Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance
Martin Horwood Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Cash
Absolutely. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the time, but I referred to that in reply to another colleague. We are effectively having a new qualified majority voting system for referendums.
The catalogue of breaches of the spirit and the specific legal requirements were epitomised in Madame Lagarde’s remarks on 17 December 2010 about the first bail-out fund, otherwise known as the EFSM—the European financial stabilisation mechanism. She said:
“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the euro zone.”
That is the objective and the method. She is now head of the International Monetary Fund, and we are faced with the prospect of the United Kingdom being expected to contribute to the IMF for what everybody knows is a back-door arrangement to underpin and guarantee the bail-outs in the European Union, which the IMF was not set up to provide, as the United States and other countries have made clear.
Indeed, Germany and France broke the stability and growth pact as it was originally instituted. Now we have a new feature in the big political landscape: in the pursuit of a tax and fiscal policy and compliance with a so-called golden rule to balance their budgets by a form of coercion, 25 member states of the European Union have now come up with an agreement to increase the powers of the stability and growth pact as it applies to them, irrespective of whether a country held a referendum and voted no, as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) just suggested. The vote would simply be swept away by a majority vote of the other countries, which insisted on applying the golden rule. One is bound to ask what kind of golden rule it is and whether it is not possible for individual countries to balance their budgets out of self-interest and through their own democratic decisions, rather than having a rule imposed on them in pursuit of the ideology of economic and political union. Indeed, the imposition of such a rule will, of itself, not balance the budgets anyway, as has been found in the past. This is using rules of law to breach the rule of law.
The real solution to the European crisis, which is not confined to the eurozone and deeply affects the United Kingdom, is that the levels of public expenditure, which led to the breaches of the criteria in the treaties, can be solved only by generating growth and giving oxygen to small and medium-sized businesses, for example, through deregulating the massive over-regulation and multiplicity of laws, such as the working time directive, among many others. The list is vast.
Yet again, the whole treaty is a vain attempt to sacrifice practicality and democracy on the altar of ideology, just as the referendums in Ireland, France, Holland and so on were all simply thrown away.
Mr Cash
I will not give way again. I have listened to what Mr Speaker has said and I have no intention of giving way. I have given way a great deal already, as I am sure Mr Speaker appreciates.
Even today, the European Central Bank is departing from its established rules in providing what some suggest is as much as a trillion euros of guarantees, and flooding the markets with unearned money to support countries which are failing to run their economies properly. There is a further problem, which is an increasing trend towards coercion, again in pursuit of ideology.
There is an increasing tendency by Germany to impose its will on other member states, but it should not be forgotten that although Germany pays vast sums into the European Union, it benefits enormously from that, and it could be argued that both French and German banks have played roulette with the Greek economy, and are now, through the rules and the treaty, seeking to obtain repayment and bolster their own banks and their own economies by imposing new rules to suit their requirements. Germany, of course, wants to help the euro. It has an enormous investment in it, but I would argue that the tendencies to coercion are not in the interests of Germany, the European Union or the United Kingdom. Indeed, today, we read that the constitutional court in Germany yesterday blocked the powers of a special parliamentary panel to fast-track emergency decisions affecting the rescue fund.
The new treaty is described as the “treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance” in the EU, yet it is not, contrary to what the Opposition said at an earlier stage, an EU treaty. The Lisbon treaty lays down specific requirements before changes can take place. They specify that the rules shall not be changed unless everyone agrees. The false assumption underlying the new treaty between the 25 is that, despite the failure to achieve unanimity, and even though the rules on enhanced co-operation have not been used, they claim that it remains legitimate to obtain those ends by a different route. I put that to the Minister for Europe the other day—namely that the treaty is based on the dangerous assumption that the end justifies the means, and that they would argue that, even if it is unlawful, the requirement to introduce the treaty for political reasons overrides the law. The question is whether it is lawful for the EU institutions, such as the Commission and the European Court, to be involved in such an agreement.
The new treaty is the triumph of expediency over the law. Professor Paul Craig sets out his arguments in 11 pages of carefully analysed argument. I am certain that the Government know all that and I am glad that the Attorney-General is here. If he wishes to intervene, I shall be only too happy. As a former shadow Attorney-General, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend knows the parameters of the unlawfulness of this treaty, which is why I suggested that he should come today.
I believe profoundly that the Government know that the treaty is unlawful and, in the words of Professor Paul Craig, it is important to consider whether it can
“confer new functions on EU institutions.”
He continues:
“I believe this would be contrary to the existing Lisbon treaty and to legal principle.”
He then examines articles 7 and 8, which I have no time to go into, as well as articles 3(2) and 273. They all raise questions that are before the European Scrutiny Committee about detailed matters, which we will tackle in due course in our report.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on his innovative use of House procedures to secure this debate. In fact, it would have been unnecessary for him to use such innovation if the Government had agreed to re-establish the pre-Council debates that Labour held when it was in government.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue. The Opposition would not usually want to intrude on the private grief of the Conservative party, or indeed of the coalition, but we nevertheless have a duty to point out the inconsistencies in the Government’s position. I might not always agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I sympathise with him today, because the only thing that is clear is that the Government’s position is manifestly unclear.
The fighting talk we heard from the Government in December and January flies in the face of reality. Ministers loyally and repeatedly rehearse the script that the Prime Minister vetoed the use of the European institutions. The Foreign Secretary was categorical in his assertion that EU institutions were reserved for the use of the 27. He stated:
“What we are clear about is this, that the institutions of the European Union belong to the 27 member states”.
On the eve of the January European Council, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is listened to closely on those issues by Conservative Members, could not have been clearer. He said:
“The fact is the prime minister vetoed them using the institutions”.
The Chancellor took to the airwaves just hours after the January European Council ended, saying, without hesitation and seemingly without equivocation:
“If we had signed this treaty…we would have found the full force of the…European Court, the European Commission, all these institutions enforcing those treaties, using that opportunity to undermine Britain’s interests…We were not prepared to let that happen”.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Lady makes a robust call for clarity on policy. Can she confirm whether the Labour party is in favour or against the use of EU institutions by the 26?
Emma Reynolds
If only the position of the Liberal Democrats were clear on that matter—[Interruption.] I will come to that.
There was a guarantee from the top of the Government that EU institutions would not be used—I hesitate to describe it as a “cast-iron” guarantee, because it might upset some Conservative Members, but none the less, the position seemed to be clear. The evidence seemed compelling and the Government seemed to be clear what they were saying, but how quickly things unravelled—on the European Commission, on the use of the buildings and on the role of the European Court of Justice. One by one, the Government’s guarantees faded into yesterday’s headlines, and their empty rhetoric was painfully exposed.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in debates on Europe. He is the authentic voice of Euro-enthusiasm on the Labour Benches—[Interruption.] He is one of the authentic voices. I could not, however, work out from listening to his speech whether he was in favour of the treaty or not.
It is also traditional to congratulate the hon. Member who secured a debate such as this, but in this case I think that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has missed the point on a colossal—almost historic—scale. There are questions of legality and politics around the treaty, but they are dwarfed by the really big issue, which is the future of the European economy. The treaty represents a sincere and concerted attempt to make that future stronger, safer and more prosperous. We can argue about its chances of success, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to have his cake—perhaps I should say “gâteau”—and eat it. He is calling on European economies to practise fiscal responsibility without the treaty, while simultaneously criticising them for not sticking to the previous, more flexible, regime. I do not think that he can have it both ways.
That is in stark contrast to the letter written by the Prime Minister and 11 other Heads of Government in the run-up to the summit, which tried to address the real issue of promoting prosperity in Europe. It talked about completing the single market in service markets and promoting the digital economy, as well as
“providing a secure and affordable system for cross-border on-line payments, establishing on-line dispute resolution mechanisms for cross-border on-line transactions”.
It also proposed promoting an “internal market in energy” and “energy interconnection”, as well as a
“commitment to innovation by establishing the European Research Area, creating the best possible environment for entrepreneurs and innovators to commercialise their ideas”.
That is exactly the agenda that should be dominating our discussion of the summit. We should be talking about how we are going to get the whole of the European economy back on track towards creating jobs and sustainable prosperity.
We have to ask ourselves: what is the real threat to the UK’s national interests? Is it really the use of EU institutions by fiscal compact countries? Could that not be interpreted as a connection that will strengthen the interests of the 28, relative to the fiscal compact countries? That connection, and the involvement of the Commission, will mean that at least one institution will have to uphold proper adherence to the European Union treaties and the safeguards in the fiscal compact treaty.
Is there any threat to the single market, which is one of Britain’s primary interests in all this, given the safeguards that we have succeeded in inserting into the treaty by having a seat at the table and being part of the discussions that led to the drafting of the treaty, despite not being a signatory to it? That is in contrast to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), who is no longer in her place. I believe that that was a positive step by the Government, and a positive example of the re-engagement that we have seen since December.
Mr MacShane
Does the hon. Gentleman still share the view of his leader, now the Deputy Prime Minister, that the Conservative party’s colleagues in the European Parliament are “nutters”, “anti-Semites” and “homophobes”?
Martin Horwood
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misquoting the Deputy Prime Minister, who was referring to the other parties that are members of that group. I obviously have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that our leader was not accusing Conservative MEPs of that.
What is the most serious threat to the UK’s national interests? Is it the use of the EU institutions? Is there a threat to the single market, given the safeguards that have now been inserted into the treaty? I would say not. The most serious threat to the UK’s national interests is the most serious economic crisis in Europe’s post-war history. It is a real and present danger to British jobs, British prosperity and British companies. Why would we now throw a spanner into the works of the only vehicle with a chance of bringing that crisis under control? To use the term used by the hon. Member for Stone, I think that such an idea reveals something about his own pursuit of ideology, rather than any real defence of the UK’s national interests. For that reason, I think that he might even be losing sympathy among his Conservative colleagues for what must now count as the political equivalent of antisocial behaviour in continuing to be completely obsessed by the legal minutiae and institutional details, rather than the really big picture that is facing Europe and Britain within the European economy.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman said that he was going to make a really big point, but I do not think that he is doing so. The really big point is surely that Europe cannot grow while policies for competitive deflation are in place. They involve either one country, Greece, which is bankrupt and will never be able to pay its debts, or four countries. That situation is never going to lead to a stable Europe that can grow and with which we can trade. Is not that the really big point? Would not we all be better off if Greece left the euro in as stable a way as possible?
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman has raised some of the issues that we should be debating, although they are not the subject of the motion, which is about legal compliance. There are issues about whether the compact will work and whether it will do enough to stimulate growth, and the Prime Minister and the other Heads of Government have addressed them in their letter, and in the agenda for growth, jobs and sustainable prosperity that they are pursuing. I think that that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Those questions about the economic situation are what we should actually be debating here, and there is an argument for reinstituting regular debates in advance of European Councils. It is unsatisfactory that we have ended up debating this matter with less than a day’s notice and with very little preparation, at the very last minute before the European Council. There is also an argument for a thorough revision of the whole scrutiny procedure for European legislation in this place. With all due respect, I think that the European Scrutiny Committee keeps bringing us back to discuss the technicalities, yet we never seem to have debates on the substance of issues such as the fundamental economic questions and the structure of the European economy, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) has just pointed out.
Martin Horwood
I will not give way again, because I will not get any more time and the Deputy Speaker has instructed us to be brief.
Where is the report from the European Scrutiny Committee on the economics of this matter—and where, come to that, is the report from the Treasury Committee on the economic aspects? We must address these issues in revising the way in which the House of Commons scrutinises European affairs; we need to take a step up and get away from this constant obsession with legal technicalities and the minutiae of organisational details. We need to get away, too, from Eurosceptic obsessions that see conspiracies everywhere to try to undermine British sovereignty, and to get on to the real issues of how to promote jobs and prosperity in Europe as a whole. That is the mission that the Prime Minister with the other 11 Heads of Government has set out in the letter. I think that is exactly the right agenda, and it is in stark contrast to some of the suggestions made in today’s debate.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), even though we were in English classes together at school and I still bear grudges about that. He was broadly right in his analysis—I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) will worry that I am praising a Liberal Democrat—and I agree with him. I agree, too, with all those who said that it is a shame that we had to use the Standing Order No. 24 procedure to secure a debate on one of the biggest issues affecting parliamentary sovereignty, our economic future and our relationship with some of our biggest allies in Europe. In addition, we do not usually get to hear enough from the Minister for Europe.
If the Government take away one thing from today’s debate, I hope it is the fact that we need properly structured debates before European Council meetings, so that they have a strong mandate from us and we are able to inform what they take to the meetings.
It is a shame that the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) is no longer in her place. I gather she is often referred to nowadays as the new iron lady—although I do not know who will get an Oscar for playing her in the future. I profoundly disagree with her that a multi-tier Europe is a good idea. During my four and a half seconds as Minister for Europe the BRIC economies—Brazil, Russia, India and China, and for that matter, Mexico—repeatedly told me, “It is essential that we know that we are dealing with a single market.” If we decide to cut up the single market, with lots of different tiers of different elements of legislative proposals, it will do us damage with the growing economies of the world. China is not interested in dealing with 27 different countries in Europe; it is interested in doing business in Europe. If it is going to be more difficult to do business in Europe, it will do business elsewhere—and we will have cut off our nose to spite our face.
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) about the danger of technocratic Governments being imposed on other European countries. There has always been an element of democratic deficit within the European Union. In a sense, it is almost inevitable—unless we choose to elect a single President and Government of Europe, to which I would be wholeheartedly opposed because I do not think that there is a single people of Europe. That is why we will always have a strange mixture of elected Governments in member states working alongside a European Commission and a European Parliament. It will never be perfect, but I would say that this House is not perfect in different regards either. The historical process of parliamentary democratic reform in this country has always been a matter of trying to improve on what we had last year—not some golden ideal, but improving on what we had and have last year and this year.
Of course there need to be changes in Europe, but if the economic solutions effectively being enforced on some European countries have so little support within those countries, there is a danger not only that the individual Governments will face riots and significant civil disturbance, but that the whole European Union could face big problems.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stone in his analysis of Germany, too. That country has tended to suggest to the world that it is paying for rescuing the countries in trouble. That is far from the truth. The honest truth is that Germany is making an awful lot of money out of the present arrangements and intends to make even more money out of the arrangements on the table in the near future. We sometimes need to push back to the Germans and say, “Actually, you need to be little bit more honest about exactly where your economic and financial interests lie in all of this.”
The broad position is that there are two choices. We can try to make the euro work because the UK believes that if it were to fall apart it would lead to significant dangers, particularly given that we are the banker and the financial powerhouse of Europe. I believe that that is the right approach for us. There were problems with the initial creation of the euro, particularly when there was no enforced audit, and countries could simply make up the numbers, sometimes even employing extremely expensive accountants to help them to do so. Some big countries in the EU wanted to turn a blind eye to it because they themselves worried about the enforcement of the stability and growth pact, so they allowed some countries to do that. It is important that we rectify some of those inherent problems in the creation of the euro, which is why, broadly speaking, advancing towards some kind of fiscal union, as adumbrated in the treaty, is the right direction for us to take, although there might be some details about which I would be worried.
There is an alternative route, however, which is essentially to dismantle the euro. I know that some Conservative Members believe, for perfectly legitimate reasons, that that is the right course to take. They believe that we cannot have a single currency with a single interest rate for the very different labour markets across the whole of the EU. I just think that that they are wrong on that. I believe, and I suspect I will be proved right, that not a single country will leave the euro this year or next year; in fact, a couple more might join it.
There were problems with the UK veto exercised before Christmas. It has, to coin a term, left us with a Bulgarian muddle. In truth, we have neither an EU treaty nor a not-EU treaty; we have a sort of European treaty that is a halfway house with legal dubiety at its centre. That is where the hon. Member for Stone is absolutely right. I think it would have been better if we had stayed at the table and made sure that we had an EU treaty that was right for Britain. I disagree with those who say that this is a question of more Europe or less Europe—
Mr Clappison
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the apposite point is that this treaty is a new form of mission creep by the European Union. We need to be clear that something new and important is happening in the European Union, as has been suggested by learned legal opinion submitted to the European Scrutiny Committee. We have seen in the past, under our European Union treaty obligations, that notwithstanding the promises made to us, there has been a massive erosion of the United Kingdom veto and a substantial extension of EU competences—but at least we have always known that that has been done within the framework of the treaties themselves and that we have conferred power on the EU within that framework.
We are now dealing with something novel, because when hon. Members come to look at this agreement in detail they will find that it is not within the framework of the EU treaties; it is a separate international agreement that deals with how the European Union might act. Although it is said to be an international agreement, it is not an EU treaty and it will not describe itself as such, but the EU runs through it like a golden thread. It is as if the EU has come up against an obstacle in proper legal procedure and just decided to ignore proper legal procedure and go its own way; it has looked at the rulebook, the rulebook was not convenient for it and so it has torn up the rulebook and drawn up a new set of rules. The way in which it may act within that new set of rules could have substantial implications for our country. I hasten to add that our Government have taken the right course so far in dealing with that.
Martin Horwood
The moment had almost passed, but the question I was going to ask was: if the hon. Gentleman is questioning even back to Maastricht, does he still support the single market, which Conservatives would surely see as one of the greatest achievements the European Union has delivered?
Mr Clappison
With the Single European Act, we had a single market established before the Maastricht treaty. I do not have time, in the seven minutes available, to go over the whole Maastricht treaty, but a very wide body of opinion now suggests that it should never have been signed—I have heard that said from the Government Front Bench. All the safeguards that were put in place have turned to dust. Let us bring things a little more up to date. The hon. Gentleman will recall that his party was so upset about the signing of the Lisbon treaty that it wanted a referendum on getting out of the EU altogether, and Liberal Democrat Members walked out of the House.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is no longer in his place, made some apposite points, as did the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), although he was completely wrong. He asked what was wrong with groups of states coming together within the European Union to do something where not all member states are participating, as in the case of the Schengen agreement and many other things. That comes back to my main point, because that was all being done within the framework of a treaty. A completely different treaty is being set up now, but it is one within which member states are still co-operating and operating within the framework of the European Union, using the EU institutions, as we know. It was apparently drawn up by the European legal service, the European Commission has a central role in it, the European Commission is mentioned in the whole of the preamble and throughout every article, and the final decision-making body with arbitration powers over this is the European Court of Justice.
Mr Clappison
I will give way to my hon. Friend at the end, if I may, because I need to make one or two other points before then.
I would respectfully draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that although we are rightly not a part of this treaty, it brings about some fundamental innovations in decision making among EU member states. In particular, I refer to articles 7 and 8. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone rightly referred to the coercive powers being taken by the European Union, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider just how coercive those powers are and to try to ensure that they are never brought to bear against this country. No pressure should be put on us to submit.
There is a body of opinion in the EU that wants to make this country submit to the EU deficit procedure and we have, unfortunately, entered into some commitments on that. We must keep out of those commitments because they run completely counter to the principles of democracy both in the individual member states and in the EU. Under article 7—let us remember that this is not an EU treaty and is outside the EU—when the Commission is of the opinion that a country is in breach of the deficit procedure, it brings the matter before the other member states and unless there is a qualified majority vote against taking the decision that the commission wants to take, the matter must be treated as a breach and the offending country will be hauled before the European Court of Justice. This is a very significant procedural development.
We are familiar with how we used to have a veto in European Union matters. It goes back to 1975 and we were promised when we joined the European Union that we would always have a veto. That was eroded and we agreed to abide by the qualified majority vote for more and more things, particularly in the single market, but at least it was a qualified majority vote and a qualified majority of states had to be in favour of a measure before it could take effect and legally bind this country. Under the new EU method of decision making, the Commission gets its way unless there is a qualified majority vote against what it wants to do. There could be a clear but simple majority of EU member states against the Commission’s finding a member state in breach, but it will still legally be necessary for the country to be considered to be in breach and hauled before the European Court of Justice even though a majority of EU states were against that course of action, and despite what individual electors in the countries concerned might want. There could scarcely be anything more coercive than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone is right to ring the alarm bells. This is a new procedure—it is very new—and it is taking EU integration to a completely different level.
Mr Clappison
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once and I am afraid I am not going to go back to all the treaties—Lisbon, Maastricht, Amsterdam— we have had in the past. He has had his chance to have his say.
I warn right hon. and hon. Members to look at the detail of the treaty. It is new and very important and is worrying in the context of what is taking place in Europe, particularly as regards the lack of democratic control that countries now have over their decision making and over very important fiscal and economic matters that go to the heart of democracy. I urge colleagues and my colleagues on the Front Bench to be vigilant. The Government took the right decision in vetoing the treaty—we had the right to do so, it was in our interests to do so and we should never have considered being part of such a framework.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have been right to reserve the Government’s position, as they have through the letter that has communicated the Prime Minister’s view through Jon Cunliffe to the European Council. We reserve our position on the use of EU institutions, which we are entitled to do, and there should be no criticism of the Government—the Opposition are being very opportunist if they try to make something out of it—but, in its typical way, the EU has taken no notice. We should take no notice of the EU, however, and we should insist on the strict letter of what we are entitled to under the treaty provisions and be extremely vigilant to ensure that there is not, to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), any further mission creep by the EU. We should ensure that we have no part in these matters. We are not part of the euro and we should be very careful to ensure that the EU does not try to extend the scope of what it is trying to do over this country. If it does, it will be at the expense of democracy and of this House. We have seen far too much of that already in my time in the House, and we need to be vigilant and to stand firm against these very worrying new legal developments in the EU.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Indeed, but one never knows what people might say in relation to the European Union.
As I was saying, it is a shocking state of affairs that our partners in Europe should want to proceed with a treaty without even bothering to go through the proper forms to ensure that that treaty is lawful under EU law. They have not even asked the question. It may be that they know what the answer will be, but if they do, they are one up on most Members of Parliament.
The other point raised in Sir Jon Cunliffe’s letter is that
“we must reserve our position on the proposed treaty and its use of the institutions”.
This, again, is very important because what we are trying to find out is whether the Government are reserving their position on the current legality of the treaty, or how the treaty will be used in practice. If it is the former—if the Government are concerned about the current legality of the treaty—it is important that they act now to establish their concern and to have a judgment from the European Court of Justice, rather than waiting. If the Government wait, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said earlier, he who is silent is seen to consent, and we will find that we have allowed the treaty to be implemented and we will have lost our ability to have recourse—
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is a particular honour to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham.
Martin Horwood
It is an equal pleasure to intervene on my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for allowing me to do so. Does he accept that by reserving their position, the British Government may gain something of a tactical advantage by perhaps retaining the ability to challenge any future perceived breach of this treaty and therefore encouraging compliance with the European Union treaties?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am afraid I do not agree with my hon. Friend because a key part of the treaty may already be in breach of European Union law. I refer hon. Members to article 8, which states:
“If the European Commission, after having given the Contracting Party concerned the opportunity to submit its observations, concludes in its report that such Contracting Party has failed to comply with Article 3(2), the matter will be brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union by one or more Contracting Parties.”
What that says is that the European Commission may end up enforcing requirements under the stability pact in direct contradiction of TFEU—the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—126(10). We discussed this at length in the European Scrutiny Committee and the Foreign Office’s wise legal counsel, Mr Ivan Smyth, gave us a very helpful answer—that in treaty terms, “will” is not an obligation, and if it were an obligation, the wording would have to be stronger than “will”.
It seems to me that that is a pretty narrow basis for maintaining the legality of what the treaty requires the Commission to do. Let us bear in mind that under the treaty law, the European Commission does not have the authority to enforce the requirements of the stability pact on member states; under this treaty it does not quite have that authority directly, but it is so close to doing so that it would not make any difference at all.
A further aspect of the treaty concerns me. Article 16 says that the treaty will be rolled into the TFEU within five years, so it will become part of the whole package of European Union law within five years. It is currently thought, though others may think differently, that it would not have been possible for this treaty to be brought in under enhanced co-operation. However, there is a school of thought that maintains that the European Stability Mechanism treaty which is awaiting ratification by Parliament would allow enhanced co-operation to be used, in which case this treaty could be rolled into the European Union’s treaties without the say-so of the House, under enhanced co-operation. We should be deeply concerned about that, not least—going back to article 8—because it refers to how countries may be fined. Let us bear in mind that the treaty is supposed to be all about the eurozone member states, and is nothing to do with non-eurozone members and nothing at all to do with the United Kingdom because we are not a signatory and it is not yet part of the TFEU. But if that is the case, why does it say
“The amounts imposed on a Contracting Party whose currency is the euro”—
that is, a fine of up to 0.1% of GDP—
“shall be payable to the European Stability Mechanism. In other cases, payments shall be made to the general budget of the European Union”?
We have here a treaty that is making provision for fining non-euro members for their budgets, even potentially ones that have not signed up to the original treaty if it is rolled in within five years, as the treaty itself requires. That is why this debate is so important to establish the legality and see whether we can at this early stage stop this treaty—a genuine veto, rather than a soggy veto—or whether we will find that by doing nothing now, by being friendly, kind and generous to our neighbours, we do not really help them with the economic situation that they face. I agree with those who say it would be better for some countries to default and devalue. We will instead find that by being silent, we have consented to a treaty that is against our fundamental national interests.
Mrs Main
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I end this part of the debate on that conciliatory note.
I have sincere concerns, however, that the mission creep that I mentioned in an intervention has led us to the point at which a democratic country can have something imposed upon it, leading to riots and civil unrest, because it is not willing to take the necessary pain that the EU must inflict on it. Although we are not today debating whether Greece should leave the EU, we all should heed the warning that when Greece signed up to being a full member of the EU it did not sign up to have something imposed upon it, as it has had.
Mrs Main
No; the hon. Gentleman has made many speeches and many interventions, and I am sure that as the lone representative of the Liberal Democrats today he has had more than his fair share of the debate. I shall not take interventions from him.
I am extremely concerned that we will find ourselves dancing on the head of the same pin as we did in the previous Parliament. The hon. Gentleman was a Member then, so he will remember the Liberal Democrats saying, “We need to have a full EU in/out vote on this, and we will give you a genuine vote,” whereas the Conservatives, in opposition at the time, said that we needed to have a vote because there was a treaty. We were assured, “Oh, no, no, it is not a treaty. It is just something we don’t need to have a referendum on.” Such dancing on the head of a pin is what most of us on the more Eurosceptic side of our party find worrying about this particular treaty-that-is-not-a-treaty, into which we supposedly do not need to have any form of input.
Mrs Main
No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I have made my views clear about why I will not. He has had plenty of opportunity.
I am extremely concerned also that the package under discussion could be incorporated into EU law within five years, because this situation is very much like our bleating about the Lisbon treaty, when we kept saying, “It does have a big effect, it does have a big effect,” and we were constantly told that it did not. The treaty under discussion has a potentially big effect, and that is why I offer encouragement to the Minister, which I am sure he has been offered by many hon. Members today, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). The Minister has the huge support of the House and the political will of this Parliament, and the Prime Minister had the support of the majority of the House in using the veto. He had robust support, which I believe he has also among the public, for exercising the veto, but, despite the fact that we are not ultimately part of the process, what we do not want is to become a part of it because of mission creep.
So I say to the Minister, who is going along to discuss those matters, that we could be affected by them, despite the fact that they are not designed to affect us. They are designed to affect those countries that are happily allowing themselves to be influenced in that way, but my fear is that, like all the other treaties that have come our way over the years, including Maastricht, ultimately five years down the line, when this one is incorporated, we will somehow feel its chilling effects.
I felt the need to jump up and down when my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said, “What does the EU make us do that we don’t wish to do?” Well, I should like to deport Abu Qatada, but I cannot. I should like not to be fined or pursued in the European Court of Justice for trying to introduce a means of not allowing people who have never paid into our benefits pot to claim—a habitual residence test—which was overturned on the ground that we were somehow being discriminatory. Those are just two examples of our regularly being made to feel that we must do something, and, what is more, the European courts now have a punitive nature, whereby they routinely fine countries that are non-compliant and say, “If you don’t do so we will place people in your country to deliver whatever we want delivered.”
The European courts are intent on getting their own way, and they have found a new method of getting around the rather difficult matter of our veto. They have decided to ignore us, inasmuch as they have said, “This agreement isn’t to do with you,” but ultimately it will be because we will feel its effects. So I encourage the Minister to go along to the discussions with a truly sceptical mind, based on his long and distinguished career in the House, during which time he has seen these arguments made again and again, and seen how in reality the situation has translated into something very different further down the line.
Sri Lanka (Human Rights)
Martin Horwood Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I commend the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for securing this very timely debate. At the outset of my remarks, however, it is important to stress that Sri Lanka has many things to be proud of. Its record on literacy, child mortality and life expectancy is among the best in south Asia and, indeed, one of the best of any developing country. Sri Lanka also has a proud tradition of democracy and the rule of law.
Sri Lanka ought to be an aspiring leader within south Asia and, indeed, the democratic Commonwealth, but the truth is that gaining such a status demands the highest possible standards of human rights, and the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this debate and from many other debates and commentaries around the world is that, during and since the violent conclusion of the war in 2009, Sri Lanka’s record has not met those high standards. That casts a rather dark shadow over the country’s otherwise proud record in development and democracy.
The UN panel of experts produced its report in 2011, which found credible allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in Sri Lanka. The report also highlighted the fact that a staggering number of civilians—40,000—were killed in the closing weeks of the war in Sri Lanka and, critically, it called for an international accountability mechanism, which several hon. Members have already referred to.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On accountability, does my hon. Friend share my concern about the committee of inquiry that has been set up by the Sri Lankan army and that was appointed by Lieutenant-General Jayasuriya, who was the commander of the security forces in the Vavuniya area during the last few years of the war? Moreover, does he hope that the Minister, when he responds to this debate, will indicate that that is not the sort of accountability that the British Government believe is effective in holding people to account?
Martin Horwood
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In fact, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall pointed out that there has been a series of internal commissions and inquiries within Sri Lanka, none of which have really had much credibility. Possibly the most credible of them has been the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, which produced a report last year, and it is important to acknowledge that that report made some tough recommendations in relation to detainees and media freedom. Furthermore, it dispelled the myth that there was no shelling of civilians and that, for instance, the shelling of hospitals by Government forces did take place. In that sense, that report by the LLRC was an important step forward.
Nevertheless, I should still like to hear from the Minister what progress he thinks has been made in implementing the recommendations of the LLRC report. For instance, Human Rights Watch reported only last month that there are still several thousand people in Sri Lanka who, having initially been detained under the emergency regulations, are still in custody. Many of them have been held for years without trial, which is in violation of international law. The Sri Lankan Government have so far refused even to publish lists of those who have been detained. Of course, as several hon. Members have pointed out, there are severe limitations to the LLRC report, particularly in relation to the army’s conduct and to accountability for possible war crimes and humanitarian crimes that may have been committed.
More fundamentally, however, there are other, deeper issues with Sri Lankan society. The Foreign Office’s own human rights report highlighted, for example, issues of torture. The report quoted the statement by the World Organisation Against Torture that
“it had received credible testimonies of torture from across the country, including in cases not related to the ethnic conflict or terrorism”.
The report also raised issues about human rights defenders, freedom of expression and other concerns, which I probably do not have time to go into today.
The role of the army in Sri Lankan society is an increasing concern. Earlier this month, The Economist highlighted the role of the Sri Lankan President’s brother, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who is the country’s defence secretary. The Economist said:
“His brother, Basil, calls him ‘fully vegetarian, the nicest, kindest person in the family’, yet he is widely feared.”
The article continued:
“A Tamil leader says the army oversees ‘oppressive, insulting, humiliating’ rule in the north, with tales of land grabs, murders and rape. In Colombo, political observers worry about the militarisation of politics.”
The article went on:
“Some local journalists are warned by editors never to write about him”—
that is, Gotabaya Rajapaksa. It concluded on Gotabaya:
“Asked if he frightens people, he says: ‘If they don’t criticise me, it is because there is nothing to criticise.’”
I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.
Obviously, there are also specific cases, such as those of Mr Weeraraj and Mr Murugananthan, the activists who have disappeared, and indeed the continuing case of Sarath Fonseka, a former general, who had the temerity to stand against Mahinda Rajapaksa in a presidential election. Can the Minister tell us—if not now, then in writing—what representations are being made on those specific cases to the Sri Lankan Government? Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and others have raised the issue at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. It has also been raised, as has been mentioned, by the Canadian Government.
In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister three specific questions. First, has he raised the issue of an independent accountability mechanism, as recommended by the UN panel of experts, with the Sri Lankan Government, within the EU and at UN level? If so, what progress has been made? I do not want words put into the Minister’s mouth, but it is important for us to know that those discussions are taking place. Secondly, what is our response to the Government of Canada and others who have questioned whether it is right for Sri Lanka to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, given Sri Lanka’s record on human rights? Thirdly, I emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall about the continued deportation of Sri Lankans from this country, when such deep concerns are raised by the Foreign Office about the treatment of detainees and those in custody. Obviously, the Minister has to be diplomatic, but it is time to send a clear message that, as a democratic Commonwealth country with high aspirations, Sri Lanka’s record on human rights and accountability for crimes committed is simply not good enough and has to change.
Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)
May I remind right hon. and hon. Members that the wind-ups will start at 10.40?
Iran
Martin Horwood Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Baron
I will take and answer one intervention at a time, if I may.
We need to be careful when considering the report. Much has been made of the circumstantial evidence and of western intelligence reports, but Iraq should have taught us to be careful about basing our foreign policy decisions on secret intelligence and circumstantial evidence. That is a lesson that we should have learned from Iraq.
Martin Horwood
Another section of the report talks about the
“acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network”.
It concludes that:
“While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons.”
How else are we to interpret that?
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth). I agree with a great deal of what he said. I am pleased to support the amendment that stands in his name and in the names of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and many others.
I also agree with quite a lot of what the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said in his opening remarks. It is rather a shame that in the wording of the motion and in some of his emphasis on the nature of the evidence that we have, he has almost extracted disagreement from potential agreement. In particular, he gave the unfortunate impression at times that he was searching for excuses for the Iranian regime, when none should be given. He concentrated a great deal on the difference between circumstantial and actual evidence, when the difference is between evidence for the existence of nuclear weapons, which I do not think anybody is asserting, and the clear evidence, which I think is in the IAEA report, of intent to develop nuclear weapons. The IAEA is pretty clear about that and produces convincing evidence for that.
Mr Baron
May I correct the hon. Gentleman, for the record? He is wrong to suggest and almost alone in believing that I was trying to make excuses for the Iranian regime. I was making the point that mistakes have been made by both sides and opportunities have been missed by both sides, as has been acknowledged by speakers on both sides. As for his point about the report, there is a world of difference between nuclear capability and developing nuclear weapons and a decision to do so—something that is not recognised enough by the hon. Gentleman.
Martin Horwood
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that important point, to which I shall return. He is right to emphasise the importance of evidence and that the international community on this occasion acts in response to and with proper observation of the evidence, by contrast with what has happened on other occasions. However, if we are going to trust the evidence of the IAEA, two things follow. First, we must believe the IAEA when it says that there are elements of the nuclear programme in Iran that can only be contributing towards the development of a nuclear weapons programme. If we are trusting the IAEA to produce the evidence, we must believe it when it says that. Secondly, there is the contrast with the situation before the war in Iraq, when we did not spend long enough listening to the evidence from the weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and his colleagues. In effect, military action pre-empted the end of the weapons inspection process. With hindsight, we know that there were no weapons of mass destruction present at that time, and we went to war, in my view, on a false prospectus. That is an important contrast to make.
There are other contrasts with what happened in Iraq and the more recent military action on Libya. The Foreign Secretary said there were three important characteristics to the military action that the international community took in respect of Libya: first, it had a clear legal and humanitarian justification; secondly, there was clear regional support; and thirdly, there was explicit UN sanction. All those features were present in the intervention in Libya; none of them was present in the intervention and the invasion of Iraq, which is why I am still proud that Liberal Democrats opposed that at the time; and those conditions are not present now in the case of Iran, either. That is why we should be clear that we should not be talking about an attack on Iran.
There is a further parallel with Iraq which is extremely important: that is, just how unpredictable military action can be. We all remember George Bush on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf rather prematurely celebrating victory in the war in Iraq, whereas as we know, it turned into an incredibly complex, costly and painful conflagration and insurgency, where allied troops ended up embroiled in an almost interminable series of interlocking and violent episodes. We must hesitate before we get embroiled in anything similar in the case of Iran.
The Foreign Secretary’s remarks over the weekend, which were clearly intended to discourage others from getting involved in such a potential conflagration, were well made. His clear messages to our friends and allies in the United States and in the region were similarly well made. It might well be that a military attack to get rid of a potential nuclear programme is impossible in practice. It might require a sustained campaign of bombing over a number of sites across the entire country. We know that the nuclear programme has been dispersed in Iran, so it would be a very dangerous undertaking in any case.
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay was right: we should go the extra mile for peace. I want to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats believe that a preventive attack on Iran would probably be illegal and quite possibly unsuccessful, and it could destabilise the entire region and lead to the ignition of a war over which we would then have no control. As the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) said, it might well boost the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and even al-Qaeda in the region and could undermine the fledgling democracies of the Arab spring and any potential for an equivalent Persian spring in Iran.
Martin Horwood
I wondered whether that would come up. That is the phraseology in the hon. Gentleman’s motion today, but it is not the phraseology that we used. We talked about opposing military action against Iran. That was written before—[Interruption.] No, it is not weasel words. It is about moving with events. It was written before the attack on the British embassy and before Iran, in effect, threatened the use of military force to close the straits of Hormuz. It would have been better to say clearly that we opposed preventive military action against Iran. That is why I do not support the motion, which rules out the use of force, apparently in any circumstances. We have minesweepers in the Gulf: if those came under attack, would we really rule out the use of force?
Alec Shelbrooke
Is not the real point about the Liberal Democrat manifesto that one simply cannot rule anything in or rule anything out in what is always a moveable feast?
Martin Horwood
Yes, I think I agree with that. Moreover, it is not always wise to say that one rules something out even if one would not actually do it. I still support the instinct of the Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge. We can say that we still oppose preventive military action against Iran and that we should pursue every possible option. The Foreign Secretary expressed exactly those sentiments. He said that we are not seeking, advocating or calling for military action. One might be able to quote that to him in a few months’ or a few years’ time and ask if he still sticks to that, in the same way that hon. Members quote the Liberal Democrat manifesto at me now. The instinct expressed is that that is the absolute last resort; that is not something that one should risk bringing about. The objective must be a peaceful and negotiated settlement. We must also avoid bringing about such an eventuality by accident. We must be careful not to box Iran into a situation where war or military action is the only action that it can take and retain what it regards as its national pride.
Sanctions do have to be imposed and they have to be robust, or Iran would be able to act with absolute impunity; but we also have to explore every possible avenue to de-escalate tension, to reduce tension and to engage diplomatic channels to try to address this crisis. That could include support for the work of the weapons inspectors or support for a regional conference on non-proliferation, which might allow Iran a pathway out, but it could also include diplomatic action that does, as the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay said, draw a distinction between nuclear capability and the actual possession of nuclear weapons. That is a situation that we have tolerated in Japan for many decades quite happily. We must not talk ourselves into a war in the area of Iran, and we must seek every possible avenue for peace. I think that that is the Foreign Secretary’s instinct, and I was very happy with his words today. I am happy to support the amendment.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). We can certainly say that the next Lib Dem manifesto will be categorical in not ruling anything out for certain or ruling anything in. It will be fairly open. A lesson has been learned, judging by what he has said.
It is a pleasure to take part in this timely debate, which deals with one of the most important issues facing the world today, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing it, along with others. I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee, which has again demonstrated its great worth in providing time for this important debate. I will be voting in favour of the amendment tabled and so eloquently proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind).
The regime in Iran is undoubtedly the major threat to peace and security in the world, and while some—not necessarily in the House today—have sought to minimise the threat that Iran poses, it is becoming clear that Iran is determined to acquire both the capability to build its own nuclear weapons and to develop the weapons themselves. In the past week, we have had clear reports that Iran has completed the preliminary work that would allow the rapid expansion of its uranium enrichment programme at its mountain facility near the holy city of Qom. Like others, I believe that no nation has the right to deny other countries the right to develop their nuclear capabilities for domestic and non-military purposes, but it is clear that Iran is intent on developing a nuclear weapon, and that must be stopped. Not only would a nuclear-armed Iran mean great regional instability, but it would lead to other countries in the region wanting to acquire nuclear weapons. The proliferation of nuclear capability in a region as volatile as the middle east is something that we should all be concerned about, and we must do what we can to stop that happening.
Clearly, the No. 1 threat is directly posed to Israel, first and foremost. The regime in Iran has made its views on Israel absolutely clear. I do not intend to repeat some of the quotes from President Ahmadinejad, but it is clear that he not only denied the holocaust, but on the 60th anniversary of the state of Israel he made it clear that
“the reason for the Zionist regime’s existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation.”
In 2010, he said;
“The nations of the region are able to eliminate the Zionist regime from the face of earth,”
adding that the Israeli
“regime has no future. Its life has come to an end.”
Anyone who suggests that the use of the word “regime” refers to a particular Government as opposed to the nation state is stretching credulity.
In November 2011, as reported in Reuters, he said:
“This entity”—
that is Israel—
“can be compared to a kidney transplanted in a body that rejected it… Yes it will collapse and its end will be near.”
There are many other examples of such statements, both from him and other senior Iranian figures. They demonstrate the thinking of the regime towards Israel and its people, and that should be a cause of great concern in the House. While such language may appear abhorrent and so over the top to many of us here in the west that it can be almost dismissed, the tragedy is that many people who say these things, in Iran in particular, really mean them. That can be seen in the fact that there is so much support in Iran for terrorism and in the clear evidence of the way in which Iran is exporting terrorism across the world.
Clearly the threat is not only against Israel directly, but against the west in general. The most immediate threat is more of an economic threat—the threat to close the straits of Hormuz. That will affect oil prices, which will affect everything from food prices to energy costs and travel costs. The idea that a nuclear-armed Iran could exist without posing a long-lasting and permanent threat to energy supplies to the west is simply not credible. Last Friday, oil reached $120 a barrel, and it is clear that in the event of Iran getting nuclear weapons, the price of oil would go through the roof, with all that that means for the west and elsewhere.
Iran is a threat on a number of fronts. It is a threat not only to Israel directly and to the west, but to its own citizens. Members on both sides of the House have highlighted the vicious nature of the Iranian regime as seen in its treatment of its own citizens, particularly but not only religious minorities. Whole sections and sects have been targeted and there are restrictions on freedom of worship and religion. We in the west have no particular selfish interest in that—this is not about our citizens. It is, however, about the right of people to practise religion and worship as they want to, regardless of their ethnic background, and their right to speak out and to have freedom of speech.
What position should we in the United Kingdom adopt? Clearly, we need to continue to support the Government in their view that the way forward is sanctions and co-ordination at an international level to bring about a diplomatic solution, but it is vital that sanctions are effective. It is clear from some press reports today that some countries—Turkey and China have been mentioned—are working to undermine sanctions. I would be grateful to know how effective the Government think sanctions are. It is vital that sanctions are made to work. The financial restrictions order imposed by Parliament last year rightly targets those who seek to use British financial institutions in their quest to fund the nuclear weapons programme, and we support such sanctions.
We support the twin-track approach, but it is essential that the sanctions work. They will be judged effective only if they actually stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Hon. Members have already described the vista we might see if the plan does not work—we have to face up to the fact that it might not work. The idea of living with an Iran with a nuclear weapon is simply unthinkable, not only for Israel and people in the west, but for the world as a whole, the countries in the middle east and the citizens of Iran themselves. It is absolutely essential that we face up to these issues.
Martin Horwood
The right hon. Gentleman says that living with a nuclear Iran is simply unthinkable, yet we have tolerated a number of states developing nuclear weapons, including North Korea, which was a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. A laborious process is going on to try to denuclearise that country, but no one has suggested invading it.
Mr Dodds
We have learned in recent years that each country is different and has different circumstances. Some of us might like to go back in time and take different approaches. We have seen different approaches to intervention in Libya and Syria, for instance. We are dealing with Iran, and I believe that there is an opportunity to do something to prevent Iran getting hold of nuclear weapons, but I believe that Iran, given its dire and direct threats against the state of Israel and its particular threat to the people of the entire world, poses a unique threat. We should be conscious of that and we must be prepared, if necessary, to do something about it.
I commend the bravery and courage of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay in proposing the motion, but I am afraid that its terms remind me of the motion that was once proposed in the Oxford Union—that this House will in no circumstances fight for King and Country. The word “appeasement” has been used. I think that the motion, if passed, would smack of appeasement. It is vital that we send out a strong message.
Chris Bryant
Yes, sort of. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment. We must analyse whether there are better means of achieving the end that we want. As the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary said, there clearly still are better means that we have not yet exhausted and that we need to pursue to their logical end.
Would there be a clear goal if military action were to be taken against Iran? It is difficult to see what that clear goal would look like. Similarly, would it be achievable if we knew what that goal was? As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said, it is difficult to see how it would be possible to achieve that secure goal. Would it be proportionate, not only to the aggression being shown, but to the action that we choose to take in other cases, because otherwise we might be accused of hypocrisy? That is undoubtedly true for many countries when they look at how we choose not to force the implementation of UN resolutions in relation to Israel but force their implementation in relation to others. Similarly, is there a danger that the outcome of military action might be even worse than the result of not engaging in military action? That is always the toughest question. We look at what is happening in Syria at the moment, and our heart goes out to the people there, but would military intervention from the west make for a better or a worse situation? It is still uncertain whether our intervention in Libya and elsewhere will produce the goods that we always hoped for.
I have a real worry about what I would call the ratchet effect. Today we are forceful in our language. Tomorrow forceful is not enough, so we have got to be assertive. The next time we have got to be aggressive, then we have to be pugnacious, then belligerent, then bellicose, and then we find ourselves at the doorstep of war. That is in part what happened in relation to the step up towards military intervention in Iraq. We have to be careful. The Foreign Secretary is a very persuasive man in many cases, but sometimes he is so eloquent that his language ratchets things up.
Chris Bryant
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I have taken two interventions and others wish to speak.
I worry that like a spanner that one can use to ratchet up but not down, if we use language that is exorbitant and goes too far, we will end up in a situation where, from no real decision of our own, we may be at the doorstep of war. [Interruption.] I understand that they ratchet up as well, but this is true also of the Falklands. The Argentines can huff and puff all they want, but quite often it is best to leave them huffing and puffing, rather than to rattle the sabre back at them.
I would say two things in closing. First, we must put considerable trust in the European Union process. This is one of the areas where going it alone for the UK is unlikely to achieve great success. Not that anyone is proposing that. Just going it alone with Israel and the United States or a coalition of the willing, or whatever one wants to call it, would not be a good idea. Binding in the E3 plus 3 has thus far been an extremely successful process and has avoided war.
Finally, I believe that the Israelis, contrary to what the hon. Member for Gainsborough said, would be wholly wrong to take unilateral action. I do not think that they would be able to do so or that they would be successful if they tried. If they were to take from our decision tonight the message that we believe that they should take military action, they would be wrong.
Afghanistan
Martin Horwood Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
We are continuing to press the Government of Afghanistan, who made important commitments at the Bonn conference on this matter, to deliver on their human rights commitments, including on the elimination of violence against women law and the implementation of the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. As the hon. Lady will know, we are taking a lot of other action to entrench the concept of women’s rights and women’s involvement in Afghan society and leadership. We have funded a project to provide support to female parliamentary candidates and parliamentarians; supported a women’s legal aid centre in Kabul; and provided funding for the elimination of violence against women special fund and for a five-year women’s empowerment programme, implemented by the non-governmental organisation, Womankind. Across the board, the United Kingdom has a good record on this subject.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
My noble Friend Lord Ashdown has written a highly critical account in the The Times this week of the international community’s record in Afghanistan over more than a decade. He concluded, with typical military bluntness, that only the poor bloody infantry, with all their courage and determination, can expect to march out of Afghanistan with their heads held high. Although I do not expect the Foreign Secretary to endorse that statement precisely, does he agree with my noble Friend that alongside the political process, it is critical that we leave behind an Afghan army that is robust, professional and non-political? Does he agree that that, and not the attempted eradication of the Taliban, is the key security objective from now on?
Mr Hague
That is very important, as are all the things that we have talked about, such as building a viable Afghan state and creating a sustainable political process. Those things are important, as well as the security gains. Lord Ashdown is right to draw attention to the extraordinary role of our Army and other armed forces in making it possible to make progress in other areas. It is right that building up the Afghan national security forces, not only in numbers but in quality, is critical. One pleasing thing has been the literacy training programme, which 125,000 members of the security forces have passed through, greatly improving their capabilities. Such work on quality has to continue, as well as building up the size of the forces.
Somalia
Martin Horwood Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
May I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s initial remarks and say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and so many other well-informed and constructive contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House? This has been the House of Commons at its best, because there is a great deal of cross-party agreement and expertise. I join the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is no longer in his place, in playing tribute to Myles Wickstead, our former ambassador in Addis Ababa, who, as well as taking the hon. Gentleman to Somaliland, has been a great source of advice to me. I am happy to put on the record my gratitude for his expertise.
For decades, it seemed almost as though the international community had given up on Somalia and, by neglect, been prepared to sacrifice its people to an almost endless cycle of war, deprivation and violence. War is often described as development in reverse, and I am afraid that Somalia is possibly the best example of that in the world. It is identified by the UN as having the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. As hon. Members have mentioned, there are nearly 1 million Somali refugees in other countries, 1.5 million internally displaced people there and millions more in crisis and, in many cases, at immediate risk of their lives. We see the whole population’s resilience to natural crises, such as the recent, repeated failed rains, reduced to the point where natural disasters immediately mean an humanitarian disaster, in a way that does not now happen in neighbouring countries such as Ethiopia, where there are grain supplies, reserves and so on, and where the Government are managing the natural crisis. We see humanitarian assistance being blocked by the conflict, and we see the conflict itself causing death, destruction and dislocation—the terrible euphemism of so-called collateral damage—with thousands and thousands having lost their lives as a direct result.
It is absolutely fantastic, therefore, that the British Government have taken such an exceptional lead on Somalia. The Foreign Secretary and all his colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence should be congratulated on taking the lead and hosting the forthcoming London conference. However, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Foreign Secretary should also be congratulated on visiting Mogadishu, which not many international politicians may have done yet, and seizing the opportunity to open an embassy there again, which is a positive step and a sign of confidence in Somalia’s progress; on reflecting in our policy towards Somalia the emerging Government policy on building stability overseas, which is an important reflection of the overarching strategy in our international policy; and on the commitment significantly to increase aid to Somalia over the next four years, which is now set to average £63 million a year.
Labour Members were quite right to point to their record in government on supporting Somalia. It is terrific to see the coalition Government increasing that aid, and trying to increase its impact and effectiveness wherever possible. In particular, it is important that the London conference is going ahead and that we are hosting it. It is a tribute to the diplomatic skills of the FCO that such a broad-based conference has emerged, with 40 Governments, the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, the World Bank, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League attending, as well as representatives from the various territories and Governments in the wider area of Somalia. That is an important step forward in trying to secure co-ordinated international action.
The conference has seven headings. I think it was originally suggested that the conference might focus overwhelmingly on piracy, so I very much welcome the much broader approach that it is now taking to Somalia as a whole, reflecting the fact that piracy is in many respects a symptom of Somalia’s problems, not a cause. Security is there as a heading right at the start. We should pay tribute to the African Union forces, in particular those from Uganda and Burundi who over many years have made extraordinary sacrifices to help to bring security to Mogadishu and the surrounding areas, and to Somalia as a whole, and also now to the Kenyan and Ethiopian troops present in the country. The fact that different foreign military forces are present emphasises the need for a co-ordinated international approach to security and, indeed, the need to support the Somali security and justice sectors.
However, as in many other places in the world, the military solution will never be the ultimate solution to Somalia’s problems. It is therefore absolutely right that the conference will focus on the political process.
Bob Stewart
Military solutions are of course not acceptable in isolation, but what we require in this situation is first-class military command and control on the ground in Somalia. That is crucial—perhaps we will even have to give some guidance to African nations that might be involved—but I am quite sure that this is what the Foreign Office has in mind as well.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. AMISOM—the African Union Mission in Somalia—has made genuine efforts to limit civilian damage and the use of certain armaments in built-up areas, for instance, yet there have been criticisms of some of the impacts on civilians and, perhaps, of the application of international humanitarian law. As part of the international co-ordination of the security effort, it is important that AMISOM operates to the very best international standards of peacekeeping and military intervention.
The political process is absolutely critical. The mandate for the current transitional Government expires in August this year, and it is important that we take the opportunity to build on their achievements. I think that my briefing states that this is the 15th attempt to form a Government in Somalia over the past 20 years, but it is one of the most successful such attempts. The Government have established a reasonable degree of control, at least over the capital city and some surrounding areas. It is important not only to build on that success but to take the opportunity to make the next incarnation of Somali government even more inclusive and broad based, and to build a political process.
The conference is also going to discuss local stability, counter-terrorism and, of course, piracy. The Select Committee’s contribution to that debate will be important. The hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) referred in passing to ransoms. The British Government have taken a clear position on that matter: we are opposed to ransoms, as they feed the pirate economy. It would be good if that was an internationally agreed position that could be properly enforced. We need to take real action to address that source of funds for Somali pirates.
The humanitarian effort is also extremely important. It is most welcome that the Department for International Development is already co-ordinating its efforts with the European Union to reduce duplication and maximise impact. There will be an opportunity to do that more widely, with the United Nations and other representatives who will be present at the conference.
Non-governmental organisations are concerned about the way humanitarian aid is being affected by the conflict in Somalia and, to some extent, by international policies. It is important that the international community draw a distinction between non-political humanitarian assistance and the military and political strategy. NGO staff are endangered when they become associated with the political and military approach, and that can also lead to the delivery of aid becoming a controversial part of the conflict. That inevitably leads to the aid not getting through. The international community needs to draw that distinction and protect that non-political humanitarian space for the delivery of aid. In planning the international approach, and the military approach, it is also important to factor in a respect for human rights and for international humanitarian law.
One topic is not on the conference agenda although I think it should be. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow talked about economic development. Aid will always be valuable for a country in humanitarian crisis, but in the end it is economic development that will lift people out of poverty. I will illustrate the problem to the Minister by citing a report that appeared recently in New Scientist. It concerned work by Anja Shortland of Brunel university, who has tracked the economic development of various villages in Somalia using satellite images. She discovered that two villages in particular had made spectacular progress. Tracking such features as electric light, she found that, over the past 10 years or so, those villages had prospered and that the wealth had spread among the community.
Sadly, the reason was that those two villages were closely associated with one of the clans most implicated in piracy. Anja Shortland concluded that piracy had proved quite effective in stimulating economic development in those places, although that is obviously not a statement that any politician could comfortably make. Piracy is clearly illegal, as well as divisive. It helps only one clan, rather than the whole of Somalia, and it undermines the entire peace and political process. Nevertheless, this does set a challenge for our approach to development. We must tackle what makes piracy attractive to clans and warlords. The economic development we deliver must be at least as effective as piracy at spreading prosperity to poor communities.
Alun Michael
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. Of course, economic development is also important for long-term stability. Does he agree that we must find mechanisms to allow investment in Somaliland in the absence of recognition, in order to make sure that what is a successful self-governing area—or independent country, if that is one’s view—is not penalised? The people of Somaliland should not be penalised in respect of economic development.
Martin Horwood
The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, one I was going to address in due course. He has highlighted the importance of the establishment of the Somaliland Development Corporation, and I certainly welcome that.
I also particularly welcome one of the four priorities DFID has identified for its development programme. It says that it will
“boost wealth creation through supporting investment climate reform, skills development and job creation.”
It is essential that we help young Somalis to prosper. In some respects, promoting economic development may seem like a hopeless task, but we must seize all opportunities to help to increase prosperity.
The hon. Member for Banbury emphasised the importance of fisheries. Around the world, fisher folk are often disadvantaged populations, but the survival of their communities becomes utterly unviable if international fishing fleets are coming through and simply removing their sources of livelihood. That will serve only to hand them, once again, into the clutches of the warlords and the pirates. Trying to protect and promote the future prosperity of the Somali fisheries is, therefore, a very important task.
Somewhat counter-intuitively perhaps, some bits of infrastructure have survived almost untouched through the conflict. I understand that the mobile phone network in Somalia works extremely well, and that many Somalis have two mobile phones. Sadly, there is an obvious reason why pirates and warlords would tell their fighters not to attack the mobile phone masts: they are rather important for their operations. We must seize all opportunities, however, and try to build on the bits of infrastructure that still work.
It may seem even more hopeless to talk about the prospects for tourism, but a former diplomat has told me that Somaliland is a relatively peaceful and prosperous country that is safe for visitors and apparently has beautiful beaches. If it was recognised and had the status of a separate country, and then began, as it were, to build its brand separately from Somalia and the areas still affected by war and conflict, Somaliland could become quite a positive economic development story, and tourism could be a key sector. We must seek out opportunities to help Somaliland to develop. It is absolutely right that 40% of DFID’s development aid is focused on Somaliland and that we are taking steps such as establishing the Somaliland Development Corporation, because that example of prosperity and stability could send a very powerful message in the region. It is precisely the kind of message that will gradually begin to persuade communities in Somalia proper to think about pursuing a rather different path from the one that some of them have been pursuing. It would also undermine al-Shabaab’s claim to offer the only route to salvation for the Somali people. It is, therefore, very important that we promote the development of Somaliland.
Political recognition is a difficult issue. It would clearly be somewhat tactless if the UK were to be the first country to recognise Somaliland. It would probably be equally tactless for Ethiopia to be the first country to do so, as it also has a complicated political history with Somalia. We should try to encourage those states that are traditional leaders in pan-African politics, such as Ghana, South Africa and Nigeria, to move towards recognition of Somaliland. That example of prosperity, stability and democracy could prove very powerful, and could help countries throughout the region and the continent to tackle what has been a running sore for a long time.
Alun Michael
I am happy to endorse what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree, however, that it may well be that that single point of recognition is what is too difficult, and that what is needed is a process that will lead us from the present situation, which does not seem to offer the hope of recognition at any point in the future, to a number of possible conclusions, one of which might be the recognition that he recommends?
Martin Horwood
That is a fair point—I think that it has to be an iterative process—but the point I am making to Ministers is that I consider recognition to be a part of that process. It cannot really start with the UK, but I think that we could involve ourselves in a very positive way by encouraging other African states to think about the legal arguments and the fact that the old colonial boundaries will not really be threatened—that is obviously a sensitive issue in many parts of Africa—and to make the case for that prosperous democratic example as one that should lead to recognition, which, in turn, will help the economic development of the country.
I think that, in many respects, the British Government are doing exactly the right thing in regard to Somalia, and I think that the Foreign Secretary, in particular, should feel very proud to be hosting an important international conference that offers a real prospect of—at last—some progress towards prosperity and peace for the people of the wider Somalia.
Mr Leigh
I agree entirely and apologise if my opening remarks had a defeatist tone. I did not mean to convey that at all. I just wanted to be realistic. I will, as have many who have already discussed Somaliland, pay tribute to what it has achieved. There is a model about which the right hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), so we should not despair of the situation. I was leading up to saying—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with this—that there is no single solution or governmental process that is right, because Somalia is a patchwork of sub-national entities: some, such as Somaliland, are large, some are small, and some are clan-based.
Somaliland has developed governmental structures that exercise authority in a relatively normal and competent way, despite or—dare I say it—because of almost total non-recognition by outside powers. Perhaps we should learn something from that. Elsewhere in Somalia power can shift rapidly as clans align, separate and shift alliances. I suspect that progress can be made only by encouraging the peaceful institutionalisation and regularisation of the clan structures. That is not being defeatist; it is just recognising reality. That is why I believe that any kind of imposed solution or attempt to create one out of this conference would be a mistake.
At least, in my view, we have learned some lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly opposed both those ventures, because I believe they were badly planned and because they involved western troops on the ground. Thank God we have learned the lessons and British coffins are not returning through Wootton Bassett from Somalia. We are, however, engaged and not a great deal has been said about this so far. We are, apparently, training, equipping and supporting Kenyan and other African Union troops. I am told that British Army officers can often be seen in Nairobi doing that. Not a great deal is disclosed about it by our Government—perhaps that is right and it should be under the radar—but I think that Parliament, which pays for it, needs to know what is happening on behalf of our taxpayers.
We have to acknowledge the limitations of foreign intervention, even if we are being cleverer about it this time and using troops from the African Union effectively as proxies. The fact that troops are from Burundi and Kenya does not mean they are not resented as interloping Christians and foreigners by many in Somalia. We have to recognise that and we must not be over-optimistic about their ability to change events there. I still believe there are worrying comparisons with Afghanistan. There is foreign intervention for a start, there is the resurgent Muslim al-Shabaab—read the Taliban in Afghanistan—and there is a weak, corrupt central Government who are too reliant on aid from the west. I think we have been too kind to the Mogadishu Government in this debate. It might be difficult for the Foreign Secretary to say this—I went to the Somali conference yesterday at Chatham House, at which he gave an excellent speech—but the failure of the transitional federal charter and the transitional federal Government, whom we support, is almost absolute. They are virtually a failed entity, apart from in Mogadishu, where they operate only with foreign intervention.
The corruption in that Government, whom our Government support, is absolutely appalling, and taxpayers here should know about it. A confidential audit of the Somali Government suggests that in 2009 and 2010, 96% of direct assistance to the Government from outside powers simply disappeared, most likely into the hands of corrupt officials. Billions of pounds and dollars from the west have therefore simply disappeared. I am not attacking international aid, and I will say something about the vital importance of humanitarian aid in a moment, but it is appalling that, according to a confidential and authoritative audit, 96% of aid from our country and others has simply gone down the drain—into the pockets of corrupt officials.
I believe the transitional road map should be abandoned. If possible, another road map should be agreed that is more flexible and able to develop in response to the implementation of changes—bending to them rather than being broken by them, as has happened in the past. In that part of the world, as in many others, a strict road map is unlikely to succeed in practice. It is clear that the presidential system of a central Administration is inappropriate for Somalia. That has proved to be unworkable and it might be wise to propose a confederal solution to the problem. The country could be arranged into a number of cantons that bestow authority upwards to the national Government rather than there being a system that works downwards from the centre, as with most unitary states.
Martin Horwood
I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman about having a federal organisation of the possible state, which would reflect the history of Somalia, but may I question him about the report that so much aid has been wasted? That is rather counter-intuitive given that a high proportion of our aid goes to Somaliland, which is relatively well governed and where structures are well in place. Quite a high proportion goes through NGOs, with which that kind of exercise of being siphoned off by officials should not apply. Will he give a little more detail about this report and its sources?
Mr Leigh
I am not attacking aid to Somaliland. I am talking about aid that goes directly to the Somali Government, not about aid that goes to Somaliland or NGOs. I will happily send my hon. Friend the report, which is very clear, explicit and authoritative. There is undoubtedly a failed state in Mogadishu. We have to be aware of and recognise that.
A report from the Council on Foreign Relations in New York suggests there should be recognition of the reality on the ground with the creation of a council of leaders to replace the bloated and ineffective transitional federal Government and Parliament. That would surely be a step in the right direction. I believe that if a political process begins to succeed in stabilising Somalia, the issue of Somaliland, as we have said again and again in this debate, will need to be addressed. Somaliland has demonstrated its ability to function as an independent state; it is the only part of Somalia with a Government who function properly, and they do so with some democratic legitimacy, which is all the more commendable. All of Somalia, apart from Somaliland, is committed to the idea of a united state; for example, Puntland, while functioning separately, participates in negotiations for the creation of a recognisable national Government and seeks to be a state within Somalia. On the contrary, Somaliland has decisively demonstrated the desire to add de jure sovereignty to its de facto independence, and it should be granted. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office says that self-determination is right for Falklanders, so why is it not right for Somalilanders?
One way forward would be an offer to Somaliland that it sign up to a confederal Somalia, with a guaranteed time frame for an independence referendum, as happened in South Sudan. Nobody doubts what the result would be. If there was a fair referendum in Somaliland, its people would vote for independence, which, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, they had in the past. That would give Somalilanders a realistic prospect of achieving the international recognition that their state currently lacks, while retaining national legitimacy at a Somali-wide level, even if only transitionally. I suggest it as an idea for the conference, as others have done.
Much of the piracy stems from Puntland, which is one of the poorest areas in an already poor country. Given the lucrative nature of piracy, its financial attraction is understandably strong, but it should also be noted that Somalia’s fishing industry has collapsed over the past 15 years. Its waters have been overfished, not by local people but by European, Asian and other African ships. Lack of maritime security in Somali coastal waters means that they provide a safe haven for people smugglers and arms smugglers, in addition to illegal fishing.
In Britain, we suffer from the common fisheries policy—a thoroughly counter-productive strategy that our Government are forced to accede to. We should therefore sympathise with the position of Somalis who are being ravaged by an immeasurably worse depredation of their fishing stocks by outsiders. While the pirates—until now—seem to be in it simply for financial enrichment, we must be aware of the potential convergence of terrorist groups in the area.
Worse things could happen. For instance, the sinking of a large container or tanker in the approach to the Suez canal would be a propaganda coup for terrorists. Insurance premiums have already risen more than tenfold since the first flourishing of Somali piracy in 2008. Although the pirates obviously keep most of the ransom funds they obtain, we can assume that a significant amount provides local factions with an injection of cash that helps to finance warfare and escalates conflict in the area.
I shall not repeat the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, but there is some confusion about exactly what ships can do when pirates approach them. We heard what my hon. Friend said; there must be clarification of the law of the sea, and I am sure the Minister will provide it when he winds up the debate.
There has been much good progress. Operation Atalanta is an impressive effort involving 23 of the 27 EU member states. We provide the operational headquarters at Northwood. A combined naval taskforce—CTF 150—has been undertaken by a coalition under US co-ordination. It involves the UK, Canada, Denmark, France, Japan and Germany, with participation from Australia, Italy and the Netherlands. It is very impressive and we should pay tribute to it.
As my hon. Friends who took part in the defence debate pointed out, all these things show the importance of the work of our Royal Navy and that it is increasingly over-stretched: in the Falklands, where we have had to send a Type 45 destroyer, in the strait of Hormuz and in anti-piracy control. We cannot rely on others. An authoritative report from the Defence Committee underlines the fact. In recent years, people have said that there is not enough for the Royal Navy to do, but actually it is extraordinarily important and it should be a national priority. We of course have allies for counter-terrorist and anti-piracy purposes—let us not doubt it—but perhaps we should remember Lord Palmerston’s warning, which applies to us just as it does to others, that nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests. We do not necessarily have permanent allies, but we have a permanent interest in maintaining maritime security. That is why I take every opportunity I can in such debates to pay tribute to the Royal Navy for the important work it does. I hope that when my hon. Friends succeed in catching your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, they, too, might make that point.
Let me end my remarks by talking about humanitarian intervention, because I did not want my earlier remarks to sound defeatist about the importance of international aid. I condemn the libertarian approach that says we should sit by and let the problem solve itself while hundreds of thousands of people go hungry and die, which I think is completely counter to our history of humanitarianism. Therefore, I warmly commend what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is doing and the help he has given. I often talk about the need for strict controls on public money, but occasionally one has to cut through Treasury controls and get the aid out there. I would like to echo the concern expressed in a Chatham House paper: if the international community does only one thing, ensuring the safe delivery of food aid should be the priority. I have no argument with that. When between 50,000 and 100,000 people are dying, it is right that we should be prepared to take action.
So much of this issue concerns the lack of interest. There is a lack of interest in many parts of the west. Perhaps up to 100,000 people have died in the past year, but this debate has not been overwhelmingly well attended. There is the lack of interest, the divided counsel and the violence. None of this is new. I will end with a quotation I recently read from Shakespeare’s “Henry VI, Part I”, Act I:
“Gloucester: Is Paris lost? Is Rouen yielded up?...
Exeter: How were they lost? What treachery was used?
Messenger: No treachery, but want of men and money;
Among the soldiers, this is muttered—
That here you maintain several factions,
And whilst a field should be despatched and fought,
You are disputing of your generals:
One would have lingering wars with little cost;
Another would fly swift, but wanteth wings.
A third man thinks, without expense at all,
By guileful fair words peace may be obtained.
Awake, awake, English nobility!”
European Council
Martin Horwood Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee and its Chairman for arranging this debate. I am sorry that the Government did not take note of the unanimous view of the European Scrutiny Committee that such a debate should be held in Government time. However, we now have this opportunity to air our views before the Prime Minister goes to the summit. He is to be congratulated on his use of the veto, which I am bound to say I was glad about because I had suggested its use in my pamphlet “It’s the EU, Stupid”, and in other discussions.
The proposal for fiscal union vitally affects our national interests and our democracy; it is not just about the single market and the City, essential though those matters are. As I said to the Foreign Secretary the other day, once we have crossed the Rubicon we cannot cross it again, and it is imperative that there should be no backsliding at the summit on 30 January. I totally repudiate the attitude of the Deputy Prime Minister that the non-EU treaty of the 26 should eventually be folded into the EU treaties. The Liberal Democrats are an obstruction to our vital national interests. A house divided against itself will fall, and the situation will be worse still if it is built on sand. There are now two Europes, both built on sand, and the situation is not only precarious but dangerous.
What is the root cause of the European crisis? It is not merely a eurozone crisis; it is a crisis of the European Union as a whole. Europe is being destroyed on the altar of ideology. The existing treaties, which cover 70% of our legislation here in the UK, have failed and are the root cause of the crisis in Europe.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
In the light of the hon. Gentleman’s attack on the role of the Liberal Democrats in all this, would he accept that the Deputy Prime Minister’s hosting of the recent summit of European Liberal leaders—including two Prime Ministers, six Deputy Prime Ministers and five European Commissioners —to try to bring together a bilateral plan to support jobs, growth and prosperity across Europe was a positive step?
Mr Cash
We are all in favour of growth, but unfortunately the European treaties themselves work against that aim because of the degree of overregulation, and many other matters that I shall come to in a moment.
The lack of growth is contaminating the UK economy. Elsewhere in Europe it is creating civil disorder, with youth unemployment of up to 45% in Greece and Spain, and 30% in Italy. The present European Union is completely undemocratic, and the existing treaties should be sent to a convention so that all the member states could have the opportunity to face one another and decide what kind of Europe they want. In the past, when referendums have been held in France, Holland, Ireland and Denmark, the no vote has been overturned by bribing and threatening the electorate. That kind of behaviour, combined with economic and political crisis, creates a fertile breeding ground for the far right, as I predicted as far back as 1990.
There is no growth in Europe, except in Germany. We cannot grow from a stagnant Europe, and the coalition cannot achieve its main objective of reducing the deficit and achieving growth so long as this paralysis continues. The remedy of the Eurocrats—and, indeed, the leaders of European Government and the Liberal Democrat leadership in this country—is a fatal obstruction to our present and future economic success.
The approach adopted by the Prime Minister today at Davos reflects the view that I expressed in my pamphlet “It’s the EU, Stupid” and the growth paper that has been circulated to all Members of Parliament and the Lords and others, as well as in my remarks to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, which is that we need to refocus our trade towards the rest of the world and not rely on the fact that we have 40% to 50% of our trade with the EU to provide the mainspring of our economic future.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
First, I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on selecting this topic for debate, although on this occasion I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that it might have been better to debate this issue in Government time as it is critical for this country.
While I am on the theme of congratulations, let me congratulate Sharon Bowles, MEP, on her recent re-election as chair of the economic and monetary affairs committee of the European Parliament. She was once voted one of the top 10 economic regulators in the world and she has presided over innovations such as the attempt to introduce regulation on bankers’ bonuses that would prevent someone like Fred the Shred from ever again walking away with a huge bonus from a failing bank. For that alone she deserves congratulation and I am pleased to see her retaining her place as one of the most influential Liberal Democrats in Europe.
I repeat my earlier congratulations to the Deputy Prime Minister on convening the European Liberal leaders forum on issues relating specifically to this debate in London on 9 January. The forum agreed a programme of reform and competitiveness for Europe that would probably unite Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of this House at least. That is a good example of how to build alliances across Europe and engage with Europe in a proactive way.
It is good to see Britain at the table for the summit. Clearly, there is the main summit, which is supposed to be focusing on prosperity and growth, but there is also the rather important sideshow of the 26 making further progress towards the fiscal compact, which is critical for Britain, and I am very pleased that the Government have made sure that Britain is an active participant in the process, albeit with observer status. I know that Ministers have been active behind the scenes getting Britain involved in the process and making sure, for instance, that the fiscal compact treaty does not spill over into areas outside its proper remit, such as the construction of the single market. As Liberal Democrats have pointed out, that is one of the risks of our relatively isolated situation in Europe.
Mr Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman think that at this point the power to fine Greece and then fining her would cut the Greek deficit?
Martin Horwood
I shall not be drawn into that. Critically, it is for the eurozone countries to address the crisis in the eurozone. The right hon. Gentleman highlights the important point that just by drawing up a treaty the eurozone countries do not solve some of the rather fundamental problems in the eurozone. In fact, the situation in Greece is becoming increasingly serious and it needs to be urgently addressed—that is even more the case now than in recent months.
The importance of the main business of the summit must not be neglected. Britain’s re-engagement in European affairs is critical and it must be pushed forward. There have already been some successes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills helped to create the like-minded growth group, which has pushed forward ideas such as lifting onerous accounting rules from the smallest businesses in this country. I think the group has helped to create a shift in Commission attitudes on the smallest businesses to the point where it has committed to review all existing EU legislation to look for other opportunities to lift onerous regulation from such businesses and to screen new legislation to see whether, wherever possible, the smallest businesses can be excluded. That is exactly the kind of agenda we should be pushing in Europe.
Mr Leigh
I want to make an intervention that the hon. Gentleman and I can both agree with. Does he agree with the point I have been making consistently at business questions that this debate is so important that in future we should have it in Government time, for a whole afternoon, with the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister here so that we can ask them detailed questions?
Martin Horwood
I think that is right, although the point I am making is that the jobs and prosperity agenda should be the focus of such debates. If possible, we should get away from the obsession with structures and treaties. The British Government should be pushing the jobs and prosperity agenda at the summit. I have suggested some areas for deregulation and the European Liberal leaders forum drew up a long list of legislation that should be reviewed for possible reform. It included the working time regulations, the temporary agency workers directive, the control of vibration at work regulations, fixed-term employees regulations, part-time workers regulations, control of noise at work regulations, road transport working time regulations and the transnational information and consultation of employees regulations.
Martin Horwood
I am not at all in favour of scrapping health and safety regulations or those designed to protect workers. They are extremely important. The point is not even necessarily to weaken health and safety and workers regulations in Europe, but to see whether they can be made more flexible and be applied more flexibly domestically. That is another area where the British agenda should be pushed.
There are signs that European Governments are increasingly seeing things our way; it is not just the 15 members of the like-minded growth group. Italy has traditionally been more renowned for a protectionist stance in Europe and has at times had a less than impressive record on implementing single market legislation, but it is now actively implementing measures to liberalise great swathes of its economy and is actively pushing a single market agenda in Brussels that is directly comparable to ours. Spain, under the new Government led by Señor Rajoy, is also moving to undertake major structural reforms domestically and is shifting its position in Europe accordingly. Ministers must build on such possible alliances, which seem to be growing stronger all the time.
There are other things that I probably do not have time to cover in great detail. In terms of promoting jobs and prosperity, it is important to push for the completion of the single market, particularly in the digital and services sectors. External trade is equally important. This morning, I was in a Committee that voted on a new framework agreement that included free trade with South Korea. It could soon be extended to Ukraine and possibly a range of other countries. That is the kind of thing that will drive jobs and prosperity in Europe, not an overly obsessive attitude to EU treaties and institutions.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I rise to support the Prime Minister. I think he had no alternative but to say no to a very unsatisfactory deal and to a totally inappropriate proposed measure at that Council. Nor do I think he has lost Britain influence by doing it; I think he has won Britain influence by doing it. We learned subsequently that several non-euro member states could not go along with the draft any more than the United Kingdom could. We also learned subsequently that France, Germany and others are now beating a path to the United Kingdom Foreign Office door, trying to get us back on board, trying to woo us because we had the courage to say no.
We meet today because we wish to influence our Government in what they are doing at yet another important European summit. The European Central Bank has bought the Europeans a little time by printing and lending unprecedented sums of money to a very weak European banking system, but those meeting would be wise to understand that that has only bought a little time; it has not solved the underlying problem. Indeed, there are two underlying problems. There is the inability of the southern countries to compete with Germany at the fixed exchange rate within the euro, making them poor and giving them large balance of payments deficits which they have trouble financing; and there is the big problem of the southern states’ debt getting ever bigger. As their economies are malfunctioning, because so many people are out of work and because they cannot price themselves back into jobs, their debts and deficits go on soaring, and now in three cases member states of the euro area cannot finance those deficits in the normal way and have to be on life support from the EU and the IMF.
Martin Horwood
On the subject of the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the Prime Minister, will he join me in welcoming the Prime Minister’s remarks this morning in Davos, when he said,
“Let me be clear. To those who think that not signing the treaty means Britain is somehow walking away from Europe let me tell you, nothing could be further from the truth”?
Mr Redwood
Of course the Prime Minister is right that we are in the European Union and all the time we remain in it we have to use our membership as best we can to protect the interests of the British people.
The main purpose of the summit must be to try to deliver greater prosperity and some growth and some hope to the peoples of Europe, because their hope has been depressed and their prosperity is being destroyed by a system that cannot conceivably work. The euro area is now locked into a system of mutually assured deflation, a mad policy, and the more those countries’ economies decline, the more the deficits go up, the more they have to cut. They cannot get themselves out by monetary means, in the way that the United Kingdom and the United States can, by creating more money in their system, and they cannot get out by having a competitive exchange rate.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The debate comes at a crucial time for the eurozone and the wider European Union. Last month’s European Council could and should have taken the vital decisions needed to stabilise the eurozone and boost growth and jobs in the EU, but it failed to do so. Monday’s European Council is a vital chance to make up for previous lost opportunities, but I fear that the Prime Minister’s diminished position in Europe has jeopardised the Government’s ability to achieve and influence that. His walk-out at the previous European Council was a spectacular failure to engage with our European partners. We have a world-class diplomatic service, but the Prime Minister refused to use the talent, professionalism and experience of the Foreign Office and opted instead to let the Treasury run our foreign policy. He decided that keeping his Back Benchers happy was more important than helping our main export market resolve the eurozone crisis. He in fact followed the advice of the Foreign Secretary who, according to various reports, before the last European Council told him:
“If it is a choice between keeping the euro together or keeping the Conservative party together, it is in the national interest to keep the Conservative party together.”
That is the only thing that the Prime Minister did achieve, because he did not stop anything happening. His diplomatic defeatism was accurately summed up by the Deputy Prime Minister earlier this month, when he said:
“The language gets confusing. Veto suggests something was stopped. It was not stopped.”
I could not agree more.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Lady makes some of the points that I made several months ago and that other hon. Members sympathetic to the pro-European cause made at the time of the summit. Surely we have now moved on. The Prime Minister, in his remarks today at Davos, quite clearly stated:
“It fundamentally reflects our national interest to be part of the single market on our doorstep and we have intention of walking away. So let me be clear: we want Europe to be a success.”
The process of re-engagement is under way.
Human Rights
Martin Horwood Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I praise the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) for initiating this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, especially the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who gave an eloquent declaration in defence of human rights and some well-made points about the rights of women and the valuable work of organisations such as B’Tselem, which I am happy to endorse.
While I am heaping praise on people, I would not mind praising Conservative Ministers—from the other side of the coalition, I guess—not only for producing human rights reports, which is the easy part of the process, but for the frequent declarations that I have heard in the House by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is here today, and by the Foreign Secretary, making clear Britain’s absolute commitment to human rights in a wide range of contexts.
As a Liberal Democrat in the coalition, human rights are central to my political beliefs. I date human rights policy back to a Liberal campaign—the Midlothian campaign—by possibly the greatest Liberal, William Gladstone, who in 1880 explicitly balanced the national strategic interest with the rights of people who were not even British citizens at the time. In many ways, that was the origin of international human rights policy. I am proud and humbled to stand in that tradition. For that reason, I welcome many of the recommendations, some of them quite tough, in the Select Committee report.
I particularly like recommendation 3, which states that
“failing to take a stronger and more consistent stance against human rights violations by overseas regimes can carry risks for the UK. In particular, any suggestion that the FCO downplays criticism of human rights abuses in countries with which the UK has close political and commercial links is damaging to the UK’s reputation, and undermines the department’s overall work in promoting human rights overseas.”
The report relates that to north Africa and the middle east, but it applies worldwide, although it was the Arab spring, as the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said, which highlighted in some areas of policy, such as arms control, the weakness of some of our human rights checks on Government policy—not just this Government, but certainly the previous one, from whom we inherited the system. For instance, it appeared that, instead of a human rights check being carried out to consider the potential for arms to be used for internal repression, checks were made in respect of whether they were being used for repression at that moment, which effectively excused every regime in north Africa and the middle east, many of which had the most appalling human rights records. The report’s recommendations relating to that are well made.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to include Bahrain in the next human rights report and their response to the situation in respect of the Arab spring, which included cancelling more than 160 arms export licences, some clear declarations in the House of Commons and the declaration, in response to the Committee’s report, that more work by Government was needed in this area.
First, in connection with the international arms trade treaty, we may possibly have some international collaboration that may contribute to some solution to that issue. What is the current state of negotiations on the international arms trade treaty? Does the Minister think that that could enable us to address human rights matters in the context of international arms sales? Secondly, if the Government have concluded that further work between BIS and the FCO is needed on this matter, is not it about time for them to agree on how that should be done and get on with doing it in some form? Thirdly, and finally, the Committee’s specific recommendation that we review arms sales to Saudi Arabia is well made. That is potentially a lucrative market that is valuable in respect of growth, and so on, but it is morally unacceptable to sell arms to repressive dictatorships, which may use them on their own people and may already have used military matériel in helping to suppress dissent in a neighbour’s territory.
I shall resist the temptation to do a world tour of human rights and will focus on Russia and China, two big, influential powers with domestic human rights issues, which are also major international players and permanent members of the Security Council and are therefore important in that respect.
In the case of Russia, I want to focus, first, on the appalling case of Sergei Magnitsky, who died in 2009. There is a campaign to bring his persecutors to justice but there is a sense among some of those who are campaigning on his behalf that Britain is perhaps a little behind other states in taking firm action on this case, despite the fact that Sergei Magnitsky was a lawyer working for a British company and Bill Browder, who is spearheading the campaign to bring Magnitsky’s persecutors to justice, is a British citizen.
In the US, the Netherlands and Switzerland, we have seen sanctions or progress towards sanctions, in the form of targeted visa bans or the freezing of assets, against the individuals implicated in the Magnitsky case. Moreover, because the Netherlands and Switzerland are part of the Schengen agreement, their action could close off most of Europe to those individuals. Nevertheless, I want to hear from the Minister if the Government are considering whether Britain should take similar action.
Then there are the cases of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, who are now widely acknowledged by many people as political prisoners. Khodorkovsky has never seen his granddaughter. When representatives of the media or other third parties visit him in prison, those visits are taken away from the number of visits that he is allowed to receive from his own family, so he is suffering considerably.
There also ought to be honourable mention of Vasily Aleksanyan, who was a legal counsellor to Khodorkovsky’s company, Yukos. He died in prison last year, having turned down the offer of what was in effect a plea bargain, whereby he would perhaps have incriminated Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. He turned that offer down and it probably cost him his life.
I want Ministers not only to continue raising the cases of Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and others, and consider imposing visa bans, but to reflect on some of the language that we are using about the European Court of Human Rights. Although I completely agree with the Government that the ECHR needs reform—the backlog of thousands of cases is clearly unsustainable and there are real problems with the Court being used much too freely—the campaigners for these Russian human rights defenders have expressed concern that the type of language and rhetoric that we are using about the ECHR is remarkably similar to that being used in Russia. We must guard against giving domestic Governments too much power to decide which cases go forward to the ECHR, because we may actually see cases such as those of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev being caught in that trap. Those cases are in that queue of thousands of cases that are waiting to be heard at the ECHR.
I will very briefly discuss human rights in China, as I can see, Mr Rosindell, that you are getting a little impatient. I want to draw attention to the situation in Tibet, and the three deaths and the continuing disturbances there. They have resulted from what seems to be an increasing denial of human rights, particularly religious rights, in that part of China. It is very unhelpful for the Chinese Government routinely to condemn secessionist groups, because the current elected administration-in-exile of Tibet is not actually calling for secession any more but looking for peaceful dialogue, and that opportunity should not be lost.
In the case of both China and Russia, however, there are some hopeful signs. Both countries are now more open societies than they were in the past. In the case of China, it is maintaining the “one country, two systems” approach to Hong Kong and actually tolerating a very free society there, but it has a myopia about human rights worldwide and is implicated in supporting some fairly unpleasant regimes around the world. Also, although China and Russia went along with action on Libya, their failure to support a firm UN resolution on Syria does neither country any justice.
There are many brave human rights defenders around the world who look to the British Government for leadership. I hope that we will continue to provide leadership and that we will perhaps even go further, as the Select Committee has recommended.
EU Sanctions (Iran)
Martin Horwood Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Hague
We are not in a position to conduct a referendum in Iran on the measures. I wish that there could be an open consultation with the people of Iran, or even that the Iranian Government would consult them on domestic issues. As I said earlier, free expression of opinion is not easily permitted in that country. Clearly, it is not possible to consult the Iranian people.
For a long time, the measures that we imposed were directed at the financing of the nuclear programme and the finances of the Iranian state. Of course, the measures that we are discussing are unprecedented and wide ranging, and can have a wider effect. However, I would argue that that is better than the alternatives of doing nothing or making a military conflict more likely. I think that they greatly concern the Iranian regime, and that is why we hear statements such as that from Vice-President Rahimi on 27 December, and why we have seen any flexibility about negotiations from Iran in the past 12 months only on each occasion when we are on the point of imposing additional sanctions. We have been through that several times and learned not to be deterred from imposing additional sanctions. The Iranian Government will now have to try to deal with the situation.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I welcome the European Council’s robust stance, and the confirmation by the Council and the Foreign Secretary of the peaceful objectives of the process—the resumption of talks about the nuclear programme—but what active steps are the British Government or the European Union taking to facilitate the start of the talks and the de-escalation of this dangerous crisis?
Mr Hague
We are taking very active steps to facilitate that. Baroness Ashton wrote, I believe, from memory, in October—three months ago—to the Iranian negotiator Mr Jalili setting out the terms of a new round of negotiations and inviting Iran to them. The EU has not received a formal reply. The opportunity has been clearly set out on behalf of the E3 plus 3 and it will remain.
Oral Answers to Questions
Martin Horwood Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Bellingham
On the positive side, there was far less violence in these elections than there was in 2006. Furthermore, most voters who wanted to vote could and did vote. I agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman that there were a number of serious irregularities throughout the electoral process. That is why we called on the DRC authorities to investigate them properly and fairly. It is vital that lessons are learned.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
As we discovered during events surrounding the invasion of Iraq, it is essential for states to act only on hard evidence. In relation to Iran, will the Secretary of State encourage not only Iran itself but the whole international community to listen carefully to the International Atomic Energy Agency this time?
Mr Hague
Yes, it is very important to listen carefully to what is said by the International Atomic Energy Authority. As my hon. Friend will know, it was a report from the IAEA which, in November, referred to the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programme and the concern that was felt about it. That has fortified our determination—the determination of countries throughout the European Union—to adopt the measures that we will be discussing next week although, as my hon. Friend has said, they must always be based on hard evidence.
North Korea
Martin Horwood Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in a debate on a subject other than Europe. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing the debate, and for the passionate and compassionate way in which she introduced it. Her speech was one of the most moving that I have heard this Parliament, and some of the points were very well made. The story she told of Shin Dong-hyuk was inspiring and horrifying in almost equal measure.
Many international comparisons have been made of the regime in North Korea. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said that it stood comparison with the Nazis, and the re-education and prison camps do indeed bear comparison with those under Hitler. In North Korea, there are disappearances, torture and violent repression, carried out with as much ruthless efficiency as there was under any of the old Latin American military dictatorships. We see there the “duce” ideology, as totalitarian and intolerant as that of the Khmer Rouge. The cult of personality is as extreme as that of Ceausescu or Bokassa. The reckless mismanagement of the food supply has caused a self-induced famine as devastating as that experienced by China during Mao’s terrible “great leap forward”. To those traditional state crimes can be added terrorist acts that bear comparison with those of al-Qaeda, abductions like those by Somali pirates, and a nuclear programme that is as threatening as anything in Iran.
That is an extraordinary list, and in many ways it probably adds up to the most completely ruthless dictatorship in modern history. That poses a bit of a problem for those trying to focus opposition, or to support those campaigning for any sort of freedom in North Korea. In Burma, attention can be focused on a figure such as Aung San Suu Kyi; in eastern Europe, there were figures such as Walesa and Václav Havel, and there was Nelson Mandela in South Africa, but their equivalents in North Korea were annihilated long ago, or imprisoned and forgotten. That poses a problem.
Mr Buckland
To reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman is making so eloquently, the last special rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council classified human rights abuses in North Korea as sui generis—that is, as a completely separate category from any other abuses in the world. The hon. Gentleman has encapsulated why the rapporteur’s findings were absolutely right.
Martin Horwood
The hon. Gentleman’s point is absolutely correct.
It is important to focus on the people who have managed, extraordinarily, to escape from the regime, such as Mr Shin. I am pleased that the Minister has met Mr Shin personally, and that the Government are taking seriously the views, opinions, testimony and witness of those who manage to escape from the regime.
The hon. Member for Congleton asked us to focus on humanitarian and human rights issues, and rightly drew attention to Baroness Amos’s report of her visit last year, which highlighted that, on the humanitarian front, there is chronic poverty, underdevelopment, poor infrastructure, and indicators of widespread malnutrition and stunted growth in the population. Daily diets are deficient even in basic protein and essential fats. Previous UN assessments of the food supply suggested that it was very poor, with poor management of land, and as the hon. Member for Congleton suggested, there is poor access to basic mechanical farm equipment. That seems extraordinary in the 21st century. Add to that a near total breakdown in the management of public health, and vulnerability to human trafficking and perhaps even the exploitation of children, in which agents of the state may be complicit, and the picture is truly apocalyptic.
The picture is little better on the human rights front. We have heard about the widespread use of torture and possibly rape, and certainly about the regime’s use of extrajudicial beatings, imprisonment and execution in the many prisons camps. There is persecution not just of what the regime deems to be criminal acts, but of wrong thinking in a souped-up version of the Maoist red guards’ worst excesses. There is absolutely no freedom of belief, of the press, of thought or of political expression.
That poses the problem for democratic Governments of how to deal with such regimes. How can influence be exercised over a regime that is so totally beyond the pale that it is, as the hon. Member for South Swindon suggested, almost in a class of its own? There are some avenues. There is the traditional diplomatic pressure that the Government exercise through diplomatic contact with the North Korean embassy here in this country, our embassy in North Korea, and the embassies of our European Union partners. Clearly, we should continue to use those channels. We should also continue the pressure to encourage North Korea to allow access for the UN special rapporteur on human rights. We should certainly support a commission of inquiry, but there is clearly a problem in the UN Security Council, and we may not be able to obtain widespread support, which seems incredible. If China and Russia are not minded to support that, it is a damning indictment of their foreign policy. I should be grateful to hear the Minister’s latest report of any discussions that he may have had on that front with Chinese and Russian colleagues, or the UK’s representation at the UN.
There is also an issue with refugees. Some 300,000 refugees have allegedly made their way from North Korea to China. Apart from the logistical and social problems that that might cause, if they are caught, they are apparently routinely repatriated to North Korea, where they face almost certain torture and execution. A few refugees seem to reach countries such as Vietnam, Laos and Mongolia. What discussions has the Minister had with China and other regional Governments, and organisations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, on the treatment of North Korean refugees and the protection of their human rights and their right to asylum, which are extraordinarily important in the current situation?
Beyond that, there is the exercise of what is traditionally called soft power. It is difficult to make humanitarian aid relationships conditional, and that seems a brutal and inhumane approach, but some conditionality or attempt to ensure that food aid gets to the right people and is not being used as a political tool is important. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts about his Department’s latest approach to that policy, and the approach taken by the Department for International Development.
The hon. Member for Congleton referred to the British Council and the language-teaching programme, which is a positive step. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister has any news about penetration of the BBC World Service or other language services into North Korea. I know that it is standard practice in North Korea to solder the tuning dial of radios, so that they can be tuned only to North Korean stations. The extraordinary levels to which the regime goes to try to repress its people are astonishing, although it does not require a mechanical or electrical genius to undo solder, so perhaps messages are getting through.
There are limits to soft power when a regime is totally unresponsive to that approach. We must try to find a means of exerting pressure. We could hope that a new regime and a new leader might lead to some change, but I think that may be as futile as the hope that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi or Bashar al-Assad would be a new influence on their countries. The likelihood is that, in reality, Kim Jong-un is much less influential in the exercise of power than even his father, and certainly his grandfather.
The key relationship in the region, and the only one that could make a material difference, is that between North Korea and China. China’s tacit tolerance of the appalling regime in North Korea is allowing it to survive, and it is crucial to emphasise to the Chinese that if they are to be players in international relations and participate responsibly as part of the international community, they cannot be seen to be complicit in the survival of such an appalling regime.
The kind of instability that I am sure the Chinese fear more than anything is a possibility in North Korea. As we have seen in north Africa and all over the world, repression leads in the end to a kind of instability. In an utterly dysfunctional society, a repressive regime will fall in one way or another, and it is surely better for that to happen through a process of international action and intervention than in a chaotic way that may cause instability on China’s doorstep. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about any discussions he has had with China. As the hon. Member for Congleton has said, there is a moral case for not being tempted to forget and dismiss the situation in North Korea. Inaction is simply unacceptable in the face of such an appalling situation, and we should be grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out.