Kashmir

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

In order to give everybody equal time and a fair crack of the whip, will Members please just take up to eight minutes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is well respected in this House, for giving us his expertise. Does he at least accept that by speaking up against human rights violations in any country, one is not necessarily against that country?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Can I help Members who are going to speak shortly? There is a danger that their interventions will take time away from somebody else. I do not mind having the debate, but Members must recognise that I want to treat everyone equally.

[Mr Sharma]

I am not saying that that is not the way one presents the argument or that that is not right. I am saying that no Government or authority would allow people to visit if they are not free of prejudice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sharma]

Let us look at what has been happening since 1947. In 1948, after a line of control and a ceasefire were declared, India and Pakistan advocated that they should be part and parcel of the negotiations. In 1965 and 1971, India was attacked in an attempt to change that line of control. Again, in 1999, Pakistan tried to seize an opportunity to redraw the internationally accepted line of control. In total, that happened three times: in 1965, 1971 and 1999.

Having been unsuccessful in full-scale military manoeuvres to take control of more of Kashmir, subversive elements within the Pakistani Government have, since the millennium, turned towards terrorism to further their ends. In 2004, Pakistan made a public commitment to prevent terrorist groups from using its territory to plan, prepare or launch attacks against India. Since then the Pakistani spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence—ISI—has been heavily implicated in India’s most notorious terrorist incidents, most notably the 2008 Mumbai attacks which left nearly 200 dead.

That behaviour—[Interruption.] I will come on to Kashmir, but I am giving some background. That behaviour is regularly seen across Kashmir. Although the line of control is demarked, fighters from Pakistan launch attacks across the state. Those terrorist atrocities are perpetrated only to destabilise the region. They do not help the people of Kashmir or make anyone stronger. All they do is further the misery of millions.

Since the 1948 riots, there has been an attempt to cleanse the region of native people opposed to Pakistani intervention. In the 1990s, we saw the most sustained civil activity aimed at driving Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley. In 1947, a quarter of a million Pandits lived in Kashmir, now only around 20,000 remain. The majority live in squalid camps in Jammu, desperate to return to their homelands. They are unwilling to settle elsewhere and prejudice their right to return.

The threat of communal violence looms large—an ever present threat for millions. That is why we see images of soldiers across Kashmir: they are there to protect citizens of all stripes. People who want to go to work, school, or university are allowed to do so only under the protection of the Indian army. Without the protection of Indian troops, we can see all too easily what happens. The horrifying stories of brutality from the Peshawar school attacks that left more than 132 schoolchildren dead or the assassination attempt on Malala would not be so uncommon. Very few Members of this House would have done anything but affirm the actions of the British Army in trying to maintain the status quo in Northern Ireland. The army is there to protect the border, just as it did in Ulster, and, just as it did in Belfast when it made sure that young boys and girls from Catholic and Protestant families could continue to live the lives that they wanted.

The National Human Rights Commission of India has freely criticised and called for punishments when the rule of law has not been upheld to a rigorous standard. That is not a level of freedom allowed to those residents in Pakistan, which is recognised as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.

The European Parliament observers had this to say after the state elections in 2014—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he has now been speaking for nearly 11 minutes? I did suggest eight minutes; we are now well over. I know that this is a very important matter, but I want to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard.

[Mr Sharma]

By working every day for a safer, more prosperous Kashmir, the Indian Government are fulfilling their commitment. The people desire a life unblemished by random acts of terror, where they are free to pursue their own dreams of education, employment and a peaceful life. Why must we again listen to hyped media accusations rather than look at the evidence of patterns of peaceful elections?

Yemen

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In your absence, there has been a bit of backwards and forwards between the Front Benches, and I gave way on several occasions to the Minister. He is now making it clear that he will not allow me to intervene at all.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let us just be clear about this. It is up to the Member, the Minister or the shadow Minister whether they give way or not—those are the rules of the House. The other point is that I understand this debate was meant to finish at 3.30 pm. We are now running over. The fact is the Minister does not wish to give way—that is his choice. It is no use getting uptight about it—that’s life.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that, with the remaining two minutes—

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is not a continuation, I hope. Let us get to the end of the debate. There are people who want to go on to the next debate. Please, I want to look after all Members of this House and all Members who wish to speak in the next debate, but they will not do so if we run on a lot longer over time. Please, let us get to the end, because I do want Mr Twigg to come in next.

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. No, I am sorry—I have finished.

[Mr Ellwood]

In the last two minutes I have, I wanted to make a point to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, who raised an issue that was mentioned at FCO questions on Tuesday. The fundamental backdrop to this issue is, in essence, a cold war that exists between the Sunni and Shi’ite leaderships. We need to solve that; we need to try to move forward from it. There is actually—technically, theologically—no doctrinal difference between the two faiths. They both believe in the centrality of the Prophet Mohammed; it all actually goes down to the difference in succession in 632—was the successor Ali, the son-in-law and cousin, or was it Abu Bakr, the father-in-law? Since then, there have been varying tensions throughout Islamic history, and peace and prosperity might improve if the two faiths could actually reconcile their political differences. That is at the core of a lot of the challenges we find in the middle east.

Time prevents me from being able to respond to other contributions, although I will do my best, as I have in the past, to write to Members. I will end by clarifying—

African Great Lakes Region

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Marvellous. May I say to hon. Members that if they speak for up to seven minutes, everyone will have equal time? I know that Front Benchers do not like their time being squeezed, but they may get squeezed again.

Chagos Islands

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No, because, as I have already said, that right of self-determination is not considered legally to apply. We have gone through all the arguments today and explained why we think that would be impractical. It is better to look to the future and to make sure that the help that the islanders need, wherever they are, be it in Mauritius, the Seychelles or the United Kingdom, is properly given by Her Majesty’s Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, I call Ian Paisley.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister’s statement about no right to self-determination will have much wider implications and will be listened to by many people on other islands and rocks around the world. Will he make it clear to those people who may have felt a shiver down their spine when they heard that statement that Her Majesty’s Government do not intend to roll back self-determination anywhere else?

Yemen

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I inform the House that I have selected amendment c tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have a lot of sympathy for those wanting to make interventions, but many Members want to speak in this debate and we are not going to get there. The time limit could be three minutes, so short interventions, please.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We all want to get through today’s debate. Shouting means that I cannot hear the hon. Lady. That is not helpful to me, and it should not be helpful to you.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The UK is also in violation—[Interruption.] For those who are clearly not listening, this is legal opinion. The UK is also in violation of article 7 of the arms trade treaty on the basis of a clear risk that future weapons supplies could be used to commit or facilitate serious breaches of international law.

What have this Government done to address and investigate these serious and widespread concerns? By their own admission, they have done nothing. After spending most of 2016 telling Parliament that assessments had been conducted and that they were confident that no breach of international law had occurred, they changed their story to declare that no investigation had been carried out at all, and now appear to have changed their mind again. On 4 January 2016, the then Foreign Secretary told this House—I am glad that I now have the Government’s attention—the following:

“I regularly review the situation with my own advisers and have discussed it on numerous occasions with my Saudi counterpart. Our judgement is that there is no evidence that”

international humanitarian law

“has been breached, but we shall continue to review the situation regularly.”

However, the written statement published by the Government on 21 July this year stated that it was important to note that the Government had not reached a conclusion as to whether the Saudis were guilty of international humanitarian law violations in Yemen. They said:

“This would simply not be possible in conflicts to which the UK is not a party, as is the case in Yemen.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 42WS.]

Then last month the current Foreign Secretary, who is in his place today, completely contradicted his own ministerial colleagues—a frequent occurrence—in an interview with “Channel 4 News”. He definitively stated that, after taking evidence from a “very, very wide” range of sources, the UK Government do not believe that Saudi forces have broken humanitarian law, despite the fact that his own Ministers withdrew previous similar statements to Parliament.

Who are we to believe—the previous and current Foreign Secretaries, who say that there has been a UK investigation, or the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is in his place and has been sent out to defend the indefensible once again? Do they really believe the assurances given to them by the Saudis? Have this Government really not properly independently investigated the claims? Do we really have no idea at all, given the close links that clearly exist between our Government and the armed forces, whether our closest ally in the middle east is using our weapons in this conflict, as the Prime Minister herself suggested last week to my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson)? This matters, because when the UK is presented with serious and widespread evidence of breaches of international law, we simply cannot take for granted the words of those who are accused of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There can be only one person on their feet. You have indicated that you want someone to give way, but if they do not, you must take your seat again.

[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.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

Through sheer generosity and kindness of spirit, I now give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

You are too generous!

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I hope that hon. Members and the Government were listening to my hon. Friend’s point. This is a serious issue, and it should come as no surprise that people in this debate speak with such passion and concern about the loss of life and the Government’s inability to hold themselves to account. One wonders what the Government are afraid of.

There is a clear and overwhelming case for halting UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia. As the shadow Foreign Secretary pointed out, if the Foreign Secretary read the motion he would see that the amendment on halting UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia was ours. The amendment was not selected, but it remains our position that unless and until it can be confirmed categorically that these weapons are not being used on civilians, we should not be selling arms to Saudi Arabia. There is a moral and a legal case for that position, and the Government should act now. We need full disclosure over whether UK personnel have played any part at all in the conflict in Yemen. We support calls for an international independent inquiry into violations of international law in Yemen. It is the duty of all of us—all states—to uphold international law, and we should not be afraid to argue for that. Let us be absolutely clear: the UK must immediately suspend all sales to Saudi Arabia.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just advise Members that we are going to have to be very brief and very concise? I will be a bit more lenient with the first two Members; I have asked them to take only seven minutes. After that, the limit will be five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

I will.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Can I just say to the hon. Member for Reigate—sorry Mark, because I am sure you want to come in shortly—that he has had eight minutes. I want to bring Keith Vaz in. When other Members have no minutes left, they are then going to wonder who to blame. Is the hon. Member for Reigate going to give way?

[Crispin Blunt]

I will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I just remind Members that the time limit is five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Unfortunately, because Members have been giving way, I shall have to reduce the speaking time limit to four minutes in order to accommodate Members. I am sorry about that. I call Kevan Jones.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have 50 speakers who want to get in. I want to get them all in, but I cannot do that with very long interventions; they have to be short and sweet and get to the point.

[Stephen Gethins]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the health aspects that we all benefit from in a large range of ways.

My hon. Friend also mentioned that the European Union makes us greener. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in congratulating the Scottish Government, who have met their world-leading climate change targets four years ahead of schedule, with very little help from this place but plenty from co-operation with our European partners. We have worked together on the environment. She mentioned air quality. A number of years ago, complaints about acid rain affecting Germany’s forests led to air quality directives that are benefiting each and every one of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

I will happily take an intervention from a Conservative Member—they are all helpfully badged.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Can I help a little? I say to people who are going to speak very shortly and want to remain on the list: if you intervene, I am going to drop you down the list. Make your minds up—you cannot have it both ways at the expense of everybody else.

[Mrs Murray]

I will not intervene, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Okay, thank you.

[Stephen Gethins]

Working with our partners has made us greener, and wealthier in terms of the industries in the sector.

Collaboration with our partners has made us smarter through our universities, not least the University of St Andrews, where I see the benefits daily. Since 2014, Scotland has received over £200 million from the EU science fund, and is set to gain £1.2 billion by 2020. The opportunities for collaboration and from the students that come here benefit us all and enrich our campuses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

The right hon. Gentleman is making some very powerful points. May I remind the House that we are still living with the consequences of the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008? We have the answer to the question he is asking: the stock market has fallen by £80 billion in the past few days as investors recognise the risk to this country if we have a Brexit vote next week. That is the start of the tsunami that he is talking about. Why would we risk the prosperity of the United Kingdom and, indeed, of Europe by taking such a rash action?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions must be short to give everybody a chance to speak.

[Mr Clegg]

I played a role, somewhat thanklessly as it turned out, for five years in the coalition Government—as did my party, although it is not abundantly represented today on the Bench next to me—to try and provide the political stability that the country needed to recover from the cardiac arrest that occurred in 2008. I think it was the right thing to do. A country cannot recover from that kind of trauma if there is constant constitutional and political instability, yet that is what the Brexit camp want wilfully to inflict on this place and on this country. It is astonishing that they want to drag us back into the furnace of that economic disaster from which we are still escaping right now.

My third and final point is that, unlike, I think, every other Member of the House, I actually worked in a relatively lowly manner—in a previous incarnation, before I went into politics—as an international trade negotiator. I was part of the EU trade negotiation team that sought to settle the terms of China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation. I spent months haggling with hard-nosed Russian trade negotiators about the overflight rights paid by British Airways and European airlines for flying over Siberia. I have spent a lot of time with a lot of international trade negotiators, and I know that they are very unsentimental folk. It is almost laughable simply to state it, but the idea is that we could pull out of the world’s largest economic bloc and then say to these unsentimental folk, who have driven such a hard bargain with that bloc of 500 million people, that we want not just the same but better deals and a better set of conditions on behalf of an economy of only 60 million people. Who do the Brexit camp think these negotiators are? They are not stupid or naive: they will just snigger.

I have looked in vain—I scoured the internet this morning—for the apparently many freedom-loving nations that will cut such favourable deals with us as we depart into this world of milk and honey in which, effortlessly, people will give us concessions that they did not give to a bloc of 500 million people. Can we find anyone? Have the Indians said, “Yes, sure, we’ll give you what you want”? Have the Americans, Canadians or Australians said that? Has anyone said it? Not a single country anywhere in the world has said that it will give better terms of trade to the United Kingdom on its own than to the European Union.

So please, if we do one thing between now and next Thursday, by all means let us thrash it out between those who want us to remain in the European Union, flawed though it is and reformed though it must be, and those who want us to go out, but let us not do so on the basis of these falsehoods, this misleading nonsense, this naivety and fantasy, which would do this great country of ours such a terrible disservice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. After the next speech there will be a five-minute limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the Question relating to local government. The Ayes were 278 and the Noes were 4. Of Members representing constituencies in England, the Ayes were 260 and the Noes were 3, so the Question was agreed to.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

I now introduce a five-minute time limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, not least because we might have the opportunity to get answers to some important questions. He will be aware that when the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) was asked about the impact on the economy in GDP of Brexit, his answer was, “We don’t know.” He will also be aware that when Diane James, a UKIP MEP, was asked whether visas would be required, the answer was, “We don’t know.” Given that the answer to every question posed to the leave campaign is, “We don’t know”, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could answer these questions now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need to have short interventions, not speeches. That was longer than five minutes!

[Sir William Cash]

I can say that I do know. I know because I look at the facts as they are now. The facts I have just given demonstrate that inside the single market we run a monumental trade deficit, while we have an enormous and growing trade surplus with the rest of the world. That surplus is the future. That is the vision. That is the means by which we will get jobs and ensure the future of our children and our grandchildren.

To conclude, it is very simple: this is about who governs us. If we get this wrong, we will not be able to organise and establish a democracy in this country, which is what people fought and died for in not just one world war but two.

Europe, Human Rights and Keeping People Safe at Home and Abroad

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman wants remain to lose because he could then pursue his agenda of holding another referendum on independence within two years? His party is hardly doing anything to campaign to remain in the United Kingdom and for the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. No. Mr Gapes, senior Member you are, with a lot to offer, but you also want to speak, and I do not want to be the man who puts you at the bottom of the list. Between us, we can all get there. Short interventions if you must, but it would be better if you did not intervene.

[Alex Salmond]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) should read today’s pamphlet, “The EU and You”, released by the Scottish Government, which explains in a considered and proper way why European Union membership is of benefit to Scotland. Not even the most rabid of the leave campaign could describe that pamphlet as anything resembling “Project Fear”. It makes a considered case for why EU membership benefits Scotland.

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the ICM poll for the UK today, he will see that the two sides are level in an online poll. In the ICM poll in Scotland, the margin is nearly 2:1 for remain. Given that even the hon. Gentleman will have noticed the diminishing fortunes of his party in Scotland and the rising fortunes of the SNP, does that not suggest that the campaign that we are conducting in Scotland is rather more successful in winning hearts and minds to the European cause than the campaign that is being conducted across the rest of the country?

A case in point is the release of the Treasury statistics on the economy yesterday—the expectations analysis. An expectations model is the ultimate GIGO model—garbage in, garbage out. The result is manufactured from the input to the model. The Treasury analysis suggests a 6% wipe-out of GDP from a Euro exit. No other credible forecaster is suggesting anything like that effect. Oxford Economics suggests 1.3% and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation suggests 1.5%. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which uses the Treasury model, is suggesting 2.3%.

[Mr Baron]

I agree with the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about “Project Fear”. It is terribly counterproductive. However, we should always remember that those who are peddling “Project Fear” are broadly the same group of people who predicted doom and gloom if we did not join the euro, so they have form. There is one ray of hope. Lord Rose, leader of the remain campaign, has said that if we were to leave the EU, there would be better control of immigration for the sake of public services—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. No. Now we have to be serious with the House because Members want to get in. I have just mentioned the need for short interventions. Please do not abuse the Chair, because what you are doing is abusing colleagues on both sides and that is not good for anybody. I want to get as many people into the debate as possible and, ideally, I want to get everybody in.

[Alex Salmond]

It is ironic that the Conservative Members who have been complaining loudly about “Project Fear” hardly raised a peep when the same campaign was conducted against the Scottish people some two years ago, so I would claim over the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) at least a right of consistency on these matters.

Established and credible forecasters are indicating enough of the economic damage that I believe would be done to this country by an exit, without having to manufacture and inflate statistics which brings the whole argument into disrepute. It is enough for people to know that there will be an economic impact, without trying to inflate that impact beyond what is reasonable.

I commend the Governor of the Bank of England, who has gone no further than saying that the scenarios

“could possibly include a technical recession”.

The Bank of England has demonstrated in both the Scottish referendum and, indeed, this referendum campaign how public servants should behave in terms of offering information and considered analysis.

The major danger to the remain campaign is not the arguments of the leave campaign, because the leave campaign is fundamentally split between those who see the UK’s future after an exit as similar to that of Switzerland or Norway, and those who think it can be some sort of transatlantic Singapore. That fundamental division cannot be resolved, because the way to minimise economic damage from an exit would be to adopt the Norwegian model, but the majority of the leave campaign will not subscribe to that because it would bring with it acceptance of the single market, various regulations and, of course, free movement of labour. That is the fundamental problem with the leave campaign.

The remain campaign across the UK should at the moment be as far ahead as we are in Scotland. The fact that we are not is an indication that the campaign should be recalibrated into one that starts to win hearts and minds, and that addresses some of the issues to which the Foreign Secretary alluded. Sixty-six years after the Schuman declaration, we can say that the European Union has contributed to peace, stability and prosperity across Europe. Over that time, building a single market of 500 million people has been no mean achievement. For Opposition parties in particular, the social gains for every family and every trade unionist in this country—things that the Government do not like to talk about—are a very substantial reason for not leaving the EU behind. It would also add to the credibility of our arguments if we accepted—as, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition did in his speech—the problems and difficulties that people have with the European Union.

The fishing community in Scotland, which takes 60% of the landings, are hugely sceptical, because, of all the EU polices that could be considered disastrous, the common fisheries policy is the greatest. On 11 May I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, suggesting that support for the remain campaign might be enhanced if, as part of the UK’s presidency of the European Council next year, he agreed that the Scottish fisheries Minister should co-chair—with the UK fisheries Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. Incidentally, the Prime Minister was very open to such a suggestion when he came to office in 2010, as indeed was the Foreign Secretary’s predecessor, William Hague.

I suggested that a response to that invitation before purdah in three days’ time would be helpful to my former constituents in Banff and Buchan. I was therefore delighted to receive a letter last week from an unnamed correspondence officer at the direct communications unit at Downing Street, saying that my request was being considered. However, if the Foreign Secretary is genuinely interested in strengthening the position of the remain campaign, I hope he will indicate today to the fishing communities of Scotland that the Government will take advantage of the opportunity provided by the European Council presidency to address their needs and iron out many of the difficulties in the current regulations.

SNP Members would have wished the Government to address the fears that many of our constituents have about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership without being forced to do so by an amendment, because there are genuine fears that a court process may allow an aggressive intervention in the national health service. Last week, I had a meeting with the Baltic state and Scandinavian ambassadors, who indicated that when this Government took office, they invested great hopes in the Prime Minister’s northern agenda—the reform agenda for the European Union that he was putting forward at that time—but their view and belief is that the agenda has been deflected by a referendum that is about British exceptionalism as opposed to genuine reform of the European institutions.

My submission is that if we are to have a campaign that people will endorse and give an enthusiastic response to, that will prevent the danger of differential voting between enthusiastic Brexiteers and those who are cowed into submission by the Government’s “Project Fear” and that will mobilise people to get out of their houses and into the polling stations, the Government will have to rise above the campaign they are fighting so far and actually make a positive case for the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am now introducing a five-minute limit. I know it is disappointing but it is the way to get everybody in.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I shall try to proceed with Twitter-like brevity in this Twitter age, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I want to reinforce the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) on prisons, although I gently remind him that, given the position we inherited, there would now be 96,000 people in prison had we not done anything. That the number has stabilised at 85,000 is a signal achievement, therefore, even if it is disappointing that it has not gone down.

On the European convention on human rights, I entirely endorse the sentiments expressed in the speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I do so having just returned from Russia with the Foreign Affairs Committee.

While pausing to put on record my thanks to Laurie Bristow, our ambassador, and his team in Russia for the programme they put on for us, I should say that part of it included meeting human rights activists in Russia. The convention is often the only resort they have as they go through the Russian courts. The Russian legal system is presided over by a Duma passing laws that are going in an illiberal direction, but there is at least a contested space of some kind. It is possible to get some protection, and overseeing that is the protection provided by the convention itself. We had some good briefings while we were in Russia, and the message came back clearly to us that this House should think about Russian human rights activists when we are considering British support for the European convention. Issues such as whether a few prisoners should have the right to vote stand pretty small in comparison with the quality of the work being done there and the courage behind it.

When it comes to reflecting on our overall relations with Russia, it is the case that they are absolutely in the deep freeze right now. Our bilateral relations are in an extremely poor place. I am struck by the fact that both the Russian mission here in London and our mission in Moscow are largely obstructed by tit-for-tat measures that prevent them from carrying out their duties effectively. Both missions are reduced to that situation, with both complaining about the measures imposed on them.

In our meeting with a Russian official in the Russian Foreign Office who oversees British affairs, I suggested that it might be an idea to start relaxing some of the measures on British representation in Moscow to begin to try to get out of this downward spiral. Let us see if some micro-measures can be made to make the work of British diplomats easier and start this process off.

What has gone wrong, of course, is the strategic relationship fall-out at the end of the cold war. Probably rightly, the west decided to secure the position of central and eastern European people, but the price was the failure subsequently to get an effective strategic relationship with Russia. That is now being made infinitely more difficult by Russia’s departure from the international rules of the road.

There is an issue about whether we are going to try to help the Russians out of the cul-de-sac that they have got themselves into. Even if it is initially at the level of cultural exchanges and students coming over here and so forth, we should invest in this relationship in any way we can. It is a very important relationship; Russia is a very important country. That is why it becomes even more critical when a country of that size is under the leadership that it is—a leadership that underneath it all has a deep lack of self-confidence, even though tactically it might feel strong.

Finally, on the European Union debate, I thought the first part of the shadow Foreign Secretary’s speech was terrific, but then he set up the Aunt Sallies about the opposition case. There are two internationalisms competing here, and there are very good arguments to show why geopolitically the United Kingdom has a choice here. I believe we need positive arguments on both sides. I cannot go into those arguments because of the time limit, but I urge all colleagues to be positive in how they present their case on this issue.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me say that Chris Elmore’s will be a maiden speech. I call Chris Elmore.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

There were a number of things I wanted to say, but time is limited. However, there are one or two omissions from the Queen’s Speech. Members will recall the debates we have had over the last few months about women’s pensions, and I thought there would be something in the Queen’s Speech to start to address the anomaly on that issue. As many Members in this Chamber know, some women feel they are being discriminated against, and the Queen’s Speech should have addressed that.

A campaign is also going on at the moment over the cuts to pharmacies in the national health service budget. Those cuts could result in some local pharmacies closing—so much for the Government talking about local democracy and involving local people. There is also the issue of student nurses and their bursaries. The bulk of student nurses are women—again, it appears that women are being discriminated against.

On the European situation, I was one of those who campaigned against going into Europe in 1975. I did that for a lot of good reasons. At the time, most people in the labour movement saw Europe as a market that had no benefits—certainly for the trade union movement. We had campaigns across Coventry. Trade union leaders came to Coventry and said, “If you go in, you won’t get out.” Then, of course, we had the Delors speech about social justice and social policies being introduced in Europe. That changed the attitude of the labour movement and the Labour party.

If we were going to have a referendum, we should have had one when we talked about the single market. As everybody knows, if there is a single market, there is a single bank and a single currency, whichever way we argue it. The Government at the time said they were going to change the agricultural policy, but, unfortunately, they did not do that. They signed us up to the single market, and they boasted about the rebate they got. It was a very interesting scenario. There was another occasion when we should have had a referendum—in fact, there was a chance of one—and that was Maastricht. I welcome the fact that we are now having a referendum, but we can see that there have been lost opportunities.

Like a number of people, I have changed my mind, and I have explained why before, but let me give an example of why. Nissan was interested in investing in Coventry; it was going to locate its car plant there. However, when it discovered that there was no regional aid and no leverage into Europe at that time, it located in Sunderland. I wish the people in Sunderland well, because Nissan has done well there. That is a good example of how people can change their minds when they are faced with the realities.

One reason that a lot of people—particularly some in the Conservative party, but not all—want to pull out of Europe is red tape. However, when we ask them to try to define it, the only thing they can come up with is health and safety or labour relations; they do not come up with any other reasons. In fact, the Leader of the House gave the game away about a month ago in a television interview, when he was pointedly asked, “What do you mean by red tape?” He blurted out, “Health and safety.” This is one of the reasons why we should certainly remain in Europe. It has been suggested that the world will be lovely outside Europe. However, people who argue that tariffs in the United States would be only 3% are wrong. We would find that when we traded with the United States, and particularly with the South American market, we paid a higher tariff. Equally, we would pay higher tariffs outside Europe but be expected to conform to the rules and regulations of Europe. These are the hard facts of life.

With the referendum only one month away, I support the right of people in Coventry to have their say, as I have indicated, but must clearly highlight the fact that the hard-won rights of the workplace are at risk—paid leave, for example. Anti-discrimination laws, jobs growth and our place in the world are at stake. We have two universities in my constituency that rely heavily on EU membership. European academics, scientists, technicians and students all play a leading part in Coventry.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

EU Membership (Audit of Costs and Benefits) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 26th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Colvile]

My great grandfather was a rural vicar in Oxfordshire. He said that he did not mind his congregation looking at their watches; it was when they started shaking them that he became concerned. I feel that that is something we should take on board.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I assure you that I am beginning to look at my watch.

[Pat Glass]

That is helpful. As the hon. Gentleman has spoken about his great grandfather, I will talk about mine a little later. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) like to say something about my great grandfather? I will talk about him later, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene then.

European Affairs

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

No! No! Please.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will not give way, because others wish to speak. My hon. Friend has already given me extra time just by standing up. [Interruption.] I will finish my speech, because I do not wish to abuse the procedures of the House.

On a final note, there is a world out there. Let us grasp it; let us trust the people; let us not be afraid and let us regain our freedom.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have 10 speakers and two wind-ups. It works out at six minutes each, and that is without interventions. I ask those who have spoken to think about those who have not to make sure that they also get on the record. If we can help each other, we will all get there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought the Minister might begin with an apology for the absence of the Foreign Secretary. It is custom for senior Ministers who have opened debates to return for the end of them. On such an important matter, it is a rather surprising discourtesy to the House that the normal convention has not been observed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. What I would say is that it is the choice of the Foreign Secretary, and who knows, we may hear something yet, as the Minister for Europe has so far only managed to get three words out.

[Mr Lidington]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is meticulous in his courtesies to this House, but sometimes Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have to deal with extremely urgent matters to do with this country’s national security.

I want to single out the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), as anybody who heard it, whichever side of this argument they stand on, will remember it as one of the great parliamentary set pieces of their years in this place.

I do not want to dwell at length on the arguments about renegotiation, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went into them in great detail and answered questions about the subject for three hours on Monday. I simply say that I have sat through a fair number of these debates in the last six years, and I will be the first to say to my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that they are models of consistency in their opposition to British membership of the European Union. If the Prime Minister had come back from Brussels brandishing the severed heads of the members of the European Commission and proceeded to conduct an auto-da-fé in Downing Street of copies of the Lisbon treaty, they would still be saying, “This is feeble, insufficient, not enough.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Minister for Europe is desperate to answer.

[Mr Lidington]

I am happy to respond. The Prime Minister responded to this point in answer to questions on Monday. The Government have a very clear position, which is to recommend to the country that people vote to remain members of a reformed European Union. Quite exceptionally, Ministers are being allowed to depart from the normal rules on collective responsibility in order to dissent from the official Government position on that referendum question, but the civil service exists to serve and support the policy agreed by the Government of the day. The letter published by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, subsequently extended by formal guidance from the Cabinet secretary to civil servants, does no more than give effect to that policy.

[Mr Jenkin]

Further to that point of order, I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that does not answer a great many of the questions. How can I raise this very urgent matter?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The simple answer is that I have had no notification that anybody is going to make a statement. I can do no more than allow the Minister for Europe to reply.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does the Minister accept that the position that he has just explained comes to an end when the purdah period starts?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Let me help everybody. We are not going into a debate. That is the end of it. We need to move on.

Yemen

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. She is illustrating the horrors of war, which largely occur in populated areas when one adversary chooses to hide within such populated areas. Unfortunately, that leads to casualties. We are not in any way saying that when a civilian area or facility is attacked or destroyed that is somehow acceptable; it absolutely is not. When there is collateral damage of that form, it is important for whichever side has done it to put its hand up and say that it will conduct an investigation. We are not saying it is right, but we are making it clear—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. In fairness to the Minister, he cannot take advantage of the situation. We are struggling to get everybody in, and interventions are meant to be very short. He cannot make a speech now, given that he will be making a speech later. That is unfair to everybody.

[Alison Thewliss]

The point is that such bombings have now happened three times, and those involved in the conflict are not taking responsibility for their actions. Médecins sans Frontières is struggling to get the support it needs when it says that such a situation is unacceptable. People being taken to hospital in ambulances have been hit in this conflict, so it is clear that huge errors have been made in the conduct of the conflict. We could say that such hospitals are not being targeted, but what is worse is that bombs are being dropped in crowded areas, which is where the danger arises for many of the people living there. Cluster bombs, which are illegal, are being used in the conflict, as we can see from the pictures that appear on Twitter and other media sources. Who would bomb a hospital? It is completely wrong, and it is completely against all the rules of warfare. We should challenge that on every possible occasion.

If we have troops embedded with the Saudis, they should be making that clear and not allowing such attacks to happen. The Saudis are getting their bombs from us, so we could stop this happening. We could suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia today, and we could be an honest broker in bringing peace to the people of Yemen. I ask the Government to act, and to act now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have to bring the time limit down to four minutes. I call Mike Wood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, which I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for organising, because Yemen is an important country to many of us.

Yemen is important to me personally because I studied my Arabic there some 20 years ago. Though I was not born in Khormaksar, as some of my hon. Friends were, and though I did not grow up overlooking Crater lake, as so many did, the country has marked itself on me. It has done so because it is a country of such wonderful contrasts. It is a very rich, green and beautiful land. It grows some of the world’s finest coffee, as well as khat, which, although banned in this country, is very popular in certain parts of the world. It is extraordinary in its richness. It is the place where the Arabic language was formalised and the domestication of the camel happened and therefore the place from which the colonisation of the deserts of Arabia and the rest of al-Jazeera al-Arabiya began.

Yemen is, then, at the heart of Arabia, and that is one reason why the conflict matters so much. For the Saudis, it is not some minor adjunct to their territory or some neighbouring state that they can ignore. It is a country with which they have such close relationships of blood and history that they cannot cut it off. Many tribes that now live happily in Saudi Arabia have cousins and links across the border. I remember as a soldier watching as convoys of donkeys crossed the Saudi border—forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for taking a slight diversion. They would load up donkeys with hay and take them on the route five or six times, and when the donkeys knew where they were going, they would remove the hay, take away the donkey driver and load them up with heroin, and the donkeys would follow the same route. And so these self-propelled donkey caravans of drugs would come straight out of Yemen.

The Saudis have a real and personal interest in Yemen, and we should recognise, therefore, that they are defending their own interests. I will not argue, however, that they are doing so in the most humane way; they are not. They are behaving in ways that frankly call into question the training they have received from some of the finest pilots and servicemen in the world. I would urge them, therefore, to remember the lessons and doctrines they learned at Shrivenham and Cranwell and to remember that civilians are not a target.

This is an extremely important moment for Saudi Arabia. It is just beginning again to assert its presence in the region, as it has the right to do, being an important country. It is also right to do so given the expansion of the Iranian empire into traditionally Arab areas, such as Iraq, the eastern seaboard of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, where the Iranian influence is growing. The Iranian encirclement of Saudi Arabia is certainly a threat. I welcome the fact, therefore, that the Saudis are reacting and that Britain is playing her role, as a good ally, in supporting her, but I urge them to think hard about how it conducts this campaign.

The campaign, in the heart of Arabia, is being played out perhaps not in our broadsheets, but in the broadsheets of the cafés of Cairo, Algiers and Baghdad. People are watching the leadership of Riyadh and its conduct, and they are thinking, “Are these the allies we want? Is this the example for Arabia and the post-Arab spring generation?” I ask the Saudi Government to think hard about the human rights and lives of the people they are affecting, not just in Yemen, but around the Arab world.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I suggest that the Front Benchers take eight minutes each.