Sri Lanka

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

As I would expect, my right hon. Friend, being a former Minister for Asia, makes an important point. He is right that there are early indications of Islamist extremism that we need to investigate properly, and the Maldives is a very young democracy to which we want to give every support, so I will take his point away.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, I am sure you will join me and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in passing on our condolences to the former Member for Manchester, Withington, Keith Bradley, now a Member of the other place, whose sister, Dr Sally Bradley, was killed in Sri Lanka. Her husband, Bill Harrop, was also killed.

Dr Sally Bradley qualified as a doctor at Manchester University, worked as a GP in Salford and served as director of public health and director of medicine in the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, which covers a large part of Greater Manchester. Her husband, Bill Harrop, was a firefighter, but not just a firefighter, and had worked in Manchester and received a commendation after the 1976 IRA bomb, which went off in the centre of Manchester. No distinction can be drawn between victims of such crimes, but there is something particularly monstrous and brutal about people who dedicated themselves to public service being killed in this fashion. I spoke to Keith Bradley yesterday and he told me he was being supported by liaison officers and wanted me to pass on his thanks to the Foreign Secretary.

I finish by asking the Foreign Secretary—I know what his answer will be, but it is worth saying anyway—to redouble his efforts to ensure that people in this country and elsewhere are as safe as they can be from the diaspora of ISIS in Syria and elsewhere.

[Mr Hunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that behind all these tragedies are human beings and for his moving description of the wonderful public service of Bill Harrop and Sally Bradley. I pass on my condolences to Keith Bradley—and indeed to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who also lost a relative in the attack. I was privileged when Health Secretary to see at first hand the extraordinary work of the Greater Manchester emergency services in combating terrorism after the arena bombing, but I had not realised Bill Harrop’s connection to fighting terrorist incidents in that city. It makes it all the more moving.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I think that all Governments need to serve the needs of all their people. We have seen the rise of the right in quarters closer to home across Europe, including in regional elections in Spain last week. I agree that populism has its serious dangers. We want to see all Administrations serve the needs of their country, as we would all wish to see.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

5. What diplomatic steps he is taking to protect the Hazara population in Afghanistan.

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

We have consistently urged the Afghan Government to protect the rights of all ethnic and religious groups, including the Hazaras, in line with the Afghan constitution. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is deeply concerned by recent reports of security incidents affecting the Hazara community, particularly in Ghazni and Uruzgan. We will continue to call on all parties to the conflict to protect the civilian population.

[Graham Stringer]

Recently, Hazaras lobbied me and other hon. Members, saying that they are now in deep fear of an ISIS attack. This comes after they have suffered massacres at the hands of the Taliban, and they have a history of being the subject of genocidal attacks by other ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Given the amount of money we have put into Afghanistan, can the Minister not do more?

[Mark Field]

We fully understand the deep concerns about civilian casualties and displacement and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the threat from not only the Taliban but potentially ISIS, too. Only last week, staff from the British embassy in Kabul met Hazara representatives for Ghazni from the Afghan Government, to hear those concerns at first hand. The Afghan national defence and security forces are working to stabilise the security situation, and of course they do that in tandem with UK forces.

Palestinian Children and Israeli Military Detention

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

The debate is highly over-subscribed, so I will impose a time limit when Sarah Champion sits down. If hon. Members intervene on her—she says she is willing to take interventions—they will go down the order of speakers, because it looks like, even with a time limit, there will not be sufficient time to call everybody who has requested to speak.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered military detention of Palestinian children by Israeli Authorities.

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this very important debate, Mr Stringer. I strongly welcome the fact that the Government addressed the issue of Palestinian child detainees during the third universal periodical review of Israel at the UN Human Rights Council two weeks ago. They recommended that Israel take

“action to protect child detainees, ensuring the mandatory use of audio-visual recording in interrogations with all child detainees, ending the use of painful restraints, and consistently fully informing detainees of their legal rights.”

That important statement signals a positive intent to engage constructively with this issue.

I called this debate in the same spirit: I want to support and encourage Israel to meet its international obligations regarding the rights of children. It meets them fully for Israeli citizens but, alas, does not do so for Palestinian children. To be clear, I am not making a judgment about the crimes Palestinian children are alleged to have committed or about Israel’s right to uphold the law. This debate is specifically focused on Palestinian children in military detention.

Two years ago, I secured a similar debate. I would love to tell the House that many of the issues discussed then have now been addressed, but sadly the situation remains largely the same. In March 2013, UNICEF published a report entitled “Children in Israeli Military Detention: Observations and Recommendations”, which concluded that

“the ill-treatment of children who come in contact with the military detention system appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized throughout the process, from the moment of arrest until the child’s prosecution and eventual conviction and sentencing.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I am going to impose a three-minute time limit. The Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), has kindly offered to give up three or four minutes of his time, so I will call him at about 3.34 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Howell]

No, I will not.

The singling out of Israel ignores the fact that Israel faces extensive acts of terror on its territory. It ignores the fact that Israel has established military juvenile courts, shortened the period of initial remand, stressed the rights of minors, raised the age of minority to 18, enacted a statute of limitations for the prosecution of minors, given parents legal standing and strengthened legal representation for minors. It also ignores the co-operation of Israel in the light of the 2012 Foreign and Commonwealth Office-funded report. The British embassy in Israel said:

“We welcome Israel’s focus on the particular needs of this more vulnerable category of detainees”.

As far as I am aware, the pilot programme in the west bank to issue summons, easing the need to arrest at night, to which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) referred, continues. If Israel were to use civil courts instead of a military one, it would be accused of simply annexing the west bank.

Nevertheless, we must recognise that 30% of attackers against Israel—fuelled by intimidation that denies Israel the right to exist and glorifies terrorists and Nazi sympathisers—have been Palestinian minors under the age of 18. The majority were between 16 and 18. The youngest was an 11-year-old, who said after being arrested for stabbing an Israeli that he wanted to die a martyr.

Just over 300 minors are in custody after 400 violent, ideological terror attacks. That is not to be deprecated. The effect on wider civil disorder can be seen from the attack in Jerusalem on a 70-year-old Palestinian man who was mistaken for an Israeli. The use of minors in this way, driven by hate and incitement, is nothing more than the abuse of children.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to give a full and clear indication of his interest?

[John Howell]

I referred to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which contains the fact that I went on a trip to the area.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in such an important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing it.

It is important that this debate is grounded in, and based on, human rights for children. The glaring gaps in basic human rights protection for Palestinian children held in Israel’s military detention system damages respect for the international rule of law and creates an environment that enables routine ill treatment and lack of justice. As we have already heard, the majority of children are taken from their homes in the occupied west bank during the middle of the night. Heavily armed soldiers take the children away and several hours later they turn up in detention or interrogation centres alone, sleep-deprived, bruised and scared.

Interrogations tend to be coercive and include verbal abuse, threats and physical violence that ultimately result in a confession. Even if we argue that 16 to 17-year-olds are not children, which is incorrect, we must accept that any form of human rights abuse is abhorrent and should not be condoned in any way. Most Palestinian minors arrested by Israel claim to have experienced physical violence during detention. Recently the Defence for Children International Palestine detailed the scale of incidents and the type of abuse experienced by the Palestinian children whom they managed to speak to during around 60 visits to Israeli prisons in 2017.

Some 75% of children were subject to physical abuse, 25% were denied adequate food and 100% were denied the right to have their families at their interrogation. That is not something new. According to the latest data provided by the Israeli prison service, at the end of November, 313 children—I am talking about children—were held in military detention. Data for December 2017 have not been provided, but I suspect there will be a bit of a spike following Mr Trump’s decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem.

As a grandma and a mum, it shocks and disturbs me that people, never mind children, are treated in such an appalling way. Colleagues need to ask themselves whether they think it is acceptable to label a child as a terrorist, and I urge the Minister to use all his powers—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is timely that you have called me to speak now, Mr Stringer, because I too want to speak about the case of Ahed Tamimi. I met her in her home at Nabi Saleh in November, a few weeks before she was arrested. She is an ordinary teenager who has not been groomed as has been suggested by some speakers. [Interruption.]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Paul Blomfield]

Perhaps hon. Members will hear me out. She is an ordinary teenager living in extraordinary circumstances, to which we need to pay some attention.

Nabi Saleh, an ancient village nestling among the citrus groves on the hillside north of Ramallah, dates back hundreds of years. It was recently joined by the illegal Israeli settlement of Halamish, which has taken much of its land. Someone standing in Nabi Saleh can look across the valley to Halamish on the neighbouring hilltop and begin to understand the sense of grievance. Halamish is well irrigated, with swimming pools and a proper water supply, which come at a cost to the people of Nabi Saleh, whose water has been rationed to a few hours a week. At the bottom of the valley is a spring, which has traditionally served Nabi Saleh, but which was requisitioned by the settlement. That has led to weekly protests by the villagers over the past four years.

Last December, during a protest, Ahed’s cousin Mohammed climbed a ladder to look over a wall. A soldier immediately took aim and a bullet passed through Mohammed’s head. When the same soldier turned up in the courtyard of her home on a night raid at 3.30 am on 19 December, Ahed and a cousin went out and shouted at them. The BBC broadcast a film of the incident last week on the main news. The soldier pushed her aside, and in retaliation Ahed slapped him. It was for that that she was arrested and charged with assault. She has been in jail ever since—for the past seven weeks. She was 16 at the time of her arrest. She marked her birthday in jail and is now 17. Yesterday the case was due in court. It was postponed again and will be heard next Tuesday, so now is the time to act.

I know that the Minister knows the Tamimi family and has, like me, visited Nabi Saleh, and shares many of my concerns. In answer to questions, he has said that the Government have made representations. I should like him to outline what action the Government will take in the next week and to demand Ahed’s release. [Interruption.]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask those in the Public Gallery not to intervene either vocally or by applause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

We have had a passionate and wide-ranging debate on an issue that affects children. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing it. She started her speech with an important statement when she said that she was not making a judgment on the alleged crimes that a Palestinian child may have committed, or on Israel’s right to act to uphold the law. This debate has been about the way that children have been treated by a democracy that is widely respected around the world as open, democratic, and subject to the rule of law.

My hon. Friend said that half a decade after the UNICEF and UK lawyers’ report was published, there has been limited implementation of its recommendations by the authorities, which I am sure we all agree is regrettable. She mentioned that there is another fundamental legal right that Palestinian children arrested by the Israeli authorities do not have: timely access to legal representation, which we would all agree is an important aspect of the rule of law in any nation. She also said it is both extraordinary and disconcerting that Israel’s military court system has a conviction rate of 95%, according to its own figures. We must then question whether justice really is being done.

My hon. Friend urged the Minister—I add my voice and that of Labour—that, as a bare minimum of protection, no child, whether in Israel, Palestine or anywhere else in the world, should be subjected to physical or psychological violence, blindfolded or painfully restrained, or subjected to coercive force or threats. That should be universal. I hope that Israel, above all countries in the world, would adhere to that.

We have heard powerful contributions from many right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) has a strong record in upholding the cause of a Palestinian state living side by side with the state of Israel. He asked the Minister to press for a review of the recommendations of the 2012 report, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman can offer us something on that.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) said that we must criticise the Palestinian Authority if we criticise Israel on its treatment of children. Yes, of course we must, because this is universal. This is not just about Israel; it is about every country in the world that supposes itself to uphold the rule of law upholding the rights of the child, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) made a good speech, as did the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) pointed to the context in which Israel operates its military courts and mentioned child soldiers. I suggest to him that the way in which children are treated by Israel in the Palestinian territories is rather different from the recruitment of child soldiers in parts of Africa we have seen in recent decades.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) rightly talked about the detention and trial of a child being a tragedy wherever it takes place, and she compared the situation in the occupied territories with that in Iran and Saudi Arabia. We have had debates in this Chamber on human rights and especially the rights of the child in Iran. The hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) knows a great deal about the subject, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) set out the tragic case of Ahed Tamimi, who he met in Nabi Saleh, her own village. He made clear the context in which her arrest took place, which to me and others seemed a gross overreaction to her behaviour.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) always makes a rational contribution to any debate on Israel and Palestine. She pointed out that 30% of terror attacks on Israelis are carried out by Palestinians under 18, and that the Palestinian authorities incite hatred against Israelis and Jews. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) made a powerful contribution.

I will be as brief as possible because we want to hear from the Minister, but from the official Opposition’s point of view, as in any debate on issues relating to Israel and Palestine, it is important to think about the context in which these children find themselves. I ask the Minister and hon. Members to consider this question: how much has changed since my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham introduced her first debate on this issue in December 2016 in Westminster Hall? Have things got better, or have they got worse?

We have heard about the 50 years of occupation of the Palestinian territories and the increasing expansion of settlements that are illegal under international law. We heard that there is no plausible ongoing peace process, and of course we know about Donald Trump’s attempts to help the situation as he sees it by recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which has sparked the resurgence of tensions all over the region—not just in the occupied territories and Palestinian areas but in Jordan and other countries. There have also been cuts by the United States to United Nations Relief and Works Agency funding, which has jeopardised the schooling and healthcare of Palestinian refugees all across the middle east, including around 500,000 children who are being educated in UNRWA schools.

The prospect of a two-state solution, which I am sure every Member in the Chamber supports, seems to be increasingly far off. As hon. Members will know, the Labour party has a strong policy of recognising the state of Palestine as an attempt to help the process of a two-state solution. Back in November, when I visited the region with the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), we met Israeli and Palestinian politicians, who are struggling to engage with young people in the area. A generation is being badly let down by their own leaders.

Members have reflected on the numerous problems in the system that allow child prisoners to be kept. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) was with us when we met children in the occupied territories last November. He referred to arrests, which are often made late at night, and often in Hebrew, which is traumatic for the families concerned. There is a disparity in the treatment of Israeli and Palestinian children in the way in which evidence is collected, and many other disparities between the treatment of settler children, who are Israelis under Israeli law, and Palestinian children, who are treated under military law.

Finally—I want to give the Minister enough time to respond to the many questions—there is a long-term problem in the increases in hostility between the Israel defence forces and Palestinian children under 18 years old. When I was in Qalandiya in November with the shadow Foreign Secretary, we heard first hand from a 14-year-old girl who had been arrested for posting critical comments on Facebook, having witnessed her brother’s arrest in the middle of the night. Those children are the future leaders of a Palestinian state. What future awaits people on both sides if they grow up to fear and despise their Israeli peers for the treatment they received? Following the 2012 report, will the Government commit to make funding available for another report? What progress has been made since 2016 to press the Israelis to allow those lawyers to make a return visit?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, the proposer of the motion has waived her right to reply, so the Minister has until 4 o’clock.

Venezuela: Political Situation

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for eloquently setting out the woeful conditions in Venezuela and the very human impact that that regime has on people’s lives not only in Venezuela but in this country as well. In my previous life I prosecuted serious organised crime gangs, including drug traffickers. Will he join me in wishing that all Members of Parliament, including his leader, would condemn the Venezuelan regime and spread the message that anyone buying cocaine in this country is supporting organised crime?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. As it is the first day back, may I just remind Members that interventions should be brief? A large number of people wish to speak in this debate and there is limited time, so I ask people to observe that rule.

[Graham Jones]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. I say to her that it is the Government—her party—who are in power, and I am asking the current Government to tackle the situation on the streets of the United Kingdom. I can speak for myself and I condemn the regime, as I have done.

I want to turn briefly to the economic and political situation. I asked the House of Commons Library to update Members of the House and am grateful that it has done so. I am also pleased that it provided a debate pack for Members before the debate. It does a marvellous job and we should all thank it for that.

Venezuela is an economic basket case. Despite more than $1 trillion of oil revenues and billions of dollars from narco-trafficking and remittances, it is possibly the most mismanaged economy in modern history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is probably the most mismanaged country in the world. As a result, it is experiencing a brain drain: those who are educated are leaving Venezuela, because the regime is strangling intellectuals’ careers and the economy, and because their human rights are being undermined and they are being persecuted for taking part in demonstrations. Many of them are taking the decision to leave, which is having an adverse effect on Venezuela.

Venezuelan cities are the most violent in the world. Gangland violence, political brutality and drugs have taken hold as the economy collapses. The motorbike militia are quite frightening, and seem to operate hand in hand with the Maduro Administration to oppress the people of Venezuela. Inflation is at 720%, according to the International Monetary Fund, and is expected to surpass 2,000%. Rather than cutting budgets and raising taxes, the Chavista Government have borrowed from their communist allies Russia and China at high prices, and have resorted to printing money. The value of the Venezuelan bolívar has plummeted 99% against the US dollar since Hugo Chávez came to power.

The crunch will come later this year when Venezuela’s debt repayments come due. According to the World Bank, Venezuela has run a budget deficit in 15 of the last 17 years, and over the last four years, that deficit has averaged about 15% and climbing. Most of Venezuela’s reserves—what little it has—are in the form of gold, so in order to make debt repayments this year, Venezuela shipped gold bars to Switzerland. China has bailed out Venezuela by loaning it an eye-watering $60 billion, but now, according to analysts, even it is reluctant to give its Latin American ally more credit. Despite all this borrowing and huge receipts from legal and illegal exports, the country remains in dire straits. Food prices are soaring and hospitals are broken. If Members want further information, there are some good illustrative examples in the House of Commons paper provided for the debate.

Transparency International consistently ranks Venezuela as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. The House of Commons Library briefing paper states that former president Hugo Chávez

“inherited a weak economy which deteriorated further under the initial phase of his Presidency”,

with an average fall of 5.1% in economic performance, which was finally offset only by significant increases in world oil prices. Its modest rises in GDP between 2004 and 2008 were financed solely by rising oil prices. Oil accounts for 98% of total exports and 59% of official fiscal revenues.

Economic problems were exacerbated from 2005 onwards, when so-called unproductive land was nationalised, along with strategic industries including electricity, steel, cement, tourism, telecommunications, agriculture, oil services, and food distribution. By 2013, the World Bank ranked Venezuela 160th out of 185 nations for electricity availability, and 185th out of 185 for paying taxes.

We must question how Chávez’s daughter, Maria Chávez, has amassed a personal fortune of $4.2 billion. The Bolivarian revolution has spawned many “boligarchs”; the presidential palace, according to elected opposition members, costs more than $3.6 million a day to run. Such profligacy extends to the state oil company, whose US subsidiary, as reported in April by The Guardian, donated $500,000 to Donald Trump’s inauguration. All overseas trade is currency-controlled. Since 2003, the Chavista Government have controlled currency. The real currency rate is now thought to be 700 Venezuelan bolívars to the dollar, but those needing dollars require a Government permit.

As the economic situation deteriorates, the dollar is becoming the de facto currency, yet poor people cannot access it, which means they cannot access many basic goods that must be imported. The four Government rates, including what can only be described as mates’ rates, are just another means by which the Chavista elite can gain material advantage. Corruption and incompetence have been endemic throughout the Chavista regime. According to Transparency International, when the state oil company, PDVSA, took over a programme to buy food in 2007-08, more than

“1 million tons of food were bought for US $2.24 billion, but only a little more than 25% of the food was received. And of this figure, only 14% of the food was distributed to those in need. At one port alone, 3,257 containers with a total of 122,000 tons of rotten food were found.”

The United Nations says that President Maduro, the country’s leader, is responsible for “widespread and systemic” human rights abuses. The UN has said that blame for the oppression there lies

“at the highest level of the Venezuelan Government”

and slammed Maduro’s use of excessive force. More than 5,051 protesters were detained and 1,000 are still in custody after months of clashes, according to Foro Penal. Some 600 cases of torture have been referred to the International Criminal Court; according to the Casla Institute, 70% of torture cases involve sexual assault. There are 620 political prisoners in Venezuela, according to the Organization of American States, and 73 people have been killed by security forces during protests, according to UN High Commission for Refugees. The UN states that violations include house raids, torture and ill-treatment.

Before I conclude, it is worth briefly mentioning democracy in Venezuela. Although elections take place, the Government spend most of their time manipulating the law—either breaking it or changing it—with the sole intention of undermining the opposition. That has gone on for a considerable time. The line dividing state and the ruling party spending has been erased. Citizens and organisations loyal to the Government get most state jobs, contracts and subsidies, while overt opponents get nothing or are locked up. Proportional representation has been manipulated and mayors sacked to favour the PSUV.

I would like to ask the Minister about UK nationals caught up in Venezuela. My constituent Judith Tregartha-Clegg is worried that political turbulence could leave her daughter stuck in the country. She states:

“A few airlines have been cancelling flights out of Caracas because of the trouble and some just won’t fly there anymore.”

She expressed her worry and her daughter’s about the journey to the airport. She has received no support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so far. What support have the UK Government given to UK nationals living in Venezuela? Do they have a plan to evacuate all UK nationals from Venezuela if the situation deteriorates?

Judith has described to me the dire situation. Her daughter now lives in the town, as their home was taken over by squatters following 2006 legislation allowing for requisitioning of property. It is not safe outside urban areas. Schools do not have teachers, because they have not been paid.

In summary, condemnation is not enough. The UK Government must show resolve through tangible actions that will put pressure on President Maduro and his allies to respect democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The UK Government should lead on targeted sanctions against individuals in the Venezuelan Government responsible for drug trafficking, human rights violations and breaches of democracy. Those sanctions should include: freezing any UK assets belonging to those individuals; preventing UK individuals and companies from doing business with them; enforcing a travel ban against them; enforcing a ban on exporting weapons or any equipment that might be used for internal repression in Venezuela. I note that we give Venezuela export licences for military equipment. Surely that must stop.

Those are not economic sanctions against Venezuela. It is important that the UK targets the regime and not its citizens. Can the Minister update the House on what progress he has made in introducing sanctions, and when we are likely to see some? Many thanks for your patience, Mr Stringer; I look forward to the rest of the debate and to the Minister’s reply.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

There are four Members wishing to speak and I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople in 30 minutes, so the arithmetic is straightforward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

The basic foundation for a flourishing civic society must be respect for human rights. We need that before we can build the democratic institutions. The destruction of the popular democratic institutions in that country is unhelpful, extremely concerning and straightforwardly wrong.

Hon. Members have asked the Minister a number of questions, and I will add a number on the Government’s policy towards Venezuela. In addition to asking about the Government’s policy on limiting the drugs trade, I want to ask about the funding programme. The Government previously committed to improving the operation of the National Assembly via the Magna Carta fund. I shall be grateful if the Minister brings us up to date on how that money will now be used. What are the Government proposing to do to build civic and democratic institutions in Venezuela, or will they abandon that plank of Government policy? The need to fund the promotion of human rights is obviously greater than ever, but there will be concerns about how to guarantee that any future funds are spent appropriately in the country when its institutions are so weak. We would like an update.

Secondly, I should like to ask the Minister about arms sales. Given the legal requirement for UK Ministers not to authorise arms sales to regimes that might use those arms for internal repression, will he explain why £80,000-worth of such sales to Venezuela were authorised in the past year alone? In light of the Maduro Government’s refusal to co-operate with the ongoing UN-led investigation into human rights abuses, will the Government suspend any further arms sales until those concerns are resolved?

Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned, will the Minister tell us how the Government are supporting UK nationals affected by the crisis in Venezuela? How many requests for consular assistance has the Foreign Office received? What assistance has the embassy in Caracas been able to provide? What fees have been charged to individuals for that assistance?

Fourthly, as I am sure the Minister will spell out, what initiatives are the Government supporting to put pressure on the Maduro Government and bring about peace in Venezuela, including the mediation offered by the Vatican? On the issue of sanctions, a good case has been made by some hon. Members for individual, targeted sanctions against those involved in serious and organised crime and drug trafficking, but what assessment have the Government made of the American Secretary of State’s proposals to implement all sanctions? Is the Minister not slightly concerned about possible conflicts of interest in the American Administration, given that the Secretary of State, before he took up his post, received a payment of $180 million on leaving Exxon? Will the Minister explain whether he believes that further reducing Venezuelans’ export earnings would be helpful? Will he also make it clear that one plan the UK will definitely not support—and that we will actively oppose should it be put on the international table—is Donald Trump’s threat of military action against Venezuela?

In closing, I have one more important point to make. When we face a situation such as that in Venezuela, with demands for an immediate end to bloodshed and hardship, and the full restoration of human rights, it does this House proud that we are united in such calls, as we have been today. It is also important that we are consistent, and that we avoid anything that could be construed as double standards. If we are prepared to speak out with one voice on the issue of Venezuela—rightly—then, by contrast, people will not understand any equivocation about other countries with serious human rights records, such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. We must not allow anyone to claim that this House discovers its conscience and its voice only when there is an argument to be had in domestic politics. We must be consistent. I hope that the Minister will give us the assurance that the Government are wholehearted in their condemnation and addressing of the human rights problems in Venezuela, as across the globe.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I point out that we are not pressed for time, even though the debate was well attended, and I ask him to leave two or three minutes at the end for the proposer of the motion to respond to the debate.

Global Education: G20 Summit

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. If hon. Members wish to remove their jackets, they have the Chair’s permission so to do.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered promotion of education for all at the G20 summit.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Before moving on to the subject of today’s debate, may I take this opportunity to welcome the letter that the Secretary of State for International Development sent to all MPs about the small charities challenge fund? This is a very positive development, which the International Development Committee called for in the previous two Parliaments. It gives smaller UK-based charities the opportunity to access Department for International Development funding to support projects to tackle extreme poverty in some of the poorest countries in the world.

As G20 leaders, including the Prime Minister, meet in Hamburg, this debate is an opportunity for the House to reaffirm the crucial importance of investment in education to tackle poverty and inequality across the world. Millennium development goal No. 2 related to the aspiration for universal primary education. There has been remarkable progress across the world: globally, the number of children not in primary school has been cut by 42% since the year 2000. We should pay tribute to all those who made that important progress possible, not least the civil society and campaigning organisations that worked so hard to secure those goals.

However, there remain about 263 million children and young people around the world who are not in school. Most disturbingly, in Africa today the number of out-of-school children is on the increase, and one in five girls there does not receive a basic education. Globally, millions of children are in school but are not getting even the basics of literacy and numeracy. It is estimated that there are 330 million such children around the world.

I pay tribute to Mark Williams, the former Member of Parliament for Ceredigion. Mark represented that constituency for 12 years, from 2005 until this general election. Between 2010 and 2017, he chaired the all-party parliamentary group on global education. During that period, he led two overseas delegations with the all-party group to Nigeria and Kenya. He hosted countless events and meetings, and engaged with several Ministers on this issue throughout his time as chair. I am sure Members on both sides of the House will wish to join me in wishing Mark Williams well for the future.

May I also take the opportunity to encourage Members on both sides of the House to join the all-party parliamentary group on global education, which does fantastic work? I thank RESULTS UK for its work in this area and for helping me prepare for this debate.

Education is at the heart of the battle against global poverty and inequality. The sustainable development goals include SDG 4, which I will return to in a moment, but education is linked inextricably to all 17 of the global goals. Investing in education can improve outcomes in health, empower women and girls, and reduce inequality. Educated populations are much better equipped to build sustainable societies that can move towards the self-financing of development programmes so they cease to be reliant on aid from wealthier countries. We know from our own experience that education is an investment in our economy. An extra year of schooling can increase someone’s earnings by up to 10%, so investing in education is critical if we are to close the global skills gap and secure the jobs of the future.

The Government’s aid strategy has at its core the goal of strengthening global peace, security and governance. Historical analysis demonstrates that inequality itself fuels social unrest, and evidence suggests that when educational inequality doubles, the probability of conflict more than doubles. Most importantly, education is a human right enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Every child should have the right to a quality education.

As we know, the United Kingdom is the only G7 country that allocates the UN-recommended 0.7% of GNI to overseas development assistance. As I said during the Queen’s Speech debate last week, I very much welcome the fact that the Queen’s Speech reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to 0.7%. The UK is recognised as a global leader in providing aid for education, and we rank second only after the United States in the amount of aid we invest in basic education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. He raises a vital question: what does one do in a poor country with a stretched education budget that is finding it difficult to provide decent primary education or any secondary education at all? How does he envisage the conversation with the Education Minister in such a country about setting up the entire pre-primary education and early learning structure, and about the competing priorities that that involves? Has he seen any examples of that actually working on a systematic basis in a poor developing country?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a relaxed debate—it is not over-subscribed—but can Members please keep interventions relatively short?

[Stephen Twigg]

I am grateful to the Minister for his characteristically thoughtful intervention, which speaks to a broader debate about education and where spending priorities should lie. I certainly do not suggest a one-size-fits-all approach for every country in which DFID operates.

To answer the Minister’s question, we saw evidence of that working well in Kenya, where I was impressed by the existing investment programme for early childhood education. In a sense, this is linked to my earlier point about the domestic budgets of recipient countries. Those of us who went to Uganda and then to Kenya were struck that Kenya devotes a significantly larger part of its budget to education than Uganda, and it has chosen to allocate part of that to early childhood education. My argument is this: DFID should seek to increase its funding for early childhood education programmes and, importantly, to integrate those programmes with other relevant areas of the human development portfolio, such as child health and nutrition.

Many Members will be aware of the Send My Friend to School campaign, which for more than a decade has engaged with Members of Parliament up and down the country and invited us into schools in our constituencies to talk about global education. Last year, the campaign engaged something like 400,000 young people, and this year more than 2,000 schools have signed up to it. Next Wednesday, 12 July, 20 students from around the country will come here to Westminster to discuss their campaigning with key decision makers, both in Parliament and in the Government. I look forward to meeting them, and I know that other former members of the International Development Committee in the last Parliament will meet them too.

Many of the students will meet their own local MPs, the Foreign Secretary’s special envoy for gender equality will meet them, and I understand that they will pay a visit to No. 10 to hand in a letter. I believe that an invitation has been sent to the Secretary of State for International Development, and I hope that she might find time in her busy schedule to meet them too.

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting the debate, which gives Parliament an early opportunity to address the challenges of global education. It is especially timely because it comes at the beginning of the G20 summit. If I am re-elected as Chair of the International Development Committee in this Parliament, I will propose that the Committee resumes and completes its inquiry into global education.

I look forward to listening to contributions to the debate, but I am particularly keen to hear from the Minister a sense of when we might expect a full response to the letter that I sent on behalf of the previous Committee to the Secretary of State. I appreciate that I sent it just as we finished for the general election and it covered a lot of issues, but it would be useful to have a sense of when I might receive a full response.

As I said, it would also be useful to have, at an early opportunity, a full breakdown across Departments of all United Kingdom ODA spending on education. Given the focus of the G20, will the Government commit to making a substantial contribution to the Global Partnership for Education during its replenishment for 2018 to 2020 and push for a G20 leaders’ communiqué that commits to funding key multilateral organisations, including GPE, Education Cannot Wait and the international finance facility for education?

Investment in global education is vital to tackling poverty and inequality, to securing future economic growth, jobs and livelihoods, and to addressing the causes and consequences of conflict. I once again praise DFID for its global leadership in this area, but I urge the Department and the rest of the Government to go further, because investment in education today pays enormous social and economic dividends tomorrow.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople, I advise new hon. Members that, if any hon. Member wishes to speak, they need to stand. I have had no applications to speak; that is just advice.

Yemen: Political and Humanitarian Situation

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I hope to follow your instructions, Mrs Moon. It is easy to do so on this tragic subject, because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has spoken so eloquently and passionately about an issue that affects the people of Yemen—the tragedy that is occurring in the middle east, which we in this House seem so powerless to deal with. The fact that 20 Members are here today signifies that this House is concerned about Yemen. It is close to our hearts, and we need to ensure there is a political solution to end the humanitarian crisis that has gripped that country.

I commend the Minister on his new appointment. He was a Minister in the Department for International Development, but he is now leading on Yemen, as far as the Foreign Office is concerned. He has responded to many Adjournment debates on this subject, which I, as chair of the all-party group on Yemen, and other Members of this House have initiated. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for the work she does as the secretary of the all-party group.

As this is the first debate on this subject since we have returned, I should pay tribute to Flick Drummond, a fellow officer who worked so hard and, like me and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), was born in Yemen. I also pay tribute to a trio of Members of the Scottish National party, who were not born in Yemen but took up this issue strongly: Angus Robertson, Alex Salmond and Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh. We will miss their voice, but the good point is that we have Members here who will speak on behalf of Yemen today and in the months ahead.

I have only one point to make, which is to ask the Minister to ring up our permanent representative at the United Nations and to speak to the Foreign Secretary to ensure that we get a resolution before the UN at the next Security Council meeting so that we get a solution now. Unless we have that resolution, signed up to by all the countries of the middle east, Yemen will be broken into pieces. It is already fragile. It is already a catastrophe. One child dies every minute and 10,000 people have been killed in the conflict. We only have to hear the voice of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) to know that. He managed to get into Yemen to meet people there, including former President Saleh. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to catch your eye, Mrs Moon. The fact is that the situation will continue unless the United Nations acts. It will only act if Britain decides it is to act.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I always listen carefully when he speaks about Yemen. He has been a powerful voice on this issue. Does he agree that if the Government are not persuaded by the serious humanitarian case we have heard today and Yemen becomes a failed state, that will have serious effects across the whole middle east and north Africa—we have serious material interests in those places—and will affect this country?

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just about Yemen today; it is about the effect on the rest of the middle east and the threat of terrorism in our country. Yemen is a training ground for the people who wish to come and do damage to us. I urge the Minister to act. I am sorry that I will not be able to stay until the end of the debate—there is another meeting that I have to chair—but I urge him to come up with a rapid solution to this agonisingly difficult problem.

Kurdistan Region in Iraq

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jack Lopresti]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I absolutely agree. I will return to the peshmerga and the fight against Daesh later, but we owe the Kurds a huge debt of gratitude for what they are doing on a daily basis, including as we are here today.

I will briefly give some history. The treaty of Lausanne in 1923 led to the Turks formally ceding all earlier claims on Syria and Iraq and, along with the treaty of Ankara, settled the boundaries of the two nations. The earlier post-world war one discussions about a Kurdish state being formed after the break-up of the Ottoman empire, which had been nominally supported by the British, including Sir Winston Churchill, were absent from the treaty of Lausanne.

The Kurds have a long history of suffering second-class citizenship, and in the late 1980s they experienced genocide at the hands of Saddam Hussein—a genocide that was formally recognised by this House in 2013. From 1991 onwards, Sir John Major’s no-fly zone and safe haven protected the Iraqi Kurds from further attack by Saddam Hussein, and Tony Blair and George Bush’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein was welcomed by the Kurds as a liberation. Indeed, on my visits to the region I have personally been thanked for the British contribution to the liberation of Iraq.

The Kurds re-joined Iraq in 2003 and they have tried to make that arrangement work. They brokered a federal constitution, which was agreed by 80% of people in the Iraqi referendum in 2005. It enshrined a binational country of equals and, for instance, agreed a mechanism for resolving the status of the disputed territories. The deadline for that resolution was supposed to have been 2007, but it has still not been carried out. The end to federalism was demonstrated in February 2014 by Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki, who unconstitutionally cut all federal budget transfers to Kurdistan.

In June 2014, Daesh captured Mosul, took a third of the country and seized sophisticated American military kit, including lots of vehicles and heavy weapons. A Kurdistani offer of help before the attack was spurned. Maliki failed in the most vital duty of any leader, which is to uphold the security of the state and protect its people. So the Kurds suddenly acquired a 650-mile border with Daesh and there was an overnight influx of Iraqi Arabs from Mosul, who increased the population by a third, straining all public services to breaking point. Daesh attacked Kurdistan in August 2014 and came within 20 miles of the capital, Irbil, which was only saved by immediate American air strikes and other assistance.

Then, a massive slump in the price of oil exposed the inefficient nature of the Kurdistani economy—massive state employment, little productivity, a miniscule private sector and an almost complete reliance on energy revenues, which now came through independent exports via Turkey. The Kurds faced a perfect storm of crises and came through, not unscathed but in one piece. This highlights their great resilience.

The story of how the Kurds eventually united with the Iraqi army against Daesh is instructive. When I visited the Kirkuk frontline in November 2015, I was told that there was no co-ordination, or indeed any communication, between the peshmerga and the Iraqi army. A year later, with western support the two forces concluded a deal to continue to drive Daesh out of Mosul, and I saw for myself the result of that deal last November, both on the road to Mosul and inside Mosul. This unprecedented military partnership came despite the historic bad blood and bad feeling between the Kurds and the Iraqis, which largely exist because of the Iraqi army’s chemical weapons attacks on hundreds of villages and the extermination of nearly 200,000 people in the 1980s.

I will not focus on the moral reasons for airing arguments for Kurdish independence; instead, I will address the strategic gains for the west. Once Daesh is defeated in Mosul and later in Raqqa, the key question is how to prevent any such force re-emerging and how to undermine the ideological and political appeal of such “vile fascism”, as the KRG’s High Representative to the UK, Karwan Jamal Tahir, has put it.

We have to understand why many Sunnis came to believe that Daesh was less awful than Baghdad. Many could not accept the loss of the privileges they had enjoyed under Saddam. Thanks to the Kurds, however, Sunnis joined power-sharing Governments in Baghdad, and their militias and tribes helped to defeat the al-Qaeda insurgency in 2007-08.

However, the immediate consequence of the disastrous American decision to withdraw all its forces, a decision favoured by Maliki, was that Maliki brutally repressed Sunni civil rights protests. Sunnis had seen how badly Shi’a politicians had treated the Kurds and concluded that they themselves could face worse.

The central task now is to eradicate the drivers of Sunni radicalism and protect minorities, who have suffered rape, murder and dispossession by Sunni neighbours, as well as facing the massive cost of reconstruction and the need for a “Marshall plan of the mind” to tackle the deep traumas of those who were raped in their thousands and saw their menfolk slaughtered. The Kurdistanis also need devolved governance.

Already, we see that the old centralising is in contention; and it would be odd—bizarre, even—if the status of Kurdistan was not part of the conversation after Daesh. There are those who say that this is the wrong time, citing internal division in Kurdistan, the starkest symbol of which is the paralysis of its Parliament. I hope that the continuing negotiations, which have involved our diplomats, will resolve the dispute. As candid friends, we must continue to put pressure on the Kurds, so that their Parliament sits again and there is a functioning democracy as quickly as possible.

The state of the economy is another reason why some people say that now is the wrong time for the Kurds to consider, ask for and seek their own independence. However, I take the point made by the Kurdistani leader and former Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, that

“if we wait for all the problems to be resolved, we will have to wait forever”.

I commend the reforms of Prime Minister Barzani and Deputy Prime Minister Talabani: aligning revenues with state spending and introducing better forms of identification of the work force, to eliminate double-jobbing and ghost workers. They have much further to go, but statehood could end excuses for neglecting reform and allow access to development funds that are conditional on such reform.

The Kurds reckon that old foes are weaker or amenable to a potential independence deal, agreed with Baghdad. Turkey, Kurdistan’s major trading partner, could see Kurdistan as a major source of secure energy supplies, an interlocutor with the Kurds in Turkey, and a buffer between Turkey, Sunnis and Shi’as. Iran, of course, is resolutely opposed, but it is, thankfully, under intense pressure from America and the Gulf states and has absolutely no right to veto Kurdish independence. Arab-Iraqis adore Kurdistan, as Shimal Habib—the beloved north—thanks to the holidays they have there, enjoying the temperate climate and the hospitality. But Bagdad has refused to treat the Kurdish region fairly or with any good will. As for the bilateral relationship, the Kurds see us as a partner of choice, and the APPG supports a bigger British footprint in Kurdistan.

There are three specific issues I would like the Minister to address in his remarks. The first is the peshmerga. The gallant, brave, wonderful peshmerga are fighting Daesh on the ground, and that helps to secure our own security, freedoms and way of life. One of my most moving visits was when I went to see wounded peshmerga soldiers in Irbil. Many seriously injured soldiers are beyond the capacity of the medical facilities and the health system there, and I have asked two Prime Minister’s questions urging the British Government to supply a small number of beds at Queen Elizabeth hospital Birmingham because, as I am sure we agree, we owe the peshmerga a huge debt of honour and gratitude.

The second matter is visas. The visa application system is a vexed issue and the rejection rate has increased from 55% to 66%. We need up-to-date figures, and I ask the Minister to help with that. Entry clearance officers have perhaps three minutes to examine an application, and any small query means a no. One application was rejected due to a small discrepancy over claimed income, even though exchange rates had moved in the intervening days. Such issues are not clarified because we no longer interview and our diplomats and Ministers can no longer intervene to assert a national interest. We should, of course, police and secure our borders, but we must, looking forward to a post-Brexit world, encourage people to do business and holiday here, and not make it excessively difficult for them to do so.

Thirdly, on bilateral relations, the KRG’s Prime Minister visited the UK in May 2014, and we established a joint committee, which was obviously then overtaken by events. When will the committee begin to function or a new committee be set up? I urge the Government to invite the Prime Minister or the new President of Kurdistan to meet our Prime Minister.

Today’s debate coincides with independence day in the United States. The Kurdish people will decide in their referendum in September whether they, too, want to be an independent state.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I think I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s speech carefully. Is he really saying that a vote for independence by the Kurds in Iraq would be welcomed in Ankara?

[Jack Lopresti]

What I am saying is that the moods have shifted. I am not saying it would be welcomed, but I hope that, looking towards perhaps more co-operation and trade, we might get a better response than we had anticipated.

We can be optimistic and helpful in whatever discussions and negotiations follow on from the referendum, but whatever the people decide, the UK and the KRG have a lot in common, and our special relationship must be nurtured and developed.

EU Referendum Leaflet

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

As has already been pointed out, the people of Northern Ireland have not yet been subjected to having to read the dodgy dossier that has been published by the Government. No one should be surprised that it is not an objective assessment of the case for staying in or leaving because, as a number of hon. Members said, the Government made up their mind at the outset that, regardless of what happened in the negotiations, they would put forward the case for remain. No doubt, when the leaflet eventually makes its way through the Royal Mail’s postbags to my constituents’ houses, they will treat it with contempt because they will know it is not an attempt to set out the facts and figures.

We have just finished the Assembly election campaign in Northern Ireland, and the question I was most commonly asked on the doorstep over the past three and a half weeks, even though it is nothing to do with the Assembly election, was, “Are you in or are you out?” From the conversations I have had with thousands of my constituents, I have absolutely no doubt which way they will be voting on 23 June.

The Government are desperate. We saw the degree of their desperation when the Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland at the beginning of this campaign. He brought together farmers and told them that their crops will die in the fields, that their bank balances will be slashed, that European money will end and that we will no longer be able to feed ourselves because of the disaster that will befall Northern Ireland if we drop out of the EU and no longer have the support of the CAP. He ignored the fact that, as most farmers know—a large part of my constituency is rural—EU support for agriculture in the United Kingdom has been falling because support is increasingly being directed towards eastern Europe, and that many small farmers are crippled by bureaucracy and the CAP’s requirements.

Of course, the Prime Minister pulled out the ultimate card: he said that somehow or other the peace process might be in jeopardy. I lived in Northern Ireland right through the troubles, and I never, ever heard any IRA spokesman say that he was determined to bomb the life out of people in Northern Ireland to stay in the EU. It was never an issue with republicans. Indeed, it is significant that, until it got embroiled in the politics of the Irish Republic, Sinn Féin used to be a very anti-EU party. Suddenly, because it wanted to curry favour with voters in the Republic, it decided that it was pro-EU. Saying that the peace process will somehow be in jeopardy is another scare tactic.

In Northern Ireland, whenever we get into trouble with the peace process, we can be sure that political leaders whose names the President of the United States has never heard before will get a telephone call from the White House. “Jimmy, how are you?”—I cannot do an American accent, so I will not even try—or, “Peter, how are you?” and the soft-soaping starts. It has been no different in this referendum campaign. The US cavalry has ridden to the rescue of General Cameron, who is making his last stand. I believe that he knows it is his last stand. He cannot convince the people of the United Kingdom to go into the reservation of the EU, so he has to bring in the American President to frighten them, but I think the American President’s ham-fisted attempt has not weakened but strengthened the leave campaign.

Many Members have already talked about the false arguments in this document, and I want to pick up on one or two of them: first, that the cost of living is going to go up. How do they justify that—on the basis, primarily, that the value of the pound will fall. However, our exchange rate goes up and down. We have a freely floating exchange rate mechanism, because we are not part of the euro. Our exchange rate goes up and down all the time. We live with the consequences of that: sometimes it helps our exporters and sometimes it is to the detriment of our exporters; sometimes it brings down the cost of living because imports become cheaper, and sometimes it puts the cost up—but that is what happens without a fixed exchange rate. Our membership of the EU will make no difference to that—but that is the main way in which the cost of living could increase, according to the Government leaflet.

We have had that reinforced by the Chancellor’s predictions and the Treasury’s model up to 2030. I taught economics at one stage and the one thing I know about economic models is that we do not rely on economic models to tell us what is going to happen in 2030 when we are living in 2016. A Treasury model also told us that the deficit would be wiped out by now. The Treasury revises its estimates almost on a yearly basis, because economic models are subject to a whole range of assumptions. If we are looking 14 years in advance, how can we possibly know what parameters to put into an economic model? We are certainly not going to be able to tell people, “You are going to be £4,302.22 worse off,” which is what the Government want people to believe.

That is the first scare tactic. The second is the idea that people will not be able to go on their holidays any longer, they will have to get a visa to go to the sun and flights will cost more. For those who are concerned about carbon footprints, that would be a compelling argument, but it does not really play much with me. Again, that is based on what? The price of flights has come down not because of the EU, but because of people such as O’Leary, companies such as Ryanair and easyJet, and competition between airlines. That has nothing to do with the EU, yet it is rested at the EU’s door.

Next is the argument that millions of jobs will be lost because it is more difficult to get access to European markets. However, in my constituency, there are companies that do research for the pharmaceutical industry; one firm has 140 workers who research new drugs and, as a result, drugs worth £750 million are produced across Europe from the patents for which they are responsible. Do people buy that information because we are part of the EU? No, they buy it because the research is good quality, and the drug has been tested and is capable of being marketed.

In my constituency, too, Schrader Electronics provides valves that tell drivers whether their tyres have gone down, without them having to look at them. The valves are sold to car manufacturers all over the European Union, as part of the supply chain. On 24 June, are those manufacturers likely to say that they will no longer buy the valves? Of course not, because the technology is good and the price is good. The company is part of the supply chain and will remain part of the supply chain.

For anyone who flies on an airplane, every third seat is made in Northern Ireland—anyone sitting on seats A or D is probably sitting on one. Why? Is it because we are part of the EU? No, it is because we have a manufacturer that produces a competitive product.

I could go on. People buy our goods for those reasons. All around the world, we sell goods to countries that we do not have trade deals with. So what about the idea that, if we left the EU, suddenly we would not get a trade deal with it? First, the supply chain would demand that the goods are bought anyway and, secondly, if the product is not competitive, people will stop buying, but if it is competitive, they will keep on buying. The argument is that it will take us years to negotiate a new trade deal. It will not, for the simple reason that, if firms want our products, they will continue to buy them.

On the last argument to be made, I have to say that the Prime Minister has been despicable today, invoking the war dead. It shows desperation to say that people died for the European Union, or for a united Europe. They died for a Europe free of dictatorship; they died for a democratic Europe. The whole essence of the EU is that it is not a democratic institution—some people do not even try to defend it as that any longer—and it is not an institution in which the will of the people is reflected in the decisions made; the will reflected is that of people who believe they know better than the elected politicians. The bureaucrats believe that they can develop an efficient system of government, free from those pesky politicians with their mad ideas and everything else. For the Prime Minister to invoke the war dead was an absolute disgrace.

We have seen the security argument, unfortunately, blown apart in Paris and Brussels. Terrorists, because of the Schengen arrangements and open borders, can wander around Europe like jihadic nomads, crossing borders, planning and plotting, and then killing. That is why we need to have control over our own borders. That is why we need to be out of an institution that leaves us open to that kind of terrorist activity.

I made an intervention about this earlier, but it is significant that the Government’s own document eulogises the fact that our special relationship with Europe enables us to opt out of and to distance ourselves from most of the major policies of the European Union. If there is a compelling argument, it is in the Government’s own document. We do not want to be part of the euro, because we have seen what it has done, the devastation that it has wrought across economies in European countries, the youth unemployment, and the way in which democratic institutions have been undermined in Italy and Greece as a result of the requirements to stay in the euro. Looking at the arguments in the document, we can also opt out of Schengen, another essential part of the EU.

By the way, the Government say that no country has been able to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU without allowing free access to labour. That is not true. Many countries outside the European Union trade freely with it, and they do not have to accept anyone and everyone who wants to move from EU countries to their country, but the document makes that claim—although the Government say that part of our special relationship is that we can opt out of that as well, and we can opt out of any other interference. If it is so good to be able to opt out of those policies, is it not even better to opt out of the EU altogether?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Three people are standing, and I intend to call the Scottish National party spokesperson at 7 o’clock. People can do the arithmetic themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to be called to speak, albeit late, in this well attended, though I must say one-sided debate. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to spare a thought for my right hon. Friend the Minister. He reminds me of one of those renaissance pictures of St Sebastian, who stands tethered to a tree, his body pierced by a multitude of arrows shot by myriad archers. He has been called on many times to defend the Government’s handling of the referendum process. Today he seeks to defend the frankly shabby piece of disinformation posing as an informative leaflet, which has been comprehensively shredded, metaphorically, by the participants in the debate, just as it has no doubt been physically shredded by many of the people who had the unfortunate experience of finding it dropping through their letter box.

The arguments have been advanced and I do not want to repeat them, but there is one point that I want to touch on as a Welsh Member of Parliament, which is the timing of the leaflet. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) pointed out, the leaflets have not yet been delivered in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, because the Government wanted to avoid a clash with the elections that took place last Thursday. In England, of course, they were distributed between 11 April and 13 April, which was before the regulated period of the referendum campaign began. In Wales, they will be distributed this week, as they will in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

I have to tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that the timing had no effect whatever on the Welsh Assembly election campaign, because I had exactly the same experience as the hon. Member for East Antrim. Everywhere I went when I was canvassing in that campaign, I found that very few people wanted to talk about the Assembly election, but everyone wanted to talk about the referendum. In particular they were incensed at the fact that the Government had spent £9.3 million of their money— taxpayers’ money—on a piece of propaganda.

The practical effect is that the leaflets will be delivered in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales squarely during the regulated period, which I suggest will give the remain campaign an unfair advantage. During that time, expenditure is carefully regulated and limited. The Government are not affected by those limitations of course, but in any event the remain campaign’s expenditure will be augmented by the delivery of the leaflet through people’s letterboxes. That is deeply regrettable, and the Electoral Commission has pointed out that after the Scottish referendum it recommended that Governments should not conduct any taxpayer-funded advertising during the regulated period. That is what has happened in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I suggest that the Government should have had regard to the Venice Commission’s code of good practice on referendums, which provides:

“The use of public funds…for campaigning purposes must be prohibited”

and states that any explanatory report produced by the authorities should

“give a balanced presentation not only of the viewpoint of the executive and legislative authorities or persons sharing their viewpoint but also of the opposing one.”

The Government’s document is completely silent in that regard. The leaflet clearly contravenes those recommendations. It is utterly one-sided.

As a Conservative Member of Parliament I am bound to say that I find it highly regrettable that my party’s Government has conducted itself in that way. I would go so far as to say that I am deeply ashamed. The fact that so many people have signed the e-petition, which no doubt is at somewhere around the 220,000 signature mark by now, is a clear sign that my concern, and the concern of so many other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon, is shared widely by the British people. It has been an unfortunate episode in an unfortunate campaign, and I hope that on reflection my right hon. Friend the Minister will find it in his heart to apologise for what the Government have done.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, I remind the House that there is approximately 10 minutes for each Front-Bench speaker. Perhaps the Minister will leave two minutes at the end for the mover of the motion to respond to the debate; that is what we do by convention.

Burma

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes a vital point. Daw Suu is insistent that her MPs work in their constituencies to make sure they are seen to be working for the people who elected them. I know that the Department for International Development is doing a lot of work on democracy building. It is fantastic that Mr Speaker and many other Members here are helping directly, and it is vital that people on the ground see that work and see how it benefits them.

As I said earlier, it is not for us to tell the people of Burma how to run their country or their legal system. However, we are critical friends, and we should raise points where we can. Imagine if the boot were on the other foot. People complain about the possibility of President Obama telling us what we might do in the European Union referendum. Frankly, I am more interested in how Narendra Modi came over here, extended the hand of friendship and talked about partnerships and working together as equals. We will have such opportunities in Burma. There can be further work by DFID and by Parliament, and hopefully there will be opportunities for trade in the future. When I was over there, it was fantastic to see Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon visiting Yangon as part of a regional tour to talk about opportunities for transport infrastructure.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I am enjoying listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He is absolutely right about the rule of law. Unfortunately, Burma comes in the top or bottom quartile, depending on which way we look at it, of the most corrupt countries in the world. Although it is not up to the UK to tell Burma how to run itself, how does the hon. Gentleman think we can best help it get rid of corruption?

[Paul Scully]

I would look to the example of places such as Bangladesh. It is not a perfect country by any stretch of the imagination, but look at how it has moved on from being a corrupt state. Opportunities for business are starting to open up there as people realise that the level of corruption is unsustainable. A lot of investment has been coming into Burma from China, but it is starting to realise that cheap is not always best and that, frankly, China has little regard for the country—it has regard for the dollar and the kyat. Burma is looking to the west for investment and knows that for that to happen it will have to open up and tackle corruption. Hopefully we can help.

I want to put on record my thanks to Andrew Patrick, our ambassador in Burma, Gavin McGillivray, the head of the Department for International Development over there, and Kevin Mackenzie from the British Council. I also thank the many different people I met who spoke so eloquently and articulately. It gives me such hope for the future to know that a new generation is coming through. The politicians in Burma—Daw Suu and her colleagues—have been elected with their own vision. I hope that we can support them, but we must also let them deliver their vision. We should see how we can help them and then get in there and support them as partners. We want to be able to trade and do geopolitical work in that really important part of south-east Asia. I am looking forward to a constructive debate and would welcome the Minister’s comments on the points I have raised.

EU Membership (UK Renegotiation)

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

The fact is that the EU is going in the wrong direction. As we know, it is planning a new treaty to save the eurozone from itself and to give the EU more control. In many respects, that is the right response for the eurozone countries to make, but it would be bad for the United Kingdom. In truth, the EU cannot cope. In some parts of the EU, unemployment is already 25% and youth unemployment more than 50%—the worst situation since the 1930s. Debts are large and growing. Unfunded pension systems require large tax increases, immigration increases or both. Voting to remain would mean signing up to the new EU treaty currently being negotiated, which has been spelt out in the Five Presidents report. That will give the EU even more power over our economy and take our seat on key bodies such as the IMF. No new treaty has ever given powers back or saved us money.

My constituents in Kettering and people across the country will be increasingly alarmed to read the contents of the Five Presidents report, set out in July last year. Who are these pompous five Presidents? The first is Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission President. The second is Donald Tusk, the President of the Euro Summit. The third is Jeroen Dijsselbloem, President of the Eurogroup, whatever that is. The others are Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, and Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament. They do like to call themselves Presidents whenever they get the chance. Among their plans are a euro area Treasury and increasing control over Europe’s fiscal systems.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I was not going to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but if he consults the House of Commons Library, he will find out that there are seven European Presidents, but only five of them signed the document to which he is referring. That just shows what an absurdity this organisation is.

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman demonstrates that he is as well read as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), and I am grateful for that—the situation is even worse than I had feared.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

This country would be more prosperous, have more influence in world affairs and be able to take control of its own affairs as a sovereign Parliament once again if we left the European Union. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate so that we can explore the arguments that demonstrate the truth of those three desirable objectives.

First, we would be more prosperous if we left the European Union. At the moment, we are tied to the European Union, of which all but two countries are in, or have signed up to join, the euro. Quite frankly, the European Union is an economic basket case partly because of the euro. Many of the people who argue that we should stay in the European Union wanted us to join that terrible currency.

Secondly, we would have more influence in the world if we left the European Union. At the moment, the EU represents us at a number of world bodies, the most obvious being the World Trade Organisation, and negotiation between the 28 countries of the European Union dilutes any influence that we have. If we represented ourselves, we would have more influence.

Finally and self-evidently, I believe in parliamentary democracy and the fundamental principle that the people who make the laws should be subject to the electorate. In the words of the old phrase from American presidential elections in the 19th century, the people should be able to “throw the rascals out”. If we cannot do that, we do not have a democracy, and we cannot do that to the people who influence, propose and produce the laws in the EU.

Given the hon. Members who are present, one might think that only Conservative Members oppose our continuing membership of the European Union, but that is simply not true. Although a majority of Labour MPs are in favour of staying in the European Union, many Labour party members, perhaps a majority of Labour supporters, and ex-Labour supporters—people who have stopped supporting the party because of its position on the European Union—understand that we would be better off out of the European Union. There is clearly a left-of-centre view, in favour of democracy and control of our own rules, that we should leave the European Union. I have never understood, when there is a consensus across the Labour movement and the Labour party against extreme deflationary policies, why we would support the European Union when its policies of competitive deflation across eurozone countries are destroying its economy.

I start, in any debate on the EU, by looking at what is in the interests of my constituents. Their employment situation is threatened by more or less uncontrolled immigration. Unskilled workers are competing with people who have no history in this country, and they often fail to get employment. That is particularly true in areas where the legal jobs market overlaps with the illegal or black market, where many people hope to survive. Such people are increasingly at a disadvantage. As the hon. Member for Kettering has said, many skilled workers from Poland come over here and compete below their skill level, and that is not in the interests of my constituents. It is all right for Mr Rose to say that he can lead the in campaign, because he is financially okay and will be all right at the end of it, but that does not apply to my constituents, who are among the poorest people in the country.

I represent many constituents from parts of the Commonwealth, such as the Indian subcontinent and parts of Africa, which have a long history of helping and supporting this country, not least in the armed services. Why should it be more difficult for those people’s relatives to visit them, or to join them and find employment in this country when they have particular skills? As the hon. Member for Kettering has said, they find that very difficult, whereas people from Romania—I do not want to pick on Romania—or Croatia or Lithuania, which have very shallow links with this country, can simply walk in and out of the country. It is not often said, but it should be, that the EU’s immigration policies are explicitly racist, because it is usually Africans and people from the Indian subcontinent who are excluded from having a fair go at our employment market.

All the political parties recognise, and say explicitly, that the current operation of the EU is unsatisfactory, and therefore there needs to be renegotiation. The Labour party has a clear policy, which is at least consistent and honourable: whatever happens in the renegotiation, we will campaign to stay in. I will not; I will be on the other side of that debate, but the Labour party will do so. The Government’s position is much less honest. They say that there will be a fundamental renegotiation and treaty change to improve our situation. There is, however, no real negotiation taking place that will help my constituents and improve their economic situation.

I will run briefly—I am aware of the time—through four points. The first is the suggestion that we could have more parliamentary influence, because we could negotiate with other Parliaments and three, four or five Parliaments could give a red card to, or veto, decisions by the European Union. What an insult to parliamentary democracy it is to say that this Parliament has to negotiate with another Parliament before we can stop laws that might be against the interests of this country.

The second point is that there will be more competition, or that the competitive agenda will be increased. I was a Minister in 1999 when the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, came back from Lisbon with a new competition agenda, which had zero influence. It was almost exactly the same as what is promised in these so-called negotiations.

The third point, which is at the core of where the future of the EU lies, is that this country needs protecting from being suppressed or oppressed by the majority of countries that will be in the EU and that may take decisions that are not in this country’s interest. Whether there is treaty recognition of our separate interest or not, there is bound to be a different set of interests from countries that are in a monetary union and that will eventually move, inevitably, into a fiscal union and greater political union. There are bound to be huge risks for this country in that we will always be in a minority position in the EU. I do not believe there can be any protection against that.

The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made a point about the risks if we leave the EU. Of course there are risks if we leave the EU; there is always risk in change. The question is where the balance of risk is. There is a much greater risk to the future of not only democracy, but the country’s economy and influence in world affairs by staying in the EU, where we will be in a perpetual minority, with a different interest from the rest of the countries.

The fourth point is where most of the publicity has been aimed—at in-work benefits. I do not believe that those benefits drive immigration into this country. What drives immigration into this country is that it is a fair, decent country where there is a real chance of getting employment, unlike many of the other countries, particularly those that have come out of the communist bloc. To say that somebody who comes here for genuine reasons—to work—will actually be in an inferior position to somebody who they are working next to in a factory, public service, or whatever position it might be, is not a desirable objective. It is a deeply nasty and unpleasant objective, and it will not do what it says.

I am getting looks from the Chair so I will finish on this point. There is a real opportunity for the country’s future to be better by leaving the EU and having more influence. I hope this will be one of many debates that we have between now and whenever the referendum is held that will allow the real arguments, facts and figures to come out.

[Andrew Percy (in the Chair)]

I will now impose a time limit of three minutes, starting with Steve Baker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have not expressed an opinion on the exact timing, other than to say, as we said during the passage of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, that we do not think it is a good idea to combine the referendum with other important elections scheduled for May this year or May next year, because this issue is of such import that it deserves a campaign and a vote on its own. That is what we have said about how the referendum should take place.

I will put a couple of questions to the Minister about the renegotiation. First, is it correct for people to conclude that there has been substantial progress on the first three issues that I have referred to, but that the fourth issue remains more difficult to make progress on?

On that fourth issue, which is the issue of tax credits and other in-work benefits for workers from other EU member states, the Government’s contention is that the availability of those benefits acts as a pull factor, resulting in levels of immigration that are higher than they would otherwise be. Consequently, the Prime Minister claims that if those benefits are curtailed in the way that he has set out immigration will go down. I disagree with a lot of the points that have been made today by hon. Members who wish to campaign to leave the EU, but there is one issue on which I think I am in some agreement with them, which is to be sceptical about this claim. What evidence do the Government have for the contention that these in-work benefits are affecting the level of immigration? By how much do the Government believe that immigration from other EU member states will go down if the availability of in-work benefits is cut in the way that the Government have set out?

The Office for Budget Responsibility, giving evidence to the Treasury Committee before Christmas, said that its view is that such a change to in-work benefits would make little difference to immigration levels. Also, is it not the case that the vast majority of people who come to the UK from other EU member states come to work hard, pay their taxes and make a positive contribution to this country, in the same way as anyone else?

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I am pleased that he is sceptical about the basis of the Government’s policy in this area. However, does he agree not only that that policy will fail to do what it says on the tin, but that it is an offensive policy, which will be very divisive in the workplace?

[Mr McFadden]

I think there is a case for a discussion about the basis on which people have access to benefits, but there is a big difference between saying that and claiming that restricting access to benefits will make a fundamental difference to immigration levels. The truth is that people come to the UK because it is a great country, not because it is a “soft touch” on welfare.

We will probably see the results of the renegotiation soon, so I would also like to ask the Minister a question about timing. If he expects that there will be a conclusion to these negotiations at the European Council in February, what will be the implications of that conclusion for the timing of the referendum itself? The 2015 Act only says that the referendum must be held by the end of December 2017, but the Prime Minister’s new year message indicated that it was more likely to be held later this year. I ask the Minister directly: if the renegotiation is completed in February, is it the Government’s intention to hold the referendum this year rather than next year?

In one or two of the interventions on me, I was asked about my own party’s position. Our view is that we should not make the decision about whether or not Britain remains a member of the EU on the basis of this renegotiation. At the end of the day, the question on the ballot paper is, “Remain or leave?” It may be the case that the Prime Minister’s renegotiation has some impact on the public view of that question, but it may well not be the case, because there are issues concerning our EU membership that go well beyond the four items that the Prime Minister has set out in his renegotiation.

Our party conference quite clearly supported a position of being in favour of remaining in the EU and our campaign to remain in has already been launched, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). We want to see what the renegotiation produces, but that is our basic position.

My final point in response to some of the arguments that have been put forward by Government Members is that we have been told repeatedly today that we can retain access to the single market without paying anything for it. I would like to ask a question about that assertion, which is perhaps more for the hon. Member for Kettering, who secured this debate, than for the Minister. On what basis is it made? If the British people are going to be asked to exchange more than 40 years of EU membership for a future outside the EU, they have a right to know—with some certainty—what that future will entail. What will it mean for access to the single market? What will be the price for access to the single market? What will that future mean in terms of our adherence to the rules of that market while we perhaps forgo any say about what those rules are? What will it mean for inward investment in this country, which in European terms comes at the rate of tens of millions of pounds every single day? What will it mean for our export industries? What will it mean for our research, our universities, our agricultural industries and so on?

Whatever the flaws of the EU, a referendum on it is not only a referendum on one future but a choice between two futures, and those who advocate leaving the EU need to do an awful lot more to say what being out would be like.