Cross-border Travel (Spain/Gibraltar)

Denis MacShane Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the strong statement by the Minister today and the equally strong statement from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on the Opposition Front Bench about Gibraltar’s sovereignty. The Minister will know that tobacco smuggling regularly occurs—and to a much greater extent than between Gibraltar and Spain—across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Which way?

[Ian Paisley]

North and south. Yet despite that, there have never been such delays or such an overreaction by the services in Northern Ireland in relation to our trade and the impact on our trade. I hope that the Minister will send the strongest possible signal and, indeed, that he will ask our Prime Minister to represent fairly the people of Gibraltar to the Spanish Prime Minister and tell him to get his hands off this Rock. It’s not going their way.

[Mr Lidington]

The UK Government, from the Prime Minister down, could not have been clearer to our friends and partners in Spain that although we want a good bilateral relationship with them, we will not, and we shall never, agree to any transfer of sovereignty over Gibraltar unless that were the wish of the people of Gibraltar, nor would we enter into any process of sovereignty talks and negotiations unless the people of Gibraltar were content with that.

[Mr MacShane]

I wish the Minister well. I negotiated the trilateral agreement, and for a few years we had a bit of peace and quiet. I am sorry that it is all going wrong for him; Gibraltar is a nightmare for anybody in his job. However, the House does not help the Minister or the people of Gibraltar with patronising remarks about civilised behaviour and the rest of it. We need to cool things down. The queues are unacceptable, but jaw-jaw is better than queue-queue. I wish the Minister well as he tries to get this back under control.

[Mr Lidington]

I am always willing to welcome good wishes, particularly in my job, even if they are from the right hon. Gentleman. However, I would disagree with him profoundly in one respect: when he described Gibraltar as a “nightmare”. I do not think Gibraltar is a nightmare; I think Gibraltar is a thriving and now pretty prosperous community, with an entrepreneurial people who want good relations with their neighbours across the border in Spain, but who also want their democratic rights respected and their wish to remain British respected too.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Denis MacShane Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Not yet!

[Keith Vaz]

Certainly since my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) held the post.

I should have had this point clarified on Second Reading. Will the Minister confirm that none of the funds that we are talking about will in any way affect the ability of the European Union to support new member countries such as Croatia? Will he clarify that this matter is completely separate from and has nothing to do with enlargement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I stand briefly to question my right hon. Friend the Minister—I, too, welcome him back to his post—on whether he believes that the European stability mechanism risks prolonging the agony of the eurozone crisis. Although we are not members of the ESM, is it drawing us in yet further and adversely affecting us as a result? The eurozone crisis was caused by excessive debt—that is well established; it was Governments borrowing beyond their means. Being built on debt, we all accept that we cannot borrow our way out of this problem and crisis, yet numerous summits have basically moved debt around the system and between banks or Governments and, quite rightly, the markets are getting tired of that.

I suggest to the Minister that the best solution to the problem is economic growth, and to grow our way out of the problem for the sake of all eurozone countries and the EU as a whole. Where are the measures to encourage greater competitiveness? Where are the supply-side reforms? They are simply not there. I therefore put it to the Minister that he should consider whether the ESM prolongs the agony and delays the inevitable, and whether our interests, as such, are being adversely affected by the position we are taking on this treaty change.

[Mr MacShane]

If I may, I will try to speak to the clause. I might make other comments on Third Reading, but I hope not to detain us long. What is extraordinary about this clause is its sheer impertinence. Our Eurosceptic friends in the Conservative party are for ever telling us that we do not want Europe interfering in our affairs. The proposed legislation, however, says that we should wait until every other national Parliament has made up its mind—

“laid an order certifying that the constitutional requirements of all the members states of the EU have been complied with.”

What business or right is it of this Committee to demand that the constitutional requirements of every other sovereign nation state be met before we make up our minds, and until

“all the related and legal challenges have been disposed of”?

Let us imagine each of the other 26 fellow EU member states adopting the same clause and waiting for their Parliament to ratify the ESM treaty and all legal challenges to be completed.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about amendment 1 as opposed to clause 1.

[Mr MacShane]

As ever, Mr Evans, you are right. I will not repeat my speech but I think the Committee has got the point.

[Keith Vaz]

I, too, wish to be brief, and my point arises from the comments made by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I hope that the Bill will proceed, because I support the Government’s proposals, and the hon. Gentleman may know that the Home Affairs Committee has written on a number of occasions about the problems facing countries such as Greece in dealing with migration. Will the Home Affairs Committee have any say or be able to make suggestions about how funds will be deployed under the European stability mechanism? If we feel that not enough attention is being paid to the borders of Greece and Turkey because they do not have sufficient funds, will we be able to make such comments? I gather from the Minister that we cannot be part of the process but will we, at the very least, be able to comment on how the funds are to be spent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clappison]

I am sorry. It was the EFSM—the European financial stabilisation mechanism. That is different from the EFSF. Britain had liability under one of the two measures agreed in May 2010; it was the EFSM, not the EFSF.

I do not want to make many further points about this matter, because we went into it in the previous debate, but it was agreed in May 2010 that, under the EFSM, this country would have liability in relation to the eurozone which would have resulted in British taxpayers having to fork out with no prospect of Britain receiving any benefit from the EFSM because it was not a eurozone member. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Cheltenham can just contain his enthusiasm, he will see the point that I am trying to make on the timetable for all these measures to take effect. That is what the amendment relates to. He will know that there is agreement that, as soon as the European stability mechanism is in force, Britain will no longer have any such liability. It is not yet in force, however, and there are important issues regarding the timing of these events. That is what the amendment deals with. The Bill will come into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.

[Mr MacShane]

If, as seems possible, Ireland were again to find itself in the terrible trouble that it did two years ago, would the hon. Gentleman support help being given by Her Majesty’s Treasury to try to stabilise Ireland, as we did very generously—led by the Prime Minister—in 2010, or is he against any help being given to any other European country?

[Mr Clappison]

The main problem affecting the eurozone is the existence of the euro itself. It is the euro that is causing the loss of competitiveness across Europe, inflicting misery on the southern European states and, indeed, all the countries that have had to apply for a bail-out. The right hon. Gentleman must put his hands up and say that he has consistently argued in favour of British membership of the euro. He must take his share of the responsibility. How these matters are to be mitigated is a different matter, but I believe that the ultimate solution will involve a reconfiguration of the eurozone itself. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks that that is a slur on his character. He will have a chance to put that right in due course, but as I understand it, he is still in favour, in principle, of British membership of the euro, as, I think, are members of his Front Bench, although they do not tell us exactly when that should take place. But this is going wider than the matter in hand, and I should like to return to amendment 1.

On the day on which the Bill is passed, the European stability mechanism might not yet have come into force. Its ratification has been held up in at least two member states, with significant challenges having been mounted in their constitutional courts, and there is a possibility of challenges in other member states as well. We know that such a challenge is before the constitutional courts in Ireland, as well as in Germany, where important hearings are to take place later this week.

It is significant that the need to satisfy German constitutional concerns seems to have been one of the reasons for proposing the amendment to article 136 of the treaty in the first place, in order to shore up the legal position of the European financial stabilisation mechanism when there was doubt about whether it was actually needed. That amendment to the European treaty, which was introduced through the simplified revision mechanism, served to shore up the treaty and give legal comfort to the German constitutional court, among others.

I should like to ask the Minister some specific questions, and I would be grateful if he dealt with them in his usual able and comprehensive way. Will he tell us, in the light of those factors, whether Britain will remain liable for any new commitments entered into under the original EFSM, which we entered into in May 2010, until the European stability mechanism takes effect after the ratification procedures have been completed by all the member states? Will that be the case, and even though this Bill might have come into force in the meantime, will we nevertheless retain liability under the EFSM—the original EFSM—until the ESM comes into force? What will be the position if the ESM does not come into force as a result of ratification problems? In that case, could we still have liabilities—new liabilities—under the EFSM? Will the Minister say a few words, too, about existing liabilities under the EFSM? As I have already said, I believe the Prime Minister got a good deal for Britain in the original negotiations, but what is the position on existing liabilities under the EFSM? Will the Minister quantify for us what the Government view as possible future liabilities under the terms of the EFSM?

The Minister will understand a wish for us to have as much detail and certainty as possible in respect of the legal and financial arrangements of the European Union, the institutions of which—including the European Court—have shown themselves to be somewhat flexible in the past, if not completely elastic in their legal interpretations, particularly of treaties. No better example of such flexibility can there be than the so-called legal justification for the EFSM in the first place. As the Minister will recall, this was article 122, which allows financial assistance to be given to a member state facing difficulties

“caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control”.

As I have already indicated in response to interventions, I believe that the current crisis affecting Europe—the European debt crisis—is not an act of God, but an act of man in the shape of human fallibility over the European single currency. The Government are right to restrict our liability for this, but I would like Ministers to go further in their analysis of the problems. I understand the diplomatic reasons that might restrain them from doing so, but I have heard the incantation so many times before—that “a stable eurozone is in the interests of the United Kingdom”. We hear it all the time. It is inherent in the structure of the eurozone that we see the problems arising throughout Europe today, and that incantation is really quite meaningless and bears no relation to the problems that Europe faces. The truth remains that the euro lies at the root of the economic problems presently ravaging Europe and of all the misery caused throughout Europe but particularly in the southern European countries in the shape of very high levels of unemployment, debt and uncertainty, which is ravaging the prospects of a generation. It is the euro and the political ambitions that lie behind it—ambitions for a centralised, unified European state—that lie at the very root of these problems.

[Mr MacShane]

In responding to how the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) has introduced his amendment, one might as well say that the pound is the fault and the root cause of all our problems. In my Rotherham constituency, 25% of young people are without work. There is economic and social misery there, but do I attribute it to the fact that we have a certain currency? The notion that a currency causes bad Government policy is absurd.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Argument by analogy is never terribly wise, but when the analogy is between a single currency across different countries with different economies and a single currency such as the pound that applies within a single country with a single economy, that analogy is not only false, but completely risible.

[Mr MacShane]

I have respect and affection for the hon. Gentleman, but he might as well have said that when the US and Canadian dollar was the same, one country’s economic difficulties were caused by having the same currency when their social, taxation and economic policies were completely different. The same applies to when Britain’s pound and the pound of Ireland were exactly the same currency.

When I went on holiday to Ireland as a small boy, we took our English sixpences, threepenny bits and half crowns, and the currency was exactly the same there. It is the decisions of individual countries that decide their economic future, not the currencies that they choose. There are many, many countries using the euro that we might be advised to copy in terms of economic output, exports, social investment and long-term strategic thinking, and many of those countries are governed by parties of the centre right—Conservative parties— although, of course, the Conservative party here has broken all political links with its sister parties in Europe.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am astonished that my right hon. Friend should say that the value of a country’s currency is not important. If that is so, why did Britain recover after 1931 only by coming off the gold standard? We devalued our currency in 1949 and in 1967, we allowed for a big depreciation after the crisis of the early 1980s, and after the collapse of the exchange rate mechanism we recovered simply because we devalued our currency substantially to bring it into line with the needs of our economy.

[Mr MacShane]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has spent much time holidaying in Europe in recent years, but there has been a substantial devaluation of the English pound against the euro since, roughly, 2008, and what have we seen? A recovery in Britain? An increase in exports? A decrease in imports? An increase in the creation of firms and jobs? In fact, we have seen the very opposite. My hon. Friend is right historically—he is always right historically—but I prefer to live today rather than in history.

The main problem with the amendment is that it is a wrecking amendment, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will have the honesty to say so, although the amendment was tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. The notion that nothing can be ratified until every other country has ratified it and disposed of putative legal challenges is a circle that can never be broken. If the same rule were adopted by even one other EU member state, nothing could be ratified until we had agreed to ratify it, and we could not agree to ratify it until other Parliaments had done so.

Not only are we, as usual, condescendingly and patronisingly lecturing other Parliaments on what their constitutional settlements should be, but this is nothing short of a wrecking amendment, and I wish that Conservative Members would have the intellectual honesty to say so.

[Martin Horwood]

It is generally a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in European debates, as he and I share a broad enthusiasm for the European Union and its development. However, I think that on this occasion he is being a little unkind to our hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. I do not think that this is a wrecking amendment; I think that it asks legitimate questions about the timing of the transfer between the European financial stability facility and the European financial stabilisation mechanism and the new European sustainability mechanism—although I think that by demonstrating that we know the difference between the EFSF, the EFSM and the ESM, we are probably all showing that we need to get out more.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the old EFSM, which made Britain liable for the financial bail-outs, could be brought back. That is an interesting question, and I too would like to hear the Minister answer it. I assume that a vote by the Council, probably with unanimity, would be required to bring the EFSM back into operation, given that the Council voted to end it, or at least not to involve it in any new bail-outs. If that is the case, I think that it would reassure Conservative Members considerably to know that the EFSM is, in effect, dead and buried, at least in respect of new bail-outs.

There are two problems with the amendment. The right hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out one of them in what was a rather pre-emptive intervention. This amendment ties the triggering of United Kingdom legislation to actions of other countries—to events in Berlin, Dublin or the European Court, for instance. That is a strange principle for Members who have generally been rather keen to emphasise the unique sovereignty and independence of the United Kingdom Parliament to be trying to introduce into a British Bill. It raises a constitutional question, too: should we be putting clauses into British legislation that are entirely dependent on events in other countries?

The second problem is the political roundabout problem. If other countries follow our example and make their ratification of the treaty dependent on others finishing their processes, we will be like cars at a roundabout, with everybody waiting for everybody else to go, and the whole process will completely logjam. I am not sure whether that is what was intended, but it would make the amendment something of a wrecking amendment, in practice if not in theory. I think this is an impractical amendment—albeit perhaps a well-meaning one, which has produced an at least mildly illuminating debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

It is regrettable that, in a way, we are a test case for the detrimental effect of severe austerity. Since we left government, the economy has slipped back into recession and we have seen high unemployment, including an unemployment crisis among young people. My hon. Friend is right that unfortunately Europe is looking to the UK to see what it should not do in its economic policy. I am glad that there has been a shift, to a certain extent, within the European Council, in that member states on the centre left, such as the French Government, are now arguing for growth and job creation, not austerity alone. His suggestion is critical.

[Mr MacShane]

Are not the IMF and World Bank loans, to which Britain fully subscribes—we will be subscribing absolutely nothing to the ESM—also worthy of scrutiny? Would it not be a good idea to extend this concept and invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to present to Parliament an annual review of all IMF and World Bank loans, the conditionality of which has a huge impact on the British economy and worldwide developments? I am interested in this notion that we are now advancing, which I fully support, that Parliament should debate all the external loans and financial instruments that Britain provides to help other economies get going, as well as those in Europe to which we do not subscribe a penny.

[Emma Reynolds]

My right hon. Friend makes a good suggestion, but I would not want to comment in too much detail on other external loans, given the remit of the debate. I am sure, however, that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his suggestion.

In either scenario—whether best or worst case with regard to the operation of the ESM—it would be reasonable and enhance scrutiny in this House and the other place were the Chancellor to provide an annual report of the economic effects on the UK, as set out in new clause 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I simply do not agree, and there are plenty of academics and learned people who do not agree either. Most importantly of all, plenty of workers and employers in my constituency do not believe it. As I said, I am not suggesting for one moment that the EU and the eurozone are particularly popular with people—they are not, and I fully understand why not—but in the end people are concerned about their livelihoods and their prosperity, which depend on jobs. That is why it is important for this country to do everything we can to ensure that the eurozone is helped to get over its present difficulties and made prosperous once again.

[Mr MacShane]

Does my hon. Friend accept that we do not have to go to Asia, for example, to see devaluation before our very eyes, because the British pound has been substantially devalued in the last four years, and it has led to a massive loss of jobs, employment and growth, and has brought in a recession? Perhaps devaluation and a sensible Government can help, but devaluation and this Government are a recipe for disaster.

[Wayne David]

Yes, I agree. If we take the argument of the devaluers to the extreme, having competitive devaluation among different states on the continent of Europe is indeed a recipe for disaster. It is a mistake to believe that, because devaluation might have helped one country in one particular circumstance, we can extrapolate beyond that and assume that devaluation is a recipe for everyone.

I have generally supported the ESM, because I think it is necessary and will make a huge contribution—not an exclusive one by any means, but a huge one—to helping the eurozone in its current difficulties. I am not suggesting for one moment, however, that the EU has everything worked out perfectly, so far as the ESM is concerned. What is needed is an ongoing review, and flexibility is required so that the good things are built on and the not-so-good things altered. That is why new clauses 1 and 2 are so important.

I recently read with great interest an excellent research paper produced by the House of Commons Library, which succinctly summarised a number of the reservations that people have about the ESM; it is quite right that people should have some reservations about it, so let me mention a few of them.

The first relates to the amount of €500 billion being made available for lending capacity. A number of people have suggested that, given how the crisis might develop, that amount could be too small, so we need to contemplate a larger amount in future. That applies particularly if it is not just Greece and Portugal that experience difficulties and if things become more problematic in Spain or even in Italy. In those circumstances, it might be necessary to consider having a facility much greater than the currently envisaged €500 billion.

The second reservation by those concerned about the ESM is, as we touched on earlier, the fact that it is but one of a number of different initiatives designed to help the eurozone. We are particularly aware of the initiatives, perhaps belated, of the European Central Bank and of the desire to intervene in the bond markets. That is one of the terms of reference and intentions of this facility as well. We thus need to ensure that there is complete complementarity, no duplication of effort and no contradiction in these different facilities; everybody must be pulling in the right direction. Co-ordination with other lending institutions and with other bodies and initiatives is very important indeed. Linked to the size of the €500 billion facility is the fact that some people believe that in a worst-case scenario, the rescue funds would be insufficient and would run out of money. It is therefore necessary to have an ongoing review of whether that is likely to happen or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is confusing two completely different things. One is placing an obligation on Her Majesty’s Government, and the other is expressing an opinion.

I might wish to give advice to the central bank of China. I might wish to say that it was about time that it cut its interest rates—which I think it should—and used its reserve requirements for the banks. It has been putting the rates up, and it is about time that they came down. I think that China needs a monetary boost. But are the Chinese Government listening, and have they the slightest interest in my opinion of their monetary policy? I very much doubt it. [Hon. Members: “Of course!”] Hon. Members flatter me again, but I fear that even the Chinese ambassador, most assiduous gentleman though he is, will not report the opinions of the House of Commons on China’s monetary policy. I fear that even if the Foreign Office, our most esteemed and distinguished Foreign Office, that Rolls-Royce Department—possibly a Rolls-Royce made rather more recently, in the 1970s, with a little bit of engine trouble and a little bit of oil leakage, but none the less with very fine leather inside and looking very nice—sent a message to China saying what its monetary policy should be, the Chinese would not take any notice, and the same applies to the new clause. This is not our business; it is a matter for the eurozone countries. We specifically excluded ourselves, and then the Opposition came up with this wonderful wheeze.

I suppose that that is admirable, in a way. The Opposition have to think something up. As Disraeli said, the job of the Opposition is to oppose. All the finest socialist brains in England were sitting around discussing how to amend a Bill consisting of a handful of clauses saying nothing much except that Her Majesty’s Government would be saved from further liability for the euro. “What shall we do? What bold step of policy shall we take? How shall we strive to convince our electors that there will be a new dawn, the new Jerusalem that the socialists are always looking for? We must ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a report that is so hard-hitting, forceful and solid that it constitutes a new policy.”

[Mr MacShane]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) looks as if he wishes to intervene, and I will of course give way to him.

[Mr MacShane]

I assume that this will only be reported in Hansard, and will thus remain a state secret. The hon. Gentleman is pretty much making my speech for me.

That said, I think that the Chinese should listen to the hon. Gentleman. I think that the clatter of chopsticks in North East Somerset should be heard in Beijing when it comes to policy. It should also be noted that we do about £48 billion-worth of trade a year with the other EU member states, and what they do matters to us. The notion that if we do not sign the treaty the continent will be cut off has been a traditional approach throughout the ages of the Tory isolationists of whom he is the most wondrous representative in today’s House.

Syria

Denis MacShane Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We do have a good deal of information about how such equipment is used. I cannot say to my hon. Friend or to the House exactly how all such information will be arrived at, but we have information about how the equipment that we have provided so far is used, and are able to check on it in various ways, and will be able to do so, in various ways, in future. I can give him a considerable level of reassurance about that, but there is some risk; that is why we are supplying only non-lethal practical assistance in the first place. As I say, in such a desperate situation, the benefits and the need to supply such equipment outweigh whatever risks are attached to it.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the stabilising factors after the break-up of the Soviet empire and then the break-up of Yugoslavia was, paradoxically, the emergence of rather small states where people could live in harmony with each other, rather than being spatchcocked together? Instead of trying to preserve Syrian unity, might there be some case for two or three nations and states in Syria, none of them with the absolute power or military authority to oppress the others?

[Mr Hague]

That, ultimately, would be for the Syrian people, not for us, to decide. Whether or not that is something that they will want as an option in the future I do not know, but I doubt it, since I find the majority of the opposition groups from Syria strongly committed to the unity and territorial integrity of Syria. In any case, there are downsides. Although I accept much of what the right hon. Gentleman says about small nations, it is also true that when small nations are made out of a large nation, that can create a great deal of chaos, movement and sectarian conflict, so there are dangers in that as well.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Denis MacShane Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

For entertainment value, I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr MacShane]

The Foreign Secretary’s two colleagues have made important points. This treaty requires ratification by the Parliaments of the eurozone and it is going through that parliamentary ratification. The notion that it could simply have been nodded through as a statutory instrument is silly. It is quite an important treaty, and this Parliament is right to be adopting it tonight; other Parliaments are doing likewise.

[Mr Hague]

Yes, other Parliaments are doing that in their own various ways. My point is that the reason this requires the full examination and passing of a Bill is the passage through this House of the European Union Act 2011, which the right hon. Gentleman probably opposed if he voted on it. A much briefer procedure was required under the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which he supported. Parliamentary scrutiny has been enhanced by the recent change, and I am merely establishing that point. [Interruption.] Labour Members are reminding me that they did not vote against the EU Act 2011—although they were probably unable to vote for it. Having taken so many positions on the holding of a referendum, they decided not to have a position at all.

As the House will remember, the background to the ESM is that in response to the first Greek crisis, the previous Government, in their very last days, agreed to the establishment of two emergency instruments to respond to financial crises. The first is the European financial stability facility, an emergency facility established intergovernmentally by euro area member states. It has been used to provide loans to euro area member states in financial difficulty. The UK is not a member of that facility and has no exposure to financial assistance provided by it. The EFSF will operate alongside the ESM up until its wind-down by the end of June next year. The second is the European financial stabilisation mechanism, or EFSM. This allows the Council to agree by qualified majority a Commission proposal to provide assistance using money raised on the financial markets, backed by the EU budget. It has been used for assistance to Portugal and the Republic of Ireland, for which we also contributed a bilateral loan.

In the new Government, we have never thought that that was a satisfactory state of affairs. It was a questionable use of article 122 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. An inability to access the markets because of the unsustainability of public finances is not a natural disaster, and it is hard to argue that it is an exceptional occurrence beyond a country’s control, and those were meant to be the criteria for the use of article 122. When qualified majority voting was introduced into the provision under the Nice treaty, we warned the then Government of the risk, and that warning was dismissed. The amendment to article 136 gave us the opportunity to deal with the problem, and we took that opportunity. Britain is not in the euro, we are not going to join the euro, and we should have no liability for bailing out eurozone countries.

On coming to office, therefore, the Government found established a mechanism which enabled the Council of Ministers to decide by qualified majority voting to allow the European Commission to raise funds on the capital markets guaranteed by the headroom in the EU budget—about €60 billion—for loans to eurozone countries. We must grant that thus far this has not cost the British taxpayer a penny. The money is borrowed from the markets by the European Commission against the headroom in the EU budget. It must be granted that these are only contingent liabilities that would be called on only if Portugal or the Republic of Ireland defaulted on their loan obligations. However, it is still not right that a country outside the euro should be obliged to assume contingent liabilities for matters that are clearly the responsibility of countries that are in the euro. That is why this Government were determined to bring the situation to an end, and we have succeeded in our goal. That is a good example of this Government repairing the damage caused by the last one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise the timing of that in the final days of our time in office, but the other significant event that was happening then was the real prospect of the eurozone collapsing completely. He might welcome that, but the Opposition certainly would not. That was why the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the outgoing Government made genuine efforts to consult the potential incoming Finance Minister, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That matter is discussed in the explanatory memorandum on European Union legislation dated 15 July, in which the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now the Transport Secretary, stated:

“The Government regrets that the Scrutiny Committees did not have time to consider this document before it was agreed at Council. It should be noted that whilst agreement on behalf of the UK was given by the previous administration, cross-party consensus had been gained.”

If the hon. Gentleman is concerned that the outgoing Chancellor reached the wrong decision, he might like to put that point directly to the current Chancellor.

Let me be absolutely clear that our support for the Bill does not equate to unqualified confidence in the ESM or in the current package of eurozone policies of which it forms but one part. We have concerns about both the restrictive terms of the fiscal compact that eurozone members have negotiated to establish the ESM and the manner in which it is currently envisaged that the ESM will be operationalised. The Opposition are certainly under no illusion that the ESM in itself will resolve the eurozone crisis. Much more will be required to do so than is included in this two-clause enabling Bill. The establishment of the ESM represents but one part of a broader package of measures and reforms that members of the euro must adopt to deliver stability successfully and bring greater prosperity to the eurozone in future.

[Mr MacShane]

I am following my right hon. Friend’s speech with considerable interest and agreement, but should we not change the tone slightly? We hear, “The eurozone must adopt this”, “They’re at fault”, “The pound zone is perfect.” I am going to Poland tomorrow for a big eastern European economic conference, and there is not the same patronising indifference to the eurozone there. There is not a view that the zloty zone is perfect. We are all in this together, and the trouble with the Government’s approach is that it sells the public the lie that there is a thing called the eurozone out there, but it is a far-away economic region of which we know not very much and in which we are not very interested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). He is the Private Frazer of our European debates. For nearly 20 years I have been listening to him saying, “We’re doomed! We’re doomed!”, “There’s no hope at all”, “Europe is schizophrenic”, “Europe is extreme”, or, “Europe is locked in riots and difficulties.”

That is a good description, frankly, of our country. It is only 12 or 13 months ago that London was set ablaze for three days. The state completely lost control of the streets, and the rioting, looting and burning spread to other cities. We are now the recession queen of Europe. It seems that we are in a triple-dip recession. While the hon. Gentleman complains about the threat of inflation and the printing of money, we are the great printers of bank notes—it is known as quantitative easing—and we are printing them as fast as we can, just as the United States is. By comparison, the European Union is relatively restrained. It has been our banks—some nationalised still, some still in private hands—that have been going to the European Central Bank to avail themselves of cheap-cost euros, to the tune of several billion. My point remains, as always, that we are all in this together.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Stone is quoted in Bundestag speeches as Eurosceptics there look for a friendly British voice to pray in aid, just as he assiduously reads The Economist and the Financial Times. Indeed, in the many friendly debates that I have had with him, both in this House and outside, he always has a quotation to sustain his case. However, as somebody who reads the German press a little bit, let me gently say to him that there are quotations and opinions like that bubbling up every day, just as there are in this country. The broad thrust of German economic policy is for stability and open markets. The notion that Europe’s currencies and Europe’s trade should be balkanised is of no advantage to the German economy at all. Far from creating an über-Germanised Europe, Mrs Merkel and the Social Democratic party—I was with some of its leaders at the weekend at a congress in South Africa—are very conscious of the fact that they carry a heavy responsibility. Part of the reason is that they took some tough decisions at the beginning of this century—to hold down wages, recapitalise industry, and transfer a lot of technology offshore to Poland and integrate the new EU member states into the broader German economic zone—while we, sadly, were over-fetishising banks. Now Britain is associated with LIBOR, the collapse of other banks and the great problem of illegal trading in offshore money in Mexico.

We really ought occasionally to put a mirror in front of our noses before we patronise and condescend to other countries. We have always lent money to countries in need. We poured money into Greece in the 1940s after the war and in the 1950s to stabilise it. We did so again at the beginning of the 1960s, when there was a great deal of turbulence in connection with the end of British rule in Cyprus. That has always been a British tradition. Quite intelligently, we prefer to use our treasure rather than shed our blood when things break down in Europe.

We are out of the current arrangement—this kitty of €500 billion. As the Foreign Secretary said—I could not find much to disagree with in his speech, and I am sure that the Bill will receive its Second Reading—we are not directly concerned. However, he went to such great pains to point that out that I thought he was over-striving for effect. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stone is absolutely right on one point: the so-called euro referendum Act, which the Foreign Secretary prayed in aid, is a piece of completely phoney jiggery-pokery. It gives the Secretary of State the sole, exclusive right to say whether there has been a significant transfer of competences or sovereignty to the wider Europe Union. If he alone decides that, he triggers a referendum; if he does not, as with this Bill, there will be no referendum. This is not about a referendum lock or allowing the British people or Parliament to have greater scrutiny or a greater say over European affairs; it is a completely cynical piece of legislation, which frankly is irrelevant to the broader European debate.

[Mr Jenkin]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there is an inconsistency in saying that we do not want a referendum on this issue, yet vetoing the fiscal union treaty in December? We are effectively consenting to the process of fiscal union by allowing the treaty amendment to go through almost on the nod, effectively abolishing the no bail-out clause, which will be the foundation of fiscal union.

[Mr MacShane]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The Prime Minister found himself, through no fault of his own—inexperience, 2.30 in the morning, exhaustion—thinking that he was speaking for half of Europe, but at the end only the Hungarians were left. We created a British-Hungarian empire overnight, and even they peeled off in the end. It was deeply embarrassing. I do not think the Prime Minister actually understood how European decision making works or how to present our case effectively. That is part of the price that the Government pay for opting out of any political engagement with European partners. Working in the European context is a learning curve. It is about building relationships, networking, trading, and give and take. At times, certainly, it is about stamping our foot and not allowing something to go through. Indeed, I was a witness to all sorts of European countries and leaders doing that when I was Minister for Europe. However, in this case the Prime Minister found himself not so much naked in the conference chamber as utterly alone, without anybody else in the slightest bit interested in anything the United Kingdom had to say.

As a result, we will now move forward to a new treaty—the hon. Member for Stone is absolutely right about that. The German Government are quite determined. I was talking to a senior associate of François Hollande over the weekend, and the French now accept that quite soon we will be moving to a serious banking union—a serious treaty—that will do for banking what the Coal and Steel Community did in 1950 and what subsequent treaties did, in placing under broad supranational supervision a good and important chunk of the European economy. There is a huge debate about how far that process should go. Should it, for example, include the small regional banks and savings banks—the cajas, as they are called in Spain? Should banks be closed down, as happens quite regularly in the United States? When banks there are no longer able to stand on their own two feet, they are not bailed out—they are closed down.

Some supranational authority is now being created, however, and the British banking and financial system will not be able to operate wholly independently of that authority, because banking systems are permanently intertwined. Anyone walking through the streets of Madrid, Munich or Geneva will see British high street names such as Lloyds and Barclays operating there. Those banks will come under the control of any banking union. The more we pretend to ourselves that we can stay out of that arrangement, the less influence and say we will have over the new rules as they come into being. That is what really worries me. The notion that expelling Greece from the eurozone and re-drachmatising, if that is the right word, the Greek economy—I always prefer to use a Greek term, so I prefer “grexodus” to “grexit”—will somehow save the British bacon is just foolish.

The hon. Member for Stone is fond of citing YouGov polling in Germany. I did not know that YouGov—“Anything you want, guv”—was now a polling company in Germany as well. If we look at the Irish vote on the referendum to accept quite onerous conditions, we can see that they voted by 60% to 40% to stay in the euro, and any Greek polling will show a massive majority—up to 80%—in favour of staying in the eurozone. Those countries are mature enough to realise that it is their internal policies, not the existence of a currency, that lie at the heart of their economic difficulties. For example, there was no housing boom in the Netherlands, which had low-interest euros to play with, just as the Spanish and the Irish did. Why not? Because people in the Netherlands have to put between 5% and 10% down before they can buy a house or a flat there. In other words, economic, administrative and political decisions could be, and are being, taken in all the countries concerned.

However, it is quite right to criticise those countries, and especially the accounting in Greece, where the shipping industry and the Greek Orthodox Church—the country’s biggest land and property owner—pay no tax. Greece spends twice the share of its gross domestic product as we or the Turks do on defence, rather than ensuring a clean taxation system. This moment of truth is, very painfully, forcing those countries to take new directions and new decisions, yet paradoxically, if for some reason the euro were to dissolve into drachmas, pesetas and lira, that would take all the pressure off the political and administrative classes in those countries to take new decisions.

Yes, there will be enhanced supervision of those countries’ economies and budgets, but that also happened after the war as a result of the Marshall plan. Along with the credit from the United States came the Marshall planners—technocrats who sat in ministries to ensure that, in accordance with the broad remit of the plan, there was no improper abuse of the credit lines that the United States was providing.

My plea is rather more philosophical. I feel sorry for the Foreign Secretary—who is not in his place— because he has consistently championed out-and-out Euroscepticism. He has encouraged all the false hopes. Let us remember his famous statement before the 2001 election, when he warned the British people that if they voted Labour, Britain would become a foreign land. That was about as sensible as the earlier remark made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) that signing the treaty of Amsterdam would mean the abolition of Britain. We have constantly been told by leaders of the Conservative party that being in Europe was bad for us. The hon. Member for Stone presents the most brutalist version of Conservative party thinking, but he is swimming in the same sea as many members of the Cabinet. He is simply rather more honest in describing the endgame that he wants to see.

I am fundamentally opposed to that aim; I do not want to see the eurozone break up. The entire western liberal market-economic world is going through a great crisis, as evidenced by problems in America and China, but there is a wider crisis, as evidenced by the difficulties in India, Russia, China and even Brazil, whose economy is now slowing down. How we get out of that is a huge challenge for all of us, but it is naive in the extreme to suggest that dissolving the eurozone would present a magic solution that would instantly liberate productivity, growth and employment and ensure the disappearance of extremist parties so that all the nation states could enter into a happy-clappy relationship.

This debate signals the firing of the first serious shot in what will be a much greater debate in our nation. The €500 billion in the kitty to bail out distressed countries sounds like a lot of money, but it is actually very small beer. We are going to have to take much bigger decisions about the future of Europe.

Over the summer, I was concerned to see a lot articles in the European press saying that Britain was about to withdraw from Europe. The language of repatriation and referendums was being used and, for the first time, a British Prime Minister said that he had no problem with linking the word “referendum” with Europe. He might not have any such problem, but neither Lady Thatcher nor any other British Prime Minister has used that language since Britain joined the EEC in 1973. Those headlines were appearing all over Europe, however, and the Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) had to be rushed out to comment on them. I was leafing through my copy of Le Monde one day and I was surprised to see his by-line in it; I thought I had an exclusive franchise to write in that newspaper. He said that Britain was not going to leave Europe, and that we were very committed to the EU. I have not brought the article with me, so I cannot read it out. Dagens Nyheter in Sweden said the same thing.

The Government went into total panic mode as they realised that a lot of people in Europe thought that the hon. Member for Stone spoke for the Conservative party, and that we were on our way out—[Interruption.] I hear cheers and “Hear, hear” from the Government Back Benches. I am delighted that we now seem to have buried the proposals for boundary changes, so that all those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen can perhaps be returned to the House at the next election. They will then have to make big decisions, however, on whether Britain should remain part of this thing or not. We are approaching a fundamental turning point in our nation’s life. I remain firmly committed to our staying a partner of the other countries in Europe, although I agree that there are huge problems to be resolved, and I agree with a lot of the reform agenda that is advanced by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The Bill gives the first flavour of the much greater debate that is about to come, but the Conservative party seems wholly ill-prepared for the seriousness of some of the decisions that we are going to have to take in the next two or three years. I am confident that, with greater study and work, our eminent shadow Europe Minister and the Labour party will become fully prepared to take part in that debate, but I fear that the possibility not just of a “grexodus” but of a British exit is now seriously on the table. We would be foolish if we did not accept that Britain could now be on the point of taking a fundamental decision that would significantly alter the nature of our lives and our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). I agreed with much of his speech, particularly his emphasis on the desirability and common sense of flexible exchange rates—not necessarily floating exchange rates, but flexible exchange rates, at the very least, so that countries can choose and negotiate currency arrangements that suit their economies. If all countries can do that, they are free to reflate their economies and to drive growth, so everybody benefits. That is the great advantage. Co-ordinated reflation was a slogan that many of us on the Keynesian left called for back in the 1980s. Indeed, co-ordinated reflation would be desirable now, but we have co-ordinated deflation—savage deflation whereby people wonder why the economies of the world are getting into difficulty. It is because Government after Government are cutting deficits, driving cuts and deflating their economies. There is quite a lot that we in the debate have in common.

I should make two points before proceeding. One is to emphasise my support for the strong view put by the Minister for Europe—and indeed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary—that civil servants should remain non-political. It should be Ministers who are accountable and Ministers who are political. Ministers, as well as Members of the House and politicians, should make political statements, not civil servants. The great tradition of non-political civil servants for whom Ministers are responsible should be preserved and given strong support. We should not accept the contagion of the officials in the European Commission, who are politicians in the guise of officials who drive policies themselves. Our civil servants are not like Commission officials, and we should not let them drift in that direction due to the contagion they experience in Brussels.

I shall not speak for long, but I want to emphasise that we are in serious difficulty—not just in Britain, but across the European Union. It is my view that the euro will ultimately not prevail and will not last simply because it cannot work. Countries cannot constantly deflate their way to success. There will come a point at which Greek people will realise that it is the euro that is their problem. Some on the left think that now, but many others will come to that view.

When Greece is able to escape from the euro, re-create the drachma and devalue substantially, people will find imports too expensive and what they spend will be directed to the domestic economy, which will help their domestic economy to grow. Greece’s exports include tourism and holidays, and when Greek holidays drop to half the price they are now, many more people will have holidays there.

[Mr MacShane]

I am following the argument, but will my hon. Friend explain why the British pound experiencing a severe devaluation of up to 25%, or perhaps nearly 30%, of its value in the past four years has led to a worsening balance of trade and an increased recession? If devaluation of a currency is the magic recipe, why has it not worked for us?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is a case that we still have not depreciated our currency enough, but demand for our exports is falling because there is deflation elsewhere, particularly elsewhere in the EU. We should consider the history of devaluations; the proper ones have invariably been very beneficial. After the escape from the exchange rate mechanism in 1992, the economy bounced back strongly and many Conservative Members would agree that, had they managed to stay in office for three or four more years, people might have realised that that big devaluation was driving economic growth and falling unemployment. We reaped the benefit of the collapse and what happened in the ERM, particularly in my constituency, which was the epicentre of housing repossessions and negative equity, which led to my having one of the largest swings to Labour in the country, simply because of the ERM.

I was one of the few people who wrote about economics in 1990 who were saying that the ERM would be a disaster. I predicted—I surprised myself, indeed—the precise course of that experience and said what would happen in the end: interest rates would go through the roof and eventually we would come out of the ERM and devalue, which we did. However, that is not the point that I am making tonight.

I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on many things, but I do not agree with him on economic policy. I doubt that many Conservative Members read the New Statesman, but in the last week or two it has featured a series of economists who initially signed a letter of support for the Government, but are now recanting, saying that they made a mistake and should not have called for deflation and cuts. They are implying that that situation ought to be reversed. I agree with them, and I was one of the few in the House who absolutely and profoundly disagreed with the Government from the beginning, quoting Paul Krugman and others, who said that they were going in precisely the wrong direction, towards the savage deflation that led to the 1930s’ depression.

We are in danger of going in that direction now. Countries have to find a way to expand their economies, and they will not do that when they are stuck in stupid arrangements such as the euro. We must have a deconstruction of the euro. There is much talk of an uncontrolled crash, but currency zones can be deconstructed rationally. When the Soviet Union collapsed, all the countries of the ex-Soviet Union created their own currencies. That was done fairly straightforwardly. When Slovakia and the Czech Republic separated as Czechoslovakia broke up, they created their own separate currencies. That worked. It can be done in a controlled and not-too-difficult way. I shall not say that it will be that easy, but it is not impossible and there are examples of such a thing happening. I suggest that, initially, Greece, and perhaps one or two other countries, ought to quit the euro and recreate their own currencies. That might mean freezing banks for a few days and so on.

Balance of Competences

Denis MacShane Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It will be a wide-ranging review and I am expecting a substantial contribution to it from my hon. Friend, given his knowledge of and long-standing opinions on so many aspects of EU competences. We are not restricting what people can submit in their evidence or what subjects can be addressed. The review will involve the majority of Government Departments, and, of course, all the analysis of the competences taken together will prompt major questions about how democracy works and about the appropriate levels at which decisions should be made. It is not a review about a referendum. We passed legislation last year that deals with the circumstances in which referendums will be held, and it is for each political party to explain the circumstances in which they would hold a referendum. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have recently discussed that matter, as my hon. Friend knows.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but does he agree with this time line? In July 2009, he leads the Conservative party out of the family of centre right parties in Europe. In July 2012, the Prime Minister announces that he envisages a referendum, and the Foreign Secretary announces today that every green-ink EU obsessive may write to him with their ideas on what needs to be done—I hope that the Foreign Office has a big enough warehouse for all the mail. Does he agree that we will have a referendum in July 2015 or 2016, and that he will arrive at his long wished for moment, when Britain separates itself from the rest of Europe?

[Mr Hague]

When a letter in green ink arrives from an obsessive, I shall check to see whether it has come from Rotherham. I suspect that there is a fair chance that it will have done. The time line that I remember is not far off the right hon. Gentleman’s period as Minister for Europe. In 2004, the Labour Government promised a referendum on the European constitution. In 2005, they failed to hold it. In 2007, they signed the Lisbon treaty, which was very similar to that constitution, without holding a referendum. In 2008, they passed many competences away from this country without understanding what the consequences would be. Now, in 2012, we are ensuring that there will be a proper understanding of the issues. That process will no doubt be informative for the right hon. Gentleman as well.

UK-Turkey Relations

Denis MacShane Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Ottaway]

I am just coming to the issue of Cyprus, but let me make the point that when we produced the report, we looked at Turkey and did not go into the merits of the dispute in Cyprus.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making great play of the change of Government in France, which may indeed be relevant, although what Monsieur Hollande said in the election was that Turkish membership was not on the cards before the next election—that is, in five years’ time—so he put it off. However, are not the political elites in Germany, Austria and a number of other countries in Europe just as implacably opposed to Turkey joining?

[Richard Ottaway]

I think it is wrong to say that they are just as implacably opposed. Germany would like a looser relationship than full membership; Austria, I think, is just following in its wake at the moment. In truth, it is France that has led the fundamental opposition to Turkey.

Let me turn in some detail to the dispute with Cyprus. Because of the long-running dispute, Cyprus continues to block Turkey’s EU accession process in many areas. When Cyprus became an EU member, an additional protocol was signed obliging Turkey to extend its customs union with the EU to Cyprus. However, Turkey has not implemented it, giving as the reason the EU’s continued isolation of northern Cyprus. Cyprus has just taken on the presidency of the EU Council, from 1 July, and in theory is responsible for presiding over accession negotiations with Turkey. However, Ankara has stated that its relations with the EU Council cannot continue as normal under the Cypriot presidency. As a result, we have a deadlock. EU Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon endeavoured to resolve the matter before Cyprus’s presidency, but failed. [Hon. Members: “EU Secretary-General?”] I beg the House’s pardon: UN Secretary-General.

The Cyprus deadlock is certainly regrettable. We believe that the Government should think creatively about whether the international community could do anything differently that might help the two sides on the island to reach an accommodation. The alternative seems to be continued drift. The Foreign Office could, for example, support the use of prospective revenues from potential gas reserves off Cyprus to facilitate a settlement. However, Turkey is now threatening to boycott energy companies co-operating with the Greek Cypriots, and the situation is getting worse, not better. That has consequences for us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

Switzerland and Norway are smaller countries than Turkey. The Turkish people are very wise and they will make their own decisions in their own national interests, but it is helpful of us to say that it is in the UK’s interests for Turkey to be part of an enlarged EU, and that that will promote democracy and stability as well as our influence throughout a very difficult part of the world.

[Mr MacShane]

Ad interim, having the status of a Switzerland or a Norway would be useful. Switzerland is a member of Schengen, and I think Turkey would love to join Schengen; and Norway implements more EU directives than we do, so if Turkey were to follow the Norwegian course, it would be far more a part of the EU than the UK is.

[Mike Gapes]

I agree.

Turkey has an important regional role to play. There are currently some interesting developments in relations between the Kurdish regional Government in Iraq and Turkey. There is growing economic investment from Turkey in infrastructure and other projects in the Kurdish region of Iraq. The Iraqi-Kurdish community wants to have good relations with Turkey because there is a Kurdish community within Turkey. The role of the terrorist organisation, the PKK, greatly complicates the situation, of course, but it is also interesting that relations have improved in recent years despite the PKK’s activities. Those of us who want a stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq should recognise that Turkey has an important role to play in bringing that about. As the Kurdish region in Iraq exports its oil and gas via Turkey and has greater economic ties with Turkey, we must do all we can to ensure that that is not perceived in Baghdad as somehow leading to a division or break-up of Iraq. This is a very sensitive issue because there are also Kurdish minorities in Syria and Iran, as well as a large Kurdish community within Turkey.

The Turkish Government have shown great restraint so far in the face of terrible unwarranted military action by Syrian Government forces, including the shelling of refugees in Turkey and the shooting down of aircraft. Such actions are totally unacceptable and have rightly been condemned. Turkey would be justified in taking much stronger action than it has taken so far. The fact that it has not done so reflects its wish not to be drawn militarily into what might be a civil war in Syria, but the time will come when Turkey has to intervene. If the number of refugees continues to rise and the conflict within Syria spills over and presents security problems for Turkey, then Turkey might deem it necessary to act, in which case it will have to be shown solidarity and support by the international community. I hope that will occur not through a unilateral action but through discussion within NATO and the North Atlantic Council. If necessary, and if the Assad regime continues to behave provocatively and outrageously, we should be prepared to invoke article 5 of NATO’s charter to support Turkey and offer it our solidarity if it feels it wants that international umbrella of legitimacy and support in taking action to defend itself.

I hope that Turkey will continue to play a constructive role in assisting peace and security in the region. Interestingly, the Government’s response did not refer to one of the conclusions in our report, paragraph 129, which makes it clear that good relations between Turkey and Israel are in the UK’s interests. Perhaps the Government did not respond to that paragraph because we did not recommend anything, but I hope that the Minister will refer to it in his response and set out the Government’s position.

Unfortunately, Turkey’s relations with Israel have deteriorated significantly, mainly because of the Mavi Marmara incident and its mishandling by the Netanyahu Government. We had conversations in Turkey about that and the Turkish Government and their representatives felt that a proper apology was not given either when the incident happened or afterwards, even though they were led to believe that there would be a full apology. That would have led to the restoration of improved relations, which did not happen.

In conclusion, I want to mention the so-called Turkish model and its influence in the region. Our report suggests than rather than talking about Turkey as a model for the Arab world and the Arab spring, we should talk about it more as an inspiration. Reference was made to the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi in Egypt. It is significant that when Prime Minister Erdogan visited Egypt last year, there were initially huge crowds of Muslim Brotherhood people at the airport as well as demonstrations of support for him. After he said that they should be moving towards not an Islamic state but a secular state, such as that in Turkey, led by a Muslim party, there were very few people to greet him and praise him when he left the country. The message did not go down very well with some of the Muslim Brotherhood, who have now won the presidential election. It will be interesting to see how the development of one form of Islamic-led democracy influences another country that has just elected a Muslim Brotherhood president.

Turkey is an important player in its region and a growing power economically in the world. Turkey gives us an ally with whom we should be working in NATO and at some point, I hope, in an enlarged European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I loved his idea that diplomats should get out and walk across the dusty plains of Anatolia. Perhaps one of them might write a book about such an excursion or go off and become a political commissioner, giving out political instruction and wisdom to others. I concur with his lament about foreign languages. It is terribly heartening to hear a Conservative Member say that a language other than English is spoken in the world. He spoke about the notion that promotion in the Foreign Office should depend on linguistic ability. Heaven forfend that that should be applied to Ministers. He was right to be lyrical.

I dispute the hon. Gentleman’s view that nothing had happened in Turkey until the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which he is a distinguished member, made its visit. I recall a most distinguished diplomat, Sir Peter Westmacott, who is now our representative in the United States, spending a great deal of time acting, with great linguistic ability, as the most effective bridge between any European state or any NATO member state and the Turks during his time in office there. I recall him working with Mr Erdogan and the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had invested an enormous amount of time cajoling, persuading, bullying, nudging—all the things that he was rather good at—his fellow European leaders to accept the opening of full negotiations with Turkey. That was touch and go. When I was Europe Minister, I remember being there right through to 4 or 5 o’clock in the morning as Mr Blair, Mr Erdogan and Sir Peter formed a troika that got Turkey to the start of discussions with the European Union.

I differ somewhat from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), a distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who seemed to finger France as the main problem. It was General de Gaulle who, in 1963, insisted that the European Economic Community should open a relationship with Turkey. He thought that the Europe that he dreamed of—the “Europe des patries”, as he called it—would have to be as large as possible and that to exclude a great, important and historic state such as Turkey simply did not make sense. On the whole, French political leaders have been quite good friends of Turkey from that moment on. President Chirac certainly supported Turkish admission, and the former Prime Minister Michel Rocard wrote an excellent book two or three years ago—in French, and sadly it is not available in English, although perhaps it is in Turkish—on the need for Turkey to join the EU and why France should support that.

President Sarkozy pandered to the part of the electorate that exists in all our countries that sees anything foreign as a bad thing. He pandered to the idea that any immigrants coming to France were a bad thing and that, as long as the gates of a nation are shut to incomers, that country will somehow be strong again. I am glad that in the presidential election President Hollande rejected such hostility to immigration and the idea that there is a need to place a cap on the number of immigrants coming into France. As we know, President Sarkozy’s reactionary anti-immigrant language was defeated.

I have been going to Turkey for nearly 30 years, first to small left-wing trade union meetings in the 1970s and then to the trial of Orhan Pamuk in 2005, when I was pushed to the ground and kicked by a few nasty right wingers. I keep going there as often as I can, and after each trip I come back more impressed but more perplexed. I am more impressed by the vitality and excitement—it really is one of the most exciting countries in the world to visit—but more perplexed by my failure to work out how the Rubik’s cube of Turkey is put together. I do not speak Turkish, and I do not think I am going to learn that language.

On one level Turkey is all the things that hon. Members have said it is. It is dynamic and growth-focused, and it has brought an enormous number of people into middle-class prosperity. Istanbul has some of the youngest and most exuberant art in the world. The last time I was there, I had dinner with Orhan Pamuk, who had won the Nobel prize and was threatened with death by Turkish nationalists and imprisonment by Turkish judges. We went to a restaurant on the Bosphorus and he was accompanied by a bodyguard. He was stopped by somebody and had a little chat. I asked, “Who was that?” He said, “Oh, that was the state attorney-general, who a couple of years ago was trying to put me in prison permanently. He said to me, ‘Orhan, you’re down to one bodyguard, are you? You see, we are making progress.’” I think that is true.

The Foreign Affairs Committee’s report is absolutely first-rate, and I commend its detail and thoroughness and the work of the Committee’s Chairman and members. I have some brief points to make about it. We need to reconsider our visa regime. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border talked about people learning Turkish and Turks getting to know Britain. It is a travesty that it was easier to visit the Soviet Union in the old days than it is for many Turks to get a visa to come to the United Kingdom. We have to grow up—we cannot say that we are open for business and be closed to foreigners. I am sorry if that language does not sit well, but it is the truth.

On page Ev 80 of the evidence published in the Committee’s report, Migration Watch UK states:

“The Poles are Catholics of European heritage…the bulk of Turkish immigrants in this country, and elsewhere in Europe, are poorer, less educated Muslims of Middle Eastern heritage who form the majority of Turkey’s population.”

That is the evidence presented by this wretched organisation, Migration Watch UK, to the Committee. One hundred years ago, we passed the Status of Aliens Act 1914, using exactly the same argument about Jews coming from the poorer parts of eastern Europe. Until we grow up and stop the Islamophobic dislike of people from outside Britain coming here, we will not have the influence we need.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman inadvertently conflates two totally separate issues: first, his value judgment of the language used in the French elections; and secondly, the fact that the French legislature and courts made a value judgment on the systematic denial of the Armenian genocide of 1915. That is a separate issue and still going through the French courts. He should not conflate the electioneering language with an issue of principle.

[Mr MacShane]

The electioneering language from then President Sarkozy and right-wing politicians in France was simply hostile to Turkey, as it is in Germany and Austria. And believe me, if we want to list the politicians, newspapers and political cultures that are hostile to Turkey, we should look across the Rhine rather than in Paris. I wrote an article in Le Monde, which I am happy to send to the hon. Gentleman, condemning the absurd notion that the French Parliament would decide what was genocide and what was not. That is a matter for history, not politicians.

We need to ask one or two serious questions of Turkey. It demands absolute solidarity, which personally I give, in its fight against the PKK and its wretched killer terrorist leader, Ocalan, but when exactly the same type of organisation, Hamas, insists on its right to kill Jews and Israelis and to blow up people in the region, and the Israelis take the necessary action to protect their state from Hamas, Mr Erdogan supports Hamas while demanding condemnation of the PKK. Turkey must be asked to support not only friendly relations 360° around the compass, as its Foreign Minister said, but absolute geopolitical consistency. If we are to support Turkey’s campaign, action and language against the PKK, Turkey must ask itself why it supports terrorist organisations elsewhere in the region.

Mention has been made of Cyprus. The European Council first committed itself to opening trade links with northern Cyprus but then reneged. That said, Turkey does not need to maintain two full military divisions of 35,000 men stationed in the tiny area of northern Cyprus. It can withdraw any number of them, while still leaving an adequate security presence, and show to the world it is looking for a new relationship with Cyprus. Turkish-Cypriot relations are bitter and poisonous. I do not agree with the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who said he thought, after a visit there, that it would all get better next year. There needs to be a huge sea change on both sides. My own view is that in any of these conflicts, the bigger, the more powerful and the more dominant nation—and, in 1974, the invading nation—should be the one to find the confidence to come to a better accord with the people it cannot find a solution even to talk to.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions Cyprus. Will he acknowledge that Turkey has done an awful lot in recent years to improve relations with Greece, and will he join me in expressing our satisfaction at that?

[Mr MacShane]

Absolutely. Turkish foreign policy is innovative, flexible and open. We remember President Gul’s state visit to London last year or perhaps 18 months ago. It was an important triumph, and he is a very distinguished statesman. There are many, many highly competent Turkish diplomats and business men, and the stronger the relations, the better, particularly with Greece. I agree strongly with that, but Greece spends 50% more of its GDP on defence than we or the Turks do. Greece has imported more weapons in the past 10 years than Israel. Why? Because Turkey will still not give an unqualified security guarantee to all the territory of Greece. There are overflights and rows on this and that—not a full-scale invasion—but I cannot meet a Greek who, when I say, “Why are you spending all this money on defence? You’re not going to go to war with Turkey,” does not shiver and shudder. Turkey could help to stabilise the Greek economy by signing a total non-aggression pact with Greece, saying that it will respect all Greek property and territorial frontiers.

Although Turkey opened its frontiers with Syria—now, however, it finds itself in the midst of the Syrian storm—it refuses to open its frontiers with Armenia because of the Nagorno-Karabakh situation and its relationship with the Turkic-speaking Azerbaijan. Again, I can half understand that, but closed frontiers are the curse of all modern economic development and political advances.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred to the problem of journalists, specifically Leyla Zana. As we speak, 205 people are on trial near Istanbul. The publisher Ragip Zarakolu, who was first condemned by the Turkish judicial system in 1971 for having secret links with Amnesty International, is again standing trial. That is not necessarily the Turkish Government’s fault; rather, the Turkish judicial system needs to rethink. If we want to increase parliamentary links, Labour Members should explain to the CHP—the nominally social democratic party—that Turkey’s penal code, with its legendary clause 301, which makes it a crime to insult the Turkish nation and gives the judicial system and prosecutors carte blanche to arrest and lock up anybody they want, is a real problem.

Those are the slight questions that I have, based on decades of visiting Turkey. I would like Britain to make a special effort on Turkey. The Minister is committed to doing so, but he is hamstrung by two great problems, the first of which is the attitude of the Home Office and its hostility to foreigners coming in to Britain. The other great difficulty is that, although we proclaim ourselves across the House to be the champions of Turkey joining the European Union, the rest of Europe listens to the Prime Minister talking about referendums and saying there is no terror for Britain outside the EU. The rest of Europe therefore thinks that we are on the way out. Turkey wants to come in—we may be on the way out. We need to rethink our approach to the European Union, but I am not sure that that will happen on this Government’s watch.

Human Rights (Kashmir)

Denis MacShane Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and I welcome the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne).

This is a short debate on a very controversial and difficult issue that concerns an awful lot of British citizens who have links with Kashmir. One or two colleagues have asked whether they may make interventions and, as a courteous chap, obviously I say yes, but I want to get most of my points across first and the Minister must have his time to reply. I fear, however—I mean no disrespect, having sat in his chair—that the Government line on human rights in Kashmir is not likely to change as a result of anything I say today. To be fair to the Minister, that line has not much changed in recent years in any case.

To put some points on the record, I am not attacking India per se. I admire India, its democracy, its rule of law and its vibrant culture, and I wish it well, but precisely because I do like and admire India, where I think that there is grievous fault I have an obligation to point it out. I do not want to go into the long history of Kashmir and the original UN resolutions, which were violated when the Kashmiri people were not allowed a plebiscite—as the UN had instructed—or their independent say on their future status 60 or more years ago.

I strongly welcome the dialogue initiated a year ago between the Foreign Ministers of Pakistan and India, which has certainly led to a helpful increase in communication and trade between Kashmir on the Indian side and Kashmir on the Pakistan side. Unfortunately, because of continued violence in Indian-occupied Kashmir—35 people have been killed since January—that trade and the opening of bridges and bus communications have been placed under threat.

I do not intend to get into much discussion of the general problem of terrorism. India is absolutely right to lay charges against Pakistan and individuals and organisations in Pakistan in connection with the Mumbai massacre and other assaults on the integrity of India, just as Pakistan is right to express some generalised concern about the more than half a million soldiers directly on its border—a situation that is bound to increase military tension. If for any reason we had an army of half a million Europeans stretched between Ostend and La Rochelle and if all their manoeuvres were predicated on invading England, as all the Indian army manoeuvres are predicated on invading Pakistan, we might get a bit twitchier.

I do not want to go back into the history of the 1980s and what we can now see, historically, as the disastrous decision of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush to create the Islamist jihadis as part of the cold war campaign against the Soviet Union. We sowed dragon’s teeth when we gave them weapons to hit at the Soviets: the jihadis took those weapons home and have stayed in possession of them ever since, giving birth to al-Qaeda and successive waves of Islamist terrorism.

I do not want to go into the history of why, after the Russians left Afghanistan, there was no concrete western help, in particular to resettle the millions of refugees for whom Pakistan had to take some responsibility.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr MacShane]

I shall make a bit more progress in my speech, even though my hon. Friend is one of my closest colleagues and friends.

Most estimates put the Indian army present in Jammu and Kashmir since democracy was suspended there in 1987 at between 500,000 and 600,000. The estimate of the number of people who have died largely if not exclusively as a result of the behaviour of the Indian army—there has also been terrorism on the side of Pakistani and Kashmir militants—is put at between 60,000 and 80,000. Indian soldiers and security forces operate under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act—one of the most iniquitous laws anywhere in the world—which prevents effective prosecution of actions undertaken in the name of Indian security in the region. Those 60,000 to 80,000 people killed—the equivalent of 10 Srebrenicas—represent far more Kashmiri Muslims dying at the hands of the Indian army than all the Palestinian Muslims who have been killed in the middle east conflicts of the past decade, and yet the world is silent.

The Foreign Secretary is always ready to lecture the Israelis on human rights abuses, as we have seen recently, or Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, but on Kashmir there is complete silence. There are 32,000 widows in Kashmir, 10,000 unaccounted-for, disappeared people and 100,000 orphans as a result of Indian security forces’ handling of the problem in the past few years.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr MacShane]

I will make some progress and then give way as much as possible. I am a courteous person but, please, let me make some of my points.

I am greatly concerned about the 10,000 disappeared people. In Latin America, there was great publicity about the disappeared victims of various military operations, in particular in the 1970s and ’80s, and yet the 10,000 Kashmiris who have disappeared after being taken away by the Indian authorities, never to return, get no publicity or world concern.

The Indian lobby in Britain, as we know, is one of the most influential, pervasive and well financed in the world. Pakistan also has its spokespersons, but the people of Kashmir are largely voiceless, save for some interventions, notably from my noble Friend Lord Ahmed of Rotherham. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) is another tireless champion of Kashmir. His early-day motion 2607, tabled earlier this year, draws attention to the horrible discovery of mass graves of some 6,000 men near the line of control, the border that separates the two Kashmirs. In Europe, we recall Katyn and Lidice with horror, but on the mass graves in Kashmir, we hear barely a word.

I have tried on several occasions, both since he has been in government and when he was the Conservative foreign affairs spokesman in opposition, to get merely a single word of concern from the Foreign Secretary. Frankly, I had more chance of getting England’s footballers to score from the penalty spot than I had of getting the Foreign Secretary to speak out for the human rights of Kashmiris. The official Government position is clear. The long-standing position of the UK and what spokesmen say is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, one that takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or to mediate in finding one—

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr MacShane]

Let me finish telling hon. Members what the spokesmen say—that we welcome the positive steps taken by Pakistan and India to build trust and confidence.

Frankly, that is not good enough. In relation to many other areas of the world, we have a position and we are prepared to speak out, but on Kashmir we are utterly silent. Kashmir is the far away place in the world of which we would prefer to know nothing and of which the Government certainly say nothing. Let me be clear that the same admonition applies to the previous Government. I remember my right hon. Friend, the late Robin Cook, early in his days as Foreign Secretary, thinking that Kashmir was an issue of some concern. When he tried to raise it, however, he was abused in New Delhi and some ugly pieces were spun by Indian media and propaganda.

[Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacShane]

I shall give way in a moment. He was traduced to the point that he effectively shut up on that issue—[Interruption.] There are 21 minutes to go, so I hope that there is time for everyone to speak.

I am making a point about the present Government but, believe me, it applies also to the last Government. I see Kashmir as one of the great issues of concern for the Muslim community around the world. That is certainly true in my constituency where the problems in Kashmir are constantly reflected in the Pakistani papers printed here in Britain—the Jang, The Nation, the Dawn—and on PTV, which many of my constituents watch. British citizens hear daily reports of the unpleasant behaviour, and sometimes much worse, by the Indian security forces. The issue is of great concern to British-born citizens, and we do ourselves no good as a Parliament by pretending that it is simply something that can be solved by a little exchange of words between Islamabad and New Delhi.

Human Rights Watch has a number of recommendations. It wants to initiate

“an impartial investigation into reports that the Eighth Rashtriya Rifles Battalion in Doda has been responsible for summary executions…rape, and other assaults on villagers”,

including the disappearances to which I referred. I do not want to go into details of the rape allegations, which are particularly distressing, but it is very clear that if any of that had happened in territories near Europe or in the Balkans back in the 1990s, the International Criminal Court would have been involved. People have been sent to the court accused of far lesser crimes than those committed by the people responsible for what has happened in Kashmir on the Indian side.

Human Rights Watch says that

“all reports of extrajudicial executions, ‘disappearances’, deaths in custody, torture, and rape by security forces and unofficial parliamentary forces in Kashmir are investigated promptly by a judicial authority and those responsible should be prosecuted in civilian courts.”

It says that the Indian Government should disarm

“and disband all state-sponsored militias not established and regulated by law and prosecute members of such groups who have been responsible for extrajudicial killings, “disappearances”, assaults, and other abuses.”

It also says that the Indian Government should establish

“a centralized register of detainees accessible to lawyers and family members (something promised since 1993 but not delivered)”,

and provide much better

“police training, perhaps after consultation with international experts, on gathering adequate evidence for rape prosecutions. Medical workers who have examined and treated rape victims should be protected from abuse.”

Those recommendations all come from Human Rights Watch. Britain could play a part in that, as could the European Union.

[Joseph Johnson]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. I will be brief. As hon. Members will know, the EU and India are five years into negotiating a complex free trade agreement in which the issue of human rights will soon rear its head. Given that the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister for Europe in the previous Government, where does he stand on inclusion of an essential elements clause mandating protection of human rights in any eventual agreement? The previous Government made a particular exception for India, allowing the Commission to continue to negotiate with a view to not having an essential elements clause, one that appears in 120 other agreements around the world. Would the right hon. Gentleman recommend that the EU includes one going forward?

[Mr MacShane]

I certainly would. Alas, I was not Minister for Europe during the period to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Governments occasionally make mistakes, and that did not come under my purview. However, he makes a powerful point, and I hope that the EU authorities who are listening, including Baroness Ashton, will take it on board. I will send her a copy of the debate, and perhaps the Minister will write to her underlining the cross-party agreement on the point.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

Will my right hon. Friend tell us where he obtained the information that 80,000 people were killed in Kashmir?

[Mr MacShane]

The information has been readily available on the websites of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for a number of years. The figure is an estimate. Let us say it is 70,000 or 60,000. Even if one person is subject to disappearance, rape or torture, that is one too many, so quibbling about the numbers does the cause of justice no good.

I am very willing to condemn, and have regularly publicly condemned, terrorism emanating from Pakistan and the blind eye that Inter-Services Intelligence and the Pakistani Government, in different shapes, and the Pakistani Parliament have turned to Pakistan-generated terrorism. I have said that to leading Ministers and to General Kayani face to face in Islamabad, so my record, I hope, is reasonable on this issue. I believe that it is right that on behalf certainly of British citizens I make this point. This is not an intellectual human rights conference. I make this point on behalf of very many people in my constituency who are very concerned that we are not getting justice for the Kashmiri people.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. This issue is of great concern to a large number of my constituents as well. May I underline the point that he made? We do stand accused of double standards if we give prominence—rightly—to human rights abuses in so many other places in the world, but appear silent on the vital issue of Kashmir.

[Mr MacShane]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I raised the question of Yulia Tymoshenko, and the Prime Minister told me last October in the House that unless she was properly treated and released from prison, it would be an issue of grave concern to the UK. Then finally it was announced that Ministers would not go to Ukraine for the football. This Minister pointed out, quite rightly, that it was unlikely that attending the final would need to be on the agenda.

Frankly, if we make such a statement about a woman who should not be ill treated but who is alive and seeing doctors, why are we silent on Kashmir? Why are we silent on Kashmir? Why are we silent on Kashmir? That is what my constituents are saying, and I hope the Minister will address that.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr MacShane]

I have said to all the colleagues who have written to me that I have no problem with hon. Members intervening. It is up to the Minister, because it is his time, whether he wants to allow other colleagues to come in, but certainly I acknowledge that my hon. Friend did contact me with a request to intervene.

[Simon Danczuk]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent contribution on this important issue. I have visited Kashmir. There is always a lot of emphasis on discussions and talks between India and Pakistan, but does my right hon. Friend agree that what is missing is the fact that we rarely listen to the people of Kashmir themselves?

[Mr MacShane]

I agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

Sorry; the hon. Gentleman did raise that important specific point. Over the past few weeks, we have seen greater co-operation at European Union level on human rights policy and big advances in how we project the consensus view from across the European Union on advancing human rights around the world. That has been an important component of EU agreements. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific details with regards to the free trade agreement that has been negotiated with India. Obviously, we also want to see that agreement take effect.

[Mr MacShane]

Will the Minister write to everyone?

[Mr Browne]

I will put a copy in the Library of the House of Commons.

In conclusion, it is clear that a resolution of the dispute over Kashmir must be for India and Pakistan to find, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is for that reason that we should welcome the progress made of late to build confidence between the two sides, but we recognise, too, that there remains much to be done. Through our bilateral contacts with both India and Pakistan, we will continue to encourage the steps they are both taking in strengthening their relationship which, as both sides have themselves agreed, will enable discussion on long-standing bilateral issues such as Kashmir.

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Denis MacShane Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

My hon. Friend makes very clear, by echoing my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s statement, how seriously the United Kingdom takes those issues and how constantly we raise them, but again I have to come back to the fact that Israel sees the issue differently, and accordingly it is one of those things that ultimately will be resolved only by the settlement that every Member wishes to see between the Palestinian authorities and Israel. Differences of opinion on the matter are likely to remain, but we are increasingly concerned about the activities in East Jerusalem, and my hon. Friend is right to raise them, as indeed was my right hon. Friend when he made his statement.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Three hours ago the Foreign Secretary rushed out a statement about the death—possible murder—of a British citizen in China last November. There are so many different aspects to the matter that there is no time to go into them, but the statement makes it clear that the Foreign Office knew on 18 January about the allegations, that they were brought to the Foreign Secretary’s attention on 7 February and that it took two months for him to bring it to the attention of the Commons or the public. May I invite him to give a full oral statement, so that the many worries and questions that need to be raised can be put to him for a full answer?

[Mr Hague]

The points are very clear in the statement that I have issued today—not in a rushed way but after full consideration, putting all the facts together for the House. On the one hand the right hon. Gentleman says that there is a rush, but then he asks for a rush on a great many other things. What is clear is that rumours within the British expatriate community about the matter were brought to officials on 18 January; that the allegations about Mr Heywood’s death, made by former Chongqing vice-mayor and chief of police, Mr Wang Lijun, were made on 6 February; and that on 7 February, the next day, officials brought those concerns to me—the same day that I instructed them to ask China to investigate. I think that puts into perspective some of the ranting of the right hon. Gentleman.

Sergei Magnitsky

Denis MacShane Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing the debate. It is important that it is on a motion because the Government must decide what they will do. They must decide whether to support it, and thus take the action that it demands of them.

Several attempts have been made to try to ensure that the debate never came to pass. The Russian ambassador in London attempted to repress a previous debate, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), a former Minister for Europe, led. I know that the Russian ambassador also tried to ensure that you, Mr Speaker, stopped today’s debate happening. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the political process in this country and the need for democratic and open debate. No ambassador should write to the Speaker of this House to try to prevent a debate. It is perfectly legitimate for us to debate what we choose to debate.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

This is extremely important. I have already had to intervene on this with Mr Speaker after the Russian embassy put on its website a statement attacking me as a parliamentarian for raising the Magnitsky case. Someone has to talk to this Russian ambassador and tell him crudely to butt out of House of Commons business.

[Chris Bryant]

I had already made that point, but I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend that we will discuss what we want. I very much hope that nothing is put in the way of the all-party group when we go to Russia so that we can meet not only members of the Government, but members of the opposition.

There are two basic problems in Russia at the moment, the first of which is the impunity that attends so much criminality. Hon. Members have referred to Anna Politkovskaya, but many other journalists have been murdered. Had journalists been murdered in this country, everybody around the world would have been howling and demanding justice. Similarly, we are unable to get justice for the murder of Mr Litvinenko, because Russia maintains that no extradition is allowed for any Russian citizen. That prevents justice and means impunity for those in Russia.

The second problem is the regular, systemic state abuse of the criminal justice system in Russia, which has meant that Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been imprisoned on spurious charges—Amnesty International has declared him and Platon Lebedev as prisoners of conscience. It is right that we pursue such issues to try to ensure that there is a proper criminal justice system in Russia, and one that does not depend on torture.

I must confess that the Government’s response tonight is very disappointing. For a start, I did not know that our foreign policy was to wait for the United States of America to make up its mind in its Senate and Congress on what it will do about immigration before we decide what we will do. We should be free to make our own decision, particularly because the one thing many significant Russians in the Putin regime value above all else is the ability to travel to London. London is the place where they like to do their banking and shopping, and where their families like to go for their education, and so on. Ensuring that the people involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and the corruption he unveiled are unable to come to this country is a vital part of ramming home to the Russian Government that we want better relations with them and that we want to do more business with them, but that we can do so only when human rights are respected and corruption weeded out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), because my heart soared when he spoke in Foreign Office questions in January to call for the public naming of the 60 officials associated with Magnitsky’s death. I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate on the Floor of the House.

Just as my heart soared when I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it sank when I heard the official Foreign Office brief read out at the Dispatch Box this evening. The Minister of State knows that I am a fan of his, but in this case I urge him and the Foreign Secretary to make it clear that they are Ministers with a democratic duty to speak up for the House of Commons, which now wants clear action to be taken. It is nonsense to say that we have not named people banned from coming into this country. We have named Martha Stewart, the cook, for goodness’ sake. We also named George Raft, the actor, and Pablo Neruda, the Chilean Nobel prize laureate. If they were good enough to be named, so too can some of these Russian thugs.

I am not proposing a policy of latter day Palmerstonian “advocatus Britannicus sum”, or “Because I am a lawyer representing British interests, I must have some special protection.” I am saying that, as we develop and shape our diplomacy in challenging and difficult times, we have to leave some rusty old tools in the Foreign Office toolbox firmly locked up and sharpen our approach.

I am not going to repeat the comments on the nature of the Russian state that have already been well made by other hon. Members. I am not sure that it consists solely of a relationship between politicians and criminals. Russia is not a functioning constitutional, democratic state that observes the rule of law. There is no distinction between political and business life there, or between state employees and those who run enterprises of any sort. Mr Putin is the chief executive officer of an enterprise, and his Russia exists in order to enrich him and those associated with him, going right down through the state machine. This is vertical power, and what happened to Magnitsky was not a sequence of accidents; it was authorised at a very high level.

The campaign is important, but where are the British lawyers? In the 1970s, when Russian psychiatrists were abusing their medical professionalism by signing off on dissidents being imprisoned for being mentally disabled, the British and American legal and psychiatric professions rose as one to condemn them and expel them from international associations. Where are the British lawyers today? Why are they not standing up for their fellow solicitor or fellow silk in Russia?

We need to look at the broader question of how we deal with Russia. The snow revolution might have petered out on Sunday, but Russians have lost their fear and passivity as they look upon Putin as another long-serving leader. Such leaders exist in western, democratic countries too but, as with Helmut Kohl, Mrs Thatcher and Mr Mubarak, there comes a moment when the fear has gone. I believe that Britain should also lose its fear of speaking up for democracy in action, and take consequent actions.

Under the 70 years of sovietised Russia, very few Russians could travel, but during the Yeltsin and Putin years, we have gone back to the pre-1917 tsarist days when the rich of Russia came here, bought villas and were educated at Oxford, and Prince Obolensky scored great tries for England. Now, they are back in town. I have no particular objection to them, but the one thing that they will understand is being told that they no longer have an entry ticket into London.

I want to make a tiny party political point. I do wish that the Conservatives would quit their alliance with Putin’s stooges at the Council of Europe. They are there for different reasons, and I am not going to go into any of that now, but it is embarrassing that some of our colleagues and friends sit with the Russians in our main human rights body in Europe, at which the Russians are present and can be held to account. The Russians get a free ride there.

I would also like to ask some of our journalists to stop being Putin’s little helpers. If our poor Prime Minister goes for a ride on a horse, it makes the front page of The Times, and everyone mocks him and scorns him and says it is very serious. If Putin pulls on an ice hockey shirt and does a bit of midnight ice hockey, the editor of The Times is there, swooning at the feet of this majestic specimen of manhood. I do not expect the Chelsea football club programme, or The Independent or the Evening Standard, to be tough on Russia, but I think that the rest of our papers could be a bit harder on it.

I finish by quoting Anna Politkovskaya. At the end of her book, “A Russian Diary”, published after her murder in 2006, she wrote of Putin:

“So far there is no sign of change. The state authorities remain deaf to all warning from the people. They live their own life, their faces permanently twisted by greed and by irritation that anybody should try to prevent them from getting even richer. Our state authorities are only interested in making money. If anyone thinks they can take comfort from the optimistic forecast, let them do so. It is certainly the easier way, but it is also a death sentence for our grandchildren.”