North Korea

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to start breaking down barriers in North Korea is through contact with the outside world? Will he use his position therefore to encourage contacts with South Korea in Kaesong? Furthermore, will he encourage the BBC to consider broadcasting into North Korea—it would be not a cost-effective, but a diplomatic decision—and encourage maximum contact with China through trade?

[Mr Swire]

Yes to the last point. I have just accompanied the Prime Minister to China on the largest ever prime ministerial-led trade delegation anywhere—it included more than 150 companies—so UK-Chinese bilateral trade is incredibly important. I believe that I have addressed the BBC issue. On my hon. Friend’s other point, I would say: that is why we have an embassy in Pyongyang. Some people say, “If you can’t penetrate the mind of the regime, why have an embassy in Pyongyang?” He has answered that question: a chink of light is better than no light at all. The fact that we have a diplomatic presence in North Korea is welcomed by Seoul and Washington, with whom we work closely on these matters. It is important that whenever we see a chink of light, we try to widen it to expose to the people of North Korea that there is a better world out there. I do not believe that the regime can keep them downtrodden forever.

Gibraltar

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

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

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend remind his Spanish counterpart that in 1967 almost 100% of Gibraltarian people voted to remain under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom? In the most recent poll, in 2002, 98.5% of the people voted to reject joint sovereignty with Spain. Will he tell our Spanish counterparts that this harassment by the Spanish Government is totally unacceptable and violates all UN charters?

[Mark Simmonds]

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that of course we will continue to make the strongest possible representations to the Spanish Government. It is relevant, in response to his question, to highlight that Gibraltar’s constitution reflects the principle that the people have the right of self-determination. The realisation of that right must be promoted and respected in conformity with the provisions of the charter of the United Nations that are applicable under international treaties. Certainly, we will not go down the route that the previous Government took in 2002.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

Let me try to help the hon. Gentleman with his understanding of devolution and, indeed, democracy. The last time I checked, there was an election in Scotland in 2010 that resulted in the Scottish National party, which had committed to a referendum in its manifesto, securing a majority in the Scottish Parliament. By contrast, not one of the principal political parties that stood at the last general election in the United Kingdom and secured representation in this House advanced what is proposed in this Bill. There is a fundamental difference because a majority was secured in the Scottish Parliament.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give this House an absolute assurance on behalf of the Labour party that it will not change its mind about opposing a referendum for the British people before the next election?

[Mr Alexander]

We have maintained our position that any judgment in relation to an in/out referendum has to be based on the national interest. Our judgment is that the national interest is not served by this Bill, and that is why we do not support it. If there is a leader of a political party who has changed his position on a referendum, I think I am looking at him right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This is an historic day. For the first time in nearly 40 years, a major political party of Government is united in its commitment to give the British people a choice as to whether they stay in the EU. That is the important part of this debate.

The Prime Minister and the Government have been criticised for not introducing a Government Bill. Let us be absolutely clear: there is only one party that is stopping this Bill being a Government Bill or having time, and that is the Liberal party. Let us be clear also that the Liberals gave a solemn promise at the last election to have an in/out referendum. They gave that promise only because they thought then that they would win it. They are now reneging on that promise, so this is down to them.

This is only a private Member’s Bill. Despite the fact that we all salute our hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) for the way he has introduced it, its likely progress reminds me of the games of Cluedo I used to play as a boy. In about nine or 10 months’ time, the body of my hon. Friend with his Bill will be found dead in the morning room with daggers in his back, but nobody will claim responsibility for killing his Bill. It will not be the Rev. Yellow Cleggo or Comrade Scarlet, but my hon. Friend’s Bill will be dead. The responsibility for the British people being denied a referendum will not lie with us.

Sooner or later, the Liberal party and the Labour party will have to come clean with the British people and offer a referendum, as we are offering a referendum. When the Bill is finally talked out on some dark rainy night or morning, probably in the other place, and when we have ensured that all the other private Members’ Bills are slaughtered to make way for it, we will have to go back to the Government and say to our partners in coalition, “Give us a Government Bill.” If our partners refuse to give us that Bill, that will be an excellent platform on which to fight the next general election. We will remind the people again and again who killed the Bill by talking it out.

We must start negotiating now. There are so many fundamental issues—on our fisheries, on our farming and on our trade—that need to be worked out. I am confident that there will be a referendum. I fear that our partners in Europe will make very few concessions. I fear that the French will not be prepared to give us more freedom on agriculture, and I fear that the Spanish will not be prepared to give us more freedom on fishing. I fear that we will make very little progress, but we will try our best and the decision will then go to the British people.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, I am going to finish now.

When we get to that point, unless major concessions are made I, like many other Conservatives, will campaign for this country once more to be free. Why should this country not once again be in charge of its own destiny? Why should we not be part of a genuine free trade area? That is our vision of a free and prosperous nation, and that is what we will put to the British people.

Syria

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely entitled to be disappointed with my previous answer, but it was my answer. Let me put it differently. I doubt whether, if Iran had been represented at the Geneva conference last year, we would have reached agreement even on the step of being in favour of a transitional Government formed by mutual consent. At least the permanent members of the Security Council and the other nations present were able to agree on that at last year’s conference, but I am sceptical about whether we would have agreed on it if Iran had been in the room.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

If weekend reports are correct, the Russians have beefed up their fleet in the Mediterranean and supplied anti-ship weapons. Does that not mean that they are upping the ante? Has my right hon. Friend any cause for optimism that if the Russians turn up to the next peace conference, they will negotiate in any meaningful manner?

[Mr Hague]

I think that we have to try, although my hon. Friend’s question is entirely valid. Of course we disapprove strongly of continued arms sales to the regime. Those arms are being used by the regime in the present conflict, and there has been the recent announcement about anti-ship missiles. I do not think that that helps in the present circumstances. At the same time, we must work with Russia, which is a partner on the United Nations Security Council. As time has shown, we cannot pass any resolution on this subject without working with Russia. Therefore, rather than expressing optimism or pessimism, I say that we must do our utmost to succeed—to have a successful negotiation—and must create all possible conditions to allow it to be successful. The first of those conditions was agreeing with Russia on holding the negotiation; now we must try to make it a success.

UK Trade & Investment

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Nick de Bois]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s well-timed intervention. The fact is that trade and investment affects every single constituency. It is the one thing that unites us and the one thing that serves all our constituents, wherever they may work or whatever they may do, because without trade and without business we have no taxes, no hospitals and no infrastructure. Frankly, it is at the heart of our jobs, growth and prosperity.

As a nation, we import some $640 billion—I used dollars deliberately and hon. Members will see why as I refer to other figures—but we export approximately $480 billion only. This is a timely debate. The UK’s share of global exports has declined sharply over the past decade from just over 5% in 2000 to a fraction over 4% in 2010—a 20% drop. We should not pretend that this country is alone in seeing such a drop, but some of our near neighbours have fared much better. Germany, to which I will be making further references during my contribution, managed to grow its share of global exports. Are UK companies slow to react to opportunities? Are there inherent uncompetitive disadvantages? Perhaps more pertinently, have we been tapping into the wrong markets? I will suggest later that that has been the case. Have we failed to reach the high-growth markets as a result, perhaps, of over-dependence on our European neighbours and the US? If one looks beneath the figures, one wonders whether there is a mismatch between the goods and services we currently sell and those demanded by high-growth economies. After all, we are not supplying high-capital goods to the booming markets in the BRIC countries for machinery, tools and equipment. Whatever the diagnosis, the treatment is the same. We have no choice but to increase exports and inward investment.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are some bright spots in our export market? In China, for example, our exports were up 19.5% from 2011 to 2012, and UK services exports were four places up in our market importance compared with the previous year, so our exports to China are doing well.

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend anticipates some comments I will make shortly. Even within that good news story, it is worth remembering that the success of our services exports perhaps masks an underlying problem in our not being successful in selling our capital goods to emerging BRIC countries. He is absolutely right, however, and since 2009 the volume of exports to the rest of the EU has probably risen by some 5%, but exports to the rest of the world have increased by 30%. The trend is definitely the right one. There are encouraging signs, and we should be quick to recognise that and to endorse such efforts.

We are coming together this morning as a constructively critical friend to the work of UKTI and the FCO. Since entering Parliament, I have found an admirable determination in Ministers and officials to deliver on the often quoted target for exports of £1 trillion by 2020. I have no doubt that this is the first Government to put trade and inward investment at the heart of government and, in particular, to make them a cornerstone of the wider economic resurgence of the UK. I count myself lucky, because there are Government Members present today—I welcome such a strong showing—who have witnessed the work of the Government after a career in business and are therefore qualified to fulfil the role of constructive friend. On that note, I remind the House that I spent 25 years in business, actively supporting SMEs and large corporations in their efforts to trade abroad, which involved working in the exhibition and events industry, which in turn involved working with trade associations and UKTI’s predecessor, British Trade International. I remind the House that my wife runs the company that I was involved with, which still works with some trade associations, so I can put on the record both my experience and a declaration of interest.

Today, I want to deal with both the strategic and tactical aspects of UKTI-FCO work, and I am grateful for the support of the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and other organisations, not least SMEs and trade associations from whom I have gleaned advice. Let us start with a premise. One in every four SMEs in Europe is an exporter, but the figure in Britain is currently one in five. What is holding back a nation of entrepreneurs that has an enviable track record in trading and a history of unique historical ties with Commonwealth countries, and that is now host to large diasporas from many parts of the world? Many of our competitor countries would envy such a pedigree as a platform for exporting, so what is allowing our neighbours to outperform us?

As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said, there are some success stories, which should not be overlooked. Our service sector is buoyant, and that has hidden some of the goods sector’s decline, although we have excelled in pharmaceuticals and chemicals. Sadly, however, manufacturing as a whole has declined.

Even when we are doing well in pharmaceuticals and chemicals, our rate of growth still compares unfavourably with that of Germany, because we have not sold to high-growth economies. However—I speak as a former owner-manager of an SME—where SMEs have the right goods and services for high-growth economies, the reluctance to export is a combination of risk management assessment, operating outside the comfort zone and, of course, fear of failure. That is often fuelled by what seem daunting and in some cases very real barriers to export, but also by a fair share of myths, without necessarily recognising the hidden and transparent benefits of export markets.

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that micro-businesses will be more inclined to stay in their comfort sector. When they are successful and they grow, it is hard for them to shed the fear of the unknown and of recognising the extra management time that would go into breaking down the barriers to export. Success as a micro-company often brings with it concerns about entering the export market. However, the answer is staring us in the face: engaging with those that have succeeded and letting them drive those that are inclined to go—or thinking of going—into the export market.

Recently, I went to an exhibition where I spent the day with SMEs exporting to the Gulf—I hasten to add that I went at my own and not the taxpayers’ expense, en route to a delegation. I was hosted by UKTI for the day, and I spent the whole day with SMEs. A number of things came out that I thought were very encouraging, but let me focus on one issue.

When I asked SMEs how they broke down the barriers, why they were successful and what they were achieving, they all had innovative ideas, as we expect from SMEs in this country. They had all used the support of UKTI and the FCO, which, in the Gulf region, is exceptional. However, they all wanted more British companies to be there with the British pavilion, supporting a British presence in the region, because it was as much in their interests to have that greater commercial and intellectual capital in a region in which they were operating. When I asked, “Would you attend forums and speak to contemporaries that are either thinking of, or may not even have considered, going into export markets?”, “Would you come and tell them about your experiences?”, and “Would you help them learn the lessons that you have learnt?”, every single company—these were small to medium-sized enterprises—was willing to do so.

My challenge is that perhaps UKTI should now seek to leverage the good will of the work that SMEs have been doing, where they have been successful, to reach new potential exporters. Why? Despite the success of UKTI, we are still not reaching enough people. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham will touch on that point when he talks about how UKTI’s work must expand—I do not wish to anticipate him unfairly, but I have read his report, and he has done some excellent work on the future of UKTI. Therefore, with the companies that want to leverage more activity in a region, it is a win-win, no-cost option for UKTI and the FCO to capitalise on those who are successful in order to breed more success.

During the few parliamentary delegations that I have attended, I have always met local embassies, and local UKTI representatives and staff. Every time I visit, I ask the staff a simple question: “What are the top three UK companies doing business in this region?” I confess that the answer is often mixed. Some do not know, some waffle, while others are extremely well briefed. The picture is mixed, but what all have in common is that although the large exporters may be identified and known to them, very few of the SME companies, which might even be in the same supply chain as the well known prime contractors, are known. That worries me. At delegation level, led by senior Ministers, I cannot recall how often SMEs were included in the teams accompanying Prime Ministers or Foreign Secretaries.

My specific interest is with the “M” in SMEs. Medium-sized businesses will be crucial to driving export growth, because it is not realistic to presume that our export goals can be achieved by securing large, single-group contracts. The critical mass achievable by the vast swathe of medium-sized companies will lead growth and I suggest that UKTI overseas representation is spread more evenly across the company base to reflect that fact.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I promise my hon. Friend that this is my last intervention, because I am really grateful to him for securing the debate. He will be well aware that only 23% of our small and medium-sized companies currently export. Does he not agree that the excellent £1 trillion target that he has mentioned will only be met if we have a large increase in the number of medium-sized companies in particular, but also small companies, that export?

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If only one message is taken away today, it should be that across Government, across UKTI, and across parliamentarians, we have to make, as some in the Chamber have, excellent efforts to engage with medium-sized companies, and that is the only way that we will hit our goal, because of the critical mass, size and number of SMEs. However, let me be positive. My hon. Friend said “only 23%”—well, 23% can multiply that much quicker. The 23% that are active can reach out to those that are not active. It will not be politicians in suits telling people how to export; it will be the businessmen who have got dirty, been down there and done it, and can sell their expertise and encourage others. That would be my key message.

To achieve the critical mass in relation to the SMEs and particularly the medium-sized enterprises, we should start to engage more. I recommend that UKTI and the FCO have more trade delegations where medium-sized enterprises are engaged with, not only as an SME delegation, but as part of larger delegations. They can be integrated into the supply chains of prime contractors, and we can look at the supply chains of the high-growth economies and what they need. We should ensure that we give the political clout that we commit to larger groups.

I still remember, with absolute frustration, a meeting of the all-party group on trade and investment—of which I am lucky enough to be vice-chair, and which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James)—where I was told of a large hospital construction programme in Saudi Arabia. UKTI had gone out and sought suppliers to the hospital industry for equipment—diagnostic equipment. It was going to take suppliers out—it invited them to go—and the prospectus said that a Minister would be leading it to open the political doors and provide the clout it needed. There was a modest charge, in my opinion, to do it, and then at the last minute, the Minister was not available. How disappointing that was for those SMEs—not because they wanted to rub shoulders with the Minister, however attractive that may be, but because that Minister would have opened doors and allowed them to make the contacts that they needed. We must ensure that we deliver on our promise and spread that political clout beyond the larger groups.

I want to talk now about where we focus our efforts. To reflect the new commercial emphasis, the Government have rightly increased investment in personnel and resources. The debate has been about how we secure business from the so-called emerging—emerged, I think—economies and most notably the so-called BRIC economies. That is understandable and it is reflected in increased investment. We have put, I believe, 50 more staff into China and another 30 into India. There are also more staff in Brazil, Turkey and Mexico. However, those pesky Germans —perhaps that is an inappropriate thing to say with a Foreign Office Minister present; I take full responsibility for that. Those very assiduous Germans have already resourced up to 30% more staff, with a total of 1,700. France is already expanding its efforts into Chile and Argentina.

There is no doubt that the potential growth for UK plc in the BRIC countries will, if developed, provide a much-needed boost to our balance of payments, jobs and prosperity. They are the immediate attraction when it comes to helping us to meet our challenges. It is interesting that in those economies there will now be a shift to a different market. As the infrastructure there changes and consumer demand increases—consumer spending is set to increase by about 12% per annum—we desperately need to be there. Although we are playing catch-up now, I remain optimistic that, particularly with the increase in consumer spending and infrastructure developments, British companies will be able to capitalise on the changes. My concern is that while we are focusing on the battle in those economies to fuel our immediate needs, we are possibly in danger of losing the next war.

Hon. Members may know that the CBI commissioned research that showed the poor penetration of the UK into what are described as the next generation of emerging economies, compared with the efforts of some of our competitors. For the N11—next 11 economies so identified—we will have to do the groundwork now to avoid playing catch-up in the future. That will ensure that we are strategically and politically aligned in such a way that British companies can capitalise on the increased spending by those economies. I argue that it is important for business and policy makers to identify those markets that will provide opportunities to exploit our comparative advantages in the future, so that we can capitalise on the growth dynamism in those regions.

If we plan now, the FCO and UKTI will generate greater diversification of our overall export presence across a series of high-growth markets, rather than our being over-dependent, as we have been in the past, on Europe and the US and potentially on the BRICs. We would not run a business on any other model, so why should we run a country in that way? We need to be ready to exploit the new markets now, even though the payback may come in 10 or even 15 years.

Let us take a snapshot of the next emerging economies. In relation to Bangladesh, which has been identified as one of the growth economies, we import seven times more than we export. We do not feature in the import statistics to Bangladesh, despite the major historical links between the two countries and, if I may say so, our international aid programme. In relation to Turkey, which is set to grow at a rate of about 8% a year and be the fastest-growing economy outside Europe, the UK has only a 1.2% share of the market. Those pesky Germans and, incidentally, the pesky Spanish and the pesky Italians are outperforming us to a great extent.

We have recognised that—I give credit to the FCO and UKTI—but again we are in danger of playing catch-up. We have talked about BRIC. Believe it or not, we now have MIST—Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey. Overall, those economies have more than doubled in size in the past decade. That is a warning sign for us. My recommendation and challenge to UKTI and the FCO is to look to run an N11 strategy in parallel with the emerging economies. We should entertain a presence in those countries at both strategic and tactical level to foster and engage with the influencers to ensure that we are positioned to capitalise on the emergence of those economies over the next 10 to 15 years. Let us avoid being a spectator and instead lead the team on to the pitch. That would be to the benefit of future generations.

Would that take more money? Of course it might take some more money, but I would ask for some slightly out-of-the-box thinking and suggest that UKTI go further in making partnerships with professional bodies and trade associations that could help to share the load. After all, that is also in the interests of the companies that are their members. I thought that there were early signs of that. I ask the Minister whether the announcement in February 2012 of a strategic agreement between UKTI and the Council of British Chambers of Commerce in Europe was a taste of things to come—an example of where Government can partner with trade associations and bodies that are experts in their field and, much like the Germans, use those bodies to provide support services and strategic planning in export markets. The House will be interested to know that the network of German chambers of commerce is already established in 80 countries, providing precisely those services. Can the Minister update us on how the strategic agreement reached last year is progressing?

UKTI rightly claims that it gains a £22 return on every £1 of taxpayer funding spent. With that rate of return, it is not unreasonable that although more funds have been allocated, we should consider whether to increase the allocation. Frankly, if someone had offered me those returns in business, I would have seized them, thank you very much.

I shall make just two final points to give other hon. Members a chance to speak. When I was at the exhibition event in the Gulf states, exhibitors said to me, “Look, we can’t compete with the costs in China and India, but we can compete on added value.” That becomes very important. They said, “What we want the Government to do is not to tell us how to run our businesses, but to sell the strategic value, the top-brand message, of what Britain is good at, which will support what we do.” They said, “When you think of Germany, you think of engineering, technology, the motor industry—BMW. That reinforces the idea of quality and advanced engineering, and German companies trade on the back of that image.” Drawing on my previous days in communications, I would say that the message is that in UKTI and the FCO we should be defining brand UK and reflecting that brand. We should remember that the brand supports everything we do, and everything we do supports the brand. Let us give businesses the platform from which they can have an added-value dimension.

Our trade envoys—I am delighted that the trade envoy to Azerbaijan, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), is present—have a crucial role, and not just in pushing that same message and opening the doors to trade delegations. I believe that they could help to support our efforts to drive new exporters to market. MPs have a role to play. My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) led her own delegation to the Indian subcontinent. That was absolutely the right thing to do. We all have our part to play. I do not stand here saying that it is up to UKTI, the FCO and business to get on with it. We have our role to play, and that is important.

Finally, on a practical level, can we please see more focus on the ground? Access—getting into and out of markets—is crucial. I think that UKTI and the embassies in particular can do more than just advise. Sometimes they will need to get their hands dirty. Sometimes they will need to lobby and make the case as to why customs is a barrier in some countries and we need to overcome that. Sometimes they will need to take on the challenges of corruption if that is necessary to help to break down the barriers where we have markets.

I want us to take the initiative locally so that we can help our companies to do business on as level a playing field as is reasonably possible. Specifically, for the defence industry, and even beyond, UKTI and the FCO should look at simplifying the export licence application process, which many, including a company in my constituency engaged in large sales overseas, find slow and cumbersome.

In conclusion: much done, much to do. The FCO and UKTI have the full support of the House, but we need to make a realistic assessment of our strategic challenges and ensure that we are delivering the tactical support to meet them, so that my children and grandchildren will have the chance of a wealthy, prosperous life in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for chairing what should, in my view, become an annual debate. I urge the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee to pay more attention to exports and foreign direct investment, and to produce an annual report on the subject as an update of what has happened the year before. I hope that no offence was intended, Mr Hollobone, because I did write to Mr Speaker to ask whether I could speak in the debate.

I welcome the Minister to the debate. The Foreign Office plays a vital role in exports, so I am delighted that he is here. He and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have been opening embassies around the world, whereas the previous Government closed them. It is important that we have a really good embassy network throughout the world and that we use our contacts and all our strengths. A third of the world speaks English, for goodness’ sake. The British Council is one of the best cultural organisations, and BBC radio is one of the best broadcasters. We should use all those strengths to help our exporting situation.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James). Her all-party group on exports, of which I have the privilege to be an officer, does fantastic work, and I urge her to keep doing it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) on securing the debate. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) highlighted high spots in China and Russia but, generally, our balance of payments is still sluggish, which is because the European market, where more than 50% of our exports go, is still in deep trouble. The situation in Cyprus has reminded us of how much trouble the eurozone is in. Barclays Bank has an exposure to Cyprus of £184 million, yet it has an exposure to Spain and Italy of £22 billion and £23 billion respectively, and those countries are still not out of the woods.

We need to concentrate on the BRIC countries. By around 2025, the whole of the eurozone and America will occupy only 40% of the world’s GDP, whereas just four BRIC countries will occupy 41%. There are many additional emerging countries, so we need to concentrate more of our efforts on getting exports around the world in these high-growth markets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North has said, this is about not only the BRIC countries.

I have very little time in which to speak, so I will concentrate on one or two areas. I am delighted that UKTI has got an extra 25% over the next two years, but I want to see it account for how it spends that money. Although it is now establishing a new regional trade adviser in every region, I still believe that there is a big gap. I was never a friend of the regional development agencies, and I did not think that they did a particularly good job. We abolished the RDAs and put in their place local enterprise partnerships, but their contact with business is still patchy. There is a huge job of work to be done by the regional trade advisers.

Mr James Hurley reported in The Daily Telegraph on 5 December 2012:

“Our research shows that nearly 70% of SME exporters are not aware of UKTI”.

If that is correct, and I query it, it is a shocking statistic that UKTI needs to work rapidly to deal with.

Some 40% of our GDP depends on FDI, so it is absolutely vital that we take all steps necessary to protect that investment. We are still making strategic decisions that are wrong. We are making a strategic decision on where our major hub airport should be on the basis of which party wins which constituency at the next election. Can we not get an all-party agreement on where our hub airport is? It almost does not matter where it is, but let us make a decision. Also, to come up with the HS2 high-speed rail policy in isolation of where the airport will be is not a clever thing to do. At the moment, 70% of Europe’s corporate headquarters are based within 75 miles of Heathrow, but we are losing those corporate headquarters by the day because of an incoherent policy, so we urgently need to do something about the situation.

There are one or two bright spots. The Chancellor is absolutely right to drop the rate of corporation tax and the Prime Minister is absolutely right to use the G8 to make sure that companies pay the appropriate amount of corporation tax. However, there is still a problem with finance for companies that wish to export. The Government have announced a £50 million UK export finance scheme, but it is still not up and running because agreement has not been reached with the banks on how it is to be operated.

A major director of a British FTSE company, who was in my office yesterday, told me that the Canadian equivalent of our Export Credits Guarantee Department had telephoned his firm to ask whether it wanted finance from that Canadian export department. One would never imagine a British export department doing that. I am not criticising the ECGD, but it and the Government need to get their act together and think about how we can help companies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North was absolutely right to mention the target of 100,000 new companies exporting by the year 2020, which would represent £1 trillion in exports. If we are to meet that target, we will have to connect with many more SMEs. If my figure of 23% currently exporting is correct, that has to grow hugely, which means that awareness in UKTI has to increase hugely. It also means that we all have a role—the Government, the Foreign Office, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Members of Parliament. When I go round the world and visit companies in my own constituency, my brain is always working to see how I can increase opportunities.

I know how difficult it is to export, because I used to be the largest exporter of daffodils in the country—to the Dutch. If one can do that, one can do anything. We need to concentrate more on our exports. It is only through exports—and, above all, only through FDI—that we will grow the economy and get out of the economic problems that we are in.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.

I commend the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for initiating this interesting debate and for making a valuable and interesting speech. I was particularly interested in his perception of working with the 11 developing economies, which was a positive suggestion. We are operating in a world economy that is growing in different parts of the world. Unfortunately, our own economy is not, but we are aware that there are opportunities, as we heard often in the debate, in those emerging economies. Looking ahead in the way the hon. Gentleman suggested is important, as is his emphasis—this was a thread throughout the debate—on SMEs. I will return to that theme, because it is crucial to the success of British exporters.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) also made a valuable contribution in which he raised the important issue of devolved institutions and the relationship between UKTI and the devolved nations. More work can be done to ensure that those parties work together, both to promote investment in the UK and to sell the message about Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Also, within England, a more devolved approach within UKTI would increase the links between business and UKTI, which I sense from listening to the debate that many hon. Members feel are lacking.

The contribution made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) was interesting, particularly his suggestion, which is certainly worthy of consideration, that there should be a Select Committee to examine these important points. The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) also emphasised the crucial importance of small and medium-sized businesses. We heard about the jam that is made in her constituency, which I am sure is excellent—I would love to experience it at some stage. I was also interested in the contribution by the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and his reference to the Azerbaijan games.

In the debate so far, we have not touched on creative industries. Sport is obviously crucial. Last year was a wonderful year in which we projected Britain—sorry, the United Kingdom—to the world, in addition to our artistic merit. I am sure that it is true for all Members that the potential of the creative industries in our constituencies and the skills of our young people in those industries match the world’s best. When we consider exporting, we need to talk much more about the creative industries than we do now and concentrate on that sector.

I almost got upset with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) because of the misrepresentations he made about the previous Labour Government, but I will move on from that. I also learned from the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the daffodils that he exported, and as a representative from Wales, I commend him on his choice of flower. All Members who contributed to the debate did so positively.

We are, of course, in a difficult situation because despite the references to business expertise by Conservative Members, the reality is that this country’s economic performance has been very bad since 2010, and far worse than the Government said that it would be in 2010. The Government said that they would base their economic policy on exporting, but I am afraid that that process has not been as successful as we would have liked. We need to up our game. On the eve of the Budget, it is quite clear that we need to do more.

We do have companies that are extremely successful at exporting. I do not want to be the bringer of bad news the whole time, so I will say that only yesterday we had an excellent announcement from Airbus, which has a factory just outside my constituency, that it is selling more than 200 new aircraft to Indonesia, which is one of the economies to which the hon. Member for Enfield North referred. That is an excellent example of the Government and the industry working together. That form of business is very successful, because we are the No. 1 exporting nation in Europe and we can outperform our competitors.

The UK automotive industry is also a successful exporting industry. It is doing extremely well and, again, that is an example of the Government, industry and—dare I say it?—trade unions working extremely closely for the benefit of the economy. That means that we can succeed when we work together, ensure that we reach out to development markets and make real progress.

I turn now to Germany, to which the hon. Member for Enfield North referred, because I found some interesting statistics during my preparation for the debate. I was especially interested to learn that Germany’s export credit agency, Hermes, provided €32 billion of financial support to German exporters in 2010, which is equivalent to 3% of Germany’s exports. The UK equivalent, the Export Credits Guarantee Department, provided only £2.9 billion of support for exporters which, if my maths is correct, is less than one tenth of the support that Germany offers. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister examined that German budget and considered how a country such as Germany can fund such a seismically larger approach to investment abroad.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Gentleman has made what is perhaps the most important point that could possibly come out of this debate. The banks are still not lending to small businesses, there is still a problem with export finance guarantees and there is still a problem with currency instruments. If we can get ECGD at least to start backing instruments to help small and medium-sized companies to export, I believe that we could have a step change.

[Ian Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am a proponent of a much more regional structure in banking than the one that exists in the UK at the moment. The flawed reforms in the 1980s created a very centralised and uncompetitive banking sector that has not fundamentally changed in any way since 2007. The German Sparkassen model has been successful since 2007, and the Leader of the Opposition made a speech only last week in which he talked about introducing the concept of regional banking within the UK to try to link in with those businesses that we need to see expand.

I say that because the businesses that are exporting successfully from the UK at the moment—and, frankly, the businesses that are also using export credit guarantees—are the largest businesses that we have. I do not want that to diminish in any sense, as I speak as someone who represents a constituency that is immediately adjacent to an Airbus factory, which is a vital part of our local economy. However, we also need an expansion of exports by small and medium-sized businesses.

Of course we need to work more closely with UKTI and our embassies abroad, which in my experience do an excellent job of linking in with local economies. We particularly need to look at the developing countries where we ought to be doing better. Of course, there are many examples of the benefits of soft power in the UK. Reference has already been made to the World Service and to the English language, and our universities also develop excellent links with the outside world.

We are, however, sending mixed signals to some developing countries. This issue was raised on the Prime Minister’s recent visit to India because, for example, the changes in our visa regime are sending mixed signals to India. India is an important market for us, so we need to be conscious that we require a pro-business and pro-growth strategy on such issues as visas. It is also true that the World Service is one of our greatest assets. It builds a positive picture of Britain, so we must ask why its budget has been reduced by the Government through their reforms of the BBC. We must always look to the longer term on building our economy and exports.

I am aware that one way in which the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills builds its links to businesses is through the strategic relations team, so I want to ask some questions about that—[Interruption.] I do not know why the Minister is looking at his watch, because he will have exactly the same length of time that I have had to speak in which to wind up the debate.

I want to ask the Minister specific questions about the process whereby specific Ministers are allocated to specific larger businesses. How do those Ministers, who are linked through the UKTI strategic relations team’s list of companies, link in to smaller businesses? How do they liaise with smaller businesses, which we know will drive the expansion in exports in the future? They have close relationships with the larger companies, so how is their performance with those larger companies assessed? Is there a measure of the investment that is brought in?

I would be very grateful if the Minister would consider my points. We all agree that we need to expand exports and that we need to do better. We will support initiatives that will enable that to happen, but we certainly need to up our game, because we do not have the growth that we need in our own economy.

Antarctic Bill

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

Clause 5 extends the preparation from simply producing a management plan to contingency planning. Contingency planning requires one to assess risk—to be well aware of what the risks are and how great they can be in the Antarctic. I believe we are extending something that is already good, and I am grateful for the suggestion, which we have heard today, that we are building on existing good practice. Clause 5 is a significant step in the right direction in ensuring that contingency measures are taken, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) noted, we have had accidents. Those accidents have involved shipping and they have been significantly damaging to the ocean, and we do not want to see more of them, especially on Antarctica.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for introducing this important Bill. Antarctica is one of the last great wildernesses in the world, and it is essential for the world environment to preserve it and not to subjugate it under commercial interests. This Bill can apply only to British citizens and British organisations in the British Antarctic territories, so has my hon. Friend had any discussion with any of the other countries that have interests in Antarctica to find out whether they are thinking about enacting similar legislation?

Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. To reduce and negate the suffering in Blue Nile and South Kordofan, it is essential that we enable humanitarian access to get to these areas as fast as possible, but it is extremely challenging. She might be aware that an agreement was reached in August between the tripartite—the UN, the AU and the Arab League—and signed by the North Sudanese Government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North to allow humanitarian access. We need to ensure that that agreement is implemented as fast as possible to alleviate the suffering.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. The issue of the arms factory that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, mentioned was accompanied by visits by Iranian warships to Khartoum. Will the Minister do all he can to reduce tensions in the region? This is a very unwanted development.

[Mark Simmonds]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have consistently and strongly encouraged the Government of Sudan to set themselves on a path to becoming a stable, prosperous nation playing a positive role in the region. In that regard, we do not consider such political and military engagement with Iran to be helpful.

Human Rights Violations

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend rightly highlights the key importance of an independent judiciary. So many countries do themselves a disservice by not guaranteeing free and independent legal processes. They damage their own trade prospects by not giving businesses the confidence that any dispute with which they might become involved can be resolved properly by an independent judiciary. That challenges the viability of contract law, and we know plenty of examples of other countries that use English contract law, with its long reputation for integrity and reliability, as the way to do business. That is great for this country, commercially as well as politically, but other countries will do well to adopt the principles that for so long have applied in countries such as ours.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his thorough report, and I urge those who have not read it to do so. The excerpts from the report that he has drawn upon in his speech today are heartbreaking, and illuminate what goes on in the rest of the world.

Has my hon. Friend thought about the fact that the United Nations was set up in the wake of the second world war, to try to prevent such enormous atrocities as happened in that war from ever occurring again? Has he also thought about the fact that some of the UN’s institutions are not as effective as they might be—in particular, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which often has principal members who themselves have pretty dubious human rights records? What more could our Government do to urge the UN to be more effective? Many of my hon. Friend’s recommendations involve human rights resolutions.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right. The answer that I would give him today is that I think that the United Nations has brought together Governments but perhaps has a long way to go to bring together other levels of society. For an organisation such as the UN to make true progress, more work must be done at differing levels of society, more effectively to bring together professional organisations, for example. We are lucky in the United Kingdom to have organisations, such as the Law Society and the Bar Council, with international relations committees that do a lot of this work, by working with lawyers in other countries to spread best practice, share principles of freedom and justice and encourage other societies to work in a similar way. Without the support of member Governments of the United Nations, and of the institution itself, that work will always be too ad hoc to have universal application. That is my view about how the United Nations should now develop, nearly 70 years after its foundation in San Francisco in 1945.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for The Cotswolds for their interventions. Reference has been made to the integrity of contract law and to the rule of law, and that brings me on to the final area that we considered: the difficulties faced in many countries by people who are trying to carry out business or are in some way involved in representing people in business. I have made the fundamental point that threats to the integrity of business practice threaten not only freedom, but the commercial and financial viability of many countries. In particular, we looked at what is happening in Russia, and we are gravely concerned that the Russian state is either condoning or actively taking part in endemic corruption. There are two cases that we consider to be examples of the baleful effect of state corruption on the lifeblood of an economy.

The Sergei Magnitsky case has been well documented and the subject of debates, not only here but in countries across the world. A debate in the House some months ago highlighted the continuing concerns of both Government and Opposition Members about the role of the Russian state in the killing of the lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky. Putting it simply, Mr Magnitsky was arrested, imprisoned and ill-treated, and he died for having blown the whistle on the massive theft of tax revenue from the Russian state by its own officials. A simple recitation of those facts underlines the seriousness of the position that the Russian state now finds itself in and the danger to freedom that such cases reveal.

We believe that in recognition of the unique position of London as a destination of choice for many senior Russian officials, the Government should, as soon as possible, introduce measures publicly to restrict visas and to freeze the assets of Russian officials involved in serious corruption and human rights abuses. We were delighted by the reference to the issue in “Human Rights and Democracy: The 2011 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report”:

“Where there is independent, reliable and credible evidence that an individual has committed human rights abuses, the individual will not normally be permitted to enter the United Kingdom.”

That statement is particularly important in the context of a recent development in Russia: the decision by the authorities to withhold the identities of all 12 prosecutors involved in the posthumous—yes, posthumous—trial of Sergei Magnitsky. The man not only suffered indignity in life; he now faces it in death. The reason for withholding the identities, it seems to me, is simple. If legislation, which is being considered by the United States Congress among others, is passed, those individuals would face losing visa rights and having their assets frozen if their identities were revealed. That lamentable state of affairs further reflects the difficult and troubled situation that we face with human rights in Russia.

The other Russian example that we looked at was the Khodorkovsky case. Without going into the full details of that troubled history, the individual remains in prison, after eight years, and the case has still not been satisfactorily resolved. We regard it as yet another example of double standards being applied, rather than equality under the law, which has to be a basic tenet of all countries that hold themselves out to be free. That is important, because bilateral trade between the United Kingdom and Russia has been growing by an average of 21% every year since 2001. In 2010, exports from this country to Russia increased by 51% to nearly £3.5 billion, which shows the importance for British business of the integrity of the financial and business systems in countries such as Russia. Without that integrity, there is a direct threat to British business and the integrity of trade between our two nations. That is why, at a practical level, it is important that the British Government’s message to regimes that indulge in such practices is clear.

We urge the Government to introduce measures to support civil society in Russia, by encouraging and facilitating British professional bodies to engage with their Russian counterparts. We emphasise that Russia’s membership of European and global organisations such as the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the World Trade Organisation carries a significant responsibility to operate according to international rules.

A foreign policy that involves not only the use of political pressure to achieve change but investment in developing professional skills and capacity, with the direct input of British professional organisations in sharing best practice and providing training, will do much to help build a freer and more stable world.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I sense that my hon. Friend is coming to his peroration, but has he considered how our international development assistance might be used to persuade countries that have a less than perfect human rights record that they need to improve their performance?

[Mr Buckland]

Yes, I have. I firmly believe that the role of our international development programme is not only to give direct monetary help, where appropriate, but to facilitate and allow professionals and professional organisations to spread best practice and train professionals in emerging countries, by providing the appropriate funding for those programmes to exist.

As a country, we produce thousands of qualified professionals every year, and this is not an easy time for many of those professionals to go immediately into full-time practice because there is a lot of competition in the market. I believe that there is a great opportunity for some of our younger professionals and, indeed, for professionals who wish to take a mid-career break to put something back into the society from which they have benefited. What better way to do that than by embarking upon properly funded, properly structured programmes in countries with poor human rights records to spread good practice and freedom?

Our greatest invisible exports are freedom, the rule of law and freedom under the law. Let us ensure that fellow professionals in other countries can genuinely enjoy the freedoms that I and other professionals have enjoyed in this country so that they, in all their walks of life, can operate without fear or favour.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Howarth. I commend all colleagues who spoke during the debate. There is a fair number of lawyers among us. I appreciate the way that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) introduced the debate, for which I congratulate him. I also congratulate him on the work done by his commission—by all members of his commission—in bringing this matter forward. That thorough piece of work was reflected in the thoroughness of his speech, which highlighted such a number of issues. I am pleased that we had the time to allow that exposition.

It is difficult to respond to everything. Once again, my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) is like an erudite machine gun, asking a series of questions that I could not possibly respond to in 15 minutes, unless I dealt solely with those, but I shall try to answer some. Everything that he mentions is important and anything that I cannot deal with today, I will find a way of dealing with. The same goes for other colleagues who contributed.

The report was particularly valuable because it did not just say that the world is a bad place, which we know. It contains specific recommendations for us to work on, some of which I will comment on now and others that I shall have to respond to later. I appreciated that aspect of the report.

As colleagues know, and as the hon. Member for Wrexham rightly said—he has to put us on the spot—we take human rights values seriously, and they are in the forefront of the Government’s policy. It is clear that, although we live in a world of universal values, we do not live in a world of universal standards. That puts us in conflict with other states. Some states are greater friends than others. We raise the issues and are conscious of the conflicts that arise. There are various ways of raising matters and bringing them forward: sometimes that is done publicly and openly and sometimes it is done with increasing tempo if there is no reaction from the states with which we are engaged. Some states have appalling human rights records and others have generally good records, but there are blips.

We try to take people as we find them, but the House can be assured that we raise the subject of values, sometimes in difficult circumstances. I will mention one or two specifics. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we always have to do this in the spirit of humility. Our record is not spotless, whether in past years or more recently. Only today the House will deal with the Hillsborough incident and I suspect that the state will be dealing with some degree of regret about how it handled that. In recent times we have had to deal with Bloody Sunday. We do go to states on the basis of saying, “Don’t just look at what we say, look at our experience of how we’ve dealt with things well or poorly. We try constantly to learn from our past and appreciate that, in places, there has been pain. But equally we have a lot to be proud of in respect of what we stand for and what we work for.” Getting that put together is important.

The report is about professionals and it is right to recognise that and mention that some types of work raise particular issues of danger and risk. However, in no way is the report intended to be exclusive; it highlights the concerns of a particular group of people who work, but neither my hon. Friend nor the Government, nor any Member of the House would minimise the fact that human rights issues affect many.

I assure the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), who made a sound contribution as usual, that of course we recognise that migrant workers have the same human rights as everyone else. Last year, the Government strongly endorsed the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and, while they do not deal explicitly with migrant workers, they provide an opportunity to continue work in that field. The Department for International Development has some such projects as well. It is right to raise the issue, but the House should be in no doubt: we do not consider the report to be exclusive and we recognise the rights and issues facing many others.

I hope that I have made it clear that the Government see the promotion of human rights as an integral part of UK foreign policy. We promote human rights because it is right to do so—right because we are a nation with a conscience, but also right because it is in our fundamental interests to do so.

I thank the commission for highlighting the human rights violations that business people and professionals suffer as a result of their work. As the report acknowledges, often such groups and individuals suffer attack precisely because they use their positions to protect and promote the rights of others. They are human rights defenders, and the defence of such groups and their rights is important to the Government. I appreciate how my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon constructed the report thematically, and his speech likewise, so let me make my response in the same way.

The commission’s report recommends that the UK should provide visible support to the rule of law and lawyers, and that we should ensure that our embassies and high commissions are implementing the EU guidelines on human rights defenders. We thank the commission for that recommendation and we agree that providing support to promote the rule of law is important. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), gave a speech on that very topic in The Hague in July this year, highlighting UK policy and our work. The UK strongly supports the EU guidelines on human rights defenders, which are a crucial part of that work.

In answer to the questions on engagement asked by the hon. Member for Wrexham and others, our overseas missions work with EU colleagues locally to support human rights defenders, as well as with colleagues from other like-minded embassies. In line with the guidelines, FCO staff regularly meet human rights defenders, including lawyers and journalists, we raise specific instances of abuse or detention with governments and we often speak out publicly.

As we look at the development of democracy in areas such as north Africa, it is important that we take the opportunities of our Arab partnership programme to engage specialists such as the Bar Council, the Law Society and others that might have specialist information to impart, and that is what we seek to do. The whole benefit of the Arab partnership is that it is not only Government to Government but involves civil society working together. Increasingly, we will look at opportunities to do just that.

An example of our work is the diplomatic effort and visible support that the United Kingdom, working with EU and other partners, has given to human rights defenders in Belarus, a country mentioned in the report and the debate. Our actions have maintained pressure on the authorities to take account of their human rights obligations.

To provide urgent practical support to human rights defenders, in 2011 we joined other international donors in establishing Lifeline, the embattled NGO assistance fund, which aims to provide emergency assistance and small grants worldwide to civil society that is facing increasing repression and harassment because of work in promoting human rights.

Let me turn to medics and, in conjunction with them, Bahrain. The commission’s report details human rights violations against medical personnel. UK policy is clear that it is unacceptable for medical professionals to suffer violation of their human rights for fulfilling their ethical responsibilities. UK diplomats observe trials of human rights defenders and, where appropriate, we seek to observe the trials of medical professionals as well.

I shall look at the other recommendations, but let me say one or two things in particular. The hon. Member for Wrexham mentioned health care in general and the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross. We are a strong supporter of the “Health care in danger” initiative, we are supportive of ICRC efforts to protect health care workers in armed conflict and we share the ICRC analysis that violence against health workers and infrastructure is among the most serious contemporary humanitarian challenges—we are active in discussing those matters with the ICRC.

The report details the situation in Bahrain, which has been raised again today—it is complex, as the House knows and I have spoken of it before. Bahrain is a society that, over time, has sought to make political reforms in the context of the country’s difficulties between Sunni, Shi’a, monarchy and others, which came to a head in the 2011 crisis and how that was handled. Our current perception is that the position remains patchy. There is no doubt that the kingdom’s effort to hold a public inquiry and to produce a report in public that criticised the Government was unique in the region, and a series of recommendations has been followed. I have a copy of the ICRC follow-up unit’s report of July 2012, which is solid reading, but it cannot be seen without recognising the intent to deal with the issues. It is not, however, complete, and nor is the implementation of recommendations.

Crucially, progress depends on political dialogue in Bahrain. Recent efforts were made over Ramadan by the Government to engage with opposition parties, which also have a responsibility. Violence on the streets has increased, as has the level of violence—pipe bombs, the discovery of two bomb-making factories—but violence will not help. The opposition must be clear, publicly and privately, as it has been, that it does not condone such violence. Opposition engagement in conversation with Government authorities will help. Both sides have work to do. The House can be assured that we take that seriously, and we use our opportunity of representation to make our case and to keep the kingdom moving in the direction that it has plainly set out for further reform, although we recognise that that is patchy and that there are human rights and other difficulties.

We were disappointed at the Bahraini civilian court decision last week to uphold the sentences of 13 political activists in the country. We welcomed the decision to review the cases in a civilian court, as recommended by the Bahrain independent commission of inquiry, but we remain concerned about the strength of the convictions. Reports at the time those individuals were sentenced, which were acknowledged by the BICI, suggested that some individuals had been abused in detention, denied access to legal counsel and coerced into confession. We urge the Bahraini Government to ensure that the human rights and freedoms of their citizens are fully upheld at all times. We are aware that the defendants can now appeal to the Court of Cassation and we expect that process to be conducted thoroughly and with urgency. We will continue to watch the appeal process.

Regarding the medical staff, none is currently behind bars and a further appeal is pending. Some sentences were repealed when the cases came from the military to civilian courts, which we welcome. Nabeel Rajab remains behind bars and his case will now be heard on 27 September. The appeal by the Bahraini teachers will be heard later in September, and we expect that process to be conducted thoroughly and with urgency while ensuring that due legal process is followed.

On the grand prix, I do take issue with the hon. Member for Wrexham. It was a matter for the Bahraini authorities, and I am not sure that the process of the grand prix going ahead necessarily set back anything in Bahrain. There was an opportunity for peaceful protest in the days leading up to the grand prix, which was observed by the Bahraini authorities—those protests were allowed—and only the violent protests were subsequently shown on television in this country. The process of getting the grand prix held, which was a Bahraini decision, demonstrated that it could be held—an opportunity for comment was provided, and then the country went back to its other work. So I am not sure that we should have taken the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman and made remarks—we did the right thing.

I must move fairly swiftly if I am not to lose the rest of my time. As soon as I can find my remarks, I shall be able to continue. The problem with too many papers is that I have now lost the text.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

We do not hear much about human rights abuses in one or two countries such as North Korea, but the commission took some horrific evidence. Will the Minister say something about regimes that have some of the worst human rights records?

[Alistair Burt]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We need to ensure that, in picking out individual countries, we recognise that there are many other countries that we could discuss. My hon. Friend mentioned the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but we could also deal with Iran in great detail in relation to today’s debate. We remain deeply concerned about human rights issues in Iran—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for mentioning those—where the record is disgraceful. We make regular comments on trials and on the various professions involved.

I spoke about journalists only recently in a public statement. We support world press freedom day, and that is something that we will continue to advance. We take a particular interest in journalists online, recognising the dangers to them, while the other professions dealt with include trade unionists and teachers. The concerns in Colombia that were mentioned worry us deeply—we have spoken about that—and we remain concerned about the human rights situation in Moscow. I shall update the House from time to time as issues occur.

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

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I agree that they will be happy about that. That is why it is important that what the ECB president set out last week is carried through and supported by the eurozone Governments. It must not be seen as an announcement that will come and go. I believe that Mario Draghi and the ECB have set out important steps that have been needed for some time to provide a back-stop for the single currency.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

The ECB’s announcement was made alongside the fact that it would impose conditions on the buy-outs of bonds. There is concern in some countries that they will not be able to meet those conditions. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) not right to say that the market is taking a very short-term view? Unless there are strict fiscal conditions so that the situation improves, the buy-outs of bonds will not solve the problem.

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, because he brings me on nicely to the next part of my speech, which is about the conditionality of the ESM and the bond buying that was announced last week.

The conditionality of the ESM requires further scrutiny. As with our Government’s economic failings, we are concerned that the ESM will impose harsh austerity on countries that receive its support, and thereby choke off economic growth and recovery. In the UK, the effect of such “austerity alone” economics is acutely felt by the 2.65 million people who are unemployed. The former US Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, last week reflected on the Government’s economic mismanagement at a conference in London:

“We have avoided the prospect of a 1930s-like experience in the US. I cannot say the same with respect to Great Britain. The downturn in British output is more sustained than at any point in the twentieth century. In such an environment, to radically slash public investment is, I would suggest, to violate the Hippocratic Oath—first, do no harm.”

Although he was referring to the catastrophe of our Government’s economic policy, he could have been talking about other countries within the eurozone that have been the subjects of severe austerity.

Although it is true, as the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) suggests, that the fiscal position of countries in the medium term must be looked at—the level of debt to GDP in Greece, which has been over 100% since the early 1990s, is certainly unsustainable—Greece and other countries must be allowed to get back to growth as a means of reducing their deficits and debts. As we are seeing in this country, without that growth, it is more difficult to bring down a country’s annual deficits and longer-term debt.

Thankfully, the debate in Europe is beginning to shift towards a focus on growth and job creation, rather than austerity alone. In particular, we welcome the growth measures agreed at the European summit in June. However, we note that the debate is ongoing in Europe between those who argue for growth and job creation, and those who believe in austerity. It is regrettable that our Government are still very much on the wrong side of that debate.

The Government try in vain to blame the eurozone for their own economic failure, but even their own Back Benchers are not convinced. Last week, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) told an audience in the City that it was wrong for the Government to blame the eurozone for their current economic failings. Before the summer recess, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), a member of the Treasury Committee, said that the Government must not use the eurozone crisis as an alibi. The Opposition recognise the importance of the eurozone and of Britain’s place within the EU in building growth and prosperity. However, the Government’s failure to deliver growth two years ago and their continuing failure to focus on it have left us more vulnerable to the escalation of the eurozone crisis.

I will reflect briefly on the wider future of the eurozone and the role that the ESM will play. In contrast to the unequivocal statements of support for the euro from Mario Draghi and Francois Hollande that we have heard in recent days, some hon. Members have called today and throughout the Bill’s passage for the break-up of the euro and have argued against the establishment of the ESM. However, the break-up of the eurozone is not an easy, cost-free way out of the crisis.

If Greece were to leave the eurozone, the consequences could be disastrous for Greece and for the rest of the EU. If the euro were replaced by a new currency in Greece, the value of that currency would in all likelihood plummet, causing a further disaster in the Greek economy. Moreover, the contagion effect following that could be hugely damaging for the rest of Europe. Far from stabilising the eurozone, a Greek exit might serve only to deepen the sovereign debt crisis. International lenders, seeing Greece cut loose from the euro, may become wary of lending to other struggling states in the eurozone. Greece may become only the tip of the iceberg as investor panic drives up borrowing costs for Italy and Spain, the eurozone’s fourth and third largest economies.

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

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

No, I have given way several times to my hon. Friend.

The case for the Bill is straightforward. It means the end of any new contingent liability under the EFSM, and the end of any such future bail-out contingent liability.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary give way?

[Mr Hague]

No, I am concluding my speech.

The UK will no longer be exposed to any future programmes of financial assistance for the eurozone through the EU budget. The Bill will help our friends and neighbours in the eurozone, whom we wish to see prosper, in their search for financial stability in their currency area. This House has already agreed, under previous provisions, to the Prime Minister signing the treaty amendment. I hope that its merits mean that it will be approved again under the new and vastly more rigorous provisions that we have put in place. I commend the Second Reading of the Bill to the House.