Foreign Affairs and International Development

Denis MacShane Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The whole of Europe wants to see the name dispute resolved, of course. That requires an agreement with Greece, which of course requires a Greek Government to be able to take the initiative and come to such an agreement. My hon. Friend will be aware that as we came into the Chamber for the debate, the news was that a caretaker Government would be appointed in Greece pending fresh elections on 10 or 17 June. We certainly hope that whoever is elected in Greece, facing formidable challenges, will include the resolution of the name issue among their priorities.

The EU has an important role to play further afield, including in Burma. The House can be proud that we never wavered in our support for democracy there and insisted on real political and human rights reform as the condition for any move towards an open relationship between Burma and the EU. We are starting to see real reform, although the gains are not yet irreversible and serious human rights concerns remain. The bold leadership shown by President Thein Sein and by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has finally placed the country on a hopeful path, and every Member will have been moved by the sight of Aung San Suu Kyi taking her seat in Burma’s Parliament on 2 May. It will be a huge honour if she visits Britain this summer for the first time in 24 years.

I visited Burma in January, and our Prime Minister was the first western leader to visit after the recent by-elections. We led the way in calling for and securing the suspension, rather than the complete lifting, of EU sanctions, and we have announced that we have lifted our policy of discouraging trade with Burma, although we maintain an arms embargo. We believe that at this moment, the right kind of responsible trade and investment can help aid that country’s transition.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am glad that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister went to Burma to meet that great leader, and we all look forward to her being able to visit London, but she might be alone because although we are open to one or two personalities our nation is shutting down. Does the Foreign Secretary know that, according to today’s report by the European Tour Operators Association, France now attracts 50% more visitors from India than we do; that 26% of all Indians and 30% of all Chinese who apply for a visa to come to the UK give up because it is too expensive and the application is eight pages long; and that everyone goes to the Schengen area, which now includes Switzerland? We have the reputation of being desirous of business, but closed to foreigners. Is that wise?

[Mr Hague]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

I am happy to give the assurance that my hon. Friend is looking for. Indeed, she anticipates what I was about to say. The gains that have been made by many Afghan civilians, particularly women, as regards their political rights, access to health and education and basic human rights are significant, of course, yet any of us familiar with that country knows how fragile those rights are, particularly for women and girls. I hope that the Minister will set out what steps are being taken at Chicago to ensure that the process is embedded, not eroded, in the coming years.

[Mr MacShane]

On a tiny technical point, since the debate started, I have received information that Pakistan is being invited by the United States to Chicago. That is a decision of the US State Department and has very little to do with our Government.

[Mr Alexander]

If that is the case, I welcome it. Of course, Pakistan is not a member of NATO, but anyone who is familiar with the challenge of trying to secure an end state as well as an end date in Afghanistan knows that Pakistan will have a key role to play. As well as attendance rates at the NATO summit in Chicago, land transportation for ISAF forces is an issue. In recent weeks, there has been a significant issue with the ability of land convoys to supply troops. If attendance has now been secured by the US Department of State that will anticipate further changes in Pakistan’s attitude to supply lines coming into Afghanistan.

All of us who have engaged with such issues will know that there is neither a military-only nor a development-only solution to the challenges faced by Afghanistan. Only politics can complete the bridge between where Afghanistan is and where we need it to be by the time of the NATO transition. We have heard too little on that matter from the Government today and over recent months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

What we managed, which most people would recognise, was the successful integration of 10 former eastern European countries into the world’s largest single market. There were also some changes in the common agricultural policy in 2008, which followed as a consequence of the budget deal that was struck in December 2005. But, as I say, it is simply an attempt to rewrite history for Government Members to suggest that there would never be consequences for Europe’s budget from the inclusion of 10 former eastern European countries.

[Mr MacShane]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1984, Britain’s contribution to the EEC was £656 million? Under Margaret Thatcher, it rose to £2.54 billion by 1990. It went up 400% under Margaret Thatcher. God bless her.

[Mr Alexander]

I think I am with my right hon. Friend in all of his remarks. Perhaps I shall write to him on the final phrase of his intervention.

In all seriousness, isolation can sometimes be a price worth paying for getting one’s own way in international affairs, but isolation achieving only defeat is surely unforgiveable. Even at this late stage, the Government must set out what steps they will take to ensure that real and urgent progress is being made at this month’s EU Council meeting. Alongside the welcome measures—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the voices in the Tea Room believe you are very young—a peach among all the Deputy Speakers that this place has ever seen—and I apologise for my use of the word “you”. [Interruption.] It is worth a try.

A political decision taken ages ago puts your family—not your family, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this particular person’s family—into the same currency as a bunch of people who are threatening your economic stability. The two choices you have are to throw money at your very costly currency partners—money that you have had to earn and pay in tax—or, as a German citizen, to say, “Enough is enough”, get rid of your costly neighbours and concentrate on ensuring that this can never happen again.

[Mr MacShane]

rose—

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, as I am struggling with my “yous”.

[Mr MacShane]

Might not another answer be for the people to whom you are exporting to say, “Right, stop buying BMWs, stop buying Mercedes, stop buying Siemens goods”? That could be a response, which is why I think that the Germans have understood that keeping money in circulation is not necessarily bad for Germany now, nor has it been in the past 50 or 60 years.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s case—

[Mr MacShane]

What!

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my attention and I look forward to the conclusions of the report with great interest, because, as I said, our neighbouring countries have been considering this problem for a number of years. Given the national priorities at play, they are keen to ensure stability in the region, which necessitates ecological, economic, diplomatic and defence co-operation and understanding. All this explains why the countries adjoining the Arctic are taking the issue very seriously. Norway, Denmark, Russia, Canada and the United States have all developed specific policy priorities for the high north and Arctic. Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands consider this a top priority, as do nations such as Sweden and Finland.

Our neighbours’ multilateral engagement is extremely serious and they are working closely together. This has happened for decades through the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Nordic Council, and has recently been widened to include enhanced bilateral and multilateral relations with the independent Baltic republics. Nordic co-operation is broad and embraces areas such as environment, health, energy supply, research, culture, education, information technology, research and business advancement. A specific Arctic co-operation programme works together with countries in the Arctic Council, which was formed in 1998 with the signing of the Ottawa declaration. An additional important consideration relates to regional security, where finely tuned defence priorities provide the capabilities that secure stability and aid the civil power across the massive area that constitutes the high north and Arctic. Our neighbours are scaling up their infrastructural capabilities in the region.

Despite different relations to treaty organisations such as the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Nordic and Baltic nations are pushing ahead as never before. This includes shared basing, training and procurement arrangements. For nations such as Norway and Denmark in particular, deployability and reach within the high north and Arctic is a key consideration. This is not the case for the UK.

Recently the UK Government mapped out their future priorities in a strategic defence review, a weighty 75-page report that does not mention the northern dimension once, underlining that it is not an important focus for Whitehall. In addition, UK defence cuts to infrastructure and capabilities in Scotland mean that we will have a diminished ability directly to co-operate with our neighbours. Damaging decisions, including the scrapping of fixed-wing Nimrod search and rescue aircraft, are at the top of that list. Air force operations are ending from two out of three of the northern air bases in the UK. No appropriate conventional sea-going vessels are based in Scotland at all. The recent arrival of a Russian carrier group around the Admiral Kuznetsov in the Moray Firth off my constituency necessitated royal naval interdiction craft being sent from the south of England to the north of Scotland, underlining that gap in capability.

[Mr MacShane]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Angus Robertson]

I am running out of time and I have already given way.

Current UK defence plans include the withdrawal of specialised amphibious personnel from the east coast of Scotland, while there are no helicopters or transport aircraft whatever. Even a cursory glance at the inventory of our neighbours shows their broader capability across all three services.

Scotland cannot afford to take that approach. With preparations under way for the independence referendum, it is reassuring that these regional developments are influencing the thinking of the SNP Government in Scotland. At least that consideration has been given there, in contrast to that in Whitehall, which is sadly lacking. First Minister Salmond has visited Norway on numerous occasions—indeed, he has been there this week—to discuss common issues, including the planned electricity interconnector and growth in the renewables sector. In contrast, no UK Prime Minister has made an official visit to our closest North sea neighbour in 25 years, which tells its own story about UK priorities.

Constitutional developments in Scotland and significant environmental changes offer a real opportunity and imperative properly to engage with our wider geographic region. Our neighbours to the north and east have already made a good start and work constructively together. We need to join them and play our part. The UK has opted out of a serious approach: we should not. If the UK does not properly engage, a sovereign Scottish Government will do so following a yes vote in the 2014 independence referendum.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

We are living through what might be termed a grand transition in international affairs, with the axis of global power shifting from the west to the east. Britain faces some difficult strategic choices in an external environment that is complex, uncertain and often chaotic. What are the strategic choices that Britain faces today? As other hon. Members have pointed out, we face a crisis in Europe that presents a profound strategic challenge for Britain. What is happening in the eurozone calls into question a policy consensus that has characterised British policy since at least the 1960s, and western Europe faces an economic, demographic and political crisis.

As the Foreign Secretary said in his opening remarks, the choice that Britain has in this environment of complexity is to be outward facing; to face out to the emerging world and build on our historic strengths as a nation. As world power moves east and towards those emerging economies, the Government have been right to recognise the strategic importance of building these new relationships in the emerging world with countries such as Brazil and other emerging economies. The reality of the world that we live in today is that Britain will gain influence by exerting influence on those networks—the networks of influence that are building around the world—rather than in the hierarchies of power that characterised international relations during the cold war. The Government are absolutely right to pursue that building of an extensive network throughout the world.

We need to draw the right lessons from our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Government are correct to pursue a stabilisation policy in Afghanistan and to move towards an orderly exit of British troops, but it is vital that we learn the correct lessons from our engagement in Afghanistan. For me, the lesson from Afghanistan does not argue for Britain to shrink from its global role in the future. The Libyan engagement proved that effective intervention is possible through new forms of co-operation through NATO. There are lessons that we need to learn from Afghanistan, but they should not be that Britain withdraws from its historic role as a custodian of global security. The choice for Britain, as we sit here today, is whether to shrink from that historic global role or accept it as Britain’s historic destiny and prepare for the future by building the necessary relationships and capability to fulfil that global role.

[Mr MacShane]

I do not dissent from much of the hon. Gentleman’s line of argument, so does he agree that the fact that there are now 250 fewer diplomats serving Britain abroad than there were in 2010 is a contribution to that extension of our network?

[James Morris]

As the Foreign Secretary pointed out, there are now more places around the world where Britain has embassies and consuls. I believe that it is still our national duty to pursue the latter course of maintaining Britain’s global influence as a major player.

Our biggest challenge at present is in the middle east. There is much turmoil in the region, and the greatest threat to stability, as other hon. Members have pointed out, is Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It is right that the British Government have played an influential role in pursuing EU oil sanctions on Iran but, as other hon. Members have pointed out, there is concerning evidence of potential backtracking on the ban on providing insurance for tankers carrying Iranian oil. I think that it would be a retrograde step for Britain to send the Iranian regime any signal that we are backtracking on sanctions. It is important that there is no let-up on sanctions. The pressure of the potential for EU oil sanctions has brought Iran to the table, and it should not be rewarded for making that right decision.

As other hon. Members have pointed out, the other key nexus in the middle east is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Britain should continue to play an active role in the international community to take steps towards peace in the middle east. There are encouraging signs internally in Israel, with a new coalition Government being formed and positive overtures from Prime Minister Netanyahu. I believe that the Palestinian Authority have the opportunity to become a partner for peace. At the same time, they need to abandon the divisive approach of seeking statehood at the United Nations and continuing to support a policy of delegitimising Israel, which is not in the best interests of achieving what all of us in this House want: a viable two-state solution. We must all work together to seek two-party talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians without preconditions.

On a broader point, Britain’s broader strategic choices and our concept of the national interest are related to two important assets that we hold. We have considerable and extensive reach due to our soft-power assets, and our cultural and linguistic reach will continue to mean that we can gain global influence because of those assets. We must be prepared to deploy them in the pursuit of democracy, human rights and—the corollary of those—global security. But we also have some important decisions to take on hard power and the extent to which Britain wants to continue to be able to project hard-power force in our role in global security. That comes down to such issues as the importance of replacing Trident, the maintenance of our independent nuclear deterrent and, building on the Defence Secretary’s announcement yesterday, the absolute clarity that we want a balanced defence budget and a sensible process for procuring defence equipment that will allow us to continue to be able to project hard power in a complex global security environment.

A couple of domestic issues impact on Britain’s future, one of which is the future of the United Kingdom itself. Some people, including some Members of this House, argue that it is inevitable that the United Kingdom will break up over the next few years. In my view, such a break-up would have profound and negative consequences for Britain and would threaten our ability to project a global role. The break-up of the Union is simply not in Britain’s national interests.

The other domestic aspect that I think is important is public opinion. Public opinion is not often cited in debates on Britain’s foreign policy or international development, but on issues from Europe to Britain’s global military interventions there is a sense of a crisis of legitimacy when decisions are taken that people have not been consulted about or that do not align with their values. As we think about Britain’s strategic choices and national interests over the next 10 to 15 years, we must ensure that the strategic choices that the Government make and that we make are better aligned with the aspirations and values of the British people so that we close the gap between the decisions that Governments have made and what the people of Britain aspire to achieve.

Over the past two years the Government have been right to recognise the extent of the challenge facing Britain, with the publication of a national security strategy and the establishment of a National Security Council that is driving strategy, and they recognise that we now live in a world that is a complex place where decisions need to be made in very ambiguous situations. When I talk with my constituents about the issues facing Britain, increasingly they demand a clear idea of where we are going and what we want to achieve, and I believe that over the past two years the Government have laid good foundations for achieving that clarity.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Britain’s foreign policy can be summed up in two words: unsplendid isolation. The Foreign Secretary is an observer of world events, rather than a shaper of them. He talked about new embassies being opened, but they will not be staffed by trained British diplomats who come back here after a short term abroad as a young diplomat to help inform our community of foreign policy. Instead, we now have portakabin foreign policy, with small sheds being opened all over the world, but without augmenting our foreign presence. The number of diplomatic posts staffed by British citizens is being cut by up to 250 as a result of the Foreign Secretary’s personnel policies.

The Foreign Secretary set out his world vision in an interview with The Economist last week. It is based on promoting trade, promoting the broad national interest and protecting British citizens overseas, as he confirmed in his speech earlier. I expect that every holder of his great office from Charles James Fox onward would subscribe to those aims. Every one of Her Majesty’s ambassadors promotes trade, but to do so we need an economy that is growing, open and supported by Ministers. Instead, the Foreign Secretary insulted every exporter over the weekend by telling them to work hard. My business friends in his home town of Rotherham, which I have the honour of representing, have worked harder than any generation of business leaders in our history. They do not need to be patronised and told to work hard. What they need is support so that the cuts to the UK trade promotion work, which Lord Digby Jones discussed with the BBC yesterday, are reversed, because every day that the Foreign Secretary has been in office has seen Britain’s trade balance worsen.

The Foreign Secretary makes much of the idea that Britain can turn away from our traditional trading partners and engage with emerging powers, yet we export more to Ireland than we do to China, Russia, India and Brazil combined. He is the leader of the Eurosceptic faction in the Cabinet and never misses an opportunity to make a crack about the EU or the problems of the eurozone, as if the double-dip recession pound zone were an example to follow.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that exports of goods to non-EU countries have increased by almost 30% over the past two years?

[Mr MacShane]

I will be moving on to that.

Our exports to Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain—the so-called PIGS countries—amount to more than 10% of our exports, compared with just 0.7% to Brazil or 1.4% to India, to which even Belgium exports more than we do. In short, the concept of replacing our friends and allies in the Euro-Atlantic trading region with the new so-called emerging powers is not paying off, as the Indian decision to buy French war planes rather than British ones and the view of Indian politicians that they no longer want or need aid from London demonstrate.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacShane]

This will have to be the last time, I think; I do not get any extra, injury time.

[Bob Stewart]

I do not think that that is what the Foreign Secretary said. I think he said that we should export wherever we can in the world, including to people to whom we have traditionally exported.

[Mr MacShane]

To export, one has to make friends throughout the world, everywhere, but when we look at Europe we find that that is not really the Foreign Secretary’s speciality. He was recently in Vietnam, and since he has been in office the UK’s trade deficit with that country has almost doubled. Whatever else he is achieving, he is a champion of increasing imports to the UK and the Blackburn Rovers in respect of decreasing exports from our nation.

Let me quote just one analysis, which is out today. The author states:

“It is noteworthy that other developed countries have re-orientated their export profiles more effectively than Britain has done, raising doubts about whether we are keeping pace with our EU partners in promoting British commercial interests in the emerging economies.”

That extremely prescient analysis comes from the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) in a new pamphlet published today by Business for New Europe. It is a Conservative condemnation—much like that of his brother, who always condemns whatever the Prime Minister proposes—of the failed key plank in the Foreign Secretary’s policy of promoting trade.

Our genius lies in being Europe’s most open economy. We were creating a niche as the world’s centre of excellence for overseas students. We still have many who came here two or three years ago, as the Foreign Secretary told us in respect of Chinese students, yet the Chinese and Indians are going to other European countries, because they can fill in a simple, short visa application and then travel anywhere in the Schengen zone—while our form is being replaced with the most difficult visa application known to man. We all expect Chinese citizens to complete our visa in English; the Chinese one day might expect us to complete their visa forms in Chinese, and then we will realise just how deeply patronising we have been.

Let us turn to protecting the national interest. Britain has permanent interests not permanent friends—it is an old saying. But our permanent interests are best promoted by making as many friends as possible, and the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister seem to lose friends and dis-influence people whenever they can. The Prime Minister, as we know, snubbed François Hollande when the now President of France came to London in February.

The Government have quietly buried an 80-year-old relationship with Poland through their handling of the current Polish Government and through the Prime Minister’s crude interference in Polish internal affairs, with support orchestrated from No. 10 for the clericalist national right-winger, Jaroslaw Kaczynski. As with the Prime Minister’s ostentatious endorsement of Mr Sarkozy, the curse of Cameron worked its magic and Mr Kaczynski’s opponent was elected.

We should not forget the Deputy Prime Minister’s description of the Prime Minister’s allies in the European Parliament as nationalists, “anti-Semites and homophobes” —a description highlighted by the appalling Waffen-SS commemoration march in Latvia in March, when Jewish people were jostled at an event supported by a party allied to the Conservatives. As with the Prime Minister’s insulting and gratuitous pandering to anti-Israeli Turkish politicians when he called Gaza “a prison camp”, even though it would be more accurate to describe Gaza as a centre of missile attacks aimed at Jews in Israel, the standing of Britain is damaged by such loose-lipped remarks and by the dubious company that the ruling party keeps.

That isolationist approach has been roundly condemned this very week by the Atlantic Council, one of the most prestigious American foreign policy institutes. In a report written by Nick Burns, one of the US’s most experienced diplomats, Mr Burns, who served the George W. Bush Administration with distinction, says:

“Prime Minister Cameron’s coalition government has yet to develop a coherent strategic vision for the United Kingdom’s role in a challenging global landscape.”

The report cites the blunder of the Prime Minister’s veto—the veto that never was—last December, which made Britain a laughing stock among Euro-Atlantic policy makers and opinion formers. It also underlines American dismay at the massive, Treasury-imposed defence cuts, which have left Britain without aircraft carriers at a time when the high seas—from the Strait of Hormuz to the contested Pacific islands where China is ratcheting up the pressure against Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines—are a new zone of tension.

We heard yesterday in the House the Defence Secretary prostrating himself before the smirking Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as the Secretary of State hauled up the white flag of surrender to the Treasury, for which a balanced budget is far more important than a balance of power or Britain’s presence in world affairs.

The Foreign Secretary has also downgraded human rights and democracy promotion. Yes, Britain tailed behind Mr Sarkozy in his Libyan expedition. Gaddafi has gone, but chaos, murder, mass violation of human rights and open warfare in southern Libya now exist. We hear constantly about the end of Gaddafi but nothing about the end of human rights in Libya today.

The FCO human rights report, which was once a printed volume of rigour and authority, has now gone virtual with just a handful of the worst violating nations examined in detail.

The Government are selective in their approach. Syria is condemned, but the torturers of Bahrain are invited to Britain with every honour we can bestow. The Burmese regime was excoriated, but when I repeatedly asked the Prime Minister to raise in public the case of Liu Xiabo, the Chinese Nobel peace prize laureate who now rots in the Chinese gulag, there was only silence. Pakistan is criticised, but the dreadful human rights abuses in Kashmir perpetrated by Indian security forces are downplayed and no pressure is put on India by this Government to change its line on Kashmir.

We have also heard relative silence in the case of Yulia Tymoshenko, although I am glad to say that, thanks to Opposition Members, it was mentioned earlier in the debate. On 12 October last year, when I asked the Prime Minister about Mrs Tymoshenko, he said:

“We completely agree that the treatment of Mrs Tymoshenko, whom I have met on previous occasions, is absolutely disgraceful. The Ukrainians need to know that if they leave the situation as it is, it will severely affect their relationship not only with the UK but with the European Union”.—[Official Report, 12 October 2011; Vol. 533, c. 329.]

In fact, the Ukrainians have made the situation worse by denying her medical treatment, although we are glad that she seems to be out of prison at the moment.

Other European leaders have taken a stand on the matter. The Prime Minister’s friends in the Czech Republic, the Czech President, Mrs Merkel, Radek Sikorski, the Polish Foreign Secretary and Carl Bildt, the Prime Minister’s friend in the Swedish Government, have spoken out publicly on it; we had barely a squeak from the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. Britain must stand up for Mrs Tymoshenko—as the Prime Minister pledged to do in this House in October.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacShane]

I do not think that I have time. Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me? [Interruption.] I am sorry—[Interruption.] Well, very quickly then.

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Ukraine, but he is most unfair to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the matter specifically in his opening remarks.

[Mr MacShane]

The Foreign Secretary mentioned it en passant. There has been no public statement, and none of the positions, taken by European leaders committed to human rights, about boycotts and having no contact. That is what I—we—want from this Government.

The Foreign Secretary also says that he has to support British nationals overseas. Certainly, the extradition of British nationals to the United States is working in favour of America’s idea of justice. We also have the problem of Mr Neil Heywood, killed in a horrible way at the same time as a Minister of State was visiting China, but it took several months for the truth to emerge.

Members across the House also agreed a resolution that Britain should take action on the case of Sergei Magnitsky by banning named individuals from coming into the UK, but the Foreign Office refuses to implement the will of the House. The names might be mentioned in private bilateral meetings with Russia, but we are not standing up for human rights, as I believe this country wants to do and expects the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister to do.

That is why this foreign policy is not working and will not work until we have a change of Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government’s attempt to cut aid to relatively wealthy countries with nuclear weapons, such as Russia and China, together with the UK aid transparency guarantee, should help to reassure a doubting public. However, it is the duty of all those of us who believe in international development to take the message out to our constituents and persuade them that it is in the recipients’ interest and in our own national self-interest that we should maintain our aid programme in very difficult times.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what part of the 0.7% of GNI in aid that we intend to spend will be channelled through the European Union. I commend him for his desire to have transparency in aid, which is absolutely right, for reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) touched on. It would be perverse if, having gone to the trouble of making aid transparent in the UK, the large portion of our aid that goes through the EU and the European Commission was obscure. A lot of EU aid is used to prosecute foreign policy in relation to its near abroad, seemingly as an extension of the External Action Service. As chairman of the all-party group on Morocco, which is the largest recipient under the European neighbourhood policy, I can say that in general terms the money seems to be reasonably well spent.

[Mr MacShane]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern for Maghreb Morocco. We provided £1 million for Tunisia when the Foreign Secretary went there last year. I am obviously not against that, but £1 million is almost irrelevant. We need to help our near abroad so that it becomes more like us.

[Dr Murrison]

I entirely agree, but it seems to me that some European aid is an extension of the External Action Service rather than necessarily aid in the sense that we give it to Bangladesh, for example. The right hon. Gentleman might see that as a nice distinction, but it is important nevertheless.

I am pleased to see in the Queen’s Speech the Croatia accession Bill, which represents the UK’s ratification of the accession treaty signed in December. Those of us of a Eurosceptic disposition see the EU as a trading compact, and that means a looser, not an ever-closer, union that is wider still and wider. Croatia has made considerable inroads in progressing the chapters of the acquis communautaire assessed in 2005 as being in need of further work, notably in relation to chapters 23 and 24, which deal with the judiciary, fundamental rights, justice, freedom and security. The process has been painful for Croatia, particularly in relation to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, but it has ultimately been successful. We wish it well in 2013.

More problematic is Serbia, which I fear must remain a candidate for some time. Belgrade’s attitude to, inter alia, human rights and its criminal justice system are in no way congruous with EU member states. The detention without trial of my constituent, Nick Djivanovic, by the Serb authorities under highly questionable laws and procedures from the days of Marshal Tito, which have no equivalent in the EU, illustrates the point perfectly in relation to chapters 23 and 24 of the acquis communautaire. Following the eventual arrest and surrender of Ratko Mladic, I hope that the Government will work with Serbia so that its aspiration is eventually satisfied, but it will need a great deal more work.

Immigration remains a matter of great concern to many of our constituents. Will the Minister describe the transitional immigration controls that will apply to Croatia and to future accession states, noting the migratory pressures that are sadly likely as the citizens of economically benighted southern European states seek refuge further north?

The ubiquity of the English language has been touched on. It is a blessing and a curse. The orthodoxy is that we should teach more modern foreign languages. I hope, however, that we will pick up on the blessing that the language brings in extending our linguistic reach. In particular, we must support the work of the British Council, which I have seen at first hand in Morocco—a country that is at the heart of what France has traditionally seen as its backyard.

We need to exploit more our further and higher education sectors, so that tomorrow’s movers and shakers come to this country and not to others. They may then be sympathetic to us in the years ahead. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on the European Commission’s Tempus programme and the Erasmus Mundus external co-operation window, which the UK has not exploited in Europe to the fullest extent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

There has been a consensus across the House tonight, so it is odd that I should follow my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) in commenting on the European Union. It is at this point, perhaps, that the House may diverge from the consensus.

I want to concentrate on economic policy in the context of the economic crisis affecting the eurozone. This Queen’s Speech—this legislative programme—says more about the state of a crumbling coalition than anything else. We are facing a growth and jobs crisis, yet there is not one proposal in the speech that will tackle the problems that we face. Of course we know why the legislative programme is so thin. It is because, as we know, on many fundamental points the two parties in the coalition do not agree. For example, they have major disagreements on Europe, civil liberties and constitutional reform. Let us be clear. This is a Government who, after only two years, have pinned their colours—both of them—to the mast of austerity and have run out of ideas.

There is no doubt that we are in difficult times, probably the most difficult that the country has faced for many decades, but there is no doubt in my mind who are to blame: this Government. When they came to power in 2010, growth was evident in the economy, unemployment was stable, and the economy, although fragile, was recovering from the massive shock of the world economic crisis of 2008. Since then we have seen growth all but vanish, choked off by a Government who cut too far and too fast.

To make matters worse, the eurozone seems determined to follow the same path, the path of austerity, the path that refuses to recognise that there is a huge problem with demand in the economies of Europe. The attitude of taking the medicine, taking the pain, no matter what, is the prevalent attitude, and Europe seems intent on executing a dance of death, with austerity piled on austerity. Europe’s leaders have told us that the only way out of the current crisis is through massive spending cuts and tax rises, and when that does not work, more cuts and more tax rises—more cuts in pensions, with punishing measures being imposed on countries in desperate straits, such as Greece and Portugal.

[Mr MacShane]

Will my hon. Friend accept a very minor correction? There is one exception to this general rule. In our country, we have decided to cut taxes, but only for the super rich and the millionaires. This Government of millionaires, two of whom have spoken to us tonight—or one has and one will—are helping their own and leaving the rest of the country to rot in misery.

[Angela Smith]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. We are clearly not all in it together. Rather than cutting VAT, which would help the economy, we have tax cuts for the very rich.

Yes, I have to acknowledge that the latest growth figures indicate that the eurozone has avoided a technical recession, but let us not get carried away with one set of figures. Let us note that it is higher than expected growth in the German economy that has kept the eurozone out of recession, with many other members of the eurozone still in recession. In fact, most of the other members of the eurozone are still in recession. Let us remember that this is a Germany that, as one of the most productive countries in the world, has been able to take advantage of the eurozone to boost exports, but which has pursued a policy of not expanding its domestic economy, and even now, it is not moving on that front, even when it is now clear to everybody that demand in Europe is a key problem. If anything, these latest figures amplify the unbalanced nature of the eurozone, with a strong country such as Germany forcing unbearable austerity and massive debt on the weaker southern countries, in an attempt to make them as competitive as the north—a difficult task even in good times and, I fear, an impossible one in a weak global economy with rising unemployment across the eurozone and the Greek economy 20% smaller than it was at the start of the crisis.

This Queen’s Speech is woefully inadequate in the context of what is happening to our country and across Europe. The medicine is not working, yet all we get from our Chancellor is the accusation that it is all the fault of the eurozone and that Chancellor Merkel should stop speculating on what will happen to the euro. No, the problem is not the musings of Chancellor Merkel; the problem is the damage her policies are inflicting on the eurozone, and, equally, the damage our Chancellor’s policies are inflicting here at home. So much for an export-led recovery. The Chancellor must rue the fact that his own prescriptions for economic health are backfiring at home and abroad.

Clearly, we need to identify an alternative approach, and the Queen’s Speech should have built on the experience of Obama’s stimulus legislation in the United States. That package of tax cuts, infrastructure investment and job creation has worked. The US is growing economically and unemployment is falling, from 10% in 2009 to 8.2% in 2011, with independent forecasts in the US showing that the ongoing impact of the stimulus package will be positive. I was in the US recently and it was clear, talking to independent forecasters, think tank personnel, pollsters and commentators across the board, that the stimulus package has worked. The figures prove it; they are undeniable. It is astounding that Europe is making the same mistakes that it made in the 1930s. If America can learn from that, why cannot we?

We needed to see in the Queen’s Speech an acknowledgement that austerity is not working and a commitment therefore to measures designed to stimulate the economy. Labour’s fair deal on tax and its fair deal on jobs would have been a good start. We needed to see a focus on demand rather than supply, and we needed to see that commitment accompanied by an acknowledgement that it is no good standing on the sidelines, sniping at our key economic partners in the eurozone, blaming them for all Britain’s woes. In the end, the problems that we all face are being worsened by the same paltry remedies, which destroy growth and jobs. We needed to see the Prime Minister commit himself to a change of course, and to working within the EU, with figures such as new French President Hollande, to encourage that change of course with the eurozone itself. Only then will there be any hope of growth, any hope of the kind of recovery that will allow trade to flourish, and, yes, any hope for Britain’s exports to flourish as part of that growth. There is no point having a Prime Minister who stands on the sidelines having walked away from the table. We are part of Europe and need to play our part within Europe.

Finally, we needed the Queen’s Speech to acknowledge that the economic crisis is beginning to polarise Europe politically and socially. Across Europe, we see the rise of political parties outside what is usually understood as the mainstream and away from the pragmatic centre, particularly in relation to the debate on EU policy and the eurozone. In Greece, one of those parties holds the balance of power. In Holland, opinion polls show a huge rise in support for the anti-European Socialist party. In France, one in five voters in the presidential election voted for the Front National. In Britain, the vote for the UK Independence party in the local elections grew: in Sheffield it got 12,000 votes, only 10,000 behind the Liberal Democrats.

That is worrying on one level, because it demonstrates that we are not immune from this worrying polarisation away from mainstream politics in Europe, a trend that reflects social unrest and the deep concerns felt by voters everywhere about their future. We must listen to voters—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall on this—and to what people are saying in Europe. They are beginning to tire of austerity, which they no longer believe is working. They are saying the same in Germany, and they are saying it in Greece, France and here, too.

The future does not look bright. Who knows what will happen politically and socially in Europe, including the UK, if Governments do not recognise the need to change course? The Queen’s Speech should have charted a new economic course and recognised that job creation, decent housing and decent public services for all are essential if we are to avoid a worsening of our economic and political situation. The fact that it did not bodes ill for us all, and I for one fear for the future.