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.

Yemen

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is not just about getting aid in, but making sure it gets to the people who need it, and we should work to ensure that the distribution network is effective. There is a number of aid organisations already in Yemen, and we should take their advice on how that should be done. Facilitating the flow of emergency aid would be in the interests of the coalition, because it would help to avoid a famine and economic disaster that the states neighbouring Yemen do not want on their doorstep. The United Kingdom should support the newly announced United Nations verification and identification mission established to ensure that deliveries by sea do not include shipments of arms, but which also speeds up the inspection process. That and a move to targeted inspections would allow vital relief to reach Yemen’s population.

As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) suggested, the delivery of aid within Yemen has also been plagued with problems, as aid workers have faced incredible danger. Since the crisis began, six Yemeni Red Crescent volunteers have been killed while carrying out humanitarian work. Aid offices have been looted and attacked, due to the absence of the rule of law. Organisations such as Médecins Sans Frontières struggle to deliver aid across front lines, requiring consent from multiple groups on the ground to do so and facing significant delays and administrative burdens. The United Kingdom should work with both parties to ensure that processes are put into practice that will allow aid to be safely given to those who need it, and so that the distribution of aid throughout Yemen is predictable and unimpeded.

Emergency aid and a better flow of imports will be vital in the short term, but bringing both parties to the negotiating table should be the No. 1 priority of the international community. The UN’s special envoy, Ismail Ahmed, has previously brought the two sides together to agree on temporary ceasefires, but those have been short-lived. Two such ceasefires agreed between 12 and 17 March and 10 and 17 July were broken within hours, with each side blaming the other.

Four factors are blocking a political solution. Neither side has achieved a decisive military victory. There is only limited international pressure on the parties to resolve the conflict. There is a lack of trust between the parties. UN Security Council resolution 2216 has been a stumbling block to negotiations, as it is used by both parties to justify non-participation in peace talks. If resolution 2216 continues to be an impediment to a diplomatic solution, the Security Council should consider a new resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire and the free flow of humanitarian supplies into and within Yemen.

We should not forget that in 2011 the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, now Lord Hague, and Minister of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), led the international community in resolving Yemen’s last political crisis. The former ambassador of Yemen, Abdullah al-Radhi, and the current ambassador, Dr Yassin Saeed Noman Ahmed, feel a strong bond with the UK, and the Yemeni Government value our friendship greatly. I agree with the vice chair of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who unfortunately could not join us today, about the long-term settlement needing to be agreed by the Yemenis themselves. We can bring them to the negotiating table, but both sides need to agree to long-term dialogue and restore the terms agreed in the national dialogue conference in January 2014 and the peace and national partnership agreement signed in September 2014.

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

My right hon. Friend is painting a bleak and depressing picture about Yemen and proposing some measures that he believes may lead to a better situation. Does he share the view of many commentators that this is in fact a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran and that the solution lies with talking to those two countries as much as to the warring factions in Yemen?

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The regional problems are playing out in Yemen. There is a view that it is a proxy war and that the only way to deal with the situation is to get people to the negotiating table. That is particularly important as we have started a new relationship with Iran. The Iranians should come to the table and help us, if they can.

More than six months into the coalition’s intervention, the conflict is at a critical moment. The Yemeni Foreign Minister, Riad Yassin, who earlier this year met the all-party group and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who I see in his place, initially described the intervention as a “short, sharp campaign”. However, the aerial campaign has been unable to remove the Houthis and the coalition has now escalated its efforts to a ground offensive. The diplomatic and military capital required to continue the conflict has likely gone far beyond what either the Houthis or the coalition would have deemed acceptable when the civil war began. We now stand on the precipice of a dramatic escalation to a messy ground war, which will cause even more harm to the population. The international community therefore has a small window to show that a diplomatic solution would be preferable for all parties. If the conflict is allowed to escalate, there will not be a country left to save.

We are nearing the end. As an arms supplier to Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom has a particular responsibility to take a visible role in bringing hostilities to an end. We need to act now. The UK has an opportunity to be an honest broker and to propose a scaling down of the conflict for humanitarian reasons, offering the coalition and Houthis a way out of further escalation and bloodshed. Amid the current fighting, 30 British citizens and 300 dependents of British citizens are still stranded in the country. The Yemeni diaspora, who are watching this debate and developments, will want to see that we are doing our best. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Harry Harpham), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) have also raised the matter.

There is also the issue of the escalation of Daesh. As it sees the conflict continue, Daesh will try its best to try to get into Yemen and destabilise it further. There is ample evidence that it is already involved there.

Yemen has faced challenges before, but this crisis is the worst in living memory. We often talk of pulling Yemen back from the brink, but I fear the country is far past that stage now. We need a ceasefire now. This is not something we could do, but something we must do. Six months ago, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated:

“Yemen is collapsing before our eyes. We can’t stand by and watch.”

I fear that that is what we have done.

Here are my final questions to the Minister. Are we prepared to push all parties to the negotiating table and elevate the situation in Yemen to the highest diplomatic level? Are we prepared to put pressure on all parties to agree and commit to an immediate ceasefire? Are we prepared to work with international partners to go further in addressing the catastrophic humanitarian crisis and ensure millions of lives are not lost? Without a peaceful solution, and fast, the only future Yemen faces is economic collapse, anarchy, famine and mass refugee flows. We acted decisively before to save Yemen. Today I beg the House that we should do so once again.

European Union Referendum Bill

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and to be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. Basically, I agree with him that it would have been a lot better to have had no tampering with section 125, and that we should have left it as it was and abided by the legislation that was enacted all those years ago.

I want to speak strongly in support of what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said. He chose his words carefully and wisely. I was pleased to be a member of his Select Committee, to participate in the discussions and to listen to the advice that we were given. I have signed his amendment (a), and I am pleased that the Government have accepted it. I am also pleased that our Front-Bench team is going along with the attempts to modify the Government’s position. As I have said, it would have been much better to have had none of this debate and to have accepted the legislation as it was. I had a slight qualm about one thing that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, and that is that my enthusiasm for Tony Blair is rather more muted than his. I will say no more than that.

It is important that somebody from the Labour Back Benches says a few words in support of the shift that has taken place in the Government. It seems to be supported by all sides even though it does not go as far as I would like. That is very important, because, whichever way this referendum goes, if there is a sense that it is not fair, it will devalue the whole result. I am of a certain age and I remember well the 1975 referendum, in which I participated strongly, as I have mentioned before. I was the chair of the “Vote no” committee in Luton and the agent for the “Vote no” position in Bedfordshire at the time, so I know what happened very well. It was unfair, and the resources piled into the yes side compared with the puny resources on the no side were unbelievable. That was a travesty of democracy. When we are voting on fundamental constitutional positions, it is important that referendums are regarded as fair by all sides.

The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is no longer in his place, implied that no one takes referendums seriously and that after the result whoever loses always thinks that they have been treated unfairly. I do not think that is true. Some years ago, referendums on the European constitution took place abroad. The political establishments in France and Holland put massive resources into ensuring that there was a yes vote, but on both occasions there was a no vote. I do not think that they thought that the result was unfair, even though the big resources were on the losing side. They had to come up with another way of dealing with the matter and, of course, they introduced very similar constitutional changes into the European Union.

It is important that we ensure that the purdah period is seen to be fair, that no cheating takes place and that the Government cannot use their resources to pour in propaganda on their own side, whatever that might be. One assumes that the Government will come back and say that they have made a wonderful deal in the European Union and that we should all vote in favour of it. If that is the case, we want to have a fair debate that is seen to be fair by all sides.

Like the hon. Member for Stone, I have deep reservations about the European Union. We have constant talk about Europe, and I have to say over and again that this is about not Europe but the European Union, which is a political structure imposed on some of the countries of Europe. Europe is a wonderful place that I love dearly. I am very Eurocentric: I go there for my holidays, I drink European wine, and I love European culture, history, language—everything. But it is Europe I love, not the European Union.

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

I agree with my hon. Friend’s line of argument. It would have been better had section 125 been left in its entirety. I take a more optimistic view than some Members. The benefit of this debate is that it has exposed the Government trying to do something underhand. That debate has been had and now, during the referendum, they will have not only to follow the rules but to be seen to be following the rules of purdah. This debate has almost certainly ensured a much fairer referendum campaign.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I broadly agree with my hon. Friend. The debate has largely cleared the air and I look forward to a much fairer referendum than might have taken place if we had not had it or these changes.

Before I conclude, I should apologise for not being in the Chamber for the beginning of the Minister’s speech. I heard the meat of it and the important points that he made, however.

European Commission: National Parliaments

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

The procedures we are talking about here are in line with European law. I think what the right hon. Gentleman is driving at is the question of vetoes, and we do not have vetoes. It is important for clarity, as well as the political debate between us, to be clear that these yellow card procedures are not national Parliament vetoes of the kind he may be referring to, and there is a difference between the two.

The objections to the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office focused on the Commission’s own interpretation of subsidiarity, the comparison between the new proposals and the arrangements already in place and the question of whether this proposal would add value in combating fraud. The House of Lords has issued a report on this matter, and it gave the following verdict:

“We fear that under the Commission’s proposed model an EPPO enjoying exclusive competence for PIF crimes”—

financial fraud in the European Union—

“would be in danger of being overwhelmed by its workload, and its structure would not be sufficiently robust to enable it to monitor its investigations and prosecutions in the Member States. We see a similar problem with the Presidency’s alternative proposal. The evidence we received on the proposed introduction of a collegiate structure into the EPPO overwhelmingly suggests that this would complicate the prosecution of these crimes even further.”

Its reservations about the proposal were clear, and we shared many of them, although for the sake of clarity and completeness I should say that that does not mean that we on the Opposition Benches object to all European involvement in matters of criminal justice. Without rehearsing debates in the House on the European arrest warrant—that may be to the relief of all—we believe that that measure does have a useful role to play in combating crime both here and elsewhere in the EU.

Following all these exchanges and the rejection of the yellow card procedure by the Commission, there have been proposals from a number of Parliaments, including the Dutch and Danish Parliaments as well as our own, for reforms to the yellow card procedure. We welcome the Commission’s willingness, indicated by Mr Juncker, to establish a working group on the role of national Parliaments in the EU, but it is important that that is a serious process and that it takes the suggestions for different reforms seriously. We would also endorse the sentiment in the Government’s response to the reports about the value of Commissioners appearing before national Parliaments to explain and answer questions on the Commission’s actions and policies. We would like to see more of that in the future.

The important point is that, however many opinions are submitted or whatever the architecture of the yellow card procedure, it will be seen to be of little value if it is simply ignored. To refer to the question of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), we do not seek to turn the legal basis of the EU on its head or make demands which are incompatible with membership, but we do believe that dialogue between the Commission and national Parliaments must take seriously not only the sum of correspondence over the course of a year but its content.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not about European laws, but about the fact that this House should be expressing the sovereign will of the British people, rather than our having a pale imitation of a referee’s code of conduct on the field of play? This process is farcical. This talk about red, yellow and green cards is an insult to the democracy of this country. This House should be making the decisions, as expressed in the democracy of this country.

[Mr McFadden]

I shall give my hon. Friend a similar reply to that which I gave the right hon. Member for Wokingham: in 40-plus years of membership it has been clear that sovereignty is pooled and is not complete and absolute for this House. That is the nature of our membership. Without going into too much detail, I would repeat that improvements should be made to this procedure but I do not seek to make demands that are incompatible with continued membership, although that is the agenda of some in this House.

There are shortcomings in the reports; they revolve more around the volume of correspondence than the content. If dialogue is to be real, the exchanges have to be taken more seriously and they have to be about content as well as volume. That is what we have to look to in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This debate is central to what we do here in Parliament and to the promises that various parties will make to their electors as we leave this place shortly and go into a general election.

It used to be a fundamental principle of the House of Commons that no House of Commons properly elected could bind a successor House of Commons. That was a fundamental part of the British people’s liberties, because they have to trust a House of Commons for up to five years to legislate and govern on their behalf, and they can do so safe in the knowledge that if we—those in government—do not please, they can dismiss us at the following general election and elect a new group of people who can change all that they did not like about the laws and conduct of government of the Government whom they have just removed. But our membership of the European Economic Community, now the Union, has increasingly damaged, undermined and overwhelmed that essential precept, which was the guarantee of our liberties as the British people, because now there are huge areas of work that are under European law and European control. Those parties that go out from this House into the general election and, for example, offer a better deal on energy may well come back and discover that what they have offered is quite impossible under the strict and far-reaching rules on energy that now come from the European Union.

Yesterday, we did not have time to debate in the House the energy package, but within the proposals we were being asked to approve in the Commission’s work programme was a strategic framework for energy policy that, in turn, will spawn an enormous amount of detailed regulation and legislation, making energy a European competence almost completely. Therefore, more or less anything that the main political parties say about what they wish to do on energy policy during the next five years will be possible only if it just happens that what they wish to do is entirely in agreement with and legal under this massive amount of law and regulation that is partly in place already and will come forward in ever-increasing volumes under the strategic framework and further legal policy, and that is but one area.

A couple of other big areas that will be much debated in the election are welfare and border and migration policy. Again, anything that parties say in our general election has to go through the European test. Will changes in benefits that parties wish to see be legal or possible under the European Union? May we not find that we are completely bound by predecessor Parliaments because they have signed up to legal requirements under European law that make it impossible for the House any longer to control our own welfare policy?

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe encouraged me with his optimism because he said that welfare remained a national UK matter, but there is plenty of evidence that it already is not in many respects. All sorts of policies have been looked at that I am told would fall foul of European law and regulation. It is quite obvious, again, looking at the European Union’s work programme, that it will intensify its activity in this area and make it even more difficult for a national Parliament to express the wish that it wants in its laws on welfare. The same is true of border controls, where we are signed up to the free movement of peoples and that is now being ever more generously interpreted as giving the EU carte blanche and substantial control over border and migration policy throughout the EU.

We find ourselves in the position of debating today yellow cards and red cards to try to assert the will of national Parliaments, but it comes nowhere near the task that we need to undertake as we seek to reshape our relationship with the EU. Even having a red card, where national Parliaments collectively can block a new proposal, does nothing to tackle the problem that we have this vast panoply of law already agreed, sometimes many years ago, which may prevent a national Parliament from reflecting the will of its people. If we have to get all or most of the other member states’ national Parliaments to agree, that could still be extremely difficult, and an individual member state, which had an overwhelmingly strong national view on the subject, might be thwarted because it just did not happen to be something that worried the other member states.

We need to pause over this. I remember the excellent words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his Bloomberg speech. The Bloomberg speech wisely said that the fount of political authority in any European member state, but certainly in the United Kingdom, rests with the national electorate through the national Parliament, and that, I think, is still right. We see that in the recent conflicts and rows in a country such as Greece, which is under even more European control than we are by being part of the euro. The Prime Minister reasoned that this country needs to negotiate a new relationship with the EU that recognises that on really important things—I would have thought that welfare, borders and energy were really important things—if necessary, the national Parliament can assert and interpret the will of the British people. There should be some mechanism by which we can then do as we wish, reflecting the will of the people.

We see at the moment the tragedy of Greece, where these conflicts are much further advanced because the European Union is much more intrusive on a euro member than on the United Kingdom. We have witnessed some very interesting things. Those on both Front Benches need to listen to and study this very carefully, because their futures, as well as the future of our country, are very much at stake. The first remarkable thing is that in the most recent Greek general election the two former traditional main parties—the equivalents of Labour and Conservative—polled 33% between them. Those parties, until recently, alternated in government. They had got into that parlous state because whatever they wanted to do in the interests of Greece was blocked, modified or amended because, in practice, decisions were made by the euro group, the European Central Bank and the troika they came to hate. So the Greek people said, “It doesn’t make any difference which of you two we have. The socialists can’t be socialists and the capitalists can’t be capitalists. You all end up with the same euro policy that is driving the Greek economy into the mire.” The poor Greeks have lost almost a quarter of their national output since 2007. That this can happen in an advanced western country is mind blowing. Half their young people are out of work as a result of these policies.

The two main parties had nothing to offer because they either had to go along with the euro scheme in all its details or promise to disagree, but only in the full knowledge that they would not be allowed to do so and do anything different. Then the Greek people elected into government a challenger party, with no experience of government, saying that it intended to break the rules of the euro: it did not want the troika arriving and telling them how to govern their country and did not intend to accept the bank details and loan packages that had been drawn up by the previous regimes. We now see this gripping and gruelling conflict where the euro area and the EU are telling Greece, “Well, we’ve got news for you: these are the rules. We don’t mind that your electorate have just rejected it all. We don’t care that you’ve elected into government a party that completely disagrees with us. You have no power in this. You the Greek people, you the Greek Parliament and you the Greek Government have to accept these rules, because those are the club rules.”

We heard a mild version of that attitude from the shadow spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), when I asked him whether, on a mighty issue that matters a great deal to the British people, there should be a right for us in this House to reflect their view and legislate accordingly. He said no, there should be no such right, and we have to follow all the rules of the European scheme.

Throughout past years, when those rules related just to trading arrangements or industrial regulation, they could be irritating or vexatious, but they were not going to become game changers that mobilised the whole British people against the whole scheme of the European Union. However, when the European Union rules start to influence things that matter a great deal to people—their welfare system, their benefits system, their borders or their migration—that might start to create a much bigger reaction. When European rules and requirements have a devastating impact on an economy and employment prospects—fortunately not in this country, because we have kept out of that bit—that completely transforms the politics of that country, and we see the politics of impotence, the politics of protest and the politics of frustration.

I do not want our country to go down that route. That is why I say that we need to negotiate now, before we get to that stage, an arrangement—not just a yellow card or a red card in conjunction with other member states—for us, the United Kingdom, to say that we are still a vibrant democracy. We need to be able to say that if something matters a great deal to the British people and if it has been approved in a general election, this House can take action even if it means disagreeing with the rules of the European Union. By all means, we can try to negotiate an arrangement case by case, but where we cannot do that, we need an override—an opportunity to say, “This thing matters too much to our democracy.” If we do not have that very simple change, we no longer have in this country a successful and vibrant democracy that can guarantee stability and guarantee to deliver what the British people want.

[Graham Stringer]

I agree with the basic thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, but is not most of what he is suggesting impossible? Most of the rules governing the European Union are bound up in treaties that require 28 countries to decide to change them, and that is simply not going to happen. Much as I agree with his aspirations, I am afraid that they will not come about, will they?

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman may be right, so I hope that the British people have a referendum in which they may decide that they cannot live under such a regime without change. I would certainly vote to leave if flexibility cannot be built into the system along the lines that I have mentioned. He is a distinguished politician both locally and nationally, and surely he recognises that when we need fundamental change, we have to make the case for it and be optimistic.

I am not completely pessimistic because I do not believe that only Britain needs such a change. If this were just Britain being difficult—the island nation, on the edge of the European Union, whose traditions are old-fashioned and whose idea that Parliament really matters is now old hat because we have moved into a new world—I do not think we would win, but this is live, desperate politics for very large parts of the euro area.

The issue is live politics for what remains of the governing parties of the euro area because the path trodden by the two leading parties in Greece, whose jobs have been taken by Syriza, could be trodden by the two leading Spanish parties given the rise of Podemos and by the Italian parties given the rise of the Five Star movement and all the other pressure movements in Italy. Those countries are not immune to an insurgency challenge like the one in Greece. That sort of thing can start to concentrate the minds of other member states of the European Union and their Governments. One thing I have learned about Governments over the years is that they quite like staying in power. When they feel that there will be a very strong electoral challenge to them, they may begin by condemning it—saying it is irrational, unpleasant and all those kinds of thing—but if they think it is going to win, they have to do a deal with it, understand why people feel as they do and make some movement.

My strong advice to the whole European Union is that it needs to do a deal with the people who disagree with it, because the scheme is not working for all those people in the euro area. It needs to change policy, and it should do so before politics changes it. I do not want our country, which matters most to me, to get anywhere near such a point. I am pleased to have been part of the forces in this country that kept us out of the euro, which meant that we missed the worst—this country has a reasonable economic recovery that is completely unrelated to the continent, with its long recession and deep troubles in the southern territories—but as I see my country sucked into common policies on energy, borders, foreign affairs and welfare, I think that we might be sucked in too far and have exactly the same problems on those issues that the euro area is already experiencing on the central matter of economics.

I urge Ministers to take this seriously and to re-read the words of the Bloomberg speech. I urge the Opposition to join us, because they aspire to govern this country. One day they may come up with really popular policies and be elected on that basis, and what a tragedy it would be if they discovered that they could not enact those policies because they were illegal under European law. That could happen just as much to the Labour party as to the Conservative party.

These are not some private arguments among Conservatives in some secret club of Eurosceptics held in the privacy of the House of Commons; these are mighty arguments about the future of our continent and our country and about the nature of democracy itself. Accountability still rests with a national Parliament, not with the European institutions. If there is to be trust between politicians and the people, the national Parliament must be able to deliver when the people speak. We are in danger of that no longer being true, which is why a yellow card and a red card are not sufficient. It is also why we need to answer the question: how do the British people vote for what they want and how do an elected Government in Britain deliver it if it disagrees with European rules?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am so sorry. I do indeed mean the Council. The Council has that thin thread to the Parliaments, which provides that democratic accountability.

We then look at what those Parliaments can do. They can have a limited amount of scrutiny but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) said, that mainly comes after things have been decided; the European Scrutiny Committee gets to look at things that have already reached a far stage in the approval process within the whole European system. It is very hard to stop anything at that point, so we then move on to yellow cards.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, is making an interesting and illuminating speech. Is not one of the travesties and caricatures of democracy in the European Union the fact that the only body that can propose new legislation is the European Commission, not even the Council?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is part of the control of the Commission and part of the anti-democratic set-up of the European Union, and I do not think that is accidental; were it genuinely democratic, it would never have evolved to its current state.

We get these sops, with this business of the yellow cards, of which only two have been accepted by the Commission, and one of those was immediately dismissed—it said that the one for the public prosecutor was not a matter of subsidiarity anyway and so it would push ahead regardless. We have a threshold that is very hard to reach, and as a result of which nothing need happen, and a two-month period that makes it incredibly difficult for national Parliaments to get their responses in within the limited time available. The red card would be little better.

What we actually need is for our constituents—the people of the United Kingdom—to take back control of their own Government. That might be possible through renegotiation if the Government are robust, but the problem is that at the moment the Government show no sign of being robust or willing to push back to the European Union. They come out with platitudes that support the continuing accretion of power to the EU. They come forward with the fine words I have mentioned but never push on the difficult decisions. Yesterday the Minister for Europe told us that Switzerland wants to pull out of one of the treaties and that it has to take it all or leave it all, but that is an outrageous position to take if we are in favour of renegotiating for ourselves.

I urge the Government to be robust, to support democracy and to make sure that, for once, what they say and what they do match.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What recent reports he has received on the situation in Ukraine.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

We are gravely concerned about the situation in Crimea and in the east of Ukraine, where armed groups have seized Government buildings in Donetsk, Kharkiv and Lugansk. There can be no justification for this action, which bears all the hallmarks of a Russian strategy to destabilise Ukraine. Russia should be clear that the deliberate escalation of this crisis will bring serious political and economic consequences.

[Graham Stringer]

In February, the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered financial assistance to Ukraine. At the start of this month, Gazprom put up the price of gas to Ukraine. What safeguards has the Foreign Secretary put in place to stop any aid we give to Ukraine going straight to Russia via increased gas prices?

[Mr Hague]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the aid that he is speaking of is the International Monetary Fund programme, and work continues on that programme. The Ukrainian Government have been discussing the first stage of that with the IMF. To obtain that aid, Ukraine must meet the conditions set by the IMF, including on how that money is used. Of course Ukraine would enjoy a more successful and prosperous future if Russia were to join the rest of the international community in supporting the economic future of Ukraine.

Commission Work Programme 2014

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

After a slow start the Government have realised the economic benefits of fracking to this country’s economy. Under annexe 2, on new initiatives, there are the regulations that will apply to fracking across Europe. Does he share my worries that there are members of the Commission who want to use those regulations to stop the exploitation of shale gas?

[Mr Lidington]

There are people in the institutions and elsewhere who certainly support policies that would inhibit the development of shale gas resources. We have made it very clear, from the Prime Minister down, that we believe that such a course would be wrong and would be a betrayal of the interests of European business, of European consumers, who would like to benefit from the lower energy prices that shale development would bring, and above all of the interests of those who are out of work, where a shale gas industry would not only provide additional employment in its own right, but, by maintaining a downward pressure on energy prices, would make it possible for more companies throughout the economy to hire additional employees. The UK Government will continue to work closely with the Governments of countries such as Poland and Hungary, which also have a clear commitment to the freedom of member states to develop shale gas resources in the interests of consumers and producers alike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

This debate matters to all our constituents, given the significance of the issues involved in the work programme. Those issues affect our economy because our largest single export market is in the rest of the European Union, and because of the priority attached to completing the single market—particularly in relation to energy and telecommunications—promoting greater access to justice, and redoubling the European Union’s efforts to offer hope and jobs to the millions of young people across the EU who are without work.

At a time when events remain very precariously balanced in Ukraine, we should also reflect on the Commission’s continuing role in overseeing the EU’s enlargement strategy. Negotiations with Serbia began this week, and association agreements with third countries are still being negotiated. The EU’s neighbourhood policy remains a great force for good in the world.

The Minister and other Government Members spoke of the risk of the United Kingdom’s being left behind, but today in The Guardian the head of Unilever spoke of the risk of its being left out altogether. We increasingly hear the voice of business in strong support of the UK’s remaining in the EU in order to enjoy the benefits that it brings to business and workers in this country.

[Graham Stringer]

Is my hon. Friend aware that BASF and Monsanto have already removed their research facilities from this country and from Europe because of European regulation relating to genetically modified foods, and that the REACH regulations—the EU regulations on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—are in the process of destroying heavy industry in the north-west of England? This is a complicated issue, and my hon. Friend should be presenting a more balanced argument.

[Mr Bain]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I remember that major employers such as Hitachi established themselves in the north of England precisely because we are in the EU and have access to the single market as a result. Many investors have said that if we were no longer part of the single market, many jobs in this country would be put at risk. I simply ask my hon. Friend to reflect on that point.

Beth Schlesinger (Custody of Children)

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to have the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to bring the case of Beth Schlesinger to the attention of the House and, hopefully beyond this House, to the whole country. I believe the injustice that has happened to Beth Schlesinger deserves a wider audience and wider understanding than has been the case so far, although the case has already attracted international attention if my inbox is anything to go by. I have had e-mails from the United States, Italy and Israel as well as Austria, thanking me for bringing the case of Beth Schlesinger to this House’s attention.

I request that the Government take some action on this case, although I am under no illusion that that is very difficult for the Government, even with the best will in the world. Austria is a modern European country with a judicial system that follows the rules of natural justice and it is very difficult for any Minister from that country, let alone this country, to comment on, or interfere in, the process. However, such is the scale of the injustice that has happened to Beth Schlesinger that I hope the Minister can in some way approach the Austrian ambassador to the United Kingdom or the Austrian Government to express the concerns that many of my constituents have on this matter. Beth Schlesinger lives in Vienna at present, but her parents are my constituents.

This case is Kafkaesque. That is an overused word, but what has happened to Beth Schlesinger defies normal understanding. Authorities have taken decisions about her life and her children’s lives which are inexplicable and certainly unjust.

The best way to explain to the House what has happened is to go through the chronology of the events. Beth Schlesinger—her maiden name was Alexander—married Mr Schlesinger in October 2006. On 24 May 2009 the twins Samuel and Benjamin were born to the couple. Unfortunately the marriage then deteriorated and Mr Schlesinger, became violent and abusive towards Beth Schlesinger, and on 15 February 2010 Mr Schlesinger tried to have Beth committed to a mental hospital in Austria. Because there had been violence against Beth, however, the police were called and they removed Mr Schlesinger from the family home. He was given five minutes to pack his bags, and a restraining order was placed on him. He was subsequently given limited access to the children. Full custody was given to Beth Schlesinger; he was given two hours’ supervised access, three times a week.

So far, so understandable, unfortunately. It is not an uncommon arrangement for married couples, in this country and elsewhere in Europe, for the mother to end up with custody and for the father to have supervised access because of his violent activities. Mr Schlesinger had been violent and abusive not only towards Beth but towards her father and her father-in-law.

Then, things took a turn for the worse. Mr Schlesinger requested a friend of his, Konstanze Thau, a high court judge in Austria, to contact Susanne Göttlicher, the judge in charge of the case. It is highly irregular for a high court judge to intervene in another court on behalf of a father who has shown himself to be violent. However, after that meeting, Beth’s custody rights were reduced. The judge also ordered that the children were not to leave Austria.

In January 2011, the father was given further, unsupervised, access to the children. I am told that that happened through a legal technicality. Let us remember that, after the violent episode, Mr Schlesinger had tried to have Beth committed. I suppose we would call it “sectioned” in this country. A doctor, Ulrike Willinger, then produced a psychiatric report on Beth, in which she recommended, without having fully examined all the people involved in the case, that the children should be returned to Mr Schlesinger’s control. That report was considered by the judge on 17 June 2011.

A further report was produced by Dr Sinko-Sanz, a qualified psychiatrist, which informed the court that there was nothing wrong with Beth and that the children were developing normally. Social services put in a similar report. Unfortunately, however, Judge Susanne Göttlicher —who had previously been visited by the friend of Mr Schlesinger—decided to give full custody to the father. That was an extraordinary decision, and no details were given in the order of how the handover should happen.

In October 2011—this is a crucial point, because these decisions were never carried out—Beth brought an appeal and the father’s rights were reduced; he was granted only temporary custody. Crucially, the higher court asked for a further investigation, and that reports should be drawn up on the children, the father and the mother. That instruction from the higher court was never carried out, however, and the only reports that were ever produced for Judge Göttlicher’s court were those relating to Beth. The father was told by the courts—there is a specific word for this, as is often the case with the German language—to give as much information to the children’s mother as he could so that she could understand all the needs—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Karen Bradley.)

[Graham Stringer]

The father was basically asked to tell the mother what the children’s needs were and what was happening, but what actually happened was that he cancelled 50 of Beth’s visits. Rather than him looking after the children, Filipino nannies were hired to do that for 12 hours a day and at weekends, and to take them to and from the nursery. Beth became more and more worried about the children; Samuel had four teeth taken out without any medical reasons given and Benjamin had two teeth removed. Beth was not only worried about what was happening, as the visits were cancelled and the children were upset, but it became clear that in the court’s previous decision Judge Göttlicher had suppressed a report from the nursery which had shown, and expressed the view, that when the children were seeing the father they had been crying and screaming, and had been extremely distressed. Clearly, Judge Göttlicher had had that report but it was not used. Things went from bad to worse, in terms not only of access to the children, but finance. Mr Schlesinger stopped paying maintenance and, indeed, tried to demand that Beth paid maintenance. She was now given access only on two afternoons a week and three hours every second Sunday, which represents an extraordinary turnaround from the original situation.

In July 2013, the judge awarded full custody to the father. At this time, crucially, no assessment of the father, or of the father with the children, had taken place. Beth had been examined in German for the psychiatrist’s report that had recommended against her. She is not fluent in the language, and so her answers had been slow, which was counted as a mark towards her being considered mentally unstable. Some of the relationships involving Judge Konstanze Thau became clear, and not only the one with Mr Schlesinger; her husband worked in the same hospital as Dr Willinger. I do not usually believe in conspiracies, but in this case the decisions that were taken were so strange that one has to suspect that undue influence and conspiracy were taking place.

Beth has asked me to draw to the House’s attention a case of a similar custody issue, although much more extreme in many ways, that has been before the higher Austrian courts in the past week or so. It involved a neglected and filthy child—not the same as in the Schlesinger family’s case—that had been taken away from the mother, who was deemed to be inadequate. The higher courts in Austria said, in giving the child back to the mother, that a loving child’s bond is of “paramount consideration”. I agree with that, and that Austrian court got it right in a much more difficult case than this one. Court cases are always difficult to compare because they involve details that one does not know, but I think that that case highlights what has gone wrong in Beth’s case.

I want to thank a few people before I come to my conclusion on this case. I have been to see the Austrian ambassador about this matter. He was courteous and listened carefully before explaining the situation to me. The Minister has received a delegation consisting of me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), and I am grateful to him for that. I know that he is familiar with the case and sympathetic, and I hope that he will listen to what are outrageous decisions from the Austrian courts and, even with all the difficulties that I have explained, take action on them.

I have great respect for the Austrian state. As a Minister I had regular meetings with Austrian Ministers. I like Austria, but the decision in Beth Alexander’s case is a blight on the Austrian judicial system and I hope that it will be put right. Brought to its bare bones, this case is about a violent father who has been violent towards the mother of his children and other members of the family and who has been given custody of two children. The children are clearly unhappy. They do not speak very well, and they are still in nappies beyond the age of four. He was given custody after exerting undue influence on the courts over a mother who is completely blameless. As a Member of this House for 16 years and a councillor for many years before, I have rarely come across a case of such injustice. Despite all those difficulties, I hope that the Minister, who has shown that he is interested and sympathetic, can be of help.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I want to put it formally on the record that I thank the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for bringing this case to the House’s attention. I also speak on behalf of my constituent, Adrian Alexander, who is the brother of Beth Schlesinger. Adrian and I had cause to visit the ambassador at the Austrian embassy and we discussed the case with him. I came away with the feeling that even the ambassador was confused about some of the details, particularly about the recent judgment in which there was no recitation of the facts of the case. If we could at least establish what we are dealing with, we could seek some kind of resolution. As I have said, I want to place it formally on the record, on behalf of Beth’s family, that we thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House tonight.

[Graham Stringer]

As I explained to the House, we are not just talking about Beth’s family. There has been concern throughout the world. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thanks.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

This case has caused considerable concern among my constituents. At the start of the hon. Gentleman’s very fine comments, he talked about the Austrian judicial system following the rules of natural justice. Is he aware that in the judgments handed down by the judges there has been no explanation as to why Mr Schlesinger was favoured over Mrs Schlesinger? They simply issued a judgment with no explanation. That surely cannot be in line with natural justice.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful for that intervention. I am aware that justice was denied in that last judgment without any explanation. There is a great deal that mystifies me about the case—how a higher court’s decisions are not carried through, and the inadequate decision of the lower court. Even though we have slightly longer than the normal half-hour Adjournment debate, one could have taken an hour going through the technical details of the case, but I wanted to get to the heart of the subject and show the basic injustice that has happened in this case. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unlikely that Rouhani has any serious differences with the Ahmadinejad regime? The fact that he was one of six chosen from 3,000 potential candidates by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei indicates that he is probably completely at one with them. Is it likely that somebody who wanted to execute demonstrators campaigning for freedom shares any of the values of democracy or of the west?

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman speaks a great deal of sense and makes some extremely pertinent points. I hope the Foreign Office has taken note of his intervention. I suspect that, going back to the 1930s, the default position of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence is to try to arrive at an agreement to solve our problems through international accord. Of course, all of us see a lot of sense in that, but it must be stated in this case that no deal is probably far better than a bad deal. A bad deal will not solve anything. In fact, a bad deal will allow the Iranians under their present leadership, with all the other people behind the scenes, to cross that nuclear finish line. Once Iran has a nuclear weapon, the negotiating stance of the Foreign Office and the international community will be blown out of the water. This is our best chance to stop nuclear proliferation in the middle east.