Ukraine

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

In an unstable world we need to keep up our defences. That is absolutely right and it is why the country is investing in very sophisticated military projects for the future. As things stand, we maintain the spending of 2% of our GDP on defence, and I think that many NATO countries have reduced their defence spending too far. We are one of the few NATO countries that maintains spending of 2% of our GDP, and there are countries across NATO that need to re-evaluate that and increase their defence spending in the coming years.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

On 9 July 1997 the charter on a distinctive partnership between Ukraine and NATO was signed, and on 21 August 2009, the declaration to complement that charter was signed. If possible NATO involvement is totally ruled out, are those signatures worth the paper they are written on?

[Mr Hague]

The NATO-Ukraine Commission has met on the back of those agreements, and there will be further NATO meetings. We in the House are clear, as was said a few minutes ago, that we are not planning another Crimean war from this country’s point of view. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman advocates that NATO should do in addition to the diplomatic moves we have made through NATO. The agreements with Ukraine are important, but they do not include coming to the armed defence of Ukraine.

Syria

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That is a very important factor. I have often discussed it with Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Prime Minister has discussed it with President Putin, and the American leaders continue to do the same. After all, it is in the interests of Russia, as with all of us, to make sure that extremism does not take hold, in Syria and in the wider region. That means that we all have to work together on bringing about a political solution. So we hope that, just as we have done that on chemical weapons, we will be able to do it during and around the Geneva II process to make a political process viable. We will spare no effort to work with Russia in bringing that about.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I had a meeting earlier today with the chief of staff of the Syrian National Coalition, who claimed he had evidence that the Iranian and the Assad regimes are providing covert support for ISIS—the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant—and Islamists operating in Syria. He said that the target of ISIS is not the Assad regime but the Free Syrian Army. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that all attacks are taking place on the Free Syrian Army with the support of Assad? If he is and believes it to be true, does it not put a totally different complexion on the war in Syria in that the Free Syrian Army is on its own? We should look at more ways to support it and not just provide humanitarian assistance.

[Mr Hague]

I am aware of that suggestion. Whatever the truth of it, it is the case that the Assad regime has fed the growth of extremism. I cannot corroborate statements of it giving direct support to such groups, but if there were such evidence I would be interested to see it. None the less, it is its position, its politics and its brutality to the people of Syrian that have fed the growth of extremism. Assad is not the alternative to the extremists; he is producing them. Although I cannot confirm exactly what he says, I think it supports the same analysis, which means that we must do what we can to keep a moderate opposition in business, with all the constraints that we have discussed in our questions today.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Gapes]

I understand my hon. Friend’s sympathy for those Conservative Members of Parliament who might find themselves having to campaign alongside UKIP, but we know that many Conservative MPs are already trying to reach local arrangements with UKIP so that they will be unopposed at the next general election. My proposal would be a fulfilment, in practice and openly, of what is already happening under the radar.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend’s amendment would not only mean some or most Conservative Members of Parliament campaigning with UKIP; it would also raise the difficulty of some—albeit a few—Conservative Members of Parliament having to campaign with us to remain within the European Union. There would also be the problem that if changes were made to the treaty a couple of years later, then whichever Government were in power would be forced to hold another referendum in the UK, two or three years after already holding one, because of our commitment under the European Union Act 2011.

[Mike Gapes]

I accept that; it is another valid argument.

The second amendment I want to comment on is amendment 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor. His position is that the referendum should be held in October 2014, five weeks after the referendum on Scottish separatism. I believe that there are problems with that date, because of the proximity to the other date, but I also believe that he is making the same point that I am making about the futility of having a hypothetical renegotiation. The Government have ruled out renegotiating now—the Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that there was no intention of starting any renegotiation in advance of a general election. This is therefore a status quo “as we are” alternative to a complete withdrawal. It is similar to the argument I have just made about holding the referendum a few months later, on the same day as the general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

That could happen if the Government were prepared to start putting those arguments. However, as things stand, because the tail is wagging the dog and because the Government are running scared of a party that is polling only 10% or 12%, they are prepared to put this country’s interests at risk and not make the case for European co-operation and the European Union in a positive, regular and consistent manner. Unfortunately, I do not think the issue will be resolved until there is a change of Administration and we have a Government with a commitment to take these issues seriously and put them forward in a positive manner.

[Mark Hendrick]

I totally agree, although I would have said that the cart was being put before the horse rather than that the tail was wagging the dog. Clearly, the Government are talking about a referendum before deciding what particular competences they want to repatriate.

My hon. Friend has tabled amendments restricting possible later dates for a referendum. I can understand dates earlier than 2017 being up for discussion, but later dates would totally bring into question the likelihood of a new treaty—2019 is six years from now. Given the pressures in the eurozone, a new treaty would be much more likely to happen sooner; it would be fanciful to think that the other 27 members of the European Union could wait until 2019.

[Mike Gapes]

As I said, I did not table these amendments to push all of them to a vote. However, I would be interested in the Government’s response to my hon. Friend’s points and my previous remarks.

I want to make progress. I have been generous in taking interventions, but I need to allow time for others to speak. I have added my name to amendment 77, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain). It is an important amendment because, as the Minister well knows, there is a difficulty. Under the rotating six-month timetable, the United Kingdom is due to hold the presidency of the Council of Ministers between 1 July and 31 December 2017.

There will be a period in which the Government—I am sorry; I mean the Conservative part of the Government. I must get that right, but it is very difficult. The Minister, speaking on behalf of the Conservative party from the Front Bench, has said that the preferred date for the referendum is before the end of 2017. Frankly, that could cause all kinds of difficulties and confusions for the United Kingdom presidency. If we had to have a referendum in 2017, it would be logical and sensible to hold it before 1 July. Then, at least, there would be clarity as we went into the British presidency.

If we voted to stay in, the Government would no doubt say, “The British people have supported the European Union. Now we are great Europhiles and go forward in co-operation and friendship, harmony, peace, love and apple pie. Everything is fine.” If, however, there was the question of a referendum in August, September, October or November, we would be in the heat of a referendum campaign in the middle of the British presidency. How could Ministers behave in a governmental role, attending Council of Ministers meetings, chairing meetings and taking part in negotiations and discussions, without taking off the party political hats that they were wearing in their fight in that campaign?

We do not know the terms of the referendum: what, if anything, will have been renegotiated. It is possible that some Ministers will be arguing to leave the European Union, while others—in the same Department or even the same party—will be arguing to stay. What an absurd prospect for a British presidency of the European Union. The best solution is to support amendment 77, on which I hope we can divide the House, through which we can make it clear that the referendum should not be held during the six-month period of the British presidency. It would be absurd to hold it then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Wilson]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should make a speech on these issues. Let us not forget that I am pleased about the investment Nissan brought to this country in the 1980s. I also remember that for every job it created five other jobs were lost. Also, let us not forget that a Conservative Government brought in the Single European Act in the first place.

[Mark Hendrick]

Is not the reason for the silence from the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) blatantly clear? The question of a referendum is uppermost in the minds of Conservative Members but none of them can decide which measures they want to see withdrawn from the European Union—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. By your reckoning, has my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) been silent this morning?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

The hon. Member for Stockton South was provoked into speaking in his own debate. That tells a tale.

[Phil Wilson]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

The next time the hon. Member for Stockton South wants to turn up to a Hitachi event in my constituency to try to get his photograph in the paper, he should not be surprised if my constituents ask him, “What are you doing here? Aren’t you the man whose private Member’s Bill is threatening our jobs?” They know that the investment from Hitachi was the result of a Labour initiative, not a Conservative initiative. The inter-city express programme was nearly stopped by this Government but was put back on track by a north-east-led campaign, which did not include the hon. Gentleman. We know the importance of foreign direct investment.

It is not only major companies that need to be consulted, as tens of thousands of other jobs are reliant on the EU, whether they are with exporters or suppliers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

One hopes that the Prime Minister might listen to the warnings of the former Deputy Prime Minister, and that he will listen to other business leaders who have warned about the uncertainty of a referendum.

But I come back to this search to understand what powers and competences the Prime Minister might want to bring back to the UK. The Minister for Europe will not give us an answer, so I read the Hansard reports of the Committee stage at great length, but there is no sign there either of what powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to bring back. In desperation, I faced up to the challenge of reading the speeches of the Minister for Europe. During all that time that I will never get back I fought the urge to sleep, and I am sure that, being the excellent boss he is, the shadow Foreign Secretary will now want to make sure that I get more than just a Christmas card in the post at the end of the year.

Having waded through the Minister’s speeches, I reached two conclusions: first, his civil servants are just finding him things to do. The speeches were not that different, although they were made in lots of different places. Secondly, and much more serious, I do not think he has a clue what powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to bring back to the UK.

[Mark Hendrick]

Is it not the case that the Prime Minister is either unwilling or unable to say which competences he would like to repatriate because there is a question about his own competence, full stop?

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes his point. The Minister for Europe should be intervening to tell us what powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to get back, but he has shown no signs of wanting to give that clarity to the debate in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

I absolutely agree. I do not want to comment on Welsh rugby, on which I am not an expert. [Interruption.] I will certainly not talk about English cricket either, or even the fortunes of my football team, West Ham United, although I hope we do better against Chelsea on Saturday.

We are in an important part of the debate, because we must get the question absolutely right.

[Mark Hendrick]

My hon. Friend is perfectly correct that we must get the question absolutely right. One thing that over the years has struck me, and I am sure many other hon. Members, is that when I knock on people’s doors, I find that they are confused about whether we are in Europe, the European Union or the euro. Several years ago, there was a big debate about whether we would join the single currency. Any doubt people might have about our being in the European Union would be put right if the question was whether we should “remain” in the European Union, rather than “be a member” of it. Many people need to be reminded of the fact that we are already a member of the European Union, and that retaining that status is not the end of the world.

[Mike Gapes]

I agree. Some people get very confused about judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, believing that that is something to do with the European Union, rather than the Council of Europe. Indeed, even some Members of the House have made that error, even recently.

We have to recognise that the question is fundamental. If there is a dispute about the question and there is a narrow result in the referendum, the issue will not be resolved, as the Government intend, and there will be no cathartic moment. That would simply cause a wound that people will pick at and pick at for years and perhaps decades to come. If we have a referendum, the consequences and the interpretation of the outcome of the vote have to be absolutely clear and certain. There are also other issues relating to thresholds and turnout, but they are not relevant to this debate.

I believe that the choice before us is clear: do we go for the Government’s politically influenced fudge and ambiguity? Sorry, I do not mean the Government, but the Conservative part of the Government. I apologise to the hon. Member for Cheltenham. It is difficult, seeing the Minister in his place, to remember that we are dealing with a private Member’s Bill, but it is important that we do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

There are a number of interesting amendments in this group, although mercifully, rather fewer than in the last group.

Amendment 72, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), is interesting and highlights one of the extraordinary omissions from the Bill. It is extraordinary that there is no reference to Gibraltar, to the only referendum Bill that the coalition has passed—the European Union Act 2011—or to the Electoral Commission and the Political Parties and Referendums Act 2000. In a small way, the amendment is an antidote to the last of those omissions.

However, it seems to me that the amendment makes rather a meal of the problem by asking for a six-month consultation. I am not convinced that it is necessary to specify in the Bill a broad consultation, let alone for six months, simply about what the question should be. The crucial omission from the Bill, which we need to remedy, is any reference to the Electoral Commission and its role, as properly set out in the 2000 Act, as the body that should advise Parliament on the wording of referendums.

I am not sure that anyone will be under any illusion about what is really at stake in a referendum, should one come to pass. There certainly seems already to be a great deal of public interest in the matter. Not long ago, 1,000 people packed an event at the Cheltenham literature festival at which I took the platform opposite—I would not say alongside—Nigel Farage of the UK Independence party. I was pleased that, after a heated debate, the majority of the people at that event, as far as I could see, voted for Britain to remain in the European Union.

I do not think we need a six-month consultation on the question for the CBI and other opinion-formers to make clear what they think is at stake in a referendum campaign. After all, the CBI has just produced a report that makes its position clear—it understands what is at stake. It says that, after the second world war,

“it seemed clear that the main opportunities for UK trade and growth were with our nearest neighbours”

but that the

“current circumstances have thrown that conclusion into doubt to the point that some in the UK are questioning the value of our membership of the EU, and some are even advocating withdrawal…For British business, large and small, the response to this is unequivocal: we should remain in”.

Without dwelling on the precise nature of the question, which is addressed in the amendments, it reinforced that point, stating:

“The European Union supports UK business in realising its global ambitions by providing significant influence over the rules, policies and priorities that allow British based firms to seize opportunities across the globe. It anchors UK trade around the world through the signing of high-quality, ambitious Free Trade Agreements and the creation of globally recognised standards that open markets. And in a world of competing ideas and ideals – where international action is increasingly the avenue for addressing problems across the globe – UK membership of the EU amplifies Britain’s voice internationally.”

The CBI is not alone. Environmental organisations increasingly understand what is at stake. While being suitably tactful as a registered charity in not coming down on a political side in the debate, the World Wide Fund for Nature has described the importance of the EU to the environment. A recent WWF leaflet, “What has Europe ever done for the environment?”, states:

“EU environmental legislation and policies have raised the bar in Europe and beyond to improve management and protection of landscapes, natural habitats and wildlife…EU legislation includes the world’s most comprehensive set of environmental measures. It accounts for more than 80% of environmental law in Europe…But it hasn’t been a one-way street, with ‘diktats’ from Europe that must be obeyed. The UK has played a leading role in shaping the EU standards that protect the environment”.

It did not need a six-month consultation to reach that conclusion. Thirteen former police chiefs and a former head of MI5 did not need such a consultation to write to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister emphasising the importance of European Union measures on justice and home affairs, including the European arrest warrant and Europol. Whatever the precise wording of the question, more opinion formers are clear on what will be at stake in that referendum. What is at stake is Europe’s and Britain’s ability to fight crime and protect the environment. Above all, British jobs, jobs and more jobs will be at stake. I am not sure whether we need the device of a six-month consultation on the question for people to understand what is at stake.

Having said that, the hon. Member for Harrow West made important points on the role of the Electoral Commission. As I said in an intervention on the Minister, the whole point of the commission is that we have not only an adequate question or one that meets most of the requirements of a referendum question, but the best possible and clearest question. Even if we do not have the six-month consultation imagined in amendment 72, there is a good argument for amending the Bill to allow the Electoral Commission’s preferred question to be the one that is put to the British people.

The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has tabled two amendments—amendments 35 and 36—that address the two possible phraseologies of the question from the commission’s initial report. The possible answers to the first question—

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”—

are yes and no. My reading of the report is that the commission’s clear preference is for another question—

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”—

to which the possible answers would be “remain in the EU” or “leave the EU”. Although the Minister has said that the commission had not reached a firm conclusion on whether that was the best possible question, it was clear in the report that it is a better option than the one in the Bill. For exactly the reasons set out in detail by the hon. Member for Harrow West, which I will not repeat, the commission gave a clear direction on that front.

Of course, the commission could not reach an absolutely firm conclusion because it believed that it had not had time fully to consider it, and that there was room to take more evidence and further refine and improve the question.

[Mark Hendrick]

I am following the flow of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but does he think that a yes/no referendum would be better than an either/or referendum, purely and simply because there is clear polarity between the arguments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The worst thing that this House and the other place could do is to put in place a referendum that leaves doubt in the minds of voters over what they are voting for. There is even doubt about the implications of a yes or a no vote in the minds of Members on the Government Benches. Quite simply, there should not be such doubt among the voters if a referendum were to take place. For that reason, it is essential that the strong arguments of the Electoral Commission are given due credence by the Bill’s promoter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South has tabled an interesting group of amendments. It is fair for him to raise the point in relation to Wales and Scotland. It would be appropriate to consult those devolved legislatures and to speak to the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government about the arrangements for translating the question into the appropriate language. The promoter should take such arguments on board.

I will seek to test the opinion of the House on amendment 71. I emphasise to both the Government and the Bill’s promoter that language is absolutely critical in referendums. As the question stands in this Bill, the hon. Member for Stockton South simply has not got it right.

[Mark Hendrick]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 35 and to oppose amendment 36. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), hold strong views about amendment 35, and it is important that the House expresses its view on the amendment, too. The wording should make specific reference to our remaining in the European Union. It should not give the impression to the public when they come to make their decision that we are not already in the European Union.

The past has shown us that the wording of the referendum question is important in that it not only frames the debate but affects voter understanding. If the wording of the question for a referendum in 2017 is left solely to the Government, and the Government have not taken sufficient notice of an independent body such as the Electoral Commission, the question could be misleading, deliberately vague or confusing, or reflect a bias leaning one way or another. In short, the wording of the question in a particularly close referendum could affect whether voters choose to remain in the EU or to leave it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) pointed out, we need only cast our minds back to the 1995 independence referendum in Quebec. After a failed independence referendum in 1980, the Parti Québécois was brought back into power in 1994 and quickly called for a fresh referendum. It asked the people of Quebec:

“Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”

That is a long referendum question, which caused a great deal of confusion, to the extent that the referendum was taken again. Led by Federal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien of the Liberal party, the no campaign complained that the yes campaign’s approach of offering sovereignty and association with Canada was not clear enough, and federalists said that the word “country”, as in “sovereign country”, had been left out intentionally to confuse voters. It also complained that the wording of the question, particularly the phrase

“the agreement signed on June 12, 1995”,

might imply that the new economic and political partnership had somehow already been secured, in the same way as the question proposed by the Government gives the impression that the UK might not already be a member of the EU by omitting to mention that we are.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend again mentions Quebec, which is an important issue that the Government and the promoter of the Bill need to consider. Another issue was that the period of uncertainty lasted for many years afterwards. The clarity Act was not passed until 1999, so the debate about whether the question was clear was wrangled over for four or five years. Many argued that the uncertainty created by the referendum and the question contributed to Canada’s poor economic performance in the 1990s. It had wider implications, not only legal and constitutional ones.

[Mark Hendrick]

I totally agree. Opinion research tended to bear out the federalists’ claim about the wording of the question. A poll conducted three weeks before the vote found that 28% of voters who had not yet made up their minds believed that a yes vote would simply mean negotiating a better deal within the federal system.

There were many other indications of the importance of the wording. Polls suggested that some 53% of those who supported sovereignty thought that it did not mean separating from the rest of Canada. Even more striking differences were shown: if the polling question was reversed and respondents were asked whether they wished to stay in Canada, 59% said yes; and a poll in 1994 suggested that 71% of sovereigntists wanted to remain part of the federation.

An in/out referendum is a huge issue as far as the UK’s membership of the EU is concerned. We need to make distinctions purely and simply by making it plain at the start that we are a member of the European Union and by asking the public whether they wish to remain as a member.

On the question of the alternative to EU membership, the Democracy Movement testified to Parliament:

“The danger of bias with ballot paper preambles not only relates to what is actually included in them but also to what is left out”.

I feel that any referendum on leaving Europe should allude to what being outside Europe would mean. The Government need to be clear on the choice offered. If it is a choice between being a member of the EU or a member of the European economic area or the European Free Trade Association, like Norway and Switzerland, that choice should be expressed if not in the question in the literature given out with the ballot paper or before the referendum takes place.

Signed in 1992 and operational from 1994, the EEA agreement extends the EU single market and free movement of goods, services, people and capital, together with laws in areas such as employment, consumer protection, environmental policy and competition. It includes Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, but not Switzerland. In practice, that means that the vast majority of the EU regulations that are identified as the most burdensome to business, including the working time directive, would still apply if the UK left the EU but remained a member of the European economic area. The UK would also be bound by future EU law in those areas, but would arguably have less influence over their content. Any question on European membership should therefore state clearly what the alternative to that membership should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, using all his European and referendum experience. Can he remember any other referendum situation in the UK where the Government proposed, as the Minister for Europe did in his speech, to ignore the Electoral Commission’s clear advice that the question needs amending?

[Mark Hendrick]

No. By the standards of the Conservative party, we have a moderate, reasonable Europe Minister in his place on the Front Bench, who has over the years given serious consideration to most people’s point of view on issues related to Europe. It surprises me that a man of his calibre is doing not only the work of being a very good Europe Minister, which he is, but the dirty work of the Conservative party, giving the impression that as a reasonable man he is disregarding the important qualifications set out by the Electoral Commission.

Finally, any question of leaving the European Union should point out that such an exit would have to be negotiated. Perhaps the question should be, “Should the UK negotiate its exit from the European Union under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty?” Any such question should make clear reference to the fact that we are already in the European Union, and the question should be whether or not we remain in the European Union.

[James Wharton]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

Iran and Syria

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

To be clear on the six countries, I have said that they presented the same united position to Iran. I pointed out that they are entitled to put forward their views and amendments and so on, but the end product was that all six countries put the same united position to Iran. It is important that the House bears that in mind.

My hon. Friend’s points on a Geneva II conference on Syria illustrate the formidable difficulty of bringing such a conference together. That difficulty is widely acknowledged. It would be unrealistic to expect that the parties to the conflict will arrive at Geneva II stating similar positions. The regime will of course say that approaching negotiations does not imply that President Assad will go, and the opposition, when their people are suffering so much at the hands of Assad, will of course say that, in a transition by mutual consent, he will have to go. It would be absolutely astonishing if either said anything different from that.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and E3 plus 3 Foreign Ministers on getting Iran to the negotiating table and on getting as far as they have, but would it not have been better to get the E3 plus 3 together before meeting the Iranians to get a united position, rather than letting the Iranians negotiate differences between the six countries and ending up with the failure in discussions that we currently face?

[Mr Hague]

The E3 plus 3 meets regularly. The round of negotiations that we have just had is the third one in the past month. We also met as Ministers in New York. When there are new developments in proposals on the table, they must be discussed. As I have said, the E3 plus 3 is six sovereign nations, so of course there must be such discussions, but the end product of this weekend’s negotiations was that all six nations put the identical deal to Iran. When one considers that that includes Russia, China, America and the three European countries—we have put forward an identical position—one concludes that it is a remarkable degree of international unity. We should see it that way around.

Middle East Peace Process/Syria and Iran

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

No. We believe that the Assad regime has lost all legitimacy and credibility, not only in the eyes of many of its own people but in the eyes of the world, whereas we recognise members of the national coalition as legitimate representatives of the Syrian people. It would therefore not be right to say that we are strictly neutral. However, we do want to promote a political settlement in which a transitional Government, formed from regime and opposition, can be brought about.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My I add to the many tributes that have been paid to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)? I am sure that he has received many letters—from me, and from many other Members—about his excellent work in relation to the middle east, and I am sure that he will be missed by Front Benchers.

I agreed with what the Foreign Secretary said about the catastrophic situation in Syria and the fact that more than 2 million refugees are fleeing from the country into the wider region, but what assessment has been made of the likelihood of the conflict’s spreading within the region as well? We know that there is already sectarian violence in Lebanon, but what is happening elsewhere, and what can we do about anything that is happening?

[Mr Hague]

The conflict clearly presents a danger to the stability of Lebanon, Iraq, and, in a different way, Jordan, because of the pressures on its border. That is why we are placing such emphasis on our work in those countries, and particularly on what we can do to reinforce the stability of Lebanon and Jordan. We give them a lot of help, not only in the form of the humanitarian aid that goes through international agencies, but directly. We have given assistance to the Lebanese armed forces on their border; we have sent equipment to help the Jordanian armed forces to cope on their border. Ensuring that, during the period in which we cannot resolve the crisis, we at least help other countries to contain it, is a very important aspect of our policy.

NATO

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Bayley]

There has been considerable disarmament and a big peace dividend on both sides of the former iron curtain since the collapse of the Berlin wall. An attempt was made to rebuild a different relationship in Europe in which the Assembly played a large part, working with the emerging democratic movements in central Europe and in the eastern European countries to help them establish the institutions that enabled them in the fullness of time to join both NATO and the European Union. The door remains open—to countries such as Georgia, for instance. Indeed, I have had heard Russian delegates—they attend the Assembly as a confidence-building measure and because we have a joint NATO-Russia parliamentary committee—ask whether if, at some future date, Russia were to want to form an association with or to join the alliance, it would be possible for it to do so. It is important not to build new barriers between parties in Europe or between Europe and other parts of the world but to seek to build co-operation where we can.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

In connection with the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), does not my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) think that it is a bit peculiar that Croatia, a former Soviet bloc country, entered the European Union a few days ago whereas Turkey, which has been a staunch ally of European countries for many years and is a member of NATO, still finds considerable opposition to its membership of the EU from within the EU?

[Hugh Bayley]

I must say I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, but I do not want to turn the NATO debate into a debate about the future of the EU. Turkey plays and has played an important role ever since it joined the alliance in helping to defend our freedoms in Europe, and that ought to guide the views of other EU member states when decisions are made about Turkey’s accession to the EU.

I mentioned the history, but only to show that things have moved on. Despite our foreign policy differences with Russia on certain matters, such as Syria, we co-operate on many matters. Russia provides the land bridge to convey NATO’s non-military assets to Afghanistan and will help us remove many of our assets from Afghanistan as we bring our troops home.

The question that we must answer for Members of this House who do not share our views and for the public is, “If the cold war is history, why isn’t NATO?” It is not history because we still need international co-operation and solidarity with our allies and shared and permanent structures to plan to deal with the security risks we face, to deter those risks and, when things go wrong, to manage military action.

No single NATO state, with the possible exception of the United States, has sufficient military assets to protect itself from today’s risks without the help of colleagues. Actually, I do not think the United States should be excepted, because it needs and gains international legitimacy at the UN and elsewhere when it engages in military action that is supported by its allies.

Since the end of the cold war, we have needed NATO to end conflict in the heart of Europe—in Bosnia, for example; to respond to the threat of global terrorism, which had devastating effects on the streets of New York, London, Madrid and a number of cities in east Africa and elsewhere; and to protect human rights and stop ethnic cleansing, as in Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya. We needed NATO to provide humanitarian assistance during the 2005 floods in Pakistan and, indeed, following Hurricane Katrina in the United States, when other NATO states sent humanitarian assets. We have needed NATO to counter the threat of piracy off the horn of Africa: the losses suffered at the hands of pirates now cost insurers and shipping companies many hundreds of millions of pounds less than they used to, thanks to NATO and EU coastal patrols. We also need to work collectively with our allies to deal with new and emerging threats—cyber-attack, transnational crime, people trafficking or the drugs trade. All are threats that affect the United Kingdom, but none is a threat to which we can successfully respond and against which we can protect ourselves on our own.

What does the NATO Parliamentary Assembly bring to the table? Where is our added value? After the fall of the Berlin wall, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the Assembly sought to build bridges with democrats in the former Warsaw pact countries that wanted to move closer to the west. Indeed, the Assembly moved faster than NATO itself or the Governments of many member states to open a dialogue with those democrats.

At the end of last week, General Nick Carter, the UK soldier and deputy commander of the international security assistance force, said that peace and reconciliation talks with the Taliban should have started a decade ago, and he is right. There were people engaging with moderate leaders in the insurgency in the mid-2000s, and I met them during some of my visits to Afghanistan; but there were disputes at the time about who should do this—whether it should be the Government of Afghanistan, or perhaps the United States. I remember when two people who had been involved in talks with elements within the insurgency were expelled from Afghanistan.

Last week, lead responsibility for security passed from ISAF to the Afghan national security forces in every part of Afghanistan. As our role changes so that we no longer provide the security lead in that country, we need to learn lessons from NATO’s biggest, longest and costliest military operation. Our Parliamentary Assembly has visited Afghanistan 11 times in the past eight years, and when preparing for this debate I looked back at our reports.

In 2004, we argued that NATO, which at that time had a role in Kabul but not throughout the country, should expand its presence throughout Afghanistan. In reports in 2004, 2005 and 2006, we called for a unified command, encompassing both ISAF, the NATO mission, and the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom. Between 2005 and 2008, we published reports calling for better burden sharing between NATO member states and for caveats imposed by some of the national contributions to NATO to be lifted. As early as 2004—nine years ago—we highlighted the need to accelerate the build-up and strengthen the training of Afghan national security forces; we stressed that particularly strongly from 2006 onward.

Even in 2002—more than a decade ago—we were stressing the link between security and development assistance; and from 2006, in reports and resolutions we called for what is now described as the comprehensive approach: diplomacy, defence and development co-operation. Again as early as 2004, we identified that much aid was used inefficiently because it was not channelled through Afghan institutions, and now even 50% of US aid is channelled through the World Bank’s trust fund and the Government of Afghanistan. Interestingly, in 2006—seven years ago—we called for reconciliation talks with moderate elements in the insurgency. Since 2006, we have stressed the need to challenge the safe havens in Pakistan and we have been involving Pakistani MPs in meetings of our Assembly. I have visited Afghanistan five or six times during the period our forces have been in the country, and I have to say that many of the prescient ideas reflected in reports of our Assembly came from British commanders, British diplomats, DFID staff or British aid workers.

The Assembly is an effective forum for sharing good ideas and good practice and, where we identify good practice adopted by one country, we try to persuade others in the alliance to support similar approaches. Often, it is easier for legislators who do not have executive responsibilities to reach conclusions on these matters than it is for members of a Government. We are still, even now, debating defence budgets, following the reports we produced some years ago on burden sharing. As we know, Robert Gates, the former US Defence Secretary, in his outgoing statement, called on Europe to step up to the mark on defence spending, and it is clear to our Assembly that most countries in Europe do not spend enough on defence. Indeed, only two—Britain and Greece—spend the 2% of GDP that NATO recommends.

When I put that point to our Secretary of State, as I have a number of times, he says that, with the economic situation so fragile, now is not the right time to press Governments of other countries to increase their defence expenditure, but I believe it is necessary for security reasons, and that the way to get through the difficulty is to seek commitments that, as the economic situation improves and Governments receive a taxation dividend from growth, they will devote a proportion of it to greater defence expenditures. I do not think we have public opinion on our side for that proposition at the moment, which is another reason we need to do more to explain why we have the security structures we have in NATO and why it is necessary to maintain them and finance them properly. Both the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and NATO itself need to do more to get their case into the public domain, and I congratulate the Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen—

Iran

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

First of all, we are not absent from the discussion; we are part of the E3 plus 3, so we have direct discussions with Iran on the nuclear issue. Nor have we broken diplomatic relations with Iran. I must say to my hon. Friend that the danger in which our staff were placed was sufficiently great and the destruction of their possessions and the invasion of the embassy sufficiently unacceptable that I find describing it as a health and safety issue inappropriate.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

At the risk of lazy labelling, before the election we were told that six hardliners had been vetted to go on the ballot paper, but now we are told that a moderate slipped through the net and is President. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the new President, Dr Rouhani, and what are his hopes for improvements in UK-Iranian relations?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, this can demonstrate the dangers of vetting a list of candidates, a practice that might be well known to many political parties in this House, although I am not pointing in any particular direction. I do not want to give too detailed an assessment, because the politics of Iran are very complex, as hon. Members from all parties have pointed out. I also do not want to make our job in improving relations with Iran more difficult by giving an initial assessment that may turn out to be wrong. Nor do I want to make the new President’s job more difficult; it will be immensely difficult for him to govern Iran and do what he says he wants to do, namely improve the condition of his people. We will let our analysis take shape over time and judge by actions, not words.

In Amenas Hostages

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I am pleased to be under your guidance this afternoon, Ms Dorries.

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on securing this important debate and on the measured, calm and detailed way in which she set out her concerns and those of her constituents and other hon. Members. Before I respond to her points, I put on record that my thoughts and sympathies are with all those affected by the terrorist attacks at In Amenas. I am personally very sorry for the tragic loss of Mr Barlow and all those, UK citizens and others, who lost their lives in that terrorist atrocity.

No one will forget the horror of those days in January, when six British nationals and one British resident lost their lives. I can only begin to imagine how difficult those days must have been for those anxiously waiting for news and how painful every moment has been since that news was received. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: no words, however well meaning and however often they are repeated, can relieve the suffering of the loved ones of those British citizens and others who lost their lives in Algeria.

I remind hon. Members that Her Majesty’s coroner is legally responsible for determining the cause of death, and my response must not in any way prejudice the course of her inquiries.

The hon. Lady raised very serious, significant, substantive and important issues, and I will try to address them in my remarks. I hope she and other hon. Members will be patient. What happened at In Amenas was abhorrent, and it was the terrorists who were responsible for the tragic deaths of so many. We know that the terrorist threat in the Sahel comes from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which aspires to introduce Islamic law across the Sahel and north Africa and to attack western interests wherever it can. The hon. Lady is right to say that we should not assume a straightforward link to events in Mali given the complexity of the attack, but we do not know now, and we may never know, what motivated the individuals at In Amenas. What we do know is that their actions—the cold-blooded murder of innocent workers—can never be justified. That is why the world stood united in its condemnation, and why the actions of the extremists have only confirmed our implacable opposition to terrorism and our resolve to fight it together.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will be aware that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is holding an inquiry into terrorism in north and west Africa. To our mind, it seems that many of the terrorists who carried out the attack, and who were involved as well in the destabilisation of the Malian force, were trying to help Colonel Gaddafi before his regime in Libya fell. Many of them are not from Algeria but from neighbouring countries in the Sahel. Does he accept that the outcome of the Libyan conflict had some bearing on the attack, and indeed on what is happening in Mali?

[Mark Simmonds]

Of course I am aware of the detail of the Foreign Affairs Committee investigation. The hon. Gentleman is partially right, in that the perpetrators of that terrorist atrocity were not all from inside Algeria, but he will also be aware that the borders in that part of Africa are extremely porous. It is a significant challenge that countries in the region must resolve, with the co-operation and assistance of the international community at both multilateral and bilateral levels, if we are to ensure that that sort of situation does not occur again.

To pick up on one of the key elements of the contribution made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire about the safety of the British nationals involved, the repatriation of those killed and the evacuation of the wounded and freed hostages was the top priority of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and of the international community as it related to people of other nationalities. Staff in London and Algiers worked around the clock to support the Algerians in resolving the crisis, and our embassy in Algeria was strengthened by 18 consular experts, six experts from the Red Cross and specialists from the Metropolitan police. We gave direct assistance to the British nationals involved in Algeria, and our ambassador was the first to reach In Amenas. Our response involved playing a leading role among the countries affected, including sharing information with them and supporting the identification of victims. We have continued to take a lead since then, for instance by co-ordinating work on the return of possessions.

As hon. Members will remember, In Amenas is two days’ drive from Algiers; it is in the middle of the Sahara desert and is one of the most remote places in the world. Information was therefore difficult to come by, not least since we were not informed in advance of Algerian operations. None the less, I understand and regret that the unpredictable nature of events and a lack of detail caused distress for those waiting for news.

The attack was on a significant scale. From the outset, the Prime Minister led the United Kingdom response, chairing Cobra on a number of occasions. He continued to do so in the month after the attack, making a ground-breaking visit to Algeria, closely followed by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). We believe that early, proactive and personal engagement with families and relevant MPs is essential. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lancashire for her commendation of my hon. Friend, who did a sterling job in difficult circumstances.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister immediately offered ministerial contact, via police liaison officers, to all affected families and MPs, a number of whom took up the offer, including the family of Mr Barlow. I know that my right hon. Friend has recently spoken with them again and regrets sincerely that he cannot be here in person today.

I accept that we may not always get contact right in crises where information is limited. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office always seeks to learn from such incidents, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire will be doing so. He has discussed the police liaison process with the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police to see whether it can be improved in future.

The hon. Member for West Lancashire specifically made the point that what happened was unclear. It is still unclear. Some of the details are still not known. I know how hard that must be for the families, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment on behalf of the Algerian authorities or BP. Instead, we very much hope that the investigation, on which the Algerian authorities are leading, and the coroner’s inquest in the UK, will answer some of the hon. Lady’s questions, and those of her constituents and others.

We continue to discuss the detail of the In Amenas attack with the Algerian authorities at every available opportunity, including at ministerial level, as we did when the Prime Minister and the Minister for the middle east visited in the weeks following the attack. We will support their investigations in any way that we can. We continue to seek assurances from the Algerian authorities that they will share details and access to the site in the aftermath of the attack. None the less, it must be said that Algeria is a sovereign country and, just as we would expect to do here, the Algerians must be allowed to conduct their investigations in accordance with their own laws.

The coroner’s investigation will take place early in 2014. The Government are supporting that process. A small team of Metropolitan Police Service officers travelled to Algeria on 18 January to lead on the identification and repatriation of those who died, and they continue to gather information. They last travelled to Algeria in May. Her Majesty’s coroner for West Sussex will hold a preliminary hearing on 1 July, which will set out the scope of her investigation.

It is important to understand that this is a complex inquiry into deaths that occurred at a site staffed by multinational personnel. Nationals from nine other countries lost their lives, and individuals from a total of 29 countries were involved, so much of the information that might assist the coroner is not automatically available in the UK. The police are therefore liaising with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Algerian authorities and other international authorities and partners to progress enquiries and get that information on the coroner’s behalf. Regrettably, that will take time, but I am sure that the hon. Member for West Lancashire will agree that it is absolutely essential that the investigation is thorough and benefits from the maximum availability of the appropriate amount of information.

Syria

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The UAE makes a big contribution. I have had many discussions with the UAE Foreign Minister and will do so again in Jordan this year. It has given substantial assistance—I do not have the figures with me and it does not necessarily publish all the figures—to setting up humanitarian camps, including in Jordan. We encourage it, as we do all other countries, to increase such work.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

What leads the Foreign Secretary to believe that the commitments made by members of the Syrian National Coalition in the compact are worth the paper they are written on?

[Mr Hague]

I suppose that one could ask that question about almost any statement by most opposition groups in many parts of the world, or indeed by many Governments in many parts of the world. It is our view, as Foreign Ministers of the core group, that the Syrian National Coalition is sincere in its commitments, which is based on our knowing the people involved over some months and seeing how the opposition has developed. They know that the commitments are very important to their future success and they have discussed them at great length. They contain and comprise a steadily broadening group of people of different ethnicities, origins and professions. I believe the sincerity of the commitments, but I also believe that the coalition is worried about the growth of extremist groups and knows that support would be lost over time unless it gets enough support from the rest of the world.

G8 Foreign Ministers

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I have no immediate good news for my hon. Friend and the House on that matter, except for the clear unity in the G8 to which I referred. That unity extends beyond the G8 to our working closely with China. My hon. Friend referred to Secretary Kerry’s visit, during which he agreed that the United States would work with the Chinese Government. China has more leverage and influence over North Korea than any of the other nations to which we have referred. The extent of Chinese concern and determination that North Korea should not go down the path that it is on is one encouraging piece of information in an otherwise very difficult situation.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Foreign Secretary has commended the Chinese and referred to Secretary Kerry’s visit to China. That is positive and is in stark contrast to the position a couple of weeks ago, when the Americans, and to some extent our country, were saying that the Chinese were not doing enough with regard to North Korea. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary accepts the co-operation that is now taking place, but does he accept that if there was a major conflict on the Korean peninsula, the Chinese Government would have to deal with millions of refugees and the scale of the humanitarian disaster would make Syria look like a fairly small-scale operation?

[Mr Hague]

Of course, the prospect of any conflict on the Korean peninsula would be deeply alarming to the whole world. China, as a close neighbour, would be particularly concerned. That is always a factor in China’s foreign policy calculations in such matters. I welcome China’s agreement to UN resolution 2094, because it is evidence that it sees that the avoidance of such conflict involves additional pressure on the DPRK, although in a graduated way in its view. I welcome China’s position and we will continue to work with it, including through direct discussions in the coming days.