build up a greater market share in Canada. Canada is one of those countries where we have not yet taken sufficient advantage of the commercial opportunities open to us. I shall make a point of drawing my hon. Friend’s comments to his attention.

[Mr Lidington]

When looking at any one bilateral free trade agreement, it is difficult to make an accurate judgment about what might have been had we not been members of the European Union: whether it would have been easier or more difficult. Actually, until the Doha round ran into the sand, the policy of successive British Governments was to focus less on bilateral trade negotiations than on multilateral trade negotiations, first through the general agreement on tariffs and trade and then through the World Trade Organisation. That would have been the best way in which to address this agenda. The failure of those global trade liberalisation talks has resulted in the European Union and individual countries around the world looking for opportunities for bilateral deals instead. My word of caution to my hon. Friend would be that when we come to look at how trade negotiations progress—this is particularly true of the negotiations with the United States—we see that the value of and the leverage provided by membership of a market of 500 million people is greater than that of a market of 60 million people.

In respect of Canada, I have no idea how things would have gone had the United Kingdom some time ago decided to try to negotiate a bilateral agreement. I just draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that the European Free Trade Association-Canada free trade agreement, which preceded the EU one, leaves out a number of key sectors, such as financial services, that would be particularly important to this country. Sometimes that European Union leverage does enable us to get, in my judgment, further than we would be able to on our own. That is certainly true of the talks with the United States at the moment. However, as I have said, I do not think that this is an either/or situation. We should be looking to get the greatest advantage out of our membership of all the international organisations to which we are party.

My hon. Friends the Members for Romford and for Mole Valley both talked about airports, passport queues and visa arrangements. They will not be surprised if I start by saying that, as the House will know, those are primarily matters for the Home Office, rather than for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It has been the consistent policy of successive British Governments to say that citizens from all Commonwealth countries should be treated, for immigration purposes, as third country nationals. It is also the case that the citizens of some Commonwealth countries, including at least one of the realms—Jamaica—require visas before they come into the United Kingdom; entry clearance on its own is not deemed sufficient. The position is more complicated than it is sometimes made out to be, but again I promise to draw to the attention of my colleagues in the Home Office the points that were made very strongly by my hon. Friends.

[Andrew Percy]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I do think that this issue is important. I understand the specific situation with Jamaica, but of course the Jamaican Government have stated very clearly that they wish to remove the monarchy from their constitution and become a republic, so perhaps at that point the situation will become a great deal simpler. This is something that we should, at least from the Government side, express as a desire and an aim, given that these are citizens coming to the country where their Head of State resides and we treat them as foreigners, which of course in law they are not.

[Mr Lidington]

I will draw my hon. Friend’s comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. She has the policy lead on these matters.

I would have been astonished had my hon. Friend the Member for Romford not seized the opportunity to speak about the British overseas territories. He is renowned as their foremost champion in the House of Commons. I accept and sympathise with his wish to see greater recognition for the overseas territories in Commonwealth affairs. It is worth noting in passing that of course Australia and New Zealand, too, administer island territories as dependencies that, as I understand it, are not full members of the Commonwealth in their own right.

The constitutional issue is that the Commonwealth has always operated on the basis that there is just one category of membership, which is full membership, and that is available only to sovereign states. That position was most recently reaffirmed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government in 2007. It would be perfectly possible to create some new status of associate member, but that would, of course, require the unanimous agreement of every member of the Commonwealth. I will ensure that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, who has responsibility for the Commonwealth, learns of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and of his wish for this country to take more of a lead in pressing for such a change. I will ask my right hon. Friend to write to my hon. Friend, to set out his response to those ideas in greater detail.