Commonwealth Trade

John Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell]

I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s view. I also believe that we must expand the Commonwealth and look to countries with historical links to the Commonwealth that may not have considered joining or that we may not have approached. A more vigorous policy to attract more countries to join the Commonwealth would be very welcome. I would like to see the whole of Ireland in the Commonwealth and I very much look forward to that day.

In addition to the Commonwealth nations, we of course have 21 British overseas territories—parts of the world that my hon. Friend the Minister is becoming more familiar with by the day—which stretch from Gibraltar to the Falkland Islands, Bermuda to the Pitcairn Islands and Montserrat to St Helena, along with five Crown dependencies: the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Australia also has external territories, such as Norfolk Island, and New Zealand has its realm states, such as the Cook Islands. All are part of our extended Commonwealth family. The English-speaking world is, I believe, the most powerful collection of nations on earth today. It is time to harness that power to extend opportunities for trade and to create the wealth that our people need.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s long-standing and very considerable interest in the British overseas territories. He mentioned the territories that are administered by Australia and by New Zealand, but what is the aggregate population of those territories if we are talking about trade and Britain’s trade balances?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I commend him for his commitment to the Commonwealth and his deep understanding of countries around the world with which we have a lot in common, such as Australia. However, I have to say to him that this is not only about population size; it is also about geography. It is about the opportunities that some of the smaller territories around the world present. Some of them can contribute in all kinds of ways. Yes, some of them have small populations, but surely they too should be welcomed as part of the family of nations and territories. We do not exclude a small territory because it has a small population; otherwise, what would we do with places such as Pitcairn, Sark and other places that have very small populations but are loyal to Britain and want to feel part of the extended Commonwealth family?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

This is of course not purely a debate about overseas territories. It is about Commonwealth trade. Only last week, I met chief ministers and premiers from many of the overseas territories, who were here for the joint ministerial council, and the one message that I received from all of them was that although they appreciate all the different, new initiatives our Government are introducing and the much warmer relationship, they still wonder: are they British or are they foreign? That is the question they put to me. Why are British territories under the Foreign Office? They are British, not foreign. They are not even Commonwealth; they are not allowed to join the Commonwealth. They do not even have territory status in the Commonwealth. They feel that they are treated almost as an anomaly.

It is high time that we addressed all the issues and treated overseas territories as an equal part of the British family, while upholding their right to self-determination and home rule. We do not want to govern them from London, but we want them to feel securely part of the British family. Giving them elected representation and secure places in our Parliament, particularly for territories that are under threat from aggressive neighbours, such as the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, would signify that we intend to retain them permanently as British sovereign territory and that negotiations over their future will not take place. I appreciate the sentiments that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) expressed this morning.

The nations of the Commonwealth are dotted along the whole spectrum of the development index. Within it are some of the largest producers of raw materials, as well as a broad range of manufacturing and service industries. Combined with that rich diversity, we are all wonderfully tied together by a shared history, heritage and language. Many Commonwealth countries continue to share Her Majesty the Queen as their sovereign and Head of State, and of course Her Majesty remains head of the Commonwealth itself. The Commonwealth was not an accident; it was built on trade flows, the location of commodities, the availability of work forces and a mutual desire to develop and succeed.

Where have things gone wrong? Why has the United Kingdom sat back? Why has there been such a systematic failure to develop the debate over Commonwealth trade? I suggest that some of the fault may lie in our membership of a continental construction that has effectively tied Britain to a protectionist trade block. Although I welcome everything that the Foreign Secretary has said, perhaps blame lies with the low importance that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has given in recent years to our relationship with the Commonwealth.

Could the Minister tell the House how many people in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office actually work on Commonwealth issues? I am informed that it may be as few as six, and only one may be full-time. Is that true and, if so, why do Her Majesty’s Government not make the Commonwealth a greater priority? In addition, can the Minister confirm which UK representative, if any, joined the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting delegation in Tokyo in October of this year? I have no doubt that he agrees that the UK should take a leading role at such meetings.

[Mr Spellar]

As I understand the arcane discussions going on inside the Conservative party at the moment, one school of thought says that we ought to return to a relationship with Europe as a trading block, rather than continue in the European Union, and that negotiations should take place and there should be a referendum. But that would still mean that we were in a major trading block that would be our major trading partner. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that we ought to look for an alternative trading block, rather than a complementary or supplementary one. Will he clarify?

[Andrew Rosindell]

The shadow Minister misunderstands the point I am making. I value enormously our relationship with Europe. Co-operating and trading with Europe is very important, and I do not downplay it at all. I am sceptical over whether the EU, as constructed, is the right model for us to be part of. There are all sorts of ways to trade and co-operate with our neighbours on the continent, without necessarily being tied into a political union, which is, I am afraid, heading in the direction of an integrated united states of Europe. I do not think that many constituents of Members in the Hall today would support the idea of going further and deeper into that construction. If the Labour party intends to fight the next election wanting to sign up to an even closer relationship with Europe, I look forward to the election result.

What of the general UK presence in terms of trade with the Commonwealth? For example, how many UK trade delegations have been to Commonwealth nations since 2010? Maybe the Minister can answer that later. Sadly, it seems that Britain has delegated many such matters to Brussels. We appear to have lost our ability to conduct direct trade deals with countries outside the EU. The UK seems unable to carry out free trade agreements with a third party, due to our association with the EU customs union. Consequently, the UK can independently forge bilateral investment agreements only. In the light of that, could the Minister inform the House when the last bilateral investment agreement was signed by the UK and another Commonwealth country? Although we all recognise the importance of our trade relationship with our European neighbours as individual states, the idea that we must for ever have a Eurocentric focus is simply outdated and wrong. Commonwealth and European trade should not be seen as mutually exclusive; they should complement each other.

We run a trade deficit with the EU of £41 billion, but a trade surplus of more than £10.7 billion with the Commonwealth, so it makes sense to balance one with the other. More Commonwealth trade does not mean less trade with European nations. Germany, for example, had an extremely healthy surplus of £16.8 billion in 2011. Does anyone seriously believe that our German friends would stop that great deal with the British people if we forged a new agenda on Commonwealth trade? It would to be to no one’s advantage.

Our neighbours across the English Channel would be the beneficiaries of any new arrangement for Commonwealth trade. They, too, could plug into opportunities that Britain is in a unique position to create. We are in a unique position to concentrate on developing the potential for trade that exists beyond the continent of Europe, and we should not be held back from doing so.

In October this year, a paper authored by Tim Hewish and James Styles, “Common-Trade, Common-Growth, Common-Wealth”, set out the possibilities for Commonwealth trade. It examined in detail how we can further mould the Commonwealth into a relevant and practical 21st-century organisation, based around a mutually beneficial trade relationship, as well as how we can lift developing Commonwealth nations out of poverty. I highly recommend the book to the Minister. I hope that he will read it, and take it back to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to develop ideas based on its excellent contents. The case is supremely compelling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that his work in the Foreign Office laid the foundations for closer co-operation with our friends in Africa, which is an up and coming continent. Once again, Britain is uniquely placed to develop trade and co-operation with those countries, and the Commonwealth Business Council also has a role to play. But what were we thinking of, in the past few decades, when we completely forgot about countries all around the world, and focused purely on a model of Europe that, frankly, was alien to what most of us in this country believe? All those opportunities lie before us, and we now need the political courage to seize them and make the best of them, not only for our own people, but for those of all the Commonwealth nations. I believe that we have the chance to do so at this point in our history.

We all know that, in comparison with the combined Commonwealth annual growth rate of 3.7%, the European Union’s growth is shrinking. Under the so-called Commonwealth effect, the overhead costs of trading with the Commonwealth are reduced by about 15% in comparison with trade outside the Commonwealth. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the Commonwealth factor in doing business.

We are the world’s sixth largest trading nation. Yet while we remain wedded to an outmoded customs union, emerging nations are at liberty to trade freely and openly in a healthy competitive environment. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing, despite that hindrance, to help UK small and medium-sized enterprises trade with other Commonwealth nations, and what platforms are open to UK SMEs to get information about Commonwealth trade?

I am left in absolutely no doubt that we are at a crossroads; not taking a practical outlook now on how the UK moves its trade relations forward will be viewed by future generations as utterly foolish. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in my work with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and as chairman of all-party groups relating to Commonwealth countries and the overseas territories, I am fortunate to have met and had direct dealings with many high commissioners, prime ministers, premiers, chief ministers, diplomats, Government representatives and those engaged with trade and commerce. Let me tell the House that there is a strong and clear message that resonates: the Commonwealth nations are eager for our business, and they want to explore and develop a trading relationship. But what do we do? We talk. We talk about the valuable asset of the Commonwealth, how relevant it remains to Britain and the potential for business and trade, but we seem to do very little.

Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider making that a central theme for Her Majesty’s Government to pursue in the second half of this Parliament. Will a Business Minister join him in Colombo for next year’s Commonwealth business forum to promote what I hope will be a new British vision for trade across the Commonwealth? I, for one, recognise how important it is for the UK to take a lead in Commonwealth initiatives. What could be more important in these times than to build steadfast foundations for trade for the decades to come? To all those who think that adopting a different relationship with the EU would put us on the periphery of Europe, I say no—it would place us on the doorstep of the world. That point runs much deeper, because increased Commonwealth trade and co-operation would bring a whole host of other benefits. A Commonwealth investment bank might cultivate projects in emerging markets, and a Commonwealth business visa could promote a trans-regional investor environment.

On that note, a few simple changes at our border would also provide a friendlier reception for Commonwealth citizens entering the United Kingdom. As colleagues will be aware, I am promoting the United Kingdom Borders Bill, which would provide for recognition at our border of people from Commonwealth realms where Her Majesty the Queen remains the Head of State. It would give people from those 15 nations the right to enter UK passport control in the same channel as the British, which would generate a tremendous amount of good will.

The shadow Minister, who has links with Australia, will know how passionately such people feel let down when, on arriving at Heathrow, they are told to queue with those from the rest of the world. They fought shoulder to shoulder with us in every war, they share the Queen as their Head of State, they speak our language and their culture and heritage is ours, yet we treat them as aliens. Why do we not allow people from those realms and territories the right to enter through the same channel as the British, while those from countries with whom we have not always had that much in common can enter through that channel? It is a shameful indictment of the failure of all Governments to recognise our very special relationship with those countries. I hope the Government will address that by supporting my Bill, which is now before the House. The Bill would boost tourism and trade by making it easier to move between Her Majesty’s realms and territories.

There is a social justice element to the argument. The UK currently hands out £8.57 billion a year in international aid, which is a lot of money, almost all of which is distributed to Commonwealth countries. However, as we have discovered, handouts are futile for long-term sustainability: endless handouts are not the solution. If we really care—in other words, if we really mean it—we should offer such nations a way to trade their way up and out of poverty.

The cruel reality is that that cannot realistically be achieved by the UK at the moment, for we cannot give Commonwealth states the chance to trade with us on equal terms. While other countries such as Russia and China are able to invest in mutually beneficial relationships with the Commonwealth nations in the developing world, Britain is left simply throwing money at well-meaning projects, because we are not able to have trading relations directly with those nations without going through the European Union.

[Mr Spellar]

Will the hon. Gentleman give an example of where China has been able to develop those relationships differently with, say, Australia or Canada?

[Andrew Rosindell]

Goodness me. The shadow Minister surprises me. Wherever I go in the world, I see the Chinese investing money, establishing institutions, developing opportunities for trade and ensuring that their best interests are looked after. Sadly, we cannot do that because we are shackled to an institution that prevents us from doing so individually as Britain with our Commonwealth partners. Even the Labour party must be able to see that this is no way to create wealth either for Britain or for developing nations.

[Mr Spellar]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he give an example of the sort of projects that he is thinking about that the Chinese are able to develop and that our membership of the EU prevents us from developing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I apologise, Mr Turner, for not giving advance notice that I wish to speak in this debate, but having heard two such excellent speeches from two Members whom I greatly respect and who talk a great deal of sense on this issue—my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field)—I was inspired to join in the debate and support some of the points that they have made.

Commonwealth trade is something about which we can both take lessons from the past and look to the future. Fundamentally, it is about Britain’s place in the 21st century and the opportunities and some of the risks, which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out, facing Britain’s place as a trading nation.

I have always believed that, because we are more externally facing and have greater links across the world than any other country in Europe, there are great risks in tying ourselves too closely into a European trading bloc to the exclusion of all else and that inevitably the process of closer union in Europe leads to compromises. Britain’s position as a trading nation with very strong external links throughout the Commonwealth and with other parts of the world, such as Latin America, can be compromised by compromising too far with our European neighbours, so I strongly support the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford has made.

[Mr Spellar]

Why does the hon. Gentleman think that membership of the EU constrains us in trading with the rest of the world, when Germany manages—dramatically successfully—to trade with the rest of the world? The last time that I looked, Germany was a member of the EU and even of the eurozone.

[Mr Walker]

It is absolutely true that it is possible to export to the rest of the world as a member of the EU—I do not deny that in the least. However, the EU puts up trade barriers, many of which have disadvantaged Commonwealth countries over the years. For example, in the famous banana wars, Commonwealth imports were seriously disadvantaged by European action, and that directly affected Britain’s relationships with some of its Commonwealth neighbours.

[Mr Spellar]

Surely, the banana wars were about regulations under the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Banana producers in former British and French territories were having problems with bananas produced by American companies on massive central American plantations; that had nothing to do with the EU—it was a general agreement on tariffs and trade issue.

[Mr Walker]

I am afraid I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Furthermore, by bringing some of their overseas territories into the European network, the French have been able to benefit them in a way that we cannot benefit members of our Commonwealth. We therefore need the flexibility to trade more freely.

Interestingly, this is not a new debate. In fact, I looked the issue up in Hansard, and I hope Members will indulge me if I read part of a speech by a former Member for Worcester:

“I suggest that it is the urgent duty of Her Majesty’s Government to pay far more attention to the markets of the Commonwealth than they have done in the past. I certainly feel that there has been something of a negative attitude towards the Commonwealth markets. There has been a tendency”—

this was when Britain was outside the Common Market, but trying to join—

“because we have been closed out of the Common Market, to call the Finance Ministers of the Commonwealth to this country not to discuss and formulate a vigorous policy for expanding our trade with the Commonwealth but to discuss the concessions which they may be willing to make to get into the Common Market countries. This is a matter which, I believe, has contributed to this large fall in the proportion of Commonwealth trade enjoyed by this country. In fact, it would appear that we are beginning to give away the substance of Commonwealth trade for the potage of possibilities elsewhere.”—[Official Report, 20 April 1961; Vol. 638, c. 1434-35.]

That Member happened to be my father, and that was his maiden speech in 1961. If we had taken a different route, as my hon. Friend said, we might be trading far more successfully with the Commonwealth today.

We need to look at the 21st-century world and at the rising powers in it, and we need recognise that the opportunities and challenges that we face are profoundly different from those in 1961. Europe is no longer such a large part of the world economy, and one of the rising world powers is India, which is a member of the Commonwealth. Britain therefore has an extra interest in trading with the Commonwealth and in breaking down some of the barriers to Commonwealth trade. We must recognise, however, that we no longer rule the roost when setting the Commonwealth’s rules. As we set out to increase Commonwealth trade and to work more closely with other Commonwealth countries, we must recognise that many of them have as much right to have a say in the process as we do. We should encourage and support other Commonwealth countries—particularly India, which stands out as one of the world’s emerging superpowers—to play a more active role in promoting the opportunities that would benefit us all.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of education. In his speech in 1961, my late father talked about the importance of creating a Harvard business school for Commonwealth business executives, so that we could have more Commonwealth-minded business people carrying out trade. There is a real opportunity in that regard. I recently visited China, which is not of course a member of the Commonwealth, and saw the work a university in my constituency is doing to bring rising people in the local civil service over from China, train them and send them back. That created enormous good will, and when I took a business delegation there—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—there were huge trade opportunities. We should look to do such things throughout the Commonwealth, especially given the enormous advantages offered by a common language and a common legal system. I therefore strongly endorse the point about the jubilee scholarships, which I should like to be taken even further to open up such opportunities.

We have an exciting opportunity to position Britain better in the 21st century and to work with some of the world’s fastest-growing economies and rising powers. We should not turn our back on Europe, but we should recognise that we are stronger if we have multilateral relationships in many different directions, and if we complement our trade with our European partners with trade throughout a world that is rapidly changing and in which the centres of economic power are shifting.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing the debate. I had hoped that it would focus on increasing trade around the world and especially on ensuring a fair share for manufacturing; I say that having, in a previous incarnation, been a national officer for the electricians’ union and represented two west midlands constituencies during my parliamentary career. I have a huge interest in manufacturing, and I would certainly agree that its interests and importance have not had sufficient attention, particularly among the ranks of the British civil service. I will touch on that later.

It is unfortunate that almost no debate in the House can now be conducted without focusing to an unhealthy extent on Europe, often in areas where Europe is not a relevant consideration. The hon. Gentleman talked about high-tax, welfare-bloated states; some would characterise Sweden as one of those—it is an archetypal Scandinavian welfare state—but it has a very effective exporting machine. Similarly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) will know, Germany laid the foundation for many social welfare provisions in the Bismarck era, as one of the early representations of a welfare state, and it is hugely successful at exporting.

Let me take another, very real example. Following the manufacturing downturn that resulted from the global financial crisis, civil service and Treasury officials here were hugely resistant—there was a considerable battle within the Government about this—to paying companies to keep their manufacturing workers on the books. We should compare and contrast that with what happened in Germany, which kept workers on and then had a work force who were ready to go when the upturn came.

Take a company such as JCB, whose owners are well known for their donations to, and involvement with, the Conservative party—although I will not complain about that on this occasion. We should compare and contrast its operation in Germany, which is a smaller part of the overall business, with its operation in Uttoxeter, in the midlands. When the upturn came in Germany, its operation there was able to take on work straightaway, but its operation in Uttoxeter had to go and find the workers that it had had to lay off to maintain financial viability. That is very much about using welfare provisions to maintain industrial capability, so it is not as though there is an inconsistency in having a proper welfare state and industrial efficiency.

That is the nub of my argument with the hon. Member for Romford. He put forward many interesting ideas, and I fully agree with him about the importance of stressing the need to develop, maintain and expand our relations with our Commonwealth partners. However, he focused on our relationship with the EU, when the fault, in Shakespeare’s words,

“is not in our stars, But in ourselves”.

The problems are in the UK, and constantly blaming people somewhere in Brussels means that we do not examine what we need to do in this country to improve and, in many areas, to build trading relationships, particularly—I was pleased the hon. Gentleman touched on this—through education.

We also need to look at how we have been reacting to Government purchasing, for example. It is hard to go to a foreign country and say “Buy British trains” when the Department for Transport deliberately turns its back, because of some complications in the bidding, on buying from Bombardier in Derby and buys from Siemens instead. It appears that yet again, as happens so often, it is allowing Siemens some variation to the contract. Why do I cite Bombardier in particular? Precisely because it is an extremely successful Canadian company, investing in UK train manufacture. It is also investing—I am sorry that our colleagues from Northern Ireland are no longer present—in what used to be Shorts in Northern Ireland; that is an extremely successful project, which is now securing an increasing share of the world market.

In that context, the hon. Member for Romford slightly underestimated the degree of engagement between us and many of our significant Commonwealth partners. Australia and the UK are either No. 1 or No. 2 as major investors in each other and, interestingly enough, the position of Australia has been rising in the past two or three years. There is significant investment between our countries.

There was enormous publicity during the year about the success of Tata, a major Indian company that has made a huge success of its ownership of Jaguar Land Rover. Now it is not only expanding production but moving down the supply chain. An investment in a substantial engine plant for Jaguar Land Rover in the Wolverhampton and south Staffordshire area is very welcome.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I accept a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Will he therefore agree that Britain is in a unique position to be a bridge between trade with the European continent and trade with the English-speaking world, and that we could have a unique and positive role to play if we were to harness the Commonwealth and the English-speaking world while retaining a trading relationship with our neighbours on the continent? Can we combine the two to the mutual benefit of all?

[Mr Spellar]

I am pleased that my eloquence has persuaded the hon. Gentleman that those objectives are not inconsistent but compatible and that, for a variety of reasons, many of which he enunciated effectively, we can act as a springboard into the European market. That is an attraction not just for Commonwealth countries, but, as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) will know extremely well, for Japanese companies coming to the UK.

Why are so many Japanese car companies based in the UK and expanding their investment and production? It is because we have offered a welcome mat to them, and they are now also expanding component manufacture here as well. It is enormously important for us to be able to tell those companies, “You have come to a country where you will be welcome, and where you have the advantage of the English language, the time zone and a developed commercial community that can service a variety of needs.” That is enormously important. I only wish we could also say, “And you will have easy access through airports,” but that is a matter that—regrettably and, I think, to the detriment of our business—seems to have been slipped slightly to the right.

The situation has come about precisely because we are an engaged member of the European trading bloc. There is a lot of talk—one can read about it in the excellent note produced by the Library—about the fact that so much of our trade now is intra-European, but that is not surprising. In all economies, especially as borders break down, geography is destiny. The United States has a huge cross-border trade with Canada. Up on the Detroit-Windsor border, trucks run back and forth every day between the major car and component plants in the United States and Canada.

It is the view of Australian politicians of all parties that it was inevitable, especially as China opened up and Japan developed economically, that trading relationships would grow between Australia, and Japan and China. That was inherent in their geographical position. The same goes for us. We do not count as a trade flow the fact that Toyota builds engines in Deeside in Wales and builds its cars in Burnaston. If, however, we considered that process happening between plants in Germany or France, it would count as trade flows, but that is the nature of modern industry and the interdependency of plants. We should welcome it, but it should not detract from our efforts also to build markets around the world.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The right hon. Gentleman surely realises that the concept of free trading around the world in some of the countries that he mentions is very different from the model of trading that we are presented with via the European Union. The harmonisation, standardisation, centralised control and single currency that are being introduced in the European Union are not being brought in anywhere else in the world. The model of trade that the right hon. Gentleman articulates so well is one I would accept, but that is not the model of trade prescribed by Brussels. He is talking about two different visions of what trade is all about.

[Mr Spellar]

There are always standards. Whether the European Union is involved or not, there are international standards. When the hon. Gentleman uses a DIN plug on some audio equipment, that is the Deutsche whatever-it-is; when he has a SCART lead that is the Syndicat—it is a French standard. Countries adopt international standards. It is the same in the oil industry. People work to standards normally set by the United States. Why is so much of that business still undertaken in feet and inches? Precisely because of where the main activity takes place. None of that, to get back to the point I made earlier, prevents Germany from being a major industrial powerhouse, which sells goods all round the world—and it does not prevent Sweden or French industry from doing that, either.

I agree with the hon. Member for Romford that we need to look at what we are doing throughout the world because there are several countries that are hugely important markets for us. Australia and Canada are both in the G20. By the way, we should also consider the huge growth happening in another G20 country, Indonesia, although it is not a Commonwealth country.

The EU has also recently signed a free trade agreement with Korea, which opens huge new markets to us. I hope that there will also be developments in the Japan trade agreement. The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of studying expanding markets, and ensuring that we produce the right sorts of goods and services and that Government purchasing encourages their manufacture in the UK. We should sell such goods and services and not underestimate our ability to sell services around the world—not just in the financial and legal sectors, but in the cultural field, where we have a unique selling proposition, which we should develop further. We should be thinking about building on our commonalities with the countries in question, as well as ensuring that we do not ignore other growing countries.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) has left the Chamber. It was a pleasure to work with him at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not only because of the work we all did, as the hon. Member for Romford will know, on returning the Turks and Caicos Islands to functioning democracy but because of his interest in Africa. I engaged with him on the issue of Somali pirates and my shadow ministerial colleagues engaged with him on Africa.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk was right to stress that many of the world’s fastest-growing countries are in Africa, and in the Commonwealth, and he is absolutely right that we therefore need to put in more diplomatic and commercial effort. I hasten to add that I would like the banks to be a bit more helpful to and co-operative with companies trying to expand and inevitably dealing with cash-flow issues. In manufacturing in particular, the banks are not as helpful as they should be—certainly not in the west midlands. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress those issues because they are areas that we ought to develop, but the matter is not exclusive to our relationships with Europe; it is part of an expanding international trading community, in which we ought to be involved.

I slightly query the hon. Gentleman’s stress on trade delegations, although I do not in any way underestimate their impact. When I was in Indonesia in July, it was clear that the Government trade delegation that had been there had been helpful and significant. We really need to follow up on that, and I am not sure whether we are doing enough.

Trade delegations are important, but we do not need one to Australia. Businessmen, politicians, academics and others are backwards and forwards to Australia and Canada. We should treat trade with such countries as part of our normal trading pattern. It seems to me that trade delegations are to open up markets and relationships. As things proceed positively—we hope—in Burma, we will undoubtedly need to be developing more there. That is the role of trade delegations, but we should be considering how we, our embassies and our high commissions around the world, facilitate the operation of businesses. We should also be moving towards doing normal business, as though going from Birmingham to Brisbane was like going from London to Edinburgh, rather than treating such business as separate, and just part of foreign policy.

To ensure that the Minister has time to reply, I shall make just one final point. I return to the question of the British independent overseas territories. As I said earlier, I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford on his work in raising the prominence of the overseas territories here in Parliament. There is no taxation without representation, but also no representation without taxation, so I am not entirely sure exactly how their having direct representation would work out.

The hon. Member for Romford is right to stress the strategic importance of some of the territories, but it worries me that we sometimes focus on countries that have, for one reason or another, political or media prominence but do not represent the real markets that we ought to be considering—the ones from which we get the volume and the ones that will be the hugely growing economies of the future. I conclude by saying that the hon. Gentleman has opened up a number of issues, and one day we might be able to have a debate without Europe dominating so much.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the subject of the report from the UN group of experts, which has formed part of the information that the International Development Secretary has considered in reaching a decision about the aid budget and direct support for the Rwandan Government. However, the communiqués issued by the Ugandan, Rwandan and DRC Presidents stipulate that there must be a solution to the problem in the eastern DRC, which means not just a resolution of the conflict now but longer-term measures to ensure that the cycle of conflict is broken.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

In September, when the former International Development Secretary gave £21 million of aid to Rwanda, what advice did the Department offer ahead of his decision? What advice did it offer last week, when the current Secretary of State cancelled the money? Was it different from the advice that was given in September?

[Mark Simmonds]

Before the decision made in September by the former Secretary of State and the decisions made by the current Secretary of State, the Foreign Office and other relevant Departments were consulted, and the decisions were made across Government with the full agreement of those Departments.

Antarctic Bill

John Spellar Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael]

That is an important question, and there are two points to make in response. First, by showing British leadership and demonstrating that the existing treaty arrangements are important to us and should be important to the other signatories, we will signal that we mean business in respect of international control, ownership and responsibility in the Antarctic. That will make dealing with the challenges we face easier. Secondly, we must be aware of other nations, notably China and Korea, becoming interested in the Antarctic for obvious reasons. We therefore need to protect and enhance our international structures to deal with that.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

May I assist the hon. Gentleman? One recent concern has been whether the proposed merger of the British Antarctic Survey and the National Oceanography Centre was sending the wrong signals. As he will be aware, the Science and Technology Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), produced a very good report recommending that that merger should not go ahead. I am pleased to see that in response to it the Government have today issued a statement confirming that those two bodies will not be merged. That sends a very good message to other countries with interests in the region, especially Argentina.

[Neil Carmichael]

I am grateful for that assistance from someone on the Opposition Front Bench. I was intending to celebrate the fact that that merger will not go ahead. That is exceptionally good news for the BAS, and I will discuss it in more detail later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have indeed worked very well together on the issue of the Chagos Islands—the British Indian Ocean Territory—which is another policy that I hope the Minister will review. Yes, we will work with Argentina and Chile on the issue of Antarctica—it is our responsibility to work with all the nations that are signatories to the Antarctic treaty—but it would help the cause if they respected the sovereignty of territories that are under the Crown. It is not helpful that countries such as Argentina in particular ignore the democratic wishes of the people of the Falkland Islands and retain an illegal claim over that territory. I hope that they will take the hon. Gentleman’s advice and show respect for the traditions that we all respect, namely democracy and the right to self-determination.

One organisation maintains the British presence in the Antarctic like no other. It is a body with a proud record of scientific research and unparalleled achievements in the field of polar science. It is, of course, the world-class British Antarctic Survey, which, until today, faced a battle for its own survival as the result of a foolhardy proposal by the Natural Environment Research Council to merge BAS with the National Oceanography Centre. I could not have supported that plan in any way whatever.

[Mr Spellar]

I do not wish to appear churlish, but does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is unfortunate that we had to await a report of the Science and Technology Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), before the Government took action to slap down the proposal, instead of their intervening at an early stage for all the good reasons that the hon. Gentleman and other Members have mentioned?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I commend the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and his Committee for its report, which has certainly made a contribution, but the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) might not be aware of the impact of the letter that the Minister recently received from the all-party polar regions group. I had his response today. There has been collaboration from all parties to end the proposal, with many of us working together on it, and all those who have spoken up against it should take some credit. I completely agree, however, with his commendation of that report.

Antarctic Bill

John Spellar Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) on introducing the Bill. It is a great pleasure to deal with a genuinely bipartisan Bill. As he rightly said, the Bill follows a consultation on a draft Bill in 2009. I do not propose to detain the House too long on this issue, albeit for possibly a little longer than my 57-second contribution last week.

The Bill would implement a new annex to the Antarctic treaty that was agreed back in 2005 on liability arising from environmental emergencies. It requires anyone undertaking activities in Antarctica to ensure that measures are in place to deal with any environmental damage, together with contingency plans for any damage that might occur. The present Bill was based on the Bill consulted on in 2009 by the previous Government, but it does not contain part 2 of the original Bill covering the requirement for contingency and safety planning by all British operators. In that context, I understand that the Minister’s officials believe that these issues can be addressed through the permit system, so that part of the original Bill is not required. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to be a bit more explicit and to send a clear message to operators—and reassurance to those who have a passionate interest in the Antarctic environment—that that is the case, and that the Bill follows the long line of measures to protect this vital environment. I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue when he winds up.

The Antarctic environmental legislation is a very good example of international co-operation on matters of great concern for the future of the planet. The treaty froze territorial disputes relating to the continent in order to pursue peaceful scientific investigation and conservation. Several hon. Members have referred to examples of that, some of them at considerable length. In the 1991 protocol, stringent measures on environmental protection were introduced, including—importantly—a 50-year moratorium on mineral extraction. The current permit requirements for British expeditions entering the Antarctic were introduced in the Antarctic Act 1994—in another example of the bipartisan nature of these discussions and concerns about the issue—which implemented the treaty’s protocol on environmental protection.

Why is this Bill so important and necessary? The Antarctic, as has been stressed by several hon. Members, is a pristine and highly sensitive environment that is of great significance in the global ecosystem. It contains, for example, 90% of the ice on earth and 60% to 70% of its fresh water. At a time of rising sea levels—mentioned with great concern yesterday by Mayor Bloomberg in New York—the melting of this ice would see a dramatic increase in sea levels. The seasonal growth of sea ice each year is one of earth’s most significant seasonal cycles, covering 19 million sq km at its maximum extent, which is one and half times the area of the Antarctic continent.

The Southern ocean also dominates the global oceans and influences the climates of many countries. In that context, I was pleased and honoured earlier this year to visit the Australian Antarctic division in Hobart, Tasmania. That is a valuable resource, and the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) will be well aware of the extensive co-operation with our Commonwealth ally, Australia, on this issue. This is a valuable resource not only for Australia but for the international community. It monitors the impact of climate and environmental change, conservation and ecosystems onshore and near shore, and in the vast Southern ocean.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in hoping that the marine conservation zones are strongly endorsed and supported as a means of protecting fish stocks and the food chain from the larger mammals that inhabit the southern oceans? If the fish stocks are removed and too much krill are taken, long-term damage will be done to the whole ecosystem.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend and fellow allotment holder is exactly right. It is of considerable concern that no proper evaluation has been made of what take of krill in the Southern ocean is sustainable right the way up the food chain. Much more scientific work will need to be done before we understand the matter. Harvesting is right and proper, but we do not want mining of the populations in the Southern ocean, because of the deep long-term effects all the way up the food chain. I understand that even now there is considerable concern about whether there are adequate food supplies for penguins in the area. That demonstrates the enormous importance of the Southern ocean for the ecosystem, although, as I have indicated, it goes much wider than the Southern ocean area. I agree with him about that and with his comments about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Implementation of the treaty is rightly welcomed here, but the FCO should engage actively with other signatories to ensure the more rapid implementation of this important work.

Those measures are extremely welcome, and I am sure that any concerns that hon. Members have can be dealt with in Committee, as the hon. Member for Stroud indicated. The broad thrust, however, has support across the House. It is slightly disturbing and contradictory, then, that alongside these excellent measures we are looking at proposals to merge the British Antarctic Survey and the National Oceanography Centre. As I indicated in an intervention, the decision not to do that was extremely welcome, and I once again place on the record my tribute to the Science and Technology Committee, under its excellent Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), for producing a report that was highly critical of that measure. Its criticism was based not only on the scientific contribution, the excellent work done and the loss of scientific capability but, as hon. Members have mentioned, on a concern about the message it might send in the south Atlantic area.

Our noble colleague Lord West rightly drew attention to another problem that he claimed could lead to us sleepwalking towards another Falklands—a matter of enormous concern to him, obviously, given his heroic record.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The right hon. Gentleman might like to take the opportunity to confirm that should a British overseas territory, such as the Falkland Islands, be threatened, the Labour party would be 100% in favour of defending the right to self-determination of the peoples of that territory, unlike what happened in 1982, when many Labour Members opposed the actions of Her Majesty’s Government.

[Mr Spellar]

I regret and resent that question for two reasons: first, because the then Labour Opposition supported the action of the Government, and, secondly, because of the reasons for the action. I did not raise this before, because I thought this was a bipartisan issue, but the hon. Gentleman knows full well that it was the withdrawal of British capability in the south Atlantic by the Government he so praises that encouraged the Argentines to believe that we were losing interest, unlike the position taken by Jim Callaghan when he was Prime Minister, which he protected. It is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to try to play politics. Unfortunately for him, when he chose his weapon, he chose a boomerang.

If the connection I have described was so obvious to many hon. Members in both Houses, I am slightly surprised that it was not so obvious to civil servants, the quango or Ministers. Notwithstanding that, it is extremely welcome that we have made the change we have, which enhances the measure we are considering today. It is a worthy and timely measure, and I hope that in responding the Minister will say not only what actions the Government will take, but what encouragement they will give to speed up international co-operation.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

Yes. The reason we are in Afghanistan is for both our national security and theirs, and to ensure that the use that was made of Afghanistan’s territory in the past is not made in the future. That is why we have been there; our forces have done a remarkable job and so have the development workers. They will continue their work post-2014 to ensure as best they can the future stability of that country for its own security and for the security of the rest of us.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

As the Minister rightly identified, since the fall of the Taliban in 2001 the number of girls going to school has risen from fewer than 5,000 to 2.2 million. That is an achievement Britain can be proud of. Maintaining that progress is crucial, both to the development and the future security of Afghanistan, so what initiatives is he taking with the Government of Afghanistan and, equally importantly, with neighbouring powers to ensure that progress continues after the draw-down of ISAF?

[Alistair Burt]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the progress that has been made. There are two things in response. The first is the Tokyo international agreement in July; the United Kingdom has been asked by Afghanistan to co-chair the first review of it in 2014. It is a series of commitments made by the Afghanistan Government in relation to a variety of matters, such as social and economic development, including the rights of women. In addition, the enhanced strategic partnership that the Prime Minister signed with President Karzai in January this year also includes commitments on women’s rights, and we will be looking to ensure that those rights are confirmed in the future as our development support continues.

European Communities Act 1972 (Repeal) Bill

John Spellar Excerpts

Friday 26th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is ironic that we are in the closing minutes of a Friday sitting and we have so little time to discuss possibly the most momentous decision that we are going to have to take in the coming years. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) on raising this issue. I hope he will forgive me for not discussing at length the merits or otherwise of our membership of the European Union—there simply is not time to do so. This is too complex and important an issue to be left to just a 20-minute debate.

I wish to make one point: whatever one’s views on the EU—whether one is strongly in favour, whether one is agnostic or whether, like my hon. Friend, one has severe doubts about it—surely everyone must now accept that on this issue there is a democratic deficit. Why is it that every 16-year-old in Scotland is going to be allowed to vote on whether or not Scotland should remain in the Union, but no Briton under the age of 55—that includes most people in this Chamber and most people watching this debate—has ever been given the chance to vote on whether we should remain in the European Union? That is a severe democratic deficit, and either this Government, in this Parliament, or a future Government will have to address it. The issue is becoming increasingly important and increasingly urgent.

The Government argue that the only way to resolve the crisis in the euro is for its members—the states that subscribe to it—to create full fiscal and monetary union. Let us be under no illusion: if that takes place—and our own Government are encouraging the process—it would have a dramatic effect on our relationship with the European Union, and on our whole trading and political position. I doubt that the process will be easy, but apparently the Government want it to take place. Whether one is fiercely in favour of our membership of the European Union or sceptical of it, nobody doubts that if full fiscal and monetary union were to take place, enormous pressures would be put on our Government, particularly in terms of financial regulation, and the oversight of the City of London and of our industries. I do not want to get involved in these arguments, but nobody denies that that would have a dramatic effect. I therefore believe that a referendum must take place. The Government must announce their decision to move towards a referendum.

What is going to be the nature of the referendum question? There is no doubt that the Government would like to have some sort of negotiation. I do not believe that the members of the European Union, or the fiscal and monetary union, will be able or willing, given that 27 nations are involved in this whole process, to allow a great return of powers. Ultimately the issue will boil down to a simple question: do you want to be part of the European Union—do you want to be a fully subscribing, enthusiastic member of the European Union who ultimately wants to join fiscal and monetary union; there may be many arguments in favour of that—or do you want to be part of a customs union?

A number of us had a meeting this week with an expert in this field, and I personally have come to the conclusion that loose talk of a free trade area simply will not do and that there is a future for this country as part of a customs union, which would be popular with the people and reassure opinion both in the City of London and in our industries. It is perfectly possible for us to regain our freedom—to regain the freedom to make our own laws—but to remain within a customs union. That is precisely what happens in other countries. Switzerland is a successful example.

This is a clear and simple issue—should we be in the European Union, or should we be part of a customs union?—and it could be put to the British people, and there would be a fair, honest and open debate, but I do not think the Government can simply sit on this issue for ever. There will be a fair amount of cynicism if the Government say some time in the next 18 months that it is their intention, perhaps after the next election, to hold a referendum without any clear indication of what the question will be and what will be negotiated. There is a huge amount of cynicism among the British people. They have been promised referendums in the past—they have had promises from the former Government; they have had them from this Government—so this is the most important issue of our times.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman refers to promises of referendums and says that Governments have not delivered on them. Does he acknowledge that one Government promised a referendum and gave a referendum? They were the Labour Government under Harold Wilson.

[Mr Leigh]

That was a very long time ago, and the right hon. Gentleman and I, who are perhaps in a similar age group, were lucky enough to be given that choice, but our colleagues sitting in the Chamber are all younger than we are and they have never had a chance. Should they not be given one? Yes, I pay tribute to Harold Wilson and the then Labour Government; they actually gave the British people a chance. All I ask is that, once again, the British people are allowed to decide, yes or no.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Clearly, the friends of the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) are trying to talk out his Bill and leave very little time for the Minister. I shall take less time, as I shall make merely two brief points.

First, as I said earlier, only Labour has given the people of this country a say. Not John Major, not Margaret Thatcher—only a Labour Government consulted the people. Secondly, this Bill does not consult the people. It intends to take a decision over their heads and is therefore quite inconsistent with the comments made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). However, as we want to hear from the Minister, rather than intrude any longer on this private quarrel on the Government Benches I shall now allow him to speak.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

If we were to pull our troops out of combat prematurely and cease many of the other efforts we are making in Afghanistan, the position would be much more difficult, because through this period, when our and other forces are present, and when we are working closely with the Afghan Government, the prospects for women’s rights are improving. I am sure the timetable we have set is right—our troops will cease to be in combat after the end of 2014—but I hope the concepts of women’s rights are becoming more entrenched in Afghan society and politics all the time.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that women’s rights in Afghanistan are a fundamental part of the security agenda, and that they must be protected in any settlement? That will require the involvement of women in peace and transition talks, to protect the gains made over recent years. Does he therefore recognise that time is rapidly moving on in those discussions? What will he do to try to inject some urgency into the process?

[Mr Hague]

This country makes a constant effort to ensure that urgency is part of the process. I was in both Pakistan and Afghanistan last week, talking to the Governments of both countries about reconciliation and their relations with each other in promoting a political settlement and reconciliation in Afghanistan. Of course, we will continue with all those efforts, bearing it in mind that the process must be Afghan led, and that Afghans must determine their own future. We are trying to support that process rather than dictate to them the future terms of their settlement.

Piracy (Somalia)

John Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Richard Ottaway]

Thank you for addressing the point, Mr Sheridan.

The tenth report of the Foreign Affairs Committee is about piracy off the coast of Somalia, a major problem that costs industry and the world economy billions of dollars and threatens lives. The Indian ocean has become a no-go area for small vessels and is dangerous for large ones. The causes of the problem are many. First, at the heart of it is the fact that, despite the introduction of military forces and private armed guards, still the majority of vessels are unarmed. Secondly, there is a willingness to pay ransoms—a controversial point to which I will return. Thirdly, there are too few naval forces. Fourthly, the pirates are able to operate with relative impunity inside Somalia.

The United Kingdom Government are well aware of the problem and are taking a leading role and, although the Committee makes constructive criticisms of that role, we congratulate them on the steps that they are taking. Concerted international action is needed. The number of prosecutions has increased, but 90% of those detained are released. There is greater use of armed guards and we have regulation and guidance for armed guards. Vessels have been following best management practices. There are issues to do with tracing financial flows: the Committee’s opinion is that financial flows can be tracked—some of the most sophisticated equipment for that purpose is available in this country—and that more can be done in this regard. The Committee believes that there should be at least one UK vessel permanently on station. Of course, we have to support development in Somalia. I shall deal with those points in turn.

The UK is a big player in the world shipping industry, and our part of it is based just a mile or two up the road from here. Shipping and its management comprises 1.8% of gross domestic product. Piracy poses a threat to the UK’s economy and the security of British assets transiting through the area. Some 40% of world trade moves through the region of the Indian ocean, around the horn of Africa, into the Red sea. The danger zone now stretches over to the coast of the Indian ocean. Much of the cargo is insured here in the UK. The total cost of addressing the threat to Britain, the assets and the industry is believed to be in the region of $8 billion to $12 billion per annum.

Attacks on vessels in the Indian ocean have decreased in the last quarter. In the first quarter of 2011 there were 102 attacks, 16 of them successful, whereas this year there were only 43 attacks and only nine were successful. That downward trend is welcome. To give an idea of the sums involved, in 2011, ransoms amounted to $135 million. The opinion of some observers and witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee was that some of that money is going to al-Shabaab, which it is believed has connections with al-Qaeda.

Since piracy started in the region, some 3,500 crew members and officers have been taken captive and been held, and in the last four years 62 have been killed. Currently, 12 vessels are held and 178 hostages are still in captivity. That the figure is lower than it was reflects a welcome trend, but it is important to state that the level of detention remains unacceptable. It must not be believed that we have been successful and this situation must not become the status quo.

The peak from which we are coming down was reached in autumn 2011. I think the reason why the trend is now downward is that the self-defence mechanisms are beginning to make progress. The implementation of best management practices is clearly having a serious effect. It is too soon to see if this is a long-term trend, but it is promising. For the benefit of the House, I should say that best management practices involve self-protecting measures, including careful manoeuvring of ships, having safe rooms on ships and using detection equipment. I commend the industry on the implementation of these practices, as does the Committee, and on the results that this is achieving.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Does not this highlight a further problem, which is that it is not so much the cargo or the vessel but the crew that is the main financial inducement? All the measures the hon. Gentleman has mentioned apply to the large multinational, well organised modern fleets, but many smaller operators with smaller vessels are becoming more vulnerable. Those measures, welcome though they are, can therefore only be regarded as part of a package, because they deal with only part of the problem.

[Richard Ottaway]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. For small vessels the region is, in truth, a complete no-go area. For the piracy of the 17th and 18th centuries, the prize was the cargo, and the crew walked the plank or went over the sides, but that has changed; now, the crew are equally valuable. That attitude of the pirates is causing the problem. That is not to say that the cargo is not still important—shipowners are paying substantial sums to get their cargo out—but as we see particularly when yacht crews are held, in international terms the yacht is worth nothing while the owners still have a high value.

The Government initially resisted the establishment of private armed security guards on board British vessels. When the Minister gave evidence to us during our inquiry, the Government’s position was that armed guards would not be welcome. However, the Prime Minister announced in October or November last year that we will now put armed security guards on board British vessels, and that view is echoed by the International Maritime Organisation. The Committee welcomes the U-turn.

The operation of a private armed guard on board a British vessel is subject to British law—the law of the flag applies on board any vessel. The Government published interim guidance, at the heart of which was a policy based on the Crown Prosecution Service policy of lawful self-defence. We were critical of that, because the CPS guidance was not written with piracy in mind. Indeed, it states:

“If a…firearm…was used…this may tip the balance in favour of prosecution.”

To me and to the Committee, that seemed to be off-loading responsibility for the use of armed guards on to shipowners. The simple question we posed in our report was: if armed guards on board a ship see an armed skiff approaching, can they open fire? That is the test. The initial interim guidance contained little to help make a judgment on the use of force.

In the Government response, as I pointed out in my point of order, clarification was promised by April 2012, which then became May, then June. I have no idea why there was a delay, but I like to think that it was because international co-ordination and consultation with the IMO were necessary. Indeed, earlier this year, at the invitation of the Department for Transport, I attended a particularly constructive piracy conference at the IMO. What is important, however, is that the UK plays a leading role in the establishment of any guidance, and that is why I regret the new guidance not being available for us to see, because we cannot really comment. We are in limbo—the guidance is out but we are unable to comment on it today. The UK should be playing a leading role, but the issue is current. I want to ask the Government whether they have been happy with the use of armed guards on ships from implementation up to now. How many applications have been received to establish armed guards on board a ship?

The House might be interested to know about the Italian ship Enrique Lexie, which was carrying two Italian marines on board. Though the facts are in dispute, there was an exchange of armed fire with small vessels and two fishermen were killed. For reasons that are not clear, the Italian vessel then went into an Indian port and the marines were arrested amid a dispute about whether the incident took place in international or territorial waters. The matter is unresolved, but the incident highlights the importance of the need for clear guidance and international agreement on the use of force.

We can see how easily diplomatic incidents can occur in the absence of proper guidance or internationally agreed standards. That is mainly because so many factors are involved in international waters, such as a British ship with a foreign crew going into another country’s waters; several jurisdictions are in play. I was interested to read that the IMO has called for an international standard for the use of armed guards, so I shall read the newly published guidance with interest to see whether such a standard has been established. I hope that a Minister might be able to summarise the guidance when he makes his contribution to the debate.

[Richard Ottaway]

That is very helpful, Mr Sheridan, and I am grateful to all those involved in expediting the availability of the guidance.

To conclude on armed guards, I hope that UK rules can influence the international debate, to the benefit of everyone concerned.

Another issue that we identified is that there are no regulations on the movement of weapons, and in that part of the world, a lot of weapons are moving around. We clearly need to have a regime for such movements, and I welcome the UK’s introduction of a revised licensing regime in February this year, although that does not tackle the difficulty of floating armouries. Believe it or not, some ships out there will lend guns to ships that enter the danger zone and get them back when they leave. All that is outside the control of any organisation, and an international approach to that difficulty would be appropriate.

The naval response has been better than expected—possibly damned with faint praise—but the truth of the matter is that the Indian ocean is not safe, and to have a 30-minute response throughout the ocean would require the deployment of 80 warships at any given moment, which will clearly not happen. The strategic defence review under way in this country can only heighten the impact on the availability of British ships for deployment, but the UK could have a role to play in providing leadership in operations—we have a good record—perhaps with other countries supplying the ships. As reported by the Ministry of Defence, however, last month HMS Westminster foiled three attacks. Can one of the Ministers present tell us what happened to the suspects from those incidents? Were they detained, released or fended off with no detentions? As I understand it, there have certainly been no prosecutions.

What is needed is international co-ordination. We have the successful UN contact group on piracy and recently—established in February this year—the Regional Anti-Piracy Prosecutions Intelligence Co-ordination Centre in the Seychelles. The centre has to be welcome. It will co-ordinate information on ransoms and target the kingpins in the piracy world.

On the naval response, one of the unexpected side effects is how the international operations have been getting on quite well with one another. We considered a recommendation on whether they should be co-ordinated by a single organisation, but we reached the conclusion that there were bigger fish to fry, rather than having that sort of upheaval at the moment. We have Russian, Chinese, Indian, British and NATO ships there, and given the lack of a big umbrella organisation, the close co-ordination is very welcome.

Turning to convictions, it is difficult to obtain evidence in such situations. Our Committee recommended that more effort should be made, perhaps with the use of video links for witnesses. There are difficulties with various national laws because piracy is a crime in some countries but not others. Implementing such proposals can be expensive for poorer countries.

To date, no suspect has been brought back to the UK for prosecution. We have transfer agreements with Kenya and the Seychelles, and I welcome the new agreement with Mauritius, as I hope that it will result in more prosecutions of suspects. Will the Minister who responds on the memorandum of understanding with Mauritius indicate the conditions that suspects are held in and whether that is monitored. I wish the Government well with implementation of the memorandum of understanding, which sounds to our Committee to be a pragmatic solution. However, if it fails, I hope that the Minister involved will note that the French are now engaged in their second trial of suspects.

[Mr Spellar]

Will the hon. Gentleman, and later a Minister, clarify the position on bringing captured pirates back to the UK for trial, given the real risk of applications for leave to remain? Is it not better—this is why the Mauritius agreement is so welcome—to support efforts in the region?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and his colleagues on their report. The detailed work that has been undertaken and the drawing together of a number of difficult issues show the value of Select Committees. One does not necessarily have to agree with every line of the conclusion. We just need to see the thread of the work that enables a debate to take place, and I am pleased that it was acknowledged in the Government response.

Would you indulge me for a minute, Mr Sheridan, so that I can pay tribute to Lord Peter Archer of Sandwell who died today? He was my predecessor in the Warley constituency. He served for some 26 years in the House of Commons and 20 years in the House of Lords and made a considerable contribution to both Houses and to his own constituency. If there was anyone to whom the phrase, “A fine Christian gentleman” applied, it was Peter Archer. He was a man of formidable intellect. His father was a toolmaker in Tipton. Peter rose to high levels in the law, but never forgot his roots. He always served his constituency well. In some ways, he was a hard act to follow; his reputation as a Member of Parliament in the constituency stood very high, and I only hope that I have matched up to his standards in that regard. I am sure that the feelings of Members here who knew him will go to his wife and family.

I am pleased to see two Ministers here today. Let me briefly damage their careers by saying that they have played a proactive role in dealing with this issue. If some other Departments had been as forward leaning, we would have made progress, and today’s problems are an indication of that. I hope that we will improve the rate of our response to this evolving situation.

As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) mentioned, the problem began off the Somali coast. Then we saw it moving along the coast of Aden. Indian Ministers are extremely concerned about how close the problem is getting to India. We have seen the movement from skiffs to mother-ships, the involvement of spotters in ports and allegations of intelligence gathering elsewhere. We are now seeing imitation tactics in the Gulf of Guinea, and I have heard reports, which I have not validated, of similar problems off the coast of South America. We have seen changes in the levels and manner of response.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) talked about Britain taking a lead, which is absolutely appropriate. A major part of our naval doctrine is to secure the world’s sea lanes not only for British vessels but for the world’s vessels. Maintaining free passage of vessels throughout the world is an important contribution and is core to our basic philosophy and our national interest. [Interruption.] I was wondering how long I would have to speak before the documents arrived. One hears a distant trumpet blowing over the horizon as the cavalry appears. I hope that the Minister will indicate whether that basic philosophy is still a doctrinal priority for the Ministry of Defence, our armed forces and the British Government.

Secondly, we have talked quite extensively about the impact on world trade, the amount of money that is being paid, the impact on the willingness of seafarers to go through these routes, the rise in insurance premiums and the potential risk to supply chain management for many countries. The effects of the tsunami in Japan and the floods in Thailand were felt right across Europe. Much of the British car industry and other industries experienced disruption in the supply of component parts because of those particular events. If the passage into the Suez canal became too unsafe for seafarers to risk using it, the additional journey would cause not only extra costs but considerable disruption for British industry.

We should not underestimate the impact of piracy on the countries in-region. I remember talking to the Kenyan Government about cruises. Cruise terminals are big business, providing a considerable amount of employment in many parts of the world. Up to about the middle of last year, the number of cruise ships visiting Kenya went down from about 60 to one—interestingly that one was from Saga, which shows the redoubtable spirit of British pensioners. We can imagine the impact on many workers in Mombasa and indeed on the tourist industry there. In the future, therefore, cruise liners and the yachting business will be affected, which will have a considerable impact. We have talked about development, but such an impact creates the conditions for further instability. That should concern us greatly.

It is fair to say that throughout the current epidemic of Somali coast piracy the Government have tended towards finding the right solutions but they have not necessarily always moved at the requisite pace. One of the images that we must get away from is that of the Somali pirates as mindless hooligans. I am not talking about the expendables who, for an extra few per cent, will want to be the first ones on to the vessel. I am talking about the people who are behind them—the people who organise the schemes and who are involved in the organisation of the money. The amount of money that we are talking about requires considerably sophisticated organisation, including the spotting of targets. We have seen the evolution of tactics; as we have managed to move, so too the pirates’ tactics have changed. That is not surprising.

What we need to see is Departments working together and not just individually. We were discussing the issue of armed guards and what are sometimes the problems of Government co-ordination, including in real time, as well as the other work we have to do. I fully understand the frustrations that sometimes arise from working through the IMO. We must also co-operate with other countries, and I join colleagues in paying tribute to the naval patrol; it is a very good example of international co-operation. We must get partners to work together and we have to recognise that time is of the essence. We cannot always be playing catch-up. I am not saying that military solutions are the sole solution; they are not. However, we must see a step change in operational tempo.

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

In some cases, the response reminds me very much of when we were dealing with the foot and mouth epidemic in 2001. The civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were working extremely hard to deal with it, but it was only when we changed the operational tempo, by bringing in the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces, that we managed to deal with the spread of a virus that was outrunning our ability to handle it. The ability to focus on the outcome rather than the process is crucial. It is very important that we get that message across. Indeed, the Committee alludes to it in paragraph 63 of its report, which says that the Government must

“respond flexibly to changes in the pirates’ tactics.”

That is extremely important in this context.

The Government should also look much further at the issue of the pirate bases on land. The Minister and indeed other colleagues who have spoken to those of our forces that have been involved in dealing with the pirates, particularly the Royal Marines, know of their frustration at the restrictions they face when they see the pirates at the start of the piracy season—when the sea conditions become more favourable—assembling all their equipment on the beach, ready to launch an operation. Our forces are hugely frustrated at their inability to go in and destroy that equipment and disrupt the pirates’ operations. Would that solve piracy entirely? No. Would it change the balance of trade and disrupt the pirates’ operations? Absolutely certainly. It appears that there has been some evolution of doctrine in that regard; I merely say that it demonstrates the point, because it took far too long and therefore enabled the cycle of piracy to continue.

I realise that the Minister will be under some constraints in this regard, but can he give some indication as to how we could evolve our approach with international partners, for example on developing air surveillance? I appreciate that the area is very substantial, but I also appreciate that, for instance, the US is developing considerable military resources in the region, particularly in Djibouti and Yemen. Can the Minister say to what extent we will be able to utilise those resources to get a better picture of the pirates’ operations in the area?

I now come to the very thorny issue of ransoms. There has been a spirited debate between colleagues today and I fully understand why—it is inevitable. A number of us will have received representations from the shipping industry, and indeed from the trade union representing seafarers. Very properly—I do not say that in any disparaging way—they have outlined their duty of care to their members, including seafarers. However, I wonder if there is any doctrinal difference between paying ransoms for seafarers, kidnapping and hostage-taking. The same broad strand runs all the way through, namely that a company—absolutely understandably and rightly—is most importantly concerned with its duty of care to the welfare of its employees, the seafarers; there are some commercial aspects, but that is the most important consideration.

However, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham rightly said—my praising a Liberal Democrat makes this a historic day—the problem is that when someone pays a ransom, they put at risk the next vessel that goes through that region. Is it easy? Of course it is not. A Government that have traditionally taken a very hard line on hostage-taking—the Government of Israel—recently came to an agreement regarding an exchange of hostages for prisoners in Israeli jails. I do not underestimate the difficulty of the issue. Rarely do I regret losing office, and I must say that I do not envy Ministers involved in these sorts of decisions, when there is no self-evidently right decision to make.

Nevertheless, there needs to be a consistent level of policy. Regarding hostages and kidnappings, British Governments of all parties have had a long-standing consistent policy of not paying ransoms, for the reasons that I have outlined. We have done that even though the Governments of some other countries have taken a different stance. I recognise the difficulty; it is not a completely open and shut case. Equally, however, we have to recognise the good faith of those who have to make those decisions.

There is still considerable truth in the Kipling line that the problem with paying the Dane-geld is that you never stop paying the Dane. I fully acknowledge those who say, “Look, if a member of my family was involved or taken hostage, I would want to pay, or I would want the Government to make the concession.” But Governments have to look at the issue in a different light.

I therefore very much welcome the report, Mr Sheridan— [Interruption.] Sorry; Mr Brady. What more would one expect from the chairman of the 1922 Committee than the ability seamlessly to slip into the situation? The report is very welcome, because it provides a proper balance. As I have said, I congratulate the Ministers on their work on different aspects of this subject. My main point is that we need to ensure that we react to the changes—there will be further changes in tactics and problems—to improve the operational tempo and to speed up the pace of decision making. That might even mean that colleagues have the chance to read one or two words of the new guidance. I am sure that the Ministers will convey back the concerns raised in the debate.

Falkland Islands Referendum

John Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and also for allowing me early sight of it, which was a clear indication of his natural courtesy. As he said, it has been plain to all but the most obdurate that it is the will of the Falkland Islanders to remain a self-governing British overseas territory, especially as the economic picture for the Falklands is improving, with both fishing and oil exploration prominent. He rightly highlighted the outrageous aggressive actions of the Argentine Government. Will he tell the House what action we are taking in international bodies to overcome them?

As the Minister said, the Argentine Government still quite wrongly claim that the islanders would be happy to live under Argentine rule. A referendum with international observers would put that claim to rest once and for all. Will the Minister reassure us on the clear legal authority under which the referendum will be held, and can he assure us that the conduct and the question will meet appropriate standards so that there is a clear and unequivocal outcome?

Today we also need to send a clear message of reassurance to the Falkland Islanders, and a warning to the Argentine authorities that our resolve in support of the Falkland Islands remains as firm as it was 30 years ago. Then, we faced an unprincipled and cowardly attack by the vicious Argentine military junta, an action that ultimately and fortunately led to the end of that regime. Our military responded heroically and successfully, and it is in honour of their memory as well that the House, on behalf of the country, should signal our continuing resolve. We welcome the assistance given by the Ministry of Defence to enabling veterans to attend the ceremonies in the Falklands. However, that resolve must also be backed by capability. The Minister rightly spoke of

“maintaining a defensive military posture on the islands”,

but can he reassure us that the cuts in the armed forces have not undermined our ability to deter any rash and irresponsible action? Aircraft carriers without aircraft do not send the right signal.

We greatly fear that the stepping up of the aggressive rhetoric and actions of the Argentines which the Minister described is part of a wider campaign by an Administration who face considerable domestic problems. That pattern, unfortunately, is not unprecedented in a country blessed with great resources, fine people and, too often, dysfunctional politics.

It will be no consolation to the Falkland Islanders to know that they are not alone in facing this attack. Spain is incensed by the forcible nationalisation of the Spanish stake in the oil company Repsol. We welcome the robust response from not only the Spanish Government but—as the Minister will be well aware form his portfolio—the EU foreign policy representative, Baroness Ashton, who rightly said that this created

“legal insecurity for all European Union and foreign firms in the country.”

She also said that the EU was considering “All possible options”.

Can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with Spain and our other EU partners on how they will ensure that the Argentine authorities uphold their international commitments and obligations? What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with Baroness Ashton about the co-ordination of the European response across international forums? Although Repsol has indicated that it plans to take its case to the World Bank arbitrations court, it is reported that Spain may also raise the issue at the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and other international bodies. What support will we be giving it in those bodies? In that context, we welcome the crucial support for Spain’s case from the United States and urge the Foreign Secretary to work closely with Secretary of State Clinton to bring this sorry episode to a successful conclusion. This issue is crucially linked to the Falklands question, because those who show cavalier disregard for the norms of international behaviour in one area will behave badly elsewhere. What will the Foreign Office be doing to make clear the link between these issues?

In conclusion, as I have said, the Minister for Europe is a thoroughly likeable and decent Minister, but the future of the Falklands is of huge concern not only to the Falkland Islanders but to this country and, frankly, this statement should have been made by the Foreign Secretary, or by the Minister with responsibility for south America, who on this important occasion is actually—and properly—in the Falklands, along with the Opposition spokesman on south America. Surely it would have been better to await his return to give a report from the ground, or to have the Foreign Secretary give the strategic overview?

[Mr Lidington]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his broad overall support for the statement and the Government’s policy on the Falklands and the Falkland Islanders. Thirty years ago the official position of the Labour party was to support Margaret Thatcher and her Government in standing up to Argentine aggression, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman personally represents the best of the Labour party’s patriotic tradition today. I shall chide him slightly for his final remarks, however. As I said in my statement, the timing of the announcement and the decision to hold a referendum were the responsibility of the Falklands Islands Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is on an important visit concerning vital British security interests abroad. He would have liked to have given this statement in person, but we felt—and he felt—that the correct thing to do was for Parliament to be informed as soon as possible after the Falkland Islands Government had made their announcement about the referendum that they have decided to hold. I make no apology for the fact that I have come to the House today. I fear the Opposition would have criticised the Government had we held off a statement on the referendum.

Let me try to respond to some of the more detailed points the right hon. Gentleman raised. Yes, we are confident in the legal authority of the Falkland Islands Government to carry out the referendum. We want it to be conducted to the highest possible standards, and we will be encouraging the Falkland Islands Government to look at things like our own Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in order to see what best practice can offer. As I said in my statement, the Falklands Government, with our support, intend to invite independent foreign observers to ensure that the world can see that this election is being carried out to those high standards.

In regard to military capability, I reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that all our analysis tells us that we have the right mix of military assets in the Falklands and the surrounding area and, critically, that they can if necessary be reinforced rapidly. The state of our military preparedness was reviewed by senior Ministers earlier this year, and their conclusion was that the right things are being done to ensure we can defend the Falklands in the way the House would expect.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Spain and the Repsol case. We have made our position very clear to Spain; my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so when he met Spanish Foreign Minister Garcia-Margallo a couple of weeks ago. We support its stance in protesting against Argentina’s action against Repsol, and we will continue to give Spain diplomatic support both bilaterally and in the appropriate international forums.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what representations we have made and what actions we have taken on behalf of the Falkland Islands through international bodies and more generally. We have made, and we will continue to make, all appropriate representations. For example, at the time of the controversy over access to ports in the region, we talked to Governments of other countries, particularly Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, which have all continued to allow into their ports vessels flying the red ensign. Trade is continuing normally, and countries in the region have made it clear to us that they have no wish to take part in any kind of trade boycott or blockade of the Falkland Islands.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

That is a key part of the capacity building of the Independent Election Commission, which has already improved the percentage of those registered. There is clearly a close correlation between ensuring proper registration and preventing fraud, and the commission is very conscious of that correlation and of the need to continue to do more. That work is ongoing, and we are confident that it will be improved further from the elections of 2009 and 2010.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The capacity of the Afghan authorities and their ability to hold free and fair elections will be crucially affected by the summit at Chicago, as the Foreign Secretary said, so we welcome his remarks about the involvement of neighbouring powers—a course of action we have urged on him for some time. Surely, however, this should also include India, Russia and Iran. Equally important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) stressed, the voice of Afghan women must be heard at the negotiating table. We must ensure that women’s rights are protected under the settlement. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that?

[Alistair Burt]

Of course the Bonn conference is part of the ongoing relationship of the international community with Afghanistan, and it has women represented on it. We made it an important part of our representation, and our own Minister with responsibility for dealing with violence against women—the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone)—was present. We do indeed work to make sure that women’s representation is there. I come back to the point that much of this is in the hands of Afghan women themselves, who are very active and have made it clear that they do not wish to see the gains of recent years reversed. It is difficult, and no one should pretend otherwise, as it is not easily dealt with. We are confident that the opportunities will be there, that the determination of the international community will be there and that Afghanistan will be a stronger society because of the participation—political and otherwise—of women.