Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

The UK is a world leader on tax compliance, with one of the lowest tax gaps in the world. The UK was a major sponsor of the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting project and has adopted many of the recommendations. The Government also introduced the diverted profits tax, which came into effect on 1 April 2015 and counters the contrived arrangements used by some multinationals to divert profits from the UK.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Ind)]

T4. As the first Gavin Shuker MP to be called under your tenure, Mr Speaker, may I, too, offer my congratulations on your elevation?For 10 years in this place I have repeatedly raised with the Foreign Secretary and his predecessors the appalling human rights abuses in Kashmir. Further to our recent disappointing exchange of letters, can he give one single example of actions he has taken in robustly challenging the Indian Government’s revocation of article 370 of the Indian constitution?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has been a stalwart champion of human rights and has indeed taken a very close interest in foreign policy in relation to this region. He asks what we have done. As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), said earlier, fundamentally the issue of Kashmir needs to be resolved between the two parties, but we never duck the issue of human rights in any country. I have raised the issue of human rights in Saudi Arabia with the Saudi Foreign Minister and, particularly in relation to detentions, blackouts and internet blockages, with the Indian Foreign Minister. We will continue to do that because it is absolutely important. Even with some of our closest partners, we need to be able to have those candid conversations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

7. What representations he has made to his Israeli counterpart on the proposed demolition of Khan al-Ahmar village in the west bank.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

16. What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on prospects for the peace process in Israel and Palestine.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

19. What the policy of the Government is on a two-state solution in the middle east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

When I made a statement about that, I drew attention to the point the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the first part of his question about how it might possibly be construed. In relation to the second part, if there is further development in that area, it does indeed call into question the viability of a two-state solution.

[Mr Shuker]

Does the Minister accept that the forcible transfer of Khan al-Ahmar would effectively bisect the west bank and make the price of peace that much higher? Does he also accept that the refusal of the British Government to recognise a state of Palestine makes it harder for the human rights of the Palestinians to be heard?

[Alistair Burt]

I am not sure about the second part because we do raise issues of human rights, particularly in relation to settlements and the like. On the first part, yes, the concern about the location of Khan al-Ahmar—its close proximity to E1 and the possibility of development there being a bar to contiguity—is indeed a concern for the whole of the international community. It is still possible for any demolition not to go ahead.

Gaza Border Violence

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

Again, the hon. Lady raises a factor that does not always get the attention it needs: those who are confined in camps around the region, hosted by states that have been supportive over time and supported by the excellent work of UNRWA. We continue to support that work, but she is right. The right of return has been a key part of the discussions between the various parties who will ultimately make the agreement in relation to the peace process. It will remain a key part of the issue, but the parties themselves must come to a solution. We support those who are in these difficult circumstances, and the sooner their position is regularised the better.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have written to Ambassador Johnson to condemn, in the strongest terms, the provocative action by the Trump Administration in moving its embassy, which led to the depressingly predictable bloodshed on the border. Is the Minister really saying that he has not done the same?

[Alistair Burt]

I would not put it in the same terms as the hon. Gentleman. Just because the United Kingdom seeks to be measured in its responses, we should not make the mistake of thinking that they do not come without emotion, determination and a real concern for affecting change.

I think I have said before at the Dispatch Box that I have done this for too long. We have all been here. We have had debates for years about the future of the area. We cannot go on with this, because each time it gets worse and more difficult. We must not use tragedies to find yet more reasons to build up support for the particular position of one side or the other. Over 30 years in the House I have seen the binary nature of this dispute get worse. The people who used to reach out to each other are no longer able to. The organs that used to be able to put forward a moderate position in Israel and on the other side find it more difficult to do so. That has only given those who want to build more barriers the freedom to do so. We have to challenge all that.

In dealing with the United States, a valued partner in the region but one that does not always get it right, we are very clear and very direct. We hope that the events of the past few days will lead people to realise that this situation cannot be managed and cannot simply drift. It will not go away of its own accord. We all have a greater determination to bring it to its end. Members’ comments will be valuable in that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

9. What recent representations he has made to his Myanmar counterpart on the treatment of the Rohingya people.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What recent representations he has made to his Myanmar counterpart on the treatment of the Rohingya people.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

The Foreign Secretary spoke to Aung San Suu Kyi on 7 and 17 September. I met her in Naypyidaw in Burma on 27 September, and the Deputy Foreign Minister at the UN General Assembly on 20 September. We called for an end to the violence in Rakhine state, a safe return for refugees, full humanitarian access, and, most importantly, implementation in full of the Annan Commission’s recommendations.

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful question. What is going on in Rakhine is a human tragedy and a humanitarian catastrophe. When the UN lifted sanctions in 2011, it was trying to encourage a road towards democracy, which has obviously happened with the election that took place only 18 months ago. With hindsight, one might argue that these sanctions were lifted prematurely. However, a lot of Burma watchers would say that the sanctions did not have a huge effect. There was not a great deal of money from the Burmese military in western bank accounts in the way that applies, for example, to sanctions for Russia, China and elsewhere.

[Mr Shuker]

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights described what is happening in Myanmar as

“a textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.

I happen to agree with him. Does the Minister?

[Mark Field]

As I said, it is a humanitarian catastrophe out there. Sadly, this increasingly appears to be an accurate description of the situation. It is now essential for the Burmese authorities to enact the positive measures that were announced by the State Counsellor, Aung San Suu Kyi, on Thursday evening. They include the establishment of a new civilian-led body to oversee refugee returns and the development of Rakhine into a state in which all communities can live together sustainably.

The Rohingya and the Myanmar Government

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, and I could not agree more. I hope that the Minister will take that as one of the action points of our Government, to build on the leadership that they are showing. We would like to see that item on the agenda.

The UN report backs up the comment made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in his opening statement at the 36th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council that the situation in Myanmar is a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. That builds on the call, made by Yanghee Lee earlier this year, for a UN commission of inquiries, with which the Burmese Government refuse to co-operate.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

During Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions earlier, I asked the Minister for Asia and the Pacific—a good Minister—to comment on the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing. I believe that he went further than the UK Government have gone before in saying that the situation was moving towards that. Does my hon. Friend agree that for the UK to have legitimacy on this topic, we should back up the UN’s assessment that the situation is a textbook case of ethnic cleansing?

[Rushanara Ali]

I very much hope that our Government will back up that definition.

The House will be aware that in 1993 the final report of the Commission of Experts, which was established following UN Security Council resolution 780, defined ethnic cleansing as

“a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

That is a textbook definition to which the motion refers and against which we must measure what is happening in Myanmar. The question is whether the events in Burma amount to “a purposeful policy”. Are violent and terror-inspiring means being used? Is a specific ethnic or religious group being removed from certain geographical areas? The answer is yes to all the above. We are witnessing a deliberate state-sponsored policy of terror, murder, arson, rape and torture designed to remove the Rohingya people from their homes. There is now such an overwhelming weight of evidence of ethnic cleansing that Members cannot fail to agree and nor can the Government. It is vital that Members of this Parliament, which is seen as a beacon of democracy in the world, send a powerful message today that we will stand with the people being persecuted, the Rohingya population and other minorities in Myanmar.

Budget Resolutions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I begin by agreeing with the comments of the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) about air passenger duty and the effect of Brexit on UK aviation?

The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), did not have many great reforming achievements, but let me praise one: the emergence of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is essentially the benchmarking organisation that lets the Government know what fiscal room they have to work in, and lets us all know where the bodies are. The OBR made a series of assumptions in its central forecast for the Budget. The first was that the UK would leave the EU in April 2019. The second was that the money that we spend on the EU would come back and be spent broadly on the same things as before. The third was that we would need to make no exit payment, and the fourth was that no changes to taxes levied and payments made through the EU would be made over the period that the OBR looked at. It said:

“While the Government has now set out some of its objectives more formally, there is understandably little detail about how it intends to achieve them.”

Each of those assumptions is questionable at best; that is the fault not of the OBR, but of the Government. Each assumption will have a huge impact on the public finances. This was a Budget with a black hole at its very heart. Brexit is mentioned just once in the Red Book, yet we are entering the chilling reality of a hard Tory Brexit at a time when they have presided over seven years of economic failure and missed deficit reduction targets year after year. Short-term fixes have meant that the past decade’s most intractable economic problems have not been dealt with. Let us examine those assumptions.

The first assumption was that we would leave the EU in April 2019. I have no reason to question that after the Bill on article 50 passed through the Commons today, but we know that there could be a hard landing on to WTO terms, or a transitional deal. We could be doing this against the backdrop of one of our nation states leaving the other three.

The second assumption was that after Brexit, our money would return from the EU. The sum of £350 million a week was spoken about quite a lot during the referendum campaign. Where did that come from? It was an inflated figure; the actual cost to us is about £8 billion a year. Provided that we are able to do everything as efficiently as we do now—now, we pool the resources of 28 member states, but we will shift from sharing costs to them being borne by one state—and provided that we choose not to contribute any additional sums to our farmers, regional development, or university research, we will get back that £8 billion a year, but if the economy was just 1% bigger, borrowing could be some £14 billion lower each year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that if leaving the EU were to reduce national income by just 0.6%, that would be enough to outweigh the positive effects on the national finances. Bear in mind that the effect is cumulative; 0.6% lower in one year means that the economy is 0.6% smaller in every year going forward. That is because of lower tax receipts, higher debt, a larger deficit, and less to spend on public services such as our schools or the NHS.

The third assumption was that no exit payment would be made. The figure being talked about in Brussels is in the range of £50 billion or €60 billion. We have built up liabilities, commitments, and pension funds, and without settling those, we will not get the kind of deal that we want with the rest of the European Union. We have bailed out the banks, but actually we have had significant amounts of that money back. This will be a one-off payment that we will need to make, and it was not reflected in the Budget that we discussed this week.

The fourth assumption, which is no changes to taxes levied through the EU, rather begs the question: why are we doing this in the first place when we know that we are going to diverge over this period? What did we learn? We learned that economic growth is down, not up, from Brexit; that we will have lower tax revenues; that lower immigration will hurt us, not help us; and that a weaker pound will drive inflation, storing up the inflationary effects into 2017, 2018 and 2019. On trade and exports, UK trade will fall, slowing the pace of export growth for 10 years; business investment will be lower and will drop; and EU students and exports will drop off as well, taking money out of the real economy.

Last week, we learned that the Vauxhall van plant in Luton, where my dad and his dad before him worked, will be sold to a European firm. Despite the fact that that organisation is one of the most efficient and profitable parts of the business, the long-term future of that plant will be down to the kind of deal that we get on Brexit. Frankly, with an eight-year lead time on the van that we build there, I am perfectly content that the workers will see that through, and I thank PSA Group for its assurances. The reality is that when we look at Ellesmere Port, where a decision has to be made on a new vehicle coming in at the back end of 2018, it becomes abundantly clear why those of us on Labour’s Benches and some on the Government Benches say pushing for the hardest possible Brexit available is a bad choice; it comes at exactly the wrong moment for the kind of investment that we want. A hard Brexit is not some big bang, but the slow deflation of a balloon as the air comes out.

In conclusion, this Tory Budget amounts a massive hit to the public finances—around £100 billion. Targets have been abandoned, and there are no rules of the road. There is a lack of acceptance that the effects of this Budget will last for a long period of time. If we are going into a storm, the ship in in a poor state and the captain is driving us harder and harder into those choppy seas.

Human Rights: Burma

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

I mean that most sincerely.

In response to the hon. Lady, I hope I have made it clear today that the UK is pursuing a huge number of avenues to get humanitarian aid in and make the case for minorities. We are making it clear that we care deeply about these matters, and we will keep doing that. Going back to the approach from a UN perspective, the UN is already engaged in several areas, and we will continue that work and to make the case, because we want to ensure that there is resolution in this very troubled area.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister say what discussions he has had, or will have, with the Government of Bangladesh about the refugee status of the Rohingya people who, in many cases, have fled the most obscene violence in Rakhine state?

[Alok Sharma]

I raised the issue of the Rohingya in Bangladesh with representatives of the Bangladesh Government before Christmas. The important point that I made was that they should not be looking to return people who are seeking refuge back into danger. On the aid that we are providing, the UK is the largest provider of food aid to the 34,000 Rohingya refugees already living in official camps in Bangladesh. Since 2014, the UK has provided nearly £8 million to address the humanitarian suffering of Rohingya refugees and the vulnerable Bangladeshi communities that host them.

Britain in the World

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to speak in a debate with so many epic maiden speeches. I have to admit, however, that I was slightly perturbed to see that all those making them pretty much looked older than me, which means that I am constrained to another five years of wandering around this place being asked if I know where I am going.

There can be no future for our nation that is not pro-internationalist and pro-reform. That means demonstrating global leadership to further our interests in and for the world, and making a connected world work for us. It means tackling structural inequalities—of power, wealth and identity—in the interests of all people. Our capacity for influence and leadership is unrivalled for a country of our size. What other nation is a leading member of the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth, NATO and the permanent five of the UN Security Council? We have fundamentals we must not waste, but they must be coupled with political will. The Gracious Speech and the Government, just like the previous Government, fall short on will. This dangerous right-wing Tory Government’s agenda for office risks further undermining Britain’s place in the world. The range of the foreign and domestic policy measures announced last Wednesday poses a threat to our standing and influence.

First, now that the Prime Minister’s in/out referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union is going ahead, it is right that Opposition Members accept the legitimacy of the Bill. It is vital, however, that we make the case for our continued membership and drive for a perpetual process of positive reform, in stark opposition to the right-wing Tory Government’s sham negotiation, against an artificial timetable, that will damage our influence from Cork to Krakow.

Secondly, the Government’s proposed abolition of the Human Rights Act would endanger our membership of the Council of Europe and our position as a party to the European convention on human rights. In addition to risking making it harder for victims of injustice to seek redress in this country, repealing the Act and removing ourselves from the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court would put us in the company of Belarus, the only other nation state in Europe not party to the convention. That is not leadership. From the party of Churchill—when the ECHR was drafted in large part by British lawyers with the support and encouragement of the former Prime Minister—the proposed repeal draws stark contrasts with, and conclusions about, the Conservative party of yesterday.

Thirdly, we must equip our citizens with the ability to navigate the complexities, threats and opportunities of a globalised world. Free trade, however, will bring freedom only if it is also fair. The Government’s proposed domestic trade union Bill will put draconian restrictions on the most basic labour and trade union rights. The proposed changes to striking regulations are likely to flout basic International Labour Organisation rules, aligning Britain with an alarming number of repressive regimes that impose similar, or more severe, restrictions. And it comes as no surprise that in a previous iteration this right-wing Tory Government defunded the International Labour Organisation and weakened protections for workers around the world.

Fourthly, in failing to tackle structural and historical injustices our leadership and consistency have been brutally undermined. From Palestine to Kashmir, our interest is demanded by those who find themselves being consistently disempowered and oppressed. From the UN to the World Trade Organisation, reform is demanded by those who are not in the room but consistently locked outside in an increasingly cold climate. From the Mediterranean to the Yellow sea, freedoms that we take for granted are under threat: freedom of religion and belief, freedom to love, and freedom of speech. Those freedoms require not our tacit acceptance but shoring up. This Queen’s Speech is neither pro-internationalist nor pro-reform, and we should reject it.

Palestine

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My constituents have been very animated about the prospect of this debate. They know about conflict and peace processes and they know all about excusery, whataboutery and blame games when peace processes stall and initiatives fail. They even know about when institutions fall.

My constituents also know outrage when they see it—as there was this summer, with the scale of the violence visited on the people of Gaza by Operation Protective Edge. They know that violence makes no contribution to upholding anyone’s rights, and violence on the part of any armed group in the name of any Palestinian interest will not advance the cause of Palestinian rights or a Palestinian state. Indeed, much of that violence is aimed against the very process that would lead to a two-state solution. Let us remember that the people carrying out the violence—with whom, according to Netanyahu, those of us who support Palestinian statehood are aligning ourselves—are doing it to undermine the two-state solution. They are totally opposed to that concept, just as some people in Israel are.

I have said before that if we are serious about a two-state solution, we need to create more of a semblance around a two-state process. That is why moving towards recognising Palestinian statehood is so important; it is the single biggest thing that those of us outside, representing the international democratic interest, can do. Doing that is not about a little token PR win for Palestine or about one in the eye for Israel; it is about trying to create a more equal process and trying to say that international standards will and do apply—not just to Israel, but to Palestine. Any Palestinian state that is created or recognised will have to adhere to all the legal instruments to which they wish to bring Israel.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful contribution. Does he not recognise from his own experience over recent decades that the heart of any successful negotiation is recognition of the legitimacy of the partner that someone is seeking to work with and legitimacy in the eyes of the international bodies? For that reason, we were right to back the vote on Palestinian recognition in October.

[Mark Durkan]

Absolutely, and our process shows that is true. It shows that if people are serious about negotiating a process, they have to recognise that it is not going to be a matter of them all converting others to their views. It will be a matter of convergence, so people, based on the integrity of their own position and knowing that their own interests and identity are going to be secured in the arrangements, can move forward to respect and accommodate each other.

In any situation of historic conflict, people need to recognise that they cannot be secure against each other; they can be truly secure only with each other. They cannot prosper against each other; they can truly prosper only with each other. That is why we need a two-state solution and why that needs strong international support. The issue is not about simply leaving things to the parties themselves and saying, “It is up to them to find enough will.” We cannot leave it to the parties themselves, any more than it was just left to the parties themselves in our process. International good will and interest has to find its standard. People also have to know that, whatever the outcome, the states created will fully adhere to human rights and conform to international law. They can hold each other to that and affirm those guarantees for all their citizens, whatever identities those citizens have.

Let us be very clear: Israel cannot go on believing that it can ignore all the world all the time and still buy arms and sell all the illegal settlement goods that it wants to sell. The public have got fed up; the international public are indignant at the failure of the diplomatic musings and all the excusery and ruses used to exercise a veto at the UN. That is why we have this petition and why people want to see us move forward on the basis of the vote that has already been held.

Government Strategy Against IS

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to my hon. Friends’ questions, will the Minister explain how Government programmes such as Prevent are being altered in the light of the immediate threat that IS poses as regards the risk of losing British nationals overseas, as opposed to the response of the Government, which is often about preventing those extremists from returning to this country?

[Mr Lidington]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in her statement last week and to what the Prime Minister said in his statement to the House on Monday. Clearly, in the light of recent events and the threat from ISIL, we work very hard on ensuring that Prevent is kept up to date and that we are doing the right work with those communities.