Commission Work Programme 2015

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Is it our right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) who vetoed the debate, or is it simply some mystery in the machine? Is it some faceless bureaucrat, some poor fellow sitting patiently in the officials’ Box?

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

rose—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Or is it my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, who now wishes to intervene?

[Martin Horwood]

It certainly is not the hon. Member for Cheltenham, or indeed, I suspect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). The purpose of my intervention, however, is to take a rare opportunity to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, think that debate on European matters in this place should not be subject to undue delay, and that European scrutiny that is scrunched into two short periods after a long delay is utterly inadequate when it comes to what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) rightly described as a European equivalent of the Queen’s Speech. We should take a fresh look at all this in the next Parliament. Nevertheless, I should like the hon. Gentleman to substantiate any other allegations that he makes about individual Members.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for that helpful intervention. I was only speculating that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam—my friend—was responsible. In fact, I think that that is unlikely; I think that the person in question is more deeply hidden in the machinery than such an easy target as the Deputy Prime Minister.

This topic is of fundamental importance. According to press reports that have appeared over the past few days, 187,370 Romanians and Bulgarians were given national insurance numbers in 2014 alone. In other words, more than 200,000 people from Romania and Bulgaria have been given national insurance numbers during the period in which we have been waiting for this debate. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. According to a report from Oxford university, the population has risen by 565,000 in three years, and two thirds of those people are from European Union countries. In London alone, the population of EU member state nationals has risen by 161,000, from 711,000 to 872,000, during those three years.

The Government shy away from debates on this subject, thinking that if they do not talk about it, the nation will not notice; but the nation has noticed. I see that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is present. His entire party is making hay with the subject, because other politicians, including the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden)—other major political figures—are shying away from it. They believe that if they keep quiet, no one will notice. However, this is an issue of great importance to our constituents, who are worried about the sheer number of people who are entering the country because of free movement.

The Government are not setting out the groundwork for the renegotiation properly. At the December 2014 Council, they agreed to the following words, which appeared in the Council’s conclusions in relation to Switzerland:

“It”

—the Council—

“considers that the free movement of persons is a fundamental pillar of EU policy, and that the internal market and its four freedoms are indivisible.”

That seems to me to be a pretty bold statement, especially in connection with what we have heard about the Prime Minister’s speech on immigration being sent to Mrs Merkel for approval before being delivered. It seems that our policy on immigration must have the stamp of approval from Berlin, but we must be so committed to the European ideal that we view the free movement of people as unchallengeable. If we think that in regard to Switzerland, how can we renegotiate ourselves?

When I raised that question with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe earlier, he said that Switzerland had tied itself into a number of treaty arrangements, and that if it removed itself from one of them, it might find itself being removed from all of them. Surely that is exactly what we are trying to do in a renegotiation: surely we are trying to remove ourselves from some of the treaties to which we have agreed, but not from all of them. Perhaps the Government think that that is an equally disgraceful approach, but if it is sauce for the Swiss goose, surely it is sauce for the British gander. It cannot be right for the Government to take such a strong pro-European line in this regard. It shows a lack of sincerity in their approach to renegotiation—and if they renegotiate with a lack of sincerity, the British people are far more likely to vote to leave the EU, and the Government will get precisely the result that they do not want.

Time is short, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have asked for the Minister for Europe to be given a couple of minutes in which to wind up the debate. It is illustrative of how little time we have been allowed that a debate on the equivalent of a much longer Queen’s Speech and the free movement of people has been so truncated because of the Government’s failure to deliver on their promises. However, I want to make one more comment, in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). The financial transaction tax and the uniform corporation tax base represent a fundamental effort to take sovereignty from this country in fiscal matters, and patriate it to a European state. The fact that we have been given only 90 minutes in which to debate a matter of such importance is pretty poor according to the Government’s standard.

Ukraine

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The situation is that, after the cold war, when 19 ex-Soviet republics, or whatever it was, liberated themselves from the Soviet Union and became independent countries able to set their own path in the world, we sought to build a normal relationship with Russia—one in which Russia would join the community of nations and become richer and more normalised, and one in which the Russian people were able to become more prosperous. President Putin has chosen to set his face against that future and to hark backwards to the Soviet Union or perhaps to the Russian empire. We should remember that he is on public record as saying that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst disaster of the 20th century. Many of us would think it was one of the great achievements of the 20th century.

I do not think we can compromise with somebody whose avowed intention is to exercise control over independent neighbouring countries in such a way that they cannot determine their own future, whether that is a future aligned with the European Union and NATO or a future aligned with Russia and other allies. That must be for those people in those independent countries to choose for themselves.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I strongly welcome the clarity of the Foreign Secretary’s statement and his commitment to a united European response to the invasion. Does he agree that it is vital to pursue the diplomatic path, but equally important to ensure that diplomacy does not simply provide the space and time for the great chess player Putin to weaken Ukraine, regroup and attack again at a later date?

[Mr Hammond]

That is the great risk—that the Russian objective is simply to achieve a frozen conflict, and a situation in which, de facto, Russia exercises very extensive leverage over Ukraine, and Ukraine operates not as a truly independent sovereign nation, but as a semi-independent nation. We have seen Russian attempts elsewhere to manage frozen conflicts.

I sometimes think that one of the diseases we suffer from in the west is tidy-mindedness. We tend to think of conflicts such as this one as things that have to be solved and that have to have an end. I suspect that the mindset in the Kremlin is that the Russians can have any number of those conflicts, and that they can remain open, simmering for ever. That would suit them quite nicely.

Nigeria

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

We are more than stepping up to the crisis. I have said that we have one of the biggest bilateral aid budgets to Nigeria in the world—it is approximately £250 million a year—as well as the additional packages I have just announced. For the diaspora here, that is something of which we can be proud. The hon. Lady said that, given the wealth in Nigeria, Nigerians have the capacity to handle these things, but I disagree. I would say that they should have the capacity to deal with them, but the reality is that they do not. That is why a lot of UK support is going towards helping to build the capacity they need, with direct tactical training and advice to the Nigerian forces. I agree that they should have it, but currently I do not believe that they do.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the answers to violent extremism lie in inclusion and reconciliation, and development and good governance—all of which the Department for International Development will continue to support in Nigeria, even after the cameras have moved on? Does he also agree that effective evaluation of Government-to-Government aid must accompany that work?

[Mr Swire]

The first thing to point out is that no UK aid goes directly to the Government of Nigeria; it goes to other organisations within Nigeria. Yes, we should continue to help build. As I have said, I believe that we have to justify overseas aid because it is a contentious issue and people do not want to see it going to countries that squander it in some way. That is why we do not on the whole give Government-to-Government overseas aid. Given Nigeria’s huge wealth and its huge divisions of wealth, particularly between the north and south, we think there is a role—in the British interest, apart from anything else—to help build capacity and strengthen institutions in that country so that it can handle these issues itself. We will continue to do that, whether the cameras are on us or not.

Gibraltar

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I commend the Foreign Affairs Committee for its report, which includes thoughtful analysis. This is a timely debate. The Liberal Democrats have a soft spot for Gibraltar currently. We do not often refer to the outcome of the 2014 European elections, but there was a 49% swing to the Liberal Democrats in Gibraltar, which must be some kind of record for representative democracy, let alone for the Liberal Democrats. That is obviously testament to the outstanding good sense of the people of Gibraltar, but it is also a tribute to the hard work and diligence of Sir Graham Watson, Gibraltar’s Member of the European Parliament, who for many years took a close interest in Gibraltarian matters and was a strong advocate for the people of Gibraltar. I was personally sad that he narrowly missed re-election on that day and pay tribute to his hard work and diligence for all the people of south-west England, but for Gibraltar particularly in the context of the debate. That underlines that Gibraltar is part of the European Union.

Spain’s behaviour towards Gibraltar is completely inappropriate for a fellow European state. There are many bonds of friendship and affection between Britain and Gibraltar, but the current situation is not about that, and not even about keeping Gibraltar British for ever—after all, as we have emphasised, it is a self-governing territory. It is about absolute support for the right to self-determination for the people of Gibraltar. It is also about the rule of law and the proper application of the rules of the European Union. Since the current Spanish Government were elected in 2011, they seem to have been on a singularly aggressive campaign to try to undermine both those principles, which is extremely unfortunate.

In passing, I should say that the Popular party is a member of the European People’s party. It is unfortunate that the Conservative party withdrew from that grouping and thereby lost an opportunity for regular informal dialogue with Spanish leaders, which might have softened the Spanish Government’s approach. That is speculation, but unfortunately, the hard fact is that their attitude has become more and not less aggressive. They have withdrawn from the trilateral forum for dialogue.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

With respect, I do not believe that Spain would alter its view if the Conservative party were in the European People’s party.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman might be right and I accept what he says in good part.

The Spanish Government have withdrawn from the trilateral forum for dialogue, which provided a framework for discussion between the three Governments. They have committed to unravel agreements entered into under the trilateral forum to which Spain had signed up. The Spanish Foreign Minister, Senor Margallo, has called that putting the toothpaste back into the tube. In response, we should tell him that that is generally a messy and pointless process. He has also used slightly more aggressive language. The Select Committee refers to his comment that “play time is over” with respect to Gibraltar, which is intimidating vocabulary. It is unfortunate that it comes from a fellow European democracy.

One arrangement entered into under the forum was that Spain promised to respect the inclusion of Gibraltar airport in EU civil aviation measures, which an hon. Member mentioned. In fact, Spain’s objections have disrupted the single European sky project. “Single European sky” is a phrase calculated to send Eurosceptic Members purple with rage, but it does not mean that Brussels is trying to take over our skies. It is a perfectly sensible and safe improvement to air traffic control measures. It includes Norway and Switzerland, so it does not require membership of the European Union.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend and I have agreed on anything substantial before, but I thought it important to put on the record that what he says about the single European sky is absolutely right. As a Eurosceptic and an aviator, I am fully in support of this sensible co-operative measure.

[Martin Horwood]

The European Union has hidden benefits, which come out in detailed analysis.

Spanish aggression has not finished there. There continue to be delays at the border caused by intensive Spanish controls, which the European Commission has described as disproportionate and which seem to have got worse since the Committee’s report was published. I am told that the delay to enter Spain was about five hours on 1 December, and there have been regular delays of more than an hour going in the other direction. That does not just disrupt life for Gibraltarians; it disrupts life for the 10,000 cross-frontier workers, almost all of them Spanish. We have also seen serious incursions into British Gibraltar territorial waters by Spanish paramilitary or naval vessels. They entered Gibraltar waters more than 100 times just in December 2014, some incursions being rather more serious than others.

What do we do about this? The British Government have to strike a balance between the firm response that all hon. Members are calling for today and avoiding making the situation worse. Walking out of meetings is probably a manoeuvre that has to be used with some caution. We do not want needlessly to escalate or provoke a negative response from the Spanish. Yet, as the Committee’s report rightly points out, the idea of trying to defuse and de-escalate the dispute has not produced many results. Some detailed points in the report, such as those on the delays in lodging protests about some of the incursions into territorial waters, are well made. They send a bad diplomatic signal, and it is good that they have been tightened up.

Other measures can be considered. The UK Government should commit to taking legal action if Gibraltar airport is excluded from any EU civil aviation measures. That is a clear, calm, rational, legal process to enter into, and I would be interested to hear the Government’s response. We should certainly press the EU Commission to pay more attention to the monitoring of the border between Spain and Gibraltar, which it has said is unacceptable. It should send a permanent monitoring mission to that border to see exactly what is going on. I am sure that the British Government, and perhaps the Government of Gibraltar, would be willing to assist with that logistically and financially.

Another interesting possibility, which is discussed in the Select Committee’s report, is the idea of Gibraltar joining the Schengen agreement. That might well reduce some of the obvious problems in the areas of dispute if it was practically supported by other member states. The difficulty pointed out in the report is that the acquis is carefully defined in the European treaties, so it might require treaty change, but treaty change is in the air in Europe. There may be a possibility of treaty change in the next few years, and it might be worth taking up the opportunity of treaty change to include that as a de-escalatory measure. Technically, under Liberal Democrat policy, that would represent an increase in power, albeit a small one, from Britain to Brussels, and would therefore trigger an in-out referendum, but we might be able to embrace that at the time. We need to explore these possibilities in all seriousness. Even if a treaty change might not seem practical right now, if it is possible in the near future, we should consider it.

We should certainly look at what tougher action we can take to prevent and deter incursions into Gibraltar’s territorial waters. Serious sovereignty considerations are at stake here, and, as hon. Members have pointed out, there are fears for the safety of the crews of the Royal Navy, the Royal Gibraltar police and the Gibraltar defence police and of the Spanish vessels involved in these disputes and encounters, which in some cases are proving quite dangerous. Arresting the Spanish vessels might be seen as extremely provocative, but we need to hear from the Minister a new, robust approach to the matter in future.

The people of Gibraltar have a right to self-determination. Spain as well as this country should respect that fundamental democratic right, which is enshrined in the United Nations covenant on civil and political rights. In the past, the Government have supported the right of the people of Gibraltar to determine their own future. The Select Committee supports that right, and the House should support it today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), and the rest of the Committee on producing the report that has given rise to this debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed, be they members of the Select Committee or the all-party group on Gibraltar or simply interested in the issue. The Select Committee report really concentrates on three areas: issues at the border; issues affecting British-Gibraltan territorial waters; and the international aspects.

Let me deal with the overall context of this debate, which as hon. Members have mentioned, should be—and could be even more—a good relationship between Britain and Spain. We are fellow members of the EU, fellow members of NATO and allies in many areas. It is therefore tragic that this issue has been rising in importance and has become a real cause of tension.

It makes no sense for the lives of the people of Gibraltar to be deliberately made more difficult as a result of a campaign by Spain to do so. That is wrong in itself and it undermines what is otherwise a strong and long-standing relationship between the UK and Spain.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referred to comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) when he was a Minister. At that time, my right hon. Friend made it clear that this was a matter not of empire, but of popular will. He said that the constitutional status of Gibraltar would not be changed without the consent of the people of Gibraltar, and that the UK Government would not enter into discussions about that issue without the consent of those people. That was the position then, and it remains the position of my party now. This is the cornerstone of British policy on this issue: it is a position shared by the current Government and it is an important issue in common between us.

Once that is understood by all concerned, there is room for dialogue and co-operation on a number of issues. That was the kind of policy that was in place under the Cordoba agreement and, with good will, it could be resurrected and put in place again. It has to be made clear, however, that it is not the fault of the United Kingdom that the Cordoba agreement has become less effective. That is the result of decisions taken by Spain to adopt a harder line against Gibraltar.

My first question for the Minister—I would like him to address it in his summing up—is where do things stand with the so-called ad hoc discussions between Britain, Gibraltar and Spain? Has there been any indication from the Spanish Government that they are willing to resume these discussions, and do they accept Gibraltar’s place as a full participant in them?

The Select Committee report rightly and strongly criticises the unacceptable and deliberately organised delays at the border crossing, which cause major inconvenience to Gibraltarians, Spanish workers and the huge number of tourists who visit Gibraltar each year. As we have heard, these are causing delays of five, six or sometimes seven hours for cars at the crossing and 90 minutes or more for people crossing on foot. These border issues have had a direct impact on Gibraltar’s tourism trade and constitute an unwarranted and wholly disproportionate barrier to free movement between Gibraltar and Spain.

Let me pick up on another point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough. Free movement, as we have heard in our broader debates in this House and this country over recent months, is held up as a cardinal principle of membership of the European Union. For a time, it seemed as though the UK Government wanted to compromise the principle of free movement. Many thought that was the implication when the Prime Minister said in his conference speech, “I will sort this issue.” However, his recent speech on EU migration, made just before Christmas, was widely seen as a retreat from that position. It was seen as dealing with issues relating to benefits, and as not compromising the United Kingdom’s attitude to the principle of free movement. If there was any doubt about that position, only yesterday, during his joint press conference with the German Chancellor, the Prime Minister attested to his own belief in, and support for, the principle of free movement. I am sure that that belief and support have been widely welcomed by his colleagues on the Back Benches.

My point to the Minister is that, now that the position has been made clear, he and his colleagues are in a stronger position to make it clear to the Spanish that it is wrong for them to interfere with the free movement of their own citizens who wish to work in Gibraltar, and the ability of the people of Gibraltar to travel freely back and forth across the border.

[Martin Horwood]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting and significant point. I can certainly say that the Liberal Democrat side of the coalition fully supports the free movement of peoples. It is a very important principle, which will benefit the people of Gibraltar in due course.

[Mr McFadden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. A serious aspect of this issue is that when we question such principles, we may sometimes do so without thinking about how they are used by our own citizens who, in possession of a British passport, can move freely—and live and work freely—throughout the European Union, as many do.

Given the principle of free movement, the Government are absolutely within their rights to complain to the European Commission about what is happening on the Gibraltar-Spain border. They have done so before; may I ask the Minister whether they will do so again, stressing the issue of the recent delays and the impact that they are having on the economy and citizens of Gibraltar? Will the Government also call for Commission visits to be made with little or no notice? As we have heard during the debate, the inconveniences and delays can be turned on and off. Obviously, if lengthy notice is given of a visit, it will be easy to step down the pressure and ensure that the inspectors do not see things as they sometimes are. It matters how such visits are conducted, and when they are conducted.

Paragraph 84 of the report suggests that the Government should consider using article 259 of the Lisbon treaty to take Spain to the European Court. May I ask the Minister for his response to that suggestion, which was also mentioned today by the right hon. Member for Croydon South?

The report gives detailed information about the sharply increased number of transgressions of British- Gibraltan territorial waters, which sometimes occur as often as 50 or 60 times a month. Let us be clear about the fact that this is not about free passage; it is about state-owned vessels violating sovereignty, and trying to erode the status and integrity of Gibraltar's territorial waters.

The Committee drew attention to the Government’s delays in lodging protests against those transgressions, fearing that such delays lessened the impact of our complaints and gave the impression that we were merely going through the motions. In their response to the report, the Government said that practice had changed, and that there was now a weekly submission to the Spanish Government. That is to be welcomed on one level, but the fact that the submission must be weekly prompts another question: what further means of reducing the number of transgressions, and thus the need for weekly submissions, have the Government considered?

I am sure the whole House agrees that the Royal Navy’s Gibraltar Squadron and the Royal Gibraltar Police do a difficult and dangerous job, showing admirable restraint when faced with repeated and sometimes dangerous provocation on the seas. The report also welcomes the use of Gibraltar as a staging post for larger Royal Navy vessels.

May I ask the Minister to address the points made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), whose military experience is always valuable in these debates? Is it still Ministers’ view that the squadron there has the ships, equipment and manpower to carry out the tasks assigned to it, or is there a need to reassess this in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested?

The international aspects of this issue have also been mentioned in this debate. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is unacceptable to use issues like EU aviation policy or the single European sky policy to put further pressure on Gibraltar. Why should not the airport in Gibraltar and the people travelling there have the same freedom and rights as people elsewhere in the EU?

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) mentioned the resolution in Congress recognising Gibraltar’s right to self-determination. I am sure that the attempts by the Spanish Government, in the letter from the ambassador to Congress, to link their support for the coalition against ISIS with the issue of Gibraltarian self-determination would be rejected by all of us. As democratic countries defending pluralism, there should be no linkage between the battle against the ideology and practices of ISIS and self-determination for the people of Gibraltar.

Tibet

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate, Mr Owen, albeit fairly briefly. The debate is timely and I applaud the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for securing it.

The situation in Tibet is very sad, given the impression we get in the west these days of China as a whole. China’s situation is one of enormous progress, with an incredible reduction in poverty and a scientific and intellectual flowering the like of which we do not often see in a country of its size. We ought to celebrate and welcome that.

Yet when it comes to Tibet, we still see what appears to be a throwback to a darker and harsher era in China’s history: the catalogue of human rights abuses that hon. Members have referred to, arbitrary and unjustified arrests, suppression of freedom of speech and the systematic undermining of Tibetan culture. We hear a language that harks back almost to Maoist terminology—reference to “correct views of art” or to “secessionist sabotage”, or the Xinhua news agency congratulating President Xi on

“emphasising the integration of ideology and artistic values”.

That post-Maoist language has a chilling tone with regard to Tibet in particular, because it suggests that the impression of progress and positive development in China as a whole masks some very negative developments.

If I had to say something about the Tibetan Government in exile—now with an elected leader in Lobsang Sangay, as the Dalai Lama has handed over political power—it is that the Chinese are astonishingly lucky that that Government in exile are campaigning for liberation and freedom in Tibet. There are so many more violent models for resistance—so many more disruptive, antisocial and potentially threatening ways in which various peoples around the world try to achieve self-determination and freedom of expression—yet the opposition in Tibet has consistently advocated peaceful change and dialogue with Beijing. It has even accepted that the sovereignty of Tibet is probably not going to be re-established and that it is really searching for some kind of accommodation with the Chinese state. Yet that opposition is met with incredibly aggressive language and a heavy-handed and oppressive response from the Chinese authorities.

As for the wider situation, I seem to take part in a lot of debates—whether on cybercrime, wildlife crime, militarisation in east Asia, China’s aggressive relations with some of its neighbours, including Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam, China’s indulgence of various dictatorships in Africa, or the situation in Hong Kong—during which, in each case, we say that China is not pursuing the responsible and statesmanlike approach we would expect of a new world power or superpower. Yet we never seem to join up the dots or sit back to look at the situation and ask, have we had a sophisticated enough policy towards China? Has that policy simply been too focused on trade, investment and the economic benefits of our relationships with China—not just as the UK, but as part of the European Union and the international community? Do we now need to wake up to some of the worrying developments: abuses of human rights, suppression of freedom of expression, and aggressive stances towards—in the case of the people of Tibet—some of the most vulnerable and disempowered people in the world? Do we need a more sophisticated and developed policy towards China?

At the end of his speech the hon. Member for Leeds North East read out a list of specific things he was asking for. If I had to pick out one as the most important, it would be to take a lead within the European Union on developing a new approach and asking the Chinese Government to address the issue of policies toward Tibet that threaten Tibetan culture. As the European Union, we are not so subject to the divide and rule approach. Other hon. Members referred to relations between this country and China, or between South Africa and China or Norway and China. When one country takes a stand, it is more vulnerable than we will be if we take a collective and collaborative approach across the international community.

There is much to celebrate in our relationship with China. I know the Minister has enormous expertise on the part of the world we are debating. However, the current situation, in which the international community appears to be showing a rather aimless indifference towards the plight of the people of Tibet, simply cannot go on.

Yemen (British Nationals)

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful that the House is united in condemning those acts of barbarism, and in its support on hostage matters.

The hon. Gentleman pays tribute to the US forces involved. The House should pay tribute to all special forces who put their lives in danger to attempt releases. They are successful in many cases. They do a huge amount of work behind the scenes of which the House is unaware. He is right to pay tribute to them. I should add that Yemeni special forces were also involved in the rescue attempt.

The hon. Gentleman asks for the greater intelligence picture. I am unable to provide the House with that information—he might have heard comments from a Government Member sitting behind me—and I hope he understands why. However, I would add that the video that was released made it clear that Mr Somers’ life was in danger, and it was apparent that he had three days to live. That gave the indication to the Americans that a decision had to made on launching a rescue attempt.

The hon. Gentleman asked about travel advice. I am not sure whether he heard me make it clear in my opening response that we have said since 2011 that no British citizen is advised to travel to Yemen. Indeed, any British citizens there now should leave.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the important question of the political landscape. Steps were taken at the UN General Assembly for the signing of the peace and national partnership agreement. It has been signed by all parties, including the Houthis, but has not been implemented. It is important that we get all stakeholders around the table to move the process forward. I should add that the Yemeni Government have issued a 100-day agreement, which will be put to Parliament in the next few days. I hope that will be the vehicle through which the stakeholders can come together. We look for a more federated model for governing Yemen.

The hon. Gentleman’s final point was on the connection between ISIS and al-Qaeda. There is a lot of friction between the two groups and they challenge and rival each other for superiority, but he is right to say that, combined, they provide a difficult landscape in the middle east. It requires the UK to work with our international partners in the region to tackle the problem.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

This is obviously a complicated and upsetting case, most of all for the families of Mr Somers and Mr Korkie. Our thoughts must be with them, and we should blame only the terrorists for their deaths. However, is the Minister satisfied that communications within the international community and between Governments are adequate, and could they be improved, especially given the apparent revelation that the South African Government were in the process of negotiating Mr Korkie’s imminent release when he was killed—there is no suggestion that people knew that he and Mr Somers were being held together?

[Mr Ellwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of condolence, which will be heard by the families. Information has come forward to suggest that, in Mr Korkie’s case, there was a consideration of a potential release. There are continual suggestions of potential releases and they had happened in the past. Again, it was for the Americans to make an operational judgment. It was decided that the threat to life was imminent, and therefore that action needed to be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

My meeting really should be for Members of both Houses who wish to accompany me, many of whom are expert advocates for Justice for Colombia.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Last week, I met Irrael Solano, indigenous governor of the Zenú community, who is on a death list of the so-called Caribbean coast commando. At least 60 members of his community have been assassinated, so he takes that threat very seriously. Will the Government urge the Colombian Government to do whatever they can to protect Señor Solano and other human rights defenders along the Caribbean coast?

[Mr Swire]

Indeed, and I think the hon. Gentleman is a perfect candidate to come with me to raise these matters personally with the ambassador in January. We are concerned about human rights defenders, as I have made clear, including when I was in Bogota. I hope that the Colombian Government will realise how keen an interest this House takes in both the peace process and the wider case for justice for all in Colombia.

Foreign Affairs Committee (Hong Kong Visit)

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) and my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who made a typically well-informed and moving speech.

I will start on a slightly sober note with a touch of realism. We in this Parliament are obviously not in a very strong position to influence events in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, it is absolutely right that we should support human rights and democracy for the people of Hong Kong and support the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and his Committee in stating very clearly that the accusation of unjustified meddling in the internal affairs of China is not justified. Indeed, it is not justified either to try to inhibit the work of the all-party group on China, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is being generous, both in what he says and in giving way, but I want to make a tiny point. He said that we may not have much influence over Hong Kong, but the whole point of this debate, of course, is that we are not trying to influence Hong Kong. We are trying to discuss the issues, but we are not trying to interfere, meddle, influence or anything else.

[Martin Horwood]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point and I will come back to it. There is an argument for us to comment on universal human rights and thereby try to influence their conduct throughout the world. To that extent, I think we are trying to influence events, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the focus of this debate is on, in a sense, the opposite situation, which is the Chinese Government’s unjustified attempt to curtail a parliamentary inquiry. It is true that we are not seeking in this debate to change anything in Hong Kong immediately.

The accusation of unjustified interference is wrong on two counts. First, as many hon. and right hon. Members have pointed out, we are party to an international agreement—the 1984 joint declaration—which refers in article 3(12) to the

“basic policies of the People’s Republic of China regarding Hong Kong”.

Article 3(4) states:

“The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People’s Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally.”

That is not the strongest wording in the world, but it is repeated in the Basic Law that was also implemented by the joint agreement. Article 3(12) goes on to state that those policies would

“remain unchanged for 50 years.”

We are clearly within that time scale, so the British Parliament has a perfectly legitimate right to look at how the Basic Law and joint agreement are being interpreted in practice in Hong Kong, particularly in the light of the Beijing Government’s announcements in August.

The second reason it is wrong to criticise the Foreign Affairs Committee is that we are all party to the United Nations universal declaration of human rights, which affirms that human rights—from Iran to Colombia and from China to Britain itself—are inalienable for all members of the human family. It is legitimate for any member of the United Nations to look at, comment on and take an interest in the conduct of human rights worldwide, and no Parliament or democratic assembly anywhere in the world should feel inhibited from doing so. It is common for this Parliament to comment on human rights in a variety of countries. Indeed, the Government publish an annual human rights report, in which they comment on human rights in many countries around the world.

As Lenin once said, what is to be done? First, we have to be clear that the Foreign Affairs Committee should continue to highlight the issues raised by events in Hong Kong, to investigate them thoroughly and to draw reasonable conclusions without fear of intimidation. We need to be clear that everyone in this Parliament supports its right to do that and encourages it to continue its inquiry.

Secondly, it is important that the British Government continue to raise concerns about China’s interpretation of the Basic Law and the joint declaration, and in doing so draw on the expertise of the Foreign Affairs Committee and its eventual report.

Thirdly, this country needs to adopt a deeper and more sophisticated policy towards China. Parliament and Government have tended to address China as if the only important thing we want it to do is buy and sell more widgets. The view has been that trade and capital investment are important, but almost to the exclusion of other considerations, and many hon. Members have reinforced the point that that is not the case. Trade and capital investment are important, but policies have to be wider and more sophisticated than that.

Part of that policy has to be an understanding from our side of China, its sensitivities and history, and the progress it has made. That means acknowledging that our shared history with China has not been particularly glorious on the British side on many occasions. We have to acknowledge that our role as a colonial power in events such as the opium wars was, in retrospect, disgraceful. We have undervalued contributions such as that of the 96,000 members of the Chinese Labour Corps during the first world war. They behaved with complete heroism and lost thousands of their number, but they were treated pretty disgracefully at the time and, equally disgracefully, their heroism and contribution to this country during the first world war have been neglected. A broad-based campaign is seeking to rectify that omission and obtain a memorial in this country to the Chinese Labour Corps. I hope that will attract Government support.

We have to acknowledge our own failure to deliver democracy in Hong Kong. We were the administrators and rulers of Hong Kong for many years, and we never delivered a Chief Executive who was elected by the people of Hong Kong without interference. We appointed colonial governors, and I am sure that some of them were very skilled, talented and caring, but in a sense it was a benign colonial dictatorship. It is difficult for us now to turn around and criticise China on how it behaves towards Hong Kong, and we have to be sensitive to that.

[Sandra Osborne]

It is important to remember that the Committee has not come to any conclusions about the rights and wrongs of the situation. We are protesting about being refused access to Hong Kong.

[Martin Horwood]

I completely accept that point, which the hon. Lady is right to emphasise. I am talking in a wider context about how we need a sophisticated approach to China. We should not constantly hector the Chinese for any failings we detect on their side, without acknowledging that over the long period of history—their approach is very much to look at the long picture—there have also been historical failings, injustices and omissions on our side. We have to be honest and acknowledge that.

A sophisticated policy towards China must include firmness in the face both of contraventions of human rights on Chinese territory, and of the militarisation and the sometimes unjustified indulgence of dictatorships in different parts of the world. That firmness should include the way in which the Chinese allow the perpetuation of wildlife crime in pursuit of markets for things such as ivory, which the International Fund for Animal Welfare has highlighted in the House of Commons only this week. In our pursuit of trade and investment, there is a risk that not only the UK but democracies all over the world will find ourselves divided and perhaps to some extent ruled by a Chinese foreign policy that seeks to intimidate smaller democracies and to influence our discussion of their affairs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It just so happens that I had an opportunity to speak to a chief superintendent from the Hong Kong police this week. In our conversation, he confirmed that 6,500 demonstrations take place in Hong Kong. We are very fond of demonstrations in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows. Does he share my concern to ensure that demonstrations commemorating workers’ rights and other events should continue in the way they have until now, with no bother, actions or friction?

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which underlines the fact that it is sometimes difficult to deal with the idea of free protest. It is fine in principle, but in practice even in our own country—even in Northern Ireland—it is sometimes a difficult challenge for policy makers and the authorities. The right of free protest is enormously important. It has been a hard-fought and hard-won right in countries all over the world, and we should certainly try to defend it in Hong Kong.

I was making the point that the free countries of the world risk being subject to a kind of divide-and-rule approach by the Chinese, with the Chinese Government using the rather intimidating tactics of trying to suppress inquiries and to inhibit activities, even those of all-party groups that are nothing to do with the British Government and are not part of this country’s Executive.

Part of the relationship building has to be to try to communicate to the Chinese Government what we understand not just by the rule of law, as has been mentioned, but by the separation of powers. In democracies such as ours, the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature are completely separate, and they have their own rights against each other, let alone in relation to other countries.

The democracies of the world must start to develop a more sophisticated approach to China, so that we can present a united front and say, “It is quite clear that you are the emerging new superpower of the world, an enormous economic force and probably a growing political force, and that you have an enormously rich and important history and a fabulous civilisation, but that does not give you the right to take smaller countries, democracies and economies and inhibit them from carrying out their proper business.”

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Our links with China should be emphasised. Historically, the first ambassador to Beijing hailed from Ballymoney—his name was Macartney—but today that link between my constituency and Hong Kong continues through the Kowloon Motor Bus Company, with Wrightbus manufacturing buses not only for London but for Hong Kong. Such economic links should be used as influence, saying, “Look, we have an economic driver that brings us closer together. Let us not be separated by this division that is currently preventing Members of Parliament from entering Hong Kong.”

[Martin Horwood]

I am happy that the hon. Gentleman has intervened on that point, which emphasises our strong cultural and human links with Hong Kong and with China as a whole.

Countries such as the UK must support democracies in the region, such as Taiwan. The example of Hong Kong is very important to Taiwan’s security and confidence. The language that Beijing is using about Taiwan has changed subtly in the past year or so. It is talking about the problem of Taiwan not being handed down from generation to generation, as though there ought to be some conclusion to the perpetual debate about Taiwan’s possible independence, its reintegration into the Republic of China or its continuation with its current status. That is potentially threatening to the democracy of Taiwan, as we must acknowledge. We must understand that how the one country, two systems approach has worked in Hong Kong is vital, and that that example is being watched very carefully in Taiwan.

The underlying message of this debate must be that we have to understand and respect China, but that we equally want China to understand and respect how our democracy works, including how we separate powers between parliamentary inquiries and the Executive, and how a Select Committee’s right to look into a legitimate area of concern—in terms not only of British foreign policy but of universal human rights—is something that we can and must defend.

Palestine

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and, indeed, the 124,000 petitioners on securing this debate. If they had any fears that interest was subsiding after the October vote in the House of Commons, today’s attendance here will reassure them.

The Israel-Palestine situation is obviously grim and we are right to keep on condemning each new low in the cycle of violence, whether it is the deliberate murder of civilians, even rabbis at prayer, or the disproportionate response by Governments to the murder of civilians, as we saw in the summer in Gaza, with 500 children among 1,500 Palestinian civilians killed.

There is a some sense of movement. There is certainly a sense of political movement outside Israel and that has been reflected in all our political parties, including the Liberal Democrat conference this year voting for recognition of Palestinian statehood, followed by the historic House of Commons vote. The French Assemblée Nationale will probably do exactly the same thing tomorrow. We have votes coming forward in the Australian Parliament and, at some stage, in the European Parliament.

There is a sense that people in the west have realised that we need some kind of direction to the Netanyahu Government. A corner was turned when President Obama told the Iraqi Government of Nouri al-Maliki that it was not enough to be elected: even in a tough neighbourhood and even when their country faces an existential threat, people also have to work for an inclusive, peaceful solution. I am afraid that the Netanyahu Government are not demonstrating that. We have to pursue a consistent path in the region.

I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) that we should still work towards the two-state solution. The only alternative is perpetual conflict. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) that the peace process is poppycock. It certainly needs kick-starting—frankly, it needs bringing back from the dead—but that does have to be done, and the pressure needs to be exerted on the more powerful party, which in this case is the Government of Israel. The Palestinian Authority may have committed diplomatic, political and negotiating mistakes, and I am sure it would be the first to admit that.

[Mr McCann]

On the point about Netanyahu’s Government, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather ironic that Bibi Netanyahu is not actually as far to the right as some of his colleagues in the Government? The problem he has to face up to, just as the Palestinians do, is that he has to have the courage of his convictions to take his country forward to a peaceful solution. He must face down those on the right of him in his Government and tell them that that is the way forward.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I will come back to the dynamics of the coalition. Some of us in the Chamber are becoming increasingly expert as regards the dynamics of coalitions.

The contrast I was drawing was between the negotiating mistakes the Palestinians may have made over time and the Israeli Government’s unfortunate practice of physically undermining the peace process, particularly through the settlement programme, which is a much more serious step. What do we do in response? First, the Government must recognise Palestinian statehood. The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly for that. Secondly, the European Union must look at the Israel association agreement, article 1 of which commits the parties to

“the consolidation of peaceful coexistence”.

Neither the settlement programme nor the new nationality Bill in the Knesset seems to reinforce the consolidation of peaceful co-existence. Article 2 of the agreement commits Israel to “respect for human rights”, and there are also questions in that respect. A formal review of the association agreement, with all the possible economic implications for Israel, must therefore be looked at. Thirdly, arms sales: Israel is a country of concern on the Foreign Office’s human rights list, and the Liberal Democrat party’s policy is that that should earn it the presumption of denial of arms sales.

The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) is right that we must not fall into the trap of polarisation. It is right to highlight and celebrate the opinions of Jewish and Israeli moderates who are challenging the Netanyahu Government. It is right to highlight the range of opinion in Israel itself. That now includes Ministers such as Yair Lapid and Tzipi Livni, who just this year talked about the settlement enterprise as

“a security, economic and moral burden”.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there is movement in Israeli public opinion, particularly on the settler issue, but underpinning that there must be reassurance about Israel’s security and existence. That is also important, and it needs to be stressed if public opinion is to put pressure on Governments in Israel.

[Martin Horwood]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I would also say that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have accepted the Arab peace initiative—Hamas even briefly accepted it—which implies recognition of the state of Israel. There has been movement on the other side, so the pressure really is on the Netanyahu Government to demonstrate an equal degree of movement. Perhaps we will see movement if there is a general election in Israel—there is now talk of one being imminent if the rebellious statements from coalition Ministers continue.

We do need to see movement. We used to think that the worst possible option was perpetual conflict, but if we look at the middle east now, we see that that is not the case and that there are worse options even than an Iranian-backed Hamas. There are forces in the middle east even darker and more extreme backed by Sunni extremists. We really do not want the middle east to descend into the kind of conflict we have seen and for that to extend to Palestine. For that reason, we must support moderate Arab opinion in Palestine as well.

Iran (Nuclear Talks)

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman has asked the question a number of times, and his question has been noted. I have been discussing the conference with other P5 colleagues, and I can assure him that a definitive position on the UK’s attendance will be announced in the next few days.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Foreign Secretary is exactly right to highlight the relevance of this issue to regional security, a major factor in which has been the continuing hostility between Iran and Sunni Arab states. How confident is he that the process is accepted and supported by countries in the region such as Saudi Arabia?

[Mr Hammond]

As the hon. Gentleman knows and as I think we would expect, some of Iran’s neighbours are deeply nervous about the process. They want to be absolutely reassured that if a deal is done which relieves the sanctions pressure on Iran, it is done in exchange for a cast-iron, copper-bottomed guarantee, if one can have such a thing. Perhaps it is cast-iron round the sides and copper at the bottom.