Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Swire]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no issues of any sort about ceding sovereignty—we should deal with that point straight away. The draft KPMG report, which we were not obliged to undertake, will be out in the week of 17 November, and thereafter there will be time for all those who have been consulted to make such points before the final report early next year. That is why we have included the Chagossians in the testimony.

EU Sanctions (Russia)

[Jonathan Reynolds]

What is the Foreign Secretary’s considered assessment of the relationship between the dependence of some of our European partners on Russian energy supplies, and the effectiveness and robustness of the sanctions that we have pursued against Russia?

[Mr Hammond]

The sanctions are robust. I think that the important relationship is between the dependence on Russian energy supplies and the robustness of the position of some of our partners on the question of maintaining those sanctions. Fortunately, the sanctions that are in place will last until March or May, depending on the type of sanction involved, before any opportunity arises to debate their renewal or otherwise. That means that, at the very least, we shall get through the winter with the sanctions in place.

[Official Report, 28 October 2014, Vol. 587, c. 164.]

Letter of correction from Mr Philip Hammond:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) during questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

The correct response should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry not to have accommodated more colleagues on question 7, but both questions and answers have been extremely long.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of EU sanctions against Russia in encouraging a change of approach by that country towards eastern Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)]

EU sanctions are having a clear impact on Russia’s economy. Capital flight has increased, and Russian access to western financial markets is severely constrained. Sanctions are estimated to have slowed GDP growth by 1%, and to have contributed to the rouble’s falling by 20% against the dollar since 1 January. The fall in the oil price is piling further pressure on the Russian economy.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

What is the Foreign Secretary’s considered assessment of the relationship between the dependence of some of our European partners on Russian energy supplies, and the effectiveness and robustness of the sanctions that we have pursued against Russia?

[Mr Hammond]

The sanctions are robust. I think that the important relationship is between the dependence on Russian energy supplies and the robustness of the position of some of our partners on the question of maintaining those sanctions. Fortunately, the sanctions that are in place will last until March or May, depending on the type of sanction involved, before any opportunity arises to debate their renewal or otherwise. That means that, at the very least, we shall get through the winter with the sanctions in place.[Official Report, 3 November 2014, Vol. 587, c. 6MC.]

Ukraine

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

As my hon. Friend knows very well, I do not comment on intelligence matters on the Floor of the House, but I note the point he makes. I join him in paying tribute to our embassy, which is doing a very good job in extremely demanding circumstances. In our application of sanctions, we are taking into account those Russians who have been engaged in creating instability in eastern Ukraine. One of the next decisions that we will face, as I mentioned earlier, is whether to widen the criteria so that a greater range of Russians can be included in future.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

At a time when the security of Europe is genuinely seen to be in question, will the Foreign Secretary agree that our membership of the European Union is integral to our ability to respond properly to crises such as that in Ukraine?

[Mr Hague]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to introduce a different debate from the one about Ukraine. As he can see from everything that I have described, we work closely with other countries in the European Union to deliver a united and effective response.

Ukraine

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the Foreign Secretary’s comments about energy security, the United Kingdom thankfully receives only a limited supply of Russian gas, but other European countries, particularly Germany, have considerable exposure, with consequences for the rest of Europe. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his European Union counterparts about ensuring the security of European energy supply, so that this does not end up limiting our ability to take action against Russia?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important issue, but it is an issue for the medium to longer term. We are doing important things now to diversify energy supplies to Europe. I have already mentioned the new pipeline through Azerbaijan, whose construction we inaugurated in December. That pipeline, however, will take several years to construct.

Although this is, as I have said, a medium to long-term issue, I think that what has just happened will be a sharp reminder to everyone in Europe and in this country that it is also an important issue, and that dealing with it will become one of the important foreign policy and security considerations over the next few years.

Syria

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

There is no agreement in the UN Security Council on those options. My hon. Friend knows that Russia and China have vetoed much less radical resolutions and an effort at the UN to introduce a no-fly zone would meet the same vetoes. It must also be said that the great majority of the weaponry being used against the people of Syria is not delivered from the air, so there are fundamental problems with such a proposition.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is clear that there are no good options in Syria, and only a series of bad ones, including doing nothing, which will have consequences in itself. If we are asked to lift the EU arms embargo, will the Foreign Secretary be able to give us any reassurances about the future end use of those weapons or will it simply be a leap in the dark?

[Mr Hague]

I hope that I covered that point earlier, and we will not do anything that is a leap in the dark. The choice must be made based on the balance of risks, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not stand at the Dispatch Box and ask the House to undertake a complete leap in the dark.

Afghanistan

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

It would be going too far to say that I am happy with all the progress made, because a lot more needs to be done to tackle corruption in Afghanistan. At the Tokyo conference last July, the Afghan Government entered into 164 specific different commitments about fighting corruption, and it is very important that they implement all of those. They have started implementing them, and we have seen some prosecutions following the Kabul bank scandal, but more work needs to be done on that as well. My hon. Friend draws attention to a very important subject, on which a beginning has been made—but it is only a beginning.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Our objectives in Afghanistan have always been noble, but surely there are lessons to learn from how we have pursued them at various times during the conflict. That applies not only to specific decisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) mentioned, but to how we have deployed and rotated our forces, which initially led to a frequent change of tactics. As we approach 2014, surely the Government are doing some work to assess how our country has fought and managed this conflict.

[Mr Hague]

A great deal has been learnt under both Governments who have been involved in this as matters have progressed in Afghanistan. We have learnt about military tactics, training and equipment, all of which have been improved as time has gone on. Secondly, at this moment our focus is, of course, on the priorities I have set out: on making sure that our forces come home safely, and that the rest of the help we are giving Afghanistan is properly and effectively supplied. Thirdly, there must be a time for reflection in the round on all these matters, but I have no new announcement to make about that today.

Europe

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The subject of this debate belongs in the same broad historical category as some of the great political causes the House has dealt with, including the repeal of the corn laws and imperial preference. These issues are also connected to the dry matters of tariffs and trade, but they, too, are really about Britain’s role in the rest of the world. We all have emotional views about what our country is and what it could be, and where we sit in relation to our neighbours. If we look back to the 1970s, we see that the case for our going in was framed predominantly in emotional, rather than rational, terms. It was about Europe coming together, an end to continental war and Britain giving up its empire but obtaining a role in Europe. Even the well-regarded Chancellor Roy Jenkins framed the case in those terms, rather than by reference to economic or trading arguments.

Intriguingly, however, the roles have now been reversed. The case for coming out is now the emotional one; it is based on the notion that we can be free of the shackles of an imaginary tyrannical European bureaucracy, even when all the rational, objective arguments push any pragmatist to the view that staying in the EU is both an advantage and a necessity. That should serve as a lesson to all Members on both sides of the House who are in favour of retaining our EU membership, because there is no doubt that, under this Government, we are sleepwalking towards the exit.

The Prime Minister must realise that no amount of renegotiation, repatriation or reorganisation will satisfy some of his Eurosceptic Back Benchers. That has been made clear today. He has completely lost control of them, and in doing so he has lost control of the country. He cannot compromise with them because, whatever the objective arguments, they hold to an outdated and misguided notion that Britain is in some way held back by the EU and that we would be better off without it.

In that regard, the absolutists on the Government Benches who want to leave Europe remind me of my Labour colleagues of the 1970s and 1980s who wanted to respond to Britain’s economic problems and our changing role in the world by running a siege economy and cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world. It was the basis of our 1983 manifesto, and it was not particularly successful as it was economic madness. Again, however, it was a message that gave emotional satisfaction to the people who believed in it, regardless of the strength of the arguments to the contrary.

We should therefore be used to seeing the tension between rational, objective economic arguments and an instinctive, emotional view that people want to hold about the future role of their country in the wider world. However, given the current state of the UK economy and what we all see and hear in our constituencies on Fridays and at weekends—the stories of human misery, unemployment and squeezed living standards—the only points that should matter to us are those rational, objective, economic arguments and, more than anything else, questions of what is in our national interest.

To me, the case for being in the EU is extremely clear. There are huge economic advantages to being in a single European market. A single market is not a free trade area; they are different things. A single market requires the co-ordination of certain domestic policies to ensure that that market is a level playing field. Although some understandably feel that this constrains national sovereignty, we must remember that we are now part of a global economy that already puts huge constraints on national sovereignty.

If people were arguing for a siege economy today, it would be taken even less seriously than previously, because, frankly, it would be impossible. Moreover, being a member of the single market does not inhibit our trading relationships with other countries; instead, it allows us to negotiate trade deals as part of a powerful bloc of nations and serves to attract investment into the UK from countries that want to be inside the EU.

In addition, although the World Trade Organisation should ensure that we have a rules-based system for resolving all global trade disputes, there is no doubt that the size of a country still counts when disputes arise. By operating as a bloc within organisations such as the WTO, we are in a far stronger position than we would be on our own.

Regarding non-economic matters, the only people who should be arguing to end co-operation on crime and justice are serious criminals. We absolutely should be working together to make sure that justice across Europe is effective and quick and that nowhere is beyond the reach of our law-enforcement agencies. Criminals will be just as mobile, just as international in their operations, whether or not we co-operate with our neighbours. Co-operation is so sensible that we cannot be tough on crime without being pro-European.

The Eurosceptic argument that we frequently hear—we have heard it a lot today—is that we could be a Norway or a Switzerland: we could have these benefits without being a full member. Both Norway and Switzerland are wonderful countries, but neither is comparable to us in terms of economy, status or role in the world today. What Eurosceptics do not like to discuss is that those countries have to commit to introducing almost every bit of European law but get a say in none of it. That is perhaps okay for Norway, but how would we protect the City of London and our competitive advantage in financial services if we did not have a say in the formation of those laws? We might as well stand at the airport and wave those jobs off to Frankfurt. Norway still has to make a contribution to the EU budget—€1.8 billion over this budget period. We should also remember that, when the EU was first set up, we tried to create a rival body that was simply a free-trade organisation: the European Free Trade Association. It failed.

None of this means that I personally want to join, or ever see, a federal Europe, or even to join the euro. I judge these matters according to only one thing: what is in our national interest? That brings us to the Prime Minister’s speech and his attempt to reconcile what he knows to be sane with the views of many of his Back Benchers. He clearly recognises that adding to the turmoil in Europe by holding a referendum in the UK right now would be extremely reckless. But he can surely see that announcing a referendum to be held in five years’ time is equally reckless, given that during that time we will live in limbo, lose investment and have created further unnecessary uncertainty.

Yesterday, I and other members of the all-party group on manufacturing met some of our leading manufacturers and policy makers. They were clear that this uncertainty is bad for Britain. Why, in the present economic climate, would we want to make the UK a less attractive destination for investment and jobs? By all means, let us try to change Europe—there are plenty of things that I would like to change—but we have natural allies on this issue, and we could lead them.

The worst thing about the Eurosceptics is how pessimistic they are about how great our country could be. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) was spot-on in saying that. Our priority should be to promote growth at home and secure influence abroad. Short-term expedient decisions based on party management should never be prioritised above what is in our national interest.

Rohingya Communities

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will heed your advice to be mindful of the time, Mr Williams, and I will be brief.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) for securing the debate. His excellent speech put the issue in its proper context and acknowledged the perception that it has perhaps not received the attention it deserves. The situation is extremely important to a number of my constituents, some of whom brought it to my attention when I recently attended Eid celebrations. I was impressed by the passion and awareness of the young people who told me the extremely sad story of the Rohingya minority in Burma. Denied their citizenship and basic rights, they face a sectarian feud that has already left many dead and many more homeless.

The reported response of the Burmese security forces is extremely troubling. There have been reports of police and soldiers standing by and watching as violence unfolds. In some cases, there have been reports of them actually antagonising the situation by participating in the violence directly, and that has often been followed by arbitrary arrests of Rohingya Muslim men. This has revived the worrying association between the Burmese state and summary detentions at a time when most observers have welcomed the fall in politically motivated arrests.

There is a concern that the recent progress in Burma may tempt the international community to downplay the situation. That would be a mistake, and I think we all sincerely hope that that will not happen. There is no doubt that this is an important time for developments in Burma, but we must be very clear with the Burmese Government. If they really want to become a fully accepted member of the international community, their response to human rights abuses must be completely unambiguous. The protection of basic human rights is fundamental to any democratic country, and it would be tragic if this situation were to undermine the progress of a country that otherwise appears to be moving in the right direction. A stable, democratically elected Government in Burma who respect basic civil liberties and defend all of their citizens, regardless of ethnicity, will not just be good for all the people of Burma, but the wider region too.

I hope the Burmese Government will act promptly to bring an end to these atrocities and to put right the injustices that Rohingya Muslims have suffered for many years. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will continue to do what they can to help secure that.

Israel and the Peace Process

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lucas]

It is very important to recognise that Israel is a democracy and that it has an independent judiciary. We applaud those types of decisions and the fact that, within Israel, those decisions are being taken. However, pressures are coming from the Israeli Government. In the past year, they have talked about withdrawing funding from non-governmental organisations that do not support Israeli Government policy. That sort of thing does not help Israel, but the independent judiciary, to which my right hon. Friend refers, does. It is important that that is preserved. We have a situation in which some progress is being made, but that progress is not within the peace process at the present time. That is intensely frustrating.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Lucas]

I am sorry, but I must make some progress. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

From my observations, the position of the peace process on the ground is intensely difficult. It is true that there had not been negotiations for a long time when I visited in November and that some meetings have occurred this year. We must, of course, welcome the fact that those meetings are taking place, but the settlements are a major barrier to any progress on securing peace. I should like to ask the Minister what efforts we are making to convey to the Israeli Government the importance of stopping settlement building. Unless that happens, the prospects for progress in the peace process are very limited.

I should also like to highlight the issue of UN recognition, because although the Labour party agrees with the Government position on many areas, we fundamentally disagree with their position to date on UN recognition. That is a matter of principle. If we really support a two-state solution in Israel and Palestine, we should establish the relevant mechanism in the United Nations. It is very disappointing that the Government took the view that that was not the correct approach.

As no real negotiations were going on, should we not have made an approach to the United Nations, which is a multilateral and respected organisation that had a major role in the establishment of the state of Israel? The state of Israel was, of course, granted recognition in 1947 and 1948 by UN resolutions on which the United Kingdom abstained. Should we not have gone to the UN to try to secure progress? It seems extraordinary that, when progress was not being made, the UK Government were resistant to using multilateral agencies and the most important multilateral agency of all—the United Nations—to secure progress.

I have been privileged to meet some hugely impressive individuals: Dan Meridor, the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, who was in the Palace only last week, and Salam Fayyad, who has been mentioned. Anyone can do business with them and, most importantly, they can do business with each other. Those individuals are clearly people who can bring and achieve peace in the right circumstances, with pressure brought to bear by the international community.

We all want to see progress in the middle east. It is one of the great political issues of our lifetimes. Progress can be achieved only through a two-state solution. We need to exert pressure from the international community to get the two parties to the negotiating table to seek a solution. If a solution is reached in the Israel-Palestine conflict, we will have a more secure and stable middle east, and an Arab spring that will bring wider democracy to us all.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to conclude this short but important debate, Mr Walker. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on securing this important debate. I strongly agree with him that Israel, certainly by the standards of the middle east, is a force for social progress. He lost me a little bit when he argued that socialism had proven to be the greatest international guarantor of religious freedom, but let us move on to wider issues that are specific to the debate.

Israel is an important ally of the UK and a valued friend. I am pleased to note that our bilateral trade increased by 34% last year. I am also pleased to note the continued high-level exchanges on issues of national security, including the current threats from Iran and Syria, and instability elsewhere in the region. We are also expanding our ties in the fields of science, education and cyber issues. These are signs of a strong relationship being made stronger yet between Israel and the UK.

Our relationship with Israel is crucial for our national security and prosperity objectives. However, just as we are building a strong partnership with Israel, we are continuing to enhance our relationship with the Palestinians. That is reflected in high-level visits, including by President Abbas to the UK in January, our flourishing education links, and in parliamentary and cultural exchanges, some of which we have heard about this afternoon. Our open relationship with both Israel and the Palestinians allows us to have frank discussions with both. We do not always agree with each other, but, by ensuring robust partnerships, we will be more able to find ways to address each other’s concerns. I agree with the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas): the UK is a voice that is heard loudly and clearly in this debate.

Hon. Members will be pleased to note that our recent changes to legislation on universal jurisdiction have been welcomed. We know the Israeli Government felt that this had previously been used inappropriately to target Israeli nationals. Where we identify such issues and can act on them, we will. We will continue to raise UK concerns strongly with the Israeli and Palestinian authorities.

This afternoon’s debate has demonstrated the high levels of interest, which rightly exist in the House, in the middle east peace process. The goal of the UK Government remains a two-state solution. We believe firmly that it should be based on 1967 lines with equivalent land swaps, incorporate a fair and realistic solution for refugees, include security arrangements respecting Palestinian sovereignty and protecting Israeli security, and be based on Jerusalem as a joint capital for both states. We remain fully committed to this strategic goal.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I do not think that anyone would object to, or oppose, the statement the Minister has just made. Each one of those issues is so intractable that it prevents progress on any of the others. Is there any scope to try to make an intervention on just one of those issues—perhaps refugees or settlements—to at least push the peace process forward in a way that has not happened for quite a few years?

[Mr Browne]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. In the remaining time available, I will try to illustrate precisely how we are advancing those objectives.

We are clear that a solution cannot be imposed from outside. Our current priority remains bringing the parties back to negotiations. We believe that it is only through negotiation and agreement that a sustainable two-state solution can be achieved. The UK will continue to be one of the principal supporters of Palestinian state-building efforts, assisting them to tackle poverty, build institutions and boost their economy. We will also continue, however, to emphasise to all parties the importance we place on direct negotiations, without preconditions.

What we believe is most needed is not a push for Palestinian statehood within the UN or its specialised agencies—that could push Israel and the Palestinians further apart—but a renewed commitment to the peace process. That must involve a demonstration of political will and leadership from both sides to break the current impasse.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this matter. We have highlighted to our posts around the world the key commitments in the human trafficking strategy that they can help to deliver. Those include engaging with foreign Governments to ensure that common challenges are identified, and encouraging them to work with us to address those challenges. We have asked each of our posts to identify a single point of contact on human trafficking, and we are working in consultation with colleagues across government and with non-governmental organisations to bring together all the work that is already going on, including on the specific local challenges in each country. He can therefore be assured that our posts across the world are working hard on this.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

T5. What assessment have the Government made of recent calls by the Qatari leadership for Arab states to intervene militarily to stop the bloodshed in Syria, and would the Foreign Secretary support such action?

[Mr Hague]

That is one view—and an important view, of course, coming from the leadership of a state such as Qatar. As I mentioned in reply to the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the Arab League is meeting on the 19th and 22nd, so we should not presume that this is the view of the whole Arab League. Although we continue to increase the pressure on the Assad regime and strongly support the Arab League’s work, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have not called for military intervention in Syria, the consequences of which would be far more difficult to foresee than in Libya and the legal authority for which does not exist. As things stand, therefore, this is a distinct case from that of Libya.