Shaker Aamer

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Our legal system and the American legal system are based on a very important principle, the principle of the presumption of innocence. That has not been extended to Shaker Aamer. What is more, in his case, although we are not in a position to make the judgment ourselves, a great deal of evidence, from how he was picked up on the basis of a ransom through to the statements of the US authorities that there is no case against him, shows a probability of innocence, yet this man has faced 13 years in the most unbelievable circumstances.

I make the point about innocence because it is one thing for a terrorist or soldier to be subjected to this sort of behaviour, involving the sort of treatment that the British Government gave up in the early 1970s after using it in Northern Ireland because it was deemed to be torture. In fact, what is going on is much worse than what we gave up and deemed to be torture. However, that is the basis on which Shaker Aamer is being held. The same sort of torture led the American Government to conclude that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as they tortured someone else 83 times until they eventually said, “Yes, yes, I give in.” That means that, even if there were confessional evidence against Shaker, it would be completely untrustworthy; indeed, it would be thrown out, as Clive Stafford Smith of Reprieve has said. From the point of view of basic humanity, for somebody who is innocent to be put through that is probably 10 times as bad as it is for somebody who is guilty, and it would be bad for them, too.

Our understanding is that Shaker has been a representative in the disputes in Guantanamo, which may make him more of a target. In addition to his own torture, he is said to have witnessed the torture of others, which may be why his release is being withheld. He is the last British resident being held there.

I join the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in asking the Minister to give an account of the Americans’ explanation of why they have not released Shaker. If they have not done so because he would embarrass them, that represents a doubling up of the guilt on their part. Frankly, this will come out into the open at some point.

The colonel who headed the unit of American military lawyers who both prosecute and defend people in Guantanamo told them at the beginning of their military commission that they should be wary of any techniques and tactics that they allowed to be used, because, in his words, in America there is no such thing as a secret, just deferred disclosure. That is eminently true in the case under discussion. The more rapid that disclosure, the better for every country.

I can understand to some extent why, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we dropped the moral standards by which we ought to abide—that was wrong, but understandable. I do not understand, however, the continued attempt to cover things up a dozen and more years later. For that reason, too, Shaker ought to be released.

I do not want to take up too much time, so I will finish by simply saying that the west has had a moral slough of despond after 9/11. We have abandoned our own standards and fallen short of the ethical standards that we should uphold. It is now doubly incumbent on us to act to ensure that those who have suffered as a result are released to their families as rapidly as possible, before their health is completely destroyed, which is what Shaker Aamer faces. It is also important to our own nations and citizens that we confess.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

What does the right hon. Gentleman think this tells us about the so-called special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States? When our Prime Minister meets President Obama, it is unbelievable that we cannot get a straight answer about a citizen of our country being held by the US.

[Mr Davis]

It may say two things. The first—it saddens me to say this—is that President Obama may not be in complete control of his own country. After all, he promised to close down Guantanamo early on but then did not do so, at great political cost to himself and, indeed, to his moral standing. Secondly, when it comes down to it, America puts its own interests far ahead of those of any other country. That is the doctrine of American exceptionalism, which in one sense is understandable because it is based on freedom, but in another sense it leads to the almost colonial treatment of its allies. If that is the case, it is deplorable. As America’s longest-standing and strongest ally, we should expect special treatment, but we have clearly not been given it in this case.

Tibet

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), as I am also a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on getting this timely debate. I will not go into the individual cases that he carefully and properly raised. An important aspect of today’s debate is that we get the names of those brave Tibetans who are being held in custody or have been imprisoned for long sentences out to the rest of the world, and that has been done well this morning.

Looking through Tibet Watch’s excellent booklet, “Broken promises”, I was reminded of how we were all were duped—or how many people were; I feel personally that I was not—into feeling that if China got the Olympics, it would make such a difference and China would do all these wonderful things, changing its whole attitude to human rights. We went along with that, but what has happened? Not a single thing has changed in relation to Tibet. Indeed, as has been mentioned, things are getting worse by the day.

I, too, had the privilege of hearing from the gentleman at yesterday’s meeting who had recently been to Tibet. It is clear that the Chinese Government are making a huge attempt to rapidly change the face of Tibet—not just to change civil liberties and human rights, but to change the physical structure of Tibet. Some 13 million Chinese tourists visited Tibet last year, and we are seeing a concentration of Chinese people who are given money to go and settle in Tibet. The Chinese Government want to eliminate every last sign or vestige of Tibetan culture and the history of that wonderful country. We must be clear that none of our warm words about working closely with China seems to be having any effect whatever. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about that.

I want to go into a little more detail about something that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned. I am also concerned about the Confucius institutes, of which I think there are now 24 in the United Kingdom. These are Chinese Government-funded cultural centres that are set up at universities all over the world, although the UK has the second highest number after the United States. Several universities in the United States and Canada—including the university of Chicago, Pennsylvania State university and the Toronto district school board—recently pulled out of relationships with Confucius institutes because of accusations and proof of discriminatory hiring practices and censorship of certain topics. In order for a university to receive Chinese money, the Chinese do not want any mention of Tibet or any criticism of anything that is happening.

I was privileged to hear recently from an American professor at a meeting in Parliament about how China’s influence on an American university is threatening freedom of speech. If we cannot have freedom of speech in our universities, we really are on a slippery slope. It is worrying and sad that one of our most famous universities, the London School of Economics, has been reluctant to give out information on how much money it has been getting from China. It is only through journalists’ use of freedom of information requests that we have discovered the exact amounts given out. It has been revealed that the LSE

“has received £863,537.91 from the Chinese state for housing a Confucian Centre and a further $33,000 for teaching Chinese government officials via BHP Billiton, a mining conglomerate.”

If China has 25 of these cultural outposts right at the hearts of our main universities, that funding will extend to several million pounds. Of course that may sound wonderful—isn’t that great: universities that are suffering from a shortage of resources are getting money directly from China? The danger, however, is that no matter how much the university hierarchies say that that will not influence or affect what they do, the reality on the ground is that it does. In fact, they are taking what could be said to be Chinese gold in return for getting out Chinese propaganda—sometimes subtly, sometimes less subtly. I really believe that our Government should be investigating this and making sure—[Interruption.]

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady’s phone is vibrating and being picked up by the microphones.

[Kate Hoey]

I am sorry. The phone is turned off. I am glad I am not in Tibet, because it would have been monitored.

There is a serious issue. We are seeing Chinese developments coming into this country, into London, and the big money coming in to build tower blocks and hotels. On the subject of hotels, let me say how shocking it was that InterContinental Hotels went ahead and built one in Lhasa that employs Chinese people and is part of efforts there to destroy Tibetan culture. Tibet groups across the world are trying hard to organise some kind of boycott of InterContinental Hotels, because of what the company is doing in that part of Tibet. We must get to the bottom of the money that is coming in

There have also been incidents, such as the ones we heard about only yesterday, which happened recently in Sheffield, where there are substantial numbers of Chinese students. Many of those students are very political indeed, and we heard about the example of a shop owner who had put a Tibetan flag in the window. I do not think it was a huge flag; nevertheless, they were threatened that if they did not take it down, things would happen. In fact, the windows were broken, which was reported to the police, but the attitude was, “Well, this was just students being a bit silly.”

The reality is that this is not students being a little silly. What is happening here is coming from the very top in China. I am very worried indeed that unless we face up to it early, China will do in this country and other parts of Europe what it has done in Africa, which is to go in and simply use its money as a way of getting its message across and its way of doing things. That relates directly to Tibet, in the sense that Tibet is the issue in this country that gets the most publicity in our universities, and yet many of our students are being stopped from getting their message across because of the worry about China.

I would add that South Africa recently refused to give His Holiness the Dalai Lama a visa, which meant that the conference of all Nobel prize winners had to be cancelled—it is now happening in Rome, in Italy, this week. Meanwhile, the Chinese Government, having put pressure on South Africa, immediately thanked the South African Government and more or less said, “We will now do something for you, as you were so kind as to stop the Dalai Lama visiting.”

We are getting to the point where I want to ask our Government, “What dreadful thing would the Chinese Government have to do in order for our Government to start standing up to China?” What would have to happen for us to start calling in the Chinese ambassador and doing things that make a difference, such as saying, “I’m sorry, we might need the money—the investment is great—but you, China, are fundamentally a pariah state and we’re going to treat you as such”? Unless we start standing up to China, as the European Union or as a country, it will not buckle to anything other than force, in terms of what we are saying—I am not suggesting we invade China, but I am suggesting that we start to mean what we say.

Warm words have come out of all Governments, including this one and the previous one. We were the last country not to recognise that Tibet was part of China, but David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary in the previous Government, changed that, telling the House that it would make a great difference and that China would start behaving better. Of course that did not happen.

China has a terrible human rights record not only in Tibet, but all over China. I want the Minister to outline clearly what more the Chinese have to do to people in Tibet and through their influence in this country before we as a British Government say, “Enough is enough.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing the debate, particularly given that it is international human rights day. I pay tribute to his expertise on these issues, which he spoke about so eloquently. Of course, he has two advantages over me: one is that he has met His Holiness the Dalai Lama on a number of occasions; the other is that he has actually visited Tibet—something that I have yet to do.

The subject commands such interest right across the House that it deserves rather more than an hour-and-a-half Westminster Hall debate, and it would be good if we could return to the subject. I will try in the time that remains to answer all the points raised, but if I miss any out, I will undertake to write to hon. Members.

So as to avoid any misunderstanding, I will restate the Government’s policy on Tibet. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined in Parliament on 8 May 2013, our position on Tibet is clear and unchanged from that of the previous Government: we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China. We do not support Tibetan independence.

We have a strong relationship with China, and we understand that, for China, Tibet remains a sensitive issue. The Chinese Government are well aware of the United Kingdom’s position; in fact, the Prime Minister reaffirmed it with Premier Li during the UK-China summit in London in June. Those high-level discussions form part of a broader engagement with the Chinese Government, in which we seek to ensure that all citizens, including Tibetans, fully enjoy their rights under the Chinese constitution.

We welcome the significant economic investments the Chinese Government have made in Tibetan areas, leading to improvements in the standard of living, health care and life expectancy, as shown in the fact that the area’s gross regional product is estimated to have seen average annual growth of 8.5% over the last 50 years.

We welcome President Xi’s public commitment to ensure that, by 2020, China is ruled according to the law, respecting and protecting human rights. We would expect that to apply to Tibetans as much as to people in Shanghai, Wuhan or Beijing. However, as the Chinese Government have acknowledged, proper implementation will be key, so we, along with our EU partners and the United Nations, will follow those matters closely. Importantly, we have shown clarity and consistency in our position on human rights in China. That happens through the UK-China human rights dialogue, which the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place, mentioned. The UK is one of a handful of EU member states that engage with China in that way. It happens also through our Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights report and its quarterly updates; through our work at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva; and through actively pressing for an EU-China human rights dialogue.

Hon. Members rightly raised some individual cases. During the UK-China human rights dialogue in London this year, we raised more than 20 individual cases, a quarter of which related to freedom of expression. The hon. Member for Leeds North East spoke about Dhondup Wangchen, and we have raised his case. He was of course arrested in 2008 for filming a documentary recording the reactions of ordinary Tibetans to the Olympic games.

Ethnic minority rights remain a concern; my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has consistently raised that issue in relation to Tibet, even when he was a Minister. As he pointed out, cultural rights are incredibly important in all societies and should be actively protected in all countries. We have discussed ethnic minority issues with China on numerous occasions, including during the UK-China human rights dialogue in May and during China’s universal periodic review in October 2013. We would like further progress on promoting freedom of religion and belief in China, particularly in minority areas. We regard freedom of thought, conscience and belief as a universal human right and, as such, it is a priority for the FCO across the world.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East raised a number of questions. We continue to encourage dialogue and we raise human rights concerns. We work through the EU, and the EU-China human rights dialogue happened only last week. We encourage proportionate security responses in China, as, indeed, we do everywhere else. As to scholarships, we have a big Chevening programme in China, which I have been actively promoting. Tibetans have taken places on the Chevening scholarship programme in the past and are welcome to apply again. We commend the work of non-Government groups in the area of cultural exchanges. I think the British Council could probably do more, and I will ask it to consider what more it could do. The point about the BBC is an issue; it comes just as we have got rid of responsibility for the World Service. It is bombarded with requests relating to where it should broadcast around the world. Matters to do with where to broadcast, and programming and radio, are best addressed to the BBC.

We share the concern of the hon. Member for Leeds North East about the conviction of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, and about his health. We have raised the matter in Beijing, and I urge consideration of parole on medical grounds. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) raised the issue of immolations. We had a spate of questions about self-immolations about a year ago, when there was a series of them. It is not something that we should take our eyes off. We urge the Chinese authorities to ensure the protection of their citizens’ constitutional rights in line with the international frameworks to which China is a party. The development of civil society and the application of human rights under the rule of law are essential to China’s long-term prosperity and stability, and it is with deep concern that we note that at least 130 Tibetans have attempted self-immolation, often fatally, since February 2009.

The hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Bristol East talked about the InterContinental hotel in Lhasa and our advice to British businesses about investment. We encourage all British companies to be aware of the human rights risks in the countries where they propose investing. Our overseas business risk guide for China provides information on key risks, including human rights risks, that UK businesses may face when operating in China. Last September, we were the first country to publish a national action plan on business and human rights, setting out our commitments as a Government to implementing the UN guiding principles.

I want to deal head-on with the question raised by the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Vauxhall about whether there is a binary choice between human rights and investment in doing trade with China. I utterly reject that. I do not think that there is such a choice, and I do not apologise for this Government’s desire to rebuild the economy as part of our long-term economic plan to attract increasing inward investment from China. That is critical to renewing our national infrastructure. Bilateral trade is as important to companies in my constituency as it is to the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady. I do not think that we have anything to apologise for on that. We are robust in maintaining a dialogue with the Chinese Government on a range of issues, and Tibet is of course one of those.

We work increasingly closely with the Chinese Government on various issues. We are both members of the UN Security Council, and we work together as part of the E3 plus 3 process on Iran. The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned climate change; we have invested an enormous amount in our relationship with the Chinese in relation to combating climate change. It would simply not be possible, as she pointed out, to reach any kind of meaningful global deal at next year’s COP 21 in Paris without a constructive approach from Beijing. We need to work side by side with the Chinese on global challenges of the moment, such as combating Ebola and—this is timely—today’s London summit, hosted by the Prime Minister, on ending the online sexual exploitation of children. Our relationship with China is dynamic and must be carefully balanced, but I utterly reject the point that we are in some way subjugating our principles on human rights because of Chinese money. It is not the case at all.

I want to reiterate the Government’s position on His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama is recognised worldwide as an important religious figure and esteemed Nobel laureate, having been awarded the peace prize in 1989. Given that he has stated publicly that he does not seek Tibetan independence, we encourage the Chinese Government and Tibetan interest groups to seek a peaceful resolution to their differences through a resumption of dialogue. Dialogue with non-governmental organisations and interest groups is something that the British Government undertake as a matter of course in every country that we engage with. As part of that, I met a number of Tibetan groups in June, and my officials consulted them ahead of our human rights dialogue in May. We will continue to use broad-based engagement as an integral part of promoting our values around the world.

[Kate Hoey]

The Minister has not said anything about his or the Government’s view of the Confucius institutes and the university funding issue.

[Mr Swire]

May I write to the hon. Lady on that? I want to conclude.

Our long-standing position remains that we do not support Tibetan independence, but we believe that Tibet’s long-term stability is best achieved through respect for universal human rights and genuine autonomy within the framework of the Chinese constitution, so we continue to engage actively and constructively with the Chinese Government as they work to improve human rights and the rule of law across China, including in Tibet. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East for this opportunity to re-state the Government’s position, and other hon. Members for their remarks today. I am sure that they will keep questioning the Government, as is their duty and right. I in turn will, as I said, undertake to write to them to answer the questions I did not have time to address in this morning’s extremely good debate.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Friday 17th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

Like my hon. and learned Friend, I was first elected to Parliament after a career at the bar—the legal bar—and a career in local government, at the coalface of dealing with people’s everyday problems, and one of the things that struck me was that the risk we all have to avoid is precisely becoming part of that village mentality. It is never something we seek to do when we arrive, but, almost institutionally, that can happen. If we believe in representative democracy—as I trust everybody in this Chamber does—then one of the great challenges is to make sure there is a reality in the discussions we have here and the way we approach our decisions and a trust in the people who send us here. We do not sit here possessed of some greater wisdom—to use the French, some trahison des clercs—that enables us to ignore the views of our voters, who make the wealth that pays for us and for all Government spending. My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right in that. Legitimacy requires connection, and sometimes a bit of humility on the part of elected representatives to say, “This is an issue so fundamental that it is a matter for the British people.”

We have given referendums in a number of cases, and they are now an established fact of our constitutional scene. My constituents have had a vote on whether they should have a Mayor of London and whether there should be a different form of voting system for electing this House—I am glad to say they came to the right decision on that—and it would be pretty bizarre if they were not able to have a vote on what powers should reside in this House as opposed to residing elsewhere. I suggest this is the most obvious case for a referendum one could imagine.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the majority of Labour voters in the country want a referendum?

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady, whom I have known for many years as a fellow London MP, is infinitely better in touch with her voters than the leadership of her party. I have to say—and I do not mean any discourtesy here—that I am rather glad she is not part of the leadership of her party, because she would be a much greater threat to us than the current leadership is. She is absolutely right. What I find, representing a London constituency, is that people often forget that Londoners, who are part of a cosmopolitan, diverse and open city, none the less believe it is time for us to look again at our relationship with our European neighbours. The hon. Lady is absolutely right; her analysis is spot-on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That was unexpected. I do not usually get called first, but of course not many of my party colleagues are present today, which is unfortunate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on bringing this Bill forward. It is a pity that we have had to introduce it again, because it went through this House very clearly before and I am afraid that the public do not understand the intricacies of parliamentary procedure that allowed it not to complete its passage. I hope that this time, whatever the views in all parts of the House on the issue, we will allow the Bill to reach its final stages, because this is a question of trust and of the public, who are already alienated from politics and politicians, seeing how we behave in this House today.

I looked back over what I said in the previous referendum debate and I do not have a huge amount to add. I do not understand how anyone can make a reasoned case for not supporting the Bill, including on Second Reading today.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Interestingly, the Deputy Speaker gave the hon. Lady the honour of making the second speech today, which just shows the high esteem in which she is held in this Chamber and outside. Does she agree that the fundamental issue is that we should trust the people? It is beyond me why certain political parties just do not grasp that fact.

[Kate Hoey]

I, too, think it is a question of trust. We know how all the parties have let the public down on promises made in the past about referendums on Europe. I always feel confident that when I am in a minority among my Labour colleagues on this referendum Bill, although some are here supporting it, I am not in a minority among Labour voters in the country. I am very confident that my party will have a change of mind on this issue, even between now and the general election. I think that the Liberal Democrats, who usually change back and forward—[Interruption.] I have the greatest respect for the Liberal Democrat Member who is here, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), although I do not think he is formally representing them. If he is, I am sure he will have a different view on this. It is important that the public feel we are really listening to them.

[John Hemming]

rose—

[Kate Hoey]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have referred to him.

[John Hemming]

I just make the point that I have been very consistent on this issue.

[Kate Hoey]

I was about to say that I do not want my party to be the only one going into a general election not supporting a referendum, and I feel that the Liberal Democrats will definitely have this measure in their manifesto, too. I am not a friend of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) as such, but I imagine that it will be in their manifesto. The Labour party could be the only party going into the election not supporting it, and that would be very wrong indeed.

I wish briefly to discuss some of the issues that will arise if the negotiation happens. I am a bit of a cynic about these negotiations, because I do not feel we will be able to negotiate very much, as the establishment within the European Union does not want the changes that we wish to see. If we end up still part of the agricultural policy and the fisheries policy, and if we still pay billions of pounds into the European Union and get a small amount back, I cannot see that the negotiations will have succeeded in doing anything other than tinker around in a few places, so that somebody can come back from Europe and say that this has been a success.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is far too young to remember the 1975 referendum, but I recall it well. We did have a negotiation then, but can anyone in this Chamber remind me of what the difference was after the referendum, following those negotiations?

[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.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Is not one of the differences that in Scotland the issue was absolutely clear-cut and people had a lot of time to work out what they were voting on, whereas here the issue is not clear-cut? Some of the Labour voters to whom my hon. Friend referred may want a simple in/out referendum, others may want a referendum depending on the outcome of the negotiations, and some may not know what the negotiations are for. Surely this is much more complicated.

[Kate Hoey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, but I think the people of this country have had 40 years to think about how they see the European Union. Let us remember that this Bill is not about whether we are for or against the EU; it is about giving the people the choice. This is the point that the Labour Front-Bench team needs to answer. If this Bill goes through Parliament, the referendum would not happen until 2017; I think it should come a lot earlier. I am concerned that Labour Front-Benchers are not able to say that we will support a referendum.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks, and I think Conservative Members agree with everything she is saying. We are pleased that Gibraltar is going to be given the right to vote, but does she agree that those in the armed services, who are scattered around the world, should be given the right to vote in a special way? They cannot vote if they are not in the United Kingdom, so it is important that they get a direct way of voting. Does she also agree that EU citizens who are not British should not be voting?

[Kate Hoey]

A lot of technicalities have to be worked out, which is why it would be important to start planning as soon as possible for a referendum and why it is important that the Bill goes through. I would probably agree on both of the points the hon. Gentleman raised, but they can be further discussed.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Kate Hoey]

I had better get on, because I know that a lot of people wish to speak. I might give way once or twice more, but I have not got a lot more to say.

I have just received a letter, dated 13 October, from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) about the proposed ports services regulation. This measure has emerged since the last vote we had on the referendum and it is a classic example of how the European Union creeps further and further into all parts of our life; when people voted 40 years ago nobody thought they were going to be voting for this to happen. I am sure that he and our officials have done their best in negotiating to try to get the regulation changed as much as possible. Indeed, the letter says:

“The Government has therefore worked hard to ensure that the text of the draft Regulation was crafted to protect UK interests.”

That follows on from saying that we were against it. I believe there was unanimity on that; among a lot of trade unions and across all parties it was seen that this was not in our interest. The letter states that we did not see any merit in regulation but we knew that

“legislation was sure to proceed in some form with majority support.”

So here we are, sitting in the British Parliament, supposedly making our own laws, yet time after time we find that things come through that we have no say in changing. We might alter one or two words, and we might be able to come back saying, “This is a little better than it was,” but fundamentally if we want to regulate our ports, we should be deciding it, not the European Union and the Commission.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

As a Member of Parliament who represents a port, I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. This is an example of how the single market is used as an all-enveloping pretext for Community action at Community level, whatever is the case, even though it is very difficult to argue that there is a single market between the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe and those of Marseilles or Piraeus, which is the basic premise of the argument behind the directive.

[Kate Hoey]

I am sure that all hon. Members could come up with different scenarios, but the fundamental principle is that we are losing control of our own country and of what we want to do in our own country. It is very simple and I genuinely cannot understand why people cannot see that we are losing control of what we want to do here. Of course, we want to co-operate with other European countries. I want to co-operate with all sorts of countries. I would like to see our Commonwealth countries much more involved in what we are doing, as we have treated them scandalously over the years. That is why, if there were a referendum and if we chose to leave the European Union, I would feel quite confident about this country. I want to get our confidence back. I do not want this doom-ridden approach that suggests we have to be part of the European Union because we are only a country and we need it desperately. It needs us, too, and I have confidence that if we were to leave the European Union we would be quite capable of having a prosperous future.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The European Union needs us much more than we need it. Our trade balance shows a gigantic trade deficit with the European Union. We effectively export 1 million jobs because of the £1 billion a week deficit we have with the rest of the European Union. That is the reality.

[Kate Hoey]

Yes, that is the reality and that is what we need to get across. The media must be much more unbiased in their reaction to the European Union. Some of us have spent some time meeting up with the BBC to try to get it to have a much better attitude towards the European Union, because it seems to take the attitude that anyone who speaks out in any way that is critical of the European Union is somehow swivel-eyed—I think that is the word that is usually used. If we have this referendum, the BBC must be clear that it is completely unbiased and will give fair representation to both sides.

I find it very strange that Labour has a policy that if anything extra goes to Europe we would have a referendum. That seems to me to be a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Of course, I supported the policy when it went through and it is good that we got it. At least something changed about our relationship with the European Union, but there are still things happening at this minute. It comes in little bits—drip, drip, drip—and there is no one big thing that can lead us to say, “Ah, we need a referendum on that.” It is a slippery slope, and the process is getting faster every week.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

That is the million dollar question. We all admire the hon. Lady for her courage and her clear exposition of why we need a referendum, but the question that I think many people will be asking is why, in her opinion, her leadership is not doing the obvious, logical, clear and democratic thing and offering a referendum to the British people by a set date. Is it because they fear the result? What is the reason?

[Kate Hoey]

I generally do not know the answer. Perhaps we will hear it from those on the Front Bench today, but the reality is that if we had that referendum I would not fear the result. I have confidence in the British people and would accept the result, whichever way it went. What is not acceptable to me is that we have had so many changes to what people originally voted for in which none of us have had a say—we can go through the list. The people of this country did not vote to have unlimited access for those from every European Union country to come to our country. They did not vote for many of the things that are happening, and that is why it is such a basic point that we need a referendum.

On the subject of the European Court of Justice, I was once a Home Office Minister and I went to Europe many times for work in that area. We had a say then and were able to stop things. Now we cannot, because of how it works and the majority position that has to be taken. I would be very concerned, given that we had the chance to opt out of the 35 EU police and criminal justice measures, if the current Government opted back in. That would be a retrograde step. I do not accept the argument about the arrest warrant. In one or two cases, it has been very helpful, but I see no reason why, living as we do with our neighbours, we could not have agreements with individual countries to get people back when we need to. Some of the terrible cases that have happened show the power of the European arrest warrant and once the process has started, no one can really stop it. We saw that recently in the terrible case involving the young baby. It would be shocking, given that this is a Government who are meant to be Eurosceptic or Euro-realist, if they were to opt back in in a few weeks. Our criminal justice system would then for ever be part of this European way of doing things, which is not the British way of doing things.

I want to end by appealing to my own party, though there are not many of them in the Chamber to appeal to—[Interruption.] It is about quality, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) says from the Front Bench. I have great respect for him. I assume that the position today will be that my party will abstain. Abstaining is not to me a good way of dealing with controversial issues and I am disappointed that the official line will be to abstain. Of course, a few of us will vote for the Bill, as we have before, but I want to put out a warning that although when we talk to people this issue might not immediately rear its head, when we talk to them about the European Union the one thing they will say is that they have not been listened to and that they have never been listened to. They want to be listened to and that is why this referendum Bill is crucial if we are serious about bringing about a bit more trust between the public and politicians. I hope that it will get the support of the House.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to raise that rare thing, a genuine point of order. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) suggested that there might be attempts to frustrate the progress of the Bill through the House. One of those ways would be to prolong the debate on the Bill that is currently at the front of the queue in Committee. Will you confirm to me, as a member of the Speaker’s Panel of Chairs—I suspect that a nod from the Clerks will help—that it is in fact perfectly possible, should we choose to do so, for this House to set up a second Committee to consider the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Kate Hoey]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that already the EU, in the form of its establishment Commission, is putting huge amounts of money into supposedly educational publicity that actually promotes the EU, and that if we have a referendum, it is important that the EU not be allowed to use our money to campaign in that referendum?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Of course, the EU propaganda machine knows no bounds. We see little blue-and-yellow stickers on almost everything, saying we have had lots of money from the EU and glossing over the fact that we are massive net contributors.

More worryingly, the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am pleased to be a member, has looked at the BBC and is seriously concerned about its bias. I am a passionate believer in the BBC and public service broadcasting, but the Committee has produced two eminent reports demonstrating the BBC’s pro-EU bias. It must be neutral in the referendum campaign. It must give an equal voice to all sides and ensure the debate is fair. We cannot just have a tiny minority of sceptics, with the enthusiast view put very strongly.

I have said it many times, but I am a lover of Europe. I go there for my holidays every year, I try to speak one or two European foreign languages, I love European culture, European literature and, above all, European people—I am a Eurocentric person in every sense—but the EU is a political organisation with a particular political view. I have spent my life campaigning for democratic socialism, and I think that the EU is not just anti-democratic, but anti-socialist, which might encourage some Conservative Members to vote for it, rather than against it. Nevertheless, I think it is actively anti-socialist, and has been so for a long time, which is why I oppose it. I want to see countries in Europe free to develop their own economies as they see fit, and if that happens to be a socialist view, or a neo-liberal free market view, so be it; the peoples of those countries should be able to choose how to govern themselves.

My view on the EU has got stronger over the years, as we have seen the disaster of the eurozone. Thank goodness my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath kept us out of the euro. Had we pinioned ourselves inside the euro, with the parity operating at the time—€1.60 to the pound—by now we would have seen a catastrophe in our economy of the likes of that in Greece or Spain, although I think we would have got out by now, perhaps because we are more sensible, and possibly other countries would have done the same. I think that the euro will eventually unravel, and when countries can adjust their currencies to appropriate parities and run their economies properly, we will see some recovery, but not before.

We have evidence of a triple-dip recession and that the eurozone is dragging down the rest of the world economy, including our own. However, we have done better than others because our currency has been able to depreciate substantially since the creation of the euro, and particularly since 2008, which has protected us from the ravages affecting the EU. If our unemployment figures were equivalent to those in Spain, we would have 7.5 million unemployed. Imagine that! I do not understand why Spain has not seen a bigger revolt. Nearly 500,000 people have left Spain to go and work in south America and elsewhere because their own country cannot sustain them. It is even worse in Ireland. It has allegedly recovered—I am pleased about that, for the Irish—but it has overcome its unemployment problem by exporting 300,000 people. The equivalent number in Britain would be 4.5 million. Imagine if our economy had failed so badly that 4.5 million Britons had to go and live abroad to get work. That would be a travesty and utterly shameful. I look forward to the time when we establish sensible economics across Europe and that sort of thing does not happen any more.

Most seriously, Germany is now in real trouble. It has long benefited from an open market for its motor cars and other manufactures and from the consequent substantial trade surplus with us and other EU member states. It has squeezed the life out of the economies of other parts of the EU, and now it cannot sell its cars any more, so it is affecting the German economy too. We need a completely different approach to organising the economies of Europe—not the EU, but Europe.

We once had a model that worked. Between 1945 and the 1970s, we had a world, designed at Bretton Woods, that actually worked. Working-class living standards rose at a rate unprecedented in modern history. We saw the creation of welfare states and growing equality. The world I grew up in was wonderful, although it could have been more socialist and more left wing, but we have gone backwards since then across the whole of Europe. It is only because of the vestiges of what was created in the immediate post-war world, sustaining people through welfare states, that the Governments of Europe are getting away with what they are getting away with. We need to see a world in which we start to recreate those things that we have lost. We need to re-establish a more sensible world in which we all have jobs, we create growing equality across Europe and indeed across the world and we have good international relations on bilateral and multilateral arrangements, without being governed by an anti-democratic, non-democratic and bureaucratic organisation called the European Commission, which runs our lives. I support the referendum, and as and when it comes, it is likely that I shall vote no. I will, however, accept the decision of the British people because I am a democrat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I am moving towards my conclusion and am conscious that others want to speak.

Let me be absolutely clear: the idea that the Prime Minister can unilaterally secure significant renegotiation is unrealistic, to say the least. The only way we are going to have significant renegotiation is through an intergovernmental conference, which will require Chancellor Merkel, the French President and others to agree to the process. What will happen if we get to the end of 2017 and the Prime Minister of the day has failed to secure those renegotiations? Will we have a referendum or not?

[Kate Hoey]

Yes.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend says yes, which is a reasonable position if she simply wants out of the European Union. I disagree with her, but it is a legitimate position. What we should not have is the duplicitous behaviour of some Conservative Members. They claim that they want to put this to the will of the people, but the reality is that they just want to leave the European Union. This has nothing to do with trusting the British people; it is all because the Conservative parliamentary party cannot trust its own Prime Minister.

Finally, there is no clear reason for having a referendum in 2017. It will simply cause economic instability and constitutional chaos, and distract us from the important work that needs to be done on rebuilding our economy. I do not support this Bill and do not wish it a good wind.

Gibraltar

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I assure him that the Royal Navy challenges all unlawful incursions by vessels, and indeed puts out radio warnings about the monitoring of all offending state vessels until they leave our waters, but it is clear that we need to de-escalate this, not go in the other direction.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Minister should not hold his breath waiting for the European Commission to do anything more on the problems at the border. As a huge morale boost for Gibraltarians, perhaps he or the Foreign Secretary will get on a plane in the next couple of days, and go to Gibraltar, and make it very clear publicly that they will do whatever is needed to protect Gibraltarians from Spanish bullying.

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that suggestion. I cannot speak on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, but I can certainly give her an unequivocal assurance that the United Kingdom Government, including the Foreign Office, stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government and the people of Gibraltar to make sure that they can keep their links with the United Kingdom. We will work together to do everything that we can to reduce and mitigate this unacceptable behaviour, both on the part of Spanish oceanographic vessels and as regards the border delays.

UK Relations with China

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

I will start by recognising China’s rich, deep cultural heritage. It is one of the oldest civilisations in the world, with an impressive history spanning more than 10,000 years. China is well known for its succession of dynasties. The first was the Xia dynasty, which began in the 22nd century BC and lasted until the 16th century BC. It was followed by the Shang and Zhou dynasties, which lasted five and 11 centuries respectively, and then a succession of others until the comparatively modern and more familiar Ming and Qing dynasties from the 14th century onward.

The dynasties made a fundamental contribution to the development of Chinese civilisation. For example, under the Qin dynasty, the great wall of China was constructed to protect the country from northern invaders; under the Han dynasty, a national civil service was established; and under the Tang dynasty, China became a great world power for the first time, which is being repeated today. China’s history and culture cannot be overstated. Whether through literature, philosophy, music, the visual arts, cuisine or religion, China’s influence has reached all parts of the globe.

China is home to more than one in five of the world’s population, with more than 1.35 billion inhabitants, and to 56 recognised ethnic groups and at least 292 languages and dialects. It is one of the world’s great civilisations. China matters. It is big in history, size, culture, population, commerce and ambition. The scale and pace of the change that has taken place in China over the past 30 years has been unprecedented—a second great leap forward. It has been a giant leap. China is now the world’s second largest economy and its largest exporter and importer of goods. As the fastest-growing major economy in the world with an average annual growth rate of 10% over the past 30 years, China has rapidly expanded its global influence. That growth rate is likely to put its economy ahead of the United States within the next two decades. However, countries cannot exist on economic prosperity alone.

People and societies make a country or a civilisation, not volatile stock markets, trade or the buying of goods and services. Yes, those things are the lifeblood of outward prosperity, but it is the prosperity of the human spirit that helps to advance civilisations: the freedom of the individual to determine their own destiny for good or ill, to determine whether to turn left or right and what they believe and to dream, imagine, create and innovate. This is about social growth, not just economic growth. Whether China’s leaders can recognise that will determine China’s future and success. Markets rise and fall, but the human spirit always seeks to soar, wherever it is.

UK relations with China are probably stronger today than ever before. Chinese investment in the UK is welcome; the UK does not have what one senior Chinese official recently called a cold war mentality towards Chinese inward investment. I am glad that that is the Chinese view. However, the security implications for any investment must always be weighed carefully against the economic benefits of such investment. That is prudence, not paranoia.

For example, the recent agreement on China’s part-financing of the UK’s new nuclear reactors is welcome, and I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on negotiating it. It is very much needed if we are to keep the lights on and keep the UK’s economy moving and growing, but at no point should Chinese companies still owned mostly by the state—a single-party neo-communist state—have any involvement in the design, build or running of the UK’s new nuclear power stations.

Similarly, the UK telecoms industry should always put UK national security implications before the pursuit of market share or profit. Chinese companies should have clear and stated restrictions on access to Government and critical national infrastructure, telecoms and energy grids. If we undermine our national security, we all lose economically, socially and militarily. Our national interests will be harmed and, in extremis, we will lose our freedoms.

I welcome the recent announcement that investors in London are the first to be allowed to apply for licences to make Chinese-currency investments. As the Chancellor has said, the decision will make London a major global centre for Chinese currency trading. That is good news.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that it is shocking that the InterContinental Hotels Group, whose headquarters is in London, is building a new hotel in the centre of Tibet? That is not acceptable to the Tibetans who have fought so long for the right to be free in their own country.

[Mark Pritchard]

The InterContinental Hotels Group is an important British company employing a lot of people around the world. Clearly, it must make commercial decisions with the information available. I would hope that it had some dialogue not only with the Chinese authorities but with Tibetans in exile and the people in Tibet who are being oppressed by the Chinese authorities. I will come to Tibet later in my speech. If InterContinental did not consult, I hope that it will learn lessons from the example of Tibet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are hopefully arguing for the upholding of the Chinese constitution itself. The Chinese authorities need not fear freedom of religion. The suppression of religion, not the freedom of religion, is what causes instability in societies.

I have my Tibet notes, so I will hopefully have some added value later, but first I will speak briefly on animal welfare. As I mentioned, China probably has the worst animal welfare record of any country, yet it is known as the country of the dragon. I fear that, if dragons existed, they too would probably be cruelly reared and cut down in their prime for their teeth and claws, or be caged throughout their life without any care or compassion. In a world in which dragons lived, the country of the dragon would be pre-eminent in their slaughter. The country of the dragon would slaughter the dragon to extinction.

China’s demand for ivory is a major factor in the demise of elephant and rhino populations across the world, often for alternative medicines and therapies, some with unproven benefits, and with the false claim that those and other such medicines improve libido—science has proved quite the opposite. The Chinese Government should educate their population on the threat to some of the world’s most endangered and vulnerable species and unblock websites so that people may access that information themselves. Even the Tibetan antelope has been driven to the brink of extinction due to the Chinese authorities destroying its habitat with forced land use changes and unregulated hunting.

The Chinese invasion of Tibet has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Tibetans and the imprisonment and torture of thousands more. In 1959, the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s political and spiritual leader, fled into exile in India followed by more than 100,000 Tibetans, and established the Tibetan Government in exile.

China must end its economic strangulation of, and mass economic discrimination against, Tibet. That deliberate policy has forced thousands of Tibetans to abandon their traditional rural lives and move into new housing colonies in urban areas where non-agricultural jobs are controlled by the Chinese state. Tibetans are now a minority in such urban centres because of China’s encouragement of mass Chinese migration.

The Buddhist religion continues to suffer. The Chinese have destroyed more than 6,000 Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and shrines since 1949. Today, the number of monks allowed to enter monasteries is strictly controlled and limited. Any references to, or images of, the Dalai Lama are banned. As I mentioned, I have had the privilege of meeting the Dalai Lama twice, and I have made it clear whom I will meet and not meet.

Chinese political oppression—and that is what it is: oppression—has responded to uprisings with extreme violence. Some 300,000 Chinese soldiers are now posted in Tibet. China has repeatedly violated UN conventions through the extensive use of torture against Tibetan political prisoners, including monks and nuns. The Chinese regime has also wreaked huge environmental damage throughout Tibet.

The third plenary of the 18th central committee of the Communist party of China met last week. Many of the decisions made at that important gathering are welcome, but those decisions must be implemented, not just announced—the Chinese are very good at press releases, but we need to see action on the ground that changes people’s lives for the better.

[Kate Hoey]

This question might be more for the Minister to answer, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the Chinese reaction to the Prime Minister’s meeting with the Dalai Lama was rather upsetting, the Prime Minister should, when he visits China in the near future, specifically raise with the Chinese Government the position of Tibet, including all the political prisoners in Tibet and the way in which Tibetan culture is being ruined?

[Mark Pritchard]

The hon. Lady has a long and distinguished record in the House of standing up for human rights, and she is standing up for Tibet today. The Prime Minister will set out the case for human rights, which the Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Office Ministers do consistently, but the realpolitik is that we need to engage with China on all sorts of levels. That said, I believe that the Prime Minister will want to avoid any perception that the United Kingdom and its Government, and therefore its people, are kowtowing to the Chinese and I am sure that that perception will not be allowed to form when he visits China.

I welcome the liberalisation of the one-child policy that was announced at the plenary session, but it needs to be the first—not the last—step in reducing forced abortions, fines and imprisonment for those who by design or accident find themselves with larger families. It is a blight on China’s international reputation that it aborts more babies in the womb than any other country on earth.

I also welcome the announcement that fewer crimes will be subject to the death penalty. Such measures should be introduced this year, not next year. I also hope that that will lead to the complete abolition of the death penalty. As someone who is supposed to be a centre-right politician, and as the proud vice-chairman of the all-party group on the abolition of the death penalty—one group among many that shows the value of all-party groups—I am active with others, and Baroness Stern does a great job of chairing that group. China can really take the lead on the abolition of the death penalty.

The announcement that China will do more to open up its economy and to liberalise its trade and commerce with the outside world is also welcome. It is good news and many good things came out of that plenary session.

In conclusion, China’s economic rise has been impressive, but if it is to be sustainable, its economic progress needs to be matched with more freedoms for its people and with foreign policy restraint. The Chinese are great historians, great diplomats and great survivors. The Communist party will know that it cannot hold back the tide of its own people’s rising aspirations, growing expectations and more informed view of their place in China and the rest of the world. The party’s future will not be secured by stirring extreme nationalism or fostering xenophobia. China’s Communist leaders need to allow change or sooner or later they will be changed. They can work with their people or against their people. Let freedom reign in China.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman must have misspoken. I think he just said—perhaps I heard him wrong—that Gibraltar could join the kingdom of Spain without leaving the United Kingdom.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Yes, he did.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for endorsing me. I do not think the hon. Gentleman meant to say that. He said that Gibraltar is self-governing. It has self-government on many issues, but not all. We still provide its international relations, Home Office functions and defence functions. I think the hon. Gentleman is misspeaking.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Wharton]

My hon. Friend makes an important and valid observation. It appears that the Leader of the Opposition does not even trust his own party, because he cannot lead them one way or the other on this important matter, but he has ordered them to run away from the debate.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I want to point out that it is important to recognise that the majority of Labour voters in the country want to see a referendum.

[James Wharton]

The hon. Lady is of course right. We know that the majority of people in this country want a referendum. I would extend to her on this issue the hand of cross-party co-operation and friendship, and to any of her colleagues who would like to join in what we are trying to do to deliver that, not just for Labour voters, not just for Conservative voters, but for everyone, whether they believe that we should be in European Union or should leave it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on winning the ballot and promoting this Bill? I know that many of his colleagues would have loved to be No. 1—indeed, a few Labour Members would have liked to come first and promote the very same Bill. We might have elicited more support from the Labour Benches if one of us had done that, but I am not sure.

I have heard a lot today about how one party or another is playing politics, but as far as I am concerned, those who suffer when party politics are played on any side are the public. The only people who will suffer if this Bill is not supported will be the public who have wanted a referendum for many years.

[David Simpson]

On that point, does the hon. Lady agree that the general public want a level playing field in Europe? They have not seen that for many years, and this referendum will give them their say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

To me, this referendum is not just about politicians trusting the people, but about people beginning to trust us again, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said. Looking at the records of all the political parties on Europe over the last 20 years, the public find there is not much that they can trust in what any of the political parties have said. That is precisely why we need this legislation.

Of course, the Bill will not bind the next Government. If my party is in power after the next election, I will continue to campaign for a referendum. I hope it will be recognised that any party that goes into the next election without offering the people the chance of a referendum will not be looked on very well. I am therefore confident, as some of my colleagues are, that our party will change its mind on this, just as it changed its mind on the euro and a number of other issues relating to legislation that has been introduced.

It is common sense that we need a referendum. Europe has changed so much—I will not go through all the different treaties. No one under the age of 55 has had a say on this. It is just scandalous to think that any party can sit around and abstain on an issue like this. What is the point? I genuinely cannot understand why we want to abstain, other than to say that we are playing into the hands of the Conservatives. I do not think I am playing into the hands of the Conservatives by voting for this Bill today; I am playing into the hands of my constituents and the British public, who want a referendum. I appeal to Members from my party not to abstain. This is not necessarily the Bill that will finally get consent in this House; there will be amendments—I personally would like a referendum sooner rather than later.

I want to read out two simple letters from the many that I have received over the last week or two since the Bill was published:

“As one of your constituents I am asking you to listen to my voice, and the voice of millions of others, who believe it’s time that the British people were given a say on Britain’s membership of the European Union.

This is not about party politics or the next general election.

It’s about democracy, and giving people a chance to decide whether the EU is right or wrong for Britain.”

The next letter says:

“Thanks for your stance on a referendum, we do appreciate being treated like adults, despite what”

some other Members of Parliament are saying.

I feel strongly that this Bill sends a message today, 40 years after we originally joined the Common Market, that we are in a new century and a new era. Europe has changed. Our country now needs to make that final decision about whether our future will be in Europe or whether we can see a better future outside Europe. We will be vilified by the establishment—anyone who has tried to speak out on Europe over the years has been vilified. The mantra of the European Union elite has always been “Ever-closer union”. They will not allow such minor concerns as the opinion of the public to interfere in referendum decisions. Over and over again, decisions are quietly pushed through in Europe. We have to speak out. Now is the time for this Parliament to say, “We want to govern our own country; we want to have a referendum,” and let the public decide.

European Council

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Gentleman should also acknowledge what was discussed, particularly in the Council, and the emphasis that was placed on the single market and on cutting red tape for small businesses. The Prime Minister is setting out what will be discussed at the G8 at Lough Erne, when we will be talking about issues such as tax, transparency and getting businesses going. Those are the things that we want to concentrate on. I agree with my hon. Friend that those other things are not so relevant.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Did the Prime Minister have any discussions on the fringes of the European Council meeting about Zimbabwe, and about the fact that, after this weekend, the European Union will lift many more of its restrictive sanctions? Does the Minister realise that there is concern about that? There is still a problem in Zimbabwe. There are huge human rights issues, and it is important that the European Union should give the matter careful thought before lifting those sanctions in the lead-up to the elections in July.

[Mr Swire]

The hon. Lady makes some extraordinarily good points on the sanctions against Zimbabwe. I was not aware that the matter was not on the European Council agenda. I was not privy to any private conversations that might have taken place, but she has made some extremely pertinent points.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

Indeed, the 1959 Antarctic treaty froze all sovereignty claims there. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, whose private Member’s Bill, the Antarctic Bill, has passed through the House and is now law.

Many Argentines continue to work in the United Kingdom, and many British people work in Argentina. They are able to get along in a positive way. Perhaps the wisest words spoken in the past two weeks were those of one of the international electoral observers, who said:

“The Falkland Islanders are citizens and they have the right to express themselves.”

Those were the words not of a local, but of Senor Jaime Trobo, the Uruguayan electoral observer.

I suggest that now is a good time to evaluate from where the right to self-determination originates. The principle is set out unequivocally in article 1.2 of the charter of the United Nations, which states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is

“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate on such an important subject on such an important day for the Falkland islanders. Does he also think that this is a good time for the United States of America to show that it understands democracy, and for President Obama to come out in support of the rights of the Falklanders, rather than sitting on the fence as he seems to have been doing?

[Guy Opperman]

While we would all support President Obama, he seems to be acquiring some splinters by sitting on the fence for so long. The United States’ position is surely hypocritical, given that it uses and benefits from bases in British overseas territories such as Cyprus, Diego Garcia, Ascension and Gibraltar when it suits them. Because it does not use the Falkland Islands for those purposes, however, it is not so supportive of, or enthusiastic about, our claims and those of the Falkland islanders.

Europe

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I will give way in a moment to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

Ratifying Lisbon without consulting the people did real damage to the EU’s democratic legitimacy in this country. I remember one Labour Member agreeing with that point in the debates on the Lisbon treaty—the hon. Member for Vauxhall.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary should know that a majority of Labour voters support bringing back powers from Europe. Although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said, we want to be friends with our European allies, talk to them and work with them, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the threat of a referendum makes it much more likely that we will get the real engagement that will satisfy the British public?

[Mr Hague]

Although, as Foreign Secretary, I might not describe it as a threat on a daily basis, I agree with the thrust of the hon. Lady’s argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) referred on a number of occasions to the UK and not to Britain. I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary, who talks about “Britain, Britain, Britain”, seems to have forgotten that we are part of the United Kingdom. So I thank my right hon. Friend, but that is probably as much as I am going to be thanking him for. I am here to say on behalf, I believe, of many Labour voters, the majority of the British public and the majority of my constituents that what the Prime Minister said about a referendum, our changing relationship with Europe and the need to bring back powers from Europe is absolutely right, and those comments have been welcomed by the country. I am genuinely disappointed that my party is going to take a little bit of time before, inevitably, it comes round to saying that we want a referendum.

Normally, it is just a few of us who put forward the “Eurorealistic” case in such debates, but it is great to see that today quite a number have come along to put forward that view, which I welcome. I remember when there were just a few of us here and we were supporting the Government in putting in place their EU lock. We said it was right that we should be saying that if any more powers were going back to Europe we should have a referendum. I am sorry that Labour Front Benchers were not in favour of that at the time, but I am delighted that we have changed our mind and are now supporting that.

I know that before the European elections my party will without doubt be saying that it wants us to have a referendum, because that is a basic tenet of democracy. We know that the European Union—the Common Market to which we signed up all those years ago—has changed so much. We have seen many changes and the British public never got the chance to say what they thought about them. We had promises from Members on both sides of the House that there would be a referendum, but we never got that referendum.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the major change in our relationship with Europe was the signing of the Single European Act in 1986 by Margaret Thatcher?

[Kate Hoey]

I perhaps differ in that I do not take that tribal attitude to the matter—I want to do what is best for our country. I do not care who made those decisions; my party made terrible decisions, as did the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats always make terrible decisions on Europe. I do not care who did it—it was wrong. I voted against the Maastricht treaty, as did many of us way back then. We were right in everything we said at that time and everything we said about joining the euro, which of course my Front Benchers did have the right view on, and our Government rightly did not join it.

Let us remember something about the people who are now all doom and gloom about what would happen if we had a referendum, and we did not get enough powers back and voted to come out of the European Union. These people are saying that that would be the most catastrophic thing that could happen, but they are the very same people who were wrong earlier—the Richard Bransons of this world and the other top business leaders who, for their own particular interests, have always been in favour of more integration. They were wrong then and they are wrong now, and the British public know that.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a very good point. I wonder whether, like me, she is an aficionado of the Danish political drama “Borgen”. The first episode of the second series just a few weeks ago had that memorable line, “In Brussels, no one can hear you scream.” Does she think that it is not only in Brussels, but in the office of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that nobody can hear the British people scream?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

The reason I support the lancing of the boil, as many people have described getting this matter out in the open, is that we need to have that debate; we need to be able to listen to people and we need to deal with the arguments from Members on both sides of the House about whether it is crucial that we stay in the EU. It would not be such a terrible thing if we came out of the European Union; we would have a much more confident future looking to Asia and the rest of the world, and looking back to our heritage of the Commonwealth. We could do that, but until now the ordinary person in this country has felt that nobody has listened to them.

We have now begun that debate, and I would like it enshrined in legislation in this Parliament that whatever happens and whoever is in government—I hope that my party will be in power after the election—the referendum will go ahead. The only way we are going to get these powers back—the only way we will get the fisheries policies and the common agricultural policy changed—is by showing that we mean we want the power back and by being confident enough to say to our European allies and our European friends, “We do not like the structure of the European Union. We do not like the way it has shaped up. We want to change it.”

I was reading an article today that I suggest all hon. Members should read, even those who do not normally read the Daily Mail. It was written by Andrew Alexander and it goes through the details of how we got to where we were when we joined the Common Market and how our leaders—Ted Heath, the former Prime Minister, and all our negotiators—gave in, gave in and gave in. What Mr Alexander is saying, as I am, is that we should have the confidence to say, “No, we are not giving in, as they want us almost more than we want them. They need us more than we need them.” If we were able to go out and make that case, we would be able to get a huge amount of those powers back.

If those powers are not going to give us the feeling that we have taken things back into our country and if we were out of the European Union, we would still be able to have all the social policies that we have opted for. We could have our own social chapter—we could do it here. We do not have to be told that we have to do it in Europe. This Chamber is where we should be making the laws for this country and this is where I believe we will ultimately win back that power.

Although it may take just a little longer than I would have liked and we will not get the referendum for a few more years, I am pleased that we have finally reached a position where, between now and then, we will be able to ensure that the case is heard and that people will be listened to. We are actually here to promote democratic views in this country, and people will now be listened to. I believe that my party will go into the next election making sure that it trusts the British people; if we did not trust the British people to have their say on the future of this country and of our relationship with Europe, that would be quite disgraceful. I have confidence that my party will change its view, just as it has changed its view on a number of other issues on Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Thank you for this opportunity to speak in what is an extremely timely and important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Members of this House, we are all very privileged to have the opportunity to contribute and have our say. Every time I walk through the doors, I am conscious that there are approximately 100,000 people in my constituency whom I am seeking to represent. I was struck by the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). She has left her place, but she spoke about giving dignity back to our constituents. I can think of no greater way of doing that than to give them a say on our future relationship with the European Union. The influence of the EU in the past four decades has increasingly dominated every aspect of our national life.

On 1 January 1973—I do not remember it; I was only three years old—we joined what was then referred to as the Common Market or the European Economic Community. When I was six, our membership was confirmed in a referendum. It is important to say that most people thought they were voting in favour of a common market—a customs union or a free trade area. [Interruption.] At the time, some people referred to the small print in the treaty of Rome about ever-closer union, but generally people believed that, essentially, they were joining an economic free trading agreement.

Over ensuing decades, the European Economic Community developed into the European Community and then into the European Union, and the various Acts and treaties, including the Single European Act, which has been referred to, the Maastricht treaty and the failed EU constitution, which had to be rebranded and essentially presented and passed by the previous Government as the Lisbon treaty, have seen an inexorable moving of power from this Parliament to a centralised EU.

I am often struck that people refer to the EU as a federal project—if only it were a little more federal with more subsidiarity! Over the past 40 years, however, it has grown into a central government project, and it is right that the Prime Minister has offered the country a chance to decide its future relationship with the EU. Last Wednesday’s speech will prove to be one of the most important speeches that a British Prime Minister has made in the past half century, and I, for one, am grateful for the clear direction he has set out—as the Foreign Secretary said, it is much clearer than what we hear from Her Majesty’s Opposition.

I only wish that our coalition partners were also signed up to a referendum. It certainly used to be their policy. I do not often quote the Deputy Prime Minister, but I would like to now. Writing in The Guardian on 25 February 2008, he said:

“It’s time we pulled out the thorn and healed the wound, time for a debate politicians have been too cowardly to hold for 30 years—time for a referendum on the big question. Do we want to be in or out? Nobody in Britain under the age of 51 has ever been asked that simple question. None of them were eligible to vote in that 1975 referendum. That includes half of all MPs. Two generations have never had their say.”

That was five years ago, so now that age is 56, and we are into a new Parliament.

[Kate Hoey]

Why does the hon. Gentleman think the Deputy Prime Minister has changed his mind?

[Henry Smith]

I wish I knew how the Deputy Prime Minister’s mind worked. You would be quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rule me out of order for being unparliamentary if I used the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber, and I would never use the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber to refer to another right hon. or hon. Member, but I think that the Deputy Prime Minister is guilty of rank inconsistency over his party’s position on a referendum.

This country has a unique position in the world; we have global links like no other nation on earth and we of course have our proximity to the European continent. This nation’s success has been rooted in being a free trading nation that seeks links and co-operation with the world. Our best opportunity for the future, as in the past, is to utilise those unique links and act as a conduit—a bridge—between the world and the European continent.