Libya

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the depressing things is that Libya has been at the edge of a precipice for more years than any of us cares to remember. As the penholder for Libya at the UN Security Council, the UK has made it and will continue to make it a priority to ensure that there is meaningful action against the illegal flow of weapons into and out of Libya. We led on Security Council resolution 2292, which authorises all member states and regional organisations to take specific and measured steps to interdict suspected embargo-breaking vessels off Libya’s coast

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Following Russia’s decisive and successful intervention in support of President Assad, it now appears that Russia is backing General Haftar in Libya. What is to stop the west’s strategic foreign policy objectives being just as much of a failure in Libya as they were in Syria?

[Mark Field]

I thank my hon. Friend for his rather bleak analysis of the situation. Clearly, there are fundamental differences between what is happening in Syria and in Libya. Each of those is unique, and it would be unwise to draw too many direct parallels. As I pointed out, there are other nations involved; this is not just about Russian-led support for General Haftar—as I say, there is support from Egypt, France and the United Arab Emirates. We will do all we can in our role in the UN Security Council to try to broker an international solution, and that, I am afraid, can be the only sensible way forward.

Brunei

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 4th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I know that the hon. Lady will be leading a debate on this matter in Westminster Hall. Perhaps I will have a second bite of the cherry if, in discussing some of the technical issues, I do not get it right this time round.

This matter is currently being dealt with through the Foreign Office network rather than through other Departments. Clearly, however, in the light of the UK’s international obligations, it will need to be discussed more widely—with the Ministry of Defence in particular, given the number of UK citizens and Gurkhas who are in the garrison.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

ISIS pushes gay people off buildings, and now Brunei is threatening to stone gay people to death. Will the United Kingdom take the lead in the Commonwealth in making it clear that such punishments are simply incompatible with Commonwealth membership?

[Mark Field]

As I have said, at the Heads of Government meeting in London last April the Prime Minister could not have made clearer where we stood on these issues. As I have also said, we have tried to work constructively to ensure that changes are made to out-of-date legislation, some of which dates from the colonial era. Progress has clearly been made, although perhaps not as rapidly as some Members would like. I believe that trying to utilise the carrot rather than the stick may be the right approach at this stage.

Yemen

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I look forward to crossing swords with her now she is on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We take the issue of children very seriously, and part and parcel of our work with non-governmental organisations and international bodies is ensuring that children are not used in any sort of conflict, particularly those being pushed across borders in the way she describes. We will do our level best, and if we have more specific information, I will obviously ensure that it is brought to her attention.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Iranian-backed “party of God”—Hezbollah—which is mainly based in Lebanon, has been supplying training, weaponry and missile technology to the Iranian-backed Houthi insurgency. To what extent does the Minister believe that Hezbollah is egging on the Houthis not to adhere to the terms of the ceasefire?

[Mark Field]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have very long-standing concerns about Hezbollah’s involvement in Yemen. Hezbollah and Iran are of course providing training and weapons to the Houthis, contrary to UN Security Council resolution 2216 and the embargo on the export of weapons by Iran. We shall continue to encourage Iran, the state sponsor of Hezbollah, to demonstrate that it can be a constructive part of the solution, rather than continue with its current conduct. We hope it can promote stability.

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, I am not going to speculate on too many hypotheticals for the future. This issue will obviously be discussed at very senior levels, and I think that it would be wrong for me to say any more at this stage.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Minister’s response to the urgent question today has been clearer and more assertive than his response to the same urgent question in October, and I welcome that. There is no point in being a signatory to an international arms treaty if the other side is not going to stick to the rules. The problem seems to be what I think the Minister described as the 9M729 missiles that the Russians have been developing. Can he tell the House how long they have been developing that capability, how many weapons we think they have, and what their capability is?

[Mark Field]

I fear that I will disappoint my hon. Friend by not going into great detail on these matters, as they are issues of secure intelligence. I confess that when I was at the Dispatch Box 102 days ago I was pretty robust. Perhaps he is getting harder in his old age, or perhaps it is the other way round. These are important issues, and we are full square behind our US allies on this matter. I am glad to say that, overwhelmingly, as far as I can see, although the House thinks it is regrettable that the treaty has been suspended, it recognises where blame rightly lies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

May I address this issue up front? I suspect that many Members from all parties have grave concerns about it. We are concerned about what is happening in Xinjiang province, including the detention of, as the hon. Lady says, more than 1 million people without trial in political re-education camps. Not only did British diplomats on the ground visit Xinjiang in December 2018 but we are raising and will continue to raise this issue bilaterally with the Chinese. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did so most recently in Beijing in the autumn.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Human rights defenders face particular challenges in the Gaza strip, which is controlled by Hamas. Journalists are oppressed, demonstrations are violently put down and public executions take place. What are we doing to support human rights defenders in the Gaza strip?

[Mark Field]

I reassure my hon. Friend that Ministers, particularly my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, do make clear our concerns about the rights of human rights defenders and the importance of their work in every part of the world.

Nuclear Treaty: US Withdrawal

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from on this matter. He wants to criticise the US Administration, but the truth of the matter is that there has been frustration on this issue for over half a decade. We are working closely, and do work closely, with the US to try to ensure nuclear non-proliferation. I agree that it is a matter of great concern that we are living in a world where there are continued threats, from a number of unexpected quarters, towards a rules-based international system that has stood the world in very good stead over the past seven decades. I spend a lot of time in the Foreign Office on this matter. I know that the new Foreign Secretary feels just as strongly about it and will want to speak very openly about the rules-based system.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who spoke from the Labour Front Bench, for tabling an urgent question on this matter and you, Mr Speaker, for accepting it? Does the Minister share my concern, however, that in the Labour Front Bencher’s comments there was not a breath that was critical of Russia for not complying with the treaty? Does he agree that there is no point in having international treaties unless both signatories adhere to their terms?

[Mark Field]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which he asks in his usual robust style. In fairness, I think that the Labour Front Bencher was slightly more even-handed in his approach to the matter than he gives him credit for. It is, however, worth reiterating my hon. Friend’s point that ultimately we would not have come to this pass had Russia adhered to its compliance obligations.

Burma

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I thank the Scottish National party spokesman for his kind words about the work we are trying to do together across Parliament. On cyclone preparedness, the UK is working with a number of partners in Bangladesh on strengthening infrastructure and ensuring that at-risk households are provided with shelter materials. Part and parcel of the process is trying to persuade the Bangladeshi authorities. I will do that in the meeting this afternoon and express the strength of feeling that we need to open up more space, so that the confinement that the refugees are under, which could be calamitous if a cyclone hits part of that area, is restricted as far as possible.

I did not want to be in any way critical of what the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded, not least with its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), sitting on the Benches behind me. We have not been quiet about this issue in Burma and the fact that the Rohingya were continually going to be under pressure. We would contend that it is not the case that this notion came out of blue sky.

Being candid, I think everyone had a sense of wishful thinking. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who spoke earlier, had a DFID role and was a Minister at one time—I am not in any way blaming him, but the whole international community was so hopeful that after decades of military rule in Burma, going back to 1962 and, arguably, to the creation of the state in 1947-48, we would suddenly have a big surge towards democracy. The constitution that we in the international community were all party to seeing set up, I am afraid, provided massive difficulties almost from day one, when Aung San Suu Kyi became State Councillor. The power that was still in the hands of the military meant that we overlooked, for example, the Rohingya’s rights. They were not included in the census and were not allowed to vote in the first elections. In many ways, we recognise with hindsight that that gave succour to the Burmese military in thinking that they could get away with what they have now got away with. There was a lot of wishful thinking. With the best motivation in the world, we wanted to see some progress. After decades of the darkness of being a military dictatorship—almost a closed state—we looked upon any advancement as something that we should grasp hold of. That is a lesson we shall learn for the future.

I want to work with many non-governmental organisations —Protection Approaches is a good example —to work towards having a set of policies with which we can look at conflict prevention for the future. However, many hundreds of lives have been blighted and tens of thousands of lives have been ended by this dreadful event, and we know that this is still an ongoing situation. The best legacy that we can give to the Rohingya is not just to get a better life for them and ensure that they have citizenship and a stake in longer-term Burmese society, but to ensure that the sacrifices and hardship that they have gone through can be used as an example to make sure that the rest of the world makes those changes. Ultimately, that is a partly academic, practical exercise, and we need to work within the international community to bring that to pass.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I visited the Kutupalong Rohingya refugee camp in October last year, and I believe that I am right in saying that it is one of the largest and most congested refugee camps in the whole world. It is equivalent to a city the size of Bristol, yet it has no hospital, inadequate schooling facilities and very few roads. It seems that the biggest risk to the Rohingya is an outbreak of disease in this massive refugee camp, and that the No. 1 humanitarian priority is that the camp is broken up, with extra space found, so that if the worst comes to the worst, an outbreak could be contained.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge about this matter and I very much agree with him. Clearly the international community will have to work with the Bangladeshi Government on that issue, but we are focused on it. We have a good track record on disease prevention. We can be very proud of the work that we did to nip the diphtheria outbreak in the bud, but I am by no means complacent that similar diseases such as cholera, as well as diphtheria, will not be prominent in the months to come.

British Nationals Imprisoned Abroad

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mark Field]

No.

I take this opportunity to thank the families and friends of British nationals detained overseas for working with us to support their loved ones through the most distressing situations. I also thank our consular officers, who at times work under great stress, for the support they provide British nationals during their most difficult times. The support by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for British nationals in difficulty abroad is and will continue to be an absolute priority.

Question put and agreed to.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Would those who are not staying for the next debate, which is an important debate about the contribution to society of social workers, please be kind enough to leave the Chamber quickly, quietly and without conversation?

International Development Committee: Burma Visas

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

Please be assured that that work continues internationally. As I have pointed out, it is difficult to do this in the usual context, which is a UN Security Council resolution, because it would be vetoed. We had the President’s statement in November, to which I referred. Understandably and rightly, much of the world’s focus must be on the humanitarian catastrophe that is happening and that could get worse on the Bangladeshi side of the border. Equally, there is now an increasing focus—I have had many meetings in recent weeks and months here in London and beyond—on the diplomatic and political solution, not least addressing the very issues that my hon. Friend raises.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I visited the Kutupalong Rohingya refugee camp at the end of last year with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and two nurses from Kettering General Hospital recently returned from the Rohingya camps, where they were successfully combating the spread of disease. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the problem on the Bangladeshi side of the border? Bangladesh has been incredibly generous in hosting the Rohingya refugees and going out of its way to assist them, but the Bangladeshis are overwhelmed with visa applications from international aid workers and the like, and they are having difficulty processing those visas in a timely way, which is holding up some of the delivery of aid. Is there anything we can do to assist the Bangladeshis in overcoming that problem?

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is something we have identified. We are working with DFID to try to speed it up, and our embassy in Dhaka has made and will continue to make representations, to ensure that as far as possible, NGOs and others, particularly in relation to medical help, are properly and quickly able to get people on the ground in Bangladesh.

Taliban and IS/Daesh Attacks: Afghanistan

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that essentially, there has only to be a political and diplomatic solution. The military cannot be enough and we recognise that in our relations with Afghanistan. In fairness, he slightly misquoted Lord Reid in talking about the idea of not firing a shot. That was felt to be an ideal, but we all recognised that by going into Afghanistan we would be in a dangerous place. Anyone who is as keen a student of history as the hon. Gentleman is will recognise that Afghanistan has been a difficult place for—I was going to say for a couple of hundred years, but I suspect that it is rather longer than that.

The United Kingdom has an enduring commitment to Afghanistan. We will continue to support the defence forces there to help to prevent it from becoming a safe haven for terror and to keep space open for a politically negotiated solution to the conflict. In truth, whether we like it or not, a safer Afghanistan is the only guarantee of a safer United Kingdom. A peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan is crucial for wider regional stability and the dismantling of global terrorist networks.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

There have been attacks on foreigners in hotels, attacks on aid workers and bombs in ambulances. None of that is new, but perhaps the recent attacks in Kabul have taken this to a new level. To what extent should we be concerned that Afghanistan is an incubator for new terrorist techniques that then disseminate around the world’s trouble spots?

[Mark Field]

To be honest, I think it would be somewhat premature to suggest that Afghanistan is somehow an incubator for new terrorist events. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, humanitarian workers have been targeted, not just in Afghanistan, but in many other parts of the world. We keep an eye open and have as much intelligence on the ground as we can to determine whether there are new terror techniques. Although we all very much hope that my hon. Friend’s somewhat apocalyptic claims about new terror are incorrect, we will keep an eagle eye on progress on the ground. When I speak to my counterparts in Afghanistan, I am always struck by the fact that a lot of very good people who have other options, who have spent much of their lives living elsewhere, have returned to Afghanistan because they have a strong commitment to that country. That gives the best possible push not only for peace, but for prosperity and stability in that country.

Rohingya Crisis

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your distinguished chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and a huge pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) on her excellent speech. I had the privilege of going on the same CPA visit to see the Rohingyas as the hon. Lady, and it seemed to me that two responses were required from Her Majesty’s Government, who are so ably represented here by my right hon. Friend the Minister.

The first is the diplomatic response to the grossest example of ethnic cleansing that one could come up with. It is ethnic cleansing, pure and simple, and must be 100% condemned through all diplomatic channels available to us. I appreciate the sensitivities of the nascent democracy in Burma, but we must make it clear that the generals are responsible for this ethnic cleansing and that the international community will not put up with it. When it comes to the potential return of Rohingya refugees, returning stateless people to remain stateless in their country of origin is not good enough. These people require their nationhood to be given to them.

The second response required from Her Majesty’s Government is humanitarian assistance. Britain has a good record of providing financial assistance directly to the camps, but more will obviously be required. We must stimulate further contributions from other countries, particularly Muslim countries, because we are dealing with a Muslim population and there are lots of rich Muslim countries in the world that, frankly, should be stepping up to the plate rather more.

On the CPA visit to the refugee camp, we had the privilege of meeting some truly inspirational aid workers from the UNHCR and the International Rescue Committee. It was a privilege to meet them and see the fantastic work that they do.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

Reflecting on what my hon. Friend just said, it would be very dangerous for this to be seen as only a Muslim issue. It is a global humanitarian catastrophe, and while I accept what he says—that we want to see all nations contributing—to try to frame it in an ethnic way would be the wrong way forward.

[Mr Hollobone]

The point I am making is absolutely right: yes, it is an international emergency, but the Rohingya are being expelled because they are Muslim. We must not ignore that fact. We also have to accept that there are very rich Muslim nations in the world that can step up to the plate. I do not think that the Minister and I disagree; help is great, wherever it comes from.

The international aid workers we met, many of whom have been international aid workers for a long time, told us that the Kutupalong camp, which we visited and which had more than 400,000 people in it, is the most congested refugee camp they have ever experienced. That is a huge problem because, as was certainly made clear to us, the outbreak of disease is a really big concern. When we asked what the solution is, they said they will simply have to create more, smaller camps in that part of Bangladesh, which will minimise the risk of a disease outbreak. If we can encourage the Bangladeshi Government to do that—they have been very generous—that would be good.

The aid workers made the point that we need to think about the medium term. There has been a rush of refugees into Bangladesh, but those people will not go back in a hurry and they will not go back in numbers, so we need to think five or 10 years ahead. The aid workers also told us that in absolutely no way should those people be returned to any unsafe situation, and that there must be an informed, safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable return, or no return at all.

The Bangladeshis need to speed up the entry clearance process for refugee aid workers. Some of the pre-registration processes for refugee organisations are, frankly, taking too long; they can take six to 12 months. I am sure the Minister is on the case and will listen carefully to the debate.

Violence in Rakhine State

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Lady for her words. Prior to taking on this role, I was vice-chairman for international affairs in the Conservative party and worked with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and although I did not specifically do work myself in Burma, I am well aware that a lot of work goes on in a cross-party, integrated programme. Yes, I accept that the citizenship issue is live. As the hon. Lady will be well aware, the sectarian divisions are very pronounced in that part of the world. As many will know, there was a suggestion that when Burma was formed in the aftermath of the second world war or when Bangladesh was formed in 1971, the Rohingya, as ethnic Bengalis, should have been in that part of the world. I fear that all those are very live issues in Burmese politics. They are very complicated issues for us to entirely make a judgment on, but that is not to say that there will not be an open debate on them from our diplomats on the ground.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that it must be difficult to get reliable and accurate information on the ground, in which case his offer of a ministerial visit should come sooner rather than later. When he goes, will he make sure that he visits both sides of the border, with a particular emphasis on following the DFID aid stream to satisfy himself that our aid is getting to where it is needed?

[Mark Field]

Yes, I am obviously keen to see on the ground what is happening throughout Burma and also Bangladesh, which is a country I know well. I should perhaps point out that the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), is the Minister with DFID responsibilities in this regard. He visited only a matter of a few weeks ago and saw what was happening before the latest outbreak of inter-communal ethnic violence. He has been confident that there has been a positive flow of DFID money for a whole range of different projects, both in Bangladesh and in Burma. A lot of the DFID money that is spent, and will continue to be spent, in that regard is on much broader infrastructure and other projects that are going to make life better for all Burmese. That is not for one minute to say that we should not be focusing attention now on some humanitarian aid, but there is a huge amount of aid that this country can rightly be proud of in that part of the world that is making life better, and will do so for all citizens, for the decades to come.

EU Membership (UK Renegotiation)

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered renegotiation of UK membership of the EU.

May I say at the outset, Mr Percy, how delighted I am to see you in the Chair and what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? I can think of no one more suited to the role. What an excellent way to start the parliamentary year.

I thank Mr Speaker for granting me permission to have this debate and I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to delivering an in/out referendum as part of the Conservative party manifesto. Let us not forget that if the Conservatives had not won last year’s general election, the Labour party, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats would have denied us the referendum that the British people want to hold. There is a lot of speaking talent in the Chamber this morning, so I shall keep my remarks shorter than I would otherwise, because most hon. Members here know far more about this subject and are far more eloquent than I.

To keep things simple, the referendum question that we will face, either this year or next, is whether to remain in or leave the European Union. Repeated polls show basically the same pattern. About a third of people want to remain and about a third of us want to leave, whatever happens. In between, about a quarter to a third are uncomfortable with Britain’s present relationship with the European Union or are worried about the future, but they are also concerned that if we leave the EU, there might be bad consequences for their jobs or living standards. The lazy assumption of the establishment, the BBC and the CBI is that the UK will vote to remain.

I am privileged to represent the constituency of Kettering, which has the privilege of being the most average town in the whole country. I like to describe Kettering as middle England at its best. The people in Kettering will want clear explanations from both sides as to which way they will vote. It is true, I am sure we all agree, that people are wary of change, but a key point to get across is that whether we stay in the European Union or leave it, change will happen. My contention is that if we stay in, those changes will be bad for the United Kingdom, but if we leave, those changes can be made good. My central assumption this morning is that remaining in the European Union is the riskier option. Leaving and taking back control for ourselves is by far the safer choice, which is what we need to explain to the good people of Kettering and the great British public over the year—or years—ahead.

The first of the five main points I want to make is, I am afraid, that the Prime Minister’s renegotiation strategy has been unfortunately weak. It has been undermined from the start by the fact that he is in favour of staying in the European Union, whatever the outcome of those renegotiations. The reforms that we are likely to get, if any, will be too little and too late. For a start, it looks pretty certain that they will not involve any kind of change to the European treaties at all, so any proposed reforms will have the legal effect of simply being an unsigned contract. The Prime Minister promised us that we would have full-on treaty change, but that has effectively now been abandoned.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is more attuned to European matters than virtually anyone else in this House, so he will be well aware that any treaty change will require a series of domestic referendums. It will clearly not be possible to get that worked out by the end of December 2017, when we are committed to having a referendum. It has always been clear from the timetable that we have in place that having fully fledged treaty change in advance of our referendum was an impossibility. Does he accept that?

[Mr Hollobone]

If my right hon. Friend is correct, it strengthens the case for voting to leave. Why would we want to stay in the European Union knowing that treaty change is yet to happen, trusting in the judgment of European politicians to deliver what they say they will deliver? The safer choice is to vote to leave, and then we would have the upper hand in negotiating our successful exit from the European Union.

If there are changes to the treaty, it is likely to be another five to 10 years before they happen, and if they proceed along the lines of the infamous Five Presidents report, they bode ill for this nation. It would appear that we are not going to get an end to the supremacy of EU law over UK law. We will not get the United Kingdom out of the charter of fundamental rights, which gives EU judges huge powers over us. We will not get a restoration of the UK’s right to make free trade deals under the World Trade Organisation. We are not going to get any reforms to the common agricultural policy or the common fisheries policy—I hope the SNP spokesmen are aware of that. We might get some changes to the benefit entitlement rules, but most EU migration to this country is driven not by a search for benefits, but by the fact that the UK has the most successful economy in Europe and people are coming here to seek work.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: one reason why we have so dismally failed to meet our migration targets has been the relative success of our economy. However, does he not also accept that it would be wrong simply to blame our membership of the EU for the fact that migration is at the highest levels ever? We have a huge amount of non-EU migration that comes in and, in many ways, we are all party to that; we all have constituents, particularly from the former Commonwealth countries, whom we represent when they want relatives to come to this country. It is that level which is unacceptably high and which has helped to ensure that our pledge to reduce the amount to tens of thousands has been fatally missed right the way through the last Parliament, and will be, I think, for many years to come.

[Mr Hollobone]

Yes, I think the two main factors behind the massive wave of immigration are, first, our membership of the European Union and the principle of free movement within it, and secondly, the Human Rights Act 1998, both of which mean that we are effectively unable to control our borders. If we want to control our borders, however, leaving the EU is an absolute prerequisite. We now have the farcical situation in which an unskilled Romanian immigrant can come to this country without our being able to do anything about it at all, and they get a job perhaps as a cleaner, but a skilled migrant from India who has a degree in astrophysics will find it very difficult to come to this country. We are going to get a sensible immigration policy back only if we leave the EU and get rid of the Human Rights Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is right. I think that many countries around the world that have been unable to negotiate a free trade arrangement with the EU would be all too keen to negotiate one with the world’s fifth largest economy. We would have an appetite for doing exactly that were we to leave.

[Mark Field]

It strikes me that the one group that would be pleased if we left on that basis would be the new breed of civil servants that would be required in vast numbers to negotiate all those free trade deals across the globe. My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that one of the bigger concerns is not the economic issues in the European Union but political ones. Would he not at least recognise the risk—if we left the EU, given how calamitous that would be for the European Union as well as, in my view, not being good news for the United Kingdom—of retaliation, particularly in areas such as the City of London, an area that we both know well because we both worked there before coming here? For example, euro-denominated business would be largely out of Frankfurt and Paris instead of London. Retaliation would be a significant risk and the smooth path he has presented would not come into place.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has been, as part of his constituency duties, spending too much time at too many big lunches in the City of London with the wrong crowd. I will give an example of what I am talking about. ICAP is the world’s largest dealer broker for financial institutions. The chairman of ICAP, Michael Spencer, has said that the UK can “thrive” outside the European Union. We were told by my right hon. Friend’s friends in the City of London that if we did not join the euro, all that euro-denominated business would go to Frankfurt, Paris and elsewhere. Actually, the City of London is today doing more euro-denominated deals than ever before in its history, so I do not take much notice of those scare stories, but I do suggest to my right hon. Friend that if his contacts want to continue to put out that sort of propaganda for our staying in the European Union, it demonstrates the weakness of their case. I do not want my constituents in Kettering, in middle England, to be unnecessarily scared by baseless scare stories from financial institutions that should know better.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.

[Mark Field]

I will not respond to that, but in the good-natured way in which we are having this discussion, I should perhaps point out that I have had many lunches in the City of London in the 14 or 15 years for which I have been the local MP, but my lunching activities go back a lot further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) will know, because 30 years ago we began our political lives together as junior common room presidents in respective colleges and then as officers of the Oxford University Conservative Association. I have had lunch with him relentlessly over the last 30 years in the City and I do regard my hon. Friend as very much the right crowd, who I should be hanging around with, among many others whom I lunch with.

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

The fact is that the EU is going in the wrong direction. As we know, it is planning a new treaty to save the eurozone from itself and to give the EU more control. In many respects, that is the right response for the eurozone countries to make, but it would be bad for the United Kingdom. In truth, the EU cannot cope. In some parts of the EU, unemployment is already 25% and youth unemployment more than 50%—the worst situation since the 1930s. Debts are large and growing. Unfunded pension systems require large tax increases, immigration increases or both. Voting to remain would mean signing up to the new EU treaty currently being negotiated, which has been spelt out in the Five Presidents report. That will give the EU even more power over our economy and take our seat on key bodies such as the IMF. No new treaty has ever given powers back or saved us money.

My constituents in Kettering and people across the country will be increasingly alarmed to read the contents of the Five Presidents report, set out in July last year. Who are these pompous five Presidents? The first is Jean-Claude Juncker, the European Commission President. The second is Donald Tusk, the President of the Euro Summit. The third is Jeroen Dijsselbloem, President of the Eurogroup, whatever that is. The others are Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, and Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament. They do like to call themselves Presidents whenever they get the chance. Among their plans are a euro area Treasury and increasing control over Europe’s fiscal systems.

Reserve Forces

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the reserve forces.

May I say what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger? May I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate? I have called it because the defence of the realm is the most important duty of Her Majesty’s Government, and the reserve forces are an ever more important part of that. The recruitment and retention of reserves is an important issue for the House, and this is a good opportunity to hold the Minister to account for the way in which the Ministry of Defence is tackling it. Progress has been made, but I am sure the Minister will admit that more can and must be made. What better way to hold any Minister of the Crown to account than on the Floor of the House?

My understanding is that Her Majesty’s Government intend the armed forces to comprise the following numbers of servicemen and women by 2020: 29,000 in the Royal Navy, 31,500 in the RAF and 82,000 in the Army. They are to be supported by 30,000 Army reservists and 5,000 Royal Navy and RAF reservists. As of 1 October, the trained strength of the tri-service volunteer reserve stood at 25,970—an 11% increase on the year before. However, the target of Her Majesty’s Government is for the tri-service reserve to total 35,060 by 1 April 2019. Maths was never my strong point, but I reckon we have 9,000 reservists to go to get to that target—a 35% increase on where we are now. Broken down by force, the target would be 30,100 reservists in the Army, 3,100 in the Royal Navy and 1,860 in the RAF. That would seem to be a tough challenge for Her Majesty’s Government to meet, and I look forward to the Minister giving us the confidence that they are on track to do so.

The reserves are an important part of our defence. I know a little about the subject because in a previous life I served, in a humble capacity, as a member of the Territorial Army for eight and a half years. During the cold war, Trooper Hollobone was prepared to stand in a trench to hold back the Russian hordes advancing over the north German plain. I am pleased that that never came to pass, because I am not sure that I and my few pals would have been able to do very much in the face of the Russian onslaught, although we would have done our best.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I should point out that my long-standing friendship with Trooper Hollobone goes back to my university days. However, my only military experience with him on the front line consisted of the very nice lunches we had at the Honourable Artillery Company—which, I should point out, he paid for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

I welcome that helpful contribution. The hon. Lady is known throughout the House for her experience in military affairs. She is in charge of the all-party group on reserve forces and cadets, and she is a distinguished serving member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. In other words, she is a lady who knows what she is talking about, and she gives the Chamber very wise counsel. There are many very good things about Her Majesty’s armed forces, but one of the bad things is that they can be too rigid in applying themselves to future challenges. The threat of cyber-warfare is a big unknown, and we have to be flexible and adaptable, and to think outside the box in meeting that challenge. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we need to get people on board who understand cyber and IT. If we have to change our recruitment and retention processes to make sure that such people are contributing to Britain’s defence, we should do that, and we should do it quickly. The announcement of the extra expenditure suggests that the door of Her Majesty’s Government is open to such thinking. I very much hope the Minister will pass the hon. Lady’s wise words on to the Treasury, No. 10 and all the others who make these big, important decisions.

[Mark Field]

I would like to echo the words of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon).It is very positive that the Government have recognised the great danger of cyber-attacks not only in the military sphere, but in the commercial sphere. Given that the Bank of England has been so robust about the importance of resilience and the potential gaps in that respect in the commercial sphere, does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers should look again at having a reinsurance package in the cyber area, rather like what Pool Re provides in the terrorism area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

Having completed that course myself, I know that it is a very challenging experience. The deaths of the applicants were tragic. The publicity around the horrendous circumstances of that incident will, funnily enough, encourage others to come forward, in a perverse way, because they will have seen how difficult it is to get into the special forces. My understanding is that the exercise in question was not actually run by the special forces, and I would imagine there is quite a lot of concern among the special forces that the tragedy has been branded as their responsibility. My clear understanding is that it was not run by the special forces. Part of the challenge and the attractiveness of the special forces to potential recruits is the very difficult nature of the task presented to them, and we must not dilute that in any way.

One thing I am sure we can all agree on is that pro rata, we have the best armed forces in the world and the best special forces in the world. We have centuries of experience in developing our military capability; we know what makes people tick and we know how hard we can push people. Sometimes, tragically, it goes wrong, but those are a minority of occasions. The bulk of the training that both regular forces and special forces receive is some of the very best in the world, and we should be very proud of that.

Like the hon. Lady, I welcome the announcement of extra spending on special forces, as well as extra spending on cyber-warfare. In providing the capability for both, the reserve has a golden opportunity to contribute. We will not tackle these issues just through regular personnel; we have to attract reservists with specialist skills.

[Mark Field]

On a budgetary point, while the commitment to additional spending within what we might call the defence budget is obviously welcome, does my hon. Friend share my view that we need to be a little cannier about the way in which we utilise the soft power that comes with the 0.7% in the Department for International Development budget for a range of areas, such as community cohesion in foreign lands? We can utilise elements of that budget for precisely this sort of element of the reservist side. Even if we cannot commit ourselves, as many of us would like to, to a 2% or even higher percentage of GDP for defence, at least elements of what would traditionally be the defence budget can come through the important soft power of DFID.

[Mr Hollobone]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I am all for maximising the military component—that is a clumsy phrase—of our defence spending. Using our soft power budget legitimately to enhance our hard power capability is fine. I am all for, for example, sending armed forces personnel on aid programmes in other countries to become familiar with the language, culture and how those countries work, because that will help our hard power defence effort.

I am pleased that the Government are committed to spending 2% of our GDP on defence. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government will not enshrine that in law, because if we have enshrined the defence spending into law, enshrining the 2% commitment in law should be no issue. I am confident that a majority of this House would support doing just that, if the Minister were so minded.

As I understand it—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—there is an issue regarding medical reservists, who will make up about 50% of Defence Medical Services by 2020, with some specialties such as neurology and urology being provided entirely by the reserve forces. There is, understandably, concern about the approach some NHS trusts are taking on medical reservists—the NHS is hard pressed, and we need all the doctors we can get—but there are benefits for crossover expertise between doctors working in the NHS and doctors working with our reservists. Some years ago, I had the privilege of visiting our front-line A&E facility in Afghanistan, which I think is the most advanced A&E facility in the world. It is manned by NHS doctors, who can bring their expertise back to the UK. There are lots of crossover benefits, but there is considerable range of practice within the NHS regarding the ease with which reserve doctors are allowed to leave their NHS posts to fulfil their reserve training commitments.

Munich Olympics Massacre

Debate between Mark Field and Philip Hollobone

Wednesday 5th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate and his excellent speech in commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Olympics massacre in Munich.

When we talk about middle east affairs, it is important that we always place them in the context of the time. Of course, 1972 was a very different age from our own. International terrorism, with which sadly we all have become far too familiar, was relatively new, and Black September itself was a relatively new terrorist organisation. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will know better than most of us that terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland really started to get going in 1969-70. I believe that 1972 was the most blood-drenched year in Northern Ireland’s history, with hundreds of soldiers murdered and many civilians killed. At that time, many countries in the world were confronting terrorism for the first time.

Another new thing in the early 1970s was live television, as was the start of colour broadcasts. I think that I am right that, even at the 1968 Mexico City games, live television as we know it today did not really happen, as a lot of events were recorded and broadcast later, but in Munich in 1972, there were live outside broadcasts to countries all around the world. What made the terrorist incident in the Olympic village in Munich all the worse was that the murders of 11 people and a German police officer were broadcast live as they happened on television screens in people’s front rooms. Millions of people around the world saw for themselves the awful events unfold and, of course, that made for very uncomfortable viewing.

Of course, 1972 was no more than 27 years after 6 million Jews were led to their deaths in German extermination camps. The Munich Olympics were meant to be Germany’s rehabilitation—if you like—in the international world order. They were to be a games of peace, joy and happiness that could bring the nations of the world together in the Olympic spirit, and that could show West Germany, as it was then, as a modern nation, free of its past. The presence of the Israeli team at the Olympic games was a very important part of that. Indeed, the Israeli athlete who carried the Israeli flag at the Olympic opening ceremony, Henry Hershkowitz, who was a marksman, said:

“I felt awesome pride that Jews could raise their flag on German soil. This is proof that the Nazis weren’t able to crush the Jewish spirit, the Israeli spirit.”

The presence of such a large Israeli team in Munich was a very important part of the 1972 games, and it was therefore even more terrible that it was the Israeli team that was targeted by Palestinian terrorists.

Additionally, 1972 was the best part of a decade before other well-known terrorist incidents, such as the Iranian embassy hostage siege in London. Many of us recall that event, and the success of the SAS in liberating most of the hostages and killing the attackers sent a clear signal to the world that Britain would not be held hostage by terrorist organisations. However, the success in dealing with the Iranian embassy hostage siege was in complete contrast to the mess made by the German authorities in dealing with the Palestinian attack on the Israeli Olympians, because the Germans just did not know what they were doing.

In the early 1970s, nations around the world did not know how to deal with terrorist incidents. All the security apparatus with which we are now all too familiar—trained marksmen, and soldiers wearing gasmasks and abseiling into buildings—did not exist in 1972. Indeed, there were no armed police at all in the Olympic village or the Olympic park, because the German authorities deliberately wanted to downplay their militaristic part. The Israeli compound was on the ground floor with no security barriers, so the terrorists simply opened the door and walked in.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the cruellest ironies of what happened in Munich in 1972 was that, under the post-war settlement, the German military authorities were not able to undertake on German soil the sort of work that they could carry out only four years later when giving their assistance at Entebbe and in other terrorist actions? As he rightly points out, a particular tragedy in 1972 was that the German authorities on the ground were unable to organise the sort of rescue that we have perhaps all come to take for granted in other terrorist incidents in the decades since.

[Mr Hollobone]

As always on such matters, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again, with reference to the Iranian embassy hostage siege in London, we remember pictures of black-clad SAS men on the roof abseiling down into the windows and taking out the terrorists. As people will recall from Munich, live television was showing German police officers—armed at that point, and dressed in tracksuits—on the roof and creeping down towards the Israeli quarters. The amateurishness of it all was exposed by the fact that nobody thought that there was a television in the Israeli quarters where the hostages were being held, but the terrorists could see on the TV screen the police officers on the roof above them. Basic security measures were not thought of.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East is quite right to say that the different organisational structures between the federal Government and the Bavarian authorities meant that there was no proper co-ordination. There were absurd scenes in which Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the federal Interior Minister—the equivalent of the Home Secretary in this country—stood outside the Israeli quarters negotiating face to face with the leader of the terrorists, who was holding a hand grenade. We just cannot imagine that such a situation would arise today. That was how basic it all was then; no one knew how to deal with such terrorist incidents.

Although I am putting on the record my analysis of the amateurishness and incompetence of the German authorities in handling the situation, much bravery was clearly displayed by many people who tried to address the problem, and not least Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who offered himself as a hostage in replacement for the then nine hostages who were still alive. He actually went into the room at one point to check on the hostages’ welfare, but he failed to count the number of terrorists. Until the failed rescue at the military airfield later that night, the German authorities thought that they were dealing with five terrorists, not eight. They had five marksmen lined up at the military airfield to take out five terrorists, so they did not have enough to take out eight. Nowadays, there would be a lot more marksmen.

The marksmen who were put in place were not properly trained and did not have the proper rifles. There was no proper co-ordination. At the military airfield, the German police officers in the airliner that was going to take away the hostages and the terrorists voted, just 15 minutes before the operation was due to take place, to abort the mission and simply disappeared. The whole thing was tragically incompetent. Authorities around the world are now, thankfully, far better trained in knowing how to deal with such terrorist incidents.

Black September started as an Arab terrorist organisation by making attacks on Arab targets. Until 1972, Black September’s main dispute was not with Israel, but with the Jordanians. Black September actually assassinated the Jordanian Prime Minister and caused all sorts of terrorist outrages in the Arab world. The origins of that horrific movement were actually in Arab-on-Arab violence, and only in 1972, when it was forced out of Jordan into Syria, and then into Beirut, did Black September take on the Israelis. One of the tragedies of the middle east in relation to the Palestinian cause, which we in the United Kingdom recognise as having merit—the UK Government’s position is that there should be a Palestinian state and a homeland for the Palestinians—is that Black September and the start of Palestinian terrorism has, to my mind, blackened the Palestinian cause. Furthering its dispute through terrorism was one of the many wrong decisions taken by the Palestinian movement.

I simply do not accept the reason given by the terrorists for the Munich massacre, which was to raise the profile of the Palestinian dispute among the audience of the world, as 1972 was only five years after the 1967 war, and it was less than a year before the 1973 Yom Kippur conflict. The world knew about the problems in the middle east and about the Palestinian struggle. It was simply illegitimate for the Palestinians to say that the only way to attract world attention was by committing such atrocities. It was one of the many wrong decisions taken by the Palestinians in the furtherance of their aims.