British Citizens Abroad: FCO Help to Return Home
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. In relation to embassies, she said that they have been closed, but actually, a very small number of posts have had to be closed. What we have found—this is not a choice that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made; it is a direct result of the restrictions that have been put in place by Governments in those countries—is that they have had to work remotely, and indeed, a large chunk of the consular staff work from home. That is not a decision that we made—it was forced upon us—but I reassure her that in all the jurisdictions that she mentioned, we are trying to respond to what I hope she will understand, given her experience, is an incredibly fluid situation. Some of these restrictions are being imposed with no notice or limited notice, and that is very difficult, of course, for our constituents, but we are making sure that we provide them with as much advice and support in real time as we can.
My right hon. Friend mentioned Peru. As a result of the work of the FCO, and having spoken to the Peruvian Foreign Minister, we now have agreement for flights to come out of Peru. There is, of course, a challenge because not everyone is based in Lima, which has the international airport, so we also have to try to work out how we get UK nationals travelling in more remote parts of the country to the capital. We are actively working on that. We have several flights lined up, but we also need to work around or try to overcome the restrictions that have been imposed.
I hope I have explained what we are doing in Australia and New Zealand. My right hon. Friend is right, and I thank her for her remarks, about the critical importance of keeping the international hubs open, and not just in relation to Singapore. We are concerned about other international hub airports. We must try to keep those open. Tomorrow, I will lead the discussion among the G7 Foreign Ministers on this and our wider international strategy for tackling coronavirus. This is extremely difficult. We have hundreds of thousands of British nationals abroad, but I can reassure her that, from the call centre to the support they are receiving at post, we are doing everything we can to give them as much support as swiftly as possible.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing it. This is a medical crisis, not a wartime one, but she certainly gave the Foreign Secretary some friendly fire, and she spoke for us all in the concerns she expressed for the hundreds of thousands of British nationals stranded overseas.
Since the House last discussed these issues, we have seen some progress, especially in the planned provision of repatriation flights for British nationals stranded in Peru, and I thank the Foreign Office for its work on that, but as today’s media coverage shows—indeed, as is shown by the dozens of emails, calls and letters that Members from all parties are receiving from Indonesia, New Zealand, Morocco and Pakistan, where I understand no outbound flights are now available—this is not a crisis that can be resolved one traveller, one airline, or indeed one country at a time. It is a crisis affecting British nationals in every continent, many of them accompanied by young children, many of them with worsening health conditions, and many of them running out of money and in danger of losing their accommodation.
They are all in desperate need of reassurance from the Government, so I hope the Secretary of State will take the chance today to clarify the statement he made yesterday, which was reported across the media as an instruction to British nationals abroad—indeed, this is a direct quote from him—to
“come home…now while you still can.”
Despite the headlines, the Secretary of State obviously meant that for individuals who have the option of taking a commercial flight to Britain, but does he accept that that is now very much the exception, not the norm, and that for hundreds of thousands of British nationals the option he highlighted is simply no option at all? Will he make it absolutely clear that the Government remain committed to helping all British nationals; that embassies will have telephone lines available so that they can get the support and advice that they need, whenever they need it; that the Government will find a flight to get them home, no matter how long it takes; and that they will be guaranteed continued accommodation in the meantime?
Does the Secretary of State have a plan to ensure the safe care and medical assessment of British cruise line passengers and their current health assessment? Is he negotiating with countries to ensure their safety during quarantine? Is he arranging safe travel home for all who are stranded? How is he keeping in touch with worried citizens abroad and their families here in the UK?
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his foreign counterparts about the extension of visas, which may expire during the lockdown in other countries? What action is he taking on airlines to stop the profiteering that is going on, with inflated prices for flights home? In other words, will he send a simple message to those British nationals stranded overseas: “You are not in the last chance saloon; you are in safe hands, and this Government will get you home”?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman makes some important points, and we certainly want to give as much reassurance and as much advice as possible, but he will know—he has worked on the international brief for a while—that we have in this country a great tradition of travelling abroad, and that even if we take expats out of the equation we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people at any one time. Given the national restrictions that are being imposed, at pace and sometimes without notice, it is very difficult to give cast-iron guarantees about the situation. What we can do is lead internationally, in the way I described, with the G7, which we are doing tomorrow, and work as hard as we can with all our international partners.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the progress in securing the return home of UK nationals; I can tell him that we have already repatriated more than 1,000 British nationals, and also 254 non-British nationals, where we have had capacity, from 26 countries—places as far-flung as Wuhan over to Cuba.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Morocco in particular. We have facilitated the return of thousands of British nationals via commercial routes, with 49 commercial flights bringing 8,500 passengers home—in fact, it is even more than that now.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we cannot do it alone, which is why I am spending any moment that I am not in this House talking to Members hitting the phones, talking to Foreign Ministers and working our way through the problems. We have talked to the Peruvian Foreign Minister, as I mentioned, and I spoke to the Singaporean Foreign Minister first thing this morning.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of accommodation, because where people are travelling for two to three weeks, that is ultimately the issue for them. In Spain, where a large number of Britain nationals are holidaying, the original Government decision in Madrid was to close all hotels today. I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Spain and we secured the flexibility whereby they would not be kicked out on to the streets, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. We have also secured flexibility to ensure that the airlines can come in and, given the large number of Brits in Spain, we can secure those flights home. On the detail of the travel advice to which he referred, we have given that advice based on the rapid rate of new restrictions that Governments and jurisdictions are placing, sometimes on internal travel, which will inhibit people’s ability to get to the airport, but more often on external flights coming in and out.
The hon. Gentleman also asked, rightly, about cruise ships. To the best of my understanding, on the basis of advice from the Department for Transport, no further cruise ships are hitting the water, so we are dealing with the stock of existing ships. We have successfully returned 684 people, including 669 British nationals, from the Braemar cruise ship, which was in the Caribbean, struggling to find a port of entry. We did that via Cuba. That is a good example of reaching out to—[Interruption.] I thought that would get the Leader of the Opposition excited.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law)
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bone
I am sure that Eric Forth was much better. He will probably be looking down, saying, “Oh my goodness, what a shower there is on both sides!” He would do this far better than me and he would wear a much better tie in the process, but alas, he is in a better place—and he will be wearing a better tie than the hon. Gentleman, that’s for sure. The really important point is that this House delegated the decision to the British people, and after three years, we have failed to do it. That is the fundamental difference between this and anything else that we normally debate.
Budget Resolutions
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The global theme of today’s Budget debate has enabled the House to examine the impact of the Chancellor’s statement on Britain’s place in our world and our readiness to respond to the global challenges we face. Many of those challenges have been referred to by hon. Members. The whole House was shocked by the attack on the al-Rawda mosque, in which 305 Sufi worshippers, including 27 children, were slaughtered. The threat of terrorism is global, and although this particular atrocity was perhaps symptomatic of the metastasis of the cancer that is Daesh and a result of its military defeat in Raqqa, we must understand the implications for the strength of our military.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and the Chairs of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committees, have warned that cutting our armed forces by a further 12,000 will seriously undermine our global capacity. Recently, Government Back Benchers have reportedly engaged with their Treasury colleagues on this subject in the fashion of an English wicketkeeper greeting an Aussie batsman. The depletion of our armed forces capacity in an uncertain world is something that the Government contemplate at their peril.
Another challenge, which was raised powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), is the appalling suffering of the Rohingya people who have fled from Myanmar’s Rakhine province. Their plight moved the new Secretary of State for International Development to tears on her visit over the weekend to Bangladesh, and she is reported to have said that it appears to be ethnic cleansing. I think that most hon. Members in this House would simply say, “Yes, it is.” But I pay respect to her for going so quickly to apprise herself of the situation there and in the Caribbean. I trust that she will be a strong advocate for her Department’s financial needs against the siren voices in the Conservative party who wish Britain to downgrade its 0.7% commitment or to circumscribe our aid budget in such a way as to refocus it away from poverty reduction, disaster relief or sustainable development. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) was shouted down by Government Members when she pointed out that, as page 22 of the Red Book sets out, ODA budgets will be adjusted to reflect the OBR’s revised GNI forecast. They will, therefore, be cut by £375 million in 2018-19 and £520 million in 2019-20—a reduction of almost £1 billion.
There have been 17 named storms in the Atlantic hurricane season this year, many of them at category 5. That has made the season the costliest on record, with an estimated $367.5 billion of damage. Harvey, Irma and Maria have not just cost dollars; they have devastated the lives of our friends and Commonwealth partners throughout the Caribbean and beyond. UK assistance has been vital to many of those countries, and we welcome the £5 million that was made available to Dominica, as well as the additional funding announced from DFID when the Prince of Wales visited Antigua and Barbuda last week. But perhaps the Foreign Secretary should reflect on the 10% cut in the financial support for our overseas territories and consider reversing it.
Disaster relief is not the answer to climate change, which is one of the central challenges facing the international community. With the UN climate conference having just finished in Bonn, the opportunity provided by the Budget should have been used to make key policy announcements on policies that would mitigate climate change. Instead, we find that there will be no new low-carbon electricity levies until 2025, and there is nothing for renewables or investment in domestic energy efficiency, or for the necessary transformation of our grid structures to bring on new localised production, microgeneration and supply. Instead, there is a clean growth plan—six years late—that will not even meet the target set in the fourth carbon budget, never mind the fifth carbon budget.
No international debate should or could have taken place today without reference to the appalling war going on in Yemen. Yesterday’s Financial Times leader on the looming famine in Yemen is one of the finest editorials I have read. It refers to the risk that allies of Saudi Arabia face in being complicit in the use of starvation as a weapon of war. It is chilling. It says that the conflict has
“descended into a new circle of hell after Saudi Arabia committed its air force to defeating Houthi rebels”
earlier this year, and began destroying bridges, roads, markets and container ports. The infrastructure breakdown means that food is reaching the hungry “fatally slowly”, and that was before the Saudis decided to block even humanitarian aid in reprisal for a missile fired at Riyadh earlier this month. Seven million people are now on the brink of famine, according to the UN.
The relation of this tragedy to the Budget becomes clear when we look at the OBR projections for trade growth. Globally, world trade is set to grow year on year by approximately 4%, but the Government’s own projection of the contribution trade will make to our own domestic growth declines to zero by 2019, and stays at zero for four years throughout the life of this Parliament. It is no wonder that the Government have been reluctant to jeopardise the £4 billion deal to sell Saudi Arabia British fighter jets. Human rights must not be regarded as a commercial inconvenience. If our country wishes to stand tall in the global community, we must do so on the basis of our values. We need to ensure that we do not end up pawning our democratic values to boost our failing economy.
The central facts of the Budget determine how our country is able to respond to all these international challenges. I agree with the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) who said that sound finance is the only basis for a caring Government. We need a strong economy, and the Budget figures did not show that. Growth has been revised down by 0.5%, productivity by 0.7% and investment by 1.5%. This Budget admits that previous Treasury promises have not been met, but it has failed to set out a vision to take our country forward.
Business growth and trade are crucial to our capacity to act and to lead in the world. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) posed the key questions on which businesses need certainty if they are to lead the economic revival we so desperately need: what tariffs and quotas will they face, and what will our future trade relationships look like—the no deal Brexit my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) warned about, or the deal that the Brexit Secretary once upon a time boasted would give the UK the “exact same benefits” that we currently possess as members of the single market?
The Chancellor told the nation what he thought was more likely when he announced the £3 billion to prepare for a no deal Brexit. It is therefore no wonder, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) pointed out, that the Foreign Secretary spent more time talking about penguins and plastic bags than about Brexit. My hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Dr Drew), for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker), for Leigh (Jo Platt), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for Stockton South (Dr Williams) and for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) spoke powerfully about the Budget’s failure to address the needs of our health service: £4 billion is needed next year; £1.6 billion has been provided. They highlighted the irony that social care, which was a defining issue in the general election, got scarcely a mention.
In a brilliant speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) not only exposed the anti-London nature of this Budget, but highlighted the total lack of any stimulus to housing supply, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid). My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central highlighted the fact that the need for the productivity growth on which depend our country’s future prosperity and successful engagement on the international stage. Productivity will depend on the two pillars of education and infrastructure investment, so it is not coincidence that these were the two key offers that the Labour party made in our manifesto at the general election, with our national transformation fund and our national education service.
It would be tempting to claim that this Budget proves that the Government have lost their way. The truth is that they never had a direction in the first place. The Prime Minister is a prisoner of her Cabinet, and her Cabinet is divided against itself. Sooner or later, the electorate will put them out of their misery and we will have a Budget for the many, not the few.
EU Membership: Economic Benefits
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lilley
Switzerland moved its banking centres to London post big bang and before the single market. I negotiated the second banking directive, which introduced passporting for banks. I was very proud of it, and subsequently wanted to make a speech saying what a wonderful thing it was, and how wonderful the single market programme was, so I asked my officials to find examples of banks and other businesses that were doing things that were made possible by the single market programme and that sort of passporting. They could not find a single one. Nearly all banks trade through subsidiaries, so do not take advantage of passporting, which allows operation through a branch rather than a subsidiary, regulated by the British financial authorities rather than those in the country in which they operate. I will perhaps come on to other aspects of the passporting issue if time permits.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I always listen very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He has made a very strong point about the difficulties in negotiating with a large trading bloc of 27 nations, including the time it would take. Why then does he feel that it would be possible, in short measure, for the UK to re-establish its trading relations with an EU of which we were no longer a part? He has made a very compelling case for why it would not be.
Mr Lilley
That is a very good point that I was going to come on to. It takes quite a long time for the EU to negotiate a trade deal with Canada, for example, because each country has tariffs against the other, and different product specifications and so on. Each has to trade off, say, a cut in tariffs on steel against one in tariffs on leather goods. We can see how that could take a long time, particularly if there is not much enthusiasm for it. We would start negotiating with the rest of the EU with zero tariffs on both sides and with common product standards. Zero to zero can be negotiated in a fairly short space of time, I would have thought, compared with the time needed when 10,000 different tariff lines are involved, as in other tariff agreements. It should not take long to negotiate a continuing free trade deal, with good will on both sides.
Mr Lilley
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has burned his boats.
Another myth, which I am afraid has been proffered by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, is that we will need to renegotiate trade agreements with all the countries with which the EU currently has trade agreements. That is not the case. There is an accepted principle in international law called the principle of continuity: if a political unit splits into parts—as the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia did, for example—the component parts continue with the same agreement unless one party objects to it. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the countries with which we are currently party to free trade agreements will want to end those agreements when we leave. For example, when the Soviet Union broke up it was not a member of the WTO, so had traded under separate trade agreements with other countries. Those trade agreements migrated by agreement, so that within weeks even America had migrated its agreement to Russia and other successor states. There is absolutely no reason—
UK’s Relationship with the EU
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Lidington
I hope that when my hon. Friend has the chance to look at the text in greater detail, he will see that—if agreed—it will mark a significant change in the direction in which he wished to go. Clearly, it will need the agreement of 27 other Heads of Government at the European Council, and I cannot stand here and take that for granted. He should also bear in mind the fact that the precedents of Norway and Switzerland suggest that part of the price of access to the European market and free trade has been an acceptance of the principle of free movement of workers.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that some of our most foundational environmental legislation lies in the EU habitats and birds directives, the clean air directive and the water framework directive? Those things can only, and must, be agreed at supranational level. What would happen if we were to leave the EU and try to renegotiate such foundational environmental legislation ab initio?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but when dealing with environmental legislation, it is important that the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity are rigorously applied. Sometimes it is right to agree on an environmental objective at European level, but to leave a considerable amount of flexibility for individual member states with different circumstances as to how precisely those objectives should be reached.
Britain in the World
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) spoke with great passion, great eloquence and great courage, and he has clearly come here with a mission to support mental health and our veterans. I was privileged to listen to him and I look forward to seeing him achieve his mission in this Parliament, as he achieved his mission on the battlefield.
Exactly one week before Her Majesty opened this Parliament with the Gracious Address, President Obama gave a speech not in London but in New London, Connecticut, to the United States Coast Guard Academy. He said:
“I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. So we need to act and we need to act now.”
He said that climate change posed risks to national security, resulting in humanitarian crises and
“potentially increasing refugee flows and exacerbating conflicts over basic resources like food and water.”
Last summer, I was critical in this House of the Government’s decision not to provide financial support to the Italian Government’s coastguard operation to rescue refugees from Libya. I recall the Minister’s response to me then, which was that such rescue operations acted as a “pull factor” and were only increasing the number of attempts at migration. I thought that an obscene argument then, and in the intervening months we have seen that it was not only obscene but wrong. The number of attempts has increased. On Saturday, the Italian coastguard announced that more than 4,000 migrants had been rescued off Libya’s coast on Friday.
My purpose is not to berate the Government for their lack of compassion; I want to look more deeply into why those migrants are coming in the first place. The Libyan civil war was part of a much wider pattern of regional upheavals that we called the Arab spring, which began in Egypt in 2010 with the uprisings in Tahrir Square. However, if we track those disturbances back, we come inexorably to the 2010 drought in Russia’s wheat belt. It was the longest and most severe drought in Russia in more than 50 years. Russia lost 25% of its crops, leading it to impose an export ban on wheat that it had traditionally exported to Egypt. The food crisis in Egypt was the precursor to the Arab spring; the situation was the same in Tunisia and the rest of the Arab world.
On 9 September 2010, when the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation warned that Syria’s drought was affecting food security and had pushed two million to three million people into “extreme poverty”, few people took any notice. In fact, Syria had suffered four successive years of drought, causing the longest and deepest crop failure since records began in 1900. The losses from these repeated droughts were particularly significant for the population in the north-eastern part of the country. Experts warned at that time that the true figure of those living in “extreme poverty” was even higher than the official estimate of two million to three million people. What is astonishing in military terms is that in September 2010 nobody predicted that such a tinderbox might give rise to civil unrest and the civil war that began only six months later.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies is clear about the impact of resource shortages. In 2011, it published a report claiming that climate change
“will increase the risks of resource shortages, mass migration, and civil conflict”,
and the Ministry of Defence has said that climate change will shift the tipping point at which conflict occurs.
It has been a feature of recent debate to talk of the need for the UK, as a member of NATO, to meet the target of 2% of GDP on military spending. Our military do a superb job, but at the moment it is a job carried out within the limits of a very limited political vision. As politicians, we have to understand that the greatest threats to our security are no longer conventional military ones; nor do they come from fundamentalist terrorists. We cannot “nuke” a famine; we cannot send battleships to stop the destruction of a rain forest, but we can spend money on clean technology transfer that enables countries to bring their people out of poverty without polluting their future, and we can invest in adaptation measures that will protect communities from the effects of climate change that are already putting societies under stress.
Next month, at a UN conference in Addis Ababa, we must begin to align the global financial system with the real economy and the needs of the world’s poor. Then, we will have taken a major step towards achieving real security for our nation and for the people of the world.
Oral Answers to Questions
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Hammond
I have to tell my right hon. Friend candidly that the co-ordination between the civilian Syrian opposition and the moderate armed opposition is still disappointing. It is one of the areas on which we and our allies are working. We are committed to taking part in the programme of training and equipping members of the moderate Syrian opposition outside Syria, and that programme is beginning to gather pace now.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Was it the UK that first offered, or was it Ukraine that first requested, the presence of British military advisers, and can the Foreign Secretary assure us that their presence is more likely to lead to a peaceful settlement, rather than an escalation of the process?
Mr Lidington
There has been a discussion between the Ukrainian Government and ourselves and a number of other European Governments and the United States about various types of assistance, including non-lethal military assistance, and there was agreement among those different allied Governments to supply help to Ukraine. We think that the training will enable the Ukrainian army to operate more effectively than it has been able to do up until now, and that that offer of training would have been justified irrespective of the Russian intervention in the east.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
I absolutely agree. I am only just old enough to have voted in the last referendum on the European Union—my first ever vote. There is a whole generation of people who have never been consulted on this question and who are entitled to have their say.
We should all be able to agree on this question, not least because that is the agreed position of this House in this Parliament, because the Bill we are debating today is, of course, the same as the one introduced in the previous Session by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) and passed unopposed on Third Reading. We are left wondering why it enjoyed such apparent acquiescence from Labour and the Liberal Democrats in this House, only for them to block it in the other place by denying it time for debate. The question is why Labour and the Lib Dems do not trust the British people to have their say on Europe. If Labour and the Lib Dems do not trust the voters, the voters should not trust them.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about listening to the British people, but does he understand that if the British people are to speak with clarity of voice, they need the clarity of choice of the Prime Minister’s red lines, and those have not been revealed? Until they are, how can that possibly be the case?
Mr Hammond
The clarity of choice they will have in 2017 is a clear body of reform on the table. They will know what the future European Union will look like and will decide whether or not they wish to be in it.
Mr Alexander
It is always revealing when those on the Government Front Benches give up an argument and simply go for abuse. If that is the best the Foreign Secretary can do—[Interruption.] I am happy to give way again to hear a single specific example of powers that he will repatriate. Is he prepared to take to the Dispatch Box and tell the House which social, economic or employment rights he is seeking to repatriate? It is unconvincing for Labour Members, but—this is much more worrying for the Foreign Secretary—it is deeply unconvincing for Conservative Members when he pretends that he is having conversations in Europe that he is not willing to tell any of us about. That will not convince the British public, and I do not believe it will convince the House.
Barry Gardiner
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the obscurity that we have just seen displayed is deeply concerning given the time scale set out in the Bill? If within 19 months after May next year the British public are to have an in/out vote on this issue, there are not 19 months to negotiate but a much shorter time, if the matter is to be debated realistically among the British people.
Mr Alexander
What honestly worries me about the Government’s approach to Europe is not that it is clever, wily and strategic, but that they are making it up as they go along. Many months after the Bloomberg speech we have absolutely no detail. I see the Europe Minister is in his place, so perhaps he would like to advise the incoming Foreign Secretary about those detailed proposals for reform. Would he like to set out repatriation proposals for us today? I would happily give way.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate and to support the Bill that has been introduced by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). I am pleased that he has done this. I also had the pleasure of supporting the previous Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), and of serving on that Bill’s Committee. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) talked about prosperity in the European Union. I hope that he will go and tell that to all the unemployed Greeks and Spaniards, and ask them if they think the EU is prosperous. The economy of the European Union, and particularly of the eurozone, is diving into a black hole at the moment.
I rise to support the Bill because I believe that people want a choice. I was an active member of a multi-party organisation called People’s Choice. Interestingly, its chair and president were both members of my party, although members of other parties were also active in it. A big majority of the British people want a referendum. In my constituency, we held a mini-referendum just before the last election on whether to have a referendum, and there was a 2:1 majority in favour of doing so. I therefore feel that I can legitimately express my view here today, as it is also the view of the majority of my constituents.
I have some experience of referendums. In the 1975 referendum, I was the chair of the Vote No campaign in Luton. Subsequently, I was the agent for the no vote in Bedfordshire. Interestingly, the agent for the yes vote was Sir Trevor Skeet, the then Conservative Member of Parliament for Bedford. Some years ago, when I met him again and reminded him of our previous encounter, he was horribly embarrassed because he had changed his view. That was an interesting conversation.
The Labour party held a special conference at that time. It was my first ever Labour party conference, and a massive majority—myself included—voted in favour of supporting a no vote in the referendum. At that conference, I saw one of the greatest pieces of oratory of my political career. It was a speech by Michael Foot, calling for a no vote. In it, he referred to Joseph Conrad’s novel “Typhoon”, saying that if someone was in a storm, they should always face into the storm to save themselves and not run away from it. Sometimes we have to do that in politics as well. I have always remembered that speech. I am often in the minority, but I remember what Michael Foot said: if you believe you are making the right point, stick with it. I have certainly taken that on board.
At that time, a great majority of Labour MPs wanted to come out of the then Common Market, but the majority of Conservative MPs wanted to stay in. There has been much reference to Labour’s support for the European Union, but even fairly recently it was the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who kept us out of the eurozone. Had we gone into it, it would have been a complete disaster.
It has also been suggested that there have been great changes since 1975. We have certainly moved much further towards an integrated Europe, but there were early signs of where we were going. In 1979, there was a proposal to form an embryonic single currency called the European monetary system—the “snake”—but Denis Healey wisely kept us out of it. At the time, I wrote a brief for the general secretary of the union I then worked for, who then banged the drum at the TUC saying that we should not go into the snake. I like to think that I had some small influence on the Labour leadership at that time.
Now, my devout wish is to convince my Labour colleagues to support a referendum. They might not necessarily listen to my voice, but there are significant voices in and around our leadership that privately support a referendum. However, they have not won the argument inside the leadership yet. Their views are private, but I hope that my party will have acquiesced and decided to support a referendum by the time of the general election, even if it does not agree with my view on the European Union.
Barry Gardiner
I understand that my hon. Friend is a passionate and insistent voice on these matters. Does he believe that the timing that has been set out in the Bill is sensible? Will it allow the people of this country to have the necessary debate with full information about what any renegotiation might involve?
Kelvin Hopkins
Personally, I would like a referendum sooner rather than later. Most people in Britain have a pretty good idea of what the European Union is about.
We will renegotiate terms, and no doubt there will be some loose improvements in minor areas that will make no difference to our membership. A sticking point for me is that we should withdraw from the common fisheries policy. We need to restore Britain’s historic fishing waters so that we can start to restock our seas to ensure that we have fish for the long-term future. I put that case in private to a former UK representative in the European Union who immediately said that, in that case, we would have to get out of the EU because we could not possibly withdraw from the common fisheries policy. So there we are: we have a problem. If we are going to renegotiate, it should be about real things that matter.
Barry Gardiner
Is my hon. Friend aware of the work that Commissioner Damanaki has done for the renegotiation of the EU fisheries policy, and of the benefit that that is bringing to small fishermen in the UK? The UK quota can now be divided up, bringing greater advantage to the under-10 metre fleets.
Kelvin Hopkins
I appreciate that improvements have been made to the common fisheries policy, and for that I give some credit to the previous Conservative Minister, but the pressure on him to renegotiate came partly from other hon. Members, including me—
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I have in the past been a great supporter of Friday morning debates on private Members’ business. We often get some very straight talking on a Friday morning, and I gained that impression this morning. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who has had a tradition of opposition to the European Union going back many years, as have many Conservative Members. I do think, however, that it would have been better if this motion had been made more clearly one about getting out of Europe, rather than hiding behind the pretence that it was a motion about giving choice to the British people.
We should beware of politicians calling for common sense without telling us what that common sense actually is. What we have not had from the Conservative party or the Prime Minister is clarity about what a renegotiated Europe would look like or about the red lines as we go into the negotiations. Neither have we had clarity about a time scale within which to enable the British people to make the informed and common-sense judgments—I certainly trust the British people are able to do so, as many Conservative Members have claimed they do—that are needed. A common-sense judgment demands having some real questions on the table to look at, examine and then to decide on.
Because the Prime Minister has been unwilling to provide clarity over the red lines and because the Conservative party has been unwilling to set out what a revised European Union would look like after a renegotiation, within 19 months of next May, there would have to be clarity on those issues. I do not think that that is a reasonable time scale. The hon. Gentleman who often speaks for his wife and whose constituency I have forgotten—
Barry Gardiner
Wellingborough: of course it is. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said that the end of 2017 was a backstop, but, as he knows full well, in the last six months of 2017 Britain will be chairing the European Union, and it is inconceivable that we could hold the referendum within those six months. The hon. Gentleman drew the date forward, saying that there could be a referendum during the first six months of the year, but that would shorten the time that the British people would have in which to look at what was on offer.
I do not think that the Bill is lacking in disingenuity. It is disingenuous because it claims to rely on the good wisdom of the British people to make a judgment without giving them the basis on which to make that judgment, and without giving them a time scale that will allow them to exercise it.
Kashmir
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
In exactly a week’s time, the people of Scotland will go to the polls in a referendum to decide the future of our country. The debate has been hotly contested and not without its ill temper; but imagine the outrage on both sides of that debate if the Indian Parliament, the Lok Sabha, were today debating the merits or demerits of Scottish independence and passing judgment upon what we in the United Kingdom see as a matter for us, and us alone, to decide.
The Simla agreement between Pakistan and India is actually quite specific upon this point: it requires the two countries to deal with Kashmir bilaterally and without the involvement or interference of any other state. India and Pakistan have both signed that agreement; it is therefore disingenuous for any politician here to claim that this is somehow a matter in which they have a legitimate role or voice.
Certainly, it is the role of all hon. Members to represent the concerns of their constituents. I do not doubt that or disparage the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) for seeking to do so. But I believe that it is still the custom for every Member, on first entering this House, to be sent a copy of the speech of that great parliamentarian Edmund Burke, in which he speaks to the electors of Bristol in the following manner:
“it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention… But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure, no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
I would ask all hon. Members who contribute to this debate to have the humility to reflect upon and cast their judgment over the following salient fact. Earlier this year, the people of India conducted the largest exercise in democracy and expression of the public will that has ever been concluded in the history of humanity, when 550 million free Indians—7 million of them living in Jammu and Kashmir—voted in peaceful elections. Nobody was assassinated; nobody refused to leave office. The world witnessed an orderly transition of power, as one Prime Minister gave way to the democratic will and passed the levers of state to a new Prime Minister with a different political vision for his country.
In the last elections to the 89 seats in the Legislative Assembly of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, 61.23% of the electorate—a total of 6.479 million citizens— expressed their confidence in the democratic structures of the state of India by voting. They also expressed their faith that the choices they made would find proper expression through their elected representatives under the constitution of India. It is worth recalling that 74.9% of the population of Jammu and Kashmir is of the Muslim faith, because simple mathematics then gives the lie to those who would claim that this is not true for the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir.
The fact is that millions of Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir will make their way to the polls later this year, just as they did in 2008, but there is a significant difference this year. In the general election earlier this year, three of the six Lok Sabah seats from Jammu and Kashmir were won not by the traditional parties of power, but by the Bharatiya Janata party, which actually took the largest share of the vote in Jammu and Kashmir despite having promised to scrap article 370, which gives Jammu and Kashmir special status under the Indian constitution. It won 32.4% of the popular vote ahead of the National Congress party, ahead of the Peoples Democratic party and ahead of the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference party, which finished on 11.1%.
The significance of those statistics cannot be lost on anyone with any understanding of Indian politics. The Bharatiya Janata party—the Hindu nationalist party, led by Narendra Modi—is regarded as the no-nonsense scourge of cross-border Pakistani-sponsored terrorism and topped the poll in Jammu and Kashmir. What should that tell the world? Perhaps that the people of Jammu and Kashmir want the constant cross-border interference from Pakistan to stop.
The border between India and Pakistan that lies along the state of Jammu and Kashmir is 1,125 km long. Jihadi terrorists have been infiltrating along that length for more than 40 years and the construction of underground tunnels and the cover fire provided by the Pakistan military has been a constant means of undermining India’s security and integrity.
More than 20,000 people have already been killed by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir, and it is no use hon. Members here in this Chamber of all places condemning the radicalisation of young Muslim men in their own constituencies, while ignoring the fact that those young men are trained in the terror camps that are operating on the Pakistan border with Jammu and Kashmir. Those who continue to argue to undermine the legitimate sovereignty of India might do better to reflect that the people of India live in a relatively transparent and well-functioning democracy where the economy is growing.
Those who point to the presence of the Indian army in the state of Jammu and Kashmir might reflect that it is not Indians who have seen successive Governments overthrown by military coups, and that if it were not for the constant cross-border attacks the Indian army would not need to be there with such a strong presence. It is there to guarantee the country’s border integrity, nothing more.
Many of the victims of the cross-border terror have been Muslims. That is, of course, particularly so in the Kashmir valley, where by far the overwhelming majority of people are followers of Islam. I welcome the fact that on his recent visit Prime Minister Modi spoke of the need to give specific help to those bereaved families. Another group from the Kashmir valley who deserve specific attention is, of course, the Kashmiri Pandits, who for so long have been displaced from their homes because of the fighting and live in the sort of refugee camps that, were they elsewhere in the world, would be a constant item in our evening news.
I welcome the fact that Prime Minister Modi’s first intervention after his election to office was to ask Nawaz Sharif to come from Pakistan to attend his inauguration. I welcome the fact that, as Prime Minister, he visited Jammu and Kashmir just last month, not to engage in political rhetoric against Pakistan’s continuing border violations, but to inaugurate a new hydroelectric power project. To my mind, he seems to be doing as he did in Gujarat and focusing on bringing prosperity and development to people in the belief that votes will follow. It is right that peace in the subcontinent over the issue of Jammu and Kashmir will come only when people living on both sides of the line of control see their quality of life and standard of living improve. With that in mind, it is ill-judged for British politicians to be debating the history and status of people who are currently facing the most devastating floods in 50 years.
Our attention should surely be on the human plight of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the humanitarian crisis of the people affected by the bursting of the banks of the Jhelum river. At least 200 people are known to have died and thousands have been stranded. Against that background and while politicians here have been raising questions alleging human rights abuses by the Indian army, the Indian army itself has mounted an enormous relief operation that has already saved the lives of 76,500 people in the flood-affected area. It has deployed 30,000 troops for rescue and relief operations, the vast majority of them—244 columns—deployed in the Srinagar region and the Kashmir valley. Eighty transport aircraft and helicopters have been mobilised, and almost 1,000 helicopter sorties have taken place, dropping almost 1,000 tonnes of relief materials. Eighteen relief camps have been established to deal with the appalling aftermath of this natural disaster.
Perhaps those who have shown themselves so keen to decry the actions—
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I speak as the chairman of the all-party group on Kashmir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) on securing this debate and introducing it so well. I also congratulate Raja Najabat Hussain, as other colleagues have done, for informing Members and bringing this issue to our attention. I welcome Barrister Sultan Mahmood Chaudhry, former Prime Minister of Azad Kashmir, who joins us for this important debate.
Obviously, I am at the tail end of this debate, so I do not want to repeat too much of what other hon. Members have said. Perhaps it might be more helpful if I addressed some of the points raised. A suggestion was made at the beginning that this debate should not be taking place at all—that we are wrong to debate the issue in the House. However, I tell the people who say that that the 4,500 to 5,000 Kashmiris/Pakistanis in my constituency expect us to raise these issues. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) got quite exercised about whether we should be making this case. I gently point out to him that a look at his Hansard appearances shows that in the last few weeks he has spoken about Gaza, Israel and Ukraine, so there is a precedent for us to talk about international issues.
Barry Gardiner
Of course, we must debate international issues. My point was quite simply that, under the Simla agreement, the two countries will deal with the matter bilaterally. To that extent, it is not for the British Government to interfere.
Andrew Griffiths
I politely point out to the hon. Gentleman that there was also an agreement at the United Nations—resolution 47, in 1948—which called for a plebiscite in Kashmir and for the people of Kashmir to have a voice on this issue. It might be inconvenient for the hon. Gentleman, but those are the facts.
Andrew Griffiths
No. I think I have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman. I have a short amount of time, so I should like to move on.
It is sad that this debate started off in such aggressive tones, because we should not forget that it is not about lines on a map or territory, but about humans and humanity. That must be central in all discussions that take place on this issue.
We have heard some fantastic speeches. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) for leading the first debate on Kashmir on the Floor of the House, in which he spoke eloquently and was very informed. I had the pleasure of visiting Pakistan and Kashmir with my friend the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), and talking to people who had been affected by this issue. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) also made a fantastic speech.
I want to talk about the impact of this situation on the people of Kashmir. We need to talk about human rights. The hon. Lady mentioned the report compiled by Amnesty International, “India: A ‘Lawless Law’”, which considered the operations of the 500,000 Indian troops stationed in this area—just think about that figure for a second. We heard earlier that, of course, the elections had taken place and that it was all fine: nobody had raised the issue of separatism in the elections. I say gently that there are 500,000 troops with guns pointed at people in this area, so it is slightly difficult to accept that an election can take place under those circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) says, “Well, this is a minority in Indian-administered Kashmir who want a plebiscite and their right to self-determination.” If that is so and he genuinely thinks that only a small minority of people in Indian-administered Kashmir are in favour of independence, then let them have the vote. What is there to worry about? What have the Indian Government got to worry about?
Oral Answers to Questions
Barry Gardiner Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. Emulation of the brevity of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) is now required. I call Mr Barry Gardiner.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is very clear about the use of sanctions against Russia and about their potential efficacy. Why, therefore, has the Foreign Office consistently said in relation to Sri Lanka that it does not believe in applying sanctions there or in other parts of the world?
Mr Speaker
The French Government, arms sales, Russia; I am sure that there was some relevance to those subjects in the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am working hard to find it.