Israel: Meetings
Lord Beamish Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alistair Burt
The Prime Minister said yesterday that the ministerial code would be tightened in relation to this matter, and I am quite sure that it will be. I do not think it has been reissued this morning, but—again—the common sense of this is very clear. That is why my right hon. Friend has recognised that she should have done this differently, as I am sure we all would were we in a similar position.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister has been clear that neither his Department nor the Home Office knew about these meetings. He said that they were not set up in the usual way. Can he explain how they were set up? My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) asked about when the FCO was made aware of the meetings. Is it not important that that question be clarified? If it knew beforehand, did the embassy make any attempt to attend the meetings and make sure the Secretary of State knew her responsibilities?
Alistair Burt
As far as I am aware, no officials sought to attend the meetings. As I said, I think the Foreign Office was made aware of the visits after they had taken place.
Alistair Burt
That would seem to be the appropriate thing. The root of this is that my right hon. Friend knows that she should have told the embassy and the Foreign Office in advance.
Alistair Burt
I am sorry. I thought I said clearly what I understood the sequence of events to have been. The meetings were set up by Lord Polak through his contacts and interests with Israel, which are widely known.
Alistair Burt
I was holding the piece of paper because on it is the statement that my right hon. Friend issued yesterday. It lists the meetings that she attended and the subjects for discussion. It is not a verbatim account, but it is pretty detailed in respect of the matters that she discussed.
Alistair Burt
I gave the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question. The embassy was aware on 24 August, which I think will have been after some of the meetings. As for who was met and what was said, details have been provided.
I am sure colleagues do not believe that the Secretary of State should not have discussed the Pears Programme for Global Innovation with Dr Aliza Inbal, discussed with IsraAID emergency humanitarian aid and the work that the organisation does, or visited Save a Child’s Heart. If I were on a development-related visit to Israel, I would want to have exactly the same meetings. The root of the matter and the heart of the concern is the fact that my right hon. Friend did not disclose her visit at the outset. She has addressed that, and the details of the meetings have been made clear in her statement.
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that Members can table questions, either written or oral or both. If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied he can, when the House returns next week, seek, by one or other means of the various types of question available, to procure the information, in all likelihood from the Secretary of State for International Development herself.
Mr Kevan Jones
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister have an opportunity to offer some clarification? He has said today that Foreign Office staff in Israel found out about these meetings as they were going on, but, from answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and others, it seems clear that they found out after the meetings had taken place. May we get some clarity about when they did find this out?
Mr Speaker
The Minister of State may come in in a moment if he wishes, but when that was first put to him, he effectively acknowledged the likelihood that that was so, and I think it recurred as an issue in the course of the questioning—and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has now reiterated the same point. So, although there might not be specificity today about precise dates, on the concept involved, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State was clear. It is open to Members to return to these matters in the normal way through written and oral interrogation, and the hon. Gentleman will have to be only modestly patient.
Yemen
Lord Beamish Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry
Of course no one is saying at this stage that we should not support the UN resolution. However, further action needs to be taken in respect of the conflict. For example, it has been suggested that the UN resolution of 30 September has already mandated UN experts to work alongside the joint incidents assessment team—perhaps my hon. Friend is referring to that.
The difficulty is that if we look at the history, we find that in August the Office of the UN Commissioner on Human Rights
“called on the international community to establish an international independent body to carry out comprehensive investigations in Yemen”,
which is exactly what we are calling for today. When the compromise resolution was agreed on 30 September, the Commissioner’s Office said that it was disappointed at the outcome, stating:
“We did not have any say in the final text.”
If that resolution was not what the Commissioner’s Office wanted, I do not think that we should be satisfied with it either.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has received, as many MPs have, a letter from the deputy speaker of the Yemeni Parliament, in which he says that the
“demand for an independent UN-led investigation goes contrary to the United Nations Human Rights Council decision in September which called for the UN to support instead the Yemeni National Commission’s investigation into civilian casualties in the conflict.”
Would my hon. Friend like to comment?
Emily Thornberry
Yes, I would. I have seen the letter, and I think it is important to condemn any breaches on both sides. It is also important to note that the UN has stated that 60% of civilian deaths have been a result of actions by the coalition. In this debate, it is important for us to examine what it is that we are doing.
Emily Thornberry
I appreciate that many Members wish to speak, and I have already taken three interventions. I would like to make some progress before giving way again.
In view of all these grave concerns and dire consequences, the debate is about whether Britain should continue to support the Saudi forces leading one side of the conflict. The shadow Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), will later address the humanitarian consequences in detail, but I want to focus on concerns about the way in which the conflict has been conducted and whether those concerns are being taken seriously by the Government or indeed properly investigated.
Last week, I said that there had been
“thousands of airstrikes on civilian targets in Yemen”.
In response, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), said:
“There are not thousands…—that is to mislead the House”.—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 667.]
Let us look at the facts. In August, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report on the conflict in Yemen, which stated that between 1 July 2015 and 1 July 2016, 2,067 civilians had been killed in that conflict. On the basis of careful investigation of each incident, it said that 60% of those deaths—as I have said—had been caused by Saudi airstrikes. The report concluded—and this is important—
“In several of the…documented attacks, we have been unable to identify the presence of possible military objectives.”
In September, the independent Yemen data project went further. It examined more than 8,600 airstrikes that had been conducted between the start of the conflict and the end of August 2016, and found that 3,158 of them had struck civilian sites, while a further 1,882 had struck sites of undetermined use.
Emily Thornberry
I refer the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) to the earlier part of my speech in which I quoted one of his own Ministers saying that a “deliberate error” had resulted in hundreds of deaths in Yemen. He must bear that in mind when we are deciding whether to continue supporting the ongoing action in Yemen. I will answer the rest of his question in the rest of my speech.
This is about the kind of signal that we are sending to the rest of the world. On Syria, Members on both sides of the House have rightly protested the bombardment of eastern Aleppo by Russia and Assad, demanded tougher international action against Russia, dismissed Russian claims that civilians are not being targeted, and called for those responsible to be tried for war crimes if necessary—they must face justice.
Emily Thornberry
No, I am not giving way—26 people want to speak.
We have heard all those things strongly from the Foreign Secretary, so does he accept that when he says nothing about Yemen apart from unflinching support for Saudi Arabia, when he says that the Saudi coalition should be left to investigate itself, when his Ministers dismiss reports of thousands of civilians being killed as somehow misleading the House, when we say one thing about Russia and Aleppo but another about Riyadh and Yemen, what the rest of the world hears is hypocrisy and double standards?
Today’s motion gives us an opportunity to send the opposite message to the world: to show that we hold all countries, friend or foe, to the same high standards that we aspire to ourselves, and that although Saudi Arabia will remain a valued strategic, security and economic ally, our support for its forces in Yemen must be suspended until the alleged violations of international humanitarian law in that conflict have been fully and independently investigated, and until the children of Yemen have received the humanitarian aid they so desperately need. That is the right message to send to the rest of the world and that is the message that reflects who we are as a country. I hope that it is the message this House will vote to send today.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
In a moment.
Amnesty found a partially exploded UK-manufactured BL755 cluster bomb munition—we discussed this in an urgent question—that had been used by the Saudi-led coalition forces. BL755 cluster munitions are known only to be in the existing stockpiles of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and are specifically designed for use by UK-supplied Tornado aircraft.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
If I can make some progress, I will give way in a moment.
The legal opinion prepared by Matrix Chambers in December last year detailed these UK arms transfers.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Specifically, the opinion states that the UK is in breach of article 6.3 of the arms trade treaty because the UK Government ought to have had the necessary knowledge that serious violations of international law were taking place.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I know that the Government do not like hearing legal opinion, or indeed the opinions of experts, unless it suits their case, but I will continue to make my case. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am within my rights not to take interventions unless I so wish. I shall therefore proceed. [Interruption.]
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Three Committees of this House—the Select Committees on Foreign Affairs, on International Development and on Business, Innovation and Skills—are of the uniform view that we cannot rely on the assurances of the Saudis and that there must be an independent, UN-led inquiry. Why are the Government not listening to the Select Committees of this House?
We agree with the Foreign Affairs Committee, whose recent report, “The use of UK-manufactured arms in Yemen”, concluded, among other things:
“We do not believe that the UK Government can meet its obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions by relying on assurances from the Saudis.”
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am not giving way. The report continues:
“We recommend that the Ministry of Defence carry out its own investigation into the evidence of a UK-supplied cluster bomb found in Yemen.”
The Committee also believes that there should be an independent, UN-led investigation.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We also agree with the joint report by the BIS and International Development Committees, which states:
“We do not believe that the UK Government can meet its obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions by relying on assurances from the Saudis.”
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I have indicated that I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. The report continues:
“In the case of Yemen, it is clear to us that the arms export licensing regime has not worked. We recommend that the UK suspend licences for arms exports to Saudi Arabia, capable of being used in Yemen, pending the results of an independent, United Nations-led inquiry”.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
We have read tragic reports of cluster bombs being happened upon by children and of the terrible damage that they cause, so I welcome and agree with the hon. Lady’s intervention.
I agree with the proposition of all three Select Committees, which are unified in their view that there must be an independent inquiry and that we cannot rely on the Saudis to give assurances.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Through sheer generosity and kindness of spirit, I now give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Kevan Jones
I just want to help inform the debate. I put the point about cluster munitions directly to the Saudi Foreign Minister when he came here. He said that, yes, they had bought them, but that was 30 years ago; that they are not usable, because they are 30 years old; and that it would not be possible to use them anyway, because they cannot be integrated with modern jets.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I note the points that he has made and his questioning of the Saudi Minister, but does he not agree with the view of the Select Committees of this House that the UK Government cannot meet their obligations under the convention on cluster munitions by simply relying on the assurances to which he refers? I agree with the Committees.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I will not give way to him further. He has an opportunity to make a speech if he so wishes.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is right for us to support the legitimately elected and UN-backed Government of Yemen. It is also important for us to work tirelessly to bring about the ceasefire to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) referred, because without it we shall not be able to get humanitarian aid into the country or advance a political settlement. However, I cannot support the motion, because my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), concentrated on only part of the story, which she does quite a lot when it comes to this conflict. She condemned the actions of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, but completely ignored what is being done by the Houthis, and the Iranian-backed weapons that are being taken into Yemen to fuel the conflict and help the Iranians to destabilise the region.
War is a horrible thing, and if there are violations on either side, I strongly believe that they should be investigated. It is sad that it was only in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury said yes, we should investigate all sides.
Mr Jones
I will not, because time is limited.
The Iranians are fuelling the conflict with millions of pounds’ worth of weapons. That is not a sign that a regime wants a peaceful settlement. As for their involvement in the peace process, there is evidence that they undermined the ceasefire that was in operation in the past few days. That is not helpful.
I accept that there are people, in the House and elsewhere, who take a moral stance against either the manufacture or the export of arms. Do I respect those people? Yes, I do, but I do not agree with them. I take what is perhaps, in the Labour party, the rather traditional view that we should be able to manufacture weapons, and that individual countries should be allowed to protect themselves when that is possible. I am proud that our legislation on arms exports was one of the achievements of the last Labour Government. The Export Control Act 2002 was the first such legislation for 50 years. We have a robust system in this country, and we should not shy away from it.
Let me say to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) that if Members want to comment on certain matters in the Chamber, they should consider them in detail first. When the Saudi Foreign Minister came here, I asked him about cluster munitions. However, I did not simply take his word for it. I knew from my own experience that using a 30-year-old cluster munition would be unsafe—and, in any case, how could it actually be delivered? I entirely agree that those issues should be investigated, but I do not think that they should be represented as facts when there is evidence to show that it might not be possible for such munitions to be used.
The situation is complex, but I do not think that the motion does anything to support the peace process, which I think is what we all want to do. I agree with the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that a united voice from the Chamber this evening would be the best way of achieving what we all want to achieve. I am thinking not just of peace in Yemen but of the need for us to support our allies in the region, who are important not just to stability in that part of the world, but to the prevention of terrorism and other threats to us at here at home.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), given that we regularly see each other at a range of debates in this House.
It is welcome that we are here again discussing Yemen. Having attended the recent Adjournment debate secured by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I share many of the comments he expressed earlier about the scale of the crisis gripping Yemen and the disaster that the conflict has proved to be for the Yemeni people. I think it was earlier this year when the UN highlighted that both sides were preventing the access of food aid. I know he shares my disappointment that the ceasefire has not held. Again, I share his hopes that the forthcoming UN discussions will bring what everyone here wants to see: a return to a system based on a constitutional structure for settling differences, not one based on armed conflict.
That said, we have to look at the choices and the alternatives, and at why the UN voted to support an intervention. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) talk about a small rebel group. It is perhaps worth quoting the House of Commons Library on this “small rebel group”:
“The Houthis have managed to gather dozens of tanks and plenty of heavy weaponry from these defectors and deserters.”
It also states:
“Yemen’s government and armed forces have long been weak and fragmented, and have had too many forces lined up against them to put up a strong resistance to the Houthis.”
This is not a small band of people who are incapable militarily; these Houthi rebels are former soldiers who are able to pose a direct threat of overthrowing the main Government. That is why the intervention is there. We then have to be clear about the alternative. If we did not have coalition involvement, the Houthis would overrun the whole country. We would have a failed state in Yemen, equivalent to the failed state we have had in Somalia for so long.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is not only a large group. It is well armed with arms from Iran. There is also evidence that there are Iranian revolutionary guards acting on the ground in Yemen.
Kevin Foster
Let us be blunt. It is not a small rebel group that fires effectively a ballistic missile at a neighbouring country or attacks a US warship in international waters. That does not fit my definition of a small group of lightly armed individuals. This is a serious and coherent threat to the recognised Government of Yemen, any constitutional process, and, ultimately, to the security of one of the key trade routes of the whole world through what we once saw as the Straits of Aden, with shipping heading up towards the Suez canal. Ultimately, if we allow a failed state in Yemen we will all pay the price for it in the cost of shipping, and disruption to energy supplies.
The alternative to the Saudi coalition—let us assume it is not the Saudis and their allies who intervene—is western intervention to enforce a UN motion. The same people very busily attacking this coalition are the same people who regularly oppose any western intervention in the middle east. For a UN resolution to have any meaning it needs to be implemented and it is questionable who it would want to take the action.
Humanitarian Law (Yemen)
Lord Beamish Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Ellwood
We have a very robust relationship with Saudi Arabia. We are able to raise matters in confidence and in private that we would not be able to raise in public, and that applies to many of the issues that have been raised today. However, this is a legitimate coalition, and it is allowed to use weapons that are provided and sold by the United Kingdom.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
One of the accusations against the Saudis is that UK-made cluster munitions have been used in Yemen. The former procurement Minister, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), told the House before the recess that the last time the UK sold cluster munitions was 30 years ago. What assessment has the Minister or the MOD made of the usability of those weapons and whether they have ever actually been used?
Mr Ellwood
I recognise the interest and also the expertise that the hon. Gentleman brings to the House given his work as a Minister in the MOD. As a reservist and an ex-member of the regular forces, I would not go anywhere near any ordnance that was over 20 years old. The cluster munitions that are being discussed are well past their sell-by date. They are dangerous and should not be used by anybody.
EU Membership: Economic Benefits
Lord Beamish Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
History shows what happens when this country turns its back and stops engaging with Europe. That is why most of the world and many experts are asking us to remain where we are. Those who say that we must look to the world as well as to the EU are correct and I agree with them, but we should do that as part of the biggest and richest single market in the world. If the rest of the world is telling us that we can best deal with the rest of the world by being in the EU, we should listen. The USA, China, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the whole Commonwealth have said that we should remain where we are. Not one country has come out and asked us to leave the EU. Only Russia and North Korea might want us to do that.
World economic forums such as the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation all say the same. Unite, the GMB, the CBI and the National Farmers Union say we should remain where we are. NATO says we should remain where we are, as do universities and 90% of scientists. The Royal College of Midwives says the same thing. Even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says, “Stay where you are.” If the coalition telling us to remain where we are stretches from the world’s superpowers to the local birdwatcher, we should listen to what they have to say.
I want to say a few words about the north-east of England and the con that the leave campaign is perpetrating on people not just in the north-east, but across the country. The north-east is a net beneficiary of EU grants and subsidies that help to train our young people for work and fund small businesses, our universities and agriculture, helping our economy to grow. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Monday that leaving the EU would put the northern powerhouse at risk. Between now and 2020 the north-east is due to receive about £800 million from the European Union.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the north-east of England has benefited tremendously from inward investment, of which the most successful recent example is Hitachi in County Durham? I pay tribute to him for his role in securing 700 well-paid jobs building trains not just for the UK market, but for Europe.
Phil Wilson
My hon. Friend is right. Hitachi has come to the north-east of England for two reasons: it has an excellent workforce and is the gateway to Europe. We know that its business model for that investment— £82 million in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency—was predicated on the fact that we are part of the EU. Those who support the leave campaign say that we should not worry about losing the £800 million that we would get from the EU because they will find the money themselves.
Aleppo
Lord Beamish Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister was diverted from the path of virtue by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). No doubt the intentions were good, but we were straying somewhat from the terms of the UQ. As the Minister and others know, I have facilitated much discussion on the matter of refugees. I rather imagine that there will be more, and no doubt people will think, “And so there should be”, but it would be best today if we could stick to the terms of the UQ that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) applied for and that I granted.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister quite rightly spoke about the influence of Russia, but what pressure is being put on Iran, which has equally supported the Assad regime, both directly and through proxies such as Hezbollah? Has the Foreign Office or the international community opened up that dialogue with Iran and, as part of the Iran deal, put pressure on it to make sure that it actually responds?
Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia
Lord Beamish Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Ellwood
Saudi Arabia is an important ally in the region, not least for the reasons I articulated in my previous response, and also from a regional and historical perspective. Because of that strong relationship, this Government and previous ones are able to have frank conversations that are able to effect change. We want change to happen at a pace, but it has to happen at a pace that will work. The frank conversations I was able to have when I was there covered a range of issues, not least human rights, and not least Ali al-Nimr, the juveniles and even women’s right to drive. Those are the issues that we are able to discuss and try to move forward on.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Tens of thousands of workers’ livelihoods in this country rely on exports of defence equipment around the world. I am proud that a Labour Government introduced the arms Export Control Act 2002, which regulates our defence exports. Will the Minister use his good offices to take up the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) that the quadripartite Committee should take up those investigations? Will he resist any attempt to boycott arms sales to Saudi Arabia before the evidence is looked at? All that would happen is that the gap would be filled by other countries exporting those arms when they do not have our robust regulation.
Christopher Rochester
Lord Beamish Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
This is the fourth Adjournment debate that I have secured on the case of Christopher Rochester in the past 13 years. I and his family wish that it was unnecessary, after 14 years, to raise the case again.
Christopher Rochester, a 24-year-old constituent of mine from Chester-le-Street in North Durham, died in the Andreas Papandreou hospital on the island of Rhodes in Greece following a fall from the apartment complex in which he was staying on holiday. Despite falling from a balcony on to the concrete patio below, he survived, but he was allowed to die a slow, painful and lingering death due to the negligence of doctors at the Andreas Papandreou hospital in Rhodes.
Christopher’s mother, Pam Cummings, and her family have fought a long and persistent campaign to secure the truth about the events that led to his death in 2000. This fight finally led to three doctors being found guilty of manslaughter through neglect. That was clearly down to the tenacious way in which Mrs Cummings and her family pursued the case. I again want to put on the record my admiration of their tenacity in having pursued the case to find out the truth about his death.
Unfortunately, that was not the conclusion of the case. The family have not been able to get closure because of a separate issue about what happened to Christopher’s kidney once he had died. When his body was returned to the UK for burial, it was discovered that one of his kidneys had been removed and was missing. At the time, Mrs Cummings contacted my predecessor Giles Radice—now Lord Radice—to ask why that was the case. He, with the help of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British consulate in Rhodes, got the Andreas Papandreou hospital to send the kidney back to the UK via the consulate. I thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its staff for their work on this case because, over the past 14 years, they have been helpful in trying to move things on. They do not often get thanked, so I would like to put my thanks on the record.
For some unexplained reason, Mrs Cummings was convinced that the kidney that had been sent back from Rhodes was not that of her son Christopher. She therefore asked for the DNA to be tested. That was done by NorthGene, which is a leading genetic research agency in the north-east of England. To her horror, her suspicions proved to be correct. The DNA test confirmed that the kidney that had been sent from Rhodes was not Christopher’s.
Representations were made to the Greek authorities. Their ludicrous suggestion was that the British consulate in Rhodes had somehow mixed up the kidney and returned the wrong one. I am not sure how many kidneys the consulate in Rhodes deals with on a daily basis, but clearly that was a ludicrous suggestion. I pressed the case, with the help of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Greek authorities finally suggested that an independent test should take place in a third country to verify the facts surrounding the kidney that was returned to the UK. The family agreed to that and it was decided that Belgium would carry out the test.
The Greek authorities then insisted that in order to get a DNA sample from Christopher, his body would have to be exhumed, despite all the leading experts arguing that it was not necessary. That included Professor John Burn, who is not only one of the UK’s leading experts on genetics, but a world-renowned expert. I thank Professor Burn for his assistance with the case. It has been greatly appreciated by the family. Clearly, this was yet another tactic on behalf of the Greek authorities to put more pressure on the family. I also think the Greek authorities thought that the family would not agree to it.
It was a difficult decision for Mrs Cummings and her family, but they agreed that Christopher’s body should be exhumed. That took place on 27 June 2011 in the presence of officials from the Greek Ministry of Health. At this point, may I put on the record my thanks and the thanks of the family to Durham police for their assistance, in particular DS Ken Donnelly and DI Steve Murray, who assisted the family throughout the process? DNA samples were recovered from the body and sent to Belgium. Durham police also took samples from the body, which they still retain as part of the evidence in the case. Likewise, samples of the kidney that was sent to Durham were sent to Belgium for analysis.
A common problem in this case has been the length of time the family have had to wait for any kind of information. They had to wait another year, until May 2012, before receiving any news on the results, which they only received following a letter that I wrote to the Greek ambassador in London and representations from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Foreign Office was simply advised by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the DNA analysis supported the conclusion that the kidney almost certainly belonged to Christopher. That is completely at odds with the tests that have been carried out in this country and with the review of Professor John Burn of the analysis of the kidney that was sent back, which showed that it was clearly not that of Christopher Rochester.
On 18 June 2012, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was advised by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs that a full report could be obtained only if an application was made by the family to a Greek court. Professor Burn has offered to have a look at the report and see what tests were carried out. However, making representations to a Greek court would clearly involve huge expense for the family, so they are unable to do so.
On 10 March this year, I wrote to the public prosecutor’s office in Rhodes and to the Greek Ministry of Justice with a signed letter of consent from Mrs Cummings authorising me to act on her behalf. Despite two follow-up letters, I have had no response to date. On 25 July, I wrote separately to the Greek ambassador in London, asking him to ask the prosecutor’s office to respond to those letters. The embassy confirmed by telephone that it would make representations, but to date we have heard nothing from it.
The case raises serious questions about how a British family can get legitimate answers to questions about the death of one of their loved ones in a fellow European country. Without a copy of the report of the DNA test that took place in Belgium, which Professor Burn has agreed to look at, the family cannot draw this sad case to a conclusion. I am not quite sure what the Greeks have to hide by not producing that report for the family, but will the Minister make representations to the Greek authorities about the issue? Will he also raise it directly with the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs and separately with the Greek ambassador in London? I have tried to do so through faxes, letters and e-mails, and I seem to get no answers. As I said, a common thread throughout the 13 years I have been dealing with the case has been that they seem not to reply to any representations on behalf of the family.
This is obviously a very sad case, but it also demonstrates the persistence and courage of a loving mother who will not let the case go despite the objections and obstacles that Greek officialdom puts in her way. I assure Mrs Cummings and her family that I will continue to do what I can to get them the justice that they deserve, so that they can have final closure on this very sad case.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I congratulate my old friend the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to him for the strong support that he has given Mr Rochester’s family over what is now a long period. As he said, his predecessor Lord Radice did the same before him.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly raised a number of issues relating to the case with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I thank him for expressing his gratitude to officials for all the work that they have done over the years. I know I would have done precisely what he has done—at least, I like to think I would—had I been in his position. This is an extraordinary and unsatisfactory case. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has taken a close interest in it and met the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions to discuss it. I welcome this opportunity to respond on his behalf and on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
First, may I restate our deepest condolences to Mr Rochester’s family, who, as the hon. Gentleman explained, have lost someone dear to them in tragic circumstances? The death of a loved one is painful under any circumstances, but I am conscious that when a death occurs overseas, the cultural differences, the language barrier and the systems used by foreign authorities can be difficult to comprehend, making the grief felt by the bereaved family all the more acute.
As the hon. Gentleman set out in detail, the loss and grief suffered by Mr Rochester’s family have been compounded by the challenges that they have faced, not only in their pursuit of justice against those they see as responsible for contributing to his death, but through the damaging confusion over the repatriation of one of his organs. I would like to take this opportunity to confirm for the record the sequence of events as we understand them and the consular assistance that we have provided to the family.
After a series of court cases, both Greek and British authorities agreed that Mr Rochester did not receive adequate medical treatment following his fall. That was confirmed following the retrial in Rhodes on 5 February 2008 of the medical staff who treated Mr Rochester immediately before his death. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the court found one of the medical assistants guilty of homicide by negligence and sentenced him to 15 months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years. The other two accused were acquitted.
When Mr Rochester’s body was repatriated, the post-mortem examination in the UK found that he had been returned without his left kidney. At the family’s request, staff at our consulate in Rhodes helped to arrange the kidney’s return to the UK by liaising with all the relevant authorities, and funding its safe delivery to Dryburn hospital in Durham. On its return to the UK, however, the DNA testing requested by the family threw into doubt the identity of the kidney. I cannot begin to imagine the additional distress that that must have caused Mr Rochester’s family at that time.
Consular staff urgently sought clarification, and at the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman and Mr Rochester’s family, in 2002 the Greek authorities agreed on an independent DNA test to be carried out by a third country at the National Institute of Criminalistics and Criminology in Belgium. In order to complete that test, the Greek authorities stated that three samples were required, including one from Mr Rochester’s remains, as the hon. Gentleman has said.
Despite our representations on behalf of the family to explain their distress, Greek authorities remained firm on that point. They did not accept that it would be possible to determine once and for all the identity of the kidney unless the sample was taken from the exhumed remains. They would not accept skin samples that had been previously taken from Mr Rochester for an unrelated reason in the UK some time before his death, and they would not take samples from a next of kin.
It is testament to the fortitude of the family that, despite their concerns, they agreed to the exhumation of Mr Rochester’s body. The DNA test could then proceed, and in May 2012 a summary of the results was passed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the office of the hon. Gentleman and the family. The summary stated that the kidney that was originally repatriated on 14 August 2000 did, with almost certain probability, belong to Christopher Rochester. The Greek authorities had initiated a criminal case based on the Greek organ trading Act, following reports that the kidney did not belong to Mr Rochester, but the case was then closed.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the family have since made it clear—quite understandably—that they would like to see a full version of the results to assure themselves that they are valid. Our understanding from the Greek authorities is that those results would be disclosed in full only to someone with a vested legal interest in the case, such as a family member as next of kin, or their appointed lawyer in Greece. That would mean a family member either travelling to Greece, or appointing a legal representative there.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a signed letter from Mrs Cummings authorising him to act on her behalf, but as I have said, my understanding is that that can be done only by a legal representative in Greece.
Mr Kevan Jones
What the Greek Ministry of Justice has been asked for is a Government document. Will the Minister make representations to his Greek counterpart to see whether there is some other method? This family is not in a position to get the finance together to do what has been suggested by the Greek authorities, but without that, and without a full copy of the report, as I have said, they will not get closure.
Mr Swire
The hon. Gentleman is right—of course they will not get closure until they see the whole report. However, the Greeks are standing firm on this matter and have said that the results can be disclosed only to a next of kin or legally appointed representative. We will raise the case again although I suspect we will not get very far on that particular point.
It is not for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to interfere with Greek law on this point. But it is right that the Greek authorities should respond to the hon. Gentleman directly, and I am more than happy to write to the Greek ambassador. I am incredulous that the ambassador has not replied to the hon. Gentleman and I can only think that it is the result of an oversight that I am sure the ambassador will wish to right at the earliest opportunity. I shall point out to him as soon as possible that the hon. Gentleman still awaits a response. I will also ask our embassy in Athens to press the Rhodes public prosecutor’s office for a response to the hon. Gentleman’s letter and, of course, we can provide updated details for lawyers in Greece if that would be helpful.
Once again, may I say that my deepest sympathies go out to the family? It is only natural and understandable that they should seek closure on what must have been a terribly distressing period of uncertainty over Mr Rochester’s body—an uncertainty that has gone on for far too long. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to give all appropriate support to the family as they pursue this, and we will also give what support we can to the hon. Gentleman, who has been so dogged in his determination to get justice for his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Lord Beamish Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I remember with fondness the time when my hon. Friend was the Friday Whip—he was a very good one. Would the debate not be better if the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) at least made an intervention or speech in it?
Jim Fitzpatrick
It is not for me to respond on behalf of right hon. or hon. Members. When I was a private Member’s Bill Whip, I used to advise colleagues on a Friday. I would say, “Stay in your seat and don’t be provoked by anything Opposition Members say.” The hon. Member for Stockton South is showing admirable restraint. Some of the things that have been said during the debates on these Fridays will have irritated the life out of him, but he is keen to get to the conclusion of the debate. He has made a tactical and strategic decision, but I understand Opposition Members who would rather have engaged in a fuller debate with Government Members.
In conclusion, I support the EU. We have nothing to fear from a referendum. I support the Bill in principle and will vote for it on Third Reading. I look forward to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister explaining why I should support the two amendments he has tabled, which I suspect he will do shortly.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend has made his point, and he is accurate.
I wish to speak to amendments 84 and 64 in my name. I may want to press amendment 64 to a Division.
First, let me address speedily the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South. Although referendums are—in this country, at least—unusual, there have been several in recent years, and a noticeably higher number under Labour Governments. Not for us the dismissive attitude to some of the British people of Conservatives such as Boris Johnson—we instinctively trust the British people. Under Labour we had the 1975 European Communities membership referendum. We have had the various Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolution referendums, and the referendum that proposed a devolution of powers to London—the Greater London authority referendum in 2000. We have also seen a number of referendums on directly elected mayors. There is a considerable amount of experience to draw on in getting any future referendums right.
Referendums are substantial undertakings. Their administration is a sizeable cost to the state. There is also substantial inconvenience to the public; schools get closed for the day. Rightly, therefore, great emphasis is placed on getting the conduct of the referendum right. We do not want to waste precious resources or the time of those involved. We need to ensure that the result is legitimate, valid and fair. With that in mind, a proper plan for the arrangement of the referendum is sensible. Clause 3(1) is helpful in that regard, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South pointed out, the absence of a timetable or deadline for the publication of the Electoral Commission’s report is problematic.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the single piece of legislation on Europe that centred powers in Brussels and led to the open market and the flood of immigrants that we have today was the Single European Act, which Mrs Thatcher signed and did not put to a referendum in this country?
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend is right. The Conservative party has taken through this House and the other place a number of major pieces of legislation on Europe on which it has not wanted a referendum. One can only conclude that Conservative leaders in the past were more willing to stand up to their Back Benchers than the current Prime Minister is.
Let me discuss the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South. Amendments 52 to 55 relate to the report that the Electoral Commission would publish under clause 3. As other hon. Members have said, the Electoral Commission’s recent report on the Bill, published last month, provided us with invaluable advice on the potential wording of a referendum question, and the consequential difficulties that the poorly worded question that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) is proposing could cause. I do not want to dwell on that particular Electoral Commission report, but it is clear that further advice in the form of a report from the commission would be invaluable should a referendum go ahead.
The important reference back to the previous Electoral Commission report is that it had only almost four months to complete its work on what the question should be. It made it clear then that it was not long enough for it to offer the House of Commons a definitive view on the wording of the question, so the clear lesson that we need to draw in the context of this grouping of amendments is that it must be given longer to do its work. Amendment 55, implying a minimum six months being needed for the Electoral Commission to do its work, is clearly sensible. It would have been useful to hear a little more of the Minister’s thoughts on that particular amendment.
There is also the obvious point that such a report needs to be delivered in time for the advice in it to be given due consideration by the Secretary of State, and crucially by Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, I can see the case that my hon. Friend makes, in particular for amendment 55. We know that the Conservative party is divided on the timetable for this legislation. We had the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie). Some want the referendum next year, others want—[Interruption.]
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Fridays are for private Members’ business, and that is what we are dealing with today. Is it in order for the Government deputy Chief Whip to be orchestrating the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) in what he should be doing?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Chair has power over many things and many people, but the Government deputy Chief Whip is not one of them.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Lord Beamish Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Gapes
I accept that; it is another valid argument.
The second amendment I want to comment on is amendment 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor. His position is that the referendum should be held in October 2014, five weeks after the referendum on Scottish separatism. I believe that there are problems with that date, because of the proximity to the other date, but I also believe that he is making the same point that I am making about the futility of having a hypothetical renegotiation. The Government have ruled out renegotiating now—the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that there was no intention of starting any renegotiation in advance of a general election. This is therefore a status quo “as we are” alternative to a complete withdrawal. It is similar to the argument I have just made about holding the referendum a few months later, on the same day as the general election.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) is more politically honest than what has been put forward by the Conservative party and the Prime Minister in that it would allow people to vote on whether we should be in or out of the EU and might force the Prime Minister to concede to saying which way he would vote in such a referendum?
Mike Gapes
I can see some of the attractions in that. Moreover, the fact that the hon. Member for Windsor added his name to my amendment 22 is indicative of the fact that he is not firmly tied to the date in October 2014; he would just like to hold the referendum before the end of 2014.
Mike Gapes
Absolutely—and it is not just Nissan; it is any major international company that wishes to locate within the European Union to get access to the single market population of 500 million and wishes to be based in a country with a high level of education where large numbers of people speak the English language. Because there is an excellent education system in the Netherlands, that counts as one such country; the Irish Republic would also provide an easy alternative for location if, because of the uncertainty created by a potential referendum and renegotiation leading up to 2017, they chose not to invest in the United Kingdom.
I was dealing with amendment 23, but amendment 24 would allow a little bit more time for the renegotiation. It is not as good as holding it earlier because of the uncertainty and the issues to which I have just referred. Nevertheless, this would allow less uncertainty—one year less uncertainty—than this private Member’s Bill, supported by elements of the Government, would allow.
Given the questions over whether this issue should be properly considered and some doubts about how long the renegotiation might take, I have also tabled amendments to provide an alternative date after the next general election, going beyond 2017. I have suggested—although I shall not press amendments 26 and 27 to the vote—2018 and 2019 as alternatives to allow more time. With 27 other EU states, this renegotiation, if it were to happen, would be extremely difficult. If, of course, the renegotiation is going to be a modest figleaf-type negotiation, it could be done quite quickly. If, however, it is fundamental and has to meet all the demands of the people who want to leave behind all the aspects of the present European Union and go back to being a free trade area or a common market, it would involve a complete disintegration and disentanglement of the UK relationship, requiring an à la carte approach that the other 27 countries are not likely to—I would say, will not—agree to. That would be a problem, so we would need a long time to persuade those other countries of our case.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend believe that we would be better informed and able to make a more informed decision on his amendments if the Prime Minister and the Government told us and the British people exactly what type of renegotiation they have in mind—whether it be the all-day breakfast, the à la carte or simply a cheap snack?
Mike Gapes
The hon. Gentleman makes my arguments for me on amendment 58, so I will not repeat them. There are strong arguments to get the correct date through consultation, rather than there being an arbitrary decision put forward by elements within the Government. Better for there to be a commission and, as my amendment 12 says, for there to be consultation with faith organisations to make sure that the dates do not clash with religious festivals and holidays. We are a multicultural, multi-faith country now, so the Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Zoroastrians, Muslims and Christians will all need to be consulted.
Mike Gapes
Five years ago, the mayor of my borough was a Zoroastrian. It is a long established, very old religion that came originally from Persia.
Mike Gapes
I do not want to give way any more, as I want to make progress. I want to conclude my remarks soon.
We need to avoid the prospect of the date clashing with other elections. Amendment 13 deals with that issue because there are regional, local and national elections, by-elections and other elections. It is important for there to be clarity about the date.
Finally, in amendments 9, 10 and 11, I make the case for us to get into the 21st century. Gone are the days when we should vote on only one day—Thursdays. We no longer live in a world in which there is no flexitime or different hours, and in which most people live and work very close to the same place. Those days have gone. Like other countries, we should get into the modern world and allow voting on more than one day—Thursday, Friday and Saturday, or Saturday and Sunday. We need to be more flexible, more open and more democratic. It is crucial that we take account of the modern age. If we are to have this epoch-making referendum, we should at least consider it reflecting the situation in the 21st century.
I have introduced my amendments. I do not wish to delay the House any longer, but I would like to have votes on amendments 3 and 77.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I want to speak to amendments 68 and 70 and new schedule 2. Before we have a referendum on whether to stay in or come out of the EU, it is important that we consult bodies and organisations. The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) should have undertaken such a consultation before assembling a Bill that was designed more to keep his own party together than to better the prospects of his Stockton South constituents in the north-east of England. Let me explain why consultation is so important.
Mr Kevan Jones
I know that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) has spoken a great deal in the north-east on television and to the newspapers. Does my hon. Friend not find it odd that, despite championing a Bill around the newsrooms and the newspapers of the north-east, he has been completely silent throughout this entire debate?
Phil Wilson
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman intends to speak later. I know how vocal he has been in the region on this issue, but not in the Chamber.
One area that we could consult on is foreign direct investment in the north-east, which is important to the region. Let me explain why we should consult those organisations that promote such investment. Since 1992, inward foreign direct investment flows to the EU have doubled and the UK has become an attractive investment, with the second largest stock of foreign direct investment in the world, although it has fallen since 2010. I will come on to that later and explain why this Bill undermines future investment.
Phil Wilson
I do not agree with a referendum in four years’ time given that nobody knows what the question will be. That will create a lot of uncertainty which will threaten jobs not just in my constituency but everywhere else in the country. Those are the issues that I believe the hon. Gentleman should recognise.
The hon. Member for Stockton South turned up to the launch on 1 November. As The Northern Echo said the next day:
“Mr Wharton is the Conservative MP for Stockton South, whose private member’s Bill will see MPs vote this Friday on whether to hold a referendum on the UK’s membership with the EU.”
The report went on:
“It’s ironic that the Tory backbencher was happy to celebrate the investment Hitachi is making in the North-East, while championing a cause that jeopardises the region’s chances of securing similar job boosts in the future.”
I could not agree more.
Mr Kevan Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House of what The Northern Echo said. Would it not be greatly advantageous not only to the House but to his constituents, the people of the north-east and The Northern Echo if the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) at least made a contribution to the debate? This is yet another occasion on which he has remained silent.
Phil Wilson
There is certainly a deafening silence from the hon. Member for Stockton South.
Phil Wilson
I would like to make some progress.
Total exports from the north-east to the EU last year were worth £6.5 billion, which was nearly half the region’s total. In a survey for Business for Britain, 6% of businesses said that they would close if we left the EU. That would mean the loss of 1.5 million jobs in Britain, including 40,000 in the north-east, at an average of 1,300 per north-east constituency. I am pleased that I am not jeopardising those jobs by supporting the Bill.
Foreign direct investment is important to the UK economy and the north-east. FDI has fallen in the north-east since 2010, but let me explain why the Bill, given the lack of consultation on its creation, would make matters worse. A recent Ernst and Young report on FDI called “No room for complacency” said:
“The number of FDI projects secured by most English regions, excluding London, declined in 2012. Investments in England outside of London were 24% below their level in 2010—a decline that has coincided with the closure of the Regional Development Agencies…and the switch to Local Enterprise Partnerships…If it continues, the weakness of the English regions could damage the UK’s overall ability to attract FDI in comparison to countries such as France and Germany”.
It states:
“56% of investors in Western Europe feel that if the UK were less integrated into the EU it would become less attractive for FDI”.
It also says:
“the position of London is now so pronounced that if the UK were to be considered without London, it would be placed joint third alongside Spain in attracting new investment.”
All that underlines my basic point that at a time of difficulties in attracting foreign investment, it is absolutely ridiculous to create even more uncertainty by proceeding with the Bill.
Perhaps there are other people whom the hon. Member for Stockton South should have heard from, because if he had consulted more widely than just the various factions of the Conservative party for whom coming out of Europe is an anecdote for the loss of empire, he would not have touched this Bill with a bargepole. He should have spoken to people such as Paul Everitt, the chief executive of the ADS group, who says:
“UK exports are crucial to rebalancing the economy and last year alone, aerospace sales to Europe were worth £7.5 billion. But the EU is more than just a large market for ADS’s sectors. It’s also a significant source of additional funding for R&D investment in the UK and plays an integral role in shaping the regulatory environment for the sector’s key customers and suppliers...The priority must be to maintain these opportunities for exports, investment and influence in Europe in order to support the UK’s growth and global competitiveness.”
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that one European success story has been Airbus? This week’s announcement by the Emirates airline of its order of 50 A380 aircraft is a good sign that Britain benefits from EU membership, but such benefits could be jeopardised if we were not part of a single market.
Phil Wilson
Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That proves the importance of our role in Europe now and in the future.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could ask the House authorities to investigate the Division bell. Before amendment 3 was moved, the Division bell outside the Chamber started ringing at least 10 or 20 seconds before you put the Question. There is clearly a disconnect between the people observing the House and those setting off the bell. Could that be investigated?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the matter to my attention. I will immediately ask for an investigation into the workings of the Division bell.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? Is it in order for a Government Whip to be standing up having a long, detailed conversation with the Minister while my hon. Friend is moving his amendment?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order. I expect that the hon. Gentleman in question meant to be sitting and will do so from now on.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend also agree that there is some concern about the amendment, because the question would read:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”?
We tabled an amendment last week to include Gibraltar. Does he think that there should be some reference to Gibraltar on the Gibraltar ballot paper?
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I think was raised in evidence to the Electoral Commission by the Plain English Campaign. It pointed out that in response to a yes/no question, as is traditional, there would be a yes campaign and a no campaign. In response to what appears to be the Electoral Commission’s preferred question, we would have to have a remain campaign, and a leave campaign—I do not particularly fancy carrying placards stating, “Remain”. There are some problems with the preferred wording in the commission’s report, and the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly good point that underlines the fact that the issue requires more consideration. I would like that consideration to be led by the Electoral Commission and to inform the wording of the Bill. If the Minister is unhappy with the wording from the Electoral Commission, and thinks we are being rushed into a decision on that—just as the Bill appears to be rushing us towards even less adequate wording—the solution is in his hands and those of the Conservative party and the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). They could pause the Bill and wait for the Electoral Commission to consider the question more fully, and satisfy itself that it has the best possible question to put to the British people.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. Would it not help the House and the debate if the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) made a contribution to the debate or was in the Chamber to hear it?
Martin Horwood
It is rather extraordinary that only one Conservative Back Bencher and one Liberal Democrat are in the Chamber at the moment. Perhaps Members are following the Prime Minister’s injunction not to bang on about Europe—at least at the moment, if not generally.
Amendment 37, tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South, would replace a Welsh “version” with a “translation”. I think that is a little superfluous; I am not really sure of the precise difference between a version and a translation, and even after listening to the hon. Gentleman I did not quite pick up the nuanced difference. I think the Minister made a reasonable response to the amendment, which is that we are following precedent by using “version”.
There is more of a problem with amendments 39 and 40 which mention Gaelic translations, and a bit of a linguistic pickle is going on. As I understand it, Gaelic covers a family of languages that include Manx and Irish, and not just Scottish Gaelic, which is the normal term used to describe the Celtic language in Scotland. The Scottish Government are promoting the status of Scottish Gaelic on the basis that it should have equal respect with English, and that there should be language rights for its tens of thousands of native speakers, but not that it is based on a perceived lack of understanding of English. No one is really expected not to understand a question in English—for instance, there is no requirement to have a Scottish Gaelic version of the independence question in the independence referendum, and that appears to be the intention of both the Scottish and UK Governments. Amendment 39 is a wee bit superfluous.
The hon. Member for Ilford South gets into even more of a linguistic pickle with amendment 40. It mentions Gaelic, although I think the accepted terminology in Ireland is Irish, not Gaelic. This is becoming a bit of an attempt to find various things to talk about, which obviously I am not sure we in this place would entertain.
Amendment 38 has slightly more weight because the hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to include in the Bill the requirement to consult
“with the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government.”
There is much more precedent for using the Welsh language, but then the Welsh language is already mentioned in the Bill, and I am not sure whether we need that sensible requirement for consultation in the Bill too. Such a consultation is something that the Government would seem to be perfectly capable of doing, and if the Electoral Commission is looking at the wording of the question, it should be the body that leads on our Welsh version of the question, as well as the English language version.
That leaves amendment 71, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). His amendment is an attempt to tackle a fundamental problem with the Bill, namely its curious approach to the timing and the curiously delayed nature of the referendum question that it would put to the British people. Amendment 71 provides a small antidote to that by emphasising that we are not binding our successors. [Interruption.]
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last week we had the Government advisers in the Box communicating via Back Benchers and even with the Bill’s promoter. Today I notice that another Back Bencher is doing the same thing. Is this really in order?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
People are allowed to come and speak. I think everything is in order. If it was not, we would have stopped it.
Mr Bain
I am pleased to speak to amendment 71, which stands in my name, and to other amendments in the group.
An unusual aspect of this Bill is that it purports to hold a referendum on the question of whether to remain part of the European Union, without specifying the date on which such a referendum would be held. That is most unlike the practice that we have seen when this House has passed similar legislation to create the opportunity for referendums to take place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and, indeed, for the referendum held two years ago on the alternative vote. It is also unlike what is happening in the process for a referendum in Scotland. The great danger that the Bill in its current form presents is that it gives the Executive too much power in the setting of the referendum date. The Bill gives the Government a blank cheque for the setting of that date, and who knows what sort of factors will be considered when the Government come to set it.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend really think that is a surprise when the Bill is not about whether we should be in or out of Europe, but about papering over the internal cracks, seen in previous contributions, within the Tory party?
Mr Bain
Indeed; my hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
Given that this referendum is being pursued through a private Member’s Bill, it is perplexing why the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) seeks to give such discretion to the Executive. Amendment 71 would limit that discretion quite substantially. If we look at the wording of clause 1, we see that it is technically possible for this House and the other place to pass a resolution, setting a particular date for a referendum, and there could be a general election in the interim. In the increasingly—by the day—unlikely event of this Government being returned to office at that election, they could come forward with an order in the next Parliament with a different date for the holding of the referendum.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, if this Bill were passed, any date specified in a resolution passed by this House and the other place for the holding of a referendum would be the same as the date in the final order. In so doing, it would reassert the sovereignty of this House and the other place and restrict the ability of the Executive to play the sorts of games in respect of this referendum that, sadly, those of us who represent constituencies in Scotland know that the Scottish Government have been guilty of playing in respect of the Scottish referendum. I will be testing the House’s opinion on the amendment, which is important in providing safeguards, to the House and those we represent, against the Government’s playing fast and loose with any timetable for setting a date.
Mr Bain
Given my hon. Friend’s expertise in this area, he is enormously well placed to make that point in such a powerful way. It is bizarre that many of those who support the Bill are the very same people who oppose the idea of Parliament being bound by its successors. One reason why they want to withdraw from the European Union, and would encourage people to vote no to staying in in any such referendum, is that they do not believe that sovereignty should be affected.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Would it not be better if the promoter of the Bill, instead of taking a vow of silence that would be the envy of any monastery in the land, actually answered some of the questions about why he has put it forward in such a way?
Mr Bain
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Throughout the entire passage of the Bill, neither the hon. Member for Stockton South nor the Minister representing the Government or the Conservative party—hon. Members are not sure about his status—have been able to answer the important questions about the implications of a yes or a no vote. Neither has there been any indication of the precise date on which the Government propose to hold the referendum.
As I said, from my experience in Scotland, that issue is critical. It is not simply a matter of process; it will come into the heart of the entire debate. I do not believe that leaving the Bill in its current form, and letting it give the Executive the powers that it does, does this country or Parliament any service. It is important that we improve the Bill, putting in clearer safeguards for Parliament and the country.
On the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Harrow East.
Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme
Lord Beamish Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate. There have been five speeches in the debate, which is topical because of the past week’s events in Geneva. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—although we disagree on nuclear weapons, I respect his position—made a thoughtful speech that put the present situation in its historical context. The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) recognised that much of the suspicion in Iran is down to the history that our country and others have in the region. That is important when we are looking at a possible solution to nuclear weapons in the ongoing talks.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly raised the possibility of proliferation throughout the region. He mentioned Saudi Arabia and other nations that might wish to acquire nuclear weapons if the Iranians were to develop their capability. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said on nuclear deterrents vis-à-vis this country, but I do not agree that if Iran developed a nuclear weapons capability, it would somehow offer a balance of terror with Israel. The clear way forward is to stop Iran developing that capability in the first place.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) warned the Government not to look at this process through rose-tinted spectacles, and I agree. No one should look at the history or the actions of the present regime in Iran and think that we are dealing with people who have not committed atrocities on their own people or have not exported terror to other parts of the middle east. When I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I was aware of the involvement of Iran in attacks on our troops in southern Iraq and its support for insurgents against those forces.
We on the Opposition Benches see Iran as a threat—if it acquires nuclear weapons—not only to security in the middle east, but to global security. A nuclear-armed Iran would not only change the balance of power within the region, but, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham argued, it would also lead to other nations wishing to acquire a nuclear capability. Many of those nations have the funds to do that.
If Iran gained a nuclear capability, that would be a blow to the United Nations goal of a nuclear-free middle east. It would also be a step away and against the goal that we all share of ensuring that new countries do not acquire nuclear weapons. We in the UK and on the Opposition Benches—well, some of us, anyway—are committed to the retention of our nuclear deterrent, but it is important that we encourage others and ourselves to reduce our nuclear weapon stockpiles. Allowing the Iranians to have a nuclear weapons capability would be a severe blow to that non-proliferation position, which I think all parties in this country would want to protect.
The Opposition agree with the Government’s twin-track approach to Iran, with the imposition of strict sanctions and the encouragement through diplomatic channels to ensure that we can get an agreement that ensures that Iran does not acquire a nuclear capability. Much has been said this afternoon about the election of President Rouhani. I accept the points that hon. Members have made about him and some of the atrocities that have been carried out by the Iranian regime. He stood on a platform of reform, and the sanctions imposed by the international community on Iran are having an effect on the Iranian community and the Iranian people. It is important that we continue our diplomatic efforts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North discussed the UK’s diplomatic relations with Iran. I welcome the appointment of the chargés d’affaires and hope we will see the embassy in Tehran opening to commence that dialogue in the not-too-distant future. That dialogue will be so important in steering the Iranians away from developing nuclear weapons and in raising some of the points about human rights and their support for terrorist activities—both in the region and more widely—that have rightly been mentioned.
This weekend’s talks were positive. It is a disappointment to us all that the next step has not been taken, but, overall, we are moving in the right direction and the Iranians are taking a more positive tone and stance. I say to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kettering, that there are two options. One is to allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear capacity and take some type of military action against them. The other is to have talks, to give Iran a chance to disarm and to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Given what the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North said, that would be the preferred option.
Doing nothing is not an option. The Opposition support the continuation of strong and tough sanctions while, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere said, not looking at Iran through rose-tinted spectacles. We have to recognise that the negotiations on ensuring that the Iranians give up their capacity to develop nuclear weapons will be tough and hard. I wish the Government and our international partners well in arriving at that international settlement. It will make not only the middle east, but the world, a safer place.