Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend say a couple of words about a matter on which I had hoped the Foreign Secretary would have accepted a question from me, particularly as I wrote to him about it only last week? It concerns the terms of the ceasefire agreement in Gaza. We all accept that a long-term solution requires a two-state solution, justice for the Palestinians, security for Israel and so on, but the ceasefire agreement is specific in requiring actions now. One of those actions is the cessation of hostilities, the other is at least an easing of the blockade. Last week the new DFID Minister—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think the shadow Foreign Secretary has picked up the point. If necessary the hon. Gentleman will have to make another intervention.
Mr Alexander
I hope I have got the gist of my hon. Friend’s point about the lifting of the blockade. Of course we want that, but in reality it will happen only with the agreement of the Israelis, who are ensuring that the blockade is in place at the moment. That therefore requires it to be part of a process, leading to the kind of meaningful negotiations of which I have spoken. After a previous conflict, one reason why I travelled to Gaza and Israel was to urge the lifting of the blockade, which at the time was affecting humanitarian supplies—not just access for humanitarian workers, but the most basic essentials of life in Gaza. Similarly, we need a dynamic process whereby we can get the blockade lifted and return to a greater degree of normality in Gaza, while at the same time have the kind of meaning negotiations of which I have been speaking.
I wish to make some progress, because I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak. As I said, the north African region was the birthplace of the Arab uprising, and across the region countries are still struggling to address the consequences. Of course, although some might face similar problems, each north African state is different and distinctive. In Tunisia, the Government and the people continue to work towards a political settlement that can move the country forward. High unemployment and sporadic violent clashes on the streets continue, but the prospect for long-term political reconciliation remains strong, and the international community must unite around supporting elections to take place later this year.
The situation in Libya stands in marked contrast to the story of Tunisian progress. The intensification of fighting near the capital Tripoli has led to calls for an urgent and immediate ceasefire and the Libyan Cabinet submitted its resignation en masse to Parliament, which is today taking refuge in a ferry in the city of Tobruk after being forced out by the Tripoli militias. The UK Government issued a joint statement on 25 August saying that outside interference in Libya would exacerbate divisions and undermine Libya’s democratic transition, but given the deteriorating security situation, I am sure the Foreign Secretary would agree that if the opportunity for real political reconciliation is to be seized, the UK, along with our allies France, Germany, Italy and the United States, have a responsibility and role to play. It is vital that international partners continue to encourage all sides in Libya to engage constructively in the democratic process, while continuing our active backing of the UN support mission there. The UN Libya envoy arriving in Tripoli on Monday said it was a society that was fed up with conflict. We know that the people of Libya want the fighting to stop; now we need to see Libya’s political leaders taking action to resolve this crisis.
I will speak briefly about Iran. In an already volatile region at a particularly perilous period, a nuclear-armed Iran poses a threat not only to its neighbours, but to the stability of the whole region, so the agreement in November 2013 to curb enrichment and grant greater access to inspectors was a significant step forward and one that we welcomed. As many Members across the House have acknowledged, however, the strength of the agreement will be tested through its implementation. In recent weeks, the talks between the P5 plus 1 have clearly stalled over disagreements on the purpose of Iran’s nuclear programme. The deadline to overcome these difficulties is fast approaching, so as meetings take place in New York later this month, the international community must remain focused on securing a comprehensive deal.
Until Russian troops violated the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine in 2014, no country had seized the territory of another European country by force since 1945. The recent ceasefire deal agreed last week was therefore a welcome sign of progress, but given the continuing potential for catastrophic misunderstanding or simply misjudgment on the ground, the priority must remain de-escalation. Russian troops must return to their bases, President Putin must cease his backing for separatist militias and the Kremlin must stop the flow of arms and personnel across the Russian border into Ukraine. Until then, Europe must continue to be explicit about the real costs and consequences for Russia if it fails to de-escalate the crisis.
Only a graduated hierarchy of diplomatic and economic measures can help President Putin to change course. That is why I welcome all the steps agreed last week at the NATO summit in Wales, specifically with regard to the reassurances given to NATO’s vital eastern European members and partners. In the face of renewed Russian aggression and the re-emergence of territorial disputes on the continent, the need for NATO to revisit its stated core purpose—securing a Europe that is whole, free and at peace—has been brought into stark relief.
This debate could not cover several other pressing issues that have rightly been the focus of the Foreign Secretary’s effort since his appointment. No doubt today the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary will cover in more detail some of the domestic aspects of security and counter-terrorism. As the Leader of the Opposition made clear on Monday, the Government must now demonstrate a clear-eyed understanding that wherever our interests lie, we need a strategy that combines military readiness with political, diplomatic and strategic alliances, and in their efforts to develop and advance such an approach, I hope they will continue to enjoy our support.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We will start with a seven-minute limit, which means we should get everyone in, but if we can help each other, it will make a difference. I call Sir Richard Ottaway.
Mr Clarke
I hope that on this occasion, too, we could reach such a political consensus in the House of Commons and across the country and that our debates about the use of armed force would lead to no significant division. That would be an ideal outcome, but I think that a controversial use of military force in yet another attempt to intervene in the Arab spring—whether it be this time with Shi’ite allies, this time with Sunni allies or this time with whatever outrageous group has emerged—requires a vote.
In principle, I am all in favour of using military force when it is unavoidable and in the vital national interest. I agree that ISIL is one of the most barbaric and outrageous organisations that has emerged on this planet for some considerable time, so I have no moral scruple whatever about the proper use of military force against them. I would like to see them degraded and destroyed. However, when the House votes and debates this sort of action on whatever occasion, experience shows that we must now have a much clearer idea of our objective. Our objective is not only to protect our security; it involves consideration of what will contribute to the restoration of stability and normality across the region. It means consideration of what will command the support of sane Muslims, sane Shi’a and sane Sunni; what will get sufficient support from the regional powers, as well as from the western powers; what kind of order we are trying to put in place. I hope that that does not get narrowed down to consideration of whether or not we should join the Americans in air strikes on particular installations before or after the mid-term elections in the United States.
John Kerry is engaged in a vital mission which goes to the heart of what I have just said. He is trying to put together a regional alliance. In that regard—I agree with those who have hinted at this—we have to rethink where we are starting from. A regional alliance must include some people with whom we have been enemies, and with whom we have very serious issues on other fronts, because the widest possible support is required.
The key players, obviously, are Iran and Saudi Arabia. They are the two great powers of the region. Many of the troubles have actually been caused by people acting as proxies for the interests of those two states. They have far more influence on the ground, and on events, than we in the west are likely to have. They know far more about what is going on. I have been a member of the National Security Council for the last two years, and I know the limits of our actual knowledge of events on the ground in this region. I know that we are constantly surprised by the latest utterly extraordinary and unpredictable turn of events that sweeps over what we have done. With Iran go Assad and Hezbollah, which is a close ally. The Shi’ite militias in Iraq, which we call the Iraqi Government, are also very influenced by the Iranians..
We just have to accept—without in any way resiling from our criticism about getting involved—that the Saudi Arabians really must deal with the Qatari problem of the people whom they support, and also—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) said a moment ago—make absolutely clear that they are not supporting, in any way, fringe groups which, in the long term, are as much of a danger to Saudi and Gulf interests as they are to our own.
Turkey is a vital player. It is still the nearest that we have to a moderate Islamic Government. It has huge direct interests; it is threatened; and it is essential to have at least its complicity in what we do, and, I would hope, its support as well. Egypt is also a vital player. It has recovered from the outrageous threats of the Arab dawn by restoring political dictatorship, but it is nevertheless a key player. Russia must be kept onside, because it is also of influence.
I am not sure that the states of Iraq and Syria will ever exist again as we know them, but I do think that we need a political strategy in order to ensure that some kind of long-term stability will replace the anarchy that we have helped to create so far.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has used up his time.
Rwandan Genocide
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before the hon. Gentleman responds, it might be helpful if I point out that there are five further speakers to come as well as the Front Benchers and the winding-up speech. I believe there was an instruction to keep the length of speeches to about 10 minutes, and the hon. Gentleman has gone way over that, but I am sure he is coming to the end of his remarks.
Graham Jones
Travelling around the country, we see the reconciliation villages, the process of peace and reconciliation and the coming together. What we see is people openly admitting that they committed crimes, although one gets the impression that where they have committed 40 crimes, perhaps they will admit to four or two. We also get, rather bizarrely, reconciliation villages in which there is intermarriage between families, the members of one having murdered those from the other. It is remarkable that people in such circumstances now get on and can be so forgiving. To be absolutely honest, where people do not get on, they tend to accept that and move out of the area, but in general there is not any conflict. We do not see retribution; instead we see people openly admitting that they need to come together. I never thought I would ever in my life see people so forgiving as I saw in Rwanda.
The Government have been instrumental in all of this and it is important that the Government move Rwanda on. They have been very helpful to those who have been involved in these events. This has caused tensions, as it is necessary to let the perpetrators off and sometimes the victims feel frustrated about that. It is a managed process, but it has been managed very well.
The Rwandan Government have had to absorb some 3 million refugees returning to the country, which is a huge challenge during such a process of forgiveness and reconciliation. The Gacaca courts have been criticised by human rights and civil liberty groups, but it has been difficult to deal with so many criminals. This has been a remarkable process. I do not think anybody would say that it was an all-round success—there might have been individual injustices, although it is not a Faustian pact—but it has moved Rwanda on and I think we have to accept certain things as part of that process.
I will conclude now, Mr Deputy Speaker, to allow others to speak.
Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Before I call Naomi Long, I remind Members that the mover of the motion has 10 to 15 minutes. Twelve Back Benchers wish to take part in the debate, as well as the Front Benchers.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this important issue, which is increasingly gaining attention across the House. She made the point that there are Members in this House of the Christian faith, of other faiths and of no faith, but we universally share the idea of the importance of religious liberty; that is the right thing to do, not just for those of all faiths and none, but socially, economically and politically.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on the timeliness of the debate, because it was only yesterday that Pakistan’s Prime Minister visited and met our Prime Minister. At the same time, Pakistani Christians were campaigning, and making the point that a report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has said that the situation in Pakistan is the worst in the world for religious freedom. Will she comment on that?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Hopefully, we will get shorter interventions. To be helpful to Members, I suggest an eight-minute limit on speeches.
Naomi Long
That is a hugely important point, and I hope that as we explore those issues today, we can focus on those member states that do not make their full contribution, either at home or in the international sphere.
Article 18 remains the benchmark against which the enjoyment of the freedom of religion or belief should be measured on a global scale. It protects traditional, non-traditional and new religious beliefs and practices, as well as numerous beliefs not associated with divine or transcendent powers and not of a religious nature. Everyone has the freedom to manifest their religion or belief, either alone or together with others, publicly or privately. No one should be subject to coercion that would impair their freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of someone else’s choice; nor is discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief permissible.
Unlike many other human rights, freedom of religion or belief is as yet not directly addressed in a focused United Nations convention. As a consequence, this freedom has for many years been something of a “residual” right, and in practice, it remains on the margins of the family of human rights. However, research has found that almost 75% of the world’s population live in countries with high levels of Government restrictions on freedom of religion, or in countries where those with certain religious affiliations face a high level of hostility, and that figure is rising. Across the globe, there is widespread denial of freedom of worship, and of freedom to teach, promote and publicly express one’s religion and beliefs.
The APPG’s report instances examples of state intimidation, discrimination and violence towards people on account of their religion or belief, as well as situations in which states simply do not offer adequate protection from persecution by non-state actors. That is not limited to any one region or form of religion. As I mentioned, we are only too aware of the deeply troubling scale of the violations of freedom of religion or belief worldwide. Whether it is the Baha’is in Iran, Christians in the middle east, Jewish people in Europe or atheists in Indonesia, what we are exploring today is a truly global concern that affects the full range of religious and non-religious beliefs.
I want to look briefly at why we need to protect religious freedom. It is vital to remember the importance of protecting freedom of religion or belief in a wider context. Although it is important in its own right, it is also crucial to achieving a wide range of foreign policy goals, such as the prevention of conflict. Violations of freedom of religion or belief often involve the violent persecution of both individuals and groups, and often take the form of discrimination in access to education, employment and health services; limitations in the ability of individuals to marry or retain custody of children; limitations in the right to publish literature or participate in the media; or limitations on the right to preserve cultural and religious heritage. All those are important, both from a Foreign and Commonwealth Office perspective and from an international development perspective.
It is a key dynamic of freedom of religion or belief that it is interconnected with a wide range of other political, social, economic and cultural rights, from freedom of expression and association to the prevention of poverty. That is recognised by the FCO, which stated:
“In countries around the world, religious freedom is often crucial to ensuring conflict prevention and post-conflict peacebuilding. Indeed, many conflicts have their roots in the tensions between different religious communities. Violence against a religious group can be a forewarning of wider conflict. Freedom of religion or belief is therefore important to achieving the UK's wider security agenda.”
I also want to look at the nature of persecution, which is changing. Religious persecution, particularly that of Christians, is on the rise and is becoming more intense in more countries. The nature of this persecution is incredibly varied. In some situations, it will take the form of a squeeze, with pressure being applied, while in others it is in the form of smash, with recourse to violence. Either kind represents a denial of article 18 and should be resisted. From November 2012 to October 2013, Open Doors recorded 2,123 killings of Christians worldwide—nearly double the number for the previous year. Nigeria and Syria were the most prolific countries, followed by Pakistan and Egypt. For obvious reasons, it could be argued that those figures are conservative, if we think about the percentage of incidents reported and how frightened people often are.
Recent trends suggest that squeeze pressure, where there is no physical violence but pressure is applied to prevent Christians and others from being able to express their beliefs freely, has increasingly become the main form of abuse. It is much harder to identify and document. However, perhaps as a result, it can be the most destructive and harmful to individuals and families. Life in the family sphere also suffers, in particular for those who exercise their right to change religion. Hostility from the state or neighbours can place not only the individual but the family under considerable pressure. That social and religious pressure can lead to pressure from within the family, with divorce and death threats common after conversion. The right to change religion is specifically protected by the wording of article 18, but there is a fear that denials of that right are not fully pursued in considerations at Government level.
Persecution also impacts on the community sphere, manifesting itself in restrictions on employment or access to resources. There is evidence, for example, that Christian villagers are denied water from wells in northern Nigeria by reason of their faith. The social stigma involved in such cases cannot be underestimated. The creation of sectarian and ethnic conflicts over perceived differences in religion are often a linked issue, where those of a particular religious faith are ascribed traits or beliefs that are either shunned by the rest of the community or portrayed as disloyal or dishonourable to the community in which they reside. I am unsure that any Member present today could imagine having to keep their faith a secret to the point where they cannot trust anyone with that knowledge, not even family and friends—to know that to do so could mean death or injury for us or for our families. Simply being found in ownership of a bible, for example, can put someone in extreme physical danger.
I want also to examine some of the main sources of denials of article 18 rights and to give a sense of quite how wide ranging and global the problem is. The report produced by the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief identifies two different but intrinsically linked dimensions of denials of freedom of religion or belief—direct state denial and state failures in the protection of freedom of religion.
Direct state denial includes incidents in which the state either actively persecutes individuals and communities on the basis of their beliefs or denies them the possibility freely to choose what they believe, whether they it express it alone or as a community. Under that theme, we find instances of Islamic extremism, communist oppression and, in the most extreme cases, Government policies of eradication of either one faith or belief group or of all those who seek to exercise their freedoms. Islamic extremism is arguably currently the biggest threat to freedom of religion and belief. There has been a major exodus of Christians from the middle east following the Arab spring, and atheists in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been heavily discriminated against, with laws against blasphemy being used to stifle free speech and freedom of belief.
North Korea is a classic example of communist oppression and has been in the media of late after topping the Open Doors world watch list as the most difficult country on earth in which to be a Christian. I was honoured to host a meeting between Open Doors, Church leaders and North Korean exiles, during which we heard first hand of the persecution and abuse that Christians and other religious groups face in North Korea. It made for harrowing listening. Like others in that country, Christians have to survive under one of the most oppressive regimes in contemporary times while dealing with corruption, disease and hunger. Christianity is viewed with extreme suspicion as a western ideology, and I was deeply moved and disturbed to hear from those who have had family members disappear and be imprisoned because of their faith.
The Baha’i faith and associated activities are officially banned in Iran, and its estimated 300,000 adherents have been subjected to a state policy of extinction. I have brought before the House previously the plight of the Baha’i community in Iran. Unfortunately, the situation has not improved. Places of worship, schools, cemeteries, properties and businesses have been destroyed or confiscated by the Iranian regime. The Government-controlled mass media disseminates anti-Baha’i propaganda and has created a sense of violence with impunity for attackers. Currently, 110 Baha’is are in prison, facing charges of espionage and threatening national security that potentially carry the death sentence.
A state’s failure to protect freedom of religion or belief entails the denial of freedom to choose or reject religions. According to the Pew Research Centre’s religion and public life project, 39 state Governments hinder individuals in converting from one religion or belief to another. It is currently a particular problem in India, where several states have legislation that prevents or draws attention to religious conversions. In Indonesia, a young atheist was sentenced to two and a half years in prison after posting on a Facebook page set up for atheists. In Egypt, Coptic Christians have for decades been denied permission to open new churches.
It is important to note the link between failed states and persecution. Freedom of religion and belief is often a major casualty of civic and political breakdown, and a lack of freedom of religion and belief could be a contributing factor in that breakdown. Particularly where it happens at a sub-state or regional level, it may not be recognised or fully understood that, although the state may not be the aggressor, if it fails to intervene to protect people, it is contributing to persecution.
That is just a small glimpse of the range and degree of discrimination faced by people around the world owing to their religious or non-religious beliefs. I could have highlighted many other cases, as I am sure other hon. and right hon. Members will today. I hope that the debate will serve a number of purposes. The first is to raise public awareness of the issue’s importance. We are resigned to the fact that the nation will not be crowded around their televisions this afternoon to watch the Parliament channel, but there will be those who have an active interest in learning more about the subject and in becoming more active advocates in defence of religious freedom as a result.
The second purpose of the debate is to focus our attention and to encourage renewed vigour in our Government and abroad in defence of the principles. Having raised the matter with the Government before, I know that we are pushing at an open door, but we must continue to push. I have also met representatives of other Governments who have heard what has been raised in Parliament and have come to discuss matters with us, so I want to shine a light on the issue today to keep the conversation going.
Finally, this debate is also an opportunity for hon. and right hon. Members to raise with the Government specific concerns about individual countries, faiths, and regimes, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With an eight-minute limit, I introduce Sir Tony Baldry.
Ukraine, Syria and Iran
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right that the fact that the regime feels itself to be in a strong military position, relatively, is probably behind its intransigence at the Geneva negotiations. In the long term, of course, that will be an illusion, because it is in that position in a collapsing country. This conflict has gone backwards and forwards over three years now, and its tide can easily turn against the regime in future. I think it is making a great mistake. I would never comment in the House on intelligence matters, as my hon. Friend knows, but I stress that this is one of the reasons we must help a moderate opposition to stay in being. There will not be a political solution in Syria without the activity of a moderate opposition, and that is what we must support.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Last but certainly not least, I call Neil Carmichael.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to be here for the final question.
It is absolutely right that the issue of political and constitutional reform is a priority, and that the integrity of Ukraine remains an objective. However, does the Foreign Secretary agree that any economic support through the IMF should also be supported, in effect, by development of international trade through and with Ukraine in order to embed political reform and to avoid any binary choice, which he correctly notes is a threat?
Bangladesh
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
All of us who have Bangladesh close to our hearts are deeply worried by the situation, particularly, as my hon. Friend rightly says, over the past seven years. There seems to be a sense that that country is again plummeting towards the prospect of some military takeover and martial law. Does she agree that while one inevitably has to look at the history, going back as far as partition in 1971, it is also important that there is a responsibility in the hands of today’s Bangladeshi politicians to draw a line under the past and look with a firm eye to the future?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We must have shorter interventions. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to speak in the debate, but he cannot make a speech in an intervention.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am not imposing a time limit, but I suggest that hon. Members take about 10 minutes each. If they do, we will get through nicely.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
I am sure that every amendment tabled to any Bill by the hon. Gentleman is serious in intent, but Mr Speaker judges not the quality of the content of an amendment, but whether it is in order. If it is in order—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
It is orderly. I am sure that no one will want to challenge Mr Speaker’s decision. I am correct on that I take it, Mr Gapes.
Mr Lidington
I am going to make some progress. [Hon. Members: “Give way.”] The commission first proposed—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. In fairness to the Minister, he has given way a couple of times and does not want to do so again. Having three Members shouting “Give way” when he has no intention of doing so is not good for me or for Members, because I cannot hear anything.
Mr Lidington
The commission first suggested that Parliament should reflect on whether to use the word “remain” in place of the phrase “be a member of”. As it acknowledged in its report, the judgment about that wording boiled down to an assessment of whether one believed that either form of wording would tilt the electorate unfairly towards supporting one or other camp in the referendum campaign. The problem with trying to make that assessment is that it requires making an assumption about how other members of the electorate will be affected by the wording. My own view is that if we look not just at the theory of how people might react but at the practical context of a referendum campaign, the outcome of which will certainly be a subject of very vigorous public political debate, it is hard to see how the form of words proposed by my hon. Friend is likely to tilt the playing field one way or the other.
Martin Horwood
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that Mr Speaker stated that if someone speaks from the Treasury Bench as a Minister they are speaking as a Minister, but that does not necessarily mean that they are representing Government policy, and the Minister is certainly not doing so on this occasion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The hon. Gentleman has certainly made his point as well, so we can return to Mr Gapes.
Mike Gapes
Clearly, a novel interpretation of ministerial responsibility applies in this debate.
To return to the amendments, amendment 37 concerns having a “version” or a “translation” of the question, about which I intervened on the Minister earlier. There are important implications, because a version is not the same as a translation. A translation would be much closer to the meaning of the words in the original question, whereas a version might be looser and more roundabout or “good enough”. But that is not good enough, because the question has legal and constitutional implications.
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the people of Wales vote differently from the people of the rest of the United Kingdom and there is a narrow result that is influenced by the Welsh speakers. Would we not face potential legal challenges to the outcome if the people of Wales said, “We wish to remain in the European Union, even though the rest of the UK has left”? That could happen if the votes of Welsh speakers swing the result.
Mr Spellar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. If he had not, I would have raised this matter on a point of order. Further to my previous point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that Mr Gapes gave way to an intervention, rather than to a point of order.
Mr Spellar
In that case, further to my previous intervention on my hon. Friend, at 10.30 am on 8 November I asked:
“Is it not the case that anyone speaking from the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the Chamber is speaking on behalf of the Government?”
Mr Speaker replied:
“The right hon. Gentleman is correct. That is the situation—a Minister who speaks from the Treasury Bench is speaking for the Government.”
Interestingly, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) then said:
“That raises an interesting issue that perhaps the Government—both sides of the coalition—should reflect on. I stand corrected for the second time in the space of an hour”.—[Official Report, 8 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 548.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
The point has been aired. I am sure that Mike Gapes will get back on track and speak to the amendments.
Mike Gapes
Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker; I would never wish to be off track when discussing these matters.
Amendment 38 requires consultation with the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government on these matters. Amendment 39 relates to Scotland, where there will be similar issues. It would require a consultation with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. It is important to remember that the United Kingdom has a devolution settlement, so we cannot simply magic up the wording of questions for political convenience and to suit those who lobby the Daily Mail. We have to consult the different parts of our United Kingdom.
I have experience of that because I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) when he was Minister for Political Development in the Northern Ireland Office between 1997 and 1999. I took part in the negotiations in Castle buildings that resulted in the Good Friday agreement. I understand well from that experience the importance of language and identity in Irish politics and within the two communities and faith traditions in Northern Ireland.
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.
Martin Horwood
As I was saying, in amendment 71 the hon. Member for Glasgow North East is attempting to remedy the strange issue with the timing and the attempt by this Parliament to bind its successor through this referendum Bill. Of course, we pass legislation all the time that carries forward into future Parliaments, but when it comes to referendums, we normally want to take the decision at the time that we want to hold a referendum. That was the debate we had about the Lisbon treaty—whether it was a proposed constitution and whether we should have at that stage a referendum on the treaty or a referendum on membership, which is what Liberals Democrats supported at that time. We were quite happy to hold a referendum on the question of membership—not in four or five years’ time, but right then and there—because of the clear statement about what the Lisbon treaty contained and what our relationship with Europe would be. We are not in that situation now. The future relationship between the UK and Europe and the rest of the European Union is now less clear because of the economic crisis, the need to restructure the eurozone and the potential treaty changes that are in the offing because of that crisis. It is therefore odd to be discussing a Bill that talks about a referendum four years in advance. Amendment 71, which would provide for an order to be made under the affirmative resolution procedure in a future Parliament, is perhaps one way of tackling that issue.
That is certainly preferable to what I see as the Prime Minister’s position on the referendum, which is what I would describe as an Augustinian position. St Augustine famously said:
“Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.”
Of course, the Prime Minister has an interest in creating paper unity in the Conservative party on the matter of a referendum, but it would be a political disaster for the Conservatives if they got the referendum, because they would be split absolutely down the middle. The Prime Minister made some impressively pro-European statements in his Bloomberg speech. I do not have them at my fingertips, but he talked about the European Union delivering peace in Europe and about it being essential for prosperity and jobs. Indeed, he made a speech of which, in some respects, any Liberal Democrat would be proud, with its explanation of the value of the European Union to both Europe and the UK. However, it is clear from today’s debate and the debate a few weeks ago that many Members from his own party would be campaigning on the opposite side in that referendum.
In a funny way, there is a sort of sub-Orwellian process going on in the Conservative party, in that the Conservatives would rather have a constant campaign for a referendum, which allows them to create some kind of unity, yet they would be rather shocked and disappointed if they got it—indeed, they would be in a bit of a crisis—because then they would be split down the middle. However, although many speakers from the Labour Benches today have answered the big question by arguing in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the European Union, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) popped up briefly, and there are certainly Labour Members who are far from clear about what their answer to the big question in this debate would be.
This referendum Bill is, at heart, a device to dodge the big question. I suppose there are two parties that are absolutely clear on the answer to that big question of whether Britain should remain in or out of the European Union: UKIP is pretty clear that we should be outside the EU, while the Liberal Democrats are clear that we should be in it, because it enables us to fight cross-border crime more effectively, to protect the environment more effectively and, above all, to protect British jobs and support a sustainable economy in this country. There is confusion among the other two parties. The Conservative party is split down the middle, and the Labour party is, if not split right down the middle, at least split a little down the left-hand side. We need to move on from the minutiae of referendum questions and arcane debates about the precise wording of the question to the big issue of whether Britain should remain in or out. That is what many opinion formers, such as the CBI, are starting to do.
Amendment 71 makes a reasonable attempt to tackle the rather peculiar issue of timing in a quite imaginative way. I am not sure that it resolves the issue, but I would be happy to support it in the meantime.
James Wharton
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the No Lobby? We seem to be suffering some type of blockage.
Deep Sea Mining Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jacob Rees-Mogg
If only that were true. I would hope that Bills would be repealed at any time, but sadly the House is much keener to pass new Bills than it is to repeal old and defunct ones. Every so often a Session will pass 20 repeals of ancient Bills. I think we had one earlier in this Session or at the end of the last Session, which repealed some Bill relating to the purchase of the Isle of Man from whoever previously owned it to make it part of the Crown territory. That does happen, but not often enough.
A sunset clause in this Bill would be particularly attractive, especially if the Americans are not part of this. I rather like the American approach to internationalism; that is to treat it with the deepest caution, and not to sign up to every international body that comes along. My hon. Friend mentioned what Sir Teddy Taylor said about the Foreign Office. It is interesting that in the United States the State Department almost always wants to sign up to any bit of internationalism that is going. But the sensible people in the Senate who have to ratify treaties almost never do, because they do not think it is in the interests of the American people. Because of our system, we seem to be rather too keen to sign up to international agreements, when, as I was saying earlier, we should do things by free enterprise, which will often ensure more success, riches and wealth for the nation at large.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker has done a long stint and we are glad to have you standing in for him.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Then Mr Deputy Speaker will no doubt be pleased that I will try to entertain him for at least part of his stint in the Chair.
Following that preamble and my concerns about the nature of the Bill and internationalism, including the risks that that has for democracy and the problem of it being a dead hand on enterprise, if we are to have this type of regulation, the Bill is obviously sensible. It is obviously wise to extend it from purely metals to include gas and liquids, because there may be all sorts of exciting things at the depths of the sea. There may be endless supplies of gas. There may be oil spurting out as if Saudi Arabia was on the sea bed rather than in Arabia where it is more normally located, and therefore one would find that there is this enormous wealth that could reduce the price of oil to the enormous benefit of our constituents, particularly those in rural seats where the price of petrol is a serious problem. These resources, liquid and gas, could be sucked out of the earth and used to the benefit of our constituents.
To that extent, I am happy to support the Bill. I do not think that there will be much opposition to it. It is a sensible level of amendment to what already exists, bearing in mind my overarching concern that we are being too internationalist and that, in principle, we are not encouraging enough enterprise.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). With you having appeared on the scene, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought that he was about to take a second crack at the whip—
Mr Brown
I suspect that he would have been.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on introducing her private Member’s Bill this morning. Like many others in the House, I fully understand her passion for all things maritime. She is steeped in the very issue. The Bill would amend the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981. Like one or two others in the House this morning, I knew very little about deep-sea mining until I discovered that I would be at the Dispatch Box this morning. I thank the House of Commons Library for producing a standard note, which has been used by other Members this morning and which was my starting point.
I want to make clear my interest in the environment and that I make a monthly contribution to the WWF, but I say to those on the Government Back Benches that that does not colour my position. It is a contribution that I make to the WWF, not one that it makes to me. It does not lobby me in any shape or form; let me be frank about that.
I had breakfast this morning with an expert, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), who is chair of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. Members present may be interested to know that the committee will undertake a programme of work during the autumn and bring in experts to examine the issue of deep-sea mining. Back Benchers who have spoken this morning may wish to attend those sittings.
Just because we cannot see something does not mean it is not precious. There is much going on down in the depths of the seas and oceans, and as I said earlier, if we do things in a radical way we could do damage that can never be repaired. I believe that we should explore—I do not know whether exploitation is the right word, because it worries me—what could be of benefit to mankind. That is what this is all about: we have explored space, so why not explore the depths of the oceans as well?
We must, however, be measured in our approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) completed a quote that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) gave earlier by pointing out that we have to be “reasonably practicable”. As a trade unionist, I know that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is littered with the term “reasonably practicable”.
I would like to think that we have moved on since the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981, which is the very reason why the hon. Member for South East Cornwall has proposed the Bill. It is 30-odd years later and I know that the hon. Member for Bury North will be wondering why the Labour party has changed its mind. We need clarification—perhaps the Minister will provide it—on how many applications have been made for licences and how many have been refused, and on the important issue of how we will police the companies that have secured them. I will not be anywhere near as radical as the hon. Member for North East Somerset, because I think we need some kind of control over what is happening. Our environment is precious not only to us, but to those who will come after us.
Alistair Burt
As I think the House knows well, Bury North is not only a constituency that I was proud to represent for 14 years but my birthplace and home, and the place to which my fondest memories are attached. It remains a matter of great pride that I was able to represent my home town, and I only ask that my hon. Friend take my very best wishes to the metropolitan borough, all those in it and the diverse community of Bury.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Minister gives way, it may help if I say that we are not going to have a love-in about Bury, either North or South, or the north-west.
Mr Nuttall
I will take the Minister’s good wishes back to Bury, but to return to the Bill, does he agree that it has potential advantages for businesses based there? Opportunities will open up for them as a result of it, maybe not directly but through the supply chain.
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember—he will know this from first-hand knowledge—how wide the industrial base is in Bury. For example, I recall being very impressed with how many were involved in the aerospace industry.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am now intervening. It is a great temptation to listen to the Minister talk about the wonders of the north-west as I represent a north-west constituency, but I am sure he is itching to get on to the Bill. The problem is that the rest of the Chamber is also itching to hear him on the Bill rather than on the virtues of our great north-west.
Alistair Burt
With that admonition, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will leave the subject of Bury North when I have reminded my hon. Friend to take my best and fondest wishes to Bury football club, and to Gordon and Morris who do the commentary on Shakers Player every week. I am young enough to have played football regularly with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown)—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I will help the Minister. I do not want to hear about football or about Bury, and certainly not about whether he plays football with the shadow Minister. I want to hear about the Bill. I know he will tell me about it. If not, we will move on.
Alistair Burt
I should like to set out responses to the Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, and, when I have made some progress, to deal with the series of questions colleagues have raised during the morning. This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I thank colleagues for their contributions. Deep-sea mining is in its infancy, but by being at the forefront of developments, we can ensure that the UK economy sees the benefits and that any environmental concerns are fully addressed.
The subject of the Bill is probably, in all fairness, unfamiliar to most colleagues. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway was honest enough to say that it is a relatively new subject for him. I could pretend that my situation is different, but I will not. I am indebted to Mr Chris Whomersley and other Foreign and Commonwealth Office colleagues for their assistance in preparing me for the debate.
On the background, I want to fill out what colleagues have said about the origins of the Bill and the importance of correct definitions of, for example, the deep sea bed. Deep-sea mining does not come up every day, so it is important to alleviate concerns, particularly bearing in mind recent concerns about mineral extraction and the environment on land, by noting that any activity would take place a long way from any coastal area.
The term “deep sea bed” is defined in amendments in the Bill to the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981. The UN convention on the law of the sea calls it the “area” of the
“sea-bed and ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.
That is commonly referred to as the common heritage of mankind, a phrase that has found its way into the UN convention in article 136. The concept, which goes back to the 1960s, expresses a profoundly important point, namely that the area and its resources do not belong to any one state. They should be developed for the benefit of everyone on the planet. They are controlled through the International Seabed Authority, an international organisation to which all states can become a party. I will say more about the ISA later.
To refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), getting the balance right between what is controlled by regulation and legislation and what is allowed to run free, as it were, is difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley spoke about the freedom of the seas and the like. Access to the sea and freedom to roam on the seas is important, as is the enforcement of such rights to freedom. However, the world recognises that the resources of the sea and what lies on the sea bed and below are genuinely precious. Hon. Members are aware how resources can be badly exploited—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall knows that some countries have badly exploited resources through their fishing practices. That gives us pause to say, “Simply having a free-for-all will not work.” My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset can be assured, however, that the attitude of the United Kingdom is to ensure that, if international regulation does curtail freedoms, it must be because that is the right thing to do. We have to take our responsibilities seriously, and our responsibility to the environment and the need to ensure that the regulations cover that adequately are as important as ensuring that opportunities for prosperity are not lost through over-regulation or complicated bureaucracy.
The “area”, or the common heritage of mankind, is the area beyond the limits of any coastal state’s continental shelf. Under article 76 of the UN convention, a coastal state is entitled to a continental shelf of at least 200 nautical miles from coastal baselines, and more where the slope of the continental margin meets certain specified criteria. This entitlement is without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between states with opposite or adjacent coasts. The exception to the rule is for a small islet or rock that cannot support economic life. Under the UN convention, such rocks only generate a territorial area—a maritime zone up to 12 nautical miles from coastal baselines.
The UK has one such rock which is sometimes the subject of academic debate. That is Rockall, some 186 nautical miles west of St Kilda in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland. Anyone who has seen this rock, or seen pictures, will well understand why we could not claim that it could support economic life, being only a jagged spike of rock jutting up some 60 feet above sea level. Therefore, and contrary to some of the sometimes ill-informed comments about Rockall, the United Kingdom does not regard Rockall as capable of generating a continental shelf of its own. Does this mean that deep sea mining could take place in the vicinity of Rockall? No. While the UK uses a baseline on St Kilda—which, coincidentally, is uninhabited but has in the past supported a human population—the UK claims a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in a westerly direction, way out into an area known as the Hatton Rockall plateau. Other states have overlapping continental shelf claims in the same area, but while the claims exist and their validity is yet to be considered by the appropriate international body, the area does not fall within the definition of one
“beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.
To be clear, deep sea mining as provided for by the Bill, would not take place anywhere near the coast of the UK, or the UK’s overseas territories, or any other coastal state for that matter. Indeed, most of the current applications relate to areas in the Pacific ocean, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) mentioned, and are a long way from any landmass.
I have described the “where”, now let me explain the “what”. As hon. Members appreciate, we are not talking about hydrocarbons, at least not at the moment. My notes suggest that it is safe to say that many hon. Members will be unfamiliar with the mineral types, but the debate suggests that they have made themselves very familiar with the mineral types we are discussing. Those minerals currently being explored for in the deep sea are composite mineral deposits, in formulations unique to the sea bed, which is why they are so special.
Presently there are international regulations in place for the exploration of three mineral types in the deep sea. The first, polymetallic nodules, have already been the subject of discussion today. Polymetallic or manganese nodules contain manganese, copper, cobalt and nickel, and are—as far as the FCO is concerned—potato-shaped balls generally found on the sea bed surface. I have no information about whether they may be tennis-ball sized, and it is the official view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that they are potato-shaped balls. They are generally found partially buried in sediment, and cover vast plains in the deepest areas of the sea bed.
Secondly, there are polymetallic sulphides. These, mainly sulphide deposits, are found in ocean ridges and seamounts, and often carry high concentrations of copper, zinc and lead, in addition to gold and silver, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset will be pleased to hear. Not for the first time, he is right on the ball—the tennis ball-sized ball. Such deposits are associated with previous volcanic activity, where the deposits have built up over time via plumes from vents. Where such vents are active, they tend to be places of unique fauna and flora. However, mining would take place only when such sites were extinct, not least because of the very high temperatures associated with live vents. That deals with one of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley raised. There is no question of mining such areas when they are live, because frankly the temperatures would make it impossible.
The third group of mineral elements to which the current legislation applies are found in cobalt-rich crusts or ferromanganese crusts, which form at the flanks and summits of seamounts, ridges and plateaus. They contain amounts of iron and manganese, and are especially enriched in cobalt, manganese, lead, tellurium, bismuth and platinum. Such minerals are important. Mineral prices have increased noticeably since 2000, largely as a result of increases in demand, especially from emerging economies such as China and India, as colleagues have noted. According to the United States geological survey in 2013:
“China has advanced from consuming less than 10% of the global market for metals to over 25% of the market in the past few years and that trend is increasing; India is following on a similar path.”
As I will explain, changes in demand have created a need for legislation.
Barry Gardiner
Just to correct the impression that may have been given to the House by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), the treaty of Windsor in 1386 was of course a treaty between Portugal and England, and as so often with the hon. Gentleman, the key is, who is the—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is testing the patience of the Chamber a little bit, and I will be quite honest with him. We have had a lot of long interventions, and the last thing I want to get into is a history lesson from either side of the House, because other Bills want to get a hearing, and I am sure he has an interest in those as well.
Alistair Burt
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The procedures for handling applications to explore for minerals on the deep sea bed are set out in the regulations adopted by the authority—one set for each type of minerals, polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich crusts. The applicant makes an application to the authority, and pays the fee of $500,000. But as we have indicated, there is a certificate of sponsorship from the state party concerned; it is stipulated in the convention that all applications must be sponsored by a state party.
Because of the concerns voiced about environmental protection, I have taken the liberty of obtaining a copy of the two applications for licences that we have made under that sponsorship. The House will be pleased to know that in both, the issue of environmental standards is put forward by a representative of the United Kingdom, who makes the application on behalf of the company being sponsored. So environmental protection is at the heart of the application that is made by the United Kingdom when sponsorship applications are made.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to placing papers that contain confidential information in the Library. You will be aware that Mr Speaker ruled in 2006 that any confidential papers that are referred to ought to be placed in the Library with the confidential information removed. Will that practice be followed today?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is obviously a matter for the Minister, but as the hon. Gentleman is going off a previous ruling, I am sure the Minister will take it on board.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Horwood
I have already spelled out very clearly our position, which is exactly the same one as we took at the time of the Lisbon treaty and of the last election: at a time of treaty change, fundamental change or a transfer of power from the British to the European level, we would want an in/out referendum, and we would legislate to make that possible in the event of our having a majority in Parliament.
The Conservative position has flip-flopped dramatically. The position in the Conservative manifesto was enacted in the European Union Act 2011, yet within a year and a few months the Prime Minister was expounding a completely different position. Even that has changed between his speech and this Bill, because the question has changed from whether to remain in the European Union to whether to be in the European Union. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Many conversations are going on. I know that not many people may be agreeing with Mr Horwood, but I would certainly like to hear what he has to say.
Martin Horwood
I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. The chances of the Conservative party getting as far as 2017 without changing its policy again are pretty slim. Let me reinforce that point. Only 19 months ago, the Prime Minister said:
“That, for me, in a parliamentary democracy, is the right use of a referendum. However, as we are not signing a treaty, I think that the whole issue of a referendum does not arise.”
He continued by saying that
“there is a role for referendums in a parliamentary democracy, but that comes at the moment when a Government or a Parliament proposes to give up power, rather than at other times.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 535-549.]
That is precisely the Liberal Democrat position and has been for some time.
We are not going to oppose this Bill, but we are not content to support it because there is a long list of problems with it. Legislation already in force—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—is supposed to lay down the procedure under which we hold referendums and, for example, the role of the Electoral Commission in helping to determine the question. This Bill is pre-empting any decision by the Electoral Commission and it does not even appear to comply or be consistent with the 2000 Act. I do not know whether the draftsmen had forgotten that that Act existed.
Then there is the question of the franchise, which has also been referred to—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I can see frustrations building up in the Chamber. I think that Mr Horwood is trying to give us an encompassing view of why the referendum may be good or bad. I am sure that even he recognises that a lot of people wish to speak, and hopefully we can move on. In the meantime, it is Martin Horwood.
Martin Horwood
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall draw my remarks to a close. Even if hon. Members do not listen to me, and even if they do not listen to the leader of the Norwegian Conservative party, or even the CBI, perhaps they should just listen to what the Prime Minister himself said in that speech. In the end he moved on to the main question, which is whether in an in/out referendum we would be campaigning to stay in or out. The Prime Minister said:
“Of course Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the EU, if we chose to do so. So could any other Member State. But the question we will have to ask ourselves is this: is that the very best future for our country?”
He went on:
“Continued access to the Single Market is vital for British businesses and British jobs...being part of the Single Market has been key to that success...There are some who suggest we could turn ourselves into Norway or Switzerland—with access to the single market but outside the EU. But would that really be in our best interests?
I admire those countries and they are friends of ours—but they are very different from us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund of over 500 billion euros. And while Norway is part of the single market—and pays for the principle—it has no say at all in setting its rules: it just has to implement its directives.”
The Prime Minister obviously is not really willing to risk millions of British jobs by voting no. This is a delaying tactic to get us past the next election. The Liberal Democrats are not willing to risk millions of British jobs by voting no. Europe means jobs, and we should not put those jobs in jeopardy.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If we have very short speeches, most hon. Members will be able to speak.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, a large number of colleagues on both sides of the House were unable to make a speech on Second Reading. I understand that the Bill is going to be considered in a Public Bill Committee, where it will have full scrutiny. Can you advise me on how we can draw attention to the fact that many Members were unable to contribute to today’s debate?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
First, I congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who did speak, because 29 managed to get in, but unfortunately 18 did not, and I feel disappointed for them. In fairness, that is pretty unique for a Friday. Perhaps that has set the tone for future Fridays.
NATO
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hugh Bayley
I must say I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, but I do not want to turn the NATO debate into a debate about the future of the EU. Turkey plays and has played an important role ever since it joined the alliance in helping to defend our freedoms in Europe, and that ought to guide the views of other EU member states when decisions are made about Turkey’s accession to the EU.
I mentioned the history, but only to show that things have moved on. Despite our foreign policy differences with Russia on certain matters, such as Syria, we co-operate on many matters. Russia provides the land bridge to convey NATO’s non-military assets to Afghanistan and will help us remove many of our assets from Afghanistan as we bring our troops home.
The question that we must answer for Members of this House who do not share our views and for the public is, “If the cold war is history, why isn’t NATO?” It is not history because we still need international co-operation and solidarity with our allies and shared and permanent structures to plan to deal with the security risks we face, to deter those risks and, when things go wrong, to manage military action.
No single NATO state, with the possible exception of the United States, has sufficient military assets to protect itself from today’s risks without the help of colleagues. Actually, I do not think the United States should be excepted, because it needs and gains international legitimacy at the UN and elsewhere when it engages in military action that is supported by its allies.
Since the end of the cold war, we have needed NATO to end conflict in the heart of Europe—in Bosnia, for example; to respond to the threat of global terrorism, which had devastating effects on the streets of New York, London, Madrid and a number of cities in east Africa and elsewhere; and to protect human rights and stop ethnic cleansing, as in Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya. We needed NATO to provide humanitarian assistance during the 2005 floods in Pakistan and, indeed, following Hurricane Katrina in the United States, when other NATO states sent humanitarian assets. We have needed NATO to counter the threat of piracy off the horn of Africa: the losses suffered at the hands of pirates now cost insurers and shipping companies many hundreds of millions of pounds less than they used to, thanks to NATO and EU coastal patrols. We also need to work collectively with our allies to deal with new and emerging threats—cyber-attack, transnational crime, people trafficking or the drugs trade. All are threats that affect the United Kingdom, but none is a threat to which we can successfully respond and against which we can protect ourselves on our own.
What does the NATO Parliamentary Assembly bring to the table? Where is our added value? After the fall of the Berlin wall, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the Assembly sought to build bridges with democrats in the former Warsaw pact countries that wanted to move closer to the west. Indeed, the Assembly moved faster than NATO itself or the Governments of many member states to open a dialogue with those democrats.
At the end of last week, General Nick Carter, the UK soldier and deputy commander of the international security assistance force, said that peace and reconciliation talks with the Taliban should have started a decade ago, and he is right. There were people engaging with moderate leaders in the insurgency in the mid-2000s, and I met them during some of my visits to Afghanistan; but there were disputes at the time about who should do this—whether it should be the Government of Afghanistan, or perhaps the United States. I remember when two people who had been involved in talks with elements within the insurgency were expelled from Afghanistan.
Last week, lead responsibility for security passed from ISAF to the Afghan national security forces in every part of Afghanistan. As our role changes so that we no longer provide the security lead in that country, we need to learn lessons from NATO’s biggest, longest and costliest military operation. Our Parliamentary Assembly has visited Afghanistan 11 times in the past eight years, and when preparing for this debate I looked back at our reports.
In 2004, we argued that NATO, which at that time had a role in Kabul but not throughout the country, should expand its presence throughout Afghanistan. In reports in 2004, 2005 and 2006, we called for a unified command, encompassing both ISAF, the NATO mission, and the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom. Between 2005 and 2008, we published reports calling for better burden sharing between NATO member states and for caveats imposed by some of the national contributions to NATO to be lifted. As early as 2004—nine years ago—we highlighted the need to accelerate the build-up and strengthen the training of Afghan national security forces; we stressed that particularly strongly from 2006 onward.
Even in 2002—more than a decade ago—we were stressing the link between security and development assistance; and from 2006, in reports and resolutions we called for what is now described as the comprehensive approach: diplomacy, defence and development co-operation. Again as early as 2004, we identified that much aid was used inefficiently because it was not channelled through Afghan institutions, and now even 50% of US aid is channelled through the World Bank’s trust fund and the Government of Afghanistan. Interestingly, in 2006—seven years ago—we called for reconciliation talks with moderate elements in the insurgency. Since 2006, we have stressed the need to challenge the safe havens in Pakistan and we have been involving Pakistani MPs in meetings of our Assembly. I have visited Afghanistan five or six times during the period our forces have been in the country, and I have to say that many of the prescient ideas reflected in reports of our Assembly came from British commanders, British diplomats, DFID staff or British aid workers.
The Assembly is an effective forum for sharing good ideas and good practice and, where we identify good practice adopted by one country, we try to persuade others in the alliance to support similar approaches. Often, it is easier for legislators who do not have executive responsibilities to reach conclusions on these matters than it is for members of a Government. We are still, even now, debating defence budgets, following the reports we produced some years ago on burden sharing. As we know, Robert Gates, the former US Defence Secretary, in his outgoing statement, called on Europe to step up to the mark on defence spending, and it is clear to our Assembly that most countries in Europe do not spend enough on defence. Indeed, only two—Britain and Greece—spend the 2% of GDP that NATO recommends.
When I put that point to our Secretary of State, as I have a number of times, he says that, with the economic situation so fragile, now is not the right time to press Governments of other countries to increase their defence expenditure, but I believe it is necessary for security reasons, and that the way to get through the difficulty is to seek commitments that, as the economic situation improves and Governments receive a taxation dividend from growth, they will devote a proportion of it to greater defence expenditures. I do not think we have public opinion on our side for that proposition at the moment, which is another reason we need to do more to explain why we have the security structures we have in NATO and why it is necessary to maintain them and finance them properly. Both the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and NATO itself need to do more to get their case into the public domain, and I congratulate the Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he has been speaking for 20 minutes, and it was to be 10 to 15 minutes? I am sure that he is nearing the end now.
Hugh Bayley
Mr Deputy Speaker, I should not have taken so many interventions.
Hugh Bayley
I simply want to say this: we have a responsibility to make the case for defence spending in our constituencies and through debates such as this.
We need to stress also—this is the final point that I shall make—the importance of maintaining the trans-Atlantic relationship, which underpins NATO as an alliance. We share much with the United States and Canada in terms of our culture, history, family links from not just the United Kingdom but many European families, and trade links. The United States and Canada exported more to the European Union last year—$304 billion worth of goods and services—than they did to Japan, China and Korea combined, to which they exported $266 billion. EU exports in the opposite direction are more than $400 billion to the United States and Canada and $300 billion to east Asia.
We need to stress these things that we have in common. Of course the United States should focus on security concerns that it faces in the Pacific, but it should not forget the common interests it has with us in Europe, on which we need to work together.
Mr Spellar
No doubt in the second world war, the hon. Gentleman would have complained if he had to meet both Montgomery and Eisenhower. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has only just walked into the Chamber, but he seems to have a lot to say.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think I know when people came in, but not to worry about that. I am more concerned about the fact that you have been speaking for 15 minutes and only have a minute left, Mr Spellar.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Giving way does not extend the debate, and we have given a lot of extensions. There are 15 minutes for each Front Bencher. I am very lenient and can allow a minute or two, but not much more.
Mr Spellar
In that case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall move on to two other areas I think we need to consider in the context of NATO. One is security, the work of GCHQ and operations in cyberspace.
For Britain, more than for any other alliance country, our relationship with NATO is intrinsically bound up with our defence and security relationship with the United States. That is clear to those who serve in the Parliamentary Assembly and other right hon. and hon. Members who take defence and security matters seriously. Our relationship with the United States is unique and indispensable, not only in the hard power defence of our liberties and interests, but in the developing struggle against international terrorism and organised crime—especially the trafficking of people, narcotics and weapons, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said—and in the sphere of cyberspace, through our security services and GCHQ.
Unfortunately, albeit for understandable reasons, success against those threats cannot be widely publicised, but the pooling of technology resources and intellectual analytical capacity, and indeed the courage of individuals who often have to operate in very dangerous environments, is a joint endeavour. We owe a great debt to all those involved in that work and should acknowledge it more widely, and I am pleased to do so here today.
Military and security cohesion is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the ongoing health of the alliance. Other elements of the transatlantic relationship also need to be refreshed, which is why the talks on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership are so encouraging. As ever, there will be a host of complications and vested interests to overcome, but if the participants can keep their eye on the main prize, it will be considerable. Achieving greater integration of the north Atlantic market, with five of the G8 countries and approaching half the world’s GDP, would not only provide a vital economic boost, but further consolidate our political and security relationships.
NATO, founded by the great post-war Government of Attlee and Bevan, has served this country and the free world well. It faces challenges, and we should be prepared to meet them. We should remember that some of those who argue NATO’s irrelevance today are those who, at the height of the cold war, were most opposed to NATO. Collective defence and collective security have served us well throughout my lifetime. May they continue to do so into the future.
Sudan and South Sudan
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have six speakers and about one hour’s time, so I suggest Members try to take that into account when they speak.