Nord Stream 2

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Nord Stream 2.

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate and it is a delight to hold it under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. It might seem intriguing or even peculiar to discuss Nord Stream 2—the construction of a 1,300 km gas pipeline so far away from British shores—in this place, in this House, in this Parliament. I hope over the next few minutes to set out why Nord Stream 2 matters to Europe’s national interests and the strategic interests of the United Kingdom, as well as to our NATO allies and partners in the European Union and in European neighbourhood countries as well.

If it comes on stream, Nord Stream 2 will provide 12% of the EU’s energy demand. On the face of it, that sounds like good news, but it will remove about $1.8 billion of transit fees that currently benefit the Ukrainian economy, from the Progress and Trans-Siberian pipeline systems. I also understand why Germany wants to increase its imports of external energy. Again, on the face of it, that is a very laudable aim. Certainly, as Germany switches off its nuclear power stations and seeks to reduce its coal consumption to meet the EU’s climate change targets, it will invariably find itself more reliant on imports of foreign gas and oil, although I note that those sources of energy are also fossil fuels.

It is also understandable to believe that the Ukrainian objections to Nord Stream 2 are commercial in nature. I am sure that, in large part, that is true; I have already mentioned the transit fees. However, is the $3 billion of transit fees alone enough of an incentive for its objections? I do not believe it is.

Pre-eminent in Ukraine’s objections are the geopolitical levers Russia could—would, in my view—deploy should Nord Stream 2 go ahead. That is not geopolitical guesswork but a fact-based opinion reliant on Russia’s actions over the last decade, during which it has deliberately and systematically misused the supply of energy to Ukraine and other parts of Europe as a stick to beat any state that seeks to be closer to the European Union and NATO.

Notwithstanding that reality, Russia’s current transit dependency on Ukraine affords Kiev some protection from further Russian aggression. Yes, Russia may have its stockpile of nuclear weapons and its exports of oil and gas, but its economy is not in good shape and is no larger than that of Spain, despite Russia’s geographical mass. Moscow is therefore all too aware of its reliance on an uninterrupted revenue stream from its gas exports. At present, Ukraine is an inconvenient transit country to Russia, but it is a transit country. While gas prices are comparatively low, Russia is prepared to moderate and tolerate some aspects of its expansionist foreign policy against Ukraine. I should say moderate. I do not think tolerate is the right word; the Ukrainian population certainly do not tolerate it.

Russia’s reluctant restraint, owing to its reliance on energy transit adversaries, as it would see it, is exactly why it sees the diversification of its gas transit routes as a top foreign policy priority, and as a possible stepping stone to further annexation of Ukrainian territory in the future and to attacking the Ukrainian economy through a major loss of its transit fees. In short, the completion of Nord Stream 2 will allow Russia to pursue an even more aggressive foreign policy towards Ukraine.

The clock is ticking. The agreement between Russia’s Gazprom and Ukraine’s Naftogaz is set to expire on 1 January 2020. Set against the 2019 completion date for the Nord Stream 2 project, the time for German platitudes and, dare I say it, the UK’s apparent unwillingness to come to a firm and fixed view on Nord Stream 2, has to end. Surely the key question for the UK Government is: “Will the development of Nord Stream 2 be in the UK’s medium and long-term strategic interests, and the strategic interests of our friends and allies in the European neighbourhood and in NATO?”

I know that several EU countries have a financial stake in the pipeline—or, at least, companies from countries including France, Austria, the Netherlands, and Germany. I also acknowledge that British interests are at stake. However, there is always a political risk with international and large-scale energy projects. My primary concern is not the potential commercial losses for those private companies, or even the success—or lack of success—of former German Chancellors in their deal making, but the strategic interests of the United Kingdom and our friends and allies. That is why I welcome Chancellor Merkel’s recent comments at the EU-Ukraine summit, at which she said

“it is not just an economic issue…there are also political considerations”.

However, actions, not just words, are now needed. I am happy that the Minister of State is a man of action, not just words, and I look forward to his—as ever—informed and detailed response.

Of course, Ukraine can take its own action. Ukraine should not just be reliant on supportive EU partners for its economic and energy outlook, or debates like this taking place in Parliaments throughout the European Union. Ukraine can and should take action on, for example, replacing its ageing energy infrastructure, deregulating its over-regulated energy market, examining its own pricing structure, liberalising its own internal energy market and further diversifying its energy suppliers.

Another point for our German partners to recognise is that Nord Stream 2 will undermine the EU’s own energy strategy and energy union. Nord Stream 2 is incompatible with the objectives of the EU’s energy policies. Moreover, the pipeline will undermine other EU projects that seek to diversify energy supply markets and locations. Indeed, Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, has previously said that Nord Stream 2 goes against the EU’s wider energy security interests. He has called for, at the very minimum, the pipeline to be regulated, and he repeated that at the recent Ukraine-EU summit. He went on to call for the pipeline’s construction to be halted in a joint statement with the President of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker.

The EU could also do more to ensure the diversification of its energy supplies. For example, it could get on with building liquefied natural gas storage areas in Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia and other EU countries. Europe is perhaps also over-reliant on gas from the middle east. Perhaps it is time to look westwards across the Atlantic for a more secure and reliable energy partner.

For all the criticism of President Trump, much of it justified in my view, he has made the US into a net exporter of energy again. He has reduced America’s reliance on foreign energy supplies. That is clearly to its geopolitical and economic advantage, but it is an advantage, and it is one that we need to replicate.

In conclusion, it is clear that there is a lot of unease among our European partners about the Nord Stream 2 project, as the Prime Minister noted in her NATO statement yesterday. At a recent energy conference in Europe—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I met a former Prime Minister of Italy, a former President of Poland and the current President of Latvia, all of whom expressed strong views on the need to increase, not decrease Europe’s energy security. In fact, all the Baltic countries oppose Nord Stream 2, as do many other countries, including Slovakia and Slovenia. The Prime Minister of Poland was perhaps the most perceptive when he called Nord Stream 2

“a weapon of hybrid warfare”

and

“a poison pill for European security”.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I agree that the issue is not just the geopolitical leverage the pipeline gives to Russia or sorting out Germany’s dependency on Russian gas. If the Foreign Office can take the lead in discouraging Germany from the scheme, it would send a clear message about the enthusiasm of all European countries to decarbonise. With that comes greater energy security through a better mix of renewables and the energy security that brings.

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As someone who sat on the Environmental Audit Committee many years ago, I remember a report we did called, “Keeping the lights on”. He is absolutely right that the whole of Europe, and in many ways Britain, has led the way on renewables. Germany, which prides itself as being green as a nation and being green politically—perhaps more so than some in Chancellor Merkel’s party would want—needs to ensure that it diversifies its energy supplies and its energy mix. That is good for energy security, the environment and reaching our climate change targets.

Bringing things back to the United Kingdom, I am also aware of the comments made by the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), in a letter to some colleagues. He apparently wrote that he feels that Nord Stream 2 is divisive and could leave the EU’s supply reliant on “a malign Russian state”. Is that the view of the Minister of State?

Sweden and Finland have both reluctantly given the go-ahead to the project, given that they had little choice but to do so, because, as colleagues will already know, Nord Stream 2 passes through those countries’ economic zone waters rather than their territorial waters. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) just intervened and what I say next might address some of his question. The pipeline passes through Denmark’s territorial waters and, if the Danish Parliament and/or Government object to the pipeline, they could block the project. The pipeline could then be diverted, but with a significant delay, which might also give Poland a greater say in the project and might help Ukraine in negotiating a new transit agreement with Russia, given the timetables that I set out earlier.

I accept that the Danes are under pressure, both from those opposed to Nord Stream 2 and those in favour of it. In that regard, can the Minister say what representations the UK Government have made to the Danish Government on this issue, and what the precise nature of those discussions was?

I am sure that colleagues will be aware that Denmark’s Prime Minister Rasmussen is the same Danish Prime Minister who gave the go-ahead for the Nord Stream 1 project in 2009. However, times have changed, not only in the political balance and make-up of the Danish Parliament and the Danish Government, but in Russia’s overt, asymmetric, hybrid continual aggression throughout the European Union and the European neighbourhood. It is clearly understandable that Denmark wants to avoid confrontation with Russia over its disputed Arctic territory and the countries’ overlapping areas of the continental shelf, but Denmark must also decide whether Russia is a reliable and trustworthy energy partner.

Some suggest that Nord Stream 2 falls foul of the EU’s third energy package and in some respects that is true. However, both Russia and Ukraine are regarded as third countries, and in legal terms the third energy package is predominantly, as the Minister will know, an internal market policy and directive. So it is perhaps less of a defence against Nord Stream 2, although the project completely undermines Europe’s stated policy of an energy union; I think that is quite clear for all to see.

I accept that Nord Stream 2 is an economic project—I am not arguing against my earlier point, which I made in my introduction—and indeed a commercial prospect. However, it is also and predominantly a political project—a Russian geopolitical project. That must make European capitals wake up and count the cost of ending construction of the project now, rather than potentially counting a far higher human cost and territorial cost in the future.

The question that Germany and EU partners, and I would carefully suggest, the UK, need to ask themselves is this: can Russia be trusted to supply over the medium and long term affordable, reliable and secure gas to the peoples and businesses of Europe? If there is any doubt or hesitation in formulating a positive reply to that rather simple question, surely Europe’s security and economic competence will be put at high risk by this project.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

That is slightly tangential, as the hon. Gentleman admitted in his first sentence. Wherever I go, visas are a serious diplomatic problem. They cause a lot of upset in many countries when people, quite rightly and with reasonable intent, wish to travel here, but find that it is very expensive, it takes a long time and it is sometimes very inefficient.

[Mark Pritchard]

The Minister may be coming on to make some remarks about Denmark, but I hope that he will be able to address the question I set out in my speech: what representations have the UK Government had with the Government of Denmark over Nord Stream 2, and what was the precise nature of those discussions?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I can answer that straightaway. I am fully aware that Denmark has not yet issued the relevant permits for the construction of Nord Stream 2—which would be in its territorial waters, as has been mentioned. We have raised our security of supply concerns with Denmark, and we anticipate its decision in the autumn. The former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), raised the issue with the Danes, and I have discussed it in the margins of foreign affairs committees in Brussels in the past.

We give all that help to Ukraine because it is essential for Ukraine’s future security and prosperity, and because it is essential for upholding European values and the wider security and prosperity of Europe. I fully recognise the concerns that hon. Members have expressed and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin for drawing attention to this important issue by securing the debate.

Let me be clear: Nord Stream 2 represents a risk to European energy security and to Ukraine. Existing pipelines already provide enough capacity to meet the European demand for gas. We do not believe that Nord Stream 2 is necessary and we remain concerned that its construction will be harmful to European interests and those of Ukraine.

For that reason, we will continue to express concerns in discussions with partners across Europe, as I did with the German Minister, Michael Roth, last week. As the Prime Minister noted yesterday, she has been discussing it around the EU Council table for some time. We back amendments to the gas directive to ensure that all interconnector pipelines operate within EU internal energy market rules, and we will continue to support initiatives that strengthen and diversity the supply of gas to the European market. I assure hon. Members that we will play our full part in defending the interests of Ukraine, and we will not shy away from having a strong opinion about such an important strategic proposal.

[Mark Pritchard]

The Minister’s comments are the most robust that I have heard from any Government Minister, including the Prime Minister yesterday. They are welcome remarks, although perhaps more in Ukraine than in the United Kingdom. He uses the word “risk”, which I also used in my speech, and said that he felt that Nord Stream 2 was not necessary because of the existing supplies in the European Union.

Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments on Denmark, I encourage him to go further, given that he is also the Minister for the Americas. The British Government may have had some differences with the White House—in particular, with President Trump—in the last few hours vis-à-vis our policy on Russia; none the less, on this issue we can agree with the White House and even with President Trump. I hope those discussions will prove fruitful—not only for our bilateral relations with the United States, but for Ukraine’s future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Nord Stream 2.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

Because we believe in human rights, and we believe that global Britain should stick up for human rights. Yes, I think the United States has a point when it disputes the validity of article 7—the perpetual reference to article 7—in the Human Rights Council’s proceedings. I can, however, tell my hon. Friend that only this week the United Kingdom secured a record number of positive votes for our motion on the vital importance of 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that sometimes being a friend of the United States means being a candid friend, but is it not the case that, when it comes to NATO, the OSCE and sharing intelligence information, the United States keeps Britain safe?

[Boris Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for a characteristically perceptive point. Yes, not only has the United States kept the UK safe, but in many ways it has kept the whole of our continent safe since the end of the second world war. That is a giant political fact that this House should recognise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Boris Johnson]

Of course I agree with that. To cheer up the hon. Lady, I point out that today it was confirmed that the UK is still the recipient of the biggest share of inward investment in Europe and, indeed, that our share is growing.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Ahead of the important Balkans conference, does the Foreign Secretary agree that political and diplomatic dialogue, particularly in the western Balkans, rather than nationalism gives that region a bright future?

Palestinian Communities: Israeli Demolitions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for being late; I had a meeting with the Bahraini ambassador.

I was rather bemused by this debate, because although I know that the hon. Gentleman regularly speaks at the Centre for Turkey Studies, I have never heard him speak about Turkish settlers from the mainland in north Cyprus—200,000 people who invaded north Cyprus—yet he wants to talk about Israel. Should not he, and indeed some of his friends at the Centre for Turkey Studies, actually consider that?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. This debate has been clearly advertised and it is about a particular subject, which the hon. Member has chosen to submit to Mr Speaker; Mr Speaker has seen fit that it should be selected for debate, and we will have a debate on this subject and this subject alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with Mr Pardo—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and thank him for making such powerful points? In December 2017, a Palestinian reflecting on the 100 years since the Balfour declaration will find that only half the deal has been done and that the Palestinians have got nothing. There have been millions of refugees over a period longer than any other relating to refugees all over the world. Palestinians cannot access their land because it has been taken systematically and there have been demolitions and planning restrictions. On top of that, Donald Trump has declared, illegally, that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. The situation for Palestinians must be awful and dark. What hope do they really have?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Given the interest in this debate and the number of Members who want to speak, I was originally going to restrict speeches to three minutes, but restricting them to two minutes will get everybody in. At three minutes, not everybody will get in, so I am making the judgment that it will be two minutes, because I think it is important that all Members have an opportunity to say at least something on the record, even if they do not have much to say. I am sure it will be pregnant with meaning from both sides of the House. I call John Howell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with my hon. Friend. If the PA is a real partner for peace it should be promoting co-operation and co-existence, not engendering hate. However, whatever our views on that, and on relative culpability for the situation that we are in, there is no doubt that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve peace. The only way to bring that about is through direct negotiations to set up a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady was given an extra minute; those are the rules of the game, as hon. Members know, in the Chamber, so interventions are probably not advised at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

We are discussing these demolitions now because there is a new dimension to it—this is not the same thing that has been happening over many years. Consider the situation to the east of Jerusalem in the segment of the central west bank. The demolition orders now in place on those villages are part of a strategic plan in that area to depopulate it of Palestinian villages so that Israeli settlements can be created. There is the distinct purpose of extending Jerusalem to the east and the Ma’ale Adumim area, and creating a residential corridor that will effectively bisect the west bank as it is today. That that is part of a strategic plan and involves the forcible displacement and relocation of people who are living under occupation is, according to many legal authorities, a violation of international law and, as colleagues have described, a war crime. When the Minister responds to the debate, will he say whether that is also his assessment? Does he believe that what is happening with the forcible displacement of civilians within a militarily occupied area constitutes a war crime? If that is not his view, why not? If it is his view, what on earth will we do about it?

If these demolitions go ahead, and if those within the Israeli Cabinet get their way and bisect the west bank, that puts even further into the distance any prospect of a two-state solution. It puts a sustainable, peaceful, long-term agreement far beyond the horizon, and that is bad not just for the human rights of Palestinians, but for the long-term security of Israel. There is every reason why we should be concerned and see this as a different phenomenon to what has happened in the past.

Let me turn to the announcement that we are expecting at 6 o’clock from the leader of the free world. It was trailed yesterday that the American Government intend to state their policy of recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In my view, that is a horrendous mistake. Everyone knows that Jerusalem is a city of great significance for the three major Abrahamic religions —Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Everyone knows that it is disputed, and everyone has a claim. If the President goes forward with this policy, he will be seen to be taking sides in that debate, and there is a great possibility that this conflict will escalate to become more of a religious conflict than it has managed to become so far. I fear for the region and I fear for the world if that is allowed to happen.

Another aspect is that if the President makes this statement and is seen to be so partisan in his dealings with the area, he will pull the rug from underneath the feet of many people on both sides who are desperately trying to find a solution, to compromise and to accommodate one another. It will create a further problem for our Foreign and Commonwealth Office because, until now, we have looked to America to be a broker in this situation—to sponsor peace talks and to try to move things forward. If the President takes this action, he will effectively be absenting America from that process and leaving an international vacuum. That means that this country needs to step up and recognise its historic responsibilities. We need to talk with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council and try to get a fresh initiative before it is too late, because this 6 o’clock statement will take us immeasurably backwards and make this world a much more dangerous place. That is the context in which we should consider this debate.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way on this occasion, because I have such a short time left and so much to deal with, and I have not got to President Trump yet. [Interruption.]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind members of the public who may be tempted to take a photograph that photographs are not permitted anywhere in the House of Commons?

[Alistair Burt]

The British Government support Bedouin communities and Palestinians whose homes face demolition or who face eviction in Area C of the west bank. To answer a question asked by the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), we do so principally through the funding of £3 million over three years that we provide to the Norwegian Refugee Council’s legal aid programme. This practical support helps residents to challenge decisions in the Israeli legal system; as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) mentioned, there is a legal system, which on occasions has stood for the rights of those whom it feels have been unfairly and illegally treated. Some 79% of cases provided with legal representation through the Norwegian Refugee Council have resulted in the suspension of demolitions and evictions, allowing Palestinians to remain in their homes. I hope that that serves as a demonstration of our practical measures of support, beyond the representations we make to the Israeli Government and authorities, to help the rule of law in the area.

We are gravely concerned that Palestinians continue to face severe difficulty in securing building permissions— a matter that has also been raised by hon. Members. Between 2014 and summer 2016, just 1.3% of building permits requested by Palestinians in Area C were granted. Between 2010 and 2015, only 8% of all building permits given in Jerusalem were given in Palestinian neighbourhoods. Practically, that leaves Palestinians with little option but to build without permission, placing their homes at risk of demolition on the grounds that they do not have a permit. In answer to the hon. Member for Leeds North East, we continue to urge the Israeli Government to develop improved mechanisms for zoning, planning and granting permits in Area C for the benefit of the Palestinian population, including by facilitating local Palestinian participation in such mechanisms. We have allocated £900,000 to support essential infrastructure for vulnerable Palestinians in Area C.

The grave situation that Palestinian communities face, particularly in Area C, demonstrates the urgent need to make real and tangible progress towards peace. We are in close consultation with international partners, including the United States, about how to encourage the parties to reverse negative trends and engage in meaningful dialogue. The British Government are committed to making progress towards a two-state solution. We are clear that that can be achieved only through a negotiated agreement that leads to a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. It must be based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and a just, fair, agreed and realistic settlement for refugees.

Our policy on settlement remains the same: the viability of the principle of two states for two peoples is being undermined by the increased pace of settlement. The challenge was raised that we talk a lot and do not do enough, but UN resolution 2334, which the United Kingdom supported last December, was pretty clear in its degree of condemnation, saying:

“Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including…the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions”.

That resolution was criticised in some quarters, but it is clear evidence of the United Kingdom’s determination on that side.

On the other side, as hon. Members have said, we have been very clear that settlements and demolitions are far from being the only problem in the conflict. As the Quartet set out in its July 2016 report, terrorism and incitement undermine the prospects of a two-state solution. That point cannot be passed by in any debate we have on the subject. We deplore all forms of incitement, including comments that stir up hatred and prejudice. We therefore encourage both the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel to reject any hate speech or incitement and to prepare their populations for peaceful co-existence, including by promoting a more positive portrayal of each other. As the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and other hon. Members said, promoting peaceful co-existence projects really matters now, at a time when we need to make progress.

Before I conclude, it would be wrong not to mention the events of today. As the Foreign Secretary said in Brussels this morning, we are concerned by reports that the US is considering recognising Jerusalem as the Israeli capital before a final status agreement. Like our international partners, we believe such a move could inflame tension in the region. Our position is clear and long-standing: the status of Jerusalem should be determined in a negotiated settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Jerusalem should ultimately form a shared capital between the Israeli and Palestinian states. I hesitate to say more until we hear what the President actually says and listen to the context in which he sets it. Tomorrow we will have a better opportunity to set out where his statements and commitment stand in relation to other aspects. The United Kingdom has no intention of moving its embassy from Tel Aviv.

If the hon. Member for Aberavon would like the last minute of the debate to wind up, I am pleased to offer it to him.

British Prisoners in Iran

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq]

That is no excuse for evading responsibility for a young mother, a British citizen, who has been detained in Iran, and a three-year-old daughter who has been separated from her mother and father. Those excuses are used by the Government to evade responsibility.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I apologise, Mr Hollobone, as I will have to leave this debate early for another engagement. I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing this timely and important debate. Is it not the case that Nazanin Ratcliffe’s situation is symptomatic of a regime that is systematically abusing human rights? If the Supreme Leader and the re-elected President Rouhani want to learn anything, they should look back to the history of ancient Persia and King Cyrus, who founded the first ever fundamental charter of human rights, a facsimile of which currently sits in the UN building in New York. They should look back for leadership—and also look forward and get into the international norms of human rights, not just for British or joint citizens but for Iranian citizens as well.

Yemen: Political and Humanitarian Situation

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, that message has been made clear to me in my conversations with organisations such as Oxfam, Save the Children, Médecins sans Frontières and many others in recent weeks and the past few days.

Unfortunately the crisis in the country is now even worse than we could have imagined a few months ago, with the disastrous failure in governance and the decimation of the Yemeni economy. The United Nations has estimated that it is only a matter of months before Yemen faces total and utter collapse. The sheer scale of the devastation is astounding. At least 18.8 million people, almost two thirds of the population, are in need of some kind of humanitarian aid or protection. Close to one third of the population are in acute need of assistance—that is 10.3 million people. Some 7 million people do not know where their next meal will come from or are at risk of famine. One child under five in Yemen dies every 10 minutes. Cholera has now spread to every part of the country, with more than 200,000 suspected cases and 1,300 deaths, according to Oxfam and other agencies.

The United Nations’ humanitarian chief, Sir Stephen O’Brien—a former Member of this House, known to many of us—described the situation in Yemen as a “man-made catastrophe”. I wholeheartedly agree with that, but I would go further. I am sorry to say that on the one hand the UK has delivered lifesaving aid through the Department for International Development, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) rightly praised in the last Parliament for its work in Yemen on the humanitarian crisis, but on the other hand the UK is responsible for a clear failure in our foreign policy and the moral approach we have taken to our arms export policy. No humanitarian response can adequately meet the increasing needs that the ongoing conflict is causing, and there needs to be an immediate cessation of hostilities by all sides.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. On the issue of responsibility, yes of course the UK, the European Union and other countries in the UN should be pushing for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Yemen as soon as possible. But does he agree that the Americans have a lead role as far as the World Food Programme is concerned, in particular in addressing the famine in Yemen, and that this is not the time for the American Administration to be cutting the budget of the World Food Programme?

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with those comments. I am deeply worried by the comments made by President Trump about wider US aid policy, and the way in which the US appears to be increasingly engaged actively in the conflict, with recent attacks that have led to civilian deaths.

We need to look at the causes of the humanitarian situation. More than half the health facilities that were open pre-conflict have either closed or are now only partially functioning, leaving 40 million people without basic healthcare. A similar number are also facing a daily struggle to access clean water and adequate sanitation facilities, both of which continue to pose significant risks to public health and are contributing to the cholera outbreak. The naval blockade that has been imposed by the Saudi-led coalition is having an impact on food and humanitarian supplies reaching those who need them. Save the Children told me just this week of three ships containing its supplies that were turned around, delays in secondary screening and 17,000 medical items that had to be re-routed.

President Trump: State Visit

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

That word comes to mind when we think of the circumstances of our beleaguered Prime Minister. She is in the great predicament of being the bridge burner who is destroying the bridges between us and Europe. We were told of the possibility of Brexit bumps in the road ahead, but there might turn out to be a Brexit sinkhole into which our economy might plunge in freefall. She had a difficulty: could the bridge burner be the bridge builder? She made an attempt to present herself as someone who was going to act as the link between the presidency and Europe, but as the President of Lithuania quite rightly pointed out, we do not need a link, because we are in constant contact with President Trump through his incessant tweets.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although some of President Trump’s views on women, on race and on religion are very distasteful indeed, the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of America goes beyond any individual who might happen to occupy the White House at any particular time?

[Paul Flynn]

I agree entirely. I know that from my own life; my father’s life was ruined by the first world war, and I remember being a child at school during the second world war and seeing the empty desks of children who had been killed by the bombs. We were very grateful for the United States at that time, and we remain grateful. Europe is right to remember that and to recall our gratitude. No country in the whole world has sacrificed the blood of its daughters and sons for democracy in other countries more than the United States.

There is no question of any disrespect towards the United States, but there is a great feeling of concern, which has welled up in this petition. The day after the inauguration, 2 million people, mostly women, marched on the streets of America and 100,000 people marched in this country. It was an expression of fear and anxiety that we had someone like this in the White House wielding such enormous power. The President’s power is enormous, but unfortunately his intellectual capacity is protozoan. We are greatly concerned about the extraordinary actions he has taken. He has blundered into frozen conflicts around the planet that needed delicate handling; they needed the microsurgery of decisions such as those that have been taken in the past by statesmen. He has gone in and caused problems in every area in which he has become involved: the South China sea, Ukraine, and Israel-Palestine.

UN Vote on the Independent Expert for the LGBT Community

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady and am grateful for her good wishes. I hope that the vision of Members from across the Chamber agreeing on this issue will send out a strong message to any country or person who thinks that they should vote the other way or have an opinion that goes against what we would like to see.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the UN expert is being appointed to protect individuals in many countries from violence based on their sexual orientation? He is not being appointed to promote or to take a particular view on sexual orientation in those countries. It will be a dark day for the United Nations if it turns its face away from somebody who is trying to protect those who should have the same rights that we enjoy in this country.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The appointment is about protecting principles as he has described. How anyone can wish to challenge that is quite beyond me.

Humanitarian Law (Yemen)

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not agree with the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, as she might guess, but the second part I do agree with. The process that we must follow is to allow and encourage Saudi Arabia to make sure that it does the necessary investigations, as it is now starting to do. If we find that those investigations are wanting, it is absolutely right that we should then call for an independent international investigation to be carried out.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Of course Iran has equal responsibility under international humanitarian law, as well as Saudi Arabia. The Minister, as the surviving Minister in the Foreign Office, will know that several months ago, when it was revealed that the UK was supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia for the Yemen campaign, the justification for the Government’s position was that those weapons were accurate and needed by Saudi Arabia, and that the technical targeting assistance was being provided by the British to make sure that those accurate weapons were even more accurate. Given that that is the case, why have so many weapons gone astray?

[Mr Ellwood]

We have a very robust relationship with Saudi Arabia. We are able to raise matters in confidence and in private that we would not be able to raise in public, and that applies to many of the issues that have been raised today. However, this is a legitimate coalition, and it is allowed to use weapons that are provided and sold by the United Kingdom.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

With the greatest respect, I ask the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to listen to my speech before he comes to a judgment on this matter.

I believe that the economic arguments for remaining are overpowering, but the polls and the feedback from the doorstep confirm that immigration is a key motivating factor for some people in different parts of the country. Let me deal with some of the economic arguments around migration. I admit that I do not come to the debate on immigration completely objectively. I am the grandson of an Irish migrant. My grandfather’s generation of Irish migrants and subsequent Irish migrants built many of this country’s roads, railways and homes. They staffed the factories while many Irish women were the nurses who formed the backbone of the NHS and the teachers who taught in our schools. They all contributed to making this country’s economy the fifth largest in the world. That is what migrants overwhelmingly do. Over the last decade, migrants from new EU member countries contributed £20 billion more in taxes than they used in public services and benefit payments. More than 52,000 EU migrants work in our NHS. With labour shortages reported in key sectors such as construction, it is migrant labour that helps to fill the gap. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors’ recent surveys show that a lack of skilled workers is already hurting the delivery of infrastructure projects.

Let us admit, however, that genuine concerns have been expressed about the impact of migration on wages and employment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) suggested. Those concerns should not be dismissed. Research presented by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory has demonstrated that migration has not had the impact of reducing wages except in a small proportion of the workforce: those at the lowest end of the pay scale. This has to be addressed, and that is why Labour is calling for greater protection for this group of workers. Yes, reforms are needed with regard to the free movement of labour, to introduce greater protection of wages and employment rights and to halt the undercutting of wages and employment conditions. In government, we will renegotiate to give effect to those changes.

Other concerns have been expressed at the pressure placed on our public services by migration. The reality is that our public services struggle to cope with existing demand because of the austerity measures, the cuts and the chronic underfunding forced through by this Government over the last six years. But there is an argument that where pressures on public services increase in a particular area, funding must be made available to respond to that increased demand. That is why Labour has consistently argued for a special migration fund to assist those communities where demand increases. We condemned the abolition of the fund that was set up by Gordon Brown, but we welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today that he is exploring the establishment of a fund of that sort. We also want to seek further European funding to support this initiative, and that will be on our agenda.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Does the shadow Chancellor agree that being an EU citizen in the United Kingdom might be an uncomfortable experience at the moment, particularly in the light of the language and tone being used by one of the leaders of the Brexit campaign, Nigel Farage? Does he also agree that if we were to remove those EU citizens and put in place the 50,000 cap proposed by Nigel Farage, we would see an exodus of people who work in our care homes, our hospitals and our schools? That would have a real impact on our ability to deliver public services. Is it not the case that we are an open and tolerant United Kingdom?

[John McDonnell]

I find some of the statements that have been made reprehensible and irresponsible, because they do not weigh up the impact of the policies being advocated on our public services and our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I say that because I take a holistic view. I am looking at the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, taking into account all the pluses and minuses of our EU membership—yes, there are negatives as well as positives—balancing those arguments and reaching a conclusion about the net benefit to this country of being a member of the European Union.

[Mark Pritchard]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there can be no economic security without national security. Will he tell the House how many of our NATO allies want the United Kingdom to leave the European Union? Many in the Brexit camp invoke Commonwealth leaders. Perhaps he can enlighten the House about how many Commonwealth leaders want the UK to leave the European Union.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend knows very well that the answer to both those questions is zero, but it goes further than that: I have not found any foreign leaders at all urging Britain to leave the European Union and saying that Britain would be a more influential and valuable partner if it left the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Trade deals take place because they are in the mutual interests of both parties; they are not military conflicts. They take place between two parties, like trade itself.

A very plausible but incorrect argument is that trade agreements always take a long time. When the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was asked whether Ministers had done any study of trade agreements, he sidestepped the question. A freedom of information request has actually revealed that neither the Treasury nor the Government have done any study of the trade agreements about which they talk so knowledgeably. However, such studies have been done. I refer to the study by Professor Moser of the Centre of European Union Studies in Salzburg of every single trade agreement in the past 20 years. There are 88 of them. They took an average of 28 months, but the time for each varied greatly. The deals that took a long time were those that involved lots of countries, which certainly concurs with my experience. Of course, by definition any EU treaty involves 28 countries and takes a long time, because all 28 have vetoes. A lot of EU treaties are being held up now, but bilateral treaties take less than that average of 28 months. We should not start deluding people into thinking that it will take a long time to negotiate bilateral deals with countries that already have bilateral deals with Switzerland, for example.

The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam asked rhetorically whether anyone was queueing up for trade deals with us. Well, look not for what they say but what they do. Switzerland has trade deals with countries whose total GDP is four times that of the countries with which the EU has trade deals. Chile has trade deals with countries whose collective GDP is even bigger. Switzerland has a trade deal with China. We are told that it is a bad deal for Switzerland, but clearly the Swiss did not think so. The Swiss published the details of the deal online; Members can look at it themselves. By the time the EU even gets around to negotiating a trade deal with China—which by the way will never succeed because the EU will always insist on human rights terms the Chinese will not accept—the Swiss will have zero tariffs on the vast majority of their exports to China.

[Mark Pritchard]

My right hon. Friend is a distinguished former Trade Secretary so knows what he is on about. We come from different sides of the debate on this issue, but does he—with all his experience and wisdom, and all his contacts both in the Commonwealth and the European Union—accept this point? Brexiteers invoke the Commonwealth leaders as wanting to do business with Britain whether we are in or out of Europe. Is it not the case that Commonwealth leaders want a trade deal with the whole of Europe, not just with the United Kingdom?

[Mr Lilley]

They probably want trade deals with whoever they can negotiate sensible ones with, if they are sensible. They will not say that it is either/or; they will want a trade deal with us, because we are the fifth biggest economy in the world, and they will probably also want a trade deal with the EU. They will find, however, that that deal takes a very long time because all 28 countries will have to agree to it first.

It is often suggested that the EU will get better deals because it is bigger. Actually, not only is it more complicated to do those deals with lots of countries, and so takes longer, but the result is worse and less comprehensive, because there are 28 times as many exceptions and exclusions. They are even less likely to be in the UK’s interests, as we can see from what has happened so far. A third of the trade deals that the EU has negotiated with other countries do not include services. As has been repeatedly stated, services are very important to this country, but they are less important to the rest of the EU, so it does not bother to include them in the deals. Switzerland also attaches great importance to exporting services, so more than 90% of its trade deals include them—as of course would ours if we were independent and making our own deals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The fact of the matter is that this referendum would not be useful exercise if we were not a sovereign nation, because we would be unable to implement the outcome. That proves that we are sovereign—the questions are what we do with our sovereignty; what we do to influence our neighbours; and what we do to advance our national interest. Because we are a vibrant, ambitious and decent society, we have to do that within the European Union, as I will explain. It is about the future; it is not some blast to the past. It means this country thinking about what we do for our people beyond today.

Let us take trade; we have heard a lot about it today. We export twice as much to the Netherlands as we do to China. That is a fact. Why does it matter and what does the European Union provide for us? It provides a huge pool of wealth. It is the world’s largest single market, not just in its activity but in its value. It is nearly twice the size of China, yet some are thinking of leaving it. That would be madness, because the people we trade with most are the people who are most like us and who will benefit most from us as well. That is the trade argument.

Then we come to investment. In my constituency—and I bet in most other Members’ constituencies—there are examples of powerful intervention from the European Union through investors. That matters, and 48% of our foreign direct investment comes from the European Union. What does that equal? It equals jobs and it equals rising wages and opportunities for our young people.

That brings me on to the issue of our universities and young people’s opportunities to develop careers after they have been to university, not to mention the importance of opportunities for young people who do not want to go to university. The fact remains that the opportunities open to them by moving around Europe are immense, and it is vibrant for them and great for our economy. Do we want our young people to be stuck here when others are thriving somewhere else?

That brings me on to migration. It is a two-way street. We must remember that. There are just as many people coming here to help us with our skills as there are people going from here to there to make money for this economy. There are nearly 2 million Britons working or living in the European Union, benefiting from the opportunities with which being in the single market provides them.

[Mark Pritchard]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the majority of EU citizens coming to this country come here to work hard, pay their taxes and better their and their families’ lives—and that the majority are not here to scrounge?

[Neil Carmichael]

Absolutely. Some factories in my constituency could not do as much as they do without the sort of skills that they can get from the European Union. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I believe it is in our national security interest to remain in the European Union and, indeed, that it is in the national security interests of the United States and of our allies in Europe. At a time when there are many conflicts around the world and when the world is very unstable, with an aggressive Russia and a belligerent North Korea, the very last thing we want is a fragmentation of the European Union, ambiguity in foreign policy or a weakening of the European Union and of the strength we draw from one another.

There has been a lot of debate about whether NATO or the European Union is the cornerstone of our national security, but I would argue that both have become such a cornerstone. I do not resile from the fact that NATO is a major cornerstone of our national security. However, I ask Brexiteers this: if the UK were to leave the European Union, is it more likely that France and Germany would fast-track EU defence structures? My answer is yes. If that is the case, is it likely to undermine NATO? Again, my answer is yes. In my view, in the medium term we would see EU defence structures compete with NATO rather than complement it. That makes me very concerned indeed.

We also hear, on counter-terrorism, that our so-called open borders endanger our cities and towns and those who live in this country. But the majority of counter-terrorism challenges in this country are home grown. The majority of those involved in the awful and egregious attacks in Brussels and Paris were EU citizens. It is completely misleading to suggest that remaining in the European Union increases our likelihood of suffering a terrorist attack. We could be attacked at any time. I pay tribute to our intelligence services, our armed forces and police.

Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), I co-wrote a motion on having a European referendum that went against the Conservative Prime Minister and Government. We are where we are, and I make no apology for having played a key part in that, because it is right that, after 41 years, the British people are re-enfranchised on the European question. Nevertheless, I served on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for five years and on the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy for four years and, after serious reflection, I have come to the view that, on balance, for national security reasons we should remain in the European Union.

We have rightly heard a lot about the economic impacts of withdrawal from the European Union. I have absolutely no doubt that there would be a massive shock for our economy. If there was a £30 billion or £40 billion hit, yes, there would be further public sector cuts and tax rises. That would be bad for Britain, which today is leading the economies of Europe and indeed has the fastest growing economy in the G7. But without national security, we cannot have economic security, and without economic security we cannot have national security, because we will not have the funds to pay for our defence and our intelligence agencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) quite rightly called for an expansion of the Foreign Office—both the Secret Intelligence Service and the mainstream Foreign Office.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) put his finger right on it: do we want to put up the white flag and surrender all that we have worked for in Europe to France and Germany? They are close allies, but occasionally on foreign policy they can be eccentric, to put it politely. Diplomacy is a key part of national security. Are we going to surrender the diplomacy of the European Union to some of the more eccentric play of France and Germany? Would we have the robust and tough sanctions on Russia over Ukraine if it had not been for the Prime Minister’s and Foreign Secretary’s robust representations in Brussels and around the capitals of Europe to make sure that Russia paid for its aggression? If Russia were not paying for that aggression through sanctions, would there be aggression in the Baltic states?

I am not a Europhile. I am not passionate about Europe. I love the United Kingdom. That is why I believe that, on balance, the best prospect for a safer, more secure and more prosperous United Kingdom is to remain in the European Union.

Syria: Russian Redeployment and the Peace Process

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The humanitarian aid is there. It is ready to move; it is in trucks. The World Food Programme has the resource it needs. The food, the medical supplies and so on are ready to go in. The issue is simply access. Principally, that is to do with regime obstruction. In some places it has been overcome; in others it is still a problem. UN people are working day and night on the ground to try to resolve it, but it is a case of literally progressing through one checkpoint and then trying to negotiate the next.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Following on from the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), the Kremlin says that the Russian presence in Syria is to counter terrorism, although there are no terrorist groups with fighter jets. Is it not the case that if Russia is serious about de-escalating the situation in Syria and moving towards a peaceful and political solution, it will also withdraw its surface-to-air missiles—the S-400 system?

[Mr Hammond]

Our understanding is that the S-400 system was probably deployed to protect Russian installations and was part of the protective bubble that the Russians put around their installations in Syria—their air bases and naval port. We will obviously have to wait to see the extent, if any, of the withdrawal that has been announced and whether it includes those weapons.