President Trump: State Visit

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. The next speaker is Mr Alistair Carmichael. Could we now cut speeches down to four minutes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. We have reached 6.45 pm, so we must move on to Liam Byrne.

[Dawn Butler]

I will conclude to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) time to speak. I just want to say that the whole world is watching the decision that we make in Parliament, and we cannot be on the wrong side of history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

That is not for the Minister to decide. Mr Turner, you are in the Chair, not the Minister.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. That is not eligible as a point of order. Sit down, Mr Salmond. Go on, Minister.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Thank you, Mr Turner.

I was talking about the prospect of the President addressing both Houses of Parliament. Comment on whether that might happen has run completely ahead of itself. The simple fact is that no request for any parliamentary event to take place has been received from Washington. The question of addressing a meeting of Parliament has never even been mentioned. Any discussion or judgment of that possibility is therefore purely speculative.

Within the views that have been expressed about the appropriateness of a state visit from the President, there lurks a fundamental principle that Members of this House should consider very seriously—the principle of freedom of speech. President Trump was democratically elected by the American people under their own constitutional system. To have strong views about him is one matter, but to translate a difference of opinion into a demand to ban him is quite another.

Given the understandable questions on certain policy stances that arise on any change of Government, it is prudent for us to work closely alongside the United States as the new Administration chart their course. We have already seen the importance of that engagement: the Prime Minister’s early meeting with the President has elicited key commitments on NATO, which were echoed by the vice-president in Munich on Saturday, and has laid the groundwork to establish a swift post-Brexit free trade agreement. Further constructive engagement will be helped by a state visit.

In February 1917, a century ago, The Spectator published its view on the US and the UK:

“It would be easy to write down a hundred reasons why unclouded friendship and moral co-operation between the United States and Britain are a benefit to the world, and why an interruption of such relations is a detriment to progress and a disease world-wide in its effects.”

EU Referendum Leaflet

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Lidington]

I have taken part in debates and responded to questions about the application of section 125, including in the Chamber and while giving evidence to the Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I was very clear, as was my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that we were talking about restrictions and whether they should be applied in the final 28 days of the campaign. Indeed, the hon. Members who often were most fervent in challenging the Government’s original suggestion that there might be particular circumstances in which the section 125 arrangements should be relaxed were saying to us, “Don’t worry because the Government will have every opportunity to present their case during the earlier stages of the referendum campaign.”

Although hon. Members are right that the overall spending limit for each of the designated campaign organisations is £7 million, those two campaigning organisations will, in addition, have the right to take advantage of a free leaflet distribution to every letterbox or every registered elector. They will also both have the right to a broadcast to the British public.

If the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) is willing, I will write to her about the two specific questions that she asked. I assure the House that no copies of the leaflet will be distributed during purdah and that postal votes will not arrive before 27 May. That includes postal votes sent to registered electors living overseas. I hope that satisfies her to some extent.

A number of hon. Members suggested that, if we remained the EU, we would be inexorably dragged into further forms of political or military integration against our will. I remind hon. Members that we already have, in the European Union Act 2011—an Act that has now been accepted on a cross-party basis in the House of Commons—very considerable safeguards. They provide for a referendum of the people to take place before the UK, under any Government, could join the euro, sign up to an EU army or a European public prosecutor’s office, join the Schengen agreement, or give up national vetoes on areas of policy that are currently subject to a requirement for unanimity.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to allow time for our hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam to reply.

The truth is that the UK is a European power with global interests, and Europe matters to our prosperity and security. Decisions taken in Europe will affect us, whether we are out or in. I want the Ministers of this country to be at the table, leading the debates, shaping the rules, and deciding the arrangements through which we trade and how we operate in the world. We should not be outside the door waiting for others to sew something up and tell us what they have decided that affects us.

We know at least that the leave campaign believes that we should withdraw from the single market as part of departure from the EU. That would put at risk not only the current tariff-free trading environment, but the enormous reduction in—and, in many cases, elimination of—non-tariff barriers that have proved to be one of the key advantages to British industry of EU membership.

As the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) mentioned, one of the leading gurus of the leave campaign, Professor Minford, has said publicly that we could expect to lose our manufacturing sector if we leave the EU, and that we should not be scared of that prospect. For people who have spent their lives working in the manufacturing industry or hope for jobs in manufacturing businesses, that would be a very alarming prediction indeed. It is little wonder that all the major business organisations report that a decisive majority, and in some cases, an overwhelming majority, of their members want to remain in the EU. That applies whether we are talking about the Confederation of British Industry, the EEF, the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the National Farmers Union or TheCityUK.

Those who argue that we should be unconcerned about security risks ignore the opportunities that membership gives us. We have played a key part in successful European initiatives to defeat piracy in the Indian ocean, to reconcile Serbia and Kosovo, to train the military in Mali and to impose sanctions that brought Iran to the nuclear negotiating table. We would be foolish to throw that away. I am confident in the ability of our country to continue to set the agenda. We should not look inward. We should not retreat to isolation. We should go ahead and help to shape the direction of the continent of which we are, and will remain, a part.

Persecution of Religious Minorities: Pakistan

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I take this opportunity to praise Mohammed Salim and other members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association who do so much for our community in Warwick and Leamington.

Does the hon. Lady agree that if Pakistan expects to grow its economy exponentially, it needs to address these serious humanitarian concerns and, in particular, the Pakistani Government’s failure to legally recognise the Ahmadiyya Muslim community?

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

That intervention went on a bit long. Let’s get them a bit shorter.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I completely agree with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White). It is a thriving, well-educated community that has much to give Pakistan, and it will do so if given the freedom and opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

In a spirit of north and south London solidarity, does the hon. Gentleman agree that another thing that the Foreign Office could do is to raise with Bulgaria the discrimination that takes place against Ahmadis there? Bulgaria is a key European Union ally and one with which we ought to have good contacts, so we could discuss the issue repeatedly until progress happens and the discrimination ends.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

We are getting rather long interventions, which we should not be.

[Paul Scully]

Bulgaria is an important issue, which has also been raised with me and, I am sure, with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden when we have visited the mosque in Morden. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for drawing it to our attention, because it is important to put on record our concern about persecution around the world, especially when it is somewhere quite so close to home.

In addition to visiting the mosque and meeting members of the Ahmadiyya community, I am looking forward to the Jalsa Salana in Alton, which is coming up, as is the peace symposium organised by the UK community. I can join them and say, “Salaam alaikum”, to show respect and knowing that people will be able to respond in kind, freely, because what the UK does particularly well is religious tolerance. We always need to work at it and to ensure that we tackle intolerance wherever it arises in this country, but, on the whole, if we compare ourselves to many other countries, we lead the way. That is to be welcomed.

In Pakistan, as we have heard from hon. Members, the blasphemy laws are poorly designed, being very general and wide. That leads to a broad interpretation, which is used to persecute and oppress the Ahmadiyya community. How can it be that in the 21st century we hear examples of people who want to wipe out the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan?

We have heard about how members of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan are unable to vote. They have to declare themselves as non-Muslims and the founder of their religion, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, as an apostate and a liar. How can we stand by and let that happen? We have heard numerous terrible examples of violence and arrests as recently as November 2015, when a factory and several homes were burnt down, and January this year, when a man was killed in Rabwah. That is the centre of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan, so there is no hiding place when there is such wide acceptance of oppression and persecution.

As we have heard, Pakistan is a signatory to the international covenant on civil and political rights, which it ratified in 2010. Two weeks ago, with a number of colleagues, I spent a week in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe, where we talked about human rights closer to home. If discussions about agreements are ever to mean something and it is not to be just a talking shop, it is important that we take a lead and ensure that people who ratify documents adhere to them in everything they do.

We cannot stand by in the 21st century and allow a situation where a simplistic, oppressive set of laws, and the interpretation of those laws, is allowed to affect a community in such a way. I ask the Minister and the Government what the UK can do, alongside the signatories of the ICCPR, to push further on that. What can we do with UK aid to further transparency, and what can we do to use aid for education as leverage to ensure that religion is taught as widely as possible and that we do not have the current situation of textbooks skewed against the Ahmadiyya community, which was mentioned earlier? What can we do to urge Pakistan to restore the right to vote and to repeal blasphemy laws? Finally, can we urge Pakistan to prosecute incitement and hate speech against Ahmadis and religious minorities?

This evening I am travelling to Burma, where I will meet a couple of Rohingya activists. As with any aspect of religion, the Muslim world is complex. When different denominations, sects and groups disagree on fundamental matters such as who was the last prophet and who is the true leader of their faith, it will always be complicated, but that is not to say that we cannot demand and push for greater tolerance so that we can live alongside each other, wherever we are in the world.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and EU Renegotiations

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

I very much agree with the hon. Lady. There is a democratic deficit in the EU. It is no coincidence that the European Parliament, after the most recent elections, is probably the most Eurosceptic European Parliament in the EU’s history. There is a connection there and the EU needs to recognise that it needs to put that democratic deficit right.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even elected people do not get thrown out? We cannot get rid of Dan Hannan, for example, because he is No. 1 of 10 or 11 Members of the European Parliament.

[Mr Baron]

There are many flaws in the system. The peoples of Europe—although one can generalise too much in this respect—are asking more and more questions as the system fails to deliver, in particular on the economic front. Mass unemployment is causing great hardship in many countries and the EU is failing to deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for recommending this important debate. In 2013, the Prime Minister set out the future of Europe in his Bloomberg speech. He acknowledged that the status quo was no longer working for us, so he promised us change, reform and even a new treaty. Having received the draft negotiation earlier this week, I ask myself, “Where are these grand promises of fundamental reform?” There are none; there is not a single clear-cut promise of any treaty change. The Prime Minister said that the European Union cannot progress with “more of the same”, but so far that is all I have heard. It has been more of the same complex rules, restricting and burdening us; more of the same inability to change; more of the same foreign domination that we have not asked for and that we do not want. The European Union is its own biggest threat. How many times will we be promised a more competitive environment? How many times have we been told that red tape will be cut and the single market strengthened? We have yet to see real proposals and we have yet to see proper results—enough, is enough.

I am interested in Mr Tusk’s definition of sovereignty, because the proposals can hardly be called “sovereign”; nor do they let power flow back to this Parliament. Instead, we could receive a “red card”—a red card that can be used only when a group of national Parliaments decide to stop a legislative proposal. A majority of 55% of member states is to constitute a red card, whereas my majority would be 100% of the United Kingdom.

What about this “emergency brake”? It is an emergency that needs to be objectively justified. Whereas it is jolly good that the Commission tells us that the UK would qualify to pull this brake, it is outrageous that the final word lies not with us, but with other member states. We may not, says the EU, have to pursue an “ever closer union”. When the UK is neither allowed to pull its own brake, nor to decide its own emergency, that is when I feel that the ever closer union is still very much upon us.

The Prime Minister described an updated European Union as flexible, adaptable and more open. I can only see a supposedly updated European Union that is inflexible, unadaptable, and blocked. The Prime Minister did warn us, saying:

“You will not always get what you want”,

but it is becoming clearer by the day that with the European Union you never get what you want. If the European Union really wants us to stay, would it not have offered us more? The European Union has sucked up our sovereignty, and trampled all over our ancient rights and freedoms. Are we simply going to carry on with this relationship we have with the EU, when the EU so obviously does not want to change? Is not the only solution just to say “Leave” to this whole spectacle? This renegotiation is a spectacle; it is too much noise, too much of a farce and much too little substance.

[Stephen Gethins]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my near neighbour in Somerset, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Marcus Fysh), who gave a fantastic calculation as to why, on balance, it would be right to leave. I know that the people of Somerset will respond warmly to the lead he has given them.

I want to pick up on a couple of threads mentioned by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) relating to parliamentary sovereignty. We sometimes get into the idea that parliamentary sovereignty comes out of a vacuum, but in fact it is a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. It is the way we represent the sovereignty of the British people. They delegate to us, for five years, the right to make laws in their name, but at the end of those five years they expect to have the sovereignty returned to them intact, so that they can decide how it should be used in future.

In that sense, I am very close to the Scottish understanding of the sovereignty of the people, because it comes from them and belongs to them. It is not ours to give away; it is ours to protect, return and operate within. It is not about us as individual Members of Parliament or these grand rooms; it is about the rights of the British people and their ability to achieve through us the things that they have expected to achieve for centuries. I am thinking primarily of redress of grievance and the right to hold the Government to account.

That is why the issue is so difficult. Although it is possible to hold a Minister to account and to seek redress of grievance through this House in those areas that remain a domestic competence, as soon as an issue goes beyond these shores and becomes a European competence, it is impossible to obtain redress of grievance through this House. Indeed, in my correspondence with a Minister on behalf of a constituent, I was told that, although the Minister was sympathetic to my constituent’s plight, if he were given the redress he needed the British Government would themselves be fined. He could not, therefore, get that redress. That is a fundamental attack on parliamentary sovereignty which is there for the right reason.

On the renegotiation, the hon. Member for Glenrothes made an interesting point. He said that he thought many of us would vote against anyway, because we are so desperate and gasping at the bit to leave, and that, whatever happened, we would not have been willing to accept what the Prime Minister came up with. I do not accept that. I think that this was an opportunity for fundamental reform, but that has not happened. I do believe that the Government have acted in good faith—I do not believe they have got it right, but I do accept their good faith.

The Government have, however, negotiated around the edges. They are, perhaps, so steeped in the ways of the machinations of the European Union that they have failed to see the big picture and think that, when negotiating with 27 other countries and the Commission, it is an amazing achievement to get the right to hold a discussion on the difference in view between the Euro-outs and Euro-ins. It is like dealing with a brick wall—for want of a better cliché coming immediately to mind—so even being allowed a discussion results in them thinking, “Whoopee! We’ve achieved something very important that we can present to the British electorate.”

If we look from a further distance at what the Prime Minister has said over a number of years, what he promised in his Bloomberg speech and what we put in our manifesto, we see that they were not about pettifogging changes around the edges; they were about fundamental reform and the reassertion of sovereignty. Because the renegotiations were in that sense so narrow, so weak and so uninspired, the status quo is not an option in the referendum. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, the choice is not between leaving and staying exactly as we are; it is between leaving and remaining in a Union moving towards ever closer union.

If we look at our past opt-outs, we will see that that is true. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the social chapter no longer exists. It is incorporated in the treaty, so our opt-out came and went, as frost on a winter morning might disappear as the sun comes out. Our opt-out on Schengen is there and it is important, but recently we agreed that we would be part of an EU border force: there is a migration problem, and the solution to it is of course more Europe and more European integration. We are going along with that, although we are not formally part of it. The Dublin treaties on returning people to the place where they first sought sanctuary are coming under threat, which would make our position outside Schengen very difficult to manage.

On justice and home affairs, we got an opt-out under the treaty of Lisbon, but again and again we have given more away. We have given away the arrest warrant and we have given away Prüm, so investigation and arrest are now in the hands of the European Union.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

Why was there no referendum on the things that were first taken out and then sent back?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The European Union Act 2011 was a protection, but it was also part of a coalition deal, so it ensured that things that the Lib Dems were quite keen on would not automatically trigger a referendum. I agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to have had a referendum on giving back the things that we had claimed when we opted out of justice and home affairs matters a little over a year ago. Now that arrest and investigation are determined at a European level, the argument for some European centralised oversight will only become stronger. If a Bulgarian issues an arrest warrant that is effective in the United Kingdom, surely there needs to be some European common standard to ensure that that is done properly.

The direction of travel is towards more Europe. Even in the context of monetary union, we should bear it in mind that we only have an opt-out from stage 3. We are committed to stages 1 and 2. The European Union has not enforced those in recent years, for obvious reasons, but that will not always be the case. We are committed—article 142 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union is relevant to this—to our currency being of interest to the European Union.

UK’s Relationship with the EU

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

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

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

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Can the Minister explain why Iceland can have a two-way agreement with China, while the UK does not?

[Mr Lidington]

I think that if my hon. Friend looks at the detail of the Iceland-China agreement, he will see that it provides more political opportunities for China to develop the relationship with Iceland, rather than any opportunities for Iceland to sell goods or services on the Chinese market. When negotiating trade access with a country of 1.3 billion or 1.4 billion people, we get more leverage as part of a market of 500 million people than as a single country of 65 million. That is the message we get from global trading partners such as China and the United States.

Middle East

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Four out of four of our speakers have been brilliant. My contribution will be a little more modest.

I have two problems with the proposed intervention in Syria, but that is not to say that the Government do not care, and that nothing has been done to engage the support of Members on both sides of the House. This is the result of careful thought over a number of years, not a conclusion that we have come to over the past two or three weeks. We recognise the appalling nature of the attacks in France, just as we recognise the attacks in the Lebanon the previous day, the earlier attacks on a Russian aeroplane, and, before that, the attack on the beach in Tunisia.

The question is not how we deal with these attacks today or tomorrow, but how we solve the problems of ISIL on a long-term basis. First, we must not find ourselves using boots on the ground. This matter is not something that can be solved by Britain, the United States, Russia or France. The Prime Minister has made it clear that our boots are not to be used in Syria, nor are those of any westerners, which, for the moment, include those of Russia.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am always extremely worried when someone makes a definitive statement that says that we will not use our armed forces to defend our interests.

[Mr Turner]

I can well understand my hon. Friend fearing that, but the Prime Minister himself said that we shall not have boots on the ground.

Where are those supporters coming from? We are not speaking about one army under one general but several different factions, some of which are competing against each other. We cannot repeat what happened in Libya. It is not clear whether these factions, which the 70,000 Syrian fighters comprise, are organised and prepared to act, and whether they can move into ISIL ground quickly, because otherwise new criminals will arrive and appear as soon as the old ones are destroyed. The support needs to be reliable and sustainable. How can we be sure that these are forces to count on?

There is not one clear enemy to fight. The Russians appear to support Assad while we support rebel fighters declared as “moderate”. Russia’s support of Assad has resulted in strikes hitting the moderates. If there was an agreement with Russia, it would be much nearer what we are aiming for. If there was agreement from Syria—from the moderates and the Assadis—it would form a united front. I believe that a successful fight against ISIL is possible only when everyone on the allies’ side works together to defeat them.

Europe: Renegotiation

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The Prime Minister will make his position clear at the end of the negotiations. It would seem slightly odd to embark on a process of negotiations and declare at the beginning what the outcome was going to be.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will the Minister tell us whether we or Europe should decide on how many migrants come to the UK?

[Mr Lidington]

We are seeking a situation in which we have tougher rules against the abuse of freedom of movement by criminals, fraudsters and others. We also want to reduce significantly the pull factor that our welfare system provides at present.

Yemen

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on securing this debate. I am speaking as a member not of the all-party group on Yemen but of the International Development Committee, which in the next few weeks will commence an inquiry into concerns relating to the people of Yemen. I am delighted that this debate has been brought forward before we commence that inquiry. Indeed, we will no doubt want to look carefully at the all-party group’s report, which is being published today.

It is well said that when sorrows come, they come not singly but in battalions; in the case of the Yemeni civilians, that takes on too literal a meaning. This debate is crucial in highlighting the concerns that many in this House and more widely in this country have about the suffering of the people of Yemen and the dire plight of millions there.

As we have rightly raised awareness of the damage caused by the civil war in Syria, so it is equally important to do so in regard to the suffering of tens of millions of Yemenis who are seeing their country so sadly and swiftly destroyed, bit by bit. Four thousand civilians are dead, 1.4 million people are displaced and 1.8 million children are at risk of malnutrition. A staggering 84% of Yemen’s population is in need of humanitarian aid. Bombing and artillery have further damaged infrastructure, including electricity and water supplies, leaving 20.9 million people in need of water, sanitation and hygiene support.

On food, 6.8 million people are facing a food security crisis, with a further 6 million facing a food security emergency. There has been a 150% increase in hospital admissions for malnutrition, and as many as 1.6 million children under the age of five could be suffering from acute malnutrition. On health, half of the country’s governorates are unable to provide out-patient healthcare due to shortages of medical supplies, medical staff and fuel to run generators. That has coincided with a substantial increase in the number of patients suffering from critical injuries and illnesses. Some 15 million people—more than 60% of the population—are in need of basic healthcare assistance. On education, 3,500 schools have closed due to insecurity. The list goes on.

I pay tribute to the humanitarian workers. The right hon. Member for Leicester East mentioned some, and I add to them those from Save the Children, who continue to serve in dangerous conditions.

I hope the Minister will agree that we need to look at doing more on aid for the people of Yemen. Currently, as I understand it, some £72 million has been deployed by DFID in Yemen. That is a substantial sum and we can rightly be proud of all the UK aid provided across the world. When the International Development Committee travels to different countries, it is always stated that the intelligent and effective way in which UK aid is used is second to none. However, when we compare the £1.1 billion that the Government are now spending in various ways to help refugees from Syria and the surrounding areas, we see that the £72 million being provided for the people of Yemen needs to be reviewed.

Does the Foreign Office Minister agree? I understand he is not a Minister at the Department for International Development and may therefore need to take these questions back, but does he agree that, in the light of the dire plight and suffering of Yemen’s people, there is great merit to more being expended through DFID to help relieve the suffering of these poor people of whom we in this House are now aware? We cannot say we do not know of their suffering.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

May I clarify something to those who wish to speak? You need to stand when you wish to be chosen; I cannot guess who wants to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

The Yemen Arab Republic was to its north. In 1990, north and south joined to become Yemen.

My interest in Yemen comes from the fact that as a child I lived in Aden between 1954 and 1957. My father was a company commander with the 1st battalion the Aden Protectorate Levies, a branch of the RAF Regiment—I am wearing the RAF Regiment tie today as I am a member of the RAF Regiment officers’ dinner club. I am not the only Member who has close ties to Aden. The right hon. Member for Leicester East and his sister, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) were all born there. But I am too old to have been born in Aden; I was born in 1949, before we went there.

We would all like to revisit the place of our childhood, but that currently seems impossible. Since 1990, Yemen has gone from bad to worse. It is now such a dangerous place that it would be utterly foolhardy for British subjects to go there without protection. The situation is so bad that Sana’a, Yemen’s inland capital, has had to be abandoned and the country’s Administration, such as it is, must take place, when it can, from Aden. Yemen is now the poorest country in the middle east and an incredibly fragile state.

I do not propose to dwell long over Yemen’s recent history before 2011, because it is incredibly complicated, difficult and perhaps less prescient than what has happened since. Suffice it to say that in November 2011, after some 30 years in charge of what was essentially a military republic, President Ali Abdullah Saleh was forced to hand over to his deputy, Vice President Mansur Hadi, which was apparently meant to avert immediate civil war. There was some international hope that Yemen might be on the road to some form of recovery, but that hope has come to nought. Too many of those with power in Yemen are plundering what oil revenues it has left, sending untaxed income abroad and deliberately resisting reforms that might restrict their ability to loot their country. We will argue about this, but the World Food Programme estimates that some 46% of the 10 million people living in Yemen do not have enough to eat. You don’t see fat people like me in Aden.

It is difficult to simplify what has become a truly impossible situation, but Yemen has essentially become a cockpit in which the branches of Islam are fighting tooth and nail. The Government of Yemen, under Sunni President Hadi, is now backed by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan and the Gulf states, which are all quite strong allies of both the United States and the United Kingdom. The rebels, mainly from the northern Shi’a Houthi grouping and ex-Premier Ali Abdullah Saleh loyalists, are backed by Iran. It was the rebel Houthi group that forced the Government to flee from Sana’a to Aden in February. Yemen’s security forces have split loyalties, with some units backing President Hadi and others backing the Houthis and President Hadi’s predecessor Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has remained politically influential. President Hadi, who, as we discussed in a pre-meeting is actually living in Saudi Arabia, is also supported in the predominantly Sunni south of the country by militia known as Popular Resistance Committees and local tribesmen.

To complicate the situation further, so-called al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or AQAP, perhaps the most dangerous of all al-Qaeda factions, now has a firm foothold in Yemen. As a result, the United States has carried out several drone assaults against it. Both the Yemeni Government and the rebels are equally opposed by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. AQAP has been pretty active, carrying out a series of indiscriminate attacks against both the Government and the Houthis—goodness me, what a situation. It is Kafkaesque in scale.

Just to make the situation even more enigmatic, the so-called Islamic State, which the right hon. Member for Leicester East, myself and others prefer to call Daesh because it is such a rude word in Arabic, has appeared on the scene, jostling to be more influential in the country. Daesh claims to have carried out a number of suicide attacks in Sana’a this year. After Houthi rebel forces attacked the Government’s southern de facto capital Aden in late March, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia responded to a request by President Hadi to intervene and launched air strikes on Houthi targets. As I mentioned, Saudi Arabia is collaborating with the five Gulf Arab states, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco and Sudan, with Somalia providing airspace. Some of these air strikes have clearly gone badly wrong and have killed innocent people, which is utterly tragic.

The world’s foremost international authority, the United Nations, is the obvious catalyst for action. In April 2015, the Security Council passed resolution 2216, as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, calling for an immediate stoppage of fighting and for the Houthi rebels to withdraw from territory that they had taken. The resolution was passed unanimously. Four permanent members of the Security Council sanctioned it. Russia did not, abstaining and allowing it to go through. But what has actually happened since that decision by the world forum where everyone is supposed to go for top authority? Damn all. There has been no effect whatsoever on what is happening on the ground. Other agencies of the United Nations have tried to send experts into Yemen to report on human rights violations, but a draft Dutch resolution supporting just that has recently been withdrawn as it would have failed, and, astonishingly, Saudi Arabia, has been elected as the chair of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

It would be marvellous if our debate could result in agreement on a way to gain some form of peace and security for the poor, wretched people of Yemen. However, the United Nations has been effectively ignored, the great powers do not want to get involved and the situation on the ground is getting increasingly complex and worse. Innocents are dying all the time. As matters stand in Yemen, I cannot think of an effective and decent way ahead with any chance of success. I hate the idea that we are impotent and apparently unable to do anything with all our power. In the end, I suppose that history will have to take care of it. One way or other, one of the factions will prevail, but who knows who that will be at the moment?

To date, Yemen has been an utter failure of international politics. We should do all that we can to try to correct that. In that respect, I am delighted that the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen has produced a report highlighting the crisis. If nothing else, this debate highlights the fact that Yemen is still a matter of real concern. We must not forget that.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. We have 40 minutes left. I call Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I accept the reprimand. I did know it, but—

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. If Colonel Stewart stands up, the Minister can then decide whether he wants to listen to him. If not, he will sit down again.

[Bob Stewart]

Sorry, Mr Turner.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

We are watching the situation carefully, but we currently judge that neither Israel nor Hezbollah wants to escalate the situation in southern Lebanon. Both sides have chosen to make public statements following recent incidents, and UNIFIL-led tripartite meetings involving the Lebanese armed forces, the Israeli defence force and the UN are arranged, and have successfully reduced tension and prevented escalation.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Since the summer, the Foreign Office has responded to multiple crises. The UK has joined the coalition against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, pledged £20 million to help rebuild Gaza, led a tough European response to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and been front and centre of the international fight against Ebola. Beyond those immediate crises, my priority is to put the national interest at the heart of everything the Foreign Office does: to redouble the FCO’s efforts to help British companies abroad; to lay the ground for a renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union; and to ensure that the Foreign Office builds stability overseas to maintain our security at home.

[Mr Turner]

What steps is the Minister taking to bring more allies to make a significant contribution to the fight against Ebola?

[Mr Hammond]

The UK is leading on the Ebola response in Sierra Leone, and the British people should be extremely proud of what we have delivered: we have so far pledged nearly £250 million; we are building 700 beds in the country; we have about 750 service personnel deployed in support of that operation; and we are lobbying furiously for support from both European Union partners and other countries around the world. I am pleased to say that that lobbying effort is beginning to bear fruit, with significant pledges of both money and, more importantly, clinical workers to support the effort we are carrying out in Sierra Leone.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Andrew Turner Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I defer to the wisdom and knowledge of the hon. Lady, whom we know has a fishing background; she is absolutely right, and I agree strongly with her—not for the first time.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we only have one thing to gain, and that is sovereignty?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although I am not yet a Privy Counsellor, and am unlikely ever to be so—but there we are.

Not just Labour voters, but leading figures in the party have historically taken the Eurosceptic view. Hugh Gaitskell, the former leader of the Labour party, opposed Britain’s membership of the Common Market, and I was pleased he did so. Subsequently, we had magnificent leaders who took the same view. My great friend the late Baroness Barbara Castle remained a strong Eurosceptic to the end of her life, as did the late Tony Benn, a great personal friend as well as a great politician. So there have been many Eurosceptic socialists—including, even, Lord Healey, the Labour Chancellor until 1979. I attended a Eurosceptic dinner in the City with figures from various parties, and that was the only time I ever met Lord Healey. So significant figures of great intellect, political judgment and commitment to democratic socialism have taken a similar view to mine.

I have not changed my view since 1975, because our relationship with the EU has become worse, rather than better. We only have to look at the economic catastrophe that is the eurozone to realise how bad it is now. We have to shake up the EU; there is nothing to be gained economically from our remaining members, but then that is a matter for the British people, as and when they have their referendum—hon. Members will guess which way I shall be voting. In previous referendums, political leaders across Europe have sought to persuade their people to vote in a particular way, and they have refused to do so—for example, the French people on the proposed constitution. The Socialist party in France supported the constitution, and it had a referendum among the party membership, which also supported the constitution; but the socialist voters voted the other way, and they lost the referendum. The same happened in Holland, and of course the EU had to withdraw the constitution and replace it with the Lisbon treaty, which was similar, but called a treaty, rather than a constitution.

We have seen others referendums—for example, in Norway and Sweden—on various aspects of the EU, and each time the political leaders have tried to drive their voters in a particular way, but they have refused to be so driven. Now, about 11% of the population in Sweden want to join the euro, and the same proportion in Norway want to join the EU. When the people are asked, they often take a view that upsets the political classes, but in the end, we are democrats and have to accept that view. Regrettably, I had to accept the 1975 view, even though the resources put into a yes vote were massive. The common market threw bucket-loads of money into a massive advertising campaign; every corner shop had a picture of Harold Wilson with his pipe and Gannex mac saying, “Vote yes”. I was part of the no campaign, and we had pathetic resources—a few bob from the trade union movement and not much else.