Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting of the Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)]

I thank the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) for his urgent question, which gives me an opportunity to talk about the excellent work of the Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council. The meeting formally concluded late last night, but in reality it will carry on today with a number of bilateral meetings across Whitehall, including with me.

The Joint Ministerial Council is the highest political forum established under the 2012 overseas territories White Paper. It brings together Ministers, elected leaders and representatives from the overseas territories for the purpose of providing leadership and shared vision across the territories.

At this year’s meeting we discussed a large range of subjects, including child safeguarding, economic development, financial services transparency, climate change, sustainable energy, education and skills and the challenges of providing healthcare in small jurisdictions. We also discussed sports participation by the overseas territories, pension arrangements with the Department for Work and Pensions, governance and security. We had a very full communiqué establishing how we would work together over the coming year. It has been very successful and I look forward to further meetings later today, following up on some of the commitments made last night.

[Mark Durkan]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked from my perspective as an officer of the all-party group on anti-corruption. I welcome what the Minister has said about what he regards as the success of the council meeting, and I hope that we can see evidence of that in relation to key issues, such as child safeguarding and climate change.

However, in relation to financial services transparency, which is what most concerns us, how satisfied is the Minister that there really has been significant progress on, for example, the signal stance that the Prime Minister has taken against corruption and the strong indications that were made about the criteria set down by the Treasury on the requirements for real transparency and proper registers of beneficial ownership of companies in the overseas territories, because they provide the shelter for all the tax scams and shams? This is not just populist tax jealousy; these scams and shams scandalise legitimate businesses and rob developing countries of key moneys. It is not a victimless crime.

Are the overseas territories co-operating? As I understand it, only Montserrat has agreed to the standards that are sought. Where are the other overseas territories on that? In the ongoing bilateral meetings today, will we really see moves from others? Is it true that the Cayman Islands have flatly refused and are making no moves on these matters?

When will we hear from the Treasury, if not from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on how detailed the commitments are going to be on meeting the requirements that it has set down for real transparency, because other businesses and professionals need to see them? Organisations that are working on behalf of global tax justice, such as Oxfam, Christian Aid, ActionAid and Global Witness have concerns and want to support the Government’s efforts. When will we know more?

[James Duddridge]

An enormous amount of progress has been made over the past few years in relation to financial services transparency, particularly openness on tax. I think the hon. Gentleman wants to probe me more on beneficial ownership and the transparency around company ownership. I will quote from the joint communiqué that was issued overnight and is found on the Foreign Office website. When further bilateral meetings are held, the Government usually issue a written statement the following week, as we intend to do when we have had the benefit of the additional post-JMC bilateral meetings.

The communiqué was written by all members of the overseas territories, signed up to by all members, and agreed to by the UK Government. The members

“agreed to hold beneficial ownership information in our respective jurisdictions via central registers”.

There is a lot more text, but I will end with the final sentence:

“We agreed that addressing this issue would be given the highest priority and that progress on implementation would be kept under continuous and close review.”

I have had several meetings today, it will be high on my agenda over the coming months, and we will make progress. However, some of the detail is quite technical. I think that some of the hon. Gentleman’s views of this issue are a snapshot of the situation in the middle of the JMC. There is often quite extensive, and sometimes quite robust, discussion, but late last night we got to a shared understanding that moves us further forward.

Middle East

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I have not been able to sit through all of this debate, but it has been a pleasure none the less to hear so many Members speak up so strongly on both sides of the Chamber. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). We all take his warnings about the dangers of being glib in our historical references, and about how we must go easier on some of the clichés. He also warned us against allowing a false dichotomy into this debate, by saying that there is only either a military intervention or no intervention at all. Some of us on the Opposition Benches feel that the argument increasingly coming from the Government is that, unless we are prepared to endorse the course that they seem to be on, we are somehow insensitive to the need to fight Daesh and all the evil that it represents and does, and that we are unsympathetic to the suffering of the people in Paris, Beirut, Ankara and elsewhere. But we are not; we know that terrorism must be confronted in all its evils, all its arguments and all its rationales, and that we have to do that in a way that is sustainable and credible.

Before I touch more deeply on the issue of Syria, I wish to welcome the fact that this wide-ranging debate, which was initiated by the Backbench Business Committee, has also allowed us, rightly, to touch on other situations as well, including that in Yemen. Last week, I, along with other hon. Members, heard from CAFOD about how it is treating that as one of the most serious humanitarian situations in the world. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) touched on some of the graphic statistics, but we need to understand what all that means.

We cannot go on talking about humanitarian crises—there is a queue of humanitarian crises not just in the greater middle east, but more widely as well—just as though they were some new statistical phenomenon. We need to remember the real pressures that they are causing and the real demands. When we respond to a situation, people will want to know why we are not responding meaningfully at all levels in other situations as well. If we send the level of aid that needs to go to Syria and surrounding countries to help in that humanitarian crisis, people suffering other humanitarian pressures will want to know why there is not the same urgency there. They will wonder whether there is more urgency when there is military intervention. If no military intervention is contemplated, does that crisis go down the league table for consideration and humanitarian concern?

It has also been important to hear about what many would regard as the most enduring middle east conflict—the situation in Israel and Palestine. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) and the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) spoke compellingly about why that situation should not be losing attention as it appears to be relative to what is going on in Syria and elsewhere. Let us remember that that situation is one of the factors that is used in the wider radicalisation agenda that too many people seek to promote. If we are to confront the evil logic and the cynical rationale that are used by Daesh and others who come up with a perverted extremist Islamist view of the world, we need to remember that they cite the west’s ineffectual position on Palestine as one of their main bits of evidence for our unsuited interest in the region. Let us remember that that conflict, which is being pursued with yet more demolitions and more settlements, has had a pretty ineffectual diplomatic response from the west—the same west that is talking about marshalling our best diplomatic efforts, military action and humanitarian aid into a comprehensive strategy in Syria.

Then people will ask, “What quality will this huge diplomatic effort have? Where do we see this huge diplomatic effort elsewhere? Do we see it in the middle east and Palestine?” Frankly, people do not see it there. People see the EU and its member states adopting essentially a screensaver approach to what is happening to the Palestinians. Shapes are thrown, images are projected and impressions are created, but nothing real is going on. When was the last time that the Israeli Government took seriously any strong diplomatic message from EU Governments or the UK Government about any of those ongoing violations?

On Syria itself, I listened to the Prime Minister’s statement last week and to all of the other arguments since, and I know that he thinks that he has covered the basis of a comprehensive strategy, and has touched on a number of issues. Some of us do not believe that the elements are complete, or that they add up to the coherent, comprehensive strategy that will succeed in the way the Prime Minister claims they will. We do not pretend that the situation and the choice are exactly the same as those faced by this Parliament over Iraq, but that does not mean that there are no similarities and no questions that we have to ask of ourselves again. The Prime Minister has said that we should not outsource our defence to others, but nor should we outsource our judgment. Just because other people are engaging in military intervention does not mean that we should sign up to support it as well. We should not be doing something just because others are doing it.

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys talked about history being fickle. We should remember that we have a fairly fickle proposed alliance arrangement for this intervention. We have a somewhat shifting alliance, which includes some fairly shifty allies, and that is just when it comes to the other states. When we then look at forces, such as the Free Syrian Army, which are meant to be the ground forces, we have to recognise that the question of how many of them are truly reliably and sustainably moderate into the future could come to haunt some Members given the glib way in which they have talked about 70,000 forces being available.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Europe: Renegotiation

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right. Some Opposition Members grossly underestimate the sense of resentment among many men and women in this country at having seen treaty after treaty go through, changing the balance of powers in Europe, with the British people never being asked to have their say.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is said that Christopher Columbus, when he set out, did not know where he was going; when he got there, he did not know where he was, and when he got back, he did not know where he had been. Is there not a serious danger of the Prime Minister facing exactly the same situation with his holographic negotiation strategy? Is the Minister not concerned that in personalising this, as he did in his statement, as the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, he creates a fundamental point of weakness in that we will have a Prime Minister’s referendum on a question that people view as somewhere between a figment and a fig leaf?

[Mr Lidington]

The entire Government were elected on a manifesto of renegotiation, reform and referendum. I enjoyed the joke, but Christopher Columbus is remembered for his achievement in navigation and discovery and for symbolising the opening of a new age. I hope that this renegotiation is the start of a new age of greater flexibility, democracy and competitiveness for Europe.

Iran: Nuclear Deal

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The Iranians will do most of the decommissioning work themselves. It is relatively low-level work involving taking out pipework and destroying centrifuges, and it will be done under a regime that will be overseen by the IAEA. The big piece of engineering work is the redesign of the Arak reactor. Britain does not have industrial capabilities that are relevant to that particular project, which will be led by the Chinese with other international partners working in consortium.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I echo the compliments that have been paid to the Foreign Secretary, his colleagues and predecessors and to all those involved over the long course of the negotiations. I hope that this agreement will prove that firm UN resolutions, sanctions and applied diplomacy can be a workable combination. Will the UK Government be influenced as to the pace and scope of sanctions relaxation by how well the Iranian Government move towards respecting human rights, so that the minorities who are being discriminated against do not feel a new sense of exclusion by being denied the benefits of the reduction in sanctions?

[Mr Hammond]

The UK does not have any bilateral sanctions against Iran; we are talking about EU and UN sanctions. The programme under which the sanctions will be removed is strictly related to Iran’s progressive compliance with its nuclear obligations under the joint comprehensive plan of action. As Iran delivers steps of compliance, we will remove bits of the sanctions regime. That is the way it has to be, if we are to get a win-win agreement. We will continue to press Iran on its human rights record and on its interference in the region, but those factors are not part of the conditionality of this agreement.

UN Independent Commission of Inquiry (Gaza)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for initiating the debate. Like other Members, I commend the Government for supporting last Friday’s resolution.

Unlike the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I do not see the report as unbalanced. Paragraph 668 states that

“the commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups. In some cases, these violations may amount to war crimes.”

That is what we should be addressing.

We should also be clear that we need to move forward. Other hon. Members have rightly said that arms sales continue. In the four months following the attacks, arms sales went to Israel, so more has been done to replenish its arsenals, which were depleted in these massive attacks, than has been done to repair Gaza’s battered, blasted and rubbled civic fabric. We also need to remember that the building of that civic fabric, which is now damaged, was supported by aid from this country and others. People have a right to defend health facilities, schools and civil infrastructure, which need to be protected.

The state of Israel needs to recognise that people in the international community are not making an anti-Israel case. Many of us totally oppose conflict and violence. I am not one of those who tries to pretend that there is military equivalence between the violence wreaked by Hamas and the massive violence wreaked by Israel. Equally, I do not pretend there is a moral difference between the violence of the two sides when it ends up killing innocent civilians and putting in dread people who should be living in peace together.

Today, however, we have heard the pretence that Israel has the right to treat Gaza as though it is a foreign state and to attack it on the basis that Israel is under threat from another state. That is from the same Members who then tell us that we in this House do not have the right to call for Palestine to be recognised as a state. How come people can recognise Palestine as a state when they want to justify violence—for military purposes—when the rest of us are not allowed to recognise it as a state for diplomatic and political purposes and to achieve a peaceful resolution?

European Union Referendum Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point, which I think is the point she was making earlier. I do not dispute the special quality of referendums which gets people excited. That is a good thing, and I am delighted that we are having a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. It is one of the things I was proud of in the Conservative party manifesto. It allows us to engage people of any age in an important question for our country. However, the referendum is not the vehicle for us to attempt to change the full franchise. I shall come on to that as my main argument.

When I was in the position now held by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who is one of the Ministers present today, I stood at the Dispatch Box and demurred on the question whether we should change the age of the franchise. I referred to mixed evidence and said at that time that, on the basis of the evidence available to us, I was not convinced that we ought to alter the age of enfranchisement in this country. I have since changed my view and come to believe that we should have votes at 16. I have come to that view for a number of reasons: additional evidence has come in from the Scottish referendum and it is such an important signal to send to young people to welcome them into our democracy. As I have argued, it is no silver bullet, but it is a very important signal to give.

I endorse the work of the Tory Reform Group. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) have contributed to that and I have collaborated with them. There is an important argument to be made from the Conservative Benches in favour of enfranchising young people and engaging them in our politics. Let me make that Conservative argument briefly. The youngest generation in our adult world today is least interested in big redistributive schemes. Of the generations in our democracy today, it is most interested in welfare reform and in enterprise. We have an opportunity in our party to make the Conservatives the home for young voters, and we should grab that opportunity with both hands.

We have made a good start. We are the party that has just won a national election on the basis of an improving economy, jobs for young people and record youth employment figures, and on our record of fixing this country’s debts so that they do not fall on the heads of future generations, helping young families with childcare and putting education in this country on a stable footing that serves those young people for their future. We are the party of young people and we can be the party of young voters. However, the Bill is not the vehicle for extending the franchise. Let me explain why.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Lady seems to be making the case that 16 is not too young to vote, but the referendum would be too soon to make that change. Rather than the evidence being mixed, is she not giving us a very mixed argument?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman kindly brings me to my next point, which is the nature of making a change as important and as necessary as this through an ad hoc means. I am arguing for a lasting change for young people, not for an ad hoc change, as represented by making it on a one-time referendum. As good as referendums are, they are by their nature one-timers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

In that case, why has the franchise been extended in relation to peers? Now the only additional young voters we are going to get are four Lords called Young and one called Younger. The franchise is being altered specifically for them as a one-off. If it is okay to extend the franchise for them, why not for 16 and 17-year-olds?

[Chloe Smith]

My answer to that, as opposed to the Minister’s, which he will give to explain the full point, is that if we agree here, as many of us do on a cross-party basis, that we ought to look at ways to bring young people into our politics, we need to do that more permanently. I for one would not be happy to settle for doing so only on the ad hoc basis of a referendum. For that reason, and because I want to make sure that this is good-quality legislation, as I mentioned earlier, I will not vote for the amendments today because they would not do that properly.

I refer to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who has just left her place. She emphasised the need to make sure the electoral register is robust, so that we can have a robust jury service system. I refer also to the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who says that we should do this properly as a view of the age of majority. Several important points are not adequately dealt with by swiftly enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds in an ad hoc manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I am indebted to my hon. Friend for answering the question superbly.

I made a point earlier about European citizens, and I tried to do so as objectively as possible, but the reason Europe is so high on the political agenda is because of immigration. There is no doubt about that. People across the country are concerned, rightly or wrongly, about the sheer number of people coming into the UK. On the campaign trail, I always made the point that this country is dependent on large numbers of foreign workers—

[Mark Durkan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Cartlidge]

I am not going to give way again, as other very fine hon. Members wish to speak.

We have to recognise that many people in Britain are concerned about the sheer number of people coming into this country. If we extended the franchise to people from the rest of the European Union and if their vote were decisive in keeping us in, that would be inflammatory for those who want to leave because they want to control their borders and would leave a lasting feeling of injustice.

To conclude, I believe in votes at 16, but we should refrain from having that now. We should have a full consultation and, if we decide we want to do it, it should be in our manifesto, so that we can achieve a mandate from the British people to have votes at 16 in elections and referendums thereafter.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It is interesting to follow some of the speeches of hon. Members, and I will start by dealing with why the parliamentary franchise is as it is. Let us be clear. When we first joined in 1972, we did so on the basis of the parliamentary franchise and this House’s sovereignty. We then continued, and only a few weeks back, some were arguing that our membership should continue on the basis of the policies agreed in Parliament, based on those who voted in favour then. It is therefore interesting to see how those who were arguing a few weeks back that the referendum would be disaster or a “reckless gamble”, as one hon. Member said last week, now seem so enthusiastic for everyone to have a go with it.

Put simply, we cannot have a pick and mix on the franchise. The reason for peers having it is that it is decided en masse by Parliament that Members either have a vote in the other place or elect a representative from this House to exercise it on their behalf. That is why it makes sense to allow those who would not be able to exercise their vote in the other place on this decision to vote in the referendum. It also makes sense to extend the franchise to Gibraltar, which is a member of the European Union via the UK’s membership of it, so its citizens should have the ability to vote as if they were resident in the UK itself.

Today’s debates have flagged up a whole range of issues about the franchise, but we do not need to have these debates on individual elections. Given that Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are so dependent on decisions taken in this Parliament, it is right to reflect on how they can have a voice in future. Again, however, that is not a debate for today. Given that our membership is based on the UK state being part of the European Union, which is not a sovereign state in its own right, it is right to grant the vote to UK citizens on the basis of the parliamentary franchise, plus those who have benefited historically from the extension of the parliamentary franchise in the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland.

On the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds, I am a supporter of votes at 16. Experience where it has happened, as in the Scottish referendum, has been positive. It is not very helpful, however, to bandy around the different ages at which people can do various things. I am not sure how many hon. Members have read the pages on the Government website about learning to drive a tractor. It lists all the different ages that people need to be to drive different things. Anyone wanting to drive a road roller can do so at the ages of 17 to 20, unless it is a steam-powered road roller, for which one needs to be 21, while a mowing machine can be driven at 16. There are all sorts of anomalies in our law, so citing individual ages does not necessarily justify what the franchise should be. I support providing 16-year-olds with the opportunity to vote, but it needs to be done through a substantive debate on the franchise as a whole, not as an amendment tacked on to a Bill.

[Mark Durkan]

We have heard several Conservative Members argue that they are in favour of votes at 16, but that allowing it in this referendum would somehow be a form of premature emancipation against which they would have to vote. That is not a very convincing argument.

[Kevin Foster]

It is all about inconsistency. Another referendum is being considered in my constituency about the future of the elected mayoralty of Torbay Council. It would be somewhat bizarre, assuming these amendments are passed, if a 17-year-old could decide on the future of Britain in Europe, but could not decide who is going to run the local council because the franchise remains at 18. That is why I do not support a pick and mix.

[Mark Durkan]

The Prime Minister has said that he will not opt for a third term. If he resigns before the end of the current term, the Conservative party will, in effect, choose the Prime Minister. What is the age of eligibility for members of the Conservative party to choose the Prime Minister? It is certainly below 18, and it is not confined to United Kingdom nationals either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

I take that point, which was very well made. I keep my mind open, but I tend towards using 18—

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

If I may, I will make progress because I am conscious of the time.

I tend certainly towards using 18 for the EU referendum, because there is a danger that if we start to change the rules for it, there will be a feeling in this country that there is a taint, with people trying to get a certain outcome. I am so pleased that there is an EU referendum because we can at last lance the boil that is Europe and bring this matter to an end. If we start to change the rules beforehand, certain parties who feel sore from the result will try to make out it has been fixed in a certain way. That is why the status quo should remain.

Let me briefly deal with the matter of voter citizenship, which has somewhat been lost in the debate, albeit it is part of the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). On that matter, I am not open minded at all: I support the decision to use the general election register as the referendum basis. I recognise that the Scottish referendum was based on a different arrangement, but it was for the Scottish Parliament to form those rules and it did so. This is a matter for this Parliament to form the rules, and I believe the rules set are the right ones. I also take the point about many residents who work and study in this country and contribute greatly, but they are citizens of another country in Europe and their country governs their relationship with Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am, of course, aware of the feeling on this issue within the devolved Administrations, but we intend to maintain maximum flexibility in the Bill. I shall explain why that is in the debate that follows.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

8. What steps his Department has taken to address the security situation in Burundi and to support the emergence of conditions conducive to inclusive and peaceful elections in that country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

The Minister for Africa, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), has called on all parties to end the violence and respect the principles of the Arusha agreement. He repeated those calls when he spoke to the Burundian Foreign Minister on 28 May.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the Minister for that answer. He and the Minister for Africa will be aware that just this week civil society representatives have called for the replacement of the UN special envoy who is meant to be mediating the dialogue. The Burundi electoral commission’s legitimacy is also being questioned, and it has now scrambled together a date for an election in circumstances that are particularly adverse, with repression still at play, refugees unable to return and armed youth groups not disarming. What will be the Africa Minister’s message to international partners and the Burundi Government at the African Union meeting?

[Mr Ellwood]

We need to focus on the Arusha agreement. The UK Government are extremely concerned about the instability in Burundi that the hon. Gentleman articulates and are working actively within the region, with the African Union and the international community, to resolve the crisis.

European Union Referendum Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Following the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I must say that in my eyes it was new light from an old window to hear him want to escape the givens of history so readily. I would welcome that being applied in other directions.

Like other Members, the right hon. Gentleman rehearsed some of the strong and passionate arguments that he will bring to the debate that will take place on the back of the referendum, whenever it happens. I want to touch on some of those issues, but also to address the Bill and some of the questions about the quality of the referendum and what we will be afforded.

Hon. Members have made the point that compared with some of the debates on Fridays during the last Parliament, the Chamber looks very different. That is simply because many of us regarded the debates on the private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament as an exercise in which the ADHD wing of the Tory party was pleasuring itself, and we did not wish to spectate or to participate in that exercise. We are now in a different situation as the Bill comes from the Government, and other parties seem to have adjusted their view of the potential of a referendum. That done, we need to ensure that we do not simply rush into pre-emptively debating the referendum, but look at some of the issues in the Bill.

One of the questions is whether the franchise should be extended. I fully believe that the franchise for the referendum should be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. I openly admit that I believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should have the vote in all elections anyway. In the past, I have tabled amendments to Northern Ireland legislation to give the Assembly that power in respect of its own elections and those for local government, and I have voted for such an earlier franchise here.

I heard the Foreign Secretary say that the question of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds was a decision “for another day”. From listening to what people are saying, we are talking about a referendum on a decision for future generations, so it is wrong simply to dismiss the issue as a matter for another day. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, nobody is pretending that the arguments for voting at 16 and 17 are the same as those for votes for women, but it is true that the arguments against doing so are invariably the same as those against votes for women—that people were immature, could not make decisions of their own and would derive decisions from others.

The Bill will alter the franchise for the referendum by extending it to peers. When we ask what is going to happen to votes for the young, we should know that four lords named Young and even one named Younger will get votes in the referendum. That is what the Government have done in response to the question about votes for young and younger people in this referendum: five people in the House of Lords will get a vote, but all the 16 and 17-year-olds are ignored.

I share the important concerns raised about purdah. Once people think that there has been any jiggery-pokery on the basic rules, that will create questions and cause consternation, some of which will be abused in a distorted and exaggerated way during the campaign to distract from the core arguments in the referendum. I therefore question why the Government have moved on purdah.

Similarly, on the questions about money, I again think it is important that the Government are not seen simply to be changing the rule in relation to this referendum, particularly given that there will be many questions about where a lot of it will be sourced.

There is also an issue about the wording—whether it should be a yes or no question, and whether it should be as advised by the Electoral Commission. I favour going the Electoral Commission way simply because of the experience in the Irish context, where a very powerful argument has continually been used in referendums: “If you don’t know, vote no.” That has been used time out of number in the context of Irish referendums, with people opposing the referendum creating all sorts of scares, arguments and detailed and technical confusions that nobody can quite settle. Not even the independent Referendum Commission can fully enlighten people about what is or is not involved. That makes it very easy for people to use the argument, “If you don’t know, vote no.”

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

So far, it seems the scaremongering and the fear is on the yes side. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman may make that argument, but that is not how I see it. However, the point I am making is that we need to ensure that the Bill frames the referendum campaign in the right context, so that we are not subject to any allegations that the yes campaign has tilted or framed the thing in a particular way, or that the no campaign is resorting to scares. We all need to be free of those allegations.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the view that the Electoral Commission has taken on what is the most neutral form of question. Does he agree that if that view is confirmed by the research that the Electoral Commission is undertaking between now and August, the Government would be well advised to change the question, because that would build confidence in the whole process?

[Mark Durkan]

I do believe that the Government would be well advised to change the question. We have seen this week that the Prime Minister is able to have a second take on some issues. Even when he feels that he is restating a position, it seems to be somewhat different. It might be a case of “EU turn if you want to,” with this Conservative leader. The Government should accede to the advice of the Electoral Commission.

When the referendum takes place, we need to recognise that there are many different issues for many different people. I represent a border constituency in Northern Ireland and the implications of the UK leaving the EU would be pretty fundamental, not just for my constituency but for the political institutions in Northern Ireland. The common experience of EU membership provided the very context in which there were changed British and Irish relations, which in turn provided the context for the peace process.

It should be remembered that the institutions of the Good Friday agreement do not take as givens just the human rights provisions of the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, but the common EU membership of the UK and Ireland. Even some of the cross-border institutions that were set up as a result of the Good Friday agreement directly address and reflect our common membership of the EU. Fundamental damage and change may be done when serious questions are raised about our commitment to human rights and to our membership of the EU. If we are facing a referendum, we will have to address those issues and carry forward the arguments responsibly.

We must recognise that people have more questions about the sovereignty of this Parliament than just where it stands vis-à-vis the European institutions. We heard that yesterday in the debate on the Scotland Bill. There are clear tensions and ambiguities around what the notion of parliamentary sovereignty means for this Parliament, and around the implications for devolved institutions and the rightful authority that they should have. Similarly, in terms of what comes out of any EU renegotiation, there will be tensions between this Parliament’s notion of its parliamentary sovereignty and what emerges in the new arrangements and treaty terms.

That is why, in my view, it would have been better to have had something like a constitutional convention before the referendum not only to address the longer-term democratic relations within the UK and create a new democratic charter between this Parliament and the other elected institutions in different parts of the UK, but to create a new democratic charter that clearly creates a delineation between this Parliament and the various EU institutions.

There is a danger that we will end up with a referendum campaign in which the yes side includes people who want to be both half in and half out, and a no side that is also confused because it includes some people who want to be totally out, as well as people who say that if we reject it, we can be half out and renegotiate in the way that Ireland did. The danger is that we will end up with a referendum that does not settle the question at all in the terms in which Members believe it will.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Gaza

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Any proposal for ending conflict between Gaza and Israel that does not prioritise the upholding of international law and a just settlement between Israel and Palestine is bound to fail. Indeed, the failure of the international community to halt the colonial theft of Palestinian land and to broker a just peace is the greatest provocation of further unrest.

The Oslo dynamic, which has persisted for more than 20 years, has demonstrably failed. In conflict resolution, victims of conflict sometimes abandon their right to seek justice for past crimes and transgressions in the hope of building trust and strengthening a political process that is designed to resolve the broader conflict. We need only look to Northern Ireland to see how that principle has worked in practice. Importantly, the dynamic assumes that the parties to the conflict are sincerely interested in resolving the situation in a way that is both legal and acceptable to the other party. Sadly, that is not the case in the virtually non-existent middle east peace process. Rather, Palestinians have been asked to sacrifice almost every conceivable right or claim to justice at the altar of negotiation. That has afforded the Government of Israel unparalleled impunity for its many crimes against the Palestinian people. With each unpunished transgression, those on the Israeli right are encouraged to continue to act as they like, however immoral or illegal their actions, safe in the knowledge that there will be no adverse consequences.

Palestinians are told that they must negotiate for their rights, their statehood and their freedom from occupation. Meanwhile, the party with which they must negotiate changes the facts on the ground day by day to make the realisation of those rights an ever more distant prospect. For those who seek to deny the Palestinians their rights, it is worth noting that the Israelis were not expected to negotiate with the Palestinians for the same rights. It is both impractical and wrong to expect a successful peace process to emerge from a dynamic in which there is such a disproportionate imbalance of power and in which the rule of law has been totally abandoned.

Most of the current Israeli Government—those with whom the Palestinians are told they must negotiate to obtain their rights—are on record as saying that they fundamentally oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state. Last summer, Binyamin Netanyahu, who is on the left of his right-wing coalition, spoke his mind:

“I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.”

For the past two decades, negotiations have served as little more than a fig leaf to cover Israel’s expansionist aims so that it can consolidate what it has already taken by force of arms.

If the situation is to end and space is to be created for a meaningful peace process, the UK must push to make Israel accountable for its breaches of international law. That means that we should be prepared to pull whatever levers exist, whether economic or diplomatic, to ensure that the Israeli Government understand that continuing to annex Palestinian land, collectively punishing 1.7 million people with an illegal blockade and systematically denying a people their fundamental rights will not be tolerated by the international community. We should also do what we can to strengthen the voices of moderation inside Palestine and to demonstrate that it is the path of politics and peace, not the path of violence, that leads somewhere. Our Government should respect the will of Parliament and immediately recognise Palestine as a state. We must also do all we can to support the unity Government, in which Hamas is to take a back seat. In fact, the announcement of the unity Government that preceded this summer’s assault on Gaza was widely seen—

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) that Hamas would disarm in return for economic development? That would make a hostage of all those peace-loving people in the Palestinian population who neither hold arms nor hold any brief for those who hold arms.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it involves doing all we can to support the unity Government in which Hamas is to take a back seat. The unity Government was welcomed by everyone, save only for Israel.

Critically, we should understand that the realisation of Palestinian rights and the success and security of Israel are intertwined. There will never be justice for Palestinians while the occupation continues and their rights are denied. Peace and security will be unobtainable for Israel so long as Palestinians live with such injustice.

Tamil People in Sri Lanka

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend.

I make no apologies for expressing my delight at seeing the end of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s brutal decade-long reign. This is a man who presided over the slaughter of 40,000 Tamils at the end of the country’s civil war, whose contempt for human rights and the rule of law further intensified a culture of impunity, and who led an increasingly autocratic, nepotistic and corrupt Government. Right up until the end of the election campaign, violence and threats were being meted out against his political opponents and, since his defeat, serious allegations have emerged regarding both an attempted coup to remain in power and alleged complicity in the death squads of his brother Gotabhaya, the Defence Secretary. Those are yet more issues that require full, credible and independent investigation.

After years of misrule, Sri Lanka was crying out for new leadership. I applaud those who, in the face of much intimidation, voted Rajapaksa out, especially the Tamils and Tamil-speaking Muslims who had been so badly treated by his regime. In fact, the votes from the Tamil and Muslim communities were absolutely pivotal in securing Sirisena’s victory. Although Rajapaksa swept almost all Sinhala-dominated provinces, Sirisena received the support of about 80% of the Tamil vote and gained an even greater number of votes from Muslims.

I believe that the outcome of the presidential election raises two important points. First, it reaffirms the fact that Tamils warmly embrace democracy. The spurious assertions by Mahinda Rajapaksa and his Government of attempts to revive the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Tamil-majority areas were complete nonsense. Tamils want not a return to armed conflict, but the opportunity to live with dignity in a peaceful, democratic society. Secondly, given the support that Sirisena received from Tamils and Muslims, they have every right to expect him to engage with them constructively and to address their long-standing grievances about war crimes, human rights violations, political marginalisation and religious intolerance, among other important issues.

Sri Lanka’s new leader has shown a willingness to reach out to Tamils on several issues. For example, he has removed the military governor of Northern Province, who did so much to undermine the work of the provincial council, and replaced him with a civilian, Mr Palihakkara, even though it must be noted that Mr Palihakkara was a senior Government representative during the conflict and defended them against accusations of war crimes committed against Tamils. Sirisena has also stated an intention to review the seizing of Tamil land by the army and has ordered the release of some Tamil detainees against whom no case has been brought. I hope that means that the likes of Jeyakumari Balendaran, a Tamil mother of one of the disappeared who has been detained without charge for 300 days, will soon have a taste of freedom again.

Sirisena has ambitious and worthwhile plans for government. His proposals for his first 100 days in office include notable pledges to abolish the executive presidency and to restore independence to the judiciary, police and other bodies. However, he will ultimately be judged not by his words, but by his deeds. The key constitutional reforms may prove difficult to enact, given the need for a two-thirds majority in Parliament and the possibility of needing to seek the support of aggrieved Rajapaksa allies. Significantly, although Sirisena may have stated that his Government’s priority will be “ethnic and religious reconciliation”, it is deeply unfortunate that his 100-day plan provides no explicit measures to address the key concerns of minority communities.

It is on that issue that the British Government, through their bilateral relations with Sri Lanka, and as part of multilateral organisations such as the UN, must make their voice heard. We should do all that we can to ensure that President Sirisena’s Administration understand the importance that we attach to Sri Lanka’s addressing the outstanding issues arising from the armed conflict and its aftermath.

A matter of days after Sirisena’s presidential election victory, Pope Francis arrived on the island. Addressing the crowds at Colombo airport, His Holiness said:

“Sri Lanka for many years knew the horrors of civil strife, and is now seeking to consolidate peace and to heal the scars of those years. It is no easy task to overcome the bitter legacy of injustices, hostility and mistrust left by the conflict. It can only be done by overcoming evil with good and by cultivating those virtues which foster reconciliation, solidarity and peace. The process of healing also needs to include the pursuit of truth, not for the sake of opening old wounds, but rather as a necessary means of promoting justice, healing and unity.”

I agree wholeheartedly with His Holiness’s sentiments, and his statement is an implicit endorsement of the UN inquiry.

President Sirisena has spoken of how his Government intend to

“have a foreign policy that will mend our ties with the international community and all international organisations in order that we derive maximum benefit for our people.”

The perfect way for him to show that he is sincere in his intentions is for his Government to accept the mandate of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and co-operate with its war crimes investigation. However, people are right to be sceptical about Sirisena’s sincerity, given that he is not prepared to engage with the work of the OHCHR and has vowed to protect Mahinda Rajapaksa and other senior Government and military figures from possible future war crimes charges.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Lady quoted the Pope, and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), also quoted those words about truth and reconciliation in the main Chamber recently. Does she agree that the Minister should repeat those words on his visit—not in the pastoral tone used by the Pope, but in crisp, diplomatic terms?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister is in Sri Lanka at the moment and we hope he will take up the baton laid down by the Pope.

There are no legitimate reasons to delay the pursuit of truth and justice for the victims of the conflict, yet some have already called for President Sirisena to be given more time and space to deal with issues of reconciliation and accountability, given the job that lies before him. His Government have even indicated that they intend to establish yet another domestic investigation into the allegations of war crimes during the final stages of the civil war. Experience tells us where that will lead: nowhere. The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission that was set up in 2010 by Mahinda Rajapaksa was “deeply flawed” and failed to

“satisfy key international standards of independence and impartiality”,

according to the UN Secretary-General’s panel of experts on Sri Lanka. Impunity has been the rule in the country for too long and, as the UN high commissioner has said, the consequence has been that national accountability

“mechanisms have consistently failed to establish the truth and achieve justice.”

It is important to remember that Sirisena is not some innocent party to the situation. He was not plucked from the purity of opposition to become President. He is a former ally and colleague of Rajapaksa’s. He served as a Defence Minister during the final stages of the conflict, when tens of thousands of civilians were killed. He has also spoken out against those who have questioned the Government’s actions in the final stages of the war. In 2010, when Karu Jayasuriya MP wrote that the country should investigate “the many allegations” against it, Sirisena said the Government would identify “patriots and traitors” in the country and act accordingly. President Sirisena may also be implicated in some of the alleged crimes that took place during the armed conflict. His statement from 2010 suggests strongly that he was willing to play his part in helping to foment the culture of impunity under the rule of Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Many members of the Government of Sri Lanka, past and present, see the UN investigation as some pernicious attempt to damage the country and undermine its sovereignty. However, the investigation seeks only to uphold the values and precepts of international humanitarian and human rights law. Given the evidence, it is clear that it is the only credible and independent process available that can get to the truth about what happened. To paraphrase His Holiness, the pursuit of truth, and the realisation of accountability and justice, are the only means by which to lay the foundation for a better future in Sri Lanka—a future where the rule of law and respect for human rights replace the culture of impunity. Without that foundation, it will be virtually impossible to reconcile the different communities on the island, and Sri Lanka will continue to suffer as a result.

In the weeks and months ahead, I therefore call on the British Government to undertake a number of measures. They should urge the Government of Sri Lanka to co-operate with the war crimes investigation by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and engage constructively with the UN Human Rights Council’s concerns about the promotion of reconciliation and accountability. They should also state what the consequences would be if President Sirisena’s Government continued to snub the UN process and reject any criminal investigations that arise from the findings and recommendations of the war crimes report by the Office of the High Commissioner. Given the seriousness of the issue, no measures should be taken off the table, including possible sanctions and travel bans, if Sirisena’s Government fail to comply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Caton, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott), a near constituency neighbour of mine, on his constant battle to support the Tamil community. He is recognised across the House for that work.

There are not many Tamils in my constituency; I wish there were. I am taking part in the debate because I am from the Jewish faith and believe that it is my duty to help races and nations that have suffered genocide. I believe that there has been a genocide of the Tamils. I define genocide as scientific murder. The Tamils have for decades been demonised and marginalised. They have been imprisoned in camps and annihilated. I commend the UNHCR for its renewed efforts to appraise the situation of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka, especially after last month’s regime change.

I agree that, although the Government might have changed, we should bear in mind some issues of concern that unfortunately remain, and a fundamental issue is the treatment of the Tamil community in the past and now. I will briefly speak about three matters: first, the need for Government recognition of war crimes and a show of willingness towards investigation; secondly, the need to introduce safer regulations for journalists and investigators; and, finally, the absolute necessity to scrap a repressive Act that contributes to the continuing oppression of the Tamil community.

I, along with many other hon. Members, applaud the regime change in Sri Lanka, but we must not sit back and let the current Government repeat the errors of the past. Given the fact that one of the key participants in the Government, General Sarath Fonseka, is an alleged war criminal, and the lack of a constitutional obligation for Sri Lanka to undertake war crimes investigations, there is still a huge way to go. First and foremost, the UNHCR commission must carry on investigating the civil war and exert pressure in whatever way it can on the new Government to pass new legislation on the treatment of war crimes. The actions committed during the civil war could then be appraised by a recognised court.

The continuing oppression of the Tamils, despite a few reforms here and there, is allowed to carry on unpunished because of the difficulty encountered by United Nations teams when they investigate the situation. That must stop, and we need to encourage the new Government to take the initiative on making it stop. I welcome the fact that our Prime Minister has already called for Sri Lanka to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Sri Lanka, and President Sirisena should heed that call, as well as signing the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court, to show his Government’s good will on repairing mistakes from the past.

However, the efforts of the new Sri Lankan Government should extend far beyond simple recognition of the horrors on both sides of the war. They should start by improving their record on the protection of journalists. Over the past 10 years, 370 journalists have been killed in Sri Lanka. Of those 370 cases, only 10% resulted in convictions. If Sri Lanka wants to improve its human rights record, it needs to set that straight and ensure that those very people whose mission is to denounce and investigate, to unearth and to expose, are safe enough to allow them to continue as the peaceful policemen of this world. “Je suis Charlie” applies as much in Sri Lanka as in Paris.

[Mark Durkan]

I endorse, exactly, what the hon. Gentleman has said about journalism. In addition to the journalists who have been killed, of course, many others have been attacked and threatened, and many have had to flee. Surely one of the best indicators that Sri Lanka had turned a corner would be for some of those journalists who have had to absent themselves to be able to return.

[Robert Halfon]

The hon. Gentleman, who does so much in Parliament for human rights, is absolutely right. The right of return for Tamils and those who have been oppressed, to live freely, would be the biggest evidence that the regime had really changed.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the new Sri Lankan Government need to repeal the terribly oppressive Prevention of Terrorism Act, which allows the police to hold a suspect for 18 months on motives as light as suspicion of connection to unlawful activity. Such a vague and liberticidal law largely contributes to the abuses in human rights and must be stopped. I urge the British Government to harry the Sri Lankan Government on that. I hope that the Minister will respond on that point.

We must encourage the Tamil minority in their struggle for self-determination. As the representatives of a country that has always upheld the values of human life and freedom, we cannot let the new Sri Lankan Government carry on the repression and errors of the past. The Tamils deserve international recognition of the genocide of their people, and I ask the Minister to comment on that. They deserve their right of self-determination, and to be treated equally before the law.