Iran (Human Rights)

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Order. Perhaps I might be helpful: the Front-Bench spokespeople have been flexible about time, so I will not cut off Back-Bench speakers at half-past 3, as I originally said I would.

[Martin Horwood]

I am now even more grateful to serve under your extremely lenient and enlightened chairmanship, Dr McCrea.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on choosing a subject that is even more topical today than she probably realised it would be when she secured the debate. It is clear that the human rights situation has worsened since the contested elections in Iran in 2009. Amnesty International’s recent report states:

“The authorities maintained severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly. Sweeping controls on domestic and international media aimed at reducing Iranians’ contact with the outside world were imposed. Individuals and groups risked arrest, torture and imprisonment if perceived as co-operating with human rights and foreign-based Persian-language media organizations. Political dissidents, women’s and minority rights activists and other human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and students were rounded up in mass and other arrests and hundreds were imprisoned. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were routine and committed with impunity. Women continued to face discrimination under the law and in practice. The authorities acknowledged 252 executions, but there were credible reports of more than 300 other executions.”

It is almost inevitable that the true total is higher.

The situation for human rights defenders, lawyers, protestors, trade unionists and ethnic minorities seems to be getting worse. The regime’s intolerance of not only dissenting political beliefs, but, as many hon. Members have pointed out, dissenting personal beliefs is increasingly clear: secular teachers at universities have been purged; Ahwazi Arabs have been sentenced to death for enmity to God; and Amnesty has drawn attention to the plight of Sunnis, dissident Shi’as, Christian converts and evangelists, and the Dervish and Sufi communities, who all suffer discrimination, arbitrary detention and attacks on community property.

By drawing attention to the plight of those of the Baha’i faith, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside has shown that she is particularly well informed. The faith is not even recognised as a legitimate religion in Iran, so the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) was right to say that discrimination against the Baha’i is systematic and institutionalised. My small group of Baha’i constituents have shown me great hospitality in my constituency, and I promised them that I would take every opportunity to support the rights of the Baha’i in Iran. I am happy to fulfil that pledge today.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

My hon. Friend reads out a devastating roll-call of abuses. However, the situation is even worse than he outlined. He mentioned 252 executions, but in 2011 that number included the execution of a juvenile. There are currently 143 juvenile offenders on death row in Iran, in complete defiance of international law.

[Martin Horwood]

My hon. Friend makes a devastating point in support of her argument.

The last faith group in Iran that I shall mention is the Jewish community, which is extremely long-established. There is a history of tolerance of the Jewish community in Iran, but there is increasing evidence that anti-Semitism is growing there, and that the small Jewish community there is being blamed for the actions of the Israeli Government. Those actions are beside the point; an unfair collective punishment is, in effect, being imposed.

I support the consistent calls from the United Kingdom Government and the European Union for an improvement in the human rights situation in Iran. Certainly, the decision by the EU in October to increase targeted sanctions on officials—those identified as responsible for particularly grave human rights abuses—was exactly right. The sanctions regime is interconnected with the nuclear programme in Iran, but targeted sanctions relating to human rights are every bit as justified, in my view, as those relating to the nuclear programme.

It is important, as the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned, that we do not pursue a path that leaves the regime no escape route and inadvertently strengthens the hands of the hard-liners in the regime. Iran is not North Korea. Iran is not a monolithic society; it has human rights defenders, courageous and independent-minded writers, filmmakers, journalists, bloggers, lawyers and young campaigners; it does, in effect, have opposition; and, above all, it has a young population that is quite aware of what has happened in the neighbouring Arab countries in the Arab spring, and is aware of what democracy really looks like—and what oppression looks like.

Of course, Iran has a tradition of vigorously contested elections, even though they are not democratic in the sense that we would recognise. That tradition of independent thought and resistance should be reinforced and supported wherever possible. That means that the exercise of soft power can have some effect, can still be deployed and is likely to have positive effects.

The jamming of international radio and TV broadcasts—I cannot remember which hon. Member mentioned that—is an important issue. I draw attention to it again and ask for ministerial support to raise it at the International Telecommunication Union world radio conference in Geneva, which begins on 23 January. The jamming of the BBC Persian TV service has resulted in that service being taken off the Hot Bird satellite, which is the main satellite for the region. That illegal censorship is, in effect, denying freedom of information and human rights to the Persian-speaking population. I welcome Ministers raising the profile of that issue in advance of the conference.

The Persian people, like their Arab neighbours, have the potential to tackle the human rights issue once and for all themselves, through their own resistance and traditions of championing freedom. We should do everything we can to support them.

European Union

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will come shortly to how we should rebalance our relationship with Europe. He is right to point to the type of relationship that we should have—one based on free trade and co-operation with our European friends and neighbours, but on a sovereign nation to sovereign nation basis.

There are those who tell us that the Prime Minister has gone against the whole thrust and approach of UK foreign policy for the past 40 to 50 years. I have no doubt that there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the bowels of the Foreign Office and elsewhere among the professional mandarins who have seen the EU as almost a sacred cause, to be advanced whatever the wishes of the British people or the views of the temporary occupants—as they would see it—of political office. For the mandarins, the people and those who occupy political office are to be managed and dealt with—although I am sure that that does not apply to the occupants of office in this Government.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The gnashing of teeth is not just among mandarins, is it? Has the right hon. Gentleman heard from the business analysts at IHS Global Insight? They said that

“the European council statement made clear that a new ‘fiscal stability union’ would seek to deepen the internal market, creating stronger fiscal and economic rules.

‘Outside this union the UK is likely to become increasingly irrelevant and marginalised’”.

Does not such concern on the part of business worry the right hon. Gentleman?

[Mr Dodds]

I have heard all that before. We heard it at the time of the UK’s withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism and when Britain decided not to join the euro. We have heard time and again the dire warnings of doom and gloom. However, if we reach the position that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) outlined, of a relationship based on free trade and co-operation, it will free our economy from much of the regulation, red tape, bureaucracy and dead-weight of EU laws that currently hold us back from the true competitiveness and real growth that we need.

We have not just heard from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood); we have also heard the hysterical reactions of blasts from the past such as Paddy Ashdown, Michael Heseltine and the other usual suspects. It is time the House realised that focusing our foreign policy on the narrow ground of greater Europeanism and ever closer political union in Europe is contrary to the UK’s vital interests.

We make it clear that we must and should work with our European neighbours and friends on a host of economic, political and policy issues. However, let us also recognise the enormous opportunities on the wider scene: our unique position in terms of the Commonwealth, our special relationship with the United States, and our standing in the United Nations. For too long our vision as a country has been dominated by the little Europeanists, who want to take us in only one direction. It is high time that blinkered approach was discarded.

There are those who say that what the Prime Minister did was wrong because we must do all we can to save the euro. However, as was said earlier, in considering the events of last weekend, it has been overlooked that, for all the talk about arrangements to prevent future crises, not a lot was done to instil confidence that the immediate crisis will end any time soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on a timely choice of topic and on some smart draftsmanship in the wording of the motion.

It is reasonably common knowledge that the Liberal Democrats think that the outcome of last week’s summit in Brussels was not a good one. The less important reason for the outcome being bad was that the Prime Minister felt compelled to threaten the use of a British veto. That has generated a great deal of media interest and political over-excitement, but that was not the big issue. The big issue, as the Minister rightly emphasised, is the economic and financial crisis still facing the continent of Europe and, by extension, still facing the UK economy and the global economy.

It is already pretty clear that the hundreds of billions of euros mustered by the IMF, the European stability mechanism and potentially the European Central Bank have not been enough to reassure the markets. Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece are all still under pressure. Some people have talked as if overnight exits from the eurozone would be desirable, even if they were possible, but they would not be; they would be catastrophic. The prospect of disorderly defaults and eurozone exits would threaten wholesale bank failures, bankruptcies and insolvencies across Europe, and that is still possible. I do not think the eurozone countries have yet put in place the firepower required to avoid it.

The capacity needed by the financial institutions will probably run to trillions of euros. It is not just a short-term crisis, as some of my Eurosceptic friends have pointed out. There are long-term structural issues concerning the compatibility of the German economy with those much weaker and less competitive economies in the same currency union, and those problems have not yet been sorted out. Perhaps the structures and the rules of a new treaty or agreement, whatever form it takes, may prove to be the beginning of a solution, but the process is still a long way from complete and there are quite a few obstacles in its path, some of them sitting in this Chamber.

[Mr Cash]

As one of the immovable objects to which the hon. Gentleman refers, may I stress that we are talking about the rule of law? I am sure he would not want a device to be used that attempted to bypass the legal processes of the very treaties that he so strongly advocates.

[Martin Horwood]

Of course not, and the law will be followed, but we may find that European Governments have to gather yet again for more crisis summits in the not-too-distant future. That offers Britain a bit of an opportunity. We now need a process of positive and active diplomacy to persuade some of our more traditional allies in Europe—Ireland, Sweden, even Germany, and many others—of the benefits of having Britain fully involved not in the eurozone, but in the overall process of European economic decision making. Why? Because one of the medium to long-term solutions to Europe’s problems is to have a real focus on jobs and sustainable prosperity—jobs and prosperity in the UK, as well as in the rest of Europe because, as has been pointed out, half our trade and foreign direct investment comes from other EU members.

The argument about repatriating powers, let alone leaving the EU, completely misses the point. It is in our interest not just to have a competitive and vibrant British economy, but for there to be a competitive and vibrant European economy as well, and Britain can help to bring that about. It is not just in Britain’s interest to be at the heart of the European economy and European economic decision making; it is in Europe’s interests too, and that in turn will help British jobs, British business and British prosperity.

[Bob Stewart]

In those circumstances, would it not be wise for those people who want us to stay in to come to us and say, “Look, talk again. We want to give you what you want. We really require you”? I think Europe requires us rather more than we require Europe.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The Liberal Democrats supported the initial negotiating position. The mystery of last week’s summit is why we seemed to have so few friends in the negotiating chamber who would support those reasonable initial demands. That is why I am suggesting that we have a process of much more active and positive diplomacy in the run-up to what might be future summits.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Horwood]

No. I have taken two interventions, I am afraid, and time is short.

The reason we can go forward positively within Europe is that in Europe there are means of building alliances that do not depend on treaty changes or such complex and confrontational tactics. I cite in evidence the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who, by collaborating with European counterparts, has lifted onerous accounting rules from the smallest businesses in Britain and created a like-minded growth group, which the UK has joined with the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Romania to tackle common priorities and establish common negotiating positions on everything from the digital sector to services, impact assessments and smarter regulation.

We have the prospect, as the Europe Minister has pointed out, of rules over fisheries being returned increasingly to the local and national levels, and that is a positive development. There is the prospect also of co-operation leading perhaps to the reform of the EU’s budget processes, and there are plenty of opportunities for a common reform agenda.

If I may finish on a positive, coalition note, I think that mainstream Conservative MPs and Liberal Democrats can absolutely unite on the need for reform.

[Dr Lewis]

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, can he tell us whether his party will vote for the motion, against the motion, in both Lobbies or not at all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

Any Liberal Democrat who votes for the Democratic Unionist party motion tonight will do so extremely reluctantly, that is all I have to say.

It is a shame to try to snatch division from the jaws of unity, however, because I was finishing on a positive note. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats should unite on a reform agenda in Europe which does not necessarily require treaty change but will, I hope, be supported by other countries. Then we can build alliances and go forward positively, with the like-minded countries of Europe putting forward a positive and good plan for British jobs and British prosperity, for European jobs and European prosperity.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simpson]

If that is an invitation—[Hon. Members: “Don’t be tempted.”] I will not take it further; I think that is probably an internal matter for the coalition.

[Martin Horwood]

rose—

[David Simpson]

I will not give way because time is short.

Of course, I rise to support the motion that my party has tabled. The whole of Europe—countries in the EU and outside it—faces a major crisis. It is an immediate crisis that is made worse by the drag or gravitational pull of long-term policies, treaties, agreements and directives that lock EU countries, especially those in the eurozone, into a negative economic cycle. Countries were allowed to join the euro that were simply in no fit state to do so and should never have been permitted to do so. Their admittance had nothing to do with their ability to survive and prosper with the euro, but everything to do with the ideology of those who have pressed for an EU superstate. The Republic of Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy were welcomed into the euro on the ground of a pro-European superstate rather than hard economic assessment.

At the same time as those fundamental weaknesses were being built into the eurozone, there were cries in the UK that we should be part of that disastrous undertaking. There were ardently pro-euro factions in the Conservative party and the Labour party. However, in both parties sanity ultimately won the day.

Many of us predicted that locking ill-equipped countries into a position whereby they could not devalue or set their own interest rates was a recipe for disaster. Some would say that, with the benefit of hindsight, Britain had a lucky escape. However, we do not need hindsight because we have history on our side—the history of the European Union and what has happened in it down the years.

From the phone calls and e-mails that I have received, I know that the general public in the United Kingdom are fed up to the back teeth with the money that we pour into Europe every year: £17 billion—£10 billion net, or, to put it in everyday terms, £200 million each day, only to see increasing red tape and an increasing desire to meddle in our courts, our immigration, our foreign policy, our tax system, our employment market and our national defence. For many people, that is simply not acceptable.

We should take the advice of the Prime Minister, who said at the end of October:

“This is the right time to sort out the eurozone’s problems, defend your national interest and look to the opportunities there may be in the future to repatriate powers back”

to the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

Love thy neighbour, I say, and the Leader of the Opposition is my constituency neighbour, so I do not wish to speak ill of him, but I entirely associate myself with my hon. Friend’s words.

I want to concentrate on the Opposition’s position before saying a few words about the Minister’s response. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) did not answer my three questions: she did not say whether the Opposition have ruled out membership of the euro for ever; she did not say whether they believe that we have integrated too far and whether they are against integrating further or ceding more powers to the EU; and she did not answer my third question—one posed by many Members on both sides of the House—about what they would have done last Friday. There is this fanciful configuration under which they would have grabbed a deal—because the negotiating skills of the Leader of the Opposition are so renowned—that was good not just for Europe and the euro but for Britain. I simply do not buy it, and I strongly suspect that the British public do not either.

I want to say a few words about our valued coalition colleagues and their response over the past few days. I used to agree with a lot of what the Deputy Prime Minister said. Indeed, I clutch in my hand—although one must not use a prop, Mr Deputy Speaker—a photocopy of a Liberal Democrat election leaflet. They are mercifully thin on the ground in Brigg and Goole because we have no Liberal Democrat councillors. It is headed, “It’s time for a real referendum on Europe” and continues:

“It’s been over thirty years since the British people last had a vote on Britain’s membership of the European Union. That’s why the Liberal Democrats want a real referendum on Europe…But Labour don’t want the people to have their say. The Conservatives only support a limited referendum…Why won’t they give the people a say in a real referendum?”

The leaflet reads: “It’s time for a real referendum”.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Percy]

No, I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s explanation of this in the past, when he talked about a referendum at some time in the future, but this leaflet says very clearly, “It’s time for a real referendum”. People can even send it back to the real referendum petition, 4 Cowley street, London.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Percy]

I am not going to give way, because I have heard the nonsense about the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto commitment on this issue before, which was all about how there would be a referendum at some point in the future. However, I am afraid that the quotation given by the Deputy Prime Minister on this leaflet—he is named as “Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg”—says:

“It’s time to give the British people a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.”

I can assume only that when this leaflet went to the printers, the bit saying, “At some point in the future, but not any time soon,” was missed off. Some people would say that the Deputy Prime Minister—

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Percy]

I am not going to give way, so give up.

[Martin Horwood]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for someone repeatedly to attack Members in the Chamber, and by implication the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party, and not give way when that is challenged?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think one would say that it is a political comment rather than an attack. As both parties are joined together, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would take it not as an attack, but as a political comment.

European Council

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for the way he has introduced the debate. I do not intend to weary the Chamber with his level of forensic detail. He has made the case, and I subscribe entirely to what he said.

I want to talk about the broad picture, in historical terms, because I think we lose track of history. We are on the cusp of a truly momentous moment in our country, which could reorder our entire relationship with history. I regret that economics is now considered to be the only science that politicians of note should understand, because history is just as important. The fact is that for 300 years this country had one historical imperative, and that historical imperative is born of the fact that we are a maritime and a trading nation. We have strained every sinew and have fought momentous wars to ensure that there is no conglomeration of power on the continent that could either exclude us from continental markets or have an effect on our trade, particularly our maritime trade.

It is a shame that, in our schools—I know quite a lot about education, because I follow what my children are learning—little knowledge is bred into our children about our own history. There is far too much emphasis on 20th century history and Hitler and Stalin, but our history is far longer than that. Virtually everything that we have undertaken for these 400 years has been to ensure that we retain our independence as a trading and maritime nation. In the 16th century, we were prepared to go to war against Spain because they were affecting our trade. We also did so in the 17th century with the Dutch; in the 18th and early 19th centuries with the French; and in the 20th century with the Germans. All along, I believe that, although we have stood on great principles—that is certainly true of 1914 and 1939—our prime motivation has been to retain our independence.

What we are seeing now is a truly frightening conglomeration of power on the continent. If the German Chancellor and the French President succeed in creating fiscal and monetary union tomorrow, we will voluntarily exclude ourselves. Do not think for a moment that this conglomeration of power would not have a decisive and dramatic effect on us. The United Kingdom accounts for 36% of the European Union’s wholesale finance industry and a 61% share of the EU’s net exports of international transactions in financial services. However, under new voting rules that will come into force in 2014, it will possess only 12% of the votes in the Council of Ministers, and 10% of the votes in the European Parliament. In contrast, France accounts for 20% of the EU’s market in agriculture, but enjoys a veto over the EU’s long-term budget and therefore retains substantial control over the sizeable EU subsidies received by its farmers. An express train is coming in the direction of the City of London.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

On that basis, would the hon. Gentleman support a massive increase in Greece’s voting power over maritime matters, since it is a massive contributor to the European maritime economy?

[Mr Leigh]

To be frank, I do not think that that is a serious point. Everybody knows that the hon. Gentleman is trying to tilt at windmills. Things are getting worse, because the United Kingdom’s level of influence on new financial rules has decreased. Regulation is now geared less towards financial services growth, and more towards curtailing the financial market economy. The perception in many continental capitals—there may be a reason for this—is that the so-called Anglo Saxon light-touch capitalism needs to be reined in. In the past, EU politicians and policy makers generally, but not always, felt constrained from imposing financial regulation on the UK, but that has now ceased to be the case. I agree that United Kingdom regulation has moved from the light-touch concept, but its new focus on regulatory judgment looks set to clash with the prevailing rules-based culture at the EU. In addition, the eurozone crisis is increasingly likely to create exceptional needs and political incentives for the euro countries to act in the interests of their own eurozone of 10.

I believe that all those reasons—the new emphasis on qualified majority voting, our inability to use our veto in this marketplace, and the increasing tendency of the European Union to want to interfere in the financial marketplace—are as big a threat to the main motivator of our economy as anything that we have seen in history. What do we do about it? I think that this is a decisive moment for the Prime Minister. He has to say in the conference that he is not prepared to sign any treaty unless he receives cast-iron guarantees that our financial sector will be set free from interference. If he does not get such cast-iron guarantees, I believe that he must be prepared to veto any treaty. If he is then told that the 10 will go ahead and create their own treaty, he must declare that illegal. Although that may sound like a very dramatic thing to do, I have read in today’s papers that German commentators are already talking about even the threat of our Prime Minister standing up for British national interests as being “obnoxious,” but that is precisely what all European countries do. The first lesson of history, as I have said, is the overwhelming imperative on behalf of successive British Governments over the centuries to protect our commercial interests. The second lesson of history is that all Governments in Europe act in their own financial interest—all are determined by their own history.

We need not say much about recent German history, but we know that there is an imperative throughout German history to extend their marketplaces, particularly into the east in the Balkans. We know that there is an imperative on behalf of French Governments to hug Germany close, so the French President and German Chancellor will be acting entirely in their own national interest, which is what we demand of our Prime Minister.

I hope I will be forgiven for saying this, but we have had enough of spin and of reading about British Prime Ministers who, over the past 20 or 30 years, have said in the days preceding a summit that they will stand up for British national interests and ensure that they are protected, only to come back with a Chamberlain-esque piece of paper, saying, “I have negotiated very hard, got an opt-out from this and that, and succeeded in standing up for British interests,” when such guarantees are not worth the piece of paper they are written on. I suspect that agreements have already been made among the sherpas and the miners, and that our Prime Minister will be offered something, but that will not be enough unless it includes cast-iron guarantees that we can all accept and that protect our vital national interests, particularly those in relation to our financial sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I start the Liberal Democrat contribution to the debate. This may alarm the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), but I am going to agree with him about something. This debate should have taken place on the Floor of the House. As the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has just pointed out, we need to reform how we scrutinise European affairs in this Parliament. It is not adequate. In fact, I have already made a contribution to the discussions on scrutiny by suggesting to Ministers that we involve departmental and other Select Committees in scrutinising forthcoming European legislation, as she has just suggested. I strongly welcome that suggestion.

[Mr Cash]

As Chair of the Committee in question, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we frequently have arrangements whereby we refer particular directives and regulations to departmental Select Committees. Sometimes they do not actually look at them, despite the fact that we have asked them to do so. We also asked the Government, on behalf of the European Scrutiny Committee unanimously, for a full three-hour debate on the Floor of the House, of the kind that is taking place here, and it was refused. That is the state of play. That comes largely from the fact that we are in a coalition.

[Martin Horwood]

I do not think that it comes from the fact that we are in a coalition. I do not want to risk my Liberal Democrat credentials by agreeing with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) as well, but I think that this issue is worthy of a debate on the Floor of the House. I know that his Committee refers matters for scrutiny to departmental Select Committees, and it is not good enough if those Committees are not prepared to scrutinise those matters. They have the expertise and the Committee experts who can make a serious contribution to the scrutiny process. I restrain myself from suggesting that that might remove the necessity for the European Scrutiny Committee, but the point is that we need wider and deeper discussion of European matters in this Parliament, and I entirely agree with that.

One of the healthy things about being in a coalition is that we can bring different points of view on issues such as Europe, as well as others, to the table without actually having to conceal them and pretend to be coming from exactly the same place, which the previous Government had to do. None the less, it is slightly frustrating. I thought that we had settled quite a lot of the issues that are being debated at the moment. When we discussed at inordinate length the European Union Act 2011, which has already been passed, we spent countless hours debating when to hold a referendum and when to look at renegotiation of powers. We came to a conclusion and a settled view, as a coalition and as a Parliament, which was pretty clear. It represented something of a compromise between the Liberal Democrat and the natural Conservative positions, which seemed quite acceptable: a treaty change should be subject to an Act of Parliament, but if that treaty change involves a fundamental and significant shift in powers from the British to the European level of government, then that should be automatically subject to a referendum. Yet now, only a matter of months later, this whole issue seems to have been reopened. That is a problem, because it makes it more difficult—let us put it no more strongly than that—for Ministers to negotiate with confidence, knowing what position they are representing back in this country. We are not so much sending them naked into the debating chamber, as sending them so wrapped up in unrealistic expectations that they cannot move, which is a problem.

Ministers need to focus on the issues at hand in the Council, which are threefold. The eurozone is not the only issue, because there are two other important topics for discussion. On energy, if I can put it in the language of this debate, I speak from a nuclear-sceptic point of view. There is the welcome process of independent scrutiny, at European level, of the safety of European nuclear programmes. In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, which will potentially cost the Japanese economy hundreds of billions of pounds, it is incredibly important that the process is ongoing and rigorous. If I have a concern that I would like to be raised at the European Council, it is that the Commission report makes the case for tighter safety rules but does so in a limited way, even though it concedes that many of the regulations that were already in force before the Fukushima disaster in March are still not being applied throughout the European Union. Some states, including the UK, Poland, Slovakia and Belgium, have not updated national legislation in line with a European directive from 2009. At present, there are no common safety standards or criteria for nuclear power plants across the European Union. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) says, from a sedentary position, “Good.” He may have a lot of confidence in British nuclear safety regimes. I hope he has exactly the same confidence in Polish safety regimes and in the safety regimes of other European nations. The bad news for him, I am afraid, is that radioactivity, as we found out after Chernobyl, is no respecter of national boundaries.

[Mr Gray]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that Chernobyl is in fact in Russia?

[Martin Horwood]

It is not, actually; it is in Ukraine. It was in the Soviet Union at the time, but the point is that it is only quite recently that some farms in Wales have had all restrictions lifted as a result of the radioactivity that swept right across Europe. The point is that the wider we can spread safety regulations on this the better. The European Union is an important vehicle for doing that. I hope that that message about a tighter safety remit and tighter safety monitoring regime has been well taken.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Horwood]

Is this on the subject of nuclear energy? Oh, okay.

[Mr Jenkin]

We have one of the best nuclear inspectorate and safety regimes in the world, if not the best. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that he would prefer nuclear inspections to be run by the people who could not even get their accounts audited for the past 15 years, and who gave us the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy? Does he not see that these multinational European bodies are grossly inefficient and hopelessly unaccountable, which is why the British people have had enough of them?

[Martin Horwood]

Well, no, in short. If the hon. Gentleman has such enormous confidence in Britain’s safety regime, then he should be trying to export those safety standards to the rest of Europe. I cannot see how he can possibly conceive of a better vehicle for doing that than the European Union. Is he seriously going to approach 27 different European nations and try to encourage them to adopt our safety standards, or is he going to use the vehicle of—

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[Martin Horwood]

No, we need to move on from safety regimes. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that that will be a more effective approach than trying to reach a common position across the European Union?

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am a chartered aerospace engineer who has a friend who is a chartered aerospace engineer working in the nuclear industry, and we agree that nuclear industry standards are quite poor. When I was a kid, the Eurofighter Typhoon was flying quite successfully as the EAP, with just British Aerospace backing it. What slowed that project down was making it pan-European. I do not share his optimism about the idea of pan-European technical standards, which is not borne out.

[Martin Horwood]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his qualifications.

Apart from the eurozone, the other key issue that will be discussed at the summit is, of course, the accession of Croatia. We very much look forward to the accession of Croatia, which is a brilliant example of the transformative process of applying for membership of the European Union. Croatia has managed to address so many issues relating to its judiciary, economy and the reform of its political processes. That is an example that should be followed by other candidate countries looking to accede to the Union. It is inspiring to remember that in the area of Europe most recently torn apart by war, those in the Balkans still see European Union membership as something that helps to guarantee future peace. That is one of the founding principles of the European Union and one that we should not lose sight of in the current melee over the eurozone and possible treaty reforms.

The third, and obviously the most important, issue that the Council has to address is the crisis in the eurozone. Here, I think, we are on common ground in realising that the threat of a disorderly collapse in the eurozone is of enormous importance to this country. If the eurozone goes down, it will do considerable damage to the entire world economy, let alone to the British economy. It should be our No. 1 national priority at the Council to advance the process of securing the future of the eurozone, however it happens to proceed. That the eurozone countries have not yet agreed the treaty process or the rules that ought to surround it is a matter of enormous frustration and anxiety. It reflects badly on the leaders of those countries that they have not yet come to such an agreement.

The second clear national priority has to be to defend Britain’s interests in the process, which is rightly the instinct of the Prime Minister at the Council. To come with a list of unrealistic demands that would hamper and threaten the whole process of resolving the crisis, however, would be spectacularly reckless and playing politics with Britain’s national interest. I apologise to the thinly attended Labour Benches, but I am afraid that as a country we are still deep in the process of cleaning up the mess left to us by the previous Government. Our economy remains in a fragile position, which is possibly more fragile than we had expected at this stage.

[Emma Reynolds]

When the Labour party left government, the economy was growing. The policies of this Government have choked off the recovery.

[Martin Horwood]

The economy is still growing, actually, but that is a debate for another day. The voters made up their mind about who was responsible for the economic mess that we found ourselves in.

We are still in a vulnerable position, and all colleagues need to be able to go back to their constituencies, to look pensioners, small business people and others in the face and to say that we are doing everything that we can to speed a resolution of the crisis and that we are not throwing spanners in the works.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is extremely unwise to make assumptions about the existing arrangements? They include so much over-regulation, centralisation and deprivation of oxygen for small and medium-sized businesses not only in this country but in the European Union that, precisely because there is no growth there—for all those reasons and some others—it is impossible for us to grow, what with the 40% of trade that we have with those other countries. Solving the causes of the failure of the European Union is so necessary.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a rather interesting point about regulation of the smallest businesses, because we have a rather good case study. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), has been active in going to other European Ministers, in particular those with a similar outlook on economic policy, and taking a collaborative, positive and co-operative approach to reach agreement that we should lift onerous accounting rules from the smallest businesses, not only in this country but throughout Europe. [Interruption.] It might be a small concession, but it was progress through a collaborative process that has lifted some of the burden of European regulation from businesses in the UK. There will be other examples of what Members may call repatriation, if they want. In fisheries policy, we are likely to see the movement of powers over fisheries from the European level to national and regional levels in future. So it is possible to achieve change without a confrontational attitude and, as in both those cases, without treaty change.

As I have said, to defend Britain’s interests during the whole process is important. One of the ways to do so is to prevent marginalisation, which is a real danger. To an extent, I share some of the anxieties expressed by Conservative Members—it could happen that we might be excluded from the core of decision making in Europe—and I would not be happy with the Labour party’s approach that we should be observers to the process. I want us to be participants. We must ensure that Britain plays a central role in whatever new structures emerge from the crisis, and we need to be able to discuss and debate with the members of the eurozone how their economies move forward. As EU members, we will always have more say in the process than we would do if we committed the ultimate act of economic suicide and left the European Union, as some hon. Members might want. The risk, however, is that some marginalisation is possible, although we increase the risk of that if we roll up at European Councils with a list of unrealistic demands and throw a spanner in the work of resolving possibly the biggest crisis to have faced continental Europe for decades. That does not do us much good.

[Mr Nuttall]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Martin Horwood]

I will give one example. The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) mentioned clearing house regulations. Since that dealt with transactions governing euros, how would we have influenced that legislation had we been outside the European Union? We might have found that by leaving the European Union we had excluded ourselves from such decision making and enabled the EU to take precisely that kind of decision, to the immediate detriment of the British economy and the status of the City of London, which is a European asset as well as a British asset.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Specifically, that would not have happened. It is only because the UK is in the EU that the EU can require London clearing houses to go under this type of legislation. If we were not part of the EU, it would not affect us.

[Martin Horwood]

I hesitate to challenge an expert in her own field, but we might find that the kind of interests that we are able to defend in economic policy, and financial policy specifically, within the European Union would not be so easily defended if we were outside the EU. It is one thing for Norway or Lichtenstein to be allowed access to European markets and to gain the benefits of the European economic area, because they do not pose much of a threat to Germany, France or the other EU economies. It would be different if an economy the size of Britain’s was taking advantage of such a situation or trying to mould the rules to our own advantage. It is critically important to the City of London that we retain our membership of the EU.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a number of assumptions about the likely ramifications of our leaving the European Union. Was that the basis on which he offered the voters of Cheltenham at the last general election a Liberal Democrat policy prospectus that included an in/out referendum? Yet, in the face of massive and irrevocable constitutional change today, he has resiled from that undertaking to his own electors.

[Martin Horwood]

I have resiled from no undertaking whatever. There is a great habit of selective quotation of the Liberal Democrat manifesto. The whole sentence said that we would offer an in/out referendum at a time of a fundamental shift in the relationship between Britain and Europe. That is why we supported a referendum at the time of the Lisbon treaty—I am not sure which way the hon. Gentleman voted on that, but I do not remember many Conservative Members coming into the Lobby beside us. Incidentally, we also supported a referendum at the time of Maastricht, and did not succeed then, either. If there is another fundamental shift in Britain’s relationship with Europe, I fully expect us to support a referendum at that point.

[Mr Jenkin]

Is the hon. Gentleman merely another of those politicians who only promises a referendum when he knows that he cannot deliver it?

[Martin Horwood]

That is a lovely rhetorical line, but that accusation has been levelled at the Liberal Democrats on many fronts, and yet we find ourselves in government and sticking to the letter and the spirit of our manifesto on a whole range of issues. [Interruption.] I opposed the increase in tuition fees and think that we ought to have stuck to that policy, too. We have, however, certainly delivered on the pupil premium and a whole range of things, such as taking many of the lowest paid out of taxation altogether or developing the green economy, and we will stick to our pledge on the European Union as well, which is to act responsibly and to propose referendums when it is appropriate, which will involve a wholesale examination of the relationship of nation states to the European Union. That is not happening at the moment, because we are looking at an economic crisis in which the eurozone countries face a fundamental question about control of fiscal discipline. Germany, quite reasonably, is saying that, in return for any shift towards, for instance, the European Central Bank acting as a lender of last resort, some process of fiscal discipline that is rather stronger than the one that has operated inside the eurozone until now must be enforced. The other member countries, however, retain the choice whether to submit to that fiscal discipline or to plan some different future for themselves.

[Mr Nuttall]

On a specific point about the proposals that the Franco-German axis has come up with, is it not the case that if the eurozone had stuck to the rules that already govern it, it would not be in the mess that it is in today? It is in a mess, because no one was enforcing the rules.

[Martin Horwood]

I surprise myself again by finding myself in agreement with that statement. I completely agree with it. That was one of the weaknesses of the euro’s establishment and the stability mechanism surrounding it. It is precisely the sort of weakness that the eurozone countries must now address, and I think they clearly understand that, too. I suspect that some member Governments—Greece may be one—deeply regret having entered such a relaxed arrangement without the sort of fiscal discipline that was needed to make it work. That is probably common ground among people of all parties in many different countries.

The important message for Ministers going to the European Council and for the Prime Minister is that British national interests are at stake in the process, but that we can serve them best by acting positively and collaboratively and by taking an approach based on co-operation, not confrontation. As I have said, it is not always necessary to confront people to achieve shifts in responsibility to national level—we have seen that with regard to small businesses, and we may see it with regard to fisheries—and we must develop that sort of grown-up approach to EU politics, not a constant obsessive, confrontational attitude.

When it comes to talking about the Prime Minister’s position being comparable with that of Neville Chamberlain, and therefore implying that in some way our European partners are comparable to the Nazis—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but if the Prime Minister is Neville Chamberlain, who is he getting the piece of paper from? Such language in this debate has been deeply offensive. It is unworthy of this Parliament; it is unworthy of the Conservative party; it is profoundly insulting to the Prime Minister; and it is exactly the sort of xenophobic rhetoric that risks discrediting this country and deeply damaging our national interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. If he was Nicolas Sarkozy—if he can imagine that—exposed as his economy is to Greek debt in particular, what would he do, if he is so critical of the proposed arrangements?

[Mr Cash]

First, there is a strong case for getting out of the euro, because that would enable countries to—[Interruption.] It is described as irrevocable, but I have news for the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood): treaties and laws have been passed for not generations but centuries, and there are more treaties and international relationships that have been reviewed and changed than he might have had hot breakfasts. When those things do not work, there is a good starting point for reviewing them. That is what we are doing now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

We must understand that countries need investment. Therefore, in a sense, I am not critical about it. However, I know that the consequences of that are the reasons behind the problems presented to the Prime Minister tonight. There are dilemmas in the matter. I am not just being generous-minded; I understand that there is a triangulation, which is a problem.

I regard the Prime Minister to be, as it were, standing alone at the moment in a quadrangle that is surrounded by four 40 foot-high walls. On one side, he has the Euro-elite—Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy—and the Eurocracy. Another wall is the fact that he has to reduce the deficit, which he cannot do without growth, and he cannot increase growth without a viable European Union. Another wall is the Conservative party, not only in Parliament but in the constituencies, and the country at large. The final wall—I pay my respects to the hon. Member for Cheltenham—is the coalition and its ideas on the matter, which preclude repatriation and renegotiation—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may say that, but we had it quite clearly stated.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that, when my party was in government, we were not isolated in the European Union. The previous two Prime Ministers had a good relationship with both the French President and the German Chancellor, and such a relationship is very important to our national interest.

[Martin Horwood]

Will the hon. Lady therefore congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) on his co-operative approach to lifting onerous accounting rules for the smallest businesses? Her Government did not manage to achieve that co-operative approach.

[Emma Reynolds]

I agree that a co-operative approach is needed and that we need to constructively engage with our European partners. When you go to a European summit, you get what you want not by banging on the table, but by the power of your ideas and the strength of your alliances. [Interruption.] Government Members may laugh, but my right hon. Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) showed at the London G20 summit in 2009 just what you can achieve by the power of your ideas and the strength of your alliances.

Sudan and South Sudan

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) on securing this timely debate, which is a reminder, if one were needed, that the securing of comprehensive peace agreements and the achievement of independence do not in themselves deliver peace and security or the welfare of the people involved. The situation in Sudan and South Sudan is, if anything, more worrying today than it was only a few months ago.

The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the interaction between armed conflict—some of it state sponsored—and the creation of refugee situations, which are making the development picture and the welfare, health and security of the people even worse. He referred specifically to the attack on 10 November, when it was reported that there was a bombing raid on a refugee camp in South Sudan, apparently carried out by north Sudanese forces.

On that same day, a US satellite monitoring group also reported that the north was building up and upgrading its air bases and air resources in what could be perceived as the precursor to an even wider aerial bombing campaign. Those are worrying signs, especially when put in the context of the truly appalling record of the Bashir regime in north Sudan. Mr Bashir has repeatedly stated that there is no room for cultural or ethnic diversity in the Sudanese state, and has predicted the fall of South Sudan as a failed state.

Clearly, it is possible that Mr Bashir is himself trying to make that prediction come true and make it self-fulfilling. His record clearly indicates support for terrorist organisations and a closeness to Iran; Sudan is Iran’s only Arab ally. A staggering number of deaths have been caused by the conflicts to date. It is possible that some 2 million people have died in Sudan during this present conflict—possibly as many as 300,000 in Darfur alone.

The International Criminal Court has warrants out for Mr Bashir’s arrest, not only for war crimes but for crimes against humanity and, since July, for genocide; a further two ICC arrest warrants are still outstanding. The list of outstanding issues between South Sudan and the north is lengthy and worrying. It covers citizenship, the border, debt, oil revenues, security and the status of arms. Sudan has still not implemented key parts of the comprehensive peace agreement. Critically, an independent national human rights commission has still not been established, and there are serious unresolved issues in the provinces of South Kordofan and Blue Nile.

The hon. Gentleman rightly outlined many of the effects of this kind of uncertainty and conflict, the attitude of the Sudanese Government in the north and the way in which they interact with the situation. I will not repeat some of the appalling statistics that he cited. The question is: what do we think can be done about this and what can the Government do?

I know that the Minister has himself visited the region, as has the Secretary of State for International Development, which is welcome, and we have raised both the implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement and the issues of human rights with the Foreign Minister, Ali Karti, only in the past month. The situation, however, needs to progress and that does not seem to be happening at the moment. Simply making representations to the Sudanese Government does not seem to be having a great effect.

I think that we have other levers at our disposal. It is right that the focus of the Government’s international development assistance programme for Sudan and South Sudan should be concentrated on the south, where the development indicators are truly appalling. The worst statistic that I have seen comes from the Christian charity World Vision, which states that a 15-year-old girl in South Sudan

“has a higher chance of dying in childbirth than completing school”.

It also notes that

“One out of every seven women who become pregnant will probably die from pregnancy-related causes”,

and that

“While the under-five mortality rate has decreased, one out of every seven children will die before their fifth birthday (135 per 1,000 live births)”.

Nevertheless, some 35% of what I think is the £140 million a year committed to Sudan and South Sudan—some £50 million per annum—is committed to the north. Does the Minister have an assessment of how well that spending is going? Is it being targeted at measures that will help reduce conflict? The non-governmental organisation Saferworld has highlighted the need to control small arms in the north. Can our development assistance facilitate projects such as the Regional Centre on Small Arms, which will try to reduce the potential for conflict in small areas, at least in a small way?

It has been suggested that the role of the Arab League, which is now a very interesting organisation, might be stepped up. I think that, for many years, many people in this country and in the west wrote it off as a talking shop, but it has pursued a much more active policy over Libya and now over Syria. The potential for the Arab League to play a much more proactive role in trying to avert further conflict in Sudan and to put pressure on the Bashir regime is important.

There are other interesting forces in the region. I was at a symposium yesterday that involved members of the Muslim Brotherhood organisations and parties in the emerging democracies of Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is, of course, located close to Sudan. Those parties are trying to prove their democratic credentials and to reassure potential western allies that, if they play a part in government in what we hope will be new democracies, they will respect human rights, have due respect for the rights of minorities and observe the democratic process.

If those parties are seeking connections with the British Government and positive and reassuring relationships with us, perhaps one of the tasks that we could set them, in a friendly way, would be to seek whatever influence they can over the regime and the Islamist movements in Sudan, and to point out that political Islam does not have to be synonymous with repression, the denial of human rights and a determination to exclude the rights of minorities.

There are other factors. The debt issue is important, because Mr Bashir would like to have access to support from everyone—from the International Monetary Fund, to the World Bank, to the African Development Bank. That seems to give us some international leverage. Has the Minister had any conversations with any of those multilateral institutions to see whether there are ways in which they can exert some influence on the Government in the north? War and conflict have been described as “development in reverse”, which I think is accurate. If funds are to be invested in these countries with a view to growth and to debt being written off, it is important that it is done in a context that means it is likely to succeed. The current context seems to provide exactly the reverse of that.

I will not speak for much longer because I am sure that other hon. Members want to contribute. Beyond the usual representations, expressions of regret and concern, and the commitment to facilitate a comprehensive peace agreement—although those are all welcome—I would like to hear from the Minister whether we will start to use other levers more imaginatively to try to resolve some of what is happening in Sudan and South Sudan. At the moment, the situation seems to be spiralling into an ever deeper conflict, which I am afraid seems to suit the purposes of the regime in the north. That may be a very bad omen indeed for the prospects of having a free, independent and prosperous South Sudan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spellar]

As I used to say in ministerial times, I require notice of that question. However, if one already has a facility, which is a sunk cost, the most desirable outcome is to have a properly negotiated agreement to use that facility. One has to look at the distances, at which areas a pipeline would be running through and their safety and at the time scale involved, because constructing a new pipeline would be taken as an unfriendly act by Sudan. That might exacerbate tensions and could lead, for example, to cutting off the existing pipeline and therefore to no revenue at all—a potentially catastrophic situation for South Sudan. It is always worth examining alternatives—they might be viable—but they are not a real alternative to ensuring through whatever mechanisms, whether the UN, the African Union or the Arab League, that a modus vivendi is obtained between Sudan and South Sudan to ensure that oil, rather than a cause of contention, is a shared benefit.

[Martin Horwood]

Is the right hon. Gentleman concerned by the emergence of the so-called South Sudan Liberation Army in the relatively oil-rich states of Warrap and Unity, which the rebels are aiming to liberate—as they describe it—from the Government in Juba? They are advising civilians to evacuate towns and move to villages. Does that look like a deliberate campaign of destabilisation aimed at the oil revenues of the south?

[Mr Spellar]

I do not know what assessment has been made of the origins of that movement or who may or may not be supporting it, but it is absolutely clear that a continuation of the instability and fighting in those areas will not only disrupt the oilfields and revenue but, as we have seen so dramatically in South Sudan, southern Sudan and Darfur, completely disrupt all normal life, including agriculture, because of displaced populations. All that makes the area unviable and brings huge misery to the populations who, essentially, have to live in refugee camps, dependent on aid, and that is not a sustainable future.

A viable agreement between Sudan and South Sudan is therefore crucial. Sudan has a sizeable external debt—let us not argue about how it was acquired—which it has to service and South Sudan is totally dependent on oil for revenue, so both countries, for the viability of their Governments and their states, require a share of the oil revenue and a regular flow. It is argued that the interruptions to oil production have already led to sizeable reductions, with estimates of about a quarter, but I am not sure of the exact figure. Unless agreement is reached, those ongoing problems will continue; it is in both their interest to undertake an agreement. I referred to external and internal reconciliation, and no conflict between the two states is not alone in being hugely important. We have had worrying reports of attacks, although there are arguments that some are in response to guerrilla movements and attacks, but the facts need to be ascertained, and considerable international and regional pressure on the participants to lower the tension is needed.

One problem in so many areas of conflict once a peace agreement is signed, however, is the large number of people whose whole life had been bound up with military operations. I am pleased to see several colleagues from Northern Ireland in the Chamber, and a key factor is to create conditions of normalisation, in which arguments are settled in a normal fashion and become the norm or established practice. Year on year, people then gradually move away from their old way of life. Simply preventing people from shooting each other becomes important in establishing the norms of society; otherwise, the trouble could continue—a lot of it based on tribal differences running from generation to generation. However, tribal differences previously settled with traditional weapons are now settled with AK47s, causing huge devastation and the mass migration of populations, which become dependent populations. That is why it is so important for a real effort, using the experience from work in other areas of conflict, gradually to reintegrate groups who have been involved in guerrilla movements or in over-extended armies back into the population and for them to assume civilian roles. Again, that is why the reconstruction of agriculture, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East mentioned, is so important, to provide alternative occupations and a security environment.

One of the difficulties on which I hope the Minister can comment is to do with those who did not participate in the violence or become involved in the various guerrilla movements and armed gangs if they are seeing all the benefits go to the people who were involved. That is not an unfamiliar story in many parts of the world. Getting the balance right is enormously difficult, but also enormously important and significant. So any programme must be community-based, as well as involving the participants, important though they are.

Another feature of the development of agriculture is, as has been mentioned, the appalling transport infrastructure. In many parts of the developing world, one of the key constraints on developing agriculture is access to market—the ability, when the harvest comes in, to get large quantities of produce to market and not to have it rot in the fields or during transport to market. We are all very much aware of the state of the infrastructure in South Sudan, and a significant priority in improving living standards and creating opportunities for people is the development of transport.

What is key and what I hope the Minister will report on in his contribution is that the effort has to be sustained. If the area descends once again into feuding civil war, I recognise the danger that the interest and, indeed, patience of the public in the wider world will start to run out. That is a key message that the Foreign Office must convey to the countries in the region in the best possible way—not threateningly, but in a matter-of-fact way—so that the people of South Sudan who have suffered so much for so long have some decent opportunities not only for themselves but for their children.

British Embassy (Tehran)

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The international condemnation of Iran, the strong expressions of support for our staff, and the grave concern for what has happened have come from Russia and China, as well as from western nations, our European allies and the United States. Anyone in Tehran who thought they had won a victory in Iran in the light of the world-wide condemnation of the events would be very blinkered. We have been clear, as was the right hon. Gentleman when he was Foreign Secretary, that we are not advocating military action against Iran. We are calling for peaceful, legitimate pressure. It is as part of that peaceful, legitimate pressure that Iran has taken action that breaches international conventions, specifically the Vienna convention.

As I said to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), we must weigh heavily those considerations and the disadvantages of embassies being closed, but the Government must make a decision, and our decision is that we cannot keep our staff safe in Iran, and its actions are so unacceptable that we have to take a very firm line. On the balance of such matters, we decided to take the action that we have.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

For the Liberal Democrats, I join the condemnation of yesterday’s events and support the Foreign Secretary’s response. I also express our relief that our staff are now safe, and our admiration for their courage and professionalism.

The Foreign Secretary listed many nations that had expressed concern and support, and included Russia and China. In the international context, does he regard that as a positive development, and perhaps the beginning of the foundation of a more consistent international approach to the regime in Tehran?

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his remarks. His question about whether there is a new development in the international handling of wider issues in Iran is interesting. It is too early to say yes, but I think the events will help to open the eyes of many people throughout the world to the nature and behaviour of the Iranian regime. If it has so little regard for such well established international conventions as the protection of diplomatic premises, one can imagine that it does not have much regard for other international agreements either.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very fair point indeed. As he knows, we recognise Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China, but we call for meaningful dialogue between the representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities in the interests of autonomy in future. Of course, we always call for respect for human rights.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I am sure that the Foreign Secretary welcomed China’s recent recognition of the aspirations and rightful demands of the Syrian people. Does he think that that is a positive development, as China may be beginning to realise that repression does not deliver genuine stability, and it should have the confidence to recognise the aspirations and rightful demands of the Tibetan people, too?

[Mr Hague]

Such language is positive and I continue to believe, as I said in the House yesterday, that the veto of our proposed UN resolution on Syria by Russia and China was a mistake and did not take into account the legitimate aspirations of the people of Syria. On the question of Tibet, we encourage the meaningful dialogue of which I spoke a moment ago.

North Africa and the Near and Middle East

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). It was certainly fascinating to hear his powerful personal testimony of the military courts in Israel and Palestine. I had the opportunity to see the courts earlier this year, and one of the most disturbing things is that although, in a sense, it is a testimony to the openness of Israeli society that he and I could see them in practice, the same crimes committed in the same places by Israeli youngsters were tried in civilian courts with all the rights and protections that that implied. He is right to praise Israeli and Palestinian voices that have been raised in opposition to that system.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s broad opening remarks. They provided an informative tour of parts of three continents and numerous societies and conflicts. I do not know whether it is fair to say that some of these parliamentary debates are getting a little broad in their scope. This one encompasses, among many other things, the enormously hopeful transition to democracy in many countries following the Arab spring, the intractable problems of the Arab-Israeli dispute, the dislocation and war in the horn of Africa and the troubling situation in Iran.

Common themes are emerging, however. The first theme that I would identify is a hopeful one: the increasing role of regional organisations in many of these conflicts and policy areas. There was the recent positive initiative by the Gulf Co-operation Council in Yemen leading to what we hope will be the beginning of a resolution of the problems there; there is the very positive role being played in Somalia by the African Union; and there is the historic new-found confidence of the Arab League in tackling human rights issues first in Libya and now in Syria. Some of the Foreign Secretary’s Conservative colleagues might be sceptical of, and worry about, these regional groupings taking on a political role rather than a purely economic one, but I think that some of these disputes are proving the value of regional co-operation and regional groupings.

Rather surprisingly, a second theme appears to be the role of monarchy, which was eloquently expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and then put slightly more eccentrically—I hope that he will forgive me for saying that while he is not in his place—by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). I would say to him that the history of monarchy—even restored monarchies—in places such as France and Greece has not been entirely trouble free, and that the history of middle eastern monarchy is not entirely safe and reliable either. He could look to Iran and Libya for examples of where the path of monarchy did not run entirely smoothly. European history shows that it is common for populations to have considerable respect for the magic of monarchy for quite a long time and always to blame the advisers and Governments, but eventually many monarchs run out of bad advisers to blame and sometimes lose their heads in subsequent phases of popular discontent.

The third common theme, rightly highlighted by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, is the potential for a new, democratic and peaceful brand of political Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood is a complicated network of organisations operating in different countries but it has been overwhelmingly peaceful in most parts of the middle east. If it looks to countries such as Turkey and Indonesia for examples of how political Islam can play its part in a completely democratic process—and one that is tolerant of other political traditions in the same society—it will find a very different vision of political Islam from that of violent Salafism or the Iranian-inspired political extremism that we see at work in the region. It would be a terrible mistake to lump those together and to be too afraid of the role of political Islam in these regions.

It is a positive sign that the first democratic elections in Egypt commenced today, although even the operation of those elections has exposed the tensions between the continuing role of the military in Egyptian society and the instincts of the democratic activists in Tahrir square and throughout Egyptian society. Although it is a positive thing that those elections are taking place, we must make it clear to the Egyptian Governments who follow the elections that in due course those tensions must be resolved in favour of democracy, and that the military must learn, as they have done in many parts of Europe and the world, that to be truly patriotic they have to step back from political power and cannot expect immunity for past crimes.

The Amnesty International report from 22 November reinforces the fears of some of the protesters. It talks about military courts still trying protesters, about crackdowns on peaceful protest and about the remit of Mubarak’s emergency law being, if anything, extended in recent months. Those are very worrying tendencies, and I know that the Government are expressing their concerns and fears to the Egyptian Government. It is a positive thing that the military council has apologised and that there has been talk of investigations, amnesties and compensation—that is all welcome—but the fundamental necessity is for a clear shift towards a transparently civilian authority in Egypt.

[Bob Stewart]

I totally accept the hon. Gentleman’s point but my simple worry is that if the military were not there—I am not trying to support them—we might have a much worse situation. We have to be careful. The Egyptians have to decide exactly what they want, and we cannot say to them, “This is what should happen.” It is their business, not ours.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is right, but certain fundamental principles ought to inform transitions to democratic government if they are to succeed, and two of those must be that the military step back from the exercise of political power and that they should not expect immunity from investigation of past involvement in human rights abuses. Successful transitions to democracy have always had those characteristics, and the Egyptians must learn from that. I welcome the Foreign Secretary and the Government’s strong line in that respect.

Libya presents different challenges. We must be grateful for the role that British and international armed forces played in that conflict but equally we must welcome the move to a post-military phase and congratulate the Government on reopening the British embassy on 17 October. As hon. Members have pointed out, the treatment of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi will be a test case: his capture provides the opportunity for the new Libyan regime to illustrate its respect for the rule of law and the rights even of despised opponents in a way that was not apparent in the treatment of Gaddafi senior.

I would like the Minister to comment on a security matter that the Foreign Secretary did not really mention: the reports that large amounts of military matériel are going missing in Libya. It is rumoured that some of it is finding its way into the hands of violent Islamic extremists, whether those with Salafist tendencies or even al-Qaeda members. I would be interested to hear whether the Government consider these accounts credible and, if so, whether they are taking action to counteract the problem.

In Syria, we have a different situation again. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington rightly said, we have to give the greatest credit to the Syrian people themselves for maintaining the uprising for eight months against the most brutal repression. It is an example of extraordinary courage and determination that should inspire people all over the world to rise up against tyranny. However, credit is also due to the Arab League, the regional grouping, first for expressing strong diplomatic disapproval and exerting pressure, then for suspending Syria from membership and, finally, for now imposing sanctions. Such a determined response by the Arab League and neighbouring Governments such as Turkey is a positive development in the history of the Arab League, which has not always been the most robust of organisations on such issues. However, it is now taking a proactive and positive role in the region, and towards Syria in particular.

I think that those in the Arab League see—I hope we see it too—that those developments may avoid the necessity for foreign intervention, which is not something that I have heard anyone in the Syrian opposition call for. Although we might see continued violent conflict in Syria—I think we will, in fact, see it—if a robust approach is taken, we might also see a resolution that does not involve even worse complications, arising from foreign intervention, because there are unfortunate precedents. In terms of geography and political, ethnic and tribal tensions, Syria is rather more like Iraq than Libya, which, in a way, was a rather simple country to intervene in. Libya is reasonably homogenous, its population basically live on one coastal strip and it is close to lots of NATO countries. Intervention in Syria would be a much more complicated and messy affair. We should try to avoid that possibility at all costs.

However, it is rather disappointing that some other international voices have not really joined us in trying to support the Syrian people. It is interesting to note the movement by China, but Russia’s position is completely indefensible. The opportunity for Russia to use its influence with the Assad regime for good is being completely lost. The recent comment by a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman—that what was needed was

“not sanctions, not pressure, but internal Syrian dialogue”—

was, frankly, completely incredibly. That approach risks Russia’s credibility, not just in Europe and the international arena, but specifically in the middle east. I hope that Russia will see that its position is neither credible nor in Russia’s long-term interests, and will instead join the growing international movement for effective international pressure.

The situation in Iran, not far from Syria, is rather more worrying—like other hon. Members, I deeply regret the expulsion of the UK ambassador. Again, this is an area where international co-operation could have proved effective. After all, the International Atomic Energy Agency includes China and Russia, so in a sense they are taking part in the pressure being exerted on the Iranian regime. The IAEA has clearly and unambiguously exposed credible evidence of the Iranian regime’s military ambitions when it comes to nuclear weapons. It is possible to understand Israel’s anxiety in that respect. To Israel, this development poses a real and present threat to its national security. However, I hope that we will join other members of the international community in expressing to Israel the clear belief that military intervention would inflame the entire region and critically undermine the chances of liberal opposition or a popular uprising in Iran, solidifying support for the regime. The role of the international community must be to provide robust and effective pressure—I welcome the increased sanctions regime at the end of this month. However, we must try to pursue that as a means of avoiding the possibility that any country in the region feels it is necessary to intervene militarily.

We have to accept that the Israeli people’s anxieties are quite real. It is not just the Iranian situation that seems to pose a threat to many people in Israel, but in some respects the Arab spring too. However, I nevertheless welcome the Government’s position, which is that Palestine now largely fulfils the criteria for UN membership, including statehood. I rather regret that this has not translated into a promise of a positive vote in favour of Palestinian statehood and membership of the United Nations; nevertheless, the tone of the Foreign Secretary’s remarks and those of Ministers has been absolutely right in that respect. It is right to call on Israel to realise that the only way to avoid unilateral initiatives is multilateral negotiation without preconditions. Israel needs to do that, not least to strengthen the hand of moderate, peaceful Palestinian political opinion, because the path of conflict and confrontation will only reinforce the position of the more extreme factions, if that diplomatic and peaceful process seems completely hopeless to ordinary Palestinians.

Moving around the world, let me turn to Somalia, where there are some quite positive things to highlight. I look forward to the London conference in February. The Foreign Secretary was right to highlight the need for more effective international strategies and pressure. Nevertheless, there is already some positive development to report. The courage of African Union troops and the positive role that the African Union is playing in the country are quite important. The fact that the Secretary of State for International Development was able to visit Mogadishu this summer is quite an extraordinary development. It was a very positive statement for him to make. It might not quite compare with the courage of African Union and Somali troops in trying to promote democracy or national security in that country, but it was a courageous act by a western politician, and we ought to pay him credit for that. There is a fear among Somali civil society that rather more money comes in from foreign countries in the form of ransoms than in the form of development aid. It is therefore positive that the British Government have made a visible commitment to work in Somali society and in Somali civil society, in particular, to promote development.

When we are dealing with piracy, it is quite important that such development should take place, because it is important—if I may misquote Tony Blair—not just to tackle piracy, but to tackle the causes of piracy. We do not just need police actions against ships and aggressive actions in the sea; we need to tackle, for instance, illegal fishing and the dumping of toxic waste, which are ruining traditional livelihoods and are also among the factors that sometimes drive people to seek such extreme forms of raising money. Wherever possible, we need to invest in infrastructure, such as fishing facilities and so on, to try and start the long, hard process of normalisation in that country. We need to involve Somali civil society in that, and not just in what is technically Somalia, but in those regions that are, in effect, proving autonomous, such as Somaliland and Puntland.

I commend to Ministers the experience of Saferworld and the role that it has played in DFID-funded projects both in Somalia proper and in Somaliland and Puntland. Its experience of trying to put together a positive framework for development in those parts of the world is extremely welcome. Indeed, it is also in line with the Government’s stated policy in BSOS—“Building Stability Overseas Strategy”—which talks about upstream prevention of conflict. In the case of Somalia, it is not so much upstream prevention as an upstream solution while the river is in full flood. We should not take the analogy too far—[Interruption.] Yes, we do not want anybody drowned in the process, but clearly we need to tackle the root causes of conflict, as well as the symptoms.

We see a regrettable deterioration of the situation in Sudan. Briefly, let me say that the Foreign Secretary’s instincts are exactly right in that respect too. We need to watch the situation extremely carefully and urge all parties, in both Governments—the Sudanese Government and the new South Sudan Government—to recognise the importance of trying to resolve their differences peacefully, if at all possible, and to allow the maximum amount of international support in so doing.

In Yemen we see more positive developments. We have the President’s signature on 23 November and the appointment of an opposition politician, Mohammed Basindawa, to the role of Prime Minister, which are encouraging developments. Clearly we are not out of the woods yet in Yemen, but what has happened is a positive step.

Last but not least, I would like to deal briefly with the situation in Bahrain, and I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the country. I listened with interest to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has long been an independent and forthright commentator on international affairs regardless of who happens to be in government at the time. In a way, however, I think she got the tone slightly wrong on the independent committee of inquiry whose report has just been published in Bahrain. She rightly said that it demonstrates comprehensive evidence of widespread and serious abuse of human rights, certainly implicating the security forces, and that this is part of a deep-seated process in the state of Bahrain. The fact that the report has been published at all, however, is a very positive development that we must try to hold on to. The fact that it was robust and that it did not pull any punches is quite a testament to the potential for openness and accountability in Bahrain.

We know from our own experience in this country that it took us decades to accept the role of our military in even very limited and isolated examples of the abuse of military power in Northern Ireland and later in Iraq, for example. These were not systematic, but very isolated cases of discreditable actions—not typical of the British armed forces as a whole—yet these were painful incidents for us to talk about and admit. Bahrain, however, has moved very quickly to a position in which it is openly discussing comprehensive and systematic human rights abuse by its own security forces, which is something to be praised.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

I believe that the timely publication and the ability for people to see the transparency will be important steps in the reconciliation between the Sunni and the Shi’a in Bahrain. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Martin Horwood]

Yes, I certainly agree with that. What the report has highlighted about the Shi’a is particularly important. It showed that the idea that Iran was stirring up trouble and was behind the Shi’a elements in the protests was not backed up by any real evidence. That was another honest and important conclusion from the report.

The test is, of course, what happens next. As Amnesty International has said, it is the “speed, extent and seriousness” of the Government’s response that is the real test in this case. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley rightly highlighted the case of medical workers who are still in custody of one kind or another, which is simply not acceptable. The Bahraini Government should tackle that issue as a matter of absolute priority.

I am sure that Her Majesty’s Government will enthusiastically support that kind of robust response to the report by the Bahraini Government, and I think they should also seek to reassure any nervous neighbours of Bahrain that as the “Building Stability Overseas Strategy” rightly points out, we are now looking at a new philosophy of security for countries such as Bahrain and others around the world, whereby security does not come from repression and control, but ultimately and in the long term from societies that are capable of peaceful change, in which human rights and the rule of law are respected. From Somalia to Syria, from Mauritania to Iran, that commitment to peaceful change, human rights and the rule of law ought to be—and, I hope, will be—the hallmarks of British foreign policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I understand that Israel fervently wishes to maintain its peace treaty with Egypt. However, it is concerned about statements that have been made by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which suggest that it would like to review or, indeed, drop the treaty. Israel wishes to maintain it, and I hope that that can be achieved.

Israel has withdrawn from territories that it has occupied as a result of attacks on it, and the consequence of that withdrawal has not been peace. In 2000, Israel correctly withdrew completely from south Lebanon. The consequence of that was the occupation of the area by the Iran-backed Hezbollah, followed by attacks on Israeli citizens. Although it was a correct withdrawal from occupied territory, it did not lead to peace.

More recently, in 2005, the Israelis correctly withdraw all their 8,000 settlers and military personnel from Gaza. As we all know only too well, the result of that was not peace but the election of Hamas—refusing to recognise Israel’s existence—and the firing of thousands of rockets and other missiles on Israeli civilians in Sderot, Be’er Sheva, Ashkelon and Ashdod. The withdrawal of the Israelis from Gaza, which I fully support, did not lead to peace.

People talk as though withdrawal and the end of occupation inevitably lead to peace. I stress again that I am against occupation, but in those two instances at least, when Israel has withdrawn from lands that it has occupied as a result of attacks on it, peace has not been automatic. Moreover, when people advocate the withdrawal of Israelis from occupied lands, it is not always clear exactly which occupied lands they are talking about. Are they talking about 1967 or about 1948? Here in London a few months ago, on al-Quds day, it was evident what was meant by many of the campaigners against Israel’s policies and against Israel itself. One illustration of that was a big placard held up by a young child, bearing the unfortunate words “For world peace, Israel must be destroyed”. That is hardly conducive to efforts to find a solution.

I also note that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s logo features a map that does not depict Israel as existing at all. When I hear calls from that organisation for Israel to end its occupation, I question what it really means. Is it talking about a negotiated solution to the problem of land that is occupied as a result of attacks on Israel in 1967, or is it talking about there being no Israel at all? We must know what people mean, in what context they are speaking and where they are coming from if we are to assess the validity of the criticisms that they are making at any given time.

[Martin Horwood]

I understand the genuine anxieties that the hon. Lady is voicing. However, she must accept that Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have made it clear that they are talking about negotiation more or less on the 1967 borders, and that anything beyond the 1967 borders of Palestine must therefore be Israel. That is an implicit, if not explicit, recognition of Israel’s absolute right to exist. By responding so aggressively to the peaceful and diplomatic approach to the United Nations made by the Fatah administration—by responding with extended settlements and threats to the economic and financial viability of the Palestinian Authority—Israel is surely playing into the hands of the very extremists, bomb-makers and rocket-makers to whom the hon. Lady is referring.

[Mrs Ellman]

I acknowledge that the Palestinian Authority has played a constructive role in the attempt to make progress. That is clear from the way in which it has worked with the Quartet and others on the west bank, the dramatic increase in prosperity there, and the way in which—again, working with the Quartet—it has developed its security forces and the civil administration. That could easily and quickly make Palestine into a viable and successful country, if only the political negotiations could make progress. I also think it important for the Palestinian Authority to recognise that the solution lies in urgent negotiations rather than declarations at the United Nations which, in practice, will not solve any of the practical and difficult problems that need to be addressed. The Palestinian Authority should be urged to return to those negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

It would be highly desirable for Hamas to change its position. Indeed, it is essential that it does so in order to enable proper negotiations to proceed on the basis of there being two states.

[Martin Horwood]

Is there not an instructive example from our own country, however, in the way in which we drew Sinn Fein and the IRA into the process of negotiation and eventually a settlement even while there was still some violence going on, and even while those organisations were still committed to the abolition of the Province of Northern Ireland and to its incorporation into the Irish state? That political issue was resolved only at the very end of the negotiations, with the signing of the Good Friday agreement. Does the hon. Lady not agree that we should be trying to draw Hamas into the democratic process and the negotiating process, and not setting preconditions that even we ourselves did not set in our own peace process?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Sinn Fein only became part of the peace process—indeed, it did not become part of it directly—when it changed its position in respect of recognition, and I also do not recall that it had a theological basis of hatred for the British state.

[Martin Horwood]

I am sure the hon. Lady will remember that the mantra during the Northern Ireland peace process was that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. The final commitments only came right at the end of the process.

[Mrs Ellman]

The whole process brought about changes, but there was acceptance only when Sinn Fein changed its position, and I repeat that I am not aware of its having had a theological determination to eliminate the existence of the British state. Hamas not only has a theological determination to eliminate the state of Israel, but is acting on that by sending its rockets over.

Judiciary and Fundamental Rights

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I should like to start by putting on the record my congratulations to Croatia on getting this far in its process towards accession to the European Union. I am a big fan of an expanded single market because I genuinely believe that it is in the interests of all EU member states. I share the relief of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) that the aspiration of Balkan countries to accede to the EU has laid to rest some of the final outstanding issues relating back to the tragic war in the Balkans. That can only be good news.

I want to make a few short remarks about procedures with regard to EU legislation generally and the motion specifically. The European Commission’s assessment of Croatian progress towards achieving its obligations under chapter 23 says:

“Across the board an appropriate legal framework and the necessary implementing structures and institutions are generally in place, administrative capacity is being continuously strengthened and track records of results have been established or continue to be developed, thereby ensuring the overall sustainability of reforms. Provided Croatia continues its efforts and meets the commitments it has undertaken, further concrete results should follow.”

That is two cheers, in a way. It is clear that Croatia is not there yet, but there is great hope that it will continue to make progress towards the date of its accession. There are all sorts of safeguards by which the EU could start to impose sanctions against Croatia if it does not continue in that work. It would be of enormous benefit to this House if the scrutiny of such scrutiny were to take place more broadly within Parliament prior to coming to the Chamber for a debate on a specific motion.

In its scrutiny of the proposals, the European Scrutiny Committee concluded that Croatia still has a long way to go before it achieves the standards set by the Commission and noted that Bulgaria and Romania have still not reached those standards since joining in 2007. Although, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, chapter 23 was introduced only in 2010, Bulgaria and Romania could have been expected to have made further progress by now, and there is still the question mark over whether Croatia will make the necessary progress.

I am aware that my hon. Friend is looking at the general question of parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. On 20 January this year, he said in a written statement to this House that EU scrutiny must be enhanced. Under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), the Conservative European research group wrote to my hon. Friend about the need for enhanced scrutiny, particularly of EU legislation.

As a final addition to this little trio of ideas, yesterday a group of us went to meet the British delegation of MEPs in Brussels, and they said that they find that the other House is far better than this House at engaging with EU legislation as it comes down the track. That is a great shame.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats’ international affairs committee also wrote to the Minister on this subject. Would the hon. Lady support one of our proposals, which was for European prospective legislation and documents to be scrutinised by the specialist Select Committees that we already have, as well as by the European Scrutiny Committee, thereby allowing those with expertise in environmental issues to scrutinise environmental legislation and so on?

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He raises a problem that will only be exacerbated by the accession of Croatia. I would be grateful to know what specific transitional arrangements are being put in place in respect of Croatian nationals wishing to come to the United Kingdom and, in particular, for how long such controls will be in place.

Furthermore, I am concerned that yet another treaty will be required to provide for the accession of a new entrant to the European Union, for which we, the United Kingdom, appear to be getting absolutely nothing back in return—and needless to say, without consulting the British people.

[Martin Horwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that British exports to Croatia currently amount to some £283 million a year? In general, the experience with other acceding countries has been expanded trade with those countries, which has helped British jobs, prosperity and economic prospects.

[Mr Nuttall]

That may well be the case, but I see no reason why we could not have negotiated a free trade deal with Croatia many years ago. Indeed, the question could have been asked of the previous Labour Government: if Croatia has so much trade with this country, why did we not negotiate a free trade deal with it a long time ago?

Let me quote what the Prime Minister said about getting something back from accession treaties. In a speech helpfully entitled “A Europe policy that people can believe in”, which he made a little over two years ago, on 4 November 2009, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, he said that

“we will want to negotiate the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public service…We will want a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”

He added that an agreement would be negotiated

“limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.”

Crucially, he made it clear that

“we will propose that these British guarantees are added as protocols to a future accession treaty,”

which is exactly what we are discussing this evening. I know that our negotiating team will have been well aware of those crystal-clear commitments.

In closing, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that those guarantees were proposed and to say what the response was? If they were not proposed, why not? If they were proposed and the response was—let me say—not entirely positive, did we indicate that we would withhold our veto if our polite proposals were not granted? After all, article 49 of the Lisbon treaty—which was the reason why that speech was given in the first place—which deals with accession treaties, specifically states that accession treaties deal with

“conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded which such admission entails.”

It should be argued therefore that the granting of these British guarantees is something that the admission of Croatia entails: without them, the accession could not take place, because Britain would use its veto.

Human Rights (Colombia)

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome the debate. It is timely that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) has obtained it to coincide with the visit to this country of President Santos. The account that the hon. Gentleman gave of the violence and abuse being meted out to individuals and whole communities in Colombia was very moving and disturbing. While I expect the Government will want to emphasise trade and positive co-operation on such things as climate finance during the visit—those things are extremely positive—it is right that human rights should play a prominent part in the debates surrounding the visit, and in the Government’s specific discussions with President Santos.

The record is still very poor. The ABColombia group of British NGOs working in Colombia reported in recent documentation that the total number of people assumed —even by the Colombian Attorney-General’s office—to have disappeared for political reasons in Colombia is 27,000. That is an astonishing number. The Catholic Fund for Overseas Development reports that attacks on human rights defenders and community leaders have, if anything, escalated in recent years, despite the positive statements that President Santos made when he came into office. In fact, it says that 54 human rights defenders or community leaders have been killed in the first year of the President’s term of office. A local NGO reported 174 different acts of aggression or violence against human rights defenders.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North is right to highlight the position of trade unionists in Colombia, which seems uniquely vulnerable. An International Confederation of Free Trade Unions survey this year reported that 49 trade unionists had been killed in Colombia—more than ICFTU reported killed in the whole of the rest of the world. Even the country’s Government admit that 37 people have been killed simply for their trade union activities. Amnesty International tried to get to the source of the killings of trade unionists, and its analysis suggested that roughly half were paramilitary groups completely outside the control of state agencies and that a very small fraction were guerrilla movements such as FARC; but Amnesty reckoned that more than 40% were connected to state forces. That is an extremely troubling statistic in any country that aspires to democracy and the rule of law, as Colombia clearly does. It has ratified international human rights conventions, and International Labour Organisation conventions on the rights of trade unionists; yet until last year, it had been on the ILO trade unionist rights blacklist for 21 years in succession. That is a pretty appalling record.

The Foreign Office has recognised the seriousness of the human rights situation in Colombia, and I have many times praised and welcomed last year’s human rights report by the Department and the Secretary of State, which highlighted issues about Colombia. It also highlighted another issue dear to my heart, since as well as being an occasional Liberal Democrat spokesman, I chair the all-party group on tribal peoples. The Government’s report sets out very well the vulnerability of indigenous peoples. It is not only illegal armed groups but commercial interests—in mining, rubber and palm oil—that are effectively involved in land grabs and some of the worst violence against any communities in Colombia. Twelve people were killed in the worst massacre, in 2009, of the Awa people, including a three-year-old child and an eight-month-old baby. That is the level of violence and abuse. As always, tribal people’s rights are connected to land rights.

The present Government must be given some credit. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North talked about the victims law; ABColombia highlighted that and, indeed, many of its weaknesses and the interaction with the economic situation. They nevertheless described it as

“an important step forward in recognising the need to restore land to Colombia’s victims.”

There is a slight danger that if we criticise every aspect of progress we shall end up discrediting every attempt to make progress. President Santos has made positive statements. He has talked about the “firm and unavoidable commitment” to the defence of human rights.

My hon. Friend the Minister has been active in positively promoting human rights in Colombia, seeking an active role for the embassy in co-ordinating with civil society and the Government in recognising the importance of human rights and their defenders. On his August visit he met a variety of Colombian Ministers, including, I notice, the Minister of Defence. Are we planning any co-operation with the Colombian Government on military-to-military links, to try to re-emphasise the role of the military in a democratic society? That role is difficult for some military establishments in new and fragile democracies. We see it played out in Egypt, where the military are reluctant to submit to full scrutiny and to full exposure of abuses that have been going on for years. They are reluctant to step back from a role of assumed oversight of the welfare of the country. However, that is what the military must do: they must be forced to step back and tackle the abuses in their own organisation, and the connections, indeed, to some paramilitaries, which still clearly exist in Colombia. Are the British Government actively promoting such change in the Colombian military?

Apparently 298 members of the military have been convicted of human rights abuses, which is a positive development. When President Santos was Minister of Defence he sacked 27 military officers, including three generals, and as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, he disbanded the DAS organisation; so positive steps are being taken.

[Jim Sheridan]

The hon. Gentleman is right; they were sacked—but none of them was prosecuted.

[Martin Horwood]

That emphasises the importance of seeing such commitments through, and taking a thorough approach to transparency and accountability among the military. I was going to say that although 298 convictions sound like a huge number, the total number of outstanding cases under investigation as of September 2011 was 1,486. The figure of 298 is a fairly small percentage.

I shall not take more time, because other hon. Members want to speak. I recognise the positive work that the Minister is doing to promote human rights in Colombia, and it is welcome, but my fundamental question to him is about the concrete steps he has managed to discuss with the Colombian Government, to try to make a difference to the underlying violence and abuse that are clearly still present in Colombian society. What steps are we taking to collaborate with and support the Government in taking those concrete, definable steps?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Middle East and North Africa

Martin Horwood Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I think the situation in the Security Council is quite well understood in the Arab world. As I pointed out to one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, there has been no serious expectation that a bid to the Security Council could be successful; given the position of the United States, it is not possible for it to be successful. What matters, therefore, is what happens next. It is very well understood in the Arab world that we have been increasing the pressure on Israel and increasing our condemnation of actions such as the settlement activity undertaken by Israel, and that we are doing our utmost to restart negotiations.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s support for enhanced but peaceful pressure on Iran. Will he confirm that our preferred approach for more aggressive intervention in other states by anyone is that there should be a strong legal and humanitarian justification, regional support and, if possible, explicit sanction by the United Nations?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is quoting me back at myself in what I have said about the strengths of our intervention in Libya. I have said that any necessary intervention is greatly strengthened by such things and that they are, and remain, criteria for us. Clearly, we are not advocating military action; we are advocating an increase in peaceful, legitimate pressure, as well as the continued offer of negotiations.